THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
Please rise and focus intently. This psalm reveals profound truths, countering not just a single error, but multiple misunderstandings. It addresses the beliefs of the Jews, Paul of Samosata, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Manichaeans, and all those who deny the resurrection. Given its broad reach, we must be attentive and keenly aware of the various nuances of this teaching. In secular competition, if certain details are overlooked, the audience is not harmed, as the purpose there is entertainment, not edification. However, in matters of faith, failing to discern how the adversary assaults us and how we can respond may lead us to significant detriment. Therefore, awaken your thoughts and sharpen your listening.
To begin, we will challenge the Jews and advance our case with the prophet’s words. When we declare that this refers explicitly to Christ, the Jews reject this and construct alternative interpretations. Let us first dismantle their beliefs before presenting our own. We can ask them, who is this Lord of the righteous? 'The Lord said to my Lord' (Ps. 110:1). This is not speaking of a single individual but reveals a conversation between two distinct persons. Whom do they claim is speaking? They say it is God. And who is the one being addressed? Some suggest it is Abraham. Others propose Zerubbabel or yet another figure, offering interpretations that lack clarity, as if they are disoriented. Is Zerubbabel the Lord of David? Is it reasonable to attribute such a significant title to someone who merely claimed the honor of being called David?
Moreover, the continuation makes it clear that neither Zerubbabel nor David is referenced here, as neither held the priesthood. Instead, it speaks of a certain individual possessing an extraordinary and divine priesthood: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek' (Ps. 110:4). However, they also espouse another untenable idea, claiming this is about the Jewish people, yet the people were not priests, and the attributes mentioned cannot apply to them. Thus, dismissing this as unfounded, we shall address their other assertions.
Some contend that the son of Abraham speaks of his master. What could be more absurd? What does the son of Abraham intend to convey here? At what moment was his master a priest, having approached the priest Melchizedek to request a blessing? Is it reasonable to apply to Abraham the expression, 'Before the day, I begot you' (Ps. 110:3)? How could this also pertain to David, Zerubbabel, or the people? The implications of these statements transcend human comprehension. Furthermore, what significance would 'sit at My right hand' have if this referred to those individuals? None whatsoever. How could it be said, 'Sit at My right hand,' of Abraham, who treasured the honor of standing before angels?
Yet, what rationale do they offer? They question how another Lord can be acknowledged when Scripture clearly states, 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall have no other gods beside Him' (Deut. 6:4). But for whose benefit is this stated? Primarily for you, Jew, who are in ignorance. Why were such declarations not made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses, but uniquely to you after your exodus from Egypt, indulging in idolatrous practices? Why? If you find yourself unaware, allow me to enlighten you. Because upon your exit from Egypt, you mingled with a golden calf and served Baal of Peor, turning to a host of false gods, embracing lawless polytheism; thus, in an effort to heal your infliction, God declared 'one' to distinguish Himself from the false deities, not to dismiss the Only Begotten Son. If not, then why was it stated at the outset, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness' (Gen. 1:26), and again, 'Let Us go down and confuse their language' (Gen. 11:7), along with David declaring, 'Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy beyond Your companions' (Ps. 45:8)?
When Moses proclaims, 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one,' it serves to address your frailty. Is it astonishing that such was necessary regarding doctrines if, in actions, God lowered speech from perfection to accommodate your weaknesses? Thus, He permitted a man to divorce one wife and take another, though originally such a law did not exist. Regarding dietary laws, He made a significant distinction, even though He initially declared, 'Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you' (Gen. 9:3). Concerning sacred spaces, He instituted many regulations, not allowing prayers to be uttered haphazardly, whereas formerly, He imposed no such restriction. He appeared to Abraham in Persia, Palestine, and diverse locations, yet to Moses, He manifested in the wilderness.
So, what shall you say? Does Scripture contradict itself? No, it imparts all things decisively and beneficially, according to the times, correcting the frailty of each generation. Therefore, it is said to you, 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one.' Furthermore, that He has a Son is also emphasized by the prophets in their writings, albeit not in a manner that might overly distress you due to your weakness, while ensuring it is not concealed to allow for your eventual understanding of the truths within their texts. Thus, we can demonstrate that the prophets are indeed legitimate when we engage with the Gentiles and reveal the veracity of the Old Testament. Should you reject this, how will you silence the Gentile? What will you present? Will it be the exodus from Egypt and the prophecies about you? But they will not accept these. However, if you refer to the prophecies within the Old Testament that point to Christ and reveal the truthful occurrences that affirm these predictions, they will find no rebuttal.
Yet if you, Jew, dismiss our writings, how will you uphold the old covenant? When someone queries, 'How do you know that the writings of Moses are authentic?' what will you respond? Will you not say: We have faith in them? Our texts hold greater validity because we too have believed in them; furthermore, you are a singular nation, while we encompass the entirety of the globe; it was not merely Moses who convinced you, but Christ who has persuaded us; all your foundations have dissipated, while ours remain steadfast. Will you reference the predictions? We possess even more. Thus, if you discard our texts, you cast doubt upon your own. Or will you cite miracles? Yet, you are unable to showcase any of the signs attributed to Moses—they have vanished; we, however, have numerous signs from Christ that continue to manifest, with prophecies that shine brighter than the sun. As for laws, ours encompass more than any others. Or will you argue that you emerged from Egypt while the Egyptians resisted you? However, overcoming a vast universe differs from merely overcoming the Egyptians alone.
I do not mention this to pit the old against the new covenant, but to temper the ingratitude of the Jews. Both are bestowed by the same God and derive from Him; my aim is to illustrate that in rejecting the prophecies concerning Christ, the Jew distorts much of the prophecies and cannot validate the significance of the old covenant without embracing the new. The preceding words do not speak of a mere man; this is clear to those with understanding, from the phrase 'sit at My right hand' and from the acknowledgment that He is called 'Lord,' akin to the Lord who addresses Him, as well as from the affirmation that He is 'begotten before the day' and 'a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,' and from 'with You is power in the day of Your power.'
Now we face another Jew, albeit one who pretends to be a Christian, namely, Paul of Samosata; we can address him using the New Testament. But, to ensure it does not seem that we have departed from one opponent to another faction, we will also refute him from this very premise. What does he claim? He asserts that Christ is merely a man and has been in existence solely since His birth from Mary. But what will you counter in response to the statement, 'Before the day, I begot you'? Everything we say against the Jews applies to his followers as well. It is not we who bear the blame, but they, holding a doctrine remarkably akin to that of the Jews; thus, we can equip ourselves with the same arguments to confront them.
So, what is intended by the communion of the throne? It signifies an equality of honor between the Father and the Son. This truth serves to silence those who share in the views of Arius. Hence, Christ responded to the Jews, who claimed He was the son of David: 'How, then, does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool?' (Matt. 22:43-44). Following this, the Apostle Paul, expounding on the master of the household, clarifies this teaching, delivering a striking blow to Marcion, Manichaeus, and all who share in such misunderstandings; he elucidates, with characteristic insight, how Christ became a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7).
Returning to our original statement, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand.' Do you perceive the equality of honor? The throne symbolizes authority; where one throne exists, so too does equal honor in the same kingship. Thus, Paul asserts, 'To the angels he says, He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever' (Heb. 1:7-8). And Daniel beheld all beings, angels and archangels, emerging, and the Son of Man approaching on the clouds, reaching unto 'the ancient of days' (Dan. 7). Should these words cause uncertainty, let them be reminded that He 'sits at the right hand,' and refrain from allowing doubt to cloud their judgment.
Just as we affirm that He is not greater than the Father, despite holding the most exalted position 'at His right hand,' so too shall you not assert that He is lesser or inferior; rather, He is equal and commensurate with the Father: this is precisely what the sharing of the throne indicates. 'Until I make Your enemies Your footstool.' Which enemies? Listen to Paul, who states, 'The firstfruits Christ, then those who belong to Christ at His coming; then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and authority' (1 Cor. 15:23-24). Do you observe the concordance of the prophetic and apostolic proclamations? There it is declared, 'until I make Your enemies Your footstool,' and here, 'until He has put all enemies under His feet.'
However, the term 'until' in neither context implies a temporal limitation. How could the prophetic declaration, 'His dominion is an everlasting dominion,' and a kingdom that 'shall never be destroyed' (Dan. 7:14; Luke 1:33), stand if His reign were to be restricted to a defined duration? You must not focus solely on the terms but must ascend to their implications. When you hear that the Father places His enemies beneath His feet, do not be troubled; it is not indicative of a lack of power on the Son’s part. Paul asserts that He Himself will subjugate His enemies: 'He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet' (1 Cor. 15:25), and he attributes all to Him: 'when He delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power' (1 Cor. 15:24). This illustrates that upon establishing the kingdom, He will conclude His reign concerning that authority.