And Isaiah knows Christ to be named Jacob and Israel, saying: "Jacob my servant, I will help him; Israel my chosen, my soul has accepted him; he will proclaim judgment to the nations. He will not strive, nor cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and smoking flax he will not quench, until he brings forth judgment unto victory, and in his name shall the nations hope."
For that he concerning whom these things are prophesied is the Christ, Matthew clearly shows in the Gospel, recalling part of the passage and saying: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken, 'He will not strive,'" and so on.
Christ is also called David, as when Ezekiel, prophesying to the shepherds, adds, in the person of God: "I will raise up David my servant, who shall shepherd them." For it is not David the patriarch who shall rise again, about to shepherd the saints, but Christ.
Furthermore, Isaiah names Christ "rod" and "flower" in the passage: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall come up from the root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him — the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety; and the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him."
And our Lord is also said, in the Psalms, to be a stone, thus: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes."
The Gospel, and Luke also in the Acts, show that it is none other than Christ who is the stone; the Gospel [says] thus: "Have you never read: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner? Everyone who falls upon this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will crush him."
And in the Acts, Luke writes: "This is the stone which was set at nought by you the builders, which has become the head of the corner." Now one of the names appointed for the Savior — not said by him, but recorded by John — is also this: "The Word who in the beginning was with God — God was the Word."
And it is worth pausing over those who pass by so many of the names given to him, yet treat this one — "Word" — as though it were something exceptional; who, again, in the case of those other names, seek some explanation whenever anyone raises them, but in the case of this one readily accept as self-evident what it means for the Son of God to be named "Word" — especially since they constantly appeal to "My heart belched forth a good word," supposing the Son of God to be a kind of paternal utterance, as it were consisting in syllables; and on this account — if we should inquire of them precisely — they grant him no [real] subsistence, nor do they clarify his essence; we do not yet say what particular essence, but only ask whether he has any essence at all.
For it is impossible even for the ordinary person to conceive that a word merely uttered could be a son. Let them then declare to us whether such a word, living by itself, is either not separated from the Father — and on this account, having no subsistence, is not even a son — or is separated and possesses essence, [and thus truly] God the Word.
It must be said, then, that just as for each of the aforementioned names the concept of the one so named must be unfolded from the name itself, and applied with proof of how the Son of God is said to bear this name, so too must this be done with regard to his being named "Word." For what reasonable apportionment allows us not to pause over each one of the other names —
— at the level of the mere word, but rather, so to speak, to seek how he is to be understood as "door," and in what manner as "vine," and for what reason as "way," while, in the case of his being recorded as "Word" alone, we do not do the like inquiry?
So then, that we may accept in a more compelling way what will be said concerning how the Son of God is Word, we must begin from the names of his that were set before us from the start.
And we are not unaware that to some this will seem to be a very great digression; nevertheless, to one who pays attention, examining closely the concepts to which the names apply will also prove useful for the matter at hand, and the understanding of these things will serve as a preparation for what follows.
Now that we have once embarked upon the theology concerning the Savior, of necessity, discovering with research, to the extent of our power, the things concerning him, we shall understand him more fully, not only insofar as he is Word, but also the rest.
He said, then, that he himself was the light of the world; and we must examine together with this the things adjacent to this designation, which might seem to some to be not merely adjacent but actually the very same thing.
Now there is "the light of men," and "the true light," and "a light of the nations." "Light of men" occurs at the beginning of the Gospel before us: for it says, "That which was made — in him, he says, was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." "True light" is inscribed further on in the same writing: "It was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world." And "light of the nations" occurs in Isaiah, as we said before when we cited: "Behold, I have set you as a light of the nations, that you should be for salvation unto the end of the earth."
But those bodies said by Moses to have come into being on the fourth day, being sensible light, insofar as they illuminate the things on earth, are not the true light; whereas the Savior, shining upon the rational and governing [faculties], so that their mind may see its own proper visible things, is the light of the intelligible world — I mean of the rational souls that are in the sensible world; and if there is anything else besides these that fills up the world, of which the Savior teaches us that we are a part, he is perhaps its most sovereign and preeminent part, and, so to speak, a sun that is the maker of a great day of the Lord.
On account of which day he says to those who partake of his light: "Work while it is day; night comes, when no one can work any longer. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." And further, he also says to the disciples: "You are the light of the world," and "Let your light shine before men."
But what corresponds by analogy to the moon and the stars we suppose to be found in the bride, the church, and the disciples, who have a light of their own, or one acquired from the true sun, so that they may illumine those who have not been able to establish within themselves a source of light. For instance, we shall say that Paul and Peter are light of the world, while those ordinary persons who are being made disciples by them are being illumined but are not able to illumine others — they are rather the world of which the apostles were the light.
But the Savior, being the light of the world, illumines not bodies, but, by an incorporeal power, the incorporeal mind, so that each of us, being illumined as by a sun, may also be able —
— to see intelligible things. And just as, when the sun is shining, the ability of the moon and stars to give light is dimmed, so those who are illumined by Christ and have received his rays have no need at all of the ministry of apostles and prophets — for one must dare to speak the truth — nor of angels; and I will add that they have no need even of the superior powers, being disciples of the very firstborn light itself.
But to those who cannot receive the solar rays of Christ, the saints, ministering, provide an illumination much less than the aforementioned, to those who are scarcely able to receive even this and are filled by it.
And Christ, being light of the world, is true light in contradistinction to sensible light, since nothing sensible is true. But it is not the case that, because the sensible is not true, the sensible is false; for the sensible can have an analogy to the intelligible, though it is not sound to predicate "false" of everything that is not true.
But I inquire whether the light of the world is the same as the light of men, and I hold that a greater power of the light is set forth when it is called light of the world than when it is called light of men; for the world, according to one interpretation, is not only human beings.
And Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, will show that the world is something more, or other, than human beings, saying: "We have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men."
But consider whether, according to one interpretation, "world" is the creation that is being set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God, whose eager expectation awaits the revelation of the sons of God.
We added "consider" because of the fact that adjacent to the saying that can be joined with it — "I am the light of the world" — there stands the saying uttered by Jesus concerning the disciples: "You are the light of the world."
For there are some who suppose that the men who have genuinely been made disciples by Jesus are lesser than the other creatures — some of these having become such by nature, others also by reckoning, on account of the harsher contest.
For the toils are more numerous, and life more precarious, for those in flesh and blood than for those in an ethereal body — the luminaries in heaven, were they to take on earthly bodies, would not complete this life here without danger and altogether without sin. But those who hold this view appeal to the scriptural sayings that declare the greatest things concerning human beings, which assert that the unsurpassed promise reaches to man, but do not report the same concerning the creation, or, as we have understood it, the world.
For "As I and you are one, that they also may be one in us," and "Where I am, there my servant shall be also," are plainly written concerning human beings; but concerning the creation, what is written is only that it is being set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. And they will add that it is not the case that, if it is being set free, it therefore already shares in the glory of the children of God.
Nor will these persons pass over in silence the fact that the Firstborn of all creation, because of his honor toward man above all others, became man, and not some creature of those in heaven; but that the star that appeared in the east was created second, and as a minister and servant of the knowledge of Jesus — being either like the rest of the stars, or perhaps even superior, inasmuch as it became the sign of the one who surpasses all.
And if the boasts of the saints are in tribulations, since they know that "tribulation produces endurance, and endurance, proof, and proof, hope, and hope does not put to shame," then the creation, not being afflicted [in the same way], will have neither the same endurance nor proof nor hope, but a different one, since "the creation was subjected to futility, not —"
— willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope. But he who does not dare to grant such great things to man, confronting the problem directly, will say that the creation, being subjected to futility, is being afflicted, groaning more than those who are in the tent groan, inasmuch as it has served futility for a very great length of time, many times more than the human struggle.
For why does it not do this willingly, unless it is because it is contrary to its nature to be subjected to futility, and not to have the prior condition of life, which it will receive back when it is set free at the corruption of the world and released from the futility of bodies?
But since we seem to be discussing more than is proper, and not in accordance with the problem before us, we shall return to our starting point, recalling why the Savior is called light of the world, and true light, and light of men. For it has already been explained why, on account of the sensible light of the world, he is called true light, and whether the light of the world is the same as the light of men, or whether this admits of examination as not being the same.
And necessarily, on account of those who have grasped nothing from the fact that the Savior is Word, these things have been investigated, so that we may be persuaded not to rest, by mere arbitrary apportionment, upon the concept of "Word" alone — and it would be fitting to approach it without the partaking that is capable of being partaken of — but also to raise up and allegorize the phrase "light of the world," and the rest of the many names that we have set forth.
But just as, from illuminating and shining upon the ruling faculties of men, or simply of rational beings in general, he is light of men, and true light, and light of the world, so too, from bringing about the casting off of all deadness, and the life properly so called, in that those who have genuinely received him rise from the dead —
— he is called Resurrection. And this he effects not only in the present, for those who are able to say, "We were buried together with Christ through baptism, and rose together with him," but much more so when someone, having utterly cast off all deadness, walks in newness of the very life of the Son; thus we always carry about here in the body the dying of Jesus, when we are notably benefited, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies.
But also the journey in wisdom, and the practical activity of those being saved that comes about in him, according to the expositions concerning truth in the divine word and the deeds in accordance with true righteousness, presents to us a way of understanding how he himself is the Way — upon which Way one must carry nothing, neither a bag nor a cloak; nor is it necessary to travel with even a staff, nor to have sandals bound upon one's feet.
For the Way itself is sufficient in place of every provision, and everyone who walks upon it is without need, being adorned with the garment with which it is fitting for the one going to the wedding invitation to be adorned; and nothing harsh can meet him along this way. For it is impossible, according to Solomon, to find the tracks of a serpent upon a rock — and I say, of any beast whatsoever.
Therefore there is no need of a staff on a way that does not even have the tracks of adversaries, and that, on account of its firmness — for which it is also called "rock" — is not receptive of worse things.
And Truth is the Only-begotten, who has comprehended within himself, with all clarity, the whole account concerning all things according to the will of the Father, and who imparts to each being, according to its worth, that by which he himself is truth.
But if someone should inquire whether our Savior knows everything whatsoever that is known by the Father according to the depth of his riches and wisdom and knowledge, and, out of a mere pretense of glorifying the Father, declares that certain things known by the Father are unknown by the Son — the Father alone being sufficient to be equated with the comprehensions of the unbegotten God — he must be reminded that the Savior is Truth, and it must be pressed upon him that, if Truth is whole and complete, it is ignorant of nothing true, lest Truth limp, being deficient in the things it does not know — these things, according to them, existing in the Father alone — or else let someone show that there are things known which do not fall under the appellation of Truth, but are above it.
And it is clear that the origin, properly speaking, of the sincere and unmixed life is found in the Firstborn of all creation; from which origin those who are partakers of Christ, receiving it, truly live — unlike those who are reckoned to live apart from him, who, just as they do not have the true light, so also do not have the true life.
And since it is not possible to come to be in the Father, or to arrive at the Father, without having first, ascending from below, attained the divinity of the Son, through which one is able to be led by the hand also to the Father's blessedness, the Savior has been recorded as "Door."
But being a lover of mankind, and welcoming, in whatever way it occurs, the inclination toward the better of souls that do not hasten toward reason but, after the manner of sheep, have their tameness and gentleness not from examination but irrationally, he becomes their shepherd: "For the Lord saves men and beasts"; and "Israel and Judah are sown with seed, not only of men but also of beasts."
In addition to these things, we must examine from the beginning the appellation "Christ," and take up alongside it "King," so that by comparison the difference may be understood. It is said, then, in the forty-fourth Psalm, of him who "loved righteousness and hated lawlessness," that, above his fellows, the cause of his being anointed was that he had thus approached righteousness and hated lawlessness — as one who did not receive the anointing as coexisting with him from the moment of his being, and created together with him; and this anointing is a symbol of kingship among begotten beings, and sometimes also of priesthood. Is, then, the kingship of the Son of God something that came upon him afterward, and not connatural with him?
And how is it possible that the Firstborn of all creation, not being king, should afterward have become king because he loved righteousness — and this while he himself is righteousness? But perhaps it escapes our notice that the man of him, being Christ, is understood chiefly with reference to the soul, which, on account of its human nature, became troubled and greatly grieved — while he is King with reference to his divinity.
I support this from the seventy-first Psalm, which says: "O God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the king's son, that he may judge your people in righteousness, and your poor in judgment"; for the Psalm, though plainly inscribed to Solomon, prophesies concerning Christ.
I think, then, that "king" is said of the pre-eminent nature of the Firstborn of all creation, to which judgment is given because it excels; and that it is the man whom he assumed, being formed by that nature according to righteousness —
— formed, [who is called] son of the king. And I am led to accept that this is so, from the fact that both are brought together into one account, and what follows is no longer declared as concerning two distinct things, but as concerning one.
For the Savior has made the two one, having made, before all things, in himself the firstfruits of both that come to be in others; and I speak of "both" also with reference to human beings, in whom the soul of each is mingled with the Holy Spirit, and each of those being saved has become spiritual.
Just as, then, there are some who are shepherded by Christ on account of their own, as we have said before, gentle and settled but more irrational disposition, so also there are those who are ruled as king, according to a more rational disposition, in godliness.
And there are differences among those who are ruled as king: some are ruled in a more mystical, more secret, and more godlike manner, others in a more inferior way.
And I would say that those who have contemplated the things outside of bodies — called by Paul "invisible things, and things not seen" — having come, in respect of reason, to be outside of everything sensible, are ruled as king by the pre-eminent nature of the Only-begotten; while those who have arrived only as far as the account concerning sensible things, and through these glorify the Maker, are themselves also ruled as king — ruled by Christ. Let no one take offense at our distinguishing the conceptions in the Savior, thinking that we are thereby making these one and the same also in essence.
It is very clear even to ordinary persons how our Lord is teacher and expounder of the things that tend toward piety, and Lord of servants who have a spirit of bondage unto fear. But for those who are progressing and hastening toward wisdom and are deemed worthy of it — since "the servant does not know what his lord wills" — he does not remain their lord, but becomes their friend.
And he himself teaches this: in one place, when those listening were still servants, saying, "You call me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so"; but in another: "No longer do I call you servants, because the servant does not know what his lord's will is; but I call you friends, because you have remained with me in all my trials."
Those, then, who live according to fear — which God requires from servants who are not good, as we have read in Malachi: "If I am Lord, where is my fear?" — are servants of him who is called Lord, their Savior.
But through all these the nobility of the Son is not clearly set forth; it is when it is said to him by God, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" — [God], for whom it is always "today," for there is no evening for him, and I think, no morning either, but rather a time coextensive with his unbegotten and eternal life is, so to speak, for him a "day," namely "today," in which the Son has been begotten — the beginning of his generation is thus not to be found, any more than that of the day.
We must add to what has been said how the Son is the true vine. And this will be clear to those who understand, in a manner worthy of prophetic grace, the verse "Wine gladdens the heart of man."
For if the heart is the faculty of thought, and that which gladdens it is the most drinkable Word, causing one to stand outside of merely human things, and producing inspiration, and making one drunk with an intoxication that is not irrational but divine — with which, I think, Joseph also made his brothers drunk — then reasonably he who bears the wine that gladdens the heart of man is the true vine. It is "true" for this reason: because, as the cluster of grapes, it holds the Truth itself, and, as its branches, the disciples, who, as imitators of him, themselves also bear the fruit of truth.
See whether, just as bread nourishes and strengthens and is said to sustain the heart of man, while wine pleases and gladdens and expands the heart, so also the ethical teachings, which procure life for the one who learns and practices them, are the bread of life — these would not be called offspring of the vine — while the teachings that gladden and produce inspiration, the ineffable and mystical contemplations that arise in those who delight in the Lord and desire not only to be nourished but also to delight, come from the true vine, and are called wine.
In addition to these things ... [lacuna] ... how he has been written of, in the Apocalypse, as "first" and "last": being distinct, insofar as he is "first," from the "Alpha" and the "beginning"; and, insofar as he is "last," not the same as the "Omega" and the "end."
I think, then, that among rational beings, characterized as they are in many species, there is a first among them, and a second, and a third, and so on in succession down to the last.
To state with precision what is first, and what the second is, and in the case of what the third is true, and thus to arrive at the last, is not at all a human thing, but is beyond our nature. But we shall attempt, as far as we are able, to stand our ground and speak around the matter at hand.
There are certain gods of whom God is God, as the prophecies say: 'Give thanks to the God of gods,' and 'The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and called the earth'; but according to the Gospel, God is not the God of the dead but of the living; therefore the gods too, of whom God is God, are living.
And the Apostle too, writing in the letter to the Corinthians: 'As there are many gods and many lords,' has taken the name 'gods,' in accordance with the prophetic writings, as applying to beings that actually exist.
But besides the gods, of whom God is God, there are certain others called 'thrones,' and others called 'principalities,' and besides these, others called 'dominions' and 'powers.'
And because of the name that is named 'above every name, not only in this age but also in the age to come,' we must believe that there are, besides these, other rational beings as well, not very commonly named by us — one class of which the Hebrew called 'Sabai,' from which 'Sabaoth' was formed, being the ruler of those beings, yet no other than God himself. And last of all, the mortal rational being is man.
The God of all things, then, made a first class of rational beings in point of honour, which I think are those called 'gods,' and a second — for the present let them be called 'thrones' — and a third, without interval, 'principalities'; and thus one must descend, class by rational class, to the last rational being, which is perhaps none other than man.
The Savior, then, in a much more divine way than Paul, 'became all things to all,' that he might either win them all or perfect them all; and clearly he became a man to men and an angel to angels.
And concerning his having become man, none of those who have believed would doubt; but concerning his having become an angel, let us be persuaded, by observing the appearances and words of angels, where it appears, in certain passages of Scripture, that this belongs to the authority of angels — angels speaking — as in the case of: 'The angel of the Lord appeared in the fire of a flame out of a bush, and said: I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.' But Isaiah too says: 'His name is called the Angel of Great Counsel.'
The Savior, then, is 'first and last' — not that he did not become the things in between, but he is 'first and last' of the extremes, so that it might be shown that he became all things. But consider whether the 'last' is man, or the things called 'the beings under the earth,' among whom are also the demons — either all of them, or some.
One must inquire into the things which the Savior himself also became; through the prophet David he says: 'And I became like a helpless man, free among the dead' — as though having something more than other men, both in respect of his birth from a virgin and in respect of the rest of his life lived amid wonders, so also among the dead, in that he alone is free there; for 'his soul was not abandoned in Hades.' Thus, then, he is first and last.
But if there are letters of God — as indeed there are — which the saints, reading, say they have read, namely the things on the tablets of heaven, those elements, so that through them the heavenly things might be read, then the concepts happen to be divided up into 'Alpha' and what follows, as far as 'Omega' — these being the concepts of the Son of God.
Again, 'beginning' and 'end' are the same person, but not the same according to the various concepts. For he is 'beginning,' as we have learned in Proverbs, insofar as he is Wisdom; for it is written: 'God created me the beginning of his ways, for his works.' But insofar as he is 'Word,' he is not 'beginning': 'In the beginning...'
'...was the Word.' Therefore his concepts have a 'beginning,' and a second thing besides the 'beginning,' and a third, and so on until the 'end'; as though he were saying: 'I am beginning, insofar as I am Wisdom'; and, 'second,' if it should be so, insofar as I am 'invisible'; and 'third,' insofar as — 'that which was made in him was life.' 'Was...'
And if anyone is capable, by careful scrutiny, of seeing the mind of the Scriptures, he will perhaps find many things of this ordering, and also the 'end' — for I do not think he will find all of them. But more clearly, 'beginning' and 'end' seem, according to common usage, to be said of a single unified thing, as, for example, the 'beginning' of a house is the foundation, and the 'end' is the coping.
And this example must be applied, since Christ is the 'chief cornerstone,' to the whole unified body of those being saved: 'For Christ is all things and in all,' the Only-begotten — being 'beginning' in the man whom he assumed, but 'end,' evidently, in the last of the saints, and also in those in between; or, being 'beginning' in Adam, but 'end' in his own coming, according to what is said: 'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.' However, this saying will apply to...
...the interpretation of 'first and last.' Having kept, then, what has been said about 'first' and 'last,' and about 'beginning' and 'end' — in one place we referred these terms to the classes of rational beings, in another to the various concepts of the Word, the Son of God — we thus have the distinction between 'first' and 'beginning,' and between 'last' and 'end,' and further also between 'Alpha' and 'Omega.'
Nor is it unclear what is meant by 'living' and 'dead,' and, after being 'dead,' 'living forever and ever.' For since we were not benefited by his prior life, having come to be in sin, he descended to our deadness, so that, he having died to sin, we, carrying about in the body the deadness of Jesus, might advance in due order to his life after that deadness, unto the ages of ages. For those who always carry about the deadness of Jesus in the body will also have the life of Jesus manifested in their bodies.