Gregory the Theologian

7/31/2019 Gregory the Theologian

1/13

DOCTORES ECCLESIAE

GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN

FrederickW. Norris

A gro up of contemporary western theologians has found Gregory

Nazianzen (c. 325-390) quite appealing . Among them interest is some

times confined to a single set of sentences. There he ridicules his

opponents, the later Arians, because they tend to transfer all the aspects

of the hu man names used in talk about God to the very nature of God.

For the Theologian, such a principle is so silly that his antagonists

might soon claim that God is a male because in Greek he is called Godand Father, two "mascul ine" nouns. Consistently applied, that wou ld

make the one Godhead "female" and the Holy Spirit a sterile "neuter. "1

Within feminist critiques of traditional theology, Gregory provides a

traditional critique of some modern conservative positions. His contribu

tion, however, is much wider than that. The Theological Orations. Orations

27-31 in Nazianzen's corpus, are a masterpiece of theology; the first

speech sets out what a theologian should be, the second warns about

the limits of reason in relation to faith, the third and fourth present a

classical Christology in light of what he sees as glaring deficiencies inNeo-Arian views, and the fifth develops the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

as God over against some from his own circle, the later Arians and

others. Because these five were probably given at Constantinople in the

A group of

contemporary

western

theologians

has found

GregoryNazianzen

quite appealing

The

Theological

Orations are

a masterpiece

of theology.

FrederickW. Norris, Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson City, Tennessee, 37601.

1. Or. 31.7, PG36,140C-141A, Grgoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 (Discours thologiques), ed. byPaul Gallay in collaboration with Maurice Jourjon, Sources chrtiennes 250 (Paris: Les Editionsdu Cerf, 1978), 286-288. FrederickW. Norris, Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: TheFive TheologicalOrations ofGregory Nazianzen, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae XIII, Introduction and commentary by Norris, translation by Lionel Wickham and Frederick Williams (Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1991), 282.2. See Norris, op. cit.


2/13

The Theologian's

own spiritual

formation came

through repeated

celebration of the

liturgy and

monastic retreat.

He breathes inworship and

breathes out

theology. Thus

trinitarian concern

andsoteriological

interestare the

atmosphere in

which a theologian

must live.

summer of 380 and Gregory was the first president of the council in

381, they offer insight into the setting of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan

Creed, the most frequently confessed creed among Christians.

Or. 27 is a rare piece. It bristles with the rancor of Neo-Arian and

Orthodox debate, but it soon settles into a main topic for Gregory:Christian paideia. His opponents have advanced their leaders too soon;

they have given them conciliar responsibilities for which they were not

prepared. Their leaders do not understand how important it is to live

by the sense that intellectual study and devotional meditation are

inseparable. The word theoria includes both.4 In Or. 28 the Theologiannotes that Moses could only see the back parts of God. Within the

deepest mystical visions Nazianzen had experienced, he barely made

that much progress. From his perspective the Neo-Arians have for

saken contemplation of Christ's full divinity within the incarnation.

Even their view of God the Father has been distorted because they thinkthey can both inspect and describe the deepest aspects of God's nature.

The Theologian's own spiritual formation came through repeated

celebration of the liturgy and monastic retreat. Just before his move to

become the pastor of the small orthodox community in Constan

tinople, he had spent about four years in a monastery at Seleucia where

he might have been happy to remain. Through such discipline he was

more fully prepared for the challenges that met him in the capital city.

Or. 27 highlights both worship and monastic rigor. Furthermore, the

bulk of his forty-four orations depend upon liturgy, particularly the

great festivals of the church. He breathes in worship and breathes out

theology. Thus trinitarian concern and soteriological interest are the

atmosphere in which, for him, a theologian must live. Submission to God's

humbling greatness in the midst of community is its major element.

You can also sense a rather remarkable education at work. Gregory had

begun his elementary studies in Cappadocia, yet as a young man he

pursued further rhetorical training at Caesarea in Palestine, at

Alexandria and finally at Athens. His education included not only the

technical rhetoric of Hermogenes and others, but also the philosophical

rhetoric of Plato and Aristotle. He knew how much of human understanding was amenable to syllogisms and how much must be left to

more probablistic questioning. The Theologian was so skilled that he

may have been asked to teach rhetoric in one of the Athenian schools;

3. Edmund Schlink, "Die biblische Grundlage des Glaubensbekentnisses des 2. kumenischen Konz381, La signification et l'actualit du He conue oecumnique pour le monde chrtien d'aujord'huitudes thologiques de Chambesy 2 (Chambesy: Editions du centre orthodoxe du patriarcat oecumn1982), 139.

4. Or. 27.3, PG 36, 13C-16B, SC 250, 76-78, Williams' translation in Norris, 218-219 andcommentary in Norris, 89.

5. Or. 28.2-3, PG 36,28A-29B, SC 250,102-106, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 224-226.

6. Or. 27.1-9, PG 36,12A-24A, SC 250,70-94, Williams' translation in Norris, 217-223.


3/13

he, however, forsook that honor in the hope of forming a small monastic community with his friend, Basil.

The potential of life with Basil at Annesi in Pontus was interrupted bytheir quirky friendship, the needs of Nazianzen's aging parents and

the church's call to public ministry. The last was a milieu he did not fiteasily. Yet particularly with his invitation in early 379 to serve atConstantinople, he gathered all his talents and education to confrontsituations there. He was hoodwinked for a time by the golden boy,Maximus the Cynic, who had been sent by Christians in Alexandria toundermine his bishopric. It hurt Gregory to see how his trust wasmisplaced.But he worked through the difficulty and was ableboth to protectand to nourish thosewho came to the small chapel called Anastasia.

In Or. 27Nazianzen turns to his educational background and mustershis strength for polemic. He warns that all theologians must under

stand a common rhetorical truism found in Aristotle: no oration can begiven to every audience on every occasion by every speaker. Aristotleknew that;8 each theologian should. Some aspects of theology are notamenable to the public square, certainly not, in this monk's eyes, to theprotected salons of women. The trouble with Constantinople was thattheology was common fare on the street corner, at the horse races, inplaces where liturgical awe did not penetrate and open silence did notexist. The deep resources of theology are not available for all public orprivate gatherings, particularly those where gamesmanship and chitchat dominate.

Aristotle's rhetorical commonplace cuts another way. Those who claimthat they are educated theologians and do not know what should havebeen learned in initial classes on rhetoric are not only stuntedtheologians; they are also immature intellectuals. Thus when theyemploy such apparently intricate care in forming their syllogisms, theyare not to be followed because it is obvious that they are merelybeginners. The elemental logic they have mastered could be put tosome use. There are various puzzles of the philosophical schools towhich they could turn their attention. After all, young students who

think they know so much may be asked to write introductory themes.Their proud little efforts might show the deficiencies of Plato's view ofideas or his ugly love of beautiful bodies, Aristotle's stilted sense ofprovidence, the vulgar ways of the Cynics, or the oddity of the importance given to Orphic beans. Because their logical investigations are soobviously those of beginners, they might even be asked to discussresurrection, judgment or the sufferings of Christ. Evidently forGregory these matters were so often brought forward by reputable

7. Or. 27.3, PG 36,13C-16B, SC 250,76-78, Williams' translation in Norris, 218-219.

8. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1356A.

9. Or. 27.9-10, PG 36,21D-25A, SC 250,92-98, Williams' translation in Norris, 222-223.

Theologians munderstand acommon rhetotruism found i

Aristotle: nooration can bgiven to everyaudience onevery occasioby every spea

The deepresources oftheology are n

available forapublic or privgatherings,particularlythose wheregamesmanshipand chit-chatdominate.


4/13

The well-educated

theologian knew

that the

contemplative life

was the rootof

theology, while

rhetorical analysis

and presentation

was its branch.

Surely talkof

God is the mostdifficult subjectof

any philosophy.

Thus one setof

questions we must

ask those who

assert that they

know so well the

inner-workings of

God is: what do

they know aboutnature and

themselves?

preachers that preparing a good speech about them would be helpful

while preparing a bad speech would not greatly affect the discussions.

