|Fragment number||Vinzent 75
|Ancient source used||Eusebius, Against Marcellus 2.2.|
|Modern edition||M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).|
How can the Son have agreement with the Father and the Father with the Son if the Son said, “Everything which the Father has is mine”? (Jn 16:15) For the expression “Everything which the Father has is mine” was the Son outright robbing the Father since he said, “Everything which the Father has is mine” to avoid saying that everything which the Father has is held in common. Yet it was not characteristic of one in agreement to say it this way, but “Everything which the Father has is held in common” would be. For if the Acts of the Apostles says “Everything they had was held in common” to praise the agreement of those who at that time came to the faith, and in the case of men who can agree everything should be considered as being held in common, how much more must the Father and Son share in a communion if they were to be divided into two hypostases?
Now by saying, “Everything which the Father has is mine” the Son appears to be robbing the Father. But in saying that not he but his Father is lord of his own word (for he says, “The Word which you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me” (Jn 14:24)) he shows that the Father claims for himself those things which belong to the Son.
Both of these statements appear illogical according to Asterius’ way of thinking. For the one in agreement must not seize the things which rightfully belong to the other—for this would just be greedy—, but instead consider the things which belong to each as being held in common. So when we look at the human flesh, we will find that the Savior did say, ‘I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) but not in the sense of Asterius. For it is not true that “the Savior has said, ‘I and the Father are one’ because of their exact agreement in all words and deeds,” as he has written. For if this were the case, he certainly would have said, “I and the Father agree with each other in all things.” But now he says, “I and the Father are one.”
So if there were any lack of agreement among them, and the Lord must speak the truth, then the Savior must have know exactly that when he says “I and the Father are one” he speaks this looking not at the man which was assumed but at the Word which went forth from the Father. For if there would appear to be some lack of agreement, it should be referred to the weakness of the flesh which the Word did not have before he assumed it. And if a unity is spoken of, it obviously belong to the Word. Because of this he was not only right to say, “I and the Father are one,” but also, “I have been with you for this much time, Philip, and you say, ‘Show me the Father’” (Jn 14:9), (clearly meaning not to these regular eyes, but to the mental eyes which are able to see things of the mind, for both the Father and his Word are invisible to the eyes of flesh). He did not say this to Philip “because of their agreement in all.”
Translated by AMJ
Last updated: 8-29-2012
No Responses yet