ACC ~ Hebrews 1 v3

THE SON REFLECTS THE WHOLE GLORY OF GOD. ORIGEN: In my opinion, the Son is the reflection of the total glory of God, according to Paul who said, “He reflects the glory of God,” anticipating, however, a partial reflection on the rest of the rational creation from this reflection of the total glory. For I do not think that anyone except the Son can contain the whole reflection of the full glory of God. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 32.353.

RADIANCE AS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. CHRYSOSTOM: “I am the light of the world.”Therefore the apostle uses the word radiance, showing that this was said in the sense of “Light of Light.” Nor is it this alone which he shows, but also that he has enlightened our souls. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

THERE WOULD BE NO RAY WITHOUT THE SUN. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The majesty of the Father is expressly imaged in the greatness of the power of the Son, that the one may be believed to be as great as the other is known to be. Again, as the radiance of light sheds its brilliance from the whole of the sun’s disk … so too all the glory which the Father has is shed from its whole by means of the brightness that comes from it, that is, by the true Light. Even as the ray is of the sun—for there would be no ray if the sun were not—the sun is never conceived as existing by itself without the ray of brightness that is shed from it. So the apostle delivered to us the continuity and eternity of that existence which the Only Begotten has of the Father, calling the Son “the brightness of God’s glory.” AGAINST EUNOMIUS 8.1.

CHRIST PRESERVES AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: “Who, being the radiance of glory and the exact representation of his substance.” Quite appropriately he does not say “God” but “glory.” In this way he does not allow us to meddle in the things of that nature when we are thunderstruck by his name, since of course the only “glory” worth mentioning is God’s nature. Paul uses the analogy of “radiance” for that which he deemed most essential, and by the next phrase he explicates the point of the analogy. For he says that Christ preserves an accurate representation of God’s nature, so that whatever you would think God’s nature to be, so you must also think Christ’s nature to be, inasmuch as Christ’s nature bears the accurate representation of God’s nature since Christ’s nature does not differ from God’s in the least. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2-3.

IN THE SUN WE FIND THREE PROPERTIES. CASSIODORUS: The Spirit in the essence of divinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and is properly called one God. But according to the distinction of the persons, the Father’s unique characteristic is that he is by nature without a beginning, and he begot the Son before the ages. It is the unique characteristic of the Son that he is, as an essential part of his nature, begotten by the Father. It is the unique characteristic of the Spirit that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Their eternity and power, equally part of the essence of each person, performs everything that the Godhead desires in heaven and earth by inexpressible love and cooperation. Although these things are presently understood as incomprehensible and unexplainable to us in their essential nature, still many of the Fathers propose a certain comparison with physical and existent objects. We find these three properties in the sun: first, there is a bodily substance, which is the sun. Then there is the brightness of the sun that remains in it. Third, is the heat that comes forth even to us from its brightness. If there is even any comparison for such a great matter that can be devised, I think that this comparison should be construed in this way: the bodily substance in the sun could be understood as the person of the Father. The brightness that is in the sun could stand for the person of the Son in the Trinity, as the Apostle says: “the brightness of his glory.” The heat in the sun could be understood as the person of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, as one reads in Scripture: “Who is able to hide himself from his heat?” EXPOSITION OF THE PSALMS 50.14.

THE BLASPHEMY IS EXCLUDED. THEODORET OF CYR: The “glory” is eternal. Therefore, the “brightness” is also eternal. Brightness is of the same nature as fire. Therefore, the Son is of the same nature as the Father. And since the metaphor of brightness so manifestly demonstrates their coeternity and consubstantiality, he allows an opportunity for those sick with the blasphemy of Sabellius and Photinus, according to which the brightness does not subsist by itself. By another metaphor he excludes this blasphemy, for he goes on to say “and the very stamp of his nature.” INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

A SIMILARITY TO JOHN 1:1. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: Indeed, there is a great deal of similarity [between the opening of John’s Gospel and] the apostle’s statement. After Paul calls him “the brightness of his glory,” he adds, “the very stamp of his nature.” With great care he turns from a statement of their distinctionto an indication of their perfect likeness. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1.

RADIANCE AND IMAGE. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: Seeking to present more clearly that the Word was begotten of the essence of the Father, he makes mention of the “radiance.” For the radiance is from the essence of that of which it is an efflux of light, and it is continuously conceived both from it and never apart from that of which it is the radiance. But since “radiance” implies a lesser nature than that of which it is the radiance and existence not in the same nature, he uses a different word and states that Christ is “the exact image of his nature.” The first phrase (“radiance of his glory”) demonstrates that Christ cannot be separated from the essence as God; the second phrase (“exact image of his nature”) proves that he is not without God’s nature. For just as John, calling Christ “the Word,” adds, “he was with God and was God,” so also Paul, having said “radiance,” added, “and the exact image of his nature.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

PAUL MIGHT HAVE SAID “GOD” OR “DIVINE NATURE.” THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He is the “Father of glory” in that Paul is accustomed to use the word glory to refer to the divine nature, because it is glorious and marvelous. So in Hebrews he says the Son is the “brightness of his glory.” Instead of this he might have said “God” or “divine nature.” COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS 1.16.

WHO HAS SEEN LIGHT WITHOUT RADIANCE? ATHANASIUS: As the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, “who being the brightness of his glory and the stamp of his nature,” and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, “And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,” and “in your light shall we see light.”Who has so little sense as to doubt the eternity of the Son? For when did anyone see light without the brightness of its radiance, that one may say of the Son, “There was once when he was not,” or “Before his generation he was not.” And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,” forbid anyone to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.4.12.

WE RECOGNIZE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. GREGORY OF NYSSA: Since we recognize two natures in Christ, one divine and the other human, the divine by nature but the human in the incarnation, we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to his human nature. For as, according to the prophet, he was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, he was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when [the Arians] say, “If he was, he was not begotten, and, if he was begotten, he was not,” let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to his divine nature the attributes which belong to his fleshly origin. For bodies that do not exist are generated, and God makes those things to be that are not. But does not he come into being from that which is not? For this reason also Paul calls him “the brightness of glory.” He does this so that we may learn that, just as the light from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness and is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes from it shines out simultaneously), in like manner the Son is related to the Father, and the Father is never without the Son. It is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness. It is clear that his being brightness is a testimony to his being in relation with the glory, for if the glory did not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist. Therefore, to say that the brightness “once was not” is a declaration that once the glory also was not, that is, when the brightness was not, for it is impossible that the glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible to say in the case of the brightness, “If it was, it did not come into being, and, if it came into being, it was not,” so it is in vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let those who speak of “less” and “greater,” in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure things immeasurable. For the apostle says that the Son is the express image of the person of the Father. It is clear then that, however great the person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that person, for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” For in saying that he was “in the beginning” and not “after the beginning,” he showed that the beginning was never without the Word. In declaring that “the Word was with God,” he signified the absence of defect in the Son in relation to the Father, for the Word is contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if the Word were deficient in his own greatness so as not to be capable of relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with the whole magnitude of God, and consequently, in statements concerning the divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of “greater” and “less.” ON THE FAITH.

WHEN OUR DISCOURSE FAILS THROUGH WEAKNESS. CHRYSOSTOM: We ought to receive all things with faith and reverence, and, when our discourse fails through weakness and is not able to set forth accurately the things that are spoken, then we ought especially to glorify God, in that we have such a God, surpassing both our thought and our conception. For many of our conceptions about God we are unable to express, and many things we express but do not have strength to conceive. For instance, that God is everywhere we know, but how we do not understand. That there is a certain incorporeal power, the cause of all our good things, we know, but how it is or what it is, we know not. We speak and do not understand! I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it. I said that he is without beginning, but I do not understand it. I said that he begot from himself, and again I know not how I shall understand it. And some things there are that we may not even speak—as, for instance, that thought conceives but cannot utter.

And to show you that even Paul is weak and does not put out his illustrations with exactness, and to make you tremble and refrain from searching too far, hear what he says, having called him Son and named him Creator, “who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.1.

