Question posed: Difference between early and later Arians

Speaker 1 0:01

Now we come to St John Chrysostom, whose years are from around 347 to the 14th of September 407. We're going to look specifically at his response to the Eunomian heresy, that of the later Arians, of the 350s and the 360s, and, in this context, to his understanding of the significance of the light of Tabor, the light of the transfiguration of Christ, and for more details you may consult the relevant sections in my books on the transfiguration and the orthodox understanding of salvation. So what was the difference between the early Aryans and the later, the Neo-Aryans, the Anomoians? Why were they still Aryans and why were they distinguished from the early Aryans? What was the difference? On this question, we have already looked at the theology of the great Cappadocian fathers Saint Basil the Great, saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Gregory of Nyssa. First we made a brief presentation on Saint Basil of Caesarea, saint Basil the Great, and focus on what his main response was to the fantastic claims of the Anemoians, of Eunomius, aetius and company. Then, looking at Saint Gregory the Theologian, saint Gregory Nazianzus, discern what it was that he added to what Saint Basil had already said, from a helpful new perspective, a helpful angle. And then Saint Gregory of Nyssa, because Saint Gregory of Nyssa was asked to finish the work of his brother who died prematurely when he was only 49 years of age. But he was asked to complete the work of his brother, saint Basil the Great, which, reluctantly, he did. And it is true that Saint Gregory pulls the camera back and he says now let's take a look at this question from a wider perspective, so that we can place things in their proper order, and he does this most skillfully. So that we can place things in their proper order, and he does this most skillfully. Now there's a slight change of pace because we move from Cappadocia to Antioch with St John Chrysostom, where the terminology is different but the meaning is remarkably the same different but the meaning is remarkably the same. And again John Chrysostom adds his perspective and his insights as the great commentator on Holy Scripture that he is Now with St John Chrysostom, it just so happens to be the case that I have a chapter in my book on salvation as theosis, and that's the chapter on St John Chrysostom and the light of Tabor, and there I do present that different terminology that I mentioned, by which St John Chrysostom says the same thing as the Cappadocian fathers, which St John Chrysostom says the same thing as the Cappadocian fathers. So I wanted to take a special look at what he says about the language of Holy Scripture.

Speaker 1 3:32

So St John Chrysostom is often regarded more a moralist than a theologian, which could not be further from the truth. But this view of St John stems surely from the fact that his greatest legacy is his homilies. His homilies are full of theology and he's also written theological treatises, one of which, of course, is his On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, which brings us back to the Unomian question, because he wrote that specifically for this purpose. So St John, referring specifically to the transfiguration of Christ, he says these things, the trials and tribulations that the apostles had just been told that they were going to endure, were in the present life and at hand, while the good things were still in hope and expectation. So the good things that Christ had spoken to his disciples about had not yet come to pass. And he says because of this, as in, for example, they save their life who lose it. He goes right to the hardest point of all. What a tremendous act of faith it is to believe that you will save your life in losing it. He's coming again in glory, in the glory of his Father to render his rewards. And Saint John says the Lord willing to assure their very sight and show what kind of glory it is with which he will appear. So far as they were able to understand this even in this present life, he shows and reveals it to them and, of course, he reveals it to them at the Transfiguration. He reveals it before three of his disciples.

Glory of the Father and glory of Second Coming (Matt. 16.27-28)

Speaker 1 5:27

Having said that, he says Not thus shall he come hereafter. For then, so as to spare his disciples, he disclosed only as much of his brightness as they were able to endure, whereas later he shall come in the very glory of the Father, not only with Moses and Elias, but also with the infinite angelic hosts, with archangels, with cherubim, with those infinite heavenly companies. The phrase the very glory of the Father, which is referred to as an even greater glory than that which was revealed at the Transfiguration, will be revealed only at the last day. What is the significance? What's the difference between the glory of Christ at the Transfiguration and the glory of the Second Coming? And as we read on in St John, we see that there is not a qualitative difference. In other words, it's not that at the second coming we will see a different, greater glory. We'll see the same glory as was revealed at the Transfiguration, but it will be on a big escape, as he's already intimated in the passage that I just read to you. It won't be an intimate affair between himself, two prophets and three disciples. It will encompass the whole universe. So not a qualitative difference but a quantitative difference.

The realm of theology vs the realm of the divine economy

The inaccessible nature of God & language of the Liturgy

How does God reveal Himself to man?

Speaker 1 7:01

And all of this is by way of introduction, to say St John, looking at whatI call the gnossiological context in which St John speaks about these things and in which we should understand the revelation of God in Chrysostom. Firstly, in one of his two addresses to the eunuch Eutropius, st John insists that a clear distinction should be made between those things pertaining to God in himself and those things pertaining to God's action or operation in the world, and he uses the words datis theoditos and datis economias, the things of the divinity per se and the things of the economy, which in itself is interesting, having looked at what the Cappadocian fathers say, having looked at the distinction that Saint Athanasius made between theologia and economia things pertaining to God in himself, then, and those things pertaining to God's action or operation in the world. In reference to this distinction, chrysostom first emphasizes the immutable and inaccessible nature of God. So he says, most high was he and lowly was his economy, most high, not in locality, but in nature. He was uncompounded, his essence indestructible. His nature was incorruptible, invisible, incomprehensible, always being the same being beyond angels, superior to the heavenly powers, surpassing reason, transcending the intellect and here I'm translating nous as intellect being impossible to see. He was simply believed, in A language, here, of course, reminiscent of the liturgy of St John Christon. So God in himself, god in his essence and nature, is invisible, aoratos we've said this before and he is incomprehensible, aperinoidos. And as such, he can neither be seen nor comprehended. But if this is so, as we said when referring to St Gregory the theologian, how does the invisible make himself visible? How does God reveal himself to man?

Divine “condescension”

Speaker 1 9:39

In the same passage, chrysostom provides us with the following answer when he wishes to show himself, he does not appear as he is, nor is his bare essence revealed, for no one has seen God as he is, for at his condescension, even the cherubim tremble. He condescended and the mountain smoked. He condescended and the sea dried up. He condescended and heaven was shaken, for had he not condescended, who could have borne it? Therefore, he appears not as he is, but as that which the beholder is able to see. That is why he sometimes appears aged, sometimes young, sometimes in fire and sometimes in a breeze, sometimes in water and sometimes in weapons, not changing his essence but fashioning his appearance according to the different circumstances.

Speaker 1 10:39

So the key word in Chrysostom's description of the divine economy is this condescension. He's coming down his loving condescension and care, because it's by his condescension that God reveals himself to man. He does this, says Chrysostom, not by suffering change in his essence, but by conforming, shaping or adapting himself to the capacity of his creature. And Chrysostom is not here referring to created effects in God's revelation, because synkatavasis, condescension, denotes the loving descent and participation of God himself in the life of his creature. So it is precisely God's synkatavasis which reveals his love for mankind, his philanthropia, and which finds its ultimate expression in the Incarnation, the hypostatic condescension of the Son and Word of God in the flesh.

“Economies”

Speaker 1 11:41

So it's here that we find a remarkable resemblance between Chrysostom's concept of condescension and the Cappadocian, or rather the Brazilian, distinction between the essence and energies of God. It's expressed in those classic and clear terms by Saint Basil in his famous letter 234,. But this distinction is there in Gregory of Nyssa, basil's younger brother. It's there in Saint Gregory the theologian, so it is Cappadocian, as far as I'm aware. Just as in St Basil, this distinction is made explicit in a single passage In Chrysostom's, on the Incomprehensible Nature of God, where in fact the word economies is used rather than condescension. So the clear expression of this distinction is found again in the incomprehensible nature of God. But whereas you would expect to see the word condescension, since it's used so much in this way, in fact St John Chrysostom uses the word economies, meaning the same thing again. And Chrysostom, in reference to saint paul's passage on the partial knowledge of god in 1 corinthians 13, verse 9, we know in part and in part do we prophesy. Chrysostom, in reference to this verse, simply says of St Paul, quote that he does not say this of the essence, but of the economies.

Speaker 1 13:29

Now, bearing in mind also the created-uncreated distinction in Chrysostom, the implications become clear. While in Basel we find the schema essence-energies, in Chrysostom there is the schema essence-economies or essence-condescension. And while their terms may differ, their meaning is in fact the same. Differ, their meaning is in fact the same. It's interesting that neither of these two great fathers develops the theme further at this point. Indeed, in both instances their main concern was to refute the claim of the Anomoians, the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, that human reason and the human intellect, the nous, are capable of penetrating into the divine mysteries to the point of apprehending even the essence of God.

The Transfiguration (divine economy)

Vision of God = our salvation

Language of Scripture and the Light of Tabor

Speaker 1 14:24

And as we know, it is only in the 14th century that the full significance of this essence-energies distinction is made clear by the Hesychasts. Essence energies distinction is made clear by the hesychasts. So the transfiguration falls within the realm of this, that is, economias, the things pertaining to the divine economy, and as such, the transfiguration is another example of the condescension of god, god truly coming down in love to reveal himself to his creature. Because it's that revelation, it's that vision which is our salvation. So, on Tabor, the pre-eternal divine glory, manifested in and through the theandric Christ, appears to Peter, james and John as a brilliant light. This is where we come to the question of the language of scripture, because what Saint John has to say about this is very important indeed, very helpful indeed.

(Eutropius the Eunuch)

Speaker 1 15:26

So, with the benefit of what we've just said now about the gnosticological context, let's also examine what he says about the language of scripture in the description of the light of table Chrysostom in his address to the eunuch Eutropius. It's funny because Eutropius persecuted Saint John Chrysostom quite viciously, in fact, when he had the favor of the royal court. And then his fortun fortunes changed. So he sought asylum in the cathedral church where we have now saint sophia, the newer saint sophia. So he hid himself in the asylum and while he was there, saint john chrysostom wrote two homilies and he addressed them to the eunuch who was hiding there, hoping to escape the wrath of the royal court. So he took the opportunity to instruct him a little in the faith at that point when Eutropius might have been a little more eager to listen. So this is what Chrysostom says.

“In a manner befitting God” (theoprepos)

Speaker 1 16:29

When he, when God, wishes to say something about himself, he uses human images. As, for instance, he went up to the mountain and was transfigured before them, and his face shone as the light and his garments became white as snow. He revealed, he says, a little of his divinity. He showed them the indwelling God. The evangelist then wanted to show his brilliance, and so he says he shone. How did he shine, Tell me, exceedingly, and how do you say as the sun? Why do you say so? And St John is answering his questions here? Because I have no other star brighter. And he was white as snow. Why as snow? Because I have no other matter whiter. Then St John continues that he did not shine in this way is indicated by the following and the disciples fell to the ground. He says if he had shone as the sun, the disciples would not have fallen, for they saw the sun every day and did not fall. But because he shone more than the sun and more than the snow. That is why, unable to bear the brilliance, they fell down.

Speaker 1 17:51

So the revelation on Tabor demonstrates that the language which scripture employs in order to describe the revelation of God to man should not be interpreted literally, but rather, as Saint John puts it, it should be understood theobre pos, that is to say in a manner befitting God. So we should raise our minds to the meaning that the words of Scripture seek to convey. I think this is very interesting because sometimes we get caught up in the debate between the literal interpretation of Scripture and the allegorical. And St John is very much an Antiochian and the Antiochians did not favor the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. But St John is saying don't take these words literally. They mean something. They mean something very important. Raise your minds, understand them in a way that befits God. So there is a spiritual interpretation. It's neither simply literal nor allegory, which suggests that you use a lot of the imagination, no, in a manner befitting God.

The Bright Cloud of the Transfiguration

The reaction of the three disciples

Lecture plan moving forward (Vol. 2)

Speaker 1 19:05

According to Saint John, scripture likens the light of Tabor to the sun and snow, because there's nothing brighter within the realm of human experience to which this particular light might be likened. So St John is therefore not interested here in metaphor or figurative language and like Diodorus of Tarsus, chrysostom was not given to the allegorical interpretation of scripture, which makes his interpretation here all the more striking. And then St John goes on to talk about the bright cloud, which St John clearly regards as an intensification of the same vision, an intensification of the light of the table. Sometimes we think there's the light over here, you know, and then there's the cloud, and we separate the two in our minds, at least conceptually. But St John's understanding is that this is in fact the same vision, it's a deeper intensification of the light and it becomes increasingly unbearable. And of course we know again that the reaction is that they cannot bear it. And they cannot bear it. St John says why? Why can't they bear it at this stage? Because they're not yet free from death and corruption.

Some final thoughts: essentialism and pantheism

Speaker 1 20:28

Moving forward, I want to share with you the Christological Foundation as we look at St Cyril of Alexandria, his great contribution, and contrast it with Theodore of Mopsuestia, in particular, and Nestorius, of course, st Cyril's chief theological opponent, who is a somewhat less sophisticated version of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Then we'll look at the Dionysian corpus In particular. We'll read the Mystical Theology, but we'll look at the whole corpus because it's very important to understand Dionysius and his place in Orthodox patristic literature. We'll take a look at St Maximus the Confessor, through whom we receive Dionysius in the East, then St Simeon, the New Theologian, and we'll take a look at the two Gregories, st Gregory the Sinait and St Gregory Palmas. That will be the basic shape of volume two. So we want to place a firm foundation from the Christological perspective.

The essence-energies distinction is not conceptual

Speaker 1 21:37

Now, what we are looking at is not simply of historical importance. The strange thing is the West has much more in common with the pantheism that it is afraid of because of its essentialist approach, because of the lack of a distinction between an uncreated energy that is natural and essential, that there is the very thing that we are accused of falling into a ditheism or a pantheism, introducing yet another distinction into the Godhead, which proves too much. I mean, let's be honest, the West you saw with Saint Augustine, the West is still grappling with the fact that God is one and three and the Incarnation, when the fixation is on a philosophical approach to the simplicity of God. So to introduce an essence-energies distinction as well seems a little bit too much. But because the essence-energies distinction is approached philosophically, it is too much. And when it is presented philosophically, you'll see, if you haven't seen already, the early Aryans had that. They had an essence-energies distinction, philosophical, but they had it again.

Speaker 1 22:57

It's not a conceptual distinction and a Buddhist would laugh at you if you make any kind of distinction on that level, because even if it's supra-rational, it just doesn't make sense. But it's not conceptual. And their supra-rational, supra-logical philosophy is conceptual, even if it's a reaction to conceptual understanding. See, you can have an apophatic theology that is philosophical, because every argument has a counter-argument Only life, the life in Christ, which transcends all of that, it transcends reason, it transcends the nous.

he vision of / participation in God is energetic and a gift - not a natural capability of the soul

Christological confirmation of hypostatic integrity

Speaker 1 23:42

Don't forget that. Even the highest part in us, the eye of the heart, the eye of the soul, the nous, that power of the heart that has been bestowed upon us by God, that enables us to see the face of God. That is not a natural capability of the soul. It is only possible when we are transformed by the grace of God and enabled to behold God. And then what do we behold? We behold God himself in his energetic aspect. In other words, we participate in his life, but we do not become what he is by nature and therefore we maintain our hypostatic integrity. Because if we were united with God by nature, we would be swallowed up. Notice, notice that even in the hypostasis of the Son and Word of God this does not happen.

Speaker 1 24:44

We insist on two natures the true and perfect divine nature and the true and perfect human nature in Christ, united in his one hypostasis but preserving the distinction, the hypostatic union in Christ. The hypostatic union is unique to Christ, where he makes our human nature his own, truly his own. He assumes it, he makes it his own, it becomes integral to his hypostasis, not just a show, he appropriates it. He appropriates our human nature, makes it his own. That means he becomes the God-man forever. But even that union in Christ is hypostatic, which is unique to Christ, and it is energetic by virtue of the communicatio idiomatum, the exchange of natural properties. So by virtue of the union, each nature shares the properties of the other. Each nature interpenetrates the other, but not to the degree of confusion.

Communicatio idiomatium in Christ model of our own deification

Appeal

Speaker 1 25:59

What does Chalcedon say? Without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, without confusion. That is the model of our union with God, that aspect of the deification of our human nature in Christ. We said the hypostatic union is unique to Christ. The saints become united with Christ, to Christ, in God, and God is in us. Christ is in us by virtue of the interpenetration of his grace, which is his life, which is his energy. So this is very important. We've said before, whenever you touch one aspect of Orthodox theology, it brings you into contact with all the rest. Please subscribe to our channel and share with your friends. Click on the notification bell and on the join button below our video and become a friend or reader of the Mount Tabor Academy. Support our drive to introduce the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church to the wider community.