And this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior's body, wherefore He was also called 'Christ' when born. For what God bestowed through the anointing with oil by the ministry of the prophets upon those who were anointed as kings, this the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the man Christ, an expiation being added, because the former anointed ones received through the anointing only the power of rule. But the Savior, born as man, both received power and, born, was purified. For it was unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins. Therefore, taking up the cause of man and teaching that men become sons of God through regeneration, He had to be baptized, that He might show this confirmed in Himself. For what is said is easily proved and persuasive, if it is seen to be done by the master.
Thus indeed it was also necessary that the marks of mighty works should be done, so that, now appearing as the Son of God, He might through the mystery of regeneration give a remedy to bodily sufferings, that He might be an example to His future brethren, since through regeneration each one receives the power of mighty works. L. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE AN EXAMPLE, WHY, HAVING BEEN CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED? Circumcision is a commandment of past time, which had to retain its authority up until Christ, so that it should run its course only so long as Christ, promised to Abraham, should be born, that thereafter circumcision should cease, the promise being fulfilled. For Isaac was promised as a figure of Christ. For God said to him: 'In thy seed shall all nations be blessed'—which is Christ.
For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations should be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. Circumcision, therefore, was the sign of the promised son, that is, of Christ; and when He was born, the sign of the promise had to cease, yet in such a way that the very one who was promised, when He came, should receive the sign of the father, so that He might be known to be the one who had been promised to justify all nations through faith in the circumcision of the heart. For just as for the father Abraham the bodily circumcision was the seal of a son born carnally, so also for those who are born spiritually the spiritual sign is the circumcision of the heart; and therefore, more rightly, after Christ it was no longer fitting to be circumcised carnally. LI.
IN WHAT WAY IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN MARY SAID TO THE ANGEL, 'AND HOW SHALL I KNOW THIS, SINCE I HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN?', THE ANGEL GABRIEL ANSWERED, 'THE HOLY SPIRIT SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE'? To Mary, who was uncertain about the possibility of conceiving, the angel proclaims, saying: 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,' that is: 'Do not doubt because thou knowest not a man; for what I said,' he says, 'namely that thou shalt conceive, the Holy Spirit, coming upon thee, shall bring it about that thou conceive without a man.' 'And the power of the Most High,' he says, 'shall overshadow thee.' 'The power of the Most High' is without doubt Christ; for this pertains to His own person.
Therefore the Holy Spirit, coming upon the Virgin, sanctified her, by His working making a holy body out of her, in which the Power that is called the Son of God should be born. His overshadowing upon the Virgin is this: that out of the immensity of the Godhead something should be in the womb of the Virgin, as much as human nature could contain, which, as it were from splendor, should be called the overshadowing of the Power of God, and should be the Power of God and also God; for there is nothing of God which is not called God. For this is bodily: that there should be something in flesh which cannot be called flesh, such as hairs and bones and the rest. LII. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS, BY HIS WORKING WAS MADE FLESH OUT OF MARY, WHY WAS IT SAID:
'WISDOM', WHICH OF COURSE IS CHRIST, 'BUILT HERSELF A HOUSE'? This question must be understood in a twofold manner. For first, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built for Himself with His own blood. Then His body too can be called His house, just as it is also called His temple. For if on account of the dwelling it is called the temple of God, it will not be absurd to call it also a house, as we read in the Law. But if the body was made by the working of the Holy Spirit—which we judge can also be called a house—it is asked why it is referred to the person of Christ. The work of the Son is the work of the Father, because there is one power of both. In like manner also the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of the Son of God, on account of the unity of nature and of will.
For whether the Father acts, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works; and whatever the Three do is the operation of the one God. LIII. IF ALL THINGS WERE MADE WITH REASON, HOW IS IT THAT THE SAVIOR IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF JANUARY? No one can be so dull as to deny that God does all things with reason.
Therefore Christ, descending from the sacred thrones to bestow salvation upon the world, in order that He might teach even the world itself and the seasons instituted by Him, then willed to be born as man, to increase unto God the diminution of the human race, at that time when, after the great diminution, the light, which is the day, begins to receive its increase—so that the time of His nativity might accord with the reason of the divine teaching, which began to multiply men from the shadow of death unto life. LIV. IF CHRIST WAS MADE SON TO GOD OUT OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH—THAT IS, BEING NOW BORN, HE IS THE SON OF GOD IN BOTH RESPECTS, SINCE HE WAS BORN HOLY—HOW THEN, AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZED, WAS IT SAID TO HIM BY THE LORD GOD: 'THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE'?
Christ the Son of God is from eternity according to the Spirit of holiness, but according to the flesh He was born as Son to God out of the seed of David, so that in both respects He may be held not made but born Son to God. But that which He hears at baptism is a matter of the mystery, not on His own account; for He hears this in common with all who are baptized. He alone, however, is shown forth, so that from this God may appear in a man through mighty works, while the rest are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God when they receive the Holy Spirit. For although the body of the Lord was born holy, nevertheless the man Christ had not been confirmed by the sacrament of regeneration to be the Son of God, unless He had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the gift of new birth.
For the Jews too were called sons of God by way of devotion, not in the sacrament which now operates, so that, having received the remission of sins with the coming of the Holy Spirit, they should be called sons of God. The Savior, therefore, was both born Son of God according to the flesh, and afterward confirmed in the mystery. Nor indeed could that which was born holy of the Holy not be born of God; but in order that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, by the coming of the Spirit He was not diminished but increased. LV. WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE LORD ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE PUT ON THE CROSS AT THAT TIME, WHEN ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF APRIL THE JEWS KEPT THE PASSOVER? The Savior did all things in their proper places and times.
For in order to teach that He had rightly created all things by the Father's nod, He then willed by His passion to redeem and reform the world at the time when He had also created it, that is, at the equinox, whence the world took its beginning and the day begins to increase over the night. Acting therefore within the Roman realm, He had to suffer on no other day than the eighth before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have the equinox. For then indeed this part of the world was first illumined, and from that point the day began to receive its increase; and therefore by the Savior's passion it was then led from darkness to light. No reproach, then, of the Author can appear, since He reformed the fallen creature at the very time when He had also made it. Nor can the beginning of the creation of the fallen thing be censured, since its restoration returns to that very point.
For He willed the joy of renewal to be on the same day on which there had also been the joy of the founding. LVI. WHY IN MATTHEW IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH WRITTEN AS JACOB, AND IN LUKE AS HELI, SO THAT EITHER HE IS UNSKILLFULLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR ELSE WHO HIS TRUE FATHER IS REMAINS UNKNOWN? There is no doubt that the father of Joseph was Jacob. For the line, holding its course from David through Solomon by a direct path, comes to Jacob, whose son is Joseph; but Heli was the son of Matthias, who, from David through Nathan, the son of the same David, holds the line down to the time when the Savior came. Whence the several evangelists, tracing from David the lines of the generations of the several brothers, made as it were a fork.
So that Matthew descended from David through Solomon down to Joseph, while Luke ascended from Heli, who lived in the time of the Savior, through the offshoot of Nathan the son of David, and joined the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that both were of one stock; so that, when he associates Heli with Joseph, he shows that they do not differ in their descent but are brothers, and through this that the Savior is the son not only of Joseph but also of Heli. For by the very same reasoning by which the Savior is called the son of Joseph, He is also the son of Heli and of all the others who are of the same tribe. Hence it is that the Apostle says: 'whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh.'
For indeed Luke was moved by divine inspiration to ascend from Heli through the offshoot of Nathan up to David, and through Terah his father to ascend to Shem the son of Noah, and to pass further beyond the Flood to Seth the son of Adam—who was given in place of Abel—and by the same reasoning to make the Savior the son of Adam, by which He was said to be the son of Joseph and of Heli; but transcending above Adam, to assign Christ to be the Son of God before all flesh.
But that which seems to some—namely, that Heli took the wife of Jacob, in the manner in which the Law commanded that, if anyone died without children, his brother or kinsman should take his wife and raise up seed for his brother, and that it so came about that Heli begot Joseph by the wife of Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and that through this the generation is joined, so that not without reason Joseph is said to have Heli as father—this is neither probable nor of any profit. But that which was said above both joins the generation through the two brothers, sons of one man, and shows Christ to be the Son of God before all generation. For the evangelist, when he relates, says: 'And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.'
'who was the son of Heli'—that is, Jesus was reckoned the son of Joseph, and was not only the son of Joseph, but also of Heli. Not because he calls Joseph the son of Heli, but in the same manner in which Jesus was called the son of Joseph, so He was also the son of Heli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David; so that, ascending through David to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself and above Adam, he might teach that Christ is the Son of God. For when he says, 'who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God,' he certainly calls Christ the son of Adam in the same way that He was called the son of Joseph. For Mary said to Jesus: 'Son, why hast thou done so to us? For behold, I and thy father, sorrowing and grieved, were seeking thee as we walked.'
But above Adam he joins Christ to God the Father, so that He who was called the son of these—that is, from Adam down to Joseph and Heli—might be understood, before all these, to be the true Son of God; to the confounding of Photinus, who contends that Christ is only from Mary and did not exist before. For He was called the son of those whose He was not, and the Son of God, whose He truly was, was denied. For if—what is improbable and of no profit—Joseph be called the son of Heli according to what we said above, the evangelist will seem not to have spoken of Christ that He was the Son of God, but of Adam. For by setting down in order the fathers of the several sons, he comes to Enos, whose father he says is Seth, and the father of Seth he says is Adam, and the father of Adam he says is God.
I do not know what usefulness there is in asserting it thus. But if, in order as we have said, the several fathers are called fathers of Christ, just as He was also called the son of Joseph—because it is said, 'whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh'—then by that same order He is read to be the son of Seth and the son of Adam, and above all these He is designated the Son of God, so that He is said to exist before those whose son He is named. LVII. WHAT IS THIS, THAT, ALTHOUGH IN THE PROPHET MALACHI IT IS WRITTEN, 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE THY FACE, WHO SHALL PREPARE THY WAY', THE EVANGELIST MARK ASSERTS THIS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH? It could not have escaped Mark what he was writing;
for he was not unversed in reading, who from infancy, steeped in the divine letters, had been exercised in the Law, especially since he had followed the apostles. But knowing that all sayings are to be referred to their author, he recalled these to Isaiah, who had earlier intimated this very sense, saying: 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.' Indeed, after the words of Malachi the evangelist at once added, saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness,' so as to join the words of both prophets, pertaining to one sense, under the person of the earlier prophet. LVIII. ON WHAT GROUND DOES JOHN DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE THE BAPTISM, WHEN, AS HE CAME TO HIM FOR BAPTISM, HE SAYS TO HIM:
'I HAVE NEED TO BE BAPTIZED BY THEE, AND COMEST THOU TO ME?' HOW DID HE NOT KNOW HIM WHOM HE FORBADE, HUMBLING HIMSELF BEFORE HIM? John was endowed with such great holiness even from his very cradle that he is believed neither to have been deceived nor to deceive, nor to have been ignorant of his Lord, who had enlightened him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And by this it is true that he both recognized Him when the Spirit descended upon Him, and, before he came to baptism, was not ignorant of Him. For he knew Him, but whether He was the one who would minister the gift of God promised to the fathers, he did not know—that is, what he professes that he then learned, when he saw the Spirit descend upon Him. For thus John says that he was instructed by God:
'Upon whom thou shalt see,' he says, 'the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' The Apostle also testifies to this: 'For I say,' he says, 'that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.' This is wherein John did not know the Lord; for although he was not ignorant of His greatness, yet this was hidden from him, namely that through Him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled. LIX. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY, TO NICODEMUS, WHEN THE LORD SPEAKS TO HIM AS HE DOUBTS CONCERNING BAPTISM, DOES HE SAY, 'IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YE BELIEVE NOT, HOW, IF I SHALL TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS, WILL YE BELIEVE?' He who thinks that baptism consists in a carnal manner, he is not spiritual;
nor will he be able to obtain the heavenly gift, who does not believe that he is changed not through water, but through faith. For the water is seen, but the Spirit who is not seen works, so that faith may be in him. For just as water cleanses bodily filth, so the Spirit cleanses the soul from sins, in order that, just as visible things are of profit to visible things, so also the Spirit may profit to spiritual things. And by this the spiritual reason is at work in baptism. For there is more there which is heard than is seen. When therefore Nicodemus, bound by carnal reasoning, doubted on this account, the Savior, in order to draw him to faith, used a fitting example, so that to confirm an invisible thing He might give a visible example, which consists in hearing alone, not in sight; and it is not denied, and yet is earthly, because it works a thing of the world.
The Lord therefore said to Nicodemus, persuading him: 'The Spirit breathes where it wills, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes or whither it goes; so is everyone who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit'—so that, just as the voice of the coming Spirit, that is, of the wind, is indeed heard but not seen, as has been said, so also the reason of baptism is heard in what is said, yet how it is done through the Spirit is not seen; nevertheless it is heard when something that is to be is proclaimed by him who delivers the words, so that what is heard may be believed to come about, yet the manner of the thing done is not rendered. But when Nicodemus was not led to faith even by the example, then he hears from the Savior: 'If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how, if I shall tell you heavenly things, will ye believe?'
These earthly words He spoke, which He brought forward as an example. This is to say: 'If by the earthly reasoning,' He says, 'of the example given, namely of the wind of the Spirit, ye do not believe that it can come to pass, because how it comes to pass is not seen—how would it be possible that, if I gave heavenly examples, which ye certainly do not know, ye should believe?' For a man can be persuaded of what he does not know through that which he does know; as, for instance, God says of Christ that He is His true Son, which, how it is, cannot be comprehended; but through that which we do know according to the flesh, namely how sons are sons, we therefore believe that God said, 'Christ is My true Son,' to signify that He is from Himself.
In this manner the Savior too willed to commend a thing which can be explained neither by words nor by the mind, through that which is perceptible and is heard by the ears—that is, through the example of the Spirit, which is the wind, which both sense-perception grasps and the ear hears, but whence it comes it does not know—and so He willed to make credible the work of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped. But in the Acts of the Apostles also it is read in the same manner: 'And suddenly,' it says, 'there was made from heaven a sound as of a mighty Spirit coming, and it filled the whole house,' and the rest. Behold, openly by the example of the wind He intimates that the Holy Spirit thus came from heaven and sounded, in the manner that a mighty wind sounds over the earth. For Jeremiah too calls the Spirit a wind, saying: 'The wind breathes in every region.'
Which, because it is in this world and is carried about through diverse places, we do not know whence it comes or whither it goes. But the Holy Spirit comes from heaven, as we read, to enlighten believers. How then is it that it seems to some that the Savior spoke of the Holy Spirit, 'The Spirit breathes where it wills, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes or whither it goes', when it is established that the Savior spoke these things by way of example? Indeed He added: 'So is,' He says, 'everyone who shall be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' What is so plain as that He signified the Spirit by the wind? But they suppose the wind was not signified for this reason, because He says, 'It breathes where it wills,' as if not every creature, by the law set for itself, were left to its own free choice.
For we too go and do what we will, acting under the law. Wherefore we shall also render account, or it is deemed possible; and it does not even seem foolish that, in willing to intimate the working of the Holy Spirit, He should give that very example. Therefore I judge the question solved in every kind. LX. IF 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN', HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SEND TO THE PRIESTS TO OFFER GIFTS FOR THE CLEANSING OF LEPROSY? This indeed was not a matter of the time, but was done for the condemnation of the Jews, so that, when they did not understand the summit of truth of the better time to have been done for the gain of their own salvation, the truth might bend itself to their accusation.
For when they held the Savior as it were an enemy of the Law, because for the sake of mercy He wished to free them from the burden of the Law—as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah, for among other things he says: 'And I will give them a new testament, not such as I gave to their fathers'—then the Savior, lest He should appear an enemy, as they thought, in preaching new things, sent him who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his cleansing, as Moses had commanded. And that He might testify this to be of profit for their accusation, 'for a testimony,' He says, 'unto them,' so that in judgment this matter might be a witness against them, who called the Savior an enemy of the Law. The apostle Paul also followed this.
For when he was already preaching that men ought no longer to be circumcised, he himself circumcised Timothy on account of the scandal of the Jews—for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than that an uproar should be stirred up by false brethren—which indeed served to the error of the Jews. For enough was done for them for the hour, by which they might err forever. LXI. WHAT IS THIS, THAT, WHEN THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF VIOLATING THE SABBATH BY RUBBING EARS OF GRAIN WITH THEIR HANDS AND EATING, THE SAVIOR BROUGHT FORWARD THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, BECAUSE HE ATE THE LOAVES WHICH IT WAS NOT LAWFUL FOR HIM TO EAT EXCEPT FOR THE PRIESTS ALONE—WHEREBY THEY SEEM NOT TO BE EXCUSED, BUT TO BE MADE GUILTY ALONG WITH DAVID, SINCE DAVID DID NOT EVEN DO THIS ON THE SABBATH?
The Savior wished to refute the hypocrisy of the Jews by many examples, showing greater things to have been committed in the Law and no one having dared to accuse—so that He might show not only that once and again the Sabbath was violated in the Law, but also that the priestly bread was presumed unlawfully, with the priest himself granting it, and—what is greater—by men of sublime authority. For first Joshua the son of Nun, by divine precept, did not keep the Sabbath, by which deed the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord. How much it profited not to have kept the Sabbath, but the faith! And the Maccabees, when they had first been slain, fought on the Sabbaths and triumphed over the enemy; and the priests, in order to attend to the divine ceremonies, disregarded the Sabbath in the temple. But David, now anointed as king—
after he had, by God's power, slain the Philistine and stripped him of his arms—being set on a journey and suffering the necessity of hunger, he received bread from the priest, which it was not lawful for him to eat—but except in necessity it was not lawful; yet it was lawful, if necessity demanded it. Finally the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse, and David, chosen by God, received it without hesitation. Such also is the case of the Sabbath, wherefore even to be circumcised on the Sabbath is not forbidden. For these things, which are not perilous, have been commanded to be observed in such a way that it does no harm if they are set aside out of necessity, because they were commanded not for salvation, but for reverence; but that which is utterly unlawful is always unlawful, nor is it mitigated by any necessity, so that the doing of it should do no harm.
For that is always unlawful which is forbidden by the laws because it is criminal. But those former things, which we said are sometimes lawful, are such as the lawful fasts, which, when relaxed in necessity, do not make men guilty, if there be a cause of the stomach or the infirmity of fevers. Knowing these things, therefore, the crafty Jews accused the disciples, as if they were violating the Sabbath, as was said above. But the Savior did not wish to prejudge them concerning the time of the Law's fulfillment, lest they should leap forth even more into madness, but concerning the past, whence they thought the Sabbath rather to be vindicated, He showed them to be slanderers; and not only in the matter of the Sabbath, but also in the priestly bread they were confounded, as was shown above. LXII.
WHAT IS THIS, THAT, WHEN THE SONS OF LEAH, WHO WERE OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, WERE SLAIN, RACHEL IS SAID TO WEEP FOR HER SONS? As far as the history pertains, the sons of Rachel, that is, the tribe of Benjamin, were long ago, on account of their own misdeeds—namely the works of the Sodomites and the rape which they had committed upon the concubine of the Levite man—extinguished and blotted out by the rest of the tribes. For which reason she is said to refuse to receive consolation, knowing there to be no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah, in their earliest years, were slain in the cause of the Savior; wherefore He does not wish their cause of mourning to be ascribed, because they were both slain innocent and for the sake of God, by whom without doubt they were granted eternal life by the grace of reward.
Wherefore the mourning befits the sons of Rachel, who were blotted out both in the present and in the future; but those others, mourned carnally, were consoled spiritually; whereas the sons of Rachel, having conducted themselves carnally, shall be consumed by spiritual flames. For this reason the evangelist testifies that the mourning of Rachel was fulfilled when the sons of Leah were slain, because she then began to mourn her own sons when she saw the sons of her sister slain in such a cause, that they should become heirs of eternal life. For whoever has anything adverse befall him out of another's happiness, more wretchedly bewails his own ill fortune. LXIII. ON WHAT GROUND DID THE CHALDEAN MAGI, BY THE APPEARANCE OF THE STAR, UNDERSTAND THAT CHRIST THE KING OF THE JEWS WAS BORN, WHEN BY A STAR AS A SIGN A KING IS USUALLY DESIGNATED ACCORDING TO THE TIMES?
These Chaldean Magi observed the course of the stars not out of malevolence, but out of curiosity about things. For, as is given to understand, they were following the tradition of Balaam, who, when he had been summoned by Balak to curse the people of God, by divine impulse began to bless. From his report, therefore, they had ascertained that, by God's providence, one would be born of Jacob who should reign. For he—which is not hidden—prophesied, saying: 'There shall arise a star out of Jacob,' and the rest. Following, therefore, this tradition, the Magi, seeing a star outside the order of the world, understood it to be that which Balaam had prophesied would be the sign of the King of the Jews—which indeed was done against the enemies of religion. For thence it received a testimony from which it is wont to be disproved;
for the astrologers are enemies of the truth. LXIV. HOW IS IT PROVED THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS? In this matter, if you seek the number by the order of days and nights, you will not arrive at the result of understanding, because Moses also fasted forty days and forty nights, and yet the full number is not found. For when he ascended during the day and descended during the day, he certainly did not complete the whole number; but because, where there is day, the night too is reckoned, and where there is night, the day too is reckoned, so that from a part to the whole forty days and forty nights are spoken of. So it is also with what the Savior said, that, because there are three nights, three days too are to be taken.
For there is night, lest it should perhaps seem novel or contrary to reason, since night depends upon day. For before the light was made, from which it was called day, than the evening which the night follows, it is by no means doubted to have been established. That the Lord's passion is asserted to take its beginning from night is not absurd; for just as light, that is, day, is the image of life, so night is the likeness of death, that is, darkness, as is evidently shown in the Scriptures, namely: 'the sons of light,' and on the contrary, 'of darkness.'
Nor is it strange if, although everywhere the day is set before the night and light before darkness, here alone the things that come after are placed before the things that come before—or because in such a case the order of things is confused and changed, so that the night, as the forerunner of death, may seem to be rather than the day—for therefore the beginning is indeed taken from night—since He could not otherwise enter in upon the prince of darkness except through night, and so that in some measure the Lord of light, that is, of eternal life, might be subjected for a time to the prince of darkness or of death, in order that He might free from death both those who were past and those who were to come afterward. For death would not have been wholly emptied, nor the gloom of darkness ever dispelled, had it not seen the Lord.