Eusebius on the Trinity Pt. 4: Proverbs 8:22-36

I continue with my series on Eusebius’ Trinitarianism: Eusebius on the Trinity Part 1.

The excerpts are be taken from Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series) , translated by Kelley McCarthy Spoerl & Markus Vinzent, and published by The Catholic University of America Press in 2017.

Eusebius refutes the heretic Marcellus’s gross mishandling of Proverbs 8:22-36, a passage which many Christians interpreted as the prehuman Christ speaking as Divine Wisdom. Marcellus argued that this isn’t the speech of the preexistent Person or Hypostasis of the Son, since he denied that the Son had actual personal conscious existence prior to the Word becoming flesh. Eusebius shows how asinine Marcellus’ view is.

What makes Eusebius’ response even more interesting, as well as relevant in the context of modern apologetics, is his reply to the misuse of Proverbs 8 by Arians to prove that Christ is the first creature of God. Arians based this on the use of the Hebrew verb qanah , which the Greek LXX renders with the form of ktizo , in v. 22, which describes Wisdom as being brought forth as the first or beginning of God’s works. Eusebius shows that this verb does not support the notion that Christ was created from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) or from created things, since the Scriptures teach that the Son was begotten from the Father himself and was already in existence from before all creation. Eusebius establishes his case by providing biblical examples where the verb is employed without any notion of creation.

Eusebius even appealed to the Greek translations of Symmachus, Aquilla and Theodotion to show that none of them rendered qanah in Proverbs 8:22 with the Greek verb to create, showing that even they understood that Wisdom isn’t claiming to have been created.

With this brief introduction, I now proceed to the quotations. All emphasis will be mine.

Chapter 2

(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of necessity, having shown that the one who says these is one person, since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the passage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says, “I3 live with prudence”;4 yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.” But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning was the Word”5 was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word was with God,”6 and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that no one might think that he is spoken of as something that exists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God, but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds, “and the Word was God,”7 and did not say, (2) “the Word was of God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God, the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason, she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previously cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this: “Happy are those who find Wisdom,”8 and, “God by Wisdom founded the earth,”9 and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,”10 and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend you,”11 (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,”12 and, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,”13 and all the other statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book. In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom without qualification, so that we might not think it is some accidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowledge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom, the very same as the (4) Son of God.

If, however, someone should suppose that the Wisdom spoken of there is a wise disposition in God, according to which we think God is wise, let him heed the Scripture when it says, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister.”14 Who would be so insane as to suppose that the God who is over all15 and the wise disposition in him are said to be “sister” of the types [of wisdom] that belong to those human beings who conduct their affairs wisely? (5) But if you take the statement as applying to the Christ of God (for “Christ is the wisdom and power of God”), 16 there will be no impediment to the understanding, since he does not refuse the sisterhood even among us because of his abundant love for humankind. But if God and the Wisdom introduced in Proverbs are one and the same because Wisdom was a wise disposition in him according to which God is thought to be wise, what prevented [Solomon] from writing “God” instead of “Wisdom”? Yet the statement “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars”17 and those that follow this are said, but not “God (6) has built his house,” and so on; and respectively,18 “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,”19 was said, but not, “Say to God, you are my brother.”

You see, however, how this sort of (7) statement strikes the ear as discordant. But if you suppose that these remarks apply to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will read well , since no impious thought provides an impediment, given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wisdom of God.”20 (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works”21 has also been said by him.22

If he says, however, that he himself was created, he DID NOT SAY THIS as if he had come into being FROM WHAT IS NOT, nor as if he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come into being FROM NOTHING, as some have supposed incorrectly ,23 but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and preexisted the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been appointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father.

Therefore, the [phrase] “was created” has been said here instead of “he appointed” (9) or “he established.” And to give another example, the Apostle called those who rule and lead among men “creation” when he said, “For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human creation, whether of the emperor as supreme, (10) or of governors, as sent by him.”24 And the prophet, having said, “Prepare to call upon your God, O Israel,”25 “Wherefore behold him making firm the thunder and creating the Spirit and proclaiming unto men his anointed (Christ),”26 and, “Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people that is being created may praise the Lord,”27 ** took 28 [the language of] “creating” as applying to that which has come into being from non-existence. For the Lord did not create the Spirit at the time when he proclaimed his Christ to all human beings through it**. (11) For “there is nothing new under the sun.”29 ** But the Spirit was both in existence and pre-existed, but was sent at that time when the apostles had been gathered together** , when like thunder “from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind,”30 and, “They were filled with the Holy Spirit,”31 and as a result of this they proclaimed the Christ of God to all human beings in accordance with the prophetic utterance. [In the case of] “Wherefore behold him making firm the thunder and creating the Spirit and proclaiming unto men his anointed (Christ),”32 ** the verb creating was used for sending or appointing** ; “thunder” expressed in another way the gospel proclamation. And the one who says, “Create a clean heart in me, O God,”33 did not say this as if he had no heart; rather, he prayed that a pure mind (12) might be perfected in him. So also in this way that statement was made “so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two”34 as equivalent to “so that he might bring together.” But note that the same idea is meant in those remarks such as, “Clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God,”35 and, “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation,”36 and if one examined closely the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that all other [such] statements were made in this sense.

Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”37 the verb he created was used for he established or he appointed me to rule, since even in the gospels, when it was said by our Savior, “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants,”38 we do not say that the confession of sins was shown by the Savior, in the way that it was said in other passages, “Confess your sins to one another,”39 but the thanksgiving for the infants, the language of confession being used as the equivalent of the statement, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”40

(13) And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex meaning, and still others that are predicated univocally of different things, concerning which it would be no small task (14) to pursue at the present time.

Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason, [Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me ,” but added, “as the beginning of his ways for his works.”

(15) The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if some one should investigate the true meaning of the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason none of the remaining translators made use of this wording. For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his way ,” (16) and the translation seems reasonable.41

For he was the head of the whole creation, visible and invisible, its foundation and salvation, whom the Father begot as [his] only-begotten Son, and having begotten him , he appointed him as Savior of the universe, gathering up within and through him the constitution of the universe, as the divine Apostle taught, having said, “to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth,”42 so that he not only sustains all those things that had come into being from nothing through him, but also so that he takes upon himself the oversight of the administration of the universe, seeing as he is Word and Wisdom and Life and Fullness of all Beauty and Goodness , so that (17) all things are governed and preserved through him. And he also showed this through the previously cited statements, through which he said, “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me the great are magnified, and rulers govern the land through me.”43 (18) Thus all things are governed by the ineffable laws of the universal wisdom and providence of the Son of God. He taught this through the aforementioned statements, and he urged us to cling to him, saying, “I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me,”44 and deterred us from the opposite path when he added in these words: “the twisted paths of the wicked I hate.”45 (19) Having commanded these and things akin to them, the Son of God (for he himself was Wisdom) next hands over the mystic knowledge concerning himself to those who were previously benefited through them, saying, “If I should announce to you the things that happen by day, I will remember (20) to recount the things of the age.”46 For if, he says, I were going to teach those things that are done by me each day, it is also necessary that I recall my works from the beginning of the age and show how the Father, having begotten me for this , appointed me to rule the universe, so that I might lead his ways and the works that have been made by him through me. For this reason consequently he adds, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”47 or, “The Lord acquired me,” according to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisition of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the Father’s more honored than the Son.

For this reason, the first-formed Adam, when he acquired the first son among men, was said also in that passage [to have claimed], “I have acquired a man through God,”48 since the Hebrew text (22) contains kanthei for “I have acquired.” Now kana is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),”49 for which the Hebrew has kana , the same term used in the Hebrew and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”50 For given that the verb kana is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was rejected by the Hebrews , which is not found in the Scripture that lies before [us].

There would be a very great difference between “he created” and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being , while “acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that already pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].

Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”51 at one and the same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me,”52 through all of which statements his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos, and guided it in accordance with its needs.

For in the [story of] the making of the world [in Genesis], Moses made no mention of invisible powers beyond the universe because of the imperfection of those being instructed by him, but recounted the constitution of the visible cosmos, having recalled four elements in the beginning, heaven and earth, and depths and water, and said that the two have been made by God (for “In the beginning,” he says, “God made the heavens and the earth”),53 but no longer mentioned in a similar way the depths and the water, as if these, too, had been made, but he simply said, “and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.”54 Necessarily, then, through the foregoing passages, the Son of God also teaches concerning them that they are created and that he himself exists before them and (26) that all things have been made through him. For this reason he says, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth.”55 Calling to mind these three things, the earth and the depths and the water, having saved the greater item, the heavens, he adds it in the fourth and last place. For this reason, he next adds, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”56

1. Klostermann’s correction of the text is unnecessary. The “I” is precisely the indefinite way of Wisdom speaking as one person.

2. Prv 8.12.

3. Jn 1.1.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Prv 3.13.

7. Prv 3.19.

8. Prv 7.4.

9. Prv 8.1.

10. Prv 8.11.

11. Prv 9.1.

12. Prv 7.4.

13. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6.

14. 1 Cor 1.24.

15. Prv 9.1.

16. Klostermann’s attempts to correct the manuscript reading here are unnecessary. His problem derives from misunderstanding πάλιν; it does not mean “again,” but “respective.”

17. Prv 7.4. 20. 1 Cor 1.24.

18. Prv 8.22. 22. Literally, “by his person”: προσώπου.

19. Eusebius is clearly distinguishing himself here from the position held by Asterius, fr. 44 (108 V.).

20. 1 Pt 2.13–14.

21. Am 4.12.

22. Am 4.13.

23. Ps 101.19 (RSV 102.18).

24. Klostermann’s correction of the manuscript by adding a “not” is incorrect, as with this sentence. Eusebius is following up his argument about the identification between creation and “endowing,” having before made the connection between creation and “appointment.” Without the wrongly added “not,” Eusebius stresses the “what” (what the Spirit was not), instead of taking creation as the beginning of the Spirit (that the Spirit was not), as he will explain in the following sentences.

25. Eccl 1.9.

26. Acts 2.2.

27. Acts. 2.4. 32. Am 4.13.

28. Ps 50.10 (RSV 51.10).

29. Eph 2.15.

30. Eph 4.24.

31. 2 Cor 5.17.

32. Prv 8.22.

33. Mt 11.25.

34. Jas 5.16.

35. Migliore, 166: “but the thanksgiving for the infants, in the sense of ‘I thank you, Father ...’” This is a little more complicated because of the use of the preposition ἀντί in the sense of “as the equivalent of,” which one sees elsewhere in this text.

36. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion are three known second-century translators of the Jewish Bible from Hebrew into Greek. Symmachus and Aquila stand for contrasting approaches: the first for an elegant yet sensible translation, the latter for his literal renderings, as can also be seen in the quotations that Eusebius gives here.

37. Eph 1.10.

38. Prv 8.15–16.

39. Prv 8.17.

40. Prv 8.13.

41. Prv 8.21a.

42. Prv 8.22.

43. Gn 4.1.

44. Gn 25.10.

45. Prv 8.22.

46. Ibid.

47. Prv 8.23–25.

48. Gn 1.1.

49. Gn 1.2.

50. Prv 8.23–24.

51. Prv 8.27. (Pp. 276-284)

Chapter 3

(1) Therefore, if [Marcellus] did not accept the writing both of Moses and of the prophets after Moses, his conclusion would have a certain rationale. But since he is not among those who reject the Old Testament, why then, when he called the apostles and their teachings “ways,” did he not pay heed to the prophets of God, who have written countless things concerning the ways of God? For in the first place Moses, writing in this way, said, “You should go along the king’s highway,”77 and, “See, I have set before you (2) the way of life and the way of death”;78 and David likewise, “The Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish”;79 and Jeremiah, “Stand at the crossroads, and ask for the ancient paths of the Lord, and look at what the good way is; and walk in it.”80 And you will find that each of the prophets calls to mind the ways (3) of God differently. Well, then, if our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ [of God] teaches that he himself is the beginning of the ways of God, saying, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works”81 (being altogether, I suppose, more ancient than Moses and the prophets and those who have lived earlier according to the ways of God),82 but the flesh that he assumed was not older than all of those, the passage has not been rightly understood to refer to (4) the flesh. Thus the Savior did not say these things because of the flesh, but because he pre-existed and led the way as the beginning of all the ways of the Lord, which all the ancient men who loved God traversed.

(5) And since the divine Apostle in saying, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”83 proposes certain other ways, those that exercise providence over the universe, through which, by means of his ineffable judgment and incomprehensible calculations, he governs all things with divine power, it follows to say that the one who said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”84 is also the beginning of these ways. And since [Marcellus] did not understand the ways of God, he declared that the (6) flesh of our Savior is the beginning of these [ways]. He also interprets the phrase “for his works,” claiming, Therefore, [the prophet] says, “He created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”85 Of what sort of works, however, does he speak? The Savior says about them, “My father is working still, and I am working.”86 And again he says, “... having accomplished the work which you gave me to do.”87

1. Nm 20.17.

2. Dt 30.15.

3. Ps 1.6.

4. Jer 6.16.

5. Prv 8.22.

6. Eusebius may have angels in mind here.

7. Rom 11.33.

8. Prv 8.22.

9. Ibid.

10. Jn 5.17.

11. Jn 17.4; Marcellus, fr. 32 (15 K./H.) (32,10–13 V.). (Pp. 286-288)

And he makes these claims, this most wise man, not having recalled how he had said just above that before the making of the earth the flesh was created as the beginning of the ways of God. (12) And if, in short, he indicated the flesh through “the earth,” how is it not necessary to confess that the one who says that he was before the making of the earth, pre-existed the flesh? For he says, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth.”100 Therefore, the one who says these things existed before the (13) making of the flesh. And if he also called to mind not long ago ages, but [only] the one,101 which even our Savior mentioned, having said, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,”102 so also the flesh that our Savior assumed did not exist before the present age, but he himself [God the Son], who taught these things through Solomon, [did]. You see into what rough terrain [Marcellus] has fallen, having deviated from the right and imperial (14) road.

1. Prv 8.23–24.

2. Note that Eusebius accepts here an argument that Marcellus made against Asterius, who, as one can see in his fr. 17 (90 V.), spoke of ages in the plural. As before, we can see that Eusebius, in his criticism of Marcellus, is also critical of Asterius.

3. Lk 20.34.

(Pp. 289-290)

How then, too, could the statement “he begets me”133 refer to the flesh? For before the springs and before the mountains and before the134 hills he said he was begotten, having said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. Before the age, he (30) founded me.”135 If, then, the flesh were to claim these things, as seems to Marcellus to be the case, how could the flesh have said, “Before all the hills, he begets me”?136 For in this case the flesh would be before the apostles. But how can the flesh itself say that it has been begotten by God? For it seemed right to Marcellus to say that (31) the flesh, not existing previously, was created. For he said:

For the Lord our God, having made that which did not exist, truly created. For he created not the existing flesh, which the Word assumed, but the non-existent.137

Thus, on the one hand, we have acknowledged that [the flesh] was created, while, on the other, how it was possible that it was also begotten by God was explained when our Savior said, “That which has been begotten of the flesh is flesh.”138 And the Apostle also says, “born (32) of a woman, born under the law.”139 Therefore, how could the flesh have said concerning the God of the universe, “Before all the hills, he begets me”?140 Therefore, I think it is evident to all how these passages have this interpretation only by being distorted. But without violence one could say that the Son of God confirmed these even without any allegorical means [of interpretation] since he also pre-existed the earth ; he was and pre-existed before the coming forth of the material springs of waters and before the visible depths spoken of and before the composition of the shape of the earth in the heights of the mountains and the hills. For “all things were made through him, and (33) without him not one thing was made.”141

1. Prv 8.25.

2. Klostermann’s later addition, “all” (with Montague), is incorrect; only a little later Eusebius introduces this notion as a second argument. See ET 3.3.30 (151,7 K./H.). (It is in the corrections, p. 259.)

3. Prv 8.22.

4. Prv 8.25.

5. Excerpt of Marcellus, fr. 29 (11 K./H.) (30,15–32,2 V.).

6. Jn 3.6.

7. Gal 4.4.

8. Prv 8.25.

9. Jn 1.3. (Pp. 294-295)

(38) Thus this is the case if one did not inquire needlessly beyond the [literal reading] of the text. But if one wished to reflect more deeply about these things too, he will refer them not to those apostles and all the just and God-loving men who have ever lived, but he will pass from them to the divine and angelic powers, saying that mountains and hills are different ways of speaking figuratively of angels and archangels and divine spirits, and with regard to thrones and (39) dominions and sovereignties and authorities, since indeed the divine Apostle taught that these 147 things, too, were all created “through him and for him”148 and that he was “before all”149 these things, beginning from that place, as was right, because it was said in these passages from the person of the Son of God, “Before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me.”150 Therefore, he said that the other things were shaped, while only he was begotten before the (40) establishment of those things mentioned. The same Apostle also knows the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly mountain upon which he says Jerusalem is [placed], saying, “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”151 ** And so, pre-existing all of these, the only-begotten Son of God spoke figuratively through the Proverbs, proclaiming in a veiled manner his own ineffable begetting**. (41) And that he wanted these things to be understood is clear from what he adds, saying next, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”152

1. The τὰ deleted by Klostermann should be restored.

2. Col 1.16.

3. Col 1.17.

4. Prv 8.25.

5. Heb 12.22–23.

6. Prv 8.27. (Pp. 296-297)

After so many things have been said by him at length in the meantime,153 he now drops the reference to the flesh and confesses that it is the Word of God who said these things. He says this in these very words:

Before the world existed, the Word was in the Father. But when Almighty God resolved to make everything in heaven and on earth, the generation of the world required active energy. And because of this, there being nothing else besides God (for all things are confessed to have come to be by him), at that moment, the Word, having come forth, became maker of the cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within intellectually, as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him,”154 and, “When he established the springs of water under heaven firmly, and when he made the (44) foundations of the earth, then I was beside him in harmony; and I was daily his delight.”155 For rightly did the Father delight in making all things with wisdom and power through the Word.156

So Marcellus says. If, therefore, he finally confessed—and this with difficulty—that these things were said by the person of the Word, he should also accept that the entire collection of previous texts is to be referred to that same Word of God. (45) For the one who said, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him,”157 was the same as the one who said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.”158 For one and the same person was shown to us from the beginning who was speaking in all the previous passages. And so the same [person] who said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”159 added, “Before the age, he founded me,”160 and, “At the first, before the making of the earth,”161 and, “before the mountains had been shaped, before all (46) the hills, he begets me.”162 The same added both, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him,”163 and what follows these [words]. If, then, the Word was the one who said these things, how was he within God, co-ingenerate with God, and existing as one and the same with him and [yet] saying that he was created and begotten by him? For one and the same (47) person, as I said, was shown to be speaking in all the previous passages.

But even if sometime afterwards, he [Marcellus] confessed that these things were said by the person of the Word in God, his conclusions about the flesh of the Savior were forced, and all those together 164 have been exposed as being outmoded, vain, and outlandish views. But if the flesh of the Savior was the one who said, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,”165 according to the interpretation given by him, and if the flesh was established “before the age”166 and “at the first, before the making of the earth”167 (since clearly the flesh is earth, as he thinks, because of the passage, “You are earth, and to earth you shall return”),168 and if it was the flesh that said, “Before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me”169 (because [the flesh] was begotten before the election of the apostles, as that most wise man thinks), it follows that so, too, the statement, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him,”170 was said by the person of the flesh. (48) But no one would be so out of his mind as ever to accept this interpretation. For the word of truth,171 giving a great shout, will contradict him, (49) showing who it was at this time who recounts these things. Therefore, that the only-begotten Son, who was begotten by God, living and subsisting, existing even BEFORE the establishment of ALL CREATURES , was other [than the flesh], he himself shows through those remarks he adds next, saying, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”172 F** or he was together with and present to him [God] even BEFORE the creation of the heaven[s] and the things BEYOND heaven and everything in heaven**. Thus this was stated figuratively through the statement, “When he established the (50) heavens, I was present with him.”173

And how did God establish [the heavens] before he created, if not by making laws for them and designing the way in which it was necessary to establish them? And so the Father designed and made ready, pondering how it was necessary to establish so great a heaven, how much height it would need and the sort of shape its tremendous heights and components [would have] in consideration of those things that would be contained within it and those that would be outside of it and in view of those things being turned over in his [mind]. But he [the Son] who looks intently at the calculations of the Father and alone gains access to the depths within him proceeded on through the works, (51) following the signs of the Father and assisting him. For this reason, it has been said somewhere: “Praise the Lord from (52) the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him all his host! Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you stars and light! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord! Because he spoke, and (53) they came into existence; he commanded, and they were created.”174

** But even BEFORE the very heavens and those things that are BEYOND heaven and all things in heaven came into existence** (for all things taken together have been shown to come from one [source]), THE SON OF GOD EXISTED , and was present to and together with the Father when he was still contemplating the establishment of all these things. For this reason he says, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”175 Thus like a good scribe taking the archetypal ideas from the Father’s calculations, he transferred them to the substances176 of the works, sculpting and giving specific shape to such things, (54) just as he had seen them stored beforehand in the Father’s mind. And that he himself would be a worthy witness of these things, he teaches in the gospels in this way: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that (55) the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.”177

With regard to this passage, one would quite rightly ask why the Son makes for a second time the things that have already been made by the Father. But he himself resolved that problem, having said , “For whatever the Father does, that (56) the Son does likewise.”178 Therefore, the things that are made by the Son are copies of the archetypal works that pre-exist in the ineffable calculations of the Father. Observing them closely in the mind of the Father, then, the Son made copies of the things he had seen. He shows that [this ability] to look into the Father’s depths is a work of the paternal love in the next passage where he also says clearly, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing.”179 Consequently, when the Father revealed his secrets, the Son, seeing them, completed the works of the paternal will through his [own] works. Therefore, coexisting in this way with the Father and being present to him when he was preparing the heavens and the things within them, he [the Son] taught this, saying, “When he established (57) the heavens, I was present with him.”180 The Father rejoiced even before the making of the world, looking at his own only-begotten Son himself and discerning himself in him as in an image. For this reason, Wisdom says, “I was daily his delight.”181 But the Son was also filled with joy, being gladdened at the sight of the Father. He himself teaches this when he says, “... I rejoiced before him (58) always, rejoicing to have completed his inhabited world,”182 the inhabited world here understood as the totality of all creatures in which, having been called into being from nothing through the Son , the God of all rejoiced.

Therefore, the true interpretation, which has been shown from the divine Scripture as in a short and abbreviated explanation, would be something like this. But he [Marcellus], being brought down from on high, has run his mind aground on the flesh of our Savior, misconstruing and misinterpreting the (59) true sense of the divinely inspired Scripture.

But even having passed over to the Word, he says that it is [the Word] within the Father who (60) prepared the heavens as in calculation and deliberation. And he said this in these very words:

Before the making of the world, the Word was in the Father. But when Almighty God resolved to make everything in heaven and on earth, the generation of the world required active energy. And because of this, there being nothing else besides God (for all things are confessed to have come to be by him), at that moment, the Word, having come forth, became maker of the cosmos, he who even beforehand was preparing it within his mind, as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, “When he established the heavens, I was present with him.”183

(61) In these remarks, it is fitting to observe the completely irrational way in which he [Marcellus] willfully pays no heed to the statement, “I was present with him,” which expressly shows the presence of the Son with the Father, 184 but he declares in opposition to Scripture that before the creation there was nothing else besides God. And he did not shudder at having unleashed this statement, though it denies the Son , nor was he troubled [by the fact that] the divine Scripture testifies that before the creation of the heavens he [the Son] alone was present alongside the Father. For it says, “When he established the heavens, (62) I was present with him.”185 For the prefix syn , added to the verb “to be present with,” shows the presence of the same together with the other. Therefore, he [the Son] does not teach simply that he was with the Father but that he himself was together with the Father. And the Father did not simply rejoice, but he rejoiced in the presence of the (63) Son. For this reason he [the Son] says, “I was daily his delight.”186 But how could the claim that he was the Father’s delight in his presence apply to a Word that did not subsist, one that was in God himself and that acted for the purpose of communication, contrary to the claims that he delighted, and was in the presence of, [the Father],both of which indicate his hypostasis? But Marcellus, not having given a rational account of any of these statements, denies the Son, and says that he is the Word in God who at one point comes forth in active energy, but at another is within [God] not doing anything. And he [Marcellus] does not see that to speak of something being inside and outside of God suggests something composite and a kind of physical change, which is not (64) lawful to accept with regard to the ingenerate and incorporeal nature.

And how, having come forth, did the Word also become the maker of the world? Did God make use of tongue, voice, and187 even language? And with whom did he also converse, given that there was no one else together with him? And with whom did he join company, there being no one besides him? But did God himself converse with himself, making use of speech and discussion so as also to make the Word come forth from him? (65) And why was God unable to bring into existence the things he wanted unless the Word was within him as active power, when even among men, most craftsmen are silent when they are bringing their projects to completion and especially when no one is present with them while they are working? Thus what prevented even God from establishing all things in this sort of way, having the Word within himself?

1. Of course, relating Prv 8 to the Incarnation of the Lord.

2. Prv 8.27.

3. Prv 8.28–30.

4. Marcellus, fr. 110 (60 K./H.) (104,1–11 V.).

5. Prv 8.27.

6. Prv 8.22.

7. Ibid.

8. Prv 8.23.

9. Prv 8.23–24.

10. Prv 8.25.

11. Prv 8.27.

12. Namely, the contradictory views of the one verse being interpreted as relating to the Word of God while the others have been related to the Incarnation.

13. Prv 8.22.

14. Prv 8.23.

15. Prv 8.23–24.

16. Gn 3.19.

17. Prv 8.24–25.

18. Prv 8.27.

19. By “word of truth” here, Eusebius seems to mean John’s gospel.

20. Prv 8.27.

21. Ibid.

22. Ps 148.1–5.

23. Prv 8.27.

24. οὐσίας.

25. Jn 5.19–20.

26. Jn 5.19.

27. Jn 5.20.

28. Prv 8.27.

29. Prv 8.30.

30. Prv 8.30–31.

31. Prv 8.27; see Marcellus, fr. 110 (60 K./H.) (104,1–7 V.).

32. Klostermann addition <συν>is incorrect, as Eusebius only works towards this argument.

33. Prv 8.27.

34. Prv 8.30.

35. Again, Klostermann’s “improvement” of the text is incorrect. The brachylogic omission of ἤ after πότερα is typical for Eusebius. (Pp. 298-304)

Further Reading

Eusebius’ Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Eusebius: Jesus as Eternal Wisdom & Angel

Eusebius of Emesa on the Trinity