St. Gregory On The Son

On the Son, also known as the “The Third Theological Oration” and “Oration 29,” was written by St. Gregory of Nazianus (c. 329 - 390). He was the Archbishop of Constantinople during the 4th century, and after his death he became knows at “the Theologian” by the Council of Chalcedon. He is considered to be one of the “Cappadocian Fathers” amongst other defenders of the faith, and theologians of that time such as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and others (Intro).
In the introduction of On God and Christ, it is said that these addresses or orations were most likely delivered in Constantinople during his time as Archbishop. Although the orations were refuting the arguments of a group known as the “Anomeans/Eunomians,” followers of Eunomius,
Gregory does not name them. Yet, it is important to mention that the scope of these orations is not limited to refuting the arguments of the Eunomian. Gregory debates only after reflecting on the theology of the debate, which is clearly his priority.
The third oration, that this text analysis will be discussing, deals with the interpretation of the being of the Son.
This interpretation is continued in the fourth oration. This oration takes on some of the 4th century’s most difficult theological topics that were triggered by discussing the notion of Christ’s deity or by biblical exegesis. Gregory draws a line between the appropriate language that should be used in addressing the pre-incarnate and the incarnate Christ.
Referring to the general structure of his third oration, Gregory says that he will establish his own position, and then he will refute the opponent’s arguments (1). Furthermore, “Gregory uses a mixture of the question and answer form of argument, as well as the straight deduction to elicit attention to what are often complex reasonings.” (Intro) This clearly explains the structure of his argument throughout the oration.
Gregory mentions that there are three beliefs when it comes to deity; atheism, polytheism and monotheism. He associates himself and the church with the latter belief and stresses that with this “mono” is not one of the sovereignty of a single person but one of a single governing principle. It consists of an equality of nature, and unity of mind and no difference in essence although numerically distinct
(2).
He proposes a limitation to be followed when talking about the persons of the trinity and that is to use the Christian terms “the Ingenerate,” “the Begotten,” and “what Proceeds from the Father” (2). He then discusses the time when the last two persons of the trinity came to be. Gregory leads his audience to deduce that the “whenness” or the begetting of the last two persons of the trinity cannot be determined because it took place out of time. There has never been a “when” when the Father was not in existence, and the same is true for the Son and of the Holy Spirit (3).
The next few questions that are posed all revolve around the begetting of the Begotten. (3-7) Since a body was not involved in the begetting of the Son from the Father then we cannot think of the begetting of the Son in a fleshly manner. Both begetting incidents of the Son, being born of a Virgin or begotten of the Father, are experiences beyond this world and creation. Furthermore, God the Father is father without being a son, and the Son is a son without being a father. “In our case, the word ‘father’ cannot be truly appropriate, because we must be fathers and sons” (5). For the same reason, we cannot argue the Son’s begetting from the Father using the tenses used in scripture.
Next, by presenting the divine will in creation, Gregory distinguished between the act of willing and the one who wills to show whether the Son was begotten voluntarily or involuntarily.. He showed that the “will” does not stand as a barrier between Creator and creature because the will of God and deed of God are identical, “for him begetting may well just be the will to beget” (6).
Gregory states that if we cannot explain something it does not mean that it does not exist (8). He says that the questions that are sometimes asked, such as the existence of the Son when he was begotten by the Father, contain “logical absurdity,” making the question faulty and not the answer (9).
Gregory now addresses the next point being how the Son is of the same nature as the Father, or how can the unbegotten be the same as the begotten. (10-12) He explains that the unbegotten and begotten share the same nature as a parent and child would, whereas had they used the terms created and uncreated, their argument would’ve been valid (10). Just us the negative term “unoriginate” is not definitive but only states the straight fact that he was not begotten, the same applies to unbegotten, meaning “he has no parent” and “he was not begotten” (11).
To answer the other side of the same coin, Gregory states that even though Son is the same substance as the Father, and even though the Father is unbegotten, it does not mean that the Son must be unbegotten as well because “God and unbegotteness are not identical” (12).
If A=B and B=C, it does not mean that A=C. If one uses that kind of logic, one would limit and define God as being unbegotten only.
A further argument that is brought up is also shut down when Gregory attacks the logic behind it (13-14). The argument states that “unless God has ceased to beget, the begetting must be unfinished and at some time stop; but if it has stopped it must have started” (13). Here, an end implies a beginning and beginning implies an end. He refutes this by saying human souls and angels both had a beginning but have no end.
Next, Gregory presents his position that the Father is greater than the Son in respect of being the cause of the Son (15). We have to keep in mind that there is a unity amongst the trinity, the triune God. Yes, the Father is greater being the cause of the Son but only in that respect. Nevertheless, the Son is truly God just as the Father meaning he cannot be greater in that
respect. The last defense that Gregory offers is against the claim questioning if “Father” is a designation of either the substance or the activity (16). He says either alternative would lead to a false understanding of the Father. Instead, Gregory says that the name, “Father,” designates the relationship in which the Father stands to the Son and the Son to the Father (16). Gregory now moves on to scripture to prove his point, refute the opposing arguments, and conclude the first part of his oration On the Son (17-20). Gregory calls out his opponents by stating that what they consider to be lofty and divine they apply to the Godhead but everything that seems to be earthly is associated with the Son who was incarnate (18). Through scripture, Gregory presents how through the incarnate Christ we get to know God, and that is what we should be doing instead of creating a divide between “Man” and “God” in Christ (19). Gregory leads us to conclude that a scriptural approach where what is said of Christ as God and as human, though both have distinct sets of properties, should be applied to the one and the same subject. He ends his oration by applying this approach and displaying how we should apply it (19-20). For example, the Son is both uncaused and caused. He is uncaused in that he shares the unoriginate divine nature which he receives from the Father. Yet, he is caused in that he took on human nature by being born of a virgin (19).
More importantly, his closing statement he says, “faith is what gives fullness to our reasoning” (21).