The Fathers of The Church A New Translation Volume 106

THE FATHERS
OF THE CHURCH
A NEW TRANSLATION
VOLUME 106
THE FATHERS
OF THE CHURCH
A NEW TRANSLATION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Thomas P. Halton
The Catholic University of America
Editorial Director
Elizabeth Clark Robert D. Sider
Duke University Dickinson College
Joseph T. Lienhard Michael Slusser
Fordham University Duquesne University
Frank A. C. Mantello Cynthia White
The Catholic University of America The University of Arizona
Kathleen McVey Robin Darling Young
Princeton Theological Seminary The Catholic University of America
David J. McGonagle
Director
The Catholic University of America Press
FORMER EDITORIAL DIRECTORS

Ludwig Schopp, Roy J. Deferrari, Bernard M. Peebles,
Hermigild Dressler, O.F.M.
Joel Kalvesmaki
Staff Editor
THEODORET
OF CYRUS
ERANISTES
Translated by
GERARD H. ETTLINGER, S. J.
St. John’s University
Jamaica, New York
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 2003
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48—1984.
library of congress cataloging-in-publication data

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus.
[Eranistes. English]
Eranistes / translated by Gerard H. Ettlinger.
p. cm. — (The fathers of the church ; v. 106)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
isbn 0-8132-0106-3 (alk. paper)
1. Jesus Christ—Divinity. I. Ettlinger, Gerard H. II. Title.
III. Series.
BR60.F3 T48
[BR65.T753]
270 s—dc21
[232/
2002007972
CONTENTS
Abbreviations vii
Select Bibliography ix
Introduction 1
eranistes
Prologue 27
Immutable: Dialogue 1 30
Unmixed: Dialogue 2 89
Impassible: Dialogue 3 178
Epilogue 253
indices
General Index 269
Index of Holy Scripture 277
A B B R E V I AT I O N S
General
LXX Septuagint.
Dictionaries, periodicals, and series

ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Ed. E. Schwartz. Berlin,
1914–40. 4 vols.
ACW Ancient Christian Writers. New York/Mahwah, 1946– .
CPG Geerard, M. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Turnhout: Brepols. 1,
2; 1983, 1974. Supplementum (M. Geerard - J. Noret),
1998.
CPL Clavis Patrum Latinorum. 3d ed. E. Dekkers. Turnhout-
Steenbrugge: in Abbatia Sancti Petri, 1995.
FOTC The Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1947– .
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897–1949; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1953– .
LSJ Greek-English Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement. 9th
ed. Ed. H. G. Liddell - R. Scott - H. S. Jones, et al. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1996.
OAB The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 3d ed. Oxford/New York,
2001.
ODCC The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3d ed. Ed. F. L.
Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford/New York, 1997.
OM Richard, Marcel. Marcel Richard: Opera Minora. Turnhout:
Brepols & Leuven: University Press. 1, 2, 3; 1976, 1977,
1977.
PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Ed. J.-P.
Migne. Paris, 1857–86. 161 vols.
PGL A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Ed. G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1961.
vii
viii A B B R E V I AT I O N S
PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina. Ed.

J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1844–64. 221 vols.
SC Sources Chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1941– .
Tanner Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P.
Tanner, S. J. 2 vols. London: Sheed & Ward;
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,
1990.
Greek Texts of Theodoret’s Writing

Azéma, 1–4 Azéma, Yvan. Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance. 4
vols. SC 40 (1955), 98 (1964), 111 (1965), 429
(1998).
Ettlinger, Eranistes Ettlinger, Gerard H. Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes:
Critical Text and Prolegomena. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1975.
Therapeutique Théodoret de Cyr. Therapeutique des maladies
helléniques. Texte critique, introduction, traduction
et notes par Pierre Canivet. 2 vols. SC 57, 1958.
HFC Theodoret. Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium.
PG 83. 335–556.
English Translations of Theodoret’s Writings

Halton, Providence Theodoret of Cyrus. On Divine Providence. Trans.
Thomas Halton. ACW 49, 1988.
Hill, Psalms Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Psalms.
Trans. Robert C. Hill. 2 vols. FOTC 101–2
(2000–1).
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abramowski, Luise. “Trinitarische und christologische Hypostasen-

formeln.” Theologie und Philosophie 54 (1979): 38–49.
Azéma, Yvan. “La date de la mort de Théodoret de Cyr.” Pallas 31
(1984): 137–55, 192–93.
Chadwick, Henry. “Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Contro-
versy.” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 2 (1951): 145–64.
Congar, Yves-M. “Doctrines christologiques et théologie de l’Eucharis-
tie.” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 66 (1982): 233–
44.
Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Divine Impassibility and Christology in the Christ-
mas Homilies of Leo the Great.” Theological Studies 62 (2001):
71–85.
Ettlinger, Gerard H. “The history of the citations in the Eranistes by
Theodoret of Cyrus in the fifth and sixth centuries.” In Überliefer-
ungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 173–83. Texte und Untersuchun-
gen 125. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981.
———. “Some problems encountered in editing patristic texts, with
special reference to the Eranistes of Theodoret of Cyrus.” Studia Pa-
tristica 12. Texte und Untersuchungen 115. Berlin: Akademie Ver-
lag, 1981. 25–29.
Gray, P. T. R. “Theodoret on the ‘One Hypostasis.’ An Antiochene
Reading of Chalcedon.” Studia Patristica 15, part 1. Texte und Un-
tersuchungen 128. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984. 301–4.
Grillmeier, A. and H. Bacht, eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Vol. 1.
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1962.
Guinot, Jean-Noel. “La Christologie de Théodoret de Cyr dans son
Commentaire sur le Cantique.” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 256–
72.
———. L’Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr. Editions Beauchesne: Paris, 1995.
———. “Présence d’Apollinaire dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Théodor-
et.” Studia Patristica 19. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. 166–72.
Hallman, Joseph M. “The Seed of Fire: Divine Suffering in the Chris-
tology of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople.”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997): 369–91.
———. “Theodoret’s Eranistes and Its Aftermath: The Demise of the
Christology of Antioch.” In Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church.
Vol. 2. Ed. Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer and Lawrence Cross, 343–
57. Brisbane: Centre for Early Christian Studies, 1999.
ix
x SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lim, Richard. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in Greek Dia-

logues.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 111 (1991): 181–82.
Mandac, Marijan. “L’union christologique dans les oeuvres de
Théodoret antérieures au concile d’Éphèse.” Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 47 (1971): 64–96.
O’Keefe, John J. “Kenosis or Impassibility: Cyril of Alexandria and
Theodoret of Cyrus on the Problem of Divine Pathos.” Studia Patris-
tica 32. Louvain: Peeters, 1997. 358–65.
———. “Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Chris-
tology.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 39–60.
———. “‘A Letter that Killeth’: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene
Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms.”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000): 83–104.
Richard, Marcel. “L’activité littéraire de Théodoret avant le concile
d’Éphèse.” OM 2, #45.
———. “L’introduction du mot ‘hypostase’ dans la théologie de l’In-
carnation.” OM 2, #42.
———. “Notes sur l’évolution doctrinale de Théodoret.” OM 2, #46.
Romanides, John. “St. Cyril’s ‘one physis or hypostasis of God the Lo-
gos Incarnate’ and Chalcedon.” In Christ in East and West, 15–34.
Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987.
Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Psalms. Trans. Robert C. Hill. 2
vols. FOTC 101–2 (2000–1).
———. Correspondance. Ed. Yvan Azéma. 4 vols. SC 40, 98, 111, 429.
1955, 1964, 1965, 1998.
———. Eranistes: Critical Text and Prolegomena. Ed. Gerard H. Ettlinger.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1975.
———. On Divine Providence. Trans. Thomas P. Halton. ACW 49, 1988.
———. Therapeutique des maladies helléniques. Ed. Pierre Canivet. SC 57,
1958. 2 vols.
Wilson, Nigel G. “Indications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts.”
Classical Quarterly 20 (1970): 305.
Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. A Guide to the Literature and
Background. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
I NTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1. Life of Theodoret
Theodoret of Cyrus1 was born at Antioch in Syria about 393,
received his education in the monastery schools of that city and
was ordained bishop of Cyrus in 423.2 He played an active role
in the city’s life, and in a letter written late in his career recalled
that he had carried out an extensive building program and had
struggled to root out heresy.3 But he also found time for a
scholarly life and wrote extensively in the fields of scriptural ex-
egesis, history (of the Church, of monastic life, and of heresy),
apologetics, and dogma. His life changed after he supported
Nestorius in the conflict with Cyril that led to the Council of
Ephesus (431); at the death of John of Antioch (441) he be-
came the leading and last representative of the “Antiochene”
tradition, and was embroiled in controversy from 447 to the
council of Chalcedon (451). This council negated a censure he
had incurred in 449, thus restoring him to good standing in
the Church.4 Almost nothing is known about him after the
council, and the most disputed date of his life is that of his
death, which is usually placed between 460 and 466.5
1. The city’s name appears in two Greek forms: Kuvro" and Kuvrro". The man-
uscript tradition of the Eranistes prefers the former, translated here as Cyrus.
2. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 3, ODCC, pp. 1600–1, and Hill, Psalms, 1, p. 1.
But see also Halton, Providence, p. 1; Halton says that Theodoret was born in
383 or 386 and, according to an “unconfirmed tradition,” studied with John of
Antioch under John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
3. See Letter 79 (Azéma, 2, 186–87) and Letter 113 (Azéma, 3, 64–65).
4. This period in Theodoret’s life will be discussed below, in connection
with the context of the Eranistes.
5. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 3; Y. Azéma, “Sur la date de la mort de
Théodoret de Cyr,” Pallas 31 (1984): 137–55; and ODCC, pp. 1600–1.
1
2 INTRODUCTION
2. Eranistes or the Polymorph:

Date, literary structure, title
The book entitled Eranistes or the Polymorph is the fullest ex-
tant statement of Theodoret’s Christology, and as such it can be
described as a dogmatic treatise. But it also stands squarely in
the areas of controversy and apologetics, since Theodoret at-
tempts, not only to prove the truth of his own doctrine, but also
to refute the teachings of his opponents. There is general
agreement that the Eranistes was composed in the year 447.6
The Eranistes consists of five parts: a short expository pro-
logue; three lengthy dialogues; an epilogue in three parts that
parallel the dialogues and recapitulate their arguments in con-
cise statements. The dialogues have titles that indicate their pri-
mary topics: “Unchangeable” [a[trepto"], “Unmixed” [ajsuvgcu-
to"], “Immutable” [ajpaqhv"]. These dialogues are not historical
conversations, but literary constructions7 that involve two char-
acters: the eponymous Eranistes, who represents Theodoret’s
heretical opponents, and Orthodox, who is obviously the voice
of Theodoret. Each dialogue concludes with an anthology of
patristic quotations that support Theodoret’s position; each an-
thology ends with quotations from Apollinarius, whom Theo-
doret considers a major heretic, to show, as he says, that even
someone like Apollinarius agrees with him.8
Theodoret derives the name Eranistes from a play on Greek
words, beginning with the verb ejranivzw, which in classical
Greek basically means to collect [something] for oneself; the
related noun e[rano" could signify either a meal for which each
person contributes a share, or a loan, or a permanent society
6. For the date see Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 3.

7. For a discussion of Theodoret’s use of the dialogue, see N. G. Wilson, “In-
dications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts.” The Classical Quarterly 20
(1970): 305 and R. Lim, “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in Greek Dia-
logues,” The Journal of Hellenistic Studies 91 (1991): 181–82. In this edition the
names will be written at the beginning of each new segment of conversation,
but as part of the text, not in the margin.
8. See Dialogue 1, pp. 86–88.
INTRODUCTION 3
that made loans; an ejranivsth" was a person who contributed to

a meal or who belonged to the type of permanent society just
described.9 In the patristic period the verb was used in the pre-
Christian classical sense, but he is apparently the only early
Christian author to use the noun ejranivsth", to which he has
clearly given a new meaning.10
In the Prologue Theodoret says, “The title of my book is
Eranistes or the Polymorph,11 because they produce their own com-
plex and polymorphous doctrine by collecting the wicked
teachings of many evil men.”12 Thus he clearly links the name
“Eranistes” with the action of collecting or gathering,13 but after
describing the process by which the heretics formed their doc-
trine, he concludes, “As a result, this heresy resembles clothes
crudely stitched together by beggars from scraps of cloth; that
is why I call this book Eranistes or the Polymorph.”14 He goes be-
yond the concept of collecting, therefore, and gives the name a
negative meaning, by describing Eranistes and those he repre-
sents as theological beggars or rag pickers.
3. Context of the Eranistes in Theodoret’s life

The publication of the Eranistes was a significant event in
Theodoret’s life. He had become active in church life outside
the narrow confines of his own diocese during the controversy
between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople,
when he joined the bishops from Syria and Asia Minor to de-
fend Nestorius against Cyril, who had the support and approval
9. Cf. these words in LSJ.

10. Cf. these words in PGL.
11. The Greek word poluvmorfo" refers to a person or thing that has many
different shapes or forms; Theodoret uses it to describe both Eranistes and the
allegedly heretical teachings in question here.
12. See below, p. 000.
13. At the end of the third dialogue Theodoret actually uses the verb with
this meaning in the context of urging orthodox Christians to construct true
faith by gathering (ejranivzomai) the good teachings from Scripture and early
Church teachers, in imitation of bees that gather honey from flowers in a
meadow. See below, p. 252.
4 INTRODUCTION
of episcopal colleagues from Egypt, and of Pope Celestine and

other western bishops. Theodoret played a major role in com-
posing the documents produced by the eastern bishops at this
time, and one of them, a lost writing called the Pentalogos, may
have been one of his sources for the patristic anthologies in the
Eranistes.15
The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius for doctrinal
errors, but the process was suffused with bitter personal and po-
litical antagonism. Cyril prevailed, and Nestorius was deposed
and ultimately exiled, but Theodoret and other eastern bishops
continued to support him, at least in principle. Theodoret’s
support for Nestorius and his published attacks on Cyril would,
as will be noted, cause him difficulties throughout his life and
plague him after his death. The state of alienation that resulted
from the Council of Ephesus persisted until 433 when Cyril, in
a letter to John of Antioch, approved a statement proposed by
John and initiated a period of relative peace. Cyril died in 444
and was succeeded as bishop of Alexandria by Dioscorus.
The years following Cyril’s death eventually brought re-
newed theological and political unrest; the next controversy
centered on Eutyches, an archimandrite of Constantinople sup-
ported by Dioscorus, who was accused of teaching that after the
union of the Word with flesh there was only one nature of the
Word made flesh. Many felt that this language expressed the
thought of Cyril, who had employed such terminology because
of Apollinarian texts that he mistakenly thought were from an
orthodox source.16
In 447, as the debate over Eutyches was developing, the
Eranistes appeared. Theodoret surely objected to the Apollinari-
an tenor of Eutyches’s teaching, but he does not identify his ad-
versary by name.17 It remains unclear, therefore, whether the
Eranistes was a cause or an effect of the renewed controversy;
whatever the case, its polemical tone did not foster peace, but
15. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, pp. 23–31, especially p. 30.

16. See Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon. A Guide to the Literature
and Background (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 259–60.
17. The identity of Theodoret’s opponents will be discussed at length in the
section on heresy and heretics.
INTRODUCTION 5
was guaranteed to arouse the animosity of those who felt them-

selves under attack. In 448 Eutyches was condemned by a synod
in Constantinople, and his appeal to Pope Leo I was rejected.
In the same year an imperial decree, instigated or at least ap-
proved by Dioscorus, who had the support of the emperor
Theodosius II, confined Theodoret to the city of Cyrus on the
grounds that he was needlessly convening synods and disturb-
ing the peace.18
In 449, under the leadership of Dioscorus, a group of bish-
ops met in council at Ephesus;19 they reinstated Eutyches and
condemned a number of his opponents, including Flavian,
bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret. Flavian died soon af-
ter the council, and Theodoret appealed his own condem-
nation unsuccessfully. In 451 a new emperor, Marcian, called a
council at Chalcedon, which issued a well known statement of
Christological faith that sought to satisfy both the supporters of
Cyril and his erstwhile opponents. The council overturned the
decisions of the council held at Ephesus in 449, deposed
Dioscorus, and condemned Eutyches and Monophysitism; it
also reinstated Theodoret, but did so only on the condition
that he formally repudiate Nestorius. His opposition to Cyril
and his loyal support of Nestorius prior to 451 continued to
render him suspect, for in 553, almost a century after his
death, another General Council, held at Constantinople under
the auspices of the emperor Justinian, condemned his writings
against Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus of 431.
The Eranistes, the primary extant witness of Theodoret’s
Christology, appeared at a critical juncture in his life and in the
life of the Church, and history shows that it was deeply involved
in the cycles of success and failure that he experienced in the
latter part of his life and even after his death.
18. Theodoret offers what purports to be a quotation from the decree in his
Letter 80 (Azéma, 2, 188–89). His confinement to Cyrus is mentioned in a letter
from the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III (ACO, 2.1.1, p. 69.1–6).
19. This gathering was later dubbed the Robber Council.
6 INTRODUCTION
4. Heretics and Heresies in the Eranistes

The Eranistes, as noted, is not simply a dogmatic treatise, for
Theodoret obviously wrote it, both to combat heresy and
heretics, and to proclaim and defend his own Christological
teaching. The identification of his opponents and their teach-
ings is, therefore, a prerequisite to any study of his Christology.
Theodoret’s fiercely negative stand against heresy places him in
a long tradition that includes Irenaeus, Athanasius, Epiphanius,
and Cyril. Twenty-first century opinion often views this type of
activity as the product of an obsession rooted in such non-theo-
logical elements as politics (secular or religious), ignorance, in-
tolerance, prejudice, hatred of women, and the desire to pre-
serve one’s own power or status. Although such factors could
have played a role in some of the assaults on heresy and
heretics in the history of the Church, closer analysis reveals an
important religious component, present at least in the early
Church, that is often overlooked.
The faith of the post-biblical Church was based on the reve-
lation of sacred Scripture handed down by Christ’s apostles and
the teachers who followed them; the main constituent of this
faith, which made it specifically Christian, was the person of Je-
sus viewed as the Word of God incarnate, the Christ, the savior
of humankind. In the second century the Church’s faith was
generally expressed in straightforward acceptance and conse-
quent action, without further analysis. In succeeding centuries,
however, Christians attempted to understand their faith and to
explain Christian life and teaching through the power of rea-
son by employing the philosophical methods that many had
learned; this proved to be especially significant when crucial el-
ements of the faith, such as the divinity of the savior, were in
question. But throughout this whole period faith, not reason,
was the driving-force of Christianity. Since the goal of Christian
teaching and life was, in the most basic terms, salvation, or
union with God through faith in Jesus Christ, it was believed
that if the object of faith was not the true Jesus Christ, then sal-
vation was impossible and all was hopelessly lost. Anyone whose
INTRODUCTION 7
teaching was judged to be untrue, therefore, was reckoned a

heretic, an enemy of humanity, who deserved condemnation.
Right or wrong, this attitude had a powerful influence for cen-
turies, and it explains, although it does not justify, why church
leaders reacted so strongly against heresy and heretics. For
them this was ultimately a question of spiritual life or death.
And the Eranistes is in this tradition.
Although Theodoret names no heretics later than the fourth
century, his polemic can be used to identify his contemporary
adversaries. In the prologue of the Eranistes he says that his op-
ponents “produce their own complex and polymorphous doc-
trine by collecting the wicked teachings of many evil men.”20
He then cites specific instances:
1. “The assertion that Christ the Lord is only God comes
from Simon, Cerdon, Marcion, and the other members of this
foul group.”
2. “Confessing the virgin birth, while saying that it was only a
transitory passage and that God the Word took nothing from
the virgin, was stolen from the absurd stories of Valentinus,
Bardesanes, and their followers.”
3. “The designation of the divinity and the humanity of
Christ the Lord as one nature they pilfered from the ravings of
Apollinarius.”
4. “And they robbed from the blasphemy of Arius and Eu-
nomius the attribution of the passion to the divinity of Christ
the Lord.”21
Because of their heretical ancestry Theodoret, therefore,
concludes that his adversaries reject or mutilate the divinity
and/or the humanity of Christ. Key issues are immutability and
impassibility, qualities that directly refer only to the divinity, but
that Theodoret also links to the humanity. Arius and Eunomius
are traditionally accused of rejecting the full divinity of the di-
vine Word; it is presumably for this reason that Theodoret says
20. For this quotation and the entire section that follows see below,
p. 28.
21. The Eranistes mentions many heretics by name, but it cites Apollinarius
more often than any other; Arius and Eunomius come next, followed by
Valentinus and Marcion.
8 INTRODUCTION
they attributed the passion to the divinity of Christ and thereby

destroyed his immutability and impassibility. Those named in
the first two groups are Gnostics, who usually attributed some
type of divinity to Christ, but in general tended to reject his hu-
manity. Apollinarius is more problematic, for Theodoret con-
siders the presence of his ideas especially damning, since he
understood what was at stake and accepted both the divinity
and the humanity, which he rightly sought to unite in one per-
son. According to Theodoret, however, Apollinarius failed in
this project because he said that the unity of divinity and hu-
manity resulted in one nature, a teaching that impaired the di-
vinity and the humanity; a troubling corollary of this theory for
Theodoret lies in the fact that it pointed toward the mono-
physite language attributed to Theodoret’s contemporary Euty-
ches.
In 431 the supporters of Nestorius, including Theodoret,
probably felt that Cyril’s teaching was contaminated by Apolli-
narianism.22 These suspicions were not put aside lightly, and,
despite the agreement of 433, the theological conflict that de-
veloped after the appointment of Dioscorus and the rise of Eu-
tyches shows that the ghost of Apollinarius had never left the
scene; one must, then, choose Theodoret’s primary adversary
in 447 from among Apollinarius, Cyril, Dioscorus, or Eutyches.
The patristic anthologies in the Eranistes suggest that Theo-
doret’s attitude toward Cyril in 447 was not overwhelmingly
negative, for he says that he quotes authors who “proclaim the
apostolic teaching”23 to prove that his own teaching is in har-
mony with orthodox Christian tradition. Although Theodoret
had disapproved of Cyril in the past, he nonetheless includes
him among the teachers of orthodoxy without comment or
qualification.
The significance of Theodoret’s selection of Cyril can be
shown through an analysis of his treatment of Apollinarius. At
22. For a discussion of this problem, see Henry Chadwick, “Eucharist and
Christology in the Nestorian Controversy,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 2
(1951): 145–64. and Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, pp. 258–63.
INTRODUCTION 9
the start of the first anthology he says that he would have quot-
ed Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, if he had
not been aware that Eranistes was “badly disposed toward them
and shared Apollinarius’s hatred for them.”24 While many of
Theodoret’s contemporaries would also have objected to Dio-
dore and Theodore, the fact that he cites Apollinarius by name
shows how seriously he takes him, not as a direct opponent in
the Eranistes, but as an enemy of his theological antecedents
and the chief source of the heresy he is combating.
At the end of the first anthology Orthodox tells Eranistes
that he is going to quote Apollinarius, “one of the fathers” of
Eranistes’s heresy, to “show that he understood the text, ‘The
Word became flesh’25 in the same way as the holy fathers”;26 in
the second anthology he explains that he is citing Apollinarius,
“so that you may know that even he says that the union was
without mixture”;27 in the third anthology Theodoret speaks of
the “ancient heresiarchs” and then says, “listen again to the
writings of Apollinarius, which proclaim that the divine nature
is impassible and confess that the suffering pertains to the
body.”28 Although Theodoret never relents in his hostility to
Apollinarius, he is willing to grant that even29 such a person may
on occasion teach something that can be used to prove the
truth of the orthodox position. By comparing this approach
with his positive attitude toward Cyril, one may safely conclude
that the latter is not Theodoret’s contemporary opponent in
the Eranistes.
Since Apollinarius, whom Theodoret all but accuses of a type
of Monophysitism, seems to be the major source of the teaching
he opposes, his immediate adversary must be either Dioscorus
or Eutyches. Eutyches became in time the symbolic figurehead
of Monophysitism, but he was not a major ecclesiastical or politi-
cal force in 447; it is more likely, then, that Theodoret’s atten-
tion at that time was focused on Dioscorus, the relatively new
bishop of Alexandria, who supported Eutyches. In letters written
24. See below, p. 66. 25. Jn 1.14a.

26. See below, p. 86. 27. See below, p. 172.
28. See below, p. 245. 29. My emphasis.
10 INTRODUCTION
during the period of his house arrest (448–50/51) and con-

demnation by the council of 449, Theodoret clearly refers to
Dioscorus when complaining about problems caused by ecclesi-
astical authority; at the same time he writes a letter to Dioscorus
himself, to defend, in a pitiful and supplicatory tone, the ortho-
doxy of his own teaching.30 He evidently considers Dioscorus to
be the source of his problems and therefore the only one who
can help him. Further confirmation that Dioscorus was the
object of Theodoret’s criticism may be implied from the will-
ingness of the Council of Chalcedon to reinstate Theodoret.
Dioscorus was deposed by that council, so opposition to him
could have earned good will for Theodoret, whereas an attack
on Cyril would surely have aroused further animosity against
him.
Since Theodoret was opposed theologically to the Apollinar-
ian tendency of Eutyches’s teaching, one may conclude that the
full thrust of the condemnation expressed in the Eranistes was
aimed at Dioscorus, the ecclesiastical leader who supported Eu-
tyches and thereby made the existence and approval of his
teaching possible.
5. Christology of the Eranistes

a. Theodoret and Two-Nature Christology
Theodoret has been described as the last major figure in the

theological tradition of Antioch, and in the Eranistes he clearly
advocates the two-nature Christology whose roots can be traced
to Theodore of Mopsuestia. The main focus of this approach is
the humanity of Christ, and scholars have often contrasted it
with the tradition of Alexandria that concentrated primarily on
the divinity of Christ.
There is no doubt that this classification is on the whole true
with respect to the major figures who represent the two tradi-
tions. Over the years, however, it has become clear that the con-
trast may not be so stark as was thought, for one can identify
30. Letter 83 (Azéma, 2, 204–19).

INTRODUCTION 11
both obvious differences within each group and similarities be-

tween the two. Thus John Chrysostom’s Christology was radical-
ly different from that of his fellow student, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, and actually resembled the early thought of Cyril of
Alexandria. Athanasius and Apollinarius opposed Arius from a
common theological basis, but the former emerged as the
champion of orthodoxy, while the latter was condemned as a
master heretic. Cyril was at times thought to be an Apollinari-
an, but careful analysis has shown that this was not true.
Theodoret shared Theodore’s basic principles, but made sig-
nificant advances in thought and language and eventually came
to acknowledge a positive value in at least certain aspects of
Cyril’s thought. At the same time, some of Theodoret’s contem-
poraries, inspired by Cyril’s teaching, developed a Christology
that was condemned by many as monophysite. The preceding
discussion on heresy in the Eranistes shows that Theodoret was
concerned with protecting both the integrity of Christ’s divini-
ty, characterized by impassibility and immutability, and the real-
ity of his humanity, rooted in his body. Theodoret, therefore,
was occupied with the main points of both traditions and did
not consider them mutually exclusive.31
Since other scholars have analyzed Theodoret’s Christology
in the Eranistes,32 this section of the Introduction will not repeat
that process, but will attempt to show how he developed his
own two-nature Christology and the methodological tools that
he employed. Theodoret gave each of the three dialogues a ti-
tle that indicates the main point of discussion. The first (Im-
mutable) and the third (Impassible) deal directly with the
integrity of the Word’s divinity, while the second (Unmixed)
treats the union of the divinity and humanity in the one person
of the Word incarnate.
Both Eranistes and Orthodox agree on the immutability of
God, and therefore of the divine Word; the basic argument in
Dialogue One revolves around the correct interpretation of
31. For an alternate view see John J. O’Keefe, “Impassible Suffering? Divine
Passion and Fifth-Century Christology,” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 39–60.
32. See especially Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, pp. 278–84.
12 INTRODUCTION
John 1.14ab: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
What do these words mean? Did the Word become flesh by
changing into flesh or by some other means? Neither Eranistes
nor Orthodox wish to admit a real change, but they cannot at
first agree on an interpretation. Eranistes, echoing John Chry-
sostom of all people, says that the Word knows what it means,
and that suffices; he believes the Biblical text at face value.33 Or-
thodox maintains that this implies change in the Word and
cites other texts to show that “become” has multiple meanings
in Scripture; he fixes on the expressions “took” flesh or “dwelt
in” flesh. Eranistes rejects this, but cannot offer an alternative
that does not compromise divine immutability. Much of the di-
alogue and many of the citations in the anthology consist of ex-
egesis of John 1.14 that Orthodox either offers or cites as
agreeing with his own. Theodoret is obviously concerned here
with the divinity of the Word, but he is equally determined to
maintain the reality of a humanity that does not diminish the
divine nature.
The second dialogue flows from the first, for if the im-
mutable Word truly became flesh, it is imperative to clarify the
nature of the union of the Word with the flesh. The Apollinari-
an and monophysite tendencies of Theodoret’s opponents are
in evidence here, for Orthodox, in keeping with the title “Un-
mixed,” strives to show that this is a union of two real natures
that come together into one, but still remain unmixed or un-
confused. This issue is also at the heart of the controversy be-
tween Nestorius and Cyril, which perhaps explains why the sec-
ond dialogue is the longest of the three, and why its anthology,
also longer than the other two, cites Cyril and his uncle
Theophilus, Cyril’s predecessor as bishop of Alexandria. In
Cyril’s eyes Nestorian Christology did not explain the union
and therefore appeared to teach two sons and to do away with
the divinity of Christ. Cyril’s explanation, as understood by
Nestorius and his supporters, seemed to unite the natures in
33. John Chrysostom, Homily on John’s Gospel 11.2. Unlike Eranistes, howev-
er, Chrysostom strongly denies that the text implies real change and says that
the Word took flesh, dwelt in it, and became one with it through union.
INTRODUCTION 13
such a way as to blend them together to the detriment of the

humanity.34
In Dialogue Two Eranistes accuses Orthodox of dividing
Christ into two sons by speaking of two natures;35 after some
discussion Orthodox says that Eranistes denies there are two
natures, but actually affirms three natures. When Eranistes
again accuses Orthodox of preaching two natures and there-
fore two sons, Orthodox in turn accuses him of affirming three
sons.36 This seems to perplex Eranistes, and he shifts the argu-
ment by saying that he accepts two natures before the union,
but one nature afterward;37 this is then discussed at length and
refuted by Orthodox. Through Orthodox, therefore, Theodor-
et rejects the notion of two sons, attributed to Nestorius and to
himself,38 as well as the quasi-monophysite explanation of the
union wrongly attributed to Cyril, and soon to be condemned
in the person of Eutyches. Thus the discussion of the union in
Dialogue Two reveals Theodoret’s defense both of the integrity
of the incarnate Word’s divinity as well as of the reality of his
humanity.
Impassibility is of course a quality of the divinity, but in Dia-
logue Three it is intimately linked with the humanity of the in-
carnate Word, since the discussion revolves around the attribu-
tion of the Passion directly to the Word of God. Eranistes
defends this, but Orthodox rejects it, saying that the Passion
should be predicated of the Lord, Jesus Christ, who can suffer
as a human being, and whose sufferings become redemptive
because he is also God. The arguments here and the distinc-
tions that are drawn are complex and subtle, and it is some-
34. Subsequent history has shown that, even if Nestorius did not intend to
teach the doctrine attributed to him, his exposition was weak, and the conclu-
sions drawn from it were not unreasonable. Cyril, on the other hand, essentially
understood the basic issues and followed the right track in seeking solutions, al-
though he sometimes expressed himself in dangerous language.
35. See below, p. 116. 36. See below, p. 122.
38. Theodoret was forced to defend himself against the charge of teaching
two sons in the year after the publication of the Eranistes during the controversy
with Dioscorus (see above, p. 5; also Letters 83 and 86 in Azéma, 2, 206–9 and
224–25.).
14 INTRODUCTION
times difficult to discern whether Eranistes and Orthodox actu-

ally differ. This becomes clear, however, when Orthodox asks
how Eranistes could “dare to say that God the Word himself,
the creator of all, suffered the passion.” Eranistes responds,
“We say that he suffered in an impassible way.” Orthodox re-
jects this statement with incredulity and ridicule, saying, “What
sensible person would put up with these absurd riddles? For
no one has ever heard of impassible suffering or immortal
death. That which is impassible did not suffer, and that which
suffered would not remain impassible.”39 The paradox uttered
by Eranistes came from Cyril,40 but it had monophysite over-
tones for Theodoret, and therefore, however Cyril may have in-
tended it, Theodoret appears to see it as a sign of the Apollinar-
ian roots of his opponents’ teaching. In the context of the
three dialogues, this statement, derived from the blending of
the two natures, expresses the ultimate denial of the immutabil-
ity and impassibility of the incarnate Word’s divinity and the ef-
fective obliteration of his humanity.
Theodoret was not able at this time to free himself complete-
ly from problems concerning the unity of person in the Incar-
nation, the aspect of the Christological question that Cyril and
even some of Theodoret’s opponents may have understood bet-
ter. But in the Eranistes he clearly rejected Nestorius and at least
compromised with Cyril, and in opposing his two-nature Chris-
tology to one that he considered Apollinarian and mono-
physite, he attempted to preserve what he considered to be the
true, orthodox teaching about Christ. Like his friends and ene-
mies, he was ultimately unable to grasp the fullness of the mys-
tery of the Incarnation, but his efforts in the Eranistes were
reflected in the creed of the Council of Chalcedon, which drew
from and represented the best of all the traditions.41

40. See O’Keefe, “Impassible Suffering?” p. 57.
41. See Joseph M. Hallman, “Theodoret’s Eranistes and its Aftermath: The
Demise of the Christology of Antioch,” in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early
Church, Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer and Lawrence Cross, eds. (Brisbane: Wat-
son Ferguson & Co., 1999), vol. 2, pp. 343–57. After pointing out the weak-
nesses in Theodoret’s position on immutability and impassibility, Hallman
INTRODUCTION 15
b. Methodology: Role of Philosophy, Scripture, and History
The question of methodology arises because the dialogue

between Eranistes and Orthodox focuses on philosophical is-
sues: immutability, impassibility, and the kind of union that
joins the two natures. Analysis of his method will show whether
Theodoret approaches them as a philosopher, a systematic
theologian, or, as the bulk of his publications would lead one to
suspect, a historian and biblical exegete. The two latter possibil-
ities will be considered at the end of this discussion; it is impos-
sible to maintain that Theodoret was a systematic theologian in
a meaningful sense in his own lifetime or today, but he does
employ philosophical concepts, and therefore this aspect of his
methodology in the Eranistes must be discussed.
At the beginning of the first dialogue Orthodox and Eranis-
tes agree to conduct “a thorough examination of language
about God” [qeià ojnovmata],42 and Orthodox specifies four
words: “substance” (oujs iva), “subsistent entities” (uJpostavsei"),
“persons” (provswpa), and “properties” (ijdiovthte").43 These are
quasi-philosophical terms whose exact denotation cannot be
determined simply through a perusal of a dictionary entry,
since the context and the author’s thought can radically affect
their meaning. After a few polite questions and answers Ortho-
dox asks whether they should “follow the blasphemies of Arius”
or “say that there is one substance of God—the Father, the only
begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit—as we were taught by divine
Scripture, both old and new, and by the fathers who were gath-
ered at Nicaea.” After Eranistes agrees with the latter course of
states that “the position of Cyril is as weak on this point as that of Eranistes” (p.
356). He concludes by asking what is perhaps the most pertinent question of
all: “.l.l. [I]s some deeper revision of our understanding of the divine being
necessary, one that does allow for change and suffering in some form?” (p.
357)
42. See below, pp. 30–32 for this entire discussion, unless otherwise
noted.
43. In this book the same English word will always be used for the Greek
word that follows it in brackets.
16 INTRODUCTION
action, Orthodox asks whether or not “subsistent entity” has

the same meaning as “substance.” Eranistes does not know how
to answer.
Orthodox then explains that “according to secular wisdom”
there is no difference. “But according to the teaching of the fa-
thers,” he goes on, “substance differs from subsistent entity44 as
the common differs from the proper [to; koino;n pro;" to; i[dion],
or as the genus differs from the species or individual [to; gevno"
pro;" to; ei\do" h] to; a[tomon].” After a series of examples to clarify
the relationship of genus, species, and individual, Orthodox
concludes:
“Just as the term ‘human being’ [a[nqrwpo"] is a common name of this
nature [fuvs i"],45 we say that in the same way the divine substance sig-
nifies the Holy Trinity, while the subsistent entity denotes a person,
such as the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. For we follow the limits
set down by the holy fathers and say that subsistent entity, person, and
property all signify the same thing.”46
The “holy fathers” mentioned in these citations must be the

fourth century Cappadocians—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of
Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—who developed a theology
that said that the Trinity consisted of one (divine) substance
and three subsistent entities (or persons in an analogical
sense), who were distinguished by the particular property of
each. Thus the meaning of these words here is rooted in fourth
century Trinitarian thought.
For Orthodox, therefore, and presumably for Theodoret, at
least in the Eranistes, “substance” means the being or reality of
something, i.e., its essence, while “subsistent entity” signifies the
living substance or reality in the same sense as person; “nature”
appears to be the equivalent of “substance.” The identification
of “subsistent entity” with “person” and their distinction from
44. This cannot refer to the fathers of Nicaea who were just mentioned, for
their creed equated the two terms, condemning those who say that the Son is
from a “different subsistent entity or substance [than the Father].” Tanner, 1, 5.
45. At this point Theodoret introduces the word “nature,” which he uses fre-
quently in the Eranistes as an apparent synonym for “substance.”
INTRODUCTION 17
“substance” and “nature” were not transferred immediately or

easily from Cappadocian Trinitarian theology to the Christo-
logical controversies of the late fourth and early fifth century.
Beginning with Apollinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia,
through Cyril and Nestorius, to Theodoret and Eutyches, the
relationship of the words “subsistent entity,” “person,” and “na-
ture” (rather than “substance”), as applied to the incarnate
Word of God was a key issue. It was the Council of Chalcedon in
451 that stated clearly for the first time that “subsistent entity”
and “person” were interchangeable with reference to Christ.
A brief overview will serve to place Theodoret’s usage in con-
text. Apollinarius represents an early stage of Christological dis-
course, so the philosophical implications of his thought, de-
spite his condemnation by the first Council of Constantinople
(381), were not fully understood at the time. But his emphasis
on the individual unity of the Word made flesh seemed to im-
ply that he identified “subsistent entity” with “nature.” In oppo-
sition to this Theodore of Mopsuestia stressed the humanity of
the incarnate Word and generally spoke of the person of the
Word and the person of the human being (or man); he said
that the joining of these two in the Incarnation grew ever
stronger throughout Jesus’ human life and resulted in full unity
at his resurrection and glorification. The term “subsistent enti-
ty” did not play a significant role in Theodore’s Christology, but
his use of the concrete term “person” for the divine and human
in Jesus left him open to charges of destroying the individual
unity of the incarnate Word and splitting him into two persons.
Nestorius carried Theodore’s approach to its ultimate limits
and was ultimately destroyed by it. He spoke of a person of the
Word, a person of the human being, and also, at times, of a per-
son of Christ, who was the result of the joining of the first two.
Whatever he may have intended to express by this, his language
was dangerous, and he appeared to deny the unity of the Word
with the flesh, as well as the divinity of Jesus. Cyril understood
the significance of this teaching, and even though his attack on
Nestorius probably had strong political implications, he was
also undoubtedly moved by a desire to preserve true faith in
the Word incarnate. He distinguished the divine nature and
18 INTRODUCTION
the subsistent entity of the Word and placed the unity of the di-
vine and human in the latter. Thus, Jesus was truly the Word
who became flesh, and therefore divine; Mary, as mother of Je-
sus, was truly the mother of God, not of the divine nature; Jesus
was truly human, and his human nature was fully united with
and given existence by the subsistent entity of the Word. So
Cyril could speak of one subsistent entity of the Word of God
made flesh; in this formula he sometimes replaced “subsistent
entity” with “nature” because he mistakenly thought that this
Apollinarian language came from Athanasius.47
Theodoret, as already noted, supported Nestorius against
Cyril; he may well have believed that Cyril was Apollinarian, but
his defense of Nestorius also stemmed from the fact that they
were both schooled in the same tradition that went back to
Theodore. Theodoret, however, made a major advance beyond
both Theodore and Nestorius, in that he avoided the concrete
term “person” and employed either the abstract terms “divini-
ty” and “humanity,” or “divine nature” and “human nature,”
when speaking of the divine and human reality of the incarnate
Word.48 This enabled him to avoid the obvious pitfalls in the
teaching of his predecessors and eventually to develop a kind of
compromise with his former opponents.
Theodoret, therefore, employs terms such as “nature,” “per-
son,” and “subsistent entity” as a convenient means of express-
ing the conclusions he draws from his analysis and interpreta-
tion of Scripture, not to produce a philosophical or systematic
construct. His treatment of “subsistent entity” is a good exam-
ple of the secondary role philosophical terms play in the
Eranistes. He generally uses “subsistent entity” as he does in Dia-
logue Two, where Orthodox speaks about the teachings of Ar-
ius and Sabellius, which, he says, contradict one another, “since
the former divides the substances, while the latter blends the
subsistent entities. Arius introduces three substances, while
47. See above, p. 4 n. 16.

48. This is certainly true in the Eranistes; for the development of his
thought see Marcel Richard, “Notes sur l’évolution doctrinale de Théodoret,”
OM 2, #46.
INTRODUCTION 19
Sabellius speaks of one subsistent entity instead of three.”49

With one major exception, to be discussed next, “subsistent en-
tity” always appears in the context of Trinitarian theology and is
equated with “person.”
In Dialogue Three Orthodox uses Abraham’s sacrifice of
Isaac as a type prefiguring the sacrifice of Christ, and he consid-
ers Isaac and the ram types of the two natures of Christ, the di-
vine and the human, respectively. In support of his two-nature
Christology and to avoid attributing the passion to the divinity
of the Word, Theodoret says to Eranistes, “If this is a type of the
reality, and the only begotten one was not sacrificed in the type,
but instead a ram was provided, presented at the altar, and
fulfilled the mystery of the sacred rite, then in this case why
don’t you attribute the passion to the flesh and proclaim the
impassibility of the divinity?”50 He then goes on to show how in
this typology the types (Isaac and the ram) do not fit the arche-
type or reality (Christ) exactly:
“I have often said that the image cannot have everything that the origi-
nal has. And one can easily learn this here. For Isaac and the ram fit
the image in accordance with the diversity of the natures; but in accor-
dance with the distinction of the separated subsistent entities they no
longer fit. For we preach such a union of divinity and humanity that
we apprehend one undivided person and know that the same one is
both God and a human being, visible and invisible, limited and
infinite; and everything else that reveals the divinity and the humanity
we attribute to the one person.”51
The last phrase appears to be a legitimate application of the

communicatio idiomatum, a procedure that is usually a problem
for Orthodox, because he seems to think it implies that the
union of the two natures is a mixture. Orthodox maintains that
Isaac and the ram are images of Christ insofar as they are of two
different natures, as is Christ. But Isaac and the ram are not
perfect images of Christ because they are two distinct and sepa-
rate subsistent entities, unlike the divinity and humanity of
49. See below, pp. 93–94. 50. See below, p. 200.

51. Ibid.
20 INTRODUCTION
Christ. The divinity and humanity of Christ are, for Orthodox,

therefore, two distinct natures that are so united as to reveal
one person, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Thus, like Isaac,
Christ is a subsistent entity but, unlike Isaac, he has two natures.
Theodoret does not actually predicate “subsistent entity” of
Christ, but since for him it means the same as “person,” he
prefers the latter word to describe the one individual who is
known and who reveals the union of the two natures.
“Subsistent entity,” therefore, does not play a major role in
Theodoret’s Christology, but its use in this passage indicates
that he does not divide Jesus Christ into two sons. Since the
term “subsistent entity” can be helpful, therefore, one may le-
gitimately ask why Theodoret almost always uses the word “per-
son” instead. The original sense of the Greek word for person
was “mask,” i.e., the mask worn by actors in classical Greek
tragedy and comedy; this mask provided clues to the nature of
the character in the play. As the sense of the word developed
into that of “person,” it maintained its connection with face
and facial characteristics as revealing the inner being of the in-
dividual wearing the mask. The tradition that flowed from
Theodore to Theodoret preserved a serious concern for the
humanity of the incarnate Word. Since the divinity of the Word,
as God, was not seen, it was, for them, the human individual Je-
sus of Nazareth who revealed the Word and the Incarnation.
This may explain why Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret pre-
ferred to use “person,” with its phenomenological overtones,
rather than the philosophical and abstract “subsistent entity.”
Their desire was not to destroy the unity of person, but to pene-
trate and to understand the mystery of that unity through the
visible person who revealed it.
In the passage just analyzed Theodoret’s use of “subsistent
entity” resembles Cyril’s “one subsistent entity of the divine
Word made flesh”; but it is an isolated usage and expresses the
results of scriptural exegesis and typology rather than philo-
sophical analysis. This is typical of Theodoret’s attitude toward
philosophical issues and concepts, and it indicates that he can-
not be taken too seriously as a philosopher. This does not mean
that Theodoret was not intelligent and a scholar; on the con-
INTRODUCTION 21
trary, his extant writings, most of which deal with history or

scriptural commentary, are the works of a highly competent his-
torian and exegete. Theodoret knew how to research and to
use earlier sources, and he produced original works in both of
these areas.52 In the Eranistes the patristic anthologies and the
extensive use of Scripture for argumentation are witnesses to
Theodoret’s ability in these areas. In the final analysis, then, his
methodology derives from his skill, not as a philosopher, but as
an exegete and a historian.
c. Typology
An important element of Theodoret’s exegesis of Scripture

is typology, and a brief discussion of the Greek terms and their
translations should simplify the understanding of its usage in
the dialogues. The Greek words will always be translated as indi-
cated here when they appear in the context of typology. The
key word is “type” (tuvpo"),53 which is a person or thing that rep-
resents, or refers to the original (ajrcevtupo") or the reality (ajl-
hvqeia); “image” (ei[kwn) is generally used as a synonym for
“type.” Chronologically, the type usually exists prior to the origi-
nal in real time; for example, in Dialogue Two Moses, as a me-
diator, is a type of Christ, who is the reality or the original.
Theodoret stresses that the type does not have to be identical
with the original in every characteristic (carakthvr) or shape
(ei\do"); thus imperial images are truly images of the emperor,
even though the emperor is alive and they are not, and Moses
can be a type or image of Christ, even though Christ was divine,
but Moses was not.
52. For confirmation of Theodoret’s competence in history and Scripture,

see Ettlinger, Eranistes, pp. 23–30 and Jean Guinot, L’Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr
(Editions Beauchesne: Paris, 1995), passim.
53. The word “type” also appears in this book outside the context of typolo-
gy; in such cases it does not refer to tuvpo", but simply indicates that its referent
belongs to a certain class or group.
22 INTRODUCTION
6. Aspects of the Translation

The last previous translation of the Eranistes into English was
published in 1892, according to the translator’s preface, under
the title Dialogues in the series called The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers.54 That version was based on the Greek text in PG
83.27–336, which, like many of Migne’s texts, was drawn from a
minimum number of original manuscripts and printed with
more than a few errors. This book offers a translation of the
critical edition of the Greek text found in Ettlinger, Eranistes.
Numbers in square brackets in the translation indicate the page
numbers in this critical edition. It should be noted that the
Greek text translated here is not in the original form left by
Theodoret, since selections from Pope Leo’s Tome were insert-
ed into the anthology appended to the second dialogue some-
time after the council of Chalcedon (451) by an unknown edi-
tor or scribe.55 Notes in the anthologies clearly identify the
items taken from the Tome.
Since the body of the Eranistes consists of dialogues, the
translation employs certain elements of colloquial English to
reflect that literary form and present a fluid, unstilted conversa-
tion: Thus contractions, such as “don’t,” are often used in con-
versation, and questions will often be answered in a phrase
without a finite verb, e.g., Question: How can you do this? An-
swer: By doing that. In narrative texts that interrupt the conver-
sation and in the anthologies colloquialisms have been avoided.
Theodoret’s Greek text of the New Testament does not al-
ways agree with that of modern critical editions; for the Hebrew
Bible he used the Septuagint (LXX) version, which frequently
differs from the original Hebrew. Furthermore, he sometimes
adapts the original text to bolster his argument. For the English
translation, therefore, the NRSV text found in the OAB has
54. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (1892; reprinted, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrick-
son, 1995), 2d series, vol. 3, pp. 160–249.
55. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, pp. 26–30 for a reference to the edition of the
Tome and an analysis of the insertion.
INTRODUCTION 23
been used as a standard of comparison, although many of

Theodoret’s citations have been translated anew from his
Greek version. Scripture texts are located by citing chapter and
verse of the OAB; where a LXX text differs from that in the
OAB, the OAB enumeration will be cited, followed by the LXX
reference (marked LXX) in parentheses.
Acknowledgements
It has taken many years to bring this translation to the light
of day, and I wish to express my gratitude to St. John’s Universi-
ty and especially to the Rev. David M. O’Connell, C.M., who, as
Dean of St. John’s College, appointed me to the Rev. John A.
Flynn Chair in Theology, an honor that gave me the time to
complete my work. The support I received from my faculty col-
leagues, the staff, and the administration at St. John’s were a
major factor in my success.
I also wish to thank the administration of The Catholic Uni-
versity of America Press and the editors of the Fathers of the
Church series for their patience with me over the years, when it
seemed as though this work might never end. Special gratitude
is due to Staff Editor Joel Kalvesmaki, whose painstaking and
careful editing of my manuscript is responsible for the excel-
lent condition of the final product. I take full responsibility for
any errors that may still remain.
I am especially grateful to Nigel G. Wilson. Without his dedi-
cated guidance and labor the Greek text would never have
been completed; he has remained a good friend and colleague,
and has never hesitated to answer a question or offer a sugges-
tion—always wisely and to the point.
I also wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the Revd. Dr. Sir
Henry Chadwick, who brought my Greek text to the attention
of The Clarendon Press and who offered me encouragement
during my years at Oxford and ever since.
ERANISTES OR
THE POLYMORPH
BY THE BLESSED THEODORET,
BISHOP OF CYRUS
PROLOGUE
h e r e a r e p e o p l e who do not achieve fame or glory

through their ancestry, education, or personal success,
and therefore strive to become well known by doing
evil. Alexander the coppersmith, for example, was a man of no
distinction, from a family that was not illustrious; he was not a
skilled orator, politician, military leader, or courageous warrior.
He did nothing but practice his common trade; he only be-
came famous because of his rage against the most divine Paul.1
Then there was Shimei, an absolutely insignificant and coarse
man, who gained the greatest renown through his arrogant be-
havior toward the divinely inspired David.2 The founder of the
Manichaean heresy was reputedly a mere slave who devised that
abominable cult because he longed for glory.3
And even today certain people act like this; because of the
effort involved they shunned the praise and glory that comes
from virtue and procured for themselves the most disgusting
and shameful notoriety. In their eagerness to champion new
teachings they collected4 the evil from many heresies and com-
posed this destructive heresy of theirs.5 But I shall try to have a
brief discussion with them, in order to cure them and to show
concern for those who are healthy.6
1. 2 Tm 4.14.
2. 2 Sm 16.5–8.
3. Theodoret calls him Manes in HFC 1.26 (PG 83.377–82).
4. Here Theodoret begins a play on words, reflected in the title of the work
and based on the eponymous character in the dialogue and the manner in
which the heretics developed their teaching. See Introduction, pp. 2–3.
5. Theodoret never actually names the heresy or its teachers. See Introduc-
tion, p. 7.
6. Theodoret frequently employs images of health, sickness, and cure, espe-
cially when speaking of orthodox and heretical teaching. See also his treatise
on the healing of pagan diseases (Therapeutique, passim).
27
28 THEODORET OF CYRUS
The title of my book is Eranistes or the Polymorph,7 because

they produce their own complex and polymorphous doctrine
by collecting the wicked teachings of many evil men. The asser-
tion that Christ the Lord is only God comes from Simon,8 Cer-
don, Marcion,9 and the other members of this foul group. Con-
fessing the virgin birth while saying that it was only a transitory
passage and that God the Word took nothing from the virgin
was stolen from the absurd stories of Valentinus,10 Bardesanes,11
and their followers. [62]12 The designation of the divinity and
the humanity of Christ the Lord as one nature they pilfered
from the ravings of Apollinarius.13 And they robbed from the
blasphemy of Arius14 and Eunomius15 the attribution of the pas-
sion to the divinity of Christ the Lord.16 As a result, this heresy
resembles clothing crudely stitched together by beggars from
scraps of cloth; that is why I call this book Eranistes or the Poly-
morph.
The discussion itself will proceed in the form of a dialogue,
with questions, answers, problems, solutions, objections, and all
the other characteristics of the dialogue form. But I shall not
insert the names of the questioners and respondents in the
body of the text, as the ancient Greek philosophers did; I shall
7. For a discussion of the meaning and significance of these words see Intro-
duction, pp. 2–3.
8. Simon is the Simon Magus of HFC 1.1 (PG 83.341–46).
9. Cerdon and Marcion are discussed together in HFC 1.24 (PG 83.371–
76).
10. HFC 1.7 (PG 83.353–58).
11. HFC 1.22 (PG 83.371–72).
12. Numbers in square brackets in the translation indicate the page num-
bers in the critical edition, Ettlinger, Eranistes.
13. HFC 4.8 (PG 83.425–28). 14. HFC 4.1 (PG 83.411–16).
15. HFC 4.3 (PG 83.417–22).
16. HFC is a history of heresy that Theodoret composed some years after the
Eranistes. It consists of four “books that classify heretics and heresies, and a fifth
that offers a summary of true Christian doctrine.” Theodoret here refers to
heretics named in books 1–2 and 4, but the teachings he ascribes to them do
not always agree with those mentioned in HFC. Both works start with Simon
(Magus) and Manes, but HFC ends with Nestorius (a possibly spurious chapter)
and Eutyches, neither of whom is named in the Eranistes, which ends with Apol-
linarius, Arius, and Eunomius. A more detailed analysis and comparison of the
two works will be possible when a critical edition of HFC becomes available.
PROLOGUE 29
write them instead in the margin, at the beginning of each new

segment of conversation. I am doing this because, unlike the
Greeks who offered their books to a well-educated audience for
whom life consisted in discussion, I want this work to be easily
intelligible and profitable for readers unacquainted with verbal
disputation. And this will be the case if the identity of the per-
sons17 speaking is clear because their names are written in the
margin. “Orthodox” is the name of the one who defends apos-
tolic teachings, while the other is called “Eranistes.” We usually
call someone who is sustained by many people’s pity a beggar,
and one who is versed in business a businessman; in the same
way here we have made up a name for this character derived
from a way of acting. And I ask readers to judge the truth with-
out preconceptions.
Out of concern for clarity we have divided the book into
three dialogues. The first will contend that the divinity of the
only begotten Son is immutable. The second will show, with
God’s help, that the union18 of Christ the Lord’s divinity and
humanity involved no mixture. The third dialogue will fight for
the impassibility of our savior’s divinity. After the three dialecti-
cal contests we shall add, to further the controversy, certain oth-
er statements, and we shall adapt the argumentation to each
main topic and shall show clearly that we preserve the preach-
ing of the apostles.
17. The Greek word provswpon, which here refers to literary creations, will
be translated throughout this edition as “person.”
18. The Greek word e{nwsi" will be translated throughout as “union”; the
word sunavfeia will be translated as “a joining (together).”
I M M U TA B L E
DIALOGUE ONE
r t h o d ox . It would have been better for us to agree

and preserve the apostolic teaching in its integrity. But
since you have for some reason destroyed harmony
and are now offering us worthless doctrines, let us please
search for the truth together without quarreling.
Eranistes. We do not need a search, for we clearly possess the
truth.
Orthodox. Every heretic has assumed this. Why, even the Jews
and the Greeks think that they are defending doctrines of
truth, and this includes, not only the devotees of Plato and
Pythagoras, but also the followers of Epicurus, outright atheists,
and agnostics. We should not, however, be slaves of preconcep-
tion, but should rather seek true knowledge.
Eranistes. I yield to your recommendation and accept your
proposal.
Orthodox. In that case, since you willingly accepted my first
request, I also beg you not to entrust the search for truth to hu-
man arguments, but to look instead for the tracks of the apos-
tles, the prophets, and the holy people who followed them. For
this is what travelers like to do when they go off the main road;
they examine the paths carefully and look for footprints that
show the comings and goings of people, horses, donkeys, or
mules. And when they find some, they track them, like dogs,
and do not stop until they recover the right road.
Eranistes. Let’s do this. You lead the way, therefore, since you
started the discussion.
Orthodox. Let us begin, then, with a thorough examination of
terms about God, namely, substance, subsistent entities, per-
sons, and properties; let us get to know them and distinguish
them from one another, and then let us continue from there.
30
I M M U TA B L E : D I A L O G U E O N E 31
Eranistes. You have provided our dialogue with a most elo-

quent and indispensable introduction. For when these matters
have been clarified, the discussion will proceed more smoothly.
Orthodox. Well then, since we agree and have decided upon
this procedure, answer this question, [64] my friend. Do we say
that there is one substance of God—the Father, the only begot-
ten Son, and the all-Holy Spirit—as we were taught by divine
Scripture, both old and new, and by the fathers who were gath-
ered at Nicaea, or do we follow the blasphemies of Arius?
Eranistes. We confess one substance of the Holy Trinity.
Orthodox. Do we think that subsistent entity means some-
thing other than substance, or do we consider it a synonym for
substance?
Eranistes. Does substance somehow differ from subsistent en-
tity?
Orthodox. Not according to secular wisdom, where substance
means “that which is,” while subsistent entity means “that which
exists.” But according to the teaching of the fathers, substance
differs from subsistent entity as the common differs from the
proper, or as the genus differs from the species or the individ-
ual.
Eranistes. Clarify genus, species, and individual.
Orthodox. We call “living being”1 a genus, since it points to
many things under the same aspect; for it refers to both the ra-
tional and the irrational. There are in turn many species of ir-
rational things, such as winged, amphibious, land, and water
animals. And each of these species has many subdivisions;
among those that go on land are the lion, the leopard, the bull,
and countless others. There are also many species of both the
winged type and the others; but nevertheless they all belong to
the genus of “living being” and their species are the ones just
named.
In the same way the name “human being”2 is a name com-
mon to this nature, for it refers to the Roman, the Athenian,
the Persian, the Sauromatian, the Egyptian, and, in brief, all
who share this nature. The name Paul or Peter, however, no
1. To; zwò/ n.
2. To; a[nqrwpo".
longer signifies what is common to the nature, but rather the

individual human being. For no one who heard the name Paul
would wander off in thought to Adam, Abraham, or Jacob, but
would think only of this person whose personal name he heard.
When we simply hear “human being,” however, we do not di-
rect our thought to the individual, but understand rather the
Indian, the Scythian, the Massagete, and the whole human
race3 in general.
And we learn this not only from nature, but from divine [65]
Scripture as well; for it says, “God said, ‘I shall wipe out from
the face of the earth the human being whom I have formed.’”4
God said this concerning countless multitudes, since it was
more than 2200 years after Adam that God totally destroyed
human beings through the flood.5 And blessed David speaks in
the same way: “A human being who is honored has not under-
stood”;6 he is not accusing one individual or another, but all hu-
man beings in general. We could find many other examples,
but we must not speak too long.
Eranistes. The difference between the common and the prop-
er has been clearly defined. But let us return to the discussion
of substance and subsistent entity.
Orthodox. Well, just as the term “human being” is a common
name of this nature, we say in the same way that the divine sub-
stance signifies the Holy Trinity, while the subsistent entity de-
notes a person, such as the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
For we follow the limits set down by the holy fathers and say that
subsistent entity, person, and property all signify the same thing.7
3. The word “race” here translates gevno", which Theodoret used above in
the sense of a genus as opposed to a species. This paragraph shows, however,
that he does not mean to say that “human being” is a genus and nationalities
are species; the meaning of gevno" varies according to context, so that “human
race” actually refers to the human race as a species of “living being.”
4. Gn 6.7.
5. See Gn 5–7.
6. See Ps 49.20 (LXX 48.21). Theodoret normally quotes the Old Testa-
ment according to the Greek Septuagint text (= LXX), which often differs sig-
nificantly from the Hebrew; in citations where they differ, references to both
texts will be clearly indicated.
7. See Introduction, p. 16.
Eranistes. We agree that this is true.8

Orthodox. So terms that are predicated of the divine nature,
such as “God,” “Lord,” “creator,” “ruler of all,” and others like
them, are therefore common to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.
Eranistes. They are certainly common to the Trinity.
Orthodox. Words that denote the subsistent entities, however,
are no longer common to the Holy Trinity, but belong only to
that subsistent entity whose properties they are. For example,
the words “Father” and “unbegotten” are proper to the Father,
and the terms “Son,” “only begotten,” and “God the Word” do
not refer to the Father or the Holy Spirit, but to the Son. And
“Holy Spirit” and “Paraclete” denote the subsistent entity of the
Spirit.
Eranistes. But doesn’t divine Scripture call both the Father
and the Son spirit?9
Orthodox. It called the Father and the Son spirit in order to
show that the divine nature is incorporeal [66] and unlimited;
but it calls only the subsistent entity of the Spirit Holy Spirit.
Eranistes. This too is beyond question.
Orthodox. Since we say, then, that certain qualities are com-
mon to the Holy Trinity, while others are proper to each subsis-
tent entity, do we say that the term “immutability” is common
to the substance, or proper to a certain subsistent entity?
Eranistes. The term “immutable” is common to the Trinity,
because it is impossible for one part of the substance to be mu-
table, while another part is immutable.
Orthodox. Well said. For just as mortality is common to hu-
man beings, so immutability and unchangeability are common
to the Holy Trinity. The only begotten Son is, therefore, im-
mutable, as are the Father who begot him, and the Holy Spirit.
Eranistes. The Son is immutable.
Orthodox. Then why do you attribute change to the im-
8. If these dialogues are directed against Cyril, his followers, Eutyches, or ac-
tual monophysites, it is strange that Eranistes agrees that uJpovstasi" means the
same as provswpon.
9. See Jn 4.24 and 2 Cor 3.17.
mutable nature by introducing that Gospel text, “The Word be-

came flesh”?10
Eranistes. We say that the Word became flesh, not by chang-
ing, but in a manner he himself knows.
Orthodox. If you say that the Word became flesh but did not
assume11 flesh, then you must choose one of two conclusions:
Either the Word underwent a change into flesh, or was seen
this way in appearance, but in actual reality was God without
flesh.12
Eranistes. This is the opinion of the Valentinians, the Mar-
cionites, and the Manichaeans. We were taught clearly that God
the Word was made flesh.13
Orthodox. How do you understand “was made flesh”? The as-
sumption of flesh or a change into flesh?
Eranistes. It means what we heard from the evangelist, who
says, “The Word became flesh.”14
Orthodox. How do you understand this word “became”? Do
you mean that the Word became flesh by undergoing a change
into flesh?
[67] Eranistes. I already said that he knows, and we know that
all things are possible for him.15 For he changed the Nile’s wa-
ter into blood and day into night, presented the sea as dry land,
and filled the arid desert with water.16 And we also hear the
prophet say, “All that the Lord wished, he did, in heaven and
on earth.”17
10. Jn 1.14a.
11. Theologians in the Antiochene Christological tradition to which
Theodoret belonged often used “assume” (lambavnw or one of its compounds,
also rendered “take” in this translation) to express the relationship between the
divine Word and his human reality. Theodoret speaks of the assumption of
flesh, but does not employ the more problematic phrase “the assumption of a
human being,” which was used by, e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia.
12. Theodoret knew that no Christian would say that the Word actually
changed into flesh. The alternative that he leaves his opponents, if they reject
his language about the Word’s assuming flesh, is pure docetism.
13. “Was made flesh” translates the verb sarkovw, which basically means the
same as oJ lovgo" sa;rx ejgevneto in Jn 1.14; in a polemical context, however,
Theodoret says that it implies a change into flesh.
14. Jn 1.14a. 15. See Mt 19.26 and Mk 10.27.
16. See Ex 7.20–24; 10.21–23; 14.21–22; 17.1–7.
17. Ps 135.6 (LXX 134.6).
Orthodox. The creator transforms creation as he wishes, be-

cause creation is mutable and obeys the commands of the cre-
ator. But the creator has an immutable and unchangeable na-
ture. That is why the prophet says about creation, “The one
who makes all things and transforms them.”18 And mighty
David says about God the Word, “You are the same, and your
years will not fail.”19 And it was God who says about himself, “I
am and I have not been changed.”20
Eranistes. It is wrong to investigate things that have been con-
cealed.
Orthodox. And [it is also wrong]21 to be totally ignorant of
things that have been revealed.
Eranistes. I do not know how the Incarnation22 took place;
but I did hear that “The Word became flesh.”23
Orthodox. If the Word became flesh by changing, he did not
remain what he was before. And it is easy to learn this from
many examples. When a certain type of sand comes into con-
tact with fire, it first liquefies and then is hardened into glass;
and it alters its name with the change, since it is no longer
called sand, but glass.
Eranistes. That is true.
Orthodox. And we call the fruit of the vine a grape; but when
we press it out, we call it wine, not a grape.
Eranistes. Correct.
Orthodox. And when the wine has turned sour, we usually call
it vinegar, not wine.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And when we have refined and dissolved stone, we
no longer call it stone, but lime or gypsum. We could find thou-
sands of things like these, which alter their names when they
change.
[68] Eranistes. I agree.
18. Am 5.8 (LXX). 19. Ps 102.27 (LXX 101.28).

20. Mal 3.6.
21. In the translation square brackets will be used to enclose text that is not
in the Greek, but is needed to complete the sense.
22. Savrkwsi".
23. Jn 1.14a.
Orthodox. If you say, then, that God the Word underwent a

change into flesh, please tell me why you call [the Word] God,
but not flesh? For the change of name is in harmony with the
modification of the nature. If things that have undergone a
change have some relationship with their previous state—for
vinegar is somehow close to wine, as is wine to the fruit of the
vine, and glass to sand—then they share in the other name af-
ter the change. But when the difference is infinite and as great
as that between a gnat and all visible and invisible creation—for
the difference between flesh and divinity is so great, and in fact
even much greater than that—how can the former name re-
main after the change?
Eranistes. I have often said that the Word did not become
flesh by undergoing a change, but that, remaining what it was,
became what it was not.
Orthodox. But if this word “became” is not clarified, it sug-
gests change and alteration. For if the Word became flesh, but
did not take flesh, then he became flesh by undergoing a
change.
Eranistes. This word “take” is your invention, for the evangel-
ist says, “The Word became flesh.”24
Orthodox. It seems you are either ignorant of divine Scrip-
ture, or familiar with it, but malicious. So I shall teach you, if
you are ignorant, or refute you, if you are malicious. Answer
this, therefore. Do you admit that the divine Paul’s teaching is
spiritual?
Eranistes. Of course.
Orthodox. And do you say that the same Spirit worked
through the evangelists and through the apostles?
Eranistes. I do. For I was taught this by the Apostle’s words;
for he says, “There are different gifts, but the same Spirit,”25
and, “One and the same Spirit works all these things, dispens-
ing individually to each one as [the Spirit] wishes.”26 He also
says, “Having the same Spirit of faith.”27
Orthodox. You introduced the apostolic testimony at the per-
24. Ibid. 25. 1 Cor 12.4.

26. 1 Cor 12.11. 27. 2 Cor 4.13.
fect moment. If [69] we say, therefore, that the teachings of the

evangelists and of the apostles come from the same Spirit, listen
to the Apostle as he interprets the Gospel passage. For in his
letter to the Hebrews he says, “For surely he does not take hold
of the angels, but takes hold of the seed of Abraham.”28 He did
not say, he became the seed of Abraham, but “he takes hold of
the seed of Abraham.” Tell me, then, what do you understand
by the seed of Abraham?
Eranistes. It obviously refers to Abraham’s nature.
Orthodox. Did the seed of Abraham, then, also have every-
thing that Abraham had by nature?
Eranistes. It did not have everything, for Christ did not sin.
Orthodox. Sin does not flow from nature, but from evil free
will. That is why I did not simply say, “what Abraham had,” but
rather, “what he had by nature,” namely, a body and a rational
soul. Tell me clearly, therefore, if you admit that the seed of
Abraham is both a body and a rational soul. If you do not, then
you agree in this matter with the babblings of Apollinarius. But
I am going to force you to admit this in another way. Tell me,
then, do the Jews have a body and a rational soul?
Eranistes. Of course they do.
Orthodox. Then when we hear the prophet say, “You, Israel
my child, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham, whom I
have loved,”29 we don’t think, do we, that the Jews are only flesh
and not complete human beings composed of bodies and ra-
tional souls?
Eranistes. That’s true.
Orthodox. And [don’t we think] that the seed of Abraham is
not without a soul and not without a mind, but that it possesses
everything that belongs to Abraham’s nature?
Eranistes. Whoever says this advocates two sons.
Orthodox. And whoever says that God the Word underwent a
28. Heb 2.16. The NRSV translates the verb ejpilambavnetai as “came to
help,” which better expresses the theological sense of the text. The translation
given here (which is the basic meaning of the verb) expresses the sense
Theodoret seeks, because he is trying to show that the Word took hold of, or as-
sumed, the flesh.
29. Is 41.8.
change into flesh does not even maintain one son, for flesh in
and by itself is not a son. But we confess one Son, who, accord-
ing to the divine Apostle,30 took hold of the seed of Abraham
and brought about the salvation of human beings. If you are
not satisfied with the apostolic teaching, admit it openly.
[70] Eranistes. We say that the apostles made conflicting
statements; for “The Word became flesh” somehow seems to
contradict “He took hold of the seed of Abraham.”31
Orthodox. Harmonious statements seem contradictory to you,
because either you lack understanding or you enjoy useless
controversy. For those who argue thoughtfully see no conflict
here, because the divine Apostle teaches that God the Word be-
came flesh, not by undergoing a change, but by taking hold of
the seed of Abraham. At the same time he also recalls the
promises made to Abraham. Or are you forgetting the promises
that were made to the patriarch by the God of the universe?
Eranistes. Which promises?
Orthodox. When God led him from his ancestral home and
ordered him to go to Palestine, didn’t God say to him, “I shall
bless those who bless you, and I shall curse those who curse
you; and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in your
seed”?32
Eranistes. I remember these promises.
Orthodox. Then remember also the covenants God made with
Isaac and Jacob. For God also made the same promises to them,
confirming the original ones with the second and the third.33
Eranistes. I remember these too.
Orthodox. The divine Apostle is interpreting these covenants
when he says, in the letter to the Galatians, “The promises were
spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘and to his
seeds,’ as though referring to many, but, as though referring to
one, ‘and to his seed,’ who is Christ.”34 So he shows quite clearly
that the humanity of Christ sprang from Abraham’s seed and
fulfilled the promise made to Abraham.
30. See Heb 2.16. 31. Jn 1.14a and Heb 2.16.

32. Gn 12.3. 33. See Gn 26.3–4 and 28.13–15.
34. Gal 3.16.
Eranistes. This is what the Apostle said.

Orthodox. And this is enough to resolve every controversy
that arises over this question. But I shall remind you of still an-
other prophecy. The patriarch Jacob gave to his son Judah
alone this blessing, which had been given to him, to his father,
and to his grandfather. [71] He said this: “A ruler shall not fail
from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes for
whom it has been reserved, and he is the expectation of the na-
tions.”35 Or don’t you accept this prophecy as spoken about
Christ the savior?
Eranistes. Jews misinterpret prophecies like this one. But I am
a Christian who believes God’s words and accepts the prophe-
cies about our savior without hesitation.
Orthodox. Since you confess, therefore, that you believe the
prophecies, and since you say that the preceding quotation was
a prophecy about our savior, consider now the significance of
the Apostle’s words. For while he was revealing that the promis-
es made to the patriarchs were fulfilled, he added these re-
markable words, “For he does not take hold of angels”;36 with
this he all but says, “The promise is true, the Lord has fulfilled
the promises, the source of blessing has been opened to the
gentiles, God the Word has taken hold of Abraham’s seed,
through it accomplishes the salvation promised long ago,
through it confirms the expectation of the gentiles.”
Eranistes. The prophecies have been put in excellent harmo-
ny with the apostolic words.
Orthodox. In this way the divine Apostle also reminds us of
the blessing of Judah and shows that it too was fulfilled, when
he says, “For it is clear that the Lord descended from Judah.”37
Both the prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew did the
very same thing; for the former spoke the prophecy, while the
latter wrote the testimony in his narrative. And it is astounding
that he said that the most obvious enemies of the truth clearly
told Herod that Christ is born in Bethlehem. “For it has been
written,” he says, “‘And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by
35. Gn 49.10. 36. Heb 2.16.

37. Heb 7.14.
no means least among the rulers of Judah. For from you will
come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.’”38 But let us
also add what Jews maliciously omitted by introducing incom-
plete testimony.39 For after the prophet said, “For from you
shall come a leader,” he added, “And his goings out are from
the beginning, from the days of eternity.”40
[72] Eranistes. You were quite right to quote the complete
testimony of the prophet, for it shows that God was born in
Bethlehem.
Orthodox. Not only God, but also a human being [was born
in Bethlehem]—a human being because he sprang from Judah
according to the flesh and was born in Bethlehem, and God,
because he exists from eternity. For the words “from you shall
come a leader” refer to the birth according to the flesh, which
took place in the last days; but the phrase “his goings out are
from the beginning, from the days of eternity” clearly pro-
claims eternal existence. And so when the divine Apostle was
grieving in the letter to the Romans that the former good for-
tune of the Jews had changed for the worse, he also recalled the
divine promise and the divine law and added this: “To them be-
long the patriarchs, and from them comes the Christ according
to the flesh, the one who is over all things, God blessed for ever
and ever. Amen.”41 At one and the same time he shows that he
was creator, Lord, and ruler of all as God, and that he sprang
from Jews as a human being.
Eranistes. There is your interpretation of this. What would
you say about the prophecy of Jeremiah,42 for it proclaims that
he is only God?
Orthodox. Which prophecy do you mean?
Eranistes. “This is our God, no other will be considered like
him; he has discovered every way of knowledge and has given it
38. Mt 2.5–6; see Mi 5.2 (LXX 5.1).

39. This refers to the chief priests and scribes assembled by Herod in Mt
2.4.
40. Mi 5.2 (LXX 5.1).
41. Rom 9.5.
42. The prophecy attributed here to Jeremiah is actually from the apoc-
ryphal writing of Baruch.
to Jacob his son and to Israel his beloved. After this he was seen
on the earth and lived together with human beings.”43 Here the
prophet prophesied, not about flesh, or humanity, or a human
being, but about God alone. So why do we need philosophical
arguments?
Orthodox. Do we say that the divine nature is invisible, or
don’t we believe the Apostle, who says, “To the immortal, invisi-
ble, only God”?44
Eranistes. The divine nature is definitely invisible.
Orthodox. Then tell me how the invisible nature can be seen
without a body? Or don’t you remember those words of the
Apostle that clearly teach that the divine nature is invisible? He
says, “Whom no human being has seen or can see.”45 If it is im-
possible, therefore, for human beings, and I would say even for
angels, to see the divine nature, tell me how the unseen and in-
visible one was seen on the earth.
[73] Eranistes. The prophet said that he was seen on the
earth.46
Orthodox. And the Apostle said, “To the immortal, invisible,
only God,”47 and, “Whom no human being has seen or can
see.”48
Eranistes. What follows, then? Is the prophet lying?
Orthodox. Absolutely not, because both statements came
from the divine Spirit. Let’s investigate, therefore, [to find out]
how the invisible one was seen.
Eranistes. Don’t offer me human rationalizations or philo-
sophical arguments, for I rely on divine Scripture alone.
Orthodox. You should accept no argument that is not fully
supported by scriptural testimony.
Eranistes. If you could provide a resolution of the dispute
from divine Scripture, I’ll accept it without argument or contra-
diction.
Orthodox. You know that a moment ago we clarified the evan-
gelist’s statement through the Apostle’s testimony, and the di-
43. Bar 3.35–37 (LXX 3.36–38). 44. 1 Tm 1.17.

45. 1 Tm 6.16b. 46. See Bar 3.37 (LXX 3.38).
47. 1 Tm 1.17. 48. 1 Tm 6.16b.
vine Apostle showed us how “the Word became flesh” when he

said explicitly, “For he does not take hold of the angels, but
takes hold of the seed of Abraham.”49 The same teacher, there-
fore, will also explain to us now how God the Word “was seen
on earth and lived among human beings.”50
Eranistes. I believe the words of both the apostles and the
prophets. Interpret the prophecy, therefore, as you promised.
Orthodox. In his letter to Timothy the divine Apostle also said
this: “The mystery of religion is admittedly a great one; God was
made manifest in flesh, was vindicated in Spirit, was seen by an-
gels, was proclaimed among gentiles, was believed in through-
out the world, was assumed in glory.”51 It is clear, therefore, that
the divine nature is invisible, but the flesh is visible, and the in-
visible was seen through the visible, worked miracles through it,
and revealed its own power. For with his hand he caused the
sense of sight and healed the man who was blind from birth.52
In the same way he gave the power of hearing back to the deaf
man and untied the tongue that had been bound, using his
fingers instead of an instrument and applying spittle as a kind
of medicine to drive away evil.53 He also showed that the divini-
ty was all-powerful by walking on the sea.54 [74] It was, there-
fore, right for the Apostle to say, “who was made manifest in
flesh.”55 For through the flesh the invisible nature was revealed
and through the flesh companies of angels saw it. For he says,
“he was seen by angels.”56 The nature of incorporeal beings,
therefore, shared this gift with us.
Eranistes. Then the angels did not see God before the savior
appeared?
Orthodox. The Apostle said that he was made manifest in the
flesh and was seen by angels.
Eranistes. But the Lord said, “See that you do not scorn one
of the least of these little ones; for I tell you truly that their an-
gels daily see the face of your Father who is in heaven.”57
49. Jn 1.14a and Heb 2.16. 50. Bar 3.37 (LXX 3.38).
51. 1 Tm 3.16. 52. See Jn 9.1–7.
53. See Mk 7.32–35. 54. See Mt 14.25.
55. 1 Tm 3.16. 56. Ibid.
57. Mt 18.10.
Orthodox. But the Lord also said, “Not that anyone has seen
the Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Fa-
ther.”58 That is why the evangelist cries out clearly, “No one has
ever seen God”;59 and he confirms what the Lord said, for he
says, “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Fa-
ther, has related it.”60 And the great Moses, who longed to see
the invisible nature, heard the Lord God himself say, “No one
will see my face and live.”61
Eranistes. How, then, are we to understand, “Their angels dai-
ly see the face of your Father”?62
Orthodox. In the same way that we usually understand what is
said about people who were thought to have seen God.
Eranistes. Speak more clearly, for I don’t understand.
Orthodox. Can God be seen by human beings?
Eranistes. Absolutely not.
Orthodox. But nevertheless we hear divine Scripture say, “God
was seen by Abraham near the oak tree at Mamre”;63 and we
hear Isaiah say, “I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted
throne.”64 [75] And Micah says this very same thing,65 as do
Daniel and Ezekiel.66 And the narrative about Moses the lawgiv-
er says that, “The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one
would speak to his friend.”67 And the God of the universe him-
self said, “I shall speak with him face to face, clearly, and not in
riddles.”68 What shall we say, then? That they saw the divine na-
ture?
Eranistes. Absolutely not. For God himself said, “No one will
see my face and live.”69
Orthodox. Are those who said that they saw God lying, then?
Eranistes. Certainly not. They saw what they were able to see.
Orthodox. So does the Lord who loves us adapt revelations to
the capability of those who see?
58. Jn 6.46. 59. Jn 1.18.

60. Ibid. 61. Ex 33.20.
62. Mt 18.10. 63. Gn 18.1.
64. Is 6.1.
65. See Mi 1.1, where the prophet says that he saw the words of the Lord.
66. Dn 10.4–8 and Ezek 1.1. 67. Ex 33.11.
68. Nm 12.8. 69. Ex 33.20.
Eranistes. Definitely.
Orthodox. And God made this clear through the prophet; for
he said, “I multiplied visions and became a likeness in the
hands of prophets.”70 He did not say, “I was seen,” but “I be-
came a likeness.” The likeness does not reveal the actual nature
of the one who is seen. For the emperor’s image does not re-
veal the nature of the emperor himself, even if it preserves the
emperor’s visible features.
Eranistes. This is vague and unclear.
Orthodox. The people who saw those revelations did not see
God’s substance, did they?
Eranistes. Who would be so insane as to dare to say that?
Orthodox. And yet it was said that they saw.
Eranistes. It was.
Orthodox. So when we use religious arguments and rely on di-
vine denials that explicitly state that “No one has ever seen
God,”71 we are saying that they have seen, not the divine nature,
but certain visions adapted to their capability.
Eranistes. That is what we say.
Orthodox. Let us think about the angels in the same way,
then, when we hear, “They see the face of your Father daily.”72
For they do not [76] see the divine substance, which is infinite,
unlimited, incomprehensible, and embraces all things, but
rather a certain glory that is adapted to their own nature.
Eranistes. I’ve admitted that this is correct.
Orthodox. After becoming human, however, he is also seen by
angels, according to the divine Apostle, not in a likeness of glo-
ry, but using the true and living cloak of flesh as though it were
a veil. For he says, “Who was made manifest in flesh, was vindi-
cated in spirit, was seen by the angels.”73
Eranistes. I accepted this as scriptural; but I do not accept
newly invented words.
Orthodox. What word have we invented?
Eranistes. The word “veil.” What Scripture text called the
Lord’s flesh a veil?
70. Hos 12.10 (LXX 12.11). 71. Jn 1.18.

72. Mt 18.10. 73. 1 Tm 3.16.
Orthodox. You have apparently not read divine Scripture very

carefully, because, if you had, you would not have found fault
with the image I used. For in the first place, the divine Apostle’s
statement that the invisible nature was made manifest through
flesh allows us to understand the flesh as a veil of the divinity.74
Second, the divine Apostle clearly used the word in the letter to
the Hebrews. So he says, “Having freedom, therefore, brethren,
to enter the temple through the blood of Jesus, through a new
and living way that he inaugurated for us, through the veil, i.e.,
his flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, let us
approach with a true heart in the full assurance of faith,”75 and
so on.
Eranistes. The argument is undeniable, since it has been con-
firmed by apostolic testimony.
Orthodox. Then don’t accuse us of invention. For we shall
also provide you with other testimony, from the prophets,
which clearly calls the Lord’s flesh a robe and a garment.
Eranistes. If it seems obscure and ambiguous, we shall reject
it; but if it’s clear, we shall welcome it with gratitude.
[77] Orthodox. I shall make you testify yourself to the truth of
the promise. Do you know that, when the patriarch Jacob
blessed Judah, he determined Judah’s power over the Lord’s
children? For he said, “A ruler will not fail from Judah, nor a
leader from his thighs, until he comes for whom it is reserved,
and he is the expectation of the nations.”76 You admitted before
that this prophecy was spoken about our savior.77
Eranistes. I did.
Orthodox. Remember what follows, then, for he goes on to
say, “Whose coming the nations await; he will wash his robe in
wine and his garment in blood of the grape.”78
Eranistes. The patriarch spoke about clothing, not about a
body.
Orthodox. Show me, then, when or where he washed his gar-
ment in blood of the grape.
74. See 1 Tm 3.16. 75. Heb 10.19–22.

76. Gn 49.10. 77. See above, p. 39.
78. Gn 49.11.
Eranistes. You show that he reddened his body with them.

Orthodox. Please answer in esoteric language, for there may
be some uninitiated people nearby.79
Eranistes. I shall hear in this way and answer in this way.
Orthodox. Do you know that the Lord called himself a vine?
Eranistes. I know that he said, “I am the true vine.”80
Orthodox. What is the fruit of the vine called when it has been
pressed?
Eranistes. It is called wine.
Orthodox. When the soldiers pierced the savior’s side with the
lance, what flowed out of it according to the Gospel writers?81
Eranistes. Blood and water.
Orthodox. He called the savior’s blood, therefore, blood of a
grape. For if the Lord was called a vine, and if the fruit of the
vine is called wine, and if springs of blood and water poured
from the Lord’s side and ran over the rest of his body to the
ground, then the patriarch’s prophecy was reasonable and ap-
propriate: “He will wash his robe in wine and his garment in
blood of the grape.”82 For just as we call the sacramental fruit of
the vine [78] the Lord’s blood after the consecration, so he
called the blood of the true vine blood of the grape.
Eranistes. The explanation you gave was both esoteric and
clear.
Orthodox. Even if what I have said is enough to convince you,
I shall nonetheless propose yet another proof to confirm the
truth.
Eranistes. You will perform a service for me if you do this, for
you will increase the benefit.
Orthodox. Do you know that the Lord called his own body
bread?83
79. In this section Theodoret employs terms drawn from the Greek mystery
religions, terms that reflect Christian understanding of the Eucharist as a mys-
tery (musthvrion), a secret, to be disclosed only to initiates, namely, the baptized.
Esoteric language refers to cryptic explanations made in ambiguous language
that the uninitiated cannot understand. When musthvrion is used in reference to
the Eucharist, it will be translated “mystery.” The adjective mustikov" will be
translated “sacramental.”
80. Jn 15.1. 81. Jn 19.34.
82. Gn 49.11. 83. See Jn 6, passim.
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. And [do you know] that in another place, he
called his flesh wheat?
Eranistes. I know this too. For I heard him say, “The hour has
come for the Son of Man84 to be glorified,”85 and, “Unless the
grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone;
but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”86
Orthodox. In handing down the mysteries, then, he called the
bread body and the mixture blood.87
Eranistes. That is correct.
Orthodox. But with respect to nature the body would properly
be called body and the blood would properly be called blood.
Eranistes. I agree.
Orthodox. But our savior exchanged the names and gave the
name of the symbol to the body and the name of the body to
the symbol; in the same way he called himself a vine and named
the symbol blood.
Eranistes. What you have said is true, but I would like to learn
the reason for the exchange of names.
Orthodox. Those who have been initiated into the sacred
[mysteries] see the point clearly. For he wanted those who
share in the sacred mysteries not to give attention to the nature
of the offerings, but to believe, because of the exchange of
names, in the transformation88 brought about by grace. For in
calling what was a body by nature wheat and bread and by nam-
ing [himself] a vine, [79] he has honored the visible symbols
with the name of “body” and “blood,” not by changing the na-
ture, but by adding grace to the nature.
Eranistes. You have discussed the mysteries in esoteric lan-
guage and have clearly explained material that not everybody
understood.
84. Theodoret uses the title Son of Man, in contrast to Son of God, to verify
the true humanity of Jesus Christ.
85. Jn 12.23.
86. Jn 12.24.
87. See Mt 26.26–28 and parallels. Orthodox is apparently referring to a
mixture of wine and water.
88. “Transformation” translates the word metabolhv, which can refer to a real
change or transformation in substance.
Orthodox. Since we have agreed, then, that the patriarch

called the Lord’s body a robe and a garment,89 and since we
have shifted the discussion to the sacred mysteries, tell me, for
the sake of truth, of what do you think that sacred food is a sym-
bol and a type—the Lord Christ’s divinity or his body and
blood?
Eranistes. It obviously [is a symbol and type] of those things,
whose name it has received.
Orthodox. Do you mean the body and the blood?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. You have spoken like a lover of truth. For when the
Lord took the symbol, he did not say, “This is my divinity,” but,
“This is my body,” and then, “This is my blood.”90 And else-
where he said, “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I
shall give for the life of the world.”91
Eranistes. These words are true, for they are divine words.
Orthodox. If they are true, therefore, as indeed they are, the
Lord apparently did have a body.
Eranistes. Am I saying that he did not have body?
Orthodox. So you confess that he had a body.
Eranistes. I say that “The Word became flesh,”92 for this is
what I have been taught.
Orthodox. It seems that, as the proverb says, we are drawing
water in a sieve,93 for after all those proofs and answers to your
objections, you are repeating the same words.
Eranistes. I am not offering you my words, but those of the
Gospel.
Orthodox. But haven’t I offered an interpretation of the
Gospel words based on the statements of the prophets and the
Apostle?
Eranistes. They cannot solve the problem.
Orthodox. But we showed that, even though he was invisible,
he was made manifest through the flesh.94 And we have been
taught about this very relationship with the flesh by divine men.
89. See Gn 49.11. 90. Mt 26.26, 28, and parallels.

91. Jn 6.51. 92. Jn 1.14a.
93. Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.40. 94. See 1 Tm 3.16.
For “he took hold of Abraham’s seed.”95 And the Lord [80]
God said to the patriarch, “All the nations of the earth will be
blessed in your seed.”96 And the Apostle said, “For it is clear
that the Lord descended from Judah.”97 And we cited many
other testimonies like this. But since you want to hear still
more, listen to the Apostle, who says, “For every high priest tak-
en from among human beings is appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices.”98 It follows that he must have something to offer.
Eranistes. Show me, then, that he took a body and offered it.
Orthodox. The divine Apostle himself teaches this clearly in
the same passage. For after a few words he says, “Therefore, on
coming into the world, he says, ‘You did not want sacrifice and
offering, but you formed a body for me.’”99 He did not say,
“You changed me into a body,” but, “You formed a body for
me.” He reveals that the body was formed by the Spirit, in keep-
ing with the words of the angel who says, “Do not be afraid to
take Mary your wife; for what was begotten in her is from the
Holy Spirit.”100
Eranistes. Then the virgin bore only a body.
Orthodox. It seems that you have not even understood the ba-
sic construction of the words, not to mention their meaning.
You see, [the angel] is teaching Joseph about the manner of
the conception, not about that of the birth, for he did not say
that what was begotten of her, i.e., what was made or formed, is
from the Holy Spirit. Since Joseph was ignorant of the mystery
and so suspected adultery, he was, therefore, taught clearly that
the formation was the work of the Spirit.101 [God] hinted at this
through the prophet by saying, “You formed a body for me.”102
And the divine Apostle, who was a spiritual man, interpreted
95. Heb 2.16. 96. Gn 22.18.

97. Heb 7.14. 98. Heb 5.1.
99. Heb 10.5. 100. Mt 1.20.
101. Theodoret’s point is that the Spirit was responsible for the conception
of the child, not for the child’s body, which was formed by the natural process
of childbearing and is, therefore, a real human body.
102. See Ps 40.6 (LXX 39.7). Although Theodoret attributes this quote to
the “prophet,” he actually uses the text found in Heb 10.5; see the following
note.
the prophecy.103 If the proper work of priests, therefore, is to of-

fer gifts, and if Christ the Lord, according to his humanity, was
called a priest and offered no other sacrifice but his own body,
then Christ the Lord had a body.
Eranistes. I have often stated that I do not say that God the
Word appeared without a body; but I also do not say that God
the Word assumed a body, but that he became flesh.
[81] Orthodox. The way I see it, we are fighting with the fol-
lowers of Valentinus, Marcion, and Manes. But not even they
would ever have dared to say that the immutable nature was
changed into flesh.
Eranistes. It is unchristian to revile other people.104
Orthodox. We’re not reviling; we’re fighting for the truth and
we’re terribly grieved that you quarrel with indisputable argu-
ments as though they were doubtful. But I’ll try to do away with
your mean belligerence. Tell me, therefore, whether you re-
member the promises God made to David.
Eranistes. Which ones?
Orthodox. The ones that the prophet wrote down in the
Eighty-eighth Psalm.105
Eranistes. I know many promises made to David. Which ones
are you looking for now?
Orthodox. The ones about Christ the Lord.
Eranistes. Recall the words to my mind yourself, since you
promised to offer proof.
Orthodox. Listen to the prophet, then, as he sings God’s prais-
es at the very beginning of the psalm. For because he foresaw
with prophetic eyes that the people would break the Law and
would for that reason become slaves, he reminded his Lord of
the true promises and said, “I shall sing of your mercies, Lord,
forever; from generation to generation I shall proclaim your
truth with my mouth, for you said, ‘Mercy will be built up forev-
er.’ Your truth will be prepared in the heavens.”106 Through all
these words the prophet teaches that God made the promise out
103. See Heb 10.5.

104. See 1 Cor 6.10.
105. The reference is to Ps 89 (LXX 88).
106. Ps 89.1–2 (LXX 88.2–3).
of love for humanity and that the promise is true. Then he tells
what God promised and to whom, by having God himself speak;
for he says, “I have made a covenant with my chosen ones”;107 he
called the patriarchs chosen ones. Then he adds, “I have sworn
to David my servant.”108 He also declares the contents of the
oath: “To eternity I shall prepare your seed, and I shall build up
your throne from generation to generation.”109 Tell me, there-
fore; who do you think was called “seed of David”?
[82] Eranistes. The promise was made about Solomon.
Orthodox. So God also made covenants with the patriarchs
about Solomon. For prior to what was said about David, [the
psalmist] recalled the promises made to them; for he says, “I
have made a covenant with my chosen ones.”110 God promised
the patriarchs that he would bless all the nations in their seed.
Show me, then, that the nations were blessed through Solomon.
Eranistes. Has God, therefore, fulfilled this promise, not
through Solomon, but through our savior?
Orthodox. Yes, and Christ the Lord, therefore, fulfilled the
promises made to David.
Eranistes. I think that God made these promises about either
Solomon or Zerubbabel.
Orthodox. A moment ago you were using the words of Mar-
cion, Valentinus, and Manes; now you have shifted to the posi-
tion diametrically opposite and are advocating the shameless-
ness of the Jews. This is typical of those who turn off the main
road; they wander about here and there, since they are walking
on an unused path.111
Eranistes. The Apostle expels abusive people from the king-
dom.112
Orthodox. If their abuse is groundless. For even the divine
Apostle himself is acting appropriately when he used this type
107. Ps 89.3a (LXX 88.4a). 108. Ps 89.3b (LXX 88.4b).

109. Ps 89.4 (LXX 88.5). 110. Ps 89.3a (LXX 88.4a).
111. Orthodox is expressing a type of anti-Jewish sentiment present in
much early Christian literature. The image of the “path” apparently refers to re-
jection of Christ and implies a religious, not an ethnic, basis for the negativity.
This attitude may well be one cause of much of the anti-Semitism that appears
in later Christianity, but with ethnic, not religious, motivation.
112. See 1 Cor 6.10.
of language and calls the Galatians “fools,”113 and says of others,

“People whose minds are corrupt and whose faith is false”;114 of
still another group he says, “Whose god is their belly, and whose
glory is in their shame,”115 and so on.
Eranistes. Tell me what grounds for abuse did I give you?
Orthodox. You cheerfully support the most obvious enemies
of the truth; or don’t you think that religious people can find
very reasonable grounds for irritation in this.
Eranistes. What enemies of the truth did I support?
Orthodox. Just now, you supported the Jews.
Eranistes. How, in what way?
Orthodox. Jews [83] refer prophecies like these to Solomon
and Zerubbabel, in order to prove that Christian teaching is in-
consistent. But the words themselves suffice to refute their
wickedness. For God says, “To eternity I shall prepare your
seed.”116 Yet not only did Solomon and Zerubbabel, to whom
they refer such prophecies, live the allotted time of life and
then reach an end, but the whole family of David was wiped out
as well. For who knows anyone today descended from the root
of David?
Eranistes. So those who are called patriarchs of the Jews are
not of David’s family?117
Orthodox. Absolutely not.
Eranistes. But where do they come from?
Orthodox. They descend from Herod the foreigner,118 who
113. Gal 3.1. 114. 2 Tm 3.8.

115. Phil 3.19. 116. Ps 89.4 (LXX 88.5).
117. The patriarchs mentioned here are not the classical patriarchs Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term refers to the hereditary office of the so-called
Palestinian patriarchate, which was, under Roman auspices, “both the supreme
office of imperial Jewry and a high office of the state.” (Salo Wittmayer Baron,
A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 2, Ancient Times, part 2, 2d ed. [New
York: Columbia University Press, 1953], p. 192). It appears to have been estab-
lished in the second century C.E. under Antoninus Pius; it was strengthened by
Diocletian and recognized by the Christian emperors until its suppression in
about 425. See further Baron, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 126, 178, and 191–95; and
the article “Jews,” in M. Cary et al, editors, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, 1953), p. 468.
118. This refers to Herod the Great, whom the Romans appointed king of
the Jews and who ruled from 37–4 B.C.E. The last of his descendants ruled un-
til about 100 C.E.
happened to be an Ascalonite on his father’s side, and an Idu-

maean on his mother’s. And they have disappeared completely,
and a long time has passed since their rule came to an end. But
the Lord God promised not only to protect David’s seed forev-
er, but also to preserve the kingdom in perpetuity. For God
said, “I shall build up your throne from generation to genera-
tion.”119 But we see that his family is gone and the kingdom has
come to an end. And even though we see this, we know that the
God of the universe does not lie.
Eranistes. Obviously God does not lie.
Orthodox. If God is truthful, therefore, as God certainly is,
and if God promised David to preserve his family forever and to
protect the kingdom perpetually, but we see neither the family
nor the kingdom, since both have come to an end, how can we
persuade our adversaries that God does not lie?
Eranistes. The prophecy definitely proclaims Christ the Lord.
Orthodox. Since you admit this, therefore, come now and let
us consider the middle of the psalm together; for we shall then
understand the prophecy’s meaning more clearly.
Eranistes. You lead the way in the investigation, for I shall fol-
low your tracks very carefully.
[84] Orthodox. God made many promises about this seed:
that it would rule on sea and on land; that it would be above
earthly rulers; that it would be called the first-born of God and
would without hesitation call God father.120 Then he added, “I
shall preserve my mercy for him forever, and my covenant shall
be faithful to him; and I shall establish his seed forever and ever
and his throne as the days of heaven.”121
Eranistes. The promise transcends human nature, since life
and honor imply immortality and eternity, while human beings
are mortal. For nature has a short life span, and royal power,
even in life, is subject to many changes and reversals. The mag-
nitude of the promise, therefore, fits Christ the savior alone.
Orthodox. Turn to the rest of the psalm, then, and your opin-
119. Ps 89.4 (LXX 88.5).

120. See Ps 89.19–27 (LXX 88.20–28).
121. Ps 89.28–29 (LXX 88.29–30).
ion about this will certainly be confirmed all the more. For the
God of the universe also says, “I have sworn once and for all by
my holiness that I shall not lie to David. His seed will remain
forever, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon,
which is fixed forever.”122 And he showed that the promise is
true by adding, “And the witness in heaven is faithful.”123
Eranistes. We should believe unhesitatingly the promises
made by the faithful witness. For if we are accustomed to be-
lieve human beings who are presumably telling the truth, even
if they do not confirm their words with an oath, who would be
so insane as not to believe the maker of the universe when he
supports his words with an oath? For the one who forbids oth-
ers to swear disclosed the immutability of his will, as the Apostle
also says, by means of an oath: “So that through two immutable
things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who sought
protection might experience a powerful inducement to seize
the hope set before us.”124
Orthodox. If the promise, then, is true beyond doubt, but we
do not see among the Jews either the family or the kingdom of
the prophet David, we should obviously believe that our Lord
Jesus Christ is called the seed of David according to the human-
ity. For he has both life and the eternal kingdom.
[85] Eranistes. We are free of doubt and admit that this is
true.
Orthodox. This should be enough, then, to show clearly the
humanity of our God and savior that he assumed from the seed
of David. But to drive away all disagreement with more witness-
es, let us hear God through the voice of the prophet Isaiah re-
calling the promises made to David. For he says, “I shall make
an eternal covenant with you”;125 and to identify the lawgiver he
added, “The holy things of David are faithful.”126 For since God,
when he made these promises to David, said, “And the witness
in heaven is faithful,”127 to remind them of this saying [Isaiah]
122. Ps 89.35–37a (LXX 88.36–38a).

123. Ps 89.37b (LXX 88.38b). 124. Heb 6.18.
125. Is 55.3c. 126. Is 55.3d.
127. Ps 89.37b and see 89.3b (LXX 88.38b and 4b).
said, “The holy things of David are faithful.”128 In this way

[God] teaches that he himself made the promise to David,
spoke through Isaiah, and will fulfill the promise.
And the rest of the prophecy fits in with this, for it says, “Be-
hold I have given him as a witness among the nations, as a ruler
and leader among the nations. Behold, nations that do not
know you will call upon you, and people who do not know you
will flee to you for protection.”129 This does not pertain to any
of David’s descendants. For which of David’s descendants was
proclaimed, as Isaiah said, ruler of the nations? And which na-
tions called in prayer upon one of David’s descendants as God?
Eranistes. It’s wrong to go on at length about the obvious; for
all of this truly applies to Christ the Lord.
Orthodox. Let’s turn, then, to another prophetic testimony
and hear the same prophet say, “A shoot will spring from the
root of Jesse, and a blossom will rise up from the root.”130
Eranistes. I think this prophecy was written about Zerubba-
bel.
Orthodox. If you listen to the rest of it, you will change your
mind, since not even Jews understood this prophecy in this way.
For the prophet goes on, “And a spirit of God will rest upon
him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel
and courage, a spirit of knowledge and piety, a spirit of fear of
God will fill him.”131 No one would apply these words to a mere
human being, since the gifts132 of the Spirit are given in differ-
ent ways even to very holy people.133 And the divine [86] Apos-
tle testifies to this when he says, “For to one is given, through
the Spirit, a word of wisdom, and to another, in accordance
with the same Spirit, a word of knowledge,”134 and so on. But
here the prophet has said that the one born from the root of
Jesse has all the powers of the Spirit.135
Eranistes. It is sheer madness to deny this.
Orthodox. Then listen to the rest of it as well, for you will see
128. Is 55.3d. 129. Is 55.4–5.

130. Is 11.1. 131. Is 11.2–3a.
132. Carivsmata. 133. See 1 Cor 12.4.
134. 1 Cor 12.8. 135. See Is 11.1–3a.
that some parts of this text transcend human nature. So he says,

“He will not judge according to opinion, nor will he convict in
accordance with idle talk; but he will pass judgment on the low-
ly with justice, and will convict the mighty of the earth with
righteousness; and he will strike the earth with the word of his
mouth, and will destroy the wicked by the breath of his lips.”136
Some of these prophecies relate to humanity, and others to di-
vinity. For justice, truth, rectitude, and impartiality in judging
reveal human virtue;137 but destroying the wicked by a word and
changing the earth for the better both insinuate the omnipo-
tence of the divinity.
Eranistes. We have learned very clearly from this that the
prophet foretold the coming of Christ our savior.
Orthodox. The words that follow these will teach you with
even greater clarity the truth of the interpretation. For he adds,
“Then a wolf will feed with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down
with a kid, and a calf, a lion, and a bull will feed together,”138
and so on; with these words he teaches both the diversity of
characters and the harmony of faith. And our experience of re-
ality is a witness to the prophecy. For one font welcomes rich
and poor, slaves and masters, subjects and rulers, soldiers and
civilians, and those who hold power over the whole world; one
teaching is imparted to all, one sacramental table is offered to
all, and each believer enjoys an equal share.
Eranistes. But this shows that God is the subject of the
prophecy.
Orthodox. Not only God, but also a human being. That is why
he also said, at the very beginning of this prophecy, that a shoot
will spring from the root of Jesse.139 And at the conclusion of
the prophecy he repeated the [87] introduction, for he said,
“And there will be the root of Jesse, and he will rise up to rule
the nations, the nations will hope in him, and his rest will be
glory.”140 Jesse was David’s father, and the promise with oaths
was made to David. He would not have called Christ the Lord a
136. Is 11.3b–4. 137. jArethv.

138. Is 11.6. 139. See Is 11.1.
140. Is 11.10.
shoot that sprang from Jesse, if he knew him only as God. The
prophecy also foretold the change in the world, for it says, “The
whole earth was filled with knowledge of the Lord, as a great
water covers the seas.”141
Eranistes. I have heard the prophet’s oracles. But I would
have liked to know clearly if the divine choir of apostles also
said that Christ the Lord was born of the seed of David accord-
ing to the flesh.
Orthodox. Your demand is not difficult, but very simple and
easy. Listen, then, to the chief of the apostles as he declares that
“David was a prophet and knew that God swore an oath to him,
to raise up from the fruit of his loins the Messiah, according to
the flesh, to sit on his throne; he said with foreknowledge about
his resurrection that his soul was not abandoned to hell, and
that his flesh did not see corruption.”142 From this you can dis-
cern that Christ the Lord was born from David’s seed according
to the flesh and had not only flesh, but also a soul.
Eranistes. What other apostles preached this?
Orthodox. The witness that the mighty Peter bore to the truth
was enough by itself, for the Lord received the confession of
piety from him alone and confirmed it with the famous bless-
ing.143 But since you also want to hear others proclaiming this,
listen to Paul and Barnabas preaching in Antioch of Pisidia. For
after they spoke about David, they added this: “From his seed,
according to a promise, God raised up for Israel a savior, Je-
sus,”144 and so on. And when he wrote to Timothy, the divinely
inspired Paul said this: “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from
the dead, from the seed of David, according to my gospel.”145
And [88] when he wrote to the Romans in the prologue he im-
mediately recalled the relationship with David and said, “Paul, a
slave of Jesus Christ, called as an apostle, separated out for
God’s gospel, which he foretold through his prophets in holy
Scriptures concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of
David according to the flesh.”146
141. Is 11.9. 142. Acts 2.30–31.

143. See Mt 16.13–19. 144. Acts 13.23.
145. 2 Tm 2.8. 146. Rom 1.1–3.
Eranistes. The proofs are many and true. But tell me why you
omitted the rest of the testimony.
Orthodox. Because your doubts concern the humanity, not
the divinity. If you were arguing about the divinity, I would have
offered you proofs about it. But simply saying “according to the
flesh”147 is enough to reveal the divinity, even though it has not
been mentioned. For in explaining a relationship with an ordi-
nary human being, I do not say, “So-and-so, son of so-and-so ac-
cording to the flesh,” but simply “son.” And this is how the di-
vine evangelist composed the genealogy. For he says, “Abraham
begot Isaac”;148 he did not add “according to the flesh,” for
Isaac was only a human being. He also listed the others in the
same way, since they were human beings with nothing that tran-
scended their nature. But when the heralds of truth speak
about Christ the Lord and disclose his relationship in this world
to the uninformed, they add the phrase “according to the
flesh”; in this way they point to the divinity and teach that
Christ the Lord is not only a human being, but also eternal
God.
Eranistes. You have presented many apostolic and prophetic
witnesses; but I believe the evangelist who says, “The Word be-
came flesh.”149
Orthodox. I too believe this sacred teaching, but I understand
it in the religious sense that [the Word] is said to have become
flesh by taking flesh and a rational soul. But if God the Word
took nothing from our nature, then the covenants with oaths
made by the God of the universe with the patriarchs are not
true, the blessing of Judah is worthless,150 the promise to David
is a lie, and the virgin is superfluous, since she gave nothing of
our nature to the God who was made flesh. And so the predic-
tions of the prophets are not fulfilled.
“Our preaching is empty,” therefore, “our faith is also emp-
ty,”151 and the hope of the resurrection is in vain. For the Apos-
147. Rom 1.3. 148. Mt 1.2.

149. Jn 1.14a.
150. See Gn 49.8–12 and Ps 89.3b (LXX 88.4b).
151. 1 Cor 15.14.
tle apparently is lying when he says, [89] “[God] raised us and

made us sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”152 For if Christ
the Lord had nothing from our nature, he has falsely been
named our firstfruit,153 the body’s nature has not been raised
from the dead and has not gained the seat at the right hand in
heaven.154 And if none of this happened, how did God raise us
and make us sit with Christ,155 when we had nothing in com-
mon with him according to nature? But this is a wicked thing to
say. For even though the general resurrection had not yet taken
place, and even though the kingdom of heaven had not yet
been made available to believers, the divine Apostle shouts,
“[God] raised us and made us sit in heavenly places in Christ Je-
sus.”156 He teaches that, since our firstfruit rose and received
the seat at the right hand, we too shall definitely gain resurrec-
tion,157 and that those who share in his nature and have adopt-
ed the faith also share in the firstfruit of his glory.
Eranistes. You have detailed many true sayings; but I wanted
to know the meaning of the evangelist’s words.
Orthodox. You don’t need someone else’s interpretation, be-
cause the evangelist interprets himself. For after he said, “The
Word became flesh,”158 he added, “and dwelt among us”;159
in other words, [the Word] is said to have become flesh by
dwelling among us and using, as a kind of temple, the flesh that
was taken from us. And to teach us that [the Word] remained
immutable he added, “and we have seen his glory, glory as of an
only begotten son from a father, full of grace and truth.”160 For
even though he was clothed in flesh, he manifested his father’s
excellence, emitted rays of divinity, and poured out the radi-
ance of the Lord’s power, revealing through miracles the hid-
den nature.
The divine Apostle wrote to the Philippians in a similar vein:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, al-
152. Eph 2.6. 153. See 1 Cor 15.20.

154. See Eph 2.6. 155. See Eph 2.6.
156. Eph 2.6. 157. See 1 Cor 15.20.
158. Jn 1.14a. 159. Jn 1.14b.
160. Jn 1.14cd.
though he was in God’s form, did not consider being equal to

God something to be grasped, but emptied himself and took
the form of a slave, coming into being in human likeness; and
being found in human appearance, he humbled himself and
became obedient to death, even to death on a cross.”161
See the relationship between their proclamations. The evan-
gelist [90] said, “The Word became flesh,”162 while the Apostle
said, “coming into being in human likeness”;163 the evangelist
said, “and dwelt among us,”164 while the Apostle said, “took the
form of a slave.”165 The evangelist also said, “We have seen his
glory, glory as of an only begotten son from a father,”166 while
the Apostle said, “who, although he was in God’s form, did not
consider being equal to God something to be grasped.”167 To
sum it up, both teach that, although he is God and Son of God,
although he is clothed in the Father’s glory, although he has
the same nature and power as the one who begot him, although
he exists in the beginning, is with God, and is God,168 and al-
though he formed creation, he took the form of a slave. And he
seemed to be only that which was visible, but he was also God
who was clothed in human nature and accomplished the salva-
tion of human beings. The texts, “The Word became flesh,”169
and “coming into being in human likeness and being found in
human appearance,”170 reveal this. For the Jews only saw the lat-
ter and therefore said to him, “We are not stoning you for a
good work, but for blasphemy, because you, who are a human
being, make yourself God.”171 And they also said, “This man is
not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.”172
Eranistes. Jews were blinded by their lack of faith and for this
reason said such things.
Orthodox. If you were to find the apostles speaking like this
even before the resurrection, would you admit the interpreta-
tion?
Eranistes. Perhaps I shall.
161. Phil 2.5–8. 162. Jn 1.14a.

163. Phil 2.7. 164. Jn 1.14b.
165. Phil 2.7. 166. Jn 1.14c.
167. Phil 2.6. 168. See Jn 1.1.
169. Jn 1.14a. 170. Phil 2.7.
171. Jn 10.33. 172. Jn 9.16.
Orthodox. Then listen to them talking in the ship after the

tremendous miracle of the calming [of the sea]: “What kind of
man is this, that the sea and the winds obey him?”173
Eranistes. You have proved that. But tell me this, why does the
divine Apostle say that he had come into being in human like-
ness?174
Orthodox. What was assumed is not a human likeness, but a
human being’s nature,175 for it is the form of a slave. Just as the
form of God is understood as the nature of God, so the form of
slave is understood as the nature of slave. [91] By taking this
nature, therefore, he came into being in human likeness and
was found in human appearance.176 For although he was God,
he appeared to be a human being because of the nature that he
assumed. The evangelist said, therefore, that coming into being
in human likeness is becoming flesh. And so that you may know
that those who deny our savior’s flesh are disciples of the oppo-
site spirit, listen to what the mighty John says in the catholic177
epistle: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ came in
flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess that Je-
sus Christ came in flesh is not from God, and this is the spirit of
the antichrist.”178
Eranistes. Your interpretation was persuasive, but I would also
like to know how the ancient teachers of the Church under-
stood the text, “The Word became flesh.”179
Orthodox. The proofs from the apostles and prophets should
173. Mt 8.27. Theodoret plays with the double meaning of the word a[nqrw-
po" (“human being” and “male human being”) to “show” the humanity of Je-
sus.
174. See Phil 2.7.
175. Theodoret employs the classical Antiochene language when he speaks
of the Word’s assumption or taking of the human. Here, however, unlike
Theodore of Mopsuestia, he says that the Word assumed, not a human being,
but a nature of a human being. Theodoret, therefore, remains within his tradi-
tion, but uses less controversial language; he does, however, allow Eranistes to
raise the accusation that he is preaching two sons, a charge that was actually
brought against him several years after the publication of this work.
176. See Phil 2.7–8.
177. “Catholic” here means “general,” i.e., addressed to the universal
Church.
178. 1 Jn 4.2–3.
179. Jn 1.14a.
have convinced you. But since you ask for the interpretations of
the holy fathers, I shall, with God’s help, also offer you this rem-
edy.
Eranistes. Do not introduce men who are unknown or sus-
pect, for I shall not accept the interpretations of such people.
Orthodox. What do you think? Is that famous Athanasius, the
shining light of the Alexandrian church, trustworthy?180
Eranistes. Absolutely. For he confirmed his teaching by suf-
fering for the truth.
Orthodox. Then listen to him when he wrote to Epictetus;181
he says this:182
1. John’s words, “The Word became flesh,”183 have this184 mean-
ing, as one can learn from a similar text. For Paul wrote, “Christ
became a curse for us.”185 Just as he was said to have become a
curse, not because he himself became a curse, but because he
accepted the curse on our behalf, so also is he said to have be-
come flesh, not because he changed into flesh, but because he
assumed flesh for us.
Orthodox. These are the words of the most divine Athanasius.

Next is Gregory, well known by everyone, who long ago guided
the imperial city that lay at the mouth of the Bosporus and who
later [92] lived in Nazianzus; he wrote in the same way to Cle-
donius against the hair-splitting of Apollinarius.
Eranistes. He was a famous man and a champion of religion.
180. Theodoret quotes seven early teachers within the text of the dialogue
before beginning the formal collection of citations. Athanasius is the earliest of
these, but Theodoret may have started with him to counterbalance the ill will
that had long prevailed between his own tradition and that of Alexandria.
181. Here begins an anthology of quotations from early Church teachers;
each dialogue ends in this same way. Titles are stated in the form used today,
which sometimes differs from the title given by Theodoret. The CPG or CPL
number is also cited, to facilitate identification of the original text; in the case
of consecutive quotations from the same work, no such number is listed.
182. Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter to Epictetus 8. CPG 2.2095.
183. Jn 1.14a.
184. “This” refers to the previous sentence in the letter of Athanasius where
he says that the body of the Word is not consubstantial with God, but was born
of Mary, and that the Word did not change into flesh and bones, but came in
the flesh.
185. Gal 3.13.
Orthodox. Then listen to his words:186

2. In my opinion, the phrase, “The Word became flesh,”187 can
mean the same as the statements that he became sin and a
curse188—not that the Lord changed into them, for that is im-
possible, but that by accepting them he assumed our transgres-
sions and bore our sicknesses.189
Eranistes. The interpretations of both men coincide.

Orthodox. Since we have shown you that the shepherds of the
south and the north are in harmony, let us now introduce you
to the famous teachers of the west, who wrote their interpreta-
tion in a different language, but not with a different meaning.
Eranistes. I hear that Ambrose, who adorned the high priest’s
throne at Milan, fought valiantly against all heresy and wrote
very beautiful works that agree with the teaching of the apostles.
Orthodox. I shall give you his interpretation. In the discourse
on faith he says:190
3. But it has been written, they say, that “The Word became
flesh.”191 I do not deny what was written, but look at its meaning.
For he continues, “And dwelt among us,”192 that is, that Word
who had taken flesh is the one who dwelt among us, that is,
dwelt in human flesh. Are you surprised, then, at the text, “The
Word became flesh,”193 because the flesh was assumed by God
the Word, when even in the case of sin, which the Word did not
have, it was said that the Word became sin?194 This does not
mean that [the Word] became the nature and the activity195 of
sin, but [the Word’s purpose was] to crucify our sin in his own
flesh. Let them stop [93] saying, therefore, that the nature of
the Word changed; for the one who assumed is one thing, and
that which was assumed is something else.196
186. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 101.61. CPG 2.3032.

187. Jn 1.14a. 188. See 2 Cor 5.21 and Gal 3.13.
189. See Is 53.4.
190. Ambrose of Milan, On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Incarnation 6.59–61.
CPL 152.
191. Jn 1.14a. 192. Jn 1.14b.
193. Jn 1.14a. 194. See 2 Cor 5.21.
195. E
j nevrgeia.
196. “The one who assumed” is masculine, indicating a person; “that which
was assumed” is neuter and is, therefore, apparently not equated with a person.
Eranistes. After them we should hear the eastern teachers, for

this is the only section of the world we have not touched.
Orthodox. They should in fact have been the first witnesses to
the truth, for they were the first to hear the apostolic preach-
ing. But since you have sharpened your tongues against the
first-born children of religion and honed them on the whet-
stone of untruth, we assigned the last place to them, so that, af-
ter hearing the others first, you might compare the sayings of
the two groups, marvel at their harmony, and stop blasphem-
ing. Listen, then, to Flavian, who for a long time wisely steered
the church of Antioch and enabled the churches he directed to
overwhelm the Arian flood. Here is his interpretation of the
Gospel text; he says:197
4. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”198 The Word
was not transformed into flesh and did not stop being God; the
latter state was eternal, while the former came about through
God’s plan,199 for the Word built his own temple and dwelt in
what it made,200 which was capable of suffering.201
Orthodox. If you also want to hear the ancient Palestinians,

pay attention to the admirable Gelasius, who meticulously culti-
vated the church of Caesarea. He says the following in his hom-
ily on the manifestation of the Lord:202
5. Learn the truth from John the fisherman who says, “And the
Word became flesh,”203 not because the Word himself changed,
but because he dwelt among us. A tent is one thing, and the
Word is another; the temple is one thing, and the God who
dwells in it is another.204
Theodoret’s citation of this text seems to support his declaration that he does
not teach that Christ was in reality two Sons.
197. Flavian of Antioch, Homily on John 1.14. CPG 2.3435.4.
198. Jn 1.14ab.
199. Oijkonomikw`", an adverb based on the noun oijkonomiva, the [divine]
economy, the divine plan for the universe, or divine providence.
200. Gevnnhma.
201. Paqhtov".
202. Gelasius of Caesarea, Dogmatic Fragments. On the Epiphany. CPG 2.3520.
203. Jn 1.14a.
204. See Jn 1.14b. Here the word for “another” is in both cases in the
neuter gender.
Eranistes. I am absolutely amazed at the agreement.

Orthodox. Then there is John, the great light of the world,
who first cultivated the church of Antioch with generosity, and
then wisely tended the imperial city. Don’t you think that he
preserved the apostolic rule of faith?
[94] Eranistes. I believe that he is definitely a marvelous
teacher.
Orthodox. This man, outstanding in every way, interprets this
Gospel passage and says:205
6. And so, when you hear “The Word became flesh,”206 do not
be disturbed or depressed. For the substance did not turn into
flesh—for this idea stems from absolute evil. But it remained
what it was and in this way took the form of the slave. For when
he says, “Christ bought us back from the curse of the Law, hav-
ing become a curse for us,”207 he is not saying that his substance
abandoned its glory and was transformed into a curse (for not
even demons, raving maniacs, or total idiots would think this,
since it combines lunacy with wickedness). He is not saying this,
therefore, but that he accepted the curse that was on us and
does not leave us under a curse from that time on. In the same
way it says here that he became flesh, not by changing his sub-
stance into flesh, but by assuming flesh, while the substance re-
mained intact.
Orthodox. If you also want to hear Severian, the shepherd of

Gabala, I shall give you his interpretation as well; listen to it
carefully:208
7. The phrase “The Word became flesh”209 does not signify a
change of nature, but the assumption of our nature. For if you
think that the word “became” means a change, when you hear
Paul say, “Christ bought us back from the curse of the Law, hav-
ing become a curse for us,”210 do you understand the phrase in
reference to nature and a change into a curse? Then just as “hav-
205. John Chrysostom, Homily on John 11.1–2. CPG 2.4425.

206. Jn 1.14a.
207. Gal 3.13.
208. Severian of Gabala, Discourse on the Seals. CPG 2.4209.
209. Jn 1.14a.
210. Gal 3.13.
ing become a curse” simply means that he took the curse against
us on himself, in the same way, “The Word became flesh and
dwelt among us”211 merely signifies the assumption of the flesh.
Eranistes. I am amazed at the harmony of these men. For

they all [95] interpreted the Gospel words identically, as
though they had come together for the same purpose and had
written their opinion in common.
Orthodox. Mountains and seas separated them very far from
one another, but the separation did not disturb their harmony,
since they were all taught by one spiritual grace. I would also
have given you the interpretations of the triumphant fighters
for religion, Diodore and Theodore, if I had not seen that you
were badly disposed toward them and shared Apollinarius’s ha-
tred for them.212 You would have seen that they expressed the
same ideas, drew water from the divine spring, and were them-
selves fountains of the Spirit. But I shall omit them, since you
have begun a relentless battle against them. I shall show you,
however, what the renowned teachers of the Church thought
about the divine Incarnation, so that you might know what they
thought about the nature that was taken.
You have surely heard about the famous Ignatius, who re-
ceived the grace of the episcopate through the right hand of
the mighty Peter, guided the church of Antioch, and put on the
crown of martyrdom. And [you have also heard about] Ire-
naeus, who had the benefit of Polycarp’s teaching and became
the light of the western Galatians,213 as well as Hippolytus and
Methodius, bishops and martyrs, and others whose names I
shall append to their teachings.
Eranistes. You will satisfy my desire, if you also provide these
testimonies.
Orthodox. Listen to these men, therefore, as they proclaim
the apostolic teaching.
211. Jn 1.14ab.
212. The reference here is to Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsues-
tia, fourth century teachers in the tradition of the church of Antioch. They
were considered forerunners of Nestorius by many, especially in the church of
Alexandria.
213. Galataiv, the word used to identify the Galatians of Paul’s letter, who
lived in the East, in Anatolia. Irenaeus served in the West, in France (Lyons).
The Holy Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr

8. From the letter to the Smyrnaeans.214
With respect to our Lord [you] have been fully assured that he
was truly from David’s family according to the flesh, Son of God
according to divinity and divine power,215 truly begotten from a
virgin, baptized by John so that all justice might be fulfilled by
him,216 and truly crucified in flesh for us under Pontius Pilate
and Herod the tetrarch.
[96] 9. By the same author from the same letter. 217

For what good does it do me, if someone praises me, but blas-
phemes my Lord by not confessing that he is a bearer of flesh?
Whoever does not say this has denied the Lord utterly and is a
bearer of a corpse.
10. By the same author from the same letter. 218

For if our Lord did this in appearance only, I too have been
bound in appearance only. And why have I given myself as a
hostage to death, to fire, to sword, and to wild beasts? Whoever
is close to the sword is close to God, and whoever is in the midst
of wild beasts is in the presence of God. Only in the name of Je-
sus Christ do I endure all things in order to suffer with him,
since he, the perfect human being whom some in their igno-
rance deny, strengthens me.
11. By the same author from the letter to the Ephesians. 219
For Jesus Christ our God was carried in her womb by Mary, ac-
cording to God’s plan—of David’s seed and of the Holy Spirit;
214. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1.1–2. CPG 1.1025; all the
quotations from Ignatius are found under this number.
215. See Rom 1.3–4.
216. See Mt 3.15–16.
217. Ignatius of Antioch, op. cit. 5.2.
218. Ignatius of Antioch, op. cit. 4.2–5.1.
219. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 18.2.
he was born and baptized, in order that our mortality might be

cleansed.

If all of you, separately and as a group, come together in grace,
as individuals, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, from David’s
family according to the flesh, Son of Man and Son of God.l.l.l.

One doctor is fleshly and spiritual, begotten from unbegotten,
God in a human being, true life in death, both from Mary and
from God, first capable of suffering and then incapable of suf-
fering, Jesus Christ our Lord.
14. By the same author from the letter to the Trallians.222

Be deaf, therefore, when someone speaks to you apart from Je-
sus Christ, who was of David’s family and of Mary, who was truly
born, truly ate and drank, was persecuted under Pontius Pilate,
was truly crucified and died, while those on earth, in heaven,
and under the earth looked on.223
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

15. From the third discourse of the work against heresies.224
[97] Why did they [i.e., the angels]225 also add the phrase “in
the city of David,”226 except to proclaim good news about the
fulfillment of the promise God made to David, that there will be

222. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians 9.1.
223. See Phil 2.10.
224. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.10.4. CPG 1.1306; all the quota-
tions from Irenaeus are found under this number.
225. This has been supplied from the text of Irenaeus, to explain why the
subject of the verb is plural.
226. Lk 2.11.
an eternal king from the fruit of his loins,227 a promise that the
creator of this universe made?
16. By the same author from the same discourse.228

And when he says, “Listen, house of David,”229 he shows that
God had promised David that an eternal king would spring from
the fruit of his loins.230 This is the one who was born from the
virgin [descended] from David.

If the first Adam, therefore, had had a human father and had
been born from seed, it would also have been reasonable to say
that the second Adam himself was born of Joseph.232 But if the
first Adam was taken from earth and God formed him,233 then
the one who recapitulated in himself the man formed by God
should have had the same kind of birth as that man. Why then
did God not take dirt again, but instead caused the formation to
take place through Mary? So that there might not be a different
formation, that nothing else might be saved, and that that man
himself might be recapitulated through the preservation of the
likeness. They fall into terrible ruin, therefore, who say that he
took nothing from the virgin, so that they might reject the in-
heritance of the flesh and do away with the likeness.

.l.l. since his descent into Mary would have been superfluous.
For why would he come down into her, if he were going to take
nothing from her? Moreover, if he had taken nothing from
Mary, he would not have consumed food taken from the earth,
with which a body taken from the earth is nourished. Nor would
227. See Ps 132.11–12 (LXX 131.11–12).

228. Irenaeus of Lyons, op. cit. 3.21.5.
229. Is 7.13.
230. See Ps 132.11–12 (LXX 131.11–12).
231. Irenaeus of Lyons, op. cit. 3.21.10–22.1.
232. See 1 Cor 15.45, 47. 233. See Gn 2.7.
he, after fasting for forty days like Moses and Elijah, have felt
hunger,235 because the body sought its proper food. Nor would
his disciple John have said about him in writing, “Jesus, weary
from the journey, sat down.”236 Nor would David have [98]
prophesied about him, “They added to the pain of my
wounds.”237 And he would not have wept over Lazarus,238 nor
would he have sweated drops of blood.239 And he would not
have said, “My soul is very sorrowful,”240 nor would blood and
water have flowed from his side when it was pierced.241 For these
are all signs242 of the flesh that was taken from the earth and
that he recapitulated in himself,243 thus saving his creation.244

For just as, through the disobedience of the one human being
who was the first one formed from untilled earth, many were de-
clared sinners and lost life, in the same way, it was also necessary
that, through the obedience of one human being who was the
first one born of a virgin, many were justified and received salva-
tion.246

“I have said, ‘You are gods and all sons of the most high, but as
human beings you die.’”248 He says this to those who did not ac-
cept the gift of adoption,249 but who dishonor the taking of flesh
through the pure birth of the Word of God, deprive humanity of
the ascent to God and show ingratitude to God’s Word, who was
made flesh for them. For this is why the Word became a human
being and the Son of God became a Son of Man: that the hu-
235. See Ex 34.28, 1 Kgs 19.8, Mt 4.2, Lk 4.2.

236. Jn 4.6. 237. Ps 69.26 (LXX 68.27).
238. See Jn 11.35. 239. See Lk 22.44.
240. Mt 26.38; see Ps 42.5 (LXX 41.5).
241. See Jn 19.34. 242. Suvmbola.
243. See Eph 1.10. 244. See Gn 2.7.
246. This entire citation is based on Rom 5.19.
248. Ps 82.6–7 (LXX 81.6–7).
249. See Rom 8.15, Gal 4.5, Eph 1.5.
man being, by embracing the Word and receiving adoption,

might become a son of God.250

The Spirit came down, therefore, because of the predetermined
plan,252 and the only begotten Son of God, who is also the Word
of the Father, came in the fullness of time253 and was made flesh
in a human being, and Jesus Christ our Lord, who is one and the
same, as the Lord himself testifies, the apostles confess, and the
prophets proclaim, fulfilled the whole plan relating to human be-
ings. Because of this all the teachings of those who have invented
ogdoads, tetrads,254 and unreal appearances255 were shown to be
false.
[99] Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr

22. From the discourse on the text, “The Lord is my shepherd.” 256
And the savior himself was a chest made of incorruptible wood.
For his incorruptible and imperishable tabernacle,257 which en-
gendered no sinful decay, was proclaimed here. For the one who
sinned and confessed says, “My wounds grew foul and rotten be-
cause of my foolishness.”258 But the Lord was sinless, and his hu-
manity was [formed] of incorruptible wood, i.e., from the virgin
and the Holy Spirit; for he was clothed within and without by
God’s Word as by purest gold.
250. See Jn 1.12.

252. The Greek phrase dia; th;n prowrismevnhn oijkonomivan does not signify
predestination in its modern theological sense. It refers to the decision made
by God in eternity (the “economy”) to save humanity through the Incarnation,
which itself is often called oijkonomiva.
253. See Gal 4.4.
254. These terms are taken from gnostic teachings that Irenaeus described
and refuted in the first book of this work against heresies.
255. This term apparently refers to “Docetists,” who were said to have held
that the humanity of Christ was not real, but only an illusion.
256. Ps 23.1 (LXX 22.1). Hippolytus, Homily on Psalm 22.1 [Ps 23.1 (LXX
22.1)]. CPG 1.1882.4.
257. The image of the Lord’s body as a tabernacle derives from the Greek
word for “dwelt” in Jn 1.14.
258. Ps 38.5 (LXX 37.5).
23. By the same author from the discourse on

Elkanah and Anna.259
Bring to me, Samuel, the heifer that is taken to Bethlehem, so
that you may reveal the king born of David and the one anoint-
ed both king and priest by the Father.260

Tell me, blessed Mary, what did you conceive in your womb?
What did you carry in your virginal womb? For the first-born
Word of God came down to you from heaven, and the first-born
human being was formed in your womb, so that the first-born
Word of God joined to the first-born human being might be re-
vealed.

In the second, which took place through the prophets such as
Samuel, [God] calls the people back and frees them from for-
eign slavery.263 But in the third, in which [God] was present in
flesh by assuming from the virgin the human person, who saw
the city and wept over it.264
26. By the same author from the discourse on the

beginning of Isaiah.265
He compared the world to Egypt, idolatry to images, the re-
moval and destruction of idolatry to an earthquake. But [he
called] the Word Lord, and the most pure tabernacle, in which
our Lord Jesus Christ was enthroned when he entered the world
to destroy sin, [he called] a swift cloud.266
259. Hippolytus, Commentary on 1 Kings 1.1ff. [1 Sm 1.1 (LXX 1 Kgs 1)]. From
the Discourse on Elkanah and Anna. CPG 1.1881.1.
260. See 1 Sm 16.1–4. 261. Hippolytus, op. cit.
262. Hippolytus, op. cit. 263. See 1 Sm 7.3–4.
264. See Lk 19.41.
265. Hippolytus, On the beginning of Isaiah. CPG 1.1885.
266. See Is 19.1.
The Holy Methodius, Bishop and Martyr

[100] 27. From the discourse about martyrs.267
For martyrdom is so awe-inspiring and desirable, that the Lord
Christ himself, the Son of God, honored it with his testimony,
when he decided that equality with God was not something to be
grasped,268 in order to crown with this gift 269 the human being
into whom he had descended.
The Holy Eustathius, Bishop of

Antioch and Confessor
28. From the interpretation of Psalm 15.270
But the [soul] of Jesus had a twofold experience. For it was in
the place proper to human souls and it was also outside of the
flesh, and lived and existed on its own. It is, therefore, rational
and of the same substance as the souls of human beings, just as
the flesh, which came from Mary, is of the same substance as the
flesh of human beings.
29. By the same author from the discourse about the soul.271
What would they say when they saw the nursing of the infant, or
the advance of age, or the passing of time, or the growth of his
body? To omit the miracles performed on earth, let them see
the raisings of the dead, the signs of the passion, the traces of
the whips, the scars from the beatings, the pierced side, the
marks of the nails, the pouring out of the blood, the signs of
death, and, to sum it up, the very resurrection of his own body.
267. Methodius of Olympus, About Martyrs. CPG 1.1820.

268. See Phil 2.6.
269. Cavrisma.
270. Eustathius of Antioch, Commentary on Psalm 15 [Ps 16 (LXX 15)]. CPG
2.3390. CPG says that this is not a work of Eustathius.
271. Eustathius of Antioch, About the Soul (against the Arians). CPG 2.3353.

And yet if one looks at the birth of the body, one would clearly
find that he was born in Bethlehem and wrapped in swaddling-
clothes, lived for some time in Egypt because of Herod the de-
stroyer’s plan, grew up and became a man in Nazareth.273

For the tabernacle of God the Word, through which blessed
Stephen saw the divine glory,275 is not the same thing [as the
Word himself].
32. By the same author from the discourse on the text,

“The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways.” 276
If, therefore, the Word began to exist at the time he passed
through the mother’s womb and wore the bodily framework,
[101] it is clear that he was born of a woman. But if God the
Word was from the very beginning with the Father, and we say
that all things were made through him,277 then the one who is
and is the cause of all things that are made was not born of a
woman, but is, by nature, God, self-sufficient, unlimited, and in-
comprehensible. But from a woman was born a human being,
who was implanted in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit.

For the truly pure and undefiled temple is the human tent sur-
rounding the Word, where God clearly took up residence and
lived. And we do not say this by way of conjecture, for it is the
Son of this God by nature who foretells the destruction and res-
urrection of the temple and clearly instructs and teaches us,
272. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit. 273. See Lk 2, passim.

274. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit. 275. See Acts 7.56.
276. Eustathius of Antioch, Discourse on the text, “The Lord created me in the be-
ginning of his ways” (Prv 8.22). CPG 2.3354.
277. See Jn 1.1–3.
278. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit.
when he says to the bloodthirsty Jews, “Destroy this temple, and

in three days I shall raise it up.”279

When the Word, therefore, had made the temple and put on the
human being, he went among humans with a body, performed
all kinds of miracles without being seen, and sent the apostles as
preachers of the eternal kingdom.
35. By the same author from the interpretation of Psalm 92.281

If “the one who anoints” refers to God, whose throne [the
psalmist] said was eternal, then it is obvious that the one who
anoints was begotten from God and is clearly God by nature. But
the one who was anointed received an acquired form of excel-
lence, since he was adorned by a chosen temple through the di-
vinity of the one who dwelt in him.
The Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

and Confessor
36. From the defense made on behalf of Dionysius,
Bishop of Alexandria.282
“I am the vine, you are the branches; my father is the vine-dress-
er.”283 For we are related to the Lord according to the body, and
that is why he said, “I shall announce your name to my broth-
ers.”284 And just as the branches are of the same substance as the
vine and [come] from it, so we, who have the same kind of body
279. Jn 2.19.
281. Eustathius of Antioch, Commentary on Psalm 92. CPG 2.3356. The psalm
in question is ostensibly Psalm 93 (LXX 92), although it does not mention “an
anointer” in Hebrew or Greek. References to anointing appear in Ps 45.7 (LXX
44.8) and Ps 89.20 (LXX 88.21).
282. Athanasius of Alexandria, About the teaching of Dionysius 10.4–5. CPG
2.2121.
283. Jn 15.5, 1.
284. Ps 22.22 (LXX 21.23).
as the Lord’s body, [102] receive from his fullness, and have it as
a root for resurrection and salvation. And the Father is called
the vine-dresser, because through the Word he took care of the
vine, which is the Lord’s body.
37. By the same author from the same defense.285

The Lord was called a vine because of the bodily relationship
with the branches, which we are.286
38. By the same author from the greater discourse about faith.287
The text, “In the beginning was the Word,”288 clearly reveals the
divinity, while the phrase, “The Word became flesh,”289shows the
Lord’s humanity.

And the text, “He will wash his robe in wine,”291 that is, the body,
the garment of the divinity, in his own blood.l.l.l.

For the word “was”293 refers to his divinity, while the phrase “be-
came flesh”294 refers to the body. “The Word became flesh,”295
not by being reduced to flesh, but by wearing flesh. It is just as if
someone would say that so and so became an old man, even
though he was not born that way from the start, or that the sol-
dier became a veteran, and thus became something that he was
285. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit. 12.2.

286. See Jn 15.5.
287. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Greater Discourse about Faith 2. CPG
2.2803. This work is attributed to Marcellus of Ancyra in CPG.
288. Jn 1.1.
289. Jn 1.14a.
290. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit. 75.
291. Gn 49.11.
292. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 11, no. 40.
293. See Jn 1.1. 294. See Jn 1.14a.
295. Loc. cit.
not before. John says, “I was on the island of Patmos on the

Lord’s day,”296 not because he came into being or was born
there; but he said, “I was on Patmos” instead of “I was present.”
The Word was present in flesh in the same way, as Scripture said,
“The Word became flesh.”297 Listen to him when he says, “I be-
came as a ruined vessel,”298 and, “I became as a person beyond
help, free among the dead.”299
41. By the same author from the letter to Epictetus.300

For who ever heard anything like this? Who taught it? Who
learned it? “For a law will come from Sion, and a word of the
Lord from Jerusalem.”301 Where did all this come from? What
kind of hell blurted out the statements that the body from Mary
is of the same substance as the divinity of the Word, or that the
Word was changed into flesh, bones, hair, and a complete body?
Who heard, in [103] a church or among Christians at all, that
the Lord wore a body by adoption, not by nature?
42. By the same author from the same letter.302

Who would say that it was a Christian speaking, if they heard
that the Word formed for himself a body that could suffer, not
from Mary, but from his own substance? Who invented this
wicked blasphemy, who can think and say that the person who
states that the body of the Lord is from Mary no longer under-
stands the divinity as a Trinity, but as a tetrad, so that those who
think like this are saying that the flesh from Mary that the savior
put on is from the substance of the Trinity? Finally where did
people learn to spit out blasphemy like that just mentioned, so
that they can say that the body is not more recent than the divin-
ity of the Word, but was always coeternal with the Word, since it
was formed out of the substance of Wisdom?
296. Rev 1.9. 297. Jn 1.14a.

298. Ps 31.12 (LXX 30.13). 299. Ps 88.4b–5 (LXX 87.5).
301. Is 2.3.

The body from Mary was, therefore, according to divine Scrip-
ture, human by nature and a true body, since it was the same as
ours; for Mary is our sister, because we are all from Adam. And
no one would doubt this, if they recalled what Luke wrote.304
The Holy Basil, Bishop of Caesarea

44. From the interpretation of Psalm 59.305
All foreigners obeyed and were made subject to the yoke of
Christ; for this reason he “imposes his sandal on Idumaea.”306
The divinity’s sandal is the God-bearing flesh, by means of which
he walked among human beings.
45. By the same author from the writing on the

Holy Spirit to bishop Amphilochius.307
He switched and used the phrase “from whom” instead of
“through whom,” as Paul did when he said, for example, “born
from a woman.”308 For he clearly made this distinction for us
elsewhere, when he said that being born from the man is proper
to the woman, while being born through the woman is proper to
a man; he said this in the text, “As woman is from man, so man is
through the woman.”309 But even as he indicated that there is no
difference [104] in usage and also corrected, in passing, the er-
ror of those who think that the Lord’s body is spiritual, he select-
ed the more vivid expression, to show that the God-bearing flesh
was formed from human material. For the phrase “through a
woman” could have suggested the idea that the birth was simply
a transient act; but the phrase “from a woman” should make
sufficiently clear that the man who is born shares the nature of
the woman who gave birth.

304. Lk 24.39–40 follows in the original text of Athanasius.
305. Basil of Caesarea, Homily on Psalm 59 [Ps 60 (LXX 59)]. CPG 2.2836.
306. See Ps 60.8 (LXX 59.10). Idumaea is the LXX name for Edom.
307. Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 5.12. CPG 2.2839.
308. Gal 4.4.
309. 1 Cor 11.12.
The Holy Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus

46. From the first exposition to Cledonius.310
If someone says that the flesh came down from heaven, but is
not from here and from us, let him be accursed. For one must
realize that texts such as “The second human being was from
heaven,”311 and “As is the man of heaven, so also are those who
are of heaven,”312 and “No one has gone up to heaven, except
the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man,”313 and
other passages like them, were spoken because of the union with
the human being, just as it was said that all things came into be-
ing through Christ,314 and that Christ dwells in our hearts,315 not
in accordance with the visible appearance of God, but in accor-
dance with the intellectual understanding of God; for just as the
names were mixed together, so too were the natures.

Let us see, in their own words, their reason for becoming human
or becoming flesh. If it was that God, who is otherwise incompre-
hensible, might be comprehended and mingle in the flesh, as
though in a veil, with human beings, their characterization and
dramatic performance are ingenious, to overlook the fact that
God could have conversed with us in other ways, as [he did] in
the past, through a burning bush317 or in human form.318 But if
it was to wipe out the condemnation due to sin, by sanctifying
like through like,319 then just as there had to be flesh because of
the condemnation of the flesh, and soul because of [the con-
demnation of] the soul, so too there had to be mind because of
[the condemnation of] the mind, which not only fell in Adam,
but was also primarily affected, as physicians say about illnesses.
For that which received the commandment also did not keep the
310. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 101.30–31. CPG 2.3032.

311. 1 Cor 15.47. 312. 1 Cor 15.48.
313. Jn 3.13. 314. See Jn 1.3.
315. See Eph 3.17.
316. Gregory of Nazianzus, op. cit. 50–54.
317. See Ex 3.2. 318. See Gn 18.1–33.
319. See Rom 5.16 and 18.
commandment. And that which did not keep the command-

ment also dared to transgress. And that which transgressed
[105] was also most in need of salvation. And that which needed
salvation was also assumed. And so, whether they like it or not, it
has now been shown, with, as they say, geometric necessity and
proof that the mind was assumed.
But you act in such a way [as to suggest] that, if a person had
a diseased eye and a bruised foot, you would heal the foot, but
leave the eye uncured; or if an artist painted something badly,
you would alter the painting, but ignore the artist, as though he
had done a good job. And so, if they, despite the pressure of
these arguments, have recourse to the idea that it is possible for
God to save humanity even without a mind, then it is presum-
ably also possible for God to do so without flesh, by a mere act of
the will, just as God without a body makes and made all other
things bodies.320 So do away with both the mind and the flesh, to
make your madness perfect.
The Holy Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa

48. From the discourse on Abraham.321
The Word, therefore, came down, not as he is in himself, but by
becoming flesh322—not the form of God, but the form of the
slave.323 This, then, is the one who said that he could do nothing
on his own,324 because lack of power is a sign of weakness. For
just as darkness is to light and death to life, so weakness is op-
posed to power. And yet Christ is God’s power.325 Power is usual-
ly not powerless, for, if power were weak, what would have pow-
er? When the Word proclaims that he can do nothing, therefore,
320. Theodoret’s Greek text here is problematic. Gregory’s original, fol-

lowed by the PG text of Theodoret, reads simply ajswmavtw", which means “just
as God makes and made all things without a body,” i.e., without God having a
body. All the manuscripts of the Eranistes read simply swmatikw`", which means
“just as God makes and made all things with a body,” i.e., with all things having
a body. The text translated here is based on a conjecture, suggested by Nigel G.
Wilson, which would read swvmata ajswmavtw".
321. Gregory of Nyssa, On the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, pp. 129.7–
130.3. CPG Suppl.3192.
322. See Jn 1.14a. 323. See Phil 2.6–8.
324. See Jn 5.19. 325. See 1 Cor 1.24.
he is clearly not attributing lack of power to the divinity of the

only begotten one, but is testifying that the lack of power is due
to the weakness of our nature. And the flesh is weak, as Scrip-
ture says: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”326
49. By the same author from the work on perfection of life.327

But the true lawgiver, of whom Moses was a type, formed for
himself from our earth the tablets of [our] nature. For marriage
did not produce his God-receiving flesh; but he was the engraver
of his own flesh, which was inscribed by the finger of God.328 For
the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin, and the power of the most
high overshadowed her.329 [106] And when this took place, our
nature could not be shattered again,330 for it became immortal
through the marks made by the finger.
50. By the same author from the treatise against Eunomius.331

We say, therefore, that when he said in his previous discourse
that wisdom built a house for itself,332 he is speaking enigmati-
cally about the formation of the Lord’s flesh. For true wisdom
did not live in someone else’s building, but built a home for it-
self from the virgin’s body.
51. By the same author from the same work.333

The Word existed from eternity, but the flesh came into being in
the last times,334 and one should not reverse this and say that the
flesh is eternal, or that the Word came into being in the last
times.
326. Mt 26.41.
327. Gregory of Nyssa, About the life of Moses, 2.108.21–109.6. CPG 2.3159.
328. The tablets of the ten commandments are used here to symbolize the
humanity of the Word made flesh.
329. See Lk 1.35.
330. See Ex 32.19.
331. Gregory of Nyssa, Books against Eunomius 3.1.44. CPG 2.3135.
332. See Prv 9.1.
333. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit. 3.3.64.
334. See Heb 1.1–2.

The phrase “created me”336 refers, not to the divine and the un-
compounded, but, as has been said, to that which had been as-
sumed, in accordance with the divine plan, from our created na-
ture.
53. By the same author from the first discourse on the beatitudes.337
“Who, although he was in God’s form, did not consider being
equal to God something to be grasped, but emptied himself and
took a slave’s form.”338 What is more poor in reference to God
than the form of the slave? What is more humble in reference to
the ruler of all than to enter willingly into communion with our
poor nature? “The king of kings and Lord of Lords”339 willingly
puts on the form of slavery.
The Holy Flavian, Bishop of Antioch

54. From the homily on John the Baptist.340
Do not think of a bodily joining, therefore, and do not under-
stand it as marital association. For your creator creates his bodily
temple, which is born from you.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” 341
[107] Hear him as he says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
and this is why he anointed me.”342 You do not understand what
you are reading, he says. For I come to you anointed by the Spir-
335. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit. 3.1.50.

336. Prv 8.22.
337. Gregory of Nyssa, First discourse on the beatitudes, p. 84.10–16. CPG Sup-
pl.3160–61.
338. Phil 2.6–7.
339. 1 Tm 6.15.
340. Flavian of Antioch, Homily on John the Baptist. CPG 2.3435.2.
341. Flavian of Antioch, Discourse on the text, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”
(Lk 4. 18). CPG 2.3435.3.
342. Lk 4.18.
it. And what is anointed by the Spirit is not the invisible nature,
but that which is the same kind as us.
Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium

56. From the discourse on the text,
“My Father is greater than I.” 343
From now on distinguish the natures, that of God and that of
the human being. For a human being did not come from God
through a loss, nor did God come from a human being through
an addition. For I am speaking about God and a human being.
When you attribute the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles
to God, you are necessarily, though unwillingly, attributing the
humble words to the human being from Mary, and the ones that
are exalted and worthy of God to the Word who exists in the be-
ginning.344 And so I sometimes speak exalted words and at other
times I use lowly ones, in order to reveal, through the lofty
words, the excellence of the Word that dwells within, and to
make known, through the humble words, the weakness of the
humble flesh. Sometimes, therefore, I say that I am equal to the
Father,345 and at other times I say that the Father is greater.346 I
am not contradicting myself, but I am showing that I am God
and a human being—God through the lofty words and a human
being through the humble ones. But if you want to know how
the Father is greater than I, I was talking from the flesh, not
from the person of the divinity.

“The Son cannot do anything on his own.” 347
What kind of Adam disobeyed in heaven? What kind of first
formed man was formed from a heavenly body alongside the
first formation? The one from the earth was formed in the be-
343. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 12 (Discourse on the text, “My Father

is Greater than I” [ Jn 14.28 ]). CPG 2.3245.12.
344. See Jn 1.1. 345. See Jn 10.30.
346. See Jn 14.28.
347. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 10a (Discourse on the text, “The Son
Cannot Do Anything on his Own” [ Jn 5.19]). CPG 2.3245.10a.
ginning, the one from the earth disobeyed, the one from the
earth was assumed. Therefore, it was also the one from the earth
that was saved, so that the meaning of the divine plan might thus
be revealed as both true and necessary.
The Holy John, Bishop of Constantinople

[108] 58. From the discourse that he delivered
when the Gothic elder spoke before him.348
See what he does from the start. He puts on our weakened, sub-
dued nature, so that by means of it he could fight and struggle;
and from the start he totally rooted out the nature of madness.
59. By the same author from the discourse on the nativity.349

For is it not totally insane for them to put their gods into stones
and cheap wooden statues, lock them up in a kind of prison, and
still think that they are not acting or speaking shamefully, while
at the same time they bring charges against us for saying that
God, through the Holy Spirit, formed for himself a living temple,
by means of which he helped the world? For if it is shameful for
God to live in a human body, then, to the extent that wood and
stone are less worthy than a human being, it is that much more
disgraceful for God to dwell in wood and stone; unless, of course,
they think that our race is of less value than these inanimate ma-
terials. They bring the substance of God down into stones and
dogs, and many of the heretics bring it into other things even
more disreputable than these; but we would in no way put up
with just hearing any of this.350 We say that Christ assumed from
the virgin’s womb flesh that was pure, holy, unblemished, and
free of all sin, and formed his own vessel.351
348. John Chrysostom, Homily [9] delivered after the Gothic elder 3. CPG
2.4441.9.
349. John Chrysostom, On the nativity 6. CPG 2.4334.
350. See Eph 5.12.
351. PGL (p. 1236) says that the basic meanings of skeuò" are: vessel, instru-
ment, hive, body (of animals); it also says that it can refer to “human nature as a
full entity.” The latter reflects a modern theological interpretation that may be
anachronistic in this text.
60. And shortly after.352

We say that God the Word formed for himself a holy temple and
through it brought the heavenly way of life into our life.
61. By the same author from the discourse: that Christ’s

humble words and actions were not due to weakness in power,
but to differences in a divine plan.353
Why, then, did both he as well as the apostles say many humble
things about himself? The first and most important reason was
the fact that he had put on flesh and wanted all people, both
then and in the future, to believe that it was a real nature, not
some kind of shadow or simply the visible shape. For even
though both he as well as the apostles had said so many humble
and human things about himself, the devil still had the power to
persuade some poor, wretched [109] people to deny the mean-
ing of the divine plan, to dare to say that he did not take flesh,
and to destroy the whole basis of God’s love for humanity; how
many would have fallen into this pit, if he had said none of this?
Orthodox. So as not to wear out your ears with sheer num-

bers, I have offered you a few quotations from many preachers
of the truth. And these should suffice to reveal the meaning of
what praiseworthy men think. And now it would be your turn to
express your opinion about what has been said.
Eranistes. They have all spoken harmoniously, and those who
tend the field in the West agree with those who cultivate the
East;354 but I did observe great diversity in their words.
Orthodox. These men were successors of the divine apostles.
Some even enjoyed the privilege of hearing their holy words
and of seeing those admirable men; many were adorned with
the crown of martyrdom. Do you think it is right, then, to speak
blasphemy against them?
352. John Chrysostom, op. cit. 6.

353. John Chrysostom, On the consubstantial (= Homily 7 on the incomprehensi-
ble nature of God) 3. CPG 2.4320.
354. In describing the work of the bishops Theodoret uses two verbs that re-
fer to the nurture of plants.
Eranistes. I’m afraid to do that, but I do not accept the great

diversity.
Orthodox. Well then, I’ll again provide you with an unexpect-
ed remedy. For I shall bring in Apollinarius, one of the teachers
of your amazing heresy, and I shall show that he understood
the text, “The Word became flesh”355 in the same way as the
holy fathers. Hear, therefore, what he wrote about this in the
book, A Summary.356
Apollinarius
62. From the book, A Summary.357
If one is not changed into that which one assumes, and Christ
assumed flesh, then he was not changed into flesh.
63. And he again immediately goes on to add: 358

For through the body he gave himself to us in a relationship, in
order to save [us]. But that which saves is far more excellent
than that which is saved; he is, therefore, far [110] more excel-
lent than us, even when he is in a body. But he would not have
been more excellent if he had changed into flesh.
64. And soon after he says this: 359

The uncompounded is one, but the composite cannot be one.
Anyone who says that he became flesh would be predicating
change of the one Word. But if the composite is also one, as a
human being is, then whoever says, “The Word became flesh”360
because of the union with flesh is saying “one” according to
composition.
355. Jn 1.14a.
356. The Greek title is kata; kefavlaion.
357. Apollinarius, To Diodore or the book “A Summary.” CPG 2.3657.
358. Apollinarius, op. cit. 359. Ibid.
360. Jn 1.14a.
65. And after a brief interval he again says this:361

Becoming flesh is emptying,362 and emptying revealed, not a
Son of God, but a Son of Man, who emptied himself by the gar-
ment363 [he took], not by a change.364
Orthodox. Notice that the teacher of your beliefs also intro-

duced the word “garment.” And yet:
66. And in the short treatise “On Faith” he also says: 365
We believe, therefore, that, while the divinity remained un-
changed, it became flesh for the renewal of humanity. For no
change, alteration, or limitation affected the holy power of God.
67. And soon after: 366

We adore God, who assumed flesh from the holy virgin, and who
was, therefore, a human being according to the flesh, but God
according to the Spirit.
68. And in another exposition he says this: 367

We confess that the Son of God became a Son of Man, not in
name, but in reality, by assuming flesh from Mary the virgin.
Eranistes. I didn’t realize that Apollinarius thought this, for I

had different ideas about him.
Orthodox. See then, you have learned that in addition to the
prophets, the apostles, and those who were officially appointed
teachers of the world after them, Apollinarius, the writer of
heretical foolishness, also confesses that God the Word is im-
361. Apollinarius, op. cit.

362. Savrkwsi" kevnwsi".
363. Peribolhv. Cf. Theodoret’s use of this word on pp. 45–46, 48, above.
364. See Phil 2.7.
365. Apollinarius, The faith in detail 11. CPG 2.3645.
366. Apollinarius, op. cit. This quotation appears to be from a different, un-
known work, not the writing previously cited.
367. Apollinarius, The faith in detail 11. CPG 2.3645.
mutable, and he does not say that he changed into flesh, but
that he assumed flesh; he even made this confession often,
[111] as you have heard. Do not struggle, therefore, to surpass
your teacher in blasphemy. “For a disciple is not above the mas-
ter,” as the Lord said.368
Eranistes. I too confess that God the Word is immutable and
assumed flesh. For it is sheer madness to oppose so many wit-
nesses.
Orthodox. Does it seem like a good idea, then, to answer the
remaining questions as well?
Eranistes. Let us put off the inquiry into these issues until to-
morrow.
Orthodox. Let us end our discussion, therefore, and separate,
and let us remember what we have confessed.
368. Mt 10.24.
UNMIXED
DIALOGUE TWO
r a n i s t e s . I came, just as I promised, and now you

have to do one of two things: Either answer the ques-
tions under discussion, or agree with what we say.
Orthodox. I accepted the challenge, because I thought it was
right and just. But we should first recall to mind where we left
the discussion yesterday and what conclusion the dialogue
reached.
Eranistes. I’ll recall to mind the way it ended. For I remember
that we acknowledged that God the Word was immutable and
assumed flesh, but was not changed into flesh.
Orthodox. You seem to be satisfied with these conclusions,
since you recalled them accurately.
Eranistes. I already said before that anyone who argued with
so many outstanding teachers was quite clearly mad. But Apolli-
narius above all caused me embarrassment by saying the same
as the orthodox, even though he was clearly moving in the op-
posite direction in his discourses about the Incarnation.
Orthodox. So we do say that God the Word assumed flesh?
Orthodox. What do we understand by flesh: body alone, as Ar-
ius and Eunomius think, or body and soul?
Eranistes. Body and soul.
Orthodox. What type of soul: the rational soul, or the one that
some call the vegetative or life-giving soul? For the fictitious
claptrap in Apollinarius’s writings forces us to ask unnecessary
questions.
Eranistes. Does Apollinarius mention a distinction of souls?
Orthodox. He says that the human being is composed of three
parts: the body, the life-giving soul, and finally the rational soul,
which he calls mind. But divine Scripture knows one soul, not
89
two, and [113] the formation of the first human being clearly
teaches us this. For it says, “God took dust from the earth,
formed the man, and breathed a breath of life into his face,
and the man became a living soul.”1 And in the Gospels the
Lord said to the holy disciples, “Do not be afraid of those who
kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; fear rather the one who
can destroy both the soul and the body in Gehenna.”2 And
when the most divine Moses had counted the people who came
down to Egypt and had quoted the number with which each
tribal leader entered, he added, “All the souls that entered
Egypt were seventy-five”;3 he counted one soul for each of those
who had entered. And in Troas, when everyone thought that
Eutychus had died, the divine Apostle said, “Do not be dis-
turbed, for his soul is in him.”4
Eranistes. It has clearly been shown that each human being
has one soul.
Orthodox. But Apollinarius says there are two, and that God
the Word assumed the irrational soul and was himself in the
flesh in place of the rational one. That is why I asked what type
of soul you say was assumed with the body.
Eranistes. I say it was the rational soul, for I follow divine
Scripture.
Orthodox. Do we say, therefore, that God the Word assumed
the complete form of the slave?5
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. And this is absolutely correct. For the whole first
man became subject to sin and destroyed the characteristics of
the divine image, and the race followed its first ancestor; it was
therefore out of necessity that the creator, in his desire to re-
new the image that had been obscured, assumed the whole na-
ture and imprinted in it much better characteristics than the
former ones.
1. Gn 2.7.
2. Mt 10.28.
3. Gn 46.27 (LXX). The Hebrew text says seventy.
4. Acts 20.10.
5. See Phil 2.7.
UNMIXED: DIALOGUE TWO 91
Eranistes. This is true. But I think that we should first clarify

the meaning of the words, so that the dialogue may proceed
smoothly and nothing doubtful may intervene to cut off the
discussion.
Orthodox. Well said. Now ask whatever you like.
Eranistes. What should we call Jesus Christ: a human being or
God?
[114] Orthodox. Neither one without the other, but both at
once. For when God the Word became a human being, he was
named Jesus Christ. For [Scripture] says, “You shall call his
name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins”;6 and
“Today is born for you Christ the Lord in the city of David.”7
These are the words of angels. But before becoming human
[the Word] was called God, Son of God, only begotten, Lord,
God the Word, and creator. For “In the beginning,” it says, “was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God”;8 and “All things were made through him”;9 and “He was
life”;10 and “He was the true light that comes into the world and
enlightens every human being.”11 And there are many other
statements like these that reveal the divine nature. But after be-
coming human, the same person was named Jesus and Christ.
Eranistes. And so Jesus the Lord is only God.
Orthodox. Do you hear that God the Word became human
and call him only God?
Eranistes. Since he became human without being changed,
but remained what he was, one must call him what he was.
Orthodox. God the Word was, is, and will be immutable, but
became human by assuming a human nature. We must, there-
fore, confess each nature, the one that assumed and the one
that was assumed.
Eranistes. The name should come from the better one.
Orthodox. Is the human being, I mean, the living being, sim-
ple or composite?
Eranistes. Composite.
6. Mt 1.21. 7. Lk 2.11.
8. Jn 1.1. 9. Jn 1.3.
10. Jn 1.4. 11. Jn 1.9.
Orthodox. Of what is it composed?

Eranistes. Of soul and body.
Orthodox. Which of these natures is better?
Eranistes. The soul is obviously better, because it is rational,
immortal, and power over the living being has been entrusted
to it. But the body is mortal and perishable, and, when separat-
ed from the soul, is irrational and dead.
Orthodox. So divine Scripture should have named the living
being in terms of the better nature.
[115] Eranistes. It does, since it called those who entered
Egypt souls. For Israel, it says, came down into Egypt with seven-
ty-five souls.12
Orthodox. Did divine Scripture name anyone in terms of the
body?
Eranistes. Those who were slaves to the flesh it called flesh.
For it says, “God said, ‘My spirit will not remain in these people,
because they are flesh.’”13
Orthodox. Did it call anyone flesh apart from an accusation?
Eranistes. I don’t remember.
Orthodox. Then I’ll remind you and I’ll teach you that it
called very holy people flesh. So answer this: What would you
call the apostles, spiritual or people of flesh?
Eranistes. Spiritual, and leaders and teachers of the spiritual.
Orthodox. Listen, then, to the words of the divinely inspired
Paul: “When the one who separated me from my mother’s
womb and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his
Son in me, so that I might preach him among the nations, I did
not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up
to those who were apostles before me.”14 In referring to the
apostles in this way, he wasn’t criticizing them at that time, was
he?
Eranistes. In no way.
Orthodox. Wasn’t he rather naming them in terms of the visi-
ble nature, and comparing the call through human beings to
the call from heaven?
12. See Gn 46.27 (LXX). See n. 3, above.

13. Gn 6.3.
14. Gal 1.15–17.
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. Then listen to David the hymn-writer as he sings
and says to God, “All flesh will come to you”;15 and hear the
prophet Isaiah, who foretells that, “All flesh will see the salva-
tion of our God.”16
Eranistes. It has been shown clearly that even apart from ac-
cusation divine Scripture names human nature in terms of the
flesh.
Orthodox. Now I’ll also show you the other side.
Eranistes. What other side?
[116] Orthodox. That even when it accuses certain people, di-
vine Scripture names them in terms only of the soul.
Eranistes. And where will you find this in divine Scripture?
Orthodox. Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet
Ezekiel: “The soul that sins will itself die.”17 And through the
mighty Moses also he says, “The soul that sins”;18 and again “It
will happen that every soul that does not listen to that prophet
will be utterly destroyed.”19 And you can find many other state-
ments like these.
Eranistes. This has been proved.
Orthodox. If there exists, therefore, a certain natural union
and joining together of creatures, fellow-slaves, and contempo-
raries, divine Scripture customarily names this living being, not
only in terms of its better nature alone, but also in terms of
both the lesser and the greater. How can you rebuke us, then,
for naming Christ the Lord a human being at the same time
that we confess he is God, especially since many factors make
this absolutely necessary?
Eranistes. And what makes it necessary for you to name
Christ the savior a human being?
Orthodox. The differences and the absolute contradictions
among heretical teachings.
Eranistes. Which teachings contradict one another?
Orthodox. The teaching of Arius contradicts that of Sabellius,
since the former divides the substances, while the latter blends
15. Ps 65.2 (LXX 64.3). 16. Is 52.10.

17. Ezek 18.4. 18. Lv 5.1 (LXX).
19. Dt 18.19 and Nm 9.13 (LXX).
the subsistent entities. Arius introduces three substances, while

Sabellius speaks of one subsistent entity instead of three. Now
tell me how each disease must be cured: by applying one reme-
dy to both diseases or the appropriate one to each?
Eranistes. The appropriate one to each.
Orthodox. So we’ll try to persuade Arius to confess the one
substance of the Holy Trinity, and we’ll offer proofs of this from
divine Scripture.
Eranistes. This is the thing to do.
Orthodox. But when we argue with Sabellius, we’ll do the op-
posite. [117] For we won’t say a word about the substance, be-
cause he too confesses one substance.
Eranistes. Obviously.
Orthodox. But we’ll strive to heal the sickness of his thought.
Orthodox. And what sickness did we say he has?
Eranistes. We said that he is defective with respect to the sub-
sistent entities.
Orthodox. So when he speaks of one subsistent entity of the
Trinity, we’ll show him that divine Scripture proclaims three
subsistent entities.
Eranistes. This is the correct approach; but we have wandered
from the topic under discussion.
Orthodox. Not at all. For we’re gathering proof about it, and
you’ll see this immediately. Tell me, therefore, whether you
think that all the heresies named for Christ confess both the di-
vinity and the humanity of Christ.
Eranistes. I do not.
Orthodox. Some confess only the divinity, and others only the
humanity.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And others confess a part of the humanity.
Eranistes. I think this is true. But you should reveal to us the
names of those who hold each of these opinions, so that the in-
vestigation may proceed more clearly.
Orthodox. I’ll do this. Simon, Menander, Cerdon, Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, and Manes flatly denied the
humanity of Christ. Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius, Paul of
Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus fell into the diametrically
opposite blasphemy. For they proclaim that Christ is only a hu-

man being and deny the divinity that exists from eternity. Arius
and Eunomius call the divinity of the only begotten created and
say [118] that he assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses
the assumption of a body with a soul, but by his own words he
deprives the rational soul of glory and salvation. Here, then, is
the discrepancy among these corrupt teachings. And you, tell
us as a lover of truth yourself whether we have to engage in a di-
alogue with these people, or must rather ignore them as they
plunge into the pit and let them go to the devil.
Eranistes. Contempt for those who are sick is an act of inhu-
manity.
Orthodox. So we should have compassion and do our best to
offer a cure.
Orthodox. If you were skilled at curing bodies, then, and many
people with various symptoms, such as running eyes, damaged
ears, toothaches, strained and torn muscles, and an excess of
bile or phlegm, came to you and asked you to heal them, what
would you do? Tell me. Would you prepare a single remedy for
all of them or one that is appropriate to each condition?
Eranistes. Obviously [I would apply] to each one the suitable
remedy that could heal it.
Orthodox. You would, therefore, cool hot illnesses, but warm
the cold; you would relax the tense, but strengthen the weak
with bracing medicines; you would dry the flaccid, but moisten
the dry; in this way you would expel the diseases and restore
the good health that they had driven out.
Eranistes. The established practice of the art of healing rec-
ommends this approach to healing; for opposites, they say, cure
opposites.
Orthodox. If you were a gardener, would you provide the
same care to all the plants, or would you offer the pomegranate
tree the handling proper to it and the fig tree its appropriate
care? And in the same way would you give the pear tree, the ap-
ple tree, and the cultivated vines the right treatment for them?
In short, would you give each plant care that is suitable for it?
Eranistes. Each plant obviously needs its own proper type of
care.
Orthodox. And if you were a qualified shipbuilder and no-

ticed that the mast-holder needed restoration, would you give it
the care proper to the rudders or that appropriate to the mast-
holder?
Eranistes. These are obvious cases. For each thing requires
the proper type of [119] care, whether it is a plant, a member
of a body, pieces of furniture, or parts of a ship.
Orthodox. But isn’t it wicked, then, to provide appropriate
remedies for a body and for things without souls, but not to fol-
low this rule of healing in the case of souls?
Eranistes. It is extremely unjust; and it is filled not only with
injustice, but also with stupidity. For those who act differently
are not skilled in the art of healing.
Orthodox. And so when we talk with each heresy, shall we ap-
ply the remedy proper to it?
Orthodox. And the proper cure consists in adding what is
lacking and taking away what is superfluous. Is that correct?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. When we try to heal Photinus, Marcellus, and their
followers, therefore, what should we add, to carry out the rule
of healing?
Eranistes. The confession of Christ’s divinity, since they lack
this.
Orthodox. But we shall say nothing to them about the human-
ity, since they confess that Christ the Lord is a human being.
Orthodox. But when we talk with Arius and Eunomius about
the only begotten one’s becoming human, what should we per-
suade them to add to their confession?
Eranistes. The assumption of the soul, since they say that God
the Word only assumed a body.
Orthodox. And what is Apollinarius missing so that he can
make his teaching on the Incarnation accurate?
Eranistes. He is not to separate the mind from the soul, but
must confess that the rational soul was assumed along with the
body.
Orthodox. Shall we, therefore, discuss this with him?
Orthodox. What about Marcion, Valentinus, Manes, and their

followers? What do we say that they partially confess and totally
deny?
[120] Eranistes. That they claimed to believe in the divinity of
Christ; but they do not accept the teaching about the humanity.
Orthodox. We shall try to persuade them, therefore, to accept
the teaching about the humanity and not to call the divine plan
an illusion.
Eranistes. That is the proper thing to do.
Orthodox. We shall tell them, therefore, that one must call
Christ not only God, but also a human being.
Orthodox. And if we refuse to call Christ a human being, how
can we order others to do so? For they will not listen to our ex-
hortation, but will convict us of thinking as they do.
Eranistes. And how are we thinking as they do, if we confess
that God the Word assumed both flesh and a rational soul?
Orthodox. Alright then, if we confess the reality, please tell me
why we avoid the words?
Eranistes. We should name the savior in terms of the more
worthy elements.
Orthodox. Keep this rule, then, and do not call him crucified,
or risen from the dead, or other names like this.
Eranistes. But these terms refer to the sufferings that bring
salvation; denying the sufferings does away with salvation.
Orthodox. And the name “human being” is a name that refers
to nature; keeping silent about it denies the nature; denying
the nature does away with the sufferings; and doing away with
the sufferings destroys salvation.
Eranistes. I place a high value on knowing the assumed na-
ture; but calling the savior of the world a human being dimin-
ishes the glory of the Lord.
Orthodox. Do you think, then, that you are wiser than Peter
and Paul, and even the savior himself? For the Lord said to the
Jews, [121] “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken
to you the truth that I heard from my Father?”20 And he often
called himself a Son of Man. And when the wholly blessed Peter
20. Jn 8.40 and 7.19.

spoke to the Jewish people, he said, “Men of Israel, listen to

these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God for
you.”21 And when blessed Paul presented the saving proclama-
tion to the bystanders on the Areopagus, in addition to many
other things he also said this, “God overlooked the times of ig-
norance and now orders all people everywhere to repent; for
he has determined a day on which he is going to judge the
world in righteousness, in a man whom he selected, instilling
confidence in all by raising him from the dead.”22 Whoever re-
jects the name that was both given and proclaimed by the Lord
and the apostles, therefore, has assumed that he is wiser than
the great teachers and even than the very source of the wisest
teachers.
Eranistes. They offered this teaching to unbelievers; today,
however, most of the world has come to believe.
Orthodox. But there are still Jews, Greeks, and countless
heretical sects, and we must offer each of them the appropriate
teaching. And even if we were all of the same opinion, tell me
what harm is there in confessing that Christ is God and a hu-
man being? Or don’t we see in him a perfect divinity and a hu-
manity that also lacks nothing?
Eranistes. We have often confessed this.
Orthodox. Then please tell me why we are doing away with
something we have often confessed.
Eranistes. I feel that it is superfluous to call Christ a human
being, especially when a believer is speaking with a believer.
Orthodox. Do you think that the divine Apostle is a believer?
Eranistes. Yes, and the teacher of all believers.
Orthodox. Do you feel that Timothy deserves this title?
Eranistes. Yes, for he is Paul’s disciple and a teacher of others.
Orthodox. Then listen to the teacher of the teachers as he
writes [122] to his most perfect disciple: “One God, and one
mediator between God and human beings, a human being, Je-
sus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all,”23 and stop
21. Acts 2.22.

22. Acts 17.30–31.
23. 1 Tm 2.5–6.
chattering and imposing laws on us about divine names. Here

the name of mediator itself reveals divinity and humanity. He
was not called a mediator because he was only God, for how
could he have mediated between us and God if he had nothing
in common with us? But since he was joined to the Father as
God with the same substance, and since he was joined to us as a
human being because he took from us the form of the slave,24
he has rightly been called a mediator, because he joined diverse
realities in himself through the union of the natures, i.e., the
divinity and the humanity.
Eranistes. Wasn’t Moses in fact called a mediator, even
though he was only a human being?
Orthodox. He was a type of the reality, but the type does not
have everything that the reality has.25 He was not, therefore,
God by nature, but was nevertheless called God in order to
fulfill the type. For [God] says, “Behold, I have made you a god
for Pharaoh”;26 and so immediately, as though for a god, [God]
also designated a prophet. For [God] says, “your brother Aaron
will be a prophet for you.”27 The reality, however, is both God by
nature and a human being by nature.
Eranistes. Who would call something that does not have the
exact characteristics of the original a type?
Orthodox. You apparently don’t call the imperial images im-
ages of the emperor?
Eranistes. I certainly do.
Orthodox. And yet they do not have everything the original
has. For in the first place they lack both soul and reason. Sec-
ond, they have no internal organs, such as heart, stomach, liver,
and the others attached to them. Third, they have the form of
the senses, but not their actual powers; for they do not hear,
speak, or see, and they do not write, walk, or perform other hu-
man activities. But they are nevertheless called imperial images.
24. See Phil 2.7.

25. See the Introduction, p. 21, for a discussion of Theodoret’s use of typol-
ogy and the language involved.
26. Ex 7.1a.
27. Ex 7.1b.
In the same way Moses was a mediator and Christ was a media-
tor, the former as an image and type, the latter as reality. So
that I may show you this more clearly and from another source,
recall for me the words spoken about Melchizedek in the letter
to the Hebrews.
[123] Eranistes. Which words?
Orthodox. The ones in which the divine Apostle, comparing
the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood of Christ, likened
Melchizedek to Christ the Lord in other aspects, but said that
the Lord possessed the priesthood according to the order of
Melchizedek.28
Eranistes. I think the divine Apostle says the following:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high
God, met Abraham as he returned from slaughtering the kings
and he blessed him; and Abraham gave him a tenth of all he
possessed. He is interpreted first as king of righteousness, and
then as king of Salem, that is, king of peace; he is without a fa-
ther, without a mother, and without a family tree; he has neither
a beginning of days nor an end of life. And having been com-
pared to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.29
I think you were speaking about these words.

Orthodox. I was speaking about them, and I praise you be-
cause you did not abridge the text, but cited it in full. Tell me,
then, whether each of these details applies to Melchizedek by
nature and in reality.
Eranistes. Who is bold enough to rearrange what the divine
Apostle put in order?
Orthodox. Do you say, then, that these details apply to
Melchizedek by nature?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. Do you say that he is a human being, or that he as-
sumed another nature?
Eranistes. He is a human being.
Orthodox. Is he begotten or unbegotten?
Eranistes. You are asking very strange questions.
28. See Heb 6.20; see Gn 14.17–21 for the Old Testament source.
29. Heb 7.1–3.
Orthodox. It is your fault, because you are obviously fighting

against the truth; answer the question.
Eranistes. One alone is unbegotten—the one who is God and
Father.
Orthodox. Do we say, then, that Melchizedek is begotten?
Eranistes. He is begotten.
Orthodox. But the passage about him teaches the opposite.
For remember what you recited just now: “He is without a fa-
ther, without a mother, and without a family tree; he has nei-
ther a beginning of days nor an end of life.”30 How, then, can
the words [124] “without a father and without a mother” apply
to him; how can the statement that he did not take a beginning
of existence or receive an end apply to him? For these attrib-
utes transcend human nature.
Eranistes. They do in fact transcend the limits of human na-
ture.
Orthodox. Well then, shall we say that the Apostle lied?
Orthodox. Then how can the Apostle give true testimony and
at the same time apply to Melchizedek qualities that transcend
nature?
Eranistes. The passage is very unclear and in great need of a
lengthy explanation.
Orthodox. The understanding of the thought is readily avail-
able to those who are willing to pay attention. For after the di-
vine Apostle said, “He is without father, without mother, and
without a family tree; he has neither a beginning of days nor an
end of life,”31 he added, “Having been compared to the Son of
God, he remains a priest forever.”32 And he clearly taught us
that Christ the Lord is the original for Melchizedek in matters
that transcend human nature, while Melchizedek is an image
and a type of Christ the Lord; for he said that Melchizedek was
compared to the Son of God. But let us continue our search in
the following way. Do you say that the Lord had a father accord-
ing to the flesh?
30. Heb 7.3. 31. Heb 7.3a.

32. Heb 7.3b.
Eranistes. Certainly not.

Orthodox. Why?
Eranistes. Because he was born of the holy virgin alone.
Orthodox. It was, therefore, correct to say that he was without
a father?
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Do you say that he had a mother according to the
divine nature?
Orthodox. Because he was born of the Father alone before
time?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. He was, therefore, also said to be without a family
tree, because his birth from the Father was indescribable. For
the prophet says, “Who will declare his generation?”33
[125] Eranistes. What you say is true.
Orthodox. It is therefore proper for him to have neither a be-
ginning of days nor an end of life, for he has no beginning and
is indestructible; in a word, he is eternal and coeternal with the
Father.
Eranistes. I also believe this is true. But we must look further,
to see how this applies to the noble Melchizedek.
Orthodox. It applies to him as an image and a type; but the
image, as we said before, does not have everything the original
has. These details are therefore proper to the savior by nature
and in reality, but the narrative of the ancient history adapted
them to Melchizedek.34 For it taught us about the father of the
patriarch Abraham, the father and the mother of Isaac, and
also of Jacob and his children, and it detailed the genealogy of
those who lived long ago; but it did not mention the father or
the mother of Melchizedek, nor did it show how to trace his
family from one of Noah’s children, so that he might be a type
of the one who was truly without a mother and a father. The di-
vine Apostle taught us this interpretation, for in the same pas-
sage he also added this, “The one who did not share their fami-
33. Is 53.8 (LXX).

34. See Gn 5.1–32 and 11.10–32.
ly tree received a tithe from Abraham and blessed the one who
had the promises.”35
Eranistes. Since divine Scripture did not mention his parents,
can one say that he is without a father and a mother?
Orthodox. If he actually were without a father and a mother,
he would not be an image, but reality. And yet, since he does
not have these qualities by nature, but according to the divine
plan of divine Scripture, he reveals the type of the reality.
Eranistes. The image should possess the obvious features of
the original.
Orthodox. Is the human being called an image of God?
Eranistes. It is not an image of God, but it was made accord-
ing to the image of God.36
Orthodox. Then, listen to the Apostle, who says, “For a man
should not cover his head, since he is an image and glory of
God.”37
Eranistes. Let’s suppose that he is an image of God.
Orthodox. According to what you say, then, the human being
should have preserved [126] the obvious features of the origi-
nal and should be neither a creature, nor a composite, nor lim-
ited. Like the original, it should have created out of nothing,
produced everything through a word and without effort, and in
addition to this, it should not have fallen ill, felt sorrow or
anger, or committed sin, but should have been immortal and
incorruptible, and exactly the same as the original.
Eranistes. The human being is not an image of God accord-
ing to every detail.
Orthodox. It is true that, except for the areas in which you ad-
mit that the human being is an image, you will surely find it dif-
fers immensely from the reality.
Eranistes. I agree.
Orthodox. Think about this as well: The divine Apostle called
the Son an image of the Father, for he said, “who is an image of
the invisible God.”38
Eranistes. So what? Isn’t the Son exactly the same as the Fa-
ther?
35. Heb 7.6. 36. See Gn 1.27.

37. 1 Cor 11.7. 38. Col 1.15.
Orthodox. The Son is not Father, unbegotten, or uncaused.

Eranistes. If he were, he wouldn’t be Son.
Orthodox. So I spoke the truth when I said that the image is
not exactly the same as the original.
Eranistes. You did.
Orthodox. It was in this sense, then, that the divine Apostle
said that Melchizedek was compared to the Son of God.
Eranistes. Let’s grant that the words “without a father, without
a mother, and without a family tree” mean what you said; how
are we to understand the passage, “having neither a beginning
of days nor an end of life”?39
Orthodox. In composing the ancient genealogy,40 the divinely
inspired Moses taught us that Adam had lived a certain number
of years when he begot Seth, and that, after living a certain
number of years more, he reached the end of his life. And he
spoke in the same way about Seth, Enos, and the others. But he
said nothing about the moment of Melchizedek’s birth and the
end of his life. According to the narration, therefore, he has
neither a beginning of days nor an end of life; according to the
reality, however, the only begotten Son of God did not begin to
exist and will not have an end.
Eranistes. I agree.
[127] Orthodox. With respect to those qualities that are prop-
er to God and truly divine, therefore, Melchizedek is a type of
Christ the Lord; but with respect to the office of high priest,
which pertains to human beings rather than to God, Christ the
Lord became high priest according to the order of Melch-
izedek. For Melchizedek was a high priest of nations, and Christ
the Lord offered the all-holy and saving sacrifice on behalf of
all human beings.
Eranistes. We have lavished a great deal of talk on this topic.
Orthodox. We should have used even more, as you know; for
you said that the passage is hard to understand.
Eranistes. Let’s return to the issue that was before us.
Orthodox. What were we looking at?
39. Heb 7.3.

40. See Gn 5.1–32 and 11.10–32.
Eranistes. When I said that we should not call Christ a human

being, but only God, you introduced many other witnesses as
well as those words of the Apostle that he put in his letter to
Timothy, “one God and one mediator between God and hu-
man beings, a human being Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a
ransom for all.”41
Orthodox. I remember why we turned aside to this digression.
For when I said that the very name of mediator reveals the two
natures of our savior, you yourself said that Moses had also been
called a mediator, even though he happened to be only a hu-
man being, not God and a human being. So I was forced to go
through these details, to show that the type does not have
everything that the original has. Tell me, therefore, if you con-
fess that Christ the savior must also be called a human being.
Eranistes. I call him God; for he is Son of God.
Orthodox. If you call him God because you were taught that
he is Son of God, then call him a human being too, since he of-
ten called himself a Son of Man.
Eranistes. The name “human being” does not apply to him in
the same way as the name “God.”
Orthodox. Because it is false, or for another reason?
Eranistes. The name “God” is a name that pertains to the na-
ture, while the designation “human being” pertains to the di-
vine plan.
[128] Orthodox. Do we say that the divine plan is true, or
some kind of false illusion?
Eranistes. It’s true.
Orthodox. So if the grace of the divine plan is true, and if we
call the Incarnation of God the Word a divine plan, then the
name “human being” is also true, since [the Word] was called a
human being after he assumed a human nature.
Eranistes. He was called a human being before the passion,
but after the passion he was no longer [given that designation].
Orthodox. And yet after the passion and the resurrection the
divine Apostle wrote to Timothy the letter in which he called
41. 1 Tm 2.5–6.
Christ the savior a human being.42 After the passion and the
resurrection, while preaching in Athens, he called him a man.43
After the passion and the resurrection he writes to the
Corinthians and cries out, “For since death was through a hu-
man being, resurrection from the dead was also through a hu-
man being.”44 And to teach more clearly about whom he is talk-
ing, he added, “For just as all die in Adam, so also all will be
made alive again in Christ.”45 After the passion and the resur-
rection, while divine Peter was speaking with the Jews, he called
him a man.46 After the assumption into heaven, as the glorious-
ly triumphant Stephen was being stoned, he said to the Jews,
“Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man stand-
ing at the right hand of God.”47 Let us not, therefore, think our-
selves wiser than the great preachers of the truth.
Eranistes. I do not consider myself wiser than the holy teach-
ers, but I do not find the name used.
Orthodox. How would you persuade those who deny the
Lord’s humanity, such as the Marcionites, the Manichaeans,
and others who suffer from this disease, to confess the pro-
claimed truth? Wouldn’t you bring forward many witnesses like
these and teach that Christ the Lord is not only God, but also a
human being?
Eranistes. Perhaps one would have to take this approach with
them.
Orthodox. Then please tell me why you don’t teach the [129]
true doctrine to believers? Have you lost sight of the apostolic
legislation that commands us to be ready to offer a defense?48
Let’s continue our investigation along this line: Does the best
general only engage the enemy, shoot arrows, hurl spears, and
break through their column, or does he arm the soldiers, line
them up, and stir their spirits to courage?
Eranistes. He should much rather do the latter.
Orthodox. That’s because the general’s function is to rouse the
soldiers to stand and fight, not to face danger and stand in the
42. See 1 Tm 2.5–6. 43. See Acts 17.31.

44. 1 Cor 15.21. 45. 1 Cor 15.22.
46. See Acts 2.22. 47. Acts 7.56.
48. See 1 Pt 3.15.
battle line himself, while allowing them to fall asleep around

him.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. The divine Paul also does this. For he was writing
to believers when he said, “Take up the armor of God, so that
you can withstand the cunning tricks of the devil.”49 He also
said, “Stand therefore with your loins girt in truth,”50 and so on.
And remember what we said before: The doctor supplies the
quality that is missing in nature. For if he should find excessive
cold, he adds warmth, and so on with everything else. The Lord
also did this.
Eranistes. Where will you show me that the Lord also did this?
Orthodox. In the divine Gospels.
Eranistes. Show me, then, and keep your promise.
Orthodox. What did the Jews think that Christ the savior was?
Eranistes. A human being.
Orthodox. They had absolutely no idea that he was also God?
Eranistes. Correct.
Orthodox. But shouldn’t those who did not know this have
learned it?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. Listen to him, then, when he says to them, “I have
shown you many works from my Father; for which of them are
you stoning me?”51 And when they said, “We are not stoning
you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, who are a
human being, make yourself God,”52 he added, “It has been
written in your law, ‘I have said, “You are gods.”’ If he called
those to whom the word of God came ‘gods,’ and if the Scrip-
ture cannot be annulled, [130] do you say of the one whom the
Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ be-
cause I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? If I do not do my father’s works,
do not believe me. But if I do them, even if you do not want to
believe me, believe my works, so that you may know and believe
that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”53
Eranistes. With the words you just read you showed that the
49. Eph 6.13 and 11. 50. Eph 6.14.

51. Jn 10.32. 52. Jn 10.33.
53. Jn 10.34–38.
Lord revealed himself to the Jewish people as God, not as a hu-

man being.
Orthodox. That’s right, because they did not have to learn
what they knew. For they knew that he was a human being, but
they did not know that he was also God. He also did this very
same thing with the Pharisees. For when he saw that they came
to him as to an ordinary human being, he questioned them in
this way: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is
he?” And when they said, “David’s,” he added, “Why, then, does
David, in the Spirit, call him Lord? For he says, ‘The Lord said
to my Lord, Sit at my right hand.’” Then he concludes, “If he is
his Lord, therefore, how can he be his son?”54
Eranistes. You have introduced testimony against yourself.
For the Lord clearly taught the Pharisees not to call him son of
David, but Lord of David. In this way he shows that he wished to
be called God, but not a human being.
Orthodox. It seems that you have not paid attention to the di-
vine teaching. For he did not refuse the title son of David, but
added the necessity of believing that he is also Lord of David,
since the words, “If he is, therefore, his Lord, how can he be his
son?” clearly teach this.55 For he did not say, “If he is Lord, he is
not son,” but rather, “How can he be his son?” In other words,
he is Lord in one respect and son in another. And this clearly
reveals both the divinity and the humanity.
Eranistes. Syllogisms are not required, for the Lord clearly
taught that he does not wish to be called son of David.
Orthodox. Then he should also have taught the blind men,
the Canaanite woman, and even the crowds, not to call him son
of David. For the [131] blind men called out, “Son of David,
have pity on us.”56 And the Canaanite woman said, “Son of
David, have pity on me; my daughter is cruelly tormented by a
demon.”57 And the crowd said, “Hosanna to the son of David;
blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.”58 And
not only was he not annoyed, but he even praised their faith.
54. Mt 22.42–45. 55. Mt 22.45.

56. Mt 20.30. 57. Mt 15.22.
58. Mt 21.9.
For he freed the blind men from endless night and gave them
the power to see. And he cured the raging madness of the
Canaanite woman’s daughter and drove away the wicked de-
mon. And when the high priests and Pharisees criticized those
who cried out, “Hosanna to the son of David,”59 not only did he
not stop their cries, but he even lent support to their praise.
For he said, “Truly I say to you, if these people are silent, the
stones will cry out.”60
Eranistes. He accepted these designations before the resur-
rection to show consideration for the weakness of those who
did not yet have true faith. But after the resurrection these
names were superfluous.
Orthodox. Where, then, shall we rank the blessed Paul—
among the perfect or the imperfect?
Eranistes. One shouldn’t joke about serious topics.
Orthodox. Nor should one neglect the reading of the divine
utterances.
Eranistes. And who is so miserable as to neglect their own sal-
vation?
Orthodox. Answer the question and you will come to know
your ignorance.
Eranistes. What question?
Orthodox. Where do we rank the divine Apostle?
Eranistes. Among the most perfect, obviously, and as a
teacher of the perfect.
Orthodox. When did he start to preach?
Eranistes. After the assumption of the savior,61 the coming of
the Spirit, and the stoning of the victorious Stephen.
Orthodox. This man, near the very end of his life, wrote a
final letter to his disciple Timothy and handed on to him, as in
a will, a kind of paternal inheritance; and he said this: “Remem-
ber Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, from the seed of David,
according to my gospel.”62 He pointed to his sufferings on be-
59. Mt 21.9 and Lk 19.40.

60. Lk 19.40.
61. “Assumption” is the term used for the “Ascension” of the risen Christ.
62. 2 Tm 2.8.
half of the gospel [132] and in this way showed the truth of the
gospel. For he said, “Because of which [the gospel] I suffer
even into chains as an evildoer.”63 I could easily have intro-
duced many other witnesses like this, but I thought it unneces-
sary.
Eranistes. In promising to show that the Lord provided to
those in need the teaching they lacked, you have said that he
spoke to the Pharisees and the other Jews about his own divini-
ty; but you have not proved that he also offered teaching about
the flesh.
Orthodox. It was absolutely superfluous to speak about the visi-
ble flesh, for it was clearly seen eating, drinking, working, and
sleeping. But still, putting aside the many different things that
happened before the passion, after the resurrection, when the
apostles did not believe, he showed them, not the divinity, but
the humanity. For he says, “See my hands and my feet, that it is
truly I; touch me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh
and bones, as you see that I have.”64 See, we have kept our prom-
ise to you. For we showed that teaching about the divinity was of-
fered to those who did not know it, while the flesh was shown to
those who did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. Stop
arguing, therefore, and confess the two natures of the savior.
Eranistes. There were two before the union, but, when they
came together, they formed one nature.
Orthodox. When do you say the union took place?
Eranistes. I say right at the moment of the conception.
Orthodox. Do you say that God the Word does not exist be-
fore the conception?
Eranistes. I say that God the Word exists before time.
Orthodox. Do you say that the flesh exists with the Word?
Eranistes. Definitely not.
Orthodox. But you say that it was formed by the Holy Spirit af-
ter the angel’s greeting?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. Then there were not two natures before the union,
63. 2 Tm 2.9.
64. Lk 24.39.
but one and only one. For if the divinity has a preexistence, and
the humanity does not [133] coexist [with it], because it was
formed after the angel’s greeting, and the union was joined to-
gether by the formation, then, before the union there was one
nature, the one that always existed and existed before time. But
let us now examine this precise point again. Do you think that
becoming flesh or becoming human signifies anything other
than the union?
Eranistes. No.
Orthodox. Because the Word became flesh by assuming flesh?
Orthodox. Was the union joined together by the assumption?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. Then there was one nature before the Incarnation.
For if union and becoming human are the same thing, and if
[the Word] became human by assuming human nature, and if
the form of God took the form of the slave,65 then there was
one nature before the union, the divine [nature].
Eranistes. And how are union and becoming human the
same thing?
Orthodox. You just admitted that there is no difference be-
tween these terms.
Eranistes. You tricked me with your syllogisms.
Orthodox. I’ve only offered you simple information.
Eranistes. But I was still concentrating on the earlier syllo-
gisms.
Orthodox. Then let’s go back to the same discussion again, if
you like.
Eranistes. This is the thing to do.
Orthodox. Does the Incarnation differ from the union ac-
cording to the very nature of the thing?
Eranistes. There is a tremendous difference.
Orthodox. Explain fully the forms this difference takes.
Eranistes. The very meaning of the words reveals the differ-
ence. For the Incarnation reveals the assumption of the flesh,
while the union reveals the joining together of separate things.
65. See Phil 2.7.

Orthodox. Do you say that the Incarnation preceded the

union?
Eranistes. In no way.
Orthodox. But you do say that the union took place at concep-
tion?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. In that case, if not even a moment of time inter-
vened between the assumption of the flesh and the union, and
if the assumed nature [134] did not exist before the assump-
tion and the union, Incarnation and union refer to the same
thing, and there was, therefore, one nature before the union or
Incarnation; while after the union it is proper to affirm two [na-
tures], the one that assumed and the one that was assumed.
Eranistes. I say that Christ is from two natures,66 but I do not
say two natures.
Orthodox. Explain to us what you mean by the phrase “from
two natures”; is it like silver streaked with gold, or like the
preparation of amber, or like solder, which is a mixture of lead
and tin?
Eranistes. I say that this union is like none of these, for it is in-
effable and inexpressible, and surpasses all understanding.
Orthodox. I also admit that the union cannot be explained.
But I was taught by divine Scripture that each nature has re-
mained intact even after the union.
Eranistes. And where did divine Scripture teach this?
Orthodox. All of Scripture is filled with this teaching.
Eranistes. Prove what you’re saying.
Orthodox. Do you want proof because you don’t admit the
properties of each nature?
Eranistes. Not after the union.
Orthodox. But this is exactly what we were taught by divine
Scripture.
Eranistes. I believe divine Scripture.
Orthodox. What do you say, then, when you hear the divinely
inspired John cry out, “In the beginning was the Word, and the
66. Instead of this phrase the creed of the Council of Chalcedon used “in
two natures.”
Word was with God, and the Word was God,”67 and, “All things
were made through him,”68 and other passages like these? Do
you say that the flesh is with God in the beginning, is God by
nature, and made all things, or that God the Word was begot-
ten from the Father before time?
Eranistes. I say that these words refer to God the Word; but I
do not separate the Word from the flesh united to him.
Orthodox. We don’t separate the flesh from God the Word ei-
ther, nor do we make the union a mixture.
Eranistes. I know one nature after the union.
Orthodox. When did the evangelists write the Gospels—be-
fore the union or a very long time after the union?
Eranistes. They obviously wrote after the union, the birth, the
[135] miracles, the passion, the resurrection, the assumption
into heaven, and the coming of the all-Holy Spirit.
Orthodox. Listen to John, then, when he says, “In the begin-
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were
made through him, and without him nothing was made,”69 and
so on. And listen to Matthew: “The book of the birth of Jesus
Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,”70 and so on. Luke also
traced the genealogy from Abraham and David.71 Harmonize
all of this data, then, with one nature. But you would not be
able to do this, because descent from Abraham is contrary to
existence in the beginning, and having a created ancestor is
contrary to having created everything.
Eranistes. If you say this, you are dividing the only begotten
Son into two persons.
Orthodox. I know and adore one Son of God, our Lord Jesus
Christ, but I have been taught the difference between the divini-
ty and the humanity. Now you, who claim that there was one na-
ture after the union, harmonize the Gospel prologues with this.
Eranistes. You seem to think that this is a very difficult and
perhaps impossible proposal.
67. Jn 1.1. 68. Jn 1.3.

69. Jn 1.1–3. 70. Mt 1.1.
71. See Lk 3.23–38.
Orthodox. It may be easy and simple for you; but just resolve
our problem.
Eranistes. Both of these, existence in the beginning and be-
ing born from Abraham and from David according to the flesh,
are proper to Christ the Lord.
Orthodox. You laid down the law that one must say one nature
after the union; don’t break your own law, therefore, by men-
tioning flesh.
Eranistes. It’s easy to resolve the problem without mentioning
flesh; for I refer both to Christ the savior.
Orthodox. I also say that both are proper to Christ the Lord,
but [I do this] because I see two natures in him and attribute to
each one its proper qualities. If Christ is one nature, however,
how can one refer contrary predicates to it? For taking a begin-
ning from Abraham and David, not to mention being born
many generations after David, is contrary to existence in the be-
ginning. [136] In the same way being born from creatures is
contrary to creating everything, just as having human ancestors
is contrary to having existence from God. And the temporal is
contrary to the eternal. But now let’s continue our investiga-
tion in this way. Do we say that God the Word is creator of all?
Eranistes. We were taught to believe this by divine Scripture.
Orthodox. On which day after the creation of heaven and
earth did we learn that Adam was formed?
Eranistes. The sixth.72
Orthodox. And how many generations intervened between
Adam and Abraham?
Eranistes. I understand that there were twenty.73
Orthodox. How many generations does the evangelist
Matthew count from Abraham to Christ our savior?
Eranistes. Forty-two.74
Orthodox. In that case, if Christ the Lord is one nature, how
can he both be creator of all things visible and invisible75 and
have been formed after so many generations by the Holy Spirit
72. See Gn 1.26–31. 73. See Lk 3.34–38.

74. See Mt 1.17.
75. See Col 1.16 and the Nicene Creed.
in the virgin’s womb? How can he be both Adam’s creator and

a son of Adam’s descendants?
Eranistes. I already said earlier that both are proper to him as
God incarnate; for I know one incarnate nature of the Word.76
Orthodox. My friend, we’re not saying that two natures of God
the Word became flesh, for we know one nature of God the
Word. But we have been taught that the flesh that the Word
used to become incarnate is of another nature. And I think that
you also admit this. So tell me, do you say that the Incarnation
took place in accordance with some kind of change?
Eranistes. I do not know how, but I believe that the Word be-
came flesh.
Orthodox. By professing ignorance you are acting badly and
very much like the Pharisees. For as soon as they saw the power
of the Lord’s questions, they feared condemnation and said,
“We do not know.”77 But I say loudly and clearly that the divine
Incarnation was free of change. For if [the Word] became flesh
in accordance with some alteration or change, [137] the divine
names and realities would in no way apply to him after the
change.
Eranistes. We have often confessed that God the Word is im-
mutable.
Orthodox. He became flesh, therefore, by assuming flesh.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Then the incarnate nature of God the Word is one
thing, while the nature of the flesh, which the divine nature of
the Word assumed to become incarnate and a human being, is
another.
Eranistes. Agreed.
Orthodox. Then he did not change into flesh?
Orthodox. If the Word became flesh, therefore, not by chang-
ing, but by taking flesh, and if both sets of predicates apply to
the Word as incarnate God (for you just said this), the natures
were not mingled together, but remained unmixed. If this is
76. This is a variation of a controversial phrase used by Cyril of Alexandria.

77. Mt 21.27.
our understanding, we shall also see the harmony of the evan-

gelists. For one proclaims the divinity of the one only begotten
one, that is, Christ the Lord, while the other proclaims the hu-
manity. And Christ the Lord himself teaches us this way of un-
derstanding. For sometimes he calls himself Son of God,78 and
at other times Son of Man.79 At one time he honors his mother
as the one who bore him,80 while at another time, as master, he
rebukes [her].81 On one occasion he approves those who call
him son of David,82 while on another he teaches those who lack
knowledge that he is not only David’s son, but also David’s
Lord.83 He calls both Nazareth and Capernaum his home-
land,84 but he also cries out, “Before Abraham was, I am.”85 You
will find divine Scripture filled with many examples like these.
And they reveal, not one nature, but two.
Eranistes. Whoever sees two natures in Christ divides the one
only begotten one into two sons.
Orthodox. Well then, when you say that Paul is composed of a
soul and a body, have you stated that the one Paul is two Pauls?
Eranistes. The example is inappropriate.
Orthodox. I know that too, for in this [i.e., Paul’s] case there
is a union of nature involving things that are temporal, [138]
created, and fellow servants, while in the case of Christ the
Lord it is a matter of good will, of love of humanity, and of
grace. But even though the union [in Paul’s case] was one of
nature, the properties of the natures remained unmixed.
Eranistes. If the properties of the natures remained unmixed,
why does the soul long for nourishment along with the body?
Orthodox. The soul does not long for nourishment; how
could it, since it is immortal and transcends nourishment? But
the body, which receives the capacity of life from the soul, per-
ceives the need and desires to provide what is lacking; and so it
longs for rest after work, for sleep after wakefulness, and so on
with everything else. Right after its dissolution, therefore, it
78. See Jn 10.36. 79. See Mt 9.6.

80. See Lk 2.51. 81. See Jn 2.4.
82. See Mt 15.22; 20.30; 21.9. 83. See Mt 22.41–45.
84. See Lk 4.16–24. 85. Jn 8.58.
lacks activity of life, does not reach for what it lacks, and suffers
corruption because it does not receive it.
Eranistes. Do you see hunger, thirst, and similar needs as per-
taining to the soul?
Orthodox. If they did pertain to the soul, it would continue to
suffer hunger, thirst, and other similar needs even after its re-
lease from the body.
Eranistes. Then what do you say is proper to the soul?
Orthodox. Being rational, uncompounded, immortal, and in-
visible.
Eranistes. And what is proper to the body?
Orthodox. Being composite, visible, and mortal.
Eranistes. Do we say that the human being is composed of
these?
Orthodox. We do.
Eranistes. So do we define the human being as a rational,
mortal living being?
Orthodox. Yes.
Eranistes. And do we name [the human being] from both
types of qualities?
Orthodox. Yes.
Eranistes. Then just as we make no division here, but call the
same one both rational and mortal, we should act in the same
way with respect to Christ and attribute to him both the divine
and the human.
Orthodox. This is what we’re saying, although you haven’t ex-
pressed it accurately. So look at it this way; whenever we under-
take a study of the human soul, do we mention only the things
that are proper to its nature and activity?
[139] Orthodox. And when we speak about the body, do we
again mention only the things proper to it?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. But whenever the discussion concerns the whole
living being, we do not hesitate to introduce both sets of quali-
ties. For the properties of both the body and the soul belong to
the human being.
Eranistes. You put that very well.
Orthodox. Then this is the way one should speak about Christ
the Lord. When we discuss the natures, we should attribute its
proper qualities to each one and realize that some belong to
the divinity, and others to the humanity. But when we speak
about the person, we must make the properties of the natures
common and attribute both types to Christ the savior; and we
must call him both God and a human being, both Son of God
and Son of Man, both son of David and Lord of David, both
seed of Abraham and creator of Abraham, and so on in every
respect.86
Eranistes. You were absolutely right to say that the person of
Christ is one, and that both the divine and the human qualities
belong to him,87 and I accept this rule of faith. But to say also
that, when speaking about the natures, we must attribute its
proper qualities to each one seems, in my opinion, to dissolve
the union. And so I do not accept this type of language.
Orthodox. And yet, when we were examining the soul and the
body, you thought it perfectly acceptable to distinguish those
terms; at least you immediately expressed your approval. Then
why don’t you accept the same rule with respect to the divinity
and the humanity of Christ the Lord? Or don’t you consider
the divinity and the humanity of Christ equal to a soul and a
body? You concede a union without mixture to a soul and a
body; do you dare to say that the divinity and the humanity of
Christ underwent a mixture and a blending together?
Eranistes. I think that the divinity, and even the flesh, of
Christ are much more noble, indeed infinitely more so, than a
soul and a body; but I still say that there is one nature after the
union.
Orthodox. Isn’t it wicked and evil to say that a soul joined to a
body undergoes absolutely no type of mixture, but that the
[140] divinity of the Lord of the universe cannot preserve its
own nature intact and cannot keep the human nature that it as-
86. Orthodox here states accurately how qualities are to be predicated of

the person and the natures according to the principles of communicatio idioma-
tum.
87. This pronoun grammatically can refer either to Christ or to “person.”
sumed within its proper limits, and instead mixes things that
are pure and blends things that will not blend? For the one na-
ture gives rise to these suspicions.
Eranistes. I also think that we should avoid the word “mix-
ture”; but I refuse to say “two natures,” to avoid falling into the
duality of sons.
Orthodox. I am trying hard to avoid two cliffs, one of wicked
mixture, and the other of wicked separation. For I think it is
just as unholy to divide the one Son into two as to deny the du-
ality of the natures. Answer me now, for the sake of the truth.
Suppose that a follower of Arius or Eunomius was in a discus-
sion with you and attempted to devalue the Son and to show
that the Son was less than, and inferior to the Father, by saying
those words they always use and by offering this text from di-
vine Scripture: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away
from me,”88 and “Now my soul is distressed,”89 and other pas-
sages like these. How would you resolve his problems? How
would you show that the Son is not inferior because of these
texts, and that the Son is not of a different substance,90 but was
begotten from the substance of the Father?91
Eranistes. I would say that divine Scripture says some things
that refer to God and others that refer to the divine plan, and
that one must not try to combine statements that refer to the
divine plan with those that refer to God.
Orthodox. But then your opponent would say that, even in
the old dispensation, divine Scripture makes many statements
that refer to the divine plan. For example: “Adam heard the
voice of the Lord God, who was walking around”;92 and “I shall
go down and see if they are acting in accordance with their cry
that came to me, but if not, so that I may know”;93 and “Now I
know that you fear God”;94 and many other texts like these.
Eranistes. I would in turn reply to this that there is a great dif-
88. Mt 26.39.
89. Jn 12.27.
90. The word eJteroouvs ion is the exact opposite of the Nicene oJmoouvs ion.
91. “From the substance of the Father” is found in the Nicene creed.
92. Gn 3.8. 93. Gn 18.21.
94. Gn 22.12.
ference between the dispensations. For in the old dispensation

the divine plan consisted of words like these, while here it is a
question of actions.
Orthodox. But he would ask, “What actions?”
Eranistes. And he will immediately hear, “the actions of the
Incarnation.” For when the Son of God became a human be-
ing, through both words and actions he displays [141] some-
times the flesh, and at other times the divinity, so that in the ex-
amples cited95 he clearly revealed the weakness of the flesh and
the soul, because [it expressed] the emotion of fear.
Orthodox. But if he said in reply that [the Son of God] did
not assume a soul, but only a body, and that the divinity was
united to the body in place of the soul and took upon itself
everything that pertained to the soul, what would you say to re-
solve the dilemma?
Eranistes. I would offer witnesses from divine Scripture and
show that God the Word assumed not only flesh, but also a soul.
Orthodox. And where shall we find such witnesses in Scrip-
ture?
Eranistes. Didn’t you hear the Lord when he said: “I have
power to put down my soul,96 and I have power to take it again;
no one takes it from me; I put it down by myself, in order to
take it again”;97 and “Now my soul is distressed”;98 and “My soul
is very sad, even to death”?99 And didn’t you hear David’s words
that were interpreted by Peter: “His soul was not abandoned to
the underworld, and his flesh did not see corruption”?100 These
passages, and others like them, clearly show that God the Word
assumed, not only a body, but also a soul.
Orthodox. You have presented very apt and reasonable wit-
nesses. But he might object that, even before becoming human,
God spoke with the Jewish people and said, “My soul hates your
fasting, holidays, and feasts.”101 He would then draw the logical
95. See Mt 26.39 and Jn 12.27.

96. The word yuchv means soul, which is considered the principle of life; it
can also mean life, which is the usual translation of this text.
97. Jn 10.18, 17 (sic). 98. Jn 12.27.
99. Mt 26.38.
100. Ps 16.10 (LXX 15.10); Acts 2.31.
101. Is 1.13–14.
conclusion and say that just as [God] mentioned a soul in the

old dispensation, even though he didn’t have one, he also did
that here.
Eranistes. Then he will hear further that, in speaking about
God, divine Scripture also mentions parts of the body. For it
says: “Incline your ear and hear”;102 “Open your eyes and
see”;103 “The Lord’s mouth has said this”;104 “Your hands have
made me and formed me”;105 and countless other phrases like
this. So if the soul is not to be considered a soul even after the
Incarnation, then neither is the body to be considered a body,
[142] and the great mystery of the divine plan will be found to
be an illusion, and we shall differ in no way from Marcion,
Valentinus, and Manes. For these are the kinds of stories that
they invent.
Orthodox. Suppose that one of Apollinarius’s crowd suddenly
appeared while you were speaking and asked, “What kind of
soul do you say that it assumed, my friend?” What would you say
in reply?
Eranistes. First, that I know one soul belonging to the human
being. Then I would add that, if you think there are two souls,
one rational and the other irrational, I say that the rational soul
was assumed. For you apparently have the irrational soul, since
you think that our salvation was imperfect.
Orthodox. And if he should demand proof of what you say?
Eranistes. I would easily provide it and shall recall the Gospel
texts: “The child Jesus grew and became strong in spirit, and
God’s favor was on him”;106 and, “Jesus advanced in age, wis-
dom, and grace, before God and human beings.”107 And I
would also say that none of this refers to divinity. For the body
advances in age, and the soul, not the irrational one, but the ra-
tional one, advances in wisdom. God the Word, therefore, as-
sumed a rational soul.
Orthodox. You have broken the three battle lines of our ad-
versaries very admirably, my good man, but with your words you
102. Dn 9.18. 103. Ibid.

104. Is 58.14. 105. Ps 119.73 (LXX 118.73).
106. Lk 2.40. 107. Lk 2.52.
dissolved that union and the much talked of blending and mix-
ture, not only into two, but even into three parts. And not only
did you show the difference between divinity and humanity, but
you even split the humanity itself in two. For you taught that
the soul was one thing and the body was something else, so that
there is no longer a perception of two natures of Jesus Christ
our savior, as we say, but three.
Eranistes. What do you mean? Don’t you say that the sub-
stance of the soul compared to the nature of the body is some-
thing different?
Orthodox. Yes, I do.
Eranistes. Then why did you think the explanation was
strange?
Orthodox. Because you acknowledged three natures, after re-
fusing to affirm two.
Eranistes. The struggle with our adversaries forces me to do
this. For how else could one speak with those who deny the as-
sumption of the flesh, the soul, [143] or the mind, than by of-
fering proofs about these issues from divine Scripture? How
else could one refute those who struggle furiously to diminish
the divinity of the only begotten one, than by showing that di-
vine Scripture said some things that refer to God and others
that pertain to the divine plan?
Orthodox. What you say is true, for it is what we say, or rather
what everyone says who has preserved the apostolic rule intact.
And you have yourself turned out to be an advocate of our
teachings.
Eranistes. And how can I, who does not affirm two sons, be an
advocate of your position?
Orthodox. When did you hear us preaching two sons?
Eranistes. Whoever affirms two natures affirms two sons.
Orthodox. So you, therefore, affirm three sons, since you have
affirmed three natures.
Eranistes. There was no other way to solve our opponents’
problems.
Orthodox. Listen to us saying the very same thing; for we also
confront the same adversaries.
Eranistes. But I do not affirm two natures after the union.
Orthodox. And yet a moment ago you used these words, after
many generations since the union took place. But teach us, nev-
ertheless, what you mean by one nature after the union; was
one formed out of the two, or did one remain, while the other
was annihilated?
Eranistes. I say that the divinity remained, but the humanity
was swallowed up by it.
Orthodox. These are Greek myths and Manichaean nonsense,
and I am ashamed even to bring them out in public. For the
Greeks invented stories about the swallowings done by the
gods,108 while the Manichaean talked about the daughter of the
light in their discourses. But we reject ideas like these, because
they are not only wicked, but also very stupid. For how could
the simple and uncompounded nature, that embraces the uni-
verse and is inaccessible and infinite, have swallowed a nature
that it assumed?
Eranistes. In the same way that the sea absorbs a drop of hon-
ey. For when that drop is mixed with seawater, it immediately
disappears.
Orthodox. The sea and the drop differ in quantity and in one
quality. For one is very large, while the other is very small, and
one is sweet, while the other is bitter; but in other respects one
can find a very close relationship between them. For both have
a nature that is liquid, wet, and fluid; they exist in the same way
as creatures, and [144] also have in common a lack of soul; and
yet each one of them is called a body. It is not unusual, there-
fore, when closely related natures are mixed, for one to make
the other disappear. But here the difference is infinite, and so
much so, that no image of the reality can be found. And yet I
am going to show that many things that are mixed together are
not blended with one another, but remain pure.
Eranistes. Who ever heard of an unmixed mixture?
Orthodox. I shall force you to confess this.
Eranistes. If what you are going to say should turn out to be
true, I shall not fight against the truth.
Orthodox. Then answer me and tell me, by agreeing or dis-
agreeing, what you think of my argument.
108. Orthodox apparently means Kronos devouring his offspring.

Eranistes. I’ll do that.

Orthodox. Do you think that the light as it rises fills all the at-
mosphere, except for someone shut up in a cave who might re-
main without light?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. And do you think that all the light permeates all
the atmosphere?
Eranistes. I think that too.
Orthodox. And doesn’t the mixture permeate everything that
is mixed together?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. But don’t we see the atmosphere that is filled with
light as light, and don’t we call it light?
Eranistes. Absolutely.
Orthodox. But even when the light is present, we still perceive
dryness and humidity, and often also cold and heat.
Eranistes. We do perceive these.
Orthodox. And after the light goes away, the atmosphere itself
continues to exist by itself.
Eranistes. This is true.
Orthodox. All right, now consider this case. Does iron burn
when it comes into contact with fire?
Orthodox. And does the fire permeate its whole substance?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. Then how come the intimate union does not
change the iron’s nature, even though the mixture permeates
it completely?
[145] Eranistes. But it does change completely. For it is no
longer thought to be iron, but fire, and it even possesses the ac-
tive power of fire.
Orthodox. Does the smith therefore stop calling it iron or
stop bringing it to the anvil and applying the hammer?
Eranistes. No.
Orthodox. So contact with fire did not destroy the nature of
the iron.
Eranistes. Not at all.
Orthodox. Well then, if it’s possible to find an unblended mix-
ture among bodies, it’s sheer madness, when dealing with the
pure and unchangeable nature, to think of mixture and the de-
struction of the assumed nature, especially since it was assumed
to benefit the [human] race.
Eranistes. We do not affirm the destruction of the assumed
nature, but its transformation into the substance of divinity.
Orthodox. Then the human form no longer has its former
limitation?
Eranistes. It certainly does not.
Orthodox. When did it undergo this transformation?
Eranistes. After the intimate union.
Orthodox. And when do you say this took place?
Eranistes. I’ve often said, at conception.
Orthodox. And yet after conception he was an embryo in the
womb; and after his birth he was and was called an infant, and
was adored by the shepherds; and in the same way he was and
was called a child by the angel.109 Do you know this, or do you
think we’re making up stories?
Eranistes. The narrative in the divine Gospels teaches this,
and it can’t be denied.
Orthodox. Then let’s also look at what follows. Don’t we con-
fess that the Lord was circumcised?110
Eranistes. We do.
Orthodox. What was circumcised? Flesh or divinity?
Eranistes. The flesh.
Orthodox. What grows and advances in age and wisdom?111
Eranistes. Obviously none of these apply to divinity.
[146] Orthodox. And neither do hunger and thirst?
Orthodox. And neither do walking, being tired, sleeping, and,
in short, everything else like this?
Orthodox. So if the union took place at conception, and if all
these things happened after conception and birth, then the hu-
manity did not lose its own nature after the union.
109. See Mt 2.1–23 and Lk 2.1–38. 110. See Lk 2.21.

111. See Lk 1.80 and 2.52.
Eranistes. My definition was inaccurate. For the flesh was

transformed into the nature of divinity after the resurrection
from the dead.
Orthodox. So none of the characteristics that reveal the na-
ture remained in it after the resurrection.
Eranistes. If they remained, there was no divine transforma-
tion.
Orthodox. Then how could he show his hands and his feet to
the disbelieving apostles?112
Eranistes. In the same way that he came in, even though the
doors were closed.113
Orthodox. But he came in, even though the doors were
closed, just as he came out of the womb, although the bars of
virginity were locked, and just as he walked on the sea.114 But
according to what you say the transformation of the nature had
not yet taken place.
Eranistes. The Lord showed his hands to the apostles in the
same way that he wrestled with Jacob.115
Orthodox. But the Lord does not allow this interpretation.
For when the disciples thought that they were seeing a spirit,
the Lord drove away this suspicion and revealed the nature of
his flesh. For he says, “Why are you disturbed, and why do
doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, and see
that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a spirit does not
have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”116 Notice the clari-
ty of his words. For he did not say being flesh and bones, but
having flesh and bones, in order to show that that which has ac-
cording to nature is different from that which is had. For just as
that which took is one thing, and that which was taken is anoth-
er, although one Christ from both is known, in the same way
that which has is totally different from that which is had, but
this does not [147] divide into two persons the one who is
known in them. But since the disciples still had doubts, the
Lord asked for food, took it, and ate it;117 and he did not con-
112. See Lk 24.39. 113. See Jn 20.20.

114. See Mt 14.25. 115. See Jn 20.19 and Gn 32.24.
116. Lk 24.38–39. 117. See Lk 24.41–43.
sume the food through an illusion, nor was he satisfying a bodi-

ly need.
Eranistes. But we still have to accept one of two possibilities:
Either he took food because he needed it, or, if he did not need
it, he seemed to eat, but did not take food at all.
Orthodox. His body had become immortal and did not need
food. For the Lord said about those who rose, “In that place
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as an-
gels.”118 And yet the apostles testify that he took food. For in the
prologue of the Acts the blessed Luke said, “While eating with
the apostles, the Lord ordered them not to leave Jerusalem.”119
And the most divine Peter said very clearly, “We who ate and
drank with him after he rose from the dead.”120 For since eating
is proper to those who live in the present life, the Lord,
through eating and drinking, had to reveal the resurrection of
the flesh to those who did not know the truth. He did this very
same thing with Lazarus and with the daughter of Jairus. For af-
ter he raised her, he ordered that she be given something to
eat;121 and he shared a feast with Lazarus,122 to reveal in this way
the true resurrection.
Eranistes. If we must admit that the Lord actually ate, let us
also admit that all people take food after the resurrection.
Orthodox. What the savior did because of a divine plan is not
a rule and limitation of nature; for because of a divine plan he
also did certain other things that will definitely not happen to
those who return to life.
Eranistes. What things?
Orthodox. Won’t the bodies of those who have risen become
incorruptible and immortal?
Eranistes. That’s what saint Paul taught us. For he said, “It
is sowed in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sowed
in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sowed in weakness, it is
raised in power. It is sowed a carnal body, it is raised a spiritual
body.”123
118. Mk 12.25. 119. Acts 1.4.

120. Acts 10.41. 121. See Mk 5.43.
122. See Jn 12.1–2. 123. 1 Cor 15.42–44.
[148] Orthodox. But the Lord raises the bodies of all people
free of defect and blemish, for lameness and blindness are not
found in those who have risen. And yet he left in his own body
the holes made by the nails and the wound in his side; the Lord
himself and the hands of Thomas testify to this.124
Eranistes. That’s true.
Orthodox. In that case, if after the resurrection the Lord took
food and showed his disciples his hands and his feet, the nail-
holes in them, his side and the wound that the spear made in it,
and said to them, “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have
flesh and bones, as you see that I have,”125 then even after the
resurrection the nature of the body remained and was not
transformed into another substance.
Eranistes. But his body is certainly not mortal and capable of
suffering after the resurrection, is it?126
Orthodox. Absolutely not. It is incorruptible, incapable of suf-
fering, and immortal.
Eranistes. If it is incorruptible, incapable of suffering, and im-
mortal, it was transformed into another nature.
Orthodox. Then the bodies of all human beings will be trans-
formed into another substance, since they will all be incorrupt-
ible and immortal. Or didn’t you hear the Apostle say, “For this
corruptible thing must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal
thing must put on immortality”?127
Eranistes. I heard that.
Orthodox. So the nature remains, but its corruptibility is
transformed into incorruptibility and its mortality into immor-
tality. Let’s look at it this way: Whether a body is sick or healthy,
we still call it a body.
Eranistes. We do.
Orthodox. Why?
Eranistes. Because they both share the same substance.
124. See Jn 20.27.

125. Lk 24.39.
126. This sentence begins with oujkou`n; it should probably be emended to
ou[koun, which looks for a negative answer.
127. 1 Cor 15.53.
Orthodox. And yet we see a tremendous difference between

them. For one is healthy, sound, and free of misery, while the
other has the eye torn out, the limb broken, or some other very
grievous affliction.
[149] Eranistes. But good health and sickness both affect the
same nature.
Orthodox. Then surely the body should be called a substance,
and sickness and good health should be called accidental at-
tributes.
Eranistes. Quite true. For they are present in the body and
absent from it.
Orthodox. Then corruption and death should be called acci-
dental attributes, not substances, for they are present and ab-
sent.
Eranistes. That term should be used.
Orthodox. So the bodies of human beings are freed from cor-
ruption and mortality when they rise, but they do not lose their
proper nature.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And so the Lord’s body rose incorruptible, inca-
pable of suffering, immortal, glorified with the divine glory,
and is adored by the heavenly powers; but it is still a body as
finite as it was before.
Eranistes. What you say seems to make sense. But I don’t
think you’ll say that it was not transformed into the nature of
divinity after the assumption into heaven.
Orthodox. I would not be persuaded to say this by human ar-
guments, for I am not so bold as to say something that divine
Scripture did not mention. But I did hear the divinely inspired
Paul cry out that, “God has determined a day on which he will
judge the world in righteousness, through a man whom God se-
lected, instilling confidence in all by raising him from the
dead.”128 I have also learned from the holy angels that he will
come in the same way that the disciples saw him going to heav-
en.129 But they saw a finite nature, not an infinite one. And I
128. Acts 17.31.

129. See Acts 1.11.
also heard the Lord say, “You will see the Son of Man coming
on the clouds of heaven.”130 And I know that what human be-
ings see is finite, for the infinite nature is invisible. Finally, the
passage about sitting on a throne of glory and setting the sheep
on the right and the goats on the left131 also reveals the finite.
[150] Eranistes. Then he certainly wasn’t infinite before he
became human. For the prophet saw him surrounded by the
seraphim.132
Orthodox. The prophet didn’t see the actual substance of
God, but a kind of vision adapted to his capability. After the res-
urrection, however, all will see the judge’s visible nature itself.
Eranistes. You promised to say nothing unattested, but now
you’re offering your own arguments.
Orthodox. I was taught this by divine Scripture. For I heard
the prophet Zechariah say, “They will look at him whom they
have pierced.”133 How can the prophecy be fulfilled, if those
who crucify do not know the nature they crucified? I also heard
the triumphant Stephen cry out, “Behold I see the heavens
opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of
God.”134 He saw the visible, not the invisible nature.
Eranistes. This is certainly in Scripture. But I don’t think
you’ll show that inspired men called the body a body after the
assumption into heaven.
Orthodox. The statements I just made point very clearly to the
body, for that which is seen is a body. But I shall nevertheless
show that the Lord’s body is called a body even after the as-
sumption. Hear, then, the apostle who teaches, “For our society
is in heaven, from which we also receive a savior, Lord Jesus,
who will transform the body of our lowliness, to be made itself
into the same form as the body of his glory.”135 It was not, there-
fore, transformed into another nature, but remained a body,
130. Mt 26.64.
131. See Mt 25.31–33.
132. See Is 6.2. In the LXX version, Isaiah sees seraphim in a circle around
God; Eranistes consideres this a limitation or a circumscribing of God, and,
therefore concludes that God is not “infinite” [ajperivgrafo"].
133. Zec 12.10. 134. Acts 7.56.
135. Phil 3.20–21.
even though it was filled with divine glory and emitted rays of
light; and the bodies of holy people will be made into the same
form as it. But if it was transformed into another nature, then
their bodies will also be transformed in the same way, for they
will be made into the same form as it. So if the bodies of holy
people preserve the characteristics of the nature, then the
Lord’s body will also keep its own substance unchanged.
Eranistes. Are the bodies of holy people, therefore, equal to
the Lord’s body?
Orthodox. They will also participate in its incorruptibility and
even in its immortality. They will also share in its glory, as the
Apostle says, [151] “If we suffer together, in order that we
might also be glorified together.”136 But there is a great differ-
ence to be found in its immensity, as vast as that between the
sun and the stars, or rather as that between master and ser-
vants, and between that which gives light and that which is illu-
minated. But nevertheless he shared his own titles with his ser-
vants, and he who is called light called holy people light; for he
says, “You are the light of the world.”137 He who is named sun of
righteousness138 says about his servants, “Then the righteous
will shine like the sun.”139 It is according to quality, therefore,
not according to immensity that the bodies of holy people will
be made into the same form as the Lord’s body. See, we clearly
showed you what you asked. But now, if you agree, let’s look at
this in another way.
Eranistes. We must turn every stone, as the proverb says,140 so
that we can find the truth, especially if divine teachings are the
issue.
Orthodox. Then tell me, what is symbolized by the sacramen-
tal symbols141 that are offered to the Lord God by those who of-
fer sacrifice?
Eranistes. The Lord’s body and blood.
136. Rom 8.17. 137. Mt 5.14.

138. See Mal 4.2 (LXX 3.20). 139. Mt 13.43.
140. The exact source of this proverb remains unknown. It may refer to
stones used in a board game.
141. See above, Dialogue 1, n. 79 on the language of the mysteries. The
word translated “symbol” here is suvmbolon.
Orthodox. The real body or one that is not real?

Eranistes. The real one.
Orthodox. Excellent. For the original represented by the im-
age must be real. In fact painters also imitate nature and pro-
duce images of things that are seen.
Eranistes. Correct.
Orthodox. So if the divine mysteries are representations of the
real, then the Lord’s body is a body even now, in spite of the
fact that it is divine and the Lord’s body, for it was not trans-
formed into the nature of divinity, but was filled with divine glo-
ry.
Eranistes. You moved the discussion to the divine mysteries at
the perfect time, for I shall use them to show you the transfor-
mation of the Lord’s body into another nature. So please an-
swer my questions.
Orthodox. I shall.
Eranistes. Before the priestly invocation,142 what do you call
the gift that is offered?
Orthodox. We must not speak clearly, for there may be uniniti-
ated people nearby.
Eranistes. Make the answer obscure.
[152] Orthodox. Food from certain seeds.
Eranistes. And what do we call the other symbol?
Orthodox. This is also a common name signifying a form of
drink.
Eranistes. But after the consecration143 what do you call
them?
Orthodox. Christ’s body and blood.
Eranistes. And do you really believe that you share in Christ’s
body and blood?
Orthodox. I believe this.
Eranistes. Then, just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and
blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, but are
transformed and become something else after the invocation,
so the Lord’s body was transformed into the divine substance
after the assumption.
142. IJ eratikh; ejpivklhsi".

143. A J giasmov".
Orthodox. You have been caught in your own net. For the
sacramental symbols do not lose their own nature after the con-
secration, because they remain in their former substance,
shape, and form, and are visible and tangible, just as they were
before. But they are understood to be what they became, and
they are the object of faith and worship, because they are what
they are believed to be. Compare the image with the original,
therefore, and you will see the similarity; for the type must be
like the reality. And that body, in fact, keeps its prior form, as
well as the shape, limitation, and, in general, the substance of
the body. But after the resurrection it became immortal and be-
yond corruption, was judged worthy of a seat at the right hand,
and is adored by all creation, since it is and is called the body of
the Lord of nature.
Eranistes. And yet the sacramental symbol changes its former
designation, since it is no longer called by the name it had be-
fore, but is called a body. So even the reality must be called
God, not a body.
Orthodox. I think you do not understand. For it is called, not
only a body, but also bread of life.144 The Lord called it this, and
we name this very body a body that is divine and life-giving, a
body that belongs to the master and Lord; and in this way we
teach that it is the body, not of some ordinary human being,
but [153] of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and a human
being, both eternal and temporal. “For Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, today, and forever.”145
Eranistes. You’ve spoken at great length about this, but I fol-
low the holy men who were the glory of the churches long ago.
Show me, therefore, that in what they said they distinguished
the natures after the union.
Orthodox. I’ll read you their works, and I know for sure that
you will be amazed at the countless number of distinctions they
inserted in their writings as they fought against wicked heresies.
Listen, therefore, to those whose testimonies we have already
offered you, as they say this clearly and openly.
144. See Jn 6.48–51.

145. Heb 13.8.

For I know and believe that he is in flesh even after the resurrec-
tion, and when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to
them, “Take, touch me, and see that I am not a bodiless spir-
it.”147 And they immediately touched him and believed.

After the resurrection he ate and drank with them as one who
had flesh,149 even though he was spiritually united with the Fa-
ther.

3. From the third discourse of the book against heresies.150
As we said before, then, he united the human being to God. For
if a human being had not conquered the adversary of humanity,
the enemy would not have been overcome justly; furthermore, if
God had not given the gift of salvation, we would not have pos-
sessed it with certainty; and if the human being had not been
united to God, it could not have shared incorruptibility. For ne-
cessity demanded that the mediator between God and human
beings,151 by means of his own relationship with both parties,
should lead both of them to love and concord, and should offer
the human being to God and reveal God to human beings.
[154]
146. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3.1–2. CPG 1.1025; all the
quotations from Ignatius are found under this number.
147. Lk 24.39.
149. See Lk 24.43.
150. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.18.7. CPG 1.1306; all the quota-
tions from Irenaeus are found under this number.
151. See 1 Tm 2.5.
4. By the same author from the third discourse

of the same work.152
In the letter, therefore, he also says, “Everyone who believes that
Jesus is Christ has been born of God,”153 for he knew one and
the same Jesus Christ, by whom the gates of heaven were opened
because he assumed flesh, who will also come in the same flesh
through which he suffered, to reveal the glory of the Father.
5. By the same author from the fourth discourse

of the book against heresies.154
As Isaiah says, “The children of Jacob will sprout, and Israel will
blossom, and the world will be filled with its fruit.”155 Even
though its fruit was scattered through the whole world, there-
fore, with good reason has that been abandoned and disap-
peared which at one time bore good fruit; for from them ac-
cording to the flesh Christ was born, as were the apostles; but
now they are no longer good for bearing fruit.

He also condemns the Ebionites. How can they be saved, if it was
not God who accomplished their salvation on earth? And how
will a human being come to God, if God has not come to a hu-
man being?

Those who preached that Emmanuel is from the virgin revealed
the union of the Word of God with his creation.

153. 1 Jn 5.1.
155. Is 27.6.

For these things did not take place through an illusion, but in
true reality.159 If he appeared as a human being, but was not hu-
man, then he did not truly remain what he was, God’s Spirit, for
the Spirit is invisible; and there was no truth in him, since things
were not what they appeared to be. We said before that Abraham
and the other prophets saw him in a prophetic way, predicting
through a vision what was going to happen. So if he appeared
like this now, but was not what he appeared to be, human beings
had a kind of prophetic vision, and one must expect him to
come yet again, at which time he will be exactly as he is now in a
prophetic way seen to be. But we have shown that saying that his
appearance was only an illusion is just the same as saying that he
took nothing from Mary. For he did not really have flesh and
blood, through which he redeemed us, if he did not [155] reca-
pitulate in himself the original creation of Adam. Consequently,
the Valentinians who teach this in order to reject the life of the
flesh are wasting their time.
The Holy Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr

9. From the discourse on the distribution of talents.160
You could say that these people resemble those with heretical
opinions, since they make the same type of mistake. For they
also either profess that Christ appeared in life only as a human
being, by denying the talent of his divinity, or by confessing that
he was God, they deny in turn that he was a human being; and
they teach that he tricked the vision of those who saw him; for
he did not wear a human being as a human being, but instead
was a kind of imaginary illusion; this resembles Marcion, Valenti-
nus, and the Gnostics, who tear the Word away from the flesh
and reject the one talent, the Incarnation.

159. E
j n uJpostavsei ajlhqeiva".
160. Hippolytus, On Matthew 25 (On the distribution of Talents). CPG 1.1888.
10. By the same author from the letter to a certain empress.161

He calls him “firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep,”162 there-
fore, because he is “first-born from the dead.”163 After he rose,
he wanted to show that what had risen was also that which had
died, since the disciples were in doubt, and so he addressed
Thomas and said, “Come, touch and see, for a spirit does not
have bone and flesh, as you see that I have.”164
11. By the same author from the discourse

on Elkanah and Anna.165
And three special times of the year were, therefore, set forth as
types of the savior himself, so that he might fulfill the mysteries
that had been foretold about him: At Easter,166 so that he could
show that he was the one who would be sacrificed as a lamb and
revealed as the true paschal [lamb], as the Apostle says, “Our
paschal [lamb], Christ, was sacrificed for us.”167 And also at Pen-
tecost, so that he could proclaim the kingdom of heaven by him-
self being the first one who ascended to heaven168 and offered
the human being as a gift to God.

on the great song.169
He drew from the depths of the underworld the human being
first-formed from earth, who had perished and was caught in
death’s chains; he came down from above and lifted up on high
the one who was below; he became the evangelist of the dead,
the redeemer of souls, and the resurrection of those who had
161. Hippolytus, On the Resurrection to the Empress Mammaea. CPG 1.1900.2.

162. 1 Cor 15.20.
163. Col 1.18.
164. Lk 24.39.
165. Hippolytus, Commentary on 1 Kings 1.1ff. [1 Sm 1.1 (LXX 1 Kgs 1)]. From
the Discourse on Elkanah and Anna. CPG 1.1881.1.
166. Here and in the quote from Paul that follows the Greek for “Easter”
and “paschal” is pavsca.
167. 1 Cor 5.7.
168. See Jn 3.13.
169. Hippolytus, On Deuteronomy (On the Great Song). CPG 1.1880.6.
died; he is the one who became the helper of the human being
who had been conquered, [156] like the human being in his be-
ing: the first-born Word, in the virgin, visiting the first-formed
Adam; the spiritual one, in the womb, seeking the earthly one;
the one who has eternal life seeking the one who died because
of disobedience; the heavenly one calling the earthly one up on
high; the noble one who, through his own obedience, wants to
declare the slave free; the one who changed the human being
who was dissolved into earth and had become a serpent’s food
into adamant, and who declared that the one who was hung on
a tree was Lord over the one who had conquered. And that is
why Adam, who was conquered through a tree, is now found to
be victorious because of the tree.

For those who now do not acknowledge the Son of God in flesh
will acknowledge him when he comes as judge in glory, even
though he is now despised in an ignominious body.171

For when the apostles came to the tomb on the third day, they
did not find the body of Jesus,173 just as the sons of Israel
climbed up on the mountain to look for the tomb of Moses, but
did not find it.174

When he came into the world he was revealed as God and a hu-
man being. And it is easy to see that he is a human being when
he is hungry and weary, grows tired and is thirsty; he flees in
fear, prays in distress, falls asleep on a pillow, declines the cup of
suffering, sweats in agony; he is strengthened by an angel, be-
trayed by Judas, dishonored by Caiaphas, despised by Herod,
scourged by Pilate, beaten by the soldiers, nailed to a tree by the
170. Ibid. 171. See Mt 25.31.

172. Hippolytus, op. cit. 173. See Lk 24.24.
174. See Dt 34.6.
175. Hippolytus, On Psalm 2.7. CPG 1.1882.2.
Jews; he cries out to the Father and hands over his spirit, bows
his head and breathes his last; he is pierced in the side with a
spear, is wrapped in linen and placed in a tomb, and is raised on
the third day by the Father. And in turn one can also see clearly
the divinity when he is worshipped by angels, gazed at by shep-
herds, [157] awaited by Simeon, witnessed to by Anna, sought
by the Magi, and pointed out by a star; he changes water to wine
at a wedding, rebukes the sea driven by powerful winds, walks on
the sea, gives sight to a man born blind, raises Lazarus who was
dead for four days, performs all kinds of miracles, forgives sins,
and gives power to the disciples.
16. By the same author from the discourse on Psalm 23.176

He comes to the heavenly gates, angels accompany him, and the
gates of heaven were closed, for he had not yet ascended into
heaven. For the first time now flesh, as it ascends, is shown to the
heavenly powers. And so the angels who go before the Lord and
savior say to the powers, “Raise your gates, you rulers, and be lift-
ed up, you eternal gates, and the king of glory will come in.”177
The Holy Eustathius, Bishop of

Antioch and Confessor
17. From the discourse on the titular inscriptions.178
Here, therefore, he predicted that he would sit on a sacred
throne and revealed that he was appointed to be enthroned with
the most divine Spirit because of the God who dwelt in him con-
tinuously.
18. By the same author from the discourse about the soul.179
Before the passion he predicted his bodily death each time, say-
ing that he would be handed over to the high priest’s followers
176. Hippolytus, On Psalm 23.7 [Ps 24.7 (LXX 23.7)]. CPG 1.1882.5.
177. See Ps 24.7 (LXX 23.7).
178. Eustathius of Antioch, On the titular inscriptions. CPG 2.3352. This work
discusses the titles given to the Psalms.
179. Eustathius of Antioch, On the soul (against the Arians). CPG 2.3353.
and proclaiming the trophy of the cross.180 But after the passion,
when he rose from the dead on the third day and, since the dis-
ciples doubted that he had been raised, he appeared to them in
his actual body, declares that he has real flesh with bones, pres-
ents his wounded side to their eyes, and shows them the marks
of the nails.181

[158] For Paul did not say that they have the same form as the
Son of God; he said, “they have the same form as the image of
his Son”;183 in this way he shows that the Son is one thing, but
his image is something else. For the Son bears the divine marks
of the Father’s excellence and is an image of the Father, because
children, who are like begotten from like, appear as true images
of their parents. But the human being whom he wore is an im-
age of the Son. In any case, the law of reality itself dictates this.
For it is not the spirit of wisdom, which is without a body, that
has the same form as human beings who have bodies, but rather
the human character,184 which was made into bodily form by the
Spirit, with the same number of limbs as all the others and
clothed with the same form as each of them.

In writing to the Philippians, he teaches us very clearly that he is
saying that the body has the same form as human beings when
he says, “Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also re-
ceive a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body
of our lowliness, so that it becomes the same form as the body of
his glory.”186 If he transforms the lowly body of human beings
180. See Mt 20.18–19.

