Слово 21. На речение апостола: «разумѣйте посланника и святителя исповѣдания нашего Іисуса Христа, вѣрна суща Сотворшему Его» 854 . Вывод же – что не создание и не тварь Сын

If the Son is a creation, then it is necessary to recognize Him as one of all things, not possessing the exclusivity of the Divine, that is, ever-being. If this is true, and all things came into being through the Son, and without Worth nothing came into existence 855, then [it turns out that] the Word creates Himself. And how can it be that something that does not yet exist brings itself into being? If this is impossible, then the Son, therefore, is not one of all, so that, being numbered among all, He would not seem to be His own creation. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, and at the same time is called and is the Wisdom of the Father, Who created all things with wisdom, 856 then it turns out that Wisdom creates itself. If this is absurd, then the Son, that is, the Wisdom of the Father, is not a creation, so that it does not turn out that She makes Herself. OTHER. If the Son arose (γέγονεν), and at the same time He is called and is God's Power and God's Wisdom 857, then it means that there was a time when God was unwise and powerless, since [He did not yet] have a Son. For every creation arises from non-existence (γίνεται). But the Father was always wise and strong. There was, therefore, a Son, who by this [i.e. e. Wisdom and Power] is for Him. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, and at the same time speaks the truth, asserting: “He who sees Me, sees the Father” 858, then the image of the Father appears in the creature, having similarity with the prototype. And if so, then there is no difference between the creation and God, but He will also be a creation. If He is not a creation, and appears entirely in the Son, then it means that the Son, Who is the image of the Father, is not a creation. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, despite the fact that the Father is not created, and He says about Himself: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father,” then how in the created does the uncreated appear without change (ἀπαραλλάκτως)? And if, being a creation, He says: “He who sees Me, sees the Father,” then what prevents us from saying the same words, if the Son is nothing other than us, since He is a creation, just like us? But this is absurd, for it is not in the creation that the likeness (ἡ ὁμοιότης) of the uncreated [appears]. Therefore, the Son, [who is] the unchangeable image of the Father, is not a creation. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, and at the same time speaks the truth, asserting: “Everything that the Father has is Mine” 859, then God has no advantage over creatures, if they also have the same things as the Father. If this is absurd (for the Divinity is very distant from the creatures), then it means that the Son is not a creation, Who by nature has all the distinctive and exclusive [properties] of the Father. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, then let God not be called His Father, but, most likely, Creator and Creator. For the son reveals the father, and the creation reveals the creator. If God is called and is the Father, then, therefore, the Son is not a creation, but a generation, revealing God not as the Creator, but as the Father. OTHER. If the Son is a creation, then let Him not be called Word, nor Wisdom, nor Power, nor Radiance; or these [names] will be common to other creatures, if at all the Son, who, in your opinion, is a creation, is allowed to bear them. For even if you say that He has something greater than others, it will still be no less of [their] creation. If this is not said about any of the others, but truly befits only the Son, then, therefore, He is not one of the creatures, but the fruit of the Father’s essence. OTHER. If the divine Scripture says that all Creation 860 was through the Son, and you confess the Word to be a creation and not a Son, then God [in your opinion] does not have a Son. If this is true, then how will He be the Creator without Him through Whom He does everything? But God does and creates everything; therefore, the Son, who is everything, like God, avoids being a creation. OTHER. As if from the objection of our opponents. By will, they say, having brought the Son into existence, the Father thus made Him the Creator. However, we do not say that He exists from the Father’s essence, so that in relation to this ineffable essence some kind of dissection and flow would not be thought. Rebuttal to this. But this is nonsense and a fair amount of nonsense. For flow and dissection, and similar sufferings must be thought of in relation to bodies, which are characteristic of suffering; and he who has escaped being a body will also escape the suffering inherent in bodies. So, he is incorporeal and gives birth indivisibly and dispassionately. For what kind of suffering is seen happening to the sun when it gives birth to light? What division occurs with fire when it emits the glow [born] from it? If they give birth indivisibly and dispassionately emit what [comes] from them, then how will their Creator not much more [dispassionately] emit the radiance of His nature? When was the mark separated from the image? After all, it is always fused with it and exists in it. If, in their opinion, God’s nature is dry and barren, then what then is the effective will emanating from Him, which, in their opinion, the Son also existed, which is something creative and constructive for those who did not exist? For, avoiding saying that from the essence of the Father His creative Word was born, they are forced to do so by the truth. For the Son is the living and essential Will of the Father and His Word, by whom He accomplishes all things. It is an observation from the divine Scripture that in relation to sons by nature [the words] “born” and “were created” are used indifferently. Words do no harm when things are different. After all, even if the name slaves is used in relation to sons by nature, this does not abolish the dignity of their natural nobility. And if we say about a person who is born that he was created, then as long as he retains a more true [name], he