IN WHOM HE REJOICED. ORIGEN: Now this Son was begotten of the Father’s will, for he is the “image of the invisible God” and the “effulgence of God’s glory and the impress of God’s substance.” … Let those who dare to say, “There was a time when the Son was not”understand that this is what they are saying: “Once wisdom did not exist, and word did not exist, and life did not exist.” But it is not right, nor is it safe for us, in our weakness to rob God … of God’s only begotten Word, who ever dwells with God, who is God’s wisdom, in whom God rejoiced. For if we do this, we shall think of God as not always rejoicing. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 4.1.

THE DIVINE NATURE HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED. NESTORIUS: That is why Paul also says, “Who is the radiance of his glory,” lest someone who had heard the words “he was in the form of God” should conjecture that his divine nature is transitory and has been altered. FIRST SERMON AGAINST THE THEOTOKOS.

SHE IS THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE ETERNAL LIGHT. ORIGEN: The apostle Paul says, that the only begotten Son is … “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest emanation of the glory of the Almighty.” Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her, for she is the splendor of the eternal light, the stainless mirror of God’s working and the image of his goodness. Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else but in him who is the beginning of all things, from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because he himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore called the Only Begotten. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.5.

WE CALL THE HOLY VIRGIN THEOTOKOS. THEODORET OF CYR: I wish and I pray that I may follow the footprints of the holy fathers, and I earnestly desire to keep undefiled the evangelic teaching that was in sum delivered to us by the holy fathers assembled in council at the Bithynian Nicaea. I believe that there is one God the Father and one Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, only- begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, brightness of his glory and express image of the Father’s person, on account of humanity’s salvation incarnate and made human and born of Mary the virgin in the flesh. For so are we taught by the wise Paul … , “Concerning his Son who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness.” On this account we also call the holy virgin “Theotokos”and deem those who object to this appellation to be alienated from true religion. LETTER 83.

THE SON EXISTS IN THE FORM OF GOD. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: Does not the divine Word [Scripture] indicate to us that the Son exists in the form of God, and does it not say that he is the image and stamp of the one who begot him? ON THE INCARNATION 686.

TWO STAMPS. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: There are two coinages, the one of God, the other of the world, and each has its own stamp impressed on it. Similarly, the unbelievers bear the stamp of this world, and the believers the stamp of God the Father in love through Jesus Christ. Unless we willingly choose to die through him in his passion, his life is not in us. LETTER TO THE MAGNESIANS 5.

SIMILAR IN EVERY DETAIL. ORIGEN: In order … to more completely understand how the Savior is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us use an illustration. While it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, it may nevertheless be employed for this purpose only: to show that when the Son of God, who was in the form of God, emptied himself, his object was to display to us by this very emptying the fullness of his deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and because of this could be seen by no one. If another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the outline of features, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, then those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and appearance, and even the very form and material, so closely as to be altogether undistinguishable from it. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.8.

AGAINST ARIUS. ATHANASIUS: Who that has heard the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word,” will not denounce the saying of [Arius and his followers] that “there was a time when he was not”? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, “the only begotten Son” and “all things came into being through him,”will not detest their declaration that he is “one of the things that were made”? For how can he be one of those things that were made by himself? Or how can he be the only begotten, when, according to them, he is counted as one among the rest, since he is himself a creature and a work? And how can he be “made of things that were not,” when the Father says, “My heart has uttered a good Word,” and “Out of the womb I have begotten you before the morning star”? Or again, how is he “unlike in substance to the Father,” seeing he is the perfect “image” and “brightness” of the Father, and that he says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? And if the Son is the “Word” and “Wisdom” of God, how was there “a time when he was not”? It is the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is he “subject to change and variation” who says by himself, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,”and “I and the Father are one”; and who by the prophet says, “I the Lord do not change”? For although one may refer this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of the Word, that, though he has been made man, he has not changed. But as the apostle has said, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” And who can have persuaded them to say that he was made for us, for Paul writes, “for whom and by whom all things exist”?DEPOSITION OF ARIUS 3.

HE IS TRUE GOD. ATHANASIUS: Therefore, he is true God, existing consubstantially (homoousios) with the true Father, while other beings to whom he said, “I say, ‘you are gods,’” have this grace from the Father only by participation in the Word through the Spirit. For he is the “very stamp” of the Father’s “being,” and “light” from “light,” and the “power” and true “image” of the Father’s substance. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.3.9.

LET US NOT VENTURE WHERE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT LEAD. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: Every grace is given by the Father through the Son, who also acts together with the Holy Spirit. There are not some graces that come from the Father and different graces from the Son and others again from the Holy Spirit. There is but one salvation, one giving of power, one faith; and yet there is one God the Father, our Lord, his only begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Let us be content with this knowledge and not busy ourselves with questions about the divine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that had it been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scripture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know that there is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 16.24.

THE UNDERLYING ESSENCE OF BEING HE DISMISSED AS UNNAMABLE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: When he was asking how to give a name to what cannot be grasped in thought and did not discover a word expressing an interpretation of the incomprehensible, he called “glory” and “substance” whatever underlies all good and is not sufficiently known or spoken of. The underlying essence of being he dismissed as unnamable. However, interpreting the unity and inseparability of the Son and the Father, and the Son’s being contemplated indefinably and invisibly with the indefinable and unseen Father, he addressed him as “radiance of glory” and “image of substance,” indicating the unity of their nature by the word radiance and their equality by the word image. For, in connection with a radiant nature, there is no middle point in a beam of light, nor is there an inferior part of an image in connection with a substance determined by it. The observer of the radiant nature will know the radiance in its entirety, and the person comprehending the size of the substance measures it in its entirety with its accompanying image. ON PERFECTION.

THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD. MARIUS VICTORINUS: The Greeks call “to be” ousian (substance) or hypostasin; we call it in Latin by one term, substance; and a few Greeks use ousian (substance) and rarely; all use hypostasin (hypostasis). Certainly one differs from the other, but for the moment let us omit this.

The divine Scripture has often used hypostasin in Greek, substance in Latin. And it has said of the substance of God in the prophet Jeremiah “that if they had stood in the substance of the Lord they would have seen my word.” But what is it “to stand in the substance”? To know the substance of God, which is “true light,” which is infinite Spirit. If they had known that, they would have known the Logos of the Lord; that is, “they would have seen the word” of the Lord. And shortly after, the same Jeremiah uses the same words.

David says, “And my substance is in the lower regions of the earth.” He speaks also of God and says “substance.” And it is clear what this is.

The apostle says to the Hebrews, “He who is the character of his substance.” He said that Christ is the character of the substance of God. There are many other examples. But what is the point of all this? To show that the word substance is in Scripture and is used of the substance of God. ON THE NECESSITY OF ACCEPTING HOMOOUSIOS 2.1B.

TO HOLD THE WORLD TOGETHER IS NO LESS THAN TO MAKE IT. CHRYSOSTOM: “God said,” it is written, “Let there be light.” “The Father,” says one [heretic], “commanded, and the Son obeyed.” But here the Son acts by word for, says he, “upholding all things,” that is, governing. He holds together what would fall to pieces, for to hold the world together is no less than to make it but even greater, if one must say a strange thing. For the one is to bring forth something out of things which are not; but the other, when things that have been made are about to fall back into nonexistence, is to hold and fasten them together, utterly at variance as they are with each other. This is indeed great and wonderful, and a certain proof of exceeding power. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

ALL THINGS HANG ON HIS VOICE. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He not only says that he is the maker of all things, but that he certainly also makes them by the great abundance of his power, for all things hang upon his voice, as it were. For this expression “who calls into existence the things that do not exist”does not differ from the account of blessed Moses, who says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light … ‘Let there be a firmament’ and there was a firmament.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

HIS STRONG WORKS OF WORDS. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: This is what Jeremiah calls “his strong works of words.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

ALL THINGS HAVE ONE CAUSE OF THEIR SUBSTANCE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The Logos “upholds the universe by his word of power” from nonexistence to existence. For all things, as many as exist in connection with matter and as many as have received an immaterial nature, have one cause of their substance: the Word of unspeakable power. ON PERFECTION.

ONE MYSTERY, MANY IMAGES. THEODORET OF CYR: In this way the divine apostle in several terms brought out the reality of the begetting, the oneness in being and the shared eternity of the Father and the Son. Since the divinity transcends all understanding, and it is impossible to bring out in one single image the mystery of the true doctrine of God, the preachers of the truth are obliged to do so by means of many. … Blessed Paul called him “Son” to show him to be different from the Father in regard to personhood; he spoke of him “as creator of the ages” to bring out in these ways his eternity and called him also “effulgence of glory” to indicate by this his shared eternity and the sameness of being, the effulgence being of the nature of the fire. He added that he is “stamp of his nature” to bring out both things at the same time, that he subsists of himself and that he reveals in himself the paternal characteristics. He adds also something else: “upholding all things by the word of his power.” He not only made everything but also directs and guides it. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

THE ECONOMY OF THE INCARNATION. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He continues with the following words: “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” Having demonstrated that he is the stamp of the Father’s hypostasis and, indeed, the brightness of his glory, he necessarily passes over to the economy of the incarnation, through which we have been saved and enriched by the forgiveness of sins and sanctified through his blood. COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS.

HE WAS NOT KEPT FAR FROM THE THRONE OF GOD. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: Even if the Word became flesh, he nonetheless was in the glory and nature of divinity and was not kept far from the highest thrones of God the Father. And although “he was made a little lower than the angels” because of the measure of his humanity—for human nature is subordinate to the glory of the angels—he was still “above every name that is named.”FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE SON. CHRYSOSTOM: “By himself,” says he, “having made purification for our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.” He here sets down two very great proofs of his care: first the “purifying us from our sins,” then the doing it “by himself.” And in many places you see him making very much of this—not only of our reconciliation with God, but also of this being accomplished through the Son. For the gift, being truly great, was made even greater by the fact that it was through the Son. For in saying “he sat down on the right hand” and “having by himself made purification for our sins,” though he had put us in mind of the cross, he quickly added the mention of the resurrection and ascension. And see his unspeakable wisdom. He did not say “he was commanded to sit down” but “he sat down.” Then again, lest you should think that he stands, he subjoins, “For to what angel has he ever said, Sit at my right hand.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

BECAUSE OF THE FLESH. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” because of the flesh he put on. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

LET US NOT TOO CURIOUSLY INQUIRE. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: Recall also what I have often said regarding the sitting of the Son at the right hand of the Father, according to the sequence of the creed: “and he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.” Let us not too curiously inquire into the precise nature of this sitting, for it surpasses our understanding. Let us not endure those who perversely assert that it was only after his cross and resurrection and ascension into heaven that the Son began to sit at the right hand of the Father. For he did not gain his throne by way of advancement, but from the time he is—and he is eternally begotten—he sits with the Father. The prophet Isaiah, having beheld this throne before the coming of the Savior in the flesh, says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.” For “no one has ever seen” the Father, and he who then appeared to the prophet was the Son. The psalmist also says, “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.” There are many testimonies on this point, but we will content ourselves with these only, because of the lateness of the hour. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 14.27.

EQUAL DIGNITY. CHRYSOSTOM: “He sat,” says he, “on the right hand of the majesty on high.” What is this “on high”? Does he enclose God in place? Away with such a thought! But just as when he says “on the right hand” he did not describe his outward form, but indicated his equal dignity with the Father, so, in saying “on high,” he did not enclose him there but expressed his being higher than all things and having ascended up above all things. That is, he attained even the very throne of the Father; as therefore the Father is on high, so also is he. For the “sitting together” implies nothing else than equal dignity. But if they say that God said, “Sit,” we may ask them, What then? Did he speak to him standing? Moreover, he said not that he commanded, not that he enjoined, but that “he said,” precisely that you might not think him without origin and without cause. That this is why he said it is evident from the place of his sitting, for had he intended to signify inferiority, he would not have said “on the right hand” but “on the left hand.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

Heb