|
He assumed, it is to be noted,
the ignorant and servile nature. For it is man's nature to be the
servant of God, his Creator, and he does not possess knowledge of
the future. If, then, as Gregory the Theologian holds, you are to
separate the realm of sight from the realm of thought, the flesh is to
be spoken of as both servile and ignorant, but on account of the
identity of subsistence and the inseparable union the soul of the Lord
was enriched with the knowledge of the future as also with the other
miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of men is not in its own
nature life-giving, while the flesh of our Lord which was united in
subsistence with God the Word Himself, although it was not exempt
from the mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through its
union in subsistence with the Word, and we may not say that it was not
and is not for ever life-giving: in like manner His human nature does
not in essence possess the knowledge of the future, but the soul of the
Lord through its union with God the Word Himself and its identity in
subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of the future
as well as with the other miraculous powers. Observe further that we
may not speak of Him as servant. For the words servitude and
mastership are not marks of nature but indicate relationship, to
something, such as that of fatherhood and sonship.For these do not
signify essence but relation.
It is just as we said, then, in connection with ignorance, that if
you separate with subtle thoughts, that is, with fine imaginings, the
created from the uncreated, the flesh is a servant, unless it has been
united with God the Word. But how can it be a servant when t is once
united in subsistence? For since Christ is one, He cannot be His
own servant and Lord. For these are not simple predications but
relative. Whose servant, then could He be? His Father's? The
Son, then, would not have all the Father's attributes, if He is
the Father's servant and yet in no respect His own. Besides, how
could the apostle say concerning us who were adopted by Him, So that
you are no longer a servant but a son, if indeed He is Himself a
servant? The word servant, then, is used merely as a title, though
not in the strict meaning: but for our sakes He assumed the form of a
servant and is called a servant among us. For although He is without
passion, yet for our sake He was the servant of passion and became the
minister of our salvation. Those, then, who say that He is a
servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But
we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one
Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. For in Him are all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures.
|
|
