Слово 30. На [слова]: «Отче, прослави Мя у тебе Самого славою, юже имѣхъ у тебе прежде міръ не бысть» 1068

The objection seems to be on behalf of Christ-fighters. And how, they say, is it not absurd to say that the Son is like the Father in essence, Who is found by asking Him for glory? After all, He says: “Father, glorify Me with yourself with glory, since before you there was no peace.” For if He asks, [already] having, then He does it in vain, and if He does not have, then from this it is obvious that He is not the same as the One from whom He asks. Rebuttal to this. And how did the Lord of Glory need glory? What, tell me, is the flaw seen in the perfect? For no one will allow you to say that the Son of God is not perfect in anything. However, even then it is very absurd to think that the Son of God, in this way, appears asking glory from the Father, like a certain person who thirsts for glory and does it out of passion. But there is a certain deep meaning and way of house-building in this. OTHER. We ourselves will agree with the statement you cited, O Christ-fighters. After all, it is generally accepted that the Savior said: “Father, glorify Your Son” 1069. But the Father also responded to these words of His, saying: “And I will glorify, and again I will glorify” 1070. So, if the Son asked for such glory, as you think, as deprived of glory, and the Father promised to glorify Him, then why is the request followed by insults and strangulation from the Jews, and a crown of thorns 1071, and spitting? For from this the Father is seen not to have glorified Him, but to have surpassed everything contrary to what He wanted and desired to receive, according to you. Therefore, the Son does not ask for glory from the Father for Himself (for He does not lack glory, since He is by nature God), but through Himself He attracts glory from the Father to the human race. For in Him and through Him we have been enriched with all good things. OTHER, having in itself the interpretation of the saying. Those who test the exact meaning of names and carefully consider what each of them signifies, understand the name “δόξα” in two ways. For sometimes they believe that it should be understood in the sense of honor, and sometimes they refer to it as knowledge. As if someone said: “What can anyone think (τί ἄν τις δοξάσαι) about the sun, for example, or about some other element? Are they created or uncreated? Anyone who thinks right will say in every way that they are created.” Therefore, the knowledge of anything from among those who are wise in these things [people] is called “δόξα”. So, when the Son is shown saying: “Father, glorify (δόξασόν) Me with you Myself with glory (τῇ δόξῃ), since before the world you had no existence,” then what was said should be understood this way: “Because, Father, having become a man because of the economy, I am considered only what they see Me, and not many know, that I am the eternal Son, then glorify Me (δόξασόν με), - [this He says] instead of “reveal Me” (φανέρωσόν με), - by putting in people such knowledge about Me as they would have received by hearing that I exist before the creation of the world, i.e., that I am God by nature, the Light from the Light, truly coming from the true Father." We will understand this even better through inference. For “glorify Me (δόξασόν με)” He says instead of “make Me manifest, for I also have made Your name known as a man 1072.” So, if He wants to become what He created, and He glorified the Father by revealing Him to people, then He Himself wants to be glorified by being revealed by the Father to people. And the words of those who oppose Christ are useless, representing the Son as deprived of honor, that is, glory. OTHER. If you say that the Son lacks glory and honor, and therefore He seeks to be glorified by the Father, and on the basis of this you invent an accusation of dissimilarity, then tell us again, how is the Father contemplated in the Son? After all, if the Son lacks glory, but the Father does not, then how do you think that what does not need glory will be seen in one who does? OTHER. If the Son speaks the truth, saying: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” 1073, then He has perfect glory, like the Father, so that the Father can appear in Him. For He cannot indistinguishably manifest the Father in Himself, without being in glory the same as He. OTHER. If the Son needs glory, then He is shown to be something different from the Father. For that which needs something is not identical with the all-perfect. If the Son speaks the truth, asserting: “I and the Father are one” 1074, then He is perfect, like the Father, with whom He is one. And if so, then He has perfect glory, just like He who gave birth to Him. You might be interested in: