Слово 20. На [слова]: «претерпе крест, о срамоте нерадив 749 , темже и Бог Его превознесе, и дарова Ему имя, еже паче всякаго имене 750 »

The objection seems to be on behalf of our opponents. It is written, they say, “Let this be wise in you, even in Christ Jesus, Who, in the image of God, was not equal to God by admiration, and so on, up to: Even so God has exalted Him and given Him a name above every name” 751. So, if He is exalted by God and glorified, and received as a gift a name, even more than any name, because He humbled Himself, even to death 752, then He has honor and a name, more than any other, as a reward for humility, not by nature being God, but becoming such by imparting (προσθήκης) [to Him Divinity from the Father]. And something that needs application (προσθήκης) [of something] is imperfect and defective by nature. And what is elevated somewhere is certainly raised from below to this level; and he who received the gift was all deprived of what he had received; and about the one who requires that honor be given to him (τὸ τιμᾶσθαι ζητοῦν,), there is no need to say that it is customary for him to be created. So, if He was given a name, more than any name, then by nature He was not what this name means, but later became this by grace. And that which is such cannot be God, for it is new. A brief refutation of [all] this in order. And what was the addition of honor to him who was in the image of God 753 and clothed in the image of a servant 754? Wouldn't he who abandoned the greater and accepted the less be rather considered to have diminished? For what reward did He, being God, become man? Or how did one descend from Glory to dishonor become famous? How did he who disdained the dignity of the Divine rise and descend into humanity? How did the one who descended become above? What improvement does He have who has gone from being the best to being the worst? If it is said about Him Who is the Most High God 755, the living one on high, 756 that He ascended, then where else, after the nature of God, will that which is ascended ascend? How was he humiliated in the bosom of the Most High Father (ὁ ἐν κόλποις ὢν τοῦ ὑψηλοτάτου Πατρός) 757? What addition did God need? If He descended in order to then ascend, then what was the need for the descent? If for this purpose He humbled Himself in order to then become glorified, then what was the need for humility? How would he not be unwise who seeks with difficulty what he could possess without difficulty? How did he receive a name, more than any other name, who constantly receives worship about him (ἐν αὐτῷ προσκυνούμενος)? Sayings that the Son is God. “God, in Your name save me” 758; “Let them worship Your great name, O Lord” 759; “His name abides before the sun” 760; "Give glory to His name" 761; “These on chariots and these on horses, we will be magnified in the name of our God” 762. How did He accept what ever appears to be? Another rebuttal. If in the beginning He was the Word and God was the Word, and He in the beginning came to God 763, and subsequently for the sake of our salvation 764 humbled Himself, and therefore it is said that It was exalted, then how will it not be obvious to everyone that this happened not with the nature of the Word, but in the mystery of [His] humanity? For whatever humility corresponds to, then it is appropriate to exalt. And the humble is humanity, in relation to which, therefore, exaltation must also be understood. For we will not find before that Scripture says anything similar about the Word of God than [the Word] “became flesh and dwelt in us” 765. So, if in relation to the taking on of the flesh it is said that humility took place, then exaltation will also apply to the same. OTHER. The psalmist, explaining the ascension of our Savior into heaven, says by the Spirit: “Lift up the gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates: and the King of glory will come in.”768. Here the Spirit commands the holy powers in heaven to open the gates to the incoming Christ. But as God, He was within the gates and in heaven before His ascension. Why then were these commands of the Spirit needed? Or how is it said of that which is within that He enters? So, how not because He is God, but because He is a man, He enters the heavenly gates for us and for us, leading us into them through Himself, and for us He has renewed this path 769; so, being the Most High, He exalts us for our sake as man, so that we may be exalted in Him, bearing our likeness, in order to thus transform [us] according to Himself into the likeness of the Creator, renewing [human] nature [so that it again becomes such] as it was from the beginning. Scholium on the Incarnation, having the same meaning OTHER. If He, being God, became a man, and decided to endure this by deed, then let no one be offended, if He also bears on Himself what is due to humanity and official position (τῷ σχήματι τῷ οἰκετικῷ), for it is said about Him as a man that He accepts and is exalted. And humanity itself will not rightly reproach Him who bore Himself for the fact that He did not refuse to bear what is characteristic of humanity. It is human nature to accept from God, according to the saying that says: “What have you received?” 773 So, as a man, He received by grace what as God He had by nature. OTHER. If the Father does everything through the Son, and without Him there is nothing 774, then it is necessary to say that He was for Himself the giver of exaltation and the servant of the grace [received] from the Father. For He received [grace], since the church [of the body] which He received was deified, and [at the same time] was by nature God, being the Word of the Father; He was also ascended because he became a man, and, appearing in the form of a servant, he received worship, having this from the beginning together with the Father. So, grace and exaltation will be related to humanity, since God the Word appropriates to Himself what happens to His own church. For it is not someone else’s, but His [own] body, and therefore it is considered as Himself. For there is one Christ, mixed from humanity and God the Word, not as a result of the fact that He turned into what he was not, but because he received the church [body] from the Virgin. OTHER. David sings somewhere: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” 775. Then he says: “For this reason of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God bring the oil of joy” 776. But even before the anointing, the Word reigned with the Father. How then is He who is ever King and Holy One anointed and sanctified? So, just as, having always been such, He is said to have reigned in the last times, so being the Most High, He is said to have ascended because of [His] dispensation in the flesh. He is exalted and anointed and sanctified for our sake, so that through Him grace may finally pass to all, as has already been given to [human] nature and will henceforth be preserved for the entire race. So the Savior said in the Gospel of John: “For these I will sanctify myself, that they also may be holy” 777. For whatever is in Christ is also in us. After all, He did not accept sanctification for His own sake (for He Himself was the sanctifier), but in order through Himself to give it to [human] nature, becoming, as it were, the path and beginning of good things in us. That is why He says: “I am the way” 778 along which, as it were, Divine grace descended to us, elevating, sanctifying, glorifying and deifying [our| nature in the first [of all people] – Christ. OTHER. If, being God, He became man, and not, being man, became God, and is anointed as man in order to be glorified, then it is obvious that grace [of the anointing] refers to humanity. OTHER. If He Himself is the giver of the Spirit, according to what was said about Him: “Receive the Holy Spirit” 779, then “receiving the Spirit” is said about humanity, and, likewise, both “giving” and “receiving.” OTHER. Christ says somewhere, talking with the Father: “For them I consecrate to myself” 780. He who is able to sanctify Himself, and not asking this from another, is the Lord of sanctification. If He Himself has no need for sanctification, then it is performed in relation to the one in need. Human nature is sanctified. And, of course, this was fulfilled in Christ, so that we might be sanctified in Him. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. It is written, they say: “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore for the sake of Thy anointing, O God, Thy God” 781. So, we would not at all agree to the Lord being anointed if He did not love righteousness and hate untruth. For the causal conjunction, that is, “for this sake,” standing in the middle [of the sentence], shows anointing as a reward for virtue. If He is anointed for the sake of loving righteousness and hating untruth, then He has sanctification as a gift. And the one who needs to add something is imperfect and not like the perfect Father. So, when [Scripture] says: “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore for the sake of the anointing of Thee is God,” you understand it something like this: “Since none of the created beings who have a changeable nature are able to fight the devil, but You, God the Word, being immutable from the immutable Father, always love righteousness and hate untruth, then God has anointed you, so that in you first human nature may be seen victorious.” OTHER, deduced from the same syllogism. In divine Scripture we find many such passages relating to God and the Father. “For the Lord is righteous and loves righteousness” 783. Also: “Thou hast hated all those who work iniquity” 784. And also: “I am the Lord, love righteousness and hate robbery from unrighteousness” 785. So, perhaps, because of this, someone will say that our Lord is great 786 because He loves truth and hates untruth, and that [the name] “great” is His reward and reward for virtue, since He loves but also hates it? But it's unlikely that anyone would be that crazy. So, just as in relation to the Father such expressions are understood piously, so they, in fairness, should be understood in relation to the Son. For the image [refers] to the prototype, and the prototype to the image. To the apostolic saying: “I sit at the right hand of the Majesty on high, only the best of the angels” 787 Those who dare to condemn the essence of God the Word and strive to classify the Son among the created ones say, perverting the truth: “If the Son became better than the angels, then, to be sure, He has this change for the better, for He has become what He was not [before]. In general, that which is capable of changing (μεταποιεῖσθαι) and passing from one [state] to another will [certainly] be of a changeable nature. And if it is changeable, then it is obvious that it is also created, for it is changeability that is characteristic of it (ἡ τροπή).” Rebuttal to this. One who begins to study the divine Scriptures, first of all, should pay attention to the time at which this or that saying is said, and to the person by whom or for whose sake, or about whom it is said, for [only] in this way is it possible for those who want the right to think to accurately retain the meaning [of what is said]. So, we learn the benefits of [observing] time by hearing St. the apostles saying to Christ: “When will these things be, and what is the sign of Your coming?” 788 From ignorance of the time those who were with Hymenaeus and Alexander 789 suffered harm, who thought that the resurrection had already happened, and these were the ones who spoke. And that knowledge of persons is necessary and useful - we will see, in turn, when the eunuch says to Philip: “I pray thee, about whom the prophet says this: about himself, or about someone else?” 790 Or when blessed Paul, wishing to introduce [into his narrative] the face of the Savior, says: “Of him for whom these words are spoken, another tribe should partake, from whom no one else came to the altar: for it is manifest that from the tribe of Judah the Lord has risen.” 791. And that circumstances (πράγμα) should not be neglected will be obvious from the following. For when the prophets foretell things concerning the Savior, and one of them says: “Behold, the Virgin will receive with child” 792; and in another place again: “Like a sheep led to the slaughter” 793, and if such [sayings] are not understood in the proper sense in relation to Christ, then the mind will go somewhere far [to the side] from the truth and fly away from pious thoughts. So, careful consideration (ἐπιτήρησις) of what has been said is necessary. So, upon careful consideration of the time, the person and the circumstances, it will be discovered that Paul said that for our sake the Word of God was made man, [and] when, having accomplished the purification of our sins, he sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, then he became better than the angels, not changing his nature into something else, or subsequently becoming what he was not before, for Paul is not talking about the nature of the Son, but about the circumstances that happened at the time of his incarnation. (καιρῷ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως). Therefore, not wanting to compare the nature of the Son with the nature of angels, [Paul] says that He became better than the angels, but makes a comparison of circumstances and in this sense says that the Son became better. So, the meaning of what has been said is this: Paul, talking with the Jews and with all frankness wanting to show that Christ’s ministry is better than both the prophetic preaching and the Law taught through the ministry of angels, makes a comparison, starting from the dignity of the persons, and says: “Of old, God spoke to the Father in the prophets, in these last days He spoke to us in the Son, whom He set an heir to all, in Him also create eyelids. Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis, bearing all things with the word of His power, having created the cleansing of our sins, sits at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high" 794. So, having clothed the Son with such glory and attributed to Him the qualities inherent in the nature of the Father, he then says that He became [so much] better than the angels, inasmuch as He has a name 795 greater in comparison with them, as Son, Heir, Radiance and Image, and Mark [of the Father], and He who sits-on-the-one-throne with Him. (ὁμόθρονος), and the Creator. If, therefore, He is considered much better and more glorious than the 796 angels, then His service is better than that of the angels. So “became” here can with sufficient reason mean not a bringing from non-existence into being (for in the beginning was the Word 797), nor a change from less into something greater (for the Son was perfect from the perfect Father), but, as if from a comparison of glory and dignity, the lesser and the greater were seen. It is as if a man were compared to a horse, and those who judge him in this way would say that he has become better than it because he is intelligent. For the fact that “to become” (τὸ γενέσθαι) does not necessarily mean a change in nature is clear from what [David] says to God: “Be (γένου) me in God’s protector” 798; and again: “The Lord be my refuge” 799; and “The Lord was my salvation” 800. So, the comparison with the angels of the Son is in relation to ministry and glory, and not to nature. A comparison of sayings showing that the Divine Scripture uses [the word] “best” about [subjects] very distant [from each other] either in the logos of nature, or in dignity, or in the measure of grace As for grace: “Better is one day in Your courts than a thousand” 801; for what will be equal to the courts that are in heaven? Regarding the dissimilarity of nature: “Accept punishment, not silver: the wisdom of valuable stones is better” 802. Isaiah quotes God saying about the eunuchs: “The best name of sons and daughters will I give them forever” 803. So, [the definition of] “best” is often used not [only] in relation to an