Слово 28. На находящееся у Луки [речение]: «Іисусъ же преспѣваше премудростію и возрастомъ и благодатію у Бога и человѣкъ» 1044

The objection seems to be from among the Eunomievs. And how could he, he says, be equal in essence to the Father who is not perfect? For behold, He is shown to abound in wisdom. And the Father, being in need of nothing, does not allow [himself] prosperity. Rebuttal to this. One should ask the anti-Christ fighters about whom they think it is said: “You abound in wisdom and grace”? But they, of course, will say that it is about Jesus Christ. Then - oh, the craziest of all! - who or where do you think Christ is from, about whom Luke is now talking? If you believe that He is an ordinary man and think that He has no advantage over others, then may He also prosper as a man. If He is God made man and the Word made flesh, as it is written, then what kind of success does He allow? Or how will He who is imperfect be equal to God 1045? After all, then it is necessary that He to whom He is equal should also be imperfect, if this is how things stand in your opinion. If it already seems to you that it is evil to say and think like this (for you agreed that the Father is perfect), then you must believe that the Son, equal to Him, is also perfect. Therefore, He is not called prosperous as the Word, but because He put on a nature that allows prosperity. OTHER. Paul says nowhere about God the Word, that He is both in the image of God and equal to God 1046. So, if He, being in equality with God, allows success, and in fact succeeded, then [He] is something greater than the Father, and the Word who succeeded surpassed the Father, if so, in your opinion. But this is extremely absurd. Consequently, He did not succeed as the Word, for He is perfect, like the Father, but this is also said about Him because of the economy of the incarnation. OTHER. If the Word succeeded when it became man and took on our flesh, then He did not bring us benefit by becoming human, but, most likely, the flesh became for Him an accomplice of perfection. After all, if He really succeeded when He became flesh, then, therefore, He was imperfect before He came, and is now perfected, in your opinion. How then do we thank Him as for us for the sake of Him who became man, when in fact it is Him who should show [us] gratitude? But this is absurd. Therefore He did not succeed as the Word, but this is said of Him because of [His] dispensation in the flesh. OTHER. The Word of God is called by many names in the divine Scripture. For He is called and is the Son; also called Wisdom; called both God, and Power, and the Image of the Father 1047. If, being all these, He succeeds, what can they name greater than the Son, Wisdom, Power, God and all the rest, so as not to enumerate each separately? But to think so is evil. For there is nothing greater than God. Therefore, it is not said of the Word that He prospered. OTHER. Principalities, Thrones, Dominions, Angels and Archangels, and every rational power, and in addition to these people, are and become perfect in all piety by communion with the Word. How can someone who bestows perfection on others be imperfect Himself in order to desire to improve and achieve some kind of growth? How, if He is truly Wisdom, can He advance in wisdom? Or how will he who gives grace to others himself succeed in grace as if he does not have it? Unless they say that Paul lied when he called the Son Wisdom and the Giver of grace? But the servant of truth does not lie. Therefore, he did not prosper like the Word, but as a person this is said about Him, who accepted everything that is ours for our sake. OTHER. The imperfect always strives for perfection, neglecting [that] first place in which it [now] is, as if always seeking [for itself a place] among the larger and better. Just as, for example, we humans succeed in wisdom and, being gradually improved by other virtues, thus strive towards the perfection of life. But where else can the Word of God, existing entirely in the Father, go? What increase will It allow, being so perfect that it has the whole Father in Itself and, in turn, abides entirely in the Father? For if he who fills the Father (let’s say, for the sake of example, more bodily) received some kind of increase or progress, then he became outside the Father, becoming greater than that in which He abides. But He did not go beyond the Father, but is always in Him, being perfect in the perfect, and having the perfect in Himself. Therefore, He, as the Word, has not succeeded, but is perfect, remaining the same and not changing. OTHER. Paul nowhere says about the Son that He humbled Himself and took on the form of a servant 1048. So, if no one is tempted by this, and, hearing: “Humbled Himself” 1049, does not think anything low about God, but rather marvels at His love for mankind, then how would it not be amiss to be tempted, hearing that He succeeded? After all, if He did not suffer at all from belittlement as far as the Divinity is concerned, then He will not suffer from this either. And just as He humbled Himself for our sake, so He accepts prosperity for our sake, so that again we, who were once sentenced to death for sin, would excel in wisdom in Him, and, once hated for [our] transgression in Adam, would excel in grace. For Christ took everything that is ours into Himself for our sake, in order to transform everything into the best and become for created people the beginning of all good. ANOTHER, plausible interpretation of the same saying. A certain natural law does not allow a person to have a thinking much beyond his age, but the mind that exists in us in some way correlates and keeps pace with the development of the body. Now, the Word was made flesh, becoming man, as it is written; and was perfect, being the Wisdom and Power of the Father. Since He had to to some extent yield to the custom of our nature, so that those who saw Him would not seem something alien, like a man, He gradually revealed Himself as the body matured and from day to day appeared to those who saw and heard Him more and more wise, being [in fact] perfect in everything, as has already been said, but following the general custom of [human] nature. So, when you hear: “He abounded in wisdom and grace,” then do not think that some kind of increase in wisdom happened to Him, for God’s Word lacks nothing, but since in the eyes of those who saw [Him] He was more and more wise and gracious, it is said about prosperity, so here it is already [most likely, visible] the prosperity of the people who marvel at [Him], rather than His own. OTHER. What succeeds in something is different from that in which it succeeds. So, if it is said: “abounding in wisdom,” then it is not wisdom that prospers, but mankind that prospers in it. For, since from day to day the Divinity was revealed and revealed in Him, He all the time became more and more amazing to those who saw. This is precisely what the expression “abounding in wisdom” means. OTHER. You excelled in human wisdom in the following way: Wisdom, clothed in human nature, that is, the Word of God, little by little deified through deeds and miraculous accomplishments in the face of those who saw the received church, brought Him success in this. Thus, humanity, deified by Her, prospered in Wisdom. Therefore, in the likeness of the Word made flesh for us, we are called sons of God and gods. So, our nature has advanced in wisdom, striving from corruption to incorruption, and from humanity to the dignity of the Divinity in Christ. The objection seems to be on behalf of opponents. I heard, says [the Christian fighter], that the Word of God, having become man, was called Jesus. It, therefore, is the successful one. For you will not share the one Christ with me when Paul preaches Him thus. And if He turns out to allow success, then, therefore, He is imperfect. And how will such one be equal to the perfect Father? Rebuttal to this. You will not harm the Son in the least in regard to [His] Divinity and you will not be able to diminish [His] natural dignity, even if you persist in saying this, and are most likely to be defeated by what you think to win. After all, if you know the Son to be completely made flesh and born man, as the Divine Scripture says, then why do you not allow Him to endure the things befitting a man, with the exception of sin? Since it is natural for the flesh to prosper, let Him also be said to “prosper,” since He stood in it and assimilated to Himself its blameless passions. For it was the flesh of no one else, but of the Word Himself. And just as we say that He suffered in the flesh 1050 - although only the flesh suffered, since although He did not suffer as God, the suffering body was His own - so when we say that He prospered, He as God does not allow any prosperity, but this is said because His own flesh prospered in Him. OTHER. And you yourself - oh, fighter of Christ! - you confess the Word of God made flesh, which cannot be understood in any other way except that He took on flesh and truly became man. So, just as when you hear something great about the Word and something that befits Him naked and not yet clothed with flesh, as, for example, when He is called the Light, Radiance and Wisdom of the Father, you will not think about the flesh, but about the Word dwelling in the flesh, so when the divine Scriptures say something that befits only the flesh, or even the human form (τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ σχήματι), do not trace this to the Word, but attribute to the nature of the flesh what is due to it. Therefore, when it is said that He succeeds, it is not Wisdom itself that succeeds, to the extent that it is Wisdom, but the human [succeeds] in Wisdom, gradually shining forth and appearing through It. So it was also an instrument of the Divinity contained within it, little by little serving its manifestation with [its] deeds. Note, however, that [the evangelist] did not say that the Word prospered, but Jesus, so that you do not think about the naked Word, but [about the time] when He became flesh 1051. And if prosperity is spoken of because [the Word] took on that which is characteristic of prosperity, that is, humanity, then [this] will be the prosperity of humanity, and to it it should rightly be attributed. For, in this way, each of the spoken [natures] will remain in its own order, when neither what befits the naked Word is transferred to humanity, nor human [properties] are attributed to the Divinity. The original uses two words: “καὶ μορφὴ, καὶ εἰκὼν τοῦ Πατρός.” You might be interested in: