Theodoret of Cyrus · Dialogues (Eranistes)
Dialogues (Eranistes) · Part 3
Orth.--But he who says that the Divine Word is changed into the flesh does not even acknowledge one Son, for mere flesh by itself is not a son; but we confess one Son who took upon Him the seed of Abraham, according to the divine apostle, and wrought the salvation of mankind. But if you do not accept the apostolic preaching, say so openly.
Eran.--But we maintain that the utterances of the apostles are inconsistent, for there appears to be a certain inconsistency between "the Word was made flesh" and "took upon Him the seed of Abraham."
Orth.--It is because you lack intelligence, or because you are arguing for arguing's sake, that the consistent seems inconsistent. It does not so appear to men who use sound reasoning; for the divine apostle teaches that the Divine Word was made Flesh, not by mutation, but by taking on Him the seed of Abraham. At the same time, too, he recalls the promise given to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises given to the Patriarch by the God of the Universe?
Eran.--What promises?
Orth.--When He brought him out of his father's house, and ordered him to come into Palestine, did He not say to him "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed"?
Eran.--I remember these promises.
Orth.--Remember, too, the covenants made by God with Isaac and Jacob, for He gave them, too, the same promises, confirming the former by the second and the third.
Eran.--I remember them too.
Orth.--It is in relation to these covenants that the divine apostle writes in his Epistle to the Galatians "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made." He saith not "seeds" as of many, but as of one...which is Christ, very plainly showing that the manhood of Christ sprang from the seed of Abraham, and fulfilled the promise made to Abraham.
Eran.--So the apostle says.
Orth.--Enough has been said to remove all the controversy raised on this point. But I will nevertheless remind you of another prediction. The blessing given to the Patriarch Jacob and to his father and his grandfather was given by him to his son Judah alone. He said "A Prince shall not fail Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall have come to whom it is in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles." Or do you not accept this prediction as spoken of the Saviour Christ?
Eran.--Jews give erroneous interpretations of prophecies of this kind, but I am a Christian; I trust in the Divine word; and I receive the prophecies without doubt.
Orth.--Since then you confess that you believe the prophecies and acknowledge the predictions have been divinely uttered about our Saviour, consider what follows as to the intention of the words of the apostle, for while pointing out that the promises made to the patriarchs have reached their fulfilment, he uttered those remarkable words "He took not on Him the nature of angels," all but saying the promise is true; the Lord has fulfilled His pledges; the fount of blessing is open to the gentiles; God had taken on Him the seed of Abraham; through it He brings about the promised salvation; through it He confirms the promise of the gentiles.
Eran.--The words of the Prophet fit in admirably with those of the apostle.
Orth.--So again the divine apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah, and pointing out how it received its fulfilment exclaims "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah." So too the Prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew. For the former spoke his prediction, and the latter connects the prophecy with his narrative. What is extraordinary is that he says that the open enemies of the truth plainly told Herod that the Christ is born in Bethlehem, for it is written, he says, "And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah art not the least among the Princes of Judah for out of thee shall come a Governor who shall rule my people Israel." Now let us subjoin what the Jews in their malignity omitted and so made the witness imperfect. For the prophet, after saying "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel" adds "Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting."
Eran.--You have done well in adducing the whole evidence of the Prophet, for he points out that He who was born in Bethlehem was God.
Orth.--Not God only but also Man; Man as sprung from Judah after the flesh and born in Bethlehem; and God as existing before the ages. For the words "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler," shew his birth after the flesh which has taken place in the last days; while the words "Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" plainly proclaim His existence before the ages. In like manner also the divine apostle in his Epistle to the Romans bewailing the change to the worse of the ancient felicity of the Jews, and calling to mind their divine promises and legislation, goes on to say "Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever Amen," and in this same passage he exhibits Him both as Creator of all things and Lord and Ruler as God and as sprung from the Jews as man.
Eran.--Well; you have explained these passages, what should you say to the prophecy of Jeremiah? For this proclaims him to be God only.
Orth.--Of what prophecy do you speak?
Eran.--"This is our God and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison to him--he hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth and conversed with men."
In these words the Prophet speaks neither of the flesh, nor of manhood, nor of man, but of God alone.
Orth.--What then is the good of reasoning? Do we say that the Divine nature is invisible? or do we dissent from the Apostle when he says "Immortal, invisible, the only God."
Eran.--Indubitably the Divine nature is invisible.
Orth.--How then was it possible for the invisible nature to be seen without a body? Or do you not remember those words of the apostle in which he distinctly teaches the invisibility of the divine nature? He says "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." If therefore the Divine Nature is invisible to men, and I will add too to Angels, tell me how he who cannot be seen or beheld was seen upon earth?
Eran.--The Prophet says he was seen on the earth.
Orth.--And the apostle says "Immortal, invisible, the only God" and "Whom no man hath seen and can see."
Eran.--What then? is the Prophet lying?
Orth.--God forbid. Both utterances are the words of the Holy Ghost.
Eran.--Let us inquire then how the invisible was seen.
Orth.--Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
Eran.--You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.
Orth.--You know how a moment ago we made the word of the evangelist clear by means of the testimony of the apostle; and that the divine apostle showed us how the Word became Flesh, saying plainly "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." The same teacher will teach us how the divine Word was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men.
Eran.--I submit to the words both of apostles and of prophets. Shew me then in accordance with your promise the interpretation of the prophecy.
Orth.--The divine apostle, writing to Timothy, also says "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
It is therefore plain that the divine nature is invisible, but the flesh visible, and that through the visible the invisible was seen, by its means working wonders and unveiling its own power, for with the hand He fashioned the sense of seeing and healed him that was blind from birth. Again He gave the power of hearing to the deaf, and loosed the fettered tongue, using his fingers for a tool and applying his spittle like some healing medicine. So again when He walked upon the sea He displayed the almighty power of the Godhead. Fitly, therefore, did the apostle say "God was manifest in the flesh." For through it appeared the invisible nature beheld by its means by the angel hosts, for "He was seen," he says, "of angels."
The nature then of bodiless beings has shared with us the enjoyment of this boon.
Eran.--Then did not the angels see God before the manifestation of the Saviour?
Orth.--The apostle says that He "was made manifest in the flesh and seen of angels."
Eran.--But the Lord said, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."
Orth.--But the Lord said again, "Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." Wherefore the evangelist plainly exclaims, "No man hath seen God at any time," and confirms the word of the Lord, for he says, "The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father He hath declared Him," and the great Moses, when he desired to see the invisible nature, heard the Lord God saying, "There shall no man see me and live."
Notes
- 989. Gen. xii. 3. The lxx. has eneulogethesontai en soi. In Acts iii. 25, it is to spermati sou: in Gal. iii. 8, en soi
- 990. Gal. iii. 16. There is here an omission of the four words "kai to spermati sou." Of the difficulty of the passage a full discussion will be found in Bishop Lightfoot's "Galatians" --page 141.
- 991. Gen. xlix. 10. Here the text follows the Alexandrine Septuagint substituting heos an elthe ho apokeitai for heos an elthe ta apokeimena auto The Vulgate runs "Non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat qui mittendus est et ipse erit expectatio gentium."
- 992. Hebrews ii. 16
- 993. Hebrews vii. 14
- 994. Micah v. 2
- 995. Matthew ii. 5, 6
- 996. Matthew ii. 6
- 997. Micah v. 2
- 998. Romans ix. 5
- 999. Baruch iii. 35, 37 "The ascription of the prophecy of Baruch to Jeremiah may be explained by the fact that in the lxx. Baruch was placed either before or after Lamentations, and was regarded in the early church as an appendix to, and of equal authority with, Jeremiah. It is so quoted by Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian." Augustine de Civ. xviii, 33. quotes Baruch iii. 16. with the remark "Hoc testimonium quidem non Hieremiæ sed Scribæ eius attribuunt qui vocabatur Baruch, sed Hieremiæ celebratius habetur."
- 1000. 1 Tim. i. 17
- 1001. 1 Tim. vi. 16
- 1002. Baruch iii. 38
- 1003. 1 Tim. i. 17
- 1004. 1 Tim. vi. 16
- 1005. Heb. ii. 16
- 1006. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Theodoretus shews no knowledge of the reading * for * in this famous passage accepted by our revisers with the marginal comment "The word God in place of He who rests on no sufficient ancient evidence." Macedonius II, patriarch of Constantinople, is said to have been accused by his enemy the Emperor Anastasius of falsifying this particular passage. But if Theodoretus, who died c. 458, really wrote * copies of the Epistles containing this reading must have existed some half century before the dispute between Macedonius and Anastasius. Gregory of Nyssa also uses the passage as does Theodoretus; Greg. Nyss. cont. Eun. iv. i. The accepted opinion now regards the Codex of Alexandrianus as reading hos
- 1007. Matt. xviii. 10. Observe the omission of the words "In heaven," which A.V. inserts with ' B D, etc.
- 1008. John vi. 46
- 1009. John i. 18
- 1010. Exodus xxxiii. 20