He Made Him Lord and Christ

The same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which they also bring forward, where Peter says, “He has made both Lord and Christ this same Jesus whom you have crucified.” For here too it is not written, ‘He made for himself a Son,’ or ‘He made himself a Word,’ that they should have such notions. If, then, they have not forgotten that they are speaking about the Son of God, let them search whether it is written anywhere, ‘God made himself a Son,’ or ‘He created for himself a Word’; or again, whether it is written anywhere in plain terms, ‘The Word is a work or a creature.’ Then let them go on to make their case, senseless men, so that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing of the kind, and only snatch at stray expressions such as ‘He made’ and ‘He has been made,’ I fear that, from hearing “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,” and “He made the sun and the moon,” and “He made the sea,” they may in time come to call the Word the heaven, and the light that came to be on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made. So they would end up like the Stoics, as they are called: the Stoics stretch their God out into all things, and these men rank God’s Word with each single work. Indeed, they have nearly done so already, by saying that he is one of his works. [a]

But here they must be given the same answer as before. First they must be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above, and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood of his Godhead; rather, the reason and manner of them must be looked into. To those who look into it in this way, the plan of salvation that he took on as man for our sake will plainly present itself. For Peter, after saying, ‘He has made him Lord and Christ,’ immediately added, ‘this Jesus whom you crucified.’ This makes it plain to anyone, even to them perhaps, if they pay attention to the context, that it is not the substance of the Word, but he as man, who is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body? And how could what was bodily in the Word be signified except by saying ‘He made’? That phrase ‘He made’ especially has a meaning consistent with orthodoxy, because, as I observed before, Peter has not said, ‘He made him Word,’ but ‘He made him Lord.’ Nor did he say it in general terms, but ‘toward’ us and ‘in the midst of’ us, as much as to say, ‘He showed him.’ Peter himself expressed this carefully when he began this first teaching, saying to them, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man shown to you by God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” So the term he uses at the end, ‘made,’ he has explained at the beginning by ‘shown.’ For by the signs and wonders the Lord did, he was shown to be not merely a man, but God in a body, and also Lord, the Christ. Of the same kind is the passage in the Gospel according to John: “This is why the Jews persecuted him all the more, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his own Father, making himself equal with God.” For the Lord did not then fashion himself into God, nor can a made God even be conceived. He showed it by his works, saying, “Even if you do not believe me, believe my works, so that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” So the Father has ‘made’ him Lord and King in our midst, and toward us who were once disobedient. And it is plain that he who is now displayed as Lord and King does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to show his lordship and to extend it even over the disobedient. [d]

If, then, they suppose that the Savior was not Lord and King even before he became man and endured the cross, but began to be Lord only then, let them know that they are openly reviving the teaching of the man from Samosata. But he is Lord and King everlasting, as we have quoted and declared above. Abraham worships him as Lord; Moses says, “Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and on Gomorrah from the Lord out of heaven”; and David says in the Psalms, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,” and, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom,” and, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.” If so, it is plain that even before he became man he was King and Lord everlasting, being the Image and Word of the Father. And since the Word is everlasting Lord and King, it is again very plain that Peter did not say that the substance of the Son was made. He spoke of his lordship over us, which ‘came to be’ when he became man, and, redeeming all by the cross, became Lord of all and King. But suppose they keep up the argument on the ground that it is written ‘He made,’ and refuse to take ‘He made’ in the sense of ‘He showed,’ whether from lack of understanding or from their purpose of opposing Christ. Then let them attend to another sound explanation of Peter’s words. Whoever becomes lord of others takes possession of beings that already exist. But if the Lord is the Maker of all and King everlasting, and only when he became man gained possession of us, then here too is a way in which Peter’s words plainly do not mean that the substance of the Word is a work. They mean the later subjection of all things, and the Savior’s lordship that came to be over all. And this agrees with what we said before. For then we brought in the words “Become my God and defender,” and “The Lord became a refuge for the oppressed,” and it stood to reason that these expressions do not show that God is originated, but that his kindness ‘becomes’ such toward each person. Peter’s expression has the same sense. [g]

For the Son of God, being himself the Word, is Lord of all. But we were from the first subject to the slavery of corruption and the curse of the law. Then, little by little, we made for ourselves things that did not exist, and served, as the blessed apostle says, “those who by nature are not gods.” Not knowing the true God, we preferred things that did not exist to the truth. But afterwards, as the people of old groaned when they were oppressed in Egypt, so we too, when we had the law ‘implanted’ in us, made our plea with the Spirit’s groanings too deep for words: “O Lord our God, take possession of us.” Then, as he ‘became a house of refuge’ and a ‘God and defender,’ so also he became our Lord. Nor did he begin to exist then; rather, we began to have him as our Lord. For at this, God, being good and the Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes his own Son put on a human body and become man and be called Jesus, so that, offering himself for all in this body, he might rescue all from false worship and corruption, and might himself become Lord and King of all. His becoming Lord and King in this way is what Peter means by ‘He has made him Lord’ and ‘has sent Christ.’ It is as much as to say that the Father, in making him man (for to be made belongs to man), did not simply make him man, but made him so that he might be Lord of all men, and might make all holy through the anointing. For though the Word, existing in the form of God, took a servant’s form, yet taking on the flesh did not make a servant of the Word, who was Lord by nature. Rather, not only was it the setting free of all humanity, which takes place through the Word, but the very Word who was Lord by nature, and was then made man, has by means of a servant’s form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, so as to make all holy by the Spirit. And God, when he ‘becomes a God and defender,’ and says, ‘I will be a God to them,’ does not then become God any more than before, nor does he then begin to be God; but what he always is, he then becomes to those who need him, when it pleases him. In the same way Christ, being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become more Lord than he was at the time he is sent out, nor does he then begin to be Lord and King. What he always is, that he is then made according to the flesh; and having redeemed all, he thereby becomes again Lord of the living and the dead. For from then on all things serve him, and this is David’s meaning in the Psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than him who is Lord by nature. Otherwise, though created by the Son, we might name another as Lord, and fall into the folly of the Arians and the Greeks, serving the creature rather than the God who created all. [j]

This, at least as far as my littleness can see, is the meaning of this passage. Moreover, these words of Peter have a true and good meaning with regard to the Jews. For the Jews, having strayed from the truth, do expect the Christ to come, but do not reckon on his suffering, saying what they do not understand: “We know that when the Christ comes he remains forever; so how can you say that he must be lifted up?” Next, they suppose him to be, not the Word coming in the flesh, but a mere man, as all the kings were. So the Lord, correcting Cleopas and the other disciple, taught them that the Christ must first suffer; and he taught the rest of the Jews that God had come among them, saying, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” [n]

Peter, then, having learned this from the Savior, set the Jews right on both points, saying: “Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that the Christ is coming, and you think of him as a mere man, one of David’s descendants. But what is written of him shows him to be not such as you say; rather it announces him as Lord and God, and immortal, and the giver of life. For Moses has said, ‘You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes.’ And David says in the hundred and ninth Psalm, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’; and in the fifteenth, ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption.’ Now David himself bears witness that these passages are not aimed at David, when he declares that the one who was coming was his own Lord. Indeed, you yourselves know that David is dead, and his remains are with you. [p]

“That the Christ must be such as the Scriptures say, then, you will plainly admit yourselves. For those announcements come from God, and there can be no falsehood in them. If, then, you can say that such a one has come before, and can prove him to be God from the signs and wonders he did, you have reason to keep up the dispute. But if you cannot prove his coming, and are still expecting such a one, learn the true time from Daniel, for his words refer to the present time. But if this present time is the one announced long ago, and you have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus whom you crucified is the expected Christ.

“For David and all the prophets died, and the tombs of all of them are with you. But the resurrection that has now taken place has shown that these passages are aimed at Jesus. For the crucifixion is meant by ‘You shall see your Life hanging,’ and the wound in the side by the spear answers to ‘He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.’ And the resurrection, and more than that, the rising of the dead of long ago out of their tombs (for most of you have seen them), is ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades,’ and ‘He swallowed up death in strength,’ and again, ‘God will wipe away.’ For the signs that actually took place show that he who was in a body was God, and also the Life and the Lord of death. For it was fitting that the Christ, when giving life to others, should not himself be held by death. But this could not have happened if he had been, as you suppose, a mere man. But in truth he is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death.

“So let no one doubt, but let the whole house of Israel know for certain that this Jesus, whom you saw in the shape of a man, doing signs and such works as no one had ever yet done, is himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though he was made man and called Jesus, as we said before, he suffered no loss by that human suffering; rather, in being made man he is shown to be Lord of the living and the dead. For as the apostle said, ‘Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.’

“And so, since we men would not acknowledge God through his Word, nor serve the Word of God, our natural Master, it pleased God to show his own lordship in man, and so to draw all men to himself. But to do this through a mere man was not fitting, lest, having a man for our Lord, we should become worshipers of man. Therefore the Word himself became flesh, and the Father called his name Jesus, and so ‘made’ him Lord and Christ. It is as much as to say, ‘He made him to rule and to reign,’ so that while every knee bows at the name of Jesus, whom you crucified, we may acknowledge both the Son, and through him the Father, as Lord and King.”

Most of the Jews, then, hearing this, came to themselves and at once acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But the Ario-maniacs, on the contrary, choose to remain Jews and to argue with Peter. So let us go on to set before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may have some effect on them to find what the usage of divine Scripture is. That Christ is everlasting Lord and King has become plain from what has gone before, and there is no one who doubts it. For being the Son of God, he must be like him; and being like him, he is certainly both Lord and King, for he says himself, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” On the other hand, that Peter’s bare words, ‘He has made him both Lord and Christ,’ do not imply that the Son is a creature can be seen from Isaac’s blessing, though this illustration is only a faint one for our subject. He said to Jacob, “Become lord over your brother,” and to Esau, “See, I have made him your lord.” Now even if the word ‘made’ had meant Jacob’s substance and his coming into being, it still would not be right for them so much as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature, as Jacob was. Besides, they might look into it and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do not take it of Jacob’s substance or of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature a creature and a work, is not their madness worse than the devil’s? For what they dare not ascribe, on the strength of a like phrase, even to things that by nature are originated, they attach to the Son of God, saying that he is a creature. For Isaac said ‘Become’ and ‘I have made,’ meaning neither Jacob’s coming into being nor his substance (for he said this more than thirty years after Jacob’s birth), but his authority over his brother, which came about later. [v]

Much more, then, did Peter say this without meaning that the substance of the Word was a work. For he knew him to be God’s Son, having confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He meant his kingdom and lordship, which was formed and came to be by grace, and in relation to us. For while saying this he was not silent about the everlasting Godhead of the Son of God, which is the Father’s. He had already said that he had poured out the Spirit on us; and to give the Spirit with authority is not in the power of a creature or a work, for the Spirit is God’s gift. The creatures are made holy by the Holy Spirit. But the Son is not made holy by the Spirit; on the contrary, he is himself the Giver of it to all, and is therefore no creature, but the true Son of the Father. And yet he who gives the Spirit is the same who is said to be made: that is, made Lord among us because of his manhood, while giving the Spirit because he is God’s Word. For he always was and is, as Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like the Father in all things, and having all that is the Father’s, as he himself has said. [y]