His opponents might hit the target in their sophomoric treatment of

these topics, but they are not yet prepared by disciplined moral life and

careful contemplation to speak of themselves as theologians. The well-educated theologian, one who perhaps had studied in various world

centers as Gregory had, knew that the contemplative life was the root

of theology, while rhetorical analysis and presentation was its branch.

Dithering dialectic was not part of the tree.

Having described a lex orandi, lex credendi ground of theology, the

Theologian addresses in Or. 28 what in many ways is the heart of these

TheologicalOrations. The Neo-Arians insist that they know the essenceof God so well they can name it. When they have established that

God's very nature is "unbegottenness," then they employ their "logic"

with the result that the Son, as "only begotten," must be subordinate,a secondary God. Nazianzen leaves that claim for Ors. 29-30 and meets

their views in another way. Surely talk of God is the most difficult

subject of any philosophy. Thus one set of questions we must ask those

who assert that they know so well the inner-workings of God is: what

do they know about nature and themselves? In a series of biting,

satirical queries, each of which shows the type of reading and study he

had done in his education, Gregory establishes that the leading minds

of his day pose almost endless unanswerable and significant questions

about nature and human nature. Although we today offer many

answers to most of the questions he raises, even for a modern (andparticularly post-modern) readership, the point holds. When it is so

. obvious that both then and now we ponder many things about nature

and ourselves without reaching irrefutable conclusions, it would be

strange indeed to say that on the basis of our mastery of the universe

we are prepared to proclaim our mastery of God. People who can

neither add nor subtract cannot explain calculus.

Or. 28 suggests the possibility that the Theologian is opening the door

for a natural theology, a way of using the disciplines of human under

standing as a road toward God. He does show the oddity of later Arianclaims about knowing God when humans know so little about their

world. And he contends that by looking around, humans can know

that God the designer exists; what they cannot gain from that look is

who God is, what God's nature is. Those negative results are part of an

10. There is a debate about Socrates, the church historian's, claim in H.E. 4.7 that Neo-Arianleaders said they knew God's nature as well as God did. Lionel Wickham, "The Syntagmationof Aerius the Anomean," JournalofTheologicalStudies, NS 19 (1968), 565-566, n. 1 senses that itis a canard developed by their opponents. But Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomius: The ExtantWorks, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), Frag, ii, p. 179 considersthe quotation to be genuine.

11. Or. 28.1-31, PG 36,25C-72C, SC 250,100-174, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 224-244.


5/13

interes ting ploy, not a claim that there is a neu tra l public square w here

all logic is self-evident and all arguments may be judged by anyone

who arrives . In Ors. 27,28 and 31 he rails against Christians who allow

pagans to be their judges . He also warns tha t words gain their m eaning

by the way they are used in communities. The debates between theNeo-Arians and the Orthodox about the Father being unbegot ten and

the Son begotten will be heard by pagans as justifying their horrifying

myths about the gods. That is another reason wh y theology at its

deepest is not street-corner conversation, supported by some kind of

neutral f oundationalism. As he notes in Oration 30, the best theologian

will not be the one who twists and turns the faith through syllogistic

treatment but the one whose poetic skill is great, the one who can

provide the church with better images of the reality which can never

be captured in demonst rative proofs. Efforts like these have led the

way toward the church's recognition in our time of an Annie Dillard,a Madeleine L'Engle or a Kathleen Norris: all poet theologians.

Gregory himself wrote 17,000 verses according to the canons of his age.

Well received then, they often do not strike us now as stunning. His

prose, however, was so good that Byzantine style manual s drew man y

of their examples from his work. His words sometimes took the place

of those uttered by Demosthenes. It is still true that the way in which

something is said often determines whether it is heard.

Perhaps his most penetrating insight is his sense of how faith and

reason relate. Faith is what leads us; faith gives fullness to our reasoning. What the Neo-Arian opponents need is conversion from being

logicians to believers.14 Human minds are too small to ferret out the

inner recesses of God. Education at its best shows us our limita tions as

well as our attainments. Intellectualism is not faithful, but neither is

anti-intellectualism. Only the chastened mind, or better the mind filled

by faith, is fully alive and nimble. That mind can study the relat ionship

between Aristotle's logic and his rhetoric. It can wor k with Stoic logic,

grammatical exegesis of Scripture and philosophical conundrums.

