ST. BASIL: JESUS AS GOD’S ANGEL & BEGOTTEN WISDOM

[2.13] Our astonishment at their foolishness is justified. For they fail to realize that when they say that the Son is from nothing, they not only proclaim that he is posterior to the Father, but also that he is posterior to that by which they separate the Only-Begotten from the Father. If there is anything between the Father and the Son, this must be prior to the existence⁶⁴ of the Son. So, then, what could this be? What else could this be besides an age or a time? If someone thinks that the life of the Father surpasses that of the Only-Begotten, by what interval would he claim to have discovered the superiority other than that of an age or a time? But if this is true, scripture is clearly lying when it says that through him the ages came into existence [Heb 1. 2] and teaches that all things came into existence through him [Jn 1.3]. For it is clear that the ages are included among the all things. If they claim that they do not deny that the Son came to be before the ages, they should not forget that in reality they are denying that to which they are verbally agreeing.

In fact, let us pose a question to those who make the substance of the Only-Begotten come from nothing: What was the interval “when he was not,” as you say? What designation will you dream up for it?⁶⁵ Common usage classifies every interval under either time or age, for that which is time among the sensory realities corresponds to the nature of age among the supercosmic realities. So let these people tell me if they can imagine a third kind of interval based on the resources of their own wisdom. As long as they keep silent, they should not forget that they have placed the substance of the Only-Begotten posterior to ages. For if there were any interval prior to the Son that is coextensive with the life of the Father, it would clearly have to be one of these two. But there isn’t. Nor can there ever be a notion prior to the subsistence of the Only-Begotten. For one will find that the existence of God the Word who was in the beginning with God [Jn 1.2] is beyond everything that could conceivably be called primordia1.⁶⁶ Even if the mind, by deceiving itself through innumerable fantasies and devoting itself to nonexistent fabrications, has contrived things that do not exist, it will not discover any means at all by which it could extend itself beyond the beginning of the Only-Begotten, leave behind the life of Life Itself as lower than its own movement, transcend the beginning of God the Word by its own rational word, and contemplate ages that are deprived of the God of the ages.

[2.14] After denying the Only-Begotten the glory he is due, notice what sort of words Eunomius uses to extol him: the substance of the Son, he says, “was begotten before all things by the will of the God and Father.”⁶⁷ He attributes this great thing to the Son, that he is prior to creation and pre-exists the things he himself has made. He supposes that it suffices for the glory of the Creator of the universe that he is ranked prior to the things he himself has created. After he alienates (insofar as he is able to do so) the Son from communion with the God and Father, Eunomius testifies to his glory by honoring him above creatures. Then, spouting his blasphemy to the point of impudence, he hems us in on all sides with arguments so forceful that no one can escape them-or so he thinks.

For God has begotten the Son either when [the Son] existed or when he did not exist. But if it occurred when he did not exist, no one should accuse me of audacity. But if it occurred when he did exist, this reasoning is not only the pinnacle of absurdity and blasphemy, but also utter silliness. For that which exists has no need of begetting.⁶⁸

So, then, here is that notorious sophism which others discovered long ago but which these people have now brought to perfection on their shameless and impudent tongues.⁶⁹ First of all, let us remind the pupils of Eunomius that he feels compelled to make these arguments on account of the ignorance of the many who understand the begetting of the Son in a human way. He is the one who brings unschooled souls from corporeal notions up to spiritual contemplation. Since begotten animals did not exist before they were begotten and the one begotten today did not exist yesterday, he transfers this notion to the subsistence of the Only-Begotten. “And since he has been begotten,” he says, “he did not exist before his begetting.”⁷⁰

How noble he is for providing us with this theology of the begetting of the Only-Begotten! Through such arguments he heals the infirmities of our brothers, though he is worthy, if anyone is, of hearing the proverb: Physician, heal yourself! [Lk 4.23] Still, what remedy can we offer for this absurd sickness that has infected his arguments, if not what the Holy Spirit said to us through the blessed John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word [Jn 1.1].⁷¹ It is impossible to conceptualize something prior to a beginning. After all, a beginning would not still be a beginning if it were to have something anterior to it. Nor is it possible for them to use reason to go beyond ‘was‘ to ‘when he was not.’ For the conceptualization ‘that he was not’ is the denial of ‘was.‘ If ‘beginning’ is one of those things said relative to another, such as is the case for the beginning of wisdom [Sir 1.14] and the beginning of a good way [Pr. 16.7] and in the beginning God made [Gn 1.1],⁷² then it would perhaps be possible to use reflection to go beyond the begetting of what subsists from this kind of beginning. But since the meaning of ‘beginning’ here, being absolute and non-relative, reveals the supreme nature, how isn’t it utterly ridiculous when he contrives things anterior to this beginning or attempts to use reasoning to go beyond it?

Furthermore, ‘was‘ is coextensive with the insurpassibility of this beginning. For ‘was‘ does not suggest temporal existence, as is the case for: There was a man in the land of Uz [Jb 1.1], and: There was a man from Armathaim [1 Sm 1.1], and: The earth was invisible [Gn 1.2]. In another book the evangelist himself showed us the meaning of ‘was‘ in this sense when he said: I am the one who is and who was, the Almighty [Rv 1.8]. The one who was is just like the one who is: both are eternal and non-temporal alike. Saying that the one who was in the beginning [Jn 1. I] was not does not preserve the notion of beginning and does not connect the existence of the Only-Begotten to it. For something prior to the beginning is inconceivable, and the being of God the Word is inseparable from this beginning. Hence as far back as you wish to run by the busy curiosity of your mind, you are unable to transcend ‘was‘ and use reasoning to go beyond it.

[2.15) Let us now pose him a question: was God the Word with God in the beginning [Jn 1.1] or did he supervene later? If he was, then keep your tongue from evil [Ps 33.14], that is, from the blasphemy of saying ‘he was not.’ But if … (for saying this is irreligious),⁷³ then I will use your own words against you in a more fitting manner: this account of yours is the pinnacle not only of blasphemy but also of insanity.⁷⁴ Here we have human beings demanding an account of the words of the Spirit, claiming to be disciples of the very same gospels against which they rise up in rebellion.

Look how exactly and clearly the divine sayings testify to the Son’s begetting⁷⁵ before the ages. Matthew explained the Son’s begetting⁷⁶ according to the flesh, as he himself said: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David [Mt 1.1]. And Mark made the preaching of John the beginning of the gospel, saying: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as is written in Isaiah the prophet: a voice of one crying out [Mk 1.1]. Luke for his part also approached the theology⁷⁷ by going through the corporeal origins. The evangelist John was the last to write. Because of what the others did, he needed to raise his mind above every sensory thing and time (which is concomitant to such things). Or rather he had to be lifted up in the power of the Spirit and be brought near the one who is beyond all things, all but bearing witness that even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know him thus no longer [2 Cor 5.16]. Since he apprehended the beginning itself and left behind all corporeal and temporal notions as lower than his theology, he surpasses the preaching of the preceding evangelists on account of the nobility of his knowledge.⁷⁸ According to him, the beginning was not from Mary, nor from the times mentioned above. What, then, was it? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [Jn 1.1]. The Son’s existence from eternity. His begetting without passion. His connaturality with the Father. The majesty of his nature. All these points he covers in a few words.⁷⁹ By including was, he guides us back to the beginning. It is as if he is putting a muzzle on the mouths of the blasphemers who say that ‘he was not,’ and circumventing in advance any chinks whereby such sophisms may enter.

Then, after sketching by his theology a kind of outline, a clear one, of the nature of the Only-Begotten,⁸⁰ he alludes to this with the following phrase as if speaking to those who already know: He was in the beginning with God [Jn 1.2]. Here once again by including the phrase ‘was‘ he connects the begetting of the Only-Begotten to the eternity of the Father. There’s more: He was life, and the life was the light of humanity [Jn 1.4]. And: he was the true light [Jn 1.9]. Despite the fact that all these passages that include phrases indicative of eternity thereby confirm this account, Eunomius has rejected all the testimonies of the Spirit and does not seem to have heard the one crying out to us over and over again that he was. For he says: “He was begotten when he was not. When he was not, he was adventitiously begotten later on.”⁸¹ But if, as you claim, this begetting was not in the beginning, could there be a more conspicuous fight against the sayings of the gospels in which we believe?

[2.16] What sensible person would not agree that, just as an eye that passes out of clearly illuminated places must stop its activity because of the absence of light, so too the mind that is forced outside of true being by imaginations, as if the truth lacked a kind of light, becomes confused and stupid and desists from thinking? So, then, an eye is not able to use its power of sight when there is no light, and a soul led away from the notion of the Only-Begotten is not able to have use of its thinking. For falling away from the Truth makes the mind unable to see and blind. When the mind is empty and demented, it lacks true understanding and thinks that it comprehends things prior to the Only-Begotten. It is as if someone testifies that an eye staring at dark objects can see them clearly. For it says: in your light we shall see light [Ps 35.10]. But when Eunomius asserts that he has come to comprehend a point when the light did not yet exist, he resembles the delirious who imagine that they see what is not present. For one cannot conceive anything beyond the Son, since what perceptible light is to the eye, God the Word is to the soul. For it says: The true light that enlightens every human being was coming into the world [Jn 1.9]. Hence the unenlightened soul is incapable of thinking. So, then, how could one comprehend that which is above the generation of light?

[2.17] No one should quibble over our account here, if none of the examples harmonize completely with the matter at hand. For trivial and insignificant things cannot be adapted exactly to divine and eternal realties. They are used only insofar as they refute the false pretenses of those who cannot apprehend begetting with their mind in a way that does not involve passion. Now the Son is said to be and is the begotten image [Col 1.15; 2 Cor 4-4], the radiance of the glory of God [Heb 1.3], and God’s wisdom, power [1 Cor 1.24], and righteousness [1 Cor 1.30], though not as a possession,⁸³ nor as a faculty. On the contrary, he is a living and active substance and the radiance of the glory of God [Heb 1.3]. For this reason, in himself he reveals the Father in his entirety, as he is the radiance of his glory in its entirety. So isn’t it utterly absurd to claim that the glory of God is without its radiance? That at some point the wisdom of God was not with God? “But if he was,” says Eunomius, “then he has not been begotten.”⁸⁴ So let us answer that it is because he was begotten that he was. He does not have unbegotten being, but he always is and co-exists with the Father, from whom he has the cause of his existence. So, then, when was he brought into being by the Father? From whatever point the Father exists.⁸⁵ Eunomius says that the Father is from eternity. So the Son is also from eternity, being connected in a begotten way to the unbegottenness of the Father.

To prove to them that we are not responsible for this argument, we will cite the very words of the Holy Spirit. So, then, let us take the line from the gospel: In the beginning was the Word [Jn 1.1], and the line from the Psalm spoken in the person of the Father: From the womb before the daybreak I have begotten you [Ps 109.3]. When we combine both of these, we can say both that he was and that he has been begotten. The phrase I have begotten signifies the cause from which he has the origin of his being. The phrase he was signifies his non-temporal existence even before the ages.

Striving to promote his own deceit, Eunomius thinks he has reduced this argument to absurdity when he says: “For if the Son was before his own begetting, he was unbegotten.”” As for that which is “before his begetting,” you poor fool, there are two options. Either (1) it is something utterly non-existent and a mental fabrication without any foundation. If this is the case, what need is there to respond to such stupidity? For it would be just as if we were fighting against someone whom delirium has deprived of reason. Or (2), if Eunomius is thinking of something that exists, he will be led to the notion of the ages. But if all ages are understood to be below (as it were) the begetting of the Only-Begotten, being, as they are, things that he himself made,⁸⁷ then the one who looks for things prior to the subsistence of the Son is a fool. His question is no less inappropriate than if he were to inquire whether the Father existed “before his own constitution” or not. For just as in this case it is stupid to seek something beyond the one who is without beginning and unbegotten, so also in the case of the one who is with the Father from eternity and has no intermediary between himself and his begetter, it is truly of equal insanity to ask about priority in a temporal sense. Seeking what exists “before the begetting” of the eternal one resembles asking what will exist after the end of the immortal one.

Since the Father’s being without beginning is called ‘eternal,’ these men declare that ‘eternal’ is the same as ‘without beginning.’ Since the Son is not unbegotten, they do not confess that he is eternal. But the notional difference between these two terms is great. For ‘unbegotten’ is said of that which has no beginning and no cause of its own being, while ‘eternal’ is said of that which is prior in being to every time and age. Therefore, the Son is eternal but not unbegotten. Now some people have previously judged even the ages worthy of the designation ‘eternal’ since they derive the term ‘age’ (aion) from the fact that it always exists (aei einai).⁸⁸ But we consider it a mark of the same insanity to ascribe eternity to creation and yet refuse to acknowledge eternity in the case of the Master of creation.

[2.18] What does Eunomius say upon bringing his argument to this point of impudence?

For our part, clinging to that which has been demonstrated by the saints of old and even now by us, since the substance of God does not admit begetting and since there is no other substance existing which serves as the substrate for the begetting of the Son, we assert that the Son was begotten when he did not exist.⁸⁹

Who is eager for distinction in piety in this way? Who has made as great a show of being a lover of Christ as these men have, even though they boast of their arrogant and dishonorable words that go so far as to destroy the glory of the Only-Begotten? You godless man! Please stop saying that he does not exist when he is the one who truly exists, the one who is the source of life, and the one who produces being for all that exists. Didn’t he find a designation well-suited for himself and fitting for his own eternity when he named himself He Who Is in his oracle to Moses his servant? He said: I am He Who Is [Ex 3.14]. No one will object when I say that these words were spoken in the person of the Lord, at least no one who does not have the veil of the Jews upon his heart when he reads Moses [2 Cor 3.15]. It is written that the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the bush burning with fire.⁹⁰ After mentioning the angel at the outset of the narrative, scripture introduces the voice of God when it says that he said to Moses: I am the God of your father Abraham [Ex 3.6]. A little further on,the same one said: I am He Who Is [Ex 3.14]. So, then, who is this one who is both angel and God alike? Isn’t it he whom we have learned is called by the name the angel of great counsel [Is 9.5]?

For my part, I don’t think that this needs much demonstration; just mentioning it suffices for the lovers of Christ. But the incorrigible are not going to derive any benefit from a flurry of words. Even though the angel of great counsel comes later, It remains true that previously he did not disdain the designation ‘angel.’⁹¹ You see, it is not only in this passage that we find the scriptures naming our Lord both ‘angel’ and ‘God.’ For when Jacob narrated an appearance to his wives, he said: And the angel of God said to me [Gn 31.11]. And a little further on, it was said: I am the God who appeared to you in the place where you anointed a pillar to me [Gn 31.13]. In addition, it was said to Jacob as he stood before the pillar: I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac [Gn 28.13]. The one who is called ‘angel’ in the former passage [Gn 31.1 1] is the same as the one who said in the latter passage [Gn 31.13] that he appeared to Jacob. So, then, it is clear to all that, where the same one is designated both ‘angel’ and ‘God,’ it is the Only-Begotten who is revealed, manifesting himself to human beings from generation to generation and announcing the will of the Father to his saints. Consequently, when he called himself He Who Is before Moses, he is understood to be none other than God the Word, who was ln the beginning with God[Jn 1.2].

[2.19] But these men who speak what is wrong from on high [Ps 72.8] have not shrunk from saying that the Son does not exist. Though the fool has said in his heart: there is no God [Ps 13.1], these men not only scoff but also speak with malice [Ps. 72.8], showing no restraint when they pass on to all posterity in writing that they dare to call God “he who does not exist.” I suppose that its because they realize that not even the demons themselves deny that God exists⁹² that, when they return to the point later in the treatise, they give free rein to their own impious desire. There they blaspheme by saying that at some point the Son does not exist, on the grounds that he does not exist by his own nature but has been brought into being by God through grace.

Here is what Paul said about the idols: You served the gods who by nature do not exist [Gal 4.8]. And there’s Jeremiah: And they swore by the gods who do not exist [Jer 5.7]. There’s also the most wise Esther: O Lord, do not relinquish your scepter to those who do not exist [Est C.22 LXX 14.1 RSV]. When these men⁹³ apply the same phrase to the true God, how can they still be justified in claiming the designation ‘Christian’? Somewhere in another letter of this same Apostle, speaking in the Spirit of God, he calls the nations “that which does not exist” because they have been deprived of the knowledge of God: God chose that which does not exist [1 Cor 1.28]. Given the fact that God is both Truth and Life, I think it is to be expected that those who were not united by faith to the God who exists, but affiliated themselves with non-existent falsehoods through the error of idolatry, are designated as ‘not existing.’ For they have been deprived of the Truth and have alienated themselves from Life. Furthermore, when he was writing to the Ephesians, whom he treated as people genuinely united through knowledge to He Who Is, he gave them a peculiar name, “those who exist,” when he said: to the saints who exist and are faithful in Christ Jesus [Eph 1.1]. For this is how our ancestors have transmitted the verse to us and how we ourselves have found it in the oldest copies.⁹⁴ But Eunomius could not even bring himself to judge our God worthy of the designation in which the servants of Christ participate. On the contrary, he calls the one who brings creation into being from nothing ‘non-existing.’

His contempt is all the more perceptible from how he pretends to glorify the Lord:

We do not construe the Only-Begotten as having a substance in common with those which have come to be from nothing. For that which is nothing is surely not a substance. Rather, we allot him as much superiority as the maker necessarily has over the things he himself has made.⁹⁵

After much groundwork to bring his account to this point, with these words he shows his love for humanity, saying that he does “not construe the Only-Begotten as having a substance in common with those which have come to be from nothing.” But if the God of the universe, because he is unbegotten, is of necessity distinct from those which have been begotten, and if all those who have been begotten have it in common that they subsist from nothing, how is it that the latter are not necessarily joined in nature? For just as in the former case God’s inaccessibility⁹⁶ distinguishes the natures, so too in the latter case their equality in honor joins them to one another as identical in this respect. Though they say that the Son and those which he has brought into being are from nothing, and construe them⁹⁷ as having a nature in common in this respect, they deny that they attribute to him a substance that is like those who are from nothing.

There’s something else: as if he himself were Lord, Eunomius provides as much dignity as he wants to the Only-Begotten, writing as follows: “We allot him as much superiority as the maker necessarily has over the things he himself has made.” He did not say “we comprehend” or “we are of the opinion” as would have been suitable when speaking about God, but rather “we allot” as if he himself were responsible for the measure of the distribution. How much superiority does he give him? “As much as the maker necessarily has over the things he himself has made.” This falls short of providing evidence for a difference in substance. Though human beings are superior to their own products by virtue of their artistic skill, they are nevertheless of the same substance with them. Examples include the potter and his clay, and the shipbuilder and his lumber.⁹⁸ Both⁹⁹ are similarly bodies. Both are similarly perceptible by the senses and made of earth.¹⁰⁰

[2.20] After admitting only this much difference between the Son and creation, he immediately also does damage to the notion of the Only-Begotten:

For this reason he is the Only-Begotten, since he was begotten and created by the power of the unbegotten, as only one from only one, thereby becoming his most perfect minister. ¹⁰¹

I don’t know with which of these statements I should be more enraged. On the one hand, he cunningly damages the name ‘Only-Begotten’ in order to use it in a sense contrary to both the customary usage of people and the pious tradition of the scriptures. For in common usage ‘only-begotten’ does not designate the one who comes from only one person, but the one who is the only one begotten. On the other hand, there’s the blasphemous term ‘creature.’ He has maliciously linked this term with “was begotten” so that he might indicate that the Lord participates in the designation ‘has been begotten’ no differently than creatures do. He thinks that the Lord has been named ‘Son’ in the same way as in the passages: he has begotten sons and raised them [Is 1.2] and Israel is my firstborn son [Ex 4.22], and that he does not have the name which is above every name [Phil 2.9], but has been deemed as equally worthy of the designation as the others.

These men have recourse to the text of Solomon, and from it, as if from a base of military operations, they launch an assault on the faith. On the basis of that passage said in the person of Wisdom: the Lord created me [Prv 8.22], they have supposed that it is permissible for them to call the Lord a ‘creature.’ But for my part, I have many things to say about this line.¹⁰² First of all, this is said only once in all the scriptures. Second, in this book a great deal of the meaning is hidden and on the whole it proceeds by means of proverbs, parables, dark sayings, and enigmas,¹⁰³ such that no one may take anything from it that is either indisputable or crystal-clear. I’ll refrain from saying more lest I prolong this treatise by making lengthy digressions. Elsewhere in the proper place we will conduct the examination, deferred for now, of what they have understood in an evil way; in that place, if God grants it, the correct understanding of this verse will be found. At any rate, I think that, whatever is said with God’s help, the sense will be much more consistent with the text in question and will bring no danger when it is clarified by the investigation.¹⁰⁴ But in the meantime let us be sure not to let the following point go unnoticed: that other translators, who have hit upon the meaning of the Hebrew words in a more appropriate way, render it as “he acquired me” instead of he created me.¹⁰⁵ This is going to be a great obstacle for them against their blasphemous term ‘creature.’ For the. one who said: I have acquired a man through God [Gn 4.1] clearly used this term, not because he had created Cain, but rather because he had begotten him.¹⁰⁶

[2.21] Let’s return to the beginning of the passage. “For this reason,” says Eunomius, “he is the Only-Begotten, since he was begotten and created as from only one, thereby becoming his most perfect minister.”¹⁰⁷ So if he is called ‘only-begotten’ not because he is the only one begotten, but because he is begotten from only one, and if in your view being created is the same thing as being begotten, why didn’t you also name him the ‘only-created’? For there is no thought that you don’t have a knack for expressing! At any rate, according to your account it seems that no human being is only-begotten since everyone is begotten as the result of sexual intercourse. Not even Sarah, in your view, was the mother of an only-begotten child, for she did not produce him by herself, but together with Abraham¹⁰⁸ If your opinions were to prevail, it would be necessary for the entire world to relearn this term, that the name’ only-begotten’ does not indicate a lack of siblings but the absence of a pair of procreators.

Furthermore, creation is already inferior in dignity to God the Word because he is its cause. For creation falls short of being only-begotten insofar as the Son joins the Father in creating it.¹⁰⁹ But these men would still not concede this point. For they name him “his most perfect minister.” So, then, how in your view has creation not come to be from only one when you give God the Word to the Father as a kind of lifeless instrument? This will be the case unless someone is going to deny that only the shipbuilder has made the ship because he has used instruments to construct it. As a consequence of your view, creation and its parts are only-begotten: not only the invisible powers, but also perceptible bodies, even the most worthless of these, wood-boring insects, locusts, and frogs. For God commanded and they came to be [Ps 148.5]1. After all, what ministering could have been needed by the one who creates by will alone, seeing that creation came into existence simultaneously with his willing it? What, then? How do we say that all things come to be through the Son? In this way: the divine will, taking its origin from the Primal Cause as from a kind of spring, proceeds to activity through his own image, God the Word. But Eunomius has designated the only-begotten Son as a minister, attributing to him this great thing: that he is well-suited for administering the things that have been assigned to him. But if he possesses glory not in virtue of being perfect God, but in virtue of being a reliable minister, how will he be different from the ministering spirits [Heb 1.141 who blamelessly accomplish their task of administering? He has linked “was created” with “was begotten” so that on this basis he might show that there is no difference between the Son and a creature.