insignificant difference, but also in relation to a great and incomparable superiority. OTHER, about the same thing. Explaining his own words and showing more clearly what it means to be “better than the angels,” blessed Paul adds to what was said: “To whom then did the angel say: Sit at my right hand?” 804; and that about the Son it is written: “All the angels of God will worship him” 805. If, in comparison, one appears sitting [on the throne] with the Father and being worshiped, and the others are standing and obligated to worship, then the epithet “best” will not refer to the essence, but to the virtues that are next to the essence, and honors external to nature. Consequently, the Son is not one of the created things, but something other than them, that is, the Father’s own Word. OTHER, about the same thing. [The word] “to be” (τόγέγονεν), when said one thing and by itself, has many meanings, and does not necessarily serve as an indication of hypostasis; and when something is attached to it, then it will mean the power of that to which it is attached, as, for example, [the phrase] “someone became (γέγονε) a carpenter or a stonemason” [means] not that [he] generally [became] a man in order to [be] a carpenter, but that, since he is [already] a man, he became a carpenter, being able to perceive this art, and [the word] “became” here will be relate only to profession, and not at all to hypostasis or bringing into being. So, if it is said of Christ that He became (γεγενήσθαι) better than the angels, then this comparison does not refer to nature, but to honor and dignity. OTHER, about the same thing. “Only the best former (γενόμενος) angels” 806. The word “was” (τὸ γέγονεν), even if it is applied to the essence of the Son, its meaning will not harm it in any way, since it is often used in relation to those who are born (γεννωμένων). After all, in relation to those that actually arise [from non-existence] and are created, no one would use the word “to be born” in its own sense and by nature, since even if [something from such] appears to be born, then [it is still] preceded by the fact of creation by the Creator. Like, for example, a person, although born, is created, and this is a more fundamental [definition] for him than another. If some are called born of the Spirit, then they too are in imitation of the Word of God truly begotten of the Father, and are not alien to creation, so that the name born of the created will belong, rather, not in the proper sense than in nature. And what is born (γεννηθέν), even if it is said “to be” (γενέσθαι), does not suffer any harm from this, since Divine Scripture is indifferent to this. For it says about Job: “He had seven sons and three daughters” 807. And again: “Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac his son became him” 808. If people also say “came” about what is being born, then when you hear this about the Son, you don’t need to pay attention. And in relation to the created (γενητών) this is not indifferent for the reasons stated earlier. OTHER, about the same thing, as if on behalf of our opponents. It is written, they say, about the Son that He “was far better than the angels” 809. Since comparisons are usually made in relation to subjects of the same type (for it is impossible to legitimately compare a person with a horse, or a dog with a sheep, but a person [should be compared] with people, and a sheep with a sheep), then it is necessary in every way to recognize the created Son, who is compared with the angels who have a created nature. Rebuttal to this. Of course, comparisons usually occur in relation to subjects of the same kind. But when these are compared with each other, the word “better” is rarely spoken and not taken literally, but [in this case] “more” and “less” (τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον), “in the highest degree” (τὸ διαφερόντως) and, sometimes, “over” (τὸ πλέον), which more accurately indicate comparison. So, Joseph was more handsome than his brothers. Again, a star is not better than a star, but differs in glory 810. Likewise, the Savior, when, as a man, is compared with people, he is not called “the best in kindness,” but it is said: “Worse in kindness than the sons of men” 811. When those belonging to different species are compared with each other, then it is more appropriate to say “better.” So it is written: “Better is the wisdom of precious stones” 812. What is the common nature of wisdom and stones? So, if another image has a comparison between those belonging to the same species, and “better” is used in relation to those who are not similar in nature, then the Son will neither be like the angels, nor created like them, but comparing Him with them is a hyperbole. And the fact that He is called “the best” rather [shows that] He is of a different species than of the same. OTHER, about the same thing. If because the Scripture says: “Only the best were the angels” 813. The son will [be considered] belonging to the same species as them, as being compared with them, then let them see where their word risks [going]. For it is time [for them] to confess that angels can sit with God [on the throne] and reign with Him, and that the Son has nothing beyond what they have. For those who belong to the same species, even if they differ in relation to each other, belong to the same nature. For, in this way, they will be of the same type. Therefore, since it is said about the angels: “Create angels your spirits” 814, and about the Son: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever” 815, and the angels and the Son, in their opinion, are of the same kind, since He has a comparison with them through what is called “the best,” then nothing prevents the angels from having the [potential] opportunity to sit [on the throne] together with God, even if none of them actually deserved it. And Paul must have said in vain: “To whom then did the angel say, Sit at my right hand?” 816 Or why does He give this exclusively to the Son, when the angelic nature also claims this, if they are of the same species as Him? For all representatives of the same species have in common those properties belonging to a given nature. Moreover, the advantages inherent in some [representatives of this species] do not belong to the essence. Just as, for example, [all] people have the same nature, but not all are rich and not all reign, although [all are potentially] capable of perceiving this. But no one will allow the angels to be clothed with the glory of the Son, for He is the Master, and they are slaves. Therefore, he who reigns with the Father and sits next to Him [on the throne] is not of the same kind as the angels. OTHER. That the Son is not one-natural (ὁμοφυὴς) to the angels. The creation and the creator will never be of the same nature. After all, something else is creative, and something else is created. For if not so, then what is the difference in the nature of God from the created? So, when God and the Father does everything through the Son, and one of all is the angelic nature, then, therefore, it also arose and was created through the Son. From this it is already clear that He is not of the same kind as those who arose [from non-existence] thanks to Him, but that He is invested with the dignity of the Creator, and they have the status of slaves by the fact of their creation. “For all things,” says the divine Scripture, “work for You” 817. OTHER. That the Son is not of the same kind (ὁμογενὴς) with the angels because it is said that He “was (γεγενήσθαι) better” than them. Everything that essentially appears to have come into being (γεγονός) can someday turn back into non-existence if the Creator wants it; and that which has a nature susceptible of suffering will suffer, even if it has not yet suffered. But that which is not characteristic of suffering will never suffer in any way and is something different from the first; and what always exists in the same way (τὸ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ὂν) did not begin to be, and does not move towards the end, like those that began to be. But no one with intelligence will say that those who are so opposite to each other and so different in nature are of the same nature and belong to the same essence. So, if about creatures, as being subject to corruption, it is said: “They will perish,” and about the Son: “But You remain,” and they are promised as having a created nature, and the years of the Son will not fail 818, then how will the Son be of the same nature with the angels, the Creator with the creatures, the Uncreated with the created, the Ever-present with the potentially transitory? For although an angel is something immortal by the will and grace of the Creator, since he has a beginning of being, he can also come to the end [of it]. The advantages of nature are solid (ἰσχυρὰ,) for those who possess them, and not for God who created them. Just as, for example, fire is burning, but not for God; so an angel is immortal, but not for God. For He alone is immortal in the proper sense of the word, possessing immutability by nature, and not from grace, like created things. OTHER, with proof that the angels are slaves, and the Son is the Master. If no one can forgive sins, except only God 819, and the Son forgives, then that means He is God and is not counted among the creatures. For the angels pray, saying: “Lord Almighty, how long will you have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah?” 820 And the Son [speaks] with authority: “Man, your sins are forgiven” 821. So, a slave [being] is not of the same kind with the Master, and one who asks in order to receive is [not of the same kind] with the Giver. OTHER, similar to this: that the Son is not among the slaves. God sends prophets to reclaim the fruits of the vineyard, who not only could not receive anything, but also perished themselves. The Savior, as the Lord, forgives debts, and transfers the vineyard to another worker 822, as the Lord and Master. And the angels are those who contributed to the ministry of the Law and did not create anything that the Son created. Consequently, He is not of the same kind as the angels, but the Master and Lord. OTHER, in narrative form, telling that [the saying] “the best being of angels” does not introduce a comparison of entities, but rather of ministries. “Being too much better than the angels” Paul speaks of the Son, not wishing to compare the nature of God the Word with the nature of angels, and, likewise, not making an examination of unlike essences (for the Godhead is an incomparable and incomparable subject), but introducing a distinction of ministries, so that from what is entrusted to each and what he is in charge of, it would become obvious what he is. And the fact that [the epithet] “best” means a comparison with the ministry of angels will be obvious from the following. Paul's goal was to show the commandments proclaimed by Christ to be better than those of the Old Testament (νομικῶν). On what does he base his evidence? He addresses the ministers [of both Testaments] and evaluates what they serve according to their differences. So, angels serve the Law, and it is spoken through them; and the Son proclaims the knowledge that is given through the Gospels. But he says that the Son is the best of the angels; because He is the best because He became the servant of the best. For the great are served by the great, and the small by the small. And the Son is great, like a radiance and an image; That’s why he hears: “Sit at my right hand” 823 because He is the firstborn and receives worship from the angels themselves. Angels are nothing like that, but as servants they stand, as servants they worship, as servants they run for those who want to inherit salvation 824. Therefore, the ministry of the Savior is as much better than the ministry of angels as He is in these, and they in those. For this reason, therefore, Paul, wanting to compare ministries, says: “Better were the angels.” And when he proceeds to compare the essences, he says: “The name of the inheritance is more glorious than theirs” 825. It is no longer “the best,” but “the most glorious,” which makes a significant difference. Comparison of sayings about the humanity of Christ and further resolution of [perplexity] about [the words]: “Only the best were angels” After all, he who commits a crime against equals and belonging to the same species should in fairness receive equal punishment, and where there is no difference between the offended, it is natural for there to be equal punishments. However, the one who sins against the most bitter Son will be rewarded with torment, and the one who sins against the Law spoken by the angels will be awarded less. Therefore, He is not of the same kind as the angels, to sin against Whom is a greater [crime], and the measure of punishment increases in accordance with the superiority of the one trampled upon. OTHER, as if out of an objection to the same thing. Worship, they say, is awarded torment for those who sin against the Son, as against the greater angels. However, this does not necessarily place Him outside the kinship (ὁμογενείας) with the angels. For blasphemy against each is measured according to the honor due to each. So, since the Son became better than the angels, whoever sins against Him is worthy of a more severe punishment. The refutation to this is from the same place. It would then be necessary, in the case of a violation of the commandments, not to determine the punishment in accordance with the transgression and, of course, not to proportion the punishment to the severity of the sin, but rather to determine it in accordance with the dignity of the messenger who served [teaching the criminal commandment] (ἀγγέλου). If we do not see this, but one Law - despite the fact that there are many messengers - and it punishes sins with the same punishments, then what is said is not true, that the one who sins against Christ will be awarded greater torment, as against the “better of the angels,” but as against One who is of a different nature and very different. For they are created things, but this is the true God, not one of the created things and not allowing comparison with them. But insofar as He appears to be more significant than [them], the one who transgresses His [commandments] is guilty of greater and more severe torment. The angels spoke the Law, but the Law did nothing. And the Son completed the Father's work. For he who is guided by His laws is perfect in virtue. Royal death also in the times of the Law: from Adam, says [Paul], even to Moses 828. And death is abolished thanks to Christ, for we no longer die in Adam, but come to life in Christ 829. From Dan to Bathsheba 830 the lawful commandments were proclaimed, and in Judea alone God was known 831; Now his message 832 went out into the whole earth, and everyone became taught by God 833 - not by angels, but by God. After all, the Law is God’s, but [given] through angels, and the Son says: “I Himself say that I am” 834. So, according to the word of Paul, inasmuch as He was worthy of the most glorious service and inasmuch as He was worthy of the best testament to be a handyman, 835 He also surpasses the angels - not as being compared with them by nature, but as exalted above them as God is separated from the created ones according to the logos of essence. Therefore, [the word] “best,” referring to the service, insofar as it shows it to be greater and higher [the services of] these [angels], in the same way it removes the Son from the nature of the created. And the angels, as slaves, receive lesser service, but the Son receives that which is due to the Son and Master. For He, he says, was established on the best promises 836. OTHER, [showing] that the ministry of God the Word is better than the angelic also in other senses; how much better it is, so is the One who made it Paul says that “what was weak in the law, which was weak in the flesh, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and about sin condemned sin in the flesh” 837. If the Law was unable to condemn sin in the flesh, but Christ condemned it, showing it capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we can say: “We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit” 838, then in this He became better than the angels through whom the Law was spoken. And again, the Law condemned the world because of sin, but the Son came not to judge the world, but to save the world 839, not demanding any punishment, but to grant [forgiveness] to everyone. He who justifies is better than he who condemns; and the giver is better than the demander; and better than the Son who is unable to condemn sin in the flesh of the law is the Son, who fulfilled this too. So, in this respect too, [the Son] is better than the angels who spoke the weak and condemning Law. OTHER, that the Son is not of one nature with creatures or angels. If the Son is a creation and of one nature with the angels, then let them, like Him, be called sons of the Father, or He, like them, an angel. But when an angel says to no one: “Thou art my son,” 840, according to Pavlov’s word, neither [the Son] Himself is truly called an angel. Let them then sit at the right hand of the Father, like the Son. But none of the angels sits with the Father, but rather they stand, serving Him. Let the angels then speak, commanding, like the Son: “I say to you” 841. But they do not say this, but rather: “I am sent to speak to you” 842. And some serve, and the other accepts the service: “And behold,” says [Scripture], “the angels came and served Him” 843. And One is the Creator, and others arose [from non-existence] thanks to Him; and they worship, and He accepts worship. And the angels accept the command to raise the gates of heaven, and He enters as the Lord of Hosts, as the King of Glory 844. And they participate in life from God, and this One is the giver of life, Himself being Life for everyone. And He says: “I and the Father are one” 845; and “Seeing Me, seeing the Father” 846”; “Everything that the Father has is Mine” 847; “I am the light of the world” 848; “I am the resurrection and the life” 849, and the angels do not dare to utter such verbs. And if we pray in the name of the Son, then whatever we ask, we will receive; and no one would pray in the name of angels. And to the Son with the Father is glory 850, while the angels are not glorified, but rather glorify the Son with the Father. How, then, with such a difference between the angels and the Son, will they be considered [belonging to] the same essence, when this is not allowed by any logic? For in accordance with the dignity of persons, the difference of nature will also be determined. OTHER, that in relation to the Father [in Scripture] the [word] “became” (ἐγένετο) is found. The psalmist says: “Be (γένου) my protector God” 851, and again: “Be my salvation” 852. If they say that this is being said about the Son, then they will reluctantly testify about Him that He who saves the saints and is their refuge and covering is not of the same nature as creatures. After all, this too will befit only God. OTHER, on [the words]: “Only the best being (γενόμενος) of the angels,” about the fact that “being” [here] should be understood not in relation to the essence. If the word “having been” certainly means the transition of something from non-existence to being and is always used in relation to essence, then to whom did the Savior say: “Be ye (γίνεσθε) mercy, just as your Heavenly Father is merciful” 853? After all, if those to whom the word was [addressed] already existed, then how will “becoming” (γίνεσθαι) certainly mean the transition [from non-existence] to being? After all, of course, something that does not already exist can be brought into being, but something that does not exist. And if “to become” (γίνεσθαι), being used in relation to [already] existing ones, does not mean some beginning of their existence, but a transformation from something [one] into something [another], then there is no reason that would force [to consider] that [the word] “becoming” (γενόμενος), used in relation to the Son of God, serves as an indication of [His] existence. If we accept the reading of φρονεῖτε and some other textual variants, then verses 5:4 and 5:5 can be combined into one sentence: “Not your own and each, but your friends, let each of these make wisdom in you, even in Christ Jesus.” } Compare: John 1:18 – “ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς.” We do not find exactly such a phrase in Scripture. Closest quotes – Ps.98:1 “Let them confess to Your great name”; and Hebrews 1:6: “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” Ps.65:2. The exact text of the verse is: "Sing to His name, give glory to His praise." Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed. Ps.101:27-28; Hebrews 1:11–12. Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 17:11; 2 Samuel 24:2; 1 Kings 4:25. In the original Greek: “τῷ μὲν Υἱῷ σὺν τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ μετὰ Πατρὸς ἡ δόξα”, but in Russian both of these prepositions are “σὺν” and “μετὰ” are translated as “with,” although the Liddell-Scott dictionary says that “μετὰ” is “implying a closer union than σύν.” In the Latin translation of the PG, the second preposition is also omitted: "Et Filio quidem una cum Patre gloria debetur." You might be interested in: