Chapter 1 #

¹ Since your most gracious Majesty commanded me to write a treatise on the Faith for your instruction, and personally called me to your presence to encourage my hesitation, I, feeling like one about to enter battle, wrote only two books to outline certain ways and paths by which our faith progresses.

² However, since certain malicious individuals, intent on causing disputes, have not yet ceased their attacks, and your gracious Majesty’s pious concern calls me to further efforts, as you wish to test more extensively someone you have already tested in a few ways, I am determined to address more thoroughly the matters I have previously discussed briefly. This is to prevent any perception that I put forth these propositions with hesitation and uncertainty, rather than with confidence and conviction, and to avoid the impression that I have abandoned their defense due to doubt.

³ Additionally, since we mentioned the Hydra and Scylla as metaphors to illustrate the dangers of infidelity’s persistent threats and the perilous shipwrecks on its shallows, if anyone believes that such literary embellishments are inappropriate and criticizes my language due to lack of grounds to attack my faith, let them know that not only phrases but entire verses from poetry have been incorporated into the text of Holy Scripture.

⁴ For example, where did the verse “His offspring truly are we,” which Paul uses by prophetic insight, come from? Prophetic speech does not shy away from mentioning Giants or the Valley of the Titans, and Isaiah spoke of sirens and the daughters of ostriches. Jeremiah also prophesied about Babylon, stating that the daughters of sirens shall dwell there, to illustrate that the snares of Babylon, representing the chaos of this world, are similar to ancient tales of lust. These tales, like seductive songs on life’s rocky shores, are deadly traps intended to ensnare the souls of the young. The Greek poet himself tells us that the wise man escaped these perils by being bound, as it were, in the chains of his own prudence. Before Christ’s coming, it was considered extremely difficult, even for the strong, to save themselves from the deceitful appearances and allurements of pleasure.

⁵ But if the poet deemed the enticement of worldly pleasure and indulgence to be destructive to men’s minds and a certain cause of shipwreck, what should we think, given that it has been written: “Do not train the flesh in concupiscence”? And again: “I chastise my body and bring it into servitude, lest while I preach to others, I myself become a castaway.”

⁶ Truly, Christ secured our salvation not through luxury, but through fasting. Furthermore, He fasted not to gain favor for Himself, but to instruct us. He did not hunger because of bodily weakness, but by experiencing hunger, He demonstrated that He had truly taken on a human body. In doing so, He taught us that He had assumed not only our body but also its weaknesses, as it is written: “Surely He has taken our infirmities and borne our sicknesses.”

Chapter 2 #

¹ It was a bodily weakness—specifically, one of our weaknesses—that caused Him to hunger. When He wept and was sorrowful even unto death, it was due to His human nature. Why attribute the properties and incidents of our nature to the Godhead? The fact that He was made, as we are told, is a characteristic of a body. Thus, we read: “Sion our mother shall say: ‘He is a man,’ and in her He was made man, and the Most High Himself laid her foundations.” He was made man, note well, not He was made God.

² But what is He who is both the Most High and man, if not the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for us? This passage indeed properly refers to His Incarnation, for our redemption was achieved by His blood, our pardon comes through His power, and our life is secured through His grace. He gives as the Most High, and He prays as man. One role is that of the Creator, the other of the Redeemer. Though the gifts are distinct, the Giver is one, for it was fitting that our Maker should also be our Redeemer.

³ Who indeed can deny that we have clear evidence that Christ is the Most High? Anyone who believes otherwise misconstrues the sacrament of the Incarnation as solely the work of God the Father. But the fact that Christ is the Most High is beyond doubt, as Scripture has affirmed in another place concerning the mystery of the Passion: ‘The Most High sent forth His Voice, and the earth was shaken’. As written in the Gospel: “And you, child, shall be called the Prophet of the Highest; for you shall go before the face of the Lord, to prepare His ways.” Who is the Highest? The Son of God. Therefore, He who is the Most High God is Christ.

⁴ Though we often affirm the oneness of God, it’s important to understand that the Son of God is not detached from this unity. The Most High, as depicted in scripture, stands alone in His supremacy: “Let them acknowledge that Your Name is the Lord, and that You alone are exalted over all the earth.”

⁵ Therefore, the opponents’ derogatory interpretation of the Scripture, which states that only God has immortality and lives in unapproachable light, is strongly rejected and dismissed. These words, attributed to God, apply equally to both the Father and the Son.

⁶ If, indeed, whenever they mention the Name of God, they deny any acknowledgment of the Son as well as the Father, they are committing blasphemy, as they reject the Divine Sovereignty of the Son. They will seem to share in the sinful error of the Sabellians by teaching the Incarnation of the Father. Let them explain how they can avoid interpreting the Apostle’s words in a way that is blasphemous to the Father: “In Whom you also rose again, by faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead.” Let them also heed the warning from what follows, for this is what comes after: “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made us alive with Him, forgiving all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us. He has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” In doing so, He stripped off the fleshly nature.

⁷ We shouldn’t assume that only the Father, who raised the flesh, is God; nor should we make the same assumption about the Son, whose body was resurrected. The One who raised also gave life; the One who gave life also forgave sins; the One who forgave sins also erased the record of our wrongdoing; and the One who erased it also nailed it to the Cross: He who nailed it to the Cross indeed shed the flesh. However, it wasn’t the Father who shed the flesh; as scripture tells us, it was the Word who became flesh. Therefore, you can see that the Arians, by separating the Father from the Son, risk suggesting that the Father endured the Passion.

⁸ We, on the other hand, can clearly demonstrate that these words refer to the actions of the Son. It was indeed the Son who raised His own Body again, as He Himself declared: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it again”. Furthermore, He Himself revives us along with His Body, “for just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He chooses”. He Himself has indeed granted forgiveness for sins, as He declared, “Your sins are forgiven you”. He also nailed the record of our wrongdoing to His Cross by being crucified and suffering in the body. None but the Son of God divested Himself of the flesh, having willingly taken it on. Therefore, the One who accomplished the work of our resurrection is clearly identified as truly God.

Chapter 3 #

¹ So, when you encounter the name “God,” do not separate either the Father or the Son, for the divine essence of both the Father and the Son is one and the same. Therefore, do not separate them when you read descriptors like “blessed” and “only Potentate,” for these terms refer to God. Just as you might read, “I charge you before God, who gives life to all things.” Indeed, Christ also gives life, so it’s fitting to attribute the name of “God” to both the Father and the Son, as their actions are aligned. Let’s continue to the following words: “I charge you,” he says, “before God, who gives life to all things, and Jesus Christ.”

² The Word is within God, as stated: “In God I will praise His Word.” God’s eternal power resides in Him, even in Jesus. Thus, the Apostle, when speaking of God, testified to the unity of the Godhead, while referring to Christ’s name, he bore witness to the mystery of the Incarnation.

³ Moreover, to clarify that he was indeed referring to the Incarnation of Christ, the Apostle added: “Who testified before Pontius Pilate with the good confession.” [I charge you] to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal in His own time. He alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see". These words are indeed written concerning God, a name whose dignity and truth are shared by both the Father and the Son.

⁴ Why assume the Son is excluded from this passage when all these attributes also apply to Him? If they do not, then it would be a denial of His divinity, and by extension, a denial of what is rightfully attributed to God. His blessedness cannot be denied, as He is the bestower of blessings, for “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven.” He indeed deserves to be called Blessed, for He has given us sound and wholesome teachings, as it is written: “Which is in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God.” His power cannot be denied, as the Father Himself declares: “I have laid help upon One who is mighty.” And who could dare to refuse acknowledging His immortality when He Himself has bestowed immortality upon others, as it is written of the Wisdom of God: “Through her I shall obtain immortality.”

⁵ The everlasting nature of God is incomparable to our own mortality. Mortal things can’t hold a candle to the divine. God’s essence is untouchable by death, unlike anything perishable. That’s why the Apostle emphasized that only God possesses true immortality, even though souls and angels are also immortal in a sense. However, it’s important to note that even souls can die if they sin, as the scripture says. And angels aren’t inherently immortal; their immortality relies on the Creator’s will.

⁶ Don’t dismiss this too quickly, because Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel don’t die. But even in their nature, there’s the potential for sin, although they can’t improve through discipline like we can. Every rational being is susceptible to external influences and subject to judgment. Our judgment, corruption, or journey toward perfection hinges on these influences. That’s why Ecclesiastes mentions, “For God will bring every deed into judgment.” So, every creature carries the potential for corruption and death, regardless of whether it currently experiences those realities or commits sin. And even if a creature manages to avoid sin, it doesn’t inherently possess immortality; rather, it attains it through discipline or grace. There’s a distinction between immortality as a gift, which allows for change, and immortality devoid of any possibility of change.

⁷ Do we reject the immortality of Christ’s divinity because he experienced death in the flesh for everyone? By that logic, would Gabriel be superior to Christ because Gabriel never died, whereas Christ did? However, we must remember that the servant isn’t greater than his master, and we need to distinguish between the vulnerability of the flesh and the eternal nature of the divine. Christ’s death originated in his flesh, while immortality is inherent to Christ’s sovereignty. But if it was through the power of the divine that his flesh remained incorruptible, despite its natural susceptibility to corruption, then how could the divine itself have experienced death?

⁸ How is it that the Son doesn’t abide in the unapproachable light if he resides in the Father’s bosom? After all, the Father is Light, and the Son is also Light because God is Light. If we entertain the idea of another light apart from the light of the Godhead as the unapproachable Light, does that mean this light is superior to the Father? Would that imply that the One who, as it’s written, is both with the Father and in the Father, isn’t within that Light? So, when people read about God, they shouldn’t disregard the Son, and when they read about the Son, they shouldn’t exclude the Father. Both aspects are intertwined and essential to understand fully.

⁹ On earth, the Son is not without the Father, so why would you think that in heaven, the Father is without the Son? The Son is in the flesh—when I say “He is in the flesh” or “He is on earth,” I speak as if we were living in the days described in the Gospel, for we no longer know Christ in a physical sense. He is in the flesh, and He is not alone, as it is written: “And I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.” Do you think that the Father dwells alone in the Light?

¹⁰ This is not just a speculative argument; consider this authoritative statement: “No one,” as Scripture says, “has seen God at any time, except the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has revealed Him.” How could the Father be in solitude if the Son is in the bosom of the Father? How could the Son reveal the Father if He hasn’t seen Him? Therefore, the Father does not exist alone.

¹¹ Now, consider what it means for the Father and the Son to be “alone.” The Father is alone because there is no other Father; the Son is alone because there is no other Son; God is alone because the Godhead of the Trinity is One.

Chapter 4 #

¹ It’s now evident that the Father isn’t God in isolation, without the Son, and likewise, the Son can’t be considered God alone, without the Father. The Son of God was made in the context of His flesh, not in relation to His generation from God the Father.

² Truly, in what manner He was made has been proclaimed by the mouth of the holy patriarch, as he said: “For My soul is full of sorrow to the point of overflowing, and My life has approached the realm of the dead. I have been reckoned among those who descend into the pit; I have become like a man free, abandoned, among the dead.” Here, we read: “I have been made as a man,” not “I have been made as God.” And again: “My soul overflows with sorrows.” Note that it says “My soul,” not “My Godhead.” He was made insofar as it concerned his connection to hell, where he was counted among others. The Godhead doesn’t allow for any comparison that might place it on the same level as others. Yet, consider how the majesty of the Godhead manifests itself in Christ, even in the flesh destined for death. Though He was made as a man and made in flesh, He was made free among the dead, free and without assistance.

³ But how can the Son claim here that He was without help, when it’s already been stated: “I have laid help upon One that is mighty”? Let’s differentiate between the two natures at play here. The flesh requires assistance, but the Godhead does not. He is free, then, because the chains of death had no grip on Him. He wasn’t captured by the forces of darkness; rather, He exerted power over them. He is without help because He, as the Lord, saved His people not through the role of a messenger or ambassador, but through His own might. How could He, who raised others to life, require assistance to raise His own body?

⁴ Even though men have raised the dead, they did so not by their own power but in the name of Christ. Asking is one thing, commanding is another; obtaining is different from bestowing.

⁵ Indeed, Elijah raised the dead through prayer—he didn’t command. Elisha revived someone by lying upon the dead body, mirroring its posture. Moreover, the mere touch of Elisha’s corpse brought life to the dead, symbolizing the future coming of Him who, sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, would raise the dead even after His burial.

⁶ Peter, when he healed Aeneas, said: “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk.” He didn’t act in his own name but in the name of Christ. “Rise” is a command, but it reflects confidence in one’s authority, not an arrogant claim to power. The authority of the command lay in the effective influence of the Name, not in Peter’s own power. What response do the Arians have to this? Peter commands in the name of Christ, yet they insist that the Son of God did not command but only requested.

⁷ They object, saying we read how He said a prayer. But note the distinction: He prays as the Son of Man, He commands as the Son of God. Will you not attribute to the Son of God what even the devil has acknowledged? Will you accuse yourselves of greater wickedness than Satan’s? The devil said: “If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Satan says “command,” while you say “pray.” The devil believes that at the word of God’s Son, the nature of an elementary substance can be transformed into a composite one. You, however, believe that unless the Son of God makes a request, His will cannot be accomplished. Once more, the devil believes that the Son of God is to be revered for His power, while you believe He is to be revered for His weakness. The devil’s temptations seem more tolerable than the arguments of the Arians.

⁸ Let us not be troubled if we find the Son of Man referred to as mighty in one place, yet in another, we read that the Lord of glory was crucified. What might is greater than sovereignty over the powers of heaven? This was within the domain of Him who ruled over thrones, principalities, and angels. Although He was among the wild beasts, as it is written, angels ministered to Him. This illustrates the distinction between what is inherent to the Incarnation and what pertains to Sovereignty. In terms of His flesh, He endured the assault of wild beasts; in terms of His Godhead, He was adored by angels.

⁹ So, we understand that He was made man, and this making refers to His humanity. Additionally, in another passage of Scripture, you may read: “Who was made for Him of the seed of David,” meaning that in terms of His flesh, He was made from the seed of David, but He was God, begotten of God, before the creation of the world.

Chapter 5 #

¹ At the same time, ‘becoming’ doesn’t always imply creation. We see in the scripture: “Lord, You’ve become our refuge, and You’ve become my salvation.” It’s clear here that there’s no mention of creating something, but rather, God is described as becoming our refuge and turning to our salvation, just as the Apostle said: “Who became for us Wisdom from God, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption”, meaning that Christ was ‘made’ for us by the Father, not created. Once more, the author clarifies the meaning of Christ being made Wisdom for us in the following passage: “But we proclaim the Wisdom of God in the teachings of mystery, a Wisdom that is hidden, predetermined by God before the world existed for our glory. None of the rulers of this world understood this Wisdom, for if they had, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” When discussing the mystery of the Passion, there is certainly no mention of an eternal process of generation.

² So, the Cross of the Lord is my wisdom; His Death is my redemption. As the Apostle Peter said, we are redeemed with His precious blood. Thus, the Lord, as a human, redeemed us with His blood, while as God, He forgave sins.

³ Therefore, let us not set traps with our words or eagerly seek out complications within them. Let us not, because unbelievers misinterpret the written word, focus solely on the surface meaning of the text rather than its deeper sense. This was the path the Jews took to their downfall, disregarding the hidden meaning and clinging only to the literal interpretation of the word. For the letter of the law brings death, but the Spirit brings life.

⁴ Of these two serious errors, it is perhaps more offensive to attribute human qualities to the divine nature than it is to assign spiritual characteristics to mere letters. The Jews struggled to believe in the union of humanity and divinity, thereby losing the grace of redemption by rejecting the foundation of salvation. The Arians, on the other hand, reduce the majesty of the divine nature to human frailty. While it is abhorrent that the Jews crucified the Lord in His human form, it is even more abhorrent to believe that Christ’s divinity was nailed to the Cross. As someone who frequently dealt with Jews once said, “Avoid a heretic after you have corrected them once.”

⁵ Furthermore, these individuals fail to avoid dishonoring the Father by impiously applying the fact that Christ was made Wisdom for us to His mysterious and timeless origin. Ignoring that dishonoring the Son also dishonors the Father, they even extend their blasphemy to attack the Father Himself, of whom it is written: “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.” If they indeed believe that the Son is being referenced, they do not deny His origin. Yet, by relying on the authority of this text, they inadvertently acknowledge what they reject: that Christ is God and true God.

⁶ It would take a considerable amount of time for me to go through each instance where we read of Christ being made, not by nature, but through a gracious dispensation. For instance, Moses says: “You have become my Helper and Protector to save me,” and David: “Be to me a God of salvation and a stronghold to save me,” and Isaiah: “He has become a Helper for every lowly city.” Surely, these holy men do not say to God, “You have been created,” but rather, “By Your grace, You have become a Protector and Helper for us.”

Chapter 6 #

¹ There’s no need for us to fear the argument the Arians make, where they claim that the Word of God was created. They base this on the verse: “That which has been made in Him is life.”

² But let’s clarify something here. If they interpret “That which has been made” as referring to the Godhead, they run into problems similar to those posed by the Manichaeans. The Manichaeans argue: If what’s made in Him is life, then there must be something not made in Him, which is death. This could lead to the idea of two opposing principles, which the Church firmly rejects.

³ How can the Arians actually prove that the Evangelist said this? Most scholars well-versed in the Faith interpret the passage differently. They read it as follows: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that has been made.” Others interpret it as: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” Then they continue: “What has been made,” and then they add the words “in Him,” meaning “But whatever exists has been made in Him.” But what do the words “in Him” mean? The Apostle clarifies this for us when he says: “In Him we have our being, and live, and move.”

⁴ However, no matter how they interpret the passage, they cannot diminish the greatness of God the Word by referring to Him as a subject with the phrase “That which was made,” without also dishonoring God the Father, of whom it is written: “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.” Notice here that we read of man’s works being done in God, yet we still cannot understand the Godhead as the subject of those works. We must either recognize these works as accomplished through Him, as the Apostle affirms, stating that “all things are through Him, and were created in Him, and He is before all, and all things exist together in Him,” or, as the witness of the cited text teaches us, we should regard the virtues through which the fruit of eternal life is obtained—such as chastity, piety, devotion, faith, and others of this kind—as accomplished in God, expressing His will.

⁵ Just as the works express the will and power of God the Father, they also express Christ’s, as we read: “Created in Christ for good works;” and in the psalm: “Peace be made in Your power;” and again: “In wisdom You have made them all.” Note that it says, “In wisdom You have made,” not “You have made wisdom;” for since all things have been made in wisdom, and Christ is the Wisdom of God, it’s clear that this Wisdom is not an accident but a substance, and an everlasting one. If Wisdom were made, it would be in a worse state than all other things, since it could not, on its own, be made Wisdom. Therefore, if being made is often associated with something accidental rather than with the essence of a thing, creation may also be related to a purpose that was intended.

Chapter 7 #

¹ This passage leads us to understand that the prophecy regarding the Incarnation, “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works,” suggests that Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, was brought into existence to fulfill the Father’s divine purposes. It’s evident that this prophecy speaks directly to the profound mystery of the Incarnation. The Lord chose to take on human form, assuming our flesh, to rescue His creation from the bondage of decay and death. Through His own suffering and sacrifice, Jesus aimed to defeat the power of death and free the works of His hands from corruption. It’s important to recognize that Christ’s humanity was assumed for the sake of the created world, while His divine nature predates all creation. He exists before all things and holds everything together in Himself.

² Indeed, the divine nature of Christ is not a result of creation; rather, creation itself owes its existence to the divine nature. As the Apostle explains, all things exist because of the Son of God. He writes, “But it was fitting that He, through Whom and because of Whom are all things, after bringing many sons to glory, should, as Captain of their salvation, be made perfect through suffering.” This passage clearly indicates that the Son of God, who, by virtue of His divine nature, is the Creator of all things, later assumed human form and endured suffering and death for the salvation of His people.

³ The reason the Lord was born of a virgin was revealed by Jesus Himself during His ministry, particularly when He healed a blind man and declared, “I must work the works of Him that sent Me.” Additionally, in the same context, He further elucidated on His purpose, stating, “As long as I am in this world, I am the Light of this world.” These statements underscore His mission of incarnation. As a human being, Jesus lived among us for a limited time, serving as the Light of the world. Yet, as God, He transcends time and remains present with us always, as He affirmed, “Truly, I am with you even unto the end of the world.”

⁴ There’s no doubt about the beginning, as Jesus Himself affirmed during His earthly life when asked, “Who are You?” He replied, “The beginning, even as I tell you.” This declaration doesn’t just speak to the eternal essence of the Godhead but also serves as evidence of His virtues. By being the beginning of all things and the source of every virtue, Jesus demonstrates His eternal Godhood. He is also the Head of the Church, as stated in Scripture: “Because He is the Head of the Body, of the Church; Who is the beginning, first-begotten from the dead.”

⁵ It’s evident that the phrase “beginning of His ways,” which appears to allude to the mystery of the Incarnation, serves as a prophecy. Through the Incarnation, Christ’s purpose was to open the way for us to reach heaven. Consider His words: “I go up to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” This signifies that the Almighty Father appointed a path for the Son after the Incarnation. This concept is further illustrated in the words of the angel speaking to Joshua, who was adorned in filthy garments, in the book of Zechariah. The angel says, “Thus says the Lord Almighty: If you will walk in My ways and observe My precepts.” Here, the filthy garments symbolize the act of taking on flesh.

⁶ Today, we might think of the paths of righteousness as the paths we walk in a life led by Christ. He himself proclaimed, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” So, the path is the divine strength of God, embodied in Christ, who not only shows us the way but is the way—a way that grants believers access to the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, the ways of the Lord are direct, as the scripture says: “Teach me Your paths, O Lord.” Purity, faithfulness, and self-restraint are all paths. There exists a path of virtue and a path of wrongdoing, as written: “See if there be any wicked way in me.”

⁷ So, Christ stands as the origin of our virtues. He is the starting point of purity, teaching maidens to dedicate their bodies and minds to the service of the Holy Spirit rather than seeking the embraces of men. Christ exemplifies frugality, having chosen poverty despite his inherent richness. Patience finds its inception in Christ’s refusal to retaliate when reviled or struck. Humility finds its roots in Christ’s embodiment of servanthood, despite his equality with God the Father in majesty and power. Indeed, every virtue finds its source in him.

⁸ To infuse these various virtues in us, a Son was given to us, with His journey symbolized by the Cross resting on His shoulder. This Cross represents the beginning of steadfast courage, which enabled the holy martyrs to face the challenges of the Holy War.

Chapter 8 #

¹ Isaiah foresaw this beginning, hence his proclamation: “A Child is born, a Son is given to us.” Similarly, the Magi, upon encountering the infant in the stable, worshipped and declared: “A Child is born.” Upon seeing the star, they acknowledged: “A Son is given to us.” One gift from the earth, the other from heaven, yet both embodied in a singular Person, perfectly harmonized in their respective natures, without any alteration in the divine essence or diminishment of the humanity. The Magi worshipped one Person and presented their gifts to Him, affirming that the One seen in the manger was indeed the Lord of heaven.

² Notice the distinction in meaning between the two verbs: “A Child is born, a Son is given.” Though begotten of the Father, He is not born in the same sense as we are, but given to us, as the Son exists not for our benefit, but we for the Son’s. He was not born for us, having existed before us as the creator of all things. His birth does not signify a beginning of existence, for He has always been, existing from the beginning. Conversely, what was previously nonexistent is now born to us. Similarly, the angel proclaimed to the shepherds that a Saviour had been born to us—Christ the Lord—in the city of David. What had not existed before—namely, a child born of the Virgin Mary, a human body—has now come into being, created after humanity, while the divine nature preexisted us.

³ Some manuscripts put it this way: A Child is born for us, a Son is given to us. This means that He, the Son of God, is born as Mary’s child for our sake and given to us. Regarding His being given, consider the words of the prophet: “And grant us Your salvation.” But what is given to us is from above; it comes from heaven. Just as we read about the Spirit, how the love of God is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us.

⁴ But notice how this passage extinguishes the flames of various heresies. A Child is born to us, not solely to the Jews; to us, not to the Manichaeans; to us, not to the Marcionites. The prophet speaks to us, meaning those who believe, not to unbelievers. Indeed, in His compassion, He was born for all, but it’s the faithlessness of heretics that prevents everyone from benefiting from the birth of Him who was born for all. For the sun rises on both the good and the bad, but for those who cannot see, there is no perception of sunrise.

⁵ Just as the Child is born not to all, but to the faithful, so the Son is given to the faithful and not to the unbelieving. He is given to us, not to the Photinians, who assert that the Son of God was not given to us but was born and began to exist among us. He is given to us, not to the Sabellians, who reject the idea of a Son being given, claiming that the Father and Son are one and the same. He is given to us, not to the Arians, who believe that the Son was not given for salvation but was sent as subordinate and inferior, and to whom He is not a Counselor, as they hold that He knows nothing of the future, denying His eternity, despite the Scripture stating: “That which was in the beginning,” and again: “In the beginning was the Word.” Now, let’s return to the passage we’re discussing. “In the beginning,” says the Scripture, “before He made the earth, before He made the deeps, before He brought forth the springs of water, before all the hills, He begot Me.”

Chapter 9 #

¹ You might wonder why I quoted the passage “The Lord created Me” in reference to the Incarnation of Christ, considering that the creation of the universe happened before Christ’s Incarnation. But consider that the purpose of holy Scripture is to speak of future events as if they have already happened and to hint at the union of two natures, divinity and humanity, in Christ, so that no one should deny either His divinity or His humanity.

² In Isaiah, for instance, you can find: “A Child is born unto us, and a Son is given unto us.” Similarly, here in Proverbs, the prophet presents first the creation of the flesh, followed by the declaration of the Godhead. This is to make clear that Christ is not two separate entities but one, being both begotten of the Father before the world existed and created from the Virgin in the final times. So, the interpretation is this: “I, who am begotten before the world, am the same one who was created from a mortal woman, created with a specific purpose.”

³ Once more, just before the declaration “The Lord created Me,” there is the statement, “I will tell of the things which are from eternity.” And before mentioning “He begot,” it is prefaced with “In the beginning, before He made the earth, before all hills.” The scope of the preposition “before” extends infinitely into the past, without limit. So, “Before Abraham was, I am” doesn’t necessarily imply after Adam, just as “before the Morning Star” doesn’t mean after the angels. When He said “before,” He meant not that He was part of anyone’s existence, but that all things are encompassed within His, as Holy Scripture often does to illustrate the eternity of God. Finally, in another passage, you can read: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, You are from everlasting to everlasting.”

⁴ Before all created things, then, the Son is begotten; within all and for the good of all, He is made; begotten of the Father, beyond the confines of the Law, born of Mary, subject to the Law.

Chapter 10 #

¹ However, they claim: “It is written, ‘After me comes a Man, Who is made before me, because He was before me.’” Then they contend: “Look, the One who existed before is ‘made.’” Let’s break down these words. “After me comes a Man.” So, the one who came is a Man, and this is the Man who was made. But the term “man” implies gender, and gender pertains to human nature, not the Divine nature.

² I could argue that the Man, referring to Christ Jesus, existed in pre-existence insofar as His body was foreknown, while His power is eternal—since both the Church and the Saints were preordained before the creation of the world. However, I set aside this argument and emphasize that the concept of being “made” pertains not to the Divine nature but to the nature of the Incarnation, just as John himself stated: “This is He of Whom I said: After me comes a Man, Who was made before me.”

³ The Scripture, as I’ve illustrated earlier, reveals the dual nature of Christ, so that you may comprehend both His divinity and humanity. Here, it starts with the flesh, following the pattern often seen in Holy Writ: sometimes beginning with the divinity of Christ and descending to the visible signs of His Incarnation, and other times starting with His humility and ascending to the glory of His divinity, as seen in the Prophets, Evangelists, and St. Paul. In this instance, the writer begins with the Incarnation of our Lord and then declares His Divinity, not to confuse but to differentiate between the human and the divine. However, like unskilled vintners mixing water with wine, the Arians blur the distinction between the divine and the human, attributing to the majesty of God what properly belongs only to the humility of the flesh.

⁴ I’m not concerned about a certain objection they might raise, which is that in the cited words we have a mention of a man — as some interpret it, “Who comes after me.” However, they should pay attention to what comes before. It’s stated that “the Word was made flesh.” After stating that the Word was made flesh, the Evangelist didn’t specifically mention man. We understand the reference to man through the mention of flesh, and vice versa. Therefore, after affirming that the Word became flesh, there was no necessity to explicitly mention man, as the reference to flesh already encompasses that.

⁵ Later on, St. John uses the example of “the lamb that takes away the sins of the world” to illustrate the Incarnation of the One he had previously spoken about. He clarifies by saying, “This is He of Whom I said before: After me comes a Man, Who is made before me,” indicating that He was made in the sense of being a man, not as God. Moreover, to emphasize that it was indeed He who existed before the creation of the world and not another, who became flesh, so there wouldn’t be any misconception of two Sons of God, St. John adds: “because He was before me.” If the phrase “was made” had referred to the divine generation, why would the writer need to add this and repeat himself? However, having initially stated in regard to the Incarnation only, “After me comes a Man, Who is made before me,” he then included “because He was before me” to emphasize the eternity of Christ’s Godhead. This is why St. John acknowledges Christ’s precedence, so that He, who is the eternal Power of His own Father, may be rightly regarded as superior.

⁶ The rich activity of spiritual understanding makes it a delightful endeavor to confront and challenge the Arians, who interpret the term “made” in this passage not in reference to Christ’s humanity, but to His divinity. What solid ground do they have left to stand on when the Baptist himself declares that after me comes One Who is made before me? This means that although in the sequence of earthly life He comes after me, He is elevated above my status and grace, and is worthy of being worshipped as God. “Comes after me” pertains to a temporal event, but “was before me” signifies Christ’s eternity, and “is made before me” points to His preeminence, since the mystery of the Incarnation surpasses human merit.

⁷ St. John the Baptist also explained in simpler terms the concepts he had combined, saying: “After me comes someone greater than I am, whose shoes I am not even worthy to carry.” This highlights the superior status of Christ, though it doesn’t directly speak to His eternal divine nature. These words are so clearly about the Incarnation that Scripture even gives us an example in an earlier book, where a sandal symbolizes this idea. According to the Law, when a man died, his brother or closest relative would marry the widow to continue the family line. Ruth, a foreigner who had married into the Jewish people, caught the eye of Boaz while gleaning to support herself and her mother-in-law. But Boaz didn’t marry her right away; he first had to deal with the legal matter of removing the sandal from the man who should have married her according to the Law.

⁸ The story may seem straightforward, but its deeper meanings are profound, for what was done outwardly symbolized something much greater. If we were to interpret the words strictly, we might find them shameful and horrifying, suggesting mere physical intimacy. However, they were actually a prefiguring of someone who would emerge from the Jewish lineage, from which Christ, in His human form, also came. This person would revive the people with heavenly teachings, just as the Law prescribed the transfer of the sandal to signify marriage, symbolizing the spiritual union of the Church.

⁹ Moses wasn’t the Bridegroom; he was instructed to remove his shoe to make way for his Lord. Likewise, Joshua, son of Nun, wasn’t the Bridegroom; he too was told to remove his shoe to avoid any confusion about his role. The only true Bridegroom is Christ alone, as St. John stated: “He who has the bride is the Bridegroom.” Others remove their shoes, but His shoe cannot be removed, as St. John expressed: “I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal.”

¹⁰ So, Christ alone is the Bridegroom to whom the Church, His bride, comes from all nations, offering herself in union. Once impoverished and famished, she now thrives on the abundance of Christ’s harvest, gathering the hidden treasures of His Word in the depths of her soul. With this nourishment, she revives the weary and bereaved, the mother of a spiritually dead people, ensuring that she is not left alone and destitute while seeking new spiritual children.

¹¹ So, Christ alone is the Bridegroom, generously offering even the sheaves of His harvest to the synagogue. If only the synagogue hadn’t willingly shut herself out! She had her own sheaves to gather, but with her people spiritually dead, she, like a mother bereaved by the loss of her child, began to gather sheaves for her sustenance, through the ministry of the Church. Those who come with joy will carry these sheaves, as it is written: “Yet they will come with joy, bringing their sheaves with them."

¹² Who but Christ could boldly claim the Church as His bride, whom He alone has summoned from Libanus, declaring, “Come here from Libanus, my bride; come here from Libanus”? And who else could the Church proclaim, “His mouth is sweetness itself, and He is altogether desirable”? Considering our discussion began with the mention of His feet, to whom but the incarnate Word of God do these words truly apply? “His legs are pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold.” For it is Christ alone who walks within the souls and leaves His indelible footprints in the minds of His saints, like golden bases and foundations of precious stones.

¹³ Indeed, it’s evident that both the man and the symbol point to the profound mystery of the Incarnation.

Chapter 11 #

¹ So, when we say Christ was “made” or “became,” we’re not talking about the essence of his divinity, but often about his coming to earth in human form—sometimes even about the specific role he took on. If we interpret this as referring to his divinity, then it suggests that God himself was turned into an object of mockery and scorn. This is evident from scriptures like “But you have rejected your Christ, and brought Him to nothing; you have driven Him to wander”, and “He became a laughingstock among his neighbors.” Notice, it says “neighbors,” not those who were close to him or his followers. Those who are close to the Lord are united with him in spirit, whereas neighbors are not. Furthermore, he became a laughingstock because the message of the cross is offensive to Jews and foolishness to Greeks. But to those who understand, the cross elevates Christ above heavens, above angels, making him the mediator of a superior covenant, just as he mediated the previous one.

² Notice how I repeat the phrase; I’m not trying to dodge it. But pay attention to what sense he is “made.”

³ First off, “after making purification, he sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become superior to the angels”. Now, where there’s purification, there’s a sacrifice; where there’s a sacrifice, there’s a body; where there’s a body, there’s an offering; and where there’s the role of offering, there’s also a sacrifice made with suffering.

⁴ Furthermore, he is the mediator of a superior covenant. But where there is a will, the death of the one who made it must be established, as it is written a little further on. However, this death is not the death of his eternal divinity, but of his vulnerable human form.

⁵ Moreover, we learn how he is elevated above the heavens. “He is without blemish,” says the scripture, “separate from sinners, and raised above the heavens, not needing to offer sacrifices daily, as the priests do, first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people. He did this by sacrificing himself once and for all”. No one is said to be elevated unless they have been lower in some respect; therefore, by sitting at the right hand of the Father, Christ is elevated in relation to that in which, being made lower than the angels, he offered himself to suffer.

⁶ Lastly, the Apostle himself tells the Philippians that, being born in human likeness and found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. Note that, regarding what He is “made,” the Apostle says He is made in the likeness of man, not in relation to Divine Sovereignty. He became obedient unto death, demonstrating the obedience that is fitting for humanity, and thereby attained the kingdom that rightfully belongs to the Godhead.

⁷ How many more passages must we cite to support the understanding that his “being made” should be seen in light of his Incarnation or a particular divine plan? Remember, whatever is made is also created, for “He spoke and things came into existence; he gave the command, and they were created”. “The Lord created me” — these words pertain to his humanity. Additionally, in our First Book, we demonstrated how the term “created” seems to be linked to the Incarnation.

⁸ Once more, the Apostle himself, by stating that worship is not to be given to a created being, has indicated that the Son has not been created but begotten by God. However, he also indicates in other passages what aspect of Christ can be considered created, thus elucidating the sense in which he interpreted the phrase from Solomon’s book: “The Lord created Me.”

⁹ Let’s now examine a complete passage. Since “humans are made of flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity, so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil”. Who else but the Son of God would invite us to share in his own flesh and blood? And how else, except through taking on flesh, did he become a partaker with us? And by what means other than physical death did he break the chains of death? For Christ’s endurance of death became the death of Death itself. Therefore, this passage speaks clearly of the Incarnation.

¹⁰ Let’s continue with what follows: “Indeed, he did not take on the nature of angels, but rather the seed of Abraham. In this way, he could truly become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Therefore, beloved brethren, who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Consider his faithfulness to the One who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house”. These are the words of the Apostle.

¹¹ You see what the writer means when he refers to him as “created”: It’s because he took on the seed of Abraham, clearly indicating the conception of a physical body. After all, how else could he have atoned for the sins of the people except through his body? In what did he suffer if not in his body—as we mentioned earlier, “Christ suffered in the flesh”? And in what capacity is he a priest if not in that which he inherited from the priestly lineage?

¹² It’s a priest’s job to offer something up, and, as per the Law, to access the sacred spaces through blood. But because God had turned away from the blood of animals like bulls and goats, this High Priest had to enter the heavenly holy of holies using His own blood. That’s how He becomes the eternal appeasement for our sins. So, priest and sacrifice are united; both roles are played out in human terms. He was led like a lamb to be sacrificed, and He serves as a priest in the line of Melchizedek.

¹³ So, let no one argue that any human institution holds divine authority simply because it appears orderly. Even Melchizedek, through whom Abraham offered sacrifice, isn’t considered by the Church to be an angel (as some Jewish commentators suggest), but rather a holy man and a priest of God. He, foreshadowing our Lord, is depicted as having no recorded lineage, no beginning, and no end, symbolizing the future arrival of the eternal Son of God. Like Christ, who was incarnate without a human father, begotten of God without a human mother, and whose divine lineage is beyond tracing, as it’s written: “Who can describe his generation?”

¹⁴ So, Melchizedek is seen as a priest of God patterned after Christ, with one being considered a prototype and the other the genuine article. A prototype is merely a shadow of the truth. We acknowledge the kingship of one associated with a particular city, while we recognize the kingship of the other in the context of reconciling the entire world. As written: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.” This implies the eternal nature of the Godhead in Christ. If the Father is in the Son, just as the Son is in the Father, then it’s clear that their unity in both essence and action is undeniable.

¹⁵ How could our opponents deny this truth, even if they wished to, when Scripture clearly states: “But the Father, who dwells in me, does his works,” and “The works that I do, he does”? It’s not that the Father also does the works, but rather one should understand it as a similarity of action rather than separate actions. By saying, “The things that I do, he himself does,” the Apostle makes it evident that we should believe the work of the Father and the work of the Son are unified.

¹⁶ Conversely, when Jesus intended to convey similarity rather than unity of works, He said: “He who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also.” By astutely including the word “also” here, He implies similarity but doesn’t attribute natural unity. Thus, the work of the Father and the work of the Son remain singular, regardless of whether the Arians agree.

Chapter 12 #

¹ How do they think the kingdom of the Father and the Son can be divided, when the Lord has said, as we mentioned earlier: “Every kingdom divided against itself will quickly fall”?

² In fact, to counter the heretical teachings of the Arians, Saint Peter himself affirmed the unity of the Father and the Son’s dominion, saying: “Therefore, my brothers, work hard to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

³ Now, if it is thought that only Christ’s dominion is being discussed, and thus the Father and the Son are seen as having divided authority, it must still be recognized that this is the eternal dominion of the Son. This would introduce the notion of two separate kingdoms, each prone to failure. Furthermore, since no kingdom can be compared to God’s kingdom—which they cannot deny to be the kingdom of the Son—they must either reconsider their view and acknowledge that the kingdom of the Father and the Son is one and the same, or they must attribute to the Father a lesser kingdom, which is blasphemy. Alternatively, they must acknowledge that the Son, whom they wrongly claim to be inferior in divinity, possesses an equal kingdom, which is inconsistent.

⁴ But their teaching does not align or agree with its own premises. Therefore, let them admit that the kingdom is one, just as we assert and prove, not based on our own claims, but on testimony given from heaven.

⁵ First, understand from additional Scripture that the kingdom of heaven is also the kingdom of the Son: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.” This leaves no room for doubt that the kingdom belongs to the Son of God.

⁶ Now understand that the kingdom of the Son is the same as the kingdom of the Father: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power.” It is indeed one kingdom, with a single reward, a single inheritor, and the same merit, all promised by the same One.

⁷ How can it not be one kingdom, especially when the Son Himself has said: “Then shall the righteous shine like the sun in the kingdom of My Father”? What belongs to the Father, by the majesty befitting Him, also belongs to the Son, by their unity in the same glory. Therefore, Scripture has declared that the kingdom is the kingdom of both the Father and the Son.

⁸ Now understand that when the kingdom of God is mentioned, it includes the authority of both the Father and the Son. The kingdom of the Father and the kingdom of the Son are encompassed under the single term “God,” as in: “When you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.” Do we deny that the prophets are in the kingdom of the Son? Even to the dying thief who said, “Remember me when You come into Your kingdom,” the Lord responded, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise.” What else can being in the kingdom of God mean but escaping eternal death? And those who have escaped eternal death see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

⁹ How, then, can He not have authority over what He gives when He says: “To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”? Notice the distinction between the two roles. The servant opens, but the Lord bestows. One acts through himself, the other through Christ. The minister receives the keys, while the Lord grants authority. One role is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward.

¹⁰ See now yet another proof that the kingdom and the authority of the Father and the Son are one. It is written in the Epistle to Timothy: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our Hope.” Thus, the kingdom of the Father and the Son is clearly declared to be one. Paul the Apostle also asserted this, saying: “For know this, that no shameless person, none that is impure, or covetous (which means idolatry), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Therefore, it is one kingdom and one Godhead.

¹¹ The Law, which speaks of one God, has proven the oneness of the Godhead. The Apostle also affirms this by saying that in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” If, as the Apostle says, all the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, then the Father and the Son must be acknowledged as sharing the same Godhead. If someone tries to separate the Godhead of the Son from that of the Father, even though the Son contains all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, what more can be added, since nothing exceeds complete perfection? Therefore, the Godhead is one.

Chapter 13 #

¹ Now, having established that the Father and the Son share one image and likeness, it’s important to demonstrate that they also share one majesty. We don’t need to search far for evidence, as the Son Himself has proclaimed: “When the Son of Man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His majesty.” Thus, the majesty of the Son is proclaimed! What more does He lack, whose uncreated majesty cannot be denied? Therefore, majesty belongs to the Son.

² Let our opponents now accept it as conclusively proven that the majesty of the Father and of the Son is one, since the Lord Himself has said: “For he who shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of Him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He comes in His majesty and His Father’s, and the majesty of the holy angels.” What does the inclusion of “the majesty of the holy angels” signify, if not that the servants are honored through the worship of their Lord?

³ Therefore, the Son attributed His majesty to His Father as well as to Himself, not in a way that the angels would share in that majesty on equal terms with the Father and the Son, but rather that they would behold the surpassing glory of God. Indeed, not even angels possess a majesty of their own, as Scripture speaks of the Son: “When He shall sit upon the throne of His majesty,” but they stand in the presence, beholding the glory of the Father and the Son, according to their respective degrees of vision as they are either worthy of or able to bear.

⁴ Furthermore, the words inspired by the divine do not only express their significance but also reveal the distinct glory of the Father and the Son, a glory not shared by angels. This is evident in passages such as, “But when the Son of Man comes in His majesty, and all the angels with Him.” Additionally, to emphasize the unity of His own majesty with that of His Father, Jesus Himself declared, “And the Son of Man shall be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels”. While angels come in obedience, Jesus arrives in majesty; they serve Him, while He reigns on His throne. In human terms, He is the Judge, they are His court officials. It’s worth noting that Jesus didn’t prioritize mentioning His Father’s divine majesty first, followed by His own and then the angels’, to avoid any implication of hierarchy or diminishing glory. Instead, He placed His own majesty first, followed by His Father’s, and then the angels’—not to insinuate an ascent from angels to the Father through His increasing dignity, nor a descent from the Father to angels, diminishing His own glory. We, who affirm the unity of the Father and the Son in one divine essence, reject such hierarchical distinctions as proposed by the Arians.

Chapter 14 #

¹ Your Majesty, concerning the matter of substance, allow me to express that there’s no need for me to elaborate on the unity of substance between the Son and the Father. It is sufficent to recall that the Son is described as the perfect image of the Father’s essence. This signifies that in all aspects relating to the divine nature, there exists no differentiation between the Son and the Father.

² By virtue of this profound likeness, Christ declared, “All things that the Father has are Mine.” Therefore, it is impossible to deny substance to God, for He is certainly not without substance. He is the very source of existence for all others, although the nature of His being differs from that of the created realm. The Son of God, through whom all things are sustained, cannot lack substance; it would be inconceivable.

³ Thus, as the Psalmist proclaims, “My bones are not hidden from You, which You made in secret, and my substance in the underworld.” This verse illustrates that even the most concealed aspects of our being are known to God. Nothing, not even the majestic works accomplished before the world’s inception, can remain hidden from His power and divine nature. Here, indeed, we encounter a profound acknowledgment of substance.

⁴ One might argue that the mention of Christ’s substance is solely due to His Incarnation. However, as I’ve demonstrated, the term “substance” appears multiple times, and not solely in the context of inherited possessions. Now, if you’ll permit me, let’s consider the possibility that, in alignment with the mystical prophecy, the substance of Christ indeed extended to the underworld. He exercised His power in the realm below, releasing the souls of the departed, including that of His own body, breaking the chains of death and absolving sins.

⁵ Indeed, what prevents us from interpreting that substance as His divine essence, especially considering that God’s presence permeates everywhere? As it has been said to Him, “If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.”

⁶ Furthermore, the Psalmist clarifies in the subsequent verses that when he speaks of “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed,” he is referring to something beyond the mere result of craftsmanship. This indicates that the Son is not a created entity or one of God’s works; rather, He is the begotten Word of eternal power. The Psalmist described Him as “ἀχατέργαστον,” signifying that the Word, being begotten of the Father, is not made or created, without the participation of any created being. However, this interpretation is supported by numerous other testimonies as well. Let’s suppose for a moment that the substance mentioned here pertains to bodily substance, as long as you also acknowledge that the Son of God is not a product of craftsmanship, but instead affirm His uncreated divinity.

⁷ Now I understand that some claim the mystical incarnate form was uncreated, since there was no sexual intercourse involved, as our Lord was born of a virgin. Therefore, if many have argued based on this passage that what was born from Mary was not produced through a creative act, do you, follower of Arius, dare to think that the Word of God is something that was created?

⁸ Is this the sole instance where we encounter the term “substance”? Haven’t we also come across it elsewhere, as in the passage: “The gates of the cities are broken down, the mountains are fallen, and His substance is revealed”? Do we interpret this word as denoting something created here as well? I’m aware that some suggest that “substance” refers to wealth. So, if we accept this interpretation, are we to believe that mountains crumbled so someone’s monetary holdings could be displayed?

⁹ Let’s recall the context of the falling mountains; they are the ones mentioned in the saying: “If you have faith like a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move.” Here, “mountains” symbolize lofty things that pride themselves.

¹⁰ Furthermore, in the Greek text, it reads: “The palaces are fallen.” What palaces could these be, if not the domain of Satan, of whom the Lord questioned: “How can his kingdom stand?” So, we are discussing the very structures that serve as Satan’s stronghold, likened to towering mountains. Thus, as these palaces collapse within the hearts of believers, it unveils the truth that Christ, the Son of God, originates from the eternal substance of the Father. And what about those mountains of bronze, from amidst which four chariots emerge?

¹¹ We witness that lofty arrogance, which opposes the knowledge of God, being brought low by the command of the Lord, as the Son of God declared: “Be silent, and come out, you unclean spirit.” This is echoed in the words of the prophet: “Behold, I have come to you, O mountain of corruption!”

¹² So, those mountains have indeed crumbled, revealing that in Christ resided the essence of God, as testified by those who witnessed His deeds: “Truly, you are the Son of God,” for it was by divine authority, not human, that He commanded demons. Jeremiah further laments: “Mourn over the mountains and beat your chests in the desert, for they lie desolate; since there are no people, they have not heard the word of substance. From the birds of the air to the beasts of burden, they tremble and fail.”

¹³ It has not escaped our notice that, in another instance, addressing the weaknesses of human existence to demonstrate that He took on the limitations of the flesh and the emotions of our minds, the Lord said through His prophet: “Remember, O Lord, what My substance is,” because it was the Son of God speaking from the perspective of human frailty.

¹⁴ In the passage cited to unveil the mysteries of the Incarnation, Scripture speaks of Him: “But You have rejected, O Lord, and counted for nought — You have cast out Your Christ. You have overthrown the covenant made with Your Servant, and trampled His holiness in the earth.” What aspect caused Scripture to label Him as “Servant” if not His flesh? For He did not cling to equality with God as something to be seized, but humbled Himself, taking on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of humans and found in appearance as a man. Therefore, in assuming my nature, He served, but by His inherent power, He is the Lord.

¹⁵ Moreover, what significance do we attribute to the passage where it says, “Who has stood in the truth (substantia) of the Lord?” and again, “Now if they had stood in My truth, and had given ear to My words, and had taught My people, I would have turned them from their follies and transgressions?”

Chapter 15 #

¹ How can the Arians deny the substance of God? How can they propose that the word “substance,” which is found in numerous places in Scripture, should be excluded from use, when they themselves, by asserting that the Son is ἑτεροούσιος, meaning of another substance, acknowledge substance within God?

² So, it’s not the term itself that they avoid, but rather its implications and ramifications, as they refuse to acknowledge the Son of God as truly divine. Although the process of divine generation is beyond human comprehension, the Fathers believed that their faith could be appropriately expressed by employing such terminology, in opposition to ἑτεροούσιος, drawing from the authority of the prophet who asked: “Who has stood in the truth (substantia) of the Lord, and seen His Word?” Therefore, the Arians accept the term “substance” when it aligns with their blasphemy; however, when it is used in accordance with the devout belief of the faithful, they reject it and argue against it.

³ What other motive could there be for their reluctance to describe the Son as ὁμοούσιος, of the same substance, with the Father, except that they are unwilling to acknowledge Him as the true Son of God? This is evident in the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia. He writes, “If we say that the Son is true God and uncreated, then we are on the path to confess Him to be of one substance (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.” When this letter was presented before the Council convened at Nicæa, the Fathers included this word in their exposition of the Faith because they recognized that it intimidated their adversaries. They wielded the very weapon their opponents had brandished to strike down the head of their blasphemous heresy.

⁴ Their argument falls flat when they claim to avoid using the term because of the Sabellians; in doing so, they reveal their own ignorance. A being is of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) with another, not with itself. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the Son as ὁμοούσιος (of the same substance) with the Father, as this term encapsulates both the distinction of Persons and the unity of nature.

⁵ Can they deny that the term οὐσία (substance) is found in Scripture when the Lord spoke of bread as ἐπιούσιος (daily), and Moses wrote, “You shall be to me a peculiar people” (ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι λαὸς περιούσιος)? What does οὐσία mean, and where does the name come from if not from οὖσα ἀεί (being forever)? For He who exists forever is God, and therefore the Divine Substance, enduring eternally, is called οὐσία. Bread is ἐπιούσιος because, drawing its enduring power from the essence of the Word, it nourishes the heart and soul, as it is written: “Bread strengthens the heart of man.”

⁶ Let us, therefore, honor the traditions of our forefathers and not profane the sacred symbols entrusted to us with crude and reckless audacity. Just as the sealed book of prophecy, of which we have heard, remained unopened by elders, powers, angels, or archangels, for only Christ possesses the exclusive right to open it, so too should we respect the sanctity of the priesthood, sealed by confessors and revered through the testimony of many. Those who have been compelled to unseal it have subsequently resealed it, recognizing the deception imposed upon them. Those who dared not desecrate it have emerged as martyrs and confessors. How can we reject the Faith upheld by those whose victory we celebrate?

Chapter 16 #

¹ Fear not, let no one quiver; those who make threats only empower the loyal. The sweet words of deceivers conceal venom—thus, we must stay vigilant against those who feign sincerity. In the past, those who placed blind trust in them were misled, falling into the traps of betrayal while believing it was all in good faith.

² They declare a curse upon anyone who suggests that Christ is merely a created being, like all other creatures. Common folk have heard this and placed their trust in it, for, as the saying goes, “the simple man believes every word.” Thus, they have heard and believed, ensnared by the initial allure, like birds drawn to the bait of faith, unaware of the trap laid before them. In their pursuit of faith, they have been hooked by the deceit of the ungodly. Therefore, heed the words of the Lord: “Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Wisdom is emphasized so that innocence may remain untainted.

³ Those who follow the Gospel’s guidance are like serpents, shedding old ways to embrace new behaviors: casting off the former self and its deeds, and adopting the new self, fashioned in the likeness of the Creator. Let us therefore understand the wisdom of those likened to serpents in the Gospel, shedding the skin of the old self, so that, like serpents, we may safeguard our lives and remain vigilant against deception.

⁴ It would have done to declare, “Accursed is he who claims that Christ is a created being.” So, Arian, why do you taint your confession with poison, thus corrupting its entirety? By adding “after the manner of the rest of created beings,” you not only affirm that Christ is a created being but also imply that He is one like all others—while you may grant Him a dignity surpassing other creations. Moreover, Arius, the originator of this impious doctrine, asserted that the Son of God was a perfectly created being, distinct from others. Do you not see how you’ve inherited this language from your forebearer? To deny that Christ is a created being suffices; why add “but not as the rest of beings created”? Cut away the infected part lest the contagion spread—it is poisonous and lethal.

⁵ You sometimes refer to Christ as God, but be clear: when you call Him true God, you affirm that He possesses the entirety of the Father’s divine essence. Understand that the term “god” can refer to various entities, celestial or earthly. Therefore, the title “God” should not be used casually; rather, it should signify that you acknowledge the Son to share the same divine nature as the Father. As Scripture states, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.” This means that the Father has given this life to the Son through begetting Him—not as a bestowed grace upon one lacking it.

⁶ Take note of this clarification: He has the authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man. Pay attention to this so that you don’t twist a single word to spread falsehood. You recognize that He is the Son of Man, so don’t deny that He accepts the power given to Him. If you deny that the Son possesses everything that belongs to God, then you might as well deny God entirely. When He said, “All things that the Father has are Mine,” why not accept that all the qualities and attributes of Divinity are in the Son, just as they are in the Father? When He says, “All things that the Father has are Mine,” what does He exclude as not His?

⁷ Why do you repeatedly emphasize, with earnestness and sincerity, Christ’s miraculous acts of raising the dead, walking on water, and healing the sick? Indeed, these powers He has granted to His servants to demonstrate as well. They evoke even greater wonder when witnessed in humans, for God has bestowed upon them such immense power. I desire to hear about Christ’s attributes that are uniquely His, which cannot be shared by any created beings now that He, as the only begotten Son of God, very God of very God, sits at the Father’s right hand.

⁸ Every time I see the Father and the Son together, the Son is always at the right hand. Does this mean the Son is superior to the Father? No, we don’t claim that. Instead, it’s because the one honored by God’s love is often disrespected by human ungodliness. The Father, knowing that people would doubt the Son, has provided an example of respect for us to follow, so we don’t dishonor the Son.

Chapter 17 #

¹ There’s this one instance where Stephen mentioned seeing Jesus positioned at the right hand of God. Let’s unpack what that means so we don’t misinterpret it. You might wonder why we usually hear about Jesus sitting at God’s right hand but in this one case, He’s standing. Well, when Jesus is depicted as seated, it’s often in the context of being the judge of the living and the dead. But here, standing, it signifies His role as the advocate for His people. He stood, essentially taking on the posture of a priest, as He witnessed Stephen’s martyrdom and offered his sacrifice to God. He stood, acting as the referee, ready to award the victor of a significant spiritual battle.

² Open yourself to the Spirit of God, so you can perceive things just as Stephen did when he received the Spirit. You’ll be able to declare, just like the martyr did: “Look, I see the heavens open, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand.” Those who have their spiritual eyes open witness Jesus beside God; those whose inner vision is clouded do not see Him in that position. So, let’s acknowledge Jesus at God’s right hand, so that the heavens may open up to us too. Those who profess otherwise shut themselves out from heaven’s gates.

³ If anyone objects to the Son standing, let them demonstrate from this passage that the Father was seated. Even though Stephen mentioned the Son of Man standing, he didn’t explicitly mention the Father sitting.

⁴ To further clarify that standing implied no disrespect, but rather authority, Stephen directed his prayer to the Son, aiming to strengthen his connection with the Father. He said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Additionally, to illustrate that the authority of the Father and the Son is unified, he prayed again, saying, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” These are the same words that the Lord, during His own suffering, addressed to the Father as the Son of Man— and these are the same words of Stephen’s prayer, in his own martyrdom, to the Son of God. When the same grace is sought from both the Father and the Son, it affirms the same power in each.

⁵ If our opponents insist that Stephen directed his prayer to the Father, they should consider the implications of their own argument. We remain steadfast despite their reasoning. However, for those who prioritize the letter and sequence of events, they should note that the initial petition is directed to the Son. Even based on their interpretation of the passage, we can demonstrate the unity of the Father’s and the Son’s authority. When both the Son and the Father are addressed in prayer, the equality implied in the prayer indicates unity in purpose. But if they refuse to acknowledge that the Son was addressed as Lord, it becomes evident that they are attempting to deny His lordship.

⁶ Now that we’ve considered the profound significance of this martyr’s testimony, let’s temper our inclination toward debate and conclude today’s discussion. Instead, let’s honor the holy martyr as is customary after a great struggle—bleeding from the enemy’s blows yet rewarded with the crown bestowed by Christ. Let us sing praises to commemorate their valor and ultimate victory.