Слово 12. На [речение] «Азъ во Отцѣ, и Отецъ во Мнѣ» 376 и «Азъ и Отецъ едино есма» 377

The objection seems to be on behalf of heretics. There is nothing surprising, they say, if the Father abides in the Son, and the Son in the Father, when the Divine Scriptures say about us that we “live and move in Him, and are” 378. So, just as we live and move in Him, and are, as it is said, so the Son abides in the Father. For how is it possible for the Son to contain within Himself the Father, Who is greater than Him? Or how can the Son, being much smaller than the Father, be able to contain and fill more with Himself? Rebuttal to this. If you think that the Son is contained in the Father as a body within a body, then I think you would naturally prefer to examine their interchangeability. For in relation to a vessel - clay, for example, or from some other substance - it will not be inappropriate to say that the greater cannot be contained by the smaller, or that the smaller, in turn, cannot fill the larger. Regarding the incorporeal and those whose nature does not consist of any substance, what meaning will this sentence have? And we say this for now, condescending to your ignorant assumption, just as you yourself, being misled, believed that it should be said that the Father is greater than the Son; but the word of truth is not like that. For [the Son] is equal to the Father in everything. Then, I think that it is not for you to use these words at all, even if you knew that there is a true Father and a true Son, and that there is an invisible and ever-present light, and its radiance, and that, again, there is an incorporeal hypostasis and an incorporeal outline. For if you kept in your mind the memory of such [objects], according to an accurate understanding of [them], understanding, of course, the nature of God, then you would not fantasize, as if about bodies, but, following what has been said, you would accurately find out how the Son is in the Father, and how the Father is in the Son. After all, as the mark, image, radiance and likeness of This One appears in Him, and He is This One. Since you say that there is nothing surprising if the Son also abides in the Father, because we also live and move in Him, then it is necessary to show that you are very mistaken in this too and have crossed the boundary of truth. For not just as God dwells in each of the saints, sanctifying them, He also dwells in Christ. But the Son Himself is the Power and Wisdom of the Father, sanctifying everything that is part of Him in the Father, and He Himself is not by some sacrament being holy, like us, and not by grace being called the Son, but always being a product of the Father’s essence. And again: the Son is not in the Father just as we are; for in God we live and move and are, and the Son by nature, having come from the Father’s essence, as if from some living source, is by nature life, quickening everything, and not by the participation of life, like us, being quickened. Otherwise He would not be by nature life. For what comes and is delivered from without cannot be thought of as inherent in the nature of the one who acquired it. And the Son says: “I am the life” 379. Therefore, not as we are quickened in God, in this way He lives and is, but truly being what He calls Himself, i.e. life, and by nature being in the Father, being one with Him by reason of the identity of the essence, which is Divinity. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. [The Lord] says that He is in the Father and the Father in Him, for the reason that neither the word that He addresses to everyone, nor the deeds, are His own, but the Father’s, who commanded to speak such [words] and gave the power to do the deeds 380. Rebuttal to this. So, in your opinion, oh heretics, let each of the saints be allowed to utter such words, since they too have become servants of the word and have received from above the power to become creators of wonderful deeds. For blessed David says: “I will hear what the Lord God says about me” 381. And the wisest Solomon [said]: “My words came from God” 382. And blessed Moses became a faithful servant of the Divine verbs, and in general each of the prophets did not use his own words, but always had in his mouth: “This is what the Lord says...”. So, from here you can see that many others turn out to be ministers of words [spoken] from God; [in addition], they also performed wonderful [deeds] from God, as it is said, having received hedgehog relics 383. And, of course, Savior’s disciples, marveling at the deeds they had accomplished, said: “Men and brethren, why do you hearken to us that it was by our own strength or piety that we made the lame walk? “384 Let, therefore, each of them be allowed to use the Lord’s utterance and say: “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” since each of them, as has already been said, used divine words and created powers, receiving hedgehog relics from God. And thus, there is nothing outstanding in the Son, but He will also be one of all, in vain, as it seems, being called the Son, since there is nothing special in Him. But this is absurd, [so] another [understanding] will prevail. OTHER. If it were possible for all the saints, or indeed anyone else of created nature, to say: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” then the Savior, knowledgeable in this, would have said: “And I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me,” in order to seem to teach that as in others there is [the Father], so in Me; and as some others are in Him, so also I am. Now, without adding any of the others, but knowing that this is inherent in Him alone because He is from the essence of the Father, He says with great circumspection: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” So, He does not have a common dignity with everyone, but one that distinguishes [Him from others] and is exclusive, like the Son and the Word and God. OTHER, teaching how the proposed speech should be understood. [The words] “The Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son” should be understood as follows. From the essence of the Father the Son came, not coming, like creatures, from non-existence into being, or having composition from somewhere outside, but He is a characteristic feature (τὸ ἴδιον) of the essence of the One who gave birth, just as a radiance [comes] from light, and a stream emanates from a certain source. Therefore, it is possible for those who see the Son to see the essence of the Father and, thanks to Him, to understand the characteristic feature of the One who gave birth. That since the whole being of the Son proceeds from the essence of the Father, He is thus in the Father; and vice versa, the Father is in the Son, since what He is by nature, the same is God the Word who came from Him. And [the Father] appears and is in the Son, just as the sun is in the radiance that comes from it, and as the mind is in the word, and as the source that pours it out is in the stream. For the characteristic property of the Father's essence, which resides in the Son, and, so to speak, the “form of the Godhead” (τῆς θεότητος τὸ εἶδος) shows Him to everyone in Him. However, one must keep in mind and firmly know that it was not because of the dispensation that happened that the Savior uttered this phrase. For, since He, wanting to show the identity of nature that He has in relation to the One who gave birth, said: “I and the Father are one” 385, so that someone would not think that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and by names alone they are divided into a binary, but in hypostasis - not so [i.e. that is, without dividing], then, of necessity, restating in detail what He said, and making it even clearer for those who listen, he adds: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” so that by the fact that this One appears in Him, and He in This, to show the identity of the Divinity and the essence, and because [it is said that] One is in the Other, it would not be considered that there is one thing number, which is sometimes called the Father, and sometimes the Son, but in order to more clearly show the truly [hypostatically] existing (ὑφεστῶτα) Father and the [hypostatically] existing Son. OTHER. The Father and the Son are one by nature, and two by number, not as if one thing were divided into two parts that no longer have communication and connection with each other, and not as if one and the same thing was called by two names, so that in the name alone the property (δύναμις) of duality would be manifested; and not as if one and the same thing were called either Father or Son (for this is the teaching of Sabellius), but they are two in number, for the Father is always the Father, never transformed into the Son, and also the Son, never transformed into the Father. And since this is the case, then even though the number is determined by two, both have the same nature and the same Divinity, since the begotten is always similar in nature to the one who gave birth. For the Son is the image, mark and radiance of the hypostasis of the Father’s essence. Thus, we say that God is one because of the identity of nature in the Father with the Son and in the Son with the Father. OTHER. As for the radiance sent from the sun, no one will say that it is a different light in nature compared to it [the sun], or that it becomes such by some kind of communion or connection with it, but that it truly is by nature emanating from it, and that these two lights are seen [only] speculatively, but by nature they are one; So it would not be correct if anyone said, even if the Father and the Son were divided in number into a binary, that the Son is something different in relation to the Father as regards the Divinity and the identity of essence. But just as the sun is present in the radiance that comes from it, and the radiance is in the sun from which it came, so the Father is present in the Son, and the Son in the Father, being divided into two by number and thus existing in hypostases, and being united by the identity of nature into a single Divinity. OTHER. If anyone examines the divine Scripture exactly, he will find that the Son is called [in it] by as many names as the Father, with the only exception that He is called Father; and, in the opposite direction, the Father Himself is called by as many names as the Son, with the sole exception of being called the Son. Almighty Father; [the same] is applied in relation to the Son: “So and so says He who is, He who is to come, The Almighty” 386. Lord Father; and “One Lord Jesus Christ” 387. Light Father; The Son also says: “I am the light of the world” 388. The Father leaves sins; The Son also does this: “Let us know,” He says, “that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins” 389. So, since everything that is in the Father is present in the Son, He rightly says: “Everything that the Father has is Mine” 390. And again, turning to His Father, He says: “All of Mine is Yours, and all of Yours is Mine” 391. So, if what is inherent in the Father is also inherent in the Son, and, conversely, what is inherent in the Son is also in the Father, then he who says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” 392 does not lie, since the identity of the properties inherent [Them] invariably appears in the Dual. Since this is true, it is possible for the Son to be the Father’s own offspring, for He would not have carried [in Himself] by nature [the properties] belonging to the Begotten, if He had not been from Him; and the Father would not have had the properties of Generation, if what was generated were not proper to His essence. [The same thing, shown] differently, as if by example. As if someone looked at a beautifully drawn image (εἰκόνα) and admired the image (σχήμα) of the king, and, being able to discern in the drawing (γραφῇ) those [features] that appear in it, would desire to see the king himself, and would say to him the drawing: “He who has seen me has seen the king”; and again: “I and the king are one in terms of similarity and exact resemblance”; and also: “I am in the king, and the king is in me according to the image of appearance (κατὰ τὸ τῆς μορφῆς σχῆμα),” - for every drawing bears its appearance (εἶδος), and the appearance of the drawing is preserved in it, - so is the Son, who says: “Visionary Me, seeing the Father" 393 and "I and the Father are one" 394, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" 395. For the Son, invariably possessing the essence of the Father, is an exact image (εἰκών) of the Father and an image (μορφὴ) of the Parent, showing in Himself the whole of Him who gave birth. For, in this way, you will [correctly] understand what Paul said: “Whoever is in the image of God does not need to be equal with God by admiration.” 396 For He was equal with God, being entirely God, just as the Father was; so God is in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself 397, so what the Son does is the essence of the Father’s work. For, since there is no difference between Them as regards Divinity and nature, then nothing prevents the works of the Son from being called the works of the Father, and vice versa. OTHER. If everything that is exclusively inherent in the Father turns out to be inherent in the Son, not being given to Him by grace, and not by some kind of participation, but by nature, like the One who gave birth, and there is nothing [between Them] mediating or dividing [Them] into dissimilarity, then [from here] it will be clearly and obvious to everyone that the Son, being the very property of the Fatherly essence (αὐτὸ τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας τὸ ἴδιον), bears the whole Father in Himself, and [He] is all in the Father by the identity of essence, and that is why he says beautifully and accordingly: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” 398 and “I and the Father are one.” 399. For since He lacks nothing that belongs to the Father, He will be exactly the same as He who begot Him. OTHER. God is called Father because at the same time the existence of the Son is introduced with Him, for He would not be the Father if He did not have the Word originating from Himself. And conversely, the name of the Son in every way introduces simultaneously the existence of the Father. For one is designated in relation to the other. So, if one is necessarily contained in the other, and the Father is designated together with His Generation, and the Son in every way - together with the One who gave birth to Him, then he who says truly testifies (προσαληθεύει 400): “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” OTHER. If everyone who believes in the Son believes in the Father, and whoever honors the Son honors the Father, and, conversely, whoever worships the Father worships the Son, then how is it possible that He is not in Him, and He is in This by the indistinguishability of essence? After all, this is why there is one worship in the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, and one God is confessed and is by all, that no difference is found between Them, but They remain in the identity of essence and have nothing that would cut off the Other from the natural distinctive property (τῆς φυσικῆς ἰδιότητος). OTHER. The teaching [follows] as if from the objection of the Christ-fighters. The Father, they say, is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, according to the following scheme. Since They in no way disagree in judgments or in plans (νοήμασιν), but what the Father wills, so does the Son, and, conversely, what the Son wills, so does the Father, and there is a certain agreement and identity of wills and thoughts (θελημάτων καὶ γνώμης) in Them it seems that in this sense the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. Rebuttal to this. But then it is possible for angels, or other intelligent powers, about which it is said in the Psalms: “Bless the Lord, all His angels, His servants who do His will,” 401 to use the Savior’s verbs, so that each of them says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” and “He who sees Me, sees the Father.” After all, it is obvious to everyone that everything that God wills is undoubtedly also willed by angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, and powers, and none of them is found to be inconsistent with the Divine will. For I would not have remained in my rank if I had not adhered to this goal. For he who sought something different in comparison with God’s will heard: “Now you will go down to hell and to the foundations of the earth” 402. So, if each of those listed desires the same thing that God wills, is established in this and retains his leadership, and is by no means using [in relation to himself] the words of the Son, then neither the agreement of thought (συμφωνία τῆς γνώμης), nor the will of the same thing, shows the Son [being] in the Father, and the Father in in turn [being] in the Son, but an unchangeable similarity of essence and identity of natural property. OTHER. Since the angels, archangels and their highest intelligent powers remain in an unshakable state (στάσιν) and retain their leadership, then, of course, it is obvious that they do not rebel against the will of God, but submit and submit to the laws of the Creator [them], and have a thought in agreement with God (γνώμην), so that everyone wills and does what He wants seems appropriate. Since this is how things are, which everyone agrees with, then why is the Son alone the Only Begotten of both Word and Wisdom? After all, it would be fitting, if in order to desire the same thing that the Father wills, he actually makes it so that [the one who desires this] is called the Only Begotten, the Word and Wisdom, - and other rational creatures should be called by [all] these and the same names as the Son. If none of them is either the Only Begotten Son, nor the Word, nor Wisdom, nor light, nor radiance, nor the image, nor the mark of the Father, then it is necessary, therefore, to admit that it is not the will of the same as the Father, nor the fact of having the same thought with Him, that gives the Son the opportunity to say: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” and also: “I and the Father are one,” but that, being the true offspring of the Father's essence, He bears the Father in Himself and Himself appears in the Father. The same can be said in relation to holy people, whose goal is to follow Divine commands, and who [nevertheless] cannot say: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. If, they say, being called the Son and the image of the Father makes the one who boasts of such names one with Him by nature, then what prevents us, being people - since we are both called sons and created in the image of God - from being like Him by nature? Rebuttal to this. But for us, dear ones, this exists by grace, and for God’s Word - by nature. And it is said about Him: “Who is like You in God, O Lord? » 403 – since He does not have a dignity that came [to Him from outside], but a natural dignity. And about us: “Az rekh: you are gods by nature and sons of the Most High; You, like men, are dying, and like you alone are falling from princes” 404. So if we do not make every effort to avoid vice, then we can easily fall away from the [dignity] that we have received. We have received this by grace to be called sons and gods, which [names] by nature belong to the Son. And we are the image of God, since we accepted the true Image, His Son, and He dwelt among us, and in recent times became man for the sake of our salvation 405. So great and immeasurable is the difference between us, who are called sons by grace, and who are by nature and truly existing [Son]. And your position turned out to be more nonsense than a sensible idea. OTHER. If for that one reason you call the Son like the Father. - Oh, Christ-fighters, - that everything that the Father wills is the same as He, then He will be like not the Father, but rather the wills of the Father. And the Father, in your opinion, will be such only in name, and the Son will be neither the Son, nor the unchangeable image of the Father, but only an imitator of His wills. Since Paul, being an imitator of Christ and similar to Him in willing all that He wills, and also in the word of teaching, has [in itself] the image of His will, but is not by nature the same as the Son of God. If this is absurd and at the same time impious, then it is necessary to understand the similarity by the essence and distinctive features of nature alone (τοὺς τῆς φύσεως χαρακτῆρας). For, in this way, the Son will truly appear as the truest image of the Father, so that he can rightfully say: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me,” and also: “He who sees Me, sees the Father.” OTHER [said! narratively. Thus, the Father and the Son are one, and thus [the Son] is similar to Him, just as with us a son in relation to his father is considered [similar] according to the logos of essence, and if, as it were, someone imagined in relation to the sun the radiance emanating from him. That is why and because in such a relationship the Son is with the Father, when the Son does [something, then the same] is done by the Father, and when He, again, comes to the saints, then the Father appears [and] coming, as He Himself said: “I will come - I and the Father - and will make an abode with him” 406. For all things, as has already been said, come from the Father through the Son; and if only one of the saints is given grace, then the Father turns out to have given it through the Son. And Paul is a witness to this, writing to someone: “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” 407. Again he turns to others: “May our God and Father and our Lord Jesus Christ correct our path to you” 408. But if there had not been some kind of unity between the Father and the Son, he would have said: “may they correct our way,” to designate the two. Now he does not do this, but, clearly observing the unity of the Father and the Son, he put [the verb] “correct” in the singular, so that it would not turn out that the Father gives separately and the Son gives separately, but that the Father [gives everything] through the Son in the Holy Spirit, [and] from the one Godhead gifts are sent to the saints. OTHER. If the Son were by nature separated from the essence of the Father, and if there were not in Them some kind of indivisible (ἀδιάστατος) 409 unity, such as the radiance has in relation to the sun, then the Father alone would be sufficient to bestow gifts on the saints, without the Son being involved in this. For if He is a created essence and is something other than God, then what is the reason - given that none of the other creations has fellowship with God in the donation of Divine gifts - to Him alone be involved [in this matter]? For no one will tolerate if someone says [to him]: “May God the Father and an angel, say, give you what you pray for,” but even if he calls something more than an angel. For it is fitting for God alone to give [to us what we ask of Him]. If he gives not with any other of the creatures, but only together with the Son, and through the Son - in the Holy Spirit, then from here it will be obvious and known to everyone that [the Son] is the own generation of the essence of the Father and, having the Father in Himself and Himself in the same way being in the Father, does and does everything, and gives gifts to the saints. And Paul is a witness to this, saying: “I thank my God always for you, for the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus” 410. OTHER. As if from the objection of heretics. You said, they say, that not one of the creatures is attracted along with God to the giving of gifts. What will you do then, having found in the divine Scriptures the Patriarch Jacob blessing [those born] from Joseph, that is, Ephraim and Manasseh, and saying: “God who has nourished me from childhood even to this day, and the angel who delivers me from all evils, bless these children.” 411. Behold, they say, having named God, he also added an angel, as one who could bless with Him. Rebuttal to this. If those who oppose Christ agree (ἐνομολογοῦσιν) 412 that the prophetic spirit was inherent in the one who says this and believe that Jacob was truly a holy man, then why are they not ashamed to attribute to him such a great delusion, as if he adds an angel to God and thinks that he can [and an angel] bless together with the Creator what came into being thanks to Him? If it is absurd, then let them hear from us: if you believe that Jacob was truly holy, then stop slandering him, but rather investigate the true meaning of what he said. If he was not a saint, then, along with everything else, have the courage to say this too! - then why do you cite the words of a non-holy man to overthrow, as it seems to you, such and such [evidence]? So, leaving aside your ignorance, let us explain how the words of the patriarch should be understood. For, as a holy man and guided by the Divine Spirit to the knowledge of the dogmas of piety, he, firstly, said: “God, who has nourished me from my youth even to this day, bless these children” 413. Then he says: “And the angel who delivers me from all evils” 414, so that, by saying “God,” he designates the Father; and having said “and the angel” - [thus pointing to the Word born] from Him. For he knew that His name was called: Great is the Angel of Council 415. And what he is talking about here about the Son, and not about such an angel as is usually meant, will be clear from here: after all, having said “angel,” he did not stop speaking there, but added: “Who delivers me from all evils.” So, let us consider from these words whether it was really not God who delivered the patriarch Jacob from all evils, but one of the created angels. Further proof that God was the One who "delivers from all evils" of the patriarch Jacob. It is said that an angel fought with the patriarch Jacob, and this is contained in divine Scripture. But, grabbing him, the saint said: “I won’t let you go unless you bless me.”416 And this was God. The same patriarch is quoted as saying: “I saw God face to face” 417. He prays to this one, who appeared to him as an Angel, to send down a blessing on his grandchildren. OTHER, from the same series. The Lord God appeared to the patriarch, as it is written, and said to him: “Behold, I am with you, keep you on every path, even if you go.”418 So, it was God who delivers, and not an angel. And again, when Laban pursued Jacob and overtook him, then again God prevented the reproach of [the patriarch], not allowing Laban to say [bad] words to Jacob 419. And that God did this for him, let [the patriarch] himself be a witness, saying to his wives: “God will not allow Laban to do evil to me.”420 And another time, when Esau was plotting against him, he did not call on an angel, but prayed to God, crying out: “Take me, O Lord, out of the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid of him.”421 OTHER, [said] apodictically that the Word of God is a “vision” (τὸ εἶδος) of Him 422. The Savior says somewhere to the Jews, who are very disobedient: “The Father who sent Me, Himself testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice anywhere, nor seen His vision (εἶδος αὐτοῦ), nor have His word