De Christo pastore et ove

For the memory of the martyrs, and that Christ is called both shepherd and sheep, and on the veil, and on the mercy seat. Again a memory of martyrs, again feasts of the pious, again a theme of angels, again a festival of the Church. The memory of those who have borne witness is an honor to the martyrs, but the glory of the one for whom they bore witness. The martyrs are honored, having suffered for Christ, but Christ is worshipped, having suffered for all. For they, through their suffering, raised themselves from lowliness to height; but the Savior came from the height of divinity to the lowliness of humanity, not departing from his dignity, but carrying out the economy. For we have heard him saying, "I am the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep"; and by saying this he showed his love for humanity, and he proclaimed his authority. For to suffer for the sheep is a matter of love for humanity; but to lay down his life of his own accord is a matter of authority; for he does not undergo compulsion, but works an economy. And even if the Apostle says that the Father handed him over for us, he does not introduce the Son's suffering as compelled, but the Son's will as concurrent with the Father. The Son hands himself over, not serving under compulsion, but cooperating with the Father's purpose. For it is one thing to serve in a servile manner, and another to cooperate in a divine manner. For the Only-begotten is a cooperator with the Father, even if the children of the heretics do not wish it—those who, by their own wickedness, cut apart the indivisible nature, those who proclaim the Father as creator, the Son as servant, and the Holy Spirit as minister.

who are not ashamed even of Paul's words, who called the servants of the proclamation not ministers but fellow workers of God, having said: We are fellow workers of God. Paul a fellow worker, and the Son a minister? Do not then seek what Christ said through Isaiah, but what he said through himself. For through himself he is shepherd, but through you he is sheep; for these two readings came together today. For Isaiah read to the eunuch concerning him: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; but the Savior said, I am the good shepherd. Show me then the difference between sheep and shepherd, in what respect sheep, in what respect shepherd. For if you do not know the difference of the names, how will you recognize the dignity? It is clear that as sheep, on account of the passion of the economy, but as shepherd, on account of the authority of philanthropy. For God is not ashamed to be called shepherd. For it was necessary for us to know him as God and king; but since as rational humans we did not recognize God, he wishes us, even as irrational sheep, to recognize the shepherd. For if the Savior, coming into the world, found you a rational human, he would necessarily have appeared to you as God; but since he found not a human, but rather a sheep wandering from ancient times, and entreating through the prophets the Master: I have wandered as a lost sheep, seek your servant; therefore he conceals the royal dignity, and presents the pastoral care. For this reason also from the beginning he arranges that his own body be placed in a manger, and brings the mother and the servant of the economy, Joseph, into need.

For I would not call that man the father of the Savior, nor the husband of Mary, but a partner and mediator of the mystery. For he was a betrothed of the virgin, and not a husband, but a husband in name, a servant of the economy. So this man was confined with Mary in Bethlehem, so that because of the narrowness of the lodging, the infant was forced to be placed in a manger. But the constriction was the work of God, so that out of necessity the Lover of Mankind might be laid in that place, and laid, I mean, for the sake of the incarnate economy. Why does he arrange this? Because the manger is the table of irrational animals, and humanity had turned to irrationality (For man, being in honor, did not understand; he was compared to senseless beasts and likened to them), so he places the heavenly food on the table of the beasts, so that those who are beastly in soul, approaching as to their own table, the manger, might find no longer beastly grass, but the one who says: I am the bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. A sheep, then, on account of the economy, but God on account of his own glory. So he lays down his own life for the sheep, not undergoing necessity, as I said earlier, but undertaking a transaction. For all things that have happened in the ancient worship lead to a recapitulation in the Savior, whether prophecy, or priesthood, or kingship, or temple, or altar, or veil, or ark, or mercy seat, or manna, or rod, or jar, or anything else—all have their reference to him.

For God permitted the children of the Jews from the beginning the service of sacrifices, not because He took pleasure in sacrifices, but because He wished to draw them away from Hellenism. And having guided them from that point toward what He wills, He puts on Himself what He does not will. For since the mind of the Jews was not yet capable of receiving spiritual activity, but was enslaved to the custom of the nations, and gaped after altars and sacrifices, God took the idolatrous festivals and transformed them with the rhythm of piety, and endured what He did not will. And just as a good father, when he sees his own child engaged in childish games, draws him away from the marketplace, but at home permits him to do all that he wishes, preserving decorum for him and dismantling the shamelessness of childhood, so also God, wishing to reshape them through this visible festal assembly of festivals into piety, permitted them also to sacrifice, gave them an altar, and commanded sheep to be sacrificed, and a goat and an ox, and to do all that pleased them. For it did not give rest to God.

That these things happened by divine economy, hear how the one who through Moses permitted the sacrifices and ordered various forms of sacrifices to take place, through the prophets overturns what was done by concession, showing that he conceded milk as to infants, not giving food. And he says through David: "Hear, my people, I will speak to you, O Israel, and I testify to you that I am God, your God. I will not reprove you for your sacrifices; your whole burnt offerings are before me always. I will not accept calves from your house, nor goats from your flocks." And lest anyone think that he refuses because he rejects, he explains the manner, that it is due to his lack of need of these, not due to their offering, and he adds: "Shall I not eat the flesh of bulls and drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High," showing that he does not reject by turning away, but summons them to the better and spiritual sacrifice. He conceded sacrifices from the beginning, not because he was pleased with them, but because he was reshaping those who had thus begun toward piety. Yielding to the Jewish disposition, as a wise and great one, in the very concession of sacrifices he prefigured an image of future things, so that even if the sacrifice were useless in itself, it might be found useful through the image. Pay close attention, for the thought is subtle. The sacrifices, then, were not pleasing to God, nor done according to his will, but by concession; and to those that were performed he imposed a type according to the image of the future economy of Christ, so that even if they were not acceptable in themselves, at least they might be well received through the image.

And through all these things he sets forth an image of Christ and sketches what is to come. Whether it is a sheep being sacrificed, it is an image of the Savior; whether an ox, an image of the Lord; whether a calf, whether a heifer, or any other of the offerings, whether a dove or a turtledove, all had their reference to the Savior. For this reason there was also a temple, so that the image of the Lord’s temple might be prepared beforehand; for this reason a sheep, for this reason a priest, for this reason a curtain. And so that I may not extend the discourse in detail, accept Paul as the interpreter of what has been said, who does not allow you to conceive of anything apart from Christ, but refers everything to Christ. For what? The same author, in his letter to the Hebrews, wishing to set forth the differences of the mysteries—what the table meant, what the altar meant, what the curtain meant, what the temple meant, what the priest meant—summarily refers everything to Christ and shows that the whole of life is a tent throughout; but the first tent is a type of the Old Covenant, while the Holy of Holies is a type of the New Covenant. Pay close attention, I ask. For the temple was one throughout, yet it was divided into different parts: into the Holy Place and into the Holy of Holies. The temple is a type of the Lord’s body; and hear the Lord saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.” Just as in that temple some things were seen by all, but others only by the high priest, so also in the economy of the Savior, the divinity and the activity of the divinity, while being hidden, work in the open. You have the image of the temple.

Seek for me the curtain in the middle, the one separating the holy places from the Holy of Holies, what sort of curtain it is. Again, the curtain is an image of the body. For just as the curtain intervened in the space and separated the external sight from the inner mystery, so the body of the Lord was a curtain of the divinity, not allowing mortal eyes to gaze upon the sight of the immortal. This is not my word, but hear Paul saying: "But having, brothers, a fresh and living way, which he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us approach." Pay close attention. And he called the flesh a temple, and the curtain a type of the flesh. Again, the priest entered through the curtain once a year. Paul did not omit this either, but takes it as a type of the Savior, and says: "Christ did not enter into handmade holy places, antitypes of the true ones, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God on our behalf." Do you see the high priest? See the type. Again, a sheep was sacrificed, and it was an image of the Savior: "He was led as a sheep to slaughter." A calf was sacrificed, a bull, all the other animals, and from the blood of the sacrificed animals the high priest took with his finger and entered into the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat. And the mercy seat itself was a type of the Savior, and the blood sprinkled was a type of him, so that both the one worshipped and the gift offered to the one worshipped are one and the same.

Of these animals, whose blood was brought into the holy places, the bodies were burned outside the camp, and their ashes sanctified the people, and the remains of the dead animals sanctified those who were defiled. Observe, then. While alive, they did not sanctify, but when reduced to ashes and completed as a sacrifice, they brought sanctification to the defiled, and the same animals were both burned outside and offered inside. From this the Apostle says: "For," he says, "the blood of those animals which is brought into the Holy of Holies, their bodies were burned outside the camp." He states the type, he interprets the truth, and says: "Therefore also Jesus, in order to sanctify the people, suffered outside the gate." And what does he add? "Let us go out, then, to him, bearing his reproach." You have the type; see the truth. Seek again the blood and the mercy seat. The blood was sprinkled, and the mercy seat received it, the atonement was placed upon it. What is the mercy seat? Listen again to Paul speaking in the Epistle to the Romans: "For all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace, through his blood, through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a mercy seat through faith in his blood." And his blood, and his mercy seat. I have said all these things because the Savior God, and the only-begotten Son of God, became everything for our sake, not for his own sake. But what is transacted for our sake is one thing, what is worshipped for its own sake according to the divinity is another; they are one and another, not now divided, but united in the economy, yet distinguished in concept.

When, therefore, you hear either high priest, or shepherd, or sheep, or temple, or veil, or mercy seat, or blood of sprinkling, or any such things, through all of them recognize the economy that took place for your sake. But when you see the Only-Begotten as co-throned (for this the Church proclaimed and paraded), do not be ashamed of the divine oracles. For Wisdom is hymned in the exoduses, and in the broad ways it speaks with boldness, and on the tops of walls it is proclaimed. And when you see the wisdom and power of God being proclaimed, understand the preeminence of the glory, the pre-eternal dignity, the invulnerable, the immutable, the unalterable. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Everywhere there is the "was," but the "was not" is nowhere. If you understand the preeminence of the glory, you will not be scandalized by the economy of the flesh. I mean something like this: If you hear a heretic saying, "The Father who sent me is greater than I," say to him that it is nothing remarkable if he is lesser than the Father on account of the economy, since he was even made lesser than angels. You are eager to show, on account of wickedness, that he is lesser than the Father; but I show that on account of the economy he is even lesser than angels. And so you, wishing to establish a difference of substance between Father and Son, adduce the saying, "The Father who sent me is greater than I"; but I show that he is not only lesser than the Father according to the expression, but also lesser than angels. For the blessed Paul, adducing the testimony of David, "What is man, that you remember him, or son of man, that you visit him? You have made him a little less than angels," interpreted it through the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But we see Jesus diminished only a little compared to angels, because of the suffering of death. Why then do you labor so much and contrive to show that the Son is less than the Father, when he is even less than angels, not in dignity, but because of the economy? Then you have heard, "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Do you not hear this evangelical voice, which today cried out to all, "I and the Father are one"? And pay attention to the difference. Where it says "one," it does not say "the one who sent me," but "the Father"; where he wished to show the unity and the identity, he did not say, "I and the one who sent me are one," but "I and the Father." Between Father and Son there is nothing in between. But where it says "greater," he adds "the one who sent me." For "to send" is a work of the economy; and "to be sent" is not an interpretation of divinity, but an interpretation of the economy. For God neither sends in a bodily manner, nor is sent. And hear how. For the one who sends, sends in those places where he is not present. Show me then a place empty of the Father, show me a place bare of the Son, show me a place distant from the Spirit. And it would have a place, if you understood according to the letter that one sent and the other was sent. So then, "was sent" does not indicate a local transition, but a bodily appearance. For when Scripture says, "A man sent from God came, whose name was John," we do not think that John arrived from the heavens; for if he were, it says, how was he sent? But because he was entrusted with an economy, it called the economy a sending. Isaiah in Jerusalem, in the temple itself, saw the Lord sitting on a high and elevated throne.

Being in the city and in the temple, and having beheld the vision, and having been deemed worthy to see God as is possible for a human, he heard God saying, "Whom shall I send to this people?" He was among the people, and how is he sent to the people? Thus the sending does not signify a local transfer, nor a servile ministry, but a human economy. Otherwise, if you are a slave to the word, respect the word. If he was sent, how does he say, "And the one who sent me is with me"? For no one who sends accompanies the one sent. For that is not to send, but to travel together. "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Where is the sending? And so that no one might think that the phrase, "The Father who sent me is with me," is spoken with reference to activity and assistance, he says, "The Father who remains in me," according to, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." For this utterance Isaiah also proclaimed beforehand, saying, "Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans will step over you, and will follow you bound in handcuffs, and will worship you, and will pray in you; because God is in you, and there is no God besides you." How is this possible? If another is in him, how is there no other besides him? "Because God is in you, and there is no God besides you." Therefore, is this not an interpretation of that Gospel passage which says, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and, "We two are one"? For the phrase, "There is no God besides you," is an interpretation of, "We are one." And observe the wisdom of the expression, filled with power. The phrase, "We are one," is a double-edged sword cutting heretics.

The "One" refutes the madness of the Arians; the "We are one" refutes the confusion of Sabellius. That God is in you, and there is no God but you. And to show that the prophet is the same God in God, he adds: "For you are God, and we did not know." Did you not know that he himself is God? Did not Moses proclaim before you? Did you not come twenty-one generations after Moses? For from Moses to David there are seven generations; from David to Isaiah there are twelve generations; for Isaiah is two generations before Babylon. Whom then the prophets proclaimed twenty-five generations earlier, that he is God—and Moses said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God. The Lord is one"—and Samuel cried out the same; and indeed David proclaimed the same, and every prophet decreed the same—how does the prophet Isaiah say, "For you are God, and we did not know," unless he truly hints at the Savior, who exists but is not recognized? For "You are God, and we did not know" does not accuse his own ignorance, but assumes the person of the people. And the teaching, "You are God, and we did not know," agrees with the one saying, "Lord, your arm is high, and they did not know." And yet to say, "For you are God and they did not know, God of Israel, Savior of all," listen to the angels speaking and announcing to the shepherds, "Do not be afraid, we announce to you great joy: for today a Savior has been born to you, who is Christ the Lord; for you are the God of Israel, Savior of all." Behold, all who oppose you will be put to shame, and will go in shame.

For they will be as if they are not, and they will grow old like a garment, calling "opponents" those who resist the Word. For if you speak to a Greek, or to someone else cut off from piety, that God exists, he does not fight; but if you say that Christ exists, he becomes possessed—as the blessed David also says somewhere: "The Lord has reigned; let the peoples be enraged; the one seated upon the cherubim; let the earth be shaken." And who is the one seated? It is clearly that one to whom the same prophet says, "The one seated upon the cherubim, reveal yourself, and rouse your power, and come to save us." You see that the malice contrived by the heretics has no place from the phrases. But where there is equality of honor, "I and the Father"; where there is the economic aspect, "He who sent me is greater than I"—greater because of the form of the mission, not because of the union of divinity. Thus one must attend to the Scriptures and not pass over the divine oracles. Now you condemn an entire Gospel, but the Savior condemns not a single letter. He wished us to be so reverent toward Scripture that he said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall." So the Savior does not despise even the iota, but you tear apart an entire Scripture. Clearly the discourse shows us that knowledge of the Scriptures is even stronger than the resurrection of the dead. For the resurrection of the dead does not have as much power as the reading of the Scriptures. And listen to the patriarch Abraham, who hears the rich man saying to him:

Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, so that he may tell my brothers not to come to this judgment." And what does he say? "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." But he says, "No, Father Abraham; unless someone rises from the dead, they will not believe." And he says to him, "Amen, I tell you, if they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, even if someone rises from the dead, they will not believe." Pay close attention. Therefore, if someone had risen from the dead, would they not have believed? Not at all. And observe the sequence. Therefore, if someone from the dead had appeared, whether from the ancients or from those unknown to us or from those known—if, then, from the unknown, ignorance would have obscured the miracles. If Moses had appeared today, how would you know that it was Moses? If Isaiah had appeared today, how would you know that it was Isaiah? But if someone else among those who died in our time had been raised, even then the miracle would have been overshadowed, with some saying, "This is the one who died," and others claiming, "This is not the deceased, but some demon and phantom." For unbelief is not at a loss for a wicked path. And what is surprising, if human ingratitude could slander even a dead person who had risen, when the blind man was healed, and some said, "It is he," while others claimed, "No, but he resembles him," with him saying, "I am he." And he bore witness to himself, and the miracle cried out, but ingratitude denied it. For did not many rise in the time of the Savior? Many bodies of the departed saints, as Scripture says, after the economy of the cross rose from the tombs, and came into the holy city, and appeared to many.

Did the miracle extinguish disbelief or overcome ingratitude? For signs are for the unbelieving, not for the believing; and the unbeliever, at his convenience, even despises signs. But see if they were shamed by a dead man rising, how gladly they were put to shame by Lazarus. Lazarus rose from the dead, and because many came to see the Savior on account of Lazarus’ resurrection, the Jews plotted to kill Lazarus. See ingratitude everywhere not departing from itself. Naturally, then, the patriarch said: “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, even if someone rises from the dead, they will not believe him.” And so now, children of heretics, if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets and the Gospels, even if someone breaks forth with countless voices, they will not hear. But let us not depart from the way. “For I am the way,” says the Lord; therefore, whoever steps out of the way wanders; whoever travels outside the Scriptures is storm-tossed. For just as at sea, one carried about by many winds does not have a course directed straight, but is blown here and there by different winds, so too one who gives himself to different teachings and does not adhere to the evangelical teaching differs not at all from a ship tossed by waves. For this reason Scripture also says: “Do not winnow with every wind,” and the interpreter adds: “And do not believe every word.” And so that you may learn that Scripture calls every wind every teaching, listen to Paul saying: “So that we may not be children, tossed about and carried about by every wind of teaching, in the gambling of men, toward the artifice of error.” Every wind of teaching.

Therefore, "to every wind" means "to every teaching." The one who gives himself over is tossed about, storm-tossed, shipwrecked. For there is one voyage, one road, one harbor: faith. It guides, it encloses, it receives. But the one who falls away from faith is shipwrecked, as Paul says writing to Timothy: "I lay this charge upon you, child Timothy, that you serve in him the noble service, having faith and a good conscience, which some, having cast off, were shipwrecked concerning their faith." So then, the one who departs from faith is shipwrecked; the one who follows faith moors his vessel in a fair-weather harbor. Let us not, therefore, be carried away by every wind. After the Lord there is no other teaching; for after Moses, Christ was expected; but after Christ, no other is expected. For this reason Moses, wishing to instruct the people that they must not adhere only to his own laws but await the fulfillment, said: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you; you will listen to him." For if he had known the teaching to be complete, he would not have referred them to another teacher, saying: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you, from among your brothers, like me." For this reason, "prophet," because he is from among you. For God is not from among you, but a prophet is from among you—the fleshly aspect; for this reason also, "like me," a lawgiver. For since there is one ancient lawgiver, Moses, and a second lawgiver, the Savior, not of one people but of the whole world, therefore "like me," in respect to the type and the legislation. Who will bear witness to this word? David, who lived a few generations after Moses, cried out:

Arise, Lord, let not man prevail; let nations be judged before you. Appoint, Lord, a lawgiver over them. If then David was before Moses, he would reasonably be pleading on behalf of Moses; but if Moses shone forth first, and David is later than Moses, what did the prophet David intend by calling for another lawgiver, when another existed, and saying, "Appoint, Lord, a lawgiver over them"? To whom else but the nations? For he says, "Arise, Lord, let not man prevail; let nations be judged before you." For the lawgiver is given to the nations. Let the nations know that they are men; for before the lawgiver they were led as irrational beings. But if the Word of God comes, he restores them to their rational nature. Now Moses, as I said earlier, said, "The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you like me"; David said, "Appoint, Lord, a lawgiver over them"; but Paul, coming after the Savior and being a herald of the Savior, seeing the first ones, that it was possible to receive Christ, but after Christ no other, says this: "If anyone evangelizes you contrary to what you received, let him be anathema." He closes off all knowledge and takes the keys of the kingdom. And that after the teaching of Christ there is no other teaching to be expected, he says, "If anyone evangelizes you contrary to what you received, let him be anathema." And so that he might not only close off human malpractice, he contends further and says, "Even if we." What then is "Even if we"? Did the Apostle intend to teach otherwise? Or is it clear that the divine Paul uses hyperbole: that even if you hear me proclaiming other things, understand that I am not speaking from God?

For this reason he says, "Even if we." For a human tongue is overturned, but the tongue of God is not changed. For this reason, "Even if we, even if an angel from heaven." For you were surely coming to such a suspicion, that an angel from heaven was about to introduce a strange teaching. But he does not secure himself against angels, but cuts off the evil craft of the devil: "Even if an angel from heaven"—not because he knew such things to be true of angels, for he knew that among angels the truth is unerring, but because Satan often transforms himself, and demons, having often transformed themselves into the forms of angels, introduce teaching according to their own intent, as it is said: "Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." Therefore he excludes the true angels by the form of those who are formed, and brings a bare verdict against angels, not insulting them, but closing the way to demons. And the angels were not indignant when Paul said, "Even if an angel from heaven evangelizes contrary to what you received, let him be anathema," but rejoiced at the boldness of the preacher, who secured and fortified the divine proclamation. For this reason the angels themselves, having learned that one must trust no one except the word of the apostles, are secured and do not preach. They are sent to men, and yet they do not preach carelessly. An angel was once sent to Cornelius, and appears to him, and announces his own service, saying, "Cornelius, your prayers and your alms have gone up as a memorial before God." The announcing is mine, but the preaching belongs to the apostles.

It is for an angel to know whether the manner of the liturgy and prayer is acceptable; but the proclamation an angel does not entrust to himself, but to the apostles. Therefore he adds, "Send then to Joppa, and summon Simon, who is called Peter, who when he comes will speak to you words by which you and your whole household will be saved." And what prevented him from proclaiming in person? Was not the proclamation of the angel more trustworthy? Would not Cornelius have been more confirmed hearing from an angel about the cross, and about the passion, and about the economy? But on the one hand he restrains himself, not wishing to open a way for the demons, and on the other hand the angel shows us that outside apostolic teaching it is not possible to be saved. If an angel from heaven proclaiming something else is anathematized, will not one who breathes the doctrines of Arius and teaches those of Eunomius and Sabellius be justly anathematized, unless he anticipates correction by repentance? These things, brothers, consider not to have been said by us, but by the holy martyr, and by the intercessions of the Father. For these things are said in honor of the martyrs; for the honor of a martyr is the preservation of the faith. If then you also wish to honor the martyr, honor the one witnessed to by the martyr. For if he poured out his blood for Christ, will you not pour out your blood for Christ? Therefore, having this security of faith, let us hasten to shine also in good works, so that sowing the virtues, we may reap the rewards; for each is a reaper of righteousness from his own works, as Paul says: "While we have time, let us work the good.

For in its own season we shall reap, not growing faint. In what own season? That of the resurrection. Therefore this season is not our own, but another's. Here are the seeds, there the sheaves; here you sow with distress, there you reap with gladness, as David says: Those who sow in tears shall reap in exultation. May it be that we both sow and reap in exultation, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen.