Слово 30

About theology 4th, about God the Son 2nd 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 (with 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 far as I assure myself, is not unclear for the right-minded, but namely those sayings of Scripture that are more sublime and Godly, I added to the Divinity, and those that are lower and more humanoid, I attributed to the new us for Adam and to God, who became suffering in the fight against sin. But, hastening to say the word, I did not consider each of these expressions separately. Since you, in order not to get carried away by interpretations that have the appearance of probability, require brief solutions to these expressions, then, to facilitate memory, dividing them by numbers, I will bring them under a general overview. Their first and especially ready saying is the following: “The Lord made me the beginning of His way before His creatures” (Proverbs 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 (Is. 23:4), and “the deep says: it is not in me” (Job 28:14); also the “heavens” are represented as “preaching 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 have presented this as something solid. On the contrary, let us assume that these are the words of the Savior himself - the true Wisdom. And let's look at them a little more carefully. Which creature does not have a cause? Deity. For no one will tell us the reasons 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 expression: “gives birth to me” “ (Proverbs 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 “created” said with the addition of a reason? For Solomon says: “He made me the beginning of His ways before His creatures. 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 creature by birth, and born - by a first and more incomprehensible birth? From this it also happens that the Son is given the title of servant, “who serves many well” (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 “the Holy One who is to be born is called the Son” of God (Luke 1:35), and is given to Him “the name that 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 united the image of God with the image of a servant, so that “the whole house of Israel might know that God had made Him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)? For this was both by the action of the Begotten and by the good pleasure of the Parent. And what takes second place between the most important and irresistible sayings for them? - “For He must reign until”, etc. (1 Cor. 15:25), “heaven must receive until the time of the completion of all things” (Acts 3:21) and sit “at 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, and for what reason, will put an end to His reign? What a daring interpreter you are and cannot tolerate the king over you! However, you also know that “His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:33). But you will fall into error due to ignorance that the word “until” 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 “to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)? Is it really possible that after this He will not be with us? What kind of reasoning! But you sin not from this ignorance alone, 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 willing and unwilling, and in the other, 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 meaning, will have no end, but if we understand it in the second, will there be any end? - The one who will take us saved under His arm (for do those who have submitted still need to be brought to obedience?), and then will rise as “Judge of the earth” (Ps. 93:3) and separate the saved from the perishing, then God will stand among the gods of the saved to judge and determine who is worthy of glory and abode. 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? Instead, consider the following. As it is called a “curse” for me (Gal.3:13). Who absolves by me an oath, and “sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). “He who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and Adam from the 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 the fact that I renounce God, so long will Christ, only for me, be called rebellious. And when everything is submitted to Him (it will submit because it recognizes Him and changes), then He, having brought me saved, 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, since One acts and the Other favors (as I said before). And thus, 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: “O God, my God, listen to Me, why have you forsaken Me” (Ps. 22:1)? 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 first, 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. The same view also includes the fact that He “acquired obedience,” as well as His “cry, tears, and prayer were heard because of His reverence” (Heb. 5:7–8) - all this is accomplished and miraculously added on our behalf. He Himself, as the Word, was neither obedient nor disobedient (since both are characteristic of subordinates and secondary ones, and one is good-natured, and the other is worthy of punishment), but, as the image of a “slave” (Phil. 2:7), He condescends to fellow servants and servants, 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 is 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 learn from our own experience what is possible for us, and how much should be exacted from us, and we will be excused if weakness is taken into account during suffering. For if the “Light”, which because of the veil 223 “shines in the darkness” (John 1:5), that is, in this life, was persecuted by another darkness (I mean the evil one and the tempter), then all the more will darkness 224 tolerate this because of its weakness. 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 will add to what has been said one more place that comes to my mind and obviously leads to the same thought, namely: “just as He Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted” (Heb. 2:18). God will be “all God in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) during the “dispensation” (Acts 3:21), that is, not just the Father, who completely allowed the Son into Himself, like a candle that was taken out of a big fire for a while, and then put back into it (the Sabellians will not seduce us with such a saying), but the entire God, moreover, when we, who now, by our movements and passions, either we do not have God in us at all, or we have little, we will cease to be many, but will become completely God-like, containing within ourselves the whole God and His oneness. This is the perfection to which we are rushing! 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, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11). In the third place put the expression: “more” (John 14:23), and in the fourth: “To my God and your God” (John 20:17). If they said “more”, but did not say “equal” (John 5:18–21), then this expression would perhaps have some force among 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 reasoning about the same thing 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 this is what we profess quite sensibly. Is it possible that another, striving even harder for our teaching, will add that which has being from such Guilt no less than the Guilty One, for what is from the Beginningless One 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 “more”, but about the word “God” let us say: 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 actually, partly not properly, and the opposite of how it is said about us; because God is our God actually, but our Father is not really. And this itself, 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). The God of Christ, and the Father of glory, although both are one, not by nature, but by their totality. What could be clearer than this? Fifthly, consider the expressions by which the Son receives life or judgment (John 5:26-27), or the inheritance of the nations (Ps. 2:8), or power over “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. Sixth, put the expression: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless he sees the Father doing it” (John 5:19). In the discussion, it should be noted that the words “can” and “cannot” are not used in the same sense, but have multiple meanings. 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, “a city standing on top of a mountain cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14). But otherwise he could have hidden himself if he had been blocked by a larger mountain. Anything else is impossible due to inconsistency, for example, “can the sons of the bridal chamber fast while” the “bridegroom” is in the 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 intelligible Word (for should one fast bodily with the purified Word?). Anything else is impossible due to lack of will, for example, “I could not do signs there” “because of the unbelief” of those receiving (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: “how can you speak good when you are evil” (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 another 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 pleased God? 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 powerlessness in God, not strength), or for something that does not exist to exist, or for two and two to be together and four and ten; It is so impossible, and incompatible with anything, for the Son to do anything that the Father does not do. For all that the Father has belongs to the Son; just as, conversely, what belongs to the Son belongs to the Father. So, nothing is own; 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 by the Father” (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 the present one, so will 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 was created by him; 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 to completion, not slavishly and blindly, but with knowledge and dominion, or rather, fatherly. This is how I understand the words: what is created by the Father, “the Son also does this,” not in imitation of what was created, but out of equality of power. And this is signified, perhaps, by the words: “until now both the Father and the Son work” (John 5:17), in which, however, not only creation is understood, but also the economy and preservation of what was created; as can be seen from the words: “He creates His spirits as angels” and sets “the earth on solid foundations” (Ps. 103:4-5), while the earth is erected and the angels were created once; also forms “mountains” and creates “wind” (Amos 4:13), while the law for them was given once, and the action continues constantly. Seventh, consider the expression that the Son came down from heaven, not to do His will, but “the will of Him who sent” (John 6:38). 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 the kind 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 from Me; however, not as I want,” but may Your will prevail (Matthew 36:39); 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 received (which means the word: “descended”), and not the one who was received, 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: “For God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34), whereas neither God gives, nor the Spirit is unmeasurable, because God is not measured by God. And again: “not for my sin, not for my transgression” (Ps. 58:4), whereas we are not talking about actual sin, but about one that does not exist. Also: “trusting not in our righteousness” (Dan.9:18), that is, because we have not created righteousness. The same thing is revealed from what follows. For what is called the will of the Father? - “that everyone who believes in the Son” will be saved and will be worthy of the final resurrection (John 6:40). Is it really the will of the Father for this, 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, we have the same power, 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 and which every right-thinking person will confirm. Eighth, they present the sayings: “that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent” (John 17:3). And: “no one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19). But it seems to me that it is quite 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 words: “to the only wise God” (1 Tim. 1:17), “the only one” who has “immortality, in the light” living “unapproachable” (1 Tim. 6:16); “to the king of ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only wise God” (1 Tim. 1:17)”; then your Son will perish, condemned to death, or to darkness, or to be neither wise, nor king, nor invisible, nor, most importantly, God at all. And along with everything else, how can we lose His goodness, which primarily belongs to the one God? But I think that the words: “the one true God” “were spoken in distinction from non-existent gods, but called gods. For it would not have been added: “and Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” if the expression: “true God” had been opposed to Christ, and had not been talking about the Divinity in general. The words “no one is good” contain the answer to the questioning lawyer, who recognized the goodness in Christ as in man. He says that goodness in the highest degree belongs to the one God, although man is also called good, for example: “a good man brings forth good things from a good treasure” (Matthew 12:35). And: “he gave the kingdom to the best” (τωαγαθω) “you” (1 Samuel 15:28), God says to Saul, meaning David. Also: “Lord, do good to the good” (Ps. 124:4). 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,” “and no one else can compare with him,” and soon after: “Afterwards He appeared on earth and spoke among people” (Bar. 3:36, 38). That this is said not about the Father, but about the Son, is proved 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? Ninth, the following expression is indicated: “always living to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25). Well? And very mysterious, and very humane! For to intercede here does not mean to seek revenge, as is 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 mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). For He, as a man (because He is still with the body that He has assumed), is now praying for my salvation until He makes me God, the power of His humanity, although “we do not know” Him “according to the flesh” (2 Cor. 5:16) - I mean by this carnal infirmities and everything that is ours, except sin. Likewise, “we have Jesus as an intercessor” (1 John 2:1) not in the sense that He humbles himself for us before the Father and falls down slavishly (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 it, and it is unfair to think so about God), but in the fact that, having suffered for us as a person, he convinces us to be patient as the Word and Advisor. I understand this under the name of intercession (παράκλησις). 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 also knows God, just as the spirit of man knows “he who lives 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, like God, but ascribes ignorance to Himself, like man, since only what is visible can be separated from what is 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 Divinity. So, if this explanation is sufficient, we will stop at it and will not enter into further research, and if not, we will present 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 even he formed a not low concept for himself who, with one of our lovers, would read this passage like this: and the Son knows no other way than the day or the hour, but because the Father knows. For what is the conclusion from this? Since the Father knows, and therefore the Son also knows, it is obvious 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 is commanded (John 14:3), that the commandments are kept by them (John 15:10), that the Son “always does what is pleasing” to the Father (John 8:24), also those in which the Son is credited with perfection (Heb. 5:9), ascension (Acts 2:33), learning “through 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 the like; It would remain, I say, to explain such passages if it were not obvious to everyone that these expressions refer to a nature that is subject to suffering, and not to a nature that is unchangeable and above suffering. And how much has been said about opposite expressions 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 numerous and taken from various mental ideas about the Son), but to explain the meaning of each and reveal the secret of the names. It should start with the following. The deity is unnamable. Not only reason shows this, but, as far 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? Like no one has ever breathed in all the air; So neither the mind completely contained, nor the voice embraced the essence of God. 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 225 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 call it) of the truth. Therefore, as far as is intelligible to us, the names “Jesus” and God are in some way names of essence, especially the name “Jesus” is such, not only because He who spoke to Moses on the mountain, when asked about the name, what to call Him, He Himself called this name, and commanded the people to say: “Jesus has sent me” (Ex. 3:14), but also because we find this name most characteristic God. For the name Θεος (God), which those skilled in rooting derive from θέειν (to run) or αιθειν (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” (Is. 42:8); also: “The Lord is His name” (Am. 4:13). Him, because he has not been and will not be limited or suppressed by anything. As for the other names of God, some obviously mean power, others economy, and the last, partly before the incarnation, partly after the incarnation. For example: “Almighty” and “King” or “glory” (Is. 23:10), or “of the ages” (1 Tim. 1:17), or “powers,” or “beloved” (Ps. 67:13), or “reigning” (1 Tim. 6:15), and “Lord of Hosts,” or, which is also “Lord of hosts” ( Is. 3:15) 226, or "powers" (Am. 6:8), or "rulings" (1 Tim. 6:15), are clearly names of power. A: “The God of salvation” (Ps. 68:21), the God of “vengeance” (Ps. 94:1), or “peace” (Rom. 10:20), or “righteousness” (Ps. 4:2), the 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 instills fear in us, the name of the God of salvation instills hope, and the name of the God of virtues instills asceticism, so that those who succeed in any of the above, as if carrying God within themselves, will all the more hasten towards perfection and rapprochement with God through virtues. Moreover, these names are general names for 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. 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. “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. “By the 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 relates to that which is defined; because the 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, co-inherent with 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 Preserver of creatures and the Giver of strength for the continuation of existence. “Truth” (John 14:6), as one, and not multiple, by nature (for the true is unique, but lies are many), as a pure seal and the most undeceitful image of the Father. “In the image” (2 Cor. 4:4), as the Consubstantial One, 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 prototype and the one whose image it is called. However, here is a more ordinary image. For there the immovable also becomes the image of the movable; and 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 similar in one way 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 lightness 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. About “for we live and move and we are” (Acts 17:28), according to the double power of inspiration - both according to the breath of life that He breathed into everyone, and according to the Holy Spirit, which He gives to those who contain it and 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. “By sanctification” (1 Cor. 1:30), as purity, so that the pure can be contained by purity. “Redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), as freeing us who are held under sin, as having given Himself for us as an atonement, as a cleansing sacrifice for the Universe. “By the Resurrection” (John 11:25), as he who resettles us from here and brings us to life, those killed by sin. These names also belong in general to the One who is above us and to the One who exists for our sake, but what is actually peculiar to us and which belongs to the humanity perceived by Him are the following: “Man” (1 Tim. 2:5), so that the Inconceivable otherwise for the bodily, due to the incomprehensibility of nature, not only becomes contained through the body; but He also sanctified man with Himself, becoming, as it were, leaven for a whole mixture, freeing the whole man from condemnation, uniting with Himself what was condemned, becoming for everyone everything that 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. “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. "Door" (John 10:9), as an introducer. “Shepherd” (John 10:11), as one who dwells “in green pastures,” who brings up “on still waters” (Ps. 23:2), who guides from here, who protects from wild beasts, who converts the lost, who seeks out the lost, who binds the broken, who protects the strong (Eze. 34:4), and who gathers into the enclosure there with the broadcasts of pastoral art. "Sheep" (Isaiah 53:7), 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 our higher nature, and without a father - according to our nature, as having no genealogy by birth on high, for it is said: generation “Who can explain it?” (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 they are physical, then walk obsequiously, or better yet, completely divinely, so that you too may become a god, ascending from the earth through Him who descended from above for our sake. But most of all and first of all, observe what is said, and you will not sin in the high and low names. “Jesus Christ yesterday and today” bodily, “the same” spiritually “and forever” (Heb. 13:8) of centuries. Amen. That is, the human body. According to some Greek publications: φησι Κύριος, Κύριος στρατιων, i.e. “says the Lord, the Lord of hosts.” You might be interested in: