In illud Quando ipsi subiciet omnia

Of Saint John Chrysostom: On the Apostolic Saying, "When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him"; and on "I do nothing of myself"; and on the Trinity, and that in honor of the Trinity three patriarchs, three priests, three kings, three virtues are mentioned. Yesterday, brothers, our discourse was concerning the unending kingdom of Christ. Our discourse, while at its peak of hearing, gave sufficient proof to the hearers—sufficient, I say, not with respect to the worth of what was proclaimed, but with respect to the ability of the proclaimer; for there is nothing of such a kind either on earth or in heaven that can worthily hymn the much-praised dignity of the Only-Begotten. For many things have been foretold by the prophets concerning the Lord's theophany, many things have been ordained by the law, many things have been proclaimed by the apostles, many things have been set forth by the evangelists, and no one has been able to attain to the dignity. If so many rivers of the Holy Spirit, having perennial and pure streams, have exhausted human power but have uttered nothing worthy of divine power, where will the slightest drop of speech appear when such a great dignity of speech is set before us? A mortal tongue cannot worthily hymn an immortal nature; human speech cannot worthily praise the world-creating Word of God. What then? We proclaim as much as we are able, since we do not suffice for what we ought.

In other contests, the victors carry off the crowns, but in the labors concerning theology, those who confess defeat carry off the crowns of gratitude. Let us then be defeated by speaking, and not be condemned by silence. But since, as it is said, the endlessness of the kingdom was shown—that he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, that is, the inhabited world once ruled by sin, but later ruled by grace—and since the phrase "When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him" has been left unexamined, it is necessary to say what is possible, lest our silence prepare a stumbling block for the ungrateful. You must all know, brothers, that we have not left this aside willingly, but because we thought that the discourse, having been handed down as complete and examined from the preceding points, had also clarified what remains. For there is one aim and one argument, which both resolves the preceding points and clarifies the present ones, according to the apostle's economy in saying these things. And just as there the phrase "delivering the kingdom to God the Father" does not agree with the power of the proclamation, but the expression is introduced superficially because of the weakness of those who have adopted the polytheistic error—"for I gave you milk, not solid food"—so also now, by the same argument, this too is said. For everywhere the apostle's aim is to show that the divine nature is nowhere at variance with itself, nor does the son oppose the father according to the impious supposition of the Jews; for they said, "This one is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.

He introduces one nature without faction, one concord, one word, one will, one authority, one God in all, so as to cut off the offshoots of polytheistic error. For we have shown, as the diligent among the hearers remember, that the same word which attested to the dignity of the father proclaims the dignity of Christ with the same expressions and syllables; and just as there he said, "That God might be all things in all," so also concerning the only-begotten: "But all things in all are Christ." What then does "He will be subjected" intend? It prepares a remedy for the Greek disease; it does not introduce an ecclesiastical doctrine, but expels a Greek suspicion. And if one must use an absolute expression, he speaks of a subjection of Christ taking place through the church; for when the church is subjected, having nothing spurious nor counterfeit, but offering to God a disposition pure and without admixture, then it will be genuinely subjected to him. The expression is forced, he says, and not sufficient to persuade the obstinate. Therefore, that you may learn that whatever such things are attributed to Christ are contemplated in the church of Christ, I will present to you as witness the master of the church himself; but let me go back a little, so that what is said may be clear. As long as Christ was in this world in the flesh, fulfilling the human economy for the salvation of the world, the savior of the inhabited world was persecuted by the Jews and driven about by the enemies of the truth, and the source of benefaction was treated with ingratitude by those who enjoyed the benefaction.

But when he had fulfilled the entire economy through the passion, he passed over into the heavenly choirs, being transferred in body while filling all things in truth; and having taken up to the height the body which he had put on, he seated it at the right hand of majesty in the heights, not as receiving some foreign and alien glory, but investing the mortal body with such great dignity. After the assumption, then, and the deliverance from sufferings, after that much-hymned resurrection and the translation into the heavens, being worshipped by the whole supercelestial host, with all angelic attendance standing by him, he is no longer among those who are oppressed, nor among those who are persecuted, nor among those who are driven about. When he saw Paul raging against the church, breathing great fury against the saints, he who after the passion is nowhere persecuted but dwells in such honor and divine glory says to him: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And indeed, I do not persecute you; for you have the preeminence in the heavens. "Why do you persecute me?" He appropriates the sufferings of the church. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Do you see that the persecution of the church is ascribed to Christ, the head of the church? Just as, then, when the church is persecuted he says that he himself is persecuted, so also now Paul, when the church is subjected, says that Christ is subjected. Take for me also another proof of the argument; for every word will be established on two or three witnesses—not that the Lord's utterance needs other testimony, but because Christ, when speaking, is credible to the faithful but unconvincing to the unbelieving in testimony.

We are not strengthening the dominical saying, but we are silencing heretical ingratitude. This Paul, having learned from Christ himself that persecution of the church is referred to Christ, knowing therefore that whatever the church suffers has its reference to Christ, himself following in the footsteps of the royal words says somewhere in one of his epistles: "I fill up the deficiencies of the sufferings of Christ." Is Christ then still afflicted after ascending into the heavens? But see what follows: "I fill up the deficiencies of the sufferings of Christ in my own flesh for the sake of his body, which is the church." Do you see how Christ appropriates the sufferings and the honor of the church? You honored the church? You honored Christ. You persecuted the church? Even if not in appearance, yet in intention you persecuted Christ. Consider how great the danger is for those who grieve the church, how great the crown for those who honor the church: "He who rejects you rejects me," says the Savior. I recognize the voice, O Lord, as belonging to the paternal tradition; for the Father also spoke such things concerning his ancient prophets, appropriating the insult to the righteous. For when Abimelech the king of the Philistines took Sarah, who was Abraham's wife, God says to him: "Return the woman to the man, because he is a prophet and will pray for you." And he, defending himself, says: "Lord, I did not know that she was his wife; I did this with a pure heart." What then does God say to him? "I too knew that you did this with a pure heart; for this reason I spared you from sinning against me.

It has been demonstrated, therefore, brothers, that all things observed in the church have their reference to Christ. The apostle therefore says: The son will be subjected, that is, the church, to the one who subjected all things to him. But there is another path for the ungrateful one. What then? he says, is the church not subjected, but will it be subjected after the resurrection? The same refutation is arrayed against your contradiction, heretic. For Christ, tell me, is he not subjected now according to your argument? For the phrase "When all things are subjected to him, then he will be subjected" would have had a place if in the present he were not subjected. But if according to your argument, heretic, he is always in subjection and never resists the Father, then the phrase "When all things are subjected to him, then he will be subjected" is superfluous. Do you through countless expressions assert his subjection, and yet again store up a second subjection of his for another time? If you hear Christ saying, "I did not come to do my own will, but that of the one who sent me," you immediately bring forth the horn of impiety and say, "Do you see how he is subjected to the Father?" If you hear him saying, "I do not speak of myself; my Father gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak," you immediately seize upon the expression, insisting that Christ has no authority but is subjected. If you hear him saying, "I judge no one; there is one who seeks and judges," you immediately snatch at the subjection through the expression. Therefore, through all these things you show him to be subjected; why then do you introduce an ungrateful hypothesis and say:

I follow the letter, not the sense; for when will the one who has always been subjected be subjected? What then does the sense intend? The apostle’s aim everywhere is to obliterate the polytheistic error, to expel the instability of the unstable nature, and to banish the suspicion of those who think wrongly. He therefore demonstrates a subjection that is not forced, not compelled, not servile, but one that harmonizes with the concord of dignity. But let nothing, brother, seize you from what was said earlier: I do not speak this from myself; the father has given me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. I fear lest the things said combatively against the heretics be taken by you as ecclesiastical dogma, if you disregard the sense of the proclamation. Just as our argument in the previous passage insisted, defending the apostolic sense, that the apostles do not proclaim everything dogmatically, but set forth some things dogmatically, others economically, so I find that even the very source of truth, the master of the apostles and prophets, does not speak dogmatically according to his own dignity, but descends economically to the weakness of the people. For tell me, brother, when the master of truth says, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true,” shall I follow the letter? Shall I follow the word? Shall I insult the dignity for the sake of the economy? But even if I wished to be ungrateful, the master does not permit me; for he will block my evil intention if I follow the letter badly, and he seizes upon my voice as if it were theologizing the holy things otherwise, as if it were simply confounding and insulting the dignity.

Because, he says, I descended to the level of the Jews and said, "If I bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true," did you seize the expression for blasphemy? Did you not hear me saying elsewhere, "Even if I bear witness about myself, my testimony is true"? What then, brothers? Does truth utter things contrary to itself? Far from it; but it speaks in one way to those nurtured in truth, and in another way to those cut off from truth—not because it changes itself, but because it adapts to the dispositions. Why then does he say to the Jews, "I do not speak from myself; my father has given me a command, what I should say and what I should speak"? Because they thought he was an enemy of the Mosaic law and was arranging things contrary to the father who honors the Sabbath through the law, and the new covenant seemed visibly to oppose the old order. Wishing therefore to show that he does not oppose God nor proclaim anything contrary to the law, he says, "I do not speak from myself, as you suspect, but he whom you worship has himself given me a command," all but teaching them that if you reject these things, you reject not my teaching but you offend against the God acknowledged by you. For, brothers, if I take Christ's word so pitiably, so humbly, so abjectly as to receive the voice in a servile manner saying, "I do nothing from myself; the father has given me commands, what I should say and what I should speak," do you see to what depth of impiety I come by understanding it thus? For I make him not only inferior to the father, but also lesser than the apostles. And how, listen.

Paul says: "Concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion." Paul speaks without a command; can Christ say nothing from himself? "Concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion." You permit Paul to give an opinion even without a command, but you confine Christ under the yoke of servitude and follow the expression that says, "I say nothing from myself"? Then, as I said earlier, he speaks one way to those nurtured in the truth, another way to those cut off. For did the Jews suppose him to be the son of God? Did the Jews conceive of the Word as God? Did you not hear what they say about him? "This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath." They did not consider him a man of God, and did they conceive of the worth of the only-begotten? Indeed, the same people said again about the Savior: "We know that this man is a sinner, because he does not keep the Sabbath." Having an opinion about a sinner and about a man cut off from the truth, did they at all entertain even the slightest notion of divinity? To those so disposed, descending in his speech and teaching them not to contradict the apparent form that they thought was at variance with the will of God, he said: "I do not speak from myself; he gave me a command, what to say and what to speak." But to the sons of faith, see how he lays aside the submissive tone, puts on the authority of divine dignity, and says: "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not commit adultery'; he who saw the neighbor's wife and desired her has already sinned. But I say.

You see how, where the hearer is faithful, authority is bare; where the hearer is suspect, teaching is shaped for economy. And when a small child was pressed in the crowd, he said: Disturbance always clings to the hearing of the divine word. For the enemy of souls, the devil, since he sees the word sending forth arrows sharpened against his own deception, continually confuses the hearers, so that he may escape the refutation of truth. A certain Eutychus, a young man, confounded Paul’s teaching, and here a certain young man confounded the people’s hearing, so as to exercise further the intention of the hearers. But we, brothers, fleeing the swell of the waves, let us steer the vessel toward the calm harbor of truth. For I do not wish the digression, by lengthening, to hinder the matters at hand. Where the hearer is suspect, teaching is shaped for economy; where a true companion of piety is present, authority is bare. To the Jews he says: “I speak nothing from myself.” To those of the household of faith: “You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say.” The “I” shows the authority of the speaker; for everywhere the “I” bears witness to the authority of the one speaking, as when he says: “I am, I am, and until you grow old, I am.” And again to the Jews he says: “I did not come to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.” The reading of the Gospels that took place today resolves the difficulty of heretical suspicion. For when that leper approached him—the one leprous in body but bright in soul—he says to him: “Lord, if you wish, you are able to cleanse me.” Here seek the rule of the heretics.

He ought therefore to have said words consistent with his own utterance: "I do not wish it, the Father wishes it, be cleansed; for I did not come to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. Did you not hear me saying, 'I did not come to do my own will'?" If, then, according to the argument of the impious, a will subject to authority compels, why do you demand authority from one who is subject to the authority of the Father? But the Savior said none of these things to the one who approached him genuinely, but, having accepted the sincerity of his faith, he gives him salvation sincerely and genuinely: "You have approached me faithfully, receive the remedy faithfully. You ascribe the benefit to my will, receive salvation from my will. 'Lord, if you wish, you are able to cleanse me.' 'I wish it, be cleansed.'" Does the boundary of impiety not stand for the heretics? Do you see that he is subject in word, but exercises authority from his own will? When I say these things, I do not introduce the will of the Son as separated from the Father's will. For whatever you call a wish of the Son, you call a wish of the Father, and whatever you call a wish of the Father, you proclaim the authority of the Son, and if you speak of the authority of the Son, you indicate the power of the Holy Spirit; for the power is one, the kingdom is undivided. "But," he says, "you have omitted the discussion concerning the Spirit; for I find from the apostolic utterance that the Spirit is subordinated to Christ. For Paul said: 'When he says that all things are subordinated to him, it is clear that this is apart from the one who subordinated all things to him; but if apart from the one who subordinated them, then is the Spirit subordinated? For he said that only the Father is not subordinated to Christ.'

All things" indicates creation, not does it insult the uncreated nature. He is speaking about the subjugation of enemies: the last enemy, death, is being abolished. Why then do you place the Holy Spirit in the category of subjugated enemies? Did the Father introduce the subjugation of friends? Did he mention the subjugation of angels? Did he touch upon the subjugation of archangels? It is the subjugation of enemies. The last enemy, death, is being abolished. The Holy Spirit is not among the subjugated enemies. If we, the faithful, believing in Christ, will reign together, will the Holy Spirit not attain even the same rank as the subjects? At the appearance of the Savior, the sons of Zebedee, James and John, and the chorus of apostles will sit on twelve thrones, but will the Spirit be around the footstool with the subjugated? Cease from this impiety. The discourse is about creation, O man, not about the uncreated nature, not about the worshipful dignity. And that you may receive an accurate and examined account of piety, consider how the blessed David, introducing the chorus of creation singing, says: "Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the highest," and so forth: angels, powers, heavens of heavens, and the water above the heavens. Did he mention the Spirit? Did he number the uncreated nature with creation? The three youths around Ananias in the furnace also introduced the choral assembly of creation, saying, "Praise, angels of the Lord, heavens of the Lord, powers of the Lord, sun and moon," and so forth. Did they mention the Holy Spirit? Did they number the uncreated with creation?

Paul again, distinguishing the invisible from the visible, says somewhere in his teaching: "That in Christ were created all things, both those in heaven and those on earth, both visible and invisible," and immediately he enumerates the invisible, saying: "Whether thrones, whether dominions, whether authorities, whether powers." For since all visible things have an acknowledged servitude, but among the invisible—angels, powers, and the Holy Spirit, and the Son, and the Father—lest through ignorance of the heavenly order you drag the lordly dignity of the divine Spirit under the yoke of servitude, he does not divide the visible nor say: "Whether sun, whether moon, whether stars, all are slaves"; for these have an acknowledged condition, that all things are your slaves. Since among the invisible there were dominions and angels, and the worshipful Spirit was also invisible, lest anyone include it among the invisible, he enumerates all things above, so as to exclude the Lord from the servile order. He enumerates the worshipping ones, so as to separate the worshipped: "Whether thrones, whether dominions, whether authorities." He did not say: "Whether Spirit." But let us come to the matter at hand. "If you wish, Lord, you can cleanse me." The leper saw the welling beneficence, he saw the gushing salvation, he saw many who were ill and possessed, surrounding the source of salvation, and the leper sets aside the division of his mind—his body leprous, but his soul pure; for the soul is not divided by different colors. For just as leprosy is unpleasant in the body, dividing the complexion, so in the soul a double heart, divided between faith and unbelief, is unpleasant.

As much disgust as leprosy brings to the sight of human eyes, so much disgust does a divided soul bring to the eyes of God. For this reason, Scripture says: "Woe to the double heart, to the slack soul, and to the sinner who walks on two paths." But let us again hold to our subject. "I will, be cleansed." O wonder! "I will, be cleansed." It is, brothers, a word often uttered from authority, but often also from boastfulness. To speak is possible for anyone, but to have the deed follow the authority belongs only to one who is able. If, then, he said, "I will," and the deed did not follow, it was boastfulness; but now the deed followed the word. Do not shame the word; respect the deed. See how great a difference there is between the old law and the new grace in every respect. Moses, coming down from the mountain, in the first legislation and the first law, commands that lepers be separated from the camp. Christ, coming down from the mountain, immediately cleanses a leper. For the one banishes the afflictions, the other heals the afflictions. Christ went up a mountain, and Moses also went up; the one to receive, the other to give law. Moses went up and found the mountain filled with trumpets, cloud, thunder, lightning, storm, and darkness—not because these things befitted the glory of the one who appeared, but because these things educated the people into reverence. But grace, brothers, lays aside fear, casts out slavery; for we did not receive a spirit of slavery again into fear, but we received a spirit of adoption. And Moses gave ten commandments, but Jesus, the master of Moses, gave nine beatitudes.

Those experienced in the Scriptures know the truthfulness of what has been said. The first beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness' sake, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you and speak every evil word against you falsely. Why then does the law have ten commandments, but grace nine beatitudes? The number of the ten commandments is equal to the plagues against the Egyptians: ten plagues against the Egyptians chastening their arrogance, ten commandments instructing the people in their insensibility; and the very letter, brothers, by which the number ten is written, I mean iota, has the shape and form of a rod; for a rod it was that disciplined both the Egyptians and the people. Jesus our Lord gives nine beatitudes, having woven a threefold crown of beatitudes from a triple triad; because, brothers, the worshipful Trinity, the royal dignity, the undefiled nature, the masterless lordship has its glory in the Trinity, and God honors the proclamation on earth and the number of virtues when it is equal in number to the holy Trinity. I mean something like this: many patriarchs—

And the God of the patriarchs calls Himself God: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"—not that He was not the God of Moses or that He was not the God of Joseph, for He is God of all who call upon Him in truth, but He honors, as if in an image, the heavenly things through the earthly. Three patriarchs for the honor of the Trinity; three virtues for the honor of the Trinity; and now these three remain: faith, hope, love. Creation is divided into three: into the order of the heavenly, the earthly, and the subterranean. Times are cut into three: into the past, the present, and the future. And just as there are many patriarchs, but the three sufficed for the doxology of the Spirit, so, though there are many priests, a triad of priests is selected: Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel. Many kings, many priests, and three are remembered: "For apart from David and Hezekiah and Josiah," says Scripture, "all sinned." In the furnace, three youths; with Christ on the mountain, Peter, James, and John. Many angels in heaven, and three appear to Abraham. All days are God's, and three serve the mystery of Christ. Which three? "Take Isaac, whom you loved, your only-begotten son, and go to one of the mountains." And Abraham went three days and three nights, so as to show the mystery together. For just as he received Isaac alive from death—and how, listen. From the moment he was taken for sacrifice, he was dead to his father; for it is not the outcome of the deed but the intention that confirms the promise. Isaac was dead to his father as far as the intention was concerned.

The third day, and he was given back alive as a type of the resurrection. Jonah could have spent many days in the sea, but he does only three, in order to show the mystery of the resurrection. Then, he says, even if you find such testimonies separately somewhere, do you again take them up as images of the Trinity and the economy? You do not want these signs. If I speak, strike out the word; but if the proclamation is divine, hear it from me. But also hear with me, that the three days interpret the passion of the Lord. Since concerning Abraham the Savior himself says: "Abraham, your father, rejoiced that he might see my day," and he saw and rejoiced. What day? Of death. For the lamb handed over from the tree to Abraham had the image of the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. For to say, "He saw the day," does nothing other than "He saw death." Whence this? And we often say of men: "His day has come," instead of "his end." But the law of custom is not sufficient to confirm what is said. What then? Let us come to Scripture. The blessed David says somewhere: "The sinner will watch the righteous man and gnash his teeth at him; but the Lord will laugh at him, because he foresees that his day will come." But these things are concerning Abraham; I will return to Jonah. For again the three days of Jonah interpret the saving passion. This again the Savior himself proclaims:

Just as, he says, Jonah in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so must the son of man do in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. But let us say one thing stronger than the others among those already mentioned. For the former people there were three orders: priesthood, kingship, prophecy. Apart from these three offices, then, there was no other office to be seen among the Jews: kingship, priesthood, prophecy. There was a horn of oil, of sanctification. The anointing was one, but the gifts were three; the horn was one, the graces were three; for they anointed priests, kings, and prophets. But since some are ignorant of the subject, so that the discourse, running in vain, may not waste itself and benefit the hearer not at all, listen briefly. There was a horn held by the prophets, and from the horn were anointed kings, prophets, and priests, the anointing not being changed, but the grace being provided through the same horn; kings were anointed, priests were anointed, prophets were anointed; the anointing was one, the gifts three. And why was the anointing in a horn? Because it bore an image of Christ. Could it not, then, have been in a silver vessel? Could it not have been in gold? Could it not have been in some other of the more precious materials, for so great a gift? But it was not so, but in a horn, because, as I said earlier, it bore an image of Christ. For, "I will cause a horn to spring forth for David." And the priesthood and the

of the kingdom and of the prophecy, may the Lord be with all of you. For when the chapter began, as the people were being pressed against the horn, he brought it to an end.