A. Away with such cold and foolish thinking! To suppose that the ineffable existence of the Only-Begotten came to be the fruit of flesh is the reasoning of someone who has lost his way, whose mind is diseased and turned toward what is improper. As God, He was coeternal with the Father who begot Him and was ineffably begotten from Him by nature. But for those who wish to know clearly how and in what manner He appeared in a form like ours and became man, the divine Evangelist John explains it when he says: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.’
B. But if the Word ‘became flesh,’ they say, then He no longer remained the Word; rather, He ceased to be what He had been.
A. But that is nothing more than sophistry and nonsense, the invention of a mind beside itself. They apparently suppose that the word ‘became’ must necessarily signify a turning or change.
B. Yes, they say, and they try to establish their argument from God-inspired Scripture itself. ‘For Scripture says of Lot’s wife that she became a pillar of salt, and of Moses’ staff that he threw it on the ground and it became a serpent. In these cases there was a change of nature.’
A. Then what will they say when people sing, ‘The Lord became my refuge,’ and again, ‘O Lord, You became our refuge from generation to generation’? Did the One being praised cease to be God and, through a change, pass into being a refuge? Did He undergo a natural change into something different from what He was at the beginning?
B. How could such a thing not be absurd and unfitting for the One who is God by nature? Since He is by nature unchangeable, He certainly remains what He was and what He always is, even if He is said to have become a refuge for some.
A. Excellent; you have spoken very rightly. So whenever God is the subject and someone uses the word ‘became,’ how could it not be utterly ignorant and impious to suppose that the word signifies a change? Should we not rather seek another way to understand it and wisely interpret it in the sense most fitting and appropriate to the unchangeable God?
B. How, then, do we say that the Word became flesh while always preserving His unchangeableness and immutability as something proper, essential, and inherent to Him?
A. The all-wise Paul, steward of His mysteries and minister of the Gospel proclamation, makes this clear when he says: ‘Let each of you have this mind in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of human beings. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.’ For although His Only-Begotten Word is God and from God by nature—the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of the hypostasis of the One who begot Him—He became man. He did not turn into flesh, nor did He undergo confusion, mixture, or anything else of that kind. Rather, He brought Himself down into self-emptying; for the joy set before Him He despised shame, and He did not disdain the poverty of human nature. For as God He willed to make the flesh held captive by death and sin superior to both death and sin, and to restore it to its original state by making it His own—not soulless, as some say, but endowed with a rational soul. And without refusing to follow the path fitting for this purpose, He is said to have undergone a birth like ours while remaining what He was. For He was wondrously born according to the flesh from a woman. There was no other way for the intangible and bodiless One, who is God by nature, to be seen by those on earth in a form like ours except by choosing to become man, and in Himself alone to display our nature made radiant with the dignities of the Godhead. For He was one and the same, at once God and man: in the likeness of man, while also being God together with this, and in appearance as a man. He was God in a form like ours, and the Lord in the form of a servant. This is how we say that He became flesh. For this reason we also affirm that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God.
B. Would you like us to set their arguments against yours and examine the ideas more closely, or should we simply accept your statement that the matter has been rightly understood?
A. I think everything we say will be beyond reproach if it is spoken wisely and knowledgeably and does not conflict with the God-inspired Scriptures. But tell me what you think as well, for an objection may bring forth something profitable.
B. They say that the divine Paul writes of the Son as having become both a curse and sin. For he says, ‘He made the One who knew no sin to be sin for us,’ and again, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.’ Yet they say that He did not become literally a curse or sin; rather, holy Scripture indicates something else by these expressions. In the same way, they say, we should understand the words, ‘And the Word became flesh.’
A. And indeed, when He is said to have become a curse and sin, His becoming flesh is implicitly included. The idea of His becoming flesh stands prior to those things that follow from it.
B. What do you mean? When someone says of Him, ‘The One who knew no sin became sin for us,’ and that He redeemed those under the Law from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for them, who could doubt that these things took place in the time when the Only-Begotten became flesh and became man?
A. So together with the account of the Incarnation come the things that, because of it, were laid upon Him according to the dispensation when He underwent voluntary self-emptying—such as hunger and weariness. For the One to whom all power belongs would not have grown weary, nor would He have been said to hunger, since He Himself is the food and life of all, unless He had first made His own a body whose nature is to hunger and grow weary. In the same way He would never have been numbered among transgressors—for this is how we say that He became sin—nor would He have become a curse by enduring the cross for our sake, if He had not become flesh; that is, if He had not become incarnate and become man, undergoing in a human manner a birth like ours, namely through the holy Virgin.
B. I agree. You understand it rightly.
A. But in another respect it is also senseless to think and say that the Word became flesh in exactly the same way that He became a curse and sin.
B. In what way do you mean?
A. Was He not accursed in order to undo the curse? And did not the Father make Him sin in order to bring sin to an end?
B. That is what they themselves say.
A. Then if it is true, according to what they consider the right interpretation, that the Word became flesh in the same way that He became a curse and sin—that is, for the abolition of flesh—how, then, does He make it incorruptible and indestructible, having first accomplished this in His own flesh? He did not leave it mortal and subject to corruption, with Adam passing on to us the penalty for his transgression. Rather, because it was the flesh of the incorruptible God—that is, His own flesh—He placed it beyond death and corruption.
B. You have spoken well.
A. Holy Scripture says somewhere that the first man, Adam, ‘became a living soul,’ while the later One—I mean Christ—became ‘a life-giving spirit.’ Do we then say that, just as He became a curse and sin in order to abolish curse and sin, so He became a life-giving spirit in order to overthrow His being a living soul? They twist the force of the word ‘became’ into an absurd meaning and then say that He became flesh in the same way that He became a curse and sin. On that reasoning, the Word’s Incarnation—or His becoming man—would have to be abolished. But if that conclusion were accepted as true, the whole account of the mystery would disappear for us: Christ was neither born, nor died, nor raised according to the Scriptures. Where, then, is the faith—or the word of faith—that we preach? How did God raise Him from the dead if He did not also die? And how could He have died if He had not been born according to the flesh? Where is the resurrection of the dead, which brings the saints the hope of endless life, if Christ has not been raised? And where is the giving of life to human bodies, accomplished through participation in His holy flesh and blood?
B. We say, then, that the Word became flesh with reference to His birth according to the flesh from a woman—a birth He is said to have undergone in the last times of the age, although as God He existed before every age.
A. Absolutely. In this way He became like us in every respect except sin. The all-wise Paul bears witness when he says: ‘Since the children share in blood and flesh, He Himself likewise partook of the same things, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free all those who through fear of death were subject to slavery throughout their lives. For surely He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore He had to be made like His brothers in all things.’ This likeness in all things has, as its beginning and first entrance, His birth from a woman: the manifestation in flesh of the One who by His own nature is invisible; the descent, according to the dispensation, into our condition of the One who is in the highest; the lowliness in humanity of the One who shines upon the highest thrones; and the entering into the measure of a servant by the One who possesses lordship by nature. For the Word was God.