does not suffer any harm from this word. For it is nature that is tested, and, of course, not the word. So, when it is said about the Word begotten by God: “Existence is faithful to Him who created Him,” 861, then it is not in vain to lay blame on the true [nobility] of His existence (τὸ γνήσιον τῆς ὑπάρξεως αὐτοῦ), but either think about becoming human, or assume that the indifferent use of the word does not harm the truth. Bathsheba called Solomon a servant of David, saying: “your servant Solomon” 862. And fathers often call those born to them slaves, and servants sons. But words do not change nature, but rather indicate the power of those who choose to call [their sons or slaves] that way. For behold, Hezekiah says: “From this day I will make children” 863. And about Job it is written: “He had seven sons and three daughters” 864. So, if, as far as people are concerned, we understand what has been said, paying attention not to the accuracy of the words, but to the nature of things, then how will it not be necessary to adhere to the same way [of thought] in relation to the divine Generation? OTHER. The name "son" means birth from the father, and "creation" means [something] formed from the outside. So, if He is the Son, then let him not be called a creature, and if he is a creature, then let him not be called a false Son. But He is called and is the Son, and therefore is not a creature. OTHER. A persuasive word showing that the Son is not a creature. The wisest Solomon said somewhere: “For God will bring all creation to judgment” 865. So, if the Son is one of the creatures, then He will also be brought to judgment. And how then will He be true when He says about Himself that “The Father judges no man, but gives all judgment to the Sons” 866? Or how will Daniel not lie when he says that Judgment 867 was given to Him? However, it is true: for He is the one who is coming to judge the living and the dead 868. Therefore, He is not a creation and not one of all, so that He too would not be brought to judgment. OTHER, [said] in narrative form, in response to the words: “Consider the messenger and archpriest of our confession of Jesus Christ, who is faithful to Him who created Him,” 869, and then [explaining] the meaning of the saying. The apostle does not say this in explaining the nature of the Word, but [His] economy in the flesh. After all, when He became the bishop of our confession; when - a messenger; when was He faithful to Him who created Him, if not when for our sake and for us He became man, and, according to the verb of John, “the Word became flesh” 870? Then He, as a man, became faithful to Him who created Him, completing His work 871 as He Himself said; when he became a messenger, being sent for us and for our sake; then he became the bishop of our confession, bringing to the Father the confession of our faith and bringing His body [to slaughter], as if it were some kind of immaculate sacrifice, in order to cleanse us all with it. So, if it is said about the Son that He became faithful, that He became a messenger, that He became a bishop, then this saying must be attributed not to His essence, but to the quality of [His earthly] affairs (τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ποιότητος). Because Paul, being a man and already existing, became an apostle; and Moses in the same way became faithful throughout His house 872 ; and Aaron in the same way became a bishop, representing the Savior in ancient times. For just as Aaron was not born a high priest, but became one many years later, putting on the subir and ephod 873 and other items of the bishop's vestment, which were made by women, so is Christ. For He in the beginning was the Word 874 and much later became a high priest for us, like a kind of subiron, taking from a man’s wife, that is, a church [body], in order to cleanse people with His blood, like a blameless lamb, offering Himself [as a sacrifice] to God. For He did not commit sin; below you will find flattery in His mouth 875. That [the word] “faithful” does not mean anything other than that He is true and unchangeable. The Savior is rightly called faithful, as he made one sacrifice for everyone, which is the same forever and does not change. For having once died for us, He will never see death again. And again, the Apostle [Paul], addressing some in the Epistle, says: “God is faithful, by Him He called His Son quickly into fellowship” 876. In the same way, Peter: “Even so those who suffer according to the will of God, so that they may be faithful to the Creator and give up their souls” 877. The Apostle [Paul writes] to the Thessalonians: “He who called you is faithful to do the work” 878. In the same way [in the Epistle] to others: “Even though we do not believe, He remains faithful: He cannot deny Himself” 879. So, Christ is faithful, since, even having become a man, he remained the same - yesterday and today, and forever 880. And He is faithful, just as it is said about the Father in the divine Scriptures that He is faithful. To the words: “Let all the house of Israel understand that God created both the Lord and His Christ, this Jesus, whom you crucified.” 881 Here, too, the word “created” must not be attributed to the essence of the Word, and one should not argue against the [eternal] existence of the Son on the basis of this word. But if you want to [understand] the word “created” in the sense of nature (φυσικῶς), then perceive it [as said] in relation to the church created by Mary; and if in a practical sense (πραγματικῶς), then there is nothing in it that relates to the Word. It is as if to say: “Someone, being formerly poor, became the master of material goods” (χρημάτων γέγονε κύριος) or “not being originally a prophet, he was elevated by God to prophets.” But in such [sentences] the word “became” (ἐγένετο) does not mean the beginning of being, but the fact that the subject has passed into a certain state from some other. Therefore, we must reverently examine how God made Jesus Lord and how Christ. For since, being God the Word and the Lord of all, He, having become man, became in the form of a servant, He is anointed, or called anointed, as befits a man. And He enters into the rights of dominion, again, as a man, although as God He is already the Lord. After all, the Word of God did not come [to earth] in order to bury God’s free nature under the shadow of a slave, or so that, leaving His own, we would be held by what is characteristic of humanity, but in order to elevate the slave to the honor of domination and transform the humiliated into our own nobility. For how are we called brothers of Christ, how are we called sons, if God’s Word did not benefit us in anything when we became human? And if you hear how the Divine Scripture says that God created Him both as Lord and Christ, and you attribute the name God to the person of the Father, then in this way you agree that the Father also favors the wills of the Son. And He knows Him as the Lord even when He became in the form of a servant: however, the Son will not be alien to do this either. For whatever the Father does, it will all be the work of the Son; and whatever the Son does, the Father does it in every way. That is why the Savior says: “For Myself I do nothing 882, but the Father abides in Me, He does the works 883.” So, He becomes (γίνεται) Lord and Christ when He, having become a man and therefore called a servant, was called Jesus. For not just as the holy disciple said: “God created His Lord and Christ,” but he added: “This Jesus, whom you crucified.” You should also pay attention to the accuracy of what is written. After all, it is not said that [God] “created for himself the Word or the Son,” but the Lord and Christ, which does not mean the beginning of being, but the transformation from something [one] into something else. And how He became Lord and Christ is stated above. Otherwise about the same thing. “God created His Lord and Christ,” without bringing him from non-existence into being, - for the Word of God always existed even before the incarnation - and none of the prudent here will understand “created” in relation to the essence, so as not to fall into wickedness, arguing that then only the first time the Word of God began to exist, when it became man. But “created” must be understood [as said] instead of “showed.” So Peter himself, talking with the Jews, said: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man of God, was known in you with miracles and signs and wonders, even as God did in your midst, even as you yourself knew.”884 So, by deeds showing His inherent dignity as a Father, He becomes the Lord of those who believe in Him, and also shows that He Himself is Christ. Therefore, He said to the rebellious Jews: “Even if you do not believe in Me, believe in My works: that you may understand and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” 885, and again: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not have faith in Me” 886. If, by the fact that He can do the works of the Father, and have the Father in Himself, and likewise be in the Father, He is revealed to be the true God, then He has thus become the Lord of those who believe in Him, and has shown that He is the Christ; and if it is said that God made Him Lord, then that is also good. For, having been recognized by works as the genuine and true generation of God, He rules over those who were once disobedient, testified as God by His own dignity and the nobility of [His descent] from the Father. After all, since He was fully known as the Son of God, He also became Lord, not only when He first began to be Lord (for He was always God and Lord), but when He was known by those who believed, then He became Lord over them. Proof from divine Scripture that the Word was ever Lord and King. Abraham worshiped Him, calling Him Lord. In the same way, Moses says: “And the Lord rained down from the Lord a bogey and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah” 887. Also the Psalmist: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand” 888. And again: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” For this sake of Thy anointing, the rod of righteousness, the rod of Thy kingdom" 889. And again: “Your kingdom is the kingdom of all ages” 890. So, if even before the incarnation the Word of God was King and Lord, then how will he not be guilty of blasphemy who relates the expression “he created is” to the essence? For He became Lord for us, who recognized Him as our Lord, when, having redeemed everyone with His blood, He showed Himself to be Christ and Lord. Otherwise, about the same thing, using ourselves as an example. If it is said about a person, for example: “So-and-so became the master of such-and-such an estate,” then who would be so crazy as to think that his essence was created then, when he seemed to be the master of something? After all, he “became” (γέγονεν), not by himself then coming into a state of being, but by independently doing something (ὑφ' ἑαυτῷ τι ποιησάμενος). Think the same way about Christ. We once served not by nature as God, 891 having fallen into corruption, but the Word of God became man by the good will of the Father, so that, having freed us from error, he would become the Lord of all. And the Father anointed Him, so that through Him the power of the Anointed One might spread to us. For in Christ the first arose (γέγονε) the good [qualities] of our nature, and the firstfruits of the Divine gifts to us [first appeared] in Him as in man, and through Him [was given to us] from God: for He was God in the flesh. Otherwise, about the same thing. Blessed David sings somewhere and says: “Be (Γενοῦ) my protector God” 892; and also: “And the Lord became a refuge for the poor” 893. But at the same time, no one will say that God was called into existence when he became a refuge for the poor. For He, having always been (ὢν) this and saving the oppressed, became (γέγονε) a protector for David, and a refuge for the poor. Just as He, therefore, becomes what He always was for the one who asks and prays, so Christ, being ever Lord and King, like God, became Lord for us when we, having hated the tyranny of the devil who held us [in his power], cried out to the Father: “Send Thy light and Thy truth” 894. And the divine work is imputed by Scripture to God. For everything that surpasses human nature is rightly called the works of God. Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed. You might be interested in: