Слово 23. На [слова] «Отецъ любитъ Сына, и вся даде въ руцѣ Его» 931 и на «Вся Мнѣ предана суть Отцемъ Моимъ» 932 , и на «Не могу Азъ о Себѣ творити ничесоже, но якоже слышу, сужду» 933 , и на иные подобные сим речения

Objection from Heretics. And how is it possible, they say, for the Son to be essentially like the Father, saying about Himself that He received everything from the Father. For, having had, He would not have accepted. Since He is the one who has accepted, as He Himself says, it is obvious that He has nothing from Himself. Rebuttal to this. So, when you hear the Son saying: “All that the Father has is Mine 934, and all Mine is the Father 935,” then what will you do, heretic? After all, if the Son, in your opinion, has nothing of Himself, then neither does the Father; and if the Father by nature has everything, then the Son also has the same. So, it is necessary either, when saying that the Son has nothing, to refer this also to the Father, so that He appears to have what belongs to the Son, or - if this should be avoided - it is necessary to agree that the Son owns the same things as the Father. After all, He said that all of Him is the Father, and He Himself has everything that belongs to the Father. OTHER, in narrative form. It is not because the Son had nothing, it is said about Him that He received [everything] from the Father. For He by nature has, being His own Word and Radiance, everything that belongs to Him, except this alone to be and be called Father. He says that he received it from the Father, refuting in advance, like God, the [future] inventions of heretics. So that no one, seeing the Son having everything that belongs to the Father, from the very great similarity and unchanging identity would conclude that the Father and the Son are One and the Same, and would not fall into the error of Sabellius, He, having all this by nature, is forced to say that, they say, He received from the Father, so that the word introducing one giver and the other receiver, would show the Two in special hypostases, and not distinguished by names alone. And being the Father’s own Word and originating from His essence, He ever has everything that belongs to the Father. And what He received from Him, He says, because He came from Him, naturally possessing all His properties. OTHER. The fact that the Son says: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father” 936 does not harm Him in the least in terms of Divinity, but rather clearly shows that He is by nature the Son. After all, if the whole essence is given to Him - and having said “all”, He left nothing outside [this definition] - then, therefore, He is not one of all of whom He says that He accepted them, but has a special birth from the Father. Being the Son by nature, He possesses all the properties of the One who gave birth. The property of the One who gave birth is to have everything; therefore, the Son does not lack anything. OTHER. If the whole essence is given over to Him, as He Himself says, and everything is given in His hands 937, then He is not only not one of all, but also turns out to be the only heir, like the Son, for if He were one of all, then He would be numbered among all, and would not be an heir. Since He is the one who has received everything by nature and essence, it is obvious that, thanks to the authority and dominion of the One who gave birth to Him, He is necessarily different from everyone, and the only Son of the Father. OTHER, in narrative form. The Savior is nowhere found saying: “As the Father has life in Himself, so the Son also has life in Himself,” 938 which should be understood this way. By saying “dade,” He signifies that which naturally has [everything] from the Father, and [at the same time] shows Himself by hypostasis to others in relation to the Giver; “to others,” I mean, only by count (μόνον τῷ ἀριθμῷ). And by saying: “As the Father has, so also the Son has,” He obviously teaches that just as the Father always has life in Himself, so the Son always has life in Himself. So, if anyone dares to say that there was a time when the Father did not have life in Himself, then it is necessary to adhere to this in relation to the Son. And if this is wicked, and we agree that the Father always has life in Himself, then the same will apply to the Son, for [precisely] this is what [the words] mean, that He has such a thing as the Father. If, having ever had, He says that He accepted, then these words serve something wise and do not in the least harm the Son in the sense of nature. OTHER. If you were to give a voice to the radiance [emanating] from the light, it would say: “The light has given me everything, for I am a candle like it.” Is it reasonable to say that the radiance might not have the power to shine at all? And how would it be then a radiance? If, however, being capable of shining, because it has everything that belongs to the light and is also born from it, it says that it has received everything from it, then how would it not be absurd not to think of something more than in the example in relation to God the Word? For, having by nature everything from the Father, He says that He received it from Him, since He was born from Him - with all that He has. OTHER, on [the words]: “All power has been given to Me” 939 and “Glorify Your Son” 940, and, more generally, about all those sayings where it is said that the Son was glorified or accepted something. It is not from lack of glory or anything else that the Son, who is the Word, asks the Father or is called one who has received, but does this economically. For He accepts in a human way, for the sake of the appearance of likeness to us. But He is complete, like God. Since, being on his own, a person, even if he accepts any of the benefits from God, easily loses it (as happened with Adam, so that due to disobedience he became naked from the grace given to him), it was necessary - so that we would not fall into the same thing again - that the immutable Word of God, having become a man, would ask the Father for gifts [derived] from Him, so that the strength of our nature would be preserved thanks to Him, immutable and unchangeable. For grace, having received its beginning, abides unshakably in Christ, and He also gives us likeness [to Himself], since we are all in Him, since He became man and put on the same flesh with us. For, in this way, we are also called brothers, and it is said that we have become one [whole] in relation to God. So, for our sake He asks and receives from the Father what He has by nature as God. And since He took on flesh, which had a need for glorification, and it became His, and not someone else’s [flesh], then He justly appropriates to Himself what happens to it or next to it and, as a man who does not have, receives from the Father what he has by nature as Son and God. OTHER. If God's Word became man - and He did, and I think no one will object to this - then what prompts some not to allow Him to use human expressions? For one who has not shied away from the thing itself, but has lowered Himself into such humility, would not have avoided appearing even more modest in words than He actually is. So, if He did not become a man, then let some add humble sayings to the Word and say that He does not know, and needs glory, and receives something from the Father. And if He became a man, then let these sayings be related to humanity, and let no one slander God’s Word as not possessing [the same] perfection as the Father, and let no one blaspheme God’s true Generation. OTHER. It is not God’s Word, since He is the Word, that is glorified and receives something from the Father, or is sanctified, but we are in Him. And for our sake, He Himself uses such expressions, and the Divine Scripture says something like this about Him. For if, as some think, it is appropriate to attribute such things to the Word of God, then they must take care lest the image of His coming be made vain, and our nature not be shown to be deprived of the grace [given] from God. After all, if the Word is glorified and sanctified according to the Divinity, then what is the benefit to people from the fact that He became a man? For it is He who has risen from the dead, not us. What prompted Him to become flesh? If this is to benefit human nature, then, according to their thought, it will be a futile undertaking, for it is not the flesh that is seen to have received any benefit, but rather He Himself. And if He, when He became man, then [only] appears to have acquired glory, sanctification and power, and everything like that that relates to Him, then it is obvious that, being, in their opinion, before [His coming to us] a stranger to all this, He receives this at the moment of His coming. This means that He must express gratitude to the flesh by being better when He put on it, and not by improving it. But to think and speak like this is extremely wicked. For He came to glorify man and to sanctify. Therefore, it is not the Word that has accepted anything, for He is perfect, just like He who gave birth to Him, but we accept Him in Him when He has taken on our flesh. For just as with His rebellion we also rebelled, and also when He ascended and the ascent into heaven was renewed for us, so when it is said of Him that He was glorified and sanctified, [in fact] it is we who benefit from these [benefits]. OTHER, by which it is clearly shown that He had [everything] as God, asking for our sake [it] as a man. Christ nowhere says: “Father, glorify Thy Son” 941. And again: “Everything is devoted to Me by the Father” 942. And after the resurrection he says: “All power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” 943. But even before everything was handed over to Him, He is shown to be the Lord of all. For the whole thing was 944, and the Psalmist, recognizing their servile position in relation to the Creator, says: “For all things are Your work” 945. However, [Christ] is shown asking for glory, although He is the Lord of Glory. For this is what Paul said about some: “Even though they understood the Lord, they crucified the Lord of glory.”946 And that even before He asked the Father for glory, He had it as the Son—He Himself clearly teaches this, saying: “Father, glorify Thy Son with glory, even though before thee there was no peace.”947 If, on the one hand, He confesses that before the [emergence of] the world he had glory, and on the other hand, he now asks for it as if he did not have it, then it means that He does this for our sake, and this request of ours was realized in Him, calling for glory to human nature. Saying after the resurrection: “All power has been given to Me” 948, He is shown to have it even before the resurrection. For if He did not have it, then how, reproaching the devil, says: “Follow Me, Satan” 949? How did He grant the disciples power over demons 950? How did He resolve the daughter of Abraham 951, bound, as it is written, by the devil, as having authority? Or how he gave health to the paralytic 952? How did he absolve a sinful wife of her sins 953? How did he raise the dead 954? How did he open the eyes of the blind 955? So, from here it is clear that He speaks words befitting a man, not when the Word was outside the flesh before His coming, but when He became a man, calling upon us gifts from the Father. For, thus, it is said that we will be partakers of the divine nature 956, since the Word clothed itself in our humility in order to raise us to His height, and not Himself to remain below, like us. That is why, being human by nature, we are called gods, as we are also in Christ, for Christ is the [true] God. OTHER. If some try to apply humble words of the flesh to the Divinity of the Word, what will they say when they see Christ working miracles through the flesh? For, having spat and made clay, He healed the blind; stretching out his hand and touching the coffin, he raised up the widow’s only begotten son; Having made a sound through [the tongue, which is an organ of] the body, he called Lazarus out of the tomb. After all, He did all this through the flesh, but these were not works of the flesh. And as those who look at the nature of things, we attribute to the power of the Divine the achievement of the result, even if [the work] was accomplished through the flesh, so when He says something human because of the flesh, we do not apply it to God the Word, but, considering it as alien to the Divinity, we attribute it to the flesh. For, in this way, each of the things He has done or spoken, as if putting them in their place, we find ourselves having an unmistakable knowledge of our Savior. OTHER, in narrative form. The Divine Scriptures proclaim one Christ, for there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ 957. After all, God is known from works that belong only to God. Since it is fitting for the Word who became flesh, as it is written, to reveal Himself as a man, and this could in no way be seen except from the impeccable passions and words of the flesh, then He, of necessity, speaks and does what is appropriate for men, in order to thus show Himself to have become a man. Therefore, one can see both in Him. For He humanly asked where Lazarus lay, and raised him up as God. And [His] Mother, who said: “They have no wine,” 958, He, like a man, reproached, but immediately [like God] turned water into wine. For He was true God in the flesh, and the flesh was truly in God. So, from which it was necessary to know God, He does it in a divine way; and that from which He is necessarily seen as truly human, He does and says, imparting truth to the mystery [of His incarnation]. So let it be given to God what is due to God, and to humanity what is due and due to him, and thus the one who believes in Him will be beyond all temptation and error. OTHER. As if out of objection. They say: [The Savior said] “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father” 959. And he who has accepted everything from another obviously has nothing of himself; and how will such a one be in essence similar to the possessing God and Father? The refutation of this is, as it were, by means of reductio ad absurdum. If the Son, who accepted everything, seems to have nothing of Himself, then the Father, who gave everything, now has nothing in Himself. But this is absurd! For how can the Father be empty of what is inherent in Him by nature? But He has everything, even giving it to the Son; It is obvious that although the Son says that He received, there was no time when He was empty of this. For He accepts humanly, but by [Divine] nature He has all this, just like the Father. OTHER. Nowhere does Christ say: “The Father loves the Son 960, and He gave Him the power to execute judgment, as the Son of Man is 961.” So, if He receives the power to judge for no other reason, but solely because He is the Son of Man, then He receives it not because He is the Word and God, but because He became man. So, it is necessary to ascribe to humanity the receipt, and to the Divinity of the Son, the natural possession of everything that belongs to Him who gave birth to Him. For, thus, He will also be the unchanging Image of the Father. Matthew 9:2–7; Mark 2:3–12; Luke 5:18–25. Mark 5:41–42; Luke 7:14–15; 8:54–55; John 11:43–44. Matthew 9:29–30; 12:22; 15:30; 20:30; 21:14; Mark 8:23–25; 10:51–52; Luke 7:21; 18:42 ; John 9:6–7. You might be interested in: