By Water & Blood

Book 2, Chapter 21: That it was the Son of God who spoke to Moses and to Abraham

This may be learned also from the oracle given to Moses. The Scripture says, at any rate, “And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, being their God.” You see how he said that he had appeared to the fathers. And when he appeared, the Scripture again bears witness, saying, “And the Lord God appeared unto Abraham by the oak of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door.” And how did he appear, if not in human form? And whom ought one to believe this was, if not the Son of God? This very thing he himself showed in the Gospels, saying to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad”;

when, as they marvelled at the saying, he added, “Before Abraham was, I am,” setting forth his own pre-existence most plainly. What, then, does the passage establish, if not that the one who gave the oracle to Moses and said, “I am he that is,” was the Son of God himself? For he himself taught that he had appeared to Abraham. And how he himself was “he that is” has been stated. And the great apostle Paul also knows that the Son of God became mediator of the legislation given through Moses, where he teaches, saying, “The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.” The one, then, who gave the oracle to Moses was the mediator, mediating from that time for the salvation of men, before he assumed the flesh. And that this is Jesus Christ, the same Apostle showed, saying, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Whether, then, “I am he that is” was spoken in Moses from his own person, or whether it was the Father who sent forth this utterance through him, the saying would be true either way.

Let Marcellus not be at a loss, then, though he uses a syllogism which he supposes inescapable, by which he says (Nr. 57), “Whom, then, does Asterius suppose to be the one who says, ‘I am he that is’—the Son or the Father?” and then draws the conclusion that if the Father were “he that is,” the Son will no longer be God (Nr. 58): “because he says he is ‘he that is’ by contrast with what is not. But if he should say that the Son, divided in hypostasis, says this—‘I am he that is’—he will again be thought to say the same about the Father; and each of these is impious.”

But in saying these things he himself has fallen into each absurdity, defining one to be “he that is” while denying the other—and which one this is, he himself would know. For either, granting the Father, he will deny the Son; or, accepting the Son alone, he will set aside the Father. Or rather, he will be convicted of knowing neither Father nor Son, granting one only and removing the other out of the way. And even if he hears God saying, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods beside me,” here again let him not be troubled in soul, but let him listen also to what is joined next. For having said, “Thou shalt have no other gods beside me,” he went on, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”

You see how he gave charge that they should not be carried away with the polytheistic error of the nations, but should know him alone as God and Lord. And who was this? The Son, having in himself the image of the Father, and by the Father’s authority enjoining these things upon those sick with idolatry. For as “all things were made through him,” the Father having brought into subsistence through the Saviour the essence of all things that have come into being, so it was the Father himself who handed down to men the knowledge of himself and piety toward himself through the Son as mediator.

This the Apostle also taught in these very words, writing to the Galatians, where he said, “The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.”

And even if he says, “See, see that I am, and there is no god beside me,” again it was the Father saying this through the Son, as through an image and a mediator. For if, when the prophet Isaiah says, “I have begotten and brought up children,” and again, “But Israel doth not know me, my people doth not consider,” and once more, “I have commanded all the stars, and with my hand have I established the heaven,” and all other such things, we shall say that it is not Isaiah who says these things, but God speaking in him through him—would it not likewise be fitting, in the case of the only-begotten Son of God, that the Father should have to testify these things through him to those who needed such commandments? And these were idolaters, as the same Scripture teaches, saying, “And the Lord said, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.” For to these words is joined, “See, see that I am, and there is no god beside me.”