Before the Morning Star

That the Son has no beginning of being, but was always with the Father before he was made man, John makes clear in his first letter, where he writes: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of Life; and the Life was revealed, and we have seen it, and we bear witness and declare to you the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us.” Here he says that “the Life” not “became” but “was with the Father.” And at the end of his letter he says that the Son is the Life, writing, “And we are in him who is true, in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” But if the Son is the Life, and the Life was with the Father; and if the Son was with the Father, and the same evangelist says, “And the Word was with God,” then the Son must be the Word, who is always with the Father. And as “Son” is “Word,” so “God” must be “the Father.” Moreover, according to John, the Son is not merely “God” but “true God.” For according to the same evangelist, “And the Word was God”; and the Son said, “I am the Life.” Therefore the Son is the Word and the Life who is with the Father. And again, what is said in the same John, “The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,” shows that the Son always was. For the one whom John calls Son, David in the Psalm calls God’s Hand, when he says, “Why do you not stretch out your right Hand from your bosom?” So if the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son is in the bosom, the Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through whom the Father made all things. For it is written, “Your Hand made all these things,” and “He led out his people with his Hand”; therefore, through the Son. And if “this is the changing of the right Hand of the Most High,” and again, “To the end, concerning the things that will be changed, a song for my Beloved,” then the Beloved is the Hand that was changed; and of him the divine voice also says, “This is my beloved Son.” So “This is my Hand” means the same as “This is my Son.” [a]

But there are ill-taught men who resist the teaching that he is Son, and who make light of the words, “From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you.” They take this as referring to his relation to Mary, claiming that he was born of Mary “before the morning star,” since, they say, “womb” could not refer to his relation to God. So we must say a few words here. If, because the “womb” is human, it is therefore foreign to God, then plainly “heart” too has a human meaning, for whatever has a heart has a womb as well. Since both are human, we must either deny both or look for the meaning of both. Now as a word comes from the heart, so offspring comes from the womb. And as, when the heart of God is spoken of, we do not think of it as human, so if Scripture says “from the womb,” we must not take it in a bodily sense. For it is the custom of divine Scripture to speak in human ways of what is above man, and to signify it so. Thus, speaking of the creation, it says, “Your hands made me and fashioned me,” and “Your hand made all these things,” and “He commanded, and they were created.” Its language, then, suits each thing. To the Son it attributes being the Father’s own and true-born; to the creation, a beginning of being. For God makes and creates the creation; but the Son, his Word or Wisdom, he begets from himself. Now “womb” and “heart” plainly declare what is one’s own and true-born; for we too have this from the womb, but our works we make with the hand. [c]

“What, then,” they say, “does ‘Before the morning star’ mean?” I would answer that if “Before the morning star” shows that his birth from Mary was a wonder, many others besides him have been born before the rising of that star. What, then, is said in his case that is so wonderful that he should record it as some special privilege, when it is common to many? Next, to beget is different from to bring forth. Begetting means the first laying of the foundation; bringing forth is nothing other than bringing out what already exists. If, then, the term belongs to the body, notice that he did not receive the beginning of his coming into being when the good news of him was announced to the shepherds by night, but when the angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not at night, for this is not said. On the contrary, it was at night that he came out of the womb. Scripture makes this distinction. On the one hand it says that he was begotten before the morning star; on the other it speaks of his coming out of the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm: “You are the one who drew me out of the womb.” Besides, he did not say “before the rising of the morning star,” but simply “before the morning star.” If, then, the phrase must be taken of the body, either the body must have existed before Adam, since the stars were before Adam, or we must look into the sense behind the letter. And John enables us to do this, when he says in the Apocalypse: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who make their robes broad, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city through the gates. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who makes and loves a lie. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let the one who hears say, Come. And let the one who is thirsty come; and whoever wishes, let him take the water of life freely.” If, then, “the Offspring of David” is “the bright Morning Star,” it is plain that the Savior’s flesh is called “the Morning Star,” and that the Offspring from God came before it. So the sense of the Psalm is this: “I have begotten you from myself before your appearing in the flesh.” For “before the morning star” means the same as “before the Word took flesh.” [e]

So in the Old Testament too, things are plainly said about the Son. At the same time, it is unnecessary to argue the point. For if whatever is not stated in the Old Testament is of later date, let these quarrelsome people say where in the Old Testament mention is made of the Spirit as the Paraclete. The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but nowhere the Paraclete. Is the Holy Spirit, then, one, and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later of the two, because he is not mentioned in the Old Testament? Far be it from us to say that the Spirit is later, or to distinguish the Holy Spirit as one and the Paraclete as another. For the Spirit is one and the same, who then and now makes holy and comforts those who receive him; just as one and the same Word and Son led even then to adoption as sons those who were worthy. For those who were sons under the Old Testament were made sons through no one other than the Son. For unless there were a Son from God even before Mary, how is he before all, when they are sons before him? And how is he “Firstborn,” if he comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete second, for he was before all; nor is the Son later, for “in the beginning was the Word.” And as the Spirit and the Paraclete are the same, so the Son and the Word are the same. And as the Savior says of the Spirit, “But the Paraclete, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,” speaking of one and the same and not distinguishing, so John says in the same way, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” For here too he does not distinguish, but bears witness that they are the same. And as the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Spirit another, but they are one and the same, so the Word is not one and the Son another; the Word is the only Son. For John does not speak of the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. So whoever dares to distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete. But if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, neither can the Word, who is also Son and Wisdom and Power. Moreover, even the Greeks, who are skilled in words, know that the word “beloved” means the same as “only son.” For Homer, in the second book of the Odyssey, speaks this way of Telemachus, who was the only son of Odysseus: [f]

So the one who is his father’s only son is called beloved.

Some of the followers of the man from Samosata distinguish the Word from the Son, and claim that the Son is Christ and the Word is someone else. They base this on Peter’s words in the Acts, which he spoke well but they explain badly. It is this: “The Word he sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all.” For they say that since the Word spoke through Christ, as happens in the case of the prophets with “Thus says the Lord,” the prophet was one and the Lord another. But against this we may fairly set the words in the First Letter to the Corinthians: “waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For as one Christ does not confirm in the day of another Christ, but he himself, in his own day, confirms those who wait for him, so the Father sent the Word made flesh, so that, having become man, he might preach by means of himself. That is why Peter at once adds, “He is Lord of all”; and the Lord of all is the Word. [h]

“And Moses said to Aaron, Go to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” See now: though there is only one Moses, Moses himself speaks as though of another Moses, “as the Lord commanded Moses.” In the same way, then, if the blessed Peter speaks of the divine Word as sent to the children of Israel through Jesus Christ, we need not understand that the Word is one and Christ another. They are one and the same, because of the union that took place when, in his divine love for us, he stooped down to us and became man. And even if he is considered in two ways, it is still without any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” So what the blessed Peter said well and rightly, the followers of the man from Samosata understand badly and wrongly, and they do not stand in the truth. For in divine Scripture, Christ is understood in both ways, as when it calls Christ “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” If, then, Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ to the children of Israel, let him be understood to mean that the Word, having taken flesh, appeared to the children of Israel; so that it corresponds to “And the Word became flesh.” But suppose they understand it otherwise. Suppose that, while confessing the Word to be divine, as he is, they separate from him the man he has taken, with whom we believe he has also been made one, and say that he was sent through Jesus Christ. Then, without knowing it, they contradict themselves. For those who in this passage separate the divine Word from his divine taking of flesh seem to have a low idea of the teaching that he became flesh. They think as the pagans do, imagining that the Word’s divine taking of flesh was a change in the Word. But it is not so. Far from it! [i]

For in the same way that John here proclaims that union which is beyond understanding, “what is mortal being swallowed up by life,” or rather by him who is Life itself (as the Lord said to Martha, “I am the Life”), so when the blessed Peter says that the Word was sent through Jesus Christ, he implies the divine union too. For just as a man who heard “The Word became flesh” would not think that the Word ceased to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, so too, when he hears of the Word united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery as one and simple. But more clearly and beyond dispute than any reasoning, what the archangel said to the Bearer of God herself shows that the divine Word and the man are one. For he says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing that will be born of you will be called the Son of God.” So it is without reason that the followers of the man from Samosata separate the Word, who is clearly declared to be made one with the man from Mary. The Word, then, is not sent through that man. Rather, it is he who, in that man, did the sending, saying, “Go, teach all nations.” [j]

And it is the custom of Scripture to express itself in plain and simple language. So in Numbers we find that Moses spoke to Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law. There was not one Moses who spoke and another whose father-in-law was Reuel; Moses was one. And if, in the same way, the Word of God is called Wisdom and Power and Right Hand and Arm and the like, and if, in his love for mankind, he has become one with us, putting on our firstfruits and being blended with it, then the other titles too have, as was natural, become the Word’s own. For when John says that in the beginning was the Word, and he was with God and was himself God, and that all things came to be through him and without him nothing was made, he shows clearly that man too is the handiwork of God the Word. If, then, after taking man to himself when he had fallen into decay, he renews him again through that sure renewal to last forever, and is made one with him for this reason, to raise him to a more divine lot, how can we possibly say that the Word was sent through the man who was from Mary? How can we count him, the Lord of the apostles, among the other apostles, I mean the prophets, who were sent by him? And how can Christ be called a mere man? On the contrary, being made one with the Word, he is rightly called Christ and Son of God. For long ago the prophet loudly and clearly ascribed the Father’s hypostasis to him, and said, “And I will send my Son, Christ”; and at the Jordan, “This is my beloved Son.” For when he had fulfilled his promise, he showed, as was fitting, that this was the one he had said he had sent. [k]

Let us, then, consider Christ in both ways: the divine Word made one, in Mary, with the one who is from Mary. For in her womb the Word fashioned a house for himself, as in the beginning he formed Adam from the earth; or rather, in a more divine way. Of this house Solomon too speaks openly, knowing that the Word was also called Wisdom: “Wisdom has built herself a house.” The apostle interprets this when he says, “We are his house,” and elsewhere he calls us a temple, so far as it is fitting for God to dwell in a temple. Of this temple God, through Solomon, commanded the ancient people to build the image, made of stones; and so, when the Truth appeared, the image came to an end. For when those ruthless men wanted to prove that the image was the truth, and to destroy that true dwelling which we firmly believe his union with us to be, he did not threaten them. Knowing that their crime was against themselves, he says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” In this our Savior surely showed that the things people busy themselves with carry their own undoing in them. For unless the Lord had built the house and guarded the city, the builders would have labored in vain and the watchmen kept watch in vain. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow; but the church is firmly established. It is “founded on the rock,” and “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” It was they who said, “Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?” And their disciple is the man from Samosata; and so it is natural that he teaches his heresy to his own followers. But “we did not so learn Christ, if indeed we have heard” him and were taught by him, “putting off the old man, which is corrupt through deceitful cravings,” and taking up “the new man, created after God in righteousness and true holiness.” So let Christ be reverently considered in both ways. [m]

Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ. So in the blessed Peter’s words to Cornelius, when he teaches him about “Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit”; and again to the Jews, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God for you”; and again the blessed Paul to the Athenians, “by the man whom he has appointed, giving assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” For we often find the appointing and the sending used to mean the same as the anointing. From this anyone who wishes may learn that there is no disagreement in the words of the sacred writers. They simply give various names to the union of God the Word with the man from Mary: sometimes anointing, sometimes sending, sometimes appointing. It follows that what the blessed Peter says is right, and that he proclaims in purity that the only Son is God, without separating the hypostasis of God the Word from the man from Mary. Far from it! For how could he, when he had heard in so many ways, “I and the Father are one,” and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”? In this man, after the resurrection too, we know that he came to the whole band of the apostles when the doors were shut, and dispelled everything in it that was hard to believe with his words, “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And he did not say “this” or “this man whom I have taken to myself,” but “me.” So the man from Samosata will be granted no excuse. He is refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the Word, or rather by God the Word himself, who now brings the news to all and gives them assurance by eating, and by allowing them to touch him as they did then. For certainly the one who gives food to others, and those who give food to him, touch hands. For “they gave him,” Scripture says, “a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb,” and when he had “eaten before them, he took what was left and gave it to them.” See now: though not in the way Thomas was allowed, still by another way he gave them full assurance by being touched by them. But if you want to see the scars now, learn from Thomas: “Reach out your hand and put it into my side, and reach out your finger and see my hands.” So says God the Word, speaking of his own side and hands, and of himself as whole man and God together. First he gave the saints a perception of the Word even through the body, as we may suppose, by coming in when the doors were shut; and next he stood near them in the body and gave them full assurance. So much may fittingly be said to strengthen the faithful and to correct the unbelieving. [n]

And so let Paul of Samosata too be corrected, when he hears the divine voice of the one who said, “My body.” He did not mean “a Christ alongside me, who am the Word,” but “him with me, and me with him.” For I, the Word, am the anointing, and the one who has the anointing from me is the man. Not without me, then, could he be called Christ, but by being with me, and I in him. Therefore the mention of the Word’s being sent shows the union that took place with Jesus, born of Mary, whose name means Savior. He bears that name for no other reason than that the man was made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as “the Father who sent me,” and “I did not come of myself, but the Father sent me.” For he has given the name of sending to the union with the man, with whom the invisible nature might be known to men through the visible. For God does not change place, as we do, who are hidden in places, when in the manner of our littleness he shows himself in his existence in the flesh. How could he, who fills heaven and earth? But because of his presence in the flesh, the righteous have spoken of his being sent. Therefore God the Word himself is Christ from Mary, God and man; not some other Christ, but one and the same. He is before the ages from the Father; he too in the last times is from the Virgin. Before, he was invisible even to the holy powers of heaven; now he is visible, because he is one with the man who is visible. He is seen, I say, not in his invisible Godhead, but in the working of the Godhead through the human body and the whole man, which he has made new by taking it as his own. To him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and always will be, to all ages. Amen. [p]