When it has considered such things, it will see that theology is a

probabi lity discipline, not one in which propos itions are organized intosyllogisms. Theological argument is enthymematic. It stakes claims

and knows that they can be organized to make compelling appeals.

Scripture and tradition can be used as topoi, commonplaces or accepted

authorities. Inferences can be drawn. But because God in his nature is

incomprehensible and yet is revealed sufficiently, theology will never

Words gain thei

meaning by the

way they are us

in communities

Theology at its

deepest is notstreet-corner

conversation,

supported by so

kind of neutral

foundationalism

What the

Neo-Arian

opponents need

conversion from

being logicians

to believers.Human minds a

too small tofeir

out the inner-

recesses of God

12. Or. 27.6, PG 35,17A-20B, SC 250, 84-86, Williams' translation in Norris, 220; Or. 28.13-17,PG 36, 41C-49A, SC 250,126-136, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 231-234; Or. 31.16, PG 36,149C-152B, SC 250,306-308, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 287.

13. Or. 30.17, PG 36,125BC, SC 250,260-262, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 273-274.

14. Or. 28.28, PG 36, 65B-68B, SC 250,162-164, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 241-242; Or.29.21, PG 36,101C-104B, SC 250,222-224, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 260-261.


6/13

The Theologian

hadso deeply

penetratedthose

arts ofhuman

understanding

that in many

ways his efforts

appearto be

similar to the

workof Anselm

or Ludwig

Wittgenstein.

When he is

combatting the

Neo-Arians,

he finds the most

telling arguments

to be soteriological

and liturgical.

be amenable to tight syllogistic systems. Its subject is not open to that

kind of investigation.

The Theologian had so deeply penetrated those arts of human under-

standing that in many ways his efforts appear to be similar to the work

of Anselm or Ludwig Wittgenstein. He has a short statement of theposition that Anselm takes in the Proslogion probablybecause his own

stance is a precursor of Anselm's/ides quaerens intellectum. His efforts

resemble those of Wittgenstein because he knows that language has no

natural, only conventional, meanings. All depends upon how it is

used. He reads Scripture well, both developing what is later in the

west referred to as lectio divina and at the same time paying close

attention to context. R.P.C. Hanson noted that Gregory's exegesis often

makes quite good sense. Continually, in myview, he shows how full

his reasoning is because he has submitted in faith to God's revelation

made known in Christ within and for the church in which he grew torecognize that Christ.

The Theologian's Christology follows the strengths noted above. You

can search for the new terminology that is often ascribed to the Cap-

padocians. But the most technical development is found in the famous

Ep. 38, now usually ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa rather than Basil.

Nazianzen's offerings are more poetic and open-ended. He can distin

guish between the oneness and threenesswithin the Trinity by employ

ing the technical terms of his circle:homoousios, hypostasis, ousia, etc. But

one of the more unusual distinctions he presents in a letter against the

Apollinarians is alioskaialiosfor the difference between the Father and

the Son in the Trinity and allo kai alio for the natures in the person of

Christ. Quite often, particularly within the Theological Orations, he

avoids technical terms altogether by not using any nouns to represent the

realities. Most of his cases for Christology are made without the use of

those kinds of terms; they are commonly based on Scripture.

For example, when he is combatting the Neo-Arians, he finds the most

telling arguments to be soteriological and liturgical. He follows what

we know from the Toura finds to be a sentiment of Origen: How shall

we humans become divine if the Son who became human is not divine?

15. Or. 30.11, PG 36,116C-117B, SC 250, 244-248, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 268-69; Or.29.21, PG 36,101C-104B, SC 250, 222-224, Wickhams' translation in Norris, & 260. In termsofHans Frei's TypesofChristian Theology, ed. byGeorge Hunsinger and William Placher (NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress, 1992) Gregoryfits in the fifth type along with Karl Barth.

16. See my"Theologyas Grammar: GregoryNazianzen and Ludwig Wittgenstein," Arianismafter Arius, ed. byMichel Barnes and Daniel H. Williams (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, in press).

17. R. P. C. Hanson, The Searchfor the Christian Doctrine of God(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988),846.

18. SaintBasil, the Letters,ed. and trans, by Roy Deferrari, "The Loeb Classical Library,"(Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1972), Vol. I, Ep. 38. See Geerard, CPG.

19. Ep. 102, PG 37, 180A7B, Paul Gallay, Grgoire de Nazianze: Lettres thologiques, Sourceschrtiennes 208 (Paris:Les ditions du Cerf, 1974), 44-46.


7/13

We shall participate in the divine nature only as far as the Son par

ticipated in our nature . That unders tand ing led Nazianzen not only

to oppose later Arian Christology but also that of Apollinaris and his

followers. Furthermore he asked the Neo-Arians what is our baptism

if we are bapt ized in to a creature named the begot ten Son? Our baptism

into Christ is baptism into the divine. The teaching and practice of

Gregory's church form his sense of the person of Christ.

The Bible as the book of the church also plays the leading role in his

Christology. Within Orations 29 and 30 he cites Scripture over three

hundred times. The traditional exegetical model, the communicatio

idiomatum, is invoked because Gregory does not teach two sons and

divide the person of Christ. Anything said of Christ in Scripture can be

predicated of the one person in which the divinity predominates.

That, however, must be done in a worshipful manner. Tensions must

remain intact. On the one hand, it is preposterous for Christians tothink of the impassible God tied down in the muck of our lives as if

God is not above it all. On the other hand, Christians must insist that

God the Father does not shy away from suffering. That is a basic

confession of the church. To speak of the passion of the impassible is

to express liturgically and poetically the central mystery of the incar

nation. It explodes tight logic, not with the destruct ive force of a bomb,

but with the profusion of spring's color and scent.

In subtle and convincing ways, the Theologian does what Athanasius

was never able to do: he makes the humanity the subject of certain

biblical thoughts and actions. It is the man Jesus who prays in Geth-

semane that the cup will be removed. The will of the divine Son is the

same as that of the Father; it is the human will that so often stands over

against God's will. That human will is free and must make its own

moves to obey. The cry from the Cross is again the man. The Son is not

forsaken by the Father. In truth the man Jesus is not forsaken; neither

are we. But both we and the man Jesus at times have thought that we

were desperately alone.

Nazianzen speaks of three subjects for various scriptural statements:

the pre-existent Son, the Son incarnate, and the manhood. Again, eachbiblical phrase can be ascribed to the one person, Jesus Christ, with no

ill effect. But to counter the claims of later Arians tha t any verse which

describes lack of omnipotence or omniscience, that any phrase which

states huma n weaknesses like hunger , thirst, or growth mus t mean that

the Son is a secondary god, the Theologian employs his threefold

predication. The pre-existent Son was always with the Father. He

To speck of the

passion of the

impassible is

to express

liturgically and

poetically the

central mysteiy

the incarnation

The Theologian

does what

Athanasius wa

neverable to d

he makes the

humanity the

subject of certabiblical though

and actions.

20. Origen, Dialogue with Heracleides 7.21. Or. 29.19, PG 36,100A-B, SC 250,216-218, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 257-258.

22. Or. 30.12, PG 36,117C-120B, SC 250,248-252, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 269-270. Or.

30.5, PG 36,108C-109B, SC 250,232-236, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 264-265.


8/13

The Sonincarnate accepted

limitations by

emptying himselfand taking on ourhumanity. The

fullmanhoodmust be there,

functioning, or

our very salvation

is endangered.

The Theologianmakes his most

profoundappealsby comparing the

human and divine

natures oftheincarnate Son.

shared in the Father's nature and thus was God without qualification

other than Son. The Son incarnate accepted limitations by emptying

himself and taking on our humanity. The full manhood must be there,

functioning, or our very salvation is endangered. Thus Gregory's

christological model can employ all scriptural clauses about JesusChrist without insisting that the Son is less in nature than or of a

different nature from that of the Father.

Gregory claims that he and his community can incorporate all that

Scripture says of Jesus Christ because they do not choose "begotten"

and "unbegotten" as the names of the Son's and the Father's natures.

They know the need for Greek alpha-privative adjectives in describing

God. But "invisible," "immortal," and many other similar terms are

used to indicate that God is beyond our comprehension. Neo-Arians,

in Nazianzen's view, never show why from among so many adjectives

only "unbegotten" has been chosen in its contrast with "begotten" toname the nature of God. Why are these the names of the natures of

Father and Son as opposed to the others? Does it not go back toa wrong

sense of what names offer theology and also what narrow logic-chop

ping invokes?

The Theologian makes his most profound appeals by comparing the

human and divine natures of the incarnate Son. He knows that there

are scriptural verses that speak of less than divine qualities in Jesus

Christ. But they can be talked about under the category of his humanity

or the limitations taken on by the Son. Here in only a small abstract of

his almost musical confession he shows his prowess in ways one of my

students described with both affection and honor as "great black

preaching." These balanced phrases follow hard logical analysis of

Neo-Arian propositions that shows Gregory's own command of such

conundrums. These words, however, unlike any analysis, sing the song

of incarnation, fully man and fully God.

As man he was baptized, but he absolved sins as God; he neededno purifying rites himself his purpose was to hallow water. As manhe was put to the test, but as God he came through victorious -yet,

bids us be of good cheer, because he has conquered the world. Hehungered yet he fed thousands. He is indeed "living, heavenlybread." He thirsted yet he exclaimed: "Whosoever thirsts, let him

23. Or. 28.9, PG 36,36C-37B, SC 250,116-120, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 228-229.

24. Mt. 3:16, Luke 3:21.

25. John 1:29, Mt. 9:2.

26. Mt. 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13.

27. John 16:33.

28. Mt. 4:2, Luke 4:2.

29. Mt. 14:20-21,15:37-38, Mark 6:42-44,8:9.

30. John 6:51.

31. John 19:28.


9/13

come to me and drink."32

Indeed he promised that believers wouldbecome fountains.

33He was tired

34 yet he is the "rest" of the weary

and the burdened.35

He was overcome by heavy sleep36

yet he goeslightly over the sea, rebukes winds, and relieves the drowning Peter.He pays tax yet he uses a fish to do it; indeed he is emperor over

those who demand the tax. He is called a "Samaritan, demonicallypossessed" but he rescues the man who came down from Jerusalemand fell among thieves.

4Yes, he is recognized by demons, drives out

demons, drowns deep a legion of spirits and sees the prince ofdemons falling like lightning. He is stoned, yet not hit; he prays yethe hears prayer. He weeps,

7yet he puts an end to weeping. He asks

where Lazarus is he was man; yet he raises Lazarus he wasGod. He is sold, and cheap was the price thirty pieces of silver;

51yet

he buys back the world at the mighty cost of his own blood.52A sheep,

he is led to the slaughter yet he shepherds Israel and now thewhole world as well.

55A lamb, he is dumb yet he is "word,"

proclaimed by "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." He isweakened, wounded

5 yet he cures every disease and every weak

ness.60

He is brought up to the tree61

and nailed to it62

yet by the tree

32.John 7:37.

33. Cf. John 7:38.

34. John 4:6.

35. Mt. 11:28.

36. Cf. Mt. 8:24, Mark 4:38.

37. Mt. 14:25-32, Mark6:48-51, John 6:19-21, Mt. 8:26, Mark4:39, Luke 8:24.

38. Mt. 17:24-27.

39. John 8:48.

40. Cf. Luke 10:30.

41. Luke 4:33-34, Mark1:23-24.

42. Cf. Mt. 8:16.

43. Mark 5:9,13, Luke 8:30, 33.

44. Cf. Luke 10:18.

45. Cf. John 8:59,10:31, 39.

46. E.g. Mark 1:35, Mt. 8:13.

47. John 11:35.

48. Cf. Luke 7:13,8:52, 23:28.

49. John 11:34.

50. John 11:43-44.51. Mt. 26:15.

52. Cf. 1 Cor. 6:20,1 Pet. 1:19.

53. Acts 8:32, Isa. 53:7.

54. Ps. 80(79):1(2).

55. Cf. John 10:11,16.

56. Isa. 53:7.

57. John 1:1.

58. John 1:23.

59. Isa. 53:5.

60. Mt. 9:35.

61.1 Pet. 2:24.

62. Cf. John 19:17.


10/13

Nazianzen's

Christology

strengthens the

Athanasiansolution, not only

by repeating the

phrases ofNicaea,

but also by

predicating

thoughts and

actions of Christ's

manhood. It leads

to Chalcedon.

of life he restores us. Yes, he saves even a thief crucified with him;he wraps all the visible world in darkness. 5 He is given vinegar todrink, gall to eat and who is he? Why, one who turnedwater intowine, who took away the taste of bitterness, who is all sweetnessand desire. He surrenders his life, yet he has power to take it again.

Yes, the veil is rent, for things of heaven are being revealed, rocks split,and dead men have an earlier awakening.7 He dies,7 but he vivifies,and by death destroys death.75 He is buried,76 yet he rises again.77 Hegoes down to Hades, yet he leads souls up,7 ascends to heaven,7 andwill come again to judge quick and dead, and to probe discussionslike these. If the first set of expressions starts you going astray, thesecond set takes your error away. 1

Nazianzen's Christology strengthens the Athanasian solution, not only

by repeating the phrases of Nicaea, but also by predicating thoughts

and actions of Christ's manhood. It leads to Chalcedon. In a similar

way his doctrine of the Holy Spirit goes farther than his friend Basilwas ever able to advance. Apparently Basil never dared, either in

corporate worship or in written work, to speak of the Spirit as God. He

may have accepted that it was proper to think or pray to the Spirit, but

such a phrase seemingly never came from his Ups in public.

The Theologian begins Oration 31 with the insistence that the Holy

Spirit is God. Only the three-fold "light" shines fully. Nazianzen's

sense of the worship milieu for the Spirit is much the same as that for

his Christology: the Holy Spirit is active in our salvation; we were

63. Cf. Gen. 2:9, 3:2, Rev. 2:7.

64. Luke 23:43.

65. Cf. Mt. 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44.

66. Mt. 27:48.

67. Mt. 27:34.

68. John 2:7-9.

69. Cf. Ex. 15:25.

70. Cant. 5:16 [LXX].

71. John 10:17-18.

72. Mt. 27:51-52.

73. Mt. 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30.

74. John 5:21.75. 2 Tim. 1:10, Heb. 2:14.76. Mt. 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:41-42,1 Cor. 15:4.

77. John 20:8-9, Mt. 28:6, Mark 16:6, Luke 24:6,1 Cor. 15.4.

78. Cf. Eph. 4:8-9, Ps. 68(67):18(19).

79. Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:10-11.

80. 2 Tim. 4:1,1 Pet. 4:5.

81. Or. 29.20, PG 36,100C-101C, SC 250,220-222, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 258-260. Thebiblical warp and woof of Gregory's appeal is clear. There are, however, arguments to be raisedagainst some of these parallels. When trie man was put to the test, did only God come throughvictorious? Does a list like this create a divisive Christology that leads to two sons and thus towhat came to be known as a Nestorian error? Legitimate queries each. Other passages offerstatements that soften the edge of the questions. Ine real point may be that the poetic cadence

moves one in ways all too seldom experienced.


11/13

baptized not into a creature but into the divine Spirit. And again he

and his friends pour over the Scriptures to see from within the church

what Holy Writ says about that Spirit. Gregory forcefully confessed

that the Spirit is God and then noted that his opponents, both later

Arians and Pneumatomachians, have asked where he gets this unscrip-tural god. Where does the Bible speak of the Spirit as God? Finally, after

teasing his audience almost unmercifully as if he is going to avoid the

point, he offers almost a hundred passages of Scripture in which he

shows that nearly everything divine is attributed to the Spirit except

being the Father or the Son. Relying on lists of "holy" and "holy Spirit"

which those in his circle have provided and perhaps adding some

from his own study he shows repeatedly how the Spirit must be

accepted as God, and thus that the full form of Christian faith must be

described as trinitarian.

It is also in his discussion of the Spirit that he offers his famous sense

of doctrinal development. The Old Testament made God the Father

clear; The New Testament delineated Christ the Son. It is in the present

age, says Nazianzen, that the divinity of the Spirit has become plain.

Scripture does not precisely speak the words that the Holy Spirit is

God. But Scripture, liturgy and salvation demand that the church now

declare the fullness of that Spirit's divinity, and thus the doctrine of the

Trinity.82

The Theologian wanted the Council of Constant inople in 381

to be even more bold than it was. His view of the Spirit and doctrinal

development indicate yet again that in many ways Arianism, evenNeo-Arianism wi th its subtle philosophical use of up-to-date posit ions,

was still a conservativism built on shaky foundations. Holding fast to

what has been traditioned may require moving forward toward dif

ferent, faithful expressions.

The influence he had as the second president of the Council of Constan

tinople at the least helped affirm what has become the most often prayed

confession of the church: The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. But

attacks upon him, particularly by Alexandrians who insisted he had

broken the canon law of Nicaea in being bishop of more than one see,

moved him to resign in anger. He has thus also provided us with

another clear sign that we need for the present day. Councils are not

regarded as the voice of the church because their members are always

virtuous or insightful. As the Theologian says, they can be gaggles of

geese; they have formed gatherings which not only did not clarify the

church's vision but also threatened her life. He wrote to Procopius that

he should avoid such councils because they could destroy the soul.

In the present era when we know enough about the machinations of

The

Old Testament

made God the

Fatherclear; T

New Testamen

delineated Chr

the Son. It is in

the present age

says Nazianze

that the divini

ofthe Spirit ha

become plain.

Councils are n

regarded as the

voice ofthe chubecause their

members are

always virtuou

or insightful. A

the Theologian

says, they can

gaggles of gees

82. Or. 31.26, PG 36,161C-164B, SC 250,326-328, Wickhams' translation in Norris, 293-294.

83. Ep. 130, PG 37, 225AB, Paul Gallay, ed., Gregor von Nazianz: Briefe, GCS 53 (Berlin:Academic-Verlag, 1969), 95-96.


12/13

The councils and

theircreeds are

acceptable because

the church

over time and

geography has

received them

as expressive

of its faith.

councils and are concerned enough about state power or culture tellingthe church what she must believe, we can see a council presidentreviling the proceedings and the participants.

The Theologian, without spelling it out or even to my knowledge

commenting on it, provides a hole only filled by the sense of reception.

84The councils and their creeds are acceptable because the church

over time and geography has received them as expressive of its faith.The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the most confessed neitherbecause an emperor called the council that framed it, nor becauseculture demanded it nor because various factions warred to see whowould be the proper president. It is confessed because within it thechurch finds her faith. Neither early Protestants, reforming Catholicsor contemporary Orthodox are the first to worry about power strugglesthat rot the faith; Gregory the Theologian, the president of the Councilof Constantinople in 381, rebuked such disease.

The Eastern Orthodox have found Gregory repeatedly helpful and thusrefer to him as The Theologian, a title which for them he shares onlywith the apostle John. Gregory also forms with Basil the Great and JohnChrysostom the triumvirate of the three hierarchs, a group ofauthorities that mark much discussion within Eastern Orthodoxy.Even in the West Nazianzen is considered a doctor of the church; thenumber of manuscripts of his work is only exceeded by an easternauthor in the case of John Chrysostom. David Cunningham, an Epis

copalian teaching in a Roman Catholic university, has written a brilliant description of rhetorical theology. His work shows how helpfulGregory can be to a theologian who wishes to recapture the importanceof rhetoric and literary studies for our efforts. The remarkable ecumenical theologian, Thomas Oden, has found the Theologian to be central inhis three-volume classical theology for leaders of today's church.

There is little doubt that Gregory the Theologian deserves his title.Theology done in his key is always pro ecclesia. D

84. Andr Halleaux, "La rception du symbole oecumnique de Nice Chalddoine," phmthologicaeLovanienses 61 (1985), 5-47.85.David Cunningham, Faithful Persuasion: InAidofa Rhetoric ofChristian Theology (Notre DamUniversity of Notre Dame Press, 1991).

86. Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, The Living God, Vol. 2, The Wordof Life, VLife in the Spirit (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989-1992).


13/13

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Gregory the Theologian