If someone says the Father deserves a higher place and the only-begotten Son deserves to sit in a lower place, he will find himself imagining that all the resulting conditions of the body attach to this creature of his imagination. These are the deliriums of drunken delusion that stretch the limits of insanity. The Lord taught that “he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.” Therefore, how can anyone consider himself a follower of true religion if he refuses to worship and glorify with the Father him who in nature, in glory and in dignity is joined with the Father? What can we say? What just defense will we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all creation? The Lord has clearly announced that he will come “in the glory of his Father.” Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father. Paul testified in the Spirit concerning Christ “that he is at the right hand of God.” The Father says, “Sit at my right hand.” The Holy Spirit attests that he has sat...
“I saw the Lord seated.” To be seated on a throne is always a symbol of judgment, as David says: “You are seated on a throne, you who administer justice.” And Daniel, “Three thrones were set up, and the tribunal sat down.” By contrast, the prophet says that simply being seated is a symbol of something else. Of what? Stability, durability, proceeding onward, immutability, eternity, infinite life. Thus it is said, “You who are seated forever, and we who perish forever.” You, it is said, who endure: who are, who live and are always thus. The comparison makes it clear that he was not speaking of a seat but “you who are seated forever, and we who perish.” To sit on a throne is to judge. - "Commentary on Isaiah 6.2"
The Word was God before all time, coeternal with the Father. But he wanted to become man for human beings. It was not through a change in the divine nature but by the miracle and will of God that he accepted birth as the beginning of his humanity. Thus, as a man he was born, but as God the Word, he preserved Mary’s virginity. Not even our own word corrupts the integrity of the mind in the moment it is conceived. It is the same with the Word of God. Being substantial and enhypostatic, when he chose to be born he nonetheless did not corrupt her virginity. What took place is beyond the logic of nature, and it consequently does not in any way descend to nature’s way of reasoning: I am talking about a miracle. This does not proceed according to reason: I am speaking of God who was born, who chose to be born and yet did not thereby start being God at that moment. Although being God, he was born. It was not the birth that made him God. He remained what he was and became what he was not. Becau...
