Homily 2 — Hebrews 1, verses 3 to 5

“Who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins.” [a]

Reverence of mind is needed everywhere, but above all when we say or hear anything about God. For no tongue can speak, and no thought can hear, anything worthy of our God. And why do I speak of tongue or thought? Not even the understanding, which far surpasses both, will be able to grasp anything exactly when we want to say something about God. For if “the peace of God surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4, verse 7), and “the things that are prepared for those who love him have not entered into the heart of man” (First Corinthians 2, verse 9), much more does he himself, the God of peace, the Creator of all things, go beyond our reasoning by a wide margin. So we ought to receive everything with faith and reverence. And when our speech fails through weakness and cannot set out exactly the things that are said, that is the moment above all to glorify God, because we have such a God, beyond both our thinking and our understanding.

For there are many of our thoughts about God that we cannot express, just as there are many things we express but do not have the strength to conceive. For instance: we know that God is everywhere, but how, we can no longer understand. We know that there is a certain bodiless power that is the cause of all our good things, but how it is, or what it is, we do not know. Look: we speak, and we do not understand. I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it. I said that he has no beginning, but I do not understand it. I said that he begot from himself, and again I do not know how I am to understand it. And there are some things we may not even speak — things, for instance, that thought conceives but cannot utter.

And to show you that even Paul is weak and does not set out his illustrations with exactness, and to make you tremble and hold back from searching too far, listen to what he says after calling him Son and naming him Creator: “Who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his person.”

We must receive this with reverence and keep it clear of everything unfitting. “The radiance of his glory,” he says. But notice in what sense he means it, and receive it that way yourself: that he is from him; that he came forth without passion; that he is neither greater nor less. For there are some who draw strange conclusions from the illustration. They say: “Radiance has no being of its own; it exists in something else.” Now, my friend, do not take it that way, and do not catch the disease of Marcellus and Photinus. For Paul has a remedy close at hand for you, so that you will not fall into that notion, and he does not leave you to be swept down into that deadly sickness. And what does he say? “And the exact imprint of his person” — or, “of his subsistence.” That is, just as the Father exists as a person in his own right, needing nothing, so does the Son. For he says this here to show the unvarying likeness, the image that belongs to the original and to no other: that the Son exists in his own right.

For the one who said above that “through him he made all things” here gives him absolute authority. For what does he add? “And upholding all things by the word of his power” — so that from this we might conclude not only that he is the exact imprint of his person, but also that he governs all things with absolute authority.

See, then, how he applies to the Son what belongs to the Father. That is why he did not simply say, “and upholding all things,” nor “by his power,” but “by the word of his power.” For just as a moment ago we saw him gradually go up and come down again, so now too, as though by steps, he goes up on high, then comes down again and says, “through whom also he made the worlds.”

Look how here too he travels two roads: by the one he leads us away from Sabellius, by the other from Arius — yes, and by yet another, so that Christ would not be thought to have no origin, which he does all the way through, nor yet to be a stranger to God. For if, even after so much, there are some who say that he is alien, who give him another father and say that he is at odds with him — had Paul not declared these things, what would they not have said?

How, then, does he do this? When he is compelled to heal, he is compelled also to say lowly things: for instance, “He appointed him” (he says) “heir of all things,” and “through him he made the worlds” (above, verse 2). But so that the Son would not be dishonored in another way, he lifts him up again to absolute authority and declares him equal in honor with the Father — so equal that many thought he was the Father.

And notice his great wisdom. First he lays down the first point and makes it firm with care. And once this is shown — that he is the Son of God and not alien to him — he then speaks out safely all the high sayings, as many as he likes. Since any high speech about him had led many into the notion just mentioned, he first sets down what is humbling, and then climbs safely as high as he pleases. And having said, “whom he appointed heir of all things,” and that “through him he made the worlds,” he then adds, “and upholding all things by the word of his power.” For the one who governs all things by a word alone could not need anyone in order to bring all things into being.

And to prove this, notice how, going forward again, he lays aside the words “through whom” and gives him absolute power. For once he had done what he wanted by using that phrase, he leaves it behind from then on. And what does he say? [f]

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands” (below, verse 10). Nowhere here is the phrase “through whom,” or that “through him he made the worlds.” What then? Were they not made through him? Yes, they were — but not, as you say or imagine, “as through an instrument,” nor as though he would not have made them unless the Father had reached out a hand to him. For just as the Father “judges no one” (John 5, verse 22), and is said to judge through the Son, in that he begot him a judge, so too he is said to create through him, in that he begot him a Creator. And if the Father is the original cause of the Son, in that he is Father, much more is he the cause of the things that have been made through him.

So when he wants to show that the Son is from the Father, he necessarily says lowly things. But when he wants to say high things, Marcellus and Sabellius seize a handle. Avoiding the excess of both, he keeps to a middle way. He does not dwell on the lowliness, so that Paul of Samosata will not gain a footing; nor does he stay forever with the high sayings, but on the contrary shows how very near the Son is to the Father, so that Sabellius will not rush in upon him.

He names him “Son,” and at once Paul of Samosata comes at him, saying that he is a son the way many are. But Paul gives him a deadly wound by calling him “Heir.” Even so, he is shameless, and Arius with him. For both of them hold on to the saying, “He appointed him heir”: the first says it comes from weakness; the other still presses his objections, trying to prop himself up with the clause that follows. For by saying, “through whom also he made the worlds,” Paul strikes back the impudent man from Samosata, while Arius still seems to stand strong. But see how he strikes him too, saying next, “who, being the radiance of his glory.” But look! Sabellius springs on us again, with Marcellus and Photinus. On all of these as well he deals one blow, saying, “and the exact imprint of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” Here again he wounds Marcion too — not very severely, but he does wound him. For through this whole letter he is fighting against them.

But as for the very thing he said, “the radiance of the glory,” hear Christ himself also saying, “I am the light of the world” (John 8, verse 12). That is why the apostle uses the word “radiance”: to show that this was said in the sense of “Light from Light.” And that is not the only thing he shows. He shows too that Christ has enlightened our souls, and that he himself has made the Father known; and by “the radiance” he has pointed to how near the being of the Father and the Son is. Notice how finely he chooses his words. He has taken one being and one existence to point to two who each truly exist. He does the same with regard to the knowledge of the Spirit. For just as he says that the knowledge of the Father is one with that of the Spirit, as being indeed one and differing from itself in nothing (First Corinthians 2, verses 10 to 12), so here too he has taken hold of one single thing by which to express the real existence of the Two.

And he adds that he is “the exact imprint.” For the “exact imprint” is something other than its original — yet not other in every respect, but only in having a real existence of its own. For here too the word “exact imprint” shows that there is no difference from that of which it is the imprint: it is like it in every respect. So when he calls him both Form and exact Imprint, what can they say? “Yes, but man too is called an image of God.” What then? Is he an image in the way the Son is? “No; but that is because the word ‘image’ does not show likeness.” And yet, in that man is called an image, it does show likeness, as it can in a man. For what God is in heaven, man is on earth — I mean as to rule. And just as man has power over all things on earth, so God has power over all things in heaven and on earth. But apart from that, man is not called “exact imprint,” and he is not called “form” — a word that declares the essence, or rather both the essence and likeness in essence. So, just as “the form of a slave” (Philippians 2, verses 6 and 7) means nothing other than a man, in no way different from human nature, so too “the form of God” means nothing other than God.

“Who, being,” he says, “the radiance of his glory.” See what Paul is doing. Having said, “Who, being the radiance of his glory,” he added next, “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty.” Look at the names he has used, finding nowhere a name for the essence. For neither “the Majesty” nor “the Glory” sets out the name; he wants to say it but cannot find one. This is what I said at the beginning: that we often think something and cannot express it. For not even the word “God” is a name of the essence, nor is it possible at all to find a name for that essence.

And what wonder if this is so with God, when not even for an angel could anyone find a name that expresses its essence? Perhaps not even for the soul. For this name, “soul,” does not seem to me to signify its essence, but breathing. For one can see that the same thing is called soul, and heart, and mind; as it says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalm 51, verse 10). And one can often see the soul called spirit.

“And upholding all things by the word of his power.” Tell me: it is written, “God said, ‘Let there be light’” (Genesis 1, verse 3). Will someone say, “The Father gave the command, and the Son obeyed”? But look: here the Son too acts by a word. For he says, “and upholding all things” — that is, governing. He holds together what would otherwise fall to pieces. For to hold the world together is no less than to make it — it is even greater, if one may say a strange thing. For the one is to bring something forward out of things that are not. But the other — when things that have been made are about to fall back into nothing, to hold them and fasten them together, utterly at odds with one another as they are — this is truly great and wonderful, and a sure proof of surpassing power.

Then, to show the ease of it, he said “upholding.” (He did not say “governing”; he took the word from the picture of those who move something with only a finger and set it spinning.) Here he shows both that the mass of creation is great, and that this greatness is nothing to him. Then again he shows that it costs him no labor, saying, “by the word of his power.” He did well to say “by the word.” For since with us a word is thought a bare thing, he shows that with God it is not bare. But how “he upholds by the word” he did not go on to add, for that cannot be known.

Then he added something about his majesty, for John did the same: having said that “he is God” (John 1, verse 1), he brought in the work of creation. For the same thing that the one expressed indirectly, saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “All things were made through him” (John 1, verse 3), the other declared openly by “the word,” and by saying, “through whom also he made the worlds.” For in this way he shows him to be both Creator and before all ages.

What then? When the prophet says of the Father, “You are from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90, verse 2), and of the Son that he is before all ages and the maker of all things — what can they say? Or rather, when one may see the very thing that was said of the Father — “he who was before the ages” — said of the Son as well? And as the one says, “He was life” (John 1, verse 4), pointing to the keeping of creation in being, that he himself is the life of all things, so this one too says, “and upholding all things by the word of his power.” He is not like the Greeks, who rob him, as far as they can, both of creation itself and of providence, shutting his power up so that it reaches only as far as the moon.

“Having by himself,” he says, “purged our sins.” Having spoken of those marvelous and great matters that are most above us, he goes on next to speak also of his care for human beings. The earlier phrase, “and upholding all things,” was universal too; yet this is far greater, for it also is universal: for, as far as it rested with him, “all” believed. So John too, having said, “He was life,” and so pointed to his providence, says again, “and he was light.”

“Having by himself,” he says, “purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Here he sets down two very great proofs of his care: first, that he purified us from our sins; then, that he did it “by himself.” And in many places you see him making a great deal of this — not only of our being reconciled with God, but also of its being accomplished through the Son. For the gift, being truly great, was made even greater by the fact that it came through the Son.

For in saying, “he sat at the right hand,” and “having by himself purged our sins” — though he had reminded us of the cross, he quickly added mention of the resurrection and of his being taken up into heaven. And see his wisdom beyond words: he did not say, “He was commanded to sit down,” but “He sat down.” Then again, so that you would not think that he stands, he adds, “For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand’?”

“He sat,” he says, “at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” What is this “on high”? Does he shut God up in a place? Far from it! But just as, when he says “at the right hand,” he did not describe him as having a shape, but showed his equal dignity with the Father, so in saying “on high” he did not enclose him there, but expressed his being higher than all things and having gone up above all things. That is, he reached the very throne of the Father: as the Father is on high, so is he. For “sitting together” means nothing other than equal dignity.

And if they say that the Father said, “Sit,” we may ask them: What then? Did he speak to him while he was standing? Besides, Paul did not say that the Father commanded, nor that he gave an order, but that “he said” — for no other reason than that you should not think the Son is without origin and without cause. That this is why he said it is clear from the place where he sits. For had he meant to signify that he is lower, he would not have said “at the right hand,” but at the left.

Verse 4: “Having been made,” he says, “so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”

“Having been made” here stands for “having been shown to be,” as one might say. Then, from what does he argue so confidently? From the name. Do you see that the name “Son” regularly declares a true relationship? Indeed, if he were not a true Son — and “true” means nothing other than “from him” — how could he argue confidently from this? For if he is Son only by grace, then he is not only not “better than the angels,” but is even less than they. How? Because righteous men too were called sons; and the name “son,” unless he is a true-born son, does not suffice to show his “excellence.” And when he wants to point out that there is a certain difference between creatures and their maker, listen to what he says:

Verse 5: “For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me’?”

For these words are spoken with reference also to the flesh: “I will be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me.” But this — “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” — expresses nothing other than “from the time that God is.” For just as he is said to “be” from the present time (for this suits him more than anyone else), so also the word “today” seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For once he has taken hold of the flesh, from then on he speaks out everything boldly. Indeed, the flesh shares in the high sayings, just as his being God shares in the lowly ones. For he who did not disdain to become man, and did not refuse the reality, how would he have refused the words?

Since, then, we know these things, let us be ashamed of nothing, and let us have no proud thoughts. For if he himself, being God and Lord and Son of God, did not refuse to take the form of a slave, much more ought we to do everything, however lowly it may be. For tell me, my friend, where do your proud thoughts come from? From the things of this life? But these run past before they even appear. From spiritual things? But this itself is one spiritual excellence: to have no proud thoughts.

Why, then, do you nurse proud thoughts? Because you are living rightly? Listen to Christ saying, “When you have done all things, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what it was our duty to do’” (Luke 17, verse 10).

Or are you proud because of your wealth? Do you not see those who went before you, how they departed naked and desolate? Did we not come into life naked, and will we not also depart naked? Who is proud of having what belongs to another? For those who mean to use it for their own enjoyment alone are stripped of it, however unwilling — often before death, and at death certainly. But someone says: “While we live, we use these things as we like.” First of all, you do not easily see anyone using what he has as he likes. Next, even if someone does use things as he likes, that is no great thing either, for the present time is short compared with the endless ages.

Are you proud, my friend, because you are rich? On what account? For what reason? This befalls robbers too, and thieves, and murderers, and effeminate men, and the sexually immoral, and every kind of wicked person. Why, then, are you proud? If you have used it as you should, you must not be proud, or you will profane the commandment. But if you have used it wrongly, then by this very thing you have become a slave of money and goods and have been overcome by them. For tell me: if someone sick with a fever drinks a great deal of water, which quenches his thirst for a short while but afterward kindles the flame, ought he to be proud? And if someone has many cares for no reason, ought he to be proud of that? Tell me, why? Because you have many masters? Because you have ten thousand cares? Because many will flatter you? Surely not. For you are even their slave.

And to prove that to you, listen plainly. The other passions within us are useful in some cases. Anger, for instance, is often useful. For, it says, “unjust anger will not be held innocent” (Sirach 1, verse 22); so it is possible to be angry justly. And again, “Whoever is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to hell” (Matthew 5, verse 22). Again, desire and zeal are useful: desire when it has to do with having children, zeal when a person directs it toward excellent things. As Paul too says, “It is good to be zealous always in a good thing” (Galatians 4, verse 18), and, “Eagerly desire the best gifts” (First Corinthians 12, verse 31). So both are useful. But an arrogant spirit is good in no case; it is always useless and harmful.

But if a person must be proud, let it be of poverty, not of wealth. Why? Because the one who can live on little is far greater and better than the one who cannot. For tell me: suppose certain people are summoned to the imperial city. Some of them need no pack animals, no slaves, no sunshades, no lodgings, no sandals, no dishes; it is enough for them to have bread and to draw water from the wells. But others of them say: “Unless you give us carriages and a soft bed, we cannot come. Unless we also have many attendants, unless we are allowed to rest continually, we cannot come — nor unless we have the use of pack animals, and unless we travel only a small part of the day. And we need many other things too.” Which should we admire, those or these? Plainly, the ones who need nothing. So it is here too: some need many things for the journey through this life; others need nothing. So it would be more fitting to be proud of poverty, if it were fitting at all.

“But the poor man is contemptible.” Not he, but those who despise him. For why should I not despise those who do not know how to admire what they ought? Why, if someone is a painter, he will laugh at everyone who jeers at him, as long as they are untrained. He pays no attention to what they say, but is content with his own testimony. And shall we hang on the opinion of the many? So then, we deserve contempt when people despise us for our poverty and we do not despise them in turn and call them wretched.

And I am not saying how many sins come from wealth, and how many good things from poverty. Rather, neither wealth nor poverty is excellent in itself; it depends on those who use it. The Christian shines out in poverty more than in riches. How? He will be less arrogant, more self-controlled, more serious, fairer, more considerate; but the one who lives in wealth has many hindrances to these things. Let us see, then, what the rich man does — or rather, the one who misuses his wealth. Such a man practices plunder, fraud, violence. People’s shameful loves, unholy unions, witchcraft, poisonings, all their other horrors — will you not find them produced by wealth? Do you see that the pursuit of virtue costs less labor in poverty than in wealth?

For do not, I beg you, think that because rich men are not punished here, they do not sin. If it were easy for a rich man to be punished, you would surely have found the prisons full of them. But among its other evils, wealth has this one too: the one who has it, doing evil without being punished, will never be stopped from doing it. He will receive wounds with no remedy, and no one will put a bridle on him.

And if one is willing to look, he will find that poverty gives us more resources even for pleasure. How? Because it is free of cares, hatred, fighting, quarreling, strife — of evils without number.

So let us not chase after wealth, nor be forever envying those who have a great deal. Let those of us who have wealth use it rightly; and let those of us who do not, not grieve over it, but give thanks to God for everything, because he enables us with little labor to receive the same reward as the rich — or even, if we choose, a greater one. From small means we will have great gains. So it was that the man who brought the two talents was admired and honored just as much as the one who brought the five. Why? Because he was entrusted with only two talents, yet he did everything in his power and brought back what was entrusted to him doubled.

Why, then, are we eager to have much entrusted to us, when by a little we can reap the same fruits, or even greater ones — when the labor is less and the reward much more? For a poor man will part with what is his more easily than a rich man who has many great possessions. What, do you not know that the more a man has, the more he sets his love on it? So, so that this does not happen to us, let us not seek after wealth, nor be impatient with poverty, nor hurry to be rich. And let those of us who have riches use them as Paul commanded — “Those who have,” he says, “as though they had not, and those who use this world as not abusing it” (First Corinthians 7, verses 29 and 31) — so that we may obtain the good things promised. And may it be granted to us all to obtain them, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, and honor, now and always, and forever and ever. Amen.