In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia

Of the 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 the saying "I do nothing of my own accord"; 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 speech having reached the height of the audience's attention and having given sufficient proof to the hearers. I say sufficient, not in relation to the worth of the subject proclaimed, but in relation 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. Many things have been proclaimed beforehand by the prophets concerning the Lord's theophany, many things have been ordained by the law, many things have been preached by the apostles, many things have been set forth by the evangelists, and no one has been able to attain to the worth. If so many rivers of the Holy Spirit, having perennial and pure streams, have exhausted human power but have uttered nothing worthy of the divine power, where will the slightest drop of speech appear when such a great subject of discourse is set before us? A mortal tongue cannot worthily hymn an immortal nature; human speech cannot worthily praise the world-making 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 therefore be defeated by speaking and not be condemned by keeping silent. But since, as it is said, the infinity of the kingdom was shown—that he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, that is, the inhabited world once ruled by sin, 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, so that our silence may not furnish a stumbling block to the ungrateful. You must all know, brothers, that we have not left this out willingly, but, having delivered the discourse as complete and examined, we thought from the preceding that the remaining part had been clarified. For there is one aim and one argument that both resolves the preceding and clarifies the present, namely, that these things were said by the apostle according to economy. 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 had adopted 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.

Therefore, he introduces one nature without discord, one concord, one word, one will, one authority, one God in all things, in order to cut off the offshoots of polytheistic error. For we have demonstrated, 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 may 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" mean? It prepares a remedy for the Greek disease; it does not introduce an ecclesiastical doctrine, but expels a Greek suspicion. And if one must speak plainly, he speaks of a subjection of Christ that takes place through the Church. For when the Church is subjected, having nothing spurious or counterfeit, but offering to God a disposition that is pure and without admixture, then it will be genuinely subjected to him. "It is forced," someone says, "the expression, and not sufficient to persuade the obstinate." Therefore, so that you may learn that such things as are attributed to Christ are contemplated in the Church of Christ, I will present to you as a witness the master of the Church himself; but let me go back a little, so that what is said may be clear. While he 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.

When he had fulfilled the entire economy through the passion, he passed over into the heavenly choirs, moving in body while filling all things in dignity; and having taken up into the height the body he had put on, he seated it at the right hand of majesty in the heights, not as if 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—since he was neither among the oppressed nor among the persecuted nor among the harassed, when he saw Paul raging against the church, breathing great fury against the saints, he who after the passion was nowhere persecuted but dwelt in such honor and divine glory says to him: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "And indeed I am not persecuting you; for you have the presidency 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 he himself is persecuted, so also now Paul says that when the church is subjected, Christ is subjected.

Take also another proof of the argument: for every word shall be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Not that the Lord's own utterance stands in need of further testimony, but because Christ, when speaking, is credible to the faithful but incredible to the unbelieving in his testimony. We are not fortifying the Lord's utterance, but we are silencing heretical ingratitude. This Paul, having learned from Christ himself that persecution of the church is referred to Christ, and knowing therefore that whatever the church suffers has its reference to Christ, he 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 his ascent into the heavens? But see what follows: "I fill up the deficiencies of the sufferings of Christ in my 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 have honored the church? You have honored Christ. You have persecuted the church? Even if not in appearance, yet in intention you have persecuted Christ. Consider how great is the danger 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 adhering to the paternal tradition. For the Father also spoke in such terms 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 her husband, for he is a prophet and will pray for you.

The one who is making a defense 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? "And I knew that you did this with a pure heart; for this reason I spared you from sinning against me." It has therefore been demonstrated, brothers, that everything observed in the church has its reference to Christ. So the apostle 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. For what, he says, is the church not yet subjected, but will be subjected after the resurrection? The same refutation is laid out for you against the 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 point 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 then 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 on my own; my Father gave me a command, what to say and what to 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, and you immediately seize upon the word to infer subjugation. So, while showing him to be subjugated in all respects, why do you introduce an ungrateful argument and say, "I follow the word and not the meaning, because the one who is always subjugated will then be subjugated?" What then does the meaning intend? Everywhere the apostle's aim is to obliterate polytheistic error, to expel the instability of an unsettled nature, and to banish the suspicion of those who think wrongly. He therefore demonstrates a subjugation that is not forced, not compelled, not servile, but one that harmonizes with the concord of rank. But let nothing, brother, seize you from what was said earlier: "I do not speak this from myself; the Father gave me a command, what to say and what to speak." I fear that what is said combatively against heretics you might take as ecclesiastical doctrine, disregarding the meaning of the proclamation. Just as our argument in the previous passage insisted, defending the apostolic meaning, that the apostles do not proclaim everything dogmatically, but set forth some things dogmatically and 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 word? Shall I follow the expression? Shall I insult his dignity because of the economy? But even if I wished to be ungrateful, the master does not permit me.

For he will cut off my evil thought, if I follow the word badly, and he seizes upon my utterance as if it were theologizing the holy things differently, as if it were simply confusing and insulting the dignity. Since he says, "I descended to the Jews and said, 'If I bear witness about myself, my witness is not true,'" did you snatch the word for blasphemy? Did you not hear me saying elsewhere, "Even if I bear witness about myself, my witness is true"? What then, brothers? Does the truth utter contradictions to itself? Far from it. But it speaks one way to those who are companions of the truth, and another way to those who are cut off from the truth, not itself changing, but adapting to the dispositions. Why then does he say to the Jews, "I do not speak from myself; my father gave me a command, what to say and what to 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 it seemed that the new covenant was visibly opposing the old order. So, wishing to show that he is not opposing God nor proclaiming anything contrary to the law, he says, "I do not speak from myself—as you suspect—but he himself gave me a command, the one worshipped by you," virtually teaching them that if you reject these things, you are not rejecting my teaching, but you are clashing with the God acknowledged by you. For, brothers, do I take the word of Christ so pitiably, so humbly, so abjectly, as to receive the utterance in a servile manner, saying:

I do nothing on my own; my father has given me commands, what I should say and what I should speak. But 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 hear how. Paul says: "Concerning the virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion." Paul speaks without a command; can Christ say nothing on his own? "Concerning the 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 shut Christ under a yoke of slavery and follow the wording that says: "I say nothing on my own"? Then, as I said earlier, that he speaks one way to those reared with the truth, another way to those cut off—surely the Jews did not suspect him to be the son of God? Surely the Jews did not conceive of the Word as God? Have you not heard what they say about him? "This man is not of God, because he does not keep the Sabbath." They did not consider him a man of God, and did they conceive of the dignity of the only-begotten? Yet again the same ones said about the Savior: "We know that this man is a sinner, because he does not keep the Sabbath." Having an opinion about him as a sinner and as a man cut off from the truth, did they at all entertain even the slightest notion of divinity?

To those who are so disposed, descending in his voice and teaching them not to contradict the apparent form which they suppose to be at variance with the will of God, he said: "I do not speak on my own; he himself gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." But to the sons of faith, see how he lays aside the submissive voice, 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 his neighbor's wife and desired her has already sinned. But I say." Do you see how, where there is a faithful hearer, there is naked authority; where a suspicious hearer, the teaching is shaped for economy? Turbulence 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 the truth. A certain young man named Eutychus confounded the teaching of Paul, and here some young man has confounded the hearing of the people, so as to exercise the intention of the hearers all the more. But we, brothers, fleeing the storm of the waves, let us moor the vessel in the calm harbor of truth. For I do not wish the digression, by lengthening, to hinder what lies before us.

Where the hearer is suspect, the teaching is shaped for economy; where the hearer is a true companion of piety, the authority is bare. To the Jews he says, "I speak nothing from myself"; to those of the 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." Today's reading of the Gospels resolves the difficulty of the heretical suspicion. For when the leper approached him—that one whose body was leprous but whose soul was bright—he says to him, "Lord, if you wish, you are able to cleanse me." Here seek the rule of the heretics: it would then have been consistent with his own voice to say, "I do not wish; the Father wishes; 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, he forces a will subject to authority, according to the impious argument, why do you demand authority from one subject to the authority of the Father? But none of these things did the Savior say to the one who approached him genuinely; rather, accepting the sincerity of his faith, he gives him sincere and genuine salvation: "You approached me faithfully; receive the remedy faithfully. You ascribe the benefit to my will; from my will receive salvation. 'Lord, if you wish, you are able to cleanse me.'

I will, be cleansed. Is there not a limit of impiety set for the heretics? Do you see that it is subject to reason, but does it exercise authority from its 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 the will of the Son, you call the will of the Father, and whatever you call the will of the Father, you proclaim the authority of the Son, and if you say 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 discourse concerning the Spirit; for I find from the apostolic voice that the Spirit is subordinated to Christ. For Paul said: When he says that all things are subordinated to him, it is clear that it is apart from the one who subordinated all things to him. If it is apart from the one who subordinated, then is the Spirit subordinated? For he said that only the Father is not subordinated to Christ. "All things" indicates creation, it does not insult the uncreated nature. He speaks about the subordination of enemies: The last enemy, death, is abolished. Why then do you place the Holy Spirit in the category of subordinated enemies? Did the Father introduce subordination of friends? Did he mention subordination of angels? Did he touch upon subordination of archangels? It is subordination of enemies. The last enemy, death, is abolished. The Holy Spirit is not among the subordinated enemies. If we, the faithful, believing in Christ, will reign with him, will the Holy Spirit not attain even the same rank as the subjects?

At the manifestation of the Savior, the sons of Zebedee, James and John, and the choir of the apostles will sit on twelve thrones, and the Spirit will be around the footstool with those who are subordinate? Withdraw from impiety. The discourse is about creation, O man, not about the uncreated nature, not about the worshipful dignity. And so that you may receive an accurate and examined account of piety, consider how the blessed David, introducing the choir 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 not mention the Spirit? Did he not number the uncreated nature with creation? The three youths around Ananias in the furnace also introduced the choral assembly of creation, saying: Hymn, 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, dividing the invisible from the visible, says somewhere teaching: That in Christ all things were created, both those in heaven and those on earth, both visible and invisible, and immediately he enumerates the invisible, saying: Whether thrones, or principalities, or authorities, or dominions. For since all visible things have an acknowledged servitude, but among the invisible—angels and powers—there are also the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father, so that you may not, through ignorance of the ordering of the heavens, drag the lordly dignity of the divine Spirit under the yoke of servitude, he does not divide the visible nor say:

Whether sun, or moon, or stars, all are slaves. For these things have a recognized condition, that all things are your slaves; since among the invisible things there were rulers and angels, and the worshipful spirit was also invisible, so that no one might include it among the invisible things, it enumerates all things above, in order to cast the Lord out of the household order, it enumerates the worshipping things, in order to separate the worshipped, whether thrones, or rulers, or powers; it 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 standing around the spring of salvation, and the leper, diseased in body but pure in soul, sets aside the division of his mind. 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 unfaith is unpleasant; as much unpleasantness as leprosy brings to the sight of human eyes, so much unpleasantness does a divided soul bring to the eyes of God. For this reason the scripture says: "Woe to the double heart and the slack soul and the sinner walking on two paths." But let us again hold to the matter at hand. "I wish, be cleansed." O the wonder. "I wish, be cleansed." There is, brothers, a word often uttered from authority, but often also from boastfulness; speaking is possible for anyone, but the deed following the authority belongs only to the one who is able. If, then, he said "I wish," and the deed did not follow, it was boastfulness.

Now the deed followed the word; and do not shame the word, respect the deed. See how great the difference is between the old law and the new grace in every condition. Moses, coming down from the mountain with his first legislation and 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 passions, the other heals the passions. Christ went up a mountain, and Moses also went up; the one to receive law, the other to give law. Moses went up and found the mountain filled with trumpets, cloud, thunder, lightning, storm, and darkness—not because these were fitting to the glory of the one who appeared, but because these things educated the people toward reverence. But grace, brothers, lays aside fear, casts out slavery. For we did not receive a spirit of slavery again for 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 truth of what has been said. 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 be shown 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, lying. Why then does the law have ten commandments, but grace nine beatitudes? The number of the ten commandments is equal in number to the plagues against the Egyptians: ten plagues against the Egyptians, disciplining their arrogance; ten commandments for the people, educating their insensibility. And the very letter, brothers, by which the number ten is written—I mean the iota—has the shape and form of a rod. For a rod it was that disciplined both the Egyptians and the people. But 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 dominion 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: there were many patriarchs, and God calls himself the God of the patriarchs: "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 in honor of the Trinity; three virtues in 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 triad 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 mentioned: for apart from David and Hezekiah and Josiah, the Scripture says, 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 of God, 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 also to show the mystery: 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; on the third day, he was given back alive as a type of the resurrection. Jonah could have spent many days in the sea, but he spends only three, so as to show the mystery of the resurrection.

Then, he says, even if you find such testimonies somewhere separately, do you again take them up as images of the Trinity and the economy? Do you not want these signs? If I am speaking, strike out the word; but if the proclamation is divine, listen from me. But also listen 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? That 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. The Savior himself cries this out: "Just as," he says, "Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so must the son of man do in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." But let us say one thing stronger than the others among those previously mentioned. For the former people there were three orders: priesthood, kingship, prophecy.

Apart from these three principles, then, there was no other principle 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 may not run in vain, consuming itself while benefiting 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: one anointing, three gifts. And why was the anointing in a horn? Because it bore an image of Christ. Could it not 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 may the Lord of priesthood, kingship, and prophecy be with all of you.