Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › St Gregory of Nyssa › On the Lord’s Prayer

On the Lord’s Prayer

St Gregory of Nyssa, tr. Graef, 1954

3. The Lord’s Prayer: Sermon 3

Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come

The Law having a shadow of the good things to come1 prefigures the truth in types and allegories. When it introduces the priest into the Holy of Holies in order to pray to God, it purges him before entering by purifying aspersions. It then puts on him the priestly robe beautifully decked with gold, purple, and other brilliant colourings, places the girdle round his breast and suspends the pomegranates from the borders hung with bells. It then fastens the tunic on his shoulders, adorns his head with a diadem, lavishes ointment on his hair,2 and thus brings him into the Holy of Holies to perform the sacred rites.

But the spiritual Lawgiver, Our Lord Jesus Christ, strips the Law of its material veils and lays bare the types and allegories. First of all, He does not give communion with God only to one whom He separates from everyone else, but He bestows this honour equally on all, offering the grace of the priesthood as common to those who desire it. Secondly, He does not manufacture the priestly beauty from alien adornments produced from dyes and curious devices of weaving, but He puts on him his own native adornments, decking him with the graces of virtue rather than with an embroidered purple robe. Not with earthly gold does He adorn his breast, but his very heart He makes beautiful through a perfectly pure conscience. He also fits the diadem with the rays coming from precious stones; they are the lustre of the holy commandments, according to the Apostle. He also covers with breeches that part of the body which is adorned by this garment;3 for you surely know that this part is clothed with the covering of chastity. As to the spiritual pomegranates and bells which He suspends from the borders of life, these one might rightly conceive to be the evidence of virtuous living by which such way of life may become widely known. In the place of the bells, therefore, He suspends from the borders the melodious word of the faith; instead of the pomegranates the hidden preparation of the future hope still covered over by the more material bodily life instead of the flowers, the glorious gift of paradise; and thus He leads him to the adyton,4 that is, to the innermost part of the Temple.

This adyton is not inanimate nor made by hands; but it is the hidden inner chamber of our heart if it be truly adyton (impenetrable) to evil and inaccessible to vile thoughts. The head, too, He adorns, not with the shape of letters embossed with gold leaf, but with a heavenly mind on the highest faculty of which, that is to say, reason, God Himself is impressed.5 Ointment He pours on his hair distilled from the interior virtues of the soul. A sacrificial victim, too, He prepares for him to offer to God in the mystic6 rite, which is none other than Himself. Being thus led by the Lord to this sacrifice, he mortifies his fleshly mind with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God,7 and thus appeases God. Being in the adyton, he immolates himself in such a sacrifice, presenting his body a living sacrifice, holy—pleasing unto God.8

But someone might perhaps say that this is not the obvious meaning of the prayer we are interpreting; that we are wangling the words and fail to adapt our interpretation to the text before us. Therefore it should be remembered what we have said about prayer before. We said that he who has prepared himself so that he may boldly call God his Father is precisely he who is clad in such a robe as described in this sermon. He rings with bells and is adorned with pomegranates; his breast shines with the rays of the commandments and he bears on his shoulders the patriarchs and prophets themselves instead of only their names; for he has made their virtues his own adornment. He has placed on his head the crown of justice and soaked his hair with heavenly ointment; he dwells in the supercelestial adyta which are adyta to all profane thought and truly inaccessible.

But by briefly examining this, the sermon has sufficiently shown how a man ordained to the priesthood should be prepared; now there remains to consider the petition itself which the person within the sanctuary has been ordered to offer to God. For in my opinion the words of the prayer that are so concisely proposed to us do not yield a meaning that can easily be understood at first sight.

Hallowed be Thy Name, He says, Thy Kingdom come. What has this to do with my needs?—somebody might say who is doing penance because he repents of his sins or invokes the help of God in order to escape from his besetting weakness, because he is always aware of the temptations of the enemy. For on the one hand, fits of anger upset reasonable moderation; on the other, unnatural lusts enervate the soul’s strength; from yet another direction covetousness blinds the clear sight of the soul; conceit, pride, hatred, and the rest of the catalogue of the forces fighting against us encircle us like a hostile army and endanger the final destiny of the soul. Now if a man is anxious to enlist the help of a Stronger One in order to escape from these dangers, what words would he be likely to use? Not those of the great David—Deliver me from them that hate me,9 and, Let my enemies be turned back,10 and, Give us help from trouble,11 and similar petitions by which one may procure God’s help against one’s enemies? What, however, says the pattern of prayer? Hallowed be Thy Name. Now even if I did not say that, would it be at all possible that God’s name should not be holy? Thy Kingdom come. What is there that is not subject to the power of God, who, as Isaias says, holds the whole heaven in His palm, who compasses the earth, whose hand rules the moist nature,12 who embraces the whole mundane and supramundane creation? But if the name of God is always holy, and nothing escapes His powerful dominion; if He rules all things, and nothing can be added to His holiness, since He is in all things absolutely perfect—what does it mean to pray: Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come? Perhaps by using such form of prayer the Word intends to set forth something like this: namely that human nature is too weak to achieve anything good, and that therefore we can obtain nothing of the things for which we are anxious unless the good be accomplished in us by Divine aid. And of all good things the most important for me is that God’s name should be glorified through my life. But perhaps our meaning will become clearer if we start from the opposite end.

I have heard Holy Scripture somewhere condemn those who are guilty of blaspheming God. Woe to those, it says, through whom my Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.13 Now the meaning of these words is something like this: Those who have not yet believed the word of truth closely examine the lives of those who have received the mystery of the faith. If, therefore, people are “faithful” only in name, but contradict this name by their life, whether by committing idolatry for the sake of gain or by disgracing themselves by drunkenness and revelry, being immersed in profligacy like swine in the mud—then the pagans immediately attribute this not to the free choice of these evil-living men, but to the mystery14 which is supposed to teach these things. For, they say, such and such a man who has been initiated into the Divine mysteries would not be such a slanderer, or so avaricious and grasping, or anything equally evil, unless sinning was lawful for them. Therefore the Word holds out a grave threat to such men, saying to them: Woe to those through whom my Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

Now if this has been properly understood, it will be time to consider the opposite. For I think it is necessary to make this before all else the principal part of prayer that the Name of God might not be blasphemed, but hallowed and glorified through my life. The prayer says, in effect, let the Name of His dominion which I invoke be hallowed in me, that men may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.15 Who would be so absurdly unreasonable as not to glorify God if he sees in those who believe in Him a pure life firmly established in virtue? I mean a life purged from all stain of sin, above any suspicion of evil and shining with temperance and holy prudence. A man who leads such a life will oppose fortitude to the assaults of the passions; since he partakes of the requirements of life only as far as necessary, he is in no way softened by the luxuries of the body and is an utter stranger to revelry and laziness as well as to boastful conceit. He touches the earth but lightly with the tip of his toes, for he is not engulfed by the pleasurable enjoyments of its life, but is above all deceit that comes by the senses. And so, even though in the flesh, he strives after the immaterial life. He counts the possession of virtues the only riches, familiarity with God the only nobility. His only privilege and power is the mastery of self so as not to be a slave of human passions. He is saddened if his life in this material world be prolonged; like those who are seasick he hastens to reach the port of rest.

How could anyone who sees such a man fail to glorify the Name invoked by such a life? Therefore if I pray Hallowed be Thy Name, I ask that these words may effect in me things such as these: May I become through Thy help blameless, just and pious, may I abstain from every evil, speak the truth, and do justice. May I walk in the straight path, shining with temperance, adorned with incorruption, beautiful through wisdom and prudence. May I meditate on the things that are above and despise what is earthly, showing forth the angelic way of life. These and similar things are comprised in this brief petition by which we pray to God: Hallowed be Thy Name. For a man can glorify God in no other way save by his virtue which bears witness that the Divine Power is the cause of his goodness.

In the following clause we pray that God’s Kingdom should come. Could this really mean that He who is King of the universe should become King? He who is always the same and incapable of change, since He could not find anything better into which to change? What, then, does this prayer mean that asks for the Kingdom of God? Its true significance may be known to those to whom the Spirit of truth reveals hidden mysteries. Our own interpretation of the saying is this: There is one true and perfect power which is above all things and governs the whole universe. But it rules not by violence and tyrannical dictatorship, which enforces the obedience of its subjects through fear and compulsion. For virtue must be free from the fear of a taskmaster, so as to choose the good by a voluntary act; since it is a principle that all that is good should be subject only to the power that gives life.

