Part 3
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
begetting, the speaker from the speech – unless we are all very stupid. On the one hand we have the mover, and on the other hand (so to speak) the movement. Thus the thing willed is not the offspring of the will, for it does not follow that the will as such produced it. Nor is that which is begotten the offspring of the act of begetting as such, nor is what is heard the offspring of speech. No, the thing willed is the offspring of the person who willed it; what is begotten is the offspring of the person who did the begetting; and what is heard is the offspring of the person who spoke. But God transcends all this, and it may be that in God the will to beget is itself the act of generation. Absolutely nothing intervenes, so that the generation of the Son surpasses even the will.20
§ 7. Do you wish me to play games for a bit with the Father also? For your example encourages me to be so bold.
Does the Father will to be God, or is it against His will? Just try to escape from your own clever sleight-of-hand? If the Father is God by an act of will, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to be God, for He was never anything else. Or did one part of Him will it, while another part was the result of that will? If so, He is divisible. In that case, is not the Father – according to you – Himself the offspring of the will? And if the Father is God against His will, what compelled Him to be God? And how is He God if He was compelled – and compelled to no other thing but this, namely, to be God? My opponent asks: How was the Son begotten? How was the Son created? – if (as you say) He was created? For this is a part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, "The Son was created by will and word." You still have not solved the whole difficulty; for it yet remains for you to show how will and word came to have such effective power. For humanity was not created in this way.
§ 8. How then was the Son begotten? His generation would not be a big issue, if you could have comprehended it – you who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or who comprehend only a very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then you think you know the whole thing? You will have to go through a lot of hard work before you discover the laws which explain how you were composed, formed, and came into the light of day; how the soul is bonded to the body, the mind to the
20 Gregory appears to mean that the generation of the Son is an act of God's very existence – that is, an act by which God is God – not a choice or decision made subsequently. The Father does not will the Son into existence, as if the Father had options, because (as Gregory will argue a little further on) the Father cannot be the Father without the Son. 21 In Gregory's view, the Eunomians had been "playing games" with (the concept of) the Son; he will now do them one better by pretending to "play games" with (the concept of) the Father.
Gregory of Nazianzus
soul, and reason to the mind; how happen movement, growth, assimilation of food, sensation, memory, recollection, and all the other faculties which make you what you are; how some of these faculties belong to the soul and body together, while others belong either to the soul alone or to the body alone, and still others work in mutual co-operation. For those faculties which come to maturity later in life nonetheless received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are. Even if you can, do not venture to expound the generation of God, for that is dangerous. For even if you knew all about your own generation, you do not know a thing about God's. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God's? So far as God is harder to explain than humanity, by so much is the heavenly generation harder to comprehend than your own. And if you say that, because you are unable to comprehend it, therefore the Son cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to write off any number of things which you cannot comprehend – and first of all, God Himself. For you cannot say what God is, despite your boldness and your presumptuous investigations. Give up your verbal diarrhœa, your hairsplittings and analytical dissections, your habit of imagining incorporeal nature as a body, and then you may perhaps think something of value concerning the divine generation. How was the Son begotten? – Once again I exclaim with indignation that the begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that the Son was begotten. But as for the how of it, we acknowledge that not even angels can conceptualise it, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father who begot and to the Son who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud and escapes your dim sight.
§ 9. Ah, but did the Father generate someone who already existed, or someone who did not exist?22 What twaddle! This is a question which applies to you or me – on the one hand, we already existed before we were born, as Levi was in the loins of Abraham;23
on the other hand, we came into existence [at a particular moment in time]. So in a certain sense we come partly from what existed and partly from what was nonexistent; whereas the contrary is the case with the primæval matter, which was certainly created out of what was non-existent, notwithstanding some philosophers who represent it as
22 Gregory is paraphrasing a dilemma that Arians posed to defenders of the Nicene settlement: "Did the Son exist before He was begotten?"
23 Hebrews 7.10. The idea, almost universal in the ancient world, is that all subsequent individuals are contained in the "seed" of a (male) ancestor. This notion undergirds the doctrine of Original Sin: since all human beings were present in the seed of Adam from the beginning, all are tainted with his guilt.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
being unbegotten.24 But in God, being begotten coincides with existence from the beginning.25 On what, then, will you base this captious question?26 For what is older than what is from the beginning, if we may place there the previous existence or non-existence of the Son? In either case we destroy its claim to be the beginning.27
Or if we were to ask you whether the Father came of already-existing elements or of nothing, perhaps you will say that the Father is twofold, partly pre-existing, partly existing; or that His case is the same as that of the Son – that is, that the Father came into being out of nothingness, because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand which cannot stand against the slightest ripple of wind.
I do not admit either solution, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, not a difficulty to answer. If you think, in accordance with your assumptions, that one or other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one little question: – Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, what is this time? And why is this time different from the time it contains? And how does it contain it? But if time is not contained in time, what surpassing wisdom will introduce a timeless time? Now, with respect to the statement, "I am now telling a lie," admit one of these alternatives, either that it is true or that it is false, without qualification – for we cannot admit that it is both. But it is impossible to choose either alternative without qualification. For, necessarily, either I am lying, and so telling the truth, or else I am telling the truth, and so lying.
As in the first case
24 An allusion to the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
25 1 John 1.1. It should be clear by now that Gregory understands from the beginning to mean "from all eternity". 26 I.e. the question with which Gregory opened this section: "Did the Father generate someone who already existed, or someone who did not exist?" 27 Mason (p. 85, note on line 7) comments: "[Gregory is asking the Eunomians:] Where will you find a place, a date, for your question to apply to? '[The Son was a]lready in existence when He was begotten' implies a time before the begetting; but there was no such time. He was begotten from the beginning. What was there before 'the beginning,' that we may say whether the Son existed or not? In either case, whether we affirm or deny His existence, it is clear that the subsequent moment at which we suppose Him to have been begotten cannot really have been the beginning." 28 This philosophical word-puzzle went a long way back; Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosophiaster of the 1st century B.C.E., attributed it to the still more ancient Greek sophist Chryssipus.
Gregory of Nazianzus
contraries are true and in the second case both are false, is it any wonder, then, that your clever puzzle becomes silly? Give me the solution of one more riddle. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself? Or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your individual self become thus both subject and object? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this disjoining? But, you will say, it is stupid to make a fuss about the question, whether a single individual is present to himself or not, for such things apply to others, not to oneself. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question, whether that which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only with respect to things which can be divided by intervals of time.
§ 10. But they say, "The Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same. If this is so, then is the Son not the same thing as the Father."29 It is hardly necessary to point out that this line of argument clearly excludes either the Son or the Father from the divine nature. For if to be Unbegotten is the essence of God, to be begotten is not that essence. If the opposite is true, the Unbegotten is excluded from divinity. What argument can contradict this? Choose then whichever blasphemy you prefer, my new theologian, if indeed you are eager at all costs to be blasphemous. Next, in what sense do you say that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you; for certainly the unoriginate being30
and created being are not of the same nature. But if you say that the One who begot and the One who is begotten are not the same [sc. in nature], the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For it is the very essence of the act of begetting, that the offspring is, with respect to nature, the same thing as the parent. Or again, we may argue this way. What do you mean by "Unbegotten" and "Begotten"? If you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or being begotten, these are not the same. But if you mean those to whom these terms apply, how are they not the same? For example, wisdom and lack of wisdom
29 is not the same thing. This Eunomian objection is driving at more than a difference of persons – i.e. the person of the Father is different from the person of the Son. The same thing in question is the divine substance or nature. The Eunomians, then, are trying to "prove" that the Father and the Son differ in the natures that each possesses.
30 the unoriginate being means, of course, the divine nature considered as that which never had an origin, that is, a start or beginning. In philosophical as well as theological terms, an origin implies a cause outside of (and superior to) the thing originated.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
are not the same in themselves. Yet both are attributes of the same thing, humanity; they do not divide the essences, but mark divisions within the same essence. Are immortality, innocence, and immutability also the essence of God? If so, God has many essences and not just one – that, or the divine essence is a compound of these qualities. For God cannot be all these things without forming a compound – if all these things are essences.
§ 11. In fact, they do not assert this, for these qualities are common also to other beings.31 But God's essence is proper to God alone. No doubt those who consider matter and form to be unbegotten,32 would refuse to allow that being unbegotten is the property of God alone – as for the "darkness" of the Manichæans, we throw it away as even complete garbage.33 But suppose that being unbegotten is something proper to God alone. What about Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? "Yes," you will say. Was he then the only human being? "Not at all." And why so? Because humanity does not consist in direct creation; that which is begotten is also human. Just so, neither is the One who is unbegotten alone God, though that One alone is the Father. But grant that the One who is begotten is also God. For the Begotten comes from God, as you must allow, despite your excessive attachment to [the notion of] the Unbegotten. Then how do you describe the essence of God? Not by declaring what it is, but by excluding what it is not. For your language states only that God is not begotten; it does not express what is the real nature or condition of that which does not have any generation. What then is the essence of God? It is your own folly which prompts you to ask the question – you who carry out rash inquiries into the generation of God. To us, however, it will be a very great thing if we learn the truth of this generation at some point in the far off future, when the impenetrable darkness of this present age are taken away for us,34
according to the promise of the One who is without
31 For example, angels are immortal, while doves and lambs are often called "innocent".
32 A reference to the teachings of those philosophers who were more Platonist than Plato himself. 33 The Manichæans were the ancient world's version of "New Age". They were not a single movement so much as a gaggle of sects, each of which asserted its own variant of a common myth as the only path of salvation. According to one of the basic elements in this common myth, "Light" (which was pure spirit, therefore the Good) and "Darkness" (which was matter, therefore Evil) were eternal principles and equally "unbegotten". 34 Cf. 1 Corinthians 13.12: "Now we see in a mirror, dimly [or darkly], but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know
Gregory of Nazianzus
falsehood.35
This, then, may be the thought and the hope of those who are purifying themselves for the sake of that knowledge. For our part, we will be bold enough to say this much: – If it is a great thing for the Father to be altogether underived [from anything else], it is no less a thing for the Son to have been derived from such a Father. For not only does the Son share the glory of the One who is underived, since he comes from the Underived, but he also has the additional glory of His generation – a reality so very great and so truly venerable for those whose minds are not altogether attached to the earth and immersed the realm of matter.
§ 12. "But," they say, "if the Son is the same as the Father when it comes to essence, then if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be unbegotten, too." Quite so – if unbegottenness is the essence of God. That would make the Son a strange mixture, the begotten-Unbegotten. But if the difference [between being begotten and being unbegotten] surrounds the essence,
36 how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you also your parent's parent, so as to be in no way inferior to your parent, since you are the same with your parent in essence?37 Is it not evident that our inquiry into the essence of God – if we attempt it at all – will in no way affect "property"?38 In any case, it can be demonstrated that "unbegotten" and "God" are not synonyms – and in this way: – If the two terms were synonyms, God, who is God of certain beings, must also be the Unbegotten of certain beings – or conversely, since God is the Unbegotten of no-one, so must God be the God of no-one.39
For terms which
fully, even as I have been fully known." In Gregory's day, as earlier in Paul's, mirrors were made of polished silver, not of glass; so the reflections they gave were indeed "dim" or "dark".
35 Titus 1.2. 36 That is to say, the difference between begotten and unbegotten has to do with the ways in which the divine nature is realised and exists, not with that nature in and of itself. 37 Gregory is pursuing an implication of the Eunomian objection posed at the beginning of this section. If you are not your parent's parent (Gregory actually says, "your father's father"), then the Eunomians' own position requires them to say that no-one has the same essence – the same human nature – as his or her parent. 38 Property. As in the Prayer of Humble Access (CanBCP 1962, p. 83), "But thou art the same Lord, Whose property is always to have mercy." A "property" is something proper to a class of beings, a distinguishing characteristic which differentiates one thing from another.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
are absolutely synonymous must be identically applied. But surely God is not "the Unbegotten of certain beings" – to whom has He ever been "the Unbegotten"? God is "the God of certain beings" – in other words, of all things. How then can "God" and "unbegotten" be identical terms? And again, since [the terms "begotten" and "unbegotten"] contradict one another, like "possession" and "deprivation," we would have to say that contradictory essences co-exist in God – which is impossible. Or again, since possession comes before deprivation, the latter destroying the former, not only must the essence of the Son come before that of the Father, but the essence of the Son must also be destroyed by the Father – at least, according to your hypothesis!
§ 13. What now remains of their invincible arguments? Perhaps their last refuge will be this argument: "If God has never ceased to beget, the begetting is imperfect – and when will He cease? But if God has ceased begetting, then He must have begun begetting." Thus again these carnal minds bring forward carnal arguments. I will not as yet say whether the Son is eternally begotten or not, until I have examined with greater exactness the text, Before all the mountains I was begotten.40
But I cannot see the necessity of their conclusion. For if (according to them) whatever comes to an end must also have had a beginning, then surely whatever has no end had no beginning. What then will they decide concerning the soul, or concerning the angelic nature? If the soul had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, it is evident that (according to them) it had no beginning. But the truth is that the soul did have a beginning – and it will never have an end. Their assertion, then, that whatever will have an end must also have had a beginning, is untrue. Our own position is this: – Just as in the case of a horse or an ox or a human, the same definition applies to all the individuals of the same species, and whatever shares the definition has also a right to the name; so in the very same way there is one essence of God, and one nature, and one Name. And although the diversity of our viewpoints leads us to use distinct names, yet whatever is
39 God, who is God of certain beings …. so must God be the God of noone. This argument is based on the notion that the term "God" designates a relationship – God is the God of so-and-so. Mason (p. 91, note on line 1) notes that this argument has its limitations; if pursued in isolation, one might end up saying that "apart from creation, God would not be God". Mason, of course, lived before Alfred North Whitehead and "process theology," which basically maintained this very notion in the sense that, as God precedes and guides creation in and through its process of development, so God needs creation in order to realise the divine being.
40 Proverbs 8.25, where the speaker is Lady Wisdom. Gregory postponed his examination of this text until the Fourth Theological Oration § 2.
Gregory of Nazianzus
properly called by this one Name really is God. By the same token, what God is in nature, that is what He is truly called – given that, for us, the truth is not in the names but in the realities themselves. But our opponents, as if afraid to leave any stone unturned in subverting the truth, acknowledge that the Son is God when they are compelled to do so by the divine Word and the testimonies of Scripture – but they then explain that the Son shares the name of God only in an equivocal sense.41
§ 14. We raise this objection against them: "What do you mean to say, then – that the Son is not properly God, just as a picture of an animal is not properly an animal? And if the Son is not properly God, in what sense is He God at all?" And they reply, "What is to hinder us from using these terms in an equivocal sense, while in both cases applying them in a proper sense?"
And they will give us such instances as the dog which runs on land and the dogfish; where the word "dog" is equivocal and at the same time applied to both animals in the proper sense – for it is an aspect of such a class in the order of equivocal predication, in which one thing may receive the same designation as another thing and be treated as its equivalent, although the two things are of different natures. But in this case, O best of humans (!), when you include two natures under the same name, you do not assert that either is better than the other, or that the one is older and the other younger, or that one is more and the other less of what is predicated of them both, for there is no connecting link which forces this necessity upon them. The first kind of dog is not more of a dog and the other kind less of a dog than the other – that is to say, the dogfish is not more of a dog than the dog which runs on land, or the land-dog more of a dog than the dogfish. Why should they be? on what principle? There is a community of name between things of equal value, though of different nature. In the case of which we are speaking, however, you attach to God an awesome solemnity and say that God is too high to be described as having any essence or nature – a quality which belongs to God alone and indeed constitutes divinity itself. Then you give this "description" to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make Him subject to the Father, and give Him only a secondary honour and worship. And even as
41 in an equivocal sense. Equivocal predication is a rhetorical manœuvre by which different things with different natures are called or designated by the same name. The application of the same name to two different things has no basis in reality. Hence, in Eunomian thought, the Son may indeed be called "God," but the name is really a fiction because the Son does not have or share the nature of God.
42 That is to say, the name "God" may be applied both to the Father and to the Son in a proper sense – but the word will have different value or meaning when applied to one or the other Person.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
your syllables pronounce the Son to be like the Father, you really mutilate His divinity and pass treacherously from an equivocation which implies an exact equality to an equivocation which associates things that are not equal. And so the person in a painted portrait and the actual person bear for you a much closer relation to divinity than the dogs in the example you gave. Either that, or else you must concede to both [the Father and the Son] not only a community of name but also an equal dignity of natures, even though you suppose these natures to be different – and thus you destroy the example of your dogs, which you had invented to demonstrate the inequality of natures. For what advantage is it to have the same name, if those whom you distinguish do not have equality of honour? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments and against the divine nature?
§ 15. And when we admit that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of being the cause of the Son's existence, they take as their secondary premise that the Father is the cause by nature. And when they deduce from this that the Father is also greater [than the Son] by nature, I cannot tell whom they deceive the most – themselves or those to whom they address such language. For everything which is said about particular individuals cannot also be said, without qualification, about their underlying nature, for the different particulars may belong to different individuals. Suppose I took the same premise – namely, "The father is greater [than the son] by nature" – and then made this my secondary premise, "But the father is not by nature necessarily greater, nor even by nature necessarily a father." What then could stop me from concluding, "Therefore, the greater is not in every respect greater, nor is the father in every respect a father?" Or, if you prefer, let us put it in this way: "God is an essence: But an essence is not in every respect God." Draw the conclusion for yourself: "Therefore, God is not in every respect God." I think the fallacy here is in arguing from the relative to the absolute use of a term, to use the technical expression of the logicians. For while we assign the term "greater" to the Father's nature viewed as a Cause, they infer it of the Father's nature viewed in itself. It is just as if we were to say that So-and-so was a dead man, and they were to infer that all humanity, with qualification, was dead.
§ 16. And how shall we pass over the following point, which is no less amazing than the one we have just heard? "Father," they say, "is a name which designates either an essence or an action" – and think that they have pinned us down on both sides.43
If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will say that we agree with them that the Son is of another essence, since there
43 Gregory again resorts to the metaphor of wrestling. A contestant is deemed to have won the match when he (or, in modern North America, she) has pinned both shoulders of his/her opponent to the mat.
Gregory of Nazianzus
is but one essence of God – and, according to them, the Father has taken possession of this essence first. On the other hand, if we say that "the Father" is the name of an action, we shall be supposed to acknowledge plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where we find someone performing an action, there we must also find the result of the action. And they will say that they wonder how what is made can be identical with what made it. I myself should have been awed by your distinction, if it had been necessary to accept one or other of the alternatives. But it is not necessary; we may dispense with both alternatives and state a third and truer one: – "Father" is not a name which designates either an essence or an action, O mighty sages; it is the name of the RELATION in which the Father stands to the Son and the Son to the Father. For just as with us humans these names ["father" and "son"] make known a genuine and intimate relation, so in the case before us now they designate an identity of nature between the One who is begotten and the One who begets. Nevertheless, let us (for the sake of argument) concede to you that "Father" is a name which designates an essence. It will still imply the notion of a Son, and will not make that Son to be of a different nature, according to the ideas of the whole world and the force of these names. Let "Father" be the name of an action, if you like; but you will not defeat us in this way, either. The Father's action will still have produced the same result which is "of one being with" Him44
– otherwise, the your notion of an action with respect to the Son would be absurd. Do you see how, even though you try to fight unfairly, we escape your tricky manœuvres?
And now that we have shown how invincible you are in your arguments and manœuvres, let us look at your strength in the divine words of Scripture, just in case you count on using them to persuade us.
§ 17. For it is from these great and sublime words that we have learned the divinity of the Son and proclaimed it. And what are they? These: "God," "the Word," "the One who was in the beginning and with the beginning and the beginning": In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,45 and With you is the beginning,46 and He who calls her the beginning from all generations.47
Then the Son is "only-begotten": It is God the only-begotten Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made
44 "of one being with [the Father]" – όµοουσιον τω Πατρι (homoousion tō Patri). This is the first time that Gregory makes use of the phrase which all Arians regarded as the Nicene Creed's chief rock of offence.
45 John 1.1. 46 Psalm 109.3 (Septuagint). 47 Isaiah 41.4. The "she" who is thus called is righteousness.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
him known.48 The Son is "the way, the truth, the life, the light": I am the way, the truth, and the life,49 and I am the light of the world.50 The Son is "wisdom" and "power": Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.51 The Son is "the reflection," "the imprint," "the image," "the seal": Who is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very substance,52 and the image of [God's] goodness,53 and it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.54 The Son is "Lord," "King," "He Who Is," "the Almighty": the LORD rained fire from the LORD,55 and A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom;56 and Who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.57
– All of these things are clearly spoken of the Son, with all the other passages of the same force; and none of them is an afterthought, added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father Himself. For their perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when the Father was without the Word; there never was a time when He was not the Father; there never was a time when He was without truth, or without wisdom, or without power, or devoid of life, of splendour, or of good-ness.
§ 18. But in opposition to all these, enumerate for me the passages which your scorn misunderstands, such as My God and your God,
58 or the Father is greater [than I],59 or He created me,60 or "God made me,"61
or He sanctified
48 John 1.18. The Greek word µονογενης (monogenes), here translated as "only-begotten" for the sake of keeping Gregory's point in view, is now generally taken to mean "only" or "unique".
49 John 14.6. 50 John 8.12. 51 1 Corinthians 1.24. 52 Hebrews 1.3. 53 Wisdom 7.26. 54 John 6.27. 55 Genesis 19.24. 56 Psalm 45.7; Hebrews 1.8. 57 Revelation 1.8. 58 John 20.17. 59 John 14.28.
Gregory of Nazianzus
me.62 Add, if you like, the terms servant,63 and obedient,64 and such expressions as the Father gave to him 65 and He learned,66 He was commanded 67 and He was sent,68 and He can do nothing on his own69 in the way of speaking70 or judging71 or granting72 or willing.73
And furthermore,
60 Proverbs 8.22 (Lady Wisdom is speaking).
61 Cf. Acts 2.36: "God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." 62 Cf. John 10.36: "Can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" 63 Isaiah 49.3, 5. In these two verses the Septuagint uses the word δουλος, "slave," as opposed to παις, which refers to an attendant or courtier. 64 Philippians 2.8: "[Christ] … became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross." 65 Cf. John 18.9: "I did not lose a single one of those whom you [O Father] gave me." 66 Hebrews 5.8: "Although [Christ] was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." 67 Gregory (or his opponents) appear to be thinking of John 15.10: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." 68 John 9.4: "We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day." 69 John 5.19: "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.' " 70 John 8.28: "So Jesus said, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realise that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.' " John 12.49: "I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak." 71 John 8.15-16: "You judge by human standards; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgement is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me."
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
these – his ignorance,74 his submission,75 his praying,76 his questions,77 his improvement and gradual perfecting.78 And if you like, add qualities even more humble than these – his sleeping,79 his being hungry,80 his fatigue,81 his weeping,82 and his dread and anguish.83
Perhaps you would make even his cross and death a matter of reproach to him. I fancy you will leave his resurrection and ascension to me, since in these events is found something to support our position. And you could pick up a good many other things as
72 Mark 10.40: "But to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." Cf. Matthew 20.23.
73 Matthew 26.39: [In Gethsemane Jesus] "prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.' " John 5.30: "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgement is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me." 74 Mark 13.32: "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Cf. Matthew 24.36. 75 Luke 2.51. 76 Luke 6.12: "Now during those days [Jesus] went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God." 77 Luke 2.46: The child Jesus was "sitting among the teachers [in the Temple], listening to them and asking them questions." Mason, by contrast, guesses that Gregory was thinking of John 11.34 (before the raising of Lazarus). 78 Luke 2.51: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favour." Cf. Hebrews 2.10. 79 Matthew 8.24. 80 Matthew 4.2 (the temptation in the wilderness). 81 John 4.6 (just before encountering the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well). 82 John 11.35 (at the tomb of Lazarus). 83 Mark 12.33, Luke 22.44 (in Gethsemane).
Gregory of Nazianzus
well, if you desire to piece together what is, for you, God in an equivocal and fraudulent sense – but who is, for us, is true God and equal to the Father.
For it is very easy to examine these scriptural texts one by one and give you a truly religious interpretation of each, so as to clear away the stumblingblock which you find in their literal sense – assuming, of course, that your stumbling is honest and not wilfully malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence: – What is lofty, you are to attribute to the divinity, to that nature in Him which transcends sufferings and the body; but all that is humble, you are to attribute to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes emptied himself 84 and became flesh – yes, it is no worse to say, was made human and afterwards was also exalted.85
The result will be that you will
84 Philippians 2.7.
85 Cf. Leo the Great, Epistle 28 (to Flavian of Constantinople), § 4: "For he who is true God is also a true human being; and there is no falsehood in this unity as long as the lowliness of humanity and the pre-eminence of God co-exist in mutual relationship. For just as God does not change by his bowing down, so human nature is not swal-lowed up by being exalted. Each nature exercises what is proper to it, in communion with the other. The Word does what is proper to the Word, the flesh fulfils what is proper to the flesh. One nature is resplendent with miracles, the other falls victim to injuries. And just as the Word does not lose equality with the Father's glory, so the flesh does not leave behind the nature of our race. One and the same person – this must be said over and over again – is truly the Son of God and truly the child of humanity. He is God in virtue of the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [John 1.1]. He is human in virtue of the fact that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us [John 1.14]. He is God in virtue of the fact that all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made [John 1.3]; he is human in virtue of the fact that he was born of a woman, born under the law [Gal. 4.4]…. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and to sleep is obviously human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves, and to give to a woman of Samaria living water, the drinking of which allows the drinker never to thirst again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink, and to rebuke the storm so as to overcome the uplifted waves – this, without a doubt, is divine. And then – to pass over many other examples – just as it does not belong to the same nature to weep with pity for a dead friend and, after the stone had been removed from the tomb where that friend had lain for four days, by a voice of command to raise him alive again… – just so, it does not belong to the same nature to say, I and the Father are one, and to say, The
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
abandon these carnal and earth-bound doctrines; you will learn to rise above these things and to ascend with His divinity; you will not remain permanently among visible things, but will raise yourself to be among spiritual things. Then you will understand which passages refer to His divine nature, and which to His accommodation to our condition.86
§ 19. For He whom you now treat with contempt was once above you. He who is now human was once uncompounded. What He was, He continued to be; what He was not, He took to Himself. In the beginning He was uncaused – for what causes God? But afterwards He was born for a cause – and that cause was, that you might be saved, you who insult Him and despise His divinity because He took upon Him your coarseness and, having united himself with flesh by means of the soul,
87 became human, the earthly God. Our humanity was joined to and made one with God – the higher nature having prevailed – in order that I too might be made God as truly as He is made human. He was born – but He had been begotten eternally: He was born of a woman – but she was a Virgin. The first is human, the second divine.88 He is without a father here below, but without a mother on high.89
Both of these facts belong to his divinity. He was carried in his mother's womb – but He was recognised by the prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping in
Father is greater than I [John 10.30, 14.28]. For though in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person consisting of God and human being, yet the principle whereby suffering is common to both is one thing, and the principle whereby glory is common to both is another thing. For from us he has the humanity which is less than the Father; from the Father he has the divinity which is equal with the Father."
86 His accommodation to our condition. In Greek, the single word οικονοµια (oikonomia) – "economy". 87 having union with flesh by means of the soul. Gregory means that the divine nature of the Son/Word is united with human flesh through its union with human nature's rational soul. 88 I.e. it is human to be born, and born of a woman; it is divine to be begotten eternally and, when born as a human in time and space, to be born of a virgin. 89 Cf. Ambrose, On the Sacraments IV.3, § 12: "The Son of God was born without a mother by a heavenly birth, because he was born of God the Father alone. And again, he was born without a father when he was born of a virgin."
Gregory of Nazianzus
the presence of the Word for whose sake he had been made.90 He was wrapped in swaddling clothes – but He shed the swathing shroud of the grave by His rising again. He was laid in a manger – but He was glorified by angels, and proclaimed by a star, and worshipped by magi. Why are you offended by what is seen by the eyes, without looking at what is perceived by the spirit? He was driven into exile into Egypt – but He drove away the Egyptian idols.91 He had no form or majesty in the eyes of the Jews92 – but to David He is the fairest of men 93 – and on the mountain He shone as bright as the lightning and became more resplendent than the sun,94
thereby initiating us into the mystery of things to come.
§ 20. He was baptised as a human, but He took away sins as God – not because He himself needed to be purified, but in order to sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as a human, but He conquered as God -- indeed, He bids us take courage, for He has conquered the world.
95 He hungered, but He fed thousands – indeed, He is the living Bread from heaven.96 He thirsted, but He cried, Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink – yes, and He promised that fountains should flow from those who believe.97 He was wearied, but He is the rest of those who are weary and carrying heavy burdens.98 He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea99 – indeed, He rebuked the winds and made Peter light as he began to sink.100
90 John the Baptist, in Luke 1.41: "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leaped in her womb."
91 A Christian legend maintained that, when the infant Jesus was brought into Egypt (during the flight from Herod, Matthew 2.13-15), his entrance into the land broke all the idols of Egypt. 92 Isaiah 53.2. 93 Psalm 45.2. 94 Matthew 17.2 (the Transfiguration). 95 John 16.33. 96 John 6.41. 97 John 7.37-38. 98 Matthew 11.28. 99 Matthew 8.24, Mark 4.38; Matthew 14.25, Mark 6.48, John 6.19. 100 Matthew 8.26, Mark 4.39; Matthew 29.31.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
pays tribute, but it is out of a fish101 – yes, and He is the king for those who demanded it of him.102 He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac,103 but He saves the one who was going down from Jerusalem and fell into the hands of robbers;104 the demons acknowledge Him and He drives them out demons; He sinks a legion of foul spirits in the sea105 and watched the prince of the demons fall like a flash of lightning.106 People cast stones at him, but he is not taken.107 He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease.108 He asks where Lazarus was buried, for He was human; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God.109 He is sold, and at a very cheap price – merely for thirty pieces of silver – but He redeems the world, and that at a very great price – for the price was His own blood. Like a lamb He is led to the slaughter,110 but He is the shepherd of Israel – and now of the whole world also. Like a sheep He is silent, yet He is the Word – and is proclaimed by the voice of one crying out in the wilderness.111 He is bruised and wounded,112 but He cures every disease and every sickness.113 He is lifted up on the tree 114
and
101 Matthew 17.24-27.
102 Cf. John 18.37: "Pilate asked him, 'So you are a king?' Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.' " 103 John 8.48. 104 Luke 10.30 (the parable of the good Samaritan). 105 Mark 5.1-20, Matthew 8.28-34, Luke 26-33. 106 Luke 10.18. 107 John 10.31, 39. 108 John 11.35 (Jesus weeps at the tomb of Lazarus); Luke 7.13 (Jesus tells the widow of Nain not to weep). 109 John 11.34, 38-44. 110 Isaiah 53.7. 111 Mark 1.3; cf. Isaiah 40.3. 112 Cf. Isaiah 53.5. 113 Matthew 9.35. 114 1 Peter 2.24.
Gregory of Nazianzus
nailed there, but He restores us by the tree of life; He saves even the thief crucified with Him, and He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink and is fed with gall – who? He who turned the water into wine,115 who overcame the bitter taste,116 who is Himself most sweet and altogether desirable.117 He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again.118 And the veil [of the temple] is torn, for the doors of heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise.119 He dies, but He gives life and by His death He abolishes death.120 He is buried, but He rises again; He goes down into the place of the dead, but He brings up souls. He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the living and the dead 121
– and to put to the test such words as yours. If certain passages [of the Scriptures] give you a starting point for your error, let certain others put an end to it.
§ 21. Such is our response to those who try to puzzle us. It is not given willingly, for idle chatter and arguing are disagreeable to the faithful – and besides, one Adversary
is enough for us. But making a response was necessary for the sake of our assailants – medicines, after all, exist because of diseases – in order that they may be led to see that they are not all-wise or invincible in those vain arguments which make the Gospel null and void. For when we set faith aside and advance mere force of argument; when we defeat the authority of the Spirit by our contentions, and then our argument is not strong enough for the importance of the subject – and this must necessarily be the case, since it is put in motion by an organ of so little power as is our mind – what happens? The weakness of the argument makes the mystery look
115 John 2.7-9.
116 Cf. Exodus 15.23-25: "When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter. That is why it was called Marah. And the people complained against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?' He cried out to the LORD; and the LORD showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet." 117 Song of Solomon 5.16. 118 John 10.17-18. 119 Matthew 27.52. 120 John 5.21; Hebrews 2.14, 2 Timothy 1.10. 121 2 Timothy 4.1. This statement is also found in the Nicene Creed. 122 Namely, Satan.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
weak, and thus eloquence empties the cross of its power, as Paul thought.123
For faith is what completes our argument.
124 who enables our minds to unravel the tightly-twisted knots of their violent teachings – may He change these people and make them believers instead of argument-crafters, disciples of Christ instead of what they now are called.125 This also is what we exhort you: We entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God,126 and do not quench the Spirit127 – or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit, even at this late date, enlighten you. But if you are too fond of your quarrel, we at any rate will hold fast to the Trinity, and by the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and blameless128 until the more perfect revelation of that which we desire, in Christ himself our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.129
May He who gives powers of interpretation and solves riddles,
123 Cf. 1 Corinthians 1.17: "Christ did not send me to baptise but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power." 124 Cf. Daniel 5.16. King Belshazzar to Daniel: "But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems." 125 I.e. disciples of Eunomius. 126 2 Corinthians 5.20. 127 1 Thessalonians 5.19. 128 Philippians 1.10. 129 Revelation 1.6.
Gregory of Nazianzus
The Fourth Theological Oration
Oration 30
On the Son,
Y the power of the Spirit we have broken the twistings and turnings of our opponents' arguments, and have dispersed the cluster of difficulties and objections which were ripped from the holy Scriptures by those who profane the Bible and pervert the sense of its texts in order to win the mob to their side and confuse the way of truth. And I am convinced that we have done so without any obfuscation for those who are well-intentioned. We have attributed to the divinity [of the Son] the higher and worthier expressions, and the lower and more human to Him who was for us the Second Adam1
and the God made capable of suffering to vanquish sin. But we have not yet gone through the passages in detail, because our argument was in a hurry. Since you seek a brief explanation of each one, so that you may not be carried away by insidious arguments, we will summarise the difficulties, giving them numbers so that you may keep them more easily in mind.
[1.] § 2. In our opponents' eyes the following is only too ready to hand: The LORD created me as the beginning of his ways, with a view to his works.2 How shall we meet this? Shall we bring an accusation against Solomon, or reject his earlier words because of his fall later in life?3 Shall we say that the words are those of Wisdom herself, the knowledge, so to speak, and the fashioning principle in accordance with which all things were made?4
For Scripture often
1 Cf. 1 Corinthians 15.45: "Thus it is written, The first man, Adam, became a living being [Gen. 2.7]; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
2 Proverbs 8.22 (Septuagint). 3 1 Kings 11.1-8, where it says that "when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David." 4 Cf. Wisdom of Solomon 8.5-6: "If riches are a desirable possession in life, what is richer than wisdom, the active cause of all things? And if
Gregory of Nazianzus
personifies many lifeless objects – for instance, The sea said such and such, and The deep says, "It is not in me,"5 and The heavens declare the glory of God,6 and again a command is given to a sword,7 and the mountains and hills are asked why they skip.8 We do not cite any of these passages, though some of our predecessors used them as powerful arguments. But let us grant that the expression [in Proverbs 8] is used of our Saviour Himself, the true Wisdom. Let us consider one small point together. Among all things that exist, what is without origin? Divinity. For no one can tell the origin of God – if it were otherwise, it would be something older than God. But what is the cause of the humanity which God assumed for our sake? It was surely our salvation. What else could it be? Since we clearly find here [in Proverbs] both The LORD created me and He begets me,9 the argument is simple. Whatever we find joined with a cause we are to refer to the humanity, but all that is absolute and without origin we are to deposit in the account of His divinity. Well, then, is not this expression created said in connection with a cause? He created me, it says, as the beginning of his ways, with a view to his works. Now, the works of His hands are faithfulness and justice.10
It was for sake of these works that He was anointed with divinity, for this anointing is an anointing of the humanity. By contrast, the expression He begets me is not connected with a cause – or it is for you to show how it might be so. What argument then will disprove that Wisdom is called created with respect to his generation here below, but begotten with respect to the first and more incomprehensible generation?
§ 3. In the same category are texts where He is called the servant who serves the good of many,
and say that it is a great thing for Him to be called
understanding is effective, who more than she is fashioner of what exists?"
5 Job 28.14. 6 Psalm 19.1. 7 Zechariah 13.7: " 'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate,' says the LORD of hosts. Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones." 8 Psalm 114.6: "[What ailed you,] You mountains, that you skipped like rams? you little hills, like young sheep?" 9 Proverbs 8.22, 25. 10 Psalm 111.7.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
the child of God.12 For in truth He was in servitude to flesh and to birth and to the passions which belong to us with a view to our liberation and that of all those whom He has saved, who were imprisoned by sin. What can be greater for the lowliness of humanity than to be intermingled with God, and by this intermingling to be deified,13 and that the Dayspring from on high should so break upon us,14 that the holy one who is to be born should be called the Son of the Most High,15 and that the name that is above every name should be bestowed upon Him16 – and what else can this name be but God? – and that every knee should bow to Him 17 who emptied himself for us and mingled the form of God with the form of a slave,18 and that the entire house of Israel should know that God has made him both Lord and Messiah?19
For all this was done by the action of the One who has been begotten, and by the good pleasure of the One who begot Him.
11 Isaiah 49.2, 53.11 (Septuagint). 12 Isaiah 49.6 (Septuagint). 13 The notion of the "deification" (or "divinising") of humans was of capital importance to defenders of Nicene orthodoxy such as Athanasius, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa. It was the reason why they insisted on the divinity of the Saviour. For if salvation is nothing other or less than to become participants of the divine nature (2 Peter 1.4), the Saviour must have the very nature that he bestows – after all, no one can give what they lack. The language of "deification" was, to be sure, somewhat perilous in its implications. Athanasius and the others did not teach that humans ceased to be human and actually became God; they understood the term in the sense of 2 Peter 1.4, as the way in which humans became capable precisely as humans of sharing in the life of the three-personed God. 14 Luke 1.78 (Song of Zechariah). 15 Luke 1.32 (Gabriel speaking to Mary at the Annunication). 16 Philippians 2.9. 17 Philippians 2.10. 18 Philippians 2.6, 7. 19 Acts 2.36.
Gregory of Nazianzus
[2.] § 4. What is the second of their great irresistible passages? He must reign until such and such a time20 and must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration,21 and sit at the right hand [of God], until all his enemies are subjugated.22 But after this happens? Must He cease to be King, or be removed from heaven? Who will make Him cease, or for what cause? What an audacious exegete you are, to pose as such an adversary of his reign! And yet you have heard that of his kingdom there will be no end.23 Your mistake arises from not understanding that the word until does not always exclude what is yet to come, but indicates what is the case up to a given time, without denying what comes after that time. Otherwise, to cite but one example, how would you understand the text, I am with you always, to the end of the age?24
Does it mean that after the end of the age He will no longer be with them? If so, for what reason?
But this is not your only error. You also fail to distinguish between the things that are signified. He is said to reign in one sense as the almighty King, both of the willing and the unwilling; but in another sense He is said to reign as producing submission in us and placing us under His sovereignty as those willingly accept that He should be our king. Of His kingdom, considered in the former sense, there shall be no end. But in the second sense, what end will there be? His taking us as His servants on our entrance into a state of salvation. For what need is there to produce submission in us when we have already submitted? After this submission, He arises to judge the earth
25 and to separate the saved from the lost.26
After that He takes His stand in the midst of
20 1 Corinthians 15.25.
21 Acts 3.21. 22 Psalm 110.1. 23 Luke 1.33. 24 Matthew 28.20. 25 Psalm 94.2. 26 Cf. Matthew 25.31-46 (the parable of the sheep and the goats).
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
gods27 – that is, of the saved28 – distinguishing and deciding of which honour and of which dwelling place 29
each is worthy.
§ 5. In the next place, take the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. "What!" you say, "is He not subject now, and is it still necessary for Him who (you say) is God to be subjected to God?"
30 You are speaking of [the Son] as if He were some robber or a rival of God. But look at it in this way: – Just as for my sake He was called a curse,31 who destroyed the curse of which I was the object; and [just as for my sake He was called] sin,32 who takes away the sin of the world; and [just as for my sake He] became new Adam to take the place of the old – so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long as I am disobedient and rebellious, then, both by denial of God and by my passions, by just so long is Christ also called disobedient on my account. But when all things are subjected to him 33
– on the one hand by acknowledging God and on the other by being transformed – then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, in my view, is the subjection of Christ – namely, the fulfilling of the Father's will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father subject all to the Son – the Son by His action, the Father by
27 Psalm 82.1.
28 Gregory here follows through on the notion of "deified" humanity. 29 John 14.2: "In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" 30 Gregory is imagining (or paraphrasing) the Eunomian response, which has in view 1 Corinthians 15.27-28: "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet [Ps. 8.7]. But when it says, All things are put in subjection, it is plain that this does not include the One who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all." 31 Galatians 3.13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree [Deut. 27.26]." 32 2 Corinthians 5.21: "For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 33 1 Corinthians 15.28.
Gregory of Nazianzus
His good pleasure, as we have already said.34
Thus He who subjects [all things] presents to God that which he has subjected, claiming us as His own.
In the same category, it seems to me, is the expression, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
35 It was not that He was forsaken either by the Father or (as some have thought ) by His own divinity, as if His divinity were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew itself from Him in His sufferings – for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all or to be lifted up on the cross? But as I said, He was representing us. For we were the ones forsaken and despised before, but now by the sufferings of Him who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes our folly and our transgressions His own and says what follows in the Psalm;36 for it is very evident that the Psalm 21 [22] 37
refers to Christ.
§ 6. The same consideration applies to the text which says that He learned obedience through what he suffered;
38 likewise, the references to His loud cries and tears, to His supplications being heard, and to His reverence 39 – all as if in a drama marvellously constructed for our advantage. For as the Word, He was neither obedient nor disobedient. Such expressions belong to servants and inferiors; obedience applies to the better sort, while disobedience belongs to those who deserve punishment. But in the form of a slave,40
He bows down to the level of His fellow slaves – or rather, He bows down to His slaves – and takes upon Him a form not His own, bearing in Himself all that I am and all
34 In the present Oration, at the end of § 3 (p. 73).
35 Psalm 22.1, Mark 15.34. 36 what follows in the Psalm, immediately after the line quoted at the opening of this paragraph. Psalm 22.1-2: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?* and are so far from my cry and from the words of my distress? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but you do not answer;* by night as well, but I find no rest." 37 In the Psalter of the Septuagint, Psalms 9 and 10 are combined as Psalm 9, so that the numeration of subsequent Psalms is one less than in the Psalter of the Masoretic Hebrew text – until Psalm 148, because where the Masoretic text has Psalm 147, the Septuagint has two Psalms, 146 and 147. 38 Hebrews 5.8. 39 Hebrews 5.7. 40 Philippians 2.7.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
that is mine in order that He might consume in Himself whatever is bad as fire consumes wax or as the sun disperses the mists of earth, and in order that I may partake of His nature by the blending.41
This is how He honours obedience by what he does, and He proves it in action by His sufferings. For it is not enough to possess the interior disposition, just as it would not be enough for us, unless we also proved it by our acts; for action is the proof of a disposition.
And perhaps it would not be wrong to assume that He reckons our obedience by the art of His love and measures everything by His own sufferings, in order that He might know our condition – how much is demanded of us and how much we must be forgiven – by His own, weighing our weakness in accordance with His sufferings. For if the light that shines in the darkness
42 of this life was persecuted by the other darkness – I mean the Evil One and the Tempter – what strokes will subdue those who are darkness,43 given their greater weaker? And is it any wonder that, though He entirely escaped, we have been (at least in part) overtaken? For it is even more astounding that He should have been chased than that we should have been captured – at least to those who reason aright on the subject. I will add yet another text to those I have mentioned, because I think it clearly tends to the same sense: Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.44 But God will be all in all 45 when all things are restored46
– not in the sense that the Father alone will exist; the Son being entirely absorbed back into Him like a torch taken off a great pyre for a while and then returned to it. (I would not let even the Sabellians be hurt by
41 Gregory does not mean that there is anything bad in Christ's own self, considered in isolation from us. But Gregory's point is that there is no longer such a person. By the grace of baptism, we become "members incorporate of His mystical body". This means that we ourselves are "inside" Christ, part of His very self, so that the bad in us is consumed from within Christ by incorporation into Him.
42 John 1.5. 43 Cf. Ephesians 5.8: "For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light." 44 Hebrews 2.18. 45 1 Corinthians 15.28. 46 Cf. Acts 3.21, quoted in fn. 21.
Gregory of Nazianzus
this text.47) No, it will be the whole [triune] divinity, when we ourselves shall be no longer divided as we now are by emotions and passions, bearing nothing at all of God, or very little; on the contrary, we shall be entirely like God,48 for we shall be able to hold God whole and alone. This is the perfection toward which we hasten. Paul himself gives us an even stronger proof. Here49 he speaks of God in an indeterminate manner; elsewhere his language clearly specifies Christ. And where is that? Where he says that there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; BUT CHRIST IS ALL AND IN ALL.50