Site Map

PORPHYRY'S AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS: THE LITERARY REMAINS
9: The Kingdom of Heaven and the Obscurity of Christian Teaching
 
Apocrit. IV.8-IV.19
 
[Matt. 13.31-33, 45-46]
 
Turning to consider another doctrine, one even more astonishing than the others and just as obscure, we find this [written]: "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed" or, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven" or, "The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking pearls of value."
 
These wild images are not the work of wise men nor even of the sibyls. When someone wants to say something concerning the realm of the divine, it is necessary for him to make his point clearly using everyday images. But these images are not commonplace: they are degraded and unintelligible. They are unfit to convey the intended comparison. They make no sense.
 
But it was necessary that they should be clear, since they were intended not for the wise or understanding -- but for babes [cf. 1 Cor. 3.1; Matt. 11.25]. [58]
 
[Matt. 11.25)
 
Jesus says on another occasion, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes." And it is written in the Book of Deuteronomy, "The hidden things for the Lord our God, the manifest for us" [Deut. 29.29]. It is obvious [to a wise man] that what is written for the babes and the ignorant should be clear and not covered with riddles: but if the mysteries hidden from the wise are offered in turn to suckling babes, then [it would seem] better to be stupid and senseless. And is this the great contribution of that all-wise [one] who came to earth -- that the light of knowledge should be hidden from the wise but revealed to fools and babies?
 
[Matt. 9.12; Luke 5.21]
 
By contrast I mention now another item of a more reasonable sort -- namely the saying, "They that are well need no physician but rather those who are sick." Christ reveals this to a crowd with respect to his [reason for] coming to earth. If, as he says, he confronted sin for the sake of those who are weak, what of our forefathers, our ancestors -- were they not likewise diseased and weakened by sin? Those who are whole [he says] need no physician. He came [he says] not to call the righteous but sinners, as Paul also claims when he says, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of which I am one of the greatest" [1 Tim. 1.5].
 
If this is true, that those who have gone astray are called, and those who are diseased are healed, while the unrighteous [are] called and the righteous [are] not -- then it follows that the one who is neither called nor in need of healing among the Christians would be a righteous man who had not gone astray. That is: he who needs no healing [is precisely] the man who turns his back on the word of faith; and the more he turns away from it the more righteous and whole he is and the less he goes astray. [59]
 
[I Cor. 6.11]
 
Homer elicits a practiced silence from the Greeks when he tells of Hector's declamation: "Hold fast, Argives; lift not a hand, you Achaean boys: for Hector with his waving plume has something to say." Just so, we all sit in silence here, because the Christian teacher has promised that he will unlock for us the dark mysteries of scripture. [60]
 
So, dear sir: tell us what the Apostle means when he says, "But such were some of you" (that is, something wretched). [61] But, he goes on, "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God." It is indeed troubling and confusing to think that a man, once washed of so much pollution and rot, seems [all of a sudden] to be pure. [Is it not a little curious], this wiping away the stains of a lifetime of immorality -- of sexual license, adultery, drunkenness, thieving, perversions, self-abuse -- and assorted disgusting things -- simply by getting baptized, or calling on the name of Christ to get free of sin, as easily as a snake sloughs off its old skin?
 
I ask, who wouldn't prefer a life of corruption, based on the strength of these [promises]; who would not choose a life of evildoing and unutterable wickedness if he knew in advance that all would be forgiven him if only he believed and was baptized, confident in his heart that the judge of the living and the dead would pardon any offense he had committed. Such [promises] encourage those who hear them to sin; and the teaching of such a doctrine produces an attitude of disobedience. [Further] such a doctrine tends to supersede training in the virtue of obedience, so that doing what is right becomes indistinct and ineffective in relation to what is wrong.
 
[The Christians] would bring us a society without law. They would teach us to have no fear of the gods. This arrogant saying says as much in asserting that the whole range of our wrongdoing can be washed away just by being baptized. [62]
_______________
 
Notes:
 
58. The philosopher equates references to the kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God with heaven. The Jewish context of the phrase, and presumably that which made its way into early Christian belief, saw "kingdom" as the exercise of God's power at the time of judgment -- an event ascribed to the immediate future in some texts (e.g., Mark 9.1; Matt. 25.31. etc.). In liturgical formulae (cf. 1 Cor. 16.22) and New Testament apocalyptic traditions attributed to Jesus (Mark 13.24-36) these events are greeted with enthusiasm. The images of leaven, mustard seed, grain, hidden pearls, etc., are entirely appropriate to the earliest -- and especially the persecutionist -- phase of Christian belief, but they seem inept to the philosopher. It appears to him that Christians no longer take such images seriously, and he finds vacuous their attempts to allegorize away previous expectations. If the images are not indicative of an historical process, therefore, they must, he thinks, be understood spatially. Understood in this way, however, they become philosophically vulnerable to neoplatonic criticism that the cosmos and its creator (the Demiurge or, colloquially, Zeus for Plotinus) is a principle of unchanging order and unity, without cessation (4 Ennead 4.11).
 
Macarius does what he can in his reply by insisting that the mustard seed is not an image of impending judgment, but shows the relation of the earth to heaven. The objection and its rebuttal show that by the beginning of the fourth century both the pagan critics of the Christian church and Christian teachers had some trouble responding to historical context, and hence to the original meaning of Matt. 13.36-50.
 
59. The searing logic of this passage evokes a muddled response from Macarius, who quickly becomes entangled in an allegorical interpretation of verses only vaguely related to the objection in its original context. Matt. 9.12 refers to a confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees over an apparent violation of Jewish purifactory laws and table fellowship. The antithetical use of dikoios and hamortolos (righteous/sinner) is probably intended ironically: the "righteous" who complain of breaches of the law evidently have no need of further instruction, whereas sinners clearly do: hence, Jesus' association with sinners.
 
All of this is lost on Porphyry and missed by the ingenuity of Macarius' reply. For the philosopher, Jesus' words connote that it would be better to reject the message of the gospel, since continuing as a sinner promotes the efforts required for righteousness and spiritual well-being. Accepting the word identifies one as a sinner and "saves" the person from the condition of sinfulness through no obvious effort of his own. Macarius argues that the "righteous" are the angels "whose pure and immutable nature requires nothing in the way of repentance from them," while the sinner and the sick are the race of men "whose glory was equal to that of the angels in the beginning." In his letter to Marcella, Porphyry emphasizes that "mere unreasoning faith without right living does not attain to God. Nor is it an act of piety to honor God without having first ascertained in what manner he delights to be honored" (Letter to Marcella 22).
 
60. Omitted is an incipit supplied by Macarius in the interest of preserving the dialogue format. The style would suggest that Macarius is quoting verbatim from the philosopher's book. Macarius has argued that "certain words of Homer" were introjected into the debate for ridicule -- probably with the intention of presenting the objections as interrogatories in a case at law, intended to evoke serious responses from the Christians. A useful comparison is the format of the Octavius of Minucius Felix, written in the late second (?) century as a discussion between Octavius, a Christian, and the pagan Caecilius. Macarius' Apocriticus lacks the systematic structure of the earlier, highly artificial work. Moreover, the rhetorical flourishes against the Christian teacher show signs of the "slanderous" style with which Eusebius associates Porphyry's attack (Ecclesiastical History 6.19.2).
 
This said, it is doubtful in my view that the teacher so addressed is Macarius. In all probability, the "dialogue" is written in the form of an interrogation, as Celsus' had been, with a silent (or dumbfounded) Christian sitting in the hypothetical dock. Throughout this portion of the treatise, it is notable that Macarius exhibits neither the systematic logic of Minucius Felix nor the theological dexterity of Origen. The objections do not seem to be stylized on the Christian side, but on the pagan, where the original "slanderous intent" of the philosopher has been preserved. Macarius is only rarely able to meet the objections head on.
 
61. The full passage reads, "Neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you" [1 Cor. 6.9-11].
 
62. On the practice of baptism as a means of "washing away" wrongdoing, see especially Tertullian, Of Baptism 15. In Porphyry's day the penitential system which compensated for sins committed after Christian baptism had not yet developed. The practice of "clinical" baptism -- that is, the postponement of baptism until old age or illness made it advisable, in view of its effectiveness against sin -- was common in the fourth century. Clinical baptism was considered inferior to "regular" baptism, and those thus baptized incurred an impediment barring them from the priesthood if they recovered from their illness.
 
Porphyry seems to object to the casual concern exhibited by some Christians toward sin and forgiveness. He sees Paul advocating an abdication of moral responsibility. In fact Paul seems to have viewed baptism as a "pledge" of new life in which God's grace would be expressed in the condition of responsibly exercised moral freedom (1 Cor. 6.12) rather than restriction and law.
 
The philosopher singles out that portion of Paul's theology of baptism which informs the sacramental theology of the fourth century and climaxes in Augustine's treatises, De baptismo contra Donatistas, ca. 400, and De unico baptismo contra Petilianum, ca. 410. Both treatises have to do with heretical baptism, but in more general terms with the "effectiveness" and "operation" of the sacrament.
 
Macarius regards the grace conferred in baptism as a "reprieve from death," issued by a monarchial God who possesses sole power to pardon wrongdoing and offense. This forgiveness is regarded as an illustration of the benevolence, mercy, wisdom, or "princely virtue" of the monarch, and never as a necessity entailed by the action, petition, or performance of the wrongdoer. Thus, when granted, forgiveness "glorifies the pardoner [whose] deed is made to shine forth as a gift of grace, so that it is not ascribed to the [merit of the sinner]." As to the effect of the sacrament, the baptismal water is regarded as "immeasurably potent and able to wash away not only the dirt of the physical body, but penetrates even the parts of the conscience that are hidden and purifies them."
 
The answer is wayward at times; Macarius argues that each of the persons of the divine trinity is individually able to provide the sanctification attributed to the Holy Spirit. Insofar as his reply touches on the main point of the philosopher's objection -- namely, that a "high" theology of baptism may encourage moral lassitude -- Macarius says nothing to obviate the problem.
 
Porphyry acknowledges the importance of prayers of thanksgiving, since ingratitude to God is a moral wrong. He finds offense, however, in the Christian idea that prayer and sacrifice (eucharist) might compel God to respond to prayer in a particular way. Broadly speaking, doxological prayer (thanksgiving or glorification) were commended by Platonizing Christian teachers like Origen, while supplicatory prayer was seen as compromising belief in the divine impassibility and immutability. Gen. 6.6 was used both by heretics like Marcion and by pagan observers to point up the inadequacy of the creator's rule and consistency.