The Relation of the Word to God and Participants

the murmur. We are being instructed by this from the beatitudes; for does not the poor in spirit possess the other virtues? The poor in spirit is also a fellow-sufferer; and because of this he mourns; for if he were without sympathy, he would not be poor in spirit. He has meekness; for if he were angry, he could not be called blessed. He has righteousness.

Regarding the one with much power and the more stable condition, the so-called ones are marveled at. Regarding the phrase: 'they saw many in the holy city'; yet Jerusalem was not holy, 'she who killed the prophets' (Hebrews 11:37), which the Savior left behind saying: 'Behold, your house is being left to you' (Matthew 22:7). Those who walk upon the earth and have their citizenship in the heavens (Philippians 3:20) were seen in the holy city, the city of the living God.

Concerning the word: 'they were seen';—these thicker perceptions are grasped by the fat ones. He has thirty-three, three, eleven, and thirty-three. They become fifteen. Often the number fifteen has been said to be raised to the two testaments; for it teaches the seven and the eight; for it has been said to us in the additions that it is also a triangle and, having been handed over as a pentad, it has a relationship to the sensible things; for how was it not destined, since a change of face has occurred?

Regarding the phrase: 'if we say that he remained there';—not immediately. In another stay occurring there. This is almost at the beginning of the kingdoms, but concerning the end, that is, when they finished the rest for war against Saul. Regarding the phrase: 'did he not first release and depart?';—by no means, examine the ascents toward the word. Since I say to you also that which is about Abraham: 'He had two sons, one from the slave-girl and one from the free woman' (Genesis 21:2). And he, not being Abraham, had them. Through Hagar he had Ishmael as Abram, but Abraham had this.

And now that: 'it corresponds to the present Jerusalem'. I do not say 'now' in order that you might take the correspondence according to a symbol. But the correspondence is said in many ways. Immediately, even in grammar, the aspirated ones are said to correspond to the unaspirated, and the long to the short. But among those who deal with logic, the opposites are said to correspond. You divide the animal into rational and irrational, and into mortal and immortal, and into having a head and being headless. The rational and the mortal is not corresponding...

not, but the irrational. The correspondence here according to the apostle to the preceding thing is symbolic. In order that I might say it more thickly: there is a sensible sacrifice and circumcision, and both are spiritual. It is not necessary to take the circumcision according to the flesh as corresponding to the spiritual sacrifice, and the more bodily sacrifice not to the spiritual circumcision, but merely a sacrifice.

Furthermore: 'By the word of the Lord the heavens were established' (Ps 33:6), and again: 'For straight is the word of the Lord' (Isa 55:11)?—the same things, when they are not sensible, seem by thought to be one thing and another. One is the Holy Spirit, and we say of him various gifts. If you look toward the gifts, it seems to be a multitude of holy spirits. You have, indeed: 'and the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets' (1 Cor 12:10). It is also said, the spirit of Elijah and the spirit of Elisha. These are not different things in essence, but by thought and by the relation of the partakers, they are said in the plural, 'spirits'.

And the Word, therefore, the Word of God, when he was still with God—for 'the Word was with God' (Jn 1:1)—has no relation to any other, but to God alone, and secondly also to his partakers: for 'those' he called 'gods, those to whom the Word of God became' (Ps 82:6). The Word of God was with him. Therefore, his Word is without relation to God, but it became in a relational way toward the partakers of it.

The partakers do not participate in one single imposition, as was said concerning the Spirit: for one has a word of wisdom, another a word of knowledge; for not one and another is this same Word according to the underlying reality. There are some having knowledge of spiritual things, knowledge of the truth, of the dogmas of piety; for they are not able to explain something about them. And we have known thinking men to be very understanding, yet unable to speak even by chance. These have a word of knowledge. But when he has the having of knowledge and the ability to explain and to teach and to carry the thoughts in it to others, it is a word of wisdom. For Wisdom herself says, without fail: 'she examines words', clearly in a teaching manner. The same Word, therefore, becomes toward the prophets, and is toward God, and toward those becoming gods from his union. And