181. See Lk 24.39 and Jn 20.27.
183. Rom 8.29.
184. Carakthvr. See Heb 1.3.
186. Phil 3.20–21.
and gives it the same form as his own body, the slanderous accu-
sations of our opponents have been proven to be absolutely
worthless.

But just as the human being who was begotten by the virgin is
said to have been born of a woman, so also is it written that he
was born under the Law,188 because he sometimes walked in ac-
cordance with the Law’s instructions. For example, when he was
a baby eight days old, his parents willingly hastened to circum-
cise him, as the evangelist Luke relates: “They brought [him] to
the temple at that time, to present [him] to the Lord, fulfilling
the offerings of purification by giving for sacrifice, as the Law of
the Lord said, a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons.”189 If
the gifts of purification were, therefore, offered for him in ac-
cordance with the Law, and if he was circumcised [159] on the
eighth day, then it is not unreasonable [for Paul] to write that he
was born under the Law. But the Word, as slanderers claim, was
not subject to the Law, for he himself is the Law, and God, who
purifies and sanctifies everything by a sudden stroke, did not
need sacrifices of purification. But even though he assumed the
human instrument from the virgin, wore it, and became subject
to the Law by being purified in keeping with the status of the
first-born, he went through those ceremonies, not because he
needed their help, but in order to redeem from the slavery of
the Law those who had been sold to the penalty of the curse.190
The Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

22. From the second discourse against the heresies.191
And just as we would not have been freed from the sin and the
curse, if the flesh that the Word put on had not been human by
nature (for there is nothing in common between us and some-
thing different), so the human being would not have been
187. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit. 188. See Gal 4.4.

189. Lk 2.22–24. 190. See Gal 3.13 and 4.5.
191. Athanasius of Alexandria, Three discourses against the Arians 2.70. CPG
2.2093.
deified, if the one who became flesh were not by nature from
the Father and the Father’s true and proper Word. Thus this
type of joining took place in order to join the one who was hu-
man by nature to the one who shared the nature of the divinity,
and to establish firmly the salvation and deification of the for-
mer. So let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by na-
ture and proper to his substance also deny that he took true, hu-
man flesh from the ever-virgin Mary.
23. By the same author from the letter to Epictetus.192

They are completely mistaken if they think that, because the sav-
ior’s human body exists and is said by the Scriptures to be from
Mary, a quaternity is affirmed instead of a Trinity, as though
something were added because of the body; for they equate the
creature with the creator and imagine that the divinity can take
on an addition. And they did not know that the Word did not be-
come flesh by adding to the divinity, but in order that the flesh
might rise; and the Word did not come forth from Mary to be im-
proved, but in order to redeem the human race. How, then, can
the body, which was redeemed and given life by the Word, pro-
vide an addition to divinity for the Word that gave it life?
[160] 24. By the same author from the same letter.193

Let them hear that, if the Word had been a creature, he would
not have assumed the created body in order to give it life. For
what kind of help can creatures receive from a creature who it-
self needs salvation? But since the Word who was himself creator,
became the maker of creatures, at the fullness of time he, there-
fore, joined that which was created to himself, in order to renew
it again as creator and to be able to re-create it.

193. Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter to Adelphius 8. CPG 2.2098. Theodoret
incorrectly cites the source of this quotation as the Letter to Epictetus.
25a. By the same author from the greater

discourse about faith.194
But we made this addition about the text “Sit at my right
hand,”195 namely, that it referred to the Lord’s body. For if “the
Lord says, ‘I fill heaven and earth,’”196 as Jeremiah says, and if
God encompasses everything, but is encompassed by nothing,
on what kind of throne does [God] sit? And so it is the body to
which [God] says, “Sit at my right hand.”197
25b. By the same author from the same discourse.198

The body that grows and ages is itself a creature and a thing that
is made.199
25c. By the same author from the same discourse.200

Hence [God] says, “Sit at my right hand,”201 to the body that had
as enemies the devil with the evil powers, Jews, and Greeks. And
through this body he became and was called high priest and
apostle,202 through the mystery that he handed on to us, when he
said, “This is my body that is broken for you,”203 and, “The blood
of the new covenant,” not of the old, “which is poured out for
you.”204 Now divinity has neither body nor blood, but the reason
for these statements was the human being from Mary, whom he
wore, about whom the apostles said, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man
appointed by God for you.”205
194. Athanasius of Alexandria, The greater discourse about faith. CPG 2.2803.
Earlier editions of the Eranistes lacked the present 25b, but joined this citation
and 25c as 25. The number 25 was kept for all three passages here so the enu-
meration of the remaining citations might remain the same. This work is attrib-
uted to Marcellus of Ancyra in CPG.
195. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1). 196. Jer 23.24.
197. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1).
198. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit.
199. See Lk 2.52.
201. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1). 202. See Heb 3.1.
203. 1 Cor 11.24. 204. Lk 22.20.
205. Acts 2.22.
26. By the same author from the book against the Arians.206
And when he says, “For this reason God also exalted him and
gave him a name that is above every name,” he is talking about
the temple of his body,207 not about the divinity. For the most
high is not exalted, but the flesh of the most high is exalted; and
the name that is [161] above every name was given to the flesh
of the most high. And the Word of God was always called “God,”
but his flesh was acknowledged as God with him.

And when he says, “There was not yet a Holy Spirit, because Je-
sus was not yet glorified,”209 he means that his flesh had not yet
been glorified. For the Lord of glory is not glorified,210 but the
flesh of the Lord of glory receives glory itself, when it ascends
with him into heaven. And so he says that human beings did not
yet have a spirit of adoption, because the firstfruit, which was
taken from human beings, had not yet gone up into heaven.
When Scripture, therefore, says that the Son “took” and “was
glorified,” it says this because of his humanity, not because of the
divinity.

This one, therefore, is true God, both before becoming a hu-
man being, and after becoming “mediator between God and hu-
man beings, Jesus Christ,”212 the one who was united to the Fa-
ther by Spirit and to us by flesh, who was mediator between God
and human beings, who was not only a human being, but also
God.
206. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation and against the Arians 2–3.
CPG 2.2806. This work is attributed to Marcellus of Ancyra in CPG.
207. See Jn 2.21.
208. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit. 3–4.
209. Jn 7.39.
210. See 1 Cor 2.8.
212. 1 Tm 2.5.
The Holy Ambrose, Bishop of Milan

29. In an exposition of faith.213
We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, was begotten according to the divinity from the father, be-
fore all the ages and without a beginning, and that in the last
days the same one was made flesh from the holy virgin Mary and
assumed the complete human being, [composed] of a rational
soul and a body; [and so he was] of the same substance as the
Father according to the divinity and of the same substance as us
according to the humanity. For a union of two complete natures
took place in an inexpressible way. We therefore confess one
Christ, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and we
know that, even though he exists eternally with his Father ac-
cording to the divinity, through which he is also creator of all
things, [162] he deigned to form for himself, in an ineffable
way, a temple from the holy virgin, after she gave her assent by
saying to the angel, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, let it
happen to me as you say”;214 and [he deigned] to unite this tem-
ple to himself from the moment of conception, not by wearing
an eternal body of his own substance from heaven, but by assum-
ing it from the raw stuff of our substance, that is, from the vir-
gin, and uniting it to himself.
God the Word did not change into flesh, nor did he manifest
himself as an apparition; instead he preserved his own substance
without change or alteration, assumed the firstfruit of our na-
ture, and united it to himself. God the Word did not take his ori-
gin from the virgin, but even while existing eternally with his Fa-
ther, deigned, because of great goodness, to unite to himself the
firstfruit of our nature, not by being mingled with it, but by ap-
pearing in both substances as one and the same individual, ac-
cording to the words of Scripture, “Destroy this temple, and in
three days I shall raise it.”215 For the Christ, God, is destroyed in
my substance, which he assumed, and the same one raises the
213. Ambrose of Milan, An exposition of faith. CPL 167a. CPL lists this work
among the dubious writings of Ambrose.
214. Lk 1.38.
215. Jn 2.19.
temple that was destroyed in the divine substance, in which he is

also creator of all things.
Never, after the union that he deigned to unite to himself
from the moment of conception, did he leave his temple, nor,
because of his ineffable love for humanity, could he have left it.
But the same one is passible and impassible, passible according
to the humanity and impassible according to the divinity.216 For,
“Look, see me, that it is I, and that I have not changed.”217 And
so after God the Word had raised his own temple and had
brought about the resurrection and renewal of our nature in it,
he showed this [nature] to his disciples and said, “Touch me and
see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see,” not
that I am, but “that I have”;218 [he said this] so you might see the
one who has and the one who is had, and thus observe that it
was not mixture, change, or alteration that took place, but a
union.
Thus he displayed the marks of the nails and the wound of
the spear,219 and ate in front of the disciples,220 in order to make
them believe through all this that the resurrection of our nature
had been renewed in him. And even though he remained un-
changeable, unaltered, impassible, immortal, and in need of
nothing according to the blessed substance of the divinity, be-
cause [163] he willingly allowed his own temple to endure all
sufferings and raised it up by his own power, he brought about
the complete renewal of our nature through his temple. But the
universal221 and apostolic Church officially condemns those who
say that Christ was a mere human being, or that God the Word
was passible, or was changed into flesh, or possessed a body that
shared his own substance, or brought the body from heaven, or
was an apparition; [it also condemns] those who say that God
the Word was mortal and needed resurrection from the Father,
or that he assumed a body without a soul, or a human being
without a mind, or that the two natures of Christ became one
nature by being blended together in a mixture; [it also con-
demns] those who do not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is
216. “Passible” means able to undergo change or to suffer, while “impassi-

ble” means unable to do so.
217. See Lk 24.39. 218. Lk 24.39.
219. See Jn 20.27. 220. See Lk 24.41–43.
221. Kaqolikhv.
two natures, not fused together, but one person, as he is one

Christ, one Son.
30. By the same author. 222

Consequently, if the flesh of all was subjected to insults in Christ,
how can it be considered to be of one subsistent entity with the
divinity? For if the Word and the flesh, which has an earthly na-
ture, are of one subsistent entity, then the Word and the soul,
which he assumed perfectly, are of one subsistent entity. For the
Word is of one nature with God, according to the confession of
the Father and of the Son himself, a confession that said, “I and
the Father are one.”223 The Father should, therefore, also be
considered to be of the same substance as the body. Why then
are you still angry at the Arians, who say that the Son of God is a
creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of one sub-
stance with creatures?
31. By the same author from the letter to the emperor Gratian.224
Let us preserve a distinction between divinity and flesh. If the
Son of God answers through both because both natures are in
him, then the same one is speaking, but not always in one way to
us. Look at him, as he speaks, now of glory, and at another time
of human sufferings. He makes the [164] divine statements as
God, since he is the Word; he makes the lowly statements as a
human being, since he speaks in my subsistent entity.

When that text is read that says the Lord of glory was cru-
cified,226 let us not think that he was crucified in his own glory.
But since he is both God and a human being, God according to
222. Ambrose of Milan, On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Incarnation 6.57. CPL
152.
223. Jn 10.30.
224. Ambrose of Milan, About the faith 2.9.77. CPL 150.
225. Ambrose of Milan, op. cit. 2.7.58. This citation is also found in the
Tome of Pope Leo I.
226. See 1 Cor 2.8.
the divinity, but a human being, Jesus Christ, according to the

assumption of the flesh, the Lord of glory is said to have been
crucified. For he shares in each nature, that is, human and di-
vine. For he underwent suffering in the human nature, in order
that the one who suffered may, without being divided, be called
both Lord of glory and Son of Man, as it was written, “The one
who came down from heaven.”227
33. By the same author.228

Let futile investigations about words, therefore, keep silence.
For the kingdom of God, as it was written, is not in persuasive
words, but in proof of power.229 Let us preserve the distinction
between flesh and divinity. For one Son of God, one individual,
makes both types of statements, since each nature is in him. But
even if the same individual speaks, he nonetheless does not al-
ways speak in one way. For now you see in him God’s glory, and
at another time human beings’ sufferings. He makes the divine
statements as God, since he is Word; he makes the human state-
ments as a human being, since he spoke in this nature.
34. By the same author from the discourse on the

Lord’s Incarnation against the Apollinarians.230
While we are refuting these people, others sprang up who said
that Christ’s body and divinity were of one nature. What hell
spat up blasphemy like this? For the Arians, whose lack of faith is
reinforced thanks to these people, are more tolerable; as a result
there is even greater competition to deny that Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are of one substance. For they tried to say that the
Lord’s divinity and flesh are of one nature.
227. Jn 3.13.
228. Ambrose of Milan, op. cit. 2.97. This citation is also found in the Tome
of Pope Leo I.
229. See 1 Cor 2.4.
152. This citation is also found in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
[165] 35. By the same author. 231

And he tells me constantly that he embraces the statement made
by the synod at Nicaea; but in that inquiry our fathers said that
the Word of God, not the flesh, was of one substance in the Fa-
ther. And they confessed that the Word came forth from the sub-
stance of the Father, while the flesh was from the virgin. So why
do they offer us the name of the synod at Nicaea and then intro-
duce novelties that our forefathers did not even think of?
36. By the same author against Apollinarius.232

Do not, therefore, desire the body to be equal to the divinity ac-
cording to nature. For [if] you believe that the body of Christ is
a true body and bring it to the altar for transformation,233 but
do not distinguish the nature of the divinity from that of the
body, we shall say to you, “If you offer correctly, but do not dis-
tinguish correctly, you have sinned; keep quiet.”234 Distinguish
that which belongs to us and that which is proper to the Word.
As a result I did not have what was his, and he did not have what
was mine. And he took what was mine to share what was proper-
ly his with us; and he undertook this for fulfillment, not for mix-
ture.
37. By the same author after a brief interval.235

Let them stop saying, therefore, that the nature of the Word was
changed into the nature of flesh, lest it appear that, according
to the same interpretation, the nature of the Word was changed
and conformed to the body’s misfortunes. For that which as-
sumed is one thing, and that which was assumed is another. Pow-
er came upon the virgin, as the angel says to her, “The power of
the most high will overshadow you.”236 But that which was born
was from the virgin’s body. And the descent, therefore, was di-
231. Ambrose of Milan, op. cit. 6.52. This citation is also found in the Tome
of Pope Leo I.
232. Ambrose of Milan, op. cit. 4.23.
233. Metapoivhsi".
234. Gn 4.7 (LXX).
235. Ambrose of Milan, op. cit. 6.61.
236. Lk 1.35.
vine, but the conception was human. The nature of the divinity
and the spirit of the body could not, therefore, have been the
same.237
[166] The Holy Basil, Bishop of Caesarea

38. From the discourse about thanksgiving.238
By weeping for his friend,239 therefore, he revealed [his] partici-
pation in human nature, and he delivered us from extremes in
two areas: He does not permit excessive softness in the face of
suffering, nor insensitivity in times of pain. The Lord, therefore,
became hungry after he had digested solid food, he felt thirsty
when the moisture in his body was used up, and he grew weary
when his muscles and nerves were strained from the journey.
For the divinity was not oppressed by weariness, but the body
suffered the misfortunes that accompany nature.
39. By the same author against Eunomius.240

For I say that being in the form of God can be the same as being
in the substance of God. For just as having assumed “the form of
the servant” shows that our Lord came into being in the sub-
stance of humanity, in the same way the one who says he is “in
the form of God”241 is presenting the characteristic property of
the divine substance.

40. From the discourse on the new day of the Lord.242
He will come again,243 in his glorious appearance, as judge of liv-
ing and dead; [he will come] no longer flesh, but not without a
237. The Greek text of this last sentence seems corrupt. The translation ex-
presses the main idea of the whole citation.
238. Basil of Caesarea, Homily about thanksgiving 5. CPG 2.2848.
239. See Jn 11.35.
240. Basil of Caesarea, Five books against Eunomius 1.18. CPG 2.2837.
241. See Phil 2.6–7.
242. Gregory of Nazianzus, 45 discourses (= 40: On holy baptism) 45. CPG
Supp.3010.40.
243. See Acts 1.11.
body; [he will come] with a body more like God in ways that only
he understands, so that he may be seen by those who pierced
him,244 and may abide as God transcending earthly matter.
41. By the same author from the letter to Cledonius.245

For God and human being are two natures (since soul and body
also are), [167] but they are not two sons. For there are not two
human beings here, even if Paul does speak in this way of the in-
ner human and the outer human.246 To put it briefly, there are
two separate elements from which the savior is [formed], since
the visible is not the same as the invisible, and the eternal is not
the same as the temporal; but they are not two separate individu-
als. God forbid!
42. By the same author from the first exposition to Cledonius.247

If anyone says that the flesh has now been laid aside and the di-
vinity is stripped of a body and does not exist with, and will not
come with this acquisition, may he not see the glorious coming.
For where is the body now, if it is not with the one who assumed
[it]? For it is not stored in the sun, as Manichaean nonsense
says, in order to be honored through dishonor; nor has it been
diffused and dissolved into the air, as the nature of a word, the
aroma of perfume, or the flash of a fleeting lightning-bolt. And
where is the reality of being touched after the resurrection,248
through which he will one day be seen by those who pierced
him?249 Divinity as such is invisible.
43. By the same author from the second discourse on the Son.250
For as Word he was neither obedient nor disobedient, since
these are proper to people who are under authority and inferior,
244. See Zec 12.10.

245. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 101.19–20. CPG 2.3032.
246. See 2 Cor 4.16.
248. See Lk 24.39.
249. See Zec 12.10.
250. Gregory of Nazianzus, 45 discourses (= 30: Fourth theological oration or On
the Son) 6. CPG Supp.3010.30.
the former is proper to those who are more right-minded, the

latter to those who deserve condemnation. But as form of a
slave,251 he comes down to fellow slaves and receives a different
form; he carries in himself all of me with all that is mine, in or-
der to consume in himself the inferior, as fire consumes wax,
and the sun, vapor of the earth.
44. By the same author from the discourse on

the divine manifestation.252
Since he came forth from the virgin, therefore, through the as-
sumption of two contradictory realities, flesh and spirit, the first
of which was assumed into God, while the other bestowed the
grace of the divinity.253
[168] 45. By the same author after a brief interval.254

He was sent, but as a human being. For his nature was twofold,
and for this reason undoubtedly, because of the law governing a
human body, he grew weary, hungry, thirsty, was in agony, and
wept.
46. By the same author in the second discourse on the Son.255

He would be called God, not of the Word, but of the visible real-
ity. For how could he be God of the [one who is] God in the
proper sense? In the same way also he is father, not of the visible
reality, but of the Word. For he was in fact twofold. As a result,
the first of these will refer in the proper sense to both, while the
latter will not; he will refer in the opposite way than he does to
us, for he is our God in the proper sense, but he is not our fa-
251. See Phil 2.7.

252. Gregory of Nazianzus, 45 discourses (= 38: On the divine manifestation
[nativity]) 13. CPG Supp.3010.38. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
253. The text as cited by Theodoret is not a complete sentence.
254. Gregory of Nazianzus, op. cit. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
the Son) 8–9. CPG Supp.3010.30.
ther in the proper sense. And what causes heretics to stray is the
joining of the words, when they are exchanged through a mix-
ture. A sign of this is the fact that, when the natures are distin-
guished in thought, their names are also distinguished. Listen to
Paul say, “In order that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Fa-
ther of glory.l.l.l.”256 He is God of Christ and Father of glory. For
even if both are one, it is not by nature, but by a joining. What
could be more obvious than this? As a fifth point, let it be said
that he took life, judgment, the inheritance of the nations, pow-
er over all flesh, glory, disciples, and all else that is mentioned.
And these pertain to the humanity.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and hu-
man beings, a human being Jesus Christ.”258 For as a human be-
ing he still intercedes even now for my salvation, since he is
with the body that he assumed, until he makes me God through
the power of the Incarnation, even though he is no longer
known according to flesh, i.e., fleshly passions, and is without
our sin.
[169] 48. By the same author from

the same discourse.259
Is it clear to everyone that, if one separates what is seen from
what is known, [Christ] has knowledge as God, but is ignorant,
he says, as a human being? 260 For we get this interpretation
from the fact that the designation “son” is absolute and without
qualification, since “of someone or other” was not added to
“son.” As a result, one can understand the ignorance in a more
pious way by attributing it to the human, not to the divine.
256. Eph 1.17.

257. Gregory of Nazianzus, op. cit. 14.
258. 1 Tm 2.5.
259. Gregory of Nazianzus, op. cit. 15.
260. See Mt 24.36.

49. From the catechetical discourse.261
And who says this, that the infinitude of the divinity was encom-
passed by the limitation of the flesh, as by some receptacle?

If a soul of a human being, which has been mixed with the body
according to the necessity of the nature, is everywhere with au-
thority, why is it necessary to say that the divinity is limited by the
nature of the flesh?

What prevents us who have acknowledged some type of union
and a drawing near of a divine nature to what is human, from
preserving the proper understanding of the divine, even in the
drawing near? For we believe that the divine transcends all limi-
tation, even if it is in human beings.
52. By the same author from the

discourse against Eunomius.264
But if the [son] of Mary speaks with brothers, and if the only be-
gotten has no brothers (for how could the concept of only begot-
ten be preserved in the midst of brothers?); and if the same one
who said, “God is a spirit,”265 also says to the disciples, “Touch
me,”266 in order to show that only the human nature can be
touched, while the divine cannot be handled; and if the one who
said, “I go,”267 is indicating a change of place, while the one who
encompassed everything, “in whom,” as the Apostle says, “all
261. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechetical Discourse 10. CPG Supp.3150.
262. Ibid.
263. Ibid.
264. Gregory of Nyssa, Books against Eunomius 3.10.4. CPG 2.3135.
265. Jn 4.24. 266. Lk 24.39.
267. Jn 14.28.
things were created .l.l. and all things stood firm in him,”268 has
nothing in reality outside of himself that he becomes, by either
motion or change.l.l.l.269
[170] 53. By the same author from the same discourse.270

“Exalted, therefore, by the right hand of God.”271 Who, then,
was exalted? The lowly or the most high? But what is the lowly, if
not the human? And what, apart from the divine, is the most
high? But God, who is most high, does not need to be exalted.
So the Apostle is saying that the human was exalted, and that it
was exalted because it became Lord and Christ. And so through
the word “made”272 the Apostle reveals, not the eternal existence
of the Lord, but the transformation, brought about through
God’s right hand, of the lowly into the exalted, because through
this word he explains the mystery of true piety. For when he
said, “Exalted by the right hand of God,”273 he clearly reveals the
ineffable divine plan of the mystery, that the right hand of God,
which made all things, which is the Lord through whom all
things came into being, and without whom nothing that was
made exists,274 raised up to its own height, through the union,
the human being that had been united to it.
The Holy Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium

54. From the discourse on the text,
Distinguish the natures, therefore, one of God and one of the
human being. For he did not become a human out of God
268. See Col 1.16–17.

269. This citation is the incomplete protasis of a long conditional sentence;
Gregory’s thought as cited by Theodoret is, therefore, left unfinished.
270. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit. 3.3.43–44.
271. Acts 2.33.
272. See Acts 2.36, where Peter says that “God made him Lord and Christ.”
273. Acts 2.33.
274. Jn 1.2.
is greater than I” [Jn 14.28]). CPG 2.3245.12.
through a falling away, nor did he become God out of a human

being through a development.

For after the resurrection the Lord reveals both things together,
namely, that the body is not such a body [as it was] and that this
body rises. Remember the narrative. The disciples were gathered
together after the passion and the resurrection, and, although
the doors were closed, the Lord suddenly stood in their midst.277
He never did this before the passion. Is it that Christ could not
have done this in the past? No, since all things are possible to
God.278 But [171] he did not do it before the passion, lest you
think that the divine plan was a mirage or an illusion, and lest
you suppose that Christ’s flesh was spiritual, or that it came down
from heaven, or that it was of a different substance than our
flesh. For some people have imagined all these things and think
that they are honoring the Lord through them; but they have
failed to see that they are slandering themselves by their expres-
sion of praise279 and are accusing the truth of a lie, in addition to
the fact that the lie is absolutely absurd. For if he assumed anoth-
er body, what does that do for my body, which needs salvation? If
he brought flesh down from heaven, what does that do for my
flesh, which was taken from the earth?

And so the reason why the Lord stood in the midst of the disci-
ples, even though the doors were closed,281 after the passion, but
not before it, was that you might know that your body was sown
as a physical body, but raised as a spiritual body.282 But in order
that you might not think that what rises is something different,
276. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 10b (Discourse on the text, “The Son
cannot do anything on his own” [ Jn 5.19 ]). CPG 2.3245.10b.
277. See Jn 20.19. 278. See Mt 19.26.
279. Eujcaristiva".
280. Amphilochius of Iconium, op. cit. 10c. CPG 2.3245.10c.
281. See Jn 20.19.
282. See 1 Cor 15.44.
when Thomas did not believe in the resurrection, he shows him

the marks of the nails, he shows him the scars of the wounds.283
He who healed everybody even before the resurrection could
have healed himself, especially after the resurrection, could he
not? Yes, but through the marks of the nails that he shows he
teaches that it is this [body], while through the closed doors by
which he enters he reveals that it is not such a [body as it was]. It
was this [body], in order that he might fulfill the goal of the di-
vine plan by raising that which had died, but it was not such a
body [as it was], in order that it might not lapse into corruption
again and not be subject to death again.
The Blessed Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria

57. From the writings against Origen.284
Our likeness, in which he shared, is not transformed into the na-
ture of the divinity, nor is his divinity changed into our likeness.
For he remains God from the beginning; and he remains even
though he produces our mode of being in himself.

For you are again blaspheming by not keeping quiet, by slander-
ing the Son [172] of God, and by saying things like this: “Just as
the Son and the Father are one,286 so the soul that the Son as-
sumed and the Son himself are one.”287 You do not know that
the Son and the Father are one because of the one substance
and the same divinity, but the soul and the Son each has a differ-
ent substance and a different nature. For if the soul of the Son
and the Son are one as the Father and the Son are one, the Fa-
ther and the soul will also be one, and the soul of the Son will at
some time also say, “Whoever has seen me, has seen the Fa-
ther.”288 But this is not the case. God forbid! For the Son and the
283. See Jn 20.27.

284. Theophilus of Alexandria, Letter 16 (fragment). CPG 2.2585.2c.
285. Theophilus of Alexandria, Letter 17 (fragment). CPG 2.2586.3.
286. This part of the quotation is based on Jn 10.30.
287. See GCS 22, 354.15–16 for the text of Origen.
288. Jn 14.9.
Father are one, because there are not different divine natures;
but the soul and the Son are different in nature and in sub-
stance, since the soul, which is of the same substance as we are,
also comes into being through him. For if the soul and the Son
are one in the same way that the Father and the Son are one, as
Origen said, then the soul will be, like the Son, “a ray of God’s
glory and a mark of [God’s] subsistent entity.”289 But really this is
impossible; it is impossible, therefore, for the Son and his soul to
be one, as he and the Father are one. And what will [Origen] do,
when he contradicts himself again? For he writes as follows: “For
the soul, which was distressed and deeply grieved,290 was surely
not the only begotten and first-born of all creation.291 For God
the Word—superior to the soul—the Son himself says, ‘I have
power to put it down, and I have power to take it’.”292 If the Son
is, then, superior to his soul, as he, therefore, is confessed to be
superior, how can his soul be equal to God and in the form of
God?293 For when he says that the soul that emptied itself and
took the form of a servant,294 [Origen] becomes, through the ex-
cesses of his impiety, the most famous heretic of all, as we have
shown. For if the Word is in the form of God and is equal to
God, and he thinks that the savior’s soul is in the form of God
and is equal to God, since he actually dared to write this, how
can that which is equal be superior? For things that fall short of
the nature testify to the superiority of those that transcend them.
[173] The Holy John, Bishop of Constantinople

59. From a discourse delivered in the great church.295
And your master led a human being up into heaven, but you do
not even share a marketplace with him. And why do I say “to
heaven”? He set the human being on a royal throne, but you
even drive him out of the city.
289. Heb 1.3. 290. See Mt 26.38.

291. See Col 1.15.
292. Jn 10.18. See GCS 22, 353.18–354.3 for the text of Origen.
293. See Phil 2.6.
294. See Phil 2.7.
295. John Chrysostom, On the text, “Do not be afraid, when a human being be-
comes rich” [Ps 49.16 (LXX 48.17)] 2. CPG 2.4414.
60. By the same author on the beginning of Psalm 41.296

Right up until today Paul does not stop saying, “We are ambassa-
dors for Christ, since God exhorts [you] through us; we beg on
behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”297 And [God] did not
stop there, but took the firstfruit of your nature and set it “above
every rule, authority, power, and every name that is named, not
only in this age, but also in the age to come.”298 What could
equal this honor? The firstfruit of our race, [a race] that had of-
fended so greatly and was dishonored, sits in such a high place
and enjoys such great honor.
61. By the same author about the division of tongues.299

Consider how much it means to see our nature carried by the
cherubim and surrounded by the whole angelic power. Please
consider also Paul’s wisdom and how many words he looks for so
that he can express God’s love for humanity. For he did not sim-
ply say “grace” and he did not simply say “riches”; no, he said,
“the superabundant richness of grace in kindness.”300
62. By the same author from a dogmatic discourse:

that Christ’s humble words and actions were not due to
weakness in power, but to differences in a divine plan.301
And after the resurrection, when he saw that the disciple did not
believe, he did not refuse to show him the wounds and the mark
of the nails, to submit the scars to the touch of his hand, and
to say, “Look and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and
bones.”302 For this reason he did not [174] at the very beginning
assume the human being in the fully developed age of life, but
submitted to being conceived, born, and nursed, and to spend-
296. John Chrysostom, Exposition of Psalm 41 [Ps 42 (LXX 41)] 4. CPG

2.4413.2.
297. 2 Cor 5.20.
298. Eph 1.21.
299. John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the devil as tempter 2–3. CPG 2.4332.
300. Eph 2.7.
302. Lk 24.39 and see Jn 20.24–29.
ing enough time on the earth to confirm this very belief

through length of time and all the other factors.
63. By the same author to those who say that

demons direct human affairs.303
Nothing was more insignificant than a human being, and noth-
ing became more honored than a human being. The human be-
ing was the last part of rational creation. But the feet became a
head and were raised to the royal throne through the firstfruit.
For it is like a noble and generous person, who saw someone es-
cape from a shipwreck, but could save only his naked body from
the waves; he takes him in with hands outstretched, clothes him
in a beautiful cloak, and raises him to the highest honor. This is
how God acted with respect to our nature. Humanity threw away
all that it had: freedom, companionship with God, life in para-
dise; it took a miserable life in exchange and departed from
there just like a naked person from a shipwreck. But God took
humanity in, and immediately clothed it and led it by the hand
step by step up to heaven.

But God made the profit greater than the penalty and led our
nature up to the royal throne. And Paul cries out and says, “He
has raised [us] and made [us] sit at his right hand in heaven.”305
65. By the same author against those who

keep the first Paschal Fast.306
He opened the heavens, made friends of those who were hated
and led them up into heaven; he set our nature at the right side
of the throne and bestowed countless other good things on us.
303. John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the devil as tempter 2. CPG 2.4332.

304. Ibid.
305. Eph 2.6.
306. John Chrysostom, Oration 3 against the Jews 4. CPG 2.4327.
66. By the same author from the discourse on the assumption.307

Across this space and height, therefore, he raised our nature.
[175] See where it lay below and where it ascended on high. It
was impossible to descend lower than humanity had descended,
or to ascend higher than God had raised it.
67. By the same author from the interpretation

of the letter to the Ephesians.308
He says, “Through his good will, which he set forth in him-
self,”309 that is, he was in labor with what he desired, so to speak,
in order to declare the mystery to us. What mystery? That he
wishes to set humanity on high. And this did indeed happen.
68. By the same author from the same interpretation.310

He says “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ”311 about this [the
body], not about God the Word.

“And even when we were dead in sins, [God] brought us back to
life again in Christ.”313 And again Christ is in the midst, and the
action is trustworthy. For if the beginning lives, we also live;
[God] has brought both him and us back to life. Do you see that
all these words refer to him according to the flesh?
70. By the same author from the Gospel according to John.314

For why does he add, “And dwelt among us”?315 He is practically
saying, “Do not suspect anything unusual because of the word
307. John Chrysostom, On the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ 3. CPG 2.4342.
308. John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the letter to the Ephesians 4. CPG 2.4431.
309. Eph 1.9.
310. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on the letter to the Ephesians 3. CPG 2.4431.
311. Eph 1.3.
312. John Chrysostom, Homily 4 on the letter to the Ephesians 1–2. CPG 2.4431.
313. Eph 2.5.
314. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on John 2. CPG 2.4425.
315. Jn 1.14b.
‘became.’ For I did not mean a change in that unchangeable na-

ture, but dwelling and inhabitation. And that which dwells
would not be the same as the dwelling-place, but one thing
dwells in another, since otherwise there would be no dwelling.
For nothing dwells in itself. I meant different according to the
substance. For God the Word and the flesh are one because of
the union and the joining since there is no mixture; and the
substances do not disappear, but there is an ineffable and inex-
pressible union.”
71. By the same author from the Gospel

according to Matthew.316
Just as a person who was standing between two individuals who
were separated from one another might spread out both hands,
embrace them, and join them together, this is what he did by
joining the old covenant with the new, the divine nature with the
human, and his status with ours.
[176] 72. By the same author from the discourse

on the assumption of Christ.317
Christ acted exactly like a person who steps in between two other
people who have squared off for a fight and puts an end to the
combat and discord of the antagonists. He was angry with us as
God, but we looked at his anger with contempt and turned away
from the master who loves humanity; and Christ put himself in
the middle, brought both natures together into friendship, and
himself suffered the penalty imposed on us by the Father.

And so he offered the firstfruits of our nature to the Father, and
the Father himself marveled at the gift because the one who of-
fered it was so worthy and because what was offered was unblem-
316. John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on Matthew 2. CPG 2.4424.

317. John Chrysostom, On the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ 2. CPG 2.4342.
This citation is also found in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
318. John Chrysostom, op. cit. 3. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
ished. He therefore received it in his own hands and gave it a

share in his own throne. And even more, he made it sit at the
place of his right hand. Let us realize, therefore, who heard the
words, “Sit at my right hand.”319 To what nature did he say,
“Share my throne?”320 It was the nature to which he said, “You
are earth and to earth you shall return.”321
74. By the same author after a few lines.322

I do not know what reasoning I shall use or with what words I
shall speak. The weak nature, the insignificant nature, the na-
ture that was declared least of all, has conquered all, has over-
come all. Today it was judged worthy to be above all; today I re-
ceived what angels have long hoped for; today archangels could
gaze at things that were passionately desired, and they contem-
plated our nature, radiant with the glory of immortality, on the
king’s throne.

75. From the Gospel according to Luke.323
The Lord inscribes in all of us the mark of piety, and [177] in
different ways he reveals to our nature the paths of salvation; he
also provides us with many clear proofs of his bodily visitation
and of the divinity that works through the body. For he wanted
to offer proof of both his natures.
76. By the same author on the divine manifestation.324

“Who will truly express the mighty acts of the Lord and make all
his praises heard?”325 Who would explain in a word the greatness
319. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1).

320. This is not a quotation from Scripture; it is a question put in God’s
mouth by Chrysostom in light of the text that precedes it.
321. Gn 3.19.
322. John Chrysostom, op. cit. 4. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
323. Flavian of Antioch, Fragment on Luke. CPG 2.3435.1.
324. Flavian of Antioch, Fragment from a homily on the divine manifestation [na-
tivity]. CPG 2.3435.6.
325. Ps 106.2 (LXX 105.2).
of [God’s] goodness to us? Human nature is joined to divinity,

although each nature in itself endures.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem

77. From the fourth catechetical oration on the
ten commandments. About the birth from a virgin.326
Believe that for our sins this only begotten Son of God came
down to earth from heaven, assumed this humanity with feelings
like ours, and was born of the holy virgin and the Holy Spirit,
since the Incarnation took place, not through an illusion or a
mirage, but in reality. He did not pass through the virgin as
through a channel, but actually took flesh from her, actually ate
as we do, actually drank as we do, and was actually nourished
with milk. For if the Incarnation was an illusion, salvation is also
an illusion. Christ was twofold, a human being as visible, and
God as not visible. As a human being he truly ate, just as we do,
for he had flesh with feelings like ours; but as God he nourished
five thousand people with five loaves.327 As a human being, he
truly died, but as God, he raised a man who had been dead for
four days.328 As a human being, he slept on the boat,329 and as
God, he walked on the water.330
Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais

78. Untitled.331
Do not mix the natures, and you will not be unperceiving when
it comes to the divine plan.
326. Cyril of Jerusalem, Fourth catechesis to the candidates for baptism 9. CPG
2.3585.2.
327. See Jn 6.1–15.
328. See Jn 11.38–44.
329. See Mt 8.24.
330. See Mt 14.22–27.
331. Antiochus of Ptolemais, Homily on the nativity (fragment) 3. CPG 2.4296.
[178] The Holy Hilary, Bishop and Confessor

79. In the ninth discourse about faith.332
Anyone who does not know Jesus Christ as true God as well as a
true human being does not truly understand his own life. For it
is a matter of the same danger, if we deny that Jesus Christ was
either Spirit—God—or flesh of our body. “Everyone, therefore,
who confesses me before human beings, I shall also confess him
before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me be-
fore human beings, I shall also deny him before my Father who
is in heaven.”333 The Word who became flesh said this,334 and a
human being, Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory335 taught this; he
was mediator for the salvation of the Church in the very mystery
through which he mediated between God and human beings,336
for the two together were one through the natures that were
united for this very reason. Through each nature he is one and
the same being, but in such a way as to lack nothing in either,
lest he should stop being God because he was born as a human
being, or on the other hand should stop being a human being
because he endures as God. This, then, is the blessing of true
faith for human beings: to proclaim God and a human being; to
confess flesh and Word; to know that God is also a human being,
and not to be unaware that the flesh is also Word.
80. By the same author in the same discourse.337

And so since the only begotten [Son of] God was born a human
being from the virgin, and since, in accordance with the fullness
of time, he, by himself, was going to enable humanity to
progress toward God, he preserved this arrangement in all the
words of the gospel, in order to teach faith in himself as Son of
God and to recall that he is also proclaimed as Son of Man. Al-
332. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 9.3. CPL 433. This citation is also
found in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
333. Mt 10.32–33. 334. See Jn 1.14a.
335. See 1 Cor 2.8. 336. See 1 Tm 2.5.
337. Hilary of Poitiers, op. cit. 9.5–7. This citation is also found in the Tome
of Pope Leo I.
though he is a human being, he says and does everything that is

proper to God; while, on the other hand, although he is God, he
says and does everything that is proper [179] to a human being;
but he did this in such a way that he never spoke in this very way
according to a different kind of reality except to signify both
God and a human being. As a result of this, therefore, the
heretics have an occasion to trick the simple and the uneducat-
ed, so that they can claim falsely that whatever he said according
to the humanity was said because of a weakness in the divine na-
ture, and since it is one and the same individual who says every-
thing that he said, they can argue that he said everything about
himself. And we do not deny either that all of his words are
proper to his own nature. But the one Christ is both a human
being and God; at the time he was a human being, he was not
God for the first time, nor, when he was a human being, was he
not also God; nor, after the human being [was] in the Lord, was
the Word not human nor was the Word not God; if all this is
true, then the mystery of his words must be one and the same as
the mystery of his birth. And whenever, according to the occa-
sion, you distinguish the human being in him from the God,
then distinguish the words of the God and of the human being.
And when you confess [that he is] God and a human being, dis-
tinguish on the occasion the words of God and of a human be-
ing. And when [reference is to] God and a human being, or
again [to] a human being entirely and God entirely, consider
the occasion; if something like this was said to shed light on that
particular occasion, then adapt what was said to the occasion.
But since he was God before he was a human being, and then
was also a human being and God, and then, after being both a
human being and God, he was also totally a human being and
totally God, do not confuse the mystery of the divine plan be-
cause of the words and actions. For in keeping with the quality
of the classes and the natures he had to use one type of speech
for things in accordance with the mystery when the human be-
ing was not yet born, another when he was going to his death,
and still another when he became eternal. He displayed all these
things, therefore, and as Christ Jesus, one who was born a hu-
man being with our body, he spoke in the way our nature nor-
mally does, even as he was God. For although he performed the
works of our nature in birth, in suffering, and in death, he nev-
ertheless did all of this through the power of his own nature.
[180] 81. By the same author in the same discourse.338

You do see, do you not, that the confession of him as God and a
human being is done in such a way that death can be ascribed to
the human being, and the resurrection of the flesh to God? For
observe the nature of God in the power of the resurrection, and
you will recognize in the death the divine plan in accordance
with the human being. And since both took place in their prop-
er natures, please remember that the Jesus Christ who is both
is one. The reason I have explained this briefly, therefore, is
to help us remember that both natures are observed in our
Lord Jesus Christ, for he who was in God’s form took a servant’s
form.339
The Most Holy Bishop Augustine

82. By the same author from the letter to Volusian.340
He has now appeared as a mediator between God and human
beings,341 so that he can join together both natures in the unity
of the person, strengthening tradition with truth and blending
truth with tradition.
83. By the same author in the explanation of the

Gospel according to the holy John.342
Why, then, you heretic, since Christ is God and a human being,
if [he acts] as a human being, do you misrepresent God? He
raises up human nature in himself, but you dare to degrade his
divine nature.
338. Hilary of Poitiers, op. cit. 9.11, 14. This citation is also found in the
Tome of Pope Leo I.
339. See Phil 2.6–7.
340. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 137.9. CPL 262. This citation is also found
in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
341. See 1 Tm 2.5.
342. Augustine of Hippo, Treatise on the Gospel of John 78.2. CPL 278. This ci-
tation is also found in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
84. By the same author in the discourse about

the explanation of the faith.343
For our task is to believe, and his is to know. So let God the
Word himself, which has taken on everything that is proper to a
human being, be a human being, and let the human being that
was assumed, which has taken on everything that is proper to
God, be nothing else but what God is. But because it is said that
he became flesh and was mixed, [181] one must not think that
his substance was diminished. God knew how to mix himself
without personal corruption and God is truly mixed. God knew
how to assume [something] in himself so that he cannot be in-
creased by addition, just as he knew how [to do it, when] he
poured himself in totally, so that he could undergo no diminu-
tion. Let us not think that God and a human being were mixed
together, therefore, because of the weakness of our understand-
ing and because we form conjectures about the data of sensible
experience from the blending of creatures equal to one anoth-
er; and let us not imagine that, because of such a blending
of the Word and the flesh, faith says that a kind of body was
formed, lest we somehow think that, just as things are mixed to-
gether, two natures were brought together into one subsistent
entity. For a mixture like this destroys both elements. But God,
who embraces, but is not embraced, who seeks, but is not
sought, who fills, but is not filled, who is totally present every-
where and encompasses the whole by pouring out his power, as
one who shows mercy—this God was mixed with the human na-
ture; the nature of a human being was truly not mixed with the
divine one.344
343. The book of correction 3.27–4.12. CPL 515. This was written by a monk
named Leporius, not by Augustine. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
344. This final sentence expresses the key element of Cyril’s notion of a
union according to the subsistent entity; see citation 92, below. Since this text
appeared in the Tome of Leo, it does not prove that Theodoret himself accepted
this explanation.
Severian, Bishop of Gabala

85. On the birth of Christ.345
O mystery truly heavenly and earthly, conquered and uncon-
quered, seen and unseen. For such was the Christ who was born:
heavenly and earthly, conquered and unconquered, seen and
unseen. He was heavenly in accordance with the nature of the
divinity, earthly in accordance with the nature of the humanity.
He was seen in accordance with the flesh, unseen in accordance
with the Spirit; he was conquered in accordance with the body,
unconquered in accordance with the Word.
Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople

86. From the letter to Eupsychius.346
What, then, should the all wise one have done? Through the me-
diation of the assumed flesh and through a union of God the
Word with the [182] human being born of Mary he becomes
both. As a result, Christ, who is a product of the union of both,
can remain in his own glory from the impassible nature even
while directing [creation] through divinity, and at the same time
can encounter death in the flesh; he can also, through death,
show contempt for death to the nature of the flesh that is of the
same kind and can confirm by his end the justice of the new
covenant.
Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria

87. From the letter to Nestorius.347
And because the natures that were brought together in the true
union were different, there is one God and Son from both, and
345. Severian of Gabala, On the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. CPG 2.4657. CPG
lists this text among the dubious and spurious writings of John Chrysostom.
346. Atticus of Constantinople, Letter to Eupsychius. CPG 3.5655.
347. Cyril of Alexandria, (Letter 4) to Nestorius. CPG 3.5304.
the difference between the natures was not destroyed by the

union.
88. By the same author from the letter to the Orientals.348

For there was a union of two natures; that is why we confess one
Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of
the union without mixture we confess that the holy virgin is
mother of God, because the Word of God took flesh and be-
came human, and, from the moment of conception, united to
himself the temple that was taken from her.

For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even if there is an awareness
of the distinction between the natures, of which we say an ineffa-
ble union was formed.
90. By the same author.350

And so, reflecting, as I said, upon the manner in which the In-
carnation took place, we see that two natures came together
with each other, without mixture or division, in accordance with
an indestructible union. For the flesh is flesh and not divinity,
even though it became God’s flesh. And in the same way, the
Word is God and not flesh, even if he made the flesh his own
through the divine plan.
91. By the same author from the interpretation

of the letter to the Hebrews.351
For even if the natures of the things that came together into uni-
ty, i.e., flesh and God, are perceived as different and not equal
to one another, still, the Son who [is] from both is, therefore,
one, and only one.
348. Cyril of Alexandria, (Letter 39) to John of Antioch. CPG 3.5339.

349. Ibid.
350. Cyril of Alexandria, (Letter 45) to Succensus. CPG 3.5345.
351. Cyril of Alexandria, Fragments on the letter to the Hebrews. CPG 3.5209.3.
[183] 92. By the same author from the same interpretation.352

Even though the only begotten Word of God was said to be unit-
ed to flesh according to subsistent entity, we do not say that any
mixture of the natures with one another occurred, but rather
that each one remained what it was.
93. By the same author from the Scholia.353

Even though the Father’s Word, born of a virgin, was God ac-
cording to nature, he was called a human being, because he
shared in a body and blood like us.354 For this is how he ap-
peared to people on earth;355 he did not abandon what he was,
but came into being by assuming our humanity completely and
in accordance with its proper delineation.

on the Incarnation.356
Even before the Incarnation, then, he is one true God, and in
humanity he remained what he was, is, and will be. We must not,
therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into a human being
in the proper sense and God in the proper sense; but we say that
it is one and the same Christ Jesus, for we know the difference
between the natures and we keep them from being mixed with
one another.
95. By the same author after an interval.357

Understand clearly that one thing dwells in another, i.e., the di-
vine nature dwells in humanity and did not undergo any mix-
352. Ibid.
353. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten. CPG
3.5225. This citation is also found in the Tome of Pope Leo I.
354. See Heb 2.14.
355. See Bar 3.35–37 (LXX 3.36–38).
356. Cyril of Alexandria, op. cit. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
357. Cyril of Alexandria, op. cit. This citation is also found in the Tome of
Pope Leo I.
ture, blending, or change into something that it had not been.

For that which is said to dwell in something else does not be-
come the same as that in which it dwells, but is perceived rather
as one thing in something else. In the nature of the Word and of
the humanity he shows us only difference. For Christ is per-
ceived as one out of both. He very carefully preserved the lack
of mixture, therefore, and says that “the Word dwelt among
us.”358 For he knew that there is one only begotten Son who be-
came flesh and became human.
Orthodox. You have heard the great lights of the world, my

friend, you have seen the rays of their teaching; and you have
learned accurately that they showed that, not only after the
birth, but also after the saving [184] passion, the resurrection,
and the assumption, the union of the divinity and the humanity
involved no mixture.
Eranistes. I didn’t think that they divided the natures after
the union, but I did find a great deal of division.
Orthodox. It is mad boldness to wag your tongue against those
men who are noble champions of the faith. But I shall also pro-
vide you with the words of Apollinarius, so that you may know
that even he says that the union was without mixture. Listen,
then, to what he says.
Apollinarius
The [qualities] of God and of the body are united. The creator
deserving of adoration is eternal wisdom and power; this is due
to the divinity. The Son of Mary was born in the last age, adores
God, advances in wisdom, and is confirmed in power; this is due
to the body. Suffering for sin and the curse passed away and
changed into impassibility and blessing; but the flesh did not
pass away, and will not pass away and will not change into some-
thing incorporeal.
358. Jn 1.14b.
359. Apollinarius, To Diodore or the book, “A Summary.” CPG 2.3657.
97. And then after a brief interval: 360

Human beings are of the same substance as irrational animals in
accordance with the irrational body, but they are of a different
substance as rational beings. And in the same way God, who is of
the same substance as human beings in accordance with the
flesh, is of a different substance insofar as he is Word and God.
98. And in another place he says this: 361

The qualities of things that are mixed together are blended but
not destroyed, so that in some way they are also different from
the things with which they were mixed, as wine is from water,
and there is no mixing with a body, nor is it like bodies [mixing]
with bodies; but it is also unmixed, so that on each occasion, ac-
cording to necessity, the power of the divinity can either stand
alone or be mixed together, as happened in the case of the
Lord’s fast.362 Since the divinity was blended in for self-sufficien-
cy, hunger was suppressed; but when [the divinity] stopped set-
ting self-sufficiency in opposition to need, hunger came about in
order to destroy the devil. If mixture involving bodies was free of
change, how much more true is this of mixture involving the di-
vinity?
[185] 99. And in another place he says this: 363

If the mixture with iron, which shows that fire [affects] the iron
so it can do the work of fire, did not change its nature, then the
union of God with the body does not change the body, even
though the body offers divine powers to those who can touch it.
100. He immediately adds to this: 364

If a human being has both a soul and a body, and they remain
even when they are in a unity, how much more does Christ, who
has divinity as well as a body, have each of them continue as they
are and unmixed?
360. Ibid. 361. Ibid.

362. See Mt 4.1–11. 363. Apollinarius, op. cit.
364. Ibid.
101. And again soon after: 365

For the human nature shares in the divine power to the best of
its ability, but it is different, as smallest is different from greatest.
And God’s human being is a servant, but God is not a servant of
the human being or of himself. And the human being is a crea-
ture of God, but God is not a creature either of the human be-
ing or of himself.

“What he sees the Father doing, he also does himself.”367 If
someone takes this text as referring to Christ according to the
divinity, and not according to the flesh, according to which the
one who became flesh is different from the Father who did not
become flesh, such a person is distinguishing two divine powers;
but there is no such distinction, nor is this said in reference to
the divinity.
103. Then he also added this: 368

As the human being is not irrational, even though the rational
part is attached to the irrational, so too the savior is not a crea-
ture, even though the created body is attached to the uncreated
God.
104. He also adds this to that: 369

The invisible remains invisible, even when it has been joined to
a visible body and has been seen through it; it also remains free
of composition, insofar as it is not limited by the body. And the
body remains within its own limits and receives union with God
in accordance with the fact that it is given life; and that which is
given life does not give life.
365. Ibid. 366. Ibid.

367. Jn 5.19. 368. Ibid.
369. Ibid.
105. And soon after he again said this: 370

Even though the mixture of the soul with the body exists from
the beginning according to a natural union, it does not make
the soul visible through the body or [186] transform it into the
other properties of the body, so that it can be cut or diminished.
If this is true, how much more immutable is the union of a body
with God, who is not naturally one with a body by nature? And if
the body of the human being remains in its own nature, even
when it has been given a soul, then, in the case of Christ, the
mixture did not transform the body so that it no longer is a
body.
106. And after a long interval again he added this: 371

Whoever confesses that soul and body are proven to be one by
Scripture contradicts himself when he says that such a union of
the Word and a body is a change, when this change is not ob-
served in the case of a soul.
107. Listen to him as he again cries out clearly:372

If those people who deny that the Lord’s flesh continues to exist
are wicked, how much worse are those who do not confess that
he became flesh to begin with?
108. And in the little book on the Incarnation

he again wrote this: 373
Thus he says the words, “Sit at my right hand,”374 as though
[speaking] to a human being, for they were not said to the one
who, as God the Word, sits forever on a throne of glory after the
ascent from earth; but they were said to the one who has now
been raised to heavenly glory as a human being, just as the apos-
tles say: “For David did not go up into heaven; but he says, ‘The
370. Ibid. 371. Ibid.

372. Ibid.
373. Apollinarius, On the Incarnation. CPG 2.3649.
374. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1).
Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand.’”375 The command

that initiates the sitting is human, but the dignity of sitting with
God, whom countless thousands serve and before whom infinite
throngs stand, is divine.

For he puts enemies in subjection, not as to God, but as to a hu-
man being, so that the same one can be both visible God and a
human being. For Paul teaches that the text, “Until I put your
enemies as a footstool for your feet,”377 is spoken as to a human
being, when he says that his triumph was clearly his own in ac-
cordance with the divinity. “According to the power,” he says, “by
which he can also subject everything to himself.”378 See that di-
vinity and humanity exist inseparably in the one person.
110. And after a brief interval: 379

[187] “Glorify me, Father, with yourself, with the glory that I
had with you before the world existed.”380 He speaks of glorify-
ing as a human being, but he reveals that he possesses the glory
from eternity as God.
111. And then soon after: 381

But let us not be humiliated because we think that worship of
the Son of God, even with the human likeness, is degrading; let
us rather [be humbled as we]382 glorify him with royal glory as a
royal figure, even though he appears in a poor garment, espe-
cially when we see that the garment itself has been glorified, as
was proper for the body of God, the savior of the world, the seed
of eternal life, the instrument of divine powers, the destroyer of
all evil, the abolisher of death, and the first cause of resurrec-
375. Acts 2.34. 376. Apollinarius, op. cit.

377. Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1). 378. Phil 3.21.
379. Apollinarius, op. cit. 380. Jn 17.5.
382. The Greek offers no finite verb in this part of the sentence; the verb
from the first part is understood here as a parallel to the construction of the
second sentence in this citation.
tion. For even though it had its nature from human beings, it
also [had] life from God and power and divine excellence from
heaven.

We worship the body, therefore, as we do the Word; we share in
the body as in the Spirit.
Orthodox. Please observe that even the first one to introduce

the mixing of the natures was shown to have been openly
speaking of difference. He called the body a garment, a crea-
ture, and an instrument. And he also even called it a servant,
which none of us has ever dared to say. He also said that the
body was judged worthy to sit at the right hand, and he ex-
pressed many other ideas rejected by your barren heresy.
Eranistes. Why did he speak so much about difference, when
he was the first to introduce mixing?
Orthodox. The power of truth forces even those who battle
mightily against it to agree with what it says. But, if you like, let
us also undertake a discussion of the Lord’s impassibility.
Eranistes. You know that musicians customarily relax the
strings and loosen the pegs, so as to release the tension. If
things that are totally devoid of reason and soul need some rest,
then surely we who are endowed with soul and reason shall do
nothing strange, if we adapt the task to our strength. Let us,
therefore, stop until tomorrow.
[188] Orthodox. Holy David recommends concern about
praying to God day and night;384 but nevertheless let us do what
you said and keep the investigation of the remaining material
for tomorrow.

384. See perhaps Ps 1.2.
I M PA S S I B L E
DIALOGUE THREE
r t h o d ox . In our earlier investigations and discus-

sions we showed that God the Word is immutable and
became human, not by changing into flesh, but by tak-
ing a complete human nature. But divine Scripture, as well as
the teachers of the churches and the lights of the world, taught
us clearly that even after the union [the divine Word] remained
what he was, unmixed, impassible, unchangeable, and unlimit-
ed, and that he preserved intact the nature that he assumed. So
now the topic of the passion still lies before us, and it is a very
useful one, for he has bestowed on us the waters of salvation.
Eranistes. I too have felt that this is a fruitful topic. But never-
theless I shall not follow the previous format, instead I shall ask
the questions.
Orthodox. And I shall answer without fear of the change in
format. For the advocate of the truth possesses the power of the
truth, not only when he asks the questions, but also when he is
questioned. So ask whatever you wish.
Eranistes. Who do you say suffered the passion?
Orthodox. Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Eranistes. So a human being gave us salvation?
Orthodox. Did we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ was only
a human being?
Eranistes. Well then, explain now what you believe Christ is.
Orthodox. The incarnate Son of the living God.
Eranistes. Is the Son of God God?
Orthodox. [He is] God, possessing the same substance as the
Father who begot [him].
Eranistes. Then God suffered the passion.
Orthodox. If he was nailed to the cross without a body, attrib-
ute the passion to the divinity; but if he became human by tak-
178
I M PA S S I B L E : D I A L O G U E T H R E E 179
ing flesh, why do you allow that which can suffer to be impassi-
ble, while subjecting the impassible to suffering?
[190] Eranistes. But he assumed flesh for this reason: so that
the impassible might endure suffering through that which
could suffer.
Orthodox. You call him impassible and attribute suffering to
him.
Eranistes. I said that he took flesh in order to suffer.
Orthodox. If he possessed a nature that could suffer and would
have suffered without flesh, then the flesh is superfluous.
Eranistes. The divine nature is immortal, but that of the flesh
is mortal. The immortal nature was, therefore, united to the
mortal nature, in order to taste death through it.
Orthodox. That which is immortal by nature does not suffer
death, even when joined to something that is mortal; and this is
quite easy to ascertain.
Eranistes. Prove it and resolve the controversy.
Orthodox. Do you say that the human soul is immortal or
mortal?
Eranistes. Immortal.
Orthodox. And is the body mortal or immortal?
Eranistes. Obviously mortal.
Orthodox. And do we say that the human being is composed
of these natures?
Eranistes. We do.
Orthodox. The immortal has, therefore, been joined to the
mortal.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. But when the joining or union is dissolved, the
mortal is terminated by death, while the soul remains immor-
tal, even though sin introduced death. Or don’t you think that
death is a punishment?
Eranistes. Divine Scripture does teach this, for we learn from
Scripture that after forbidding Adam to partake of the tree of
knowledge, God added, “On the day on which you eat of it, you
shall die with death.”1
1. Gn 2.17.
Orthodox. So death is a punishment for those who have

sinned.
Eranistes. I agree.
Orthodox. Then why does only the body experience the pun-
ishment of death, when the soul and body sinned together?
Eranistes. Because the body looked evilly at the tree, stretched
out its hands, and plucked the forbidden fruit. And the mouth
itself then [191] chewed it with its teeth and ground it with its
molars. Next, the esophagus received it and sent it to the stom-
ach, which digested it and handed it on to the liver. And the liv-
er transformed what it received into the nature of blood and
transmitted it to the vena cava, which passed it on to the adjoin-
ing veins, and they sent it through the bloodstream to the body.
And in this way the theft of the forbidden food permeated the
whole body. So it was right for the body alone to experience the
punishment due to sin.
Orthodox. From a physiological point of view you have ex-
plained in detail the digestive process, and [shown] how many
parts of the body food passes through and how many changes it
undergoes before it is transformed into the nature of the body.
But you were still unwilling to understand the fact that without
a soul the body performs none of the functions that were men-
tioned. For when it has been abandoned by the soul that was
joined to it, it is left without breath, speechless, and immobile.
An eye sees neither badly nor well, the ears do not take in the
sound of voices, the hands are not moved, the feet do not walk;
it is like an instrument deprived of a musician. So how can you
say that only the body sinned, a body that cannot even take a
breath without a soul?
Eranistes. The body shares in life through the soul, but it also
procures for the soul the acquisition of sin, which makes it li-
able to punishment.
Orthodox. How? In what way?
Eranistes. It enables the soul to look in an evil way through
the eyes, to hear things that are hurtful through the ears, to
speak destructively through the tongue, and to act unlawfully
through the other limbs.
Orthodox. It seems that the deaf, the blind, and those who
have lost the use of other parts of the body we should call happy.
For their souls do not participate in the body’s wickedness. Why,
my brilliant friend, have you mentioned the culpable actions of
the body, but ignored those that are praiseworthy? For it is also
possible to look in a kindly and loving way, to wipe away a tear of
contrition, to listen to the words of God, to incline the ear to
those in need, to sing the creator’s praise with the tongue, to
teach the neighbor his duty, to move the hands for mercy, and,
in brief, to use the parts of the body for the perfect acquisition
of virtue.
[192] Orthodox. So keeping and breaking laws are common
to both soul and body.
Eranistes. They are.
Orthodox. It seems to me that the soul even takes the lead in
both, since it employs reason before the body [acts].
Eranistes. What do you mean?
Orthodox. The mind first sketches virtue or vice and then
gives it shape in this way: It uses the parts of the body as instru-
ments, but with the colors and materials appropriate to each.
Eranistes. That seems right.
Orthodox. So if it sins with the body, or rather is the cause of
sin (because it is thought to guide and govern the living being),
tell me why it shares in the sin, but does not share in the pun-
ishment?
Eranistes. And how could the immortal [soul] partake of
death?
Orthodox. But it would nonetheless be just for [the soul],
which had a share in the transgression, to share in the punish-
ment.
Eranistes. It would.
Orthodox. But it did not share [in the punishment].
Orthodox. But in the life to come it will be handed over to
Gehenna along with the body.
Eranistes. The Lord said this: “Do not be afraid of those who
kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; fear rather the one who
can destroy both the soul and the body in Gehenna.”2
Orthodox. So in this life the soul escaped death because it is
immortal, but in that life it will suffer punishment, not by expe-
riencing death, but by being chastised while alive.
Eranistes. Divine Scripture also teaches this.
Orthodox. It is impossible, therefore, for the immortal nature
to experience death.
Eranistes. That is obvious.
Orthodox. Then how can you say that God the Word tasted
death? For if [193] it was obvious in that case that this created,
immortal entity cannot become mortal, how could the uncreat-
ed and eternally immortal creator of mortal and immortal na-
tures partake of death?
Eranistes. We are also aware of his immortal nature, but we
say that he partook of death in the flesh.
Orthodox. But we have shown clearly, that an entity that is im-
mortal by nature can in no way partake of death. For even the
soul, which was created with, and joined to the body, and
shared in its sin, did not share in death with it because of its im-
mortal nature and that alone. Let’s look at this same point in
another way.
Eranistes. Nothing prevents us from using every means to en-
able us to find the truth.
Orthodox. Let’s proceed, then, as follows. Do we say that cer-
tain people are teachers of virtue and vice, while others are
their disciples?
Eranistes. We do.
Orthodox. And do we say that the teacher of virtue deserves
greater rewards?
Orthodox. And do you say in the same way that the teacher of
evil deserves a double and triple dose of punishment?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. In which group is the devil to be placed? Do we say
that he is a teacher or a disciple?
2. Mt 10.28.
Eranistes. He is a teacher of teachers. For he is both father

and teacher of all evil.
Orthodox. Which human beings were his first disciples?
Eranistes. Adam and Eve.
Orthodox. And who received the sentence of death?
Eranistes. Adam and his whole family.
Orthodox. So the disciples suffered punishment for the evil
they learned; but the teacher, who we just said deserved a dou-
ble and triple dose of punishment, avoided chastisement.
Eranistes. Apparently.
[194] Orthodox. But even though these cases turned out like
this, we still know and say that the judge is just.
Orthodox. Well then, if he was just, why didn’t he make him
pay for his evil teaching?
Eranistes. He prepared the unquenchable fire of Gehenna
for him. For he says, “Go, accursed ones, into the eternal fire
that has been prepared for the devil and his angels.”3 But in
this case he did not share in death with his disciples because he
had an immortal nature.
Orthodox. So those who have committed even the most terri-
ble sins cannot experience death, if they happen to have an im-
mortal nature.
Eranistes. I agree.
Orthodox. Then if even the founder and teacher of evil him-
self did not experience death because of the immortality of his
nature, how can you keep from trembling when you say that the
source of immortality and righteousness experienced death?
Eranistes. If we say that he suffered the passion unwillingly,
you would have a just basis for the accusation you bring against
us. But if we preach a passion freely-chosen and a death accept-
ed voluntarily, then you should not accuse us, but should praise
his superabundant love. For he suffered willingly and chose to
experience death.
Orthodox. It appears that you know nothing at all about the
divine nature. For the Lord God wills nothing that is contrary
3. Mt 25.41.
to his nature, and he can do whatever he wills. But he wills what

is in harmony with and suitable to his own nature.
Eranistes. We have learned that all things are possible for
God.4
Orthodox. When you make general statements, you are also
including in your discourse things that are proper to the devil’s
domain. For the one who states everything absolutely has spo-
ken at the same time of good things and their opposites.
Eranistes. Didn’t the noble Job make the absolute statement,
“I know that you can do all things, and nothing is impossible
for you”?5
Orthodox. If you were to read what the just man said before
that, [195] you would also find there the meaning of these
words. He said, “Remember that you formed me as clay and
you turn me back into earth; did you not squeeze me out like
milk and press me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and
flesh, and with bones and nerves you threaded me. You provid-
ed me with life and pity, and your care protected my spirit.”6 To
this he adds, “Possessing this in myself,7 I know that you can do
all things and nothing is impossible for you.”8 Wasn’t he saying,
therefore, that whatever relates to these matters can pertain to
the pure nature, the God of the universe?
Eranistes. Nothing is impossible for the all-powerful God.
Orthodox. And therefore the all-powerful God can also sin,
according to your definition.
Orthodox. Why?
Eranistes. Because he doesn’t want to sin.
Orthodox. Why not?
Eranistes. Because sinning is foreign to that nature.
Orthodox. So he cannot do many things, for there are many
kinds of sins.
4. See Jb 10.13 (LXX); Mt 19.26, and Mk 10.27.

5. Jb 10.13 (LXX).
6. Jb 10.9–12.
7. The LXX reads seautw`,/ referring to God. Theodoret’s text reads eJautw`,/
which can only refer grammatically to Job.
8. Jb 10.13 (LXX).
Eranistes. God does not will and cannot do such things as

these.
Orthodox. Nor those things that are contrary to the divine na-
ture.
Eranistes. What kinds of things?
Orthodox. For example: We have learned that God is both in-
telligible and true light.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. But we would not say that he either willed to, or
could have become darkness.
Orthodox. Furthermore, divine Scripture says that his nature
is invisible.
Eranistes. It does.
Orthodox. But we would not say that it could ever become visi-
ble.
Orthodox. Nor comprehensible.
Eranistes. No.
Orthodox. For it is incomprehensible and absolutely transcen-
dent.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. So the one who is would not become one who is
not.
[196] Eranistes. Unthinkable.
Orthodox. Nor would the Father become Son.
Eranistes. That is impossible.
Orthodox. Not would the unbegotten one become begotten.
Eranistes. How could that be?
Orthodox. Nor would the Son ever become Father.
Eranistes. Never.
Orthodox. Nor would the Holy Spirit become Son or Father.
Eranistes. All these cases are impossible.
Orthodox. We also find many other instances like these that
are equally impossible. For the eternal will not be subject to
time, nor will the uncreated be created or made, nor will the
infinite be limited; and so on in similar cases.
Eranistes. None of these are possible.
Orthodox. We have discovered many things, therefore, that

are impossible for the all-powerful God.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. But the inability to do any of these things is a sign
of unlimited power, not of weakness, whereas the ability to do
them would, I think, prove lack of power, not power.
Eranistes. What do you mean by this?
Orthodox. Each of these cases proclaims that God is im-
mutable and unchangeable. For the good person’s inability to
become evil is a sign of overwhelming goodness, and this, to-
gether with the fact that the just person would never become
unjust and that the truthful person would not become a liar,
shows that there is steadfast reliability in truth and justice. In
the same way the true light would not become darkness, nor
would the one who is become non-being; for he possesses eter-
nal existence and is unchangeable light. And if you look at
everything else in this way, you will discover that inability re-
veals supreme power.
The divine Apostle also understood and expressed in this
way the impossibility of such things in the case of God. For in
writing to the Hebrews he says this: “So that through two un-
changeable things, in which God cannot lie, we may have great
consolation”;9 [with these words] he shows that inability is not
weakness, but is great [197] power itself. For he says that God is
true in such a way that falsehood can never be in him. And so
the power of truth is shown through the lack of power. And
when he wrote to the blessed Timothy, he also added this: “The
saying is trustworthy; for if we have died with him, we shall also
live [with him]; if we endure, we shall also rule [with him]; if
we deny, he will also deny us; if we do not believe, he remains
faithful, for he cannot deny himself.”10 And so the words “he
cannot” again reveal unlimited power. For he says that, even if
every human being would deny him, he is God and he does not
give up possession of his own nature. For he possesses inde-
structible existence, and the words, “he cannot deny himself ”
9. Heb 6.18.
10. 2 Tm 2.11–13.
show this. So the inability to change for the worse reveals enor-
mous power.
Eranistes. These statements are true and in harmony with the
divine texts.
Orthodox. If many things, i.e., those that are contrary to the
divine nature, are impossible for God, therefore, since you ac-
knowledge this in all the other qualities that are in accordance
with his nature, such as goodness, righteousness, truth, invisi-
bility, incomprehensibility, infinity, eternity, and whatever else
we say pertains to God, please tell me why you say that only im-
mortality and impassibility are mutable? And why do you allow
capacity for change in their case and attribute to God a power
that is a sign of weakness?
Eranistes. We learned this from the divine Scripture. For the
divine John proclaims, “God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son.”11 And the divinely inspired Paul says,
“For if we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son
when we were enemies, how much more, once we have been
reconciled, shall we be saved in his life.”12
Orthodox. These words are true, for they are divine words.
But remember what we have often agreed to confess.
Orthodox. We agreed to confess that the Son of God, God the
Word, did not appear without a body, but assumed a complete
human nature.
Eranistes. We did agree to confess this.
Orthodox. So if he took a body and a human soul, that is why
he was also called a Son of Man.
[198] Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Our Lord Jesus Christ is, therefore, truly God and
truly a human being, for he always possessed one of these na-
tures and truly took the other.
Eranistes. This cannot be denied.
Orthodox. So he suffered the passion as a human being, but
remained beyond suffering as God.
11. Jn 3.16.
12. Rom 5.10.
Eranistes. Then why does the divine Scripture say that the
Son of God suffered?
Orthodox. Because the body that suffered was his body. Let us
look at it this way: When we hear the divine Scripture say, “It
happened after Isaac grew old, that his eyesight grew dim,”13
where is our mind led and on what is it fixed: on the soul or on
the body of Isaac?
Eranistes. Obviously on the body.
Orthodox. We don’t suppose, therefore, that the soul also
shared in the suffering of blindness?
Orthodox. We say that only the body was deprived of the sense
of sight.
Eranistes. We do.
Orthodox. And furthermore, when we hear Amaziah say to
the prophet Amos, “Seer, go to the land of Judah,”14 and when
we hear Saul ask, “Where is the house of the visionary,”15 we’re
not thinking about something bodily, are we?
Eranistes. No.
Orthodox. And yet the words indicate good health in the or-
gan of sight.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. But nevertheless we know that, when the power of
the Spirit is bestowed on more purified souls, it instills the
grace of prophecy, and this grace enables them to see hidden
realities and caused those who see these things to be called
seers and visionaries.
Eranistes. What you say is true.
[199] Orthodox. Then let us consider another point.
Eranistes. What is that?
Orthodox. When we hear the account of the divine Gospels
telling that they brought to the Lord a paralyzed man lying on a
bed,16 do we say that the weakness of the limbs refers to the soul
or to the body?
Eranistes. To the body, obviously.
13. Gn 27.1. 14. Am 7.12.

15. 1 Sm 9.18. 16. See Mt 9.2.
Orthodox. And when we read the letter to the Hebrews and

find that passage where the Apostle says, “Stretch out, there-
fore, your weakened hands and enfeebled knees, and make
straight paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be turned
aside, but may rather be cured,”17 do we say that the divine
Apostle was saying this about the limbs of the body?
Orthodox. Shall we say instead that he is taking away weak-
ness of soul and cowardice, and is exhorting the disciples to
courage?
Orthodox. But we do not find these distinctions made by the
divine Scripture. For when it gave an account of Isaac’s blind-
ness, it did not mention his body, but simply said that Isaac was
blind. And when it called the prophets seers and visionaries, it
did not say that their souls saw and had visions of the hidden re-
alities, but referred to the persons themselves.18
Orthodox. And it did not show that the paralytic’s body was
feeble, but called the man a paralytic.19
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And the divine Apostle did not mention the souls
by name, even though he wanted to strengthen them and spur
them on.20
Eranistes. He did not.
Orthodox. But when we investigate the meaning of the words,
we realize that certain things refer to the soul while others per-
tain to the body.
Eranistes. And it is right to do this, for God made us rational.
Orthodox. Then let us also use this power of reason in refer-
ence to the one who made us and saved us, and let us get to
know what is proper to his divinity and what is proper to the hu-
manity.
17. Heb 12.12–13.

18. See Gn 27.1; Am 7.12; 1 Sm 9.18.
19. See Mt 9.2.
20. See Heb 12.12–13.
[200] Eranistes. But if we do this, we shall destroy that in-

tense union.
Orthodox. But when we did this with respect to Isaac, the
prophets, the paralytic, and the others, we did not destroy the
natural union of the soul and the body, nor did we separate the
souls from their own bodies; but we distinguished, by thought
alone, what is proper to the soul and what to the body. If we do
this with souls and bodies, therefore, isn’t it wicked to refuse to
do it with our savior, and instead to mix the natures, even
though they differ from one another, not simply in the way that
the soul differs from the body, but to the extent that the tempo-
ral differs from the eternal, and the created from the creator?
Eranistes. The divine Scripture says that the Son of God un-
derwent suffering.
Orthodox. And we’re not saying that someone else suffered,
but nevertheless we know, from the teaching of the divine
Scripture, that the nature of the divinity is impassible. And so
when we hear about impassibility, suffering, and a union of hu-
manity and divinity, we say that the passible body suffered and
we confess that the impassible nature remained free of suffer-
ing.
Eranistes. So the body bestowed salvation on us.
Orthodox. It was the body of one who was not a mere human
being, but the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten
Son of God. And if you think that this body is insignificant and
worthless, how can you consider its type to be sacred and a
bringer of salvation? But if the type is worthy of reverence and
adoration, how can the original itself be contemptible and in-
significant?
Eranistes. I do not consider the body worthless, but I refuse
to separate [it] from the divinity.
Orthodox. We don’t divide the union either, my good man;
but we look at the properties of the natures. And I think you
will soon come to agree.
Eranistes. You’re stating this as though you were a prophet.
Orthodox. [I speak] not as a prophet, but as one who knows
the power of the truth. Now please answer me when I ask this
question: When you hear the Lord say, “I and the Father are
one,”21 and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,”22 do

you say that these words refer to the flesh or to the divinity?
[201] Eranistes. How can the flesh and the Father be one ac-
cording to substance?
Orthodox. So these words refer to the divinity.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And the same is true of, “In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was God,”23 and other similar phrases?
Eranistes. I agree.
Orthodox. When the divine Scripture says again that, “Jesus
was tired from the journey and so sat down at the well,”24 what
are we to think became weary, the divinity or the body?
Eranistes. I refuse to divide things that have been united.
Orthodox. It seems, therefore, that you attribute the weariness
to the divine nature?
Eranistes. This is how it appears to me.
Orthodox. But you are clearly contradicting the prophet who
proclaims, “He will not be hungry or grow weary, and there is
no searching out of his thought; he gives strength to the hun-
gry and sorrow to those who do not grieve.”25 And soon after he
says, “Those who wait for me will renew their strength and will
grow wings like an eagle; they will run and will not grow weary,
they will walk and will not grow hungry.”26 So how could the
one who gave others freedom from need and from weariness
experience the suffering of weariness, hunger, and thirst him-
self?
Eranistes. I have often said that he is impassible and lacks
nothing as God, but endured sufferings after taking flesh.
Orthodox. [Did he do this] by receiving suffering in the divin-
ity, or by permitting the passible nature to suffer in accordance
with nature and to proclaim by the suffering that the visible was
not an illusion, but had truly been taken from human nature?
Let us look at it in this way: Do we say that the divine nature is
infinite?
21. Jn 10.30. 22. Jn 14.9.

23. Jn 1.1. 24. Jn 4.6.
25. Is 40.28–29 (LXX). 26. Is 40.31 (LXX).
Eranistes. It is.
Orthodox. The infinite nature is limited by nothing.
Eranistes. Correct.
Orthodox. So it does not need to change its position, since it
is everywhere.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And that which does not need to change its posi-
tion does not need to walk either.
[202] Eranistes. It seems so.
Orthodox. And that which does not walk does not grow weary.
Orthodox. Then since the divine nature was infinite and did
not have to walk, it did not grow weary.
Eranistes. But the divine Scripture relates that Jesus grew
weary, and Jesus is God. “For there is one Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom all things exist.”27
Orthodox. So since the divine Scripture says that he grew
weary and does not grow weary, and since both these things are
true, for the divine Scripture does not lie, we must consider
how both these statements can apply to one person.
Eranistes. You show this, since you’re introducing the lan-
guage of division.
Orthodox. I think that even a barbarian can rather easily per-
ceive that, since there is admittedly a union of unlike natures,
the person of Christ is the subject of both sets of predicates be-
cause of the union, but those that are proper to each nature are
attributed to it: inability to grow weary to the infinite nature
and weariness to the nature that moves and walks. For walking
is proper to feet, and extending oneself through increased ex-
ertion is a property of sinews.
Eranistes. We agree that these are bodily conditions.
Orthodox. Then that prediction that I made is true, even if
you chose to laugh at it. For see how you have shown us what is
proper to the humanity and what to the divinity.
Eranistes. But I did not divide the one Son into two sons.
Orthodox. We didn’t do this either, my friend; we look at the
27. 1 Cor 8.6.

difference between the natures and determine what is proper

to the divinity, and what is suited to the body.
Eranistes. The divine Scripture did not teach us to make this
distinction, but it did say that the Son of God died. For the
Apostle spoke like this: “for if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God through the death of his Son.”28 He also said
that the Lord was raised from the dead; “For God,” he says,
“also raised the Lord.”29
Orthodox. So when the divine Scripture says, “Pious men
buried Stephen and raised a great lamentation over him,”30
would someone say that his soul was also put in the grave along
with his body?
[203] Eranistes. Of course not.
Orthodox. And when you hear the patriarch Jacob say, “Bury
me with my fathers,”31 do you think that this was said about his
body or his soul?
Eranistes. Obviously about his body.
Orthodox. Read the text that follows.
Eranistes. “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife,”
and, “There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife,” and,
“There they buried Leah.”32
Orthodox. In the words you just read the divine Scripture did
not mention a body, but rather the names that designated the
soul along with the body. And yet we distinguish correctly and
say that the souls are immortal, and only the bodies of the patri-
archs were buried in the double cave.33
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. And when we hear the narrative of Acts relate that
Herod killed James, the brother of John, with a sword,34 we
shall certainly not think that his soul also died.
Eranistes. No, for how could we, when we recall the Lord’s
exhortation, which said, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the
body, but cannot kill the soul”?35
Orthodox. When you hear human names, you don’t always
28. Rom 5.10. 29. 1 Cor 6.14.

30. Acts 8.2. 31. Gn 49.29.
32. Gn 49.31. 33. See Gn 49.29–32.
34. See Acts 12.2. 35. Mt 10.28.
think of soul together with body, and, when the Scripture talks
about death and a tomb, you don’t link the soul with the body
in your thoughts, but you understand that these words refer
only to the body, and you know, because you believe in the
Lord’s teaching, that the soul is immortal. So don’t you think it
is wicked and shameful, when you hear about the passion of the
Son of God, that you don’t act in this way? Instead you make no
mention of the body, which is the subject of the passion, and
you portray the divine nature, which is impassible, immutable,
and immortal, as mortal and capable of suffering, even though
you know that, if the nature of God the Word was able to suffer,
the assumption of the body was superfluous.
[204] Eranistes. We have learned from the divine Scripture
that the Son of God suffered the passion.
Orthodox. But the divine Apostle interprets the passion and
reveals the nature that suffered.
Eranistes. Prove this as quickly as possible and solve the prob-
lem.
Orthodox. Don’t you know that passage from the letter writ-
ten to the Hebrews, where the divinely inspired Paul says, “He
is not ashamed, therefore, to call them brothers, saying, ‘I shall
announce your name to my brothers; in the middle of the con-
gregation I shall sing your praise’; and again, ‘Behold, I and the
children whom God has given me’”?36
Eranistes. I know these words, but they have nothing to do
with what you promised to prove.
Orthodox. But they do shed light on what I promised to show.
For the mention of brotherhood indicates a relationship, and
the assumed nature caused the relationship; and the assump-
tion clearly proclaims the impassibility of the divinity. Read
what follows, so I can teach you this more clearly.
Eranistes. “Since the children shared flesh and blood, there-
fore, he himself likewise experienced the same things, so that,
through death, he might destroy the one who holds the power
of death, and free those who, through fear of death, were sub-
ject to slavery throughout their whole life.”37
36. Heb 2.11–13.

37. Heb 2.14–15.
Orthodox. I think these words do not need clarification, for

they clearly teach the mystery of the divine plan.
Eranistes. I have seen nothing of what you promised to show
in these words.
Orthodox. But the divine Apostle clearly taught that the cre-
ator took pity on human nature, which had not only been cru-
elly seized by death, but for its whole life had also been en-
slaved to fear, and through a body provided resurrection for
bodies and through a mortal nature destroyed the power of
death. For since he possessed the immortal nature and wished
to end the power of death justly, he took a firstfruit from those
subjected to death, kept it blameless and free of sin, and per-
mitted death to seize it and satisfy its insatiable greed; and be-
cause of the injustice done against it, [205] he also put an end
to death’s unjust tyranny against the others. For he raised the
firstfruit that had been swallowed up unjustly and enabled the
race to follow it. Compare this interpretation with the Apostle’s
words, and you will see the impassibility of the divinity.
Eranistes. Nothing has been revealed about the divine impas-
sibility in the words that were read.
Orthodox. Well then, when the divine Apostle says he shared
flesh and blood with his children “in order that through death
he might destroy the one who holds the power of death”;38
doesn’t this show clearly that the divinity is impassible and the
flesh is passible, and that, since the divine nature cannot suffer,
he took the nature that could suffer and through it put an end
to the devil’s power?
Eranistes. How did he put an end to the devil’s power and the
rule of death through the flesh?
Orthodox. What weapons did the devil use from the begin-
ning to enslave human nature?
Eranistes. Through sin he took captive the one who had been
settled as a citizen of paradise.
Orthodox. What penalty did God impose for the transgression
of the commandment?
Eranistes. Death.
38. Heb 2.14.

Orthodox. So sin is the mother of death, and the devil is the

father of sin.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Human nature was, therefore, besieged by sin. For
[sin] enslaved those who were won over, brought them to its to-
tally evil father and handed them over to its most cruel off-
spring.
Eranistes. That’s clear.
Orthodox. So it was reasonable for the creator, who wished to
destroy both powers, to assume the nature they besieged and
keep it completely free from sin, to declare it free of the devil’s
tyranny, and through it to destroy the power of death. For since
death was punishment for sinners, and since the Lord’s body,
which death, in violation of divine law, [206] unjustly seized,
was unstained by sin, God first raised up that which had been
seized illegally and then promised deliverance to those who
had been legitimately confined.
Eranistes. How can you think it is just for bodies that were
justly handed over to death to share the resurrection with the
one who was seized illegally?
Orthodox. And how can you think it is just for the race to fol-
low its ancestor, when Adam disobeyed the commandment?
Eranistes. Even though the race did not participate in that
transgression, it did nevertheless commit other sins, and that is
why it shared in death.39
Orthodox. And yet, not only sinners, but also just men, patri-
archs, prophets, apostles, and people radiant with various
forms of virtue have been caught in the nets of death.
Eranistes. Of course, for how could people born of mortal
parents be immortal? For after the sin and God’s sentence,
when Adam had come under death’s power, he knew his wife
and was called a father. Since he was mortal, therefore, he be-
came a father of mortals, and so it was reasonable for all those
who received a mortal nature to follow their ancestor.
Orthodox. You have shown very well the reason why we share
39. This understanding of “original sin” is based more on the personal sins
of all than on a share in Adam’s sin, and is common in the Greek church; this is
different from the Augustinian view of inherited original sin.
in death. So we must admit that it is exactly the same with the

resurrection, since the remedy must fit the affliction. For just as
the whole race was condemned with its first ancestor when he
was condemned, so the nature enjoyed freedom when the sav-
ior put an end to the curse. And just as those who shared
Adam’s nature followed him when he went down into the un-
derworld, so too the whole of human nature will share the re-
turn to life with Christ the Lord, who rose.
Eranistes. One must express church teachings with proof, not
by making assertions. Show, therefore, that the divine Scripture
teaches this.
Orthodox. Listen to the Apostle as he writes to the Romans
and through them teaches this to all people:
For if many died because of the one man’s sin, much more did
the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one human be-
ing Jesus Christ flow in abundance for many; and the gift is not
like the result of the one man’s sin. [207] For the judgment fol-
lowing one sin leads to condemnation, but the gift following
many sins leads to righteousness. For if, because of the one
man’s sin, death ruled through the one man, much more will
those who have received the abundance of grace, of the gift, and
of righteousness rule in life through the one Jesus Christ.40
And he also says:

Therefore, as one man’s sin leads to condemnation for all peo-
ple, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to righteousness of
life for all. For just as through the one man’s disobedience many
became sinners, so also through one man’s obedience many will
become righteous.41
And speaking to the Corinthians about the resurrection, he

reveals the mystery of the divine plan to them in a brief passage
and says:
Christ has now been raised from the dead and has become the
firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came
through one human being, resurrection of the dead also came
40. Rom 5.15–17.

41. Rom 5.18–19.
through one human being. For just as all die in Adam, so also all
will be given life in Christ.42
See, I have also given you proofs from the divine words. See,
therefore, what was said about Christ compared with what was
said about Adam, [see] the cure [compared] with the disease,
the remedy with the wound, the wealth of righteousness with
the sin, the blessing with the curse, the forgiveness with the
condemnation, the observance with the transgression, the life
with the death, the kingdom with the underworld, Christ with
Adam, the human being with the human being. And Christ the
Lord was not only a human being, but also eternal God; the di-
vine Apostle, however, named him from the nature that was tak-
en, since he was comparing Adam’s situation to it. For right-
eousness belongs to this nature, the battle belongs to this
nature, the victory belongs to this nature, the sufferings belong
to this nature, the death belongs to this nature, the resurrec-
tion belongs to this nature; we participate in this nature, and
those who have practiced the lifestyle of the kingdom rule with
this nature. I have spoken in this way, not to separate the divini-
ty, but to state the properties of the humanity.
Eranistes. You have spoken at length on this topic and have
supported your words with scriptural witnesses. So if the pas-
sion truly belongs to the flesh, how can the divine Apostle sing
the praise of God’s love for human beings and proclaim, “who
did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for all of us”?43
What Son did he say was handed over?
[208] Orthodox. Watch your language, sir. For there is one
Son of God, and that is why he is called only begotten.
Eranistes. So if there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle
called him “his own Son.”
Orthodox. True.
Eranistes. So he said, therefore, that he was handed over.
Orthodox. Yes, but not without a body, as we have often con-
fessed.
42. 1 Cor 15.20–22.

43. Rom 8.32.
Eranistes. We have often confessed that he took a body and a

soul.
Orthodox. So the Apostle was talking about things that hap-
pened to the body.
Eranistes. The divine Apostle said very clearly, “who did not
spare his own Son.”44
Orthodox. So when you hear God say to Abraham, “Because
you did not spare your beloved son for me,”45 do you say that
Isaac was sacrificed?
Orthodox. And yet God said, “You did not spare”;46 is the God
of the universe truthful?
Eranistes. The words, “You did not spare,”47 referred to Abra-
ham’s readiness; for he started to sacrifice his son because of
that, but God stopped him.
Orthodox. So just as in Abraham’s case you did not cling to
the letter, but explained it and clarified its meaning, you should
in the same way study the intent of the Apostle’s words. For you
will see that it was definitely not the divine nature that was not
spared, but rather the flesh nailed to the cross; and it is quite
easy to recognize the reality in the type. Do you think that Abra-
ham’s sacrifice is a type of the sacred rite that was offered for
the world?
Eranistes. Absolutely not; for I do not make words spoken
rhetorically in the churches into a standard for statements of
faith.
Orthodox. It was most certainly necessary to follow the
Church’s teachers. But since you are not doing the right thing
and are fighting against them, listen to the savior himself speak-
ing with Jews: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day;
and he saw it and was happy.”48 And consider the fact that the
Lord calls the passion a day.
[209] Eranistes. I’ve accepted the Lord’s testimony and I be-
lieve the type.
44. Ibid. 45. Gn 22.16.

46. Ibid. 47. Ibid.
48. Jn 8.56.
Orthodox. Compare the type with the reality, then, and you’ll
see the impassibility of the divinity even in the type.49 For there
is a father in both of them, and there is likewise a beloved son
in both of them; and each son carries the material for the sac-
rifice. For the one brought the wood, and the other brought
the cross on his shoulders. And they say that the mountain-top
was considered worthy for both sacrifices. And the number of
days and nights and the resurrection after them are in harmo-
ny. For Isaac was sacrificed through his father’s readiness from
the very day that the munificent one ordered it to happen, and
on the third day he returned to life, as a type, through the voice
of the one who loves human beings. And a ram caught in a
bush appeared and revealed the image of the cross, and it was
slaughtered instead of the child. If this is a type of the reality,
and the only begotten one was not sacrificed in the type, but in-
stead a ram was provided, presented at the altar, and fulfilled
the mystery of the sacred rite, then in this case why don’t you
attribute the passion to the flesh and proclaim the impassibility
of the divinity?
Eranistes. In discussing the details of the type, you said that
Isaac was brought back to life through the divine voice. We are
not acting unreasonably, therefore, if we adapt the reality to the
type and proclaim that God the Word suffered and was brought
back to life.
Orthodox. I have often said that the image cannot have every-
thing that the original has. And one can easily learn this here.
For Isaac and the ram fit the image in accordance with the di-
versity of the natures; but in accordance with the distinction of
the separated subsistent entities they no longer fit. For we
preach such a union of divinity and humanity that we appre-
hend one undivided person50 and know that the same one is
both God and a human being, visible and invisible, limited and
infinite; and everything else that reveals the divinity and the hu-
manity we attribute to the one person. And therefore, since the
49. Orthodox is comparing Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac in Gn 22.10–13

(the type) with Christ’s death and resurrection (the reality).
50. See the Introduction, pp. 19–20, for a discussion of this text.
return to life cannot be prefigured in the ram, which is an irra-

tional being deprived of the image of God, they51 divide be-
tween themselves [210] the type pointing to the mystery of the
divine plan; one reveals the image of death, and the other, that
of the resurrection. We also find this same phenomenon in the
Mosaic sacrifices. For we can also see the type of the saving pas-
sion prefigured in them.
Eranistes. And what Mosaic sacrifice foreshadows the reality?
Orthodox. The entire old covenant is, so to speak, a type of
the new. That is why the divine Apostle clearly says, “For the
Law, which has a shadow of the good things to come,”52 and
again, “All these things happened to them as types.”53 The
sheep sacrificed in Egypt reveals the image of the original very
clearly,54 as does the red heifer that was burned outside the
camp.55 And the Apostle recalled it in the letter to the Hebrews
and added, “Therefore Jesus, to sanctify the people through his
own blood, suffered outside the gate.”56 But I shall mention
none of these things at this time and shall only recall that sac-
rifice that consists in the offering of two goats, one to be sac-
rificed, and the other to be set free,57 for they prefigure the im-
age of the savior’s two natures: the one that is freed [prefigures
the image of] the impassible divinity, and the one that is
slaughtered [prefigures the image of] the passible humanity.
Eranistes. Don’t you consider it blasphemous to compare the
Lord to goats?
Orthodox. What do you think is more to be avoided and loath-
some, a snake or a goat?
Eranistes. A snake is obviously loathsome, for it harms those
who come near it, and often even injures those who have done
it no wrong. The goat, however, is one of the animals that is ac-
cording to the Law clean and may be eaten.58
Orthodox. Listen to the Lord, then, as he compares the saving
passion to the bronze serpent and says, “As Moses lifted up the
51. This refers to Isaac and the ram. 52. Heb 10.1.
53. 1 Cor 10.11. 54. See Ex 12.21.
55. See Nm 19.2–3. 56. Heb 13.12.
57. See Lv 16. 58. See Dt 14.4.
serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so

that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but have
eternal life.”59 If a bronze serpent fulfilled the type of the cru-
cified body, why have we acted unreasonably in comparing the
sacrifice of the goats to the saving passion?
[211] Eranistes. Because John called the Lord a lamb,60 and
Isaiah likewise called him a lamb and a sheep.61
Orthodox. But the blessed Paul calls him sin and a curse.62
And therefore, as a curse he fulfills the type of the accursed
snake, and as sin, he reveals the image of the sacrifice of the
goats. For in accordance with the Law a kid, not a lamb, was of-
fered for sin.63 That is why the Lord, in the Gospels, compared
the righteous to lambs and the sinners to goats.64 Since he was
going to undergo the passion, therefore, not only for the right-
eous, but also for sinners, it is reasonable for him to prefigure
his own sacred rite through lambs and goats.
Eranistes. But the type of the two goats makes one think of
two persons.
Orthodox. The passibility of the humanity and the impassibili-
ty of the divinity could not both have been prefigured at the
same time by one goat, for after its death, it would not have re-
vealed the living nature. Two were taken, therefore, in order to
reveal the two natures. One would also learn this very same les-
son from another sacrifice.
Eranistes. Which one?
Orthodox. The one in which the lawgiver orders that two pure
birds be presented, the one to be sacrificed, and the other to be
released, after having been dipped in the blood of the one that
was sacrificed.65 For here too we see the type of the divinity and
the humanity, since one is sacrificed, while the other takes the
suffering upon itself.
Eranistes. You have provided many types. But I do not accept
enigmatic statements.
59. Jn 3.14–15. 60. See Jn 1.29–36.

61. See Is 53.7. 62. See 2 Cor 5.21 and Gal 3.13.
63. See Lv 16 and 4.23. 64. See Mt 25.32.
65. See Lv 14.50–53.
Orthodox. And yet the divine Apostle says that even the his-
torical narratives are types; he called Hagar a type of the old
covenant, compared Sarah to the heavenly Jerusalem, said that
Ishmael was a type of Israel, and Isaac a type of the new
people.66 Accuse the mighty trumpet of the Spirit, therefore,
because he offered enigmatic statements to all of us.
[212] Eranistes. Even if you offer me ten thousand state-
ments in addition to these, you will never persuade me to di-
vide the passion. For I also heard the angel say to Mary, “Look,
see where the Lord was placed.”67
Orthodox. We usually do this too, for we also designate the
part with common names. For when we go to the tombs of the
holy apostles, prophets, or martyrs, we ask who is lying in the
coffin. And those who know the truth say in response that it is
Thomas the apostle, or John the Baptist, or Stephen the cham-
pion of the martyrs, or they mention by name some other saint,
even though sometimes very insignificant remains lie there.
But no one who hears these common names that designate
both the soul and the body will assume that the souls were also
enclosed in the tombs; he knows that only the bodies or small
parts of the bodies have been placed in the tombs. And that
holy angel has done this very same thing when it referred to
the body with the name of the person.
Eranistes. And how can you show that the angel spoke to the
women about the Lord’s body?
Orthodox. First of all, the tomb itself suffices to solve the
problem. For a soul is not entrusted to a tomb, and neither, to
be sure, is the infinite nature of divinity, since tombs are pre-
pared for bodies. Next, the divine Scripture also teaches this
clearly. For the divinely inspired Matthew tells the story in this
way:
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea,
named Joseph, who was himself also a disciple of Jesus. He went
to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate then ordered
66. See Gal 4.21–31.

67. Mt 28.6.
that the body be handed over. And Joseph took the body,
wrapped it in clean linen and placed it in his own new tomb,
which he had carved in the rock; and after rolling a large stone
in the entrance of the tomb he went away.68
See how often he mentioned the body, in order to shut the

mouths of those who blaspheme the divinity. The thrice blessed
Mark also did this, and I shall tell you his account as well; for he
says:
When it was evening, since it was the day of preparation, that is,
the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a noble
member of the council, who was himself also awaiting the king-
dom [213] of God. He boldly went in to Pilate and asked for the
body of Jesus. But Pilate was surprised that he had already died
and called the centurion to ask him if he was dead for a long
time. And when he received the information from the centuri-
on, he gave the body to Joseph, who bought linen, took him
down, wrapped him in the linen, and placed him in a tomb; and
so on.69
Marvel, therefore, when you see their agreement and the

harmonious and constant introduction of the word “body.” And
the wholly blessed Luke gave a similar account, saying that
Joseph asked for the body, and when he received it honored it
with the customary rites.70 But the most divine John also put
other details into his account, for he says:
Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, although se-
cretly because he was afraid of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he
might take the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave permission. So he
came and took the body of Jesus. Nicodemus, the one who once
came to Jesus at night, also came and brought a mixture of
myrrh and aloes, weighing one hundred pounds. They took the
body of Jesus, therefore, and wrapped it in linen cloths with
spices, in keeping with the burial custom of the Jews. In the area
where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden
was a new tomb, in which no one had yet been placed. Since it
68. Mt 27.57–60. 69. Mk 15.42–46.

70. See Lk 23.50–53.
was the Jewish day of preparation, therefore, they placed Jesus

there, because the tomb was nearby.71
See, therefore, how often he mentioned the body and

showed that it was nailed to the cross, and that Joseph asked Pi-
late for it, that he took it down from the cross and wrapped it in
linen cloths with the myrrh and aloes; then he used the name
of the person and said that Jesus was placed in the tomb. That
is also why the angel said, “Look, see where the Lord was
placed,”72 calling the body by the common name. For we also
are used to saying in this way, “someone was buried in this
place”; we do not say, “someone’s body,” but “someone.” And
everyone with common sense knows that we are speaking about
the body.
And this is how the divine Scripture usually speaks, for it says,
“Aaron died, and they buried him on the mountain Hor,”73 and,
“Samuel died, and they buried him in Armathem”;74 and there
are many texts like this. The divine Apostle preserved this cus-
tom [214] when he referred to the Lord’s death. For he says, “I
have handed on to you as most important what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures,” and so on.75
Eranistes. In the passage you just read, the Apostle did not
mention a body, but spoke of Christ, the savior of us all. You
have, therefore, introduced testimony against yourself and shot
yourself with your own arrows.
Orthodox. Apparently you forgot, as soon as possible, that
lengthy discussion I went through, in order to show that they
often call the body by the names of the persons. And now the
divine Apostle has done this same thing, and it is very easy to
discern that from the same text. Let us look at it in this way.
Why did this divinely inspired man write this to the Corinthi-
ans?
71. Jn 19.38–42. 72. Mt 28.6.

73. Nm 20.28.
74. 1 Sm 25.1; the NRSV uses the Hebrew name Ramah.
75. 1 Cor 15.3–4.
Eranistes. Certain people had deceived them [by saying] that

there will not be a resurrection of bodies. So when the teacher
of the world found this out, he spoke to them about the resur-
rection of bodies.
Orthodox. And why did he bring the Lord’s resurrection into
the discussion, if he wanted to demonstrate the resurrection of
bodies?
Eranistes. Because it suffices to reveal the resurrection of us
all.
Orthodox. What does his death have in common with the
death of others, so that he can testify to the resurrection of all
through his own resurrection?
Eranistes. This is why the only begotten Son of God became
human, suffered, and experienced death: to destroy death.
When he rose, therefore, he proclaims the resurrection of all
human beings through his own resurrection.
Orthodox. And who, on hearing about the resurrection of
God, would believe that there will also be a resurrection like it
for all human beings? For the lack of similarity between the na-
tures does not allow us to believe in the idea of the resurrec-
tion. For the one is God, while the others are human beings,
and there is a vast gap between God and human beings; for
they are mortal and short lived, and have been compared to
grass and flowers, while he is all-powerful.
Eranistes. But when God the Word became human, he had a
body and through it displayed a likeness to human beings.
[215] Orthodox. True, and therefore suffering, death, and
resurrection relate only to the body, and the divine Apostle
shows this elsewhere, when he promises renewal of life to all,
and when, in speaking to those who believe in the savior’s res-
urrection but assume that the general resurrection of all is a fa-
ble, he proclaimed:
If Christ is preached as risen from the dead, how can some of
you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no
resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised either; and
if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty, you are still in
your sins.76
76. 1 Cor 15.12–13 and 17.

He confirms the future through the past and discredits what

is believed through that which is not believed. For he says, if
you think [resurrection of the dead] is impossible, [Christ’s res-
urrection] is also surely a lie; but if the latter appears to be true
and credible, the former should also appear to be credible. For
resurrection of the body is also proclaimed here, and Christ’s
resurrection is called a firstfruit of the others; for right after a
number of rational arguments he makes this positive affirma-
tion:
Now Christ has been raised from the dead; he has become a
firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came
through a human being, resurrection from the dead also came
through a human being. For just as all die in Adam, so also all
will be given life in Christ.77
And not only did he confirm the affirmation about the res-
urrection, but he also revealed the mystery of the divine plan.
And he called Christ a human being here, to show that the cure
fits the disease.
Eranistes. Is Christ, then, only a human being?
Orthodox. Never! For we have often stated the opposite, that
he is not only a human being, but also eternal God. And he suf-
fered as a human being, not as God. The divine Apostle too
taught us this clearly when he said, “For since death came
through a human being, resurrection from the dead also came
through a human being.”78 And in writing to the Thessalonians,
he confirms the affirmation about the general resurrection
through the resurrection of our savior. “For if we believe,” he
says, “that Jesus died and rose, in the same way, through Jesus
God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”79
Eranistes. The Apostle displayed the general resurrection
through the [216] Lord’s resurrection, and it is clear that in
this case also it was the body that died and rose. For he would
not have tried to show the resurrection of all through it, if it did
not have a relationship with them according to substance. But I
shall not accept the attribution of the passion to the human na-
77. 1 Cor 15.20–22. 78. 1 Cor 15.21.

79. 1 Thes 4.14.
ture alone; I think it is proper to say that God the Word died in
the flesh.
Orthodox. We have often showed that something immortal by
nature can in no way die. If he died, then he is not immortal.
What great dangers lie in these blasphemous words!
Eranistes. By nature he is immortal, but when he became hu-
man, he suffered.
Orthodox. He therefore underwent a change. For how else
could one who is immortal experience death? But we have con-
fessed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable; in no way,
therefore, did he who has a nature that transcends change ex-
perience death.
Eranistes. The divine Peter said, “Since Christ, therefore, suf-
fered for us in the flesh.”80
Orthodox. Our language also harmonizes with this; for we
have learned the rule for official teachings81 from the divine
Scripture.
Eranistes. Then how can you deny that God the Word suf-
fered in the flesh?
Orthodox. Because we have not found this language in the di-
vine Scripture.
Eranistes. But I just produced such a passage from the mighty
Peter.
Orthodox. You apparently don’t understand the how the
names differ.
Eranistes. What names? Don’t you think that Christ the Lord
is God the Word?
Orthodox. The name “Christ,” in the case of our Lord and sav-
ior, signifies God the Word after he became human; the name
“Emmanuel” means the “God with us,”82 who is both God and a
human being; but when the name “God the Word” is spoken in
this way, it signifies the simple nature that exists before the
world, beyond time, and has no body. That is why the Holy Spir-
it, who spoke through the holy apostles, never attributed suffer-
ing or death to this designation.
80. 1 Pt 4.1. 81. Tw`n dogmavtwn.

82. See Mt 1.23.
Eranistes. If the passion is attributed to Christ, and if God the

Word was called Christ after becoming human, I do not think it
improper to say that God the Word suffered in the flesh.
[217] Orthodox. Well, it is an extremely bold and very rash
undertaking, but let us examine the idea in some way like this.
The divine Scripture says that God the Word is from God the
Father.
Eranistes. That is true.
Orthodox. And yet it teaches that the Holy Spirit is likewise
from God.
Eranistes. Agreed.
Orthodox. But it calls God the Word “only begotten Son.”
Eranistes. It does.
Orthodox. And it never called the Holy Spirit “Son.”
Eranistes. Never.
Orthodox. And yet [the Spirit] too has existence from God
the Father.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Since we confess, therefore, that both the Son and
the Spirit are from God the Father, would you ever have dared
to call the Holy Spirit “Son”?
Orthodox. Why?
Eranistes. Because I do not find this name in the divine Scrip-
ture.
Orthodox. But is [the Spirit] begotten?
Eranistes. No.
Orthodox. Why?
Eranistes. I have not learned this from the divine Scripture ei-
ther.
Orthodox. What designation would reasonably apply to one
who was neither begotten nor created?
Eranistes. We name him uncreated and unbegotten.
Orthodox. And we say that the Holy Spirit was neither created
nor begotten.
Orthodox. Would you dare, therefore, to call the Holy Spirit
unbegotten?

Orthodox. Please tell me why you don’t call unbegotten some-
thing that is uncreated by nature and definitely not begotten?
Eranistes. Because I have not learned this from the divine
Scripture and I am quite terrified to affirm things not men-
tioned by it.
[218] Orthodox. Well then, my good man, please maintain
this piety with respect to the saving passion as well, and whatev-
er divine names Scripture dissociated from the passion you also
dissociate and do not attribute the passion to them.
Eranistes. What names are these?
Orthodox. Nowhere did it link the passion to the designation
“God.”
Eranistes. I don’t say that God the Word suffered without a
body, but I do say that he suffered in the flesh.
Orthodox. Then you are talking about a manner of suffering,
not impassibility, and no one would say this even about the hu-
man soul. For unless they were totally insane, who would say
that the soul of Paul died in the flesh? This wouldn’t even be
said about someone who was very evil, for the souls of the
wicked are also immortal. But we say that so-and-so the murder-
er was killed; no one would say that his soul was slaughtered in
the flesh. So if we say that the souls of murderers and grave-rob-
bers are freed from death, it would presumably be much more
just to acknowledge that our savior’s soul is immortal, since it
never experienced sin. For if those who committed the greatest
sins escaped the encounter with death because of their nature,
how could that soul, which had an immortal nature and was not
touched by the stain of even a small sin, have swallowed death’s
hook?
Eranistes. There was no reason for you to make this long
speech, for we confess that the savior’s soul is immortal.
Orthodox. And what horrible form of punishment wouldn’t
you deserve, if you say that the soul that has a created nature is
immortal, but fabricate for the Word a divine substance that is
mortal, and if you do not say that the savior’s soul tasted death
in the flesh, but dare to say that God the Word himself, the cre-
ator of all, suffered the passion?
Eranistes. We say that he suffered in an impassible way.

Orthodox. What sensible person would put up with these ab-
surd riddles? For no one has ever heard of impassible suffering
or immortal death. That which is impassible did not suffer, and
that which suffered would not remain impassible. But we hear
the divine Paul proclaim, “The one who alone has immortality,
who inhabits unapproachable light.”83
[219] Eranistes. Well then, do we say that the invisible pow-
ers, the souls of human beings, and the demons themselves are
immortal?
Orthodox. We do. But God is immortal in the proper sense,
because God is immortal by substance, not by participation; for
he does not possess an immortality that he received from some-
one else. In fact he himself bestowed immortality on the angels
and the others you just mentioned. If the divinely inspired
Paul, therefore, calls him immortal and says that he alone pos-
sesses immortality, how can you attribute the suffering of death
to him?
Eranistes. We say that he tasted death after becoming flesh.
Orthodox. But we have often confessed that he is immutable.
If he was immortal first and underwent death later on through
the flesh, how could someone accept this and still believe David,
who says to him, “You are the same, and your years will not
fail,”84 since according to your explanation he did not remain
the same? For the same one who is immortal underwent death
through the flesh, after a change took place he underwent
death, and life left him for three days and three nights. Doesn’t
this language approach the heights of impiety? For I think that
even people who are fighting against impiety are not out of dan-
ger when they speak like this.
Eranistes. Stop accusing us of impiety. For we don’t say that
the divine nature suffered; we say that the human nature suf-
fered and that the divine nature suffered with the body.
Orthodox. How do you explain the words “suffered with”? Do
you mean that, when the nails were fixed in the body, the di-
vine nature experienced the sensation of pain?
83. 1 Tm 6.16a.
84. Ps 102.27 (LXX 101.28).
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. Both now and in the earlier investigations we
showed that the soul doesn’t share in everything that concerns
the body, but that the body, which receives the power of life
through the soul, experiences the sensation of suffering. But
even if we should admit that the soul feels pain with the body,
we shall find that the divine nature is no less impassible. For it
was not joined to the body in place of a soul. Or don’t you also
confess that he assumed a soul?
[220] Eranistes. I have also often confessed this.
Orthodox. And [that he assumed] the rational soul?
Eranistes. Yes.
Orthodox. So if he assumed the soul with the body, and if we
admitted that the soul suffered with the body, then the soul,
not the divinity, suffered with the body, and it probably shared
in the suffering by experiencing pain through the body. And
yet one might perhaps say that the soul suffered with the body,
but did not die with it, because it had an immortal nature. And
this is why the Lord said, “Do not be afraid of those of who kill
the body, but cannot kill the soul.”85 If we say, therefore, that
not even the savior’s soul shared death with the body, how
could anyone accept your bold blasphemy, which dares to say
that the divine nature experienced death, especially when the
Lord shows that his body is offered86 at one time and that his
soul is troubled at another?87
Eranistes. And where did the Lord show that his body was of-
fered? Are you again going to offer us that famous testimony,
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it up”?88 And
will you proudly give us the evangelist saying: “He was speaking
about the temple of his body, and when he was raised from the
dead, his disciples knew that Jesus meant this, and they believed
in the Scripture and in the word that Jesus spoke”?89
Orthodox. If you have such intense hatred for the divine
words, which proclaim the great mystery of the divine plan, why
85. Mt 10.28. 86. See Jn 6.51 and Heb 10.10.

87. See Jn 12.27. 88. Jn 2.19.
89. Jn 2.21–22.
don’t you act like Marcion, Valentinus, and Manes, and delete
words like these? For that is exactly what they did. If this seems
rash and wicked, however, don’t mock the Lord’s words, but
follow the apostles, who believed after the resurrection that the
divinity raised up the temple that the Jews destroyed.
Eranistes. If you have a solid witness, stop acting abusively
and keep your promise.
Orthodox. You surely remember those words of the Gospel, in
which the Lord compared the manna and the true food.90
Eranistes. I do.
[221] Orthodox. He spoke at length in that passage about
the bread of life and also added this: “The bread that I shall
give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”91
And one can see in these words the generosity of the divinity
and the gift of the flesh.
Eranistes. One witness is not enough to solve the dispute.
Orthodox. The Ethiopian eunuch had not read much Scrip-
ture, but he found one piece of testimony in the prophets,
through which he was led to salvation.92 But all the apostles and
prophets, and those who proclaimed the truth after them are
not enough to persuade you. Nevertheless, I shall offer you oth-
er testimonies about the Lord’s body. You know that section of
the Gospel narrative, where, after eating the paschal meal with
the disciples, he pointed to the death of the symbolic93 lamb
and taught them which body was behind that shadow.94
Eranistes. I know this account.
Orthodox. Remind us, then, what the Lord took and broke,
and what he said to designate that which had been taken.
Eranistes. I’ll use esoteric language because of the uninitiat-
ed. He took, broke, gave to the disciples, and said, “This is my
body, which is given for you,”95 or, according to the Apostle,
“which is broken.”96 And then, “This is my blood of the new
covenant, which is being poured out for many.”97
90. See Jn 6.48–50. 91. Jn 6.51.

92. See Acts 8.26–39. 93. Tupikov".
94. See Mt 26.26; Mk 14.22; Lk 22.19.
95. Lk 22.19. 96. 1 Cor 11.24.
97. Mt 26.28; Mk 14.24.
Orthodox. He did not, therefore, mention divinity, when he

displayed the type of the passion.
Orthodox. But he did mention body and blood.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. Was a body nailed to the cross?
Orthodox. Then let us look at this. For after the resurrection,
when, even though the doors were closed, the Lord came in to
the holy disciples and saw that they were afraid, how did he
stop the fear and instill faith instead of fear?98
[222] Eranistes. He said to them, “See my hands and my feet,
that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have
flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”99
Orthodox. Did he, then, show his body to them when they did
not believe?
Orthodox. Was the body, therefore, raised?
Orthodox. And presumably that which was raised was also that
which died?
Eranistes. It seems so.
Orthodox. And that which died is that which was fixed to the
cross?
Orthodox. Then according to your explanation the body suf-
fered.
Eranistes. The logical train of the argument forces us to say
this.
Orthodox. But let’s also look at it in this way. I’ll again ask
questions, and you answer truthfully.
Eranistes. I shall.
Orthodox. When the all-Holy Spirit descended on the apos-
tles, and when the miraculous sight and sound drew many
thousands of people to that house, what did the leader of the
98. See Lk 24.36–38.

99. Lk 24.39.
apostles say about the Lord’s resurrection when he spoke to the

people at that time?
Eranistes. He introduced divinely inspired David and said
that he had received promises from the God of the universe
that Christ the Lord would spring from the fruit of his loins;
and he said that, since David believed these promises, he fore-
saw his resurrection prophetically and said clearly that his soul
would not be abandoned to the underworld and that his flesh
would not see corruption.100
Orthodox. So resurrection pertained to these.101
Eranistes. How could any sensible person say that resurrec-
tion pertained to the soul, which did not die?
Orthodox. How could you people, who said that the im-
mutable and infinite divinity was the subject of the passion,
death, and resurrection, now suddenly appear sensible to us by
refusing to attribute the word “resurrection” even to the soul?
[223] Eranistes. Because the word “resurrection” properly
applies to that which has fallen.
Orthodox. But the body does not obtain the resurrection with-
out a soul; renewed by the divine will and rejoined to its com-
panion, it receives life again. Isn’t this the way in which the
Lord raised Lazarus?102
Eranistes. It’s clear that the body doesn’t rise alone.
Orthodox. The divine Ezekiel teaches this more clearly. For he
shows that God ordered the bones to come together, that each
of them recovered its proper harmony, and that God produced
nerves, veins, arteries, the flesh that was woven around them,
and the skin that conceals all of them, and then ordered the
souls to return to their own bodies.103
Orthodox. The Lord’s body, however, did not undergo this
corruption, but remained intact and recovered its own soul on
the third day.
100. See Acts 2.22–34 and Ps 16.10 (LXX 15.10).

101. I.e., the soul and the flesh.
102. See Jn 11.1–44.
103. See Ezek 37.7–10.
Eranistes. Agreed.
Orthodox. So are those who suffer the ones who die?
Orthodox. And are those who die, therefore, the ones who
rise?
Orthodox. When the mighty Peter, as well as the divine David,
spoke about the resurrection, didn’t they say that the soul was
not abandoned to the underworld and the body did not under-
go corruption?104
Eranistes. They did.
Orthodox. So it was not the divinity that underwent death, but
the body, by being separated from the soul.
Eranistes. I won’t accept these strange words.
Orthodox. Then you’re fighting against your own words; for
these words, which you’ve called strange, are your own.
Eranistes. You’re simply slandering me, for none of these
words are mine.
[224] Orthodox. When someone asks what kind of living be-
ing is both rational and mortal, if a person were to say in re-
sponse, “a human being,” whom would you call an interpreter
of the word: the one who questions or the one who answers?
Eranistes. The one who answers.
Orthodox. Then I was right to say that these are your words;
for as you responded you presumably supported your words by
rejecting some things and admitting others.
Eranistes. Then I won’t answer at all; I’ll only ask questions.
And you answer me.
Orthodox. I’ll do that.
Eranistes. What do you say about that text of the Apostle, “For
if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory?”105 For here he doesn’t mention either body or soul.
Orthodox. Well then, since this is a device you invented to op-
pose the divinity of the Word, the phrase “in the flesh” is not to
be added here either, but the suffering is to be attributed to the
divinity of the Word alone.
104. See Acts 2.22–34 and Ps 16.10 (LXX 15.10).

105. 1 Cor 2.8.
Eranistes. Absolutely not; for it suffered in the flesh. The na-

ture that has no body cannot suffer in and by itself.
Orthodox. But it’s improper to add anything to the Apostle’s
words.
Eranistes. When someone understands the Apostle’s inten-
tion, it’s not wrong to add what’s missing.
Orthodox. Nevertheless, making additions to the divine words
is insane and reckless; but it’s holy and pious to explain the
texts and reveal their hidden meaning.
Eranistes. You’re right.
Orthodox. So we’re not doing anything unreasonable or
wicked, if we search for the meaning of the texts.
Orthodox. Let’s search together, then, for what seems to be
hidden.
Eranistes. Very well.
Orthodox. The mighty Paul called the divine James “brother
of the Lord.”106
Eranistes. True.
[225] Orthodox. So how shall we consider him a brother? By
a relationship with the divinity or the humanity?
Eranistes. I refuse to divide the natures that were united.
Orthodox. But you often made divisions in the previous dis-
cussions. And you’ll do the very same thing again now. So tell
me, do you say that God the Word is only begotten Son?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. Does “only begotten” indicate the only son?
Eranistes. Certainly.
Orthodox. So the only begotten does not have a brother?
Eranistes. Absolutely not; for if he had a brother, he would
not be called only begotten.
Orthodox. So they lied in calling James the Lord’s brother.107
For the Lord is only begotten, and the only begotten simply
does not have a brother.
Eranistes. But the Lord is not without a body, so that the her-
alds of truth are only saying things that pertain to the divinity.
106. See Gal 1.19.

107. Ibid.
Orthodox. Then how would you show that the Apostle’s state-
ment was true?
Eranistes. By saying that [James] shared in a relationship with
the Lord according to the flesh.
Orthodox. Look at this! Once again you’ve dragged in the di-
vision that you condemn.
Eranistes. There was no other way to explain the relationship.
Orthodox. Then don’t accuse those who can’t solve problems
like these in another way.
Eranistes. You’re leading the discussion in another direction
because you want to avoid the issue.
Orthodox. Not at all, my good man. For that will also be
solved through our investigations. Look at it this way. When you
heard that James was the Lord’s brother, did you say that the re-
lationship was proper, not to the divinity, but to the flesh?
Eranistes. I did.
Orthodox. So when you hear about the suffering of the cross
in this passage, apply it to the flesh.
Eranistes. The apostle Paul called the crucified one “Lord of
glory.”108
[226] Orthodox. And the same apostle called the Lord a
brother of James.109 The same Lord is in both passages. So if
you correctly attributed the relationship to the flesh there, the
passion should presumably also be attributed to it here. For it is
absolutely outrageous to understand the relationship according
to division, and then to attribute the passion without division.
Eranistes. I obey the Apostle, who calls the crucified one
“Lord of glory.”110
Orthodox. I also obey and I believe that he is Lord of glory;
for the body that was fixed to the cross was not the body of an
ordinary human being, but of the Lord of glory. And yet we
must be aware that the union makes the names common. Look
at it this way. Do you say that the Lord’s flesh came down from
heaven?
108. See 1 Cor 2.8. 109. See Gal 1.19.

110. See 1 Cor 2.8.
Orthodox. But you say that it was formed in the womb of the
virgin?
Eranistes. I do.
Orthodox. Then how can the Lord say, “If, therefore, you see
the Son of Man going up to where he was before,”111 and also,
“No one has gone up to heaven, except the one who came
down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven”?112
Eranistes. He is not talking about the flesh, but about the di-
vinity.
Orthodox. But the divinity is from God the Father. So how can
he call him a Son of Man?
Eranistes. The properties of the natures were common to the
person.113 For because of the union the same one is both Son of
Man and Son of God, both eternal and recent, both son of
David and Lord of David, and everything else like this.
Orthodox. Absolutely correct. But we must also be aware of
this, that the common sharing of the names did not produce a
mixture of the natures. This is why we seek to determine how
he is Son of God, and how the same one is also Son of Man,
and how the same one is yesterday, today, and forever; and by
means of a pious verbal distinction we find that the opposites
are in harmony.
Eranistes. What you say is correct.
Orthodox. Well then, just as you said that the divine nature
came down from heaven [227] and that because of the union it
was called Son of Man, in the same way it is also important to
say that the flesh was fixed to the cross and to confess that the
divine nature was not separated from it, both on the cross and
in the tomb, for [the divine nature] did not suffer because of
[the flesh], since it does not by nature suffer or die, but possess-
es the immortal and impassible substance. So he called the cru-
cified one “Lord of glory,”114 and attributed the name of the im-
passible nature to the passible one, because the body belonged
to it.
And now let’s also consider this. The divine Apostle said,
111. Jn 6.62. 112. Jn 3.13.

113. Provswpon. 114. 1 Cor 2.8.
“For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory.”115 Thus they crucified a nature that they knew, not a
nature that they didn’t know. If they had known the nature that
they didn’t know, they wouldn’t have crucified the nature they
knew. But since they did not know the divine nature, they cru-
cified the human nature. Or didn’t you hear them say, “We are
not stoning you because of a good work, but because of blas-
phemy, since you, who are a man, make yourself God.”116
Through these words they show that they recognized the nature
that they saw, but had absolutely no knowledge of the invisible
nature. If they had known that nature, however, “they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory.”117
Eranistes. To some extent this makes sense. But the faith
taught by the fathers who had gathered at Nicaea says that the
“only begotten” himself, the “true God,” the one who was “of
the same substance as the Father,” suffered and was crucified.118
Orthodox. You have apparently forgotten what you often con-
fessed.
Orthodox. That after the union divine Scripture attributes
both the sublime and the humble qualities to the one person.
Perhaps you were also unaware that the wholly blessed fathers
first said that he “took flesh and became human,” and then
added that he “suffered” and was crucified,119 and thus they
spoke about the suffering after they introduced the nature that
was able to suffer.
Eranistes. The fathers said that “the Son of God,” the “light
from light,” the one who was “from the substance of the Fa-
ther,” “suffered” and was crucified.120
Orthodox. I have often stated that the one person121 is the sub-
ject of both the divine and the human attributes. For this rea-
115. Ibid. 116. Jn 10.33.

117. 1 Cor 2.8.
118. For the references to the creed of Nicaea throughout this section see
Tanner, 1, 5.
119. This is from the creed of Nicaea, which does not speak of Christ being
crucified, but says that he “suffered and rose.”
120. Cf. the previous note.
121. Provswpon.
son, after the thrice-blessed fathers [228] taught that one must
believe in the Father, they then turned to the person of the
Son, but they did not immediately say “and in the Son of God,”
although it would have been very logical for them to place the
name of the Son directly after they spoke about God the Father.
But they wanted to hand on to us material that at one and the
same time dealt with God and with the divine plan, lest it be
thought that there was one person of the divinity and another
of the humanity. To their words about the Father, therefore,
they added that we must also believe in our “Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God.” Now God the Word was called Christ after be-
coming human. This name is, therefore, the subject of all at-
tributes, both those that pertain to the divinity and those that
pertain to the humanity; but we realize nevertheless that some
refer to the latter nature, and others to the former. And it’s easy
to learn this from the formula122 of the faith itself. For tell me,
to what do you apply the phrase “from the substance of the Fa-
ther”: the divinity or the nature formed from the seed of David?
Eranistes. The divinity, of course.
Orthodox. And the phrase, “true God from true God”—to
what do you say it is proper, the divinity or the humanity?
Eranistes. The divinity.
Orthodox. So the divinity that formed all things is “of the
same substance as the Father,” not the flesh or the soul; for they
are created.
Eranistes. True.
Orthodox. In the same way, then, when we hear about suffer-
ing and the cross, we must recognize the nature that experi-
enced the suffering, and we must not attribute it to the impassi-
ble nature, but to that nature that was assumed for this
purpose. For the conclusion of the [declaration of] faith123
testifies that the glorious fathers confessed that the divine na-
ture was impassible and that they attributed the suffering to the
flesh; it says this: “The holy, catholic, and apostolic Church
anathematizes those who say, ‘There was a time when he did
122. Suvmbolon.
123. The Greek is simply pivsti".
not exist,’ and, ‘Before he was begotten he did not exist,’ and,
‘He came into being from non-being or from some other sub-
sistent entity or substance,’ for they are saying that the Son of
God is mutable or changeable.”124 See, therefore, the severe
punishment with which they threatened those who attribute
the suffering to the divine nature.
Eranistes. The discussion there is about mutation and change.
Orthodox. And what is suffering but mutation and change?
For if the one who was impassible before becoming flesh suf-
fered after becoming flesh, [229] then he presumably suffered
by undergoing a change; and if the one who was immortal be-
fore becoming human tasted death, as you explain it, after be-
coming human, then he was changed completely by going from
immortal to mortal. But the wholly blessed fathers drive such
ideas and those who produce them out of the church, and they
cut them off as rotten limbs from a healthy body. We urge you,
therefore, to fear punishment and hate the blasphemy. And I’ll
also show you that the holy fathers in their writings shared the
ideas that we have gone through; some of them participated in
that extraordinary assembly, others were prominent in the
churches after them, and others enlightened the world long be-
fore. But neither different times nor diversity of language de-
stroyed their harmony; they are like a lyre that has many differ-
ent strings, but emits one harmonious tone.
Eranistes. You will provide me with instruction for which I
have a tremendous longing and desire, because teaching like
this cannot be questioned and is very useful.
Orthodox. Open your ears, then, and welcome the streams
that flow from spiritual springs.

They stay away from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do
not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus
124. Tanner, 1, 5.
125. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7.1. CPG 1.1025.
Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised
through kindness.

2. From the third discourse of the work against heresies.126
It is clear, therefore, that Paul knows no other Christ than the
one who was born of a virgin, suffered, was buried, and rose,
whom he also calls a human being. For after he said, “If Christ is
preached as raised from the dead,”127 he goes on to give the rea-
son for his Incarnation: [230] “For since death came through a
human being, resurrection from the dead also came through a
human being.”128 And he generally used the name “Christ” with
regard to our Lord’s passion, his humanity, and death; he said,
for example, “Do not destroy with your food the one for whom
Christ died,”129 and also, “But now in Christ you who were once
far away have been brought near through the blood of
Christ.”130 He also said, “Christ bought us from the curse of the
Law, having become a curse for us; for it was written, ‘Cursed is
everyone who is hung on a tree.’”131

For just as he was a human being in order to be tempted, so also
was he Word in order to be glorified; the Word was silent in the
temptation, crucifixion, and death, but he was with the human
being in the victory, patience, mercy, resurrection, and ascen-
sion.

fifth discourse of the same work.133
Since the Lord redeemed us by his own blood, therefore, and
gave his soul for our souls and his flesh in place of our flesh.l.l.l.
126. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.18.3. CPG 1.1306.

127. 1 Cor 15.12. 128. 1 Cor 15.21.
129. Rom 14.15. 130. Eph 2.13.
131. Gal 3.13.
132. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.19.3.
The Holy Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr

5. From the letter to a certain empress.134
He calls him firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep,135 there-
fore, because he is first-born from the dead.136 After he had
risen, since he wanted to show that what had risen was that
which had also died, when the disciples were in doubt, he spoke
to Thomas and said, “Come, touch and see, for a spirit does not
have bone and flesh, as you see that I have.”137

By calling him firstfruit,139 he testified to what we have said,
namely, that the savior took flesh from the same material and
raised it, making it the firstfruit of the flesh of the righteous, so
that all of us who believe in him shall, through hope in the one
who was raised, possess the resurrection that is expected to come.
[231] 7. By the same author from the

discourse on the two thieves.140
The Lord’s body provided the world with both things, the sacred
blood and the holy water.141

And even though the body, in accordance with the human mode
of existence, is dead, it still has in itself great power over life. For
blood and water,143 which do not flow from dead bodies, flowed
from it, so that we might understand how much the power that
dwelt in the body can do for life; so it is clearly not like other
dead bodies, but can pour out on us the sources of life.
134. Hippolytus, On the Resurrection to the Empress Mammaea. CPG 1.1900.1.

135. See 1 Cor 15.20. 136. See Col 1.18.
137. Lk 24.39; see also Jn 20.27. 138. Hippolytus, op. cit.
139. See 1 Cor 15.20.
140. Hippolytus, On John 19.34 (on the two thieves). CPG 1.1889.
141. See Jn 19.34. 142. Hippolytus, op. cit.
143. Jn 19.34.

The bone of the sacred lamb is not crushed,145 and the type,
therefore, shows that the suffering does not affect the power; for
bones are a body’s power.
The Holy Eustathius,

Bishop of Antioch and Confessor
10. From the discourse about the soul.146
One can refute their wicked slander in a few words, and this
would be very important if he did not give up his body willingly
to the slaughter of death for the salvation of human beings.147 In
the first place, they ascribe great weakness to him, because he
could not stop the attack of the enemy.

Why do they consider it so important to show, by spinning out
earthly lies, that Christ assumed a body without a soul? So that
they might be able to corrupt some people into declaring that
this is true, and then, by attributing to the divine Spirit the
changes due to the sufferings, to convince them easily that the
mutable is not begotten from the immutable nature.

For the human being who died rises up on the third day; but
when Mary strives with longing to touch his holy limbs, [232] he
objected and says to her, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet as-
144. Hippolytus, op. cit.

145. See Ps 34.20 (LXX 33.21).
146. Eustathius of Antioch, About the soul (against the Arians). CPG 2.3353.
147. The Greek text here is very difficult and may be corrupt. This transla-
tion is based on the existing text. The author thanks Nigel G. Wilson for sug-
gesting a possible emendation that would change the negative mh; to dh;.
cended to my Father; go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am as-

cending to my Father and your Father, my God and your
God.’”150 God the Word, who comes from heaven and lives in
the bosom of the Father did not utter the phrase “I have not yet
ascended to my Father”; the Wisdom that embraces all things
that exist did not say it either; this was spoken by the very hu-
man being who was formed out of all kinds of limbs, who had
been raised from the dead, and who after death had not yet as-
cended to his Father, but reserved for himself the firstfruit of his
passage.

In his letter he clearly calls the very human being who was cru-
cified “Lord of glory,”152 since he designated him Lord and
Christ, just as the apostles do, when they speak with one voice to
the visible Israel and say, “Let the whole house of Israel know
with certainty, that God has made him Lord and Christ, this Je-
sus whom you crucified.”153 He made Lord, therefore, the Jesus
who suffered, and not the Wisdom or the Word who possessed
the power of Lordship from the beginning, but the one who was
raised up on the cross and stretched out his hands.

For if he does not have a body, he is not exposed to the touch of
hands, he is not contained by eyes with the sense of sight, he suf-
fers no wound, he is not pierced by nails, he does not share in
death, he is not concealed by the earth, he is not shut up in a
tomb, he does not rise from the grave.

“No one takes my soul from me; I have power to put down my
soul, and I have power to take it again.”156 If he had both these
powers as God, he did permit those who thoughtlessly attacked
150. Jn 20.17. 151. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit.

152. See 1 Cor 2.8. 153. Acts 2.36.
154. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit. 155. Ibid.
156. Jn 10.18.
the temple to destroy it, but he restored it more gloriously by ris-

ing.157 Irrefutable evidence has shown that he raised up and re-
stored his own dwelling-place by himself. But the mighty works
of the Son must also be attributed to the most divine Father. For
the Son, according to the unassailable statements of holy Scrip-
ture, does nothing without the Father.158 [233] That is why it is
sometimes written that the most divine Father raised Christ from
the dead, while at other times the Son promises to raise his own
temple. If previous studies have shown, therefore, that the di-
vine Spirit of Christ is impassible, those who are under a curse
attack the limits set by the apostles to no avail. For if Paul was
clearly looking at the human being when he declared that the
Lord of glory was crucified,159 it will be wrong to contradict him
and attribute suffering to the divine. Why, then, do they put this
complicated story together and say that Christ was crucified be-
cause of weakness?

If it were also proper to attribute a form of weakness to him, one
might say that it is logical to refer this to the human being, not
to the fullness of the divinity, or to the glory of the Wisdom on
high, or to the one who is, in Paul’s words, “the God who is over
everything.”161

This is the kind of weakness, because of which, according to
what Paul writes, he came to death. For the human being, who
clearly dwells together with the divine Spirit, lives through God’s
power,163 since the power of the most high,164 who is active in
him, has been revealed in accordance with the previous state-
ments.
157. See Jn 2.19. 158. See Jn 5.19.

159. See 1 Cor 2.8. 160. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit.
161. See Rom 9.5. 162. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit.
163. See 2 Cor 13.4. 164. See Lk 1.35.

If he did not diminish his power when he occupied the virgin’s
womb, then the Spirit is not stained when the body was fixed to
the wood of the cross. For the body was raised on high and cru-
cified, but the divine Spirit of Wisdom lived on even in the body,
and it occupied the heavens, embraced the whole earth, con-
quered the depths, looked into and judged the soul of each hu-
man being, and continued to do everything in the usual way as
God. For the Wisdom that is on high is not confined because it
is enclosed in bodily matter, as material things that are wet and
dry are enclosed in vessels, and are confined, but do not confine
the things that hold them. In fact, since [Wisdom] is a kind of
divine and inexpressible power, it embraces and rules whatever
is inside and outside of the temple, and then, moving beyond
this, it envelops and rules all bodily matter at once.

The sun is a visible body and is apprehended by the senses; if it
suffers many grave outrages everywhere in the world, but does
not change its pattern, or feel any blow, great or small, do we
imagine that the Wisdom that has no body is stained and changes
its nature, if its temple is nailed to a cross, destroyed, wounded,
or suffers corruption? On the contrary, the temple suffers, while
the pure substance maintains its worthiness wholly undefiled.

on the inscriptions of the gradual psalms.167
The Father, who is perfect, infinite, incomprehensible, and self-
sufficient with respect to beauty and every kind of virtue, does
not receive acquired glory. And neither does his Word, who is
God and begotten from him, through whom angels, heavens,
the vast expanses of earth, and, in a word, all the materials and
structures of created reality came into being. But the human be-

166. Ibid.
167. Eustathius of Antioch, Discourse on the inscriptions of the gradual psalms.
CPG 2.3355.
ing of the Christ is raised from the dead, lifted on high and glo-
rified, to the public shame of his enemies.

Those who raised up hatred against him out of envy and who
were fortified by a hostile force are dispersed, when God the
Word raised his own temple with due honor.

At last, therefore, the prophet Isaiah relates in detail the very
footsteps of his sufferings and with a resounding cry also adds
this: “And we have seen him, and he does not have form or
beauty; but his form was dishonored and rejected by the sons of
human beings.”170 Then he shows clearly that the forms of beau-
ty and the sufferings were applied to the human being, not to
the divine, for he goes on and immediately adds, “Being a
wounded human being, who knows how to bear weakness.”171

This, therefore, is the same one who, after suffering insults, ap-
peared without form or shape, and then, through a change, was
again clothed with beauty. For the God who dwelt [235] in him
was not led to judgment like a lamb and slaughtered like a
sheep,173 because he was invisible by nature.
The Holy Athanasius,

Bishop of Alexandria and Confessor
24. From the letter to Epictetus.174
Who was so wicked as to say and also to think that the very divin-
ity, which was of the same substance as the Father, was circum-
168. Ibid.
169. Eustathius of Antioch, Commentary on Psalm 92. CPG 2.3356.
170. Is 53.2–3a. 171. Is 53.3b.
172. Eustathius of Antioch, op. cit. 173. See Is 53.7.
cised and went from perfect to imperfect, and that it was not the
body that was nailed to the cross, but the very creative substance
of Wisdom?

For the Word admittedly took on himself the sufferings of his
human reality, so that we could share in the Word’s divinity. And
it was astounding that it was he who suffered and did not suffer.
He suffered, because his own body suffered, and he was in it as it
suffered; but he did not suffer, because he is God by nature and
impassible. And he who had no body was in the body that could
suffer, while the body had in itself the impassible Word, who did
away with the weaknesses of his body.

For [the Word], who is both God and Lord of glory,177 was in the
body that was shamefully pierced with nails; the body suffered
when it was pierced on the cross, and blood and water flowed
from its side,178 but because it was the Word’s temple, it had
been filled with the divinity. When the sun, therefore, saw its
maker suffering in the body that was being abused, it drew in its
rays and darkened the earth; but although the body itself had a
mortal nature, it transcended its nature and rose because of the
Word within it; it put an end to the corruption due to nature,
was clothed in the Word that transcends the human being, and
became immortal.
27. By the same author from the greater

discourse about faith.179
Was that which was raised from the dead a human being or
God? The apostle Peter, [236] who knows more than we do,
gives an explanation and says, “After they took him down from

177. See Jn 1.1 and 1 Cor 2.8.
178. See Jn 19.18–34.
179. Athanasius of Alexandria, The greater discourse about faith. CPG 2.2803.
This treatise is attributed to Marcellus of Ancyra in CPG.
the cross, they placed him in a tomb, and God raised him from
the dead.”180 The dead body of Jesus, therefore, was that which
was taken down from the cross, placed in a tomb, and buried by
Joseph of Arimathea;181 and it was raised by the Word, who said,
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it.”182 The
one who gives new life to all the dead also gave it to the human
being born of Mary, Jesus Christ, whom he assumed. For God
the Word, who lives forever, as Paul says, “For the Word of God is
living and active,”183 raised the decayed corpses of holy people
while he was on the cross; if he can do this, he can most certainly
raise the body that he wore.

Life does not die, therefore, but gives new life to the dead. For
just as light is not harmed in a dark place, life cannot suffer any
harm because it visited the mortal nature. For the divinity of the
Word is immutable and unchangeable, as the Lord says about
himself in a prophecy, “Look at me, because I am and I have not
been changed.”185

Being alive, he cannot die, but gives new life to the dead.
Through the divinity from the Father, therefore, he is also a
source of life; but the one who died, or rather was also raised
from the dead, who intercedes for us, the one from the virgin
Mary, whom the divinity of the Word assumed for our sake, is a
human being.

It happened that Lazarus fell ill and died;188 but the Lord’s hu-
man being did not fall ill or die against his will. He went to the
180. Acts 13.29–30. 181. See Mt 27.57–60.

182. Jn 2.19. 183. Heb 4.12.
185. See Mal 3.6, and Lk 24.39.
187. Ibid.
188. See Jn 11.1–14.
divine plan of death on his own, strengthened by God the Word

that dwelt in him, for he said, “No one takes my soul away from
me; I lay it down on my own; I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it up again.”189 It is, therefore, the divinity of
the Son that lays down and takes up the soul of the human be-
ing that it wore. [237] For it assumed the complete human be-
ing, in order to renew its life completely and with it to give new
life to the dead.
31. By the same author from the book against the Arians.190
So when blessed Paul says, “The Father raised his Son from the
dead,”191 John tells us that Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and I
shall raise it in three days. But he was talking,” he says, “about
his own body.”192 It is clear to those who pay attention, there-
fore, that, because the body was raised, Paul says that the Son
was raised from the dead, for what pertains to his body is predi-
cated of his person. In the same way, then, when he says, “The
Father gave life to the Son,”193 one should understand that life
was given to the flesh. For if he himself is life, how can life re-
ceive life?

about the Incarnation.194
For the Word understood that the corruption of human beings
would only be terminated by total death, but it was impossible
for the Word to die because he was immortal and Son of the Fa-
ther; for this reason he takes for himself a body that can die, in
order that that this body, joined to the Word that is over all,
might satisfy death in place of all and remain incorrupt because
of the Word who dwelt in it, and that, furthermore, corruption
might cease for all because of the grace of the resurrection. And
189. Jn 10.18.
190. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation and against the Arians 2.
CPG 2.2806. This treatise is attributed to Marcellus of Ancyra in CPG.
191. Gal 1.1 and see Acts 13.30. 192. Jn 2.19 and 21.
193. Jn 5.26.
194. Athanasius of Alexandria, Discourse on the Incarnation of the Word 9. CPG
2.2091.
so the body that he took for himself he led to death, as a victim

and a sacrifice free of all stain, and through the appropriate sac-
rifice he immediately did away with death for all who were the
same as he. For since the Word of God is above all, he legitimate-
ly offered his own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute
for all and thus paid in full what was owed to death. And so the
incorruptible Son of God, joined to all by a body like theirs, le-
gitimately clothed everyone with incorruptibility in the promise
of the resurrection. For the very corruption that is in death no
longer has any sway over human beings because of the Word
that dwells in them through the one body.

After the most divine proofs shown in his actions, therefore, he
also brought an offering for all and handed over his temple to
death in place of all, in order [238] to free everyone from ac-
countability and the ancient transgression, and to show himself
superior to death, by displaying his own incorruptible body as a
firstfruit of the resurrection of all.196 For since the body itself
also possessed the common substance because it was a human
body, even though it had been put together by a rather new type
of miracle from the virgin alone, it was nevertheless mortal and
died in the same way as similar bodies. But because the Word
came into it, it no longer perished, as its nature demanded, but
was put beyond corruption because God’s Word dwelt in [it].

Since, as I said before, the Word could not die because he was
immortal, he, therefore, took for himself a body that could die,
in order to offer it as his own in place of all, and, by suffering as
himself for all through his entrance into the body itself, to “de-
stroy the one who has the power of death.”198

196. See 1 Cor 15.20.
198. Heb 2.14.

For the body suffered and died, in accordance with the nature
of bodies, but it had the pledge of incorruptibility from the
Word who dwelt in it. For when the body died, the Word was not
also put to death; but he was himself impassible, incorruptible,
and immortal, since he is God the Word; and since he was
joined to the body, he preserved it from the natural corruption
of bodies, and that is why the Spirit says to him, “You will not
give your holy one to see corruption.” 200
The Holy Damasus, Bishop of Rome

36. From an exposition.201
If anyone says that in the suffering of the cross the Son of God
and God experienced distress, and not the flesh along with the
soul, in which the form of the slave that he took for himself,202
as Scripture said, clothed himself, let him be anathema.
[239] The Holy Ambrose, Bishop of Milan

37. From the [discourse] about the universal faith.203
There are some who have become so wicked as to think that the
Lord’s divinity was circumcised and went from perfect to imper-
fect, and that the flesh was not on the cross, but that divine sub-
stance that is the creator of all.
199. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit. 25–26. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 21

n. 1.
200. Acts 2.27.
201. Damasus of Rome, Letters (Letter 4, or a Confession of faith appended to a
letter to Paulinus of Antioch). CPL 1633. This is an excerpt from the so-called Tome
of Damasus.
202. See Phil 2.7.
152. This excerpt is almost identical with the text of Dialogue 3, citation 24.

The flesh suffered, the divinity is free of death; he allowed his
body to suffer by the law of human nature. For how can God die,
when the soul cannot die? For he says, “Do not be afraid of those
who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.”205 If the soul cannot
be killed, therefore, how can the divinity succumb to death?
The Holy Basil, Bishop of Caesarea

39. [Untitled].206
It is well known to everyone who understands in just a slight way
the meaning of the Apostle’s words, that he is not giving us a
method of talking about God, but is clarifying the motives of the
divine plan. “For God made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus,
whom you crucified”;207 through the demonstrative “this” he
clearly fixes upon his human reality that is visible to all.

40. From the letter to Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople.208
The most terrible of all among the Church’s misfortunes is the
boldness with which the followers of Apollinarius speak, and I
do not know how your holiness has allowed them [240] to pro-
cure for themselves the power to assemble as we do.
41. And soon after. 209

And this is not yet serious; but the most terrible thing of all is
that he maintains that the only begotten God, the judge of cre-
ation, the author of life, the destroyer of death, is himself mortal
204. Ambrose of Milan, About the faith 2.7.57. CPL 150. Theodoret’s title
here is incorrect.
205. Mt 10.28.
206. Basil of Caeasarea, Five books against Eunomius 2.3. CPG 2.2837.
207. Acts 2.36.
208. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 202.7. CPG 2.3032.
and experienced the suffering in his own divinity, and that dur-
ing those three days of the body’s death the divinity had also
been killed along with the body and so was raised again from
death by the Father.
42. By the same author from the earlier

exposition to Cledonius.210
If the human being has no soul, and the Arians also say this, in
order to attribute the suffering to the divinity, on the grounds
that that which moves the body is also what suffers.l.l.l.
43. By the same author from the discourse on the Son.211

We still had to treat [his] being commanded, keeping the com-
mandments, and doing everything pleasing to him [i.e., God];
also [his] perfection and exaltation, [his] learning obedience
through his sufferings, the high priesthood and offering, the be-
trayal, the supplication to the one who could save from death,
the agony, the bloody sweat, the prayer, and everything else like
this. [We would have had to deal with these,] if it were not ab-
solutely clear to everyone, that words like these with reference to
suffering [do not apply to] the nature that is immutable and
transcends suffering.
44. By the same author from the discourse on the Pasch.212

“Who is this that comes from Edom,”213 and from the earth?
How can the garments of the one who has no blood and no
body be as red as those of a wine-presser who has stamped on
the full wine-press? Display the beauty of the garment, the body
that suffered, made beautiful by the suffering and glorified by
the divinity, and nothing is more desirable and more beautiful
than it.
210. Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 101.34.

the Son) 16. CPG Supp.3010 (30).
212. Gregory of Nazianzus, 45 discourses (= 45: Second discourse on the holy
Pasch) 25. CPG Supp.3010 (45).
213. Is 63.1.

[241] 45. From the catechetical discourse.214
This is the [mystery],215 in nature, of God’s plan about death
and resurrection from the dead: not preventing the soul from
being separated by death from the body in accord with the nec-
essary process of nature, and bringing them back together again
through the resurrection.

For the human being who receives God, the one who was raised
up with the divinity through the resurrection, was from the same
material as us, and not from something else; just as in our body,
therefore, the action of one sense organ brings the individual
united to the part to full sense perception, in the same way, as if
the whole nature were a single living being, the resurrection of
the part spreads to the whole, for that which is continuous with,
and united to the nature is transferred from the part to the
whole. So what do we learn outside the ordinary from the mys-
tery,217 if the one who stands bends toward the one who has fall-
en, to raise up the one who lies there?

In this part it would also be suitable, not to look at one thing
and ignore the other, but to perceive the human element in the
death and pay close attention to the more divine element in the
human being.
214. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechetical Discourse 16. CPG 2.3150.
215. The word musthvrion has been supplied here from the original text of
Gregory.
216. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit. 32.
217. Gregory’s original text says “out of the ordinary in the mystery.”
218. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit.

work against Eunomius.219
The human nature does not give new life to Lazarus, nor does
the impassible power weep for the one who lay dead; 220 weeping
is proper to the human being, issues of true life are proper to
life. Human poverty does not feed the multitudes,221 the power
that can do all things does not hurry to the fig tree.222 Who was
weary from the journey, and who effortlessly established the
whole world with his word? What is the radiance of the glory?223
What was pierced by the nails? Which form is beaten in the pas-
sion, and which is glorified from eternity?224 The answers are ob-
vious, even if no one offers a word of explanation.

He censures those who attributed the passion to the human na-
ture, for he absolutely wants to subject the divinity itself to the
passion. For since opinion about whether either the divine or
the human was involved in the suffering is divided and doubtful,
[242] the rejection of the one absolutely builds up the other. So
if they censure those who see that the passion relates to the hu-
man being, they have nothing but praise for those who say that
the Son’s divinity can suffer. And the argument constructed in
this way becomes a defense of their absurd teaching. For if, as
they say, the Son’s divinity suffers, but the Father’s is maintained
in perfect impassibility, then the impassible nature is completely
different from the one that undergoes the passion.
219. Gregory of Nyssa, Books against Eunomius 3.3.65–66. CPG 2.3135.

220. See Jn 11.1–44.
221. See Mt 14.13–21; Mk 6.32–44; Lk 9.10–17; Jn 6.1–15.
222. See Mt 21.19; Mk 11.13. 223. See Heb 1.3.
224. See Phil 2.6–7.
225. Gregory of Nyssa, op. cit. 3.4.4–5.
The Holy Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium

50. From the discourse on the text, “Amen, amen
I say to you, ‘Whoever hears my word and believes
the one who sent me has eternal life.’” 226
Who, then, suffered? The flesh. If you attribute the sufferings to
the flesh, then, attribute the humble words to it as well, and ap-
ply the exalted words to the one to whom you assign the mira-
cles. For the God who works miracles appropriately speaks words
that are lofty and worthy of his works, and the human being who
suffers fittingly speaks words that are humble and correspond to
his sufferings.

When you attribute the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles
to God, whether you like it or not, you must also attribute the
lowly words to the human being from Mary and the exalted
words that are worthy of God to the Word that exists in the be-
ginning. And so I sometimes speak exalted words and at other
times lowly ones, in order to show the excellence of the in-
dwelling Word through the lofty words, and to reveal the weak-
ness of the humble flesh through the humble ones. That is why I
sometimes say that I am equal to the Father, and at other times
that the Father is greater; I am not contradicting myself, but am
showing that I am God and a human being: God from the lofty
words and a human being from the humble ones. And if you
want to know how the Father is greater than I, I spoke from the
flesh, not from the person of the divinity.
226. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 11 (Discourse on the text, “Amen,

amen I say to you, ‘Whoever hears my word’” [Jn 6.51]). CPG 2.3245.11.
is greater than I” [ Jn 14.28]). CPG 2.3245.12.
[243] 52. By the same author from the discourse on the text,
“If it is possible, let this cup pass away from me.” 228
Do not, therefore, attribute the sufferings of the flesh to the im-
passible Word. For I am God and a human being, heretic: God
as the miracles testify, a human being as the sufferings show.
Since I am both God and a human being, therefore, tell me who
suffered. If God suffered, you have blasphemed; but if the flesh
suffered, why not attribute the suffering to that of which you
predicate fear? For when one suffers, another is not afraid, and
when a human being is crucified, God is not distressed.

discourse against the Arians.229
And to avoid going on at great length, heretic, I ask you briefly:
Did the one who was born of God before the ages suffer, or was
it Jesus, who was born of David in later times? If the divinity suf-
fered, therefore, you have blasphemed; but if it was the human
being, which is the truth, why then do you not attribute the pas-
sion to the human being?
54. By the same author from the discourse about the Son.230
For after Peter said that “God made him Lord and Christ,” he
added, “This Jesus, whom you crucified,”231 God raised him
from the dead.232 It was not the divinity that died, but the hu-
man being, and the one who raised him is the Word, the power
of God, who said in the Gospel, “Destroy this temple, and in
three days I shall raise it.”233 So if it is said, “God made him Lord
and Christ,”234 the one who was put to death and rose from the
dead, it is speaking about the flesh, and not about the Son’s di-
vinity.
228. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 7 (Discourse on the text, “Father, if it is

possible” [Mt 26.39]). CPG 2.3245.7.
229. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 2 (Discourse on the text, “My Father is
greater than I”). CPG 2.3245.2.
230. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 1 (Discourse about the Son). CPG
2.3245.1.
231. Acts 2.36. 232. See Acts 4.10.
233. Jn 2.19. 234. Acts 2.36.

For he did not have such a nature that his life was subjected to
corruption, and for that reason the divinity was not drawn into
suffering; how could it? But the humanity was renewed into in-
corruptibility. “For it is necessary,” he says, “that this mortal part
put on immortality and this corruptible part put on incorrupt-
ibility.”236 [244] Do you see the accuracy? “This” pointed categor-
ically to the mortal part, lest you think that a different flesh rose.

56. On the Sunday of the Pasch.237
The cross is preached to us openly, and we confess the Lord’s
death, because the divinity suffers nothing, for the divine is im-
passible, but the body fulfills the divine plan.
57. By the same author on Judas the traitor. 238

When you hear, therefore, that the Lord is betrayed, do not
bring the divine dignity into contempt, and do not ascribe the
bodily sufferings to the divine power, since the divine is impassi-
ble and unchangeable. For even if he adopted the form of a
slave out of love for humanity,239 he was not changed in his na-
ture, but, remaining what he was, he permitted the divine body
to experience death.
Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria

58. From a paschal document.240
For the souls of animals that lack reason are not taken away and
brought back again, but perish with their bodies and dissolve
235. Amphilochius of Iconium, Fragment 10d (Discourse on the text, “The Son
cannot do anything on his own” [Jn 5.19]). CPG 2.3245.10d.
236. 1 Cor 15.53.
237. Flavian of Antioch, On the Pasch. CPG 2.3435.8.
238. Flavian of Antioch, On Judas the traitor. CPG 2.3435.7.
239. See Phil 2.6–7.
240. Theophilus of Alexandria, Letter 17 (fragment). CPG 2.2586.2.
into dust. At the time of the crucifixion, however, the savior took
his soul away from his body, raised it from the dead, and
brought it back into the body. And he guaranteed this when he
prophesied through the Psalmist with the proclamation, “You
will not abandon my soul to the underworld, nor will you hand
over your holy one to see corruption.”241
The Blessed Gelasius, Bishop of

Caesarea in Palestine
59. From the discourse on the Manifestation.242
He was bound, wounded, crucified, handled, bore bruises, and
suffered a wound [245] from a spear. The body that was born of
Mary experienced all this. But no one could injure that which
was begotten of the Father before time, because the Word did
not have that type of nature. For how can one restrain divinity?
How can one wound it? How can one bloody the nature that has
no body? How can one enclose it in the bonds of the tomb?
Constrained by the limits set by necessity, therefore, reverence
what you cannot injure, and honor divinity.
The Holy John, Bishop of Constantinople

60. From the discourse on the text, “My Father is
still working, and I am also working.”243
“What sign do you show us, since you do these things?”244 And
what does he say? “Destroy this temple,” he says, “and I shall
raise it in three days”;245 he was talking about his own body,246
but they did not understand.
241. Ps 16.10 (LXX 15.10).

242. Gelasius of Caesarea, Dogmatic Fragments (On the Epiphany). CPG 2.3520.
243. John Chrysostom, (Homily 10) on the text, “My Father is still working” (Jn
5.17) 2. CPG 2.4441.10.
244. Jn 2.18.
245. Jn 2.19.
246. See Jn 2.21.
61. And after a few lines.247

Why is it that the evangelist did not pass over this, but added a
correction when he said, “He was talking about the temple of his
body”?248 For he did not say, “Destroy” this body, but, “the tem-
ple,”249 in order to reveal the God who dwelt within [it]. “De-
stroy this temple,” which is much greater than the Jewish one.
For the latter held the Law, but the former held the lawgiver;
the latter had the letter that kills, but the former had the life-giv-
ing spirit.250
62. By the same author from the discourse that the

humble words and actions came, not from weakness of power,
but from differences due to a divine plan.251
So why does he say here, “If it is possible”?252 He shows us the
weakness of the human nature, which does not choose simply to
be torn from the present life, but which draws back and hesi-
tates because of its love for the present life implanted in it by
God from the beginning. For after he said so many wonderful
things, if people dared to say that he did not assume flesh, what
wouldn’t they have said, if he had said none of this?

See how they also foretold his former age. Ask the heretic, there-
fore, if God is afraid, hesitates, draws back, or grieves. And if he
should say yes, shun him from that time on and place him down
below with the devil, or even lower than the devil, for not even
the devil would dare to say this. But if he were to say that none
of these things are worthy of God, say, “God does not pray ei-
ther.” For apart from this, there will also be another strange
thing involved if these are the words of God. For the words indi-
247. John Chrysostom, op. cit.

248. Jn 2.21. 249. See Jn 2.19.
250. See Jn 6.63.
252. Mt 26.39.
253. John Chrysostom, op. cit. 6.
cate not only agony, but also two wills, one of a Son and the oth-
er of a Father, opposed to each another. For the phrase, “Not as
I will, but as you will,”254 is said by one who indicates this.

For if this were said about the divinity, a certain contradiction
exists, and many strange consequences derive from it. But if it
were said about the flesh, then the statement is reasonable, and
there would be no ground for complaint. For not wanting the
flesh to die is not blameworthy, since it flows from nature. And
except for sin,256 he exhibits all the properties of the nature, and
in a superabundant way, so that he can shut the mouths of the
heretics. And so, when he says, “If it is possible, let this cup pass
from me,” and, “Not as I wish, but as you wish,”257 he is simply
showing that he is truly clothed with flesh that fears death. For
fearing death, drawing back, and being in agony are attributes
of the flesh. Now he allows it to be abandoned and stripped of
its own activity, in order to display its weakness and confirm its
nature. But at other times he conceals it, so that you might learn
that he was not a mere human being.
Severian, Bishop of Gabala

65. From the discourse on the seals.258
The Jews fight the visible, because they are ignorant of the invisi-
ble, and they crucify the flesh, but do not destroy the divinity.
For if my word does not disappear with the letter, which is the
word’s garment, did God the Word, the source of life, die with
the flesh? The suffering concerns the body, while impassibility
concerns his worthiness.
[247] Orthodox. You see that we have shown you that those
who tend the eastern and western, as well as the northern and
southern regions of the world, reject your new heresy and clear-
ly preach that the divine nature is impassible, and that both lan-
254. Mt 26.39. 255. John Chrysostom, op. cit.

256. See Heb 4.15. 257. Mt 26.39.
258. Severian of Gabala, Discourse on the Seals. CPG 2.4209.
guages, i.e., the Greek and the Roman, proclaimed a harmo-

nious confession about divine matters.
Eranistes. I’m also amazed at the agreement of these men, al-
though I noticed a great deal of division in their words.
Orthodox. Don’t be angry, my friend. For the mighty struggle
against their adversaries is the reason for their lack of modera-
tion. People who take care of vineyards like to do the very same
thing. For when they see a plant bent over, they not only set it
up against a straight stick, but they also bend it beyond the ver-
tical to the other side, so that the extra inclination in the oppo-
site direction can bring about the vertical position. And now in
order that you might know that those who are struggling to
maintain this polymorphous heresy are eager to eclipse even
the ancient heresiarchs with their extravagant blasphemies, lis-
ten again to the writings of Apollinarius, which proclaim that
the divine nature is impassible and confess that the suffering
pertains to the body.
Apollinarius
John said that the temple, that is, the body of the one who raised
it, was destroyed.260 The body was entirely one with him, and he
is not someone else among them. But if the Lord’s body was one
with the Lord, then the properties of the body became his prop-
erties because of the body.
67. And again.261

For this is true, that the joining with the body does not take
place through a limitation of the Word, so that he can have
nothing more than embodiment. Even in death, therefore, im-
mortality remains with him. For if the Word transcends this com-
position, then he also transcends dissolution. And death is a dis-
259. Apollinarius, To Diodore or the book, “A Summary.” CPG 2.3657.

260. See Jn 2.19.
solution. For he was not restrained by the composition, because

in that case the world would have been emptied; and in the dis-
solution, he did not, like the soul, endure the neediness that
comes from dissolution.
[248] 68. And again.262

The savior says that dead people go forth from their tombs,263
even though their souls do not go forth from there; in the same
way he says that he too will rise from the dead,264 even though it
is the body that rises.
69. And in another, similar work

he wrote the following.265
Being raised from the dead is proper to a human being, while
the act of raising is proper to God. But Christ was both; the same
one was, therefore, God and a human being. If Christ were only
a human being, he would not have given new life to the dead,
and if he were only God, he would not have given new life to
some of the dead on his own, apart from the Father. But Christ
was both; the same one was, therefore, both God and a human
being. If Christ were only a human being, he would not have
saved the world; and if he were only God, he would not have
saved it through suffering. But Christ was both; he is, therefore,
both God and a human being. If Christ were only a human be-
ing or only God, he would not have been mediator between God
and human beings.266
70. And soon after. 267

Flesh is an instrument of life adapted to the sufferings in accor-
dance with the divine plans, and neither words nor actions are
properties of flesh; and when the flesh is subjected to the suffer-
262. Ibid. 263. See Mt 11.5.

264. See Lk 9.22.
265. Apollinarius, Recapitulation. CPG 2.3658.
266. See 1 Tm 2.5.
ings in accordance with that which belongs properly to flesh, it

prevails against the sufferings, because it is God’s flesh.
71. And again soon after.268

The Son took flesh from the virgin and came into the world; he
filled the flesh with the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of us
all. He handed the flesh over to death, and destroyed death
through the resurrection that was for the resurrection of us all.
72. In the little book about faith he says the following.269

And since the sufferings pertained to the flesh, his power kept
its impassibility. Anyone who attributes the suffering to the pow-
er is, therefore, evil.
73. And in the little book on the Incarnation

he again wrote this.270
Here, therefore, he shows that the same one who as a human be-
ing was raised from the dead rules over all creation as God.
Orthodox. So far you have seen that one of the teachers of the
vain heresy clearly preaches the impassibility of the divinity,
that he calls the body a temple and strongly maintains that God
the Word raised it.
Eranistes. I have listened with amazement, and I am deeply
ashamed that [249] our ideas have been seen as to be more
avoided than even this man’s innovation.
Orthodox. I shall offer you a witness from another heretical
group, who clearly proclaims the impassibility of the only be-
gotten’s divinity.
Eranistes. To whom are you referring?
Orthodox. You may have heard of Eusebius,271 the Phoeni-
268. Actually, this is Apollinarius, The faith in detail 35. CPG 2.3645.
269. Ibid.
270. Apollinarius, On the Incarnation. CPG 2.3649.
271. Eusebius was a native of Edessa, a major center of Syrian Christianity.
cian,272 who was the high priest of Emesa,273 the city near the
Lebanon.274
Eranistes. I read some of his writings and found that he
agrees with the teachings of Arius.
Orthodox. He happened to be a member of that group, and
yet, even though he tries to show that the Father is greater than
the only begotten, he preaches that the divinity of the one who
is diminished was impassible, and he underwent long and very
remarkable struggles for this teaching.
Eranistes. I have a great desire to hear your presentation of
these words of his.
Orthodox. Well then, I’ll offer a rather lengthy testimony, in
order to satisfy your desire. Listen to the man’s preaching,
therefore, and imagine that he himself is speaking to us.
Eusebius of Emesa
74. [Untitled]275
For why does he fear death? It’s not because he would suffer
something from death, is it? For what was death to him? It was
the power leaving the flesh, wasn’t it? For it was not the power
that received the nail, so that it had to be afraid, was it?
For our soul does not suffer what the body suffers, even
though it coexists with the body: The eye goes blind, and the
mind stays healthy; a foot is cut off, and the power of reason
does not limp. Nature testifies to this, and the Lord confirms it
when he says, “Do not fear those who can kill the body, but can-
not kill the soul.”276 They cannot make the soul suffer what the
body that is joined to it suffers, not because they do not want
272. The Phoenicians were an ancient people who inhabited the area of the
eastern Mediterranean coast that became the Roman province of Syria.
Theodoret may be using the term ironically in order to link Eusebius with a
pre-Christian pagan people.
273. Emesa, modern Homs, was a city in Roman Syria.
274. The name Lebanon refers in biblical and patristic times to a mountain
range in Syria.
275. Eusebius of Emesa, On free will, the will of Paul, and the Lord’s passion.
CPG 2.3525.1.
276. Mt 10.28.
this, but because they cannot do it, even if they wish to do it. If
all of this is true, then, does the one who created the soul and
formed the body suffer what the body suffers, even if he most
definitely takes the body’s sufferings to himself?
But “Christ suffered for us,”277 and we are not lying, or he
gave [this], if he gave anything. “For the bread that I shall give is
my flesh,”278 which he gave [250] for us. That which could be
conquered was conquered, and that which could be crucified
was crucified. But the one who has the power to dwell in and to
leave [it] says this: “Father, into your hands I entrust my spir-
it,”279 not to the hands of those who were forcing the departure.
I am not contentious; instead I avoid controversy. I want to inves-
tigate the disputed issues quietly and in a fraternal spirit. Am I
not speaking the truth when I say that the power could not have
experienced the sufferings of the flesh? I am silent, therefore;
let the one who is so inclined say what the power suffered. Was it
defective? Look at the danger. Was it extinguished? Look at the
blasphemy. Did it no longer exist? For this is the death of power.
Declare what can defeat [it so] that it suffered, and I do not ar-
gue. If you have nothing to say, why are you angry at me, be-
cause I do not say what you cannot say?
[The power] did not suffer the nail. Drive [the nail] into the
soul, and I admit [that it went] into the power. But it shared in
suffering. Explain to me the term “shared in suffering.” What
does “shared in suffering” mean? As a nail affects the flesh, so
suffering affects the power. Let us say that this is what “shared in
suffering” means. The power, which is not struck, felt pain, for
pain certainly follows suffering. But if, when the mind is healthy,
the body often despises pains because of the power of thought,
let someone explain, peacefully, whether it suffered something,
or whether it shared in some suffering. So what can be said? Did
Christ not die for us?280 How did he die? “Father, into your
hands I entrust my spirit.”281 The spirit departed, the body re-
mained, the body remained without breath. Did he not die,
then? He “died for us.”282 As it was written (not in my imagina-
tion, but as I hear): “He died for us.” 283
The shepherd offered the sheep, the priest offered the sac-
277. 1 Pt 2.21. 278. Jn 6.51.

279. Lk 23.46. 280. See Rom 5.8.
281. Lk 23.46. 282. Rom 5.8.
283. Ibid.
rifice. “He gave himself for us,”284 and, “Who did not spare his
own Son, but gave his Son for all of us.”285 I do not reject the
words, but I am searching for the meaning of the words. The
Lord says that “the bread of God came down from heaven.”286
And even though I cannot speak too clearly because of the mys-
teries, he interprets this by saying that, “It is my flesh.”287 Did the
flesh of the Son come down from heaven? It did not come down
from heaven. How, then, can he say as an interpretation, “The
[251] bread of God” lives, and “came down from heaven”?288
Since the power that assumed came down from heaven, he
attributes to the flesh what the power has. Turn this around,
therefore, [and] he attributes to the power what the flesh suf-
fers. How did Christ suffer for us?289 He was spat upon and hit
on the temple, they bound a wreath around his forehead, and
his hands and feet were gouged. All these sufferings belong to
the body, but are attributed to the one who dwells [in it]. Throw
a stone at the emperor’s image; what is said? You have insulted
the emperor. Cut the emperor’s cloak; what is said? You have re-
volted against the emperor. Crucify Christ’s body; what is said?
“Christ died for us.”290 What need is there for me and you? Let
us go to the evangelists. How did you learn from the Lord how
the Lord died? They read, “Father, into your hands I entrust my
spirit.”291 The spirit is above, and the body is on the cross for us.
For he offered the sheep. Whatever belongs to the body is attrib-
uted to him.

He came to save our nature, not to destroy his own. If I want to
say that a camel flies, you are immediately shocked, because it
does not fit the nature; and you are correct. If I want to say that
human beings live in the sea, you do not accept it; and you are
correct, because the nature does not allow this. It is like this
therefore; if I would say of those natures things that are of a dif-
ferent nature, you are amazed; in the same way, if I were to say
284. Ti 2.14. 285. Rom 8.32.

286. See Jn 6.33, 50. 287. See Jn 6.55.
288. See Jn 6.33, 50. 289. See 1 Pt 2.21.
290. Rom 5.8. 291. Lk 23.46.
292. Eusebius of Emesa, op. cit.
that that power, which is before the ages, bodiless in nature, im-
passible in dignity, existing with the Father, by the Father’s side,
at the right hand, in glory, if I were to say that that bodiless na-
ture suffers, do you not close your ears? If you will not close your
ears when you hear this, I shall close my heart.
Can we do anything to an angel, such as cut it with a sword,
or divide it completely? Why do I say “to an angel”? Can we do it
to a soul? A soul does not experience a nail, it is not cut, it is not
burned. And if you should ask me, “Why,” I say to you, “It was
made this way.” Are his works impassible, and he is passible? I
am not rejecting the divine plan, and I welcome the acts of mal-
ice. “Christ died for us”293 [252] and was crucified. This is what
was written, and this is what the nature experienced. I do not
erase the words or blaspheme the nature. But this is not true.
Let truer words be spoken, not out of anger, but to do good.
The teacher is not hostile, unless the student is ungrateful.
You have something good to say, my ears are open with thanks.
One argues if one has the leisure to pursue an argument. Did
the Jews have the power to crucify the Son of God, to kill power
itself? Can one who lives die? The death of such power is its ex-
tinction. When we die, our body remains. If we put that power to
death, we reduce it to nonexistence. I do not know if you could
hear [this]. If the body dies, the soul is separated and continues
to exist. But if the soul dies, since it has no body, it does not exist
at all. A soul that dies does not exist at all, for the death of im-
mortal things leads to nonexistence.
Consider the alternative, for I do not even dare to say it. We
say these things as we understand them. But we make no laws, if
someone is argumentative. But I know one thing, that each one
has to reap the fruits of his thoughts; and each one comes be-
fore God and presents what he said and thought about God. Do
not think that God reads books, or is upset because of having to
remember, What did you say and what did you do? Everything is
out in the open. The judge sits. Paul is brought in there.294 “You
said that I was a human being; you do not have life with me.
293. Rom 5.8.

294. This refers to Paul of Samosata, who became bishop of Antioch in
about 260 and was deposed in 268. He apparently held an adoptionist Christol-
ogy that was thought to have influenced Arius; in the fifth century he was some-
times considered a predecessor of Nestorius.
Since you did not know me, I do not know you.” Another comes
forward: “You said that I was a creature; you did not know my
dignity, I do not know you.” Another comes forward: “You said
that I did not assume a body; you rejected my grace, you will not
share my immortality.” Another has come forward: “You said
that I was not born of a virgin in order to save the virgin’s body;
you shall not be saved.” Each one bears [the effects of] his
thoughts about the faith.
Orthodox. You have seen that even the other faction of your
teachers, which supposedly taught you that the divinity of the
only begotten one suffered, rejects this blasphemy, proclaims
the impassibility of the divinity, and breaks the ranks of those
who dare to attribute the suffering to it.
[253] Eranistes. I saw the struggles with amazement and I ad-
mire the man for his thoughts and ideas.
Orthodox. In that case, my good man, imitate the bees and fly
in your mind around the meadows of divine Scripture; collect295
the precious blossoms of the wholly blessed fathers, and please
construct in yourself the honeycombs of the faith. And if you
should find somewhere a plant that is neither edible nor sweet,
like this Apollinarius or Eusebius, but that can nevertheless be
useful for making honey, there is nothing wrong with taking
what is of use, while leaving behind what is harmful. For bees
often alight upon poisonous plants, but they too leave behind
what is deadly and gather what is useful. We propose these
thoughts to you, my friend, in keeping with the law of friend-
ship. And you will do well to take this advice. But if you do not
listen, we shall repeat those words of the Apostle, “We are
pure.”296 For we have given a warning, as we were commanded,
in accordance with the words of the prophet.297
295. E
j ranisavmeno". This is the verb from which the name “Eranistes” is de-
rived. Theodoret closes the dialogues with a final play on the meaning of these
words, to show that one can form orthodox, as well as heretical, teaching with
material gathered from various sources. See above, Introduction, p. 3.
296. Acts 20.26.
297. The reference is obscure, but see Ezek 3.18–19; in the LXX text the
same Greek verb is used in a similar context for “give a warning”.
[EPILOGUE]1
That God the Word is immutable

e c o n f e s s e d that there is one substance of the Fa-
ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we have said
with one voice that this substance is unchangeable. If
there is one substance of the Trinity, therefore, and it is im-
mutable, then the only begotten Son, who is one person of the
Trinity, is immutable. And if he is immutable, he surely did not
become flesh by changing, but he is said to have become flesh
by taking flesh.
2. If God the Word became flesh by undergoing a change
into flesh, then he was not immutable. For no sensible person
would call something that was changed immutable. But if the
Word is not immutable, then he is not of the same substance as
the one who begot [him]. For how can part of the uncom-
pounded substance be mutable, while another part is im-
mutable? And if we were to concede this, we shall certainly fall
into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. For they say that
the Son is of a different substance.
3. If the Son is of the same substance as the Father, and the
Son became flesh by undergoing a transformation into flesh,
then the substance is mutable, not immutable. But if someone
would risk this blasphemy, he will undoubtedly increase it by
blaspheming against the Father. For he would surely also call
him mutable, since he shares the same substance.
4. The divine Scriptures say that God the Word took flesh as
1. Although there is no title for this section in the Greek text, at the end of
the Prologue (p. 3) Theodoret says that, “to further the controversy,” he will
add a section in three parts, corresponding to the three dialogues, in which he
will attempt to sum up the lengthy arguments presented in the dialogues in
brief, almost syllogistic form.
253
well as a soul, and the most divine evangelist said, “The Word
became flesh.”2 So we must do one of two things: Either we
must admit that the Word changed into flesh and reject all of
divine Scripture, old and new, because it teaches lies, or we
must believe divine Scripture, confess the assumption of the
flesh, and drive change away from our thoughts, because we
understand the Gospel passage correctly. The latter must be
done, therefore, since we confess that the nature of God the
Word is immutable and have countless witnesses for the as-
sumption of the flesh.
5. That which inhabits [something] is different from that
which is inhabited; but the evangelist called the flesh a dwelling-
place [255] and said that God the Word dwelt in it. For he says,
“The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”3 If he became
flesh by changing, he did not dwell in flesh. But we have
learned that he did indeed dwell in flesh. For in another pas-
sage the same evangelist also called his body a temple.4 We
must, therefore, believe the evangelist, who construed the pas-
sage and explained what seemed ambiguous to some.
6. If the evangelist added nothing that could solve the ambi-
guity after he wrote, “The Word became flesh,”5 the argument
about the passage would perhaps have had a reasonable basis,
namely, the obscurity of the text. But since he immediately
added, “dwelt among us,”6 those who quarrel argue in vain. For
the passage that follows explains the words that precede it.
7. The all-wise evangelist clearly proclaimed the immutability
of God the Word. For after he said, “The Word became flesh
and dwelt among us,”7 he immediately added, “And we have
seen his glory, glory as of an only begotten [son] from a father,
filled with grace and truth.”8 Now if he had undergone a trans-
formation into flesh, as foolish people say, he would not have
remained what he was. But if he was emitting rays of the Fa-
ther’s excellence even though he was concealed in flesh, he
2. Jn 1.14a. 3. Jn 1.14ab.
4. See Jn 2.19. 5. Jn 1.14a.
6. Jn 1.14b. 7. Jn 1.14ab.
8. Jn 1.14cd.
EPILOGUE 255
surely possesses the immutable nature, is resplendent even in

the body and gives off the radiance of the invisible nature. For
nothing can dim that light: “For the light shines in the dark-
ness, and the darkness did not grasp it,”9 as the most divine
John says.
8. Since the wholly blessed evangelist wished to explain the
glory of the only begotten [Son],10 but could not at that time
complete the undertaking, he shows it through the relationship
with the Father. For his being, he says, is from that nature; by
his doing this it is just as if someone who saw Joseph serving in
a way beneath his dignity would say to people who were un-
aware of his illustrious lineage that Jacob was his father and
Abraham his forefather. For in this way he also said that he did
not dim the glory of the nature by dwelling among us. “For we
have seen his glory, glory as of an only begotten [son] from a
father.”11 And if [256] he obviously was who he was, even after
becoming flesh, then he has remained what he was and did not
undergo a change into flesh.
9. We confessed that God the Word assumed not mere flesh,
but also a soul. Then why do you suppose the divine evangelist
omitted the soul here and spoke only of flesh? Or is it clear that
he displayed the nature that was visible and through it revealed
the nature that was joined to it by nature? It is clear, since
thought about the soul presumably also goes along with refer-
ence to the flesh. For when we hear the prophet say, “Let all
flesh bless his holy name,”12 we do not imagine that the
prophet is exhorting soulless units of flesh; no, we believe that
through the part the whole is called to sing hymns of praise.
10. The passage, “The Word became flesh,”13 points to inde-
scribable love for humanity, not change. For the wholly blessed
evangelist said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God”;14 he showed that he was
the creator of visible and invisible reality15 and called him life
9. Jn 1.5. 10. See Jn 1.14cd.

11. Jn 1.14cd. 12. Ps 145.21 (LXX 144.21).
13. Jn 1.14a. 14. Jn 1.1.
15. See Jn 1.3.
and true light16 and other things like this; he spoke of God in a
way that the human mind could comprehend and the tongue
could express with its language; and after all this, he added,
“And the Word became flesh,”17 as though he was amazed and
astounded at the immense love of humanity. And so, although
the Word exists eternally, is God, is with God eternally, made all
things, and is the source of eternal life and true light,18 he
formed the dwelling-place of flesh for himself in order to save
human beings. But he was thought to be only that which was
visible. This is why he did not even mention the soul, but spoke
of the perishable and mortal flesh alone; he said nothing about
the soul as immortal, in order to reveal the infinite benignity.
11. The divine Apostle calls Christ the Lord “seed of Abra-
ham.”19 If this is true, and it is true, then God the Word was not
changed into flesh, but, according to the Apostle’s teaching,
took hold of the seed of Abraham.20
[257] 12. God swore to David that Christ would rise accord-
ing to the flesh from the fruit of his loins, as the prophet has
said and mighty Peter explained.21 Now if God the Word was
changed into flesh and was called Christ, we shall never discov-
er the truth of the oaths. Yet we have been taught that God is
not a liar, but is rather absolute truth. God the Word did not,
therefore, undergo a transformation into flesh, but in accor-
dance with the promise took the first fruit from David’s seed.
That the union was free of mixture

1. Those who believe that there was one nature of divinity
and humanity after the union destroy the properties of the na-
tures with this idea, and destroying them denies both natures.
For mixing together the things that were united does not per-
mit one to see that flesh is flesh, or that God is God. But if the
difference between the things that were united is clear even af-
16. See Jn 1.4. 17. Jn 1.14a.

18. See Jn 1.1–5. 19. See Heb 2.16.
20. Ibid.
21. See Ps 132.11 (LXX 131.11) and Acts 2.30.
EPILOGUE 257
ter the union, then there was not a mixture, but a union that
was free of mixture. And if this is the confession agreed upon,
then Christ the Lord is not one nature, but one Son, who dis-
plays each nature unadulterated.
2. We say, and they also agree to confess that the union took
place at conception. So if the union has mixed together and
blended the natures, how could the flesh be seen after birth
without anything new? But it displayed the human form, re-
tained the limitations of an infant, put up with the swaddling-
clothes, and nursed at its mother’s breast. If this has all been ac-
complished through illusion and mere appearance, then we
have also obtained salvation through illusion and mere appear-
ance. But if even these people themselves do not, as they claim,
admit illusion and mere appearance, then what was visible was
truly a body. And if this is the confession agreed upon, then the
union did not blend the natures together, but each one has re-
mained unadulterated.
3. Those who concocted this complex and polymorphous
heresy sometimes say that God the Word became flesh, while at
other times they say that the flesh underwent a transformation
into the nature of the divinity. Each statement is worthless, use-
less, and full of lies. For if God the [258] Word became flesh in
accordance with their understanding, why in the world do they
call him God, and only this, and why are they unwilling to call
him a human being as well, but instead make strong accusa-
tions against us, who along with our confession that he is God,
also say that he is a human being? But if the flesh was trans-
formed into the nature of the divinity why do they partake of
the representations22 of the body? For the type is superfluous
when the reality has been destroyed.
4. A nature that has no body does not undergo bodily cir-
cumcision. The word “bodily” has been added because of the
spiritual circumcision of the heart.23 Circumcision surely affects
22. Aj ntivtupo". The context indicates that Theodoret is speaking of partici-

pation in the Eucharist, which he finds meaningless if the savior did not have
true human flesh.
23. See Rom 2.29.
the body. But Christ was circumcised;24 Christ the Lord, there-
fore, had a body. And if this is the confession agreed upon,
then the idea of mixture has also been refuted.
5. We have in fact learned that Christ the savior was hungry
and thirsty and we believe that these things really happened
and were not illusions. But these are not proper to a bodiless
nature, but to a body. Christ the Lord, therefore, had a body
that before the resurrection was subject to the things that affect
the nature. The divine Apostle also testifies to this, when he
says, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize
with our weaknesses, but he was tested in every way like us, ex-
cept for sin.”25 For sin does not belong to the nature, but flows
from the evil free will.
6. The prophet David said about the divine nature, “The one
who guards Israel will not doze or fall asleep.”26 Now the ac-
count of the Gospels shows Christ the Lord asleep in the boat.27
But sleeping is the opposite of not sleeping; the words of the
prophet clearly contradict those of the Gospel, therefore, if
Christ the Lord is only God, as they say. But in reality they are
not contradictory, for both of them flow from one Spirit. Christ
the Lord, therefore, had a body that was the same as other bod-
ies, since it experienced the need for sleep, and the argument
for mixture has been shown to be a fable.
7. The prophet Isaiah has said about the divine nature, “He
will not be hungry, nor will he grow weary,”28 etc.; and the evan-
gelist [259] says, “Jesus grew weary from the journey and there-
fore sat down by the well.”29 Now the phrase “he will not grow
weary”30 is the opposite of growing weary; the prophecy, there-
fore, contradicts the account of the Gospels. But they are not
really contradictory, since they both come from one God. Not
growing weary pertains, therefore, to the infinite nature, be-
cause it fills all things; but movement is proper to the body that
is finite. And when that which moves is forced to walk, it be-
24. See Lk 2.21. 25. Heb 4.15.

26. Ps 121.4 (LXX 120.4). 27. See Mt 8.23.
28. Is 40.28. 29. Jn 4.6.
30. Is 40.28.
EPILOGUE 259
comes subject to the weariness of the journey. It was the body,

therefore, that walked and grew weary. For the union did not
mix the natures together.
8. When divinely inspired Paul was in prison, Christ the Lord
said to him, “Do not be afraid, Paul,”31 etc. But the one who
drove away Paul’s fear was himself so afraid of suffering, as
blessed Luke said, that he shed bloody drops of sweat from his
whole body, sprinkled the ground beneath his body with them,
and was strengthened by the assistance of an angel.32 But these
passages are contradictory. For how can being afraid not be con-
tradictory to driving away fear? But they are not really contradic-
tory. For the same one was both God by nature and a human be-
ing, and as God he strengthens those who need courage, while
as a human being he receives courage through an angel. But
even though the divinity and the Spirit were present as an
anointing, at that time neither the divinity joined [to it] nor the
all-Holy Spirit supported the body and encouraged the soul; in-
stead they entrusted this service to an angel, in order that they
might show clearly the weakness of the soul and the body, and
that the natures of the things that were weak might be revealed
through the weakness.
This clearly happened with the permission of the divine na-
ture, so that people in future times who believed in the assump-
tion of the soul and the body could be fortified by the presenta-
tion of the evidence, while their opponents could be refuted by
unequivocal testimonies. If the union, therefore, was joined at
conception, and if the union, according to what those people
say, made both natures one nature, how could the properties of
the natures have remained distinct? How could the soul have
been in agony, and how could the body have perspired, so that
it shed drops of blood out of overwhelming fear? If the latter is
proper to the body, while the former is proper to the soul, then
one nature of flesh and divinity did not result from the union,
31. This is a conflation of two passages: In Acts 27.23–24 Paul is on a ship,

and an angel tells him not to be afraid; in Acts 23.11 the Lord comes to Paul in
prison and tells him to keep up his courage.
32. See Lk 22.43–44.
[260] but one Son appeared, who shows in himself both the di-
vine and the human.
9. If they were to say that, after the resurrection, the body was
transformed into divinity, one must answer in this way. Even af-
ter the resurrection it was seen as finite, with hands, feet, and
the other bodily limbs; it could be touched and seen and had
the wounds and scars that it had before the resurrection. So
one must say either of two things: Add these limbs to the divine
nature, if the body was transformed into the nature of the divin-
ity and possesses these limbs, or confess that the body remained
within the limits of its nature. Now the divine nature is simple
and uncompounded, while the body is composite and divided
into many members; it was not, therefore, transformed into the
nature of the divinity, but after the resurrection it is also immor-
tal, incorruptible33 and filled with divine glory, even though it
still remains a body with its own limitations.
10. After the resurrection the Lord showed his hands, his
feet, and the marks of the nails, to the unbelieving apostles.
Then to teach them that what they saw was not some illusion he
added, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I
have.”34 The body was not, therefore, transformed into a spirit,
for it was flesh and bones, hands and feet. Even after the resur-
rection, therefore, the body has remained a body.
11. The divine nature is invisible; but the thrice-blessed
Stephen said that he saw the Lord.35 The Lord’s body is a body,
therefore, even after the ascension. For this is what the victori-
ous Stephen saw, since the divine nature is invisible.
12. According to what the Lord himself said, all human na-
ture will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven;36
and he also said to Moses, “No one will see my face and live”;37
if both these sayings are true, then he will come with the body
with which he went up into heaven, for it is visible. The angels
also said this to the apostles: “This Jesus, who was taken from
you up into heaven, will come in the same way that you saw him
33. See 1 Cor 15.52–53. 34. Lk 24.39.

35. See Acts 7.56. 36. See Mt 26.64.
37. Ex 33.20.
EPILOGUE 261
going into heaven.”38 But if [261] this is true, as in fact it is

true, then there is not one nature of flesh and divinity; for the
union is free of mixture.
That the divinity of the Savior is impassible

1. We were taught by divine Scripture and the holy fathers
who were gathered at Nicaea to confess that the Son is of the
same substance as God the Father. The nature demonstrates
the impassibility of the Father, and divine Scripture proclaims
it. We shall, therefore, confess that the Son is also impassible;
for the identity of substance teaches this definition. And so
whenever we hear divine Scripture proclaim the cross and the
death of Christ the Lord, we shall say that the passion belongs
to the flesh. For the divinity that is impassible by nature cannot
suffer in any way.
2. Christ the Lord said, “Everything that the Father has, is
mine”;39 impassibility is surely one part of “everything.” If he is,
therefore, impassible as God, then he suffered as a human be-
ing, for the divine nature does not submit to suffering.
3. The Lord said, “The bread that I shall give is my flesh,
which I shall give for the life of the world.”40 And he also said, “I
am the good shepherd, and I know mine and am known by
mine; and I lay down my life for the sheep.”41 The good shep-
herd, therefore, gave his body and soul on behalf of the sheep
that have bodies and souls.
4. The nature of human beings is composed of a body and a
soul. But it sinned and needed a sacrifice completely free of
fault. The creator assumed a body and a soul, therefore, kept
them free from the stains of sin, and gave his body on behalf of
bodies and his soul on behalf of souls. If this is true, and it is
true, for these are the words of truth itself, then those who at-
38. Acts 1.11. 39. Jn 16.15.

40. Jn 6.51.
41. Jn 10.14–15. Since yuchv can mean both “life” (as here) and “soul” (as
the principle of life in a human being), Theodoret cites this text as scriptural
proof that Christ possessed a human soul.
tribute the suffering to the divine nature are talking nonsense

as well as blasphemy.
5. Blessed Paul called Christ the Lord “first-born from the
dead.”42 But the first-born surely has the same [262] nature as
those of whom he is called first-born. So he is, therefore, first-
born from the dead as a human being, since he first destroyed
the anguish of death and gave the sweet hope of new life to all.
And he suffered in the same way in which he rose. As a human
being, therefore, he suffered, but as awesome God he remained
impassible.
6. The divine Apostle called Christ the savior “the firstfruit
of those who had fallen asleep”;43 the firstfruit has a relation-
ship with the whole group of which it is a firstfruit. He is, there-
fore, not called firstfruit insofar as he is God. For what relation-
ship exists between divinity and humanity, since one nature is
immortal, while the other is mortal? And the latter is the type
of nature shared by those who have fallen asleep, of whom
Christ was called firstfruit. Death and resurrection, therefore,
pertain to this nature. For we have the resurrection of this na-
ture as a pledge of the general resurrection.
7. Because Christ the Lord wanted to persuade the doubting
apostles that he had risen and destroyed death, he showed
them the limbs of his body, his side, his hands, his feet, and the
signs of the suffering preserved in them.44 The body rose,
therefore, because this was surely what was displayed to them
even though they did not believe. What rose was in fact that
which was also buried; and what was buried was that which also
died; and what died was surely that which also was nailed to the
cross. The divine nature remained impassible, therefore, even
though joined to the body.
8. Those who call the Lord’s flesh life-giving make life itself
mortal with their statement. They should have understood that
it is life-giving because of the life united to it. But if, according
to what they say, life is mortal, how could the flesh, which is
mortal by nature, but becomes life-giving through life, contin-
ue to be life-giving?
42. Col 1.18. 43. 1 Cor 15.20.

44. See Lk 24.39.
EPILOGUE 263
9. God the Word is immortal by nature, while the flesh is

mortal by nature. But after the suffering it too became immor-
tal through participation in the Word. Isn’t it wicked, therefore,
to say that the giver of such immortality shared in death?
[263] 10. Let those who maintain that God the Word suf-
fered in the flesh be asked what their words mean. And if they
should dare to say that the divine nature suffered pain of the
body when it was crucified, let them learn that the divine na-
ture did not fulfill the function of a soul. For God the Word
also assumed a soul with the body. But if they were to reject this
statement as blasphemous and say that the flesh suffered by na-
ture, while God the Word took the suffering as his own because
it belonged to his own flesh, they should not speak in riddles
and obscure language, but should state clearly the meaning of
the ill-sounding phrase. For they will have people who choose
to follow divine Scripture as co-defenders of this interpretation.
11. In the catholic epistle the divine Peter said that “Christ
suffered in the flesh.”45 When one hears Christ, one does not
think of the bodiless divine Word, but of God the Word who be-
came flesh. So the name of Christ reveals both natures, but the
phrase “in the flesh,” that was added on with the “suffering,”
signifies the nature that suffered, not both natures. For when
one hears that “Christ suffered in the flesh,” one understands
that he is impassible as God and attributes the suffering to the
flesh alone. For when we also hear him say that God swore to
David that Christ would spring from the fruit of his loins ac-
cording to the flesh,46 we say that the flesh that God the Word
assumed was of the same family as David, not that God the
Word took his beginning from a seed of David; in the same way,
then, when one hears that “Christ suffered in the flesh,” one
must understand the suffering of the flesh, and at the same
time confess the impassibility of the divinity.
12. When Christ the Lord was being crucified, he said, “Fa-
ther, into your hands I entrust my spirit.”47 The followers of Ar-
ius and Eunomius say that this spirit is the divinity of the only
45. 1 Pt 4.1. 46. See Acts 2.30.

47. Lk 23.46a.
begotten, for they think that a body without a soul had been as-
sumed. But the heralds of the truth say that the soul was named
in this way, and they thought this because of the words that fol-
low. For the all-wise evangelist immediately added, “And when
he had said this, he breathed his last.”48 This, then, is how Luke
related these events, and the blessed Mark also included the
words, “He breathed his last”;49 but the most divine Matthew
said that “He let the spirit go,”50 while the divinely inspired
John said, [264] “He handed over the spirit.”51 Now they spoke
all these words in accordance with the human way of speaking.
For we have grown accustomed to say about those who die that
he breathed his last and he let go or handed over the spirit. So
none of these words signify the divinity, but they do point to the
soul. And even if one were to accept the Arian understanding
of the passage, it will nonetheless, even taken this way, show
that the divine nature is immortal. For he entrusted it to the Fa-
ther, he did not hand it over to death. If people who deny the
assumption of the soul, say that God the Word is a creature,
and teach that he had been in the body in place of a soul, claim
that he was not handed over to death, but was entrusted to the
Father, what kind of forgiveness could those people obtain,
who confess that there is one substance of the Trinity and let
the soul be in its own immortality, but nevertheless dare to say,
without fear, that God the Word, who is of the same substance
as the Father, tasted death?
13. If Christ was both God and a human being, as divine
Scripture teaches and the blessed fathers always proclaimed,
then he suffered as a human being, but remained impassible as
God.
14. If they confess the assumption of the flesh, and say that it
is passible before the resurrection, and proclaim the impassible
nature of the divinity, why in the world do they leave the passi-
ble nature alone and attribute the suffering to the impassible
nature?
15. If the savior and Lord, according to the divine Apostle,
48. Lk 23.46b. 49. Mk 15.37.

50. Mt 27.50. 51. Jn 19.30.
EPILOGUE 265
nailed our bond to the cross,52 then he put nails in the body.
For every human being fixes the stains of sin, like letters,53 in
the body. And so on behalf of sinners he handed over the body
that was completely free of sin.
16. When we say that the body, the flesh, or the humanity
suffered, we are not separating the divine nature [from it]. For
just as the divine nature was united to it when it was hungry,
thirsty, weary, sleeping, and suffering the passion, even though
[the divine nature] was subject to none of this itself, but al-
lowed the other to endure natural sufferings, so in the same
way [the divine nature] was also joined to [the other] when it
was crucified, and it allowed the suffering to be consummated,
in order to put an end [265] to death through the suffering. It
did not experience pain from the suffering, but it made the suf-
fering its own, since it was [the suffering] of its own temple54
and of the flesh that was united [to it]; and because of [this
flesh] those who believe are called members of Christ,55 and he
has been named head of those who have believed.56
52. See Col 2.14.

53. Paul’s “bond” refers to a record of human sins that was nailed to the
cross with Christ’s body, which was free of sin. Theodoret compares the letters
on the bond to the stains of sin that sinful humans inflict on their own bodies.
Thus, for Theodoret, it was Christ’s body that suffered on behalf of sinners, not
God the Word.
54. See Jn 2.19. 55. See 1 Cor 6.15.
56. See Eph 4.1–5.
INDICES
GENERAL INDEX
Names, titles, and terms that appear very frequently are indexed with the
word passim, preceded, where relevant, by a reference to the Introduction.
Non-Christological usages of terms have not been included in this index,
unless so noted. Adjectives denoting contrary qualities are listed under
the positive meaning (e.g., mortal/immortal).
Aaron, 99, 205 Antiochus of Ptolemais, 164

Abraham, 19, 32, 37–39, 42–43, 49, Apollinarius, 2, 4, 7–9, 12, 14, 17–18,
52, 58, 80, 100, 102–3, 113–14, 28, 37, 62, 66, 86–87, 89–90,
116, 118, 136, 193, 199–200, 95–96, 121, 148–49, 172–73,
255–56 175–77, 235, 245–47, 252
accidental attributes, 129 apostles, 6, 29–30, 36–38, 42, 57,
Adam, 69, 78–79, 83, 104, 106, 60–61, 63, 71, 75, 85, 87, 92, 98,
114–15, 119, 136, 138, 179, 183, 110, 126–27, 135, 138, 143, 175,
196–98, 207 196, 203, 208, 213–15, 226–27,
Adelphius, 142 260, 262. See also personal names
Alexander (NT figure), 27 appearance, (fantasiva, dovkhsi~, et
Alexandria, 3–5, 9–12, 62, 66, 75–78, al), 34, 67, 71, 97, 105, 121, 127,
115, 141–44, 157, 169–71, 136, 156, 160, 164, 191, 257–58
229–34, 241 archetype (ajrcevtupon). See typology
all-powerful, 42, 184, 186, 206 Arius, 7, 11, 15, 18, 28, 31, 64, 89,
alter. See change 93–96, 119, 248, 251, 253,
Amaziah, 188 263–64
Ambrose of Milan, 63, 145, 147–49, Artemon, 94
234–35 ascension. See assumption
Amos, 188 Asia Minor, 3
Amphilochius of Iconium, 78, 83, assumption: Christ’s, of humanity, 12,
155–56, 239–41 passim; —, as dwelling place
Anatolia, 66 (skhvnwsi~, skhnhv, oi\ko~), 162,
Anatolians (= Orientals), 170 227, 254, 256; —, as garment,
Ancyra, 76, 143–44, 230, 232 45–46, 48, 74, 76–77, 87, 136,
Anna (NT figure), 139 140–41, 143, 145, 160, 176–77,
Anna (OT figure), 72, 137 231–32, 236, 244, 250; of Christ
anthropos. See human being and hu- into heaven, 42, 106, 109, 113,
manity 129–30, 132, 161–62, 172. See
Antioch (in Pisidia), 57 also temple and Jn 1.14 in Scripture
Antioch (in Syria), 1, 4, 10, 14, 34, index
61, 64–68, 73–75, 82, 134, Athanasius of Alexandria, 6, 11, 18,
139–41, 163, 170, 222, 225–26, 62, 75–78, 141–44, 229–34
228–29, 234, 241, 251 Athens, 31, 106
269
270 GENERAL INDEX
Atticus of Constantinople, 169 253–60 passim; — (metapoivhsi~),
Augustine of Hippo, 167–68 149, 155; — (metaskeuavzw), 35; —
(metaschmativzw), 130, 140; —
Bardesanes, 7, 28, 94 (oujs iovw), 94; without (i.e., im-
Baruch, 40, 41 (wrongly called Jere- mutable [a[trepto~],
miah) immutability), 2, 7–8, 11–12,
Basil of Caesarea, 16, 78, 150, 235 14–15, 29–30, 33, 35, 50, 54, 59,
Basilides, 94 87–89, 91, 115, 175, 178, 186,
becoming human. See incarnation 194, 208, 211, 215, 225, 231,
begotten, 49, 67–68, 75, 100–1, 113, 236, 253–55
119, 140–41, 145, 185, 209–10, channel, of Mary’s womb, 28, 78, 164
222, 225, 228, 242; not (i.e., un- Cherubim, 159
begotten), 33, 68, 100–1, 104, Christ, passim
185, 209–10. See also birth and Christians, 39, 50, 52, 77
first–born church: building, 77, 158, 199, 222;
Bethlehem, 39–40, 72, 74 universal or local, 1–3, 5–7, 14,
birth, 42, 104, 139, 169, 196, 240; 22–23, 61–62, 64–66, 133, 146,
Christ’s divine, 102, 135; Christ’s 165, 178, 196–97, 199, 221–22,
human, 39–40, 49, 55, 57, 62, 235
68–69, 72, 74, 76–78, 82, 91, Cledonius, 62, 79, 151, 236
113–14, 125, 135, 141, 159, cloak. See assume
165–66, 169, 172, 231, 240, 242, clothing. See assume
257; virgin 7, 28, 69–70, 102, communicatio idiomatum, 19, 118
149, 164–65, 171, 223, 252. See composition, 37, 86, 89, 91–92, 103,
also begotten, first-born, and Mary 116–17, 145, 174, 179, 245–46,
blend. See mixture 260–261; simple, 91, 123, 208,
blood, 34, 45–48, 70, 73, 76, 92, 260; without (i.e., uncompound-
131–32, 136, 143, 171, 180, ed), 82, 86, 117, 123, 253, 260
194–95, 201–2, 213–14, 223–24, comprehensible. See finite
230, 236, 259 consecration (aJgiasmov~), 46, 132–33.
body, passim See also invocation and Eucharist
bones, 62, 77, 110, 126, 128, 140, Constantinople: city of, 3–5, 84, 158,
146, 159, 184, 214–15, 225, 260 169, 235, 242; Council of (381
bread, 46–48, 133, 213, 249–50, 261. c.e.), 17; Council of (553 c.e.),
See also Eucharist 5; Synod of (448 c.e.), 5
Corinthians, 106, 197, 205
Caesarea (in Cappadocia), 16, 78, corruptibility, 52, 57, 95, 117, 120,
150, 235 127–29, 133, 150, 157, 168,
Caesarea (in Palestine), 64, 242 215–16, 225, 228, 230, 232–34,
Caiaphas, 138 241–42; without (i.e., incorrupt-
Canaanite woman, 108–9 ibility), 71, 103, 127–29, 131,
Capernaum, 116 134, 232–34, 241, 260
Cappadocia, 16–17 creation, 35–36, 60, 70, 74, 82, 93,
catholic. See universal 95, 103, 113–14, 116, 123, 133,
Cerdon, 7, 28, 94 135–36, 140, 142–43, 147, 155,
Chalcedon, Council of (451 c.e.), 1, 158, 160, 168–69, 174, 177, 182,
4–5, 8, 10–11, 14, 17, 22, 112 185, 190, 209–10, 221, 225, 228,
change, 12, 15, passim; as transforma- 230, 235, 247, 249, 252, 264. See
tion (metabolhv and cognates), 47, also creator
64, 125–32 passim, 157, 175, 180, creator, 14, 33, 35, 40, 69, 82, 90–91,
GENERAL INDEX 271
114–15, 118, 142, 145–46, 172, Eupsychius, 169
181–82, 190, 195–96, 210, 234, Eusebius of Emesa, 247–48, 250,
255, 261. See also creation 252
Creed, 14, 16, 112, 114, 118, 220; as Eustathius of Antioch, 73–75,
declaration of faith (pivsti~), 221; 139–41, 225–29
as formula of faith (suvmbolon), 221 Eutyches, 4–5, 8–10, 13, 17, 28, 33
Cyril of Alexandria, 3–6, 8–18, 20, Eutychus (NT figure), 90
33, 115, 168–71 evangelists, 36–37, 113, 116. See also
Cyril of Jerusalem, 164 personal names
Eve, 183
Damasus of Rome, 234 Ezekiel, 43, 93, 215, 252
Daniel, 43
David, 27, 32, 34–35, 37, 49–58, father: 9, 39, 53, 56, 69, 100–4, 149,
67–70, 72, 91, 93, 108–9, 113–20 183, 193, 196, 199–200, 255;
passim, 175, 177, 211, 215–16, Church, 9, 15–16, 31–32, 62, 86,
219, 221, 240, 255–56, 258, 263 149, 220–22, 252, 261, 264; God
death, 14, passim the, 15–16, passim
deification, 142 finite (limited, comprehensible), 19,
devil (diavbolo~), 85, 107, 143, 87, 101, 108, 119, 125, 127,
159–60, 173, 182–84, 195–96, 129–30, 135, 154, 174, 185, 192,
243; to go to the (oijmwvzein), 95 200, 242, 245, 257–58, 260; not
Diodore of Tarsus, 9, 66, 86, 172, 245 (i.e., infinite, unlimited, incom-
Dioscorus of Alexandria, 4–5, 8–10, prehensible), 19, 33, 36, 44, 74,
13 79, 85, 118, 123, 129–30, 159,
divine nature. See nature 176, 178, 185–86, 191–92, 200,
divinity, 6–8, 10–14, 17–20, passim 203, 215, 228, 243, 256, 258
dwell. See assume first-born, 53, 64, 72, 137–38, 141,
158, 224, 262. See also begotten,
Ebionites, 135 birth
Edom, 78, 236 firstfruit, 59, 137, 144–45, 159–60,
Egypt, 4, 31, 72, 74, 90, 92, 201 162, 195, 197, 207, 224, 226,
Elijah, 70 233, 256, 262
Elkanah, 72, 137 Flavian of Antioch, 64, 82, 163, 241
Emesa, 248, 250 Flavian of Constantinople, 5
Emmanuel, 135, 208 flesh, passim
Enos, 104 France, 66
Ephesians, 67, 161
Ephesus, Council of (431 c.e.), 1, Gabala, 65, 169, 244
4–5; Council of (449 c.e.), 5 Galatia, western, 66
Epictetus, 62, 77, 142, 229 Galatians, 38, 52, 66
Epicurus, 30 garment. See assume
epiphany. See manifestation Gelasius of Caesarea, 64, 242
Eranistes, Introduction, 28–29, passim Gnostics, 71, 136
esoteric (mustikwvteron), 46–47, 213 God, passim
Ethiopian, 213 “God the Word”. See Son of God
Eucharist. See consecration, invoca- Greek: 28–30, 46, 98, 123, 143, 196,
tion, mystery, sacramental, and 245; language or texts of, 1–3, 15,
symbol 20–23, 29, 32, 35, 71, 73, 75, 80,
Eunomius, 7, 28, 81, 89, 95–96, 119, 86, 137, 150, 176, 221, 225,
150, 154, 235, 238, 253, 263 252–53
272 GENERAL INDEX
Gregory of Nazianzus, 16, 62–63, 79, incarnation: as embodiment
150–53, 235–36 (swmavtwsi~), 86, 245; becoming
Gregory of Nyssa, 16, 80–82, 154–55, human (ejnanqrwpevw, ejnanqrwvph-
237–38 si~), 14, 17, 20, 44, 63, 66, 71,
79, 91, 96, 105, 111, 120–21,
Hagar, 203 130, 136, 144, 147–48, 158, 164,
Hebrew language, 22, 32, 75, 90, 205 170, 172, 178–79, 206, 208–9,
Hebrews, Paul’s Epistle to the, 37, 45, 220–22, 232, 234; becoming /
100, 170, 186, 189, 194, 201 taking flesh (sarkovw, savrkwsi~),
heresy, 1–4, 6–7, 9, 11, 27–28, 30, 63, 34–35, 58, 70–71, 79, 87, 89,
68, 71, 84, 86–87, 93–94, 96, 98, 111–12, 115, 120, 145, 164, 168,
133–36, 141, 153, 158, 166–67, 170, 174–75, 191, 211, 220,
177, 223, 240, 243–45, 247, 252, 222–23, 255, 263
257 incomprehensible. See finite
Herod: Agrippa I (ruled from 41 incorrupt. See corrupt
c.e.), 193; Antipater (Tetrarch), Indian, 32
67, 138; the Great (ruled c. 37–4 infinite. See finite
b.c.e.), 39–40, 52, 74 inhabit. See assume
Hilary of Poitiers, 165, 167 initiated (memuhmevnoi), 46–47; not
Hippo, 167 (i.e., uninitiated [ajmuvhtoi]), 46,
Hippolytus, 66, 71–72, 136–39, 132, 213
224–25 invisible. See visible
Holy Spirit, 15–16, 21, 32–33, 49, 67, invocation (ejpivklhsi~), 132. See also
71, 74, 78, 80–81, 84, 110, consecration and Eucharist
113–14, 144, 148, 164, 185, 209, Irenaeus of Lyons, 6, 66, 68–71,
214, 247, 253, 259. See also Trinity 134–36, 223
Homs, 248 Isaac, 19–20, 38, 52, 58, 102,
Hor, 205 188–90, 193, 199–201, 203
Hosea, 44 Isaiah, 43, 54–57, 72, 93, 102, 130,
human being (a[nqrwpo~), passim. See 135, 191, 202, 229, 258
also humanity Ishmael, 203
human nature. See humanity and na- Israel, 37, 40–41, 57, 92, 98, 135,
ture 138, 203, 226, 270
humanity, 7–8, 10–14, 17–20, 28–29,
38, 41, 47, 50–51, 54, 56, 58, 61, Jacob (patriarch), 32, 37–39, 41, 52,
70–71, 76, 80–81, 85, 87, 94–99, 102, 126, 135, 193, 255
106, 108, 110–11, 113, 116, 118, Jairus, 127
122–23, 125, 134, 144–46, 150, James (brother of John), 193
153, 159–72 passim, 176, 190, James (brother of the Lord), 217–18
192, 198, 200–2, 217, 221, 223, Jeremiah, 40, 143 (actually Baruch)
241, 256, 262, 265 Jerusalem, 77, 127, 164, 203
hypostasis. See subsistent entity Jesse, 55–57
Jesus, passim; as apostle, 143
Iconium, 83, 155–56, 239–41 Jews, 30, 37, 39–40, 51–52, 54–55,
Idumaea, 53, 78 60, 75, 97–98, 106–8, 110, 120,
Ignatius of Antioch, 66–68, 134, 222 139, 143, 160, 199, 204–5, 213,
illusion. See appearance 243–44, 251
image (eijkwvn). See typology John (apostle and evangelist), 12, 34,
immortal. See mortal 36, 41, 43, 48, 58–62, 70, 77,
impassible. See passible 112–13, 161, 167, 187, 193, 202,
GENERAL INDEX 273
204, 212, 232, 243, 245, 254–55, Marcion, 7, 28, 34, 50–51, 94, 97,
258, 264 106, 121, 136, 213
John Chrysostom, 1, 11–12, 65, Mark (evangelist), 204, 264
84–85, 158–63, 169, 242–44 Mary (mother of Jesus), 18, 49, 62,
John of Antioch, 1, 4, 170 67–69, 72–73, 77–78, 83, 87, 136,
John the Baptist, 67, 82, 203 142–43, 145, 154, 169, 172, 231,
join. See union 239, 242; Mother of God
Joseph (husband of Mary), 49, 69 (qeotovko~), 18, 170; virgin, 7, 28,
Joseph (son of Jacob), 255 49, 58, 67, 69–72, 81, 87, 102,
Joseph of Arimathea, 203–5, 231 135, 138, 141–42, 145, 149, 152,
Judah (son of Jacob), 39–40, 45, 49, 164–65, 170–71, 223, 231, 233,
58, 188 247, 252; virginal birth of, 7, 28,
Judas (Iscariot), 138, 241 126, 164; virginal body of, 81,
149, 252; virginal womb of, 72,
Lazarus, 70, 127, 139, 215, 231, 238 74, 84, 115, 219, 228. See also
Leah, 193 birth
Lebanon, 248 Mary Magdalene, 203, 225
Leo I (Pope Leo the Great), 5, 22, Massagete, 32
147–49, 152, 162–71 passim Matthew, 36–37, 39, 113–14, 116,
Levitical priesthood, 100 136, 162, 203, 264
life: in theological context, 48, Mediterranean, 248
52–54, 68, 70, 80–81, 85, 89–91, Melchizedek, 100–2, 104
100–2, 104, 109, 116–17, 120, Menander, 94
127, 133, 136, 138, 142, 153, Methodius of Olympus, 66, 73
159–61, 165, 174, 176–77, Micah, 39–40, 43
180–82, 184, 187, 194–95, Milan, 63, 145, 147–49
197–98, 200–2, 206–7, 211–13, mingle, 79, 115, 145
215, 224, 231–46 passim, 251, mixture (kra`s i~, suvgcusi~, mivxi~, et
255–56, 261–62; in non-theologi- al), 9, 13–14, 18–19, 29, 47, 93,
cal context, 21, 41–43, 52, 62, 66, 112–13, 118–19, 122–25, 146,
73–74, 81, 84, 89, 102, 104, 106, 149, 153, 162–75 passim, 190,
127, 133, 161, 182, 186, 206, 204, 219, 256–59, 261; unblend-
226–28, 231, 243, 250–51, 260, ed (ajsuvgcuto~), 124; unmixed,
262 123; without (a[krato~ et al), 2,
limit. See finite 11–12, 89, 115–16, 123, 173, 178
Lord, passim Monophysite, 5, 8–9, 11–14, 33
Luke (evangelist), 78, 113, 127, 141, Mopsuestia, 1, 9–11, 17, 34, 61, 66
163, 204, 250, 259, 264 mortality, 33, 53, 68, 92, 117,
Lyons, 66, 68–71, 134–36, 223 128–29, 133, 146, 179, 182,
194–96, 206, 210, 216, 222,
Mamre, 43 230–31, 233, 235, 241, 256,
Manes (Manichaean), 27–28, 50–51, 262–63; without (i.e., immortali-
94, 97, 106, 121, 123, 151, 213 ty), 14, 41, 53, 81, 92, 103,
manifestation, 164; at Epiphany (hJ 116–17, 127–29, 131, 146, 163,
ejpifavneia), 64; — (ta; ejpifavnia), 179, 181–83, 187, 193–96, 208,
242; at Nativity (ta; qeofavnia), 210–12, 219, 222, 230, 232–34,
152, 163; — (ejk geneqliakou` lov- 241, 245, 251–52, 256, 260,
gou), 84. See also birth 262–64
Marcellus of Ancyra, 76, 94, 96, Moses, 21, 43, 70, 81, 90, 93,
143–44, 230, 232 99–100, 104–5, 138, 201, 260
274 GENERAL INDEX
Mother of God (qeotovko~). See Mary Palestine, 38, 52, 64, 242
(mother of Jesus) Pascha (pavsca), 137, 160, 213, 236,
mutation. see change 241
mystery (musthvrion), 42, 46; Eucharis- passible (paqhtov~), 146, 190–1, 195,
tic, 19, 46–48, 131–32, 137, 143, 201–2, 219, 251, 264; not (i.e.,
200; of the Incarnation, 14, 20, impassible: ajpaqhv~), 9, 11, 14, 68,
49, 121, 155, 161, 165–66, 169, 128–29, 146, 169, 178–79,
195, 197, 201, 207, 212, 237, 190–91, 194–95, 201, 211–12,
250. See also sacrament and sacra- 219, 221–22, 227, 230, 234–51
mental passim, 261–64; — (ajpavqeia), 7–8,
11, 13–15, 19, 29, 172, 177, 187,
nativity. See manifestation 190, 194–95, 200, 202, 210, 238,
nature (fuvs i~), 4, 7–14, 16–20, pas- 244, 247, 252, 261, 265; —, in
sim; divine, 9, 12, 17–18, 33– suffering, 14, 211
34, 41–44, 91, 102, 111, 115, 154, Patmos, 77
162, 166–67, 171, 179, 183, 185, Paul (apostle), 27, 36–42, 44–45, 49,
187, 191–92, 194–95, 199, 211– 51, 54–66 passim, 78, 90, 92,
12, 219–22, 244–45, 258–65; for- 97–109 passim, 127–31, 137,
mula of, “one nature” (after the 140–41, 151, 153–54, 159–60,
union), 4, 7, 8, 13, 28, 110–19 176, 186–87, 189, 193–218
passim, 123, 146, 148, 256–57, passim, 223, 227, 231–32, 252,
259, 261; —, “two natures”, 256–65 passim
13–15, 19–20, 105, 110, 112, Paul (common name), 31–32, 116,
114–16, 119, 122, 146–47, 151, 210
168, 170, 201–2; —, “two natures Paul of Samosata, 94, 251
before the union”, 110; —, “from Pentecost, 137
two natures”, 112; —, “three na- perfection, 67, 80, 98, 109, 132, 147,
tures”, 13, 122; human, 18, 53, 181, 228, 230, 234, 236, 238
56, 60, 84, 91, 93, 101, 105, 111, Persian, 31
118, 148, 150, 154, 164, 167–68, person (provswpon), 15–20, 29–30, 32,
174, 178, 187, 191, 195–97, 211, 83, 107, 113, 118, 126, 147, 167,
220, 235, 238, 243, 260 176, 189–205 passim, 219–21,
Nazareth, 20, 74, 98, 116, 143 232, 239, 253; formula of, “one
Nazianzus, 16, 62–63, 79, 150–53, person”, 8, 11, 19–20, 147, 176,
235–36 192, 200, 220–21, 253; —, “two
Nectarius, 235 persons”, 17, 113, 126, 202
Nestorius, 1, 3–5, 8, 12–14, 17–18, Peter (apostle), 57, 66, 97, 106, 120,
20, 28, 66, 169, 261 127, 134, 155, 208, 216, 230,
Nicaea, Council of (325 c.e.), 4, 8, 235, 240, 256, 263
11, 15–16, 31, 149, 220, 261 Peter (common name), 31
Nicodemus, 204 Pharaoh, 99
Noah, 102 Pharisees, 108–10, 115
Nyssa, 16, 80–82, 154–55, 257–58 Philippians, 59, 140
Phoenician, 247–48
Olympus, 73 Photinus, 94, 96
only begotten. See Son of God physis. See nature
Origen, 157–58 Pilate, (Pontius), 67–68, 138, 203–5
original (ajrcevtupon). See typology Pisidia, 57
Orthodox (character in dialogue), Plato, 30
Introduction, 28–29, passim Poitier, 165, 167
ousia. See substance Polycarp, 66
GENERAL INDEX 275
Polymorph, 2–3, 7, 25, 28, 245, 257 Seth, 104
proper (i[dio~, oijkeiò~, et al), 16, Severian of Gabala, 65, 169, 244
31–33, 50, 70, 73, 78, 95–96, 102, Shimei (OT figure), 27
104, 114–15, 117–19, 127, 129, signs (suvmbola): of the flesh, 70; of
142, 149, 151–54, 166–68, 171, the passion, 73
176, 184, 189–90, 192–93, 211, Simeon, 139
215, 218, 221, 238, 246–47, Simon (Magus), 7, 28, 94
258–59. See also property simple. See composition
property (ijdiovth~, taj i[dia), 15–16, Sion, 77
30, 32–33, 112, 116–18, 150, 175, Smyrnaeans, 67, 134, 222
190, 192, 198, 219, 244–46, 256, Solomon, 51–52
259. See also proper son, 38–39, 41, 58, 71, 153, 200, 217
prophets, 30, 42, 44–45, 48, 57–58, Son of God, passim; referred to as
61, 71–72, 87, 136, 189–90, 196, “one Son”, 38, 113, 119, 145,
203, 213. See also personal names 147–48, 170, 192, 198, 257, 260;
prosopon. See person — “two sons”, 12–13, 20, 37, 61,
Ptolemais, 164 64, 116, 119, 122, 151, 192; —
Pythagoras, 30 “three sons”, 13, 122
Stephen, 74, 106, 109, 130, 193, 203,
reality (ajlhvqeia). See typology 260
Rebekah, 193 subsistent entity (uJpovstasi~), 15–20,
resurrection, 17, 57–60, 73–76, 97, 30–33, 94, 136, 147, 158, 168,
105–6, 109–10, 113, 126–46 pas- 171, 200, 222; formula of, “three
sim, 151, 156–57, 159, 164, 167, subsistent entities”, 16, 19, 94
172, 193, 195–98, 200–1, 205–7, substance (oujs iva), 15–18, 30–33, 44,
212–16, 220, 223–47 passim, 256, 47, 65, 77, 84, 93–94, 99, 119,
258, 262, 264 122, 124–25, 128–33, 142,
robe. See assume 145–50, 157–58, 162, 168, 175,
Romans, 31, 40, 52, 57, 197, 245, 178, 191, 207–8, 210–11, 219–22,
248 228, 230, 233–34, 253, 261, 264;
Rome, 234 formula of, “three substances”,
18, 94; of a different
Sabellius, 18–19, 93–94 (eJteroouvs io~), 119, 156, 173,
sacrament (musthvrion), of the Incar- 253; of the same (oJmoouvs io~), 73,
nation, 63, 147–48, 234. See also 75, 77, 145, 158, 173, 220–21,
mystery 229, 253, 261, 264
sacramental (mustikov~), of the Eu- symbol (suvmbolon), Eucharistic,
charist, 46, 56, 131, 133. See also 47–48, 131–33. See also typology
mystery Syria, 1, 3, 247–48
Salem, 100
Sarah, 193, 203 take. See assume
Saul (OT king), 188 Tarsus, 9, 66
Sauromatian, 31 teaching: non-orthodox (didaskavlia),
Savior, 6, 29, 39, 42, 45–47, 51, 183; — (dovgma), 27–28, 93, 95,
53–54, 56–57, 61, 71, 77, 93, 97, 238, 248; orthodox (didaskavlia),
102, 105–7, 109–10, 114, 118, 30–31, 36, 38, 56, 58, 62–63, 66,
122, 127, 130, 137, 139–40, 142, 71, 98, 108, 110, 112, 172, 194,
151, 158, 174, 176, 190, 197, 229, 256; — (paivdeuma), 37; —
199, 201, 205–8, 210, 212, 222, (lovgo~), 96–97; —, official
224, 242, 246, 257–64 passim (dovgma), 29, 52, 122, 131, 197,
Scythian, 32 208
276 GENERAL INDEX
temple, Christ’s body as, 59, 64, uncompounded. See composition
74–75, 82, 85, 144–46, 170, uninitiated (ajmuvhtoi). See initiated
212–13, 227–33, 240–47 passim, union: (e{nwsi~ and cognates), 4, 8–9,
254, 265. See also assumption 11–13, 15, 18–20, 29, 79, 86, 93,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 1, 9–11, 99, 110–25 passim, 133–35,
17–18, 20, 34, 61, 66 144–46, 154–55, 162, 165,
Theodotus, 94 168–73, 178–79, 190–92, 200,
Theophilus of Alexandria, 12, 157, 217–20, 237, 256–65 passim; as
241 joining (sunavfeia and cognates),
Thessalonians, 207 15, 17, 29, 72, 82, 93, 99, 111,
Thomas, 128, 137, 157, 203, 224 118, 142, 162, 164, 167, 179,
Timothy, 42, 57, 98, 105, 109, 186 193, 212, 215, 245, 255, 259,
Trallians, 68 262, 265; — (ejpivzeuxi~), 153; —
transcend, 53, 56, 58, 101, 116, 151, (metalambavnw), 232; — (suvneimi
154, 158, 185, 208, 230, 236, 245 [eijmiv]), 233–34; — (sunzeuvgnumi),
transformation. See change 180; — (sunivsthmi), 142; —
transient act, transitory passage. See (sunovdw/), 153; — (suntivqhmi), 174
channel universal (kaqolikhv, kaqovlou): church,
Trinity, 16, 31–33, 77, 94, 142, 165, 146, 221; epistle, 61, 263; faith,
208, 253, 264. See also Father, Son 234
of God, and Holy Spirit unlimited. See finite
Troas, 90
true (ajlhqinov~). See typology Valentinus, 7, 28, 34, 50–51, 94, 97,
type (tuvpo~). See typology 121, 136, 213
typology, terms of: archetype / origi- virgin. See Mary
nal (ajrcevtupon), 19, 21, 99, visible, 19–20, 36, 42, 44, 47, 60, 79,
101–5, 132–33, 190, 200–1; im- 85, 92, 110, 114, 117, 130, 133,
age (eijkwvn), 19, 21, 44–45, 90, 151–52, 164, 174–76, 185, 191,
100–4, 123, 132–33, 140, 200–2, 200, 226, 228, 235, 244, 255–57,
250; reality / true (ajlhvqeia, ajlhqi- 260; not (i.e., invisible), 19, 36,
nov~, ref. to ajrcevtupon), 19, 21, 81, 41–43, 45, 48, 83, 103, 114, 117,
99, 103–4, 123, 133, 137, 130, 136, 151, 174, 185, 200,
199–201, 257; representation (ajn- 211, 220, 229, 244, 255, 260
tivtupo~), 257; symbol (suvmbolon),
47–48, 131–33; symbolic / type wear. See assume
(tupikov~, tuvpo~), 19, 21, 48, 81, wine, 35–36, 45–47, 76, 139, 173
99, 100–5, 133, 190, 199–203, Word of God. See Son of God
213–14, 225, 257, 262. See also
formula and signs Xenophon, 48
unbegotten. See Trinity Zechariah, 130

unblended. See mixture Zerubbabel, 51–52, 55
uncaused, 104
I N D E X O F H O LY S C R I P T U R E
Old Testament
Genesis 10.21–23: 34 Job
1.26–31: 114 12.21: 201 10.9–12: 184
1.27: 103 14.21–22: 34 10.13 (LXX): 184
2.7: 69–70, 90 17.1–7: 34
2.17: 179 32.19: 81 Psalms
3.8: 119 33.11: 43 1.2: 177
3.19: 163 33.20: 43, 260 2: 138
4.7 (LXX): 149 34.28: 70 16 (LXX 15): 73
5.1–32: 102 16.10 (LXX 15.10):
5–7: 32 Leviticus 120, 215–16,
6.3: 92 4.23: 202 242
6.7: 102 5.1 (LXX): 93 22.22 (LXX 21.23):
11.10–32: 102 14.50–53: 202 75
12.3: 38 16: 201–02 23.1 (LXX 22.1):
14.17–21: 100 71
18.1: 43 Numbers 24.7 (LXX 23.7):
18.1–33: 79 9.13: 93 139
18.21: 119 12.8: 43 31.12 (LXX 30.13):
22.10–13: 200 19.2–3: 201 77
22.12: 119 20.28: 205 34.20 (LXX 33.21):
22.16: 199 225
22.18: 49 Deuteronomy 38.5 (LXX 37.6):
26.3–4: 38 14.4: 201 71
27.1: 188–89 18.19: 93 40.6 (LXX 39.7):
28.13–15: 38 34.6: 138 49
32.24: 126 42 (LXX 41):
46.27 (LXX): 90, 1 Samuel 159
92 7.3–4: 72 42.5 (LXX 41.5):
49.8–12: 58 9.18: 188 70
49.10: 39, 45 16.1–4: 72 45.7 (LXX 44.8):
49.11: 45–46, 48, 25.1: 205 75
76 49.20 (LXX 48.21):
49.29–32: 193 2 Samuel 32
16.5–8: 27 60 (LXX 59): 78
Exodus 60.8 (LXX 59.10):
3.2: 79 1 Kings 78
7.1: 99 19.8: 70 65.2 (LXX 64.3):
7.20–24: 34 93
277
278 I N D E X O F H O LY S C R I P T U R E
Psalms (continued) 132.11 (LXX 58.14: 121
69.26 (LXX 68.27): 131.11): 256 63.1: 236
70 132.11–12 (LXX
82.6–7 (LXX 131.11–12): 69 Jeremiah
81.6–7): 70 135.6 (LXX 134.6): 23.24: 143
88.4b–5 (LXX 34
87.5): 77 145.21 (LXX Baruch
89 (LXX 88): 50 144.21): 255 3.35–37 (LXX
89.1–2 (LXX 3.36–38): 40–42
88.2–3): 50 Proverbs
89.3a (LXX 88.4a): 8.22: 74, 82, 140, Ezekiel
51 225 1.1: 43
89.3b (LXX 88.4b): 9.1: 81 18.4: 93
51, 54, 58 37.7–10: 215
89.4 (LXX 88.5): Isaiah
51–53 1.13–14: 120 Daniel
89.19–27 (LXX 2.3: 77 9.18: 121
88.20–28): 53 6.1: 43 10.4–8: 43
89.20 (LXX 88.21): 6.2: 130
75 7.13: 69 Hosea
89.28–29 (LXX 11.1–4: 55–56 12.10 (LXX 12.11):
88.29–30): 53 11.6: 56 44
89.35–37 (LXX 11.9: 57
88.36–38): 54 11.10: 56 Amos
93 (LXX 92): 75, 19.1: 72 5.8 (LXX): 35
229 27.6: 135 7.12: 188
102.27 (LXX 40.28: 258
101.28): 35, 40.28–29 (LXX): Micah
211 191 1.1: 43
106.2 (LXX 105.2): 40.31 (LXX): 5.2 (LXX 5.1):
163 191 39–40
110.1 (LXX 109.1): 41.8: 37
143, 163, 52.10: 93 Zechariah
175–76 53.2–3: 229 12.10: 130, 151
119.73 (LXX 53.4: 63
118.73): 121 53.7: 202, 229 Malachi
121.4 (LXX 120.4): 53.8 (LXX): 102 3.6: 35, 231
258 55.3c–5: 54–55 4.2 (LXX 3.20): 131
New Testament
Matthew 2.4: 40 8.24: 164
1.1: 113 2.5–6: 39–40 8.27: 61
1.2: 58 3.15–16: 67 9.2: 188
1.17: 114 4.1–11: 173 9.6: 116
1.20: 49 4.2: 70 10.24: 88
1.21: 91 5.14: 131 10.28: 90, 182, 193,
2.1–23: 125 8.23: 258 212, 235, 248
I N D E X O F H O LY S C R I P T U R E 279
10.32–33: 165 2.22–24: 141 1.14b: 59, 60
11.5: 246 2.40: 121 1.14c: 60
13.43: 131 2.51: 116 1.14cd: 59, 254–55
14.22–27: 164 2.52: 121, 125, 143 1.18: 43–44
14.25: 42, 126 3.23–38: 113 1.29–36: 202
15.22: 108, 116 3.34–38: 114 2.4: 116
16.13–19: 57 4.2: 70 2.18: 242
18.10: 42–44 4.16–24: 116 2.19: 75, 145, 212,
19.26: 34, 156, 184 4.18: 82 227, 231–32,
20.18–19: 140 9.22: 246 240, 242–43,
20.30: 108, 116 19.40: 109 245, 254, 265
21.9: 108–9, 116 19.41: 72 2.21: 144, 232,
21.27: 115 22.19: 213 242–43
22.41–45: 116 22.20: 94 2.21–22: 212
22.42–45: 108 22.43–44: 259 3.13: 79, 137, 148,
24.36: 153 22.44: 70 219
25.31: 138 23.46: 249–50 3.14–15: 202
25.31–33: 130 23.46a: 263 3.16: 187
25.32: 202 23.46b: 264 4.6: 70, 191, 258
25.41: 183 23.50–53: 204 4.24: 33, 154
26.26: 213 24.24: 138 5.1: 135
26.26–28: 47–48 24.36–38: 214 5.17: 242
26.28: 213 24.38–39: 126 5.19: 80, 83, 156,
26.38: 70, 120, 158 24.39: 110, 126, 174, 227, 241
26.39: 119–20, 240, 128, 134, 137, 5.26: 232
243–44 140, 146, 151, 6 passim: 46–47
26.41: 81 154, 159, 214, 6.1–15: 164
26.64: 130, 260 224, 231, 260, 6.33: 250
27.50: 264 262 6.46: 43
27.57–60: 204, 231 24.39–40: 78 6.48–50: 213
28.6: 203, 205 24.41–43: 126 6.48–51: 133
24.43: 134 6.50: 250
Mark 6.51: 48, 212–13,
5.43: 127 John 239, 249, 261
7.32–35: 42 1.1: 60, 76, 83, 91, 6.55: 250
10.27: 34, 184 191, 230, 255 6.62: 219
12.25: 127 1.1–3: 74, 113 6.63: 243
14.22: 213 1.1–5: 256 7.19: 97
14.24: 213 1.3: 79, 91, 113, 7.39: 144
15.37: 264 255 8.40: 97
15.42–46: 204 1.4: 91, 256 8.56: 199
1.5: 255 8.58: 116
Luke 1.9: 91 9.1–7: 42
1.35: 81, 149, 227 1.12: 71: 9.16: 60
1.38: 145 1.14a: 9, 34–35, 38, 10.14–15: 261
1.80: 125 42, 48, 58–65, 10.17: 120
2: 74 76–77, 80, 86, 10.18: 120, 158,
2.1–38: 125 165, 254–56 226, 232
2.11: 68, 91 1.14ab: 12, 64, 66, 10.30: 83, 147, 157,
2.21: 125, 258 254 191
280 I N D E X O F H O LY S C R I P T U R E
John (continued) 12.2: 193 15.17: 206
10.32–38: 107 13.23: 57 15.20: 59, 137,
10.33: 60, 220 13.29–30: 231 224, 233, 262
10.36: 116 13.30: 232 15.20–22: 198,
11.1–14: 231 17.30–31: 98 207
11.1–44: 215, 238 17.31: 106, 129 15.21: 106, 207,
11.35: 70, 150 20.10: 90 223
11.38–44: 164 20.26: 252 15.22: 106
12.1–2: 127 20.27: 140 15.42–44: 127
12.23: 47 15.44: 156
12.24: 47 Romans 15.47: 79
12.27: 119–20, 212 1.1–3: 57 15.48: 79
14.9: 157, 191 1.3: 58 15.52–53: 260
14.28: 83, 154–55, 1.3–4: 67 15.53: 128, 241
239 2.29: 257
15.1: 46, 75 5.8: 249–51 2 Corinthians
15.5: 75 5.10: 187, 193 3.17: 33
16.15: 261 5.15–19: 197 4.13: 36
17.5: 176 5.16: 79 4.16: 151
19.18–34: 230 5.18: 79 5.20: 159
19.30: 264 5.19: 70 5.21: 63, 202
19.34: 46, 70, 224 8.15: 70 13.4: 227
19.38–42: 205 8.17: 131
20.17: 226 8.29: 140 Galatians
20.19: 126, 156 8.32: 198, 250 1.1: 232
20.20: 126 9.5: 40, 227 1.15–17: 92
20.24–29: 159 14.15: 223 1.19: 217–18
20.27: 128, 140, 3.1: 52
146, 157, 224 1 Corinthians 3.13: 62–63, 65,
1.24: 80 141, 202,
Acts 2.4: 148 223
1.4: 127 2.8: 144, 147, 165, 3.16: 38
1.11: 129, 150, 261 216, 218–20, 4.4: 71, 78, 141
2.3: 102, 168, 174, 226–27, 230 4.5: 70, 141
177 5.7: 137 4.21–31: 203
2.22: 98, 106, 143 6.10: 50–51
2.22–34: 215–16 6.14: 193 Ephesians
2.27: 234 6.15: 265 1.3: 161
2.30: 256, 263 8.6: 192 1.5: 70
2.30–31: 57 10.11: 201 1.9: 106
2.31: 120 11.7: 103 1.10: 70
2.33: 155 11.12: 78 1.17: 153
2.34: 176 11.24: 143, 213 1.21: 159
2.36: 226, 235, 240 12.4: 36, 55 2.5: 161
4.10: 240 12.8: 55 2.6: 59, 160
7.56: 74, 106, 130, 12.11: 36 2.7: 159
260 15.3–4: 205 2.13: 223
8.2: 193 15.12: 223 3.17: 79
8.26–39: 213 15.12–13: 206 4.1–5: 265
10.41: 127 15.14: 58 5.12: 84
I N D E X O F H O LY S C R I P T U R E 281
6.11: 107 1 Timothy 4.12: 231
6.13: 107 1.17: 41 4.15: 244, 258
6.14: 107 2.5: 134, 144, 153, 5.1: 49
165, 167, 246 6.18: 54, 186
Philippians 2.5–6: 98, 105–6 6.20: 100
2.5–8: 59–60 3.16: 42, 44–45, 48 7.1–3: 100
2.6: 60, 73, 158 6.15: 82 7.3: 101, 104
2.6–7: 82, 150, 167, 6.16a: 211 7.6: 103
224, 241 6.16b: 41 7.14: 39, 49
2.6–8: 80 10.1: 201
2.7: 60–61, 87, 90, 2 Timothy 10.5: 49–50
99, 111, 152, 2.8: 57, 109 10.19–22: 45
158, 234 2.9: 110 12.12–13: 189
2.7–8: 61 2.11–13: 186 13.8: 133
2.10: 68 3.8: 52 13.12: 201
3.19: 52 4.14: 27
3.20–21: 130, 140 1 Peter
3.21: 176 Titus 2.21: 249–50
2.14: 250 4.1: 208, 263
Colossians
1.15: 103, 158 Hebrews 1 John
1.16: 114 1.1–2: 81 4.2–3: 61
1.16–17: 155 1.3: 140, 158, 238 5.1: 135
1.18: 137, 224, 262 2.11–15: 194
2.14: 265 2.14: 171, 195, 233 Revelation
2.16: 37–38, 39, 42, 1.9: 77
1 Thessalonians 49, 256
4.14: 207 3.1: 143

The Fathers of The Church A New Translation Volume 106

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fathers of The Church A New Translation Volume 106

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fathers of The Church A New Translation Volume 106

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FATHERS

FORMER EDITORIAL DIRECTORS

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

library of congress cataloging-in-publication data

Dictionaries, periodicals, and series

PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina. Ed.

Greek Texts of Theodoret’s Writing

English Translations of Theodoret’s Writings

Abramowski, Luise. “Trinitarische und christologische Hypostasen-

Lim, Richard. “Theodoret of Cyrus and the Speakers in Greek Dia-

2. Eranistes or the Polymorph:

6. For the date see Ettlinger, Eranistes, p. 3.

that made loans; an ejranivsth" was a person who contributed to

3. Context of the Eranistes in Theodoret’s life

9. Cf. these words in LSJ.

of episcopal colleagues from Egypt, and of Pope Celestine and

15. See Ettlinger, Eranistes, pp. 23–31, especially p. 30.

was guaranteed to arouse the animosity of those who felt them-

4. Heretics and Heresies in the Eranistes

teaching was judged to be untrue, therefore, was reckoned a

they attributed the passion to the divinity of Christ and thereby

24. See below, p. 66. 25. Jn 1.14a.

during the period of his house arrest (448–50/51) and con-

5. Christology of the Eranistes

Theodoret has been described as the last major figure in the

30. Letter 83 (Azéma, 2, 204–19).

both obvious differences within each group and similarities be-

such a way as to blend them together to the detriment of the

times difficult to discern whether Eranistes and Orthodox actu-

39. See below, p. 211.

b. Methodology: Role of Philosophy, Scripture, and History

The question of methodology arises because the dialogue

action, Orthodox asks whether or not “subsistent entity” has

The “holy fathers” mentioned in these citations must be the

“substance” and “nature” were not transferred immediately or

47. See above, p. 4 n. 16.

Sabellius speaks of one subsistent entity instead of three.”49

The last phrase appears to be a legitimate application of the

49. See below, pp. 93–94. 50. See below, p. 200.

Christ. The divinity and humanity of Christ are, for Orthodox,

trary, his extant writings, most of which deal with history or

An important element of Theodoret’s exegesis of Scripture

52. For confirmation of Theodoret’s competence in history and Scripture,

6. Aspects of the Translation

been used as a standard of comparison, although many of

h e r e a r e p e o p l e who do not achieve fame or glory

The title of my book is Eranistes or the Polymorph,7 because

write them instead in the margin, at the beginning of each new

r t h o d ox . It would have been better for us to agree

Eranistes. You have provided our dialogue with a most elo-

longer signifies what is common to the nature, but rather the

Eranistes. We agree that this is true.8

mutable nature by introducing that Gospel text, “The Word be-

Orthodox. The creator transforms creation as he wishes, be-

18. Am 5.8 (LXX). 19. Ps 102.27 (LXX 101.28).

Orthodox. If you say, then, that God the Word underwent a

24. Ibid. 25. 1 Cor 12.4.

fect moment. If [69] we say, therefore, that the teachings of the

30. See Heb 2.16. 31. Jn 1.14a and Heb 2.16.