Hilary of Poitiers

While therefore I was giving serious thought to these and many other similar problems, I chanced upon those books which according to Jewish tradition were written by Moses and the prophets. In them I found the testimony of God the Creator about himself expressed in the following manner: “I am who I am,” and again, “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: He who is, has sent me to you.” I was filled with admiration at such a clear definition of God, which spoke of the incomprehensible nature in language most suitable to our human understanding. It is known that there is nothing more characteristic of God than to be, because that itself which is does not belong to those things which will one day end or to those which had a beginning. But that which combines eternity with the power of unending happiness could never not have been, nor is it possible that one day it will not be, because what is divine is not liable to destruction, nor does it have a beginning. And since the eternity of God will not be untrue to itself in anything, he has revealed to us in a fitting manner this fact alone, that he is, in order to render testimony to his everlasting eternity.

Hence we are not permitted to doubt that the knowledge of God is adapted to the time rather than to the result of a change, since in connection with that which God knew it is a question of the opportune moment to divulge what is known rather than to acquire it. [This] we are also taught by the words that were spoken to Abraham: “Do not lay your hand on the boy, and do nothing to him, for I know now that you fear your God, and have not spared your beloved son for my sake.” Accordingly, God knows now, but to know something now is an admission of previous ignorance. Since it is a contradiction for God not to know that Abraham had been previously faithful to him and of whom it had been said, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as justice,” that which he knew at this moment is the time when Abraham received this testimony, and not the time when God also began to acquire this knowledge. By bringing his son as a holocaust, Abraham manifested the love that he had for God. God was aware of it then when he speaks. And, since we are not to believe that he had been ignorant of it up to that moment, we must understand that he knew of it then because he speaks of it. Of the many passages in the Old Testament that contain references to the knowledge of God, we have cited only this one as an example that we may realize that God’s ignorance of anything does not arise from a lack of knowledge but from the occasion.

O holy and blessed patriarch, Jacob, be with me, be with me now by the spirit of your faith against the poisonous hissing of infidelity, and, while you prevail in the struggle with the man, plead with him as the stronger to bless you. What is this that you are asking from one who is weak? What do you expect from one who is feeble? This one for whose blessing you pray is the one whom you, as the more powerful, weaken by your embrace. The activity of your soul is not in harmony with the deeds of your body, for you think differently from the way you act. By your bodily motions during this struggle you keep this man helpless, but this man is for you the true God, not in name but in nature. You do not ask to be sanctified by adoptive but by true blessings. You struggle with a man, but you behold God face to face. You do not see with your bodily eyes what you perceive with the glance of your faith. In comparison with you he is a feeble man, but your soul has been saved by the vision of God.During this struggle you are Jacob, but after your faith in the blessing for which you prayed you are Israel. The man is subject to you according to the flesh in anticipation of the sufferings in the flesh. You recognize God in the weakness of his flesh in order to foreshadow the mystery of his blessing in the spirit. His appearance does not prevent you from remaining steadfast in the fight, nor does his weakness deter you from seeking his blessing. Nor does the man bring it about that he is not God who is man, nor is he who is God not the true God, because he who is God cannot but be the true God by the blessing, the transfer and the name.

The words “I AM THAT I AM” were clearly an adequate indication of God’s infinity. But, in addition, we needed to apprehend the operation of his majesty and power. For while absolute existence is peculiar to him who, abiding eternally, had no beginning in a past however remote, we hear again an utterance worthy of himself issuing from the eternal and holy God, who says, “who holds the heaven in his palm and the earth in his hand,” and again, “The heaven is my throne and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What house will you build me or what shall be the place of my rest?” The whole heaven is held in the palm of God, the whole earth grasped in his hand.Now the word of God … reveals a deeper meaning to the patient student.… This heaven that is held in the palm of God is also his throne, and the earth that is grasped in his hand is also the footstool beneath his feet. This was not written that … we should conclude that he has extension in space, as of a body.… It was written that in all born and created things God might be known within them and without, overshadowing and indwelling, surrounding all and interfused through all, since palm and hand, which hold, reveal the might of his external control, while throne and footstool, by their support of a sitter, display the subservience of outward things to One who, himself outside them, encloses all in his grasp.… Being infinite, he is present in all things. In him who is infinite all are included.

The words “I am that I am” were clearly an adequate indication of God’s infinity. But, in addition, we needed to apprehend the operation of his majesty and power. For while absolute existence is peculiar to him who, abiding eternally, had no beginning in a past however remote, we hear again an utterance worthy of himself issuing from the eternal and holy God, who says, “who holds the heaven in his palm and the earth in his hand,” and again, “The heaven is my throne and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What house will you build me or what shall be the place of my rest?” The whole heaven is held in the palm of God, the whole earth grasped in his hand.
Now the word of God … reveals a deeper meaning to the patient student.… This heaven that is held in the palm of God is also his throne, and the earth that is grasped in his hand is also the footstool beneath his feet. This was not written that … we should conclude that he has extension in space, as of a body.… It was written that in all born and created things God might be known within them and without, overshadowing and indwelling, surrounding all and interfused through all, since palm and hand, which hold, reveal the might of his external control, while throne and footstool, by their support of a sitter, display the subservience of outward things to One who, himself outside them, encloses all in his grasp.… Being infinite, he is present in all things. In him who is infinite all are included. - "On the Trinity 1.6"

But it may be argued that the apostle was not inspired by the Spirit of prophecy when he borrowed these prophetic words; that he was only interpreting at random the words of another man, and though, no doubt, everything the apostle says of himself comes to him by revelation from Christ, yet his knowledge of the words of Isaiah is only derived from the book.… Isaiah says that he has seen no God besides him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only Begotten whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist: “Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke of him.” The apostle, the Evangelist, the prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, “No one has seen God at any time, except for the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father; he has declared him.” It was God whom the prophet saw. He gazed on the divine glory, and people were filled with envy at such honor graciously granted to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death on him.

(ii. de Trin. c. 13) Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.

(ii. de Trin. c. xiii) Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman (meus piscator [Hil.]) is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.

(ii. de Trin) From the beginning He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.

(ii. de Trin. c. 15) Thou wilt say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinketh is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through thy inattention lost upon thee, why disputest thou about the next; and the Word was with God? Didst thou hear it said, "In God," so that thou shouldest understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity.

(vii. de Trin. c. 9, 10, 11.) But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. (Ps. 82) But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.

You will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thought.… The nature of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, "In the beginning was the Word," when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker's mouth nonexistent until they are spoken and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound that commences to that which ends a word.… Even though your unpracticed ear failed to catch the first clause, "In the beginning was the Word," why complain of the next, "And the Word was with God"? Was it "and the Word was in God" that you heard?… Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that which was in the beginning was with, not in, another.… Hear now the rank and the name of the Word: And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.