Now since man’s nature was deceitfully led astray from the discernment of the good, the inclination of his free will has been directed to the opposite and his life subjected to every base thing; his nature has been mixed up with death in a thousand ways, for every form of evil is, as it were, a way of death for him. Since, then, we are hard pressed by such tyranny and become slaves to death through the assaults of the passions, which attack us like executioners and enemies in war, we rightly pray that the Kingdom of God may come to us. For we cannot escape the wicked dominion of corruption except the lifegiving power take over the government in its place.

So if we ask that the Kingdom of God may come to us, the meaning of our request is this: I would be a stranger to corruption and liberated from death; would that I were freed from the shackles of sin and that death no longer lorded it over me. Let us no more be tyrannized by evil so that the adversary may not prevail against me and make me his captive through sin. But may Thy Kingdom come to me, so that the passions which still rule me so mercilessly may depart from me, or rather may be altogether annihilated. For As smoke vanisheth, so shall they vanish away; and as wax melteth . . . , so shall they perish.16 The smoke which dissolves in the air leaves no trace of its existence, nor can wax be found any more once it has been in the fire. But as the latter, having nourished the flame with its own substance, has evaporated into the air, and as the smoke has disappeared into complete nothingness, so, when the Kingdom of God comes upon us, all the things that now hold sway will cease to exist. Thus darkness vanishes before the presence of light, and illness passes when health has been established. The passions cease to be troublesome when apatheia17 has appeared; death is undone and corruption is no more when life and incorruption reign in us unopposed.

Thy Kingdom come. By this sweet word we obviously offer God this prayer: Let the opposing battle front be broken and the hostile phalanx be destroyed. Bring to an end the war of the flesh against the spirit and let the body no longer harbour the enemy of the soul. Oh, let them appear, the royal force, the angelic band, the thousands of rulers, the myriads of those who stand on Thy right hand, that a thousand warriors may fall on the front of the enemy! Strong, indeed, is the adversary, formidable, yea, invincible to those bereft of Thy help. Yet only as long as man is fighting alone; when Thy Kingdom comes, the pangs and sighs of sorrow vanish, and life, peace, and rejoicing enter instead.

Perhaps the same thought is expressed more clearly for us by Luke, who, when he desires the Kingdom to come, implores the help of the Holy Spirit. For so he says in his Gospel; instead of Thy Kingdom come it reads “May Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.”18 What will the impertinent wordmongers say to these words on the Holy Spirit?19 By which trick of exegesis will they change the dignity of the Kingdom into the lowliness of servitude? For what Luke calls the Holy Spirit, Matthew calls the Kingdom; how then do these enemies of God20 drag Him down into a subject creature, placing Him with the ruled, instead of with the ruling Nature? The creature’s property is to serve; and service is not kingship. But the Holy Spirit is kingship.21 Therefore He is separated from the common being of creatures. For he who rules is not ruled; and he who is not ruled, is not a creature.

The characteristic of the creature is to serve. If therefore the Holy Spirit is kingship, how do they refuse to acknowledge His sovereignty—those people who have not even learned how to pray? They do not even know who it is that purifies what is defiled; who is endowed with the authority of kingship.

“May Thy Holy Spirit come,” he says, “and purify us.” Therefore the proper power and virtue of the Holy Spirit is precisely to cleanse sin; for what is pure and undefiled needs no cleansing. Now the very same thing the Apostle says also about the Only-Begotten, who, making purgation of our sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty of the Father.22 Therefore the same is the work of either, of the Spirit who cleanses from sin as well as of Christ who has made the purgation. But if two perform the same operation, then their power must also be exactly the same, for every operation is the effect of power. If then there is one operation as well as one power, how can one assume a diversity of nature in those in whom we can find no difference of power and operation? For as in the properties of fire, since the two—illuminating and burning—are quite similar, there cannot be held to be a change of subject, so neither will a wise man be led to conjecture a difference of nature in the Son and the Spirit, because he has been taught by the Divine Scripture that they have the same operation.

But now it has already been shown by the arguments of godly men23 that the nature of the Father and the Son is the same, that it is impossible to call by the name of God what is of different nature. For the son of a carpenter is not called a bench, nor would any person in his right mind say that an architect had begot the house; but the names of the Son and the Father signify what is joined together in the same nature. Now it is absolutely necessary, if two are by nature conjoined to one, that they are in no wise different from each other. That is to say, if the Son is by nature united to the Father, and if the Holy Spirit has been shown not to be alien from the nature of the Son on account of the identity of operations, it necessarily follows, I say, that the nature of the Holy Trinity has been shown to be one, though not confused as regards the properties which belong to each Person as His special characteristic, since their special features are not changed into each other. Hence24 the characteristic of the Father’s Person25 cannot be transferred to the Son or the Spirit, nor, on the other hand, can that of the Son be accommodated to one of the others, or the property of the Spirit be attributed to the Father and the Son. But the incommunicable distinction of the properties is considered in the common nature. It is the characteristic of the Father to exist without cause. This does not apply to the Son and the Spirit; for the Son went out from the Father,26 as says the Scripture, and the Spirit proceedeth from God and from the Father.27 But as the being without cause, which belongs only to the Father, cannot be adapted to the Son and the Spirit, so again the being caused, which is the property of the Son and of the Spirit, cannot, by its very nature, be considered in the Father. On the other hand, the being not ungenerated is common to the Son and the Spirit; hence in order to avoid confusion in the subject, one must again search for the pure difference in the properties, so that what is common be safeguarded, yet what is proper be not mixed. For He is called the Only-Begotten of the Father by the Holy Scripture;28 and this term establishes His property for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also said to be from the Father, and is testified to be the Son’s. For it says: If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.29 Hence the Spirit that is from God is also Christ’s Spirit; but the Son, who is from God, neither is nor is said to be from the Spirit; and this relative sequence is permanent and inconvertible. Hence the sentence cannot properly be resolved and reversed in its meaning so that, as we say the Spirit to be Christ’s, we might also call Christ the Spirit’s. Since, therefore, this individual property distinguishes one from the other with absolute clarity, but as, on the other hand, the identity of action bears witness to the community of nature, the right doctrine about the Divinity is confirmed in both; namely that the Trinity is numbered by the Persons, but that it is not divided into parts of different nature.

What madness then for these warriors against the Spirit to teach that the Lord is a servant! They do not even consider Paul a trustworthy witness who says Now the Lord is a Spirit.30 Or do they perhaps imagine that the words “May He come”31 take away His dignity? Do they not listen to the great David who would draw also the Father to himself when he cries out, Come to deliver us?32 If, then, in the Father the coming is a saving action, how can it be degrading in the Spirit? Or do they regard the cleansing from sins as a sign of lesser dignity? But listen to the unbelieving Jews who cry that forgiving sins is the prerogative of God, saying with reference to the Father: Why does this man speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?33 If therefore the Father forgives sins, the Son takes away the sins of the world, and the Holy Spirit cleanses from the stains of sin those in whom He dwells—what will these fighters against their own life say? But may the Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us and enable us to receive high thoughts worthy of God, which are shown to us by the word of the Saviour; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notes

  1. Cf. Heb. 10.1.
  2. Cf. Exod. 28.4.39 (Lev. 8.7–12), the account of the vestments and anointing prescribed for Aaron as high priest.
  3. περισχελίς given as leg-band, garter, or anklet by Liddell and Scott, but more probably “breeches,” as in Exod. 28.42.
  4. ἄδυτον, the Holy of Holies of the Temple, inaccessible to any save the high priest, which impenetrability made it a suitable symbol for the inner region of the soul, in which the mystical life is lived. Cf. especially Daniélou, op. cit. 195 ff.
  5. ἡγεμονικός, adj., more frequently as subst., ἡγεμονικόν, a term taken over from Stoic philosophy denoting the highest part of the soul. As in the present passage, it is often equated with mind or reason, e. g. by Tertullian, De an. 15, Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.11.51.6, Origen, Comm. in Ioan. fr. 18 (Preuschen); but from early times it has been accorded a special significance for the spiritual life, since it was intimately connected with the εἰκών (cf. above n. 8, and H. C. Graef, “L’Image de Dieu et la structure de l’âme d’après les Pères Grecs,” in La vie spir., suppl. 12 (1952) 331–39); so already Clement himself, Strom. 5.14.94.4; hence from Origen (cf. e. g. C. Cels. 4.66) onwards it is regarded as the seat of the spiritual life par excellence, on which prophetic and other visions are impressed; see Origen, ibid. 1.48; Ps.—Basil, In Isa. prooem. 3.
  6. μυστικός, a word of many connotations. Its root meaning (from μύω, close the eyes) is secret, not easily accessible, hence it is used for anything of a sacred character, e. g. the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrews (so Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.6.34.4), sacred grottoes (Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.43), etc., in particular for the most profound Christian doctrines, e. g. the Divinity of Christ (so Eusebius Dem. Ev. 3.7.141) and the Trinity (Cyril of Alexandria, Fragm. dogmat. 1 [MG 76.1424A]). It became a favourite term for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture (e. g. Clement, Strom. 5.6.37.1) and was popularized by Origen who used it constantly in this sense. In the later Fathers, μυστικός is used pre-eminently for the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, as in the present passage; elsewhere in Gregory, e. g. C. Eunom. 11 (Jaeger 2.270.13) and De bapt. Christi (MG 46.581A); with special reference to baptism, Eusebius, C. Marcell. 1.1, and elsewhere; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 34; and throughout to the Eucharist, e. g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 40.31; Nilus, Epist. 2.233, etc. Our modern sense of “mystical” is much more rare; it is to be found, especially as an epithet of ϑεωρία (contemplation), occasionally in Origen, e. g. Comm. in Ioann. 13.24.146, and Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. hom. 1; also in Ps.-Macarius’ Spiritual Homilies, in which (47.17) he speaks of a mystical communion of marriage. But its use in this sense was definitely established only by Ps.-Dionysius in connection with his negative theology, so e. g. De div. nom. 2.7; De myst. theol. 1.1. See also L. Bouyer, “Mystique, essai sur l’histoire d’un mot,” La vie spir., suppl. 9 (1949) 3.
  7. Cf. Eph. 6.17.
  8. Cf. Rom. 12.1.
  9. Ps. 68.15.
  10. Cf. ibid. 55.10.
  11. Ibid. 59.13 and 107.13.
  12. Cf. Isa. 40.12.
  13. Cf. Rom. 2:24 (Isa. 52.5, Ezech. 36.20).
  14. μυστήριον; the word was taken over from the pagan mystery religions, in which sense it is often used by the Fathers, e. g. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 27.4; Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. 8.4, etc. The Christian religion was regarded by the pagans as just another such rite, and in this sense the word is here used. It was early adopted by the Christians for their own doctrines and rites. Ignatius, Trall. 2.3, speaks already of the deacons as dispensers of the mysteries of Christ, and Justin, Dial. 91.3, of the mystery of the Cross. At the same time as μυστικός (see above, n. 57), μυστήριον, too, came to be used of the sacraments, e. g. in reference to baptism, Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 9.6; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 33; to the Eucharist, Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 1.10; Chrysostom, In 1 Cor. hom. 23.2. The Latins first used sacramentum, with the same range of meaning as μυστήριον, which was also transliterated into mysterium. Cf. the article and literature by G. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” Kittel’s Theol. Wörterb. z. N. T. 4 (1942) 809–34; also J. de Ghellinck—E. de Backer—J. Poukens— G. Lebacqz, Pour l’histoire du mot “sacramentum,” I. Les Anténicéens (Louvain—Paris 1924). Among the most recent literature on the subject I mention J. C. M. Fruytier, Het woord ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ in de Catechesen van Cyrillus van Jeruzalem (Nijmegen 1950).
  15. Matt. 5.16.
  16. Ps. 67.3.
  17. ἀπάϑεια, absence of passions, detachment, a term taken over from Stoic philosophy and applied both to God and to Christian Saints, whose highest state of perfection is to imitate the Divine ἀπάϑεια. It is regarded as a characteristic of Christians, e. g. by Justin Martyr (2 Apol. 1.2). The Stoic ideal of the passionless philosopher was Christianized especially in Clement’s conception of the true Gnostic, e. g. Strom. 4.22.137.3, and later by the Egyptian monks—cf. e. g. Palladius, Hist. Laus. prol. (Butler 2.12.3). It is generally considered indispensable for contemplation—so Origen, Exp. in Prov. 31.21; John Climacus devotes to it the 29th step of his Ladder. On the subject, cf. Völker, op. cit. 524–40 (Clement); G. Bardy, “Apatheia,” Dict. de spir. asc. et myst. 1 (1937) 727–46; P. de Labriolle, “Apatheia,” Reallex. f. Ant. u. Christ. 1 (1950) 482–87.
  18. A most rare variant of Luke 11.2; apparently also the reading in Marcion’s text—cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.26. It is found also in two minuscule MSS of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which probably preserve the text followed by Gregory. When the variant is found in later Greek writers, e. g. Maximus Confessor, it is doubtless borrowed from Gregory. See Krabinger 141; B. F. Westcott—F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek; Appendix (Cambridge 1870–76) 60; M. J. Lagrange, Introduction à l’étude du Nouveau Testament; critique textuelle (Paris 1935) 156.
  19. The whole passage refers to the Macedonian heresy, also called Pneumatomachi, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. See G. Bardy, “Macédonius et les Macédoniens,” Dict. théol. cath. 9.2 (1927) 1464–78.
  20. Θεομάχοι (cf. Acts 5.39), “fighters against God,” reference to the Macedonians, as above.
  21. βασιλεία, the word for kingdom is the same as that for kingship in Greek. The argumentation from “Thy Kingdom come” to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit can therefore not be adequately reproduced in English, as it depends on the double sense of the one Greek term.
  22. Heb. 1.3.
  23. That is, in the Arian controversy in which Gregory himself had taken part with his Contra Eunomium.
  24. The following doctrinal passage, from “Hence” to “into parts of different nature,” is left out in most MSS and all editions save Krabinger. See Introd. 8–10.
  25. ὑπόστασις, lit. “that which underlies.” It is a philosophical term, not defined with precision by Aristotle, who uses it in its ordinary sense of signifying objective reality as opposed to subjective delusions, whereas the Neo-Platonists, esp. Plotinus, employ it in their emanation theory for individual beings numerically different from each other (cf. Enneads 5). The term played a considerable part in the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries. Owing to its second meaning, it was never unnatural to speak of the three hypostases of the Trinity, as the term safeguarded the unity of the Divine οὐσία (undifferentiated being) while admitting the difference of the relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Triune God (cf. Basil’s differentiation between ὑπόστασις and οὐσία in Ep. 235.6). In this sense the term is used already by Athanasius, De virg. 1; Exp. fid. 2 and Tom. ad Antioch. 5. This soon became the accepted terminology, cf. Basil, Ep. 38 passim; Gregory Nazianzenus, Orat. 39.11; Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eunom. 2 (vulg.) 13; Epiphanius, Ancor. 81.4; Chrysostom, In Ioann. hom. 4.1; Cyril of Alexandria, C. Iulian. 8; etc. In this sense the term is here used of the First Person of the Trinity.
    In the Christological controversies it was used by Nestorius, who distinguished in Christ two ὑποστάσεις—cf. Cyril, C. Orient. 167A; a distinction which jeopardized the unity of His Person. The Monophysites, on the other hand, sacrificed the difference between the Divinity and the Humanity in Christ, so that orthodoxy had to be safeguarded by the Chalcedonian formula of the two φύσεις in the one ὑπόστασις. For the gradual development of the orthodox formula, see Cyril, C. Theodoret. 206BC, commented by Leontius of Byzantium, C. Monophys. (MG 86.1825A); Cyril, Ep. oec. anath. 3 and 4; Conc. Chalced., Defin. fid.; Leontius of Byzantium, C. Nest. 5.25; etc.
    The two senses of the term are clearly defined by Leontius, ibid. 2.1, and John of Damascus, Dial. 42. Nevertheless their use gave rise to considerable confusion on the part of the Latin Fathers, since they would naturally translate ὑπόστασις not as “Person” but as “Substance,” and so frequently misunderstand the Greek definitions of the Trinity as one οὐσία in three ὑποστάσεις and of Christ as two φύσεις in one ὑπόστασις.
    For a detailed treatment, see A. Michel, “Hypostase” in Dict. Théol. Cath. 7.369–437; and G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London 1936).
  26. Cf. John 16.28.
  27. Cf. ibid. 15.26.
  28. Cf. John 1.14, 18 (see also ibid. 3.16, 18; Heb. 11.17; 1 John 4.9).
  29. Rom. 8.9.
  30. 2 Cor. 3.17.
  31. See above, n. 69.
  32. Ps. 79.3.
  33. Mark 2.7.

· Contents ·