Part 4
[3.] § 7. In the third place there is the term greater;51 and in the fourth place the saying, To my God and your God.52
And indeed, if the Son had been called greater without being called equal, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used, what will these hearties have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For it is an impossibility that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing. The obvious solution is that the greater refers to origination, while the equal belongs to the nature; and this we acknowledge with great good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument and assert that the One who is from such a Cause is not inferior to the One who has no cause; for it would share the glory of the Uncaused, because it is from the Uncaused. And there is,
47 Sabellius (early 3rd century) was supposed to have taught that the names "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" were simply successive "modes" – as it were, masks or guises – assumed by the one God.
48 Cf. 1 John 3.2: "Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him." 49 At 1 Corinthians 15.28, where Paul says that God will be all in all. 50 Colossians 3.11. 51 John 14.28: "If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." 52 John 20.17: "Jesus said to [Mary Magdalene], 'Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." ' "
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
besides, the generation – a matter so great and venerable, at least for humans who have any sense at all. For to say that the Father is greater than the Son considered as human is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than humanity? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about greater.
§ 8. As to the other passage [To my God and your God 53], my God would be used in respect, not of the Word as such, but of the visible Word. For how could there be a God of Him who is God in the proper sense? In the same way the Father is not Father of the One who is seen but of the Word as such; for our Lord was of two natures; so that one expression is used properly, the other improperly in each of the two cases; but exactly the opposite way to their use in our own case. For with respect to us, God is properly our God, but not properly our Father. And this is the cause of the error of the heretics – their joining of these two names [God and Father], which are interchanged because of the union of the natures [in Christ].54 And an indication of this is found in the fact that wherever the natures are distinguished in our thoughts from one another, the names are also distinguished – as you hear in Paul's words, The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.55
The God of Christ, but the Father of glory. For although these two terms express a single whole, yet this is not by a unity of nature so much as by a union of two natures. What could be clearer?
53 John 20.17 (see previous footnote). 54 these two names … are interchanged because of the union of the natures. This is a succinct statement of what would later be known, in the technical language of classical christology, as communicatio idiomatum, "the exchange (or interchange) of characteristics". What belongs to Christ's divine nature may also be attributed to Christ's human nature, and vice versa, because of "the hypostatic union," the union of the two natures which is the one person (hypostasis) of Jesus Christ. 55 Ephesians 1.17.
Gregory of Nazianzus
[5.] § 9. In the fifth place, let it be said that the Son receives life,56 or judgement,57 or the inheritance of the nations,58 or power over all flesh,59 or glory,60
or disciples, or whatever else is mentioned. This also belongs to the human nature. And yet if you were to ascribe it to the divine nature as well, it would be no absurdity. For you would not so ascribe it as if it were newly acquired, but as belonging to Him from the beginning by reason of His nature, not by reason of a favour.
[6.] § 10. In the sixth place, let it be noted that, as it is written, The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing.61 The solution of this is as follows: – can and cannot are not words with only one meaning, but have many meanings. On the one hand they are used to denote lack of strength, sometimes with respect to time, sometimes in relation to a certain object – as for instance, a little child cannot be an athletic wrestler, or a puppy cannot tell one thing from another or fight with some other dog. Some day, perhaps, the child will be an athletic wrestler, the puppy will see, will fight with that dog, though it may still be unable to fight with any other dog. Or again, can and cannot sometimes denote something which is true as a general rule. For instance: A city built on a hill cannot be hid 62
– even though it might possibly be hidden by another, higher hill standing in front of it. Or in another sense can and cannot may denote something which is not reasonable: The
56 John 5.26: "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself"
57 John 5.27: "And [the Father] has given [the Son] authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man." 58 Psalm 2.8: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance." 59 John 17.2: "[Father,] you have given [the Son] power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." 60 John 17.1: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you." Revelation 5.12: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing!" 61 John 5.19. 62 Matthew 5.14.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the Bridegroom is with them, can they? 63 – whether it concerns Him as visible in bodily form – for the time of His presence among us was not one of mourning, but of gladness – or whether it concerns Him as the Word who is spiritually discerned – for why should those who are cleansed by the word [of the Word] keep a bodily fast?64 Or again, can and cannot may denote something which is contrary to the will, as in the text: He could do no deed of power there because of unbelief,65 that is, the unbelief of those who should have received Him. For since a healing requires both faith in the patient and power in the Healer, when one of the two was absent the other was impossible. But probably this use of cannot is related to the sense of something unreasonable. For healing is not reasonable in the case of those who would afterwards be injured by unbelief. The same sense applies to the saying, The world cannot hate you,66 as well as to the saying, How can you speak good things, when you are evil? 67 For how is either of these things impossible, except that it is contrary to the will? There is a somewhat similar meaning in the texts which imply that a thing impossible by nature is possible to God if He so wills68 – as that a man cannot be born a second time,69 or that the eye of a needle will not let a camel through it.70
For what could prevent either of these things happening, if God so willed?
63 Matthew 9.15.
64 John 15.3: "You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you." 65 A conflation of Mark 6.5 and Matthew 13.58. 66 John 7.7. 67 Matthew 12.34. 68 Matthew 19.26: "Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.' " 69 John 3.4: "Nicodemus said to [Jesus], 'How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' " 70 Matthew 19.24: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Gregory of Nazianzus
§ 11. And besides all this, there is the absolutely impossible and inadmissible, such as what we are now examining. For as we assert that it is impossible for God to be evil or not to exist – for this would indicate weakness in God rather than strength – or for the non-existent to exist, or for two and two to make both four and ten, so it is impossible and inconceivable that the Son should do anything that the Father does not do.71 For all that the Father has is the Son's72 – and by the same token, all that belongs to the Son is the Father's.73 Nothing then is peculiar [to either One], because all things are common [to both]. For their being itself is common and equal, even though the Son receives it from the Father. It is in this sense that it is said, I live by the Father 74 -- not as though His life and being were kept together by the Father, but because He has His being from the Father beyond all time and beyond all cause. But how does He see the Father acting and do likewise? Is it like those who paint pictures and trace letters, because they cannot attain the truth except by looking at the original and by letting themselves be guided by it? But how shall Wisdom stand in need of a teacher, or be incapable of acting unless taught? And in what sense does the Father do anything in the present or in the past? Did He make another world before this one, or is He going to make a world to come? And did the Son look at that earlier world and make this world? Or will He look at the world to come and make one like it? According to this argument there must be four worlds – two made by the Father, and two by the Son. What an absurdity! He cleanses lepers, delivers people from evil spirits and diseases, revives the dead, walks on the sea, and does all His other works – but in what context and at what time did the Father do these acts before the Son? Is it not clear that the Father impressed the ideas of these same actions, and the Word brings them to pass, not in slavish or unskilful fashion, but with full knowledge and in a masterly way – or to speak more properly, like the Father? It is in this sense that I understand the statement, Whatever is done by the Father, the Son does likewise 75
– not, that is, because of the likeness of the things done, but with respect to the equality of power.
71 Cf. 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.' "
72 John 16.15: "All that the Father has is mine." 73 Cf. John 17.10 (Jesus, in prayer to the Father): "All mine are yours, and yours are mine." 74 John 6.57. 75 John 5.19.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
This also may well be the meaning of the passage which says that the Father is still working, and the Son also is working.76 Not only that, but it refers also to the government and preservation of the things which He has made – as is shown by the passages which say, He makes the winds His messengers,77 and He has set the earth upon its foundations 78 – once for all were these things were established and made, – and He strengthens the thunder 79and creates the wind 80
– the principle of all these things was given once for all, but their activity continues even to the present.
[7.] § 12. In the seventh place, let them cite the text which says that the Son came down from heaven, not to do His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him.81 Well, if this had not been said by the very One who came down, we should say that the expression bears the imprint of the human nature, not that of the Saviour regarded as such, for His will as the Saviour cannot be opposed to God, seeing that it is altogether possessed by God. It is His human will, then, considered in the light of our condition, inasmuch as the human will does not absolutely follow the divine will, but most of the time struggles against and resists it. This is also we understand the words, Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet do let not what I will but let what you will prevail.82
For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will. But since this is the language of Him who assumed our nature (for He was the One who came down), and not of the nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way: – The passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own apart from that of the Father but, one the contrary, that He has no other will but the Father's. So the meaning would be, "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, for there is no will of mine apart from yours, but only
76 John 5.17.
77 Psalm 104.4. 78 Psalm 104.5. 79 Job 38.25. 80 Amos 4.13. 81 John 6.38. 82 Matthew 26.39 (Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane). The last portion of the passage (yet do not let….) is Gregory's paraphrase.
Gregory of Nazianzus
that will which is common to you and me together; for as We have one divine nature, so We have one will." For many such expressions are used in this double way, and are expressed not positively but negatively – for example, God does not give the Spirit by measure,83 for as a matter of fact He does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does He measure the Spirit, for God is not measured by God. Or again, Not because of any guilt or sin of mine:84 the words are not used because He has these things, but because He does not have them. And again: It is not on the ground of our righteous deeds that we have done,85 for we have not done any. And this meaning is evident also in the following passage: "What then," He says, is the will of my Father? It is that all who believe in the Son should be saved and obtain the final resurrection."86 Now is this the will of the Father, but not of the Son? Or does He preach the gospel and receive people's faith against His will? Who could believe that? Then there also is the passage, making much the same point, which says that the word which is heard is not the Son's but the Father's.87
For I cannot see how what is common to two can be said to belong only to one, however much I consider it – and I do not think any one else can, either. If then you hold this opinion concerning the will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion – that is what I think, and so does every sensible person.
[8.] § 13. The eighth passage is, That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent;88 and, No one is good but God alone.89 The solution of this appears to me very easy. For if you set the words only true on the Father alone, where will you set the Truth Himself?90
For if that is
83 John 3.34
84 Psalm 59.5 (Septuagint). 85 Daniel 9.18 (Septuagint). 86 A paraphrase of John 6.40: "This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day." 87 John 14.24: "Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me." 88 John 17.3. 89 Mark 10.18, Luke 18.19.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
how you understand the meaning of these words: To the only wise God,91 or: To Him alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see,92 or: To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God 93 – then the Son disappears for you, condemned to death, or to dark-ness, or to being neither wise, nor king, nor invisible, nor God at all, which sums up all these points. And how will you prevent His goodness, which especially belongs to God alone, from perishing with the rest? I think that the passage, That they may know you, the only true God, was said to overthrow those gods which are falsely so called. For He would not have added and Jesus Christ whom you have sent, if the only true God were contrasted with Him, and the sentence did not proceed upon the basis of the divine nature which is theirs in common. As for the text No one is good, it is Christ's response to the lawyer who wished to put him to the test and who was acknowledging His goodness insofar as He is human.94 For perfect goodness, He says, is God's alone, even if a human is called perfectly good – as in the text, A good person brings good things out of the good treasure of his heart.95 And: I will give the kingdom to someone who is better than you 96 –words of God, speaking to Saul about David. Or again: Do good, O LORD, to those who are good,97
and all other expressions of the same kind concerning those of us who are praiseworthy, upon whom the outflowing of the Supreme Good has come in a secondary degree. It will be best of all if we can persuade you of this. But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the
90 Cf. John 14.16: "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'I AM the way, and THE TRUTH, and the life.' "
91 Romans 16.27. 92 1 Timothy 6.16. 93 1 Timothy 1.17. 94 Gregory has confused Luke 10.25-28, which recounts how "a lawyer stood up to test Jesus" with a question about what he had to do to inherit eternal life, with Luke 18.18-23, the story of the rich ruler. In the former episode, the lawyer addressed Jesus simply as "Teacher"; it is in the latter episode that the ruler addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher," and got the response which Gregory discusses. 95 Matthew 12.35. 96 1 Samuel 15.28 (Septuagint). 97 Psalm 125.4.
Gregory of Nazianzus
other side, that on your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God. In what passage? Why, in this: This is your God; no other can be compared to Him,98 and a little further on, Afterward He appeared on earth and consorted with humankind.99
This addition proves clearly that the words are not used of the Father, but of the Son; for it was He who in bodily form consorted with us and was found among us humans here below. Now, if the opinion should prevail which holds that these words are said in opposition to the Father and not in opposition to imaginary gods, we lose the Father by the very terms which we were pressing against the Son. And what could be more disastrous than such a victory?
[9.] § 14. In the ninth place, they cite this text: [Christ] always lives to make intercession for us.100 How good and truly mystical and generous to humans! For to intercede does not imply, as it ordinarily does for most mortals, to seek vengeance – there would be a hint of inferiority in that – but it is to act as a representative for us by virtue of His mediation, just as the Spirit also is said to intercede for us.101 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human.102 For He still pleads even now as human being for my salvation; for He still has the body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His incarnation, even though He is no longer known according to the flesh103 – I mean, the passions which belong to the body, the same as ours, except for sin.104
Likewise, we have an
98 Baruch 3.35.
99 Baruch 3.37. 100 Hebrews 7.25. 101 Cf. Romans 8.26: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words." 102 Cf. 1 Timothy 2.5. 103 Cf. 2 Corinthians 5.16: "Even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view [κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh], we know him no longer in that way." 104 Hebrews 4.15: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin."
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
advocate, Jesus Christ,105
not in the sense that he prostrates Himself for us before the Father and falls at the Father's feet like a slave – away with a notion so truly slavish and unworthy of the Spirit! For the Father does not require this, nor does the Son submit to it. Has anyone the right to think such a thing of God? But by what He suffered as human being, He as the Word and the Counsellor persuades me to endure. I think this is the meaning of His advocacy.
[10.] § 15. In the tenth place, our opponents raise the objection of the ignorance of Christ and his statement that no one knows the last day or hour, not even the Son Himself, but only the Father.106 But how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything which exists – Wisdom who made the worlds, who perfects and renews them, who is the end of all things that were made, who knows the things of God as the our human spirit knows the things that are in us?107
For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then does He accurately know all things before that hour, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but is ignorant of the hour itself? For such a thing would be like a riddle – as if someone were to say that they accurately knew everything in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, they did not know the beginning of the night. In such cases, knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other. Surely everyone sees that He knows as God, but that He says He does not know as a human – if one may separate what is visible from what is spiritual. For in this passage the name the Son is absolute and without regard to relation, [that is to say,] without adding the Son of whom. This allows us to suppose that we are to interpret the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to Christ's human nature, not to His divine nature.
§ 16. If this argument appears adequate to you, let us stop here and enquire no further. But if not, our second argument is as follows: – Let us allow that He refers His knowledge of the greatest events, as well as of everything else, to the First Cause, in honour of One who begot Him. And I do not think that
105 1 John 2.1: "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 106 A paraphrase of Mark 13.32: "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." 107 who knows the things of God as the our human spirit knows the things that are in us. Cf. 1 Corinthians 2.11: "For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God's except the Spirit of God."
Gregory of Nazianzus
it would be stingy of us to say, as one of the learned men of our own day has said,108
that not even the Son knows the day or hour otherwise than as the Father knows it. What do we conclude from this? Since the Father has this knowledge, therefore the Son has it also, as it is evident that this cannot be known or comprehended by any but the First Nature.
109 and having kept commandments,110 and having always done those things that please the Father.111 And then there are the passages about His being made perfect,112 and His exaltation, and His learning obedience through what He suffered;113 and also that He is high priest,114
It remains for us to interpret the passages about His receiving commands,
and that He makes an
108 Gregory means his friend Basil the Great, who made this very point in his Letter 236: "The sense, then, in Mark is this: regarding that day or hour no one knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nay not even the Son would have known [it] had not the Father known [it]; for from the Father was knowledge given Him [i.e. the Son] from the beginning. And this is the most reverential and befitting divinity to say of the Son, that from Him with whom He is consubstantial He derives both His power of knowing and His being observed in all wisdom and glory befitting His Godhead." St Basil: The Letters, trans. Roy J. Deferrari. Loeb Classical Library, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-1932), vol. 3 (1930), p. 395.
109 Cf. John 10.18: "I have power to lay down [my life], and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father." 110 Cf. 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." 111 Cf. John 8.29: "And the One who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 112 Cf. Hebrews 5.9: "And having been made perfect, [Christ] became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." 113 Cf. Hebrews 5.8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." 114 Hebrews 5.10: "[Christ] having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6.20: "Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered [the inner sanctuary of heaven],
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
oblation,115 and that He is betrayed, and that he offers supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death,116 and that he goes through the agony and sweats blood and prays,117
and all other things of the same sort. At the very least it should be evident to every one that such expressions have to do with the human nature which is capable of suffering, not with that nature which is unchangeable and above all capacity to suffer.
All that we have said concerning these objections, brief as it is, will serve as a basis and rough draft for the use of those who can give a more complete treatment. It may be worthwhile, however, and consistent with what has been already said, not to pass over without remark the actual titles of the Son. For these are numerous, and they apply to many different aspects of Him. We shall set before you the meaning of each one of them, and point out the mystical significance of the names.
§ 17. We will begin with this: – The divine nature cannot be expressed by any name. And this is proved not only by argument, but also by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, so far as they have given us reason for conjecture. For they gave honour to God with particular characters,118 and would not even allow the name of anything inferior to God to be written with the same letters as that of God, because they thought that the Deity should be unconnected even to that extent with anything of ours. How then could they have admitted that a word whose sound melts away119
can
having become a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek."
115 Cf. Hebrews 8.3: "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer." 116 Cf. Hebrews 5.7: "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death." 117 Luke 22.44 (Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane). 118 A reference to "the Tetragrammaton," the four consonants YHWH. Cf. Exodus 3.13-14: "But Moses said to God, 'If I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, 'YHWH [I AM WHO I AM].' He said further, 'Thus you shall say to the Israelites, "I AM has sent me to you." ' "
Gregory of Nazianzus
designate the indissoluble and indivisible nature? For no one has ever breathed the whole of the air; neither has any mind entirely comprehended, or any word exhaustively contained, the being of God. But we sketch Him by His attributes, and so fashion from various features found in different quarters a certain image of Him which is faint and feeble. The best theologians for us are not those who have discovered the whole – our present imprisonment120
does not have room for the whole – but those who have imagined the divine nature better than others and have gathered more fully in themselves an image or shadow – or whatever we may call it – of the Truth.
§ 18. This is as far as we can go, then: "The One Who Is" and "God" are the special names of the divine essence – and of these two terms, especially "The One Who Is". This is so not only because, when He spoke to Moses on the mountain and Moses asked what His Name was, this was what He called Himself, ordering him to tell the people: I AM has sent me. It is also because we find that this name is the most appropriate. For even if the word Theos [God] – as those who are skilled in these matters say – were derived from theein [to run] or from aithein [to burn], because He always moving and because He devours our evil dispositions (that is why He is also called a devouring fire),
121 "God" would still be a relative, not an absolute name. The same is true with "Lord," which also is said to be a name of God: I am the LORD your God, He says, that is my name,122 and: The LORD is his name.123
But we are enquiring into a nature whose being is absolute, not into being that is bound up with something else. But "that which is" is really proper to God, and belongs to Him entirely, without any limitation or dis-ability, without anything coming before Him or after Him, because in Him there is no past or future.
§ 19. Of the other titles, some clearly refer to His power, others to His governing of the world – and this viewed under a twofold aspect, the one independent of the Incarnation, the other with reference to the Incarnation. For instance, "the Almighty," "the King" – whether "of glory" or "of the ages"
119 Gregory still lived in a culture in which words were primarily heard rather than (as in our culture) seen or read. 120 Ό δεσµος (ho desmos) = "bond" or "chain". The idea is that the soul is bound, restrained, imprisoned by the body. 121 Deuteronomy 4.24: "For the LORD your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God." Cf. Hebrews 12.29. 122 Exodus 20.2 and Isaiah 42.8. 123 Exodus 15.3 (the song of Moses at the Red Sea).
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
or "of the powers" or "of the beloved" or "of kings" – and "the Lord of Sabaoth" (that is, "of hosts") or "of powers" or "of lords". All these titles clearly belong to His authority. But "the God of salvation" or "of vengeance" or "of peace" or "of righteousness" or "of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and of all the spiritual Israel that sees God – these belong to His governing of the world. Since we are governed by these three things: the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and of glory besides, and the practice of the virtues by which these are attained, – the title "God of vengeance" governs the fear, and the title "God of salvation" governs our hope, and the title "God of virtues"124
governs our practice. So, those who attain any of these three things may (so to speak) carry God in them-selves and press on more readily toward perfection and toward that affinity with God which arises out of practising the virtues.
Such are the names common to the divine nature. But the proper name of the One who is without beginning is the Father, that of the One who is begotten without beginning is the Son, and that of the One who proceeds or goes forth without being begotten is the Holy Spirit.
Let us now turn to the names of the Son, which were our starting point in this part of our argument.
§ 20. It seems to me that He is called "Son" because He is identical with the Father in essence – and not only for this reason, but also because He is from the Father. And He is called Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son from the Father alone, and nothing but a Son; but also because the manner of His sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies.
And He is called "the Word," because He is related to the Father as word to mind125 – not only because His generation is exempt from passion, but also because of his union [with the Father] and His expressing [of the Father].126 This relationship might also be compared to the relation between a definition and the thing defined, since "definition" is also called logos. For He says that anyone who has known the Son – for this is the meaning of has seen – has also known the Father.127
And the Son is a concise and easy demonstration of the
124 The "virtues" here are "peace" and "righteousness".
125 He is related to the Father as word [λογος – logos] to mind. Here word has the sense of "spoken word," that which expresses the speaker's mind. 126 the union. The name "Word" befits the Son because the Son and the Father are as inseparably united as word and mind. (This statement makes sense in the Greek, because λογος [logos] not only means "word" but also "reason" and "discourse".) the expressing. The Son is the perfect expression of the Father's existence. 127 John 14.9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
Gregory of Nazianzus
Father's nature. For every thing that is begotten is a silent definition of the one that begot it. And if any should say that this name ["Word"] was given Him because He is present to all that exists, they would not be wrong. For is there anything that does not exist through the Word?128
He is also called "Wisdom," insofar as He is the knowledge of things divine and human. For how is it possible that He who made all things should be ignorant of the governing principles of what He has made? And He is also called "Power," insofar as He sustains the things which have been made
129 and furnishes them with power to hold themselves together. And He is called "Truth," as being one and not many by nature – for truth is one and falsehood is manifold – and also as being the pure seal of the Father130 and His genuine imprint.131 He is also called "the Image,"132 in that he is "of one being with the Father,"133 and because He comes from the Father and not the Father from Him. For the nature of an image is to be the reproduction of its model and of the thing whose name it bears. In this context, however, there is more. An image is normally a motionless representation of something which moves. In this case, however, the Image is the living reproduction of the Living One, and has a more exact likeness to that One than Seth had to Adam134 or any other child to its parent. For such is the nature of simple things135
that it would be wrong to say that they are alike in one particular and unlike in another; on the contrary, the whole image altogether resembles the whole of the object that it represents and is really identical with the object rather than like it.
128 Cf. John 1.3: "All things came into being through [the Word], and without him not one thing came into being."
129 John 1.3. 130 John 6.27: "It is on him [sc. the Son of Man] that God the Father has set his seal." 131 Hebrews 1.3: "He is … the exact imprint of God's very being." 132 Cf. 2 Corinthians 4.4: "…the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image (εικων – eikon, "icon") of God." 133 Gregory uses the Nicene Creed's adjective 'οµοουσιον (homoousion). 134 Seth was the child that Adam and Eve had after Cain murdered Abel (Genesis 4.15). 135 simple things. "Simple" in the sense of being uncompounded, without parts, not diverse in constitution.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
Moreover, the Son is called "Light,"136 in that He is the enlightenment of souls that are cleansed in their under-standing [logos] and in their life. For if ignorance and sin are darkness, knowledge and godly life will be light. And the Son is called "Life,"137 because He is Light, and the Power that constitutes and gives being to every reasonable nature. For in Him we live and move and have our being,138 according to the double power and the double breathing by which we all received from Him the breath of life and (as many of us as are capable of it, and in so far as we open the mouth 139 of our understanding) the Holy Spirit.140 He is "Righteousness,"141 because He rewards all according to what they deserve,142 and because He is a righteous arbiter both for those under the Law [of Moses] and for those under grace,143
as well as for the soul and the body, so that the former should rule and the latter obey, and the higher should have supremacy over the lower, that the worse may not rebel
136 Cf. John 1.9: "The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." 8.12: "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.' " 9.5: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
137 John 14.6: "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life.' " 138 Acts 17.28. 139 Psalm 119.131. 140 the double power and the double breathing. The two breathings, which are two acts of divine power, refer to Genesis 2.7 ("The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being") and John 20.22 ("[The risen Lord] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' "). 141 Cf. 1 Corinthians 1.30: "[God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." 142 Cf. Matthew 16.27: "For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done." 143 Romans 6.14: "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace."
Gregory of Nazianzus
against the better. The Son is called "Sanctification,"144 insofar as He is Purity, that the pure may be embraced by Purity. And He is called "Redemption,"145 because He liberates us who were held captive under sin, by giving Himself for us as the ransom which purifies the world. And He is called "Resurrection,"146
because He raises us up from here and brings us to life again, who were slain by sin.
§ 21. These names are still common to Him who is above us and to Him who became what He is for our sake.
147 But others are properly our own and belong to the human nature that He assumed. Thus He is called "the man" (ανθωπος). This is so not only in order that through His body He might be accessible to those creatures who have bodies – otherwise, He would be inaccessible because of His incomprehensible nature, – but also in order that through Himself He might sanctify humanity and become (as it were) a leaven for the whole lump; and by uniting to Himself what was condemned might release it from all condemnation, becoming for all humans all things that we are, except sin – body, soul, mind, and all those things through which death comes. Thus He became a human, who is the combination of all these – God in visible form, by virtue that which is perceived invisibly. He is "Son of Man," both on account of Adam and on account of the Virgin from whom He came – from the one as the first ancestor, from the other as His mother, both in accordance with the law of generation and apart from it.148 He is "Christ,"149
because of His divinity. For this is the anointing of His humanity, and this anointing does not sanctify by means of an extrinsic action, as is the case with all other "anointed ones" [χριστους – christous], but by means of the presence
144 1 Corinthians 1.30 (see footnote 141).
145 Cf. Mark 10.45: "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom [λυτρον – lutron] for many." The word here translated as "redemption" is λυτρον. 146 John 11.25: "Jesus said to [Martha], 'I am the resurrection and the life.' " 147 Gregory means both the divine Word in himself, who is above us, and the divine Word incarnate as Jesus Christ, who became what He is for our sake. 148 The incarnate Word was born in accordance with the laws of nature, but his conception in Mary's womb was, as a miracle, exempt from those same laws. 149 The Greek word χριστος (christos) translates the Aramaic word meshieh, "anointed one," and means the same thing.
Theological Orations 4: On the Son, 2
of the Anointing One in His fullness. The effect of this presence is that the One who anoints is called "human," and makes what is anointed God. He is "the Way"150 insofar as He leads us through Himself; "the Gate,"151 insofar as He lets us enter; "the Shepherd,"152 insofar as He makes His flock dwell in a place of green pastures and rears it by the still waters,153 leading us through this life and protecting us from wild beasts; He makes the straying sheep turn back and brings back what was lost, binds up what was broken and watches over the strong,154 and He gathers them together in the fold on high by the words of his knowledge as Shepherd. He is called "the Sheep," because He is slaughtered; "the Lamb,"155 because He is without blemish;156 "the High Priest,"157 because He offers the sacrifice; "Melchizedek," because He is without mother in that nature which is above us and without father in our nature, without genealogy above (for who, it says, shall declare His generation?158
), and because He is King of Salem, which means "peace," and
150 John 14.6: "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life.' "
151 John 10.9: "I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture." 152 John 10.11: "I am the good shepherd." 153 Cf. Psalm 23.1-2: "The LORD is my shepherd;* I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures * and leads me beside still waters." 154 Cf. Ezekiel 34.16: "I will seek the lost, [says the Lord GOD,] and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice. 155 Cf. Isaiah 53.7: "Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." 156 Cf. Exodus 12.3, 5: As one of the ordinances of the Passover meal, "the whole congregation of Israel… are to take a lamb for each family, a lamb for each household…. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a year-old male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats." 157 See footnote 114, page 88. 158 Isaiah 53.8 (Septuagint).
Gregory of Nazianzus
King of Righteousness, and because He receives one-tenth of everything from patriarchs when they prevail over evil powers.159
These, then, are the titles of the Son. Walk through them – through those that are lofty; with an attitude of reverence for God; through those that belong to the body, with an attitude suitable to them. Or rather, walk through these name with an attitude altogether of reverence for God, so that you may become God by ascending from below for the sake of Him who, for us, came down from on high. In all things and above all things, keep to this and you will never err with respect either to the loftier or to the lowlier names. Jesus Christ yesterday and today bodily, the same in the order of the Spirit for ever and ever.
Amen.
159 Cf. Hebrews 6.20 – 7.3: "[Jesus has] become a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. This 'King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him' [Gen. 14.18-19]; and to him Abraham apportioned 'one-tenth of everything' [Gen. 14.20]. His name, in the first place, means 'king of righteousness'; next he is also king of Salem, that is, 'king of peace'. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest for ever." 160 Hebrews 13.8.
The Fifth Theological Oration
Oration 31
On the Holy Spirit
UCH, then, is our account of the Son, and by means of our discourse He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of them.1 For the Word is not stoned, but casts stones when He pleases; and uses a sling against wild beasts – that is, our opponent's words – which approach the mount [of God] in a godless manner.2 "But what do you have to say about the Holy Spirit?" they say. "From where do you import this strange god, of whom Scripture is silent?" And even those who keep within bounds regarding the Son speak in this way.3
For just as we find that roads and rivers split off from one another and join again, so it happens in this case as well through the superabundance of impiety: people who differ in all other respects have here some points of agreement, so that you never can tell for certain either where they are of one mind or where they are in conflict.
§ 2. Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty. It is not only because, when these men have become weary in their disputations concerning the Son, they struggle with greater heat against the Spirit – for it
1 Cf. Luke 4.28-30: "When they heard this, all in the synagogue [at Nazareth] were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way." 2 Cf. Exodus 19.12-13: "[The LORD said to Moses:] 'You shall set limits for the people all around, saying, "Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death. No hand shall touch them, but they shall be stoned or shot with arrows; whether animal or human being, they shall not live." ' " 3 A reference to conservative church-leaders who were "Nicene-friendly" on the question of the Son's eternal divinity but became "fellowtravellers" of the Arians on the question of the Spirit. Gregory and his associates called all such people Pneumatomachoi, "fighters (or gangsters) against the Spirit".
Gregory of Nazianzus
seems to be absolutely necessary for them to have some object on which to vent their impiety, or life would appear to them no longer worth living. It is also because we ourselves, worn out by the multitude of their questions, are in something like the same state as people who have lost their appetite. Having taken a dislike to some particular kind of food, they are disgusted by all food. Just so with us – we are disgusted by all discussions. Nevertheless, so long as the Spirit aids us, our argument will run swiftly and God may be glorified.4
We will leave to others who have worked upon this subject for us as well as for themselves, as we have worked upon it for them, the task of examining carefully and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy are used and understood in Scripture, with the evidence suitable to such an enquiry; we will also leave to others the additional task of showing how the combination of the two words – I mean, "Holy Spirit" – is used in a peculiar sense. Let us now apply ourselves to what comes after those subjects.
§ 3. Certain people, then, thinking that we have introduced the Holy Spirit as a strange or counterfeit god; are angry at us and fight very hard to defend "the letter".
5 But they should know that they are afraid where there is nothing to fear;6 and I would have them clearly understand that their love for "the letter" is but a cloak for their impiety, as we shall see later on when we refute their objections to the utmost of our power. But we have so much confidence in the divinity of the Spirit whom we adore, that we will begin our teaching concerning His divinity by applying to Him the names which belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us reckless. The Father was the true light which enlightens every one who comes into the world.7
The Son
4 Cf. Psalm 147.15: "[The LORD] sends forth his command to the earth,* and his word runs very swiftly." And 2 Thessalonians 3.1: "Finally, brothers and sisters, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified everywhere…."
5 "the letter". I.e. of the Scriptures. Gregory does not say "the letter of the Scriptures," because he will not concede to the opponents he now has in view that they are, in truth, faithfully interpreting the Scriptures. Cf. Oration 4, § 1 (page 71), where Gregory spoke 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." 6 Psalm 53.5 (Septuagint, Ps. 52.6). 7 John 1.9. This is how the Authorised ("King James") Version and both the English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901)
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
was the true light which enlightens every one who comes into the world. The other Advocate 8 was the true light which enlightens every one who comes into the world. He was, and He was, and He was – but was One. He was light, and light, and light – but one Light, one God. This was what David realised long ago when he said. In your light we see light.9 And now we have both seen and proclaim in a brief and simple fashion the theology of the Trinity:10 from Light – the Father – we know Light – the Son – in Light – the Holy Spirit. Whoever rejects it, let them reject it, and whoever commits iniquity, let them commit it – we proclaim what we have understood. We will get us up to a high mountain, if we are not heard below; we will exalt the Spirit and will not fear11
– or if we are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of proclaiming.
§ 4. If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning,
then the Three were so, too. If you throw down one of the Three, I will be so bold as to say that you do not exalt the other Two. For what is the use of an imperfect divinity? Or rather, what divinity can there be if it is not perfect? And how can that be perfect which lacks something it should have? And surely there is something missing if it does not have holiness – and how would it have this if it does not have the Holy Spirit? For either
translate this verse. The RSV and the NRSV translate it: "The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world."
8 John 14.16: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever." 9 Psalm 36.9. 10 Cf. 1 John 1.3, 5: "We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ…. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all." By the way, Gregory actually uses the word θεολογια (theologia) here. 11 Cf. Isaiah 40.9: "Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, 'Here is your God!' " 12 1 John 1.1.
Gregory of Nazianzus
holiness is something different from the Spirit – and if so, let someone tell me how we might conceive of it – or if holiness is the same as the Spirit, how is the Spirit not from the beginning, as if it were better for God to be at once imperfect and without the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is in the same rank as I am, even though a little before me – for we are both separated from God by time. If He is in the same rank as I am, how can He make me God or join me with the divine nature?
§ 5. Or rather, let me reason with you about Him by resuming a point made somewhat earlier, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees denied altogether the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they did that of angels and the resurrection; I do not know how they could have rejected the important testimonies concerning Him in the Old Testament. And among the Greeks,13 it seems to me that the better "theologians" and those who come nearest to us have formed some conception of Him, though they have differed as to His name. They have addressed Him as "Mind of the universe,"14 or as "External Mind,"15 and the like. But of the wise among ourselves, some have conceived of him as an energy, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain what to call Him – out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as if it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position – or rather, a very miserable one – with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox only in their thinking,16
while others venture to be orthodox with the lips as well. And I have heard of some who are even cleverer: they measure divinity! These fellows agree with us that there are Three; but they have separated these Three from one another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed in both. Thus they imitate in another way those who call them "the Creator," "the Co-operator," and "the Servant," and see in the rank and dignity implied by these names a subordination in reality.
§ 6. We cannot, of course, enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in the Spirit's existence, nor with Greek babblers; for the oil of the unrighteous will not anoint our discourse!
With the others, however, we
13 Gregory means non-Christian Greek philosophers.
14 Plato, Phaedo 97 c-d; Philebus 28 c. 15 Aristotle, The Generation of Animals II.3, 9. 16 I.e. some of the orthodox keep their belief in the divinity of the Spirit to themselves; they lack the courage of their conviction.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
will argue in this way. The Holy Spirit must be ranked either among those beings which exist in and of themselves, or among the things which are observed in something else. Those who are skilled in such matters call the first a "substance" [ουσια – ousia] and the second an "accident".18 Now if the Spirit were an "accident," He would be an energy of God – what else could He be, or from whom else could He come? Surely this is the best way to avoid the notion of composition?19 And if He is an energy of God, He has all the qualities which belong to an energy. [This means,] He will be the author of effect, and He will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected – for this is the nature of an energy. But how is it that the Spirit acts,20 and utters speech, and sets apart,21 and is grieved,22
and is angered, and does such things as clearly indicate a being that moves, not a movement? But if He is a substance and not an attribute of a substance, He will be regarded either as a creature or as God. For anything between these two, whether it has nothing in common with either or is a compound of both, not even those who invented the goatstag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature, how do we believe "in" Him, how are we made perfect "in" Him? For it is not the same thing to believe in a thing and to believe statements about it. The first belongs to divinity, the second to – well, anything. But if the Spirit is God, then He is neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly appellations.
§ 7. There – now it is your turn. Let the slings be let go; let the syllogism be woven. Either He is altogether Unbegotten, you say, or else He is Begotten. If
17 Psalm 141.5. 18 These are the two basic categories, or classes, of Aristotle's metaphysics. A "substance" (or "essence") is the underlying nature which makes something to be what it is. "Accidents" are the subsequent characteristics which give the ousia its particularity – such as colour, height, place, etc. 19 Composition involves complexity; the simpler explanation is always to be preferred. 20 Cf. 1 Corinthians 12.11: "All these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses." 21 Cf. Acts 13.2: "While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' " 22 Cf. Ephesians 4.30: "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption."
Gregory of Nazianzus
He is Unbegotten, there are two who are without origin. If he is Begotten, you must make a further subdivision: He comes either from the Father or from the Son. If He comes from the Father, there are two Sons – and they are Brothers! And you may make them twins if you like, or the one older and the other younger, since you are so very fond of bodily notions. But someone will then say that, if He comes from the Son, we catch a glimpse of God the Grandson! Could anything be more absurd? Such is the word-play of those who are skilled in doing evil 23 and refuse to write what is good. For my part, if I saw the necessity of the distinction, I should have acknowledged the facts without fear of the names. For the Son is "Son" according to an exalted kind of relation, since there is no other way in which we can state that He is from God and of one being [homoousion]. It does not follow from this, that we should consider it necessary to apply, in a metaphorical sense, the terms of this lower world, especially those which have to do with our familial relationships, to the divinity. If that were so, you might imagine that God is a male because he is called "God" and "Father,"24 and that "divinity" is feminine because of the grammatical gender of the word, and that Spirit is neuter because It does not "beget"! But if you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God has begotten the Son by a marriage with His own will, we should be introduced to the hermaphrodite god of Marcion, who made up these strange "æons".25
§ 8. But since we do not admit your first distinction, which declares that there is no intermediary between the Begotten and the Unbegotten, poof! along with your famous distinction, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, in the same way as an intricate chain falls apart when the first link is broken, so are your fantasies broken, the whole lot of them, and disappear
23 Jeremiah 4.22. 24 In the Greek language, θεος (theos – "god") and πατηρ (pater – "father") are masculine in gender. 25 Marcion was a second-century teacher commonly associated with the Gnostic movement. His theology – or what we know of his theology – did not have anything to do with a "hermaphrodite god" or with "æons," strange or not. The notion of hermaphrodite beings was very much a part of the teaching of Valentinus, a genuine Gnostic of the second century, and his disciple Marcos proposed a system of "æons". Gregory may have confused Marcos with Marcion. This may be why one of the two groups in the manuscript tradition of The Five Theological Orations has the reading "Marcion and Valentinus". Mason accepts "and Valentinus" in his edition, Gallay (SC 250, p. 288-289, footnote 2) rejects it as a later interpolation.
Theological Orations 5: On the Holy Spirit
from theology. For, tell me, what position in your distinction will you assign to that which proceeds? It appears as an intermediate term, and it is introduced by a better theologian than you – our Saviour Himself. Or perhaps to suit your Third Testament you have removed these words from your Gospels: The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father?26
Inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds from that Source, He is no creature; inasmuch as He is not Begotten, He is not Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God. Thus does He escape the webs of your syllogisms and manifest Himself as God, stronger than your distinctions. What then is this "procession"? You tell me what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the natural history of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession. Then both of us will be raving mad for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things? – we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of eternity, much less enter into the depths of God and provide an account of that nature which is so unspeakable and so utterly above our reason?
§ 9. "What does the Spirit lack," say they, "which prevents His being a Son? For if there were not something lacking, He would be a Son, wouldn't He?" We assert that there is nothing lacking, for God does not "lack" anything. But the difference of way in which Each is manifested – if I may so express myself – or rather, the difference of their mutual relations to each other, has caused the difference of their names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father – Sonship, after all, is not a deficiency – and yet He is not Father. Otherwise, there is some deficiency in the Father, with respect to His not being Son, for the Father is not Son. And yet these terms do not either a deficiency or a subordination with respect to the divine essence. On the contrary, the expressions "being Unbegotten" or "being Begotten" or "Proceeding" have given the name of Father to the first, the name of Son to the second, and the name of Holy Spirit to the third, of whom we are speaking here, of the Holy Ghost. Thus is the distinction of the Three hypostases
may be preserved in the one nature and one dignity of the divinity. For neither is the Son the Father, for there is only one Father, but the
26 John 15.26.
27 hypostases ('υποστασεις) – singular: hypostasis ('υποστασις). This term literally means "that which is standing (stasis) under (hypo-)". In this literal sense, earlier Greek Christian theologians treated the term as a synonym for "underlying nature". Gregory, however, is here using hypostasis in the sense of "distinct existence in relation to others" – or, as we would say, "person". In this case, "that which is standing under" is not the one nature itself so much each individual's possession of that one nature.
Gregory of Nazianzus
Son is what the Father is. Nor is the Spirit the Son because He comes from God, for there is only one Son, the Only-begotten; but the Spirit is what the Son is. The Three are One with respect to the divinity, and the One is Three with respect to the properties.28 Thus, the One is not the unity meant by Sabellius,29
and the Three are not the three meant by the pernicious faction of today.
§ 10. "What then? Is the Spirit God?" Certainly. "Well then, is He 'of one Being [homoousion]'?" Yes, since He is God. "Go ahead," says my opponent, "convince me that from the same Source spring one who is a Son and one who is not a Son, then convince me that these are 'of one Being' [with the Source], and I will admit a God and a God." And you – you show me that there is another God and still only one nature of God, and I will show you the same Trinity, with the same name and the same reality. But since God is One and the supreme nature is One, how can I present with any comparison? Or will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful – and not only shameful but also very foolish – to take from things below a guess at things above, and to seek in changeable things the image of unchangeable reality. It is, as Isaiah says, to seek the living among the dead.
30 But still, for your sake, I will try to give my exposition some support from here below. I think I will pass over other points, though I might bring forward many examples from animal-life, some generally known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful art in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to generate likes, and unlike things to beget things unlike either parent, but also like things are said to be begotten by unlike things, and unlike things by like things.31 And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten.32