Treatise of Saint Gregory of Nyssa on the fact that the Son himself will submit to the One who subordinated everything to Himself

The treatise of Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “On the fact that the Son himself will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Himself,” was probably written around 383. This anti-Arian work is directed against the subordinationist understanding of the words of the Apostle Paul, “then the Son Himself will be subject to Him who put all things in subjection to Him” (1 Cor. 15:28). The fact that an entire treatise is devoted to the interpretation of one verse suggests that the New Testament passage under analysis played an important role in Arian theology. For the followers of Arius, submission means belittling the Son: if the Apostle Paul points to such an intra-Trinitarian relationship, then for the Arians there can be no question of equality of natures. In response to St. Gregory, based on the words of the apostle, proves the Divinity of the Son. *The title of the essay in Latin is In illud: Tunc et ipse Filius. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395) is one of those holy fathers and teachers of the Church whose literary work is available to the Russian reader in almost its entirety. Without exception, all major works of St. Gregory were translated back in the 19th century in the “Works of the Holy Fathers” collection. Note that the Russian translation was the fastest “reaction” to the publication of 44–46 volumes of the Patrology of Minya, containing the works of the youngest of the Cappadocians. In percentage terms, about ninety percent of the saint’s works were translated into Russian. These figures become even more significant if we consider that the number of translated works includes almost all the most significant treatises of a theological and exegetical nature. According to the list prepared by Moscow theological schools, only a few small works are still awaiting their translator. Among them, two texts can be distinguished that are especially interesting for the study of the theology of St. Gregory. We are talking about Ad Eustathium, De sancta Trinitate 1 and In illud: Tunc et ipse Filius 2. Despite their brevity, the treatises have deep doctrinal content and are therefore included in the section of dogmatic works (Opera dogmatica minora) of the collection of critical texts of St. Gregory of Nyssa (Gregorii Nysseni Opera), founded by the German patristic specialist Werner Jaeger. The Epistle to Eustathius, On the Holy Trinity, written around 380, reflects not only triadology, but also the teaching of St. Gregory on nature and hypostases, as well as the pneumatological aspect of the theology of the Bishop of Nyssa 3 . The second treatise, compiled a little later, is exegetical in nature with elements of eschatological reflection. The main purpose of its writing was to fight the new, post-Nicene wave of Arianism, whose representatives actively used the texts of the Holy Scriptures to substantiate their views. The saint makes an attempt to give his own interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:24–28, a passage that was used by the Arians to justify the ontological inequality of God the Son with God the Father. In this New Testament passage, the Arians understood the term ἡὑ ποταγή (submission) as indicating the superiority of the Father over the Son. Based on this, the youngest of the Cappadocians makes an attempt to interpret the term “subordination” in an Orthodox anti-subordination key. The saint points out that the term ἡ ὑ ποταγή can have several meanings depending on the context in which the word is used. For example, if the subordination of slaves to the master cannot be compared with the subordination of a child to parents, then even more so, the subordination of Christ to God the Father, as an act of intra-Trinitarian communication, has a completely different meaning, different from the meaning we are accustomed to. In the understanding of St. Gregory, the subordination of the Son to the Father is “complete alienation from evil” 4 and, as a consequence, unity with God. However, this expression needs clarification. The author does not speak only about the personal subordination of the Son to the Father. When he talks about submission, he views it from a comprehensive eschatological perspective. That is why the author puts the verb “to obey” in the future tense in the treatise. Jesus Christ awaits the moment when all creation, without exception, will submit to Him, and will form with Him one Body, in which the Son will be the firstfruits, having overcome death and corruption. Then this pleroma formed, or rather formed by the Son, will be brought to the Father and submit to Him. We no longer find such a curious teaching about the eschatological Body of Christ, so expanded and strengthened by quotations from the Holy Scriptures, not only in any of the works of Bishop Nyssa, but also in all of the early Christian patristic literature 5 . Let us add that the eschatological Body of Christ is identified with the fullness of human nature as the totality of all humanity in history. Due to the fact that this Body includes every person, already born and those who are yet to be born, it has the curious property of being continuously created (ἀεὶ οἰκοδομῶν.) 6. This formation of the body will end when the fullness of humanity is revealed in Christ, when “there will no longer be anything left to add to the Body for [its] creation” 7 . According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the complete formation of the eschatological Body of Christ and its submission to the Father means nothing less than the salvation of all that is subject. Since we are talking about the totality of saved humanity in Christ, the soteriology of the treatise is expressed in extremely positive tones of teaching and is closely related to the doctrine of apokatastasis. Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that the treatise did not find a place in the corpus of translated works of St. Gregory of Nyssa 8 . The main eschatological dilemma of the saint is the ontology of evil. Evil is “external” to God and therefore cannot coexist with Him. It does not have the character of pre-eternal existence and arises in time. These theses are enough for the saint to affirm the finitude of evil: “the nature of evil will pass into non-existence, it will completely disappear from existence” 9. If the existence of evil is not perfect and has a beginning, then, according to the logic of the Cappadocian, it will certainly have an end. Reasoning further, the saint comes to the conclusion that a moment will come when evil, which means suffering, sin and death, will no longer exist, and only good will reign. According to the Bishop of Nyssa, the source of evil does not lie in the free will of man, because the distortion of this will is a product of sin: envy and pride. According to the teachings of St. Gregory, only a person free from sin has free will. After the Fall, free will can be called “free” only relatively, because it has a skill in what captivates and limits it, that is, in sin, and is also subject to corruption and death. Evil parasitizes on the will of man and will is the source of power for evil to the extent that human will is subject to corruption: “For outside of free will there is no original evil; but evil is called evil because it is not good; what does not exist does not exist; and the Creator of what exists is not the creator of what does not exist. Consequently, the cause of evil is not God, Who is the Creator of what exists, and not of what does not exist; Who created sight, not blindness; Showing virtue, and not deprivation of it” 10. The corruption that struck the human soul after the Fall is very difficult to distinguish from actions of the will, because envy and pride are the desire not to be who you are, but who you would like to appear in the eyes of your neighbor. In the understanding of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the power of evil lies in deception, in the perversion of good, and its essence can be defined by the following concepts - non-existence, deprivation, absence. This idea is the most important argument for the Cappadocian’s answer to the question about the ultimate fate of evil and sinners. According to the saint, it is necessary to distinguish between the existence of evil and the manner of its existence. The author of the dissertation on the topic of apokatastasis, A. A. Likhodedov, summarizes the premises of the teachings of St. Gregory about universal restoration: a) evil does not exist, b) creation exists, c) God is eternal. These three theses define the extremely positive vector of the saint’s soteriology and eschatology 11 . However, taking into account only these premises, one can reproach this eschatological model for the fact that such purification occurs without any human participation; God, as it were, forcibly intervenes in the life of his creation. But in reality everything is different. Every act of God’s healing influence on a person is preceded by a person’s sincere desire and determination to leave sin. If evil is temporary, and at a certain moment ceases to exist, then, according to the thought of St. Gregory of Nyssa, all his delusions will be revealed to a person. Then a person will certainly choose the path of painful but temporary healing with cleansing fire. The cleansing period for each person will correspond to his sins 12, and then when the last sinner gets rid of evil, and, as a result, is restored to goodness, it is then that the general restoration of creation to the primary paradise state will occur. It is quite difficult to determine the time when this treatise was written 13 . It most likely came from the pen of the bishop of Nyssa around 383, when the author was already involved in anti-Arian controversy. The fact that St. Gregory devotes an entire treatise to the interpretation of one verse, saying that the New Testament passage under analysis played an important role in the theology of the Arians. For the followers of Arius (unfortunately, we do not have information about the use of 1 Cor. 15 by Arius himself due to the loss of his work “Thalia”) submission means the belittlement of the Son: if the Apostle Paul points to such an intra-Trinitarian relationship, then for the Arians there can be no question of equality of natures. This logic is adapted by the Council of Sirmium (351) in its 18th anathema 14. The use of the above verse is evidenced by St. Gregory the Theologian 15 and author of the eighth letter (Epistula VIII) to St. Basil the Great 16. In addition, the use of this verse by the Arians is reflected in the writings of St. Hilary of Pictavia. To this New Testament place, which becomes a real battlefield between the Nicene fathers and the Arians, the author devotes a third of his eleventh book De Trinitate to comment on this biblical passage 17. In addition, references to this text of the Apostle Paul can be found in the texts of the heretics themselves, for example, in Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus 18. Knowing about the theological struggle of St. Gregory of Nyssa with Eunomius, it can be assumed that the treatise is part of the anti-Eunomian corpus of works of the bishop of Nyssa, although it is impossible to conclude from the text that the author refutes any particular heresiarch or the Arian theological tendency in general. For the first time St. Gregory speaks of a heretical interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 in the first book, Against Eunomius, an expanded renewal of the project of his brother, St. Basil the Great, refute the theology of Eunomius. St. Gregory the Theologian, in his fourth “Theological Discourse”, written earlier Tunc et ipse Filius in 380 19, discussing the subordination of the Son to the Father, mentions the unorthodox attitude of Eunomius to this topic 20. It seems that the criticism of St. Gregory the Theologian was not enough to force Eunomius to abandon his views regarding the subordination of the Son to the Father. This fact, most likely, forced the youngest of the Cappadocians to write an entire theological treatise, shedding light on the problem of the relationship between the Son and the Father according to the Apostle Paul, to which the author gave the title “That the Son himself will submit to Him who has subjected all things to Himself.” Today, this theological treatise exists in two more translations into modern languages: English 21 and French 22. Both are based on the Greek text PG (Patrology of Migne), which was reprinted from the edition of the French explorer Morell and dates back to the 16th century. The English translation was performed by the American Cistercian monk Casimir McCambley, but its quality is very low - the translation is more like a free presentation, replete with lacunae. As for the French version of the text, it was written by the theological specialist St. Gregory of Nyssa, professor at the University of Strasbourg, Mariette Caneve, and represents a serious and more scientific attempt to render the text in modern language. The only drawback is that the Greek text was taken from the PG, since the critical text of the GNO collection has not yet been published. This attempt, in fact, is the first translation reaction to the appearance of the critical text of the treatise Tunc et Ipse Filius, published in the collection of texts of St. Gregory of Nyssa Gregorii Nysseni Opera. [Treatise of Saint] Gregory of Nyssa on the fact that the Son himself will submit to Him who subjected all things to Himself (1 Cor. 15:24–28) All the words of the Lord, as the prophet says, are holy and pure words. When the mind is cleansed of all heretical wisdom, it receives with these words, just as silver is purified in fire, its characteristic and natural illumination of truth. I think that first of all it is necessary to testify to the clarity and purity of all the teachings of St. Paul, because, being in paradise (see: 2 Cor. 2:12), trained in the knowledge of ineffable things, and having Christ speaking within him, he spoke what should be said to one who grew with the help of these instructions under the guidance and mentoring of the Word 23. Just as swindlers try to make God's silver worthless, 24 depriving the Word of its shine 25 by mixing with heretical and counterfeit concepts, 26 so the mysterious thoughts of the apostle, either not understanding, or cunningly interpreting as it seems best to them, they absurdly defend their fraud. In order to destroy the glory of the Only Begotten God, they claim that their thoughts coincide with the saying of the Apostle, who says: “Then the Son will be subject to Him who subjected all things to Him” (see: 1 Cor. 15:28), because this text reflects a kind of slavish submission. Therefore, it seems necessary to carefully study this text in order to prove that the apostolic silver is truly devoid of all filth and is not mixed with heretical thought. For we know that Holy Scripture uses this word in many meanings, and it does not always agree with its own meaning. It has one meaning at the moment and then points to another. As, for example: “Let slaves submit to their masters” (see: Titus 2:9); and about the unreasonable nature that God subjugated to man, as the prophet says: “He subdued everything under his feet” (see: Ps. 8:7). About those who were defeated in war, he says: “He made the nations and tribes under our feet subject to us” (see: Ps. 59:10). But, mentioning those who are saved by knowledge, he says, as if on behalf of God: “The foreigners were subject to me” (see: Ps. 59:10). I think that what we find in the sixty-first psalm is in some sense close to this: “Shall not my soul submit to God” (see: Ps. 62:2). And above all else, what our enemies reproach us with [taken] from the Epistle to the Corinthians is that then the Son himself will submit to the One who subjected everything to himself (1 Cor. 15:28). So, since the meaning of this word suggests many thoughts, it would be good to analyze each of them yourself in order to understand what meaning of the word submission is close to the saying of the Apostle. So, about those who are captured by force in war by those who rule over them, let us say that the meaning of the word submission indicates submission to the winner against the will and under compulsion. If the captives are given any opportunity that gives hope of gaining the upper hand over those in power, then they, considering it an insult and disgrace to be subordinate to enemies, again of their own accord rebel against those in power. According to another example, the unreasonable is subject to the reasonable, since his nature lacks the greatest of goods, that is, reason, because, according to the good distribution of nature, the one who has less should submit to the one who has the advantage. Likewise, those who, as a result of some law, even if they had equality by nature, could not resist the law, are forced under the yoke of slavery, accept the status of the conquered, being led to submission by inexorable necessity. The goal of our submission is salvation, as we learn from the prophecy, which reads: “Submit yourself, O my soul, to God, for with Him is my salvation” (see: Ps. 61:6; 2) 27 . So, when the apostolic word, which says that the Son will submit to the Father, is reproached by our enemies, it would be consistent, in accordance with the diversity of meanings of this word, to ask them: what, in their opinion, the meaning of the word submission should be considered [worthy] of application to the only begotten God. But it is obvious that they will say that none of the above images can understand the subordination of the Son. He is not an enemy who was forced into war in order to rise anew, with hope and zeal, against the winner. And in no way, one of the unreasonable [creatures], due to the absence [in Him] of the above-mentioned good, the Word has the subordination necessary by nature, which sheep, herds and bulls have [in relation to] man. He does not expect to be freed from the yoke of slavery by favor or grace, like those bought with silver or home-grown slaves enslaved by law. But let no one say that the only begotten God submits to the Father for the purpose of salvation; as if in this way salvation, due to His similarity to people, is not accomplished by God through Him. For in order for the changeable nature to participate in good, submission to the Father is necessary, and thus we have participation in good. In the unchanging and incorruptible power 28, in which every good, name and concept, eternity, incorruptibility, bliss, the ability to always be the same and the inability to become neither better nor worse, is seen, there is no place for submission. Because it does not allow either an increase in goodness or a tendency towards evil. For the one who exudes salvation to others does not himself lack that which contributes to salvation. So what meaning of submission do they piously call upon to be considered due to Him? After all, all the [examples] examined are recognized to be far removed from what is understood and considered to be appropriate to the only begotten Son. If it is necessary to add to this the image of submission, which is spoken of in the Gospel of Luke - the Lord, having reached twelve years of age, was subject to his parents (see: Luke 2:51, 41, 42), then this would not be consistent with what was said about the eternal and true Son to his true Father. For, in this passage, having been tempted in all things, in our likeness except sin, he accepted and brought through the growth of our nature and became like a child [to whom] children's food becomes, eating butter and honey, and thereby reaching the age appropriate to a youth, and without abandoning what is appropriate for such years, becomes a way of exemplary life. Since other people's thinking at this very [age] is imperfect and since the guidance of those more mature for the better benefits the youth, therefore the Twelve-year-old submits to his mother in order to show that before reaching maturity through gradual maturation, it is useful to accept submission as a guide for the good. All those who speak rashly can hardly say to whom [the Son] obeys, since He who is always perfect in all good things and, through His self-sufficient and indiminutive nature, could not accept in Himself either development or diminishment. Because, living in human nature through the flesh, he, as a child, prescribed submission to his youth in everything he did. Of course, having reached the maturity of his age, he no longer looked at his mother’s authority. When she prompted him to show strength in Cana of Galilee in what was lacking at the wedding feast and to make the feast pleasant due to the use of wine, he did not refuse the favor of giving to those in need; He rejected his mother’s advice, as given to him at the wrong time, saying: “What is it to You and to Me, wife? Do you want to lead Me when I am at this age? Hasn’t my hour come, giving independence and freedom to age?” (John 2:4). Consequently, if in life according to the flesh the measure of proper age leaves subordination to the parent, hardly anyone could say what it means to submit to the one who rules in his power over the age [this]. Because it is characteristic of the divine and blessed life to always abide in Him and not be subject to change through distortion. Therefore, since the Word, the only-begotten God, who existed from the beginning, is alien to all development and distortion, how does one who does not now exist subsequently? The Apostle does not say that the Son was always subject, but that He must submit at the end of the fulfillment of all things. However, if submission is called good and worthy of God, how can goodness now be absent from God? Good is equal for both: the Son, who submits, and the Father, who accepts the subordination of the Son. This means that this good is now lacking to both the Father and the Son, and what neither the Father nor the Son had before the ages, will it be added to both the Father and the Son after the fulfillment of times: one undergoing submission, the other thus receiving some increase and increase in his own glory, which he did not have before. So where is the immutability in all this? That which appears later, but does not now exist, is itself a changeable nature. Either submission is good, and must be believed to exist for God, or it is unworthy of God, neither now nor at any other time. But the apostle says that then the Son will submit to God and the Father, and not [that He] has now submitted. In fact, the [apostolic] word has some other purpose, and the meaning of the word is far removed from the poverty of the heretics. What's the word? Perhaps, with the help of the expression written in this passage, we could better see some concept. Because the epistle is a dispute with the Corinthians, with those who accepted faith in the Lord, but considered the doctrine of the resurrection of people a myth, saying: “How will the dead be resurrected and with what body will those return, whose bodies after death in various and varied [ways] disappeared, either through decay, or were destroyed by carnivorous, reptiles, swimming, flying [animals]?” Therefore, he provided them with many arguments, urging them not to compare the power of God with their own, nor to think that what is impossible for man is also [impossible] for God, but convinces them to compare the greatness of God's power with the examples known to us. Thus, he draws their attention to the miracle of bodies: seeds eternally transformed by Divine power. And he shows that Divine wisdom never tires of finding in everything a multitude of bodily forms: rational, unreasonable, airy, earthly, appearing for us in the sky: the sun and other stars, each of which appeared [thanks to] Divine power. And [this] is proof for us [that] God has no difficulty regarding the resurrection of our bodies. If all that exists has not changed from some hidden matter into visible matter, and the will of God has become the matter and essence of what was created, it becomes much more possible to return [them] again to their own form, [since] He forms what already exists, rather than to bring into being and essence what was originally non-existent. So, in the words [addressed] to them, he shows that through sin the first man died in the earth and is therefore called earthy. And in his image, all those who [came from] him were also destined, [all] those who were born of him, to become earthly and mortal. It is necessary to establish a second sequential connection, through which a person is restored anew from death to immortality. In a similar way, he speaks of good that appeared in nature by spreading from one to all. Just as evil spread through one to many, extending through inheritance by descendants. Expressing this teaching, he uses the following words [of the apostle]: “The first man,” says [the apostle], “is from the earth, earthy; the second - from heaven, as is the earthy, so are the earthy; as is from heaven, such are also from heaven. And just as we have borne the image of earth, we will also bear the image of heaven” (see: 1 Cor. 15:47–49). So, substantiating the doctrine of the resurrection with the given and above-mentioned arguments and shackling 30 the conclusions of the heretics through many other [arguments], in which he shows that he who does not believe in the resurrection of people does not accept the resurrection of Christ, he, through a combination of closely related [arguments], expresses the inevitable conclusion, saying: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, and if Christ is not risen, then your faith in Him is in vain.” (see: 1 Cor. 15:13, 17). If the first proposition is entirely true: [that is, that] Christ rose from the dead; it is necessary that what is connected with this be true: [that is, that] the resurrection of the dead exists. Since through a particular proof, the general one is also proved. And conversely, if someone says that the general is a lie: [that is, that] the resurrection of the dead [does not] exist, he will not find the particular [that is, that] Christ rose from the dead to be completely true. If the general is impossible, then it is absolutely impossible that anything [particular] exists. However, the fact that Christ rose from the dead is faith and unquestioningness for those who receive the Word. Anyone who believes in the particular, [that is,] the resurrection of Christ, will inevitably have faith in the general. Thus, justifiably forcing them to assimilate the doctrine on the basis of what has been said, that if it does not exist (that which [is] general, nothing [particular] cannot exist; if we believe that He has risen, belief in this becomes a proof of the general - the resurrection of people) and, adding to the speech in which the full expression of this doctrine is completed, the following: As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live (1 Cor. 15:22), he wisely reveals what he looks at, [that is,] the secret about it, setting out his speech in expressions in some obligatory sequence in accordance with the end of things expected 31. This is the purpose of what was said. First, I will state the meaning of what is written in my own words, then I will add to it an apostolic saying, corresponding to the thought we previously put forward. What is the purpose of the saying that the divine apostle announces in this passage? [It is such] that when the nature of evil passes into non-existence, it will completely disappear from existence, and Divine and pure goodness will contain within itself all rational nature, and nothing created by God will fall away from the Kingdom of God, when all evil mixed with essences, like some kind of counterfeit substance, will be destroyed by melting, through purification by fire 32. So everything that has an origin from God will become the same as in the beginning, when evil was not yet perceived 33. He says that it will be exactly like this: the pure and unshakable deity of the Consubstantial One was born in the corruptible and unstable nature of people. From all human nature, to which the Divine was mixed, man in Christ rose up as if some better part of the common dough and united with himself everything human to the Divine 34. Because in him all the nature of evil was destroyed: “He who committed no sin, as the prophet says, no deceit was found on his lips” (see: Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22). Along with sin, death, which logically follows from it, was destroyed in Him (since death has no other origin than sin). The disappearance of evil, like the overthrow of death, originated from Him. As a result, it was as if a certain order corresponded to what happened in a certain sequence. For always, due to the gradual diminution of the good, everything that is more deviated than closer from the original follows the previous one, so that everyone [following] has honor and strength 35. In the same way, behind man in Christ, Who became the firstfruits of our nature, containing the Divinity within Himself, and Who became the Firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep and the Firstborn from the dead, since He ceased the torment of death; So, after this man, who has completely separated himself from sin and destroyed the power of death in himself and destroyed its authority, power and strength, if anyone is found like Paul, who was able to become an imitator of Christ in alienation from evil, he will follow the Firstfruits at the hour of Parousia (Christ's Coming - editor's note). And after him, I speak on the basis of an assumption, maybe this is unreliable, [will follow] Timothy, who in himself was an imitator of the teacher as much as possible (see: 2 Tim. 3:11), or someone else. Thus there will be those who, in turn, in accordance with the gradual diminution of good, [follow] behind those who precede, until the succession of those who follow reaches those whose share of the best is found to be less [of] the excess of evil. By the same analogy, the succession (from those who are less in evil to those who are successful in evil) will establish order for those returning to the better, until the development of good reaches the highest degree of evil in order to destroy evil. Meanwhile, this is the end of our aspiration, that is, nothing contrary to good will remain alive, and Divine life will spread to everyone and completely destroy death in them, having previously destroyed sin in it, thanks to which, as we said, death reigns over people. So, when all evil power and authority will be abolished in us, and no passion will no longer dominate our nature, and by general necessity nothing will dominate anything, everything will be subject to the authority [dominating] over all. For submission to God is complete alienation from evil. When, as we imitate the Firstfruits, we all find ourselves outside of evil, then the entire dough of [our] nature, mixed with the Firstfruits and becoming one united body, will assume within itself the dominance of only good. Thus the whole body of our nature will be mingled with the Divine and immovable nature, and what is called the subordination of the Son will take place in us, because the subordination which is accomplished in his body will be presented to Him who has wrought in us the grace of subordination. So, this, at least we understand, is the meaning of the teachings of the great Paul. The time has come to add to it the following words of the apostle: Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will come to life... ...each in his turn: Christ the firstborn, then Christ’s at His coming. And then the end, when he will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, when he will abolish all authority and authority and power. For He must reign until He has put His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death, because he has put everything under his feet. When it is said that everything is subjected to [Him], then it is clear that [everything] except the One who subjected everything to Him. When all things are submitted to Him, then [the Son] Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:22–28). At the end of the above, when [the apostle] says that God will be in everything, becoming everything in everyone, the non-existence of evil is clearly presented in the saying. For it is obvious that [the expression] God is in everything will become true when no evil is revealed in beings. After all, it is implausible that God is in evil. So, either God will not be in everything, if something evil remains in beings, or if one should sincerely believe that He is in everything, then thanks to this belief it becomes clear that evil does not exist. So, it is impossible for God to be in evil. As for God becoming all in all beings, He shows the simplicity and uniformity of the life we ​​expect. For this saying indicates that our life will no longer [be] composed of multiplicity and diversity, like our present life; when every [creation] takes part in something more divine, God, by some analogy, becomes in us all that [to us] seems to be a natural necessity in this life. Thus, bringing the meaning of what has been said closer to what befits Him, God is our food, insofar as it is natural to take God in food, and drink, and also clothing, and shelter, air, space, wealth, pleasure, beauty, health, strength, thought, glory, bliss, and everything that is considered to be part of good, in which nature is deficient. So through this it is known that he who is in God, having Him, has everything. And to have God is nothing other than to unite with God. However, no one will be united [with God] except by becoming one body with Him, as Paul confesses. All of us gathered into the one Body of Christ, through participation we become His one Body. When the good has passed on to everyone, then His entire Body will be entirely subject to the life-giving power and, thus, the subordination of this body will be called the subordination of the Son united 36 with his own Body, which is the Church, as the Apostle addresses the Colossians, saying in the following words: Now I rejoice in my sufferings and make up for the deficiency in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ for His Body, which is the Church, of which I have become a minister according to the dispensation ( Col. 1:24–25). And he says to the Corinthian Church: You are the Body of Christ, and individually you are members (1 Cor. 12:27). More clearly, he presents the teaching about this to the Ephesians, saying: “Since we are sincere in love, we will grow in everything in Him, who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is formed and joined together through all kinds of mutual ties, in accordance with the action, making the body grow according to the measure of each member, to build itself up in love” (see: Eph. 4:15-16). Just as Christ creates Himself through those who gradually join in faith. He will cease to create himself when the growth and perfection of His body has reached its proper measure, and there will no longer be anything left to be added to the Body for [its] creation, because everything will be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles and will be added through faith, as the apostle says, when: we will all come into the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, to the measure of the full stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13). So, if, being the Head, He, along with Himself, creates a Body from all those who are gradually added, harmoniously combined and united, [and] among whom each has an inclination, according to the ability, [to be] either as a hand, or an eye, or a foot, or a hearing, or anything else that, according to the faith of each, is the constituent of the body, then in doing this, He creates Himself. As [already] said, it is thus obvious that being in everything, He accepts in Himself all those united with Him through [their] participation in the Body and makes everyone members of His own Body, since there are many members in the body (see: 1 Cor. 12:20). So, having united us with Himself and united with us, and through everyone became one of us, He appropriates everything that is ours. The main of our blessings is submission to God, when all creation will become unanimous with Himself and “every knee will bow to Him, in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will proclaim that Jesus Christ [is] Lord” (see: Phil. 2:10). Then when every creature has become one Body, and all in Him are united among themselves through obedience, He will exalt the subordination of His own body to the Father in Himself. Let no one be surprised by what was said. According to some custom, we talk about the soul in the image of what happens to our body, just as someone who says to his own soul about the fertility of the area: “Eat and drink and be merry” (see: Luke 12:19), refers to the soul the satiety of the body. Thus here too, the subjection of the Body to the Church refers to the dweller in the Body. And therefore, since everything that is in Him will be saved, and salvation is explained through submission, as the psalmody advises to think, as a consequence, nothing exists outside of the saved, which we learn to believe from this apostolic passage. The Word testifies to this [speaking of] the destruction of death and the subordination of the Son, because they coincide with each other: the absolute non-existence of death and the birth of all into life. The Lord [is] life, through whom, according to the apostolic word, the offering of His entire Body to the Father is carried out, then when He transfers the kingdom to our God and Father. His body, as has been said many times, is all human nature, with which He was mixed 37. According to this thought of his, the Lord, according to Paul, is called the Mediator [between] God and people. Because He who is in the Father and who is in people performs mediation in this, uniting everything with Himself and through Himself to the Father, as the Lord says in the Gospel, addressing the Father: “That they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in us” (see: John 17:21). This clearly shows that He who is in the Father and Himself united with us, realizes our unity with the Father through Himself. However, the subsequent gospel [words] echo what was said: “The glory that You gave me I give to them” (see: John 17:22). I think what He calls here is the glory of the Holy Spirit, which He gave to the disciples by the breath. Separated from each other, they were united in no other way than by being united by the unity of the Spirit. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Rom. 8:9). The Spirit is glory, as He says to the Father in another place: “Glorify me with the glory that I had with You from the beginning, before the world was” (see: John 17:5). For the Lord is the Word, who before the world had the glory of the Father; then, in the last days, he became flesh, and it was necessary that the flesh, through its mixing with the Word, should become what the Word is. She becomes one by receiving what the Word had before the world, that is, the Holy Spirit. For nothing is eternal except the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is why it is said here that: “The glory that You have given me, I give to them,” so that “through it they may be one to Me and through Me to You” (see: John 17:22). We also see the subsequent addition in the Gospel: “That they may be one, even as We are one, You in Me and I in Them, since I and You are one, that they may be perfect in one” (see: John 17:22, 21, 23). For this, I think, does not require any new exposition in order to be reconciled with the thought already stated, since the expression itself clearly sets forth the doctrine of this. “Let them be one as We are one.” Everyone becomes one “as We are one,” for it is not possible otherwise, unless by separating from everything that is divided among themselves, to be one with Us, Those who are one: “Let them be one, as We are one.” How can this be? [It is said] after all: “I am in them.” For it is not possible that I alone should be in them, but surely You too. Because “I and You are one.” And thus, they will become perfect in one, those who are perfect in Us, for We are one. He more clearly indicates such grace with the help of the following saying, saying as follows: “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved Me” (see: John 17:23). For if the Father loves the Son, we are all who are in the Son, those who by our faith become His Body, therefore, the One who loves his Son loves the Body of the Son, just like the Son Himself. We are the body. So, the apostolic thought becomes clear through what has been said, since the subordination of the Son to the Father signifies the ongoing salvation and knowledge of being by all human nature. Although this saying becomes clearer to us on the basis of some other apostolic thoughts, of which I will give only one, rejecting many testimonies in order not to increase the volume of [my] word. Somewhere in his letters, Paul says that he was crucified with Christ, “and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (see: Gal. 2:19–20). Therefore, if Paul, who was crucified to the world, no longer lives, but Christ lives in him, then everything that exists and was said according to Paul ascends in justice to Christ, who lives in him. So, he who calls the words of Paul spoken by Christ says: “Or are you looking for proof whether Christ speaks in me?” (See: 2 Cor. 13:3). He does not say that gospel virtue 38 belongs to him, but attributes [it] to the grace of Christ living in him. So, if it is said that the Christ living in him acts and, as a result, utters these words, and Paul, moving away from what he previously owned, when he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, a proud man, he looks only at one true good and, thus, becomes obedient and subordinate. This means that Paul’s subordination to God does not refer to Him who lives in him, to the one who speaks in him and does good? The chief of all blessings is submission to God. The story that befalls one will logically apply to all human creation when, as the Lord says, the gospel will spread throughout the entire universe. When everyone puts off the old man with his deeds and desires and accepts the Lord within himself, the One who lives in them will certainly complete the good things they have accomplished. The highest of all benefits for us is salvation, realized through alienation from evil. And to evade evil is nothing more than to unite with God through submission (see: Ps. 33:15). Thus, submission itself to God refers to Him who lives in us. “So, if anything is good, [it] is His, and if anything is good, [it is] from Him,” says one of the prophets (see: James 1:17). So His submission was good and good. And the good of this (submission) in every way [comes] from Him who [possesses] the nature of every good, as the saying of the prophet says. Let no one reject this word, seeing the widespread use of the word submission in a distorted 39 sense. For the wisdom of the great Paul is free to use the sayings at his discretion, and to harmonize the explanations of the sayings with his own sequence of thought, notwithstanding that the custom of misusing the expressions leads to some other meanings. For where does he get the benefit from in [the expression] “He made Himself of no reputation” (see: Phil. 2:9) and in “no one will destroy my praise” (see: 1 Cor. 9:15) and in “faith is vain” (see: Rom. 4:14) and “lest the cross of Christ be put to shame” (see: 1 Cor. 1:17 )? With what benefit does he perceive these [expressions] in his speech? Who will blame him for saying that “we are zealous for you” (see: 1 Thess. 2:8), an expression through which he shows a state imbued with love. How does he demonstrate love devoid of pride through the expression “not to be arrogant” (see: 1 Cor. 13:4)? The passion for disputes (φιλονεικία), loving to question and fight back, he designates with the word strife (ἐ ριθεία), when it is clear to everyone that [the word] spinner (ἡἔ ριθος) outside of Scripture receives the name from the work of processing wool (ἐ ριουργία), and with the word discord (ἐ ριθεία) we are used to denoting diligent grooming? However, Paul, leaving aside empty etymologies, he wants to express the meaning in the words he wants. Because those who carefully examine the works of the apostle will find many other [expressions] that are not dependent on general usage, but were uttered by him freely, according to some understanding inherent in him, without paying any attention to custom [of use]. So here [the word] meaning submission is understood by Paul [as] something different from generally accepted concepts. The Word indicates that in this passage the submission to the enemies mentioned in it is not forced and involuntary, as the enslaved would say under ordinary circumstances. But it is clear that the word submission explains their salvation. Evidence of this is that the word enemy is divided by Paul in this passage into two concepts: for some of the enemies will be subdued, while others will be destroyed. The enemy by nature, that is, death, will be destroyed, as well as the authority, power and power of sin related to it. Those who are called in the second case the enemies of God will submit: those who switched from the kingdom to sin and whom Paul mentions in the letter to the Romans, saying: “For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God” (see: Rom. 5:10). What in this place he calls reconciliation, in another place he calls submission. One idea points to salvation in both words. For just as salvation results from submission, so, as he says elsewhere: “Having been reconciled, we will be saved by His life” (see: Rom. 5:10). On the one hand, he says that these enemies will be subordinate to God the Father, on the other hand, death and its dominion will no longer exist. Because this is what the expression “to be destroyed” indicates. And therefore it becomes obvious that the power of evil will be completely ineffective. Those who are called, because of disobedience, enemies of God through submission will become allies of God when they are convinced of what has been said: “We are the messengers of Christ, and as if God himself exhorts through us; on behalf of Christ we ask: be reconciled to God” (see: 2 Cor. 5:20), and in accordance with the promise found in the Gospel: “You are no longer among the servants of the Lord, but you will be counted among friends” (see: John 15:15). As for “for He must reign until He has put His enemies under His feet” (see: 1 Cor. 15:25), then I think that it would be pious for us to admit the idea that His reign [has] superiority. He who is strong in battle will then cease to be excellent when everything contrary to good is destroyed, when He brings the kingdom gathered within Himself to God the Father, uniting everything in Himself. The meaning of His transfer of this kingdom to the Father is to bring everything to God. Through Him (the Son) we are brought in one Spirit to the Father. So, when all enemies are at the footstool of God, receiving the imprint of God in themselves, and [when] death is destroyed (because no one dies, death will completely cease to exist), then in the subjection of us all, which does not mean servile humiliation, but the kingdom, incorruptibility and blessedness, He who dwells in us, according to Paul, will be subject to the Father. The One who by Himself brings our good to perfection and accomplishes in us what is pleasing to Himself. This, to the best of our understanding, as far as we have succeeded, we have understood in this passage from the great wisdom of Paul. We wished to show that the purpose of the apostle, for which the present word was composed, was not the defense of heretical doctrines. If you are sufficiently convinced by what is said in this study, give glory to God. If it seems to you that something is missing, we will gladly accept the replenishment of what is missing, only if you yourself inform us in writing, and if the Holy Spirit, through our prayer, reveals what is hidden. The critical text is published in Gregorii Nysseni Opera (hereinafter GNO) III/1, 3–16, ed. F. Müller, Brill, Leiden, 1958. Critical text published in GNO III/2, 3–28, ed. K. Downing, Brill, Leiden, 1987. See Stead S., “Why not Three Gods? The Logic of Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Doctrine", Drobner H. R., Klock Ch., Studien zur Gregor von Nyssa und der christlichen Spatantike, Leiden, 1990, pp. 149–163. Tunc et ipse Filius, GNO III/2, 16, 9–23. The most extensive and detailed study of this issue in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, in our opinion, is the book by Reinhard Hübner: Hübner R., Die Einheit des Leibes Christi bei Gregor von Nyssa. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der 'physischen' Erlosungslehre, LeidenBrill, 1974. Tunc et ipse Filius, GNO III/2, 19, 11–12. Idem, GNO III/2, 19, 14–16. However, such an assumption cannot provide a convincing answer about the true reason for ignoring the text by pre-revolutionary translators. Firstly, two complex theological works De Anima et Resurrectione and Oratio catechetica, where the author speaks in more detail about the problem of apokatastasis, were translated into Russian, while the treatise Ad Eustathium, De Sancta Trinitate, important for the Cappadocian triadology and not containing his eschatological aspirations, is still not available to the Russian reader. Tunc et ipse Filius, GNO III/2, 13, 22–14, 1. See: Oratio Catechetica, GNO III/4, 28, 5–10. Translation by: St. Gregory of Nyssa. A big announcement. K.: Prologue, 2003. Likhodedov A. A. The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about apocatastasis in the light of ancient sources of his anthropology. Dissertation, Moscow State University, 2006. See: De Anima et Resurrectione, PG 46, 100 C and 152 A-B. The approximate date of writing the treatise is very difficult, most likely it is 383 or subsequent years. This time period can be calculated thanks to indirect indications in the texts of St. Gregory. In the treatise Against Eunomius, compiled at the end of 381, the question of the subordination of the Son is already briefly outlined, but he leaves a more detailed consideration of this problem for the future. In addition, the Refutatio confessiones Eunomii, a work written in May 383 in Constantinople, contains many thematic elements similar to the treatise Tunc et ipse Filius. The editor of the critical text, Kennett Downing, points out the similarities between the texts in the preface to the treatise Tunc et ipse Filius. With a high degree of probability we can say that both texts can be contemporaries. However, the presence of common features of the text Tunc et ipse Filius with the Refutation is not unique; general ideas bring the text we are considering closer to the homilial compendium In Canticum Canticorum, one of the later works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, dating back to the nineties of the fourth century. This coincidence can be explained by the fact that the saint sometimes returns to ideas expressed earlier, but just as relevant at the end of his life. K. Downing believes that Tunc et ipse Filius was written at the same time as Refutatio, and J. Danielou, who was engaged in the chronology of the works of St. Gregory of Nysse, dates it to the winter of 383–384, see Daniélou J., “La chronologie des sermons de Grégoire de Nysse,” Revue des sciences religieuses, 29, 1955, 346–372 and the same author’s article “La chronologie des oeuvres de Grégoire de Nysse”, Studia Patristica, 7, 1966, 159–169. St. Athanasius the Great. De Synodis, XXV II. Opitz H.-G., Athanasius Werke II/1, Die Apologien, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1935. The Council of 351, called the first Sirmium, was convened to respond to the anti-Arian criticism of Photinus, a student of Marcellus of Ancyra. It is likely that verse 1 Cor. 15 appears in the texts of anathematism for two reasons: a refutation of millenarianism and approval of the doctrine of the superiority of the Father over the Son by nature. St. Gregory the Theologian. Discours théologique IV, 4–6. Gallay P., Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27–31 (Discours théologiques), SC 250. Paris, Cerf, 1978. It is interesting to note that the Constantinople saint interprets the verse in the convoy of Origen’s exegesis, where Christ, as the New Adam, takes upon himself the sin of the world, who, as the head of the body, that is, the Church, will submit to the Father when all members of the body will be subject to Him. St. Basil the Great. Lettres I, VIII, 8. Courtonne Y., Saint Basile. Lettres, T. 1. Paris, Belles Lettres, 1957. The authorship of St. Basil of this letter is questioned by R. Melcher, who believes that the text belongs to the pen of Evagrius of Pontus (346-399). See Melcher R., Der achte Brief des heiliges Basilius, ein Werk des Evagrius Ponticus, coll. Beitrage zur Theologie 1. Münster, 1923. Hilary of Pictavia. De Trinitate XI, 8, 8–11 et 14–16, SC 462, Paris, Cerf, 2001. Eunomius of Cyzicus. Apologie, 27, 17–19. Sesboüe B., Basile le Grand. Contre Eunome, SC 305. Paris, Cerf, 1983. It should be noted that at the same time Eunomius was also in Constantinople and preached his heretical model of triadology. Gregory the Theologian, St. Oratio 30, 5. Casimir Br., “When (the Father) will subject all things to (the Son): a treatise on 1Cor. 15:28 by st. Gregory of Nyssa,” G O TR, 28, 1983, 1–25. Le Christ pascal (Traité sur "Quand le Fils aura tout soumis", Homélies "Sur l'Ascension", "Sur la sainte Pâque", "Sur les trois jours entre la mort et la résurrection"), collection Pères dans la foi 55, Ch. Bouchet, M. Canevet, 1994. The saint speaks out in defense of the inspiration of the words of the Apostle Paul. We do not know whether the authority and canonicity of this text of the holy apostle was questioned or not. But the saint begins his treatise with the defense of the apostle. Perhaps this action is due to a strong discrepancy in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 from ancient Christian authors. The epithet άδόκιμον is usually used to designate a coin that is unusable and does not stand the test. We are talking about tarnished silver, the purity of which becomes difficult to determine. Comparing the Holy Scriptures with a pure silver coin, the author applies numismatic epithets to it. In the Synodal Translation, the word ὑποταγή (Greek “submit, obey”) in the indicated places is translated to mean “calm down, receive peace of mind” (ed.). The word δύναμις, in this case, should be understood as the unchangeable (ἀτρέπτη) Divine nature, to which the saint contrasts the changeable human nature (τρέπτη φύσις). Mariette Canèvet, French specialist in the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, translates in this case δύναμις with the French word nature, which means “nature, nature.” The expression ὑ ποκειμένη ὕ λη appears only once in the works. With this phrase the saint designates a certain “subject”, the original matter with the help of which the Lord created the world. According to the teachings of St. Gregory, this created matter initially lies in darkness and acquires its visibility and outline only with the appearance of a luminous essence - φωτιστική οὐσία (see: Gen. 1:3). (Apologia in Hexaemeron, PG 44, 72B-73A). Thus, the opposition between the terms ὑ ποκειμένη and φαινόμενη becomes clear. Literal translation: "tangling the feet (συμποδίζω) of the conclusions of heretics." It should be noted that with this passage the author draws a line under the first part of the treatise. Increasingly, the saint calls the apostolic words δόγματα, while at the beginning the author speaks more about λόγια ἀ γνα and καθαρά. The fact is that, as E. Cavalcanti beautifully noted in her article “Interpretazionidi 1Cor. 15, 24.28 ", M. Girandi, coll. Origene e l'Àlessandrinismo cappadoce, Bari, 2002. P. 157–158, n. 93, Saint Gregory in this case puts into the word δόγμα the meaning that St. gave to the word. Basil the Great. Δόγμα is a hard-to-reach, hidden aspect of theology, the knowledge of which is revealed in accordance with the spiritual development of a person. Saint Gregory takes this concept in order to explain that, just like the Resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of people is a teaching, to understand which one must have a certain spiritual level. Discussions about the non-ontological nature of evil and its, as a consequence, disappearance are part of his doctrine of apocatastasis. As for sinners who need deliverance from their sins, or those who have not accepted the sacrament of Baptism, the saint speaks of cleansing fire, with the help of which sin, like everything that is incompatible with God, will be destroyed. See: Oratio Catechetica Magna, GNO III/4, 66.18–67.13; 91.19–92.8; 106.1–18; De Anima et Resurrectione, PG 46, 152A-B and 159C. The theory of the purifying function of fire from an eschatological perspective was first expressed by Plato in Fedone 113D and Gorgia 525B, then it was picked up and developed by Clement of Alexandria (see: Strom. IV, 154, 2–3; V, 91, 2; VII, 56, 3) and Origen (see: De Principiis, II, 3; CC III, 75 and V 31). According to this theory, the Lord punishes sinners with the torment of fire not with the aim of destroying them, but to cleanse and heal them. It follows from this that, upon achieving the cleansing of a person from sin (which occurs in accordance with the will of man), the need for hellish torment disappears, and as a result, fiery Gehenna itself disappears (see: De Anima et Resurrectione. PG 46, 157C -D). Thus, torment in hell destroys sin, and thereby evil destroys evil. We are talking about an important eschatological scheme of St. Gregory of Nyssa ἀ ρχη – ἐ σχατον, according to which the salvation of the creature lies in restoration to its original state before the Fall. St. Gregory gives eschatological meaning to the well-known passage of the Apostle Paul about Christ as the new leaven (1 Cor. 5:7). A similar thing is found in another work of the Bishop of Nyssa, De Perfectione Christiana, GNO VIII/1, 206, 4–14. As in this treatise, the author speaks of Christ as the Firstfruits, who, together with humanity, whose image is the dough (φύραμα), will cleave to the Father of incorruption. In conversations on the book of Ecclesiastes (In Ecclesiasten, GNO V, 408, 2–10), the saint speaks about φύραμα church prayer, the purpose of which is “to cleave to God” (see: Ps. 72:28). Also on Christ as the Firstfruits (φύραμα) of humanity, see: Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, GNO II, 346, 25–347, 1; 374, 6 –17; 386, 11–14. Moreover, the general human nature is designated by the term φύραμα in the thirteenth discourse on the book of Song of Songs (see In Canticum Canticorum, GNO VI, 381, 16–382, 6). According to this phrase, Christ the Firstfruits of all humanity, having destroyed evil and death in himself, provokes the universal movement of creation towards good. Being more removed from good (in this case from the original state alien to evil - in the text τὸ πρῶτον) than her Firstfruits, she must follow Him in order to be saved. The word ἀνακεκραμένος, derived from ἀ νάκρασις, a favorite Christological term of St. Gregory of Nyssa (or συνανάκρασις) with the help of which the saint expresses the unity and connection of two natures in Christ. See Oratio Catechetica, GNO III/4, 22, 1; idem. 39, 21; idem. 48.7; idem. 68, 23–69, 1; Antirrheticus aduersus Apollinarium, GNO III/1, 154, 11; Contra Eunomium III, t. IV, GNO II, 158, 27. In this case, when the saint speaks about the eschatological union of the pleroma of human nature with Christ, he uses his other Christological term - καταμίγνυμι, which the author also uses to explain the union of the Divine and human principles in Christ in the Oratio Catechtica and Contra Eunomium. In the Christological meaning, both terms (συνἀνάκρασις and κατάμιξις) are synonymous. See Oratio Catechetica, GNO III/4, 68.23–69.1. The word κατόρθωμα is sometimes used in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the meaning of virtue. See also the texts De Uita Moysis (SC 1 bis, Daniélou J.): Pref. 2, 9 and II, 43, 2. That is, in a positive sense, which means our salvation. While the banal meaning of the word submission has a negative meaning of restricting or even depriving freedom, falling under someone’s authority. You might be interested in: