CONVERSATION 3

In the beginning was the Word (1:1)

1. It would be superfluous now to urge you to listen attentively. You have already hurried to show it in reality. This confluence, this standing with intense attention, this haste to push one another aside to take the nearest place from which our voice would be more clearly heard for you, the unwillingness to leave here, despite the crowding, until this spiritual spectacle, applause and exclamations of approval are over - all testify to your warmth of soul and zeal for listening. That is why it is superfluous to exhort you to listen, but it is only necessary to impress upon you that you should always retain such diligence in yourselves, and not only show it here, but that when at home, husband and wife, father and children, should talk about it; let some pass on to others and ask each other, and let all give such kind help to each other.

No one tells me that we don't need to do this with children. Not only should this be done, but there is only one thing you should be concerned about. However, for the sake of your weakness, I do not say this; I do not take the children away from extraneous activities, just as I do not distract you from public affairs. I think it only fair that one of the seven days should be dedicated to our common Lord. In fact, how incongruous it is for our servants to command that they serve us all the time, and that we ourselves should not devote the slightest time to the Lord, and moreover, when our service brings nothing to Him (because God needs nothing), and only to our own benefit! When you take your children to spectacles, you do not find an obstacle to this either in the sciences or in anything else. And when it is necessary to gather and receive some spiritual benefit, you call this work idleness. How can you not anger God, when you exercise your children in everything else and find time for this, but consider it burdensome and untimely for children to occupy them with the work of God?

No, not so, brethren! It is this age that mainly needs such lessons. Age is tender - he soon assimilates what he is told, and like a seal on wax, what they hear is imprinted in the souls of children. And yet their life then begins to incline either to vice or to virtue. Therefore, if at the very beginning, and, so to speak, in the antecedent, they are diverted from vice, and directed to a better path, then in the future this will already turn into a habit for them and into nature, as it were, and they will no longer so conveniently deviate from the worse of their own free will, because habit will attract them to good deeds. Then for us they will be more honorable than the old men themselves, and for civil affairs they will be more useful, revealing in their youth the qualities of the elders. It is impossible, as I have said before, that those who enjoy such a hearing (of the Gospel) and listen to such an apostle depart from here without receiving some true, great good, whether the partaker in this meal is a husband, or a wife, or a young man. If, by accustoming animals to our words, we thus tame them, then is it not much more through this spiritual teaching that we can correct people, when there is a great difference between both the healings and those being healed? For coarseness in us is not the same as in animals: with them it depends on nature, and with us on the will; and the power of words is not the same: there it comes from human thought, and here from the power and grace of the Spirit.

Therefore, whoever despairs of himself, let him think of tamed beasts, and he will never fall into despair. Let him always come to this hospital; let him constantly listen to the laws of the Spirit and, returning home, write down what he hears in his mind. In this way, he will be in good hope and safe, actually feeling successful. And the devil, as soon as he sees that the law of God is written in the soul, and the heart has become the tablets of this law, will no longer approach. Where there will be royal writings, not inscribed on a copper table, but sealed in a God-loving heart by the Holy Spirit, and shining with grace, there he will not even be able to look, but will run far away. For him and for the thoughts that come from him, nothing is so frightening as a thought occupied with divine objects, a soul constantly attached to this source. So-and-so can neither grieve anything in the present, even if it be unpleasant, nor puff up anything favorable; but, in the midst of storms and disturbances, she will enjoy silence.

2. And it is not from the nature of things that our confusion comes, but from the weakness of our spirit. If we were subjected to this suffering by circumstance, then all men should experience it, because we all sail on the same sea, on which it is impossible to avoid waves and storms. If there are people who remain outside the storm and the agitation of the sea, then it is obvious that it is not circumstances that produce the storm, but the state of our spirit. Consequently, if we tune the soul so that it can easily endure everything, then there will be no storm or drowning for us, but there will always be a favorable silence. But I don't know how, assuming not to say anything of the sort, I became so carried away by this teaching. Forgive me for this verbosity. I am afraid, and very much afraid, that your present zeal may be weakened. If I were sure of this, I would not tell you anything of the kind now. Diligence can make any task easier for you.

It is time, however, to attend to what is coming today, so that you may not be weary in the field. Podvigs lie ahead of us against the enemies of the truth, against those who invent everything in order to destroy the glory of the Son of God, or rather, their own. The glory of the Son of God always remains as it is, in no way diminished by a blasphemous tongue; but those who seek to destroy Him whom they say they worship,1 cover their faces with dishonor, and put their souls to death.

So, what do they say when we reason in this way? It is said that the saying, "In the beginning was the Word," does not directly prove the eternity (of the Son), because it is also said of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:l). Oh, shamelessness and wickedness! I converse with you about God, and you point out to me the earth and the people who came from the earth. Thus, if Christ is called the Son of God and God, so man is called the Son of God and God (as for example: "I said, You are gods, and the sons of the Most High are all of you" - Psalm 81:6), will you therefore contend with the Only-begotten in sonship, and say that in this respect He has no advantage over you? No way, you say. Yet you do it, though you do not express it in words. How? You affirm that you also participate in adoption by grace, and so does He. If you say that He is the Son not by nature, you are not expressing anything else, namely, that He is the Son by grace.

However, let us also consider the testimonies that are given to us. It is said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, ..." (Gen. 1:1). Also: "There was a man from Ramathaim-Zophim, ..." (1 Samuel 1:1). Here are the testimonies they consider strong! And indeed this is strong, but to prove the correctness of the dogmas that we affirm; and for the maintenance of blasphemy (heretics) nothing can be weaker than these proofs. Tell me, what do the words "created" and "was" have in common? Or what does God have in common with man? Why do you mix that which does not tolerate mixing, merge the separate, and make the heavenly things below? Here the word "was" does not mean eternity in itself, but in conjunction with other expressions: "in the beginning was" and "the word was." Just as the expression "being" when speaking of man shows only the present time, and when speaking of God, it means eternity, so the expression "was" when speaking of our nature means the time that has passed for us, and it is precisely a certain limit of time, and when it speaks of God, it expresses eternity. Thus, when we hear about the earth and man, we should not assume anything more about them than is proper to created nature. Everything created, whatever it was, happened in time, or in a certain limit of it. And the Son of God is above not only all time, but also all ages, He is their Creator and Creator. "Through Whom," it is said, "He also created the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2). The Creator, of course, exists before His creatures. But since some are so insensible that even after that they think something lofty about their worthiness, the word of God with the expressions: "He created and man was" precedes such a thought of the hearers and destroys all shamelessness. Everything created, both earth and heaven, was created in time, has a temporal beginning, and there is nothing beginningless in them, because everything (at a certain time) received existence.

And so, when you hear the expressions, "He created the earth, and man was," you will be superfluous, weaving only useless chatter. But I will say something more. What is it? That if it had been said of the earth that in the beginning was the earth, and of man in the beginning was man, then even in this case we should not suppose anything more about them than we know about them now. The very name of the earth and of man, no matter what is said about them later, does not allow the mind to imagine anything more about them than we now know; just as the expression "The Word, even if something unimportant is said about Him," does not in itself allow us to think anything base and insignificant. And of the earth it is further said: But the earth was formless and empty, Thus, having said that God created the earth and set its proper limit, the writer of Genesis safely tells the rest of it, knowing that no one will be so senseless as to consider the earth to be uncreated and uncreated. The name earth and the expression "created" are sufficient to convince the most foolish man that the earth is neither eternal nor beginningless, but belongs to the number of things that have happened in time.

3. In addition, the expression "was", when used about the earth and man, means not just being, but in relation to man - his origin from a certain country, and in relation to the earth - the quality of its being. Thus Moses did not simply say, "The earth was," and then fell silent, but showed in what state it was even after its origin, i.e., it was formless and empty, still covered with waters and mixed with them. And of Elkanah it is not only said that he was a man, but it is added to the explanation; whence he came: from Ramathaim-tzofim. But of the Word (it is spoken) not so. I am ashamed to compare such objects with each other! If we forbid comparisons between people, as soon as those who are compared are very different from each other in merit, although their essence is the same, then where there is such an infinite distance both in essence and in everything else, is it not extreme folly to make such comparisons? But may He be merciful to us Who blasphemes them! We have not discovered the need for such reasoning, but we are given occasion for it by those who arm themselves against their own salvation.

So, what do I say? That the expression was, in relation to the Word, means, first, the eternity of His being: in the beginning, it is said, was the Word. And secondly, the same thing shows that anybody had the Word. Since God is primarily characterized by eternal and beginningless existence, this is first of all expressed. Then, lest anyone who hears that the Word was in the beginning recognize Him as unborn, such a thought is prevented by the fact that before remarking that the Word existed, it is said that it was with God. And in order that no one should consider Him to be a word only spoken or only mental, this thought is removed by the addition of a term (ό), as I have already said, and by another expression (from God to God). It is not said: it was in God ... , but: it was with God, which signifies His eternity in hypostasis. Further, it is revealed still more clearly in the addition that the Word was God. But is this not the Word created? - someone will say. If so, what prevented us from saying that God created the Word in the beginning?

Thus Moses, speaking of the earth, did not say, "In the beginning was the earth," but said that (God) created it, and then it was. What, I say, prevented John from saying in this way that in the beginning God created the Word? For if Moses feared in his discourse of the earth lest someone call it uncreated, then much more should John have feared this concerning the Son (of God), if He had been created. The world, being visible, preaches the Creator by itself: "The heavens," it is said, "proclaim the glory of God" (Psalm 18:1). But the Son is invisible, and moreover incomparably and infinitely higher than creation. If, therefore, here, where neither word nor teaching was necessary for us to acknowledge the world as created, the prophet nevertheless clearly and first of all allows us to see this, then much more would John have to say this about the Son, if He had been created.