The Unchangeable, Part 2

So he made his covenant with the patriarchs about Solomon? For before what is said about David, he mentioned the promises made to the patriarchs: “I have made a covenant with my chosen.” And he promised the patriarchs that in their seed he would bless all the nations. Please show me how the nations were blessed through Solomon. [a] Then God fulfilled this promise, not by means of Solomon, but by means of our Savior. So then, it was our Lord Christ who brought the promises made to David to their fulfillment. I hold that God made these promises either about Solomon or about Zerubbabel. A moment ago you were using the arguments of Marcion, of Valentinus and of Mani. Now you have gone over to the directly opposite camp and are pleading the shameless case of the Jews. This is just what happens to all who turn off a straight road: they wander and stray, first one way and then another, lost in a wilderness. [b] The apostle shuts slanderers out of the kingdom. Yes, if their abuse is groundless. The divine apostle himself sometimes uses this way of speaking when the occasion calls for it. He calls the Galatians “foolish.” Of others he says, “men of corrupt minds, disqualified where the faith is concerned.” And again of another group, “whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame,” and so on. [c] What reason did I give you for abuse? Do you really not think that willingly pleading the cause of the declared enemies of the truth gives the godly very reasonable grounds for indignation? And what enemies of the truth have I taken up? The Jews, just now. How so?

The Jews connect prophecies of this kind with Solomon and Zerubbabel, to show that the Christian position has no ground. But the words alone are quite enough to convict them of their wrongdoing, for it is written, “I will establish my throne forever.” Now not only have Solomon and Zerubbabel, to whom the Jews apply such prophecies, lived out their appointed time and reached the end of their lives, but the whole line of David has died out. For who has ever heard of anyone today descended from the root of David? [d] But are not the men called the Patriarchs of the Jews of the family of David? [e] Certainly not. Then where do they come from? From the foreigner Herod, who was from Ashkelon on his father’s side and an Idumean on his mother’s. But they too have all disappeared, and many years have gone by since their rule came to an end. Yet our Lord God promised not only to keep the seed of David forever, but to establish his kingdom so that it would never be destroyed. For he said, “I will build up my throne to all generations.” [f] But we see that his line is gone and his kingdom has come to an end. And though we see this, we know that the God of the universe is true. That God is true is plain. If, then, God is true, as in truth he is, and if he promised David that he would establish his line forever and keep his kingdom through all time, and if neither line nor kingdom is to be seen, since both have come to an end, how can we convince our opponents that God is true? I suppose, then, that the prophecy really points to the Lord Christ. If you confess this, let us look together at a passage in the middle of the psalm. Then we will see more clearly what the prophecy means. Lead on. I will follow in your footsteps with all reverence.

After making many promises about this seed, that it would be lord over both sea and land, be higher than the kings of the earth, be called God’s firstborn, and boldly call God Father, God added this as well: “My mercy I will keep for him forevermore, and my covenant will stand firm with him. His seed also I will make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” [g] The promise goes beyond the bounds of human nature, for both the life and the honor are indestructible and eternal. But men last only for a season. Their nature is short-lived, and their kingdom, even while it lasts, goes through many and varied changes of fortune. So truly the greatness of the prophecy fits no one but Christ the Savior. Go on, then, to what follows, and your opinion on this point will be confirmed in every way. For again the God of the universe says, “Once I have sworn by my holiness: I will not lie to David. His seed will endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It will be established forever, like the moon.” [h] Then, to show the truth of the promise, he adds, “And the witness in heaven is faithful.” We must believe without doubt the promises given by the faithful witness. If we usually believe men who have promised to tell the truth, even when they do not back their words with an oath, who could be so mad as to disbelieve the Creator of the universe when he adds an oath to his words? For he who forbids others to swear confirmed the unchangeableness of his purpose by an oath, “so that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to lay hold of the hope set before us.” [i] If, then, the promise cannot be overturned, and among the Jews there is now neither family nor kingdom of the prophet David to be seen, let us believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is plainly called the seed of David in his humanity. For in him the life and the kingdom are both alike eternal. We have no doubt, and I acknowledge this to be the truth.

These proofs, then, are enough to show clearly the humanity which our Lord and Savior took from the seed of David. But to remove every possibility of doubt by the witness of more voices, let us hear how God speaks of the promises given to David through the voice of the prophet Isaiah. “I will make,” he says, “an everlasting covenant with you,” and, pointing to the Lawgiver, he adds, “the sure mercies of David.” [j] Since he made this promise to David and spoke through Isaiah, he will surely bring the promise to pass. And what follows the prophecy agrees with what I say, for he says, “Look, I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Look, nations that do not know you will call on you, and peoples that do not understand you will run to you.” Now this fits none of those descended from David. For which of David’s descendants was made a ruler of nations, as Isaiah says? And what nations ever called on David’s descendants as God in their prayers? [k] It is not fitting to dispute about what is perfectly clear, and this plainly refers to the Lord Christ. Then let us pass on to another prophetic testimony, and hear the same prophet say, “A shoot will come out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch will grow out of his roots.” [l] I think this prophecy was spoken about Zerubbabel. If you hear what follows, you will not keep that opinion. The Jews have never understood this prediction in that way, for the prophet goes on, “And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.” No one would ever attribute this to a mere man. Even to the very holy, the gifts of the Spirit are given in portions, as the divine apostle testifies when he says, “To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit,” and so on. But the prophet describes the one who sprang from the root of Jesse as possessing all the powers of the Spirit. [m] To contradict this would be sheer folly.

Now hear what follows. You will see some things that go beyond human nature. He goes on, “He will not judge by what his eyes see, nor convict by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he will judge the poor, and with fairness he will convict the mighty of the earth. He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.” Now of these predictions some are human and some divine. Justice, truth, fairness and uprightness in giving judgment show virtue in human nature. [n] So far we have clearly learned that the prophet foretells the coming of Christ our Savior. What follows will show you still more plainly that this interpretation is true. For he goes on, “The wolf will live with the lamb,” and so on. By this he teaches at once the difference in ways of life and the harmony of faith. And experience proves the prediction true. Those who have great wealth and those who live in poverty, servants and masters, rulers and ruled, soldiers and citizens, and those who hold the scepter of the world, are received in one font. They are all taught one doctrine, they are all admitted to one table of the mysteries, and each of the believers enjoys an equal share. [o] This shows that God is the one spoken of. Not only God, but man. That is why, at the very beginning of this prediction, he says that a shoot will grow out of the root of Jesse. Then at the end of the prediction he takes up again the theme with which he began, for he says, “There will be a root of Jesse, which will stand as a banner for the people. The Gentiles will seek it, and his rest will be glorious.” Now Jesse was the father of David, and the promise with an oath was made to David. The prophet would not have spoken of the Lord Christ as a shoot growing out of Jesse if he had known him only as God. The prediction also foretold the change of the world, for “the earth,” he says, “will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” [p]

I have heard the words of the prophets. But I wanted to know clearly whether the divine company of the apostles also says that the Lord Christ sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh. What you ask for, far from being hard, is very easy to give you. Only listen to the first of the apostles crying out, “David, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him that from the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, foresaw this and spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, nor did his flesh see decay.” [q] From this you can see that the Lord Christ sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh, and had not only flesh but also a soul. What other apostle preached this? The great Peter alone was enough to bear witness to the truth, for when Peter alone had made his confession of the truth, the Lord confirmed it with a memorable word of approval. But since you want to hear others proclaiming the same thing, hear Paul and Barnabas preaching in Antioch of Pisidia. When they had made mention of David, they went on, “From this man’s seed God, according to his promise, has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,” and so on. And in a letter to Timothy the divine Paul says, “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my good news.” And when he writes to the Romans, at the very outset he draws attention to Christ’s kinship with David, for he says, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the good news of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and so on. [r] Your proofs are many and convincing. But tell me why you left out what follows. [s] Because your difficulty is not about the Godhead but about the humanity. If you had been in doubt about the Godhead, I would have given you proof of it. Even so, the words “according to the flesh” are enough to declare the Godhead, though it is not stated in so many words. When I speak of the descent of an ordinary man, I do not say “the son of so-and-so according to the flesh,” but simply “son.” So the divine evangelist, writing his genealogy, says, “Abraham fathered Isaac,” and does not add “according to the flesh,” for Isaac was merely a man. He names the rest in the same way, for they were men and had nothing that went beyond their nature. But when the heralds of the truth speak of our Lord Christ, and point out his lowlier descent to those who do not know it, they add the words “according to the flesh.” In this way they point to his Godhead and teach that the Lord Christ was not only man but also eternal God. [t]

You have brought many proofs from the apostles and the prophets, but I follow the words of the evangelist, “The Word was made flesh.” [u] I too follow this divine teaching, but I take it in a reverent sense: that he was made flesh by taking flesh and a rational soul. But if the divine Word took nothing of our nature, then the covenants the God of all made with the patriarchs under oath were not true, the blessing of Judah was empty, the promise to David was false, and the Virgin was unnecessary, since she contributed nothing of our nature to God made flesh. Then the predictions of the prophets have no fulfillment. Then our preaching is in vain, our faith is in vain, and the hope of the resurrection is in vain. For the apostle, it seems, is lying when he says, “and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” For if the Lord Christ had nothing of our nature, then he is falsely called our firstfruits. His bodily nature has not risen from the dead, and has not taken its seat in heaven at the right hand. And if he has obtained none of these things, how has God raised us up together and made us sit together with Christ, when we do not belong to him by nature in any way? But it is impious to say this. For the divine apostle, though the general resurrection has not yet taken place and the kingdom of heaven has not yet been given to the faithful, cries out, “He has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He says it to teach that, since the resurrection of our firstfruits and his sitting at the right hand have come to pass, we too will all attain the resurrection, and that all who share in his nature and have taken up his faith share also in the firstfruits of his glory. [v] We have gone through many sound arguments, but I wanted to know the force of the saying in the Gospel. You need no interpretation from outside. The evangelist interprets himself. For after saying, “The Word was made flesh,” he goes on, “and dwelt among us.” That is to say, he is said to have been made flesh by dwelling in us and using the flesh taken from us as a kind of temple. And to teach that he remained unchanged, the evangelist adds, “and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” For though he was clothed with flesh, he showed his Father’s nobility, sent out the beams of the Godhead, and gave off the radiance of the Lord’s power, revealing his hidden nature by his works of wonder. The divine apostle’s words to the Philippians give a similar illustration: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, took the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.” [w]

Look at how the sayings correspond. The evangelist says, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”; the apostle, “took the form of a servant.” The evangelist says, “We saw his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father”; the apostle, “who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God.” To put the matter briefly, both teach this. He who was God and Son of God, clothed with his Father’s glory, having the same nature and power as the one who begot him, who was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God, and was the Creator of the world, took the form of a servant. And it seemed that this was all there was to see; but it was God clothed in human nature, working out the salvation of men. This is what is meant by “The Word was made flesh,” and by “was made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man.” This was all the Jews looked at, and that is why they said to him, “We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God,” and again, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath day.” [x] The Jews were blind because of their unbelief, and that is why they used these words. If you find even the apostles, before the resurrection, saying the same thing, will you accept the interpretation? I hear them in the boat, after the great miracle of the calm, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” [y] This is made plain. But now tell me this: the divine apostle says that he “was made in the likeness of man.” What he took was not man’s likeness but man’s nature. For “the form of a servant” is understood in the same way that “the form of God” is understood to mean God’s nature. He took this, and so was made in the likeness of man and was found in appearance as a man. For, being God, he seemed to be man because of the nature he took. The evangelist, however, speaks of his being made in the likeness of man as his being made flesh. But so that you may know that those who deny the flesh of the Savior are of the opposite spirit, hear the great John in his general letter saying, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist.” [z]

You have given a persuasive interpretation, but I wanted to know how the old teachers of the church have understood the passage, “The Word was made flesh.” You ought to have been persuaded by the proofs from the apostles and the prophets. But since you also require the interpretations of the holy fathers, I will furnish you, with God’s help, with this medicine too. Do not bring me men of obscure standing or doubtful teaching. I will not accept the interpretation of men like that. Does the far-famed Athanasius, the brightest light of the church of Alexandria, seem to you worthy of belief? Certainly, for he confirmed his teaching by what he suffered for the truth’s sake. Then hear how he wrote to Epictetus: “John’s expression, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, so far as can be learned from the similar passage we find in Saint Paul, ‘Christ was made a curse for us.’ It is not because he was made a curse, but because he received the curse on our behalf, that he is said to have been made a curse. In the same way, it is not because he was turned into flesh, but because he took flesh on our behalf, that he is said to have been made flesh.” So far the divine Athanasius. Gregory too, whose glory is great among all men, who once governed the imperial city at the mouth of the Bosporus and afterward lived at Nazianzus, wrote as follows to Cledonius against the plausible fallacies of Apollinarius. [aa] He was a famous man and a foremost fighter in the cause of true religion. Then hear him. He says: “The expression ‘He was made flesh’ seems to be parallel to his being said to have been made sin and a curse. It is not that the Lord was changed into these (for how could he be?), but that he accepted them when he took our wrongdoings on himself and bore our weaknesses.” [ac] The two interpretations agree.

We have shown you the shepherds of the south and of the north in harmony. Now let us bring in the famous teachers of the west too, who have written their interpretation in another language, but with one and the same mind. [ad] I am told that Ambrose, who adorned the bishop’s throne at Milan, fought in the front ranks against every heresy, and wrote works of great beauty that agree with the teaching of the apostles. I will give you his interpretation. Ambrose says in his work on the faith: “It is written that the Word was made flesh. I do not deny that it is written. But look at the terms used, for there follows ‘and dwelt among us,’ that is to say, dwelt in human flesh. Are you astonished, then, at the terms in which it is written that the Word was made flesh, when flesh was taken by the divine Word? For of sin too, which he did not have, it is said that he was made sin. That is, not that he was made the nature and working of sin, but that he might crucify our sin in the flesh. So let them stop asserting that the nature of the Word has undergone change and alteration. For he who took is one thing, and what was taken is another.” [ae] Now it is fitting that you should hear the teachers of the east, since this is the only quarter of the world we have so far left out. They might well have been the first to bear witness to the truth, for the teaching of the apostles was imparted to them first. But since you have sharpened your tongues against the firstborn sons of true religion, whetting them on the stone of falsehood, we have kept the last place for them. So, after hearing the rest first, you may set witness beside witness, and both admire their harmony and stop your own endless talk. Listen, then, to Flavian, who for a long time very wisely steered the church of Antioch, and who brought the churches he guided safely through the Arian storm by expounding to them the word of the gospel: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. He was not turned into flesh, nor did he cease to be God, for this he was from all eternity. He became flesh in the plan of the incarnation, after building his own temple himself and taking up his dwelling in the creature that is capable of suffering.” And if you want to hear the ancient teachers of Palestine, lend your ears to the admirable Gelasius, who worked the field of the church of Caesarea like a diligent farmer. These are his words in his sermon on the feast of the Lord’s Epiphany: “Learn the truth from the words of John the fisherman: ‘And the Word was made flesh.’ He did not himself undergo change, but took up his dwelling with us. The dwelling is one thing, and the Word another. The temple is one thing, and God who dwells in it another.” [af] I am greatly struck by the agreement.

Now do you not suppose that the rule of the apostolic faith was kept by John, who first nobly watered the field of the church of Antioch, and then wisely farmed the field of the church of the imperial city? [ah] I hold this teacher to be admirable in every respect. Well, this most excellent man has interpreted this passage of the Gospel. He writes: “When you hear that the Word was made flesh, do not be startled or dismayed. For the substance did not sink down into flesh (an idea of the utmost impiety), but, continuing to be just what it is, it took the form of a servant. When the apostle says, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,’ he does not say that the substance of Christ left its own glory and took on the substance of a curse. Not even demons would imagine that, nor the utterly senseless, nor those born without wits, so close is the link between impiety and madness. What he does say is this: that after receiving the curse due to us, he does not allow us to be cursed any longer. It is in this sense that he is said to have been made flesh: not because he changed his substance into flesh, but because he took flesh, while his substance remained all the while unimpaired.” You may like to hear Severian, bishop of Gabala, as well. If so, I will bring forward his testimony, and you lend your ears. [ai] “The text ‘The Word was made flesh’ does not indicate a lowering of his nature but the taking of our nature. Suppose you take the words ‘was made’ to indicate a change. Then when you hear Paul saying, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,’ do you take him to mean a change into the nature of a curse? Just as being made a curse meant nothing else than that he took our curse on himself, so the words ‘was made flesh and dwelt among us’ mean nothing else than the taking of flesh.” I admire the exact agreement of these men. They are as unanimous in giving the same interpretations of the Gospel writings as if they had met in one place and written down their opinion together.

Mountains and seas set them very far apart from one another, yet distance does no harm to their harmony, for they were all inspired by the same gift of the Spirit. I would also have offered you the interpretations of Diodorus and Theodore, those victorious champions of true religion, had I not seen that you were ill-disposed toward them and had inherited the hostility of Apollinarius. You would have seen that they said similar things, drawing water from the divine spring and becoming streams of the Spirit themselves. But I will pass them by, since you have declared a war without truce against them. I will, however, show you the famous teacher of the church and his mind about the divine incarnation, so that you may know what he held about the nature that was taken. You have no doubt heard of the famous Ignatius, who received the grace of a bishop by the hand of the great Peter, and who, after governing the church of Antioch, wore the crown of martyrdom. You have heard too of Irenaeus, who enjoyed the teaching of Polycarp and became a light of the western Gauls; of Hippolytus and Methodius, bishops and martyrs; and of the rest, whose names I will set beside their statements. [aj] I am very eager to hear their testimony too. Then hear them now as they bring forward the apostolic teaching.

The testimony of Saint Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr. From the Letter to the Smyrnaeans: “Being fully persuaded about our Lord, that he is truly of the family of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to Godhead and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John so that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, truly crucified for our sake in the flesh in the time of Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch.” [al] From the same writer, in the same letter: “For what good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord, by not confessing that he bore flesh? Whoever does not confess this has truly denied him, and is himself a bearer of a corpse.” [am] From the same writer, from the same letter: “For if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then it is only in appearance that I am a prisoner in chains. And why have I handed myself over to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near the sword is near God. Only in the name of Jesus Christ, so that I may share his sufferings, I endure all things, while he, the perfect man, whom some in their ignorance deny, gives me strength.” [an]

From the same writer, in the Letter to the Ephesians: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was carried in the womb of Mary by God’s plan, of the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. He was born and was baptized so that our mortality might be purified.” [ao] From the same letter: “If you all, one by one, come together in grace, each by name, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who according to the flesh was of David’s family, Son of God and Son of man.” [ap] From the same writer, from the same letter: “There is one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and of God, first capable of suffering and then incapable of suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord.” [aq] Lastly, from the same writer, in his Letter to the Trallians: “So be deaf when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of David’s family and of Mary, who was truly born, and truly ate and drank, was persecuted in the time of Pontius Pilate, was crucified and died, while beings on earth, beings in heaven, and beings under the earth looked on.” [ar]

The testimony of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the third book of his work Against Heresies: “Why, then, did they add the words ‘in the city of David,’ except to announce the good news that God’s promise to David had been fulfilled, that an everlasting king would come from the fruit of his loins? This is the promise which the Creator of the world had indeed made.” [as] From the same writer, from the same book: “And when he says, ‘Hear now, O house of David,’ he means that the everlasting King whom God promised David he would raise up from his body is the one who was born of the Virgin of David’s line.” [at] From the same writer, from the same book: “If, then, the first Adam had had a man for his father and had been begotten of seed, it would be reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the first was taken from the earth, and God was his maker, then the one who renews in himself the man God made had also to have the same likeness of birth as that first man. Why, then, did God not take dust again? Why, instead, did he arrange that the forming should be made from Mary? So that there should be no other creation, and what was being saved should be no other thing, but that the first man himself should be renewed, the likeness being kept. So those too fall away who say that he took nothing from the Virgin, so that they may reject the inheritance of the flesh and cast away the likeness.”

From the same writer, from the same book: “For then his coming down into Mary is useless. Why did he come down into her, if he meant to take nothing from her? And further, if he had taken nothing from Mary, he would not have taken the food that comes from the earth, by which the body taken from the earth is nourished. Nor, after fasting forty days like Moses and Elijah, would he have been hungry, his body demanding its own food. Nor would John his disciple, writing about him, have said, ‘Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down.’ Nor would David have spoken the prediction about him, ‘And they added to the pain of my wounds.’ Nor would he have wept over Lazarus, nor sweated drops of blood, nor said, ‘My soul is very sorrowful.’ Nor, when he was pierced, would blood and water have come out of his side. For all these things are proofs of the flesh taken from the earth, which he renewed in himself in saving his own creature.” [au] From the same writer, from the same book: “For as by the disobedience of the one man, who was first formed from untilled earth, the many were made sinners and lost their life, so too it was fitting that through the obedience of one man, the firstborn of a virgin, many should be made righteous and receive their salvation.” [av] From the same writer, from the same work: “‘I have said, You are gods, and all of you children of the Most High; but you will die like men.’ He says this to those who did not accept the gift of adoption, but dishonor the incarnation of the pure birth of the Word of God, rob man of his ascent to God, and are ungrateful to the Word of God, who was made flesh for their sakes. For this is why the Word was made man: so that man, receiving the Word and accepting the adoption, might be made a son of God.” [aw] From the same writer, from the same book: “Since, then, because of the plan foreordained, the Spirit came down, and the only Son of God, who is also the Word of the Father, when the fullness of time had come, was made flesh in man, and our Lord Jesus Christ, being one and the same, carried out the whole human plan of salvation, as the Lord himself testifies and the apostles confess, all the teachings of the men who invented the ogdoads and the tetrads and the likenesses are plainly proved false.” [ax]

The testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his sermon on “The Lord is my shepherd”: “And the Savior himself was an ark made of wood that does not decay. For the incorruptibility and indestructibility of his tabernacle showed that it bred no corruption of sin. For the sinner who confesses his sin says, ‘My wounds stink and fester because of my foolishness.’ But the Lord was without sin, made in his human nature of wood that does not decay, that is to say, of the Virgin and of the Holy Spirit, overlaid, as it were, inside and out with the purest gold of the Word of God.” [ay] From the same writer, from his sermon on Elkanah and Hannah: “Bring me, then, O Samuel, the heifer led to Bethlehem, so that you may show the King born of David, the one anointed King and Priest by the Father.” [az] From the same sermon: “Tell me, O blessed Mary, what was it that was conceived by you in the womb? What was it that you carried in a virgin’s womb? It was the Word of God, the firstborn from heaven, coming down on you, and the firstborn man being formed in a womb, so that the firstborn Word of God might be shown united to a firstborn man.” From the same sermon: “The second, which was through the prophets, as through Samuel, he revokes, and he turns his people from slavery to foreigners. The third, in which he took humanity from the Virgin and was present in the flesh; who, when he saw the city, wept over it.” [ba] From the same writer, from his sermon on the beginning of Isaiah: “He likens the world to Egypt, its idolatry to images, and its removal and destruction to an earthquake. He calls the Word ‘Lord,’ and by a ‘swift cloud’ he means the perfectly pure tabernacle, enthroned on which our Lord Jesus Christ entered into life to undo the fall.” [bb]

The testimony of the holy Methodius, bishop and martyr, from his sermon on the martyrs: “So wonderful and so precious is martyrdom that our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God, bore witness in its honor that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God, so that he might crown with this grace the humanity into which he had come down.” [bc] The testimony of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor, from his interpretation of the sixteenth Psalm: [bd] “The soul of Jesus experienced both. For it was in the place of the souls of men, and, having come to be without the flesh, it lives and survives. So it is rational, and of one substance with the souls of men, just as the flesh, coming forth from Mary, is of one substance with the flesh of men.”