Gregory of Nyssa

We note, however, many wild beasts do not eat fruit. What fruit does the panther eat? What fruit makes the lion strong? But nevertheless these creatures, when submitting to the laws of nature, ate fruits. And likewise when the [first] man changed his way of life and voided the limits set upon him, the Lord, after the flood, knowing humans were wasteful, allowed them to use all foods: “Eat every food as if it were edible plants.” Since [humans] were allowed this [concession], the other animals [also] received the liberty to eat. So the lion is [now] a meat-eater, and the vulture looks for carrion.But vultures were not yet circling above the earth to find carrion when the animals originated; nothing created nor imagined had yet died in order to be food for the vultures. Nature had not yet been divided; everything was completely fresh. Hunters did not capture prey, since people did not yet practice this. The beasts did not yet tear apart prey, since they were not meat eaters yet.… So was the first creation, and to this creation will be restored after this [age]. Humans will return to their original creation, rejecting hostility, a life encumbered with care, the slavery of the world to daily worries. Once they have renounced all this, they will return to that utopian life which is not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is freedom, the closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

In the same way, when our nature becomes subject to the disequilibrium and paroxysm of disordered passions, it encounters those conditions that necessarily follow the life of the passions. But when it returns again to the blessedness of an ordered emotive life, it will no longer encounter the consequences of evil. Since whatever was added to human nature from the irrational life was not in us before humanity fell into passion, we shall also leave behind all the conditions that appear along with passion. If a man wearing a ragged tunic should be denuded of his garment, he would no longer see on himself the ugliness of what was discarded. Likewise, when we have put off that dead and ugly garment that was made for us from irrational skins (when I hear “skins” I interpret it as the form of the irrational nature that we have put on from our association with disordered passions), we throw off every part of our irrational skin along with the removal of the garment. These are the disruptions of harmony that we have received from “the irrational skin”: sexual intercourse, conception, childbearing, dirt, lactation, nourishment, evacuation, gradual growth to maturity, the prime of life, old age, disease and death.

And if any one cites the confusion of tongues that took place at the building of the tower, as contradicting what I have said, not even there is God spoken of as creating men’s languages, but as confounding the existing one, that all might not hear all. For when all lived together and were not as yet divided by various differences of race, the aggregate of men dwelt together with one language among them; but when by the Divine will it was decreed that all the earth should be replenished by mankind, then, their community of tongue being broken up, men were dispersed in various directions and adopted this and that form of speech and language, possessing a certain bond of union in similarity of tongue, not indeed disagreeing from others in their knowledge of things, but differing in the character of their names. For a stone or a stick does not seem one thing to one man and another to another, but the different peoples call them by different names. So that our position remains unshaken, that human language is the invention of the human mind or understanding. For from the beginning, as long as all men had the same language, we see from Holy Scripture that men received no teaching of God’s words, nor, when men were separated into various differences of language, did a Divine enactment prescribe how each man should talk. But God, willing that men should speak different languages, gave human nature full liberty to formulate arbitrary sounds, so as to render their meaning more intelligible. Accordingly, Moses, who lived many generations after the building of the tower, uses one of the subsequent languages in his historical narrative of the creation, and attributes certain words to God, relating these things in his own tongue in which he had been brought up, and with which he was familiar, not changing the names for God by foreign peculiarities and turns of speech, in order by the strangeness and novelty of the expressions to prove them the words of God Himself.

Reuben was the firstborn of those born after him, and their resemblance to him bore witness to their relationship to him, so that their brotherhood was not unrecognized, being testified to by the similarity of appearance. Therefore, if through the same rebirth “by water and the spirit,” we also have become brothers of the Lord, he having become for us “the firstborn among the many brothers,” it follows that our nearness to him will show in the character of our life, because “the firstborn of every creature” has informed our life. But what have we learned from the Scripture about the character of his life? What we have said many times: that “he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” Therefore, if we are going to act as brothers of the One who gave us birth, the sinlessness of our life will be a pledge of our relationship to him, and no filth will nullify our union with his purity. But the firstborn is also justice and holiness and love and redemption and such things. So if our life is characterized by such qualities, we furnish clear tokens of our noble birth, and anyone, seeing these qualities in our life, will bear witness to our brotherhood with Christ.

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.”

When, according to the prophetic word, people were alienated from the life-giving womb through sin and went astray from the womb in which they were fashioned, they spoke falsehood instead of truth. Because of this, the Mediator, assuming the first fruit of our common nature, made it holy through his soul and body, unmixed and unreceptive of all evil, preserving it in himself. He did this in order that, having taken it up to the Father of incorruptibility through his own incorruptibility, the entire group might be drawn along with it because of their related nature, in order that the Father might admit the disinherited to “adoption” as children and the enemies of God to a share in the Godhead. And just as the first fruit of the dough was assimilated through purity and innocence to the true Father and God, so we also as dough in similar ways will cleave to the Father of incorruptibility by imitating, as far as we can, the innocence and stability of the Mediator. Thus, we shall be a crown of precious stones for the only begotten God, having become an honor and a glory through our life. For Paul says, “Having made himself a little lower than the angels because of his having suffered death, he made those whose nature had previously become thorny through sin into a crown for himself, transforming the thorn through suffering into honor and glory.” And yet, once he has “taken away the sins of the world” and taken upon his head a crown of thorns in order to weave a crown of “honor and glory,” there is no small danger that someone may be discovered to be a burr and a thorn because of his evil life, and then be placed in the middle of the Master’s crown because of sharing in his body. The just voice speaks directly to this one: “How did you get in here without a wedding garment? How were you, a thorn, woven in with those fitted into my crown through honor and glory?”

Let [the one who is waiting for the Lord’s second coming] therefore wait for that time then which is, necessarily, in the same time frame as the development of humanity. For even while Abraham and the patriarchs desired to see the promised better things, they did not stop seeking the heavenly country. This is what the apostle says when he declares that even now they are in a condition of hoping for that grace: “God having provided some better thing for us,” according to the words of Paul, “that they without us should not be made perfect.” If those then, who by faith alone and by hope saw the good things “afar off” and “embraced them”—if they bear the delay as the apostle bears witness, and if they place the certainty that they will enjoy the things for which they hoped in the fact that they “judged him faithful who has promised,” what should the rest of us do who perhaps do not have a grasp of that better hope from the character of our own lives?Even the prophet’s soul fainted with desire, and in his psalm he confesses this passionate love, saying that his “soul has a desire and longing to be in the courts of the Lord.” [He still has this desire] even if he has to be demoted to a place amongst the lowest, since it is a greater and more desirable thing to be last there than to be first among the ungodly tents of this life. Nevertheless he was patient during the delay, considering, indeed, the life there blessed, and accounting a brief participation in it more desirable than “thousands”[of days] of time. For, he says, “one day in your courts is better than thousands.” And yet, he did not become dejected at the necessary dispensation concerning existing things. He thought it was sufficient bliss for a person to have those good things even by way of hope. This is why he says at the end of the psalm, “O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that hopes in you.”

A fire that lies in wood hidden below the surface is often unobserved by the senses of those who see or even touch it but is manifest when it blazes up. So too, at his death (which he brought about at his will, who separated his soul from his body; who said to his own Father, “Into your hands I commit my spirit”; who, as he says, “had power to lay it down and had power to take it again”24) he—who, because he is the lord of glory, despised that which is shame among men—having concealed, as it were, the flame of his life in his bodily nature, by the dispensation of his death, kindled and inflamed it once more by the power of his own Godhead, fostering into life that which had been brought to death. Having infused with the infinity of his divine power that humble firstfruits of our nature, he made it also to be that which he himself was—making the servile form to be Lord, and the human born of Mary to be Christ, and him who was crucified through weakness to be life and power, and making all that is piously conceived to be in God the Word to be also in that which the Word assumed. Thus these attributes no longer seem to be in either nature by way of division, but the perishable nature, being, by its commixture with the divine, made anew in conformity with the nature that overwhelms it, participates in the power of the Godhead, as if one were to say that mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the deep to be sea, by reason that the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which overwhelms it. This is our doctrine.