Homilies on Hebrews 2.1–2.3

Everywhere a reverent mind is needed, but especially when we say or hear something about God; for neither can the tongue speak nor the ear hear anything worthy of God. And why do I speak of tongue and ear? Not even the mind, which far surpasses these, will be able to … when we wish … For if the peace of God surpasses all understanding, and the things prepared for those who love him have not entered into the heart of man, much more does the God of peace himself, the Creator of all, surpass our reasoning by a great measure. We must, then, receive everything with faith and reverence; and when speech fails and cannot set forth with precision what is said, then above all we must glorify God, that we have such a God, one who surpasses both our understanding and our speech. For many of the things we understand about God we cannot express, and many we express but cannot understand. I mean, for example, that God is everywhere we know, but how, we no longer understand; that there is a bodiless power, the cause of all good things, we know, but how it is, we do not know. See, we express it and do not understand it. I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it; I said that he is without beginning, but I do not understand it; I said that he begot from himself, and again I do not know how I am to understand it. There are, then, some things that cannot even be expressed: I mean, the mind understands, but cannot say. And that you may know that Paul too is weak and speaks his comparisons without full precision, so that you may shudder and seek nothing further, listen. Having said “Son” and set him down as Creator, what does he add? “Who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his substance.” This must be taken with reverence, and what is absurd must be cut away. “The radiance of his glory,” he says. But see for what purpose he takes it, and so take it yourself too: that he is from him, that he is so without passion, that he is so without the Father being diminished or lessened. For there are some who take absurd things from the comparison. “For the radiance,” they say, “does not subsist in itself, but has its being in another.” Do not, then, take it this way, man, and do not fall sick with the disease of Marcellus and Photinus. For he heals you at close quarters, so that you do not fall into that thought, and does not let you be carried down into that deadly sickness. What does he say? “And the exact imprint of his substance,” showing by the addition that just as the Father subsists in himself and needs nothing for his subsistence, so too does the Son. For he says this here showing his exact likeness, sending you to the distinctive imprint of the original, and teaching that he exists in his own substance by himself. And having said above that through him God made all things, here he gives him full authority. For what does he add? “And upholding all things by the word of his power,” so that from this we may understand not only his substance but also that he governs all things with full authority. See, then, how what is proper to the Father he attaches to the Son. That is why he did not say simply, “upholding all things,” nor did he say, “by his power,” but “by the word of his power.” For as earlier he led us up little by little and brought us down, so now too, as by certain steps, he goes up to the height and then comes down again, and says, “through whom also he made the ages.” See how here too he cuts two roads. For wishing to lead us away from the innovation of Sabellius and of Arius, the one doing away with the distinctness of the hypostasis, the other cutting the one nature down into inequality, he overthrows both with abundant force. How then does he do this? He turns the same things up and down and speaks them, so that he may not be thought to be without a source, nor alien to God. And do not be surprised at what I say, beloved. For if, even after so much proof, there are some who have said that he is alien to him, and have given him another father, and say that he is at war with this one, if he had not said these things, what would they not have uttered? When, then, he is compelled to heal, he is then compelled also to speak lowly things, as, for example, “He appointed him heir of all things,” and “Through him he made the ages.” Then, so that harm may not come in another way, he leads him up again from the words of lowliness to full authority, and shows that he is equal in honor with the Father, and so equal in honor that many have thought him the same as the Father. And see his great wisdom: he sets down that first, and secures it with precision; and when this has been shown, that he is God’s Son and not alien to him, he then speaks freely all the lofty things he wishes. For since saying something great about him had led many into that notion, he first sets down the lowly things, and then goes up safely to the height, as far as he wishes; and having said, “whom he appointed heir of all things,” and that “through him he made the ages,” he then adds, “and upholding all things by the word of his power.” For he who governs all things by a word alone would not need anyone in order to bring all things into being.

And that this is so, see how, as he goes on, he again gives him full authority, taking away the “through whom.” For since God made through him what he wished, then, leaving that aside, what does he say? “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.” Nowhere is there the “through whom,” nor that he made the ages through him. What then? Were they not made by him? Yes; but not as you say, nor as you suspect, as through an instrument, nor as though he would not have made them unless the Father had stretched out a hand to him. For just as the Father judges no one, and is said to judge through the Son, because he begot him a judge, so also he is said to create through him, because he begot him a creator. For if the Father is the cause of him, much more of the things made through him. When, then, he wishes to show that he is from him, he necessarily speaks lowly things; but when he wishes to speak lofty things, Marcellus and Sabellius take hold of them. But the church, avoiding the excess of both, has walked the middle road. For he neither stays with lowliness, so that Paul of Samosata may not find room, nor always remains with the lofty things; and he shows again his great nearness [to the Father], so that Sabellius may not leap in. He said “Son,” and at once Paul of Samosata stands up, saying that he is a son as the many are. But he dealt him a deadly blow by saying “heir.” But he is still shameless, together with Arius; for they say that “he appointed” belongs to weakness, and this one tries to press his case with what follows as well. But when Paul said, “through whom also he made the ages,” he threw the shameless Samosatene on his back, while Arius still seems to be strong. But see how he throws him down too, saying again, “who, being the radiance of his glory.” But see, Sabellius leaps in again, and Marcellus and Photinus. But to all of these too he gives one blow, saying, “and the exact imprint of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” Here again he strikes Marcion too, not very strongly, yet he strikes him all the same; for throughout the whole epistle he fights against them. But as I said, he has called the Son “the radiance of his glory”; and that he did so rightly, hear Christ saying about himself, “I am the light of the world.” And he said “radiance” for this reason, to show that it is said in that sense there too, clearly as light from light. And not only is this shown, but also that he has enlightened our souls. And by “radiance” he signified the equality of essence and the nearness to the Father. Consider the subtlety of what is said: he took one essence and substance to set forth two hypostases; which he does also in the case of the knowledge of the Spirit. For just as he says that the knowledge of the Father and of the Spirit is one, as being truly one, and in no way divided against itself, so here too he took hold of one word to make plain the two hypostases. Then he added, “and the exact imprint.” For the imprint is something other than the original, yet not other in every respect, but in subsisting by itself; since here too “imprint” shows the exact likeness to that of which it is the imprint, likeness in every respect. When, then, he calls him both “form” and “imprint,” what will they say? “But man too,” they say, “is called the image of an image.” What then? In the same way as the Son? “No,” he says, “but because ‘image’ does not show likeness.” And yet, inasmuch as man is called an image, it shows likeness as in a man. For what God is in heaven, that man is on earth; I mean in respect of rule: and just as he rules all things on earth, so God rules all things in heaven and on earth. But otherwise man is not called imprint, is not called radiance, is not called form; which shows the essence, or likeness in essence. Just as, then, “the form of a slave” shows nothing other than a man exactly alike, so too “the form of God” shows nothing other than God. “Who, being the radiance,” he says, “of his glory.” See what Paul does. Having said, “who, being the radiance of his glory,” he added again, “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty”: see what names he has used, nowhere finding a name for the essence itself. For neither “majesty” nor “glory” presents the name that he wishes to say; he cannot find a name. For this is what I said from the beginning, that we often understand things and cannot express them; for not even “God” is a name of the essence, nor is it possible at all to find a name of that essence. And what wonder if it is so with God, when not even in the case of an angel could anyone find a name indicating the essence? And perhaps not even in the case of the soul; for this name seems to me to set forth not its essence but its breathing. For one may see the same thing called both soul and heart and mind: “Create in me,” it says, “a clean heart, O God.” And not only these, but one may see it called spirit in many places too. “And upholding all things by the word of his power.” Do you see what he says?

How then, tell me, heretic, do you say, because Scripture says, “God said, Let there be light,” that the Father commanded and the Son obeyed? But see, here too he himself makes by a word: “upholding all things,” he says, that is, governing, holding together what would fall apart. For holding the world together is no less than making it, but, if one must say something remarkable, even greater. For the one is to bring something out of what is not; but the other, to hold together things that have come to be and would go back into non-being, and to join to one another things at variance, this is the great and wonderful thing, the proof of great power. Then, showing also the ease of it, he said “upholding.” He did not say “governing,” but used a metaphor from those who simply move something with a finger and make it go round. Here he showed both that the mass of creation is great, and that the great thing is nothing to him. Then again he shows that it is without toil, saying, “by the word of his power.” He said well, “by the word”; for since among us a word seems a bare thing, he shows that with God it is not bare. But that he upholds by a word, he said; how he upholds by a word, he did not add; for it is not possible to know. Then he added concerning his majesty. For so John too did: having said that he is God, he added his making of creation. For what he hinted at by saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” and, “All things came into being through him,” this Paul too made plain by “the word” and by saying, “through whom also he made the ages”; for he shows him to be both Creator and before all the ages. What then, when the prophet says about the Father, “From everlasting to everlasting you are,” and about the Son that he is before all the ages and the Creator of all, what would they say? Or rather, what was said about the Father, “He who is before the ages,” one may see said about the Son too. And just as John says, “He was life,” showing his power to hold creation together, that he is the life of all, so Paul too says, “upholding all things by the word of his power”; not as the Greeks do, who, as far as in them lies, deprive him both of the making itself and of providence, shutting up his power as far as the moon. “When he had made purification of our sins by himself,” he says. Having spoken of those wonderful and great things, the very highest, he then speaks also of his care for mankind. That too was indeed universal, “upholding all things”; but this is much greater. And this too is universal; for for his part he saved all. Since John too, having said, “He was life,” and having shown his providence, says again, “and light,” showing this very thing. “When he had made purification of our sins by himself,” he says, “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” He sets down here two very great proofs of his care: that he purified us from our sins, and that he did this by himself. And in many places you see him glorying in this, not only in the reconciliation with God, but in its having come about through the Son; for so the great gift has become greater by being through the Son. For having said, “He sat down at the right hand,” and “when he had made purification of our sins by himself,” and having reminded them of the cross, he quickly brought in the account of the resurrection and the ascension. And see his unspeakable wisdom: he did not say, “He was commanded to sit,” but, “He sat down.” Then again, so that you may not think that he stands, he adds, “For to which of the angels did he ever say, Sit at my right hand?” “He sat down,” he says, “at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” What is “on high”? Does he enclose God in a place? Away with it! He did not say it so that we should suspect this; but just as by saying “at the right hand” he did not give him a shape, but showed his equality of honor with the Father, so by saying “on high” he did not shut him up there, but showed that he has risen above all things; as if he said, he has reached the Father’s very throne. Just as the Father, then, is on high, so is he too; for sitting together shows nothing other than equality of honor. And if they say that he said, “Sit,” let us ask them: What then? Did he say it to one who was standing? But they could not show this. Besides, it does not say that he ordered or commanded, but that he said, “Sit”; and this for no other reason than that you should not think him without source and without cause. For that he said it so for this reason is clear from the place of the seat; for if he had wished to indicate inferiority, he would not have said “at the right hand,” but “at the left.” “Having become as much better than the angels,” he says, “as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” “Having become” here stands for “having been shown,” as one might say. Then he also makes it firm. From what? From the name. Do you see that he knows the name “Son” shows genuineness? Indeed, if it were not genuine, he would not have said this. How? Because he is genuine for no other reason than that he is from him. From this, then, he makes his argument firm. But if he is Son by grace, he is not only not more excellent, but even less than the angels. How? Because righteous men too were called sons, and the name “son,” unless he is genuine, cannot show the difference. And making plain that there is a difference between creatures and the Creator, hear what he says: “For to which of the angels did he ever say, You are my Son, today I have begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” These things are said also of the flesh; for “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” sets forth the incarnation; but “You are my Son” shows nothing other than that he is from him. And just as “who is” is said from the present time (for this especially fits him), so too “today” seems to me here to be said of the flesh. For when he takes hold of it, he then speaks all things without fear. For the flesh shares in the lofty things, just as the Godhead too shares in the lowly. For God, who did not think it beneath him to become man and did not refuse the thing itself, how would he have refused the words?

4. Knowing these things, then, let us be ashamed of nothing, let us not think highly of ourselves. For if he, being God and Master and Son of God, did not refuse to take the form of a slave, much more must we do all things, even if they are lowly. For from what, tell me, man, do you think highly of yourself? From the things of this life? But these run past before they appear. From spiritual things, then? But this too is one spiritual achievement, not to think highly of oneself. Why, then, do you think highly of yourself? Because you do right? Hear Christ saying, “When you have done all things, say, We are unprofitable slaves; we have done what we ought to do.” But do you think highly of yourself because of wealth? Why, tell me? Have you not heard, “[Naked we came, and naked] we shall depart”? Or rather, do you not see those before you who departed bare and naked? Who, having what belongs to others, thinks highly of himself? For those who wish to use them for their own enjoyment are deprived of them even against their will, often before death, and at death in every case. “But while we live,” he says, “we use them as we wish.” In the first place, one would not easily see anyone using what he has as he wishes; and if someone does use it as he wishes, even this is not great; for the present time is short compared with the endless ages. Do you think highly of yourself, man, because you are rich? Why? For this falls to robbers and thieves and murderers and the effeminate and fornicators and all the wicked. Why then do you think highly of yourself? For if you have used it as you should, you ought not to think highly of yourself, so as not to spoil the commandment; and if not as you should, for this very reason you should be humbled, because you have become a slave of money and are ruled by it. Tell me, if someone in a fever drinks a great deal of water, which for a little while quenches the thirst but afterwards kindles the flame, ought he to think highly of himself? And if someone has more cares to no purpose, ought he to think highly of himself for that? Why, tell me? Because you have many masters? Because you have countless cares? Because many flatter you? But this is slavery. And that you may learn that you are a slave to them, hear plainly. The other passions within us are sometimes useful; for example, anger is useful in many cases: for “unjust anger,” it says, … and again, “He who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to gehenna.” Again, jealous zeal is good, and desire: the one when it is for the begetting of children, the other when it imitates good things. As Paul too says, “It is good to be zealously sought in a good thing always”; and again, “Be zealous for the greater gifts.” So both are useful. But arrogance is nowhere good, but everywhere useless and harmful. Yet if one must think highly of oneself, it should be on poverty. Why? Because he who can live on little is much greater and better than he who cannot. For tell me, if some people were invited to the royal city, and some of them needed neither beasts of burden nor servants nor sunshades nor lodgings nor shoes nor baggage, but it was enough for them to have bread only and to take water from the springs, while the others said, “Unless you give us carriages too and a soft bed, we cannot come; unless we have many attendants, unless we may rest continually, we cannot; unless we use beasts of burden and travel only a small part of the day; and we need many other things besides,” which would we admire, those or these? Clearly these who need nothing. So too here: some need many things for the journey of this life, others nothing. So it was rather those in poverty who ought to think highly of themselves, if indeed anyone ought. “But the poor man is easily despised,” he says. Not he, but those who despise him. For why should I not despise those who do not know how to admire what they should? If someone is a painter, he will laugh at all who mock him, as long as they are ignorant, and he does not turn to what they say, but is content with his own testimony; and shall we hang ourselves on the opinion of the many? And how does this deserve pardon? This is why we deserve to be despised, when we do not despise those who despise us for our poverty, and do not pity them. And I pass over how many sins are born of wealth, and how many good things of poverty; or rather, neither wealth nor poverty is good in itself, but becomes so through those who use it. The approved Christian shows himself more in poverty than in wealth. How? In poverty he will be less puffed up, more self-controlled, more dignified, more gentle, more prudent; but remaining in wealth he has many hindrances to these. Let us see, then, what the rich man does, or rather the one who uses wealth badly. He seizes, he defrauds, he does violence. And what? The perverse loves, the unlawful unions, the sorceries, the poisonings, all the other terrible things, will you not find them born of wealth? Do you see that it is easier to pursue virtue in poverty than in wealth? For do not think, because the rich do not pay the penalty here, that they do not even sin; for if it were easy for a rich man to pay the penalty, you would have found the prisons full of them. But among its other evils wealth has this one too, that he who possesses it, transgressing in wickedness without punishment, will never stop doing it, but will receive wounds without remedies, and no one will put a bridle on him. And if one wishes, he will find that poverty provides us more occasions even for pleasure. How? Because it is free of cares, hatred, fighting, rivalry, strife, countless evils. Let us not, then, pursue riches, nor always envy those who possess much; but those of us who have, let us use wealth as we should; and those who have not, let us not grieve over this, but give thanks to God for all things, that with little toil he prepares for us to receive the same reward as the rich, or even greater, if we wish, and from little we shall gain great things. For the one who brought the two talents was admired and honored equally with the one who brought the five. Why? Because, though he was entrusted with two talents, he fulfilled all his own part and brought in double what was entrusted. Why then are we eager to be entrusted with much, when we may reap the same from little, or even more? When the toil is less and the reward much greater? For a poor man will more easily part with what is his than a rich man who has acquired much and great. Or do you not know that the more one gathers round him, the more he longs for? So that we may not suffer this, let us not seek wealth, nor bear poverty with impatience, nor be eager to be rich; but those of us who have, let us use it as Paul commanded: “Those who have,” he says, “as though they had not, and those who use this world as not using it to the full”; that we may obtain the promised good things; which may we all obtain, by grace and loving-kindness …