abiding in you, the wife of His ambassador, in which you do not have faith” 423. So, it is said that for those who do not believe the Word sent from the Father, it is impossible to hear the voice of God, nor to ever see a vision of Him, nor even to have His word abiding within themselves. So, it is obvious and clear to everyone that if they had accepted the Messenger, they would have heard the voice of God, and they would have seen His vision, and they would have had the Word dwelling [in them]. This means that all this is the Son - the voice, vision and Word of the Father. If He is a vision (εἶδος), then it is clear that He is both an image (εἰκὼν) and a mark (χαρακτήρ). Consequently, as a mark, by nature having in Himself the Prototype, of which He is a mark, He rightly says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” 424 and “I and the Father are one” 425. OTHER, showing that the Word is called the “vision” of God. Patriarch Jacob was renamed by God and was once nicknamed Israel, when, as the divine Scripture says, “the sun rose up to him when the sight (εἶδος) of God passed away” 426. What else would the sight of God be, if not the One who cried out with boldness: “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” 427, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” 428 and “I am one and the Father are one” 429? The objection seems to be on behalf of Christ’s opponents, filled with wickedness. The Savior, they say, is found [nowhere in Scripture] asking His Father for His disciples and for all those who believe in Him, and saying thus: “Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are” 430. And then: “I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe their words for their sake in Me: that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may have faith, because You sent Me. And I have given the glory to Me, to them, that they may be one, just as We are one. “I am in them, and You are in Me, that they may be perfect in one: that the world may understand that You sent Me” 431. Therefore, just as we, who are human by nature, are in the Father, so the Son Himself is one with the Father. And the Father Himself, in turn, is one with the Son in the same way as with us. And just as nothing forces us to be similar in nature due to the fact that we are called one with Him, so there is no need to [once again] say that the Son is from the essence of the Father, since He is one with God. Or, if we remain human, although we become one with the Father, then it is fair to think the same about the Son. For He remains with His own nature, without ascending to the essence of the Father, although it is said that He is one with Him. Further rebuttal. Having said this, the devil - the father of Christ-fighters and the leader (χορηγὸς) of their idle talk - heard: “Now you will descend to hell and to the foundations of the earth” 432. For just as he dared to say: “I will ascend above the clouds and be like the Most High,” 433 - in the same way, these too, far surpassing the limits of human nature and trampling the measure of essence, are not afraid, saying: “We will be like the Most High.” So, just as God’s Word speaks the truth when it cries out: “I and the Father are one,” because of the indistinguishability of essence, so the Christ-fighters could rightly say: “We and our father, the devil, are one,” because of the indistinguishability of mentality (γνώμης). They have already reached such a degree of madness that they believe that those who by grace are called gods can be by nature similar to the One who gave [them this] grace. And those who are called sons by being likened to [their] Son by nature, believe that they are equal to him who raises them to sonship and with His own [inherent] dignity by nature, who clothes them by grace, great for the sake of [His] love for mankind. The objection seems to be on behalf of heretics. Even though the Son will say, they say: “I and the Father are one,” it will not be the same essence as the Father, since we, being human by nature, become one with God, and the Son Himself is a witness to this, saying: “Father, I will, 434 that just as I and You are one, 435, so that they also may be one in Us 436.” Rebuttal to this. If in the same way the Father and the Son are one, just as we are [one] with the Father, and the Father is with us, then there is no distance between God the Word and us, but He will be identical with us by nature, and will differ only in time, since He also exists before all [creations]. But even if it takes precedence in time, it will still be identical to us in essence. For how will Adam be prevented from being similar in nature to, say, Paul, or anyone else from among those who were born after him, the fact that he was created by God before all of them? So, if time does not give anything in this sense, then what prevents the Son, who arose before us, from being of the same essence with us, if nothing else stands between Him and us? And if this, in your opinion, is true, then why is He alone called the Creator when we are deprived of this? And through Him we came into being, and He is clothed with the glory of the Creator. It would be truly logical - if we are by nature the same as He - that each of us would be called the Only Begotten, and the Word, and the Wisdom of the Father. For those who have one nature will have a common name; and what is inherent in one by nature will certainly be in [others] who participate in the same essence. If this is absurd, and we are not and are not called either Creators, or Wisdom, or the Word or radiance, but the Son alone is all these, then, therefore, He will not be identical with us by nature, but has a special birth from the Father and in this [precisely] way is one with His Father, and not as we, through a [certain] relationship to Him, assimilate unity to Him by participation (μετοχικῶς τε καὶ μεταληπτικῶς), just as iron, coming into contact with fire, becomes red-hot from it. OTHER, teaching with quick proof that what is likened to something is not necessarily and by nature contained in that to which it is likened, but that what is inherent in some [creatures] by nature is made, as it were, in a certain way of our voluntary movements. The Divine Scripture says to some [people]: “Do not be like a horse and a horse that has no understanding” 437. And again [he says] about some: “The horses of misogyny have been created” 438. And the Savior also says to His disciples: “Be wise as a serpent, and aim like a dove” 439. And again: “Be merciful, as your Father is merciful” 440. So, if the fact that some are likened to dumb animals, because they suffered from the same thing as them, unreason (ἀβουλίαν), makes them the same in nature as those [animals]; and vice versa, if the fact that the disciples imitate the wisdom of the snake and the purity of the dove, and the readiness of the Father in heaven to have mercy on everyone - and the snakes and doves themselves - makes them similar in nature to God, then when it is said that we become one with God, nothing prevents us from saying that it is by the logos of essence that we have become one with God, just as the Son in relation to His Father. And if our likeness to those with whom we are compared extends only to thought or deed, then, therefore, we are not essentially identical with God, when it is said that we become one with Him. But just as He Himself is one by nature 441 with His Word, so we become one with each other - a state of mind (γνώμη), like-mindedness (ὁμονοίᾳ) and in order not to be in any way at enmity with each other, but by a single bond of holy love, as it were, to be compressed into identity. OTHER. It is the custom of the Savior Christ to always reveal the goods inherent in Him by nature and command us to become like them, as if transforming us into conformity with the Divine image (εἰκόνα), according to which we were created. Therefore, when He wants to teach us [to be] meek, He says: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”442. And when we, having learned from Him, become meek, we do not necessarily become like Him by nature, but only in terms of meekness. Consequently, when He says about us: “That they may be one, just as we are one” 443 - taking Himself as an example, it does not mean that He says this so that we become by nature one with God, but so that just as He is by nature one with the Father, so we, by unanimity and by thinking alike, would become one with each other, taking the natural identity of the Father with the Son as an example a non-argumentative state of mind (ἀδιαστάτου γνώμης), which can make us, as it were, one body and soul. For this is what is written about those who believed: “But the multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul” 444. OTHER. By nature, the properties inherent in some [creatures] become, as it were, unchangeable images (εἰκόνες ἀμετάβλητοι) for those who want to change, in accordance with them, their will, as is the case, for example, in [the saying]: “Be like a serpent and like a dove.” Consequently, even now the Son offers the natural identity that He has in relation to the Father, as a kind of image, an example of the unity that must be voluntarily formed in us. So, when He speaks of us, “That they may be one, even as We are one,” this does not mean that we, having left our own nature, would be transformed into the nature of the Son (for this is impossible), but that, as has already been said, we would, by consciousness (κατὰ γνώμην), become that one in relation to each other, what He Himself by nature is in relation to the Father, i.e. one. If anyone believes that what has been said is not an image and an example, but that everything will be some kind of natural change, then he deceives himself by not seeing the truth. For if the Son wanted us to become by nature what He Himself is in relation to the Father, then he would have to say: “So that just as I am one in relation to You, Father, so are they.” However, He did not say this, but, using the plural, says: “Yes, just as I and You are one 445, so they also will be one in Us 446,” clearly teaching that He does not want those who believe in Him to be transformed into the nature of the Divine (for this is incredible), but taking what is inherent in Him by nature as an image of unity by will, so they would become in [his own] way. consciousness (κατὰ γνώμην), what He Himself by nature is in relation to the One who gave birth. OTHER, showing that to become in God does not mean a change of nature, but that [it is given] through Him and by Him. We find that nowhere does the Psalmist say: “We will rip our enemies into You by their horns” 447. And again: “In my God I will cross the wall” 448. But it is obvious that not by nature having become in God, he will be able to overcome the wall and gouge the horns, but in the name of God (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεοῦ) 449 and in His power he will do this. Consequently, when the Son says: “That these also may be one in Us,” He does not say that believers should become by nature one with God, but that in the name of the Father and the Son they may have one mind-set (γνώμην) and may they converge in the unity of love (φιλίας). Since He adds “as we also are one,” it is obvious that He does not grant a natural change to believers, but exposes what is inherent in Him by nature as an image and example of our arbitrary unity. For “as” does not necessarily mean truth, but some kind of likeness. OTHER, through which we learn how it is appropriate to understand what has been said, i.e.: “Even as I and You are one, so they also will be one in Us: I am in them, and You are in Me, that they may be perfect in one” 450 . Desiring to offer some great and supernatural grace for the human race, God’s Word draws everyone to unity with Himself. After all, having put on a human body, He began to [dwell] among us. But He has the Father in Himself, as His Word and radiance. “So,” He says, “as I am in them, because I bear the same flesh with them, and You, Father, are in Me, because I am a part of Your essence, so I wish that they, having come together into some kind of unity, would dissolve in each other, and, as if becoming one body, they would all be in Me, as in the one who bears [them] all through one perceived [By me] the church [bodies], and so may the perfections be and appear. For I am also perfect and have become a man.” OTHER, precisely showing that, without abandoning our own nature, we are transformed into the Divine, when it is said that we become one with God, but that having become partakers of Him, we are so called. Blessed John says: “We understand this, that we abide in God, and He is in us, as He has given us of His Spirit to eat.”451. So, if, thanks to the fact that we partake of the Spirit, we become one with God, and it is said that “we are in Him, and He is in us,” and the Word of God is not among those who partake of the Spirit, but rather is the giver of the Spirit, then it is clear that not just as He abides in God and the Father, we also abide in Him. But He abides in Him by nature who gave birth to Him, as His Word and radiance, and about us, who are honored through Him with the communion of the Spirit, it is said that we become one with God. OTHER, carrying the same thought. Blessed John again says somewhere: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he also in God” 452. So, if, by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, we become in God, and He is in the same way in us, but the Son is not in the same way in the Father, for He does not have it as a gift for [His] confession to be in Him. It is obvious and clear to everyone that people are called by grace to unity with God, and have this as a reward for their confession and faith. But the Word of God, without anything of the kind, is by nature in the Father, and bears the Father in Himself, and is truly one with Him. OTHER. According to the word of John, he who confessed that Jesus is the Son of God has God abiding in himself, and he himself becomes in God. Someone confessed, suppose, and, having received the Spirit as a reward for confession, he accepted God into himself and himself became in God. But it happened by some devilish trick that he changed his mind about what he had previously decided correctly, and retreated from confession, and therefore lost grace and became alien to the Divine Spirit, for He does not live in those who slander the Son. He also destroyed that he might be in God and have God in himself. He was a man both when he confessed and when he retreated from confession. So, we are not transformed by nature into the Divine essence, when it is said that we become one with God, but grace and virtue unites us [with Him], and vice, in turn, removes us, and if, by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, we become one with God, then, by rejecting, we are alienated in every way. But the Son is not presented as a reward for this virtue. Therefore, He is not in the Father in the same way as we are, but He is by nature and invariably born of Him; we are by grace and communion. Consequently, just as He is by nature Son and God, so we, in His likeness, are called both sons and gods. Acts 3:12 (not quoted exactly). Gapax: the only, according to TLG, use of the verb "αληθεύω" with the prefix "προς-". That is, not allowing any distance. The original says “ῥύσει”, but we assume a typo here and read “φύσει”. Acts 4:32. In the Slavic Bible: “To the people who believed...”. Ps.43:6. In the Slavic Bible: “About You...”. Ps.17:30. In the Slavic Bible: "By God...". The Greek “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεοῦ” in meaning does not quite correspond to the Russian “in the name”, which is usually translated. If the second has the meaning “for the sake of” (cf.: “in the name of love for God”), then the first is that someone “abides in the name of God,” “endowed with the power of the name of God,” with which he performs miraculous deeds. We have translated “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι”, as close as possible to this meaning in the dative, but it should be borne in mind that here we are contrasting “ἐν τῷ Θεῷ φυσικῶς” and “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεοῦ” - that is, “to be in God physically, by nature” and “to be in the name and power of God.” You might be interested in: