Слово 30. О богословии четвертое, о Боге Сыне второе

1. I have sufficiently shaken your cunning arguments and webs of conclusions by the power of the Spirit, and also on the objections and contradictions from the Divine Scriptures (by which the blasphemers of the truth, concealing the meaning of what is written, win over many to their side and disturb the path of truth), I have already given a general decision, and the decision, as I assure myself, is not unclear for the right-thinking, namely: those sayings of Scripture that are more sublime and Godly, I added to the Divinity, and those that are lower and humanoid, I attributed to the new us for Adam and to God, who became suffering in the fight against sin. But, hastening to speak, I did not consider each of these sayings separately. Since you, in order not to get carried away by interpretations that have the appearance of probability, require brief solutions to these sayings, then, to facilitate memory, dividing them by numbers, I will bring them under a general overview. 2. The first and especially ready saying for them is the following: The Lord has made me the beginning of His ways for His works (Prov. 8:22). How to answer this? We will neither blame Solomon, nor reject the former for his last fall, nor interpret that Wisdom is represented here as speaking, that is, that knowledge and that artistic mind by which everything was created. For Scripture often personifies many even soulless things, for example: the sea says this and that (Isaiah 23:4), and the abyss says: it is not in me (Job 28:14); also the heavens are represented as telling the glory of God (Ps. 18:1), and the sword is commanded to do something (Zech. 13:7), mountains and hills are asked about the reasons for leaping (Ps. 114:6). But let us not answer in this way, although some before us presented this as something solid. On the contrary, let us assume that these are the words of the Savior Himself - true Wisdom, and consider them a little more carefully. Which creature does not have a cause? Deity. For no one will tell us the reason of God, otherwise it would be more original than God Himself. But what is the reason why God accepts humanity for our sake? So that we can all be saved. For what other reason could there be? So, since here we find both the word created and another clear saying: he gives birth to me (Prov. 8:25), the explanation is simple. What is said with the addition of a reason will be attributed to humanity, and what is said simply, without the addition of a reason, will be attributed to the Divine. But isn’t the word “creation” said with the addition of a cause? For Solomon says: He made me the beginning of His ways for His works. The works of His hands are truth and judgment (Ps. 110:7), for which He is anointed by the Divine, because this anointing relates to humanity. But the word gives birth to me is used without adding a reason, otherwise indicate what is added to it. So, who will argue that Wisdom is called a creation after birth and born after a first and more incomprehensible birth? 3. From this it also happens that the Son is given the title of servant, serving well to many (Is. 53:11), and that He is commanded to be called the servant of God (Is. 49:6). For, indeed, for our liberation He served the flesh, birth, our infirmities and everything by which He saved those held under sin. And for the baseness of man, what is higher than to unite with God, and through such a union to become God, and to be visited so much by the East from above (Luke 1:78), so that what is being born is holyly called the Son of the Highest (Luke 1:35), and a name is given to Him, which is above every name (and is this other than the same thing as being God?), so that every knee should bow (Phil. 2:9–10) Who emptied himself for us and the image of God, who dissolved in the form of a servant, so that the whole house of Israel might understand that God created both the Lord and His Christ (Acts 2:36)? For this was both by the action of the Begotten and by the good will of the Parent. 4. What takes second place between the most important and irresistible sayings for them? It is fitting for Him to reign, until then, and so on. (1 Cor. 15:25), receive heaven until the years of dispensation (Acts 3:21) and have a seat on the right hand until the enemies are subdued (Heb. 1:13). What after that? Will he stop reigning? Will it come down from heaven? Who will put an end to His reign and for what reason? What a daring interpreter you are and cannot tolerate the king! However, you also know that His Kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:33). But you fall into error due to ignorance that the word dondezhe is not always opposed to the future tense, but, on the contrary, meaning time up to a certain limit, does not exclude what follows after this limit. Otherwise (I’m not talking about anything else) how will you understand the words: I will be with you until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20)? Is it really so that after this He will not be with us? What kind of reasoning! But you sin not only from this ignorance, but also from the fact that you do not distinguish between meanings. The Son is called reigning in one sense as the Almighty and King of those who want and those who do not want, and in another - as bringing us to obedience and subordinating to His kingdom those who voluntarily recognize Him as King. And His kingdom, if we understand it in the first sense, will have no end. And if we mean the second, will there be any end? The one who will take us, the saved, under His hand (for do those who have submitted still need to be brought to obedience?), and then the judge of the earth will arise (Ps. 93:3) and will separate what is being saved from what is perishing; then God will stand among the saved gods to judge and determine who is worthy of glory and abode. 5. Add to this the submission with which you submit the Son to the Father! What are you saying? Is not the Son now subdued? But being with God, He must completely submit to God. Or about what thief and adversary of God do you speak? On the contrary, take into account the following. Just as He who breaks the oath is called a curse for me (Gal. 3:13), and sin (2 Cor. 5:21) He takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and Adam from being old is made new, so He makes my disobedience, as the Head of the whole body, His disobedience. Therefore, as long as I am disobedient and rebellious with my passions and because I renounce God, until then Christ alone is called rebellious for me. And when everything is submitted to Him (it will submit because it recognizes Him and changes), then He, having brought me, the saved one, fulfilled His submission. For this is precisely, in my opinion, at least, the obedience of Christ consists of - in fulfilling the will of the Father. The Son also submits to the Father, and the Father to the Son, insofar as One acts and the Other is pleased (as I said before). And in this way, the One who conquered represents what was conquered to God, assimilating to Himself our submission. It seems to me that the words have the same meaning: God, my God, attend to Me; you have forsaken Me (Ps. 21:1). For He Himself was not abandoned either by the Father, or by His own Divinity, Who (as some think) was afraid of suffering and therefore hid from the sufferer (who forced Him either to be born on earth in the beginning, or to ascend to the cross?), but (as I have already said) He represents us in His face. We were previously abandoned and despised, but now we have been accepted and saved by the sufferings of the Impassive. Likewise, He assimilates to Himself both our foolishness and our sinfulness, as can be seen from the continuation of the psalm, because the twenty-first psalm clearly refers to Christ. 6. The same view also applies to the fact that He is accustomed to obedience from those who suffered, as well as His cry, tears, prayer, hearing and reverence (Heb. 5:7-8) - all this is accomplished and miraculously copulated on our behalf. He Himself, as the Word, was neither obedient nor disobedient (since both are characteristic of those who are subordinate and inferior, and one is good-natured, and the other is worthy of punishment), but, like the image of a servant (Phil. 2:7), He descends upon fellow servants and slaves, taking upon Himself someone else’s likeness, representing in Himself all of me and all that is mine, in order to exhaust my worst in Himself, just like fire destroys wax or the sun - the earth's vapor, and so that through union with Him I can partake of what is characteristic of Him. Therefore, by His own example, He raises the price of obedience and tests it in suffering, because disposition alone was not enough, just as it is not enough for us if we do not accompany it with deeds, for deed serves as proof of disposition. But, perhaps, it is no worse to assume that He tests our obedience and measures everything by His sufferings, guided by the art of His love for mankind, in order to find out from our own experience what is possible for us and how much should be exacted from us, and to excuse us if, during suffering, weakness is taken into account. For if the Light, which because of the veil 245 shines in darkness (John 1:5), that is, in this life, was driven away by another darkness (I mean the evil one and the tempter); then how much more will darkness endure this because of its weaknesses 246 . And what is surprising if, when the Light has completely escaped, we are somewhat overtaken? According to the right reasoning about this, it means more for Him to be persecuted than for us to be overtaken. I’ll add to what has been said one more place that comes to my mind and obviously leads to the same thought, namely: in the same way I suffered, having myself been tempted, perhaps help can be given to those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:23) during the dispensation (Acts 3:21), that is, not only the Father, who completely allowed the Son into Himself, like a candle that was taken out for a while from a large fire, and then put back into it (the Sabellians will not seduce us with such a saying), but the all-whole God, moreover, when we, who now, by our movements and passions, or do not have in us at all God, or we have little, we will cease to be many, but we will become completely God-like, containing within ourselves the whole God and His oneness. This is the perfection to which we are hastening! And Paul himself especially hints at this. For what he says here vaguely about God, he in another place clearly assigns to Christ. In what words? Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:11). 7. In the third place put the saying painful (John 14:23) and in the fourth: My God and your God (John 20:17). If it had been said more, but not equal (John 5:18–21), then this saying would perhaps have had some force with them. When we find both things said clearly, what will these undaunted ones object to? What will they eat? How do they agree on disagreements? For it is impossible for one and the same thing, in the same reasoning and in the same relation, to be both greater and equal. Is it not clear that the Father is greater than the Son in guilt and equal in nature? And we confess this very sensibly. Is it possible that another, striving even harder for our teaching, will add: that which has its existence from such Guilt is no less than the Guilty One, for what is from the Beginningless Participates in the glory of the Beginningless One; and to this is added birth, which for those who have intelligence is in itself important and venerable. But the idea that the Father is greater than the Son, considered according to humanity, although fair, is nevertheless of little importance. For what wonder if God is greater than man? Let this be our answer to those who shout a lot about the word pain, but about the word God we will say: 8. The Father is called the God not of the Word, but of the visible (for how can one be the God of Him who is in the proper sense God?), as well as the Father not of the visible, but of the Word. For in Christ there are two natures, and therefore in relation to both natures the names “God” and “Father” are used partly properly, partly not properly and in contrast to how this is said about us; because God is our God properly, but not our Father properly. And this very thing, that is, the combination of names, and, moreover, names, of which some are replaced by others due to the combination of natures, misleads heretics. And the proof of such a replacement is that when natures differ in concepts, then names also differ. Listen to what Paul says: Yes, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory (Eph. 1:17). God of Christ, and the Father of glory, although both are one, but not by nature, but by the totality of them. What could be clearer than this? 9. Fifthly, consider the sayings by which the Son receives life, or judgment (John 5:26-27), or the inheritance of the nations (Ps. 2:8), or the power of all flesh, or glory, or disciples (John 17:2, 6, 22), or the like. And this applies to humanity. And if you attribute it to God, there will be no inconsistency, because you ascribe it not as something acquired, but as something that belonged from the beginning, and moreover, by nature, and not by grace. 10. Sixthly, put this saying: the Son cannot do anything for himself unless he sees the Father doing it (John 5:19). In this discussion, it should be noted that the words can and cannot are used in more than one sense, but are significant. Something else is called impossible due to lack of strength at a certain time and for a certain action, for example: a child cannot fight, a puppy cannot see or fight with such and such, but over time, perhaps, he will fight, and see, and fight with such and such, although fighting with another will then remain impossible for him. Otherwise, it is impossible in most cases, for example: hail cannot hide on top of a standing mountain (Matthew 5:14). But otherwise he could have taken refuge if he had been blocked by a large mountain. Anything else is impossible due to incongruity, for example: food can be fasted at the filial wedding, especially during the time in the groom’s house (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19), or the bodily visible Bridegroom (for in His presence there is a time not of suffering, but of joy), or the mentally contemplated Word (for should those purified by the Word fast bodily?). Anything else is impossible due to a lack of will, for example: you cannot perform signs for those who accept it for unbelief (Mark 11:5-6). Since healing requires both the faith of the healed and the strength of the healer, the lack of one made the other impossible. But I don’t know whether this too should be considered impossible due to inconsistency? For it would be inappropriate to heal those damaged by unbelief. Impossibility due to lack of will is also expressed in the words: the world cannot hate you (John 7:7), and: whatever good you can say, evil exists (Matthew 12:34). For why would this or that be impossible, if not because there is no will for it? And sometimes what is called impossible is something that, although impossible by nature, could nevertheless become possible by the will of God, for example: it is impossible for the same person to be born a second time (John 3:4) and a needle that takes a camel into itself is impossible (Matthew 19:24). For what would prevent this from happening if it were pleasing to God? 11. But beyond all these impossibilities, the completely impossible and unrealizable; and it is this that constitutes the subject of this research. Just as we recognize it as impossible for God to be evil or not to exist (this would show impotence in God, not strength), or for the non-existent to exist, or for two and two to be together and four and ten, so it is impossible and incompatible with anything for the Son to do anything that the Father does not do. For everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, and vice versa, everything that belongs to the Son belongs to the Father. So, nothing is personal, because everything is common. And Their very existence is common and equal, although the existence of the Son is from the Father. That is why it is said: I live for the Father’s sake (John 6:57), not in the sense that the life and existence of the Son is supported by the Father, but in the fact that the Son exists from the Father pre-time and guiltlessly. What do the words mean: as he sees the Father creating, so he creates? Is it really the same here as we see in those who copy paintings or writings, who can write correctly only by looking at the original and being guided by it? Is it possible for Wisdom to have a need for a Teacher or to do only what it has been taught? How does the Father create or did he create? Did He really create another world before the present one and will create a future one, and the Son, looking at them, created both the present one and the future one? So, according to this reasoning, there are four worlds: two are the creation of the Father and two are the creation of the Son. What foolishness! But the Son cleanses leprosy, frees from demons and diseases, gives life to the dead, walks on the sea and accomplishes everything else that He created; over whom and when did the Father do this before the Son? Isn’t it obvious that the Father ordains the same things, and the Word brings them into execution, not slavishly and blindly, but with knowledge and dominion, or, more precisely, fatherly. This is how I understand the words: whatever is created by the Father, the Son does likewise, not in imitation of what was created, but out of equality of power. And this is signified, perhaps, by the words: hitherto both the Father and the Son work (Jn. 5:17), in which, however, there is not only creation, but also the Economy and preservation of what was created, as can be seen from the words He creates His spirits and angels and establishes the earth in its firmament (Ps. 103:4-5), while the earth was erected and the Angels were created once; also: the thunder confirms and the wind creates (Am. 4:13), while the law for them was given once, but the action continues constantly. 12. Seventhly, consider the saying that the Son came down from heaven, not to do His will, but of Him who sent (John 6:18). If this were not said by the One Who Descended Himself, then we would answer that these words were uttered on behalf of a person, not what we mean in the Savior (His will, as completely deified, is not contrary to God), but similar to us, because the human will does not always follow, but very often contradicts and opposes the will of God. For this is how we understand the words: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass by from Me: yet not as I will, but may Your will prevail (Matthew 26:39); and it is incredible that Christ did not know what is possible and what is not, and that he began to oppose one will to another. But since this is the speech of the One who Perceived (which means the word descended), and not the one perceived, we will give the following answer: this is said not because the Son’s own will is really different from the will of the Father, but because there is no such will, and the meaning contained in the words is this: “Let me not do My will, because I have no will separate from Your will, but there is only a common will for Me and You. Just as We have one Divinity, so we have one will.” For there are many such expressions that speak generally not affirmatively, but negatively. For example: God does not give the Spirit in measure (John 3:34), while neither God gives nor the Spirit is measured, because God is not measured by God. And one more thing: lower is my sin, lower is my iniquity (Ps. 58:4), while we are not talking about actual sin, but about one that does not exist. Also: not for the sake of our righteousness, even as we created (Dan. 9:18), that is, because we did not create righteousness. The same thing is revealed from what follows. For what is called the will of the Father? Yes, everyone who believes in the Son will be saved and worthy of the final resurrection (John 6:40). Is this really the will of the Father, but not the will of the Son? Or is it not by the will of the Son that they preach the gospel about Him or believe in Him? But who will believe this? Otherwise, the same force has the fact that the word heard from the Son is not the word of the Son, but of the Father (John 14:24). But no matter how I look, I can’t find it, and I don’t think anyone else will find it either, no matter how the common property was the property of any one person. If you reason about the will in this way, then your reasoning will be correct and very pious, which I assure you of and which every right-thinking person will confirm. 13. Eighth, they present the sayings: Let them know You the only true God, and Him you have sent, Jesus Christ (John 17:3). And: no one is good, only one God (Luke 18:19). But it seems to me that it is very easy to give a solution to this. For if the words: the only true one are applied to the Father, then what place will you give to the self-existent Truth? And if in the same way you understand the sayings: to the only wise God (1 Tim. 1:17); the only one who has immortality, who lives unapproachable in the light (1 Tim. 6:16); King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only wise God (1:17), then your Son will perish, condemned to death, or to darkness, or to be neither wise, nor a king, nor invisible, nor, most importantly, God at all. And along with everything else, how can He not lose His goodness, which primarily belongs to God alone? But I think that the words of the one true God were spoken in distinction from gods that do not exist, but are called gods. For it would not have been added that Jesus Christ also sent Him, if the speech of the true God was opposed to Christ, and not in general there was talk about the Divinity. The words “nobody is good” contain an answer to the questioning lawyer, who recognized the goodness in Christ as in man. He says that goodness in the highest degree belongs to God alone, although man is also called good, for example: a good man brings forth good things from a good treasure (Matthew 12:35). And: I will give the kingdom to the best (τῷ ἀγαθῷ) more than you (1 Samuel 15:28), God says to Saul, meaning David. Also: God bless the good (Ps. 125:4). This also includes places where those of us are praised, to whom the streams of the first Good have reached, although not directly. So, if I convinced you, then good, but if not, what do you say, according to your assumptions, in response to those who claim that in other places of Scripture the Son is called the one God! Where exactly? In the following words: This is your God, it will not be imputed to Him, and soon after: therefore He appeared on earth and lived with men (Bar. 3:36–38). That this is said not about the Father, but about the Son, this is shown by the last addition. For the Son communicated with us bodily and was with those below. If the thought prevails that this is said not against imaginary gods, but against the Father, then in the reasoning of the Father we will be defeated by the very thing that we tried to oppose to the Son. But what could be more disastrous and harmful than giving up such a victory over oneself? 14. Ninthly, they point out the following saying: He is always alive to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25). What then? And very mysterious, and very humane! For to intercede here does not mean to seek revenge, according to the custom of many intercessors (which would be in some way humiliating), but to pray for us as a mediator, just as the Spirit is said to intercede for us (Rom. 8:26). For there is one God, and one Advocate for God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). For He, as a man (because He is still with the body that He has assumed), and now prays for my salvation, until He makes me god by the power of His humanity, although we do not understand Him according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16), - by this I understand carnal infirmities and everything that is ours, except sin. So also the intercession of the Imam of Jesus (1 John 2:1) not in the sense that He humiliates himself for us before the Father and slavishly falls down (let such a truly slavish and unworthy of the Spirit thought be far from us! It is not typical for the Father to demand this, nor for the Son to endure this, and it is unfair to think so about God), but in the fact that, having suffered for us as a man, he hereby convinces us to be patient as the Word and Advisor. I mean this by the name of intercession (παράκλησις). 15. Tenthly, they state ignorance and the fact that no one knows the last day or hour, not the Son himself, only the Father (Mark 13:32). But how can Wisdom, the Creator of ages, the Perfecter and the Renewer, not know any of the things that exist, the One who is the end of all created things and knows God just as the spirit of man knows what is in him (1 Cor. 2:11)? For what is more perfect than such knowledge? And how can the Son, Who knows in detail what will happen before the last hour and, as it were, during the end, not know the end itself? This would be like a riddle and would be equivalent to saying of someone that he knows in detail what is in front of the wall, but does not know the wall itself, or knows well the end of the day, but does not know the beginning of the night, although knowledge of one necessarily entails knowledge of the other. For it is obvious to everyone that the Son knows as God, but ascribes to Himself ignorance as a man, since only the visible can be separated from the intelligible. This idea is also suggested by the fact that the name of the Son is placed here detachedly and irrespectively, that is, without addition: whose Son He is, so that we understand this ignorance in a sense more consistent with piety and attribute it to humanity, and not to the Divinity. 16. So, if this explanation is sufficient, let us stop there and not enter into further research; and if not, let’s imagine a second interpretation. Like everything else, so also the keeping of the most important secrets is attributed to the Cause out of respect for the Parent. But it seems to me that he, too, formed a not low concept for himself who, with one of our lovers of love, would begin to read this passage like this: and the Son does not know the day or the hour for any other reason than because the Father knows. For what is the conclusion from this? Since the Father knows, and therefore the Son also knows, it is clear that this is unknown and incomprehensible to anyone except the First Cause. It would remain for us to explain those passages in which it is said that the Son was commanded (John 14:3), that the commandments were kept by Him (John 15:10), that the Son always does what pleases the Father (John 8:24), also those in which the Son is credited with perfection (Heb. 5:9), ascension (Acts 2:33), learning from these, even suffering, obedience (Heb. 5:8 ), high priesthood (Heb. 9:4), offering (Eph. 5:2), supplication to Him who is able to save Him from death (Heb. 6:7), wrestling, bloody sweat (Luke 22:44), prayer and other similar things; It would remain, I say, to explain such passages if it were not obvious to everyone that these sayings refer to a nature that is subject to suffering, and not to a nature that is unchangeable and above suffering. And just as so much has been said about opposing sayings that this can serve as some kind of root and indication for those who have more art to process the subject more perfectly, so perhaps it is worth the effort and, in accordance with what has been said so far, not to leave without consideration the names of the Son (which are both numerous and taken from various mental ideas about the Son), but to explain the meaning of each and reveal the secret of the names. This must begin with the following. 17. The deity is not named. Not only reason shows this, but, as one can guess, the wisest and most ancient of the Jews. For those who honored the Divinity with special inscriptions and did not tolerate that the name of God and the names of creatures that are lower than God were written in the same letters, so that the Divinity would not even be communicated with them, could they ever decide to pronounce in a scattering voice the name of the indestructible and unique nature? Just as no one has ever inhaled all the air into himself, so neither the mind has completely contained, nor the voice has embraced God’s essence. On the contrary, to the image of God, borrowing some features from what is around God, we form some kind of unclear and weak idea, piecemeal collected from both, and our best theologian is not the one who found everything (these bonds 247 will not contain everything!), but the one whose idea is more extensive and who has formed in himself a more complete likeness or shade (or whatever you want to call it) of the truth. 18. Therefore, as far as we can understand, the names He and God are in some way names of essence, especially the name He, not only because He who spoke to Moses on the mountain, when asked about the name, how to call Him, He Himself called Himself this name and commanded the people to say: He sent me (Ex. 3:14), but also because we find this name most characteristic God. For the name Θεός (God), which those skilled in rooting derive from θέειν (to run) or αἴθειν (to burn) because of the ever-moving and power to destroy evil (which is why God is also called a destroying fire (Deut. 4:24), is a relative name, and not detached, just like the name Lord , which also belongs to the names of God. For it is said: I am the Lord God, this is My name (Isa. 42:8), also: The Lord is His name (Am. 4:13). But we are looking for a name that would express the nature of God, or originality, and being not connected with anything else. will not be limited or suppressed in any way. 19. As for the other names of God, some obviously mean power, and others Economy, and the latter partly before the incarnation, partly after the incarnation. For example: Almighty and King or glory (Ps. 23:10), or ages (1 Tim. 1:17), or powers, or beloved (Ps. 67:13), or kings (1 Tim. 6:15), and the Lord of hosts, or, which is the same, the Lord of armies 248 (Isa. 3:15), or powers (Am. 6:8), or rulers ( 1 Tim. 6:15) are clearly names of authority. A: God of salvation (Ps. 67:21), God of vengeance (Ps. 94:1), or peace (Rom. 10:20), or righteousness (Ps. 4:2), God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Ex. 3:6) and all spiritual Israel who sees God—these are the names of the Economy. Since we can be controlled through the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation, as well as glory and through the exercise of virtues, then the previous names are borrowed from here, and the name of the God of vengeance edifies in us fear, the name of the God of salvation instills in us hope and the name of the God of virtues - asceticism, so that those who succeed in any of the above, as if carrying God within themselves, will all the more hasten to perfection and rapprochement with God through virtues. Moreover, these names are general names of the Divine; the proper name of the Beginningless One is Father, of the Beginningless Begotten is the Son, and of the unbegotten One Who Came Out or Coming Out is the Holy Spirit. 20. But let us move on to the names of the Son, which we are supposed to talk about in the word. It seems to me that He is called: Son, because he is identical with the Father in essence, and not only identical, but also from the Father. The Only Begotten (John 1:18), because He is not only the One from the One and the only One, but also in a unique way, and not as a body. In a word (John 1:1), because He relates to the Father as a word does to the mind, not only by dispassionate birth, but also by union with the Father, and because He expresses Him. But another would say, perhaps, that it relates to the Father as a definition to the thing defined, because definition is also called a word. For it is said that he who knew (this is the meaning of the word saw, John 14:9) knew the Son, and the Son is an abbreviated and convenient expression of the Father’s nature, since every generation is the silent word of the one who gave birth. But whoever says that the Son is called the Word, as co-inherent in all things, will not err in words. For what is not worth the Word? Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:25), as knowledge of Divine and human affairs. For is it possible for the Creator not to know the laws of what He has created? By force (1 Cor. 1:25), as the Guardian of creatures and the Giver of strength for the continuation of existence. Truth (John 14:6), as one, and not plural by nature (for the true is unique, but lies are many-faced), as a pure seal and the most undeceitful image of the Father. Image (2 Cor. 4:4), as Consubstantial and because He is from the Father, and not the Father from Him, for the very nature of the image is to be an imitation of the archetype and the one whose image it is called. However, here is a more ordinary image. For there the immovable is the image of the movable, but here the living God is a living Image, having more similarities with Him than Seth with Adam and every generation with the one who gave birth. For such is the nature of simple beings that they cannot be alike in one thing and dissimilar in another; on the contrary, the whole is an image of the whole, and moreover, more similar than a cast. Light (John 8:12), as the lordship of souls purified in mind and life. For if ignorance and sin are darkness, then knowledge and Divine life are light. Life (John 14:6), because He is the light, support and fulfillment of every rational nature. For in Him we live and move and are (Acts 17:28) by the twofold power of inspiration: by the breath of life which He breathed into all, and by the Holy Spirit, which He gives to those who receive it, and in proportion as we open the mouth of understanding. Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30), because it divides according to dignity, truthfully judges both those who are under the Law and those who are under Grace, both soul and body, so that one rules, and the other is under authority, so that the best rules over the worst, and the worst does not rebel against the best. Sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30), like purity, so that the pure can be contained by purity. Deliverance (1 Cor. 1:30), as freeing us, held under sin, as giving Himself for us as a ransom, as a cleansing sacrifice for the universe. Resurrection (John 11:25), as He who takes us from here and brings us to life, those killed by sin. 21. These names also belong in general to the One who is above us, and to the One who exists for our sake; Actually, those characteristic of us and belonging to the humanity perceived by Him are the following: Man (1 Tim. 2:5), so that He who is otherwise inconceivable for the body due to the incomprehensibility of nature, not only becomes contained through the body, but also sanctifies man with Himself, becoming, as it were, leaven for a whole mixture, freeing the whole man from condemnation, uniting with Himself what is condemned, becoming for all that which makes us up, except sin - body, soul, mind - everything that death has penetrated. And the common thing from all this is man, who is intelligibly the visible God. The Son of Man (John 3:18) both through Adam and through the Virgin, from whom he was born (from one as from the Forefather, from the other as from the Mother) both according to the law and beyond the laws of birth. Christ according to Divinity, for the anointing itself sanctifies humanity not by its action, as in other anointed ones, but by the entire presence of the Anointing One. And the consequence of this anointing is that the Anointing One is called man, and what is anointed is made God. The Way (John 14:6), as leading us through Himself. The door (John 10:9) as an entrance. The shepherd (John 10:11), as the one who dwells in the green place, who brings up the calm on the waters (Ps. 22:2), who guides here from here, who protects from wild beasts, who converts the lost, who seeks out the lost, who binds the broken, who preserves the mighty (Ezek. 34:4) and who, with the broadcasts of pastoral art, gathers into the enclosure there. The sheep (Isa. 53:7) is like slaughter. Lamb (1 Pet. 1:19), as perfect. Bishop (Heb. 4:14), as granting us access. Melchizedek (Heb. 7:3), as born without a mother according to a nature higher than ours, and without a father - according to our nature, as having no genealogy by birth on high, for it is said: who can confess His generation? (Isa. 53:8); as the king of Salem, that is, the world, as the king of righteousness and as the one who accepted tithes from the patriarchs who courageously fought against the evil forces. You have before you the names of the Son. Walk along them; and if they are high, then walk divinely, and if bodily, then servilely, or better yet, completely divinely, so that you too may become a god, ascending from the earth through Him who Descended for us from above. And above all and first of all, observe what is said, and you will not sin in the high and low names. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today physically, the same spiritually and forever (Heb. 13:8). Amen. In the prophet Isaiah in ch. 3, Art. 15 in the Slavic translation it reads: the Lord of hosts speaks, and according to some Greek editions it reads: φησὶ Κύριος, Κύριος στρατιῶν, i.e. the Lord speaks, the Lord of hosts.