Origen against Celsus Book 2
THE first
book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True Discourse,
which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing Jesus, having now
extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present part as a reply to the
charges brought by him against those who have been converted from Judaism to
Christianity. And we call attention, in the first place, to this special question,
viz., why Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of
individuals upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing
the converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his
discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce an
impression. But probably this claimant to universal knowledge does not know
what is appropriate in the matter of such representations; and therefore let us
proceed to consider what he has to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts
that “they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their
minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously
deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode
of life.” Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted
the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions,
receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal
acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those
Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites.
Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish
observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to
ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that which is
interpreted according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the
Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting
to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter “went up into the
upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would
have eaten: but while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet
knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of
four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And
there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so,
Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice
spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call thou
not common.” Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is represented as still
observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals. And from the
narrative that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and living
according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the pale of
Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who
was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him,
the word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that
Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat
with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them, fearing them that were of
the circumcision;” and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the
same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not
abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision,
when they who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul
and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision, the
latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they who
preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from the
heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that he might
gain the Jews?” Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that
he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that
he was no apostate from their law. Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all
these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such
language as this to the converts from Judaism: “What induced you, my
fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to
be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most
ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name, and to
the practices of another life?” (Chapter 1)
Now, since
we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers of Christianity to the circumcision,
I do not deem it out of place to quote a certain declaration of Jesus taken
from the Gospel according to John, and to give the explanation of the same. For
it is there related that Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you,
but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He
will guide you into all the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.” And when we inquire what were
the “many things” referred to in the passage which Jesus had to say to His
disciples, but which they were not then able to bear, I have to observe that,
probably because the apostles were Jews, and had been trained up according to
the letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable to tell them what was the true law,
and how the Jewish worship consisted in the pattern and shadow of certain heavenly
things, and how future blessings were foreshadowed by the injunctions regarding
meats and drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths. These were many
of the subjects which He had to explain to them; but as He saw that it was a
work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the mind opinions that have been
almost born with a man, and amid which he has been brought up till he reached the
period of maturity, and which have produced in those who have adopted them the
belief that they are divine, and that it is an act of impiety to overthrow
them; and to demonstrate by the superiority of Christian doctrine, that is, by
the truth, in a manner to convince the hearers, that such opinions were but
“loss and dung,” He postponed such a task to a future season—to that, namely,
which followed His passion and resurrection. For the bringing of aid
unseasonably to those who were not yet capable of receiving it, might have
overturned the idea which they had already formed of Jesus, as the Christ, and
the Son of the living God. And see if there is not some well-grounded reason
for such a statement as this, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot hear them now;” seeing there are many points in the law which require to
be explained and cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these the disciples were
in a manner unable to bear, having been born and brought up amongst Jews. I am
of opinion, moreover, that since these rites were typical, and the truth was
that which was to be taught them by the Holy Spirit, these words were added,
“When He is come who is the Spirit of truth, He will lead you into all the
truth;” as if He had said, into all the truth about those things which, being
to you but types, ye believed to constitute a true worship which ye rendered
unto God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of truth came to
Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts, and creeping
things of the earth, and fowls of the air: “Arise, Peter; kill, and eat.” And
the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of superstitious
ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command, “Not so Lord; for I have
never yet eaten anything common or unclean.” He instructed him, however, in the
true and spiritual meaning of meats, by saying, “What God hath cleansed, that
call not thou common.” And so, after that vision, the Spirit of truth, which
conducted Peter into all the truth, told him the many things which he was
unable to bear when Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have another
opportunity of explaining those matters, which are connected with the literal
acceptation of the Mosaic law. (Chapter
2)
It was not
his (Celsus’) object to investigate everything here in the spirit of truth, and
to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he composed these statements
in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire to overthrow everything as soon as
he heard it. (Chapter 3)
After these
matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his statements about Jesus,
repeating for the second time that “he was punished by the Jews for his
crimes,” we shall not again take up the defence, being satisfied with what we
have already said. But, in the next place, as this Jew of his disparages the
doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead, and the divine judgment, and
of the rewards to be bestowed upon the just, and of the fire which is to devour
the wicked, as being stale opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow
Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching upon these
points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews
not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a
parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given to the
converts from heathenism. For which reason, now, we may also see of a truth
that all the doctrines of the Jews of the present day are mere trifles and
fables, since they have not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the
Scriptures; whereas those of the Christians are the truth, having power to
raise and elevate the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to
seek a citizenship, not like the earthly Jews here below, but in heaven. And
this result shows itself among those who are able to see the grandeur of the
ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are able to commend them to
others. (Chapter 5)
But suppose
now that He (Jesus) had been betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was
possessed by a worse spirit than Judas, and who had completely poured out, as
it were, all the words which he had heard from Jesus, what would this
contribute to an accusation against Jesus or the Christian religion? And how
will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false? We have replied in the
preceding chapter to the statements which follow this, showing that Jesus was
not taken prisoner when attempting to flee, but that He gave Himself up
voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence it follows, that even if He were
bound, He was bound agreeably to His own will; thus teaching us the lesson that
we should undertake similar things for the sake of religion in no spirit of
unwillingness. (Chapter 11)
Let us see
how he continues after this: “These events,” he says, “he predicted as being a God,
and the prediction must by all means come to pass. God, therefore, who above
all others ought to do good to men, and especially to those of his own
household, led on his own disciples and prophets, with whom he was in the habit
of eating and drinking, to such a degree of wickedness, that they became
impious and unholy men. Now, of a truth, he who shared a man’s table would not
be guilty of conspiring against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a
conspirator. And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the
members of his own table, by converting them into traitors and villains!” Now,
since you wish me to answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to me
frivolous, the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus imagines that
an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was
predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was
not the cause of its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the
future event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded
the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its
occurrence. Now, certainly this result is present to the foreknowledge of him
who predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not happen, viz.,
that one or other of these things will take place. For we do not assert that he
who foreknows an event, by secretly taking away the possibility of its happening
or not, makes any such declaration as this: “This shall infallibly happen, and
it is impossible that it can be otherwise.” And this remark applies to all the
foreknowledge of events dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the
sacred Scriptures or in the histories of the Greeks. (Chapter 20)
He continues
in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things, and underwent
chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a God, and
submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own
decision were neither painful nor distressing.” But he did not observe that
here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was
chastised because He had determined upon these things, and had submitted
Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it
was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not be
painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was willing
to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing, how did He
grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by
His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was capable both of suffering
pains, and those distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by
distresses what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily
assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so
along with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was
not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who
inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the
preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the
hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to
come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men
would be of advantage to the whole human race.
(Chapter 23)
We have
mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the declarations of
Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the “first-born of every
creature,” such as, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and such like;
and others, again, which belong to that in Him which is understood to be man,
such as, “But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth which
I have heard of the Father.” And here, accordingly, he describes the element of
weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which
existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, “Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;” the readiness of the spirit in
this, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” And since it is proper
to observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there
is mentioned only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the
weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number,
manifesting the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, “Father, if it
be possible, let this cup pass from Me,” is only one: whereas more numerous are
those others, viz., “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;” and, “O My Father, if
this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” It is to be
noted also, that the words are not, “let this cup depart from Me;” but that the
whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, “Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me.” I know, indeed, that there is another
explanation of this passage to the following effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing
the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to
undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon
Him, from no other motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them,
and from a desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave
utterance to the prayer, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
Me.” It is as if He had said, “Because of My drinking this cup of punishment,
the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this
cup may pass from Me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such
crimes against Me, may not be altogether deserted by Thee.” But if, as Celsus
would allege, “nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful
or distressing,” how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as
enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what
are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing? (Chapter
25)
What he [Celsus]
said, however, regarding Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a
mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened,
notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus. “For as the
sun,” he says, “which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself
visible, so ought the Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply, that so
He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and there is abundance of
peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God preparing the nations for
His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king of the Romans, and
that it might not, owing to the want of union among the nations, caused by the
existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to
accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, “Go and
teach all nations.” Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of
Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations
of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to
the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for
the reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere
engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the
case before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when
necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each other,
and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the Gospel
doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon
enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a
milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?
(Chapter 30)
“But,”
continues Celsus, “what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he
put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed
against him?” Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking
and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other
source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state
that “there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs
opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that
darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?” But if
Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them
matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they
establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: “Sir, either disbelieve
all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found
charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in
admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer
benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of
the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are
healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius
Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great
earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the
thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.” (Chapter 33)
The few next
remarks: “You, O sincere believers, find fault with us, because we do not recognise
this individual as God, nor agree with you that he endured these (sufferings)
for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment.”
Now, in answer to this, we say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up
under the training of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of
Christ), because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before them to
prove that He is the Messiah, adducing such refutation as a defence of their
unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they believe in Him
who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly manifested through His
disciples, even after the period of His appearance in the flesh, that He
underwent these things for the benefit of mankind; having, as the object of His
first advent, not to condemn men and their actions before He had instructed
them, and pointed out to them their duty, nor to chastise the wicked and save
the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary manner, and with
the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as the prophets also
have represented these things. And we blame them, moreover, because they did
not believe in Him who gave evidence of the power that was in Him, but asserted
that He cast out demons from the souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of
the demons; and we blame them because they slander the philanthropic character
of Him, who overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in
Judea, that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of
leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a
disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring such labours for the
benefit of all those who may be able to understand Him. (Chapter 38)
It is,
moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus imagines our Lord’s
pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the preaching of salvation and in a
pure morality, but in acting contrary to the character of that personality
which He had taken upon Him, and in not dying, although He had assumed
mortality; or, if dying, yet at least not such a death as might serve as a
pattern to those who were to learn by that very act how to die for the sake of
religion, and to comport themselves boldly through its help, before those who
hold erroneous views on the subject of religion and irreligion, and who regard
religious men as altogether irreligious, but imagine those to be most religious
who err regarding God, and who apply to everything rather than to God the
ineradicable idea of Him (which is implanted in the human mind), and especially
when they eagerly rush to destroy those who have yielded themselves up with
their whole soul (even unto death), to the clear evidence of one God who is over
all things. (Chapter 40)
But further,
since Celsus will have it that “Jesus was not irreproachable,” let him instance
any one of those who adhere to His doctrine, who has recorded anything that
could truly furnish ground of reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from
these that he derives his matter of accusation against Him, let him say from
what quarter he has learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free
from reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by
which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing
fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this
Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His
disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and, moreover,
that they should be brought before governors and kings on no other account than
because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him, and have our faith in
Him daily confirmed. And I know not by what greater or more convincing proofs
Celsus would have Him confirm His predictions; unless, indeed, as seems to be
the case, not understanding that the Logos had become the man Jesus, he would
have Him to be subject to no human weakness, nor to become an illustrious
pattern to men of the manner in which they ought to bear the calamities of
life, although these appear to Celsus to be most lamentable and disgraceful
occurrences, seeing that he regards labour to be the greatest of evils, and
pleasure the perfect good,—a view accepted by none of those philosophers who
admit the doctrine of providence, and who allow that courage, and fortitude,
and magnanimity are virtues. Jesus, therefore, by His sufferings cast no
discredit upon the faith of which He was the object; but rather confirmed the
same among those who would approve of manly courage, and among those who were
taught by Him that what was truly and properly the happy life was not here below,
but was to be found in that which was called, according to His own words, the “coming
world;” whereas in what is called the “present world” life is a calamity, or at
least the first and greatest struggle of the soul. (Chapter 42)
But observe
the superficial nature of his [Celsus’] argument respecting the former
disciples of Jesus, in which he says: “In the next place, those who were his
associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his
instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and death,
neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard punishment
with contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples, whereas now ye die
along with him.” And here he believes the sin which was committed by the
disciples while they were yet beginners and imperfect, and which is recorded in
the Gospels, to have been actually committed, in order that he may have matter
of accusation against the Gospel; but their upright conduct after their
transgression, when they behaved with courage before the Jews, and suffered
countless cruelties at their hands, and at last suffered death for the doctrine
of Jesus, he passes by in silence. For he would neither hear the words of
Jesus, when He predicted to Peter, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch
forth thy hands,” etc., to which the Scripture adds, “This spake He, signifying
by what death he should glorify God;” nor how James the brother of John—an
apostle, the brother of an apostle—was slain with the sword by Herod for the
doctrine of Christ; nor even the many instances of boldness displayed by Peter
and the other apostles because of the Gospel, and “how they went forth from the
presence of the Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing that they were
counted worthy to suffer shame for His name,” and so surpassing many of the
instances related by the Greeks of the fortitude and courage of their
philosophers. From the very beginning, then, this was inculcated as a precept of
Jesus among His hearers, which taught men to despise the life which is eagerly
sought after by the multitude, but to be earnest in living the life which
resembles that of God. (Chapter 45)
Celsus,
indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made Jesus say, that it
is “a certain Satan who contrives such devices;” although he begs the question when
he asserts that “Jesus did not deny that these works have in them nothing of
divinity, but proceed from wicked men,” for he makes things which differ in
kind to be the same. Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog,
although it may appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its body and
in its voice, nor a common wood-pigeon the same as a dove, so there is no
resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is the effect of
sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the calumnies of Celsus, Are
those to be regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery by wicked
demons, but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and
does human life endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears
to me that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever
anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with the good,
there must by all means be something that is good opposed to the evil; so also,
in opposition to those things which are brought about by sorcery, there must also
of necessity be some things in human life which are the result of divine power.
And it follows from the same, that we must either annihilate both, and assert
that neither exists, or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit
also the reality of the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are
wrought by means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works
which are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who
should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the
appearance of establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while
denying that truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed
from sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of
magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are
spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that
some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is divine,
why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and
morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz., whether they tend to the
injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil demons,
e.g., can do such things? and by means of what incantations and magic arts? And
who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul and his spirit, and I
imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state, receives a divine spirit, and
performs such works in order to benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the
true God? But if we must once investigate (without being carried away by the
miracles themselves) who it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by
help of an evil power, so that we may neither slander all without
discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be
manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire
nations were established in consequence of their miracles, that these men
wrought by means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For
wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not only above
idols and images erected by men, but also above all created things, and to
ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the universe. (Chapter 51)
But since it
is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise of Celsus, we would say to
him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the works which are recorded in your
writings as having been performed by God through the instrumentality of Moses
to be really divine, and endeavour to refute those who slanderously assert that
they were wrought by sorcery, like those of the Egyptian magicians; while, in
imitation of your Egyptian opponents, you charge those which were done by Jesus,
and which, you admit, were actually performed, with not being divine? For if
the final result, and the founding of an entire nation by the miracles of
Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it was God who brought these things to pass
in the time of Moses the Hebrew lawgiver, why should not such rather be shown
to be the case with Jesus, who accomplished far greater works than those of Moses?
For the former took those of his own nation, the descendants of Abraham, who
had observed the rite of circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who were
careful observers of the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting
for them those laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter ventured
upon a greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-existing constitution,
and upon ancestral customs and modes of life agreeable to the existing laws, a constitution
in conformity with the Gospel. And as it was necessary, in order that Moses
should find credit not only among the elders, but the common people, that there
should be performed those miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why
should not Jesus also, in order that He may be believed on by those of the
people who had learned to ask for signs and wonders, need to work such miracles
as, on account of their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with those
of Moses), were able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from the human
traditions which prevailed among them, and make them admit that He who taught
and did such things was greater than the prophets? For how was not He greater
than the prophets, who was proclaimed by them to be the Christ, and the Saviour
of the human race? (Chapter 52)
All the
arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against those who believe
on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as ground of accusation against
Moses: so that there is no difference in asserting that the sorcery practised
by Jesus and that by Moses were similar to each other,—both of them, so far as
the language of this Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same
charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says of Christ, “But, O light and truth! Jesus
with his own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that
there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine,
but who are wicked men and sorcerers,” some one, either Greek or Egyptian, or
any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say respecting Moses, “But, O
light and truth! Moses with his own voice expressly declares, as ye also have recorded,
that there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like
mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law, ‘If
there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign
or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve
them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet, or dreamer of
dreams,’” etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he says, “And he terms him
who devises such things, one Satan;” while one, applying this to Moses, might
say, “And he terms him who devises such things, a prophet who dreams.” And as
this Jew asserts regarding Jesus, that “even he himself does not deny that
these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;”
so any one who disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has
been already said, the same thing, viz., that, “even Moses does not deny that
these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men.”
And he will do the same thing also with respect to this: “Being compelled by
the force of truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the doings of others,
and convicted himself of the same.” And when the Jew says, “Is it not a
wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a God, and
the others sorcerers?” one might object to him, on the ground of those words of
Moses already quoted, “Is it not then a wretched inference from the same acts,
to conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers?”
But when, in addition to those comparisons which I have already mentioned,
Celsus, dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also: “Why from these works
should the others be accounted wicked, rather than this man, seeing they have
him as a witness against himself?”—we, too, shall adduce the following, in
addition to what has been already said: “Why, from those passages in which Moses
forbids us to believe those who exhibit signs and wonders, ought we to consider
such persons as wicked, rather than Moses, because he calumniates some of them
in respect of their signs and wonders?” And urging more to the same effect,
that he may appear to strengthen his attempt, he says: “He himself acknowledged
that these were not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of
certain deceivers, and of very wicked men.” Who, then, is “himself?” You O Jew,
say that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to the same charges,
will transfer this “himself” to the person of Moses. (Chapter 53)
Probably,
then, in addition to other causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this also may
have contributed to His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might
have it in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men,
and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing again, made a
juggler’s trick of the resurrection from the dead. But a clear and
unmistakeable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His disciples,
who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which was attended with
danger to human life,—a doctrine which they would not have taught with such
courage had they invented the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and who
also, at the same time, not only prepared others to despise death, but were
themselves the first to manifest their disregard for its terrors. (Chapter 56)
Yet He [Jesus]
was sent into the world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For all
that He was, was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain
part of Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at
all. And He opened the gates of light to those who were the sons of darkness
and of night, and had devoted themselves to becoming the sons of light and of
the day. For our Saviour Lord, like a good physician, came rather to us who
were full of sins, than to those who were righteous. (Chapter 67)
Jesus taught
us who it was that sent Him, in the words, “None knoweth the Father but the Son;”
and in these, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is
in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” He, treating of Deity,
stated to His true disciples the doctrine regarding God; and we, discovering
traces of such teaching in the Scripture narratives, take occasion from such to
aid our theological conceptions, hearing it declared in one passage, that “God
is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all;” and in another, “God is a
Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” But
the purposes for which the Father sent Him are innumerable; and these any one
may ascertain who chooses, partly from the prophets who prophesied of Him, and
partly from the narratives of the evangelists. And not a few things also will
he learn from the apostles, and especially from Paul. Moreover, those who are pious
He leadeth to the light, and those who sin He will punish,—a circumstance which
Celsus not observing, has represented Him “as one who will lead the pious to
the light, and who will have mercy on others, whether they sin or repent.”
(Chapter 71)
After the
above statements, he continues: “If he wished to remain hid, why was there
heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God? And if he did
not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or why did he die?” Now, by
such questions he thinks to convict the histories of discrepancy, not observing
that Jesus neither desired all things regarding Himself to be known to all whom
He happened to meet, nor yet all things to be unknown. Accordingly, the voice
from heaven which proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, in the words, “This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” is not stated to have been audible
to the multitudes, as this Jew of Celsus supposed. The voice from the cloud on
the high mountain, moreover, was heard only by those who had gone up with Him.
For the divine voice is of such a nature, as to be heard only by those whom the
speaker wishes to hear it. And I maintain, that the voice of God which is referred
to, is neither air which has been struck, nor any concussion of the air, nor
anything else which is mentioned in treatises on the voice; and therefore it is
heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing than that of sense. And when
the speaker will not have his voice to be heard by all, he that has the finer
ear hears the voice of God, while he who has the ears of his soul deadened does
not perceive that it is God who speaks. These things I have mentioned because
of his asking, “Why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be
the Son of God?” while with respect to the query, “Why was he punished, if he
wished to remain hid?” what has been stated at greater length in the preceding
pages on the subject of His suffering may suffice. (Chapter 72)
The Jew
continues: “Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose, that we should not
believe him?” To which we immediately answer, that He did not come with the
object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but knowing beforehand that
such would be the result, He foretold it, and made use of their unbelief for
the calling of the Gentiles. For through their sin salvation came to the
Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ who speaks in the prophecies says, “A
people whom I did not know became subject to Me: they were obedient to the
hearing of My ear;” and, “I was found of them who sought Me not; I became
manifest to those who inquired not after Me.” It is certain, moreover, that the
Jews were punished even in this present life, after treating Jesus in the
manner in which they did. And let the Jews assert what they will when we charge
them with guilt, and say, “Is not the providence and goodness of God most
wonderfully displayed in your punishment, and in your being deprived of
Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary, and of your splendid worship?” For whatever
they may say in reply with respect to the providence of God, we shall be able
more effectually to answer it by remarking, that the providence of God was
wonderfully manifested in using the transgression of that people for the
purpose of calling into the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from
among the Gentiles who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the
promises. And these things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on
account of the transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not
of a nation, but of individuals chosen from all lands; and, having selected the
foolish things of the world, would cause an ignorant nation to become
acquainted with the divine teaching, the kingdom of God being taken from the
one and given to the other. And out of a larger number it is sufficient on the
present occasion to adduce the prediction from the song in Deuteronomy
regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as follows, being spoken in the
person of the Lord: “They have moved Me to jealousy with those who are not
gods; they have provoked Me to anger with their idols: and I will move them to
jealousy with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a
foolish nation.” (Chapter 78)
