The Word and the Son Are One

Such absurdities follow from saying that the Monad is widened into a Triad. But those who say this also venture to separate the Word and the Son. They say that the Word is one and the Son another, and that first there was the Word and then the Son. Come, then, let us examine this teaching too. Their presumption takes various forms. Some say that the man whom the Savior took on is the Son. Others say that both the man and the Word became Son at the time when they were united. And others say that the Word himself became Son when he became man: from being Word, they say, he has become Son, not being Son before, but only Word. Now both are Stoic teachings, whether to say that God was widened or to deny the Son. But it is especially absurd to name the Word and yet deny that he is Son. If the Word were not from God, they might reasonably deny that he is Son. But if he is from God, how do they not see that whatever exists from something is son of the one it is from? Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is the Word not Son of his own Father? For a person is, and is called, father when the son is his; and a person is, and is called, son of another when the father is his. If, then, God is not Father of Christ, neither is the Word Son. But if God is Father, then the Word is reasonably Son as well. But to say that the Father comes afterward, and God first, is an Arian thought. Next, it is absurd that God should change, for change belongs to bodies. And if they argue that in the case of creation he became a Maker afterward, let them know that the change is in the things that came to be afterward, and not in God. [a]

If, then, the Son too were a work, God might well begin to be a Father toward him, as toward others. But if the Son is not a work, then the Father always was, and the Son always was. And if the Son always was, he must be the Word. For if the Word is not Son, and someone is bold enough to say so, then he holds either that the Word is the Father or that the Son is superior to the Word. For the Son is “in the bosom of the Father.” So of necessity either the Word is not before the Son, since nothing is before him who is in the Father; or, if the Word is other than the Son, the Word must be the Father, in whom the Son is. But if the Word is not Father but Word, the Word must be outside the Father, since it is the Son who is “in the bosom of the Father.” For the Word and the Son are not both in the bosom. One must be, and he is the Son, who is the only Son. And there is another reason it follows, if the Word is one and the Son another, that the Son is superior to the Word. For “no one knows the Father except the Son,” not the Word. Either, then, the Word does not know, or, if he knows, it is not true that “no one knows.” The same holds for “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” and “I and the Father are one.” These are spoken by the Son, not by the Word as they would have it, as is plain from the Gospel. For according to John, when the Lord said, “I and the Father are one,” the Jews took up stones to stone him. “Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘We are not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”? 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 consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.’” And yet, as far as the surface of the words went, he said neither “I am God” nor “I am the Son of God,” but “I and the Father are one.” [c] When the Jews heard “one,” they thought, as Sabellius did, that he was saying he was the Father. But our Savior shows them their sin by this argument: “Even if I had said ‘God,’ you should have remembered what is written, ‘I said, you are gods.’” Then, to clear up “I and the Father are one,” he explained the Son’s oneness with the Father in the words, “Because I said, I am the Son of God.” For even if he did not say it in so many words, he has still referred the sense of “are one” to the Son. Nothing is one with the Father except what is from him. And what is from him but the Son? That is why he adds, “so that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” For in explaining the “one,” he said that the union and the inseparability lay, not in this one being that one with which it was one, but in his being in the Father and the Father in the Son. In this way he overthrows both Sabellius, by saying not “I am the Father” but “I am the Son of God,” and Arius, by saying “are one.” If, then, the Son and the Word are not the same, it is not the Word that is one with the Father, but the Son; and it is not whoever has seen the Word who “has seen the Father,” but whoever has seen the Son. From this it follows either that the Son is greater than the Word, or that the Word has nothing beyond the Son. For what can be greater or more perfect than “one,” and “I in the Father and the Father in me,” and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”? For these sayings too belong to the Son. And so the same John says, “Whoever has seen me has seen him who sent me,” and, “Whoever receives me receives him who sent me,” and, “I have come as a light into the world, so that whoever believes in me should not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The word that he will hear, that will judge him on the last day, because I go to the Father.” The preaching, he says, judges the one who has not kept the commandment. “For if,” he says, “I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse,” since they have heard my words, through which those who keep them will reap salvation. [f]

Perhaps they will be shameless enough to say that this saying belongs not to the Son but to the Word. But from what came before it was plain that the speaker was the Son. For the one who says here, “I did not come to judge the world but to save it,” is shown to be no other than the only Son of God by what the same John said earlier: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned; but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the condemnation: that light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” If the one who says, “For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it,” is the same as the one who says, “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me,” and if the one who came to save the world and not to judge it is the only Son of God, then it is plain that it is the same Son who says, “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me.” For the one who said, “Whoever believes in me,” and, “If anyone hears my words, I do not judge him,” is the Son himself, of whom Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned; but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” And again: “And this is the condemnation” of the one who does not believe in the Son, “that light has come into the world,” and they did not believe in him, that is, in the Son. For he must be “the Light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world.” And as long as he was on earth in his incarnation, he was Light in the world, as he said himself: “While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may be children of light.” For “I,” he says, “have come as a light into the world.” [i]

Since this has been shown, it follows that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light that has come into the world, then beyond all dispute the world was made through the Son. For at the beginning of the Gospel, the evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, “He was not that Light, but came to bear witness to that Light.” For Christ himself was, as we have said before, the true Light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world. For if “he was in the world, and the world was made through him,” then of necessity he is the Word of God, of whom the evangelist also bears witness that all things were made through him. Either they will be forced to speak of two worlds, so that one came into being through the Son and the other through the Word; or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that the Son and the Word are one and the same, before all creation, since the creation came into being through him. Therefore, if all things came to be through the Son just as through the Word, it is not contradictory, but the very same thing, to say, for instance, “In the beginning was the Word,” or, “In the beginning was the Son.” But if, because John did not say, “In the beginning was the Son,” they insist that what belongs to the Word does not fit the Son, then it at once follows that what belongs to the Son does not fit the Word. But it has been shown that “I and the Father are one” belongs to the Son, and that it is he “who is in the bosom of the Father,” and he who says, “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me”; and that “the world came into being through him” is common to the Word and the Son. So from this the Son is shown to be before the world, for of necessity the one who framed it is before the things that came into being. And what was said to Philip must belong, on their view, not to the Word but to the Son. For Scripture says: “Jesus said, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How then can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me, he does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do, and he will do greater works than these, because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.’” Therefore, if the Father is glorified in the Son, the Son must be the one who said, “I in the Father and the Father in me,” and who said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” For the same one who spoke in this way shows himself to be the Son by adding, “so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” [k]

Suppose, then, they say that the man whom the Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of God, the only Son. Then the man must be the one who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is. The man must be the one who is one with the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and who is the true Light. And they will be forced to say that the world came into being through the man himself, and that the man was the one who came not to judge the world but to save it, and that it was he who existed before Abraham came to be. For Scripture says that Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came from the seed of Abraham after forty-two generations existed before Abraham came to be? If the flesh that the Word bore is itself the Son, is it not absurd to say that the flesh from Mary is that through which the world was made? And how will they keep “He was in the world”? For the evangelist, to show that the Son existed before his birth in the flesh, goes on to say, “He was in the world.” And if not the Word but the man is the Son, how can he save the world, being himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where will the Word be, when the man is in the Father? And where will the Word stand in relation to the Father, when the man and the Father are one? But if the man is the only Son, what place will the Word have? One must say either that he comes second, or, if he is above the only Son, that he is the Father himself. For as the Father is one, so also the only Son from him is one. And what does the Word have above the man, if the Word is not the Son? For while Scripture says that the world was brought into being through the Son and through the Word, and framing the world is common to the Word and the Son, still Scripture goes on to place the seeing of the Father not in the Word but in the Son, and to credit the saving of the world not to the Word but to the only Son. For it says that Jesus said, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son; nor that the Word sees the Father, but the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father. [m]

And what more does the Word contribute to our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is one and the Word another? For the command is that we should believe, not in the Word, but in the Son. John says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever does not believe the Son will not see life.” And holy baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If, then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, baptism has no connection with the Word. How, then, can they hold that the Word is with the Father, when he is not with him in the giving of baptism? But perhaps they will say that the Word is included in the Father’s name? Then why not the Spirit too? Or is the Spirit outside the Father? And is the man, if the Word is not Son, named after the Father, but the Spirit after the man? And then the Monad, instead of widening into a Triad, widens according to them into a Tetrad: Father, Word, Son, and Holy Spirit. Put to shame on this ground, they turn to another. They say that the Son is not the man by himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the man; for both joined together are called Son, as they say. Which, then, is the cause of which? And which has made which a Son? Or, to put it more clearly: is the Word a Son because of the flesh? Or is the flesh called Son because of the Word? Or is neither the cause, but the coming together of the two? If the Word is a Son because of the flesh, then of necessity the flesh is Son, and all the absurdities already drawn from saying that the man is Son follow. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then certainly the Word, being such, was Son even before the flesh. For how could a being make others sons when he was not himself a son, especially when there was a father? If, then, he makes sons for himself, then he himself is Father. But if he makes them for the Father, then he must be Son, or rather that Son because of whom the rest are made sons. [n] For if, while he is not Son, we are sons, then God is our Father and not his. How, then, does he claim the name for himself instead, saying, “My Father,” and “I came from the Father”? For if God is the common Father of all, he is not his Father only, nor did he alone come out from the Father. But he says that God is sometimes called our Father too, because he himself has become a sharer in our flesh. For this is why the Word has become flesh: since the Word is Son, God may be called our Father too, because of the Son dwelling in us. For Scripture says, “He sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father.’” So the Son in us, calling on his own Father, causes him to be named our Father too. Surely God cannot be called the Father of those in whose hearts the Son is not. But if the man is called Son because of the Word, then, since the people of old are called sons even before the Word became man, it follows necessarily that the Word is Son even before he came to dwell among us. For Scripture says, “I have begotten sons”; and in the time of Noah, “When the sons of God saw”; and in the Song, “Is not he your Father?” Therefore there was also that true Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the coming together of the two, it follows that neither is Son. I mean neither the Word nor the man, but some cause on account of which they were united. And so that cause which makes the Son will come before the uniting. So in this way too the Son was before the flesh. When this is pressed, they will take refuge in another pretext. They say that neither the man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was simply Word in the beginning, and that when he became man, he was then named Son. Before his appearing, they say, he was not Son but only Word; and as “the Word became flesh,” not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before. Such is their idle talk, but it admits of an obvious refutation. [o]

For if he simply became Son when he was made man, then becoming man is the cause. And if the man is the cause of his being Son, or both together, the same absurdities follow. Next, if he is first Word and then Son, it will appear that he came to know the Father afterward and not before. For he does not know him as Word, but as Son: “No one knows the Father except the Son.” And this too will follow: that he came afterward to be “in the bosom of the Father,” and that afterward he and the Father became one, and that “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” came afterward. For all these things are said of the Son. So they will be forced to say that the Word was nothing but a name. For it is not he who is in us with the Father; nor has whoever has seen the Word seen the Father; nor was the Father known to anyone at all. For the Father is known through the Son, as it is written, “and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”; and since the Word was not yet Son, no one yet knew the Father. How, then, was he seen by Moses, and how by the fathers? For he says himself in the books of Kingdoms, “Did I not plainly reveal myself to the house of your father?” But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal him, as he says himself, “and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” It is irreverent, then, and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and it would be well to ask them where they got such an idea. They answer: because the Old Testament makes no mention of the Son, but only of the Word. And for this reason they are positive in their opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because he is spoken of not in the Old but only in the New. This is what they irreverently say. For, first, to separate the two Testaments, so that the one does not agree with the other, is a device of the Manichaeans and the Jews: the Manichaeans oppose the Old, and the Jews the New. Next, on their showing, if what is in the Old is of older date and what is in the New is of later date, and times depend on the writing, then it follows that “I and the Father are one,” and “only Son,” and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” are later, since these testimonies are brought forward not from the Old but from the New. [q]

But it is not so. In truth much is said about the Son in the Old Testament too. So in the second Psalm: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” And in the ninth, the title: “To the end, concerning the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David.” And in the forty-fourth: “To the end, concerning the things that will be changed, for the sons of Korah, for understanding, a song about the Beloved.” And in Isaiah: “I will sing to my Beloved a song of my Beloved about my vineyard. My Beloved has a vineyard.” Who is this “Beloved” but the only Son? So also in the hundred and ninth: “From the womb I begot you before the morning star,” of which I will speak later. And in the Proverbs: “Before the hills he begot me.” And in Daniel: “And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” And many others. If, then, antiquity comes from the Old Testament, the Son must be ancient, since he is clearly described in the Old Testament in many places. “Yes,” they say, “that is so, but it must be taken as prophecy.” Then the Word too must be said to be spoken of as prophecy, for this cannot be taken one way and that another. For if “You are my Son” refers to the future, so does “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established.” For it does not say “were brought into being,” nor “he made.” And that “established” refers to the future, it says elsewhere: “The Lord reigned,” followed by, “He so established the earth that it can never be moved.” And if the words in the forty-fourth Psalm, “for my Beloved,” refer to the future, so does what follows them: “My heart uttered a good Word.” And if “from the womb” refers to a man, then so does “from the heart.” For if the womb is human, the heart is bodily too. But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what is “from the womb” is eternal. And if the “only Son” is “in the bosom,” then the “Beloved” is “in the bosom.” For “only Son” and “Beloved” are the same, as in the words, “This is my beloved Son.” For he did not say “Beloved” wishing to signify his love toward him, as if it might appear that he hated others. Rather, by it he made plain that he is the only Son, to show that he alone was from him. And so the Word, wanting to convey to Abraham the idea of “only Son,” says, “Offer your son, your beloved”; yet it is plain to anyone that Isaac was the only son from Sarah. The Word, then, is Son. He has not lately come to be Son, or lately been named Son, but is always Son. For if he is not Son, neither is he Word; and if he is not Word, neither is he Son. For what is from the father is a son. And what is from the Father but that Word that went forth from the heart and was born from the womb? For the Father is not Word, nor the Word Father. The one is Father and the other Son; the one begets, and the other is begotten. [t]