Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 75–93

[Question.] If [until the raising of the bodies the soul, separated from the body,] does not receive [its rewards], is it then in the meantime subject to examination until the resurrection of the bodies? Answer. The state that souls have here with the body they do not have after their departure from the body. [Displaced words of the question: … until the raising of the bodies the soul, separated from the body, does not receive its rewards, is it then in the meantime subject to …] For here all things of the union are common to the just and the unjust, and there is no difference among them in this respect, such as being born and dying, being healthy and being sick, being rich and being poor, and the other things like these. But after the departure from the body the distinction between the just and the unjust takes place at once. For they are led by the angels to places worthy of them: the souls of the just to paradise, where there is meeting with and sight of angels and archangels, and in vision also of the Savior Christ, according to what was said: “Away from the body and at home with the Lord”; and the souls of the unjust to the places in Hades, according to what was said about Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: “Hades below was embittered when it met you,” and so on; and they are kept in the places worthy of them until the day of the resurrection and the requital.

[Question.] If before the resurrection there is no requital of deeds, what benefit did the thief gain when his soul was brought into paradise, especially since paradise is perceptible, but the essence of the soul is not perceptible? Answer. The thief who entered paradise gained the benefit of learning by experience the usefulness of faith, through which he was counted worthy of the assembly of the saints, in which he is kept until the day of resurrection and requital. And he has perception of paradise by what is called intellectual perception, by which souls see themselves and the things beneath them, and further the angels and the demons. For a soul does not understand or see a soul, nor an angel an angel, nor a demon a demon [by bodily sense], but by the intellectual perception mentioned they see themselves and one another, and further all bodily things. [77] Question. [If it is through the] senses that the soul receives the perception of perceptible things, and good and bad things are perceptible, how is the soul, once separated from the body, not without perception? But if it is without perception, clearly it has become dead; for insensibility distinguishes the dead from the living and … Answer. All created and rational substances have twofold powers of apprehension, sensible and intelligible: the one called intellective, by which they apprehend themselves and one another; the intelligible, by which they receive knowledge of what is beside them. Souls, then, … not by the cooperation of the body … The soul, providing perception by its presence, makes the living being perceptive; with respect to the living being it is perceptive, but with respect to itself it is perceiving; and the soul never becomes dead. For deadness belongs to the ensouled being, and not to the soul. It is the ensouled being, then, that needs the cooperation of the body for apprehending perceptible things; and ensouledness and the soul are different, the one by participation, the other by essence.

[Question.] If God declared David to be after his own heart, how did the same prophet afterwards commit adultery and murder? And if these things are hated by God as evil, why did God establish the prophet's line from the adulteress, and make the Master Christ descend from her? And if this is so, how does Scripture speak truly in saying, “Children of adulterers will not come to maturity”? Answer. David, who corrected his own faults through repentance, was found even after this to be after the heart of God, who does not wish the death of sinners so much as that they turn and live. The child he begot adulterously by the wife of Uriah God put to death, because children of adulterers do not come to maturity; but those born after him he did not put to death, because David took her as wife fittingly after the death of Uriah. Honoring repentance, God established David's line in those born of Uriah's wife, and for the same reason [traced] Christ from [her] … [79] Question. If of all the kings of Israel and Judah Josiah showed the most fervent zeal for piety, breaking the pillars of the idols, burning to ashes the bones of the pagans together with their idol altars, cutting down utterly the groves of error, stopping those who sacrificed on the high places, raising up the worship of God, and making the people celebrate the feasts of the law splendidly, as Scripture testifies; and [he ended] his life by a pagan sword, while long life was given to the pagans, how would the pagans not speak truly about these things, that because of his offenses against their objects of worship such a bitter end met him? And where shall we find him receiving rewards for such great achievements? And for what benefit to those after him …? Answer. [The time of reward] for those who achieve great things in piety with virtue is not the present age but the age to come, in which the rewards await for ever those who expect them. Josiah received a painful end of life because he disobeyed the command of Jeremiah, who told him by God's command not to go out to meet the king of Egypt in war, as Jeremiah says. So that the Master God might take him from life pure of sins, he allowed him to pay the penalty for this disobedience by a pagan sword, for the instruction of the men who came after: both not to disobey the prophets, and that “If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear?” And his sons, … [had they kept the piety] of their father and still become captives, the pagans' argument would have had some ground, that because Josiah offended against the objects of the idols' worship his sons became captives. But if they departed from their father's piety and took up the worship of the idols, and were taken captive while practicing idolatry, the pagans' argument is plainly false.

[Question.] If Scripture teaches us to be long-suffering toward all, how did Elisha not err in killing by a curse those who insulted him as bald, and bringing on them death by wild beasts in return for a mere insult against himself? Answer. When through long-suffering … [severity rather than] long-suffering is especially more useful for the incorrigible. One must not, then, slander the prophet for his severity. For he had found that long-suffering did not give sinners a perception of their sin; and the children had been taught by their parents the words with which they dishonored the prophet, which they always used against the prophets to mock the taking up of Elijah, as if saying, “Let a spirit take you too and throw you onto some inaccessible mountain, as it threw him, so that we may be rid of you as we were rid of him.” For this reason he scourged the parents by the destruction of the children, so that they might learn not to dishonor the prophets, and through them God. [81] Question. [If the power of the demons] has been abolished [by Christ's coming], how do the demons speak through the so-called ventriloquists? And how do they not present Christianity as cheap and worthy of contempt, when in the bodies of Christians they display the works of deceit and utter the oracles of divination? Answer. If, according to what was said, all things are not yet subjected to him, until he abolishes all rule and authority, so that it is clear that not yet has all the error of the demons been abolished, yet in those by whom Christ is believed the error of the demons has been abolished; but in those by whom Christ is still disbelieved the demons work their error. And the phantoms that the ventriloquists use to speak and do the words and works of divination are not real bodies; the demons delude the sight of the onlookers, so that they see as bodies what are not bodies.

[Question.] If Scripture nowhere showed men names of demons, how did the Jews in the Lord's time name the name of Beelzebul as something known, saying that he cast out demons by him? And how did the Master himself say to the disciples, as to those who knew the demon's name, “If they called the master of the house Beelzebul”? And what is the interpretation of such a name? Answer. As men learned of the existence of demons from the demons themselves, so they were taught their names by them. For men first sacrificed to demons, and afterwards the divine Scripture said, “They sacrificed to demons and not to God.” And just as Scripture appears to have said nothing about the existence of demons, yet says, “They sacrificed to demons and not to God,” so too, having said nothing about their names, it speaks the names of the demons, Beelzebul and Belial: “What accord,” it says, “has Christ with Belial?” For the names that the enchanters used for the works they had in hand they necessarily learned from the demons. For according to the manner of their [magic] they named the title of their invocation. The interpretation of these names has been given by Origen in the Interpretation of the … [83] Question. [If God] took no pleasure [in sacrifices], as some have said and the present state of things teaches, why before the law did he command Noah to sacrifice, especially when there were not yet idolatrous [sacrifices]? But if he took pleasure in them, why after the law did their use cease? Answer. None of those who sacrificed irrational animals to God before the law sacrificed according to a divine ordinance, even if God appears to have accepted the sacrifice, showing by accepting it that the one who sacrificed was [pleasing] to him. And what he commanded Abraham, to take a three-year-old animal, and likewise the ram that he offered in sacrifice in place of Isaac, he commanded not as taking pleasure in their sacrifices, but for the sake of foretelling things to come. And God nowhere appears to have commanded Noah to offer him the sacrifice of irrational animals. [84] Question. [If Elisha asked for a double share of Elijah's spirit, how is he shown to have] done double miracles? [Elijah's were] restraining the rain, oppressing the earth with famine, bringing down heavenly fire upon sacrifices, slaughtering the lawless priests, [consuming] the captains of fifty, and the rest. From where, then, will Elisha be shown to have obtained his own request and Elijah's promise? Answer. Elisha did not ask for the double share of the spirit in order to do the same works twice over, but in order simply to be able to accomplish, with a greater abundance of power, whatever needed to be done by him. That he did not fail in his request the miracles done through him bear witness, of which he accomplished some doubled and some single. For raising two dead men, one while he was alive and one after he had died, showed the double measure of the abundance of the divine grace of the Spirit in him, if he wished it, in the other miracles too. And with Elijah the gift of oil was for need, but with Elisha it was even beyond need. And Elijah brought fire down from heaven to defend himself against enemies, but Elisha brought down horses and riders of fire from heaven to help Israel. [85] Question. [If at the resurrection] the complete man rises, how does Scripture say after the Lord's passion that many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised? It did not say this of the others whom the Lord raised, such as Lazarus, the widow's son, or Jairus' daughter, but absolutely that he raised this man or that girl. How then does it mention a resurrection of bodies only in the case of these, and add that they appeared to many? This gives most people the suspicion of a phantom. And teach us whether bodies without souls really rose, and whether they lived on, or died at once, or remain in immortality, and where, and what benefit they give to those after them from what happened to them. Answer. If we call this the complete resurrection of men who rise, when the souls are settled again in the bodies of those who rise, clearly all who rose and who are to rise by the Lord rose complete. For it is impossible for a resurrection of the dead to take place without the soul being settled again in its own body. Even if the divine Scripture says, “So-and-so rose from the dead,” or, “Bodies rose from the dead,” we must understand by either expression the complete resurrection, which takes place by the restoring of the soul to the body. And just as when the divine Scripture says, “He who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to our souls and bodies,” it neither speaks of an incomplete resurrection nor admits a suspicion of a phantom, but [teaches] faith in a complete resurrection; so too when it says, “Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised from the dead,” it speaks of the complete resurrection. The resurrection of these saints was a proof that the death of Christ … of all men, to those in the present [age] … and to all the souls in Hades. For this reason they did not die again, but remain in immortality, like Enoch and Elijah, and are with them in paradise, awaiting the [resurrection] that takes place by change through the resurrection of Christ, which is already eternal; according to which, as the divine apostle says, “All [will be changed].” For no one's resurrection to immortal and incorruptible life has yet taken place except that of the Savior Christ; therefore he is proclaimed firstborn of the dead and firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [86] Question. What is the meaning of the mina, the hin, the gebel, the gomor, the shekel, the royal [shekel], the holy [shekel], the stater, the drachma, the quadrans, the … , the didrachma, the talent, the assarion, the seraphim, the … , the Sabaoth, the Adonai, the ephod? For knowledge of both [the words and the measures] is necessary to us, since each is contained in Scripture. Answer. The interpretation of all the Hebrew [words] or measures found in the divine Scriptures has been given by Origen, a man who knew the language of the Hebrews. If you look for that work, you will find in it the interpretation of all that you have asked. [87] Question. [If from the beginning of his] preaching the Master shone with the doing of miracles, as Matthew says, and the report of him spread over all in Judea, how, after the death of the Forerunner, did Herod with the Jews, hearing of the miracles done by Christ, say that it was John who had returned to life and was doing the signs? For the blessed Mark narrates these things. Answer. That not all who heard heard of all the miracles done by the Savior at one time, but some earlier and others later, is witnessed by the words of those who said that John was the worker of the miracles done by the Savior after John's death; for they would not have said this if they had heard of the miracles done by the Savior before John's death. There was, then, nothing wonderful if Herod too, after John's death, heard of the works of Jesus' disciples, those done in Jesus' name. For Herod heard the name of Jesus at the time when Jesus sent his disciples into the villages and cities to preach repentance and heal diseases, as Mark the evangelist says. Indeed John himself, before the raising of the widow's son, had not heard of all that Jesus did in Galilee and Jerusalem, though many miracles had already been done by the Savior, both before John was cast into prison and after he was cast into prison. For it was then that John sent his disciples to Jesus to learn, “Are you the one who is expected to come?”, as Luke the evangelist says … [88] Question. [If, as Scripture says] and we have believed, Christ when born did no sin, how again does Scripture speak truly when it cries out with an oath, “No one has been born who did not sin, nor has anyone come into being who did not transgress”? And every infant that met its end at the time of its birth, or received a short span of life, could [neither] commit sin and lawlessness nor do the opposite … Answer. “No one has been born who did not sin, nor has anyone come into being who did not transgress” does not show to be false what was said of Christ, “He committed no sin.” For this saying was spoken of one born of man and woman; but Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin. The saying is to be understood thus: no one who is of a nature to sin or transgress has failed to sin or transgress. He is of a nature to sin who by his own self-chosen will leads himself to do what he wishes, whether good or bad. But the infant, since it does not yet have such power, clearly is not of a nature to sin. And “Who will be clean from filth? Not one, even if his life on earth be one day” in no way fits the infant; for “life” is said in the sense of “way of life”; and as the infant has no way of life, neither has it a life [in this sense].

[Question.] If the vessel that Peter saw in the vision contained the clean birds … , as Scripture hands down to us, … “all” is a word that includes both of those mentioned, as it stands; then, [commanded] to sacrifice and eat of those shown, he refused, saying, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean”: how is he not shown by such words to forbid all irrational animals as unclean, and to blame the one who permitted eating them, as unclean? Answer. From Peter's answer we learn what the things in the sheet were, namely the unclean only; and the word “all” does not necessarily include the clean too; for “all the quadrupeds and birds of the earth” can be said of the unclean. And “By no means, Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean” he answered at the sight of all the things shown to him in the sheet, and not about some of them. The vessel, then, in which were all the birds and quadrupeds … is spoken of with “unclean” left out, instead of: in which were all the unclean birds and all the quadrupeds of the earth. And as, when the divine Scripture says, “The head of every man is Christ,” the word “every” does not include the believing and the unbelieving man, but the believer only (for the believing man is the body of Christ, and Christ is called the head of the believing man), so the word “all” does not include clean and unclean, but the unclean only, by which the reception of the unclean nations was foreshown to Peter, whose hearts God cleansed by faith in Christ.

[Question.] If the patriarchs, moved by pious reasoning, took wives for themselves and their sons from their own kin, how did Joseph and Moses not act against the pious aim of their forebears, the one taking an Egyptian wife and the other a Midianite? [Answer.] [The patriarchs, fearing lest their sons be turned away] from piety, did not permit them to take wives from the gentiles; but Moses and Joseph were above such fear. So Moses and Joseph do not appear to have done anything against the aim of the fathers in taking gentile wives. For not only were they themselves not turned away from piety by their wives, but they even brought their wives over to their own …

[Question.] If before the transgression Adam had not seen the death of any rational or irrational being, how was he afraid of the death that was threatened, which he had not seen, as though he had seen it? And how did God threaten it as something known, when it was unknown to him? Answer. If we call rational the one who has in himself the notions of the things signified [by names] … , clearly Adam too, being rational, had in himself the notion of death. And just as Adam had not seen any rational being ashamed of its own nakedness, yet when he was made naked he was ashamed, having in himself the name and the notion of shame, so he had in himself the notion of death too, even if he had not yet seen the thing in another. Therefore he reasonably feared death, knowing from his own understanding that it is opposed to life. [92] Question. Since Scripture speaks of judgments, ordinances, testimonies, and law, commandments and precepts, teach us whether these are all the same as one another, or whether each has its own meaning. Answer. By “judgments” it means the words that distinguish what is to be done from what is not to be done, and appoint honor for obedience and dishonor for disobedience; by “ordinances” it means the rightness of the judgments, which assigns to each according to desert. By “law” it means the written summary of the whole Jewish worship and way of life; and it calls “testimony” the requital, by blessing and curse, for the deeds of those who received the [law], which Moses, calling heaven and earth to witness, told the Jews would come upon them if they obeyed or disobeyed. And by “commandments” and “precepts” it means the [words] laid down by way of command, according to the emphasis of the divine authority of the one who commanded or ordained them.

[Question.] If the back of the heaven is loaded with waters, as Scripture says — which some have said was done because of the fiery substance of the luminaries, so that the heaven, enriched with the waters lying upon it, might remain unconquered by the flame of the luminaries beneath it — how do those who say this speak truly, since the luminaries move not in the heaven but under the heaven? And if we say they are in the heaven, how do they have the activity of motion, when the heavenly body is immovable? But if the stars take their motion together with the heaven, how is the myth that calls the heaven a sphere not true? … [If it is not] consistent to think [this] of the luminaries, how is the existence of the waters above not useless? And what will it be at the consummation, when the righteous above and the sinners below are to receive the rewards of what is to come? Answer. Even if the luminaries are under the heaven, yet the motion of the fiery substances … those who said that the back of the heaven is loaded with waters for the preservation of the firmament have given a cause. But this is not the only cause of the waters being on the back of the heaven, that it may be unconquered by the flame of the luminaries beneath it; another is that it may be weighed down by the mass of the waters on its back, and not be shaken by the violent rush of the winds; and that extreme coldness may be sent down from them, which, mixed with the extreme heat of the sun, produces the good temperature of the air for the preservation of the animals and plants on earth. At the consummation, [the rewards will be given] not in the present heaven and the present earth … , according to what was said, “The new heaven and the new earth which I make remain before me for ever.” And again: “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment, and they will be changed.” And again: “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven.” The shaking shows its removal, so that the things not shaken may remain unmoved. [94] Question. [That the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll,] and that the stars will fall like leaves on the [earth], the Lord foretells, and the prophet proclaimed beforehand in agreement; how is the complete destruction of the firmament not shown by those words? What, then, is the meaning of such words, and how can the elements subsist incorruptible? Answer. As the divine Scripture compared the making of the firmament figuratively — at one time to the stretching out of a skin, saying, “Who stretches out the heaven like a skin”; at another to smoke made firm, “The heaven,” it says, “was made firm like smoke”; at another to the curve of a vault, “Who set up the heaven like a vault” — so it compares its dissolution figuratively, at one time to a scroll rolled up, at another to an element dissolved by fire, as the apostle Peter says in his second catholic letter, at another to a garment growing old. For with the bringing in of the heaven that is newly made, the firmament must be abolished, as useless for that state, so that by its destruction, at least then, the folly may be shown and refuted of those who said … that the heaven is unbegotten and eternal.