EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN

CHASM, BRIDGE, AND RESPONSE

EPHREM THE SYRIAN'S VIEW ON THE HUMAN APPROACH AND

ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD AS SEEN IN HIS HYMNS ON FAITH

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE “LICENTIAAT IN GODGELEERDHEID”

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

ADVISOR: PROF. DR. KARL-HEINZ KUHLMANN

BY
CHARIS VANDEREYKEN-VLEUGELS

HEVERLEE-LEUVEN, BELGIUM
JULY 2006
 INTRODUCTION

Throughout salvation history, up to the present day, God is known as the Revelator.
But at certain times or in certain aspects, human beings experience Him as the Hidden One,
inaccessible to us. From a certain viewpoint, there exists an impassable chasm between the
Creator and His creation. But in a way, this chasm is bridged by various means. The purpose
of this thesis is to examine Ephrem the Syrian's Hymns on Faith on this subject. What is his
view on the chasm, how did God bridge this gap, and how do humans react to both?

A. RELEVANCY

The tension between the hiddenness and the revelation of God is experienced by every
Christian, today as well as in the past. The question of how to approach God is not limited to a
specific period in history. Studying the writings of a person like Ephrem the Syrian can help
Christians today to broaden their horizon and get aid from an aged Christian poet facing
similar issues but approaching from a different angle. Some contemporary writers unwittingly
adopt “Ephremic” language about the importance of worship and the impossibility to contain
God in our human definitions. These statements witness the pertinence of the subject:

There is a growing company of God-seekers, discontent with words about God, hungry
for an experience with God. They do not presume that God can be defined or categorized.
Sensing we have trivialized God, they want to go deeper. [...] They sense He is both near and
far. He is the ultimate paradox, and He ignites our worship.1

This devotional booklet which addresses twenty-somethings of this era reflects the interest of
today and tomorrow. The present thesis will not deal with the difficulty of experiencing God
on the pastoral-emotional level. One aspect of this issue, though, is the ontological and
salvation-historical tension between the hiddenness and the revelation of God experienced by
every Christian. This polarity raises many questions in the everyday life. The purpose of this
thesis is not to solve this issue, but to examine how one of the early church fathers managed
not to avoid this subject, neither to smoothen the tension, nor to see it as something negative.
It is my hope that Christians today will learn from Ephrem the Syrian’s view on this paradox.
Bluyssen en Rooijakkers talk in similar language, adding the aspect of God's
initiative in revelation; also an Ephremic concept. Moreover, they attest that “conceited

1
Winn Collier (ed.), Deeper Walk, A Relevant Devotional Series, vol. 1: God of the Desert,
God of Greatness (Lake Mary, FL: Relevant Media Group, 2003), viii.
certainty of twist God around one’s finger does not account for authentic faith.” 2 This last
point comes close to Ephrem's emphasis on humility, a key concept in this thesis. Ephrem,
however, blames the Arians of audacity, which brings us to the political background of his
time.

B. BACKGROUND

The period when Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306-373) wrote his Hymns on Faith 3 (ca.
363-373)4 was very turbulent. During the reign of Emperor Valens (364-378) the Arian
Christians were to be tolerated in behalf of the unity of the empire. Nicene inclined bishops
who opposed this policy were disposed and banished. 5 Also in Edessa, where Ephrem lived at
the time, there was a strong Arian opposition. 6
Ephrem's HdF reflect this background of widespread disputation and dissension: “a
stumbling-block in the country, bickering at the earth, disputation in the streets, and in the
gatherings divisions, and in the church, the sword and the dagger; women assail women and
men their fellows, even priests the kings! The whole world is in uproar.” (53:2) 7 Obviously,
there was a hostile atmosphere in the church: “Who does not quarrel, and who does not ask
his fellow: ‘Who baptized you and where was your baptism taken?’ Who does not warn: ‘The
hand of this schismatic priest should not baptize you’?” (59:2) For him the whole situation is a
danger for the harmony of the church, and not less for the credibility of their teaching (39:2-
4). He feels compelled to react.
Ephrem's most important argument against the Arians is about their attitude towards
God, His unknown most inner Being and His revelation through creation, the Scriptures, and
through His Son. Between Creator and creation yawns an immense ontological chasm. When
the Arians say the Son is created, they classify Him onto our side of the gap, which

2
“Het Goddelijke wordt [...] aan de mens geopenbaard die het vervolgens in zijn
wereldbeeld inpast en betekenis geeft. [...] Wellicht is het tastend zoeken naar een verborgen God wel
meer een teken van authentieke geloofservaring dan de zelfgenoegzame zekerheid God naar je eigen
hand te kunnen zetten.” Jan Bluyssen and Gerard Rooijakkers, God verborgen en nabij: religie als
heilig spel (Amsterdam: Anthos, 2002), 15-16.
3
From now on “HdF.”
4
Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide, CSCO 155 (Louvain:
Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955), i.
5
Gunther Gottlieb, “Valens,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 2001),
10:517.
6
Peter Bruns, “Arius hellenizans? - Ephräm der Syrer und die neoarianischen Kontroversen
seiner Zeit: ein Beitrag zur Rezeption des Nizänums im syrischen Sprachraum,” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 101 (1990): 24.
7
References are from Ephrem's HdF and the translations are my own. The method of
indication is [hymn]:[strophe]. This does not mean that the whole strophe is quoted.
downgrades and blasphemes God in His very act of grace and revelation towards us. Ephrem
summons the believers towards an attitude of humility, gratitude, and praise instead of the
audacious inquiry of the Arians.

C. METHODOLOGY

The method of this thesis is primarily descriptive and limited to Ephrem’s Hymns on
Faith. I am painfully aware of the restrictions this implies. There are various other works
written by him which could shed light on this issue. 8 Moreover, as the Hymns on Faith are to
be seen in a polemical setting, accentuated by the poetical nature of Ephrem’s thought, it can
be difficult to distinguish between rhetoric and facts, between words and their meanings or the
intended effect.9 Nevertheless, a Master’s thesis has a restricted scope. These hymns do have
much to say about the subject under examination.
As for the sequence of this thesis, the essence of the chasm between Creator and
creation will be discussed first. In which way does Ephrem interpret this chasm? His view on
God and humanity constitutes the basis for the chasm-idea. Thereafter, the question of how
and by whom this chasm could be bridged arises. Ephrem very clearly sees God as the
initiator. Man could never approach the Creator if He had not taken the initiative. In this
respect, the Hymns on Faith distinguish three manners of God's revelation: creation, Scripture,
and Christ. What do they teach us about God? In what way do they bridge the gap? Next, we
turn to the human response and attitude towards the chasm and the bridge. Which attitude is
fitting when believers tread the bridges? And finally, what are the consequences of both
negative and positive response?
The focus will be on Ephrem's Hymns on Faith. In exploring the meaning and use of
certain terms or expressions, I made use of my unpublished Syriac-English Concordance on
Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymns on Faith. The quite literal German translation by Edmund Beck 10
and the more free English translation by Paul S. Russell 11 are integrated in my research, just as
the text critical edition of the Syriac text. 12

8
To name but a few: Memre on Faith; Hymn on the Church 9; First Discourse for Hypatius.
9
As for this issue, I am indebted to Kees den Biesen, based on personal correspondence and
conversation. This does not mean that I will be able to do justice to his standards. I look forward to his
book Simple and Bold: Ephrem's Art of Symbolic Thought, which will soon be published by Gorgias
Press.
10
Ephrem the Syrian, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide, trans. Edmund
Beck, CSCO 155 / SS 74 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955). From now on: Hymnen de Fide
(transl.).
11
Ephrem the Syrian, Eighty Hymns on Faith, trans. Paul S. Russell (1995, to be published
by Peeters, Leuven). From now on: Eighty Hymns on Faith.
12
Ephrem the Syrian, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide, ed. Edmund Beck,
CSCO 154 / SS 73 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955). From now on: Hymnen de Fide (text).
 CHAPTER I

THE CHASM

Reading certain parts of Ephrem’s HdF gives the impression of an unbridgeable

chasm13 between us humans at the one lower side, and a transcendent God at the other
unreachable side. Obviously, we humans cannot surpass divinity: “There is no opportunity to
surpass Him; you are on this side of Him, for there is nothing beyond Him” (72:16). But as
stated in the HdF, we cannot even reach Him (72:17-18). Sometimes, this is expressed in such
a strong manner that Ephrem is called an agnostic by some authors. 14 For example, he writes:

Who would assail the hidden things?

For their boundaries are stillness and silence
Their fortifications are even fire and judgment
And its fences are mourning and weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And who would break through the inaccessible fortifications?
He would enter and receive a fearful woe! (38:18-19)

This appears to be an uncrossable gap one should better avoid to approach. As God did at
Mount Sinai for one day, He marks out a boundary around the height of His Hiddenness for
eternity; a boundary which may not be crossed (28:8). Even Jordan fled as soon as it saw the
Lord, represented by the ark (8:13). If we want to stay alive, we better not rush across, but see
the chasm as a protection, like a fish refuses to leave the safe river (46:1).
In the second chapter, this radical gap-idea will be properly balanced by Ephrem’s
view on God’s self-revelation. The present chapter, therefore, should not be read
independently. For practical reasons of organisation and in my attempt to approximate the
poet’s style, the extent of the chasm is examined before proceeding to the bridge. In this way
the revelation will shine even more brightly. To summon this effect of the contrast seems to
be one of the reasons for Ephrem to stress the chasm.

For a word study on “chasm” (‫ )ܦܚܬܐ‬in the Bible and in the works of Ephrem, see
13

Thomas Koonammakkal, “Ephrem’s Imagery of Chasm,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256 (1998):
175-183.
14
For example, Edmund Beck, Ephräms Trinitätlehre im Bild von Sonne/Feuer, Licht und
Wärme, CSCO 425; Subsidia 62 (1981), 120. See also David D. Bundy, “Language and the Knowledge
of God in Ephrem Syrus,” Dialogue & Alliance 1 (Winter 1987-1988): 61, although he speaks about
Ephrem as “rather agnostic,” and nuances this later on. This seems to be a shift compared to his earlier
work “Ephrem’s Critique of Mani: The Limits of Knowledge and the Nature of Language,” in
Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique: Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11-14 mars 1980), ed. J.
Ries , Y. Janssens and J.M. Sevrin, Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 27 (Louvain-la-
Neuve, 1982), 289-298, where he calls Ephrem “heavily agnostic” (293).
A. CREATED VERSUS CREATOR

At the most fundamental level, the gap between humans and God has its origin in
the fact that we are created (‫)ܒܪܝܬܐ‬, and thus cannot be at the same level as the Creator
(‫)ܒܪܘܝܐ‬. Ephrem refers to this contrast abundantly, using besides this pair also “made” (‫)ܥܒܝܕܐ‬
versus “Maker” (‫)ܥܒܘܕܐ‬, and, less frequently, “formed” (‫ )ܓܒܝܠ‬versus “Former” (‫)ܓܒܘܠ‬.
No matter how much creatures could increase, they will always be substantially smaller than
their Creator (71:13). Also in regard to knowledge, they could never equal Him (71:12). “The
Divinity—which made thing (‫ )ܥܒܝܕܐ‬can inquire into it? For there is a chasm
(‫ )ܦܚܬܐ‬between it and the Creator” (69:11).

1. THE CREATION AS THE POINT OF DEPARTURE

We are creatures and we will remain who we are. Our name “human” functions as a
“refining pot” to teach us truthfully who we are (62:9). 15 The very idea that something made
could be made equal to, or worse, greater than its Maker, is foolish for Ephrem (71:3), even
blasphemous (5:5), an unbelievable error (71:5). Anyway, it is not even possible (5:5,6). And,
as he clearly assumes, trying to pry into His Hidden Being is intertwined with exalting oneself
to His level. In this mood, Ephrem uses the metaphor of clay, which cannot inquire into its
potter (29:6); thus he highlights the obvious ontological chasm. We are bound to the created
realm. We cannot step out of it and look at it from that exterior position to measure its endless
extent. But there is One who does measure it without being measured Himself; and
comprehends everything while nothing comprehends Him in turn (55:6).
The best examples are those taken from the environment of the target group. And
what is more familiar than the creation surrounding us? If we cannot escape it, we might as
well take advantage of it. One common way to even better perceive the true width of the gap
is to fix on mysteries within the creation. How does the sun move along its course (57:8)?
What about the air, that is not felt or seized, hidden but essential for life (5:10-11)? Or a
seemingly simple thing: a common little egg. Can you identify the head, the feet and the
wings in its liquid (43:1)? If human beings do not understand such familiar things, how could

15
This interpretation of Ephrem’s text is in line with Russell’s translation (“Because human
beings were named by Goodness, [/] it did not happen that their natures perished at the naming. [/] They
were clothed in the true name ‘humanity.’ [/] Their name was an assay furnace for them.”), against
Beck’s rendering of the text as follows : “Da (Götter) zubenannt wurden * die Menschen aus Gnade, --
haben sie keinenswegs ihre Naturen * durch den Beinamen verloren. -- Sie bleiben in die genauen
Namen * ‘Menschen’ gekleidet – und ihr Name ist für sie die Probe.” (emphasis mine) In a footnote,
Beck explains that he added “Götter,” comparing this passage with 63:8, where Ephrem relates that
God called humans “gods.” In the context of 62:9, though, Ephrem’s point against the Arians is that
names are given truthfully. God does not deceive us with names. Humans should be aware of their
human nature, guided by their name. In the same vein, he continues, the “Son” is truly the Son of God.
There is no need at all to add the name of “gods” in this passage. Eighty Hymns on Faith, 198. Hymnen
de Fide (transl.), 168-169.
they assume to grasp their Creator (17:4; 27:6; 50:3)? “If they cannot reach created things in
their investigation; how much more will they be left behind from Him who is beyond
everything” (47:3)? Keeping in mind Ephrem’s idea that one can only comprehend what is
similar to oneself (“simile simili cognoscitur”), this statement of the poet accentuates the
primordial difference between us and our Creator. You cannot understand Him because He is
not similar to you, he stresses. If even created natures can be entirely different from each
other, how much will they differ from the transcendent Creator (40:12)? “As one bearing the
name ‘created’ and ‘made’ will never ascend towards a comparison with the name ‘Creator,’
so does also his investigation weigh light in the balance with the Honourable, 16 by whom the
All is created” (58:5).
Comprehending Him pictured in this way seems ridiculous. With a sense of irony
Ephrem continues this argument with what is most close and similar to ourselves: our “self”
or soul. Even that we do not know. And still, we have the “courage” to inquire into the
Creator of all created things, that is, including our souls (3:14). Your created nature has
consequences for the level of understanding you can reach, certainly when dealing with
uncreated Nature. You will just wander about if you try to inquire into your Maker (70:16,18).
This chasm idea should not imply a low valuation of the material created world.
Ephrem is aware of this danger:

God cannot be comprehended (‫ )ܠ ܡܣܬܝܟ‬by a human being,

although He loves human beings.
The Maker cannot be comprehended by made ones,
although His work is very great. (69:17-18)

In fact the gap in comprehension tells more about the greatness of God than about the
lowliness of the created world. Whenever Ephrem highlights the littleness of the human race
in general, this is used to express the magnitude of the Creator. In this way, it is no
contradiction with the preceding to state as well that “the created is great because its Creator
is great” (71:7). Thus, compared to the magnificence of God, humans are but little. But
studying them within their own context will incite wonder, which is again entirely to the glory
of their Maker. Even so, the gap between the created and the Creator is marked again. Ephrem
makes sure that this is not forgotten. Directly following the last quote, he goes on: “but [the
created] is also little, for as much as it might be exalted, compared to Him it is feeble, [...]
because of His glory” (71:7-8). 17 Apparently, one important aim of Ephrem’s chasm
terminology is focusing on God, especially in His magnificence. The subject of humanity's
lowliness serves this purpose.

16
This word, ‫ܝܩܝܪܐ‬, is derived from the root ‫ܝܩܪ‬, “to be heavy”, which forms a contrasting
word pair with the preceding ‫ܙܠ‬, “to weigh light”.
17
The subject of a positive view on the material realm will return in the part about the
creation in the second chapter, and in the treatment of our attitude towards it in the third.
2. THE CREATOR AS FOCUS

The previous means to emphasize the chasm comprised earthly things, which are
often obvious at first sight, but puzzling at a deeper level. Another means of Ephrem to
emphasize the chasm is indicating God’s utter incomparability to everything else (27:1), to
everything describable. Attributes like measure (‫)ܟܝܠ‬, weight (‫)ܡܬܩܠ‬, touch (‫)ܓܫܬܐ‬, colour
(‫)ܓܘܢܐ‬, and size (‫ )ܡܫܘܚܬܐ‬are not fitting Him; neither can He be imagined to be in a place
because He is limitless (30:1; 45:4), nor are questions like “how?” (‫)ܐܝܟܢ‬, “where?”
(‫)ܐܝܟܐ‬, or “how great?” (‫ )ܟܡܐ‬to be posed (30:2,3; 72:14). For Being has neither beginning
nor end (69:3). The Father, and also the Son, surpass even time, which is a part of the
creation. God has no beginning neither is He changed by a new thought, like human beings
are (26:2; 50:1). All of these mark the deep ontological difference between the Creator and the
created (27:1).
To express this gap, and especially the magnitude of the One beyond it, Ephrem
often describes God as the Great One (‫)ܪܒܐ‬, the High One (‫)ܪܡܐ‬, or the Exalted One
(‫)ܥܠܝܐ‬, contrasting Him with the little creatures. We should keep in mind that pointing to this
general human littleness has the purpose of magnifying God and is not an independent study
of the human race. Because God is Lord of all, He is greater than all (23:4). He is Lord
because He is the Creator, and something made can never become as great as its Maker
(78:24), so certainly cannot enclose Him (70:20). “Which weak spirit, wanting soul, or feeble
body is sufficient for this Greatness” (69:20; cf. 15:6)? Inquiring into the Lord is not possible
because it would have to try to limit Him within the extent that it can reach, unless there exists
the utopian search that could reach and explore Him to all extents (4:16). Actually, the one
who could do this should even be greater than the Father and the Son, which is not thinkable
at all (9:16; 38:15).
The fact that we cannot inquire into the Son testifies about His greatness and
proclaims that He is God (9:14). Humanity is not up to this loftiness: “Your boundary, my
Lord, no one has crossed it; Your great height, no one has subdued it” (37:24). This is a chasm
humanity cannot subjugate, “for the weak soul has no wings to reach His height” (58:6).
Compared to God’s Greatness, the earth is only a hand’s breadth (11:4; cf. 74:17), and the sea
only a splash. (72:26) He is exalted above all (11:1), and His height (‫ )ܪܘܡܐ‬reproves us if we
would attempt to measure up to Him (11:2; cf. 74:17).
It is very important for Ephrem that the Son in essence is situated at God’s side of
the chasm. This means that nobody except the Son is capable of investigating and truly and
fully knowing God. Unlike humanity, the Father and the Son have the same nature (11:10). If
one replaces Christ to our human side (a reproach to the Arian views), then creatures are made
similar to the Creator to whom the Son is akin. But if there is this gap between the Maker and
the made, then His Son is in essence foreign to the created too (61:3). In other words, the Son
is that closely connected to the Father that downgrading Him to our level is downgrading the
Father along with Him. Nobody among Ephrem’s audience would dare to suggest this
abasement of the Father; a subtle rhetorical way to convince them of his own view of Christ.
Of course, the Arians would see a less fundamental relation between God and Christ, but this
connection is the very prerequisite of Ephrem’s argument. Arians probably would not be
convinced by this plea, but for his own parish, or for people with the same presupposition, it is
very persuasive.
All the mentioned factors indicate that the attributes humans share with their Creator
are only applicable for them in a “borrowed” way:

They are called gods, but He is entirely God;

called fathers, but He is it truly;
named spiritual, but He is the Living Spirit.
Sons and fathers, how they are called,
are borrowed names. For they teach by grace
that there is [only] one true Father, who has a true Son. (46:12)

So even the attributes we think to have in common with God confront us with the difference
between humanity and the Creator, and are pointers from our deficiency towards His
Genuineness. Whereas humans are limited in their actions, God does not need to cope with
weariness nor should He be instructed. He had no trouble in creating everything, nor
afterwards in supporting it (26:1). He is the only one who exists out of and in Himself, and
who is Father in Himself. He is complete and perfect, and He for Himself is sufficient in
everything (45:6; cf. 6:1).

B. THE HUMAN PERCEPTION VERSUS THE UNCONTAINABLE GOD

Related to the subject of man’s createdness is the influence of the created senses in
the human approach to God. As Ephrem gives this considerable attention, I will devote a
separate paragraph to it. It comprises an additional human limitation by which Ephrem tries to
direct our focus on the greatness of God.
If the next passage would be void of any context, it would definitely depict God as a
terrifying and distant god one would try to avoid meeting:

That Being (‫ )ܐܝܬܘܬܐ‬could be likened to creatures!

It is a great error that one would think so.
For where mouth, ears, and eyes are, this is a weak construction.
To give [Being] a concrete form is frightening, to put it into a construction terrible.
To mark out its boundaries is iniquitous, to contain it wickedness. (26:7)

The way creatures are constructed is totally inappropriate for God. If they try, by means of
what they hear and see, to express His Being, it cannot be but a distortion of His Greatness. It
would not give Him the honour He deserves. The claim to have an apt picture, to define Him
using one’s own terms and thoughts, imposing a foreign framework to His inexpressible
nature, is impiety, wickedness (‫)ܪܘܫܥܐ‬. Like the air,18 God’s Being is ungraspable,
irrepresentable, both near and far, essential for our existence, but seemingly absent (5:10-12).
In HdF 75, the bright sun is used to test our senses. The sun can not be touched
(75:3,5), nor can its warmth be seen (75:4-5); also the mouth, the ears and the nose are not up
to it (75:6-8). If all these senses are useless to inquire into the sun, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit are too far a goal too, as they are even more foreign to us (75:11-12). Even the
senses of the angels that are more refined do not suffice for His greatness (75:26). None of the
created senses is up to Him, because His Being is just different:

And while smell and colour and taste

are serene and subtle and cannot be touched by the hand,
by their related senses they can be comprehended.
The one is smelled and the other is tasted.
Which sense is related to the greatness
so that we could approach its investigation by its kindred? (41:5)

The argument is clear, based again on the view that only one (here: a sense) that is similar to
the object of investigation can understand it. It is not a matter of degree: “even if our whole
body would be senses, it would not be able of the Divinity, who is hidden from all” (75:10).

1. SPEECH AND HEARING

Language, especially the limits of it, is a most frequent theme. Throughout the
poetics and word games, Ephrem seizes every opportunity to indicate the weakness of speech.
Even Christ’s littleness is too great for words to express (24:2). Even the mouths of the whole
universe together could not express Him because He is foreign to all tongues (26:5). The
nature of His Being is ineffable (44:8). So the ones who try to catch God in words abase
themselves because they are not capable of His majesty (1:17). The background idea is once
more that we—thus also our mouth—are not akin to God. The mouth can only discuss
something of the same realm. For whatever goes beyond this words fall short (39:5).

Who exists among those endowed with speech whose speech is able
to speak in all tongues about the Lord of all tongues,
about Whom these have never spoken? For something
about which everything can be spoken, is akin to us;
its nature is our fellow-servant. There is One who is no slave,
for He is Lord because of His Father. (55:13)

Christ is the only One Who has the position to express the Father, for He is akin to Him. At
the other side of the chasm, however, all languages fall short.
But the human sense of hearing is also not refined enough. “His ear is able to hear
neither great noise nor still silence; how does he hear the voice of the Son or the silence of the

18
Ephrem is very fast to add that this is just an image, used to help us. For in fact, God
cannot be depicted properly. He restricts further prying into His Being (5:13).
Father? For His silence is speaking (‫ )ܡܠܠ‬too” (11:5). To hear, not to mention understanding,
the language of God—that is, not His adapted speech to address human beings, but the one
according to His own nature—is not possible. It is of another nature, as it were another,
unknown dimension. Ephrem explains this with a more palpable example: the different nature
of animal’s speech, which is already foreign to us. He builds on this low example extending it
to higher angels’ speech, which is foreign to all languages. And finally, to assess the true
extent of the gap, he notes that even these angels cannot understand the exalted tongue of
silence used between the Father and the Son (11:8).
Within the HdF there seems to be no final answer that explains what this silence-
language is all about. As a matter of fact, Ephrem has absolutely no intention to analyse the
exact nature of divine speech. At least, he uses the term “silence” (‫ )ܫܬܩܐ‬to stress once more
that we are not able to comprehend what is said in this tongue. It is dissimilar to any language
known to us. The poet wants to highlight the utter foreignness of God’s speech. 19

2. SIGHT

The chasm has its effects on the sight capabilities of creatures too. The eyes are too
weak when confronted with their Maker. Even the sun, a part of the creation, is too bright to
gaze on properly (6:2). But the light of the Creator is so bright that even the angels refuse to
look at Him because they are not able (52:9). Even if the angels are superior to humanity in a
sense, they too are created, which has consequences for their approach to God as well. “With
which eye will the made look at the Maker? For this is a creature, while that the Creator”
(70:1). So except for the Begotten of the Hidden One Himself, no one has seen Him (6:2). The
possibility to see is confined to the own realm.
Some things are not visible in their essence, although they can be experienced in
their effects. Even in the created realm not everything can be seen, because realities such as
the soul or the voice do not belong to the realm of form (33:5). Also Moses could not be
looked at in his veiled brightness because of the heavenly colours which are foreign to the
human eye and mind (33:11). Man cannot see what he does not know, what is part of the
supernatural world.

For if the face of an old and mortal man,

because he was anointed a little with the heavenly colour,
puts pigments to confusion and makes painters wander,
who, then, will depict the nature of Being?
For He is utterly invisible (‫)ܠ ܡܬܚܙܐ ܠܓܡܪ‬,
and he of whom is written that he saw Him,
did not saw Himself, but a shape in which He was clothed. (33:12-13)
19
For the subject of silence, see especially Paul S. Russell, “Ephraem the Syrian on the
Utility of Language and the Place of Silence,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 no. 2 (2000): 21-37.
Russell seems to fill in the concept of silence in a more concrete way than I would dare, giving more
attention to the probable theoretical concept than to the poetical, rhetorical intention.
This is a clear argument of minori ad maiorem; a “small” and obvious example should prove
the “bigger” issue beyond a shadow of doubt. If mortal Moses was too bright to be seen, no
one can deny the invisibility of the Creator who is superior to him.
Even in the context of baptism and the Eucharist, two sacraments built essentially on
the idea of the encounter between God and man, Ephrem addresses the topic of God’s
remoteness. While the “fire,” the symbol of the Holy Spirit, is abundantly present in the
baptismal water and in the Eucharistic bread, still He is in fact very distant at the same time
because the Trinity cannot ever be represented by these elements fully and accurately (40:10).
We do not see God in His essence, not even in these sacraments, because He is invisible.

3. THOUGHT

There is a perception belonging to humankind which is more subtle than the sense of
speech: thinking (‫)ܚܘܫܒܐ‬. Although Ephrem situates this on a higher level and it is less
limited than the spoken word or the sense of touch, it still falls short in inquiring into God:

That one would explore You by means of his hands

while even the mind which is subtle (‫)ܡܕܥܐ ܕܩܛܝܢ‬
cannot explore and search You out!
It is thinking which is able
to reach out everywhere.
When it intends to proceed
on the road towards searching You,
its path is lost before it;
it gets troubled and ceases. (4:5,12)

Even the mind cannot reach the Most High. Besides, one still tries to limit God in the act of
thinking. Thought is just an extended form of representing or depicting the object of its
research. The mind attempts to confine and define whatever it approaches. This is not
possible, of course, nor is the attempt worthy of God. “Tell me how you represented (‫)ܨܪܬܝܗܝ‬
Him in your mind (‫)ܬܪܥܝܬܟ‬, this Generated One (‫ )ܝܠܕܐ‬who is at a remote distance from your
inquiry. Do you think that it is only a short distance, the interval between you and searching
Him” (15:4)? Just as a voice or the wind cannot be depicted by painting, Divinity cannot be
represented by investigation (33:4,5,8,9,15).
Again, humans cannot investigate God in Himself because He is not similar to us.
So, every time creatures assume to comprehend Him, they in fact see something of themselves
projected upon the wholly Other. They speculate by using familiar concepts of their own
realm which they know, and then try to push the Creator into this “box.” It is like “a silly
person who touches himself and thinks by himself that he explored the Hidden One” (27:2)!
One recognizes only what is familiar to oneself, and forgets that there could be much more.
Within the human race, some are wiser than others because of the teaching they
received. But while they surpass the unlearned a little, how far are they distanced from the
Creator of all (47:1-2)? We are no “refining pot” to distinguish the truth by ourselves; not
regarding those more wise than us, and certainly not concerning the Divinity whose
judgement is exalted above all opinions (48:2-3; 56:10-11). Also the learned are bound to the
limits humans can reach, for each nature has its own possible range of knowledge. Ephrem
uses the concept of hierarchical degrees to highlight the weakness of the human position,
indicating the insurmountable chasm towards the Divinity. Thus he points to the impossibility
of comprehending the generation of the Son.

The knowledge of man is as a weak twilight

compared to that of the angels.
But even the knowledge of the angels is a feeble flash
compared to the knowledge of the Spirit.
The Spirit told about the Son:
‘Who will relate His generation?’ (5:2)

So even the Holy Spirit who is standing in the highest rank, refrains from claiming knowledge
about this hidden theme. Why would humans try?
Ephrem gives special attention to this theme of the generation of the Son, which is
too exalted for the human mind to reach. He likens those who nevertheless attempt to men
who shoot arrows towards an immensely distant mountain in vain (1:3). The full depth about
Christ is hidden (36:16), kept in secret by His Father (10:4). Even the smallest aspect of the
Son, like the bottom of His coat,20 makes humans wander in their search of an explanation
(10:4,19). If something low as wine is able to conquer you because you are so weak, how
much will the Son confuse you (30:10)? By addressing his public in the second person the
poet intensifies the rhetorical effect. Ephrem clarifies his point with the example of fire which
causes everyone to be cautious and stay back. If no one enters it to touch and explore its inner
part, how much more will we refrain from the inner of the Being, which is more frightening
than everything known to us, and where the generation of the Son is kept (37:24-26)? 21
Ephrem time and again takes examples from nature. If even manifest, created things
are often too difficult to understand, he asks, how can we claim to grasp the hidden reality?
Even simple things puzzle our mind (43:response). 22 Who can count the sand, water drops, or
all kinds of grass (39:7)? Who knows the growth process of wheat, up to its hidden detail
(64:6-7)? If even our own self is beyond our comprehension (3:14; 11:14), how could we
express the Lord of natures (7:1)? And if Christ’s humanity is confusing us, what about His
divinity (7:2)? If we do not understand the angels (26:3; 55:5), and even they do not
comprehend Christ, how can we humans then (4:7-8,17; 75:26)? Not everything about God is
ours to grasp and to take hold of. About some things we just know that they are the way they

20
An allusion to Marc 5:24-34 or Luke 8:40-48.
21
Probably a reference to John 1:18.
22
These are pointed to already in “A. Created Versus Creator”.
are, even if we do not fathom how they exactly work. This is expressed in the often quoted
that/how distinction.23 When Ephrem denies knowing the “how” of God, this is either stated in
the context of the Son’s generation,24 or in the sense of the Divinity’s powerful inner being, 25
to which the issue of the generation belongs. “This knowledge about the Begotten and His
Begetter is in a treasury; its door sealed with loud silence, veiled in frightening stillness, and
as guard a mighty cherub” (22:10).
Our knowledge is too little and contemptible that we could search into the One who
knows all (15:3). “The Knower of all” is a common expression in the HdF.26 Because He
formed everything, it is just logical that He comprehends all (79:11). Ephrem even identifies
knowledge with the Creator’s Being: ‫ ܐܝܬܘܬܗ‬2‫ ܗܝ‬2‫( ܝܕܥܬܐ‬30:1). This could sound as an
abstract philosophical statement, but in the context of the whole hymn, the poet seems to say
that God is superior to all in His wisdom. This is contrasted with human lack of knowledge
(30:1-2,6-7,10).27 Everything, except for the Trinity, can be known and confined in terms of
“how”, “how great”, and “where” (30:4; 47:4). He is the One who truly knows. Everything
else that knows is inferior to Him and thus cannot comprehend Him fully and accurately ( ‫ܕܟܘܠ‬
5
‫ܠܒܨܬܗ ܢܘܟܪܝܢ‬ 7 30:1, directly following the previous Syriac quotation; cf. 70:21).
‫ܝܕܥܢ‬

C. THE MORTALS VERSUS THE LIVING ONE

1. THE ORIGIN: SIN AND SICKNESS VERSUS GOD’S HOLINESS

The theme of humanity’s sinfulness in the context of the chasm is treated more
pervasively than as a separate subject in the HdF. Ephrem only shortly notes that the Creator
rejected, despised (‫ )ܐܣܠܝ‬humanity because of Adam’s sin. This sin is paralleled with
impurity (34:1). Besides this, there are more passages in the HdF dealing with sin and God’s
holiness,28 but only about the sins of certain persons in history or certain groups of people, not
about humanity as a whole. These personal sins are already human reactions towards God and
thus a treatment of them does not belong to the present chapter.

23
To these terms is given considerable importance in Edmund Beck, Ephräms des Syrers
Psychologie und Erkenntnislehre, CSCO 419, Subsidia 58 (Louvain: Peeters, 1980).
24
9:1; 23:15; 33:6; 41:4; 43:9; 50:4; 55:10; 73:7.
25
26:5; 27:3; 30:2-4; 33:1,3,8; 40:11-12; 43:10; 44:7; 50:1; 59:4; 64:2; 65:12; 66:20; 70:4;
72:14. Some have links to both issues; then I indicated which was the most obvious to me.
26
1:1,16; 6:16; 9:6,16; 15:3; 30:10; 38:1; 77:25,27; 79:response,12.
27
For a philosophical, Greek-Stoic approach, see Beck, Ephräms des Syrers Psychologie
und Erkenntnislehre, 157-158.
28
10:12; 14:6-7; 28:13-16; 69:14.
 One common way to refer to humanity’s sinfulness is the image of “sickness.” 29
Ephrem plays with this pair as being parallel (15:1). However, to highlight the gap, the theme
of sickness is less frequent in the HdF than one would suppose. If Ephrem talks about sick
humanity in these madrashe, it is either used in the context of Christ as the Healer and (the
Bringer of) the medicine of Life, or when he writes about some humans who have the wrong
attitude in approaching God, that they do not take to heart this essential medicine. We will
come to these subjects later since this chapter focuses on the gap between God and humanity
in general, before God’s initiative to heal. Perhaps the concept of the sinfulness of humanity
as a whole is rare because it does not function anymore like it did, after the Son of God has
come to the world to heal our sickness.30
As for now, it suffices to say that a chasm exists between God, who is most Holy,
and sinful human beings who are “sick” or impure. A perfect God confronts humanity which
has failed to act according to His commands. The consequence of approaching the Creator
with this human condition is separation or even destruction of everyone who is impure.

2. THE CONSEQUENCE: DECAY AND MORTALITY VERSUS LIFE

The consequence of sin is decay. To be human is to be limited, but even more so
after the fall: birth and death are boundaries defining (‫ )ܬܚܡ‬our lives (28:6). Especially
mortality has this limiting effect according to Ephrem’s thought. This is commonly expressed
by pointing to dust as man’s origin, sometimes in contrast to the spiritual nature of the angels
(46:9).31 The poet’s goal here is to restrain human questioning of God because of its
disrespectfulness and absurdity.
To indicate the distance between creation and Creator as such, Ephrem prefers
pointing to our mortality more than to God as the Living One. The latter pole is coming to the
surface, though, more in the sense of the Giver of Life to mortals (e.g. 80:6). Ironically, it is in
his treatment of the incarnation that the chasm yawns more than ever. As a true poet, in
describing the supreme bridge, the polarity of the two shores is brought to a head. This
ultimate paradox will be dealt with in chapter II, “The Bridge”.

29
See for this theme especially Aho Shemunkasho, Healing in the Theology of Saint
Ephrem, Gorgias Dissertations, Near Eastern Studies 1 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002).
30
In HdF 42:1 it appears as if we are not in total health even now. Ephrem uses the image of
the sweetness of honey, which seems to be bitter because of “our illness”. Our senses are not “healthy”
enough to perceive His glorious strength. Because of the context, though, I suppose that Ephrem does
not have sin in mind here, but just the fact that we are created and foreign to God, which is in line with
the previous paragraph on the human senses. The refrain, for example, sounds: “Blessed are You, who,
through creation, led investigation of You astray.”
31
This does not mean that angels are to be situated at the divine side of the chasm. It rather
highlights that even on our side of the gap, mortal humans have angelic beings as their superiors, in a
sense.
 7
Because of the human mortality, it is obvious to Ephrem that we (‫)ܡܝܘܬܐ‬ cannot
(properly) discuss (‫ )ܠ ܡܬܡܠܠ‬the Son of the Living One (‫( )ܒܪ ܚܝܐ‬69:19). In this rhetorical,
poetical context, this at least means that we have no infallible words for Christ in His divinity,
and that we should be humbly aware of these limits, acknowledging His superiority. Even to
try inquiring into the Son is ridiculous from this perspective: “Who, then, would not wonder,
for You are sitting at the right hand [of the Father] while the dust (‫)ܥܦܪܐ‬, sitting on dust, on
its dung hill inquires into You”32 (3:12)! At this exalted level, human beings cannot search
into God:

[Too] deep is the search for the weak ones;

[too] exalted seeking for mortals. (26:4)

The mind of mortals cannot touch or explore the frightening divine nature of Christ who is our
Life (19:2-5).
Referring to man’s mortality, Ephrem emphasizes the distance between creation and
Creator, highlighting God’s supremacy. This distance cannot and should not be crossed on
one’s own. But at the same time, it is clear that this situation is not final. The fact that God is
the Life Giver insinuates that bridging the chasm is possible in a way, but only if God takes
this initiative.

CONCLUSION

We have to face the reality of an immense chasm between creation and its Creator.
The fact of this gap makes us feel most little, and at the same time expresses the frightening
magnificence of Divinity. Approaching this crevice, not to speak of crossing it, is deadly and
not possible at all. The fact that we are created, and thus ontologically greatly different from
our Maker marks the impossibility of inquiring into Him in His inner Being. Ephrem’s
examples from nature help to point out the significance of this human inaptitude. None of our
senses is up to His loftiness. Our sinfulness makes it not even desirable to meet Him since His
Holiness would consume everything impure. Our mortality insists on the human limits and
our dependence when confronted by the Giver of Life.
God, on the other hand, is towering high above us in His perfect Being—
ungraspable and limitless, not in need of anything or anyone, and not describable in terms
applicable to humanity. He is the True and Genuine One, Father in and of Himself. We only
use some of His names in a borrowed and incomplete way.

32
N.B.: In this passage, Ephrem is remarkably eager to rub his audience’s nose in their
lowness. However, this is not addressed to humanity as a whole, but to those with a wrong attitude
towards their Creator. When exploring general human littleness, the goal is more obviously to refer to
God’s exaltedness.
 But this is not the end of the story. One passage has already indicated God’s love
towards His creation (69:17). And the paragraph about human mortality revealed the Creator
7
as giving Life (‫)ܚܝܐ‬, which also means salvation. The next chapter will unfold the divine
initiative to reveal Himself; He is determined to approach us since we are incapable of
ascending to Him by ourselves.
 CHAPTER II

THE BRIDGE

The last chapter depicted the immense extent of the uncrossable chasm that
separates us from a high, holy, and perfect God who ontologically differs greatly from us, His
creatures. The chasm is uncrossable, that is, from our human perspective, for the marvel is
that God from His side,

the Being who in everything is the most exalted,

in His love bent downwards His Height. Our customs He attained from us.
By all means He took trouble that He might turn all back to Him. (31:7)

As this chapter will partially unfold, Ephrem shows throughout his HdF how God tirelessly
brings to bear means so that humanity might live (59:6).
First, we will explore the nature of this initiative more closely. Afterwards, we will
examine the different ways of God’s providing the bridge, and the “customs” He attained
from us to make Himself understandable and visible to a certain extent. He put these
“bridges,” creation, Scripture, and Christ, at our disposal, and then it is up to us to make use of
them properly. But that last aspect will be treated in chapter III. For each of these three means
we will explore how God makes use of them to approach us. But especially in Christ, in the
Incarnation, the yawning abyss is bridged radically. This is the summit of His love for us.

A. OUR DEPENDENCE ON GOD’S INITIATIVE

As the last chapter pointed out, human beings cannot search something not akin to
them, and because there is no one who differs more than the only One who is not made, they
absolutely cannot approach God. Ephrem asks rhetorically: “Something that is not akin nor of
the same descent; who is able to search it? Who is able to inquire into it?” But surprisingly he
goes on, within the same stanza, and displays the essence of the present chapter:

It pleased Him to reveal how His nature is;

it pleased Him to diminish and to bend downwards
to show Himself [...] and His love to us. (41:6)

The implication is clear: indeed we cannot come near to God on our own, but He can and does
reach His hand. We depend on His initiative and the means He provides. He “legitimates”
certain ways of approaching Him in response.
1. OUR BASIC DEPENDENCE FOR LIFE
On the most basic level, we are totally dependent on God because He is the source
of Life (80:6). He is not only the Living One, but consequently also the One who has the
7 in Syriac.
power to give Life to all (24:3). This “Life” is the same word as “salvation” (‫)ܚܝܐ‬
The essential expression “He gives Life / salvation (‫ ܢܚܐ‬/ 2‫ )ܡܚܐ‬to all [or to us]” is used
twelve times throughout the HdF. This phrase is either directly used for God or His Son in
person, or indirectly, that is, for the various means He provided to give life. 33 God was not
only the Creator in the beginning (e.g. 6:7), but He remains our Sustainer. We cannot live
without God’s provision, both at the most basic level “to stay in life,” 34 and at the spiritual
level through Christ in order not to be “dead while living.” 35 Whether we live truly, that is, in
the second sense (e.g. 9:11), depends on our reaction in faith to Him, but this response occurs
only after He offers His Life to us.
Ephrem insists that the purpose of God’s initiative of revelation and instruction is
not to give a pretext for inquiry into the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, “but it
was the concern of this Good One how [...] human beings might live / be saved ( ‫”)ܢܚܘܢ‬
(59:6). Life, or salvation of humanity is at stake (59:7). The consequence of this purpose is
that God will reveal at least that much of Himself as is necessary for our Life. This is no total
revelation; His essence still cannot be grasped in its true Fullness since the chasm is not taken
away, but the bridging of the gap is surely a disclosure of His goodness and grace.

2. THE ALL-KNOWING TEACHER

It is only fitting for God Himself to do this first move of bridging the chasm in self-
revelation, since He is the only One who knows Himself through and through. Otherwise our
search could not be accurate:

He depicted, showed Himself to [the church], how* He is.

For He is it who is capable to instruct us about Himself
for only to Him the search of how He is, is revealed. (43:5)
If He would not have wanted to explain Himself to us
there would be no one among the created who could interpret Him. (44:7)

33
1:1; 2:19; 8:1; 24:3; 28:15; 29:2; 46:1; 64:7; 65:3; 75:24; 80:2,6. In 1:1, the text has
literally the “banner” (‫ )ܢܝܫܐ‬which gives Life to all, but which is set up by God. This is a reference to
the true testimony of the Scriptures (which have this life-giving function, as we will see) about the
Father and the Son (67:1,3,8ff). In 28:15, it is actually bread which gives life to all, which thus refers to
physical living, but still this is provided in God’s goodness. In 46:1 it is the “boundary” which keeps
alive, referring to the Scriptures and the indications they give how to approach God.
34
For example in 35:10, and 64:7, in the context of the growth of wheat and the flow of
water.
35
The subject of Life through Christ will be discussed in the section about Christ as Bridge.
Note that God even chooses to show more than that He exists. He is pleased to reveal
something of the “how” (‫ *)ܐܝܟܢ‬of His nature otherwise inaccessible. This is the only way to
understand Him. We are totally dependent upon His grace and love.
This is the background to Ephrem’s indication of God as “the Teacher of all” (1:1;
38:response.,13; 48:5), or alternatively “the Great One who teaches the Truth” (19:1). In
essence, all teaching comes from Him, directly or indirectly. He is the Source of all truth and
we are utterly dependent on His provision of His instruction. Even if the chasm reminds us of
our serious lack of knowledge, He being our Teacher alters our perspectives drastically:

Your love, my Lord, stimulates us

and enheartens us while it rebukes us.
Chasing away and arousing, withholding and restraining,
neglecting and teaching
so that by all these He might give Life as the Knower of all. (38:1)

Russell’s translation of this last line as “so that in every way [/] we can live as if we knew
everything”36 (‫)ܕܒܟܠ ܢܚܐ ܐܝܟ ܝܕܥ ܟܠ‬, is expressed very radically. True, we may have a sort of
childlike boldness based on our Lord’s accomplishments. Nevertheless, human limitations are
time and again highlighted, and as God is called “the Knower of all” eleven times it is most
likely that this is the twelfth instance.37 After all, it is common to identify Him with the One
who gives Life. The focus is on God’s gracious initiative.

3. HIS LOVE AND GRACE TOWARDS US

In the context of divine grace of the One who is also to be feared, Ephrem pictures
God as One who earnestly desires to have many guests at His table (11:18). He even longs for
it that we plunder the riches, which His mercy brought to us (25:10)! He does not only desire
to save us and give us Life—for which He takes great pains—but also wants us to enjoy His
abundance of gifts (63:11) provided in love for His creation.
Because of His love and mercy, we do not have to fear on account of our weakness.
Where it was impossible to reach Him, He provides and supports. If His path is too long, He
shortens it in His love for the weak (11:21-22). Also the stumbling block of our sin can be
done away with: “Your leaven, my Lord, longs for a lump of sinners to convert, persuading
them to repentance” (12:12). This is marvellous indeed, for

if He had loathed us intensely, according to our wickedness,

He would have made a chasm that was eternally incrossable. (63:12)
‫ܐܠܘ ܐܝܟ ܒܝܫܘܬܢ ܐܣܓܝ ܓܥܨ ܡܢܢ‬
‫ܦܚܬܐ ܗܘ ܥܒܕ ܗܘܐ ܕܠ ܡܬܥܒܪ ܡܡܬܘܡ‬

36
Russell, Eighty Hymns on Faith, 122.
37
As indicated before: 1:1,16; 6:16; 9:6,16; 15:3; 30:10; 38:1; 77:25,27; 79:response,12.
Because of our sinfulness, we cannot possibly approach Him at all. But in His mercy, He
provided various bridges over the chasm.
Regarding His inner Being, humanity’s nearness is unthinkable, but “while the name
of His Being is inaccessible to all, His love bent down to all” 38 (63:7). In His love, He
disregarded His greatness and diminished for our sake (69:8), to be able to reveal Himself. He
adjusted Himself to our need. He speaks in this weak way with us, because if He had spoken
according to His majestic Divinity, we would have gone astray and stumbled (26:6). We
would not be able to handle this revelation. In His essence He will remain who He is, but for
us He will change according to what we are familiar to (26:8).
Besides the chasm and God’s utter remoteness this consideration is too astonishing
for words. The only way this startling paradox of chasm and bridge can be explained is by
God’s love and mercy. While humanity could never dream to reach its Creator, the Maker
reaching us is a small step because of His great love (69:12). And He approaches us in a
variety of ways, each of them according to His divine initiative: He is the Creator and the
Designer, teaching us through creation’s signs; He is the Establisher of the Scriptures, guiding
us by their Truth; He is the Sender of Christ, giving us Life through His death.

B. GOD’S MEANS

In Ephrem’s view, there seem to exist three overlapping and intertwined layers of
revelation,39 God’s three ways of entering into the human realm. The first two point to or
prepare the way for the third, and all, especially through the third, point to God the Father.
The two basics, the creation and the Scriptures, are even more revealing when taken together:
“For nature, oh, if they joined it to Scripture to learn from both of them the Lord of both”
(35:10)! But the third, Christ, is the summit of God’s means of His self-revelation. From this
viewpoint, the Scriptures are superior to creation, for from nature alone Christ cannot be
discovered (65:2). Koonammakkal succinctly describes the concepts of nature and Scripture
according to Ephrem as God’s two treasuries full of types pointing to Him, while Christ is the
key for unlocking their riches.40

38
‫ܫܡܗ ܡܪܝܕ ܥܠ ܟܠ ܘܚܘܒܗ ܪܟܝܢ ܨܝܕ ܟܠ‬
39
Probably because of this overlap, Sebastian Brock, for example, has chosen a division into
three alternative modes of divine self-revelation: “through types and symbols which are present in both
Nature and Scripture; through the ‘names’, or metaphors, which God allows to be used of himself in
Scripture; and above all of course in the Incarnation” (The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision
of Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Cistercian Studies Series 124 [Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian
Publications, 1992], 41).
40
Thomas Koonammakkal, “The Self-Revealing God and Man in Ephrem,” The Harp 6,
(1993): 240.
 As for their “starting point” we could see these means as three chronological stages.
We should keep in mind, however, that each of them continued after the introduction of the
next. First, God appeared in likenesses and used symbols of His creation to express something
about Himself. Then, many of these first revelations were set down in Scripture. 41 In human
language, the prophets and the apostles teach us more about the Inexpressible. After the
initiation of this revelation in word, and because of the insufficiency of the two first means,
the Son put on a body to reveal His Father in person.

1. CREATION

a) The Created pointers to the Creator

The creation is the basic witness to God. Every part of it can teach us about Him
(48:5). Reading the HdF gives the impression that the whole universe is packed with symbols
of the divine, waiting to be discovered and meditated upon to reveal varying aspects of the
Creator’s glory. In line with Psalm 19:1, the poet declares:

The heavens relate the glory of God.

Behold the silence that whispers all of it in all tongues!
To all tongues this firmament—behold—relates
the glory of its Maker! (11:6)

The created world surrounding us proclaims its Maker in the universal language of silence.
Look around you, people of the whole earth! Heed the herald of the glorious King, addressing
all His realm’s inhabitants! Ephrem exemplifies this cross-cultural message time and again.
This kind of wordless revelation should not be surprising, since God is nature’s
Designer and He did not create anonymously. As such His “trademark” should be found at
least now and then. Moreover, since He has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity, the most
universal and permeating way to accomplish this was to fill the creation with innumerable
pointers to its Origin. “It is imprinted on the creation, the mould (or “type”: ‫ )ܛܘܦܣܐ‬of the
Creator’s Son [...] in order that humanity can approach the Majesty by means of these
moulds” (25:7). These signs within creation form bridges to the hidden reality. The visible
signs give assistance to see hidden things (80:8). God designed His creation as such that it can
teach the difficult by means of the obvious, and the concealed by means of what is crystal
clear (76:11-14). “He engraved His symbols on the trees to explain the incomprehensible by
the comprehensible” (76:12). Everything He has made can serve as a signpost for His
teaching, as a reminder or an eye-opener for the divine reality.

41
As this means that these two modes of revelation have a particularly significant overlap,
we will restrict the part on the creation 1. to symbols that we still can encounter in nature today; and 2.
to Ephrem’s descriptions of God’s “direct” revelation towards humans without the means of the
Scriptures (even if this is recorded there afterwards). As humans cannot see the Uncreated, God has
made use of a created “veil” for these appearances.
 One especially specific mark is the seal of the cross. In Ephrem’s world view,
everything is created according to this mould.

The cross is the seal and mould of the creatures

In length and in breadth everything is sealed by its symbol.
The cross is on what is born on two wings; on every bird.
By its power everything exists. (24:8)

The cross is an all-supporting entity (HdF 1842). It is impossible to imagine the created world
without its sign. It is meant to be like this, the poet declares. The Son consciously built the
cross into all He made, reflecting about it continuously (17:11), in order that its sign might
serve as a pointer for humanity towards His redemption initiative. Wherever you look, in
every flying bird, salvation in Christ is proclaimed. Only if a bird spreads its wings, the air
approves to carry it. As soon as it denies this sign and gathers in its wings, the air also denies
the bird (18:6). The message is clear: without giving testimony of the cross, true life is neither
possible, nor imaginable. Without God’s act of salvation by means of the cross all of creation
is left without hope. The whole nature, up to its detailed design, is a witness of this truth.
Besides features in creation functioning as a kind of signposts, principles in nature
also reveal truths about the divine. They could easily be interpreted as mere metaphors,
examples for instruction. For Ephrem, however, there is more at stake. Neglecting the lessons
of nature is worse than ignoring a subjective witness. The arrangements in creation are no
matter of coincidence. They are meant to be at our disposal to increase our wisdom. In the
next quote, nature is even called a refining pot to purge the truth, which is exemplified
afterwards. This is quite remarkable because we humans on ourselves are no such crucible to
distinguish the divine reality (48:2-3). Since the creation can have this indispensable function
of a purging furnace of the truth, fallible humanity should depend on it:

Let nature be a refining pot (‫ )ܟܘܪܐ‬to us

for the true word (‫)ܡܠܬ ܫܪܪܐ‬.
Behold, the sun in relation to the eye:
it is totally manifest (‫ )ܓܠ‬to all of it.
It is not because the sun is hiding (‫ )ܛܫܐ‬in something
that the eye cannot inquire into it;
it is totally manifest before it,
but the eye cannot inquire into it.
A hundred times more than the sun
Your hidden birth (‫ )ܝܠܕܟ ܓܢܝܙܐ‬is manifest,
but who will gaze in Your brightness? (5:8)

In the same vein, Ephrem contemplates the inaccessible depths and bounds of the sea, even if
its floods are not at a hidden distance and sailors glide on its surface (5:9). Also the air, he
continues, is interlaced in everything, hidden, while not secret (5:10-11). After these various
truths of nature, the poet expresses his main thought, linked to the last natural ingredient for
42
See for this hymn, chiefly about the symbol of the cross, the article by Peter Yousif, “St
Ephrem on Symbols in Nature: Faith, the Trinity, and the Cross (Hymns on Faith, No. 18),” Eastern
Churches Review 10 (1978): 52-60.
 7
the refinement of the truth: “He made the similitudes (‫)ܦܘܚܡܘܗܝ‬ of air as colours for you; with
them He painted (‫ )ܨܘܪ‬for you the likeness of Himself, of the Being that cannot be
represented (‫( ”)ܐܝܬܝܐ ܕܠ ܡܬܨܝܪ‬5:12). The Creator consciously painted nature so as to open
our eyes for His Being. Ephrem pictures the wonder of the transcendent and undepictable God
who chooses to reveal Himself. To delineate this divinely designed painting and refine our
thinking the Creator made use of representable features of familiar scenery surrounding us.
Besides its teaching character, creation also incites human worship of the Creator, as
the poet expresses in his hymns. The beauty, mystery or amazing variety of nature inspires for
a laud of an even more beautiful, mysterious and amazing God (e.g. 84:7, quoted later on).
Nothing can be compared to His Majesty, but still, everything originated from His creative
hand brimming over with ardour sings of its glorious Maker. Let us heed the herald, Ephrem
chants, and be inspired in our songs of praise. The source will never be left dry; there is an
abundance of life-giving water for everyone. What is more, drinking of this fount even seems
to increase its force.
That nature provides a bridge to God’s hidden reality implies that Ephrem has an
essentially positive view of the created world. In fact, regarding creation as bad would have
such a disastrous impact on the possible range of human knowledge of the divine, Ephrem is
eager to defend the created realm. Moreover, a low view of nature should not be encouraged
at all because it could lead to a low view of its Creator.

Astounding is it, everything that He made!

Because the Maker is great, glorious they are,
His creatures also. (71:6)

As long as it is kept in mind that He is the Initiator of everything good and thus remains
superior, creation should be regarded as an amazing source of blessings.
Originally, before Adam fell, creation was entirely pleasing to God (35:6-7). Of
course the fall has had a negative impact on the created realm, but this has not made it totally
detestable (‫ )ܣܢܐ‬and troubled (‫( )ܫܓܝܫ‬35:5). The introduction of sin into nature has not made
the pointers to the Creator invisible. The significance of their revealing function has even
increased after the widening effect of sin on the chasm. The symbols scattered generously
throughout creation have a fundamental part in God’s economy of salvation.
True, the divine symbols in nature give no full disclosure of their Designer. But also
in this imperfection, nature is our teacher. Exactly because of this incompleteness, it is able to
reprove those who boast about their capacities.

The examples of parables are weak and not able,

the extents of likenesses are feeble and not arriving;
at that humble hight they stay to reprove
whoever exalts himself and is haughty.
For if he is not competent to arrive at the likenesses,
how mad is he to attempt the height of Greatness! (42:12)
So also at this humble height, they manage to instruct about God’s majesty versus our
littleness. When needed, the creation arises to correct us in its humility.
There remains always more to be said. One can always discover new symbols
unveiling new aspects of the Truth. But even meditating on one single sign leaves always
room for different insights into God’s greatness:

A little symbol of Yours

is a source of symbols.
And who will be able to explain
these never-failing symbols?
For if one takes your likeness (‫)ܕܡܘܬܟ‬,
it becomes for him a fount
of all likenesses, flowing...
And in it we will be able to look,
to depict (‫ )ܕܢܨܘܪ‬your image (‫ )ܨܠܡܟ‬in our heart.
In one adored figure of Yours (‫)ܝܘܩܢܟ ܣܓܝܕܐ‬,
ten thousand beauties are packed. (4:10)

The image of the source accentuates the message: it flows at our disposal, to be drunk
according to need, but it is impossible to even touch everything. It is definitely apt to serve its
purpose, though. The symbols reveal as much as is necessary for us to form His image in our
heart. If not misused, they can contribute to our salvation, even if they cannot fully depict Him
(5:12-13). While God cannot be represented accurately, He concedes to put on likenesses in
order to teach us according to our capacity. Since we are not capable of His power, by His
grace these symbols may assist us (6:3).
Besides the last quote (4:10), Ephrem uses the word ‫ܝܘܩܢܐ‬, “icon,” “figure,” or
“image,” the equivalent of the Greek eivkών, at only one other instance in the HdF. In this
stanza, 81:1, the symbol of the pearl is introduced, which will occupy the poet in several more
connected hymns. When Ephrem took up this pearl, he detected “figures” and “types” in it of
“that greatness,” and the pearl “became a source, and I drank from it the symbols of the Son.”
Whereas 4:10 offered a general introduction into the poet’s ideas of imagery, in 81:1ff this
concept is worked out in a concrete example, situated in a normal every day of life. And
indeed, image after image passes by, as an almost overwhelming flow, feeding the poets
7 while drinking of this
7 ‫)ܖܓܫܐ‬
inspiration to contemplate.43 One acquires new “senses” (‫ܚܕܬܐ‬
fountain (81:9). Meditating on the divinely designed symbols grants renewed ways of
perception previously unknown.

43
For a translation and introduction on the hymns on the pearl, see Edward G. Mathews, “St.
Ephrem, Madrase on Faith, 81-85: Hymns on the Pearl, I-V,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38
(1994): 45-72. For the translation of J.B. Morris, re-edited by John Gwynn, see
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/pearl.html, but this text is not that reliable as it is not based on a text-
critical edition. Besides some variations, all the melody indications and refrains are missing and also
86:2,12,18, and a part of 86:8 and 17.
b) The Creator clothed in a created veil44

If the previous paragraph explored primarily our upwards move, starting at our
association with nature and drawing up to the divine origin, the present section describes the
divine descent towards His creation, for which God uses created matter in order to be seen.
HdF 31:6 is commonly quoted in this respect. Ephrem compares God’s teaching of humanity
through created matter with a person teaching his bird to talk by means of a mirror. As the
bird recognizes something of itself, it will easily be incited to learn what is missing: the
distinguishing mark of speech. Recognition, because of God’s choice to become similar to us,
helps humanity to be drawn to a higher level. Simile simili cognoscitur; if humans are too
dissimilar to God to approach Him, He chooses to appear in a way similar to them in order to
be able to exalt them (31:7). Otherwise, without this adjustment, man would be left to the fate
of his hopeless attempts to attain to His majesty (75:18-20).
According to the situation and its usefulness, God chooses to be seen in certain
likenesses. Ephrem gives the example of His appearance at Mount Sinai where God did not
clothe Himself in a visible form. The people could not detect Him within the fire. 45 The
purpose of this mode of self-revelation was to restrain them from depicting the Most High
through painting. For Moses, however, this restriction was not needed. Before him, “He
acquired an image (‫ )ܨܠܡܐ‬and a face (‫)ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬, so that he could depict Him in his heart”
(26:9). Depending on the consequent use or misuse of His self-revelation, God takes the best
suitable veil.

He was of assistance if He did not show

a face and an image on the Mount Sinai
so that He would not give a pretext for the impious people (‫)ܠܚܢܦܘܬܐ‬
lest she would depict Him falsely for human beings.
He was also of assistance putting on the likeness of a face (‫)ܕܘܡܝܐ ܕܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬
so that He might show His beauty to us and we might perceive His comeliness.
He did not show to restrict error
but He did show to increase assistance. (26:10)

In every instance, Ephrem assures that God, envisioning the best consequences, chooses
according to the situation. Towards people acting foolishly, He utters a rebuke. But towards
the simple, He shows the beauty of His Face in likenesses in order to incite them with it
(26:14). He appears in the ways that are of use to us (31:9), revealing as much as we can bear
and in the manner best suitable to our condition.
Although Ephrem describes the creation as good and glorious, since God is the Most
High, His putting on of its appearance implies a serious condescension (32:10). In Ephrem’s
view, even the act of creating itself compromised His majesty (32:11-12).

44
This section excludes the Incarnation, which is the third subject of this chapter.
45
Ephrem seems to interpret the fire as a wall surrounding the Creator rather than as a
representation of Himself (cf. Exodus 24:17).
 The appearance of the One who is greater than all lessened
towards the dust which the Former of all moulded
so that just as He bended down and moulded it in goodness,
He would bow down and give it Life in littleness. (26:12)

However, as the word “appearance” suggests, God is not lessened in His true nature. As the
previous quote (26:10) attests, even Moses saw only a likeness of God, and he was totally
aware of this, the poet declares (26:11). The chasm continues to exist in this respect: in
essence the Creator remains invisible, and everything within creation associated with Him
thus falls short of His glory. His changes are outward, adapted to the current customs; in fact,
He remains the same and surpasses all alterations (26:8; 32:14). 46 He is always more than an
image can express:

Look at Him, then, for it was He, but it was not He,
for the Real One (‫ )ܚܬܝܬܐ‬was covered by a likeness.
The Fullness was present within it
but that brightness was hidden by our image.
The likeness, however, was not competent of the Greatness.
This likeness, then, was not the Divinity;
it was a veil (‫ )ܬܚܦܝܬܐ‬He had made for Himself. (26:13)

The chasm is still present: created humanity cannot fully and accurately understand God, even
not in this divine revelation. The “how” and “what” of His nature can still not be grasped in
depth. Ephrem reassures this in the context of teaching types (43:10).
But revelation is not the primary goal in the descent of the Most High. The reason
for God’s bending down is to help us. Consequently the last quoted stanza ends: “Greatness
[clothed Himself in this veil] for the assistance of simplicity (‫)ܫܒܪܘܬܐ‬.” The Creator reveals
these aspects of Himself that can assist us for our salvation. To reach us at our level of
understanding, He uses things that are known (31:3); otherwise, it would be of no benefit to
7
us. God chooses the abasement of clothing Himself in created veils, “types” (‫)ܛܘܦܣܝܗܘܢ‬,
envisioning the exaltation of humanity by means of this self-sacrificing revelation (31:9; cf.
26:12, quoted above). To attain to this goal, “the tree,” an image of God the Father, “bowed
down as much as was needed (‫ ܕܚܫܚ‬2‫( ”)ܟܡܐ‬30:5). Ironically, exactly through this self-
abasement of God, humanity can be exalted (32:9), which is one of Ephrem’s key concepts.
Of course, the fact that God decided to bend down in His mercy and love towards His creation
(5:5) is to His credit and reveals His essential superiority (32:13).
God certainly does not use the reality of the chasm as a pretext not to reach out to
humanity. On the contrary, He freely chooses His own humiliation to resolve the separation

46
This does not restrict the magnificence of God’s condescension, as contemporary
Westerners could postulate. Alteration and non-alteration are just two ways to look at the same fact.
Moreover, even if divine change should only be located in our subjective experience, expressing
nothing real, it is still an impressive wonder that God freely chooses to be associated with this
abasement.
from His creation. Besides nature pointing upwards, the Most High condescends to drastically
bend down towards us.

Creation is God’s basic means in His initiative to bridge the chasm. Throughout His
creation, an abundant flow of symbols streams at our disposal, a conscious design of the
Creator in His merciful act of self-revelation. By means of teaching through these manifest
signs and by means of incitement to praise, nature assists us in our approach to God, who
reaches out to us in our own familiar realm. Creation does not give us a total disclosure of the
Creator’s being, but it fulfills its role graciously.
Besides having designed these signposts in the works of creation, God also later on
made active use of created forms to appear to humanity, even if this “subjection” to the
created realm meant a huge humiliation for the One who is beyond everything. These veils
taken from nature are chosen as being suitable to public and varying situations, according to
the need of each. Revelation, then, is not the purpose, but the means to intelligbly assist in the
redemption of all.

2. SCRIPTURE

Besides appearing in visible forms of nature, by His mercy God also descended into
human language:
7
He is gracious, for just as He put on all likenesses for our sight (‫)ܕܡܘܢ ܠܚܙܬܢ‬,
7 (11:9)
likewise He put on all voices for our persuasion (‫)ܩܠܝܢ ܠܦܝܣܢ‬.

Because of His initiative to be clothed in human words, God allowed His creation to approach
Him in these words, and thus to express the Inexpressible.

My littleness has spoken of You because Your greatness wished

to fall subject to words and to become subject to sounds
to be of advantage for mouth and hearing. (32:15)

God wished to become subject to our realm to assist us in our understanding of Him. “He
softened47 His strength in words so that the ear might hear Him” (6:4). Since our hearing
ability is limited to the created realm of speech, God graciously descended into this realm in
order to become approachable. However, this is no permission to chat and speculate as we
like. The Creator established a trustworthy guide through the words of the prophets and the
apostles: the Scriptures.
We will first introduce some images revealing the essence of Scripture, as these
disclose its guiding and teaching character. Next we will explore the subject of the divine
names to see how they assist God’s partial revelation of His inner Being. Finally, we will
point out the reverent and purposeful nature of the Scriptures.
47
Or: “moderated” (‫)ܐܪܟ‬.
a) The Guide to Truth and Life: Some Images

Ephrem conceptualizes the Scriptures as the King’s highway; the prophets are its
milestones and the apostles its inns. 48 Neglecting the Testaments is like wandering around in a
trackless waste without light (65:1; 66:23). In another passage the poet extends this concept
by highlighting the aspect of understanding: God generously made books written for us, to
comprehend the Truth by means of this enlightening lamp (48:4). The whole image reflects
the idea of a graciously given gift of wisdom, of shelter and guidance, of a journey with a
clearly visible direction and opportunity to take rest when needed (cf. 69:2). The image of the
Scriptures as a steadfast ship, sailing between safe harbours surrounded by fearsome floods,
expresses the same concept; travelling without this ship is most dangerous (69:6-7). It is to
our benefit if we journey under the Scriptures’ banner, if we rely on the signposts which are
deliberately disposed to give direction throughout our life’s journey.
The life giving aspect of the Scriptures can be implicitly noted in the images of the
way and the ship. Leaving the boundaries indicated by the milestones, the fathers, and
wandering in the desert is fatal. Ephrem takes this very seriously, depicting this with another
imagery: the fish and water. Just as a fish will not even consider to leave its safe and familiar
environment, so also the Scriptures mark out the boundaries defending our life and salvation.
The Gospel is the breath we cannot live without. Because God in His grace “made the Truth
of His words decline to the ear that originated from the dust,” 49 we can find Life (46:10-11).
By means of the Gospel we receive healing (8:12; 53:6). This is because of the One
who caused it to be written and because of its message of Christ, the Healer of our wounds
and the medicine of Life. The sayings of the Scriptures are like medicine intended for our
recovery; but how you use them is a delicate issue since their power can heal, but also kill, if
you do not take them seriously (53:6). Considering the Holy Writings is a matter of life or
death, (46:1; 35:10). The Scriptures are not just a guide for a one-day pleasure trip; the Truth
which pours out from their source is of vital importance. Drinking water from a polluted well
is risking our Life.
A different, but again related image is that of the mirror, 50 ‫ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ‬in Syriac, derived
from the verb “to see” (‫)ܚܙܐ‬. The function of a mirror, then, obviously, is to see something.
Twice in the HdF, the Scriptures are plainly depicted as such (41:10; 51 67:8). In both
instances, looking into this mirror should grant insight into the truth. In the first passage,

48
For this image in Ephrem’s writings in general, see the article of Edmund Beck, “Das Bild
vom Weg mit Meilsteinen und Herbergen bei Ephräm,” Oriens Christianus 65 (1981): 1-39.
49
The vocabulary of dust reminds us of our mortality, contrasted to the Life God provides.
50
For an overview of Ephrem’s use of this image throughout his various writings, see
Edmund Beck, “Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 19 (1953), 5-24.
51
Here more specifically “the Gospel” (‫)ܣܒܪܬܐ‬.
Ephrem commences at the given of the chasm: “The Lord of Natures, indeed, His nature is
hidden from all.” But he makes sure to add in this same stanza: “The Gospel is Your amazing
mirror, and in it, the Three [i.e. Father, Son, and Spirit] are seen without dispute” (cf. 67:9-
10). The Scriptures very clearly reveal who God is. Ephrem does not understand how one
could deny the fact of their testimony. They shout from the housetops that the Father as well
as the Son is God (76:16). The reality of the gap does not exclude a true knowledge about the
Creator, but to gain this wisdom, humans are utterly dependent on God-given means.
So again, in the image of the mirror, the guiding, or perhaps more specifically, the
teaching aspect as well as the characteristic to be reliable come to the front. The Scriptures, in
which “the banner of the Truth (‫ )ܢܝܫܐ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬is set up,” are a witness of the divine reality,
giving testimony about their Lord to whomever wants to listen (67:1). If one is seeking for the
Truth, one should carefully consider the Scriptures, Ephrem states as being almost obvious.
They will make one wise by means of their instruction (45:1).

b) Divine names and their teaching

One specific subject where Ephrem stresses the reliability of the Scriptures is their
testimony about the divine names. If nature is a refining pot to distinguish the truth, Scripture
is in no way inferior. While the brightness of the sun instructs us that its Lord’s powerful
nature is exalted above all, and as such we cannot reach Him by our senses, “the writings of
the prophets interpret the meaning and depict Him by names” (26:5). We should not stop at
the chasm in resignation. The Scriptures interpret its extent, and reveal what we may and are
expected to know about their Designer. In the crucible of the Holy Writings, God’s names can
be examined to learn from them who He is and how He should be called and approached.

One teaches you that He is Being; another that He is Creator.

He shows you also that He is good; He explains you also that He is just.
Father also, He is named and called. (44:1)

Ephrem deliberately builds up his argument. His Arian opponents are pushed to question: If
His various names convince us that He is truly Creator, good, and just, should His name
“Father” not convince us about His true fatherhood? Still the poet admits that certain names
are not as deeply intertwined with God’s essence as others.
At certain occasions, the Scriptures talk about God’s ears or eyes, which Ephrem
describes as names He puts on. By every name the Creator wants to teach something in these
instances, for example, that He hears and sees us respectively. When He puts on the names of
things, these, of course, are not His in essence. Names like rage and regret He only assumed at
certain occasions because of our weakness. If He had spoken to us according to His fearsome
divinity, we would certainly not have been able to bear it; we would have gone astray and
finally perished (26:6). So, in His mercy, He uses these names deliberately but transitorily to
teach us at our own level of understanding (31:1; 44:2). This also explains how He can be
described in a seemingly contradictory way throughout the Scriptures (31:8-11).

We should know that, if He had not put on the names

of these things, He could not have spoken
with our humanity. By means of them He approached us.
He put on our names so that He could clothe us
7
according to His customs (‫ܒܕܘܒܖܐ‬ ‫)ܕܝܠܗ‬. Our manners (‫ )ܐܣܟܡܢ‬He borrowed and put on
and as a father with babies, He spoke with our childishness. (31:2)

As He clothed Himself in images and created veils to be able to reach us and draw us up to a
higher level, He also chose to put on names according to human use. Only in this manner
could He talk to us intelligibly. While there is only one objective truth this is expressed
corresponding to situation and person. God reveals Himself according to human measure in
general, but also at various times and to varying people, He plucks different strings of the
same harp (22:1-5). As the prophets and the apostles issue various sounds for the healthy, the
simple, the sick, and the perfect, the Scriptures also proclaim respectively what is fitting
(22:3). These names God puts on to teach and guide us about who He is in truth, even if we
should not represent Him as truly having these human, created features. He only borrowed
them for a certain period to accommodate us.
The fact that God, who is transcendent beyond everything earthly, chose to put on
these lowly names, expresses His great love and mercy in our behalf. This extreme goodwill
explains the reality of this all-subverting descent. In this divine move, the humanly
insurmountable chasm is bridged by His love towards us. The first part of the next stanza is
quoted already in chapter one, but now it should be displayed in full to mark out the full
extent of its implications:

That Being could be likened to creatures!

It is a great error that one would think so.
For where mouth, ears, and eyes are, this is a weak construction.
To give [Being] a concrete form is frightening, to put it into a construction terrible;
to mark out its boundaries is iniquitous, to contain it wickedness...
But while He is higher than these
below them He descended, in His grace! (26:7)

The succession of extremes has a strikingly stupefying effect. The fact remains: we cannot
ascend to Him by ourselves and He is exalted above every humanly thinkable form. But
despite the reality of the yawning gap, God chose to assume belittling names because of His
mercy and love towards us (5:7). He took the initiative inaccessible to us. In this, He assists us
in a radically self-sacrificing way.
In the context of these “relative” names, particularly with reference to 31:10-11,
Beck concludes that, after all, the sayings of the Scriptures do not bring us beyond the human
extent. Because of their constant exchange in contradiction to each other, they are “mere
metaphors” which do not give true knowledge about the unchanging Being. In essence, these
metaphors thus serve to indicate our limits more than our advance. 52 To evaluate this claim
properly, these two stanza’s are quoted in full.

Let us reverence: when He became little He made great our littleness

and if He would not again have become great, He would have made little our mind
because it would think Him to be feeble; being little because of what it thought.
The Being of whose magnificence we are not capable,
even not in His littleness, became great—we went astray;
and He became little—we succumbed. In everything He took trouble with us,
for He wanted to teach us two things: that He was (something), and that He was not.
He made faces for Himself in His love, so that His servants could look at Him.
But in order that we would not be damaged and think that He is like that,
from likeness to likeness He altered to teach us
that He has no likeness and while He did not leave it,
the image of humanity, He left it in His variation. (31:10-11)

The essence of what Ephrem tries to demonstrate here is that God purposefully put on
different likenesses in order that we would not pin Him down to one little, limited image. He
clothed Himself in transitory names to be able to teach us and thus exalt us. But He had to put
them off again to teach us even more accurately, because otherwise this likeness could have
misled us about His true inner Being. So, against Beck’s view, these metaphors mean advance
instead of limitation. But Beck rightly says that these names do not lead us beyond human
capabilities. The teaching we receive through them indeed remains within the possible human
range of knowledge. We are human, and we remain so, even after the teaching of the
Scriptures. But within the maximum extent much is left untouched. These images help us to
reach out to Him, within the possible scope for creation. Truly, we can never reach our human
maximum potential without help from above. This is exactly the marvel Ephrem describes,
which makes the essence of these stanza’s positive: God humiliated Himself and descended
right into our human language and understanding by means of the Scriptures to help us to be
humans the way He intended, to be in a genuine relation to our Creator with true knowledge
about who He is and how we should approach Him.
But as referred to already, names fundamentally and indissolubly connected with
His innermost Being grant more than knowledge attained by “relative” names. If one takes
these authentic names away, all other names lose their grip and all of creation breaks down
with them (44:2-3; 52:2). Some names, that is, some of God’s essential attributes, are so basic
for everything else that we cannot leave them out. Some names are essential for Life, for
salvation itself; and accordingly, they should not be neglected (44:4). They should just be
accepted in faith without controversy or prying into their essence, as the purpose of their

52
“Erst dadurch dass sie sich gegenseitig aufheben und einschränken wird ihre Geltung auf
das richtige Mass reduziert. Diese Geltung bleibt nach dem letzten Zitat [i.e. 31:10-11] wesentlich
negativ. Denn die Aussagen der hl. Schrift gehen nicht über den menschlichen Bereich hinaus. Der
Wechsel in ihrer Vielheit verrät, dass sie für die unwandelbare Einheit des göttlichen Wesens nur
Metaphern sind.” Edmund Beck, “Die Erkenntnis Gottes,” in Die Theologie des Hl. Ephraem in seinen
Hymnen über den Glauben, Studia Anselmiana 21 (Vatican City, 1949), 29.
revelation is demonstrating God’s love and care for human salvation (59:7). The following
paragraphs will point to some of these.
The names written down in the Scriptures express something about the reality of the
named, and thus reveal something about their true being. Because of the context of the Arian
controversy, Ephrem is especially fierce about the name “Son” and its implication for who
Christ is in relation to God the Father. According to him, “Father” is one of these
indispensable names to understand who God is, one of these names that we borrow from Him
instead of the other way around (46:12), a name close to His essence (55:11-12). For every
name there is a clear reason (63:1).

Our Lord is compared to the way, for He led us to His Father.

And He is compared to the door also, for He brought us into His Kingdom.
And also to the lamb they compared Him, for He is slain for our atonement.
And however He is named, He fulfilled its commands.
How much indeed does also His name agree and correspond to His Begetter?
For if He is the Son, He is the Begotten. (62:3)

Every name has a logically connected reality behind it. Something essentially bitter will not
produce a sweet taste, Ephrem poeticizes (62:7-8). This is true even for the names of demons
who confess their name honestly. As they also know Christ’s name to be true, they confess
Him to be the Son of God (60:8-11). Christ lived up to all the names He assumed. These
names express who He is and what His missions are. That means that His names have a
revealing function about Himself and about His origin, explained to us in intelligible
language. Just as a creature witnesses about its Creator, the Begotten does the same about the
Begetter (62:4). Accordingly, we can put our faith on the name “Son” to be a truthful guide
about Himself and about His Father (62:5).
Consequently, as Father, Son, and Spirit are nowhere in the Scriptures referred to by
the names “made,” “created,” or “formed,” we should believe accordingly (52:10). If God had
wanted us to believe Christ to be a creature, He would have made sure to stress this and repeat
this often to make it crystal clear (53:4). The chasm between the Creator and the created is too
significant to leave this matter in doubt. The number of sayings calling Jesus “Son” or
“Begotten” by far surpass the few utterances arguably stating Him to be created. This balance
is very convincing to Ephrem (53:13). So whenever the Scriptures do talk about Christ but do
not reveal His divinity, they should be interpreted as referring to His humanity (53:11).
One should not forget that it is the Lord of all Who composed the two Testaments,
“the two harps of the prophets and the apostles,” which in various ways display the one Truth
according to His devise (22:1-2). This means that if one would claim that the names of the
Father and the Son are not true expressions of reality, one would revile both of them. It would
be like reproaching them to deceive us (22:6).
 For He is a God of Truth53 who does not go astray,
nor is lead astray by anyone—for He is good and also just,
for how many times has He made us modest by His teaching?
7
And He prepared by His faithful ones (‫)ܒܫܪܝܖܐ‬ a way without deception (‫)ܕܠ ܛܘܥܝܝ‬.
Moreover, a curse He brought on whoever leads astray
the blind on the way. (53:5)

We can trust God and His Scriptures, the lighted way He prepared by means of His faithful
ones—the prophets and the apostles. Everything God ordered and did reflects His true and
faithful being. “Because He is the Father of Truth (‫ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬2‫)ܐܒܐ‬, He has a True Son (‫ܒܪܐ‬
‫)ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬. Praises to the Real One (‫( ”)ܫܪܝܪܐ‬52:2)! The poet vehemently urges us to listen to
the witness of the true God Himself to be taught about His names (52:1; 77:20-22),
particularly about the name of the Son, of which the Father testifies at Jesus’ baptism (46:6;
51:7). Even if we do not fully understand we can be sure to find Him as He is in Himself, but
only if we accept His teaching, and do not search for wisdom about His being in sources not
provided by Him (48:1).
Ephrem takes this even further. Excusing himself to utter such a thought, he says,
even if God would deceive us, who could draw us back? No one could or should reprove the
Most High (86:5), even if He would mislead us (43:7). Who could possibly know that He did?
Or who could explain what He would hide from us? But, of course, the mere thought that He
would hoodwink all should be far from us. He is the Truth, and if we follow Him instead of
accuse Him, His light will greatly help us (86:6). It is best to simply trust Him that He wrote
the truth and gave it to us truthfully (43:7-8). In this matter-of-fact manner, Ephrem urges us
to have a childlike faith.
Clearly, the truth of the Scriptural sayings is dependent on God the Father but also
the Son being true. Is Jesus’ self-revelation as the Son of God faithful? To affirm this, Ephrem
introduces various characters from the two Testaments who occupied an important place in
salvation history. 54 Moses, endowed with “heavenly brightness” did not deceive the people by
claiming to be God (61:10). And Paul and Barnabas, when considered to be gods in Lystra,
did not take advantage of the people but rent their clothes in agony, thus preferring rather to
be stoned to death55 (61:11). Neither did John the Baptist affirm the question whether he was
the expected One, but in humility and truth proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ 56 (61:12). And

53
Or: the True God (‫)ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬.
54
Note that the Arians against whom Ephrem wanted to prove Christ truly to be the Son of
God, accepted the truth of the Scriptures, but did not take the name “Son of God” as serious as Ephrem
defends. This means that the poet could refer confidently to other Scriptural passages in his attempt to
convince, if this would be directed against them immediately.
55
Acts 14:8-19
56
John 1:19-31
what about the angels? Could they not have easily misled Daniel57 or Isaiah58 when they
appeared to them in heavenly and fearsome splendour? If all of them refrained to deceive
humanity, how could Jesus, who is by far their superior, ever speak treacherously (61:13)? To
Ephrem’s conviction, he concludes this hymn, that only the truth could reach out convincingly
to the four corners of the earth without being conquered (61:14). God’s Truth is victorious and
superior to all deception. The Scriptures are its mirror.

c) The Reverent Purposeful Guide

Even if the Scriptures are a reliable guide to the truth, this does not mean that
everything is revealed and made plain. Not all mystery is taken away. Humanity cannot claim
all-encompassing knowledge on account of God’s Writings:

The Writings which depict the Son[‘s generation] do not depict to us when
and while they proclaim the Father, they do not proclaim how
for these matters do not fall under investigation. (33:6)

What is and is not written in Scripture is no matter of coincidence. Some divine aspects are
consciously left untouched, urging the audience to reflect the same respectful attitude. Even in
the middle of scriptural revelation, certain subjects are fenced off from our “grabbing fingers.”
Some things would only be distorted if we would meddle in and try to depict them according
to our capacity. It is amazing that the Just One did not refrain from writing both about the
exalted and the lowest things (53:1). If He condescended in such disarming humility, this
urges us all the more to simply accept what He grants us and not claim what is not offered.
Far beyond gratifying human curiosity, the Scriptures serve its purpose and explain
what is needed and helpful. When he saw Jesus, John represented Him to be the Word and
God, but the tiny detail of this truth, namely “how” this is so, is inexplorable to us. The divine
intention is that we depict Christ in our heart and mind in the same way, leaving aside what
John, guided by the Spirit, left aside, while confidently keeping these things he entrusted to us
(33:1-3). The purpose God revealed the three names to His disciples was that we might take
refuge in them (13:5). The Scriptures are a guide pointing out the way of life. This guide will
entrust to us what is helpful to reach the goal, and this also means that many subjects will be
left untouched without a trace of malicious intent.

Throughout the HdF, Ephrem presents the Scriptures as a reliable guide which
leads us to Truth and Life, leaving aside unavailing sidetracks and instead pointing out a
clearly lit and safe way. The light of the Holy Writings reveals who God is and how He
should be approached—how He should be called by His creation. His names unfold various

57
Daniel 8:17-18
58
Isaiah 6:6-7
divine attributes which teach us truthfully about His inner being, even if not all His names are
as indissolubly intertwined with His essence. God has displayed these truths deliberately in
His books, to assist us on our way of life. We can trust Him to have given these words without
malice or deceit, as He is Truth in Himself. Finally, we should not trouble our head about
aspects of His essence left untouched in His writings. The Scriptures reveal as much as is
needed for salvation, that is, within the extent of their appointed purpose.
We will bring this section to a close quoting the same stanza with wchich we
commenced, but adding the last lines:

He is gracious, for just as He put on all likenesses for our sight,

likewise He put on all voices for our persuasion.
His nature; there is only One who is able see it
and His silence; there is only One who can hear it. (11:9)

Unless God reveals in creation and in Scripture, in appearance and in words, there is only One
who is apt to see and hear Him in His fullness. The first two means of divine disclosure do not
fill up the chasm. They are pointers, signposts, teachers, and guides to the divine reality and to
the Bridge rather than independent bridges. Only the One who is in Himself able to see, hear,
and know the Father truly, entirely, and accurately, is also able to truly bridge the gap.

3. CHRIST

After the divine self-revelation through appearance in creation and words of

Scripture, God’s self-disclosure reaches its summit in Christ. He is God’s embodiment in an
approachable human person who is the Guide, Teacher, and Bridge towards the Father
through physical appearance, words, and deeds among and for His creation. At the utter depth
of the chasm, He is the ultimate Revealer, in order to bring His servants back to the original
purpose for humanity in a genuine relation towards the Creator.
First we will have a look at His person, how He is in Himself: what makes Him the
One to be the ultimate bridge? Afterwards, how He reaches us in our weak position comes to
the front. In what ways does He bridge the chasm?

a) Why Christ Can Be the Ultimate Bridge

The reason why Christ is able to bridge the chasm is situated in His person. We saw
that God’s initiative in revelation proved to be of major importance. As created and sick
humanity cannot reach out over the gap, the disclosure move must begin from the divine side.
In Christ this divine move took place. Ephrem attaches great importance to Christ’s
fundamental and utter closeness to the Father. In essence, Christ should be regarded as truly
belonging to the divine side of the chasm. This is the prerequisite of being the ultimate,
revolutionary, and effective Bridge. So this section is essentially an exposition of the manner
in which the poet expresses Christ’s “intertwining” intimacy with the Father. They act in
perfect harmony and cannot be loosened from each other.
We have already noted the major importance Ephrem attaches to the name “Son.”
The names “Father” and “Son” reflect a most deep and intimate relationship of love and
harmony (62:13). If Christ is truly the Son, His connection to the Father is incomparable and
indissoluble. No one is in a better position to help humanity to approach the Divinity. The
Father “has no one who shares His throne, except for the one Begotten from Him” (4:1). Who
else can be a better counsellor to us than the One sitting on the same throne as the Father?
Who is as directly initiated in His decrees? Their ties are so tight that if one sees the Son as a
creature, the necessary implication is that the Father would be downgraded at the same level
as creation with the Son (61:2). This option obviously is out of the question. The Father is
Creator, we are earthly beings, and Christ is God’s Son who, with the Father, created us.
Contrasted to humans who are totally inapt in reaching out to fathom the Divinity, “there is
One who is no servant, for, because of His Father, He is Lord” (55:13). Because of their
kinship the Son is not to be situated in our limited earthly situation, but He can come to our
assistance out of His divine position as Lord.
Even if it does not neglect the distinction between the two, the next strophe (32:16)
very strongly describes the close connection between Begetter and Begotten. As the
terminology in the Syriac contributes to the concept of their oneness and intermingling in each
other and cannot be as accurately reflected in the translation, I will add the original text in full.

One are they, the Father and the Son, for their nature is one;
They are not absorbed in one another; they are intermingled, the one in the other.
They are distinct, the one from the other—glory to Your intermingling!
‫ܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܕܟܝܢܗܘܢ ܚܕ ܗܘ‬
‫ܚܕ ܒܚܕ ܠ ܦܗܝܢ ܚܕ ܒܚܕ ܚܠܝܛܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬
‫ܦܖܝܫܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܚܘܠܛܢܟ‬ 7 ‫ܚܕ ܒܚܕ‬

In this one short strophe, the word ‫ܚܕ‬, “one” is used eight times. Three times the text has ‫ܚܕ‬
‫ܒܚܕ‬, very literally translated “the one in the one.” It means “each one,” or “one—the other.” 59
As Ephrem likes to play with words and all their associations, it is not improbable that he
deliberately repeated this phrase thrice to highlight the idea of intermingling in each other,
even if it in fact means just “each one.” In this way, even both phrases which note their
distinction from each other are introduced, and thus seem qualified by the expression “the one
in the other.” As this stanza exemplifies, Ephrem clearly highlights the close intertwinement

59
J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus
of R. Payne Smith, D.D. (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 126.
more than the difference between the Begetter and the Begotten, 60 without forgetting about
this distinction.
The theme of “Son” or “Begotten” gives rise to various symbolical elaborations on
their relationship. Ephrem sees the staunch relation between the Father and the Son reflected
in various telling images. I will expound two of them to which the poet attaches special
attention. First, Christ is depicted as the fruit (‫ )ܦܐܪܐ‬of the Father, who in turn is represented
as the root/plant (‫)ܥܩܪܐ‬61 or the tree (‫ )ܐܝܠܢܐ‬from which the Fruit is brought forth. The fruit
and the root are paralleled to the Begotten and the Begetter, who are inseparably
“intermingled in each other” (‫( )ܚܕ ܒܚܕ ܡܙܝܓܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬50:2).

The Fruit is intermingled in its Tree

and in the Fruit also its Root.
Who will separate them?
The love of the Fruit is in its Root
and in the Fruit also that of the Tree.
Who will divide them? (77:17,19)

In the poet’s view, it is just ridiculous that a plant could bear a fruit with a nature dissimilar to
itself (61:6). It is not possible to make this superficial division. The interconnection between a
tree and its fruit in creation serves as a mirror for the inseparable intermingling of the Father
and the Son; this is true both in their essence and their reciprocal and harmonious love, even
as in their action62 (‫ )ܪܗܛܐ‬and will (‫)ܨܒܝܢܐ‬, “as if they were bearing one yoke” (77:21). It is
as if the same sap of life permeates them both; you cannot separate them. Ephrem
contemplates on the name of trees, which is the same name given to its fruit even if they can
be distinguished from each other (76:1-3). Also, if a plant is called sweet, the fruit is sweet too
(76:4). All these aspects of the image express that the Father and the Son belong to the same
kin. Parallel to the tree and fruit imagery, they are distinguished as “Father” and “Son,” but
both are God (76:7-9,16). They should not be regarded as just two separate entities. Their
intermingling is unbreakable the mere thought that their natures differ sounds absurd.

60
That is, at least in his HdF, and if he accentuates one of both sides. It is probable that the
background of the Arian controversy motivates Ephrem to make sure the side of the Father and the
Son’s intimate relation is stressed. In HdF 40:4, he seems to balance both aspects as level-headed as
possible: “They are intermingled but not fixed; distinct but not cut off.” In 78:25 Ephrem states very
convinced that the Begotten necessarily never can become the Begetter. However, he has made sure to
introduce this statement only after extensively elaborating the idea of the Son’s knowledge which is in
essence at the same level as the Father’s, just as their beings are in perfect agreement.
61
This word can have both meanings. In the next block quotation, the words “tree” (‫)ܐܝܠܢܐ‬
and “root” (‫ )ܥܩܪܐ‬are used as parallel, which is possible because of this double meaning.
62
I think this word should be translated in this more telling sense than the rather general “the
series [of them] is in concord” (italics mine), as Russell interpreted it (Eighty Hymns on Faith, 245). In
this way, their united action is logically connected to their mutual will.
 The second image to be introduced here is Christ as the sun’s shining forth (‫ܕܢܚܐ‬
‫)ܕܫܡܫܐ‬, as its brightness (‫( )ܢܘܗܪܗ‬40:1-2) or its ray63 (‫( )ܙܠܝܩܐ‬HdF 73).64 The sun, then, is an
image of the Father. Thus, Ephrem points to a combination of distinction and mingling again,
as in the image of the tree and its fruit. Both the sun and the ray are bright. Because of this
name (“bright”) which is based on an according reality, the ray strongly resembles the sun in
everything and cannot be separated from its source (61:4). The sun is “one” at first sight; but
after lowering one’s look a bit, one can distinguish its brightness in its rays, and one can feel
its heat.65 The sun is one single nature in which three intermingled ones can be distinguished
without being divided from each other. Each is complete (‫ )ܫܠܡ‬in itself as they are together
(40:5). The polemical statement that “there was no time when He was not” (40:1) may be
depicted by the sun’s shining forth Christ. Just as the sun’s brightness can be considered
second to the sun, and its heat third, the poet continues in the same strophe, Christ and the
Spirit do not “fall short of Him” nor are “equal” to Him (‫)ܠ ܦܝܫܝܢ ܡܢܗ ܘܠ ܡܫܬܘܝܢ ܥܡܗ‬.
As it is time to have a taste of the hymns themselves, we will let the text speak for
itself now:

The sun is distinguished from its ray,

and mixed with it, as also its ray
is the sun too.
But of two suns no one speaks
while its ray is the sun too
for the earthly.
Two Gods we do not proclaim
while He, our Lord, is also God
for the created.
Who will inquire into how and where
its ray is bound; bound and free
its warmth?
While not cut off and also not confused,
distinct, mixed; bound, and free
—a great amazement! (73:4-8)

Apparently, it is not Ephrem’s goal to determine the exact details of the relation between the
Father and the Son, “in which manner its ray is bound.” He expresses some essential elements
and contemplates this mystery in awe. One of these essential elements is that Christ is God
(“the ray is the sun too”), bound to and mixed (but free, distinguished and not confused) with

63
Note that Ephrem is aware of the fact that also this image is not displaying the full divine
reality, “for there is nothing which could exactly represent Him; by likenesses He can be represented so
that we could learn about Him according to our capacity by means of His blessed aids” (6:3).
64
We will not explore this image to all its extent, but only in the context of the present
subject: the close connection between the Father and the Son. For a book-length exposition of these
images, see Edmund Beck, Ephräms Trinitätlehre im Bild von Sonne/Feuer, Licht und Wärme, CSCO
425, Subsidia 62 (1981).
65
The heat is an image of the Holy Spirit which should not be examined here.
the Father. If it is written, the poet asks, “that neither height nor depth, and no sword is able to
break off (‫ )ܢܦܣܘܩ‬our faith, who could break off the unbreakable (‫ )ܠ ܡܬܦܣܘܩܝܢ‬rays from the
sun of Truth” (13:4)? It is impossible to disconnect the brightness from the sun, or the Son
from the Father. You cannot possibly separate the one from the other. They are so intertwined
that you cannot touch the sun unless by means of its ray (73:10).
The poet bears out the fact of this intermingling and refers to various witnesses. A
star witnessed of His birth; the creation thus proclaimed Him to be the light of the nations
(7:8). The prophets and the apostles, the representatives of Scripture, confess Him loud and
clear to be the Son of the Most High (71:15). Also those martyred on account of His name cry
out their confession of His divine origin with “the blood of their throats” (39:1). And the
Spirit witnessed of Him at His baptism (7:8). The most important testimony, however, is that
of the Father Himself. As we are not able to inquire into the Son by ourselves, we can only
believe this witness of the True One, the Begetter and God Himself (65:12-13). Instead of
denying their kinship He called Christ His Son publicly (7:8; 61:5). Obviously, He Himself
wants us to believe that Christ is His Begotten One (46:3).

For it is not another one who was calling out so that you would doubt.
Moses and Elijah were still and silent
and he who baptised Him was, as if he did not know Him;
this opportunity he yielded so that His Father might affirm Him.
And if one accuses you, recite to him His words.
The heaven He broke open and called out, and He broke up the controversy. (46:6)

What greater witness can we demand? If the Father Himself is not ashamed to proclaim Christ
to be His Son, why would we (52:6)? The Father and the Son witnessed to each other in
perfect harmony, and all of creation joined them in asserting His power by submitting to Him:
the sea and the air were honored and consented gratefully to carry Him, and the angels served
Him (54:1-2). At His death too, the whole of creation trembled and grew dark in terror (63:5).
Moreover, the ministry of Christ on earth consolidated His divine lineage: in caring
for all created beings He acted as the true heir of His Father (54:4). So also in His
authoritative position in relation to creation which He acted out in generosity and love (54:4-
5), Jesus proved to be in line with His Father who also did not hinder His Son’s power over
nature and humanity. Hanging on the cross, He most naturally called out to His Father at the
hour of His final agony (63:3-4). This cry opened graves and caused confusion in the Temple
at the sight of the rent curtain, which until then had separated the Holy of Holies (63:4). And
is His resurrection not taking away the last particles of doubt concerning who He claimed to
be before (63:2)? Every witness and every deed points in the same direction. Heaven and
earth and everything in it cry out who He is and testify about His relation to the Father.
One more fact reflecting the unsurpassed ties between the Son and His Father is
their united act of creating in the beginning. It was His Son to whom the Father issued the
command “let there be light,” as well as “let us make the human being” (6:6-7,9). It was
proper for Him to assist the Father in the work of creation because He is no servant like the
angels, neither is He created, but He is the Son (6:8,10). He has a unique relationship with the
Father, not being equal to Him, nor being a created servant, but being His offspring (6:11-12).

You are the Son of our Creator, My Lord,

for through You He established everything.
[...]
Through You, without instruction, the Maker was establishing.
Through Your finger the Creator constructed all His creatures. (17:9-10)
The Son is an initiate up to every fiber of creation, as it was all molded by His own fingers.
This is the picture of a son assisting his father in his work in perfect harmony. In this way, all
of nature is depending on Him and is carried in His hands (78:8) as to His Father.
The first implication of the Son’s indissoluble relation to the Father is that He alone
knows the Father truly (3:15), in contrast to humanity which does not know Him by itself
because of its different nature (11:10). “The Begotten who came forth from Him, He knows
Him without dispute, not going astray because of how to seek Him” 66 (70:15). The Father
indeed granted the Son to know the Father’s glory without doubt or restriction (77:9).
Especially the image of the tree and its fruit contributes to the expression of this subject.
They know each other is expected of the root and its fruit—of course they are not strangers to
each other (22:9).
Let the poetry speak for itself again to see how the poet elaborates these ideas in his
hymns.

“The Son, He alone knows the Father.”67

All of Him He knows, not just a part;
He is not in lack.
And as He is real, the root;
really does the fruit know Him,
the fruit which He begot.
And which fruit knows a little
of its root? It is intermingled indeed,
all of it in the whole of it.
For if it falls short in its knowledge
of its tree, it also falls short in its name,
for then it is not its fruit.

66
Beck has a similar translation: “er ist dabei nicht in Verlegenheit, — wie er sie
untersuchen soll” (Hymnen de Fide [transl.], 187). I do not agree here with the translation of Russell:
“although [footnote: or ‘because’] He does not make the mistake of seeking out how He exists” (Eighty
Hymns on Faith, 224). The Syriac (‫ )ܟܕ ܠ ܦܗܐ ܕܐܝܟܢ ܢܒܥܝܘܗܝ‬taken together with the statements about
Christ’s knowledge in the rest of the HdF seem to indicate rather the natural knowledge of the Son
towards the Father, than His refraining from inquiry into Him. I could find no other passage pointing in
Russell’s alternative direction, that is, concerning the Son. It is said of the angels and insinuated about
the Holy Spirit (e.g. 4:1,18; 5:2).
67
Note how Ephrem starts with a common known biblical passage (Matthew 11:27) to
introduce his contemplation of this subject.
 But if it agrees, the fruit in its name,
the root agrees to it
also in knowledge.
One is the sweetness (‫ )ܚܠܝܘܬܐ‬which is in them both;
one is the knowledge which is in them both,
for they are intermingled.
Intermingled is the fruit in its tree;
and in the fruit, also its root;
who will separate them?
They are indivisible in sweetness;
they are indivisible also in knowledge
of the entire Truth (‫)ܕܩܘܫܬܐ ܫܠܡܐ‬. (77:11-18)

Ephrem highlights the importance of the names again and the reality behind it. If the Father is
really the root, and the Son is truly the fruit, they cannot but know each other entirely. They
are permeated by the same sweet sap. All that is “guarded in the treasury of the Father’s
knowledge, even if it is hidden in the root, is not kept hidden for the fruit which is in His
bosom”68 (79:14). They are one, and this intimate relation accounts for their sharing of the
same wisdom. If certain issues are kept hidden from our limited knowledge, that does not say
anything about the Fruit’s understanding of these secrets which are guarded in the Root.
Obviously we humans are totally dependent on the revelation of Christ’s knowledge
of the Father to us. As Christ is the only one who is capable of the Father’s stores of
knowledge, He is the only one who is able to relate Him to others, that is, to humanity (48:1).
We are dependent on this initiative. Only the Son can bridge the chasm as the only “insider.”
Only His fruit sprouted out from Him truly knows Him through and through (27:3).
But also the image of the sun and its ray enlightens the concept of Christ’s
knowledge of the Father. Again, Ephrem elaborates the theme of Begetter and Begotten,
contrasting it to humanity which originally is not begotten but constructed and formed by His
hands. Note that the poet deliberately highlights first the depth of the chasm again, to only
afterwards unfold the mystery of the Begotten One.

Behold, all eyes, together with all minds

are very weak next to that strength (‫)ܥܘܙܐ‬
of the Divinity.
He, the ray that shines forth from Him,
He is competent of Him; the brightness that He begot,
He knows Him. (71:19-20)

While we in our humanly forms are totally inapt to see or understand God, as our construction
and nature are incomparable to Him, the One who came forth from Him, being of the same
“descent,” has a natural knowledge of His Begetter (11:10; 27:5). It is not possible “to stand
before the true strength of His Being.” Only the Son is competent of Him (26:12). He stands
next to the Father in all His frightening power as the natural heir. All these images and related

68
A reference to John 1:18.
concepts contribute to the same idea: You cannot approach closer to the Father or know Him
more deeply than the Son can.
Applying this to our situation, no one can show the Father and pass on the wisdom
to approach Him more accurately than His own Child, the ray He engendered, as we are
totally different to the nature of the “sun” (27:5). “The eye cannot approach the light without a
guide sent by it” (25:6). “For by its rays one can see its beauties” (25:5). We on our own
cannot see in the darkness of night. We need the rays of the sun, that is the Son, around us to
see properly. He should reach our eye before we have the possibility to see, certainly to see
the Father. We cannot touch or explore (‫ )ܓܫ‬the sun without its ray (73:10). That means the
Ray must first bend down to aid us, and we could then mount by means of it to the light.
The second implication of Christ’s close connection with the Father is that, just as
we are not capable of the Father, we are not capable of His fruit (53:12). Just as the Son is
near to the Father with reference to His name (and thus reality), the Son is near to Him
because we cannot inquire into either of them (5:14). Before everything, including time, the
Begotten was already with His Father; how then could we inquire into His generation (50:1)?
As the first chapter pointed out that God cannot be limited by questions like “how?”,
“where?”, or “how great?” (30:2,3), this is true for the Son as well, just like the “when” of His
begetting (50:1). Especially about the nature of their exact interrelation, we are groping in
darkness.

He knows the Father as the fruit its tree.

Also He, He knows the fruit as the root.
Behold, the knowledge of them both;
in them both it is hidden and concealed.
This knowledge about the Begotten and His Begetter
is in a treasury; its door sealed with loud silence,
veiled in frightening stillness,
and as guard a mighty cherub. (22:9-10)

We cannot make the clear cut division of the Hidden Father and the Revealed Son. In a way,
they are both concealed from us. Even as they know each other in an unbreakable divine
bound of love, we as human outsiders do not know the precise facts about their relation
without being instructed about it by them. Because of this close relation, also “the Fruit of our
Maker” is hidden from us in this way (55:1; 61:5).
Again, this is not the end of the story. Despite Christ’s glorious majesty, He
graciously chose to bridge the chasm by bending down from the heights towards the earthly
beings to draw them up to His Father. The next section, then, should represent the ultimate
climax and paradox of salvation history—the incarnation, that created a way out of the limits
in which humanity is imprisoned.
b) Christ as Bridge Reaching Out to the Human Realm

The bridge can only be established from the divine side of the gap, and only the Son
is in this position to cross the chasm and pass on true knowledge by virtue of His unique
connection to the Father. But is it not marvellous that the Son did descend?

It is great that the little ones urged Greatness

to become little in their form, even so that He was like them.
For it is hard for them to be likened to Him
—to Him it is easy to be likened to them. (19:8)

Since the Son was situated immeasurably high, His voluntary bending down to us is amazing.
If it was humiliating to the Father to put on types, it was a total abasement for the Son to come
down in person, to the point of accepting suffering itself (19:10; 30:5). It seems unthinkable
that the Most High would even consider to give low beings some attention; but He did even
more. “He left the heavenly on high and to the earthly below He became a comrade” (17:7),
even a servant (24:9). “He who is older than all became a child and served the guests” (19:1).
He did not claim His place of honour or came publicly as the King or Creator, but humbly, as
one of us. The Son of the Creator and Teacher of all became the son and assistant of a
carpenter (17:9-11). The One who distributed riches to all came down in poverty (24:3).

Glorious and hidden is His entrance;69

despised and unveiled His exit.70
For He was God in His entrance
and a human being in His exit;
an astonishment and wandering to hear. (4:2)

This is bridging the gap radically. Christ, who was both God as He descended upon us and a
human person as He approached us as one similar to ourselves, is a unique explosion-
revelation surpassing everything known until then and achieving what we could never by
ourselves (19:8-9; 41:5-6):

You descended to us,

as we are weak,
so that we can ascend
and live in You! (19:9)

This is the landmark of God’s loving self-revelation: “what was most hidden of all came to
the most open revelation of all”71 (19:7).
This means that all belittling aspects we encounter in Christ refer to His humanity
and not to His divine essence (53:11). In His love for us He assumed these low names,

69
That is, into Mary’s womb.
70
That is, His human birth.
71
‫ܗܘ ܟܣܝܐ ܟܣܐ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܕܐܬܐ ܠܓܠܝܘܬܐ ܓܠܝܬܐ ܓܠܝܬ ܡܢ ܟܠ‬5 I followed the punctuation in my
translation. If you neglect this indication, however, like Beck and Russell do, you could translate more
personally “He who is Most Hidden of all” (italics mine). Hymnen de Fide (transl.), 57; Eighty Hymns
on Faith, 67.
weaknesses, and customs to give us Life and exaltation; He took what was ours to give us
what was His (29:2-3; 54:8). “Because He is a human being, He is limited; without limit He is
because His nature is God” (29:3). The needs He experienced on earth and His littleness
would not exist if He did not approach us in a body like ours; and as such, these features have
nothing to do with who He is essentially (35:6). We are not able to go beyond His humanity;
but if we could surpass it and reach out to His divinity, we would see that He truly surpasses
all of these belittling aspects (53:11). This does not imply that the Son despised the idea of
living in a body. It was a feast for Him (14:5) because He could thus be the ultimate Bridge,
showing Himself and His love to us (41:6).
The initial block quotations (4:2; 19:9) mark once more Ephrem’s typical use of
paradoxical expressions. This characteristic style completely prospers in the context of his
writing on the incarnation, a fertile field in every layer for all sorts of symbolism. First, there
is the general picture of chasm and bridge. Strikingly, many passages describing the chasm to
its most remote and fixed extent continue right thereafter to contemplate the wonder of the
Incarnation, thus accentuating God’s grace to initiate this paradoxical move.

Who will gaze in it, Lord, in Your hiddenness?

—to uncovering it came; and Your secrecy came
to manifestation and clarification; and Your invisibility went out
to revelation without limit; and Your power came
to the hand of seizers. These things happened to You, my Lord,
because You became a son of man. (51:2)

In the Incarnation, what was hidden came to revelation. Where one expected to see the
yawning abyss, a safe and inviting Bridge appeared.
Also on a more personal level, Christ’s descent gives rise to striking and intriguing
contrasts that express His merciful and self-sacrificing love towards His creation. He left no
stone unturned to bring humanity back on track. In a wide range of ways, the heavenly and
exalted Son bent down to utter humiliation to reach us. In order to find who is lost and low, to
spread the good news universally, and to give them the possibility to ascend, He became their
companion (17:7). In all these aspects, the radical descent and abasement of the heavenly
Most High envisioning the unprecedented exaltation of low and earthly humans is an amazing
contrast. No means appears to be fitting for the Honourable, but still He did not refrain.

You lowered Your greatness to total littleness

and You cast down Your magnificence to the limit of humiliation
and You brought Your life to the level of mortality
and Your riches came down dwelling in total poverty
and You enslaved Your Lordship to the yoke of slavery. (51:1)
The Lord of heaven, to the earth He descended and sojourned
He became a stranger and an inhabitant, even a wayfarer
to make us ascend, even to make us dwell
in the house of His kingdom, in an eternal habitation. (24:10)
He became a stranger here on earth in order to make us dwell in His home for ever. He
became little so that we could be exalted. He was conceived and bound in a womb, was born
(28:6), and suffered until death to grant us true Life. And these are just a few examples. This
is grace in deed.
Let us turn to some specific ways in which Christ met us in our limited human
situation. As the first chapter especially expressed the weakness of our senses, we can expect
that Christ assists us particularly in this aspect. In respect to all the various boundaries
discussed there, the incarnation provides new perspectives more promising than ever. Let us
first turn to the limit of speech, following the order of the first chapter.

In the veil of Moses

was hidden Your brilliant72 Veracity (‫;)ܩܘܫܬܟ‬
in his stammering was hidden
Your eloquent discourse.
Under two coverings
was hidden Your Reality (‫)ܫܪܪܟ‬73 and Your speech.
The covering You drew aside
and the stuttering You straightened,
all of You came to manifestation;
behold, eloquent is Your Veracity in the mouth
and manifest is Your Reality to the eye! (8:4)

The poet refers to the stammering of Moses and widens our perspective to the limits of human
speech in general, which is parallel to the veil Moses used to cover his face. The coming of
the Son of God among us grants us new insight into the Truth by means of His fluent teaching
(cf. 19:1). In His Light, the Truth is visible again (12:12). In Christ, we encounter God’s final
self-revelation, for “His heart He explained before us; Himself He expounded in our presence,
and He spoke confidentially (‫( ”)ܬܟܝܠܝܬ‬63:13). We are totally dependent on Him to be drawn
to a higher level of speech about Him. Still, there are different levels of interpretation, of
which not all are accessible to us (10:1-4). But through Christ’s words, what is hidden
becomes utterly manifest for those who want to listen, as if a veil is suddenly drawn aside.
However, speech is the human restriction to which Ephrem seems to give the least
attention in the context of Christ. This is rather treated as the basis for God’s revelation
through the Scriptures, where He bends down to us in human language. Nevertheless, because
only the Son is competent to hear the voice of the Father, only He could personally reveal it
most accurately to us. This ultimate divine disclosure in the Word, the Begotten, is transmitted
to us in the words of the Gospels. In His Son the Father’s “strenuous speech is softened” 74

72
This can mean both “brilliant,” as “manifest” (‫)ܕܢܝܚܐ‬, like the sunrise which is both. This
gives the phrase an ironical tone.
73
Both “Veracity” and “Reality” can also be translated as “Truth.” Ephrem seems to mean
more than just mental sight, however, in his allusion to the physical visibility of Moses.
74
This statement is said in the context of the creation, where the Father spoke and the Son
performed the command in the act of creating. The idea of the strength of the Father softened in the Son
(6:11). But in his account of the incarnation Ephrem wants to highlight certain aspects beyond
the mere teaching of Christ. He did not merely teach humility, for instance, but exemplified it
with His own daily walk on earth, thus doing more than what He commanded in His
instruction (30:6). He both taught and acted without complaint, until the summit of His
suffering and death, as a “mirror,” an example to His listeners (30:5).

Your mirror is lucid, and it is entirely turned towards You.

Your beauty stimulates the detestable to be cleansed in it
for the impure cannot be united to You
without cleansing his spots away from him. (12:19)

The poet employs here the double meaning of ‫ܡܚܙܝܬܐ‬, that is “mirror” and “example.” The
first phrase can be visualized as follows. It is as if Christ were standing, facing in front of a
mirror, so that the image displaced in it remains visible to us; this mirror is Scripture 75 in
which the divine Truth is set down. The example of Christ seen in the Holy Writings incites
the public to make themselves presentable to approach the protagonist. As He became similar
to them so that He may meet them in an intelligible manner, they are in turn stimulated to
become similar to Him so that they can be united with Him.
But Christ did not merely assist us with His exemplified teaching. The fact that He
was visible to humanity was in itself already a landmark. While the first chapter pointed out
that our sight is too weak to see the invisible God, His Son radically bridged the gap by
appearing to us in a visible form and a true representation of His Father. Ephrem expresses
this marvel with the image of the sun, thus depicting the invisibility and remoteness of God.
Again, the poet first paints the hopeless breadth of the chasm, but afterwards he modifies this
and points to divine grace.

In the great strength of the Sun

the eye is too weak to gaze.
Tempering His accuracy,
softening His vehemence,
His Ray, reaching out,
descended towards the eye.
Except for the Son of the Hidden One,
there is no one who has seen Him
for He is too powerful for His made ones.
By means of His Begotten He is visible;
the Being who is invisible. (6:2)

is used in a more general way though, in the context of the incarnation. Of course, also in Christ’s
speech on earth He was a representative of His Father, addressing us according to what we can bear.
75
That is at least what I suppose. Beck just asks himself: “Ist damit das Christusbild der
Evangelien gemeint?” Anyway Ephrem sees here a distinction between Christ and his mirror, as Beck
notes (“Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm,” 14). Besides, the poet more often refers to the Scriptures as
a mirror, as we have seen. Moreover, in the Letter to Publius, Ephrem talks about “the mirror of the
holy Gospel of your Lord,” describing just as in the quoted stanza a defiled person looking into this
mirror which urges him to remove the dirt. See Brock, The Luminous Eye, 76; or for the Syriac text see
his “Letter to Publius” (ed. and transl.), Le Muséon 89 (1976): 261-305.
Apparently, it is not immediately an improvement of our sight which takes place. The first
move had to be a radical bending down to meet us exactly where we are. Everything has to be
adjusted to edible morsels with a recognisable taste. Only afterwards, humanity can be drawn
to a higher level. This does not mean that Christ is no truthful image of His Father; His
Father’s strength is “tempered” and “softened” but not altered. He uses our known concepts to
reveal divine Truth. In this way, what is utterly invisible to us became most visible.
Also the Son could not show Himself in His full glory because He is hidden together
with His Father. As the Father’s power had to be tempered to be visible, the Son also had to
hide His brilliance to be of assistance to us. The Son is not the Father in a tempered form; the
strength of the Father is not really weakened in Him, but in encountering us He softened it to
help us (6:3). If He would appear to us in His full glory, we would not be able to look at the
Son either (4:4). “The body concealed the brightness of His fearsome nature” (19:3). He
shows as much as we can bear—to each one according to his own measure. Ephrem refers to
the passages of Christ’s baptism and the Transfiguration to bear out this point.

He declined, covered His appearance

with a veil of flesh.
From the twilight of His brightness
the whole Jordan was alight.
Because He shined a little on the mountain,
they trembled and quivered, were greatly terrified;
the “tree pillars”
as the apostle reckoned them.76
According to the measure of their power
He had offered them sight
of (‫)ܡܢ‬77 His hidden glory. (7:3)

Coming in His highest majesty would not have been to our benefit. His motivation to show
Himself was not to make humanity fall down in paralysis, but to draw it upwards. He did not
put on His veil out of malice, but to show His love.
In the same vein, we have noted that Christ approached humanity as one of us. That
means His appearance did not substantially differ from ours. Ephrem poeticizes it thus:

Because they were not able to see Him

He took the clothing from among the sheep.
The flock approached Him and did not insult Him
for the scent of sheep spread out from His clothes. (36:2)

What is different from ourselves we do not understand, would even insult, and treat it as vile.
That is why the Son chose to meet us in our own appearance—even to the same body-scent—
to take away every suspicion. In this way, God made visible what is in essence invisible to

76
That is, Paul in Galatians 2:9.
77
Note that Ephrem does not use the common genitive ‫ܕ‬, but the partitive ‫ܡܢ‬. They are not
offered the sight of His glory, but the sight of [parts of] His glory; according to what they can bear.
assist us in our weakness of sight. The Son entered into our realm of sight in order to be seen
and thus help us to see what we could not otherwise.
Just as Christ approached us in a humanly visible way, He also met us on our own
level of understanding.

God, who saw that He could never be investigated

is clothed in a body that can be investigated
so that we might desist from the investigation of His divinity
and might content ourselves with the matter of His humanity. (17:5)

Note that God’s intent is not to hide something because He did not want us to know certain
aspects of Himself. He merely wants us to understand, and thus descends and meets us in an
intelligible way. For without “the Ray” we would never be able to explore “the Sun” (73:10).
If the Creator had tried to teach us about Himself in His full and fearsome Divinity, we would
not have been able to bear it, and certainly not understand before we fled or perished. So His
bending down and appearing to us, instructing us with simple concepts, is not out of malice
but loving mercy and patience. In the stanza immediately following the previous one, Ephrem
even points to the long period before Christ started to teach us: first nine months in the womb,
and then thirty years of silence. All of this is only because of God’s patience and
understanding that we should get used to Him slowly (17:6).
However, our intelligence still falls short of Christ, as is reflected in all the different
interpretations of Him (51:3). “As He put on a body, bodies touched Him, while minds never
felt Him” (19:7). The endless stream of symbols He evokes (4:10), all the “faces” or “sides”
the Pearl has, witnesses this (81:2). That He is both “the Lord of symbols” and “the treasury
of symbols” should keep us from presumptuously investigating Him, and stimulate infinite
reverent contemplation of Him in faith regarding all His faces (9:11-12). The chasm is not
denied in the incarnation. In a sense, we can still state, “While You are manifest brightness,
Your sight is hidden from all” (4:5). His divinity is not something to be pried into, but to be
confessed and given thanks (14:10). The glorious descent had not the goal to expose
everything to our groping fingers. But the gap is put in a radically different perspective. What
was fear before can be amazement and inspiration for praise now. As well in the aspect of
intelligence, we can be dependent on His understanding, which is beyond all (19:4-5).
But there is more. To meet us actually and in all aspects, He entered into the human
realm including our thought (77:24). In this way, “the One who knows all became unknowing,
asking and listening as a human being on account of man” (77:25). As He is the Son of God,
He knows everything78 (77:27), but He meets us as one of us to help us in all matters. If the
Scriptures say that He does not know something, the reason lies in the body He put on; such
statement is meant to refer to the humanity He assumed (77:30). So at the level of His

78
On the knowledge shared by the Father and the Son, see the previous section on Christ’s
person, and the images discussed there of the Tree and its Fruit, and the Sun and its Ray.
humanity, He became unknowing, agreeing to the human limits. But at the level of His
divinity, He is all-knowing. He took this humanity, which was humiliating to His glorious
divinity, on our account, in love, to withhold us from abasing ourselves by the useless and
audacious inquiry into His fearsome divinity (30:10). At various instances in the HdF,
Ephrem writes how Christ knows more than He tells in public. Even when He is questioned,
He refrains to tell everything (30:7). By refusing to display His divine wisdom He wants to
rebuke the ones who inquire into God in a proud and insolent way (30:6).
Also to our sinfulness, He offered Himself as a solution, conquering the master
deceiver in a body. The poet again succeeds in offering a telling image:

In the armour of a conquered athlete our Lord was victorious.

He was clothed in a body, from Adam and also from David,
so that in that body which the evil one conquered,
by this he might be overcome, so that his shame might increase. (24:1)

In the armour of a body, the same sort of body Adam had when he succumbed to sin, in the
lineage of David who followed his ancestor, Christ gained victory over the deceiver who had
power over humanity since the first sin. Ephrem pictures Satan as our fellow servant, being
jealous that God exalted us so much (50:5), deceived us to serve other created fellow servants
instead of the One Creator. The Son then became a servant too to free us from this bondage
(62:1). In this way, we are re-established in our position over against creation on the one hand
and the Creator on the other. To accomplish this victory for man the Son bent down from His
glorious position of power and put on a weak human body in His love for us. “He had pity on
the sinners and saved gratuitous; He subdued the mountains of their sins” (86:5). Christ is
victorious over sin and distributes the result, Life and salvation, to those who are lost.
Concerning our sinfulness, Christ also met us to cleanse us. As noted before, His
pure example incites us to wipe away our blemishes (12:19). The stanza directly following
elaborates the aspect of our purification, again focussing on divine mercy.

Your hyssop regards to purge us (‫ )ܕܢܚܣܝܢ‬with its grace.

By the sprinkling, my Lord, of Your grace, let us be cleansed again.
While the Lord is not pleased with our viciousness,
although He is just, He adorns with His beauty. (12:20)

His grace permeates every sentence. Even when we did not act according to His will and our
defilement was detestable to Him, He does everything He can to restore us and exalt us again
to the point of “adorning,” or “dressing” (‫ )ܨܒܬ‬us in His own beauty. He chooses to do so at
the expense of Himself as the next stanza expressively describes:

For because He is the Lord He has exalted His household.

And they despised themselves, the fools, and they fell and were defiled.
He descended then and drew them out from the filth.
Error erred because it saw our dirt79 on His garments.

79
Or: spattering (‫)ܪܙܦܢ‬.
 Knowledge knew, alone, that He touched (‫ )ܩܪܒ‬the filth
to bring cleansing. (54:3)

Even though Christ did not sin, He drew that near to us that sin’s spattering defiled Him while
He was assisting us. He greatly valued His creation that He did not shrink back from our
extreme filthiness, even though it would mean falling into the esteem of those He lovingly
saved. As 86:12 points out, the only way to be truly purified is through the source of Christ,
who will make us spread His sweet scent.
In the first chapter, sin, in Ephrem’s view, proved to be parallel to sickness.
Accordingly, Christ is assisting us in this aspect as well. As a true heir of His Father, Christ is
looking after creation with care, providing both food and healing (54:4). However, He does
not only cure physically as “the Healer who heals all” (12:9), and since “healing is at His
side”80 (4:4); but also spiritually, because He is “the cup of the Medicine of Life” (12:8). He
gives Life both to the body as to the spirit. In HdF 10, the poet easily turns from the subject of
the healing of the woman who touched the Lord’s robe and that of the healing of the born
blind by His spittle (10:6-7) to that of the reception of the Lord’s Body in the Eucharist
(10:8ff). Because of this transition from physical to spiritual healing they prove to be tightly
intertwined.81 In personifying the Great Physician, the radical nature of the incarnation comes
to the front, fulfilling what could be given only in part before:

The Son has descended to look after [His] made ones

for their diseases continued and dragged on.
For healers came on and on, and took trouble and laboured;
they healed little and left much... (36:1)82

Here, Ephrem makes it very clear that we cannot be definitely healed without the One Healer
of renown. In His shade, His forerunners seem only to “patch up” the firmly rooted and
dragging sickness.
As with various teaching in Scripture, the Healer also distributes different medicines
according to each one’s need and disease, and proclaims one objective Truth (19:11). In this
way, Ephrem stresses both the personal and the universal level of God’s approach to
humanity; a subjective personified treatment does not exclude the One firmly set and

80
‫ ܒܟܢܦܐ‬This can also be translated as “in is lap” or “in His wing,” and thus could be an
allusion to Malachi 4:2. Besides this, note that this expression as well as the previous one can point to
spiritual healing too.
81
Note, however, that both of these healings were connected with faith in Christ, be it before
or after (Luke 8:43-48; John 9:1-38).
82
Who are these previous healers? In 75:18, in the context of the wisdom we can learn from
the sun about the Truth of the Trinity, Ephrem attests of God who approaches weak and sick humanity
by means of all likenesses in order to heal. The instruction through creation still leaves us in need, as
we have seen. So the teaching of creation could be one of these limited healers. Russell assumes
Ephrem refers to the Judges and the Prophets (Eighty Hymns on Faith, 114, note 1). I suppose all
manners of healing before Christ are included; both creation and all men and women of God who thus
introduced the coming of the great Physician.
invincible Truth. This also demonstrates that Christ does not merely cure abstract and general
sickness of sin. He cures the different aspects and effects of sin and diseases according to
need. As for our limited hearing, for example, the poet prays: “Our Lord, heal (‫ )ܐܚܠܡ‬our
sickness, in order that we might hear Your discourse well (‫( ”)ܚܠܝܡܐܝܬ‬35:4). In 19:12,
7
Ephrem even indicates that Christ entices us by a variety of cunning “tricks” (‫)ܦܘܖܣܐ‬ towards
His treasury to distribute from its riches, in order to give each one according to need.
As the result of sin is death, Christ had to defeat mortality too, to grant humanity
passage to the Living One. The Son of the Living God bridged this aspect of the gap in a most
drastic way. He became the son of a mortal (17:9), while He “is the Living One who gives
Life to all” (24:3). Thus He entered the realm of mortality and death itself to its deepest
consequences: humiliation to Himself, but redemption to humanity. God longed patiently that
He might finally destroy death after it held sway over His creation for such a long time.

I am not pleased with the death of dead ones,83

attested the Living One, He who gives Life to all.
Thus swore He who is true,
without suspicion of deceit, the source of Life:
He revealed His desire and poured out His love
for He thirsted heavily that He might kill our death. (80:6)

Christ could finally root out mortality, but only after subjecting to it Himself. Through His
death, Life could be given; His cross functioned as the Tree of Life, giving to all the chance to
eat from it. Because of Christ’s descent into mortality Adam’s choice can be re-enacted by
accepting in faith the Son who hung on the cross. Accepting Him in faith is like eating the
fruit that hung on the Tree of Life in Paradise (84:1). Christ is our Life and salvation (19:5),
the “Source of Life flowing for us, which Mercy poured out on my thirsty fields” (12:10).
In the same vein, but at a more tangible level, Christ offers us Life through the
Eucharist, and comes to us closer than ever.

For through the bread can be eaten

the force which cannot be eaten;
through the wine also can be drunk
the strength which cannot be drunk. (6:4)

God approaches us in a most palpable way. The given of the chasm is still apparent; in fact,
we cannot bear His power. At the level of our human senses, though, He provides the means
for us to come as near as possible. As His body concealed His fearsome divine nature, the
Bread conceals the inner “fire” or divine Spirit. This cannot be eaten or searched out, but it
can be received by the Bread and Wine which contain it and thus give Life (10:8; 19:2ff). As
such, there is a lot of death and life terminology in the following stanza:

Your Bread killed him, the grasping one who made us his bread.
Your Cup destroyed it, the death which—behold!—swallowed us up.

83
Ezechiel 18:32
 We have eaten You, my Lord, also drunk You;
it was not to consume You, but that we might live through You. (10:18)

Through Christ’s shed blood and bodily death, Satan and death are conquered. The body and
blood in which the “fire” dwells are offered to us in the Eucharist in order to realise this
victory of Reconciliation and Life in all of us (10:12-13,16). As He was victorious over them
in the armour of a conquered athlete, we may become victors by accepting the armour of the
Victorious One.
In all these various aspects, one divine goal was envisioned. By all these means,
Christ not only built a bridge from Divinity towards humanity, but also gave the possibility
for us to use this paved way to turn back to God. Ephrem expresses this emphatically that “He
gave divinity to us” (5:17). The next stanza starts with the idea discussed earlier about the Ray
making the Sun visible, but especially highlights that common goal of approaching our
Creator because of and by means of the One He sent for this mission.

Give thanks to the hidden Light

through* the ray that came from Him.84
It is hard for the eye of the soul
to see the secret Light.
Through* the brightness that came from Him
it is possible to go towards Him.
He sent the radiance that came from Him
to those dwelling in darkness;
He85 made them turn the eyes
from the beauty that fades
towards the beauty of His Sender. (5:18)

What I translated twice as “through”* can also mean “because of” or “by means of” (‫)ܒܝܕ‬. It is
not improbable that Ephrem deliberately opted for this double meaning; also in 5:20, only two
stanza’s later, Beck notes that ‫ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܟ‬may as well mean “faith in and through” Christ.86
The mission of Christ among us was and is of unparalleled significance. He is the ultimate
divine Bridge, both reaching out from the remote height towards the depths of the earth, and
being the Door giving passage to the Father, the hidden Light. We are only able to see the
Light by means of its rays reaching out to us first (25:5).
We could visualize it like this. Let us say we are used to dwell in total darkness
without a mere glimpse of light. However, there exists a Light, brighter than all thinkable
splendour, but without its brightness spreading around to all corners and without the middle
zone of twilight in almost separated alcoves. Its brilliance burns with such undivided density
we never dare to raise our eyes in that avoided direction, even if it attracts us at the same time.
The light-darkness contrast glares fiercely that all fence their eyes lest they would be blinded
84
As the hidden Light is the Father, I use masculine pronouns to refer back to it.
85
Now the Ray is the subject of the sentence.
86
“Glaube an und durch Christus.” Edmund Beck, “Glaube und Gebet bei Ephräm,” Oriens
Christianus 66 (1982): 19.
forever. But then, the Light decides that His brightness, which is indissolubly intertwined to
Himself, would issue forth in a radically tempered way. This Ray would reach out as a little
spark of Light in the darkest corner and attract eyes, and for the first time give the possibility
to all to truly see Light. He would then gradually grow, inviting all to keep looking at Him
and following Him while giving their eyes time to adapt until they can see again what they
were meant to see. instead of wandering around, bent under the weight of thick darkness,
humanity is invited to go about in unprecedented freedom and with raised eyes. We are now
able to note everything in a new perspective, and above all, to perceive the Way to the Light
“through” the Ray that came from Him: because of His gracious descent and by means of His
act of drawing us upwards in love. Jesus Christ, “the Begotten in whom the Father softened
His strength” to reveal Himself to humanity, “is the hidden Bridge which makes [us] cross
from death to Life, [...] to the Truth [..., and] to the Father” (6:17). It is only through Him that
we can reach out and approach Him (25:12) and by drawing near to Him the way is prepared
for us to meet also the One who sent Him for this goal.
This Bridge is not just indifferent to those who do or do not make use of the offer.
He intensely desires to help. That is why He came, why He was sent. In the twelfth HdF,
Ephrem poeticizes this at length in every stanza, giving to this concept a new shape, praising
Christ for His generosity. Here is just a taste of it:

Your silver, my Lord, delights in the needy so that he might gain with it.
[...]
Your armour, my Lord, rejoices in the conquered so that he might triumph.
[...]
Your harbour is looking for our ship to bring it in safe.
Your Spirit-wind guides it in love by the oar of Your mercy;
Our ship will rest, my Lord; You will block the greedy sea.
Praise to Your support! (12:13,14,16)

In every way the Son hopes to be of gain for us. In His grace and love, He longs that we might
grow, enrich ourselves by His treasury, be victorious in His provided means, and come home
guided by His Spirit. “Our King and the Son of our King opened the treasure and distributed
goods of the Kingdom.” As the summit of God’s love, He even offered His Son to save us
through Him (58:11). By all means, then, He tries to lure us to come near to His riches
(19:12), in hopes that we will try to steal from it for our profit (16:5), just like the woman who
wanted to “steal,” secretly touching the hem of Jesus’ garment to be healed87 (12:11).

Disregarding88 in His love and lessening while great

He became a pool for whoever is too weak
to proceed.89

87
Luke 8:43-48
88
Perhaps the Sabbath? Beck and Russell add “Himself.” Hymnen de Fide (transl.), 185;
Eighty Hymns on Faith, 220.
89
John 5:1-9, as Russell interprets it and what I follow here. Eighty Hymns on Faith, 220.
 Moreover, in His love He became a sea
so that might trade and gain on Him whoever is needy
of His treasure. (69:8-9)

As the lame of Bezata in Jerusalem could not walk to the pool to be healed while the angel
moved the water, Christ became “a pool” to cure the man on a Sabbath day. For whoever
needs He even becomes a sea, to make it possible for sailors to reach remote countries full of
wealth. For everyone, Christ becomes what is needed.

In Christ God established the ultimate Bridge between Himself and humanity. Only
the Son of God, who is of the same nature as His Father, could personify this supreme act of
revelation, as He belongs to the divine side of the chasm. He is the insider who received the
mission to initiate human beings in the hidden divine reality. As the fruit knows its tree and
the ray cannot be disconnected from the sun, the Son alone truly and entirely knows the Father
and is indissolubly linked to Him. This was already so at the beginning when they created all
things together. This divine connection is verified by a variety of witnesses, of which the
testimony of the Father Himself carries the decisive weight. The unique position of the Son
accounts for our dependence on His reaching out to us. Even though He is in essence hidden
together with the Father, in His grace He bent down to us at all levels.
In order to reach us the Son abased Himself radically—descending from His
unparalleled position towards utter littleness and humility by assuming a human body. This
descent gave race to a source of paradoxes and invites human praise for His mercy. He
bridged the gap in a variety of ways. He met us at the human limited level of speech by His
exemplified teaching. He entered our realm of sight by His softened and recognizable
appearance. He reached out to our intelligence by His didactic and self-sacrificial approach.
He descended to the battlefield itself and solved our sinful state by being victorious in our
condemned bodies, by cleansing us and healing our sickness. And the Living One reached the
universal climax through His entrance into the realm of mortality, thereby granting us Life by
means of His death on the cross. He rendered this even more tangible through the Eucharist.
In all these ways He came as close as possible in order to build a bridge from Divinity
towards humanity; and inviting us, He even urges us to approach the initiator in turn.

CONCLUSION

God is the Actor; He takes the initiative to bridge the chasm and thus to approach us
and give us the possibility to approach Him in turn. We are totally dependent on Him, on His
grace towards us. He gives instruction, revelation, but moreover, Life—salvation to us. In this
way He takes the initiative as the supreme Actor to exalt us. To accomplish this goal He meets
us in several ways.
 Creation is the most basic means to instruct us through its all-permeating signposts
to the divine reality. God designed these signs to be of assistance to us. Besides this upwards
move, the Creator also decided to descend, being veiled in a created covering. In this manner
He can approach us in a recognizable way, and thus reveal something of Himself intelligibly,
all the while adapting to person and situation in order to exalt and save humanity through His
self-abasement. All of this helps us to approach Him in turn, particularly in praise.
These visible means to encounter God are also poured out into the crucible of the
Scriptures. This divine initiative legitimates speech about the Creator and guides us how to
use this grant properly and reverently. Following this trustworthy guide leads to Truth and
Life, that is, salvation. In its mirror, humanity is able to see the Truth of the Trinity. We are
dependent on this divinely established mirror to be taught about God through the names it
displays. Not all names are as essential; but all, graciously, faithfully, and often self-
sacrificially, reveal true divine reality to unfold in each situation what we need to know in
order to meet Him with a reverent attitude.
But the ultimate Bridge between God and humanity takes place in the incarnate Son.
In His unique divine position as the glorious Son of God, most closely intermingled with the
Father, He could bend down and pass on Truth and Life as accurately as we can bear. He met
us at all levels of our limited human situation including our realm of speech, sight,
understanding, sin with its defilement and sickness, and mortality. In all ways He approached
us didactically in our situation and exalted us from the depth on high. Again, we are utterly
dependent on God in this initiative.
All these means provided by God in His grace are inviting us to respond. His
descent urges us to ascend assisted by Him, to be guided by the sign-posts in creation, the
truthful guide of the Scriptures, and the only ultimate Bridge of the Son of God in person.
 CHAPTER III

OUR RESPONSE

The bridge God provides is of no use to us if we do not respond; if we do not accept

this guidance for our journey. Ephrem uses the imagery of agriculture to picture this. By our
labour we can increase the harvest, even if we are dependent on God’s rain to make the wheat
grow (25:11). “His gift does not teach us slackness” (25:10). Our active response to the
Creator’s hand reached out to us is of major importance. We can either accept or refuse the
invitation, and try to reach the goal on our own terms. Each choice has its consequences.
One necessary and preliminary issue for this subject is Ephrem’s view on human
free will (‫)ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬.90 He is very peremptory that God is the Actor who takes the initiative, but
as well that humanity has a true choice in response. That the Creator bestowed on us freedom
(46:11), which is guided by the mind and the will and guarded by the wall of the law (28:4),
accounts for the major importance the poet attaches to our response. Ephrem, though, does not
represent this as limitless and eternal freedom, but as an initial option for darkness or light
(20:14). Once a person decides to deviate from the Truth in one’s own free will (1:13), it is
difficult to turn this choice back (79:7). Also on the way of Truth, there exists a freedom
beyond that of animals, but still within the context of servitude of “Him who sets all free”
(36:8). Beyond the initial option, the Creator granted us freedom to adorn us by ourselves,
instead of His doing by force (31:5). He provided the means, bridges for us to be exalted if we
depend on them and thus on Him, but also respond by our own free will. We are a harp,
bestowed with creativity to choose a fitting and beautiful melody, singing to the Maker (23:7).
One more feature which accounts for the major importance of the human response is
that divine revelation is dependent on the attitude one has. According to Ephrem, the Truth
about the unique position of the Son is revealed to whoever wants to see it (6:13), or to
whoever listens (82:1), in other words, to whoever is open to be taught in dependence on Him.
The same words can awake contradictory reactions:

Our Lord was speaking; the pure were radiant;

the gloomy were troubled; the simple listened and trusted;
the cunning listened and disputed. (54:10)

90
This word occurs as much as 23 times in the HdF: 1:13; 20:14; 23:7; 25:3; 28:4³,7²,14;
30:9; 31:5; 35:5; 36:8; 46:11; 48:5; 61:6; 68:1; 70:10; 79:2,5²,6.
The same teaching can be a help for one, but taken as an affronting reproof for the other
(41:8). The present chapter will explore these two reactions in their various aspects and
implications.

A. PROUDLY BLURRING THE BRIDGE

In a considerable part of the HdF, Ephrem reacts against a negative response to the
means God provided in His grace. The Creator offered a passable Bridge which put the chasm
in a radically different perspective, but some refuse to accept. Moreover, they try to bridge the
chasm in their own way in a proud and audacious manner. This not only has drastic
consequences for themselves; they also trouble the clear sight of the Bridge for others by their
disputation. All means God provided are blurred in this way. We shall see this as we expound
the effect on the three means, the attitude of those who reject God’s offer, and the
consequences of their response.
Much of this negative response has to do with one’s attitude. A deep awareness of
the chasm, bridged in God’s goodwill but not taken away, is not easily combined with
audacity towards the Most High. Acknowledging God’s initiative in bridging the gap for us is
difficult to combine with pride. Pride and audacity, then, are the most common stances of
which Ephrem accuses his opponents. Pride and the desire for “empty praise” (‫)ܫܘܒܚܐ ܣܪܝܩܐ‬
are seen as the motivation of the contentious to inquire (47:5-6). This motivation evokes envy
instead of peace one would expect in the church (66:8) and contention instead of love (86:14).
As such, vocabulary of competition, contest, and desire to be hailed as the winner (37:16) is
common for this subject in Ephrem’s HdF.

As in a contest I saw the disputers,

the lovers of ostentation:91 to taste fire,
to see wind, to touch light,
they were drudging; from a ray
to make divisions, they were troubled.
The Son who is more subtle than the mind,
they wanted to explore; and the Holy Spirit
who is intangible, they also thought to touch92
by their questions; and the Father who is noway
interpretable, their disputations interpreted. (87:1-2)

This is obviously not the attitude towards God Ephrem advocates. How do we react to the
Lord’s bridges? Are we prepared to accept the means God provided to approach Him in which
we cannot boast? Or are we too proud, claiming more than He offers, and seeking in our own
way for selfish gain? What is our motivation in approaching God? In which way are we
attempting to cross the gap? What does that tell about our actual goal in this enterprise?

91
Or: pride (‫)ܫܘܒܗܪܐ‬.
92
Or: explore (‫)ܓܫ‬.
 Satan, as expected, makes sure to set this trap of pride, hoping to lead his preys
away from the core of faith.

Satan saw that the Truth strangled him

and his tares93 and went away by himself
and dealt treacheries and laid snares
for faith and threw among the priests
arrows of the love of supremacy.
Of the throne they made a contest
of who would precede; either in the hidden
one desired and concealed, or in the open
one struggled for it; there is one who became of little value
and one who acted cunningly, but they are alike.
[...]
An evil sore; the aged, the young,
even infants are seeking degrees. (87:6-8)

Using God for his haughty goals instead of humbly serving God’s purpose, each one fights for
his own cause and against the others, just as the adversary intended. One’s stance towards
each means to cross the chasm, as well as towards the gap itself, is affected by this
haughtiness.

1. PRIDE VERSUS THE CHASM

Ephrem reacts vehemently against those who do not take the givenness of the chasm
into account. The gap does not affect their attitude towards the divine as it should.

The mind raves and assails without thinking,

stirring up the earth and, behold, attempting again also the heaven,
not recognising his companion,
and also not distinguishing the servant from his Lord. (17:2)

This attitude was not the purpose of God’s bridge. This stance is like treading the red carpet
with muddy feet and supercilious look and heading straight towards the King of the palace.
Not taking any comment about his behaviour, he besmirches on his way the path for those to
follow and sows division among the King’s subjects.
The reason for this attitude towards the chasm is that the inquirer becomes drunken
of pride and does not act according to measure anymore, forgetting the place suitable for his
nature.

The audacious one, indeed, forgot his own nature, that he is a son of man,
and he left what belongs to humanity, and investigated what belongs to Being.
[...] he forgot his measures and was immoderate.
If he would have shaken of his drunkenness and understood that he is mortal,
he would keep silent and would have kept the measure of mortals. (47:9)

If one does not want to properly be aware of the chasm and its consequences, pride slips in
and spreads its poison. The result is this audacious and unfitting approach to the Most High;
the dust tries to contain his Maker (66:1).
93
A metaphor for wicked men.
 Some take the fact that the chasm is bridged as a pretext to rush on to the Divinity in
audacity and haughtiness. This stance shows a deep misunderstanding of the essence and
purpose of the Bridge, and of God’s grace towards us in His self-sacrificing revelation. This
response merely insults Him.

2. BLURRING THE BRIDGE OF CREATION

a) Too Low a View of Creation

Within the HdF, Ephrem pays not that much attention to the human distortion of
creation, far less than of Scripture and Christ. For a general negative view of nature, the most
specific indication is the following passage:

The pagans94 considered nature

to be entirely blurred—this is because of Adam
and through him are the debts which came out of free will
and the frightening pains which came out of righteousness.
The fools thought that it was nature which was detestable and troubled. (35:5)
Without Adam nature is clear from debts; [...]
nature lessened because of Adam. (35:6)

Apparently, Ephrem sees the negative view of creation rather as characteristic of non-
Christians, “those outside” the church. This is confirmed in the last phrase of 35:5, where the
7
poet contrasts these with “those inside” (‫)ܓܘܝܐ‬ whose understanding of Christ’s humanity
misrepresents Him, thereby blurring the third, the ultimate Bridge. In this respect, Ephrem’s
not writing much about the misrepresentation of creation is understandable, since the polemics
of the HdF are almost entirely directed against those inside the church with the Arian view. In
fact, the poet’s discussion about blurring the bridge of nature seems always to be connected
with troubling the bridge of Scripture and of Christ.
But let us now turn to the meaning of the quoted passage. Ephrem agrees with these
pagans that creation resulted in sickness and pain (35:2), but he stresses that this is not
intrinsic to nature. What is distorted in nature came about because of man’s free choice and
the just punishment which followed. If this choice for the wrong had not happened, creation
would be without any of these “mistakes.” In the beginning, the entire creation was fair and
pleasing to God (35:7). In other words, it was human sin which caused the trouble of nature
(35:8), not the One who stands at the origin of everything.
As a result of the corruption of this bridge caused by our sin, a misconception of the
origin, and the extent of nature’s distortion, the spring of creation does not serve the flock as it
should. In fact and according to its origin, the spring is clear (35:7), but the sheep risk to drink
turbid water because some troubled it with their feet (35:9). Obviously, even if a spring is just
94 7
Literally “those outside” (‫)ܒܖܝܐ‬.
told to be extremely polluted, the life-giving water will not attract that much drinkers anymore
to be refreshed by it.
If one has a negative view of creation this will also have its impact on one’s
willingness to be taught by it, even if nature’s images and signposts are scattered about so
generously. It is possible to choose to be deaf to the exhortation of this divine herald, to adopt
a haughty stance towards every reproach. After demonstrating how everything in creation has
its proper order and limit, Ephrem addresses the insolent to instruct him by these
arrangements:

Thus behold, my brothers, from and through himself

we will teach the impudent his order (‫)ܛܘܟܣܗ‬,
for his conception limited him in the womb
and in the bosom of the earth likewise his birth.
Behold: conception limited him; behold: begetting limited him;
behold: death limited him, and the grave and the resurrection;
behold, by these things he is limited,
the audacious one who does not limit his questions. (28:6)

Everything in creation has its order, just like man has, but the rash one refrains to be taught by
this arrangement regarding his approach to the Most High. A person who does not accept
God’s teaching is “erring by his own free will” and “reckoned among the idiots” (48:5). There
is a clear and passable bridge at our disposal. But not all take the offer; they even despise it.

b) Too High a View of Creation

It was not only original sin and a low view of creation which corrupted it. Nature is
distorted every time if it is not viewed or used to the honour of God. Next to a low view of it,
also too high a view—if one makes its components serve idolatry—contributes to blurring the
bridge. While a considerable purpose of creation is to incite praise and worship of God, it can
be subverted to its opposite end. The adversary gratefully exploits these evil inclinations of
humanity to use something essentially good for a wrong cause and put something created in
place of the Creator, especially if we try to climb His throne ourselves and be deceived by our
own acts. In this way the devil hopes that our ability to distinguish right and wrong will be
entangled and that we will finally be deprived of God (37:11-15).
On account of God’s self-revelation by means of created veils, some
presumptuously suppose that they have seen Him really. Their haughtiness makes them think
that He resembles themselves, while He is exalted beyond everything they are able to know
(27:2-3). This is both too high an evaluation of nature and far too low an evaluation of the
Most High. This is abasing Him to the images He used to teach us while He is always beyond
them (43:10). In this way, one augments the humiliation, which God freely chose to exalt us
in His grace. This is an embarrassing ingratitude contrary to what He envisioned for us. This
person resembles a fish, who, “because he is a son of the water, thinks that everybody’s
dwelling is in the water” (48:9). It is as if he is touching and exploring gold, gems, and all
other sorts of made things and believing them to be the intangible Light itself (27:4). How is it
possible to have such a low view of the Creator of all, bringing Him down to oneself and
created things, Ephrem asks.

Blurring the bridge of creation amounts to withholding the honour God deserves
especially on account of His merciful offer of teaching and revelation, either by too low an
evaluation of His work for us, or by too high a view of His made things. In either case, we
deprive the Creator of worship and gratitude due to Him, and we trouble the clear spring for
others as well.

3. BLURRING THE BRIDGE OF SCRIPTURE

In Ephrem’s view, blurring the bridge of Scripture essentially has to do with

disputation, inquiry, and contention. By means of these the clear mirror of Scripture is
troubled, the Truth it proclaims about the Trinity is distorted, and the faith it enhances is
stripped off. All of this is no less than a revolt against God Himself. For Ephrem, this is a self-
centered and useless quest without any willingness to accept the indispensable help, and the
inquirer merely deprives himself of what he needs most.

a) Inquiry Troubling Truth and Faith

The bridge of Scripture is essentially blurred by disputation (35:8; 52:7) about the
Truth that concerns the Divinity. The clear testimony of the Holy Writings is contrasted
against the troubling inquiry by some of Ephrem’s contemporaries (67:8-12). “Because of
investigation, because of controversy, because of contest, the Truth fled away” (67:12).

It is much better, at the time of thirst

to imbibe water, and not, instead of drinking,
to measure the spring.
It is extremely better for a child
to know his father by sight
and not by inquiry.
It is therefore better by the rules
7
of faith (‫)ܒܕܘܒܖܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬ 95
to learn the Truth,
without investigation.
Delight in these, blessed congregation;
take off controversy and put on love,
and proclaim the truth. (67:15-18)

95
Could this passage refer to the “regula fidei,” the creed of faith, to be instructed about the
Truth? The context of the Scriptures, and the reference to “the banner of Truth” which is planted in the
7
Scriptures (67:1), increase the probability. The plural form (‫)ܕܘܒܖܐ‬ seems strange, but we should note
that there is no single instance in the HdF where this word appears in the singular (3:16; 16:6; 28:7;
31:2; 67:17; 79:6; 80:7,9).
In this way, they will not come to drink, while that is the purpose of the spring. In the act of
measuring the spring, the disputers even trouble their own drinking-water by these contentions
(35:3) while they need it for Life. They use it to inquire and contend, instead of being inspired
by its reading (66:20). They roused up hatred, envy, and death where there was peace, love,
and life (59:9-10). The waves which purified the fouled ones were fouled by their searching
(52:7). The source which nourished their faith is clouded. As a result, they “are drinking dregs
coming from transparency” (35:3), the flock and the pastors together (59:11). But originally,
and in fact, the spring is clear (35:3-4,7,9; 59:11). The clear water is just fouled because the
drinker is, as sweetness is bitter to the perception of a sick person (35:4). Because of this
investigation which troubled this source of Life, they are more dead than living (52:7), even
by their own acts. Their controversy creates a fount of destruction instead (52:8).
The Truth of the Scriptures is presented as something frail in the HdF. If we do not
handle it with care and reverence it will be disrupted. 96 Ephrem compares Scripture with an
eye and ingeniously links it with troubling inquiry:

The eye and the mind (‫ )ܬܪܥܝܬܐ‬shall teach one another

that something little, if it would fall in your eye,
ruffles and disturbs it; and likewise for your mind.
The Scripture and the light shall make you wise:
light is proper to the eye, and Truth to the mind;
light you should choose for your eye; the Scriptures for your mind.
How does the eye hate something that would fall in it;
meditation (‫ )ܗܡܣܐ‬then, that evil one, is left in our thought.
Leftover crusts are hard to the eyes; how hard then for the soul
is meditation, destroying everything (‫ )ܗܡܣܐ ܡܚܒܠ ܟܠ‬all the time?
5 ‫)ܨܒܥܐ ܕܬܗܡܘܣ‬
It is of no advantage to the eye, a finger which attacks it (‫ܒܗ‬
and also not to the mind (‫)ܪܥܝܢܐ‬: inquiry which assails it (‫)ܕܬܣܒܘܟ ܒܗ‬. (45:1-2)

The Scriptures are paralleled with the Truth. As an eye is of little avail without light, the mind
is in need of the Truth the way it is proclaimed in the Scriptures. But as a crisp breadcrumb
can be irritating and devastating to the eye, there also exists an evil kind of meditation which
destroys everything and thus blurs the bridge. It is the kind that always remains until it hurts
and keeps one from “seeing” the essence of the Truth. And then, Ephrem wants us to abandon
this searching and return to the clear source of Scripture.
It is interesting that ‫ ܬܪܥܝܬܐ‬and ‫ܪܥܝܢܐ‬, both translated as “mind,” can have the
meaning of “doctrine” too. In the context of Truth and the Scriptures, it is not unlikely that
Ephrem had in mind this alternative meaning as well, particularly in the last line. 97
Accordingly, the wrong way of inquiry is a danger for our doctrine of faith, which is reflected
in the Scriptures. This is in line with the poet’s typical antithesis of inquiry and belief. It is

96
This refers to the subjective Truth; the manner in which it reaches us and about how much
we still can detect of it. It does not account for the objective Truth.
97
It is not likely that every instance in this passage should be interpreted as doctrine because
“your (sg.) mind” is more probable than “your (sg.) doctrine,” especially next to “your eye.”
worthwhile to note that he uses the same imagery of searching as a finger attacking the eye for
the destruction of one’s faith (‫( )ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬84:2). Also in this instance, the poet plays with the
double meaning of ‫ܗܡܣ‬, that is, “to study, meditate” and “to attack.” Our faith and the
Scriptures are closely connected, and both are endangered by negative inquiry into it.
If Ephrem makes use of the verb ‫ܗܝܡܢ‬, “to believe” 53 times throughout his HdF, in
48 of these instances, either the same stanza or the one just before or after it explicitly
mentions something about inquiry or disputation, 98 the pivotal danger to our belief. 99 After
referring to the testimonies of the star above Bethlehem and to the Spirit in the shape of a
dove, and even to the voice of the Father Himself at Jesus’ baptism in 7:8, Ephrem continues:

These signs they rejected,

which were restraining inquiry
and giving rest to the soul
so that you100 might believe without toil (‫)ܕܠ ܥܡܠ‬.
The Pharisees then, disputed:
“Who is he, and whose son?”
As they were inquiring into the Truth (‫)ܫܪܪܐ‬,
they fell away from the Truth;
as they were searching Veracity (‫)ܩܘܫܬܐ‬,
5
by that search of her they were destroyed (‫)ܒܗ ܒܒܥܬܗ ܐܘܒܕܘܗܝ‬.
For on faith everything depends (‫)ܕܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܬܠ ܟܠ‬. (7:9)

The continuation of this hymn (7:10-11) makes clear that Ephrem uses this reference to the
inquiry of the Pharisees in his polemics against contemporary inquirers. Despite the
impossibility to know facts pertaining to the foreign realm of divinity by oneself, and despite
the witnesses provided to save us this useless trouble, some obstinately persist in their own
quest for truth and remain critical to all attempts to help them. They do not want to believe
even the chief witness—God’s words written down in the Scriptures—and try to explain away
these words to no avail (52:6,10). Instead of the positive response initiated by faith, they inject
ever-returning questions. Consequently, their inquiry keeps them back from the bridges and
the intended exaltation.
In Ephrem’s view, this negative investigation has to do with doubting or even
denying one’s faith, and thus the truth of the Scriptures and the words of God Himself.

98
1:4; 3:3; 4:15; 7:7,9,11³; 9:10²; 11:response; 21:3²,6; 23:10; 24:response; 36:17;
40:response; 42:8; 43:6,7; 44:response,5,8; 45:9; 46:3,10; 52:10²; 53:14; 54:13²; 56:1²,7,8,9,11,12;
62:2; 65:10²,11²,12²,13; 84:response. As I assume the refrains are repeated after each stanza, any
mentioning in the hymn in question made me include it in this list. Not counting the refrains at all
makes the solution 43 out of 48. The words included in this inquiry are derived from ,‫ܕܪܫ‬, ‫ܒܨܐ‬, ‫ܒܥܐ‬
‫ܥܩܒ‬, ‫ܚܪܐ‬, and ‫ܫܐܠ‬.
99
I will discuss a stanza to exemplify this typical contradistinction of faith and searching.
However, most of this discussion will have to wait until the treatment of the positive response, because
this antithesis obviously serves to promote faith instead of investigation.
100
Or 3d pers. f. sg. referring to the soul.
 7
Akin to the renouncers (‫)ܟܦܘܖܐ‬ is anyone who presumes to inquire.
On the step of death he even stands, the audacious one,
for he stripped off his faith by his disputation,
in order to descend to inquire into the see of hidden things. (23:2)

As for Ephrem, an inquirer should be considered at the same level as an unbeliever. He

poeticizes this with the image of a person who wants to dive into the dangerous depth of the
sea. In order to enter this sea of hiddenness, he puts off his clothes, a picture of denying his
faith. Without this faith, however, his death is imminent because he will dive into these divine
depths. Again, searching is opposed to faith. Inquiry in such a manner as to neglect one’s faith
in the enterprise is fundamentally discouraged by Ephrem.

b) Troubling Inquiry as Revolt

Ephrem sees disputation as a contemporary form of idolatry in which people try to

act as gods using pure sayings of Scripture to build their own case (37:12). Reminiscent of the
Old Testament, the poetry even has terminology of adultery to refer to idolatrous inquiry:

Rebuke your thought; you shall not commit adultery and bring us forth
a Messiah who does not exist and renounce Him who does exist.
Take heed that you shall not make an idol by your investigation;
take heed that you shall not depict in your intellect
an oracle of your mind and an offspring of your thinking;
the offspring of the True One shall be depicted in your thought.
For inquiry is an adulteress; search, which is a harlot,
commits adultery by its investigation and she conceives and brings us forth
a constructed Messiah (‫ܕܖܘܟܒܐ‬ 7 ‫ )ܡܫܝܚܐ‬and a formed offspring (‫ܕܬܘܩܢܐ‬
7 ‫)ܝܠܕܐ‬101
102
so that He might resemble the erroneous in all of these.
For the fabrication of their intellect, the Jews are waiting;
the oracle of their “wisdom,” the sons of error serve. (44:10-11)

By means of investigation, one’s intellect risks to create its own picture of the Messiah. If one
serves this devised Christ, one “commits adultery” and is an idolater. One does not worship
the One True God, but neglects and distorts His commands that are written down in the
Scriptures. Thus one pollutes the spring, also creating disturbance for the flock who follows to
drink from the water of the Scriptures (35:8-9). Disputation is an open door for Satan to bring
division and lies in the church in the hope that we will live without God (37:4,11). He
cunningly makes use of the human desire to be like God and to write one’s own commands
(37:13), just as he deceived humanity for the first sin. Also in this instance, man easily
chooses to follow his advice by free will (68:1). Consequently, being led into disputation,
“their controversies stirred them up to say what is not allowed to the tongue” (66:17). They
end up dishonouring God by their speech, serving the lord of contention instead (23:11).

101
Beck notes: “Die qualifizierenden Genitive rukkâbē u. tuqqânē stammen von den
Verbformen rakkeb u. taqqen, die in HdF, 17, 10, 1-2 parallel für das Erschaffen der Geschöpfe stehen.
Also hier das ktisma der Arianer!” Hymnen de Fide (transl.), 120, note 12.
102
This is most serious for Ephrem as he locates the Son at the divine side of the chasm.
 Even if searching occurs with an apparently positive intention of saving the true
faith, the fact remains that God did not order to receive “help” in this way. Ephrem
exemplifies this with Uzzah who wanted to sustain the ark when it was about to fall.

He stretched out his hands to support

the strength who supports all.
He was thinking that it was on the verge,
the ark, of falling.
While he supported it, it killed him.
[...]
You should not think that it is on the verge,
the faith, of falling,
she who supports the cast down.
Do not support it like Uzzah
lest, in anger, she will make you perish. (8:10-11)

For Ephrem, inquiry is dishonouring God and disobeying His commands. We do not know
our place and do not acknowledge His power if we feel “obliged” to defend Him by disputes.
Obviously, Satan likes to play his part in our disputation. He takes profit out of
everything that keeps us away from God the way pleasing to Him. “The evil one made leave
the well; he threw them into wandering, for he saw that inquiry exceeded the gulf” 103 (44:12).
Inquiry does not help to bridge the chasm; it rather creates an even greater distance. Just as in
Eden, the devil allures humanity with a deceiving and disappointing promise, “inciting with
the hidden sun, but darkening it instead, only providing inquiry, no sight” (66:5; cf. 50:6). He
lured them into the trap again, making them disobey the good commands of the Creator. “The
disputations of the subtle one hardened our heart and it was heavy and sank away from the
divinity” (56:1). Dispute will make us less able to take the teaching of “the fathers who
believed simply” (56:1), written down in Scripture, to heart. Aware of this, the adversary
makes use of our inclination to dispute in order to drag us down to him and “cut of [our]
hope” (44:12; 66:10) of real Life, which is in God’s presence and pleasing to Him.

He, the bitter one, saw reliable actions

and he overthrew them. He saw hateful deeds
and scattered them as seeds. He saw hope
and let it sink down, cutting it off. The disputation that he planted,
behold, it gave fruits which are bitter for the teeth. (87:5)

In this way, “the adversary kills [us] with [our own] 104 tongue” (52:6). He does everything in
his power to increase the chasm, if we would only collaborate by opening the door to him and
step out of the divinely assented realm.
If the Scriptures mark out the boundaries within which one can find life,
investigation is what makes one leave these bounds as a fish the water and head death. It is
like refraining from the vital breath the Gospel provides (46:1).

103
Russell notes: “in its ability to separate humans from God.” Eighty Hymns on Faith, 142.
104
Literally “you” and “your.”
 Who ventures to enter, my son, a place without air
will die, for there is no breath that gives him life;
so that we might learn that one may not enter hidden things.
The threefold breath sustains you
but if you however proceeds beyond it by investigation,
the vapour of error spreads and kills you. (46:2)

The fourth line parallels the same line of the previous stanza “the breath of the Gospel
sustains us”105 (46:1). Consequently, I assume that Ephrem refers to the Trinity who gives us
Life through the words of Scripture. If we venture beyond them by investigating into the exact
how and what of their divine nature, we enter the hidden realm beyond our grasp and disposal,
where the venomous vapour of death lures. Just as fish are not called to leave the water, we
are not invited to enter this hiddenness, for we are not strong enough to stay alive without the
breath God provides through the Scriptures (64:12). Outside of it, we are exposed to the
killing vapour of error. This “error” could also be translated as “false worship” (‫)ܛܘܥܝܝ‬.
Leaving the boundaries God established is rebelling against His commands, which He uttered
for our benefit. In this way, one wilfully withdraws from His protection and thus opts for non-
ordained worship, which is error towards God. So, if there is a dispute, you should make sure
that “His Writings are within you” (46:5), otherwise you will be easily conquered.
As the Scriptures are the guide to the Truth, it is most dangerous to question their
sayings, and thereby, the Lord of the Writings along with them (67:1).

Who is ever so mad to search without light

and to inquire without sunrise and to explore without brightness?
For outside of the Scriptures they went, the loony learned ones,106
to wander about in the trackless waste. And they neglected the Testament,
the kingdom’s highway; the prophets were its milestones;
the apostles its inns. (65:1)

While searching without light is of no avail, and leaving the safe signs throughout the desert is
risky, leaving the road indicated by the Scriptures by investigation is life endangering.
Ephrem pictures investigation as an evil guide who makes one turn aside from the right track
of Truth which the righteous prepared and trod before us (86:8). If one starts this sidetrack of
inquiry, one will miss the signposts of the highway as well as the inns for refreshment and rest
on the long journey. “Milestones are put on the King’s highway; the fools leave it and hold on
the trackless desert; and behold, they wander about” (66:23). Again, if we choose to neglect
the Scriptures, Satan likes to use this open door to make us wander through steep and waste
places in the midst of stumbling blocks (37:5). As soon as one leaves and neglects the safe
track, the consequences are at one’s own risk, and turning back is not self-evident at all.

105
‫ ܣܘܩܐ ܗܘ ܕܣܒܪܬܐ ܛܥܝܢ ܠܢ‬// ‫ܣܘܩܐ ܗܘ ܬܠܝܬܝܐ ܛܥܝܢ ܠܟ‬
106 7
This is Russell’s choice translation of ‫ܣܟܠ‬7 ‫ܣܦܖܐ‬. Eighty Hymns on Faith, 207.
 Tenaciously sticking to these questions in what manner the Divinity should be
interpreted leads to nothing of worth (65:12). It draws one downwards into negativity and
distrust until one is identified with the master deceiver himself.

The doubters are deceitfully laying in wait of His words

for their hateful controversy is just like the adversary
of Righteousness, who takes trouble in narration
to conquer what is right. (54:9)

This passage reminds us of the way Satan approached Jesus in the desert to tempt Him. While
the inquirer pretends good intentions and a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, the Truth is
distorted and bent to suit supposed desires to be like God. Jesus’ reaction was to finish this
misuse of the Scriptures, Satan’s “disputation and questioning” (30:7). Just like inciting
humans to use the good things of nature to make idols, the devil goads us into using the life-
giving sayings of Scripture for impiety. The inquiry Satan exemplifies in the desert does not
lead to a clearer view of the Truth, but disturbs it. Ephrem, time and again, warns against this
mentality. A critical mind risks not to be objective anymore, and even to take a stance of
prejudice, which endangers a real approach to the divine reality.
Ephrem reproaches the disputers pointing to all the good God provided to which
they do not respond appropriately:

What did He not give you, that it is unsheathed the whole day;
your disputation and your tongue? The Scriptures are true.
[...] Be fattened, feeble one
by these which are your delight. Do not trouble yourself to learn
the torturous disputation. (58:9)

The tongue used for disputation is as a drawn sword aimed at the sayings of the Scriptures,
and accordingly, as well at the One who gave these writings to the human beings for their
delight and instruction. Through the Holy Writings, the Creator wanted to teach humanity.
But, considering themselves wise, they refuse to subject themselves to the Master, the One
who is the Source of all wisdom (52:11). And the evil one rejoices in his success: “He incited
human beings with things that are not useful, that they would abstain from things that are
given” (66:11). Adversity and disputation keeps one away from being cared for in the
abundance and wisdom the Creator provided. Moreover, it will never grant what one truly
needs and longs for.
Trying to approach the Most High by means of self-centred inquiry will never
succeed since we could never reach Him on our own. Even stretched out to its maximum
extent, searching is not apt to attain to Him, as He is too exalted; it is foredoomed to failure
(4:11). Accordingly, we should opt for the manner that He has sanctioned in the hope that He
will mercifully sustain us in our divinely assented quest for His honour.
c) Troubling Inquiry and Pride

What is our attitude in response to the Truth displayed in the Scriptures? Do we take
the goal of Life to heart or do we rather use its sayings for our own hidden agenda, and feed
our pride? Once we have our own program, it is easy to find a pretext to misuse the Scriptures
and neglect all warnings. “A cause came to disturb: ‘We ought to inquire into them in order to
attain them’” (67:11). They come to believe themselves that inquiry is necessary to approach
God, while the opposite will prove to be true. Ephrem, however, questions what their most
inner and first motivation is: “With the pretext of the Truth, the feeble ones loved supremacy
so that they called the people at their side. Empty pride stirred up the disputers like athletes
who struck and were wounded as the crown roused their desire. Let us weep, for they assailed
God and man by eloquence to surpass them” (68:2,8,14). This obviously is not the goal God
had envisioned for the bridge of Scripture. It rather troubles its purpose. The problem is that
they do not search for the Truth in an honest manner, as they are envenomed by audacity (
‫ )ܡܪܚܘܬܐ‬which overturns faith (9:3).
Ephrem does not just react against those who ponder the sayings of the Scriptures in
search of the Truth. That is not exactly the point. He questions what would be the motivation
for their quest to be involved in this inquiry.

Because they became drunk they put on controversy on themselves

as a breastplate—the Truth, they tore it
as a garment.
And while it seemed that for the Truth
they are set in battle, [only] for praise
they are set in contest.
They were victorious—they boasted; they were conquered—they were puffed up
while being seduced that, for the Truth,
it is right to die.
The Scripture they pounded; not to read and proclaim
but to wander about how to inquire
and how to strive.
They endued from the inside hidden venom
when they were reproved, so that the serpent would hiss
within their words. (66:12, 15-16, 20-21)

Their goal is self-glorification. Even if they may not be fully self-aware and set off with the
idea to combat for the Truth, the true motivation and the result is pride and distortion of this
Truth. This haughtiness envenoms their mind with the consequence that they are not open for
reproach anymore. They become a vehicle for the adversary instead of soldiers for the Truth.
If one has the wrong motivation in searching after the Truth, one will be deceived
by one’s own perception of the whole issue.

Whoever searches the Truth for himself in envy,

even if he arrives at it, he will not be able to understand it,
for jealousy is troubling his mind;
He does not discern it but assails it. (17:1)
Some are distorting God’s teaching for a self-made new doctrine, nourished by their pride
(1:1-2). If one’s goal is to possess the Truth, not because of the Truth itself or the Lord of the
Truth, but rather because of a jealous strife to exalt oneself above the others, the quest is
doomed to fail. One will not be able to clearly see, as one is conditioned by this haughtiness.
In this way, one forgets the givenness of the chasm which is bridged by love and not by
gainsaying. One can never cross the gap by self-made bridges, but only by the ones God
initiated and sanctioned.

Blurring the bridge of Scripture by means of self-centred inquiry is about troubling

the divine Truth and the corresponding faith. Just as in blurring the bridge of creation, this
stance does not account for what God has provided to humanity in His mercy and even revolts
against His commands. Inquiry into the hidden to which humans were not invited does not
honour the Divinity but rather reveals one’s longing for supremacy.

4. BLURRING THE BRIDGE OF CHRIST

The final depth of the negative response is that the disputers even blur the ultimate
bridge of Christ. If creation and Scripture, the two pointers to the Son, are blurred, this
anticlimax is the necessary and devastating consequence. This result accounts for the major
importance of a clear sight on these first two bridges. As for creation, as well as Christ, both
too low and too high a view occur and are noted in the HdF. The one extreme is represented
by the teaching of Marcion, who situated Christ “beyond the height of the Maker” (86:18).
The other is represented by the Jews, who degrade Him as a deceiver, “and did not even see a
little prophet in [Him]” (86:17). Accordingly, they situate Him “below the Creator” (86:18).
Ephrem’s major attention, however, is directed against a third group, to whom he refers as the
disputers, inquirers, and contentious ones. They occupy neither of these two extremes, but still
do not accord Him the honour which is suitable for the Son of the King. They do not
acknowledge Him to be that closely connected to the Father as Ephrem counts as necessary.

a) Discounting the Position of Christ

Ephrem blames the teachings of Marcion since they “estrange” (‫ )ܢܟܪܝ‬Christ from His
true origin, His Root (86:10), based on a misreading of the Testaments (86:7). But also the
disputers detract from His deserved and honourable place next to the Father. “The Begotten
who is not little, they belittled by inquiry, and while He is like the One, they likened Him to
the many” (51:9). By questioning Christ’s position as the unique and divine Son of God, the
radical and saving nature of the Bridge is questioned. No wonder Ephrem reacts vehemently
against these deep doubts about Christ and His position in relation to the chasm between God
and humanity. Again, the evil one sees the importance of Christ’s place and corresponding
function and throws in controversy and inquiry out of envy for what God wants to grant us by
means of His Son (50:5). Thus, the disputers do not only trouble the spring of nature and
Scripture, they even suspect the origin of the water to be turbid (35:6), which is a reference to
the essentially good human nature of Adam, but also to the divine nature of Christ.

When the Son of the King did not open, for the labourers,
the treasury of the kingdom, there was formed
a damaging meditation of those who are audacious.
They even do not want to confess that He is the Son of the King.
“A fellow-servant” they are naming Him, and “the crown He received
raised Him to honour in grace.” (58:10)

The indignant tone is clear. Next to the givenness of the chasm and the Son’s seat at the right
hand of the Father, that is, on the divine side of the gap, the claiming attitude of the servants is
striking and blasphemous from the perspective of this poet. The consequence of such a stance
is devastating for the function of the Bridge.
Also the Jews reject the divine position of Christ. As Ephrem despises the teachings
of Marcion and of the disputers because they refrain to value the Son, he reacts vehemently
against the theological stance of the Jews as well. He makes use of his typical symbolism and
wordplays to express his radical disapproval.

The circumcised are foul because, in Your spring,

they are not cleansed. They are dirty and evil-smelling
because their garments do not exhale the fragrance
of Your herbs. The teachings are detestable
and as they do not whiten in You, they are not shining, purified. (86:12)

Those who do not accept Christ and His purifying teaching cannot be cleansed. He is the
ultimate Bridge. Anyone who rejects Him cannot claim His divine beauty nor His fragrance.
Ephrem does not understand how his fellow-Christian opponents try to detract from
the name by which their baptism, and thus their salvation, is signed (52:3). It gets across as
something absurd, as if one destroys one’s own passport.

From himself and by himself he is conquered. For either he renounces that it is true,
the baptism of the audacious one,107 but if he is baptised, however, and believes,
he is like Marcion who ate from what the Maker [provided],
but renounced the Maker. And while he is conceived and born,
rejects marriage; a bitter fruit
which renounces its own root! (65:4)

As one cannot deny one’s origin, one cannot sincerely claim the profit but renounce its source.
Ephrem is startled by the behaviour of his generation. “They inquire into the Creator by
whose hand they are formed” (79:9). While they are covered with wounds and sores, instead

107
This is about the one who inquires into the nature of the Son, denying His divinity, as I
assume. He would be consistent as he would renounce his baptism, then. Ephrem commonly uses
vocabulary of audacity for the inquirers. Russell, however, takes this to refer to Christ who is so
insolent as to claim divinity. He adds that “[t]here is no evidence that the Arians ever argued that Christ
claimed more than was rightfully His.” I have the impression that Russell reads more in this stanza than
Ephrem seems to mean. Eighty Hymns on Faith, 208.
of accepting the healing medicine of the Doctor, they start to inquire into Him and question
His origin, and thus His capacities, and even forget the need to be healed! “The Healer who
chased away our sickness—we wound ourselves in Him...” (5:19). Ephrem bears out his point
by referring to the Jews as the common adversary, contrasted against an all-inclusive “us”
(44:4). Even if “they” confess a multitude of names of God, because they rejected and did not
believe the one name of the Son, they were rejected and cannot be saved (44:4-5). The
church’s existence is utterly dependent on this very name (44:5). Rejecting it is rejecting Life.
What anyway is the problem with accepting this source of our salvation if God
Himself acknowledges Him? He Himself has put the names of the Son and the Holy Spirit
into our hearts (46:7). “Who can deny the names of the True One?” (62:11) If the Father is
proclaiming Christ to be His Son, we should not act as His avenger combating against this
name. If we are divided about His nature, they, however, confirm each other (52:5-6). We
should not doubt the words of God Himself, certainly not regarding this delicate issue beyond
our capacity (54:11). We are not in the position to judge about the Son of the Most High. And
who are we to decide that He could not beget (39:6)?
The disputation of the contentious ones is not only directed at the Scriptures, but
also against Christ. The inquirers treat Him as a mere human by their attempts to contain One
who is God (29:1). As they do not situate Him next to the Father, Ephrem feels compelled to
warn them that inquiry into Him is an inquiring into and a dishonouring of the Father. If we
could grasp the Son, we would comprehend the Father because of their relationship, a
blasphemous claim in the poet’s eyes. As such, we should not try to tread this path (50:2).

Investigation of the Begotten is a bridge,

for if one crosses it,
to the Father one crosses to inquire.
Think! For if one is willing
to attempt to inquire into the Fruit,
the inquiry hastens
towards the Root that begot Him. (5:14-15)

As Christ is the bridge to the Father in a positive sense (6:17) because of their closeness, also
inquiry should be seen in this light, albeit in a negative sense. By referring to the consequence
of investigating the transcendent Father and by pointing to the seriousness of their business,
Ephrem hopes to make his opponents refrain from this act.

b) Reason and Goal for the Littleness of Christ

“On account of the sayings which are written about the humiliation of the Son of the
Creator the disputers think that He is a creature” (35:3). They trouble the spring of Scripture
by their controversies and in doing so dishonour the Son, as they were agitated about His
human features (35:5). Because He differed from their own ideas, they were suspicious; they
attacked, dishonoured Him, and rent His clothes (36:3). Ephrem, on his part, stresses time and
again that the passages about Christ’s littleness should be explained by the body He assumed;
these do not refer to His divinity. He is not less divine because He became human.

Without Adam nature is clear from debts;

and the Messiah without a body from needs.
Nature lessened because of Adam;
and the Messiah lessened because of the body. (35:6)

That His littleness originates from the body He took is moreover reflected in the fact that none
of the prophets or apostles stated anything lowly about the Holy Spirit, as He never took on a
body (59:3). In this way, Ephrem urges his listeners not to add to the Son’s merciful
humiliation of becoming human by calling Him with their own name, that of “created” (36:7).
Ephrem reminds his opponents that the purpose of the Son’s assumption of a body
was to save us. He humiliated Himself for our sake. Besides, it is not necessary, and even
strongly discouraged, to inquire into His nature (59:6). Accordingly, we should be grateful for
His self-revelation through humiliation and see this as a cause for worship, instead of
inquiring and reviling Him for this goodness towards us (58:10-12).

If He descended towards You to show you His Son,

fool, worship and give thanks that He deemed you worthy to this all!
Believe and trust Him, and do not gainsay with Him
and do not bring Him to judgement to dispute!
For the nature of His being is ineffable;
in stillness the door is sealed, silencing the talkative. (44:8)

His mercy should evoke a different answer than our insolent investigation that revolts against
God’s wish. Christ’s setting us free is answered by imposing the yoke of slavery on the
Saviour and Lord Himself (36:8)! We cannot even contain how much He has borne for us, but
what did we do for Him? (36:9-10) He endowed us with speech, but we use it to contend
when we should be silent; and we are silent when we should bring Him praise (cf. 37:22). He
came as the victim to be slaughtered for us, but how do we react?

The shepherds considered Him a fellow of the flock

on account of His becoming the Paschal lamb in His love.
Let the tears burst out from the eyes:
the Son of the Maker by whom we are made;
the made slander Him by their names!
They returned Him this reward as He exalted them by His names. (36:5-6)

This is not the gratitude that one would expect for such a self-sacrificing deed. This is not just
a difference of opinion. In Ephrem’s eyes, this is an insult towards one’s patron who bound
Himself to protect and exalt His servants. He cannot but urge his audience to repent and serve
one’s Lord in a more honouring way.

c) Pride versus Christ and the Trinity

What is our attitude towards Christ? His bridging the gap and descending towards us
should not lessen our reverence towards Him. “Who, then, would not wonder, for You are
sitting at the right hand [of the Father] while the dust (‫)ܥܦܪܐ‬, sitting on dust, on its dung hill
inquires into You” (3:12)! For Ephrem, it is absurd to act as if there is no difference between
us and the Son. We should not neglect our low position when it is confronted with His height.
Not every situation invites speech and certainly no critical inquiry at any time. The inquirers
parade proudly, trying to impress their audience by their quick-witted remarks about Christ
(39:2). As some reject His divinity, others try to pull Him down by their inquiry (23:3) in
order to boast about themselves. Ephrem sees this attitude as a disguised form of spitting and
striking against Christ before His crucifixion (87:17).

Pride invoked rage, its sister,

and envy and anger answered and came,
and pomp and deceit took counsel
about our Redeemer, as on that day
that they took counsel when He was suffering. (87:18)

Can we still maintain sincerity in this enterprise? If we do not have access to the whole earth,
how could we claim all of the Greatness of the Begotten? Do we consider Him less than the
created things, then (38:14-16)? While the great prophets Daniel and Moses addressed God or
His messenger with great fear and reverence, “we investigate into His hiddenness as if it was a
game” (47:10).
The various degrees, discussed in the chapter on the chasm, remain in operation, but
are neglected by the audacious disputers. Even the most radical difference between the Maker
and the made seems to be denied by their attitude. If one has questions regarding one’s highest
Superior, one should take one’s rank into consideration in search for an answer.

Of this nature witnesses

by the orderings that exist in it;
for order transmits to order
until the summit.108
Also the counsel of Jethro
appointed orders
from rank to rank
until Moses.
Contemptible ranks of man
were crossing over the ranks of the watchers109
in order to arrive at inquiring into the First Born. (5:4)

Because of Ephrem’s extended introduction into the usual course of events from the previous
stanza on, these last three lines are even more striking. Questioning one’s superior in such a
manner, neglecting one’s place, is simply not done.
This attitude is so unthinkable in Ephrem’s view that he compares the disputers with
a drunken man whose sight and mind are not clear enough anymore to take account of what he
is doing. “The mouth that wants to speak about the Ineffable brings him to littleness because

108
Or: “crown.”
109
That is: of the angels.
he is not capable of His greatness” (1:17). Even if he is responsible for his behaviour, he is
intoxicated by pride and envy, which is also a contribution of the adversary (50:6; 58:12), so
that he is no longer fully conscious of his deeds and words. His haughtiness has blinded him,
“for if he knew Your greatness, he would not venture upon investigation of You” (35:10).
After depicting the treasury of the knowledge about the Begotten and His Begetter, guarded
by frightening silence and a mighty cherubs, Ephrem thus continues:

Whoever does not know the splendour of that place

is like a drunken one talking idly, he as well as his listeners.
And if his pride would be shaken off, my son,
he who was drunk would keep silent and praise. (22:12)

Even the angels keep silent in awe, but the dust raises itself and disputes (68:20-21). The
inquirers have also the over-boldness in common with the drunkards as they try to “measure
the great sea [i.e. Divinity] as if it were a pond” (66:3). Pride does not only envenom the
speech of oneself, but even of one’s listeners. It is far from fitting to address the Begotten or
His Father in this drunken and irreverent state. Ephrem weeps at the thought that we behave in
such a retrograde way towards God. “For where it was proper to keep silent we were
boisterous, and where it was due to reprove, we were muzzled. Human beings we respected
and we averted the eyes; only before God we arose to inquire into how He is” (64:2). As
Nabal treated David, the son of Jesse, as a mere servant, Ephrem blames the inquirers to do
the same with Jesus, the Son of David (24:6-7). This is a warning for the outcome.
How one addresses the Son influences one’s attitude towards the Father. Because of
their close interrelation, assailing the Son will lead one to assail the Father along with Him.

This is astonishing that You are Lord, knowing Your Father solely,
and the contemptible dust arrogantly exalts itself
that it might even inquire into Your Father, through You! (3:15)

In Ephrem’s view, this is the summit of arrogance. As the Son is the only one who knows the
Father, attempting the Father by inquiry is exalting oneself to the same rank as the Son
Himself. If we can only understand what is similar to ourselves, wanting to reach all-
encompassing knowledge of the Creator is rebelling against His Lordship. It is claiming
authority at the same level of the Most Sovereign.
Ephrem simply does not understand how we can adopt this irreverent and proud
attitude when facing the One who acted so mercifully towards us. He gave us reason and
knowledge, but we used it against Him and withheld the honour that is due to Him (29:6).
After the creation, “Adam named the animals and they pleased the Lord of all. [...] But the
sons of Adam are not ashamed that their disputations attack the name of the Son which the
mouth of God proclaimed in their ears” (62:2). These couple of events are irreconcilable for
the poet, but it got worse:
 The heaven provides, for those of below,
dew and rain; floods full of
all good things.
The earth arranges, for Those of above,
all questions; disputation full of
all blasphemies. (68:17-18)

The contrast startles and calls for radical repentance and change. But this was not even the
end. “Those who were cleansed by the Three, behold, they are defiled as they doubted
(‫ )ܐܬܦܠܓܘ‬their names. In the church: searching; and before the sanctuary: a divided (‫)ܦܠܝܓܐ‬
heart because of the crookedness on account of their investigation” (66:6-7). The contrasts the
poet depicts here contribute to the absurd feeling of this stance. This is not as it ought to be.
But this is the lamentable response God receives after providing so generously, even after the
humiliation of His Son for our sake.

It is a wonder that God bent down towards the dust

and adorned it with life and exalted it with freedom
and gave up His Son for it to show His love for it.
But instead of wondering how it was exalted
—and if it wondered and kept silent, it would have been but little—
by the game of its investigations it despised the Honourable One. (46:11)

While God has called us gods, we have confined His Son as a human being by our inquiry
(29:1). Instead of love and gratitude towards Him, contention has come in response (86:14).

Blurring the Bridge of Christ is the culmination of troubling the preparing bridges of
creation and Scripture. It is the limit of ingratitude towards, and assault of, God in unbelief
and inquiry regarding His words and deeds. Detracting from His position is cutting of our
source of Life, depriving ourselves of the salvation He lovingly offers by His bridging of the
gap in an unparalleled and radical way. In Ephrem’s view, this blurring is too absurd, a
needless and most dangerous enterprise. This reaction to God’s merciful initiative is out of
place indeed.

5. CONSEQUENCES

a) Blind Way Instead of Approach

What is now the result of this negative response of a proud and audacious inquiry?
In Ephrem’s view, this stance is not rewarding at all.

For whoever goes to Greatness to investigate,

paths are concealed, doors also are shut
and there is a trackless desert and wilderness and desolation. (11:13)

Investigation makes one head for a dead end. This is not the way that brings one closer to
God. It rather makes one go astray, away from true approach and the presence of the Divinity
(56:1), and accordingly proceeding towards separation from the Life He provides.
 As they are on the wrong road, they become blind for the divine. It is as if the
attitude of inquirers hinders them form being attuned to God. In other words, they are looking
for Him on the wrong wavelength. The poet expresses this as follows:

Mixed is the Lord with His possessions,

distant and nearby. Behold, they are searching Him
and He is carrying them!
Behold, they think of Him that He is like remote
at a great distant, while they are laid
like in the palm of His hand. (72:23-24)
Hidden, my Lord, is your spring for whoever does not thirst for You
and lacking is Your treasury for whoever hates You;
love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure. (32:3)

The point is that we need God Himself to attune us to Him; otherwise we cannot know Him
(48:1). So if we do not approach Him the way pleasing to Him and even refuse His help, why
do we expect to reach Him? “By inquiry you distance from help” (72:2). Consequently, God
is hidden for the one who inquires into Him (72:8), and this hiddenness is “not on account of
the height” (72:9). It is because the audacious one wants to reach God in his own way, not for
the glory of God and in love but for one’s own sovereignty.
The disputer is responsible for his blindness, “for who chases away the light from
his eyes becomes blind” (84:10).

They saw the ray—they considered it as110 darkness

so that they grope in it. They saw the beryl,
the faith—while they were inquiring into it
it fell and was lost. The pearl—
5
they considered it (‫)ܥܒܕܘܗ‬ as a stone so that they stumble on it. (86:9)

As one needs the light to see, it betrays wisdom to haughtily send it away and withdraw from
its benefit. Again, inquiry and faith are contrasted. By investigation faith slips away, and one
cannot see clearly without it; it becomes dark. What was meant for help is experienced as
offence by one’s own lamentable action.
Though stretched out to their limit in their search for God, they cannot reach Him
(4:11), because they are looking in the wrong way. He is “hidden from all according to
inquiry of Him” (26:response). “Who is allied with the Hidden One by investigation of Him”
(42:2)? Inquiry into Him will only reveal the great distance, as He cannot be comprehended
by our human mind (11:3; 70:19). It does not help to reach Him: “no one of the inquirers has
drawn near to God” (69:13) and “the proud will not reach the Exalted One” (69:16);
audacious investigation makes one go astray instead (11:11,13).

Indeed, the one who inquires into Him entangles himself by it.
He disputes so that he will not know Him; he inquires so that he will not find Him,
for what is through Him he loses and what is not through Him he finds. (43:6)

110
Or: made it (‫)ܥܒܕܘܗܝ‬.
Only He knows what we truly need, and He alone can give these, as all goodness originates
from Him. Pride, audacity, and self-centred primacy are not desirable in the end.
Perhaps one gains fame by audacity and proud rhetoric, but one is captured by it in
the meantime (68:9-12). The treasure of His goodness and grace is accessible, but the inquirer
has become blind to God’s love and stubbornly wants instead to comprehend His inner person
(‫)ܩܢܘܡܗ‬, the quality and greatness of His hidden essence. Human beings, however, are not
capable of this, as they cannot take a position “beyond God” to have an overview of His
Being. Besides, they are not allowed to gaze on His essence in such a manner (72:11-18).
Ephrem represents disputation as a veil covering our sight and making us feeling
around in the dark. While the Truth is revealed, because of this veil it is not reachable (8:5-6),
as it is only for the clear eye (67:8). “Let us not blind the eye of our reasoning by inquiry, for
because it dimmed our mind, it is not able anymore with a clear eye (‫ )ܥܝܢܐ ܫܦܝܬܐ‬to observe
the Father and the Son and also the Holy Spirit” (15:10). “The smoke of inquiry blinds many”
(47:13), which leads self-evidently to contention and commotion on account of the Truth.
In the same vein, he compares the audacious inquirer with a blind marksman who
does not see the vanity of his shooting, that is, his questioning:

Behold, the blinded with their questioning are like

that blind man puffed up with pride who took a bow
and shot arrows with it into fiery coals
and did not perceive how his arrows were wasted.
For the arrows that he shot in his pride
in the fire became ashes, in the wind became dust
and if it would happen to him that he himself would ascend in it
it was his end and that of his arrows by this. (27:8)

The poet makes clear how useless this inquiry is, but also how dangerous, for when does the
blind see that he has come too close and risks his own life?

b) Illness and Death

One can be so dragging ill because of the investigations that one spits out the
medicine of Life at the first taste (47:11; cf. 54:10). Accordingly, the investigator takes a
course leading to death.

Who would not restrain inquiry into the hidden,

the disease which the apostle111 called gangrene?
Contentious search is the spring of destruction;
to the fool who attempts it can be formed from it
sudden suffering, for it is sweet in its beginning
but bitterness in its end. Glory for the One who stops it! (52:8)

Investigation can be very attractive at first, but it spreads like a contagious and destructive
illness.

111
That is, Paul in 2 Timothy 2:16-17.
 Referring to Matthew 18:6, Ephrem warns that “for those who stir up the simple
ones with questions, their inquiry is their millstone, for they sank in investigation and are not
rising out of it because they do not cease with their detestable meditations” (61:1). The
frequency of envy and pride, once we are adapted to, seems difficult to refrain from; it soon
becomes deadly addictive.

Who saw chaff presuming to try

that heat (‫ )ܥܘܙܐ‬of the Spirit by its questioning?
The audacious ones die by investigation of Him
whose inspiration gave Life to the dead.
Cedars are uprooted; forests are torn off
—straw came to inquire into the nature of the Holy Spirit
and from the breath of His blowing
towards the door of the oven—behold, he pursued! (29:5)

Death is imminent. As a fish pulling on a fish-hook, the supercilious stance of not accepting
proper instruction or warning will turn out to be directed against oneself (48:7). In the end,
proud disputation will extinguish itself (68:22).
Also the ones who wanted too much in the past did not come out as victors in the
end. Ephrem gives the example of Adam and then of Uzziah, who haughtily took the office of
priest and became a leper until his death 112 because He “treated the glory of the Holy One with
contempt” (28:13; 38:17). So the poet warns:

Who will attempt His height and explore His depth?

Who ventured upon His height greatly stumbled and fell
and who ventured upon His depth greatly sank and perished.
Grievous is the death of the one who inquires into Him
and the drowning of the one who dives to explore Him. (26:4)

Ephrem clearly views the consequences of this audacious quest as fearsome.

As inquiring and doubting about the Truth are closely interconnected in Ephrem’s
thought, also doubting or distancing oneself from the Truth can have this fatal consequence
(80:3-5). The poet depicts this as pouring yourself out on the dry and thirsty ground of error
and false worship which is ready to absorb you (69:4). As Moses was not allowed to enter the
promised land because he doubted that the rock would issue water, “who can enter the place
of Life if he does not believe the Son of Greatness” (56:9)? Doubting about the Trinity will
make you perish, Ephrem warns (73:20). It goes hand in hand with losing the faith through
which God grants humanity Life.
Ephrem sees more than just a natural death as the consequence for the inquirer.
While death was the part of the audacious one who ventured to enter Mount Sinai when God
appeared there, the one who inquires will even get Gehenna as his part (28:8). One who treats
Christ the Fruit as separate from His Root will be separated from Him himself (86:11): that
means no approach to God is reached at all. By inquiry one makes even one’s baptism to be in

112
2 Chronicles 26:16-21
vain (41:11). God wants to give humanity Life in His presence, but by inquiry one “cuts off
one’s hope” like the robber on Christ’s left at His crucifixion (7:7; 54:12), as this disputation
counters faith (54:10). This inquiry both reveals disbelief and deprives one of the faith, as
Ephrem exemplifies with the history of Zechariah 113 (9:10). What is the sense of this rage,
contention, and so-called wisdom which is sought for gain, if it is cutting off one’s hope of
Life and bringing only death and destruction (67:14; 68:13)?

c) The Divine Answer

Sometimes Ephrem mentions God explicitly as the Actor of the consequences for
the rash inquirer. He is the One who is Judge and Accuser of all (56:11). In His furnace, all
teachings will be tested for their integrity, with God Himself as the standard (12:2-3). The
Lord will rebuke haughtiness (1:2) and those who dispute about the Truth will be silenced
(21:2). The poet gives the example of Miriam, who challenged Moses’ position and became
leprous,114 as a warning about the reaction of “the Avenger of the talkative” (28:10):

If the High One avenged His servant like this

of his sister, the prophetess who attempted him,
who would attempt the Begotten of Greatness
Who is the Son of His bosom!115 For devouring fire
and lightning and tongues are burning from Him;
the inquiry of the audacious ones is like stubble before Him
and disputation and controversy—
like chaff and like a thicket they are swallowed up! (28:11)

The message obviously is that inquiring into the Son should not be taken lightly. Ephrem does
not picture it as a clearly active punishment of God, at least not in this instance. The inquirer,
who is like chaff, chooses himself to approach and inquire into the devouring fire. The
responsibility is his. Ephrem seems to take caution not to ascertain judgement for others: “The
Lord and Father who is not judging someone, is perhaps (‫ )ܐܟܒܪ‬judging the inquirers” (29:6).
While the previous block quotation started with the vengeance of the Father, the Son
and the Spirit also have their answer. At the harvest, Ephrem pictures the breath of the Spirit
which separates the chaff from the wheat (38:12). But there is more:

Unsheathed sword, tongue,

be withheld in your scabbard, oh talkative!
Search has sharpened the discourse of your mouth.
The silence of the Son will blunt the edge of your questioning.
Like bows, lips
shall not be opened and stretched!
The threatening turbulence of the Holy Spirit
—like a whirlwind He will turn the arrows against their owners.

113
Luke 1:5-20
114
Numbers 12:1-15
115
A reference to John 1:18, thus expressing the closeness of Father and Son.
 For He is a fortification of adamant,
like the prophet saw in a figure.
The spears of words, if one would shoot at Him
while one does not strike Him, He turns and it is driven in their speakers. (37:18-20)

As one sows so one will reap. Ephrem’s emphasises personal responsibility. “The Truth [...]
tore and hurled away its tearers from the Kingdom” (66:13).
But God takes care of the whole of humanity. So, a wounded member of the body
should be healed and even amputated by “the Healer of all pains” if it otherwise would infect
the whole body (15:7). As Ephrem presents inquirers as a danger for their listeners, this is
their risk indeed. Besides, and reminiscent of John 15:1-8, if one denies one’s root, that is,
Christ the vine, and one’s fruit is bitter, one will be cut off by the Vine-Dresser. He cuts off
what is necessary to give Life (38:7). But most of all, the Lord will turn Himself against the
Evil One. Ephrem praises Him to be his Killer since Satan incites humanity from Adam on to
envy, pride, division, inquiry, and deceiving speech (50:6-7; 52:6; 58:13).
“The scales of Your balance are grace and righteousness and how and when they
agree, You know” (12:4). We have to trust Him. Even inquirers, God addresses with love at
His balance (12:5). It is His intention to cut off deceit and save the deceived (38:7). The
question is whether they will set their pride aside and accept His offer. Ephrem prays to God
for mercy, 116 both on the ones that situate Christ below and those who situate Him above the
Creator (86:18).

These are fearsome consequences. The way of investigation is a dead end. It blinds
the sight and deprives him of faith. Finally, it heads to death and separation from God, for no
one is able to draw near to Him without accepting His help. Envy and pride make brothers
fight each other in division and strife, turning the peaceful words of Christ upside down.
While God intended Life and peace, there arose contention, hatred and death to gain
preeminence. The righteous and good one will respond according to His wisdom by weighing
all teachings and intentions in His perfect balance.

B. A REVERENT STANCE TOWARDS GOD AND HIS BRIDGE

Ephrem has more to say than complain about this lamentable negativity towards
God’s reaching out to us. Throughout the HdF, he both instructs and meditates about, and
exemplifies an alternative and positive response to the Divinity. This stance is characterised
by faith and a humble attitude of dependence towards Him and the means He provides in His
grace. Faith, Truth, and one’s manner of life are most closely interwoven in this matter.

116
Or would he mean they they will be spared? See for this Beck’s note on 86:11. Hymnen
de Fide (transl.), 225-226, note 11.
 The Truth; as an agreeable
7
plant117 He made it. And the manners of life (‫)ܕܘܒܖܐ‬
as the fruit, through faith;
He took and hung them on the branch of Veracity. (80:7)

The poet’s quest for the Truth is at the same time a quest for a fitting attitude towards God;
both will define one’s stance. “Blessed is the one who is, my Lord, godly in his manners of
life, so that, when he has sanctified himself, he will call You God, the Son of God” (3:16).
The truth and love are explicitly mentioned to be inseparable, as two wings that cannot fly
without the other (20:12; cf. 38:11; 67:18). This forms a fierce contrast with the negative
response of blurring the truthful Bridge in an audacious and supercilious way. Accordingly,
this positive stance will lead to a totally different range of consequences.

1. REVERENCE AND THE CHASM

a) Humility

While we should not neglect the given of the chasm, it should not keep us back from
God’s presence in fear either. Nevertheless, it can remind us of our human littleness if we
approach the Most High. We are not competent to reach Him except by His help (11:1). This
awareness will help us to draw near to Him in a humble and reverent way, regarding all the
various limits discussed in the chapter on the chasm. In this way, these boundaries are to be
regarded not just as limits, but as occasions to revere God in all His encompassing majesty. A
couple of examples will help to render this more tangible.
Ephrem calls a person blessed who is aware of his limited speech regarding Christ
and His ineffable generation and thus refrains from discussing it (2:7-8). He even rejoices that
he is not able to speak about the Creator, as this would be a blasphemy because it would exalt
a man above God (11:17). Also after meditating on the human word and its mysterious origin,
the poet makes a turn to its humble and limited side:

From this then, your humble word,

you will admirably learn about the glorious word,
the Word of God. For if your own word
is utterly unskilled (‫ )ܠ ܝܕܥܐ ܡܡܬܘܡ‬to relate what concerns it,
honour with your silence the Word of Your Creator,
whose silence cannot be inquired into. (57:10)

We will turn back to the proper balance of silence and speech, but for now, it suffices to
indicate that if we run short of words fitting for the divine magnificence—and we do—we
also have the possibility to adore Him in silence; this honours Him as well. Our littleness
should be acknowledged before Him, not neglected; this is the proper way to acknowledge
His greatness.

117
Or: “root.”
 In the same vein, one should also take notice of one’s limited knowledge.

From them who are craftsmen one learns well

that it is not allowed and not lawful for the side of the idiots
to judge their works, and they are not competent to become
a furnace for their wisdom. For while it would be entirely stretched out,
their weak wisdom would not be competent to reach
towards the one who is greater. (56:10)

Unskilled persons cannot evaluate in depth the art of the craftsmen. This is even more the case
regarding God who is greater than all. The “idiot” should rather take the instruction of the
craftsmen into account, and not keep on talking audaciously as if he were on the same level.
As such, Ephrem calls a person blessed who is aware of his mortality when confronted with
the majesty of God (3:7-8,12-13). He urges, then, that this knowledge of being dust should
make us praise the One who formed us (66:1-2).

b) Awe

For Ephrem, the chasm and our limits are a cause for awe towards God. That we
cannot attain Him and that stubborn inquiry is of no use should enhance praise and wonder of
His majesty (4:11; 24:2,11).

Mouths, be still; tongues, keep silent!

Stupor shall fall on lips;
wonder shall reside on souls;
senses shall tremble with limbs
at the subject of the Son’s generation (‫)ܫܪܒܐ‬. (37:17)

We must realise that Ephrem calls for this awe especially in contexts of a wrong and proud
use of speech. Nevertheless, as far as this awe does not keep one from approaching God but
stimulates humility and reverence in this act, a person’s awareness of the chasm and the
divine greatness is sane.
The poet exemplifies this stance with Daniel, who “was asking with distinction 118
and acknowledged that he was a human being; he was asking what pertained to humanity and
honoured Greatness” (47:8). We should not loosely run in all possible directions, but, fed by
wonder and awe, we should keep our investigative thoughts within bounds (72:1). “How
would you inquire into Him, the Creator, as a human being? Acknowledge your humanity, O
human” (75:2)!

c) Caution

As the chasm is not cancelled by God’s marvellous revelatory bridge, the gap still
defines our approach. The awe it enhances also effects caution and balances somehow the
longing of childlike love, just to run across in enthusiasm. 119 Still, this freedom is not
altogether forbidden.

118
That is, not rashly, and balanced; not just questioning everything.
 If I abstain from Your company, Your beauty entices me
but if I accompany Your Greatness, Your glory frightens me;
if I abstain, also if I come, I am vanquished by both. (32:4)

Ephrem expresses here a realistic and balanced view, clearly reflected in his personal
experience of approaching God. In this stanza the poet exemplifies how a God-minded
attitude makes one withdraw from both extremes.
The chasm and its emphasis on the human limits teaches us to restrain from
disputation, which is just not fitting of us with the Most High (1:18). As Beck succinctly
notes, what we do not know should function as a fence protecting our speech for useless
audacity.120 It urges us to seek only what is possible to find and not be distracted by what is
beyond and incomprehensible (2:14). Again, we are reminded of Daniel as an example of this
attitude (47:8).

Whoever is feeble has nothing to do with hard things;

and whoever is needy has nothing to do with difficult things;
and who originated from the earth should not exalt himself
so that his mouth runs on to attempt His Moulder! (15:6)

We have to know our place and acknowledge the due place for our Creator. The gap will
remind us of this proper order. Making himself always at our disposal for our profit, the
divine spring time and again invites us to drink and meditate according to the measure of our
capability (32:2); to attempt more is of no advantage. This means that all inquiry should be
restricted to the revealed (23:8; 81:7), as we are not capable of the hidden. We should not
trouble ourselves to reach the unreachable beyond the chasm but enjoy meditation of the
Bridge God provided (24:9).

The given of the chasm can enhance a reverent attitude of humility, awe, and
caution in our approach of the Divine. It reminds us of our humanity and mortality in order to
adopt a balanced stance when encountering the Most High. The given of the gap highlights
His Majesty and protects us for audaciously running on pride.

2. REVERENCE AND CREATION

a) Created pointers to the Creator

The Creation incites awe and worship, in its witness of the splendour of its Creator.
Everywhere and in all its layers are found signposts that teach and inspire us to recognize the

119
This interplay of both childly boldness fed by love and cautious humility fed by reason is
beautifully described in K. den Biesen, “Spreken over God bij Efrem de Syriër,” Het Christelijk
Oosten: Tijdschrift van het Instituut voor Oosters Christendom 47 (1995): 7-27. The climax of this
article is his Dutch translation of Ephrem’s 9th Hymn on the Church.
120
Beck, Ephräms des Syrers Psychologie und Erkenntnislehre, 148.
glory of the Maker of everything. These symbols challenge humanity to discover them and
their message to meditate on their Origin and value. An example of the poet himself is,

Not like the moon it waxes, your light,

nor wanes. The sun—it is greater,
its shining, than all; behold, it depicts its type
in Your littleness—the symbol of the Son;
for one flash of His, is greater than the sun! (84:7)
7
Ephrem actually summons his audience to assist him find more likenesses (‫)ܕܡܘܬܐ‬, as their
abundance is too great to contain (25:18). There is so much to gain here in this vast basic
revelation by means of the creation that every help is welcome—together we should dig out as
much richness as we can handle. By means of this flow of types which permeates creation He
chose to be approached and revered by humanity (25:7).
All of this should be done in love and thankfulness to the honour of God. In
humility and reverence we should take this instruction of the creation into account and not
neglect it in pride. The fact that we cannot contain it all helps to conquer our haughtiness and
teaches a stance of dependence towards God and His grace which He displayed throughout
His creation. We are invited to enjoy the nature in which the Creator placed us and use its
riches in honour of God and our neighbour.

b) The Creator Clothed in a Created Veil

We should remember that the Creator is always greater than what created things can
express, even when He makes use of them in His self-revelation. Nature should evoke praise
in what it reveals—we should not take this revelation as a pretext to confine the Hidden One
to the created realm, to the images He uses for our benefit (43:10). We should be aware that
humanity sees likenesses of God only if He reveals Himself in our familiar realm (26:11).
Accordingly, concerning God’s self-revelation through nature, we are expected to react with
humility, reverence, and praise.

Just like the given of the chasm, the creation should also evoke reverence. We
should be inspired by nature and see this as an opportunity to honour and praise God for who
He is and what He did. In this manner, heeding the herald of creation enhances awe for His
Majesty. Besides, we should be reminded that He is always beyond all ideas nature reveals.

3. REVERENCE AND SCRIPTURE

a) Dependence

The stance expected towards the Scriptures is again humility and dependence as
well as gratefulness towards this divinely-given guide. We should take its guidelines
seriously, and, like Ezekiel and Zechariah, who were not too proud to admit their ignorance, 121
acknowledge that we are in need of God’s teaching (9:6-7).

Turn me back to Your teaching for I sought to avert myself

and I saw that I was wanting, for the soul does not gain
except by acquaintance with You—glory to Your meditation! (32:1)

This attitude is reflected in Ephrem’s HdF: his hymns are permeated by allusions to scriptural
passages embedded in habitual meditation. He also urges his audience to dig out these
treasures: “Let us be cultivators of the Word of Truth, and as on the earth, come to labour on
it” (38:11). If we submit ourselves to the Teacher, this will include both encouragement and
rebuke (38:1); it demands humility to accept both.
We should take a stance conditional on God’s wisdom as displayed in the
Scriptures, “the clear mirror of Truth” (‫ ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬2‫ ܫܦܝܬܐ‬2‫( )ܡܚܙܝܬܐ‬2:1). If we learn to be
instructed by this wisdom, we will experience that we cannot approach or inquire into God by
ourselves (2:2). Besides, as God caused the Scriptures to be written with a clear purpose, we
are expected to leave aside what is not written, and thus hidden, and be content to meditate on
what is displayed for our benefit in order not to “loose what is written by what is not” (64:11).
In the same vein, what these writings stress deserves our attention more than what they refer
to only once (53:14). In dependence on God and the means He provides to encounter Him, we
should desire the wisdom of the Scriptures as the eye desires light to be able to see (45:1).

b) Faith

The Scriptures are linked with faith in various instances. “Proceed in the Scriptures
in faith, as a sailor in a ship between the havens” (69:6; cf. 49:6). As we are not capable by
ourselves to know the Truth, we can only trust God, the True One (65:12; 60:2), in His written
testimony about the Son (46:7), just as we trust the physician with his medicine books (56:12).

Can someone tell me; from where do you know

the nature of the Lord of All? Anathema that I ever consent
that I know! His writings declare about Him
and because it is fitting to trust God
I listened and trusted Him and restrained with my faith
my audacious inquiry. (64:10)

We do not know Him by ourselves, but in response to His writings we choose to trust Him
and not put our confidence in our own knowledge or proud inquiry.
We are expected to follow “the fathers who believed simply” and refrained from
disputation (56:1; cf. 86:1). “Their faith was their ship” (86:2) and their shelter in the midst of
confusion. Like them, we should be watchful in faith instead of in inquiry (16:11). After the
examples of Noah and Abraham, Ephrem continues:

121
Ezekiel 37:3 and Zechariah 4:5
 Let us learn from the Old Testament,
for the sons of Truth listened in distinctive love
and believed its Giver and trusted its Writer
that all these things are helpful. And the sons of error listened
with the ear of controversy and with mocking mouths;
they were rejected because they scoffed at Him. (56:7)

By means of this reference to the decisive attitude in the Old Testament, Ephrem hopes to
convince his contemporaries to take on a stance of love and trust. “The faith of the sons of
Truth does not need to investigate” (36:18). We can be dependent on God and take refuge in
the Three names the Lord entrusted to the Twelve (13:5). Even if our faith is under fierce
attack by deceit and dispute, the Truth in which it is rooted (13:9; 80:7) is as an
unconquerable stronghold for it (13:1,4).
Ephrem warns us to be cautious in treading that path which God meant us to tread
without turning left or right by investigation. He even asks the Lord that He might proceed in
fear, “frightened to cross the boundary of faith” (51:11). Better to reach the goal slowly than
to proceed fast and go astray, away from the road God established (2:13). Accordingly, we
should beware not to accept a new teaching as this would counter the transmitted faith. In this
context, Ephrem compares the faith with a beautiful pearl—every new polishing or furnace to
purge it would rather detract from its natural beauty. The result would be that the King refuses
to ornament His crown with it (51:13). We should rejoice in this beautiful pearl of faith,
instead of inquiring into it (84:3)!
Accordingly, controversy against the faith in the true Son should be reproved and
ended (62:15). These disputers accuse the prophets to be wrong in Ephrem’s view, and they
also make others go astray with their innovation (60:5; cf. 53:14). Only if the harmony, the
one yoke of faith and undivided Truth on the one path of concord (79:6,8; 81:3), is restored
within the church, the Christians can fight those outside the church together, instead of
fighting against their own side (38:6). Ephrem prays for truth, reconciliation, harmony, and
peace, so that the Christians together can praise God’s goodness (21:12; 52:15; 87:23).

c) Submission

In the end, it is also a matter of loving submission to God without inquiry, and of
acknowledgement of His superiority, wisdom, and righteousness in what He caused to write in
the Scriptures (cf. 40:11-12). Since He surpasses all mortal beings in knowledge, it is mere
logic that “all faith which is not ordained (‫ )ܪܫܝܡܐ‬is erroneous” (13:3). Ephrem calls one
blessed who refrains from what is not allowed and uses his energy for what is (2:8; cf. 8:11).
The Creator did not include an explanation of the how and what of the Son’s generation, or of
the nature of the Three, and since we are not capable of this by ourselves, we should leave
behind the investigation of the detailed analysis of these subjects like John did, and accept
God’s wise commands (15:1; 33:1-3; 46:9; 70:12-13). It is sensible to stay in the field meant
for us, as we will easily succumb into the area which the Evil One lures us (9:4-5). No wonder
that God cautions us—we can graciously accept His warning in submission (51:10), as
Ephrem poeticizes:

The Lord of Truth He is and His servants were

His shadow, for wherever
His will looked, they directed also
their wills. And as He is light
in Him are enlightened their shades. (86:6)

The Father called Christ His Son, and Ephrem calls blessed a person who consents (3:1).

The proper response to the guide of the Scriptures consists of an attitude of

dependence towards it and believing the One who had it written. Accordingly, we should
refrain from everything what deviates from Scripture’s indications and walk the path He
established. In this way we will submit to Him and trust Him in what He included and what
He left out.

4. REVERENCE AND CHRIST

a) Dependence and Faith

Since we are not up to the strength of God’s hiddenness, we are dependent on the
Son and His testimony. As a sick person puts his confidence in the physician and his tools
even if they hurt, we have to trust Christ and His wisdom (56:11-12).

A fruit of which you never have tasted how it is—

if you would touch it with your hand and smell and also see it ,
because you did not taste and try it until then,
you will trust another who has tried it.
Because the Hidden Being is too overpowering for you,
believe that Fruit by whom His strength can be tasted. (42:8)

“That Fruit” is of course the Son, who is closely intertwined with the Root, the Father. It is of
no use to go on to grope and investigate how He is; we will only get to know Him really if we
put our confidence in Christ, who is true, and not trust in our inquiry, which is limited and
often based on a wrong attitude (43:6-7). We will approach Him much more closely with the
trusting demeanour of a child seeking its father’s presence and help than with a stubborn
attitude of investigation (67:16-17; 72:3-4,11-12).
Ephrem again has recourse to the image of the ship in the midst of the waves which
picture Christ here: “If the ship sticks fast, [the waves] break it, although if it submits [to
them] and does not resist, it is preserved” (81:12). In this expressive way, the poet urges us to
loosen our stubborn and spasmodic obsession to control. Instead of desiring to approach the
Son in our own way of investigation, we should put our confidence in Christ and let Him be at
the helm. This image is elaborated in a slightly different way in the following stanza :
 Your harbor is looking for our ship that You might lead it to its arrival;
Your spirit-wind guides it in love by the oar of your mercy;
Our ship will rest, my Lord; You will block the greedy sea.
Praise to Your support! (12:16)

Throughout our journey, we are dependent on our Lord in a wide variety of ways. We need
His protection to keep our faith as well as true knowledge (37:10).
This stance of dependence is strongly present in Ephrem’s prayers spread
throughout his HdF.122 He expresses in prayer the awareness that we can only meet Christ
when He graciously declines to us. We should recognise our dependence on His
condescension as the poet exemplifies:

Confine Yourself unto our littleness,

O Gift! For if it did not explore You
from all sides, love cannot
rest and cease. Lessen Yourself,
Greatest One who came to all! (86:13)

It should be noted that the attitude of love legalises this kind of inquiry. If the same happens in
an air of pride, envy, or disbelief, Ephrem makes sure to utter a firm rebuke (e.g. 54:10). The
poet struggles to balance this properly, but concludes that “the persistence of our love is
pleasing to You, like it pleases You if we steal from Your treasure” (16:5). This bold love is
encouraged as it honours the honourable and expresses one’s dependence on His grace.
Ephrem exemplifies this stance with another prayer: “May belief in You become
rennet in my mind; may it assemble my scattered thinking from investigation and wandering”
(5:20). The Syriac word for “rennet” (‫ )ܡܣܬܐ‬can also be translated as “that which holds
together,” since rennet makes solid cheese of fluid milk. Faith rooted in and directed to Christ,
then, gathers our distracted thoughts from wandering and error. After the poet brings up this
image once more, he elaborates:

Offer Your expert ingathering to my lack of cohesion!

Through You, my Lord, my contemptible self will be elevated to Your greatness;
through You my wretched soul will reach out to Your height,
and there it will worship You! (25:21)

As bread needs leaven and cheese needs rennet (25:19-20), we need Christ to make us ascend
to Him like an eagle takes her chicks on her wings (37:9).123 If the motivation is to worship
Him, we can trust that He will assist us. He is the One who can make us turn back from the
trackless waste of wandering by being the Way Himself (37:7-8). As this seems impossible by
ourselves, Ephrem gives the example of dependence by his prayer to Christ.
Ephrem expresses the need to reach out to Christ in response to His call, to
acknowledge and confess one’s want and to rely on His indispensable help (25:12). The poet

122
Hambye notes that in the HdF, the most prayers are found of all Ephrem’s writings. E.R.
Hambye, “St. Ephrem and His Prayers,” The Harp 1, nr. 2.3 (1988): 49.
123
Cf. Exodus 19:4
refers to the people in the desert who had to look at the snake to be healed 124 to exhort His
audience: they also did not have to inquire but look in faith on Christ in order to live (9:11). If
we are sick and have sinned, we should humbly reach out for His medicine (15:1).

May the example of Zacchaeus instruct me because He was reaching out.

In You his shortness had grown and he attempted and came to You.
This saying from You—towards You
it had led him who was far away from You. (25:13)

We have to reach out, but the focus is on Christ and His grace to assist us.

b) Humility

As Christ humbly bent down for us it is proper to respond with a Christ-inspired

humility in turn. He has given us a divine example. As He refused to show off His wisdom in
humility regarding the hour He would not know, we are challenged to display a similar
humble attitude and refrain from needless inquiry into things that are not revealed to us (79:1).

When they were about to inquire into Him they saw His humiliation
in that hour when described that they were suddenly ashamed,
for by His humble example (‫)ܛܘܦܣܐ‬
they were kept from His overpowering generation. (79:10)

His humility and humiliation enhance a humble stance for those who take Him and His
salvation seriously.
Since we are humans and have limits, we should humbly restrict ourselves to be
occupied with Christ’s humanity (15:1), with what is revealed and accessible to us, even if He
is far beyond this (53:11). Like David, we should confess and praise His divinity (21:11; cf.
2:9); but if we cannot we should not inquire into it since it is too exalted.

It is proper for man to praise (‫ )ܝܕܐ‬Your divinity;

it is proper for the heavenly to worship Your humanity.
The heavenly marvel how much You lessened;
and the earthly how much You are exalted. (14:10)

Exactly that which is too difficult to understand and investigate because of its “otherness” we
should just confess and worship in awe and reverence. God knows we cannot reach Him on
our own. Precisely for that reason He sent His Son with a body as ours in order to direct our
senses to the accessible (17:5).
If we approach Christ, we should be aware of His majesty and treat Him accordingly
—He is both to fear and to love (54:5-7):

To the Holy of Holies the priest

entered in silence
only once in a year
he entered in fear.
If the dwelling place
was that splendid,

124
Numbers 21:4-9
 who will venture to inquire
into the Strength that dwelt in it?
Let us honour it,
the search of the First born,
for He is the Lord of the Holy place. (8:7)

Again, the emphasis is put on the attitude of our approach. If we are granted the privilege to
meet Him, we should realise that this is rooted in His merciful disposal of the Bridge. We
should honour Him for this and acknowledge Him as the Son of His Father in response to His
revelation (7:7). We should take His revelation to heart as we received it and be content with
it, even if we do not understand the exact conditions (9:1).

c) Gratitude

On what aspect do we focus if we want to approach Christ? Do we covet what He

did not give us, or do we fill our thoughts with all that He granted us even if we did not
deserve it? “Blessed is the one who stretched out his mind, my Lord, and considered about
You—that creatures are not competent of You and gave thanks that You esteemed him worthy
to dwell in him” (3:6). Is this approach, like a child with its father, not much more desirable
than stubbornly prying into His hiddenness (67:16)? Even if we do not understand Him, it is
while dwelling in Him and without loosing Him that we succumb or are struck silent (32:6). In
gratitude, we want to act to His glory and not to our own.
Who could reward what He did for us (51:1)? We can, however, thank Him in word
and deed. The ultimate way to show one’s gratitude is by singing praise and using what God
gave to His glory in return: “You I do exalt—by You I am exalted” (16:2). For Ephrem, the
expression of thankfulness is self-evident.

How, My Lord, would my harp desist from praising You?

How, also, would I teach my tongue ingratitude?
Your love granted confidence when I was covered with confusion
and my delight is ungrateful? (14:9)

The poet, filled with adoration and praise, cannot imagine how one wilfully would be
indifferent towards this unsurpassed divine love and mercy.
Accordingly, instead of rude and self-centred inquiry, we should rather respond to
God’s self-revelation with gratitude, and praise the One who sent His Son to us (16:2).

The Lord declined and descended and became a servant to the servant.
He became like a companion, became like a fellow-servant and washed the feet.
Into these things we shall inquire, O beloved,
if we are able of gracious acceptance. (24:9)

The incarnation is a cause for gratitude, meditation and wonder. Let us study what He did for
us. His condescension is not meant to be a pretext for contentious debate and investigation
about the hidden. Ephrem even thanks the Lord that He kept him back from inquiry of the
hidden things; in the end this does not fill one’s treasury (38:20).
 The ultimate Bridge of Christ invites us to leave our obsession for control and put
our confidence in Him in childlike dependence. In our daily walk, we can express our need for
His assistance in prayer. Instead of coveting hidden knowledge, we should honour Him in
gratitude for all He has done for us. Where would we be without Him?

5. REVERENCE IN SPEECH AND SILENCE

The balance of silence and speech is all-permeating in Ephrem’s HdF. I cannot but
treat this subject separately in order to do justice to its importance. Especially in one’s use of
silence and speech one’s inner attitude comes to the fore regarding God and His Bridge.

a) Praise

The ultimate way of proper speech is praise. Already in the response of the first
HdF, Ephrem chants: “Yours be the praise from every mouth!” This is what is due to God, but
also what can be His and our delight in the midst of the fatiguing struggles of inquiry (2:21).
In the context of these aspects of the Divine reality which are beyond human grasp, Ephrem
but gives the alternatives of silence and praise (4:13), or worship, like the magians who visited
the Child (7:5).125 Only these are appropriate; they acknowledge God in His majesty. Thus,
after expressing the fixed order of the Three names in the baptismal formula, he states:

“How” and “why,” this stays within silence;

except for and outside of this silence, speak praise!
Let your tongue not be
a bridge of sounds that lets pass all words. (23:15)

Investigation and disputation are obviously seen as opposite to being in His presence and
singing praise to Him (23:6).
Ephrem urges the audience to praise God in gratitude for what He has done; for His
teaching of the Truth, for His descent to become a brother to His servants, for giving up His
glorious dwelling place, for His radical self-revelation, for our adoption to make us His
children who may eat at His table; all of this He did to us humans who originated from dust
(19:1,7; 24:9-11; 46:10; 58:8)! In general:

Praise Him who brought blessing

and accepted our prayer!
Because the Adorable descended to us,
He made ascend adoration from us! (5:17)

The poet even compares praise with the tithe we should give Him in gratitude (23:16).
Also in praise our dependence on God is revealed. The poet prays that both silence
and speech may be increased in him so that he can properly speak praise to God’s glory

125
Matthew 2:9-11
(67:25). Ephrem invites His Lord on “a banquet of hymns,” but asks Him to bring the wine,
that is, to fill his mouth with praise (14:1; cf. 14:4). He also begs for inspiration of the Spirit
to enable him to proclaim His glory (25:1). Everything we praise God for originates from
Himself and is granted to us in grace (16:2; 25:3). In praise we return what in fact already
belongs to Him.

b) Proclamation

Even if we have to limit our speech often, the Truth and faith of the prophets and the
apostles displayed in the Scriptures should be proclaimed openly, in love, and without dispute
(2:23; 43:9; 67:18; cf. 15:2; 35:7), even as the martyrs do with the blood of their throats
(39:1). Just like a trumpet, one’s faith and the Truth cannot silently whisper in an inner room
(13:8). “Blessed who becomes dumb at the time of Your birth’s investigation; blessed who
becomes a trumpet at the time of Your birth’s narration” (2:20). Ephrem just cannot hide his
faith and God’s glorious goodness. He sees its proclamation as an offering to God, and
refraining from it would be like hiding one’s face or stopping a pleasant stream caused by
God Himself (13:10; 16:1,13; 20:1). While the poet compares prayer with a virgin in an inner
room since it is directed to God, faith is, like the bride in a procession in the streets, expressed
by the voice for everyone who wants to hear it (20:6-7,10).

Teaching is the treasury of faith,

the voice the key and the tongue like the treasurer.
Never does faith desist
to express and impart the Truth to listeners. (13:7)

For Ephrem, proclamation is inherent in true faith.

Unproclaimed faith, then, is like a bird which is still too weak to break its shell
(18:1), or even a womb suppressing its baby. The result, Ephrem warns, is the death of both
mother and child, that is, of believer and faith (20:2; cf. 20:3). Accordingly, those who keep
their faith silent because of fear are considered kin with the actual deniers (20:8; cf. 16:12).
Nevertheless, both for the mother and the bird, a prayer is included in the very same stanza to
ask God for assistance in one’s proclamation. We are not left to a fearful fate if we are weak.

c) Benefit and Balance

In a balanced use of silence and speech, the benefit for others is of major
importance, and something one should learn to attune to (67:7). The second HdF pays special
attention to this issue. One’s search should neither be too less nor too heavy, directed at the
need of those who listen (2:12); like this one should become like salt of the Truth among
one’s contemporaries (2:3). Careful speech can have a radical influence on the audience:

Blessed is the one, my Lord, whose tongue became a zither for You
and sang on it melodies able to heal those who listen to them.
 Blessed is the one, my Lord, who acquired Veracity which supported the feeble
and whose Truth became like a staff for the one who is weak of mind.
Blessed is the one who has cleansed his search like a mirror
for those wanting in faith so that they can wipe away their blemishes in it.
Blessed is the one whose word became like a medicine of Life
and gave Life to the talkative dead who exalted themselves against the One giving
Life to all. (2:15-16,18-19)

What we use our tongue for can both kill and heal. The tongue can be a sword, even a snake
spitting bitterness (15:11). This awareness is essential.
The awareness of this necessary balance will encourage the disposition not to use
one’s tongue for foolish disputations (2:22) which are fed by haughtiness, but to turn it for the
good in dependence of and reverence for the Lord. “Harp, clarify yourself from controversy.
Let pride not sing its own desire by you, let also pomp not chant by you one of its songs, for
all of it is ruin” (23:5). If we assume this balance in speech and silence, guided by the
prophets and the apostles, we will want to tune and strain the strings that were disordered by
disputation (23:6) and thus restore balance and harmony.
Different listeners can ask for different “songs.” Some need instruction, others
reproach (58:7). The perfect are best served with firm sounds, while simple persons need a
simple song (21:1). You should choose songs for which you cannot be blamed, sing nothing
that would damage, but melodies in which both the Lord and His servants delight (23:9-10).
So you should not trouble simple and innocent believers with difficult questions or bring
division where believers live together in harmony (23:10). This is no adaptation according to
one’s own “benefit”! Ephrem warns against those who change their words according to their
audience in a way deceptive of the truth (21:8-9). Also in this matter of seeking the true
benefit of others, we can be dependent on the Lord for help to know what is of use (51:6).
Ephrem obviously likes balance. He surely is no advocate of limitless speech, but
neither of total silence. Both have their essential part on the pair of scales and should healthily
alternate like day and night (38:8-10). He asks the Lord to assist him in both (67:25). Touch
only these matters which are lawful and within your capability; stop when it surpasses your
strength (23:1; 51:5; 70:7). In the HdF, the poet primarily stresses to not ask too many
questions (2:10). The standard is the measure of the prophets and the apostles; they exemplify
what is fitting (2:11,23). One example is Abraham, who did not even inquire when God
ordered him to sacrifice his son. He knew when to speak and when to keep silent (56:3-6).
Just like everything in creation should be taken in measure—like medicines, wine, food,...—
the approach towards God has its proper order too (28:2-3,15; 38:14). Contention and
disputing hidden things clearly fall beyond this measure (23:8; cf. 2:9). And, of course, first
think, then speak, lest you might regret your words (67:6).
d) The Harbor of Silence

Silence begins where speech and wisdom fall short. God has given us both the
faculty of finding things out (!‫ )ܢܕܪܘܫ‬and of silence in certain measures and for certain area’s
(38:13). We should not presume that we do God “a favor” by not inquiring into Him if we are
not capable of it anyway, if it is rather our own weakness which restrains us than reverence.
Silence is a harbor for us guarding us from drowning in the floods of His hiddenness (4:14; cf.
70:7). As for the majesty of the Most High, since even the language of all tongues together is
not capable of comprehending Him, silence is far more suitable than inquiry about His
greatness (1:17-18; 3:4; 50:2-4).

Who would not still the inquiry of that Begotten One

and be astonished about His Begetter. That He is the Son is easy for us;
the “how” is difficult for us; to perceive is simple for us;
to inquire is hard for us. For it is hidden from all natures,
the search of His Being. To His Father and to Him let us raise
praise by means of silence. Give thanks to His Sender! (50:4)

Silence is a means to acknowledge at once one’s failing in expressing the Divinity and one’s
amazement towards Him (7:4; 15:2,5). As such, one honors God as the Holy One, just as the
high priest entered the Holy of Holies in silence (8:7).
In this way, silence acts like a “veil”; as the people did not look at Moses’
brightness through the veil, silence also expresses that we cannot perceive God (8:2). While
the proud experience this as the limiting boundary they want to cross (67:5), the ones
willingly dependent on God know silence to be a shelter and relief (70:6-9). 126 If one is
surrounded by vain disputations, silence functions as a harbor to flee.

Blessed is the one who encircled his hearing with a fortification of silence
and the questions of the wise who attack You did not break trough it.
Blessed is the one who secretly put forth spiritual wings
and when there was disputation on earth, left it and ascended to heaven.
Blessed also is the one who became a sailor for his faith
and will flee from the storms of controversy to the harbor of silence. (2:4-6)

Ephrem refers to the angels as models who praise God in silence and refrain thus from
disputation because of their awe for Him127 (3:5,9-10; 4:1,7-8,17-18; 22:11).
In the twentieth HdF, the poet describes prayer as a similar kind of stronghold of
silence. As a maiden in an inner room, intercession is guarded by stillness and silence as the
eunuchs at its door (20:6). Or as a fish, prayer is conceived and born in the silent depths, far
away from its hunters (20:5). The reason to not leave this inner place is to not wander (20:5-
6). This is connected again with Truth and love which are the maidens bridal bed and crown

126
This does not mean that there is no vocabulary of “limit” towards the humble (e.g. 2:13),
but the tone and emphasis differ because of an alternative experience of and focus on the same given.
127
Cf. Revelation 8:1
(20:6). I assume that this means one would leave veracity and humble love if one would pray
intercession for the ears of others. It is meant for the hidden ear of God (20:10). The trap of
pride is close if this prayer leaves the safe harbor of silence. As such, the balance of silence
and speech, since both can be misused, should be guided by one’s dependence on God. In this
vein, Ephrem concludes his first HdF:

Grant me, my Lord, that I may employ both of these prudently.

May I not dispute audaciously nor keep silence headlong.
May I learn beneficial speech and may I acquire distinctive silence. (1:19)

A reverent use of speech and silence is especially carried out by praise, the ultimate
manner of speech. It expresses gratitude and dependence since every blessing originates from
Him. In line with this gratitude, Ephrem most naturally wants to proclaim God’s glory and
goodness. He cannot keep silent. The poet defends the balance of speech and silence; both
have their role and benefit. For every situation and audience one should consider the benefit
of both. Finally, enjoy the harbor of silence if the floods of investigations grow in danger.

6. CONSEQUENCES
In anything, the consequences of a positive response towards God’s bridge are
radically different from and opposite to those of the negative answer. In general, “inquiry into
You is filled with woe, but in love for You is hidden blessing” (5:15).

a) Approach

Ironically, while those keen on prying into God’s hiddenness get lost, those who
refrain from proceeding into forbidden areas get as close as possible. “Through faith He is
approaching you, for through inquiry you distance from help” (72:2).

This is useful for the mouth

that it will praise and keep silent.
And if being asked to run on
it will entirely take shelter in silence
Then it can proceed
if it does not run to proceed;
the silent can better proceed
than the audacious who runs on. (4:13)

The key for this progress is the attitude of dependence and reverence, in silence, speech, and
manners. “He is hidden from you, O inquirer—but present for You, O worshipper” (72:10)!

Towards God, no one approached

from the inquirers, for He is near
to the discerning.
To that Knowing One did not reach
one who is cunning, for His love is
towards the innocent.
 To that Exalted One did not reach
one who is proud, for His love declines
to the humble. (69:13,15-16)

If we proceed on the path God established, for example, that of prayer, the way will be
obvious and the door will open at our arrival (11:11-12). Those who enact their dependence
on God’s bridge will be helped (12:11). While He remains hidden for those who inquire into
Him, He is present and manifest for the righteous who, like trusting and dependent children,
seek Him properly (4:15; 8:5; 72:8; 76:15), not with haughty learnings (51:11).
To seek Him properly is seeking Him in love and dependence, without pride.
Ephrem gives Daniel as an example: “because he acknowledged that the treasury of
revelations was shut, prayer granted him the key of interpretations” (47:7). Similarly, Moses
could see a glimpse of God because of his humble attitude:

Moses wanted Him to open a little chink that he could see there
and since it was not to inquire, he saw; the brightness longed to meet him
while blinding the inquirers. Praises to Your magnificence! (52:9)

Where searching falls short, faith, love, and prayer do reach God (4:11). If we put our faith in
Him, He will even increase it (16:6,9). Without love, however, approaching the Divinity will
fail, for “love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure” (32:3).
This approach is profound and thorough: “Through faith, love, and wisdom one is
mingled (‫ )ܡܬܡܙܓ‬with the Divinity and formed according to its image” (80:3). The Syriac
term ‫ ܡܬܡܙܓ‬is the same Ephrem often uses for the relation between Father and Son. Of
course, as this should not be seen as a strictly defined technical term, he does not mean that
human beings can have exactly the same relation with the Father, but it does stress the depth
of the encounter. This stands in fierce contrast with the desolation and wandering following
the negative response of proud investigation. To proceed without investigation, like the
fathers did, is treading “the way of Life” (86:1).

b) Life in God’s Presence

Probably the most notable consequence of this reverent response is the enjoyment of
Life in God’s presence.

The womb of Your kingdom, behold, is looking at the sincere;

Your Paradise is also looking, my Lord, at the pure;
the table of Your kingdom is expecting Your twelve
that they may recline at it. (12:6)

It is only because of our dependence on His help that we can experience this blessing of living
before Him (68:23). Accordingly, this invitation and expectancy is especially linked with faith
(80:7), which is described as the “ship of Life” (80:8). Ephrem expresses Life to be dependent
on faith, which, on its turn, is dependent on God (80:1-2). The stance of dependence on God
in faith gives Life, since the Truth which grants Life comes from the Trinity. Of course, this is
about faith acted out in one’s conduct and rooted in the Truth (80:7).
Through faith the scene of Adam in Paradise is acted out again, but this time it
brings forth Life instead of death. Ephrem poeticizes this regarding the robber on the cross:

The robber gained the faith

which gained him and brought and set him
within Paradise. He looked at the cross,
the tree of Life; [the faith] became the fruit
and he, instead of Adam, like the eater. (84:1; cf. 54:13)

Faith is like the fruit from the tree of Life. Those who choose to eat from it, and accordingly
adopt a dependent attitude of faith regarding the Lord of the tree, are brought within Paradise
in the presence of its Creator.

c) The Divine Answer

Until now, the consequences to the reverent attitude were rather “passive.” But how
does God actively react to this response? Just as for everyone else, the teachings will be tested
in His furnace to prove their trustworthiness (12:2-3). But those who act out of love are not
left to their fate, as He reveals them the necessary truth about Himself (1:2). They will still be
dependent on His mercy (12:3). We can trust that He will test each of us with a suitable
weight; feeble ones will not be subjected to a perfect weight, nor vice versa (12:5).

Behold, the blowing of the Holy Spirit

is separating the heap by means of His descent;
the straw He scatters; the chaff He dissipates;
the wheat He gathers in to the storehouse of Life without tares. (38:12)

The Lord will gather the scattered sheep into His flock (12:15). If we acknowledge our
dependence on Him, He will grant us victory:

Your armour, my Lord, rejoices in the conquered so that he might triumph.

Your vineyard rejoices in the idle so that, together with the diligent,
with open entrance and confidently he may claim the wage.
Glory for the One who rewards all!128 (12:14)

If we are careful in word and deed, and consider the benefit to others in silence and speech,
the Lord will reward us (23:9). He will not let us down after we put our trust in Him!

The consequences of a reverent response to God’s Bridge are far more promising
than those of the negative answer. Where was wandering and a dead end, we are granted
approach; where was death and desolation is now Life in God’s presence! The Merciful One
rewards and takes care of those who entrust themselves to Him in dependence and reverence.
We can put our confidence on His goodness.

128
Matthew 20:1-16
7. HDF 48 AS EXAMPLE-OVERVIEW
This study is not complete without the presentation of a hymn in its entirety. Only
there, in their original and poetic habitat, Ephrem’s thoughts can appear to full advantage. The
various aspects I introduced throughout the different chapters come together as a unified
whole in HdF 48 as a plea for a reverent attitude towards God, towards His creation, the
Scriptures, and Christ.

1. Grant me that I may open129 my senses for Your Beloved

for He is the only One able to relate about You
and the one who does not learn You from Him, how You are,
extremely errs to think that he has found You!
They are depicted by the believers, the threefold names,
which were never disputed and were never comprehended.
Response: Grant us that our gathering may confess You without hesitation!130
2. If we were competent and able in everything for ourselves,
extremely despicable the Lord of everything would become for us.
And if we were a crucible of investigations,131
no one would cause to err by his speech.
For our soul is like a hand which is unable
to inscribe writings without instruction.
3. For behold: many—without willing—err,
and this has assuredly taught that we are no
crucible of everything so that we would know from and by ourselves
that He is one, for His heralds taught us.
Our createdness is like an eye, for from and of itself it is blind
and not able to distinguish colours without light.
4. Light He caused to shine for us; books He caused to write for us;
His light for manifest things; His writing for concealed things.
In the beginning by appearances and now by laws;
His light and His law, generously.
By its brightness the lamp calls those who see,
to comprehend by its rays the Truth of the law.
5. We have a studious nature in everything
and everyone, according to his power, learns in proportion to his toil,
and the one who does not learn is reckoned among the idiots.
Compare the one with the other and be persuaded:
one who did not subject himself to the Teacher of all
is rightly called willingly erroneous.
6. It is difficult to blame the simple or the idiot
that he paints without skill and forges without cunning.
One may however blame him why he did not learn to.
By the one he escapes and by the other he is condemned,
and therefore also by that by which it seemed that he escapes
he cannot be allowed to escape, for from him and through him one condemns him.132
7. Thrust out133 and let the fish go so that it will be wearied out.134
It struggles instead of you, for its toil is against itself.

129
Note this combination of divine assistance and human action in dependence.
130
Or: “without division” (‫)ܕܠ ܦܘܠܓ‬.
131
That is, a crucible which reveals the value of these investigations.
132
That is, in the end he himself could have helped it that he is not skilled, as he could have
chosen to learn it.
 It is bringing you the crown by its running and it does not perceive it.
It mocked the audacious and erroneous one135
while being conquered by itself and when it seemed to draw,
it is drawn according to the will of the fisher.
8. For while not competent to explore the sea where it dwells in136
it wants to cleave the air and it wants to inquire into the height.
For while it is not able to live in a place which does not belong to it,
the fish whose plashing made it err,
is jumping and exalting itself to ascend and explore the air,
so that its inbreathing dissipates it, sending it [back] to its water.
9. And because it is a son of the water, it thinks that everybody’s
dwelling is in water. His river persuades him
that he is too different (‫ )ܢܘܟܪܝ‬to inquire into the dwelling of a bedroom.
But it is not that different from our dwelling
as our search is different from and not capable
of reaching the heavenly and inquiring into their natures.
10. The Gospel137 gushed out like the Gihon to give to drink;
in the Euphrates is indicated its Offspring which it138 magnified139 by its instruction;
in the Pison its type is depicted: the pause of its investigation;
it sifted us like the Tigris by its discourse.
Let us swim and ascend through it towards the encounter of Paradise!
And the fish shall not cross the boundary of its life!

The message is clear: humbly receive instruction from creation, from the Scriptures,
and from Christ, and do not proudly go beyond this! If we heed this teaching in this attitude of
dependence and not go beyond our realm on our own account, we will really live, get to know
and approach God, and head for Paradise.

The positive stance towards God’s Bridge is coloured by dependence, humility,

reverence, love, gratitude, and faith. These define our deeds and speech regarding the chasm,

133
Perhaps this could refer to a fishhook.
134
From this stanza on, Ephrem draws the image of the fish which, (stanza 7) just like the
one who refuses to learn, is collaborating to its own destruction; and (stanza 8 and 9) should stay within
its own realm, which is not in the air, if it wants to stay alive.
135
That is, those who do not want to learn and also head their destruction.
136
Here Ephrem jumps to another scene to make concrete what the fish, symbol of the
audacious ones, does not want to learn.
137
Ephrem concludes with the instruction of the Gospel, our guide. The poet represents the
Gospel as the stream which sprung up from Paradise and then was divided into the four named rivers,
referring to Genesis 2:10-14. In the name of each of these rivers, a symbolical instruction is hidden,
which I tried to preserve in the translation: the Gihon gushed out (‫ )ܓܝܚܘܢ – ܓܚܬ‬as the Gospel gives
to drink, gives instruction; in the Euphrates is indicated the Gospel’s Offspring (‫ )ܦܪܬ – ܦܪܝܗ‬which is
extolled by this instruction; in the Pison the pause (‫ – ܦܘܫܗ‬2‫ )ܦܝܫܘܢ‬of the Gospel’s investigation is
depicted; and the Gospel sifted us like the Tigris (‫ )ܕܩܠܬ – ܕܩܠܬܢ‬by its discourse.
138
That is: the Gospel.
139
Beck translates here “im Euphrat ist vorgezeichnet sein Geschlecht, * das zalreich wurde
durch seine Lehre” (Hymnen de Fide [transl.], 131). The Syriac behind “Geschlecht,” or “Offspring”
(‫)ܦܪܝܐ‬, however, is masculine, while the verb is feminine (‫ )ܣܓܝܬ‬and thus should have the Gospel as
subject. This makes the reading of a causative pael obligatory, instead of Beck’s choice for a peal.
creation, the Scriptures and Christ. These remind us of our own place versus the magnificence
of the Most High who acted so mercifully towards us. The consequence of this attitude is the
enjoyment of true approach to the Divine and the Life in His presence.

CONCLUSION

Our response to the chasm and God’s bridge proves to be of major importance. This
is reflected in the many quotations from Ephrem’s HdF, but also in the radical consequences
each answer engenders.
The negative response consists of blurring God’s bridge. The chasm and one’s own
position are proudly neglected, which results in an audacious approach of God. Creation is
viewed either too low or too high; both deprive the Creator of His due honour. The truthful
guide of the Scriptures is essentially blurred by disputation. The truth of God’s written words
is questioned, which goes hand in hand with loosing faith. As such, inquiry is also revolt
against God and siding with His adversary. As the anticlimax, the ultimate Bridge of Christ is
blurred too. Those who trouble this Bridge deny the Son’s name and according position next
to the Father. Because of their inquiry into His person, they forget to be healed and saved.
The positive response is primarily marked by reverence, faith, dependence, and
loving gratitude. These affect one’s reaction to the chasm as well as to God’s various means;
creation, Scripture, and Christ. What is hidden is not seen as an unfair prohibition, but as a
merciful protection. This stance engenders praise, proclamation of God’s glory and goodness
and takes account of the benefit of others in a balanced use of silence and speech. Silence,
then, is rather seen as a harbour than a limiting boundary.
The red thread throughout both the negative and the positive answer is one’s
attitude. One’s stance and motivation in approaching God reveal the real chosen position over
against the Creator. Whether a true encounter with the Most High is possible accordingly
depends on this attitude: the attitude of pride is followed by a dead end and separation, but a
stance of dependence is followed by Life in God’s presence. The subject of investigation is a
touchstone for this principle. Inquiry is almost everywhere in the HdF associated with this
negative response, but in the instances when one searches in dependence on God’s means, in
humility and reverence, and also in bold love, this meditation is even encouraged.
 CONCLUSION

In the HdF of Ephrem the Syrian, a fearful Chasm is depicted between the Creator
and the created. This chasm proved to be reflected in the limits of the human senses as well as
in humanity’s sinfulness and mortality. Although this immense gap appeared to be
uncrossable, God radically bridged it in His abundant mercy towards us. The human response
of neglecting the chasm hopelessly increases its width instead of crossing it. A humble
awareness of the chasm and the human limits, however, increases our awe towards the
magnificence of the Most High, and cautions us in our approach towards Him.
As for God’s bridging initiative, creation functions as a signpost towards the Creator
and inspires praise and reverence for those who adopt a dependent stance regarding this divine
means. Ephrem exemplifies this attitude throughout his HdF. If nature is not viewed too low
or too high, its principles teach us about the proper order of things and about its Maker.
Moreover, by means of a veil of created matter, God could appear to humanity in a visible and
intelligible form to instruct us about Himself.
In Scripture, God bridged the gap and descended in the human realm of language.
Through this self-revelation, He guides humanity on the way of Life. The divine names serve
this same purpose and thus do not invite vain inquiry, according to Ephrem. Instead of turning
the sayings of Scripture to serve one’s own revolting program, we may depend on this mirror
of Truth. We follow the guide of Scripture as we take the reverent and faithful example of the
prophets and the apostles to heart and do not go beyond the revealed in the knowledge that
God wisely decided what was to be written and what was to be left out.
The chasm is most fundamentally and radically bridged in the Son of God Himself.
On account of His unique position at the divine side of the chasm, He is the Bridge to the
Father. He offers us assistance in all our limitations if we only want to accept and thus
respond to Him in faith, humility, dependence, and gratitude. In Ephrem’s view, the concept
of the chasm expresses that humanity is most foreign to God, but creation, Scripture, and,
above all, Christ, help us to depict His image in our heart and become more similar to Him.
God reveals these aspects that assist us to truly enjoy Life in His presence. He longs to have
us humans as guests at His table.
One’s attitude proves to be fundamental in the reaction to God’s bridge. The stance
of either pride or dependence with reference to God’s self-revelation reflects one’s real
motivation in the approach towards Him. Pride and envy reveal the love of self supremacy,
but the stance of dependence proves the love for God and one’s neighbor. The consequences
of either a blind way which leads to death or true Life in God’s presence is the necessary
outcome of this attitude. But even at the final balance, God’s love and grace are manifest. We
can trust Him if we depend on His divine help.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY LITERATURE

Ephrem the Syrian. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide. Ed. Edmund Beck.
CSCO 154 / SS 73. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955.
. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide. Trans. Edmund Beck CSCO
155 / SS 74. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955.
. Eighty Hymns on Faith. Trans. Paul S. Russell. 1995, to be published by Peeters,
Leuven.
. The Pearl: Seven Hymns on the Faith. Trans. J.B. Morris. Ed. John Gwynn.
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/pearl.html, downloaded on 26 February 2005.

SECONDARY LITERATURE

Beck, Edmund. “Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 19
(1953), 5-24.
. Ephräms des Syrers Psychologie und Erkenntnislehre. CSCO Vol. 419. Subsidia
58. Louvain: Peeters, 1980.
. Ephräms Trinitätlehre im Bild von Sonne/Feuer, Licht und Wärme. CSCO 425.
Subsidia 62. Louvain: Peeters, 1981.
. “Die Erkenntnis Gottes.” In Die Theologie des Hl. Ephraem in seinen Hymnen
über den Glauben. Studia Anselmiana 21. Vatican City, 1949. 23-34.
. “Glaube und Gebet bei Ephräm.” Oriens Christianus 66 (1982):15-50.
Bluyssen, Jan and Gerard Rooijakkers. God verborgen en nabij: religie als heilig spel.
Amsterdam: Anthos, 2002.
Brock, Sebastian P. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the
Syrian. Cistercian Studies Series 124. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian
Publications, 1992.
Bruns, Peter. “Arius hellenizans? - Ephräm der Syrer und die neoarianischen Kontroversen
seiner Zeit; ein Beitrag zur Rezeption des Nizänums im syrischen Sprachraum.”
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 101 (1990): 21-57.
Bundy, David D. “Language and the Knowledge of God in Ephrem Syrus.” The Patristic and
Byzantine Review 5 (1986): 91-103. Or in Dialogue & Alliance 1 (Winter 1987-
1988): 56-64.
Collier, Winn (ed.). Deeper Walk. A Relevant Devotional Series, vol. 1: God of the Desert,
God of Greatness. Lake Mary, FL: Relevant Media Group, 2003.
Den Biesen, K. “Spreken over God bij Efrem de Syriër.” Het Christelijk Oosten: Tijdschrift
van het Instituut voor Oosters Christendom 47 (1995): 7-27.
Gottlieb, Gunther. “Valens,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Freiburg: Herder, 2001.
10:517. (nakijken)
Hambye, E.R. “St. Ephrem and His Prayers.” The Harp 1, 2.3 (1988): 47-52.
Koonammakkal, Thomas. “Ephrem’s Imagery of Chasm.” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256
(1998): 175-183.
. “The Self-Revealing God and Man in Ephrem.” The Harp 6 nr. 3 (dec 1993):
233-248.
Payne Smith, J. (ed.). A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus
Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.
Russell, Paul S. “Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility of Language and the Place of Silence.”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 no. 2 (2000): 21-37.