On the Trinity 18
Summary: The God who appeared to Abraham at Mamre and the Angel who spoke to Hagar, called both angel and God, cannot be the invisible Father or a mere angel; he is the Son, who accustoms human eyes to see God.
Latin text · PL 3:946b–950b
Ecce idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahae visus sit Deus. Atqui idem Moyses audit a Deo, quod nemo hominum Deum videat et vivat. Si videri non potest Deus, quomodo visus est Deus? Aut si visus est, quomodo videri non potest? Nam et Joannes, Deum nemo (inquit) vidit unquam. Et apostolus Paulus: Quem vidit hominum nemo, nec videre potest. Sed non utique Scriptura mentitur: ergo vere visus est Deus. Ex quo intelligi potest, quod non Pater visus sit, qui nunquam visus est; sed Filius, qui et descendere solitus est, et videri quia descenderit. Imago est enim invisibilis Dei, ut mediocritas et fragilitas conditionis humanae Deum Patrem videre aliquando jam tunc assuesceret in imagine Dei, hoc est, in Filio Dei. Gradatim enim et per incrementa fragilitas humana nutriri debuit per imaginem ad istam gloriam, ut Deum Patrem videre possit aliquando. Periculosa sunt enim quae magna sunt, si repentina sunt. Nam etiam lux solis subita post tenebras, splendore nimio insuetis oculis non ostendet diem, sed potius faciet caecitatem. Quod ne in damnum humanorum contingat oculorum, paulatim disruptis et dissipatis tenebris, ortus luminaris istius mediocribus incrementis fallenter assurgens oculos hominum sensim assuefacit ad totum orbem suum ferendum per incrementa radiorum. Sic ergo et Christus, id est imago Dei et Filius Dei, ab hominibus inspicitur, qua poterat videri. Et ideo fragilitas et mediocritas sortis humanae per ipsum alitur, producitur, educatur; ut aliquando Deum quoque ipsum Patrem, assueta Filium conspicere, possit, ut est, videre; ne majestatis ipsius repentino et intolerabili fulgore percussa intercipi possit, ut Deum Patrem quem semper optavit, videre non possit. Ex quo Filius est hic qui videtur; Dei autem Filius, Dei Verbum est; Dei autem Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis: hic autem Christus est. Quae, malum, ratio est ut dubitetur Deus dici, qui tot modis Deus intelligitur approbari? Ac si et Agar, ancillam Sarae de domo ejectam pariter et fugatam Angelus convenit apud fontem aquae in via Sur, fugae causas interrogat atque accipit, et post haec humilitatis consilia porrigit; spem praeterea illi materni nominis facit, quodque ex utero ejus multum semen esset futurum spondet atque promittit, et quod Ismael ex illa nasci haberet, et cum caeteris aperit locum habitationis ipsius, actumque describit: hunc autem Angelum, et Dominum Scriptura proponit et Deum (nam nec benedictionem seminis promisisset, nisi Angelus et Deus fuisset): quaerant quid in praesenti loco haeretici tractent. Pater fuit iste qui ab Agar visus est, an non? quia Deus positus est. Sed absit Deum Patrem Angelum dicere: ne alteri subditus sit, cujus Angelus fuerit. Sed Angelum dicent fuisse: quomodo ergo Deus erit, si Angelus fuit? cum non sit hoc nomen Angelis unquam concessum; nisi quoniam ex utroque latere nos veritas in istam concludit sententiam; quia intelligere debeamus Dei Filium fuisse: qui quoniam ex Deo est, merito Deus, quia Dei Filius, dictus sit: quoniam Patri subditus et annuntiator paternae voluntatis est, magni consilii Angelus pronuntiatus est. Ergo si hic locus neque personae Patris congruit, ne Angelus dictus sit, neque personae Angeli, ne Deus pronuntiatus sit: personae autem Christi convenit ut et Deus sit, quia Dei Filius est, et Angelus sit, quoniam paternae dispositionis annuntiator est: intelligere debent contra Scripturas se agere haeretici, qui Christum cum dicant se et Angelum credere, nolint illum etiam Deum pronuntiare, quem in Veteri Testamento ad visitationem generis humani legunt saepe venisse. Adhuc adjecit Moyses, Abrahae visum Deum apud quercum Mambre, sedente ipso ad ostium tabernaculi sui meridie; et nihilominus, cum tres conspexisset viros, unum ex illis Dominum nuncupasse; quorum cum pedes lavisset, cineritios panes cum butyro, et ipsius copia lactis offert, et ut hospites retenti vescerentur, hortatur. Post quae et quod pater futurus esset, audit: et quod Sara uxor ejus paritura ex ipso filium esset, ediscit: et de exitu Sodomitarum, quae merebantur pati, recognoscit: et quod propter clamorem Sodomorum Deus descendisset, addiscit. Quo in loco si Patrem volunt videri tunc fuisse cum Angelis duobus hospitio receptum, Patrem visibilem haeretici crediderunt: si autem Angelum, cum ex Angelis tribus unus Dominus nuncupatur: cur, quod non solet, Angelus Deus dicitur? nisi quoniam, ut Deo Patri invisibilitas propria reddatur, et Angelo propria mediocritas remittatur, non nisi Dei Filius, qui et Deus est, Abrahae visus, et hospitio receptus esse credetur. Quod enim erat futurus, meditabatur in sacramento, Abrahae factus hospes, apud Abrahae filios futurus; cujus filiorum pedes, ad probationem quod ipse esset, abluit; reddens in filiis jus hospitalitatis, quod aliquando illi feneraverat pater. Unde et ne qua esset dubitatio quin iste Abrahae hospes fuisset, in Sodomitarum exitu ponitur. Quoniam pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphur a Domino de coelo. Sic enim et prophetes ex persona Dei: Subverti vos, inquit, sicut subvertit Dominus Sodomam et Gomorrham. Dominus ergo Sodomam subvertit, id est, Deus Sodomam subvertit: sed in subversione Sodomorum Dominus pluit ignem a Domino. Hic autem Dominus visus est Abrahae Deus: Deus autem hic hospes est Abrahae, visus utique quia tactus: sed cum Pater, quia invisibilis, nec tunc utique visus sit; visus est et hospitio receptus et acceptus est, qui solitus est tangi et videri: hic autem Filius Dei, Dominus a Domino pluit super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur atque ignem. Hic autem Dei Verbum est: Verbum autem Dei caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: hic autem Christus est. Non Pater igitur apud Abraham hospes, sed Christus fuit; nec tunc Pater visus est, sed Filius; visus autem est Christus. Merito igitur Christus et Dominus et Deus est, qui non aliter Abrahae visus est, nisi quia ante ipsum Abraham ex Patre Deo Deus Sermo generatus est. Adhuc, inquit, idem Angelus et Deus eamdem Agar, fugatam de domo Abrahae cum puero, consolatur et visitat. Nam cum illa in solitudine exposuisset infantem, quia aqua defecisset ex utre, cumque puer ille clamasset, fletum et planctum levasset, Et audivit, inquit Scriptura, Deus vocem pueri de loco ubi erat. Cum Deum esse qui vocem infantis audivit, retulisset, adjecit: Et vocavit Angelus Domini ipsam Agar de coelo; Angelum referens esse quem Deum dixerat, et Dominum pronuntians esse quem Angelum collocarat: quique Angelus et Deus adhuc ipsi Agar promittit majora solatia, dicendo: Ne timueris; exaudivi enim vocem pueri de loco ubi erat. Surge, sume puerum, et tene: in gentem enim magnam faciam eum. Hic Angelus, si Angelus tantum est, cur hoc sibi vindicat ut dicat: In gentem enim magnam faciam eum, cum hoc utique genus potentiae Dei sit, Angeli esse non possit? Ex quo etiam Deus confirmatur esse qui hoc potest facere: quoniam ut hoc ipsum comprobetur, adjicitur per Scripturam statim: Et aperuit Deus oculos ejus, et vidit puteum aquae vivae, et abiit, et implevit utrem de puteo, et dedit puero, et erat Deus cum puero. Si ergo hic Deus erat cum puero qui aperuit oculos Agar, ut videret puteum aquae vivae, et hauriret aquam propter urgentem sitis necessitatem; hic autem Deus coelo illam vocat, Angelus dictus, cum superius vocem audiens clamantis pueri, Deus esset potius, non alius intelligitur quam Angelus esse pariter et Deus. Quod cum Patri competens et conveniens esse non possit, qui tantummodo Deus est, competens autem esse possit Christo, qui non tantummodo Deus, sed et Angelus pronuntiatus est: manifeste apparet, non Patrem ibi tunc locutum fuisse ad Agar, sed Christum potius, cum Deus sit, cui etiam Angeli competit nomen, quippe cum magni consilii Angelus factus sit: Angelus autem sit, dum exponit sinum Patris, sicut Joannes edicit. Si enim ipse Joannes hunc eumdem qui sinum exponit Patris, Verbum dicit carnem factum esse, ut sinum Patris posset exponere: merito Christus non solum homo est, sed et Angelus; nec Angelus tantum, sed et Deus per Scripturas ostenditur, et a nobis hoc esse creditur: ne, si non Christum tunc locutum ad Agar voluerimus accipere, aut Angelum Deum faciamus, aut Deum Patrem omnipotentem inter Angelos computemus.
English · Claude translation
See, the same Moses reports in another place that God was seen by Abraham. And yet the same Moses hears from God that no man sees God and lives. If God cannot be seen, how was God seen? Or if he was seen, how can he not be seen? For John too says, “No one has ever seen God.” And the apostle Paul: “Whom no man has seen or can see.” But Scripture certainly does not lie: therefore God was truly seen. From this it can be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, who has never been seen, but the Son, who is accustomed both to come down and to be seen because he came down. For he is the image of the invisible God, so that the limitation and frailty of the human condition might already then grow accustomed to seeing God the Father one day in the image of God, that is, in the Son of God. For human frailty had to be nourished step by step and by increases through the image toward that glory, so that it might one day be able to see God the Father. For great things are dangerous if they are sudden. For even the light of the sun, coming suddenly after darkness, will not show day to unaccustomed eyes by its excessive brightness, but will rather cause blindness. Lest this happen to the harm of human eyes, the darkness is broken up and scattered little by little, and the rising of that luminary, climbing imperceptibly by moderate increases, gradually accustoms the eyes of men to bear its whole orb by the increase of its rays. So, then, Christ too, that is, the image of God and the Son of God, is looked upon by men in so far as he could be seen. And therefore the frailty and limitation of the human lot is fed, drawn forward, and brought up through him, so that one day, having grown used to beholding the Son, it may be able to see even God the Father himself as he is; lest, struck by the sudden and unbearable brightness of his majesty, it should be cut off, so that it could not see God the Father whom it has always longed for. Hence it is the Son who is seen here; and the Son of God is the Word of God; and the Word of God became flesh and dwelt in us; and this is Christ. What reason, in the name of mischief, is there for doubting that he should be called God, who is understood to be proved God in so many ways?
And if an angel meets Hagar, Sarah's maidservant, driven out and put to flight from the house, at a spring of water on the road to Shur, asks the reasons for her flight and hears them, and after this offers her counsels of humility; moreover gives her hope of the name of mother, pledges and promises that from her womb there would be much seed, and that Ishmael was to be born of her, and besides discloses the place of his dwelling and describes his way of life: and if Scripture presents this angel as both Lord and God (for he would not have promised the blessing of seed unless he had been an angel and God): let the heretics consider what they make of this passage. Was this one whom Hagar saw the Father, or not? For he is set down as God. But far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest he be subject to another whose angel he would be. But they will say it was an angel: how then will he be God, if he was an angel? since this name has never been granted to angels. Unless it is that the truth shuts us in from both sides to this conclusion: that we must understand it to have been the Son of God, who, since he is from God, is rightly called God, because he is the Son of God; and since he is subject to the Father and the announcer of the Father's will, he has been declared the Angel of great counsel. Therefore, if this passage does not fit the person of the Father, lest he be called an angel, nor the person of an angel, lest he be declared God, but it does suit the person of Christ that he should be both God, because he is the Son of God, and an angel, because he is the announcer of the Father's arrangement: the heretics ought to understand that they act against the Scriptures, who, though they say they believe Christ to be an angel, are unwilling to declare him God as well, whom they read in the Old Testament to have often come to visit the human race.
Moses further adds that God was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent at noon; and that nonetheless, when he had seen three men, he called one of them Lord; and when he had washed their feet, he offers loaves baked in the ashes, with butter and an abundance of milk, and urges them to stay as guests and eat. After this he hears that he is to be a father; he learns that Sarah his wife would bear him a son; he comes to know of the end of the Sodomites, which they deserved to suffer; and he learns that God had come down because of the outcry of Sodom. If in this passage they wish the Father to have been seen at that time, received as a guest together with two angels, then the heretics have believed the Father visible. But if it was an angel, when one of three angels is called Lord, why is an angel called God, which is not usual? Unless, so that his proper invisibility may be given back to God the Father, and his proper limitation left to the angel, it will be believed that none other than the Son of God, who is also God, was seen by Abraham and received as a guest. For he was rehearsing in a mystery what he was to be: made Abraham's guest, he was to be among Abraham's sons; and he washed the feet of those sons, to prove that he was the same, repaying to the sons the due of hospitality which their father had once lent to him. Hence too, lest there should be any doubt that it was he who had been Abraham's guest, it is written in the account of the end of the Sodomites: “The Lord rained fire and sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord out of heaven.” So too the prophet says in the person of God: “I overthrew you as the Lord overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” The Lord, then, overthrew Sodom; that is, God overthrew Sodom; but in the overthrow of Sodom the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God is Abraham's guest, seen, surely, because he was touched. But since the Father, being invisible, was surely not seen then either, the one who was seen and received and welcomed as a guest was he who is accustomed to be touched and seen. And this is the Son of God, the Lord who rained sulphur and fire from the Lord on Sodom and Gomorrah. And this is the Word of God; and the Word of God became flesh and dwelt in us; and this is Christ. It was not, then, the Father who was Abraham's guest, but Christ; nor was it the Father who was then seen, but the Son; and it was Christ who was seen. Rightly, then, Christ is both Lord and God, who was seen by Abraham for no other reason than that before Abraham himself God the Word was begotten from God the Father.
Further, the same Angel and God, it says, comforts and visits the same Hagar when she had been put out of Abraham's house with the boy. For when she had left the infant in the wilderness because the water in the skin had run out, and the boy had cried out and raised weeping and wailing, “And God heard,” says Scripture, “the voice of the boy from the place where he was.” Having reported that it was God who heard the infant's voice, it added: “And the Angel of the Lord called Hagar herself from heaven”, stating that he was an angel whom it had called God, and declaring him Lord whom it had set down as an angel; and this Angel and God further promises Hagar greater comfort, saying: “Do not fear; for I have heard the voice of the boy from the place where he was. Rise, take the boy, and hold him: for I will make him a great nation.” If this angel is only an angel, why does he claim for himself the right to say, “For I will make him a great nation”, when this kind of power is surely God's and cannot be an angel's? Hence he who can do this is also confirmed to be God; for, to prove this very thing, Scripture immediately adds: “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of living water, and she went and filled the skin from the well and gave it to the boy; and God was with the boy.” If, then, this God was with the boy who opened Hagar's eyes so that she saw a well of living water and drew water because of the pressing need of thirst; and this God, called an angel, calls her from heaven, when earlier, hearing the voice of the crying boy, he was rather God: he is understood to be none other than one who is both angel and God. Since this cannot be fitting and suitable to the Father, who is only God, but can be fitting to Christ, who has been declared not only God but also Angel, it plainly appears that it was not the Father who then spoke to Hagar there, but rather Christ, since he is God, to whom the name of angel also belongs, inasmuch as he was made the Angel of great counsel; and he is Angel in that he makes known the bosom of the Father, as John declares. For if John himself says that this same one who makes known the Father's bosom, the Word, became flesh so that he might make known the Father's bosom, then rightly Christ is shown by the Scriptures to be not only man but also angel, and not angel only but also God, and is believed by us to be so: lest, if we will not accept that it was Christ who then spoke to Hagar, we either make an angel God, or count God the Father Almighty among the angels.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotations and allusions are Gen 12:7; Exod 33:20; John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16 (Migne gives 2 Tim); Col 1:15; Gen 16:7–12; Isa 9:6 (LXX “Angel of great counsel”); Gen 18:1–21; John 13:5; Gen 19:24; Amos 4:11; Gen 21:14–20; John 1:18 (“the bosom of the Father”). Novatian's theophany exegesis (the Son as the one seen in the Old Testament) follows Justin and Tertullian. “Angel” names Christ's office as messenger, not his nature.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (OCR: a for u; OCR: b for h; OCR: broken word; OCR: comma for period; OCR: misread letters; broken word; OCR: o for u; OCR: period for comma; OCR: uncertain character): re(??)datur → reddatur; erat faturus → erat futurus; subvenit Dominus So· domam → subvertit Dominus Sodomam; Abra· hae → Abrahae; apud Abrabam hospes → apud Abraham hospes; et Deus, Quod cum → et Deus. Quod cum; tantummodo Deus. sed → tantummodo Deus, sed; creditor: ne → creditur: ne.
Cite this passage
Novatian, Trin. 18 (PL 3:946b–950b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/novatian-trinitate/18/).
The SBL abbreviation for this work has not been checked yet.
Plain text
Novatian, Trin. 18 (PL 3:946b–950b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/novatian-trinitate/18/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text