Fr. Matta teaches no differently than what St. Cyril teaches here (and St. Cyril amazingly answers your question very fully, as if he was anticipating your question):
Manifoldly does Christ initiate us by these words, and since His Discourse is hard of attainment by the more unlearned, asking for itself rather the understanding of faith than investigation, He revolving again and again over the same ground makes it easy in divers ways, and from all parts illumines what is useful therein, fixing as a kind of foundation and groundwork the most excellent desire for it. For he that eateth My Flesh (saith He) and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. For as if one should join wax with other wax, he will surely see (I suppose) the one in the other; in like manner (I deem) he who receiveth the Flesh of our Saviour Christ and drinketh His Precious Blood, as He saith, is found one with Him, commingled as it were and immingled with Him through the participation, so that he is found in Christ, Christ again in him. Thus was Christ teaching us in the Gospel too according to Matthew, saying, The Kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Who then the woman is, what the three measures of meal, or what the measure at all, shall be spoken of in its proper place: for the present we will speak only of the leaven. As then Paul saith that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, so the least portion of the Blessing blendeth our whole body with itself, and filleth it with its own mighty working, and so Christ cometh to be in us, and we again in Him. For one may truly say that the leaven is in the whole lump, and the lump by like reasoning is in the whole leaven: you have in brief the sense of the words. And if we long for eternal life, if we pray to have the Giver of immortality in ourselves, let us not like some of the more heedless refuse to be blessed nor let the Devil deep in wickedness, lay for us a trap and snare a perilous reverence.
Yea (says he) for it is written, He that eateth of the Bread, and drinketh of the Cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh doom unto himself: and I, having examined myself, see that I am not worthy.
When then wilt thou be worthy (will he who thus speaks hear from us) when wilt thou present thyself to Christ? for if thou art always going to be scared away by thy stumblings, thou wilt never cease from stumbling (for who can understand his errors? as saith the holy Psalmist) and wilt be found wholly without participation of that wholly-preserving sanctification. Decide then to lead a holier life, in harmony with the law, and so receive the Blessing, believing that it hath power to expel, not death only, but the diseases in us. For Christ thus coming to be in us lulleth the law which rageth in the members of the flesh, and kindleth piety to God-ward, and deadeneth our passions, not imputing to us the transgressions in which we are, but rather, healing us, as sick. For He bindeth up that which was crushed, He raiseth what had fallen, as a Good Shepherd and One that hath laid down His Life for His sheep. (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book IV, Chapter 2)
And 13th Century Coptic Bishop, Anba Boulos al-Bushi writes in his commentary on the gospel of John:
Then He said the greatest thing when He made the statement, "Just as the living Father sent me, and I have life on account of the Father, so too whoever eats Me lives on account of Me." (John 6:57). He did not need to say here, "whoever eats my body," because He already established that in the preceding statement. He said first, "the living bread" (John 6:51), and informed us that that bread was truly His body. Then, He said third, "whoever eats me" (John 6:57). He means (here) that He is God incarnate, and His divinity is not differentiated from His humanity. Whoever partakes (of the Eucharist) in a worthy manner and with faith, (God) resides in him and gives him the life that He gave to the body united to Him. (quoted from Stephen Davis' "The Copto-Arabic Tradition of Theosis")
Then you can understand how St. Paul says "for all of you who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27). This is not a mere expression of words. Christ is as much present in the Eucharist as He is present in our body parts. To become "the body of Christ" is not a mere figure of speech, but a true mystical reality. The question is how can one defile himself if he is a part of the body of Christ? The answer, we are all weak without Christ, but with Christ, we are made strong, and so if we continue to struggle and fight with bloodshed against sin, with Christ, all things become possible. For even a bishop can sin and can even be a heretic, as history has shown, and he is given the highest of grace in the Church. So it is not impossible to conceive how we can defile the body of Christ, but that this is necessary to take seriously this unity we have with Christ. Yes, we are married to Christ, and just as man and woman become "one flesh", so do we become "one flesh" in Christ. Therefore, by imitation of Christ, we should be able to maintain this unity, so as we are not found guilty of profaning the body of Christ in us.
"There is one God, and we become one in the Father through the Son by the Spirit. St. John teaches this in the gospel in the prayer of Christ, "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity." What glory did Christ give us?"
We become one in likeness not in essence. I agree that we have been "deified" in the sense that we have been granted the attributes of God's glory; but let us not confuse this for sharing in God's divine essence. To say that we are knit to the Godhead does not mean that we are divine just as God is divine (because we do not believe in a confused Trinity), it means that we are joined together by God's grace in that He gave us some of His attributes like immortality, holiness, etc.
Regarding St. Cyril's commentary:
Regarding the wax statement--I see this as something metaphorical not literal. The way I see it is that, the joining of the wax refers to the joining of wills of two separate individuals (Christ and the partaker). When he refers to the commingling I believe he could be referring to that of a bridegroom and a bride as I mentioned before. Just as God said that the two become one flesh, we become the same with God--but this is not something literal.
I am not claiming that Christ is not present in us--He is! but I am not Christ and my body does not literally transform into His body. You said: "The question is how can one defile himself if he is a part of the body of Christ? The answer, we are all weak without Christ, but with Christ, we are made strong, and so if we continue to struggle and fight with bloodshed against sin, with Christ, all things become possible." My question to you is, what if we do not struggle? What if we partake haphazardly without discretion? Are you saying that I can defile Christ's body? God can be defiled by man?! What if I decide to slap someone? Can I therefore conclude that it was Christ that slapped him? This is ludicrous..
Where did I say we partake of the essence of God? I denied this in clear terms if you reread my posts.
At the same time, can you separate the attributes of God from His essence? That's the point I am pushing for.
Neither do I deny that my union with Christ is that where two persons continue to exist, but I also dislike the idea that is "metaphorical". The only metaphor is "Wax with wax", but it's used to describe how our bodies are mingled with the body of Christ, so that we may be one flesh. It's a mystery that I have to accept. The difference is as you say, that of two persons. My person is not the person of Christ, so therefore, my flesh isn't worshipped, but only Christ's. Nevertheless, I don't like the use of the word "not literal". We are mystically, or mysteriously, in a way we cannot describe, united in one flesh with Christ, just as man and woman become one flesh in marriage. I also believe that LITERALLY, man and woman do become one flesh, not "metaphorically". If I gave you that quote and I didn't say it was from St. Cyril, would you re-interpret it to fit your idea, or would you be shocked by it?
I sympathize with your concern, mentioning of a person who without discretion "slaps someone." My answer: If a man who is of the Church slaps someone, He divorces Himself from the body of Christ, and loses that oneness He has with Him, as if committing adultery to the very communion He partakes of (that is of course, if the person doesn't repent. Christ with His great mercy gives us the sacrament of repentance and confession for the very reason that He is merciful not to divorce us from Him if we want to return). But when one does indeed imitate Christ, the person who does the good works that befits a saint would not say it is he who does them, but "Christ in me", and that is not because of some mere false humility, but in truth, Christ does indeed do these works. If someone was to partake of the Eucharist profanely, He is partaking of damnation. Likewise, if someone of the Church slaps someone else, He is slapping himself to condemnation, because this is not something that befits the body of Christ. But on the other hand, someone partakes of the Eucharist truly is mingled into Christ, would then lead this person to do workings of healing and helping the poor, this man or woman would say it is Christ who does them, not me. Thus, mystically, they have acquired this literal oneness that makes their own flesh worthy of veneration as we venerate the relics of saints.
So, I still maintain that this must be taken literally, not metaphorically. How? It's a mystery. That's the point. You need to balance the fact that it's literal with, as you rightfully worry, that we are still two people. But if husband and wife is one flesh merely metaphorically, then there's really no marriage, and we don't really need the sacrament, but just a government paper, just as if it's only a metaphorical union between my flesh and Christ, then there's no real unity there either, but merely an inspirational belief and a moral injunction. I mean what is to stop from extending this idea of "metaphor" and supporting the oopnevmians in the "metaphorical" indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
You said: "At the same time, can you separate the attributes of God from His essence? That's the point I am pushing for."
They are different! It is one thing to say I am created in the image and likeness of God and its another to say that I share in the same essence of God. We are created in His image and likeness and therefore we share similar attributes like our emotions, personality, sovereign authority, and even immortality. Does this mean I share in the same life-giving essence as my Creator? No, I do not. There are animals that eat, communicate, walk, and play; does this mean we share the same essence?
You said: "The difference is as you say, that of two persons. My person is not the person of Christ, so therefore, my flesh isn't worshipped, but only Christ's."
This seems to contradict what you have been saying all along. How can we say that we are literally united and my flesh becomes His flesh and then say that my flesh should not be worshiped? Also, how can man and woman possibly be united in one (literally)? Are you saying that a woman's flesh can have a mind and will of its own? How then can it (he) be one with her? What if there is a disagreement, can you say that her "flesh" is against her? What about annulments or divorce? Are they still one flesh?
You said: "If a man who is of the Church slaps someone, He divorces Himself from the body of Christ, and loses that oneness He has with Him, as if committing adultery to the very communion He partakes of (that is of course, if the person doesn't repent. "
My question is: Does my flesh, which is united to the Lord's, suddenly change back to just my flesh when I sin? Is the Lord's flesh still united or does it suddenly stop once I sin? If not how can we justify that it is only me who is slapping and not the Lord (as St. Paul says: "I say this as a man")? If it does stop becoming one (literal) flesh once we sin, then it must be likened more to medicine--obviously we do not become one with medicine, but it is through taking medicine that we become healed of our illness.
You argue that if the union between husband and wife is metaphorical, then there can no longer be a union. Why? Why can't we say that our union is shared by our looking after one another? Why can't I say that my treating of my wife as if she was my flesh (as St. Paul says) and looking out for her not credit the fact that there is a union between us?
Regarding St. Cryil's quote:
I would have read this carefully as the fathers do tend to delve into complicated matters and use strong words to convey and emphasize a meaning just as Christ did when He said "He who does not forsake mother, father, ....cannot be my disciple." Does He really mean that I have to hate my family in order to follow Him? No, but It is through these idioms that we understand the emphasis of what the writer or speaker is trying to convey. In this case it is emphasizing the strong union between us and the Lord when we partake of Him.
You're missing the point. God doesn't "create immortality". God is immortal, and we partake of His VERY OWN immortality, but we cannot partake of His essence. Again, St. John records that Christ prayed to impart on us the glory which the Father gave to the Son eternally to His followers. God doesn't create glory, He is glory. God doesn't create love, He IS Love. Another St. Cyril quote for you:
But it is inconceivable that created being should have the power to deify. This is something that can be attributed only to God, who through the Spirit infuses into the souls of the saints a participation in his own property. When we have been conformed by the Spirit to him who is Son by nature, we are called gods and sons on account of him. And because we are sons, as Scripture says, ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying “Abba! Father” ’ (Gal. 4: 6). If the power to deify by one’s own agency greatly exceeds that which belongs to the nature of a creature, how will anyone assign the Holy Spirit to the class of contingent existences, unless he has completely gone out of his mind? Or how will he who produces gods be declared a created being? (Dial. Trin. vii. 644de, de Durand iii, 180; cf. In Jo. 9. 1. 810e)
One needs to balance the fact that we indeed do not partake of the essence of the Godhead, but God allows us to partake of Him inasmuch as we can possibly handle. He gives us Himself freely, and we take whatever we can, as if from an eternal fountain of an ocean. You cannot separate the fountain from the ocean, but He is present fully with His condescending love in an indescribable mystery. Immortality is not something that we possess by our nature, but by grace. It would be just as blasphemous to say that I am immortal by nature as it is to say that I partake of God's essence. You need to balance the fact that, yes, I cannot partake of the essence of God, that is I cannot be as God eternally is, but God imparts Himself to me as a grace, a gift I don't deserve.
You said: This seems to contradict what you have been saying all along. How can we say that we are literally united and my flesh becomes His flesh and then say that my flesh should not be worshiped? Also, how can man and woman possibly be united in one (literally)? Are you saying that a woman's flesh can have a mind and will of its own? How then can it (he) be one with her? What if there is a disagreement, can you say that her "flesh" is against her? What about annulments or divorce? Are they still one flesh?
Do you have any understanding of the proper meaning of mystery? Do you not understand our faith is filled with paradox that our human mind is unable to comprehend? Let's discuss marriage first before we discuss Christ, because apparently, you've just completely destroyed the meaning of marriage in the Orthodox Church, when you say:
You argue that if the union between husband and wife is metaphorical, then there can no longer be a union. Why? Why can't we say that our union is shared by our looking after one another? Why can't I say that my treating of my wife as if she was my flesh (as St. Paul says) and looking out for her not credit the fact that there is a union between us?
What type of unity is there when a man and a woman marries? Just moral support? That's the type of unity you're advocating. Anyone can treat any neighbor as his own flesh. This is a command for all people: "Love your neighbor as your self." But the unity between a married couple goes much deeper than this second commandment of the Lord. It's a consummation of this commandment by mystically taking two people, and making them one flesh. It is why divorce is one of the most terrible things to happen in Church, and we take divorce very seriously. And second marriages don't carry a crowning ceremony because it destroys the essential nature of the first marriage that ideally should be the ONLY marriage, that when we marry, there is NO "till death do us part". Your concept of marriage is completely Protestant and bastardizes the true sacrament.
Yes, of course when a husband does something it is the wife that does it, and vice versa. That is the ideal. My flesh is not mine anymore, but her's and vice versa. This is a mystery beyond compare, and in this mystery, one should take very seriously the unity of will, mind, and heart in a family. Marriage is not just mere commitment or a bond of affection, but a mingling of the husband and wife. So when divorce happens, it's as if heresy happens. It is a terrible thing for one to "unmingle" from his/her spouse, and it destroys the ideal foundation of the understanding of the unity of Christ and His Church, which He calls, without apology, His own body. Christ sees His Church and joyfully and eternally proclaims, "flesh of My flesh, and bones of my bones". I agree with you that the integrity of every person and their flesh isn't lost, but I disagree with you that the flesh of husband and wife are merely "metaphorically" one. That is not what the Orthodox Church teaches.
With regards to marriage, I acknowledge that I have erred in saying that the union is metaphorical. It is a union that is sanctified by God in which the Holy Spirit comes and descends on the bride and groom and unites them in holy matrimony. I agree that there is a spiritual union that unites both the husband and wife by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
However, I have an issue with what you say here: "Yes, of course when a husband does something it is the wife that does it, and vice versa." This sounds like you are saying that my wife's sins are my sins and this is not right to say. Again, I believe the union (when I say union, I'm referring to them being "one flesh") is within the bounds of the spiritual (not physical realm). What do I mean? I mean that we are not fused together into one person physically but we are united spiritually. I am responsible for my wife but God will definitely not judge me for all her sins. We both have a mind of our own and God is just in judging each person according to their own deeds.
You also said:
Do you have any understanding of the proper meaning of mystery? Do you not understand our faith is filled with paradox that our human mind is unable to comprehend?"
I do not think you are answering my question. I am fully aware of the mysteries of the church, nevertheless, I wish to have a more solid grounding in theology and this is why I am asking. I just want to be able to understand as much as I can so that if someone asks me (maybe someone from outside the church), I may respond in a befitting manner. I realize not everything can be explained but I am dissatisfied with your answer because you failed to address my questions.
You say: "You need to balance the fact that it's literal with, as you rightfully worry, that we are still two people."
What is this balance? How can you balance this?
You also say: "One needs to balance the fact that we indeed do not partake of the essence of the Godhead, but God allows us to partake of Him inasmuch as we can possibly handle"
When a Muslim asks you about the Incarnation, how is it that the Infinite God can become man, how would you explain this to him? You tell Him that with God all things that seem impossible are possible. To say that it's impossible for God to become man is to limit God. But how, the Muslim will continue to ask. He'll scoff at you for blind faith! But we have faith with experience.
God too makes the seemingly impossible to our eyes, possible by the grace of the Holy Spirit. So yes, your wife's sins are your very own sins. You are in fact responsible for your wife's sins, believe it or not! AND vice versa! In the garden of Eden, the bond of the one flesh was broken by the fact that Adam was point blame at Eve, when in fact, Adam could have prevented her. "THAT WOMAN YOU GAVE ME". What happened Adam? Just the other day, you rejoiced in saying "flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones", now you blame her, and in turn, you blame your very own God! And she, instead of blaming herself, points the finger at the wily serpent. In Christian marriage, this is reversed. Does your wife speak evil of others? The husband is responsible. Does the husband linger in laziness? The wife is responsible. This is what marriage is. You're responsible for each other, not merely looking out for each other. I look out for my friends all the time. I love them as my own flesh. But I'm not married to them. Of course, I don't want to go as far as say "Am I my brother's keeper", as the murderer Cain did. Perhaps, as a Church, we should learn to be responsible for each other's sins. St. Paul even showed immense love for his very own Jewish brothers, "For I wish that I were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my race." WOW! The evangelical spirit of Paul! He felt so responsible, he was moved to spread the gospel!
The priest, who takes charge of the parish, is married to the parish, and is responsible for each and every one of His congregant, His "children". Teachers receive a "stricter judgment", as St. James in his epistle says. Why? Because, he's responsible for those who he teaches.
Therefore, you are LITERALLY one flesh, so that your two minds and your two hearts may be united. And this does not end in physical death, but even in eternity, you are married. You are married FOREVER. Marriage is serious. No, there's no "one person fused", but there is "one flesh fused." You have to take that by faith. Like the Eucharist. How is that bread and wine are the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Christ? The grace of the Holy Spirit. But how? I don't know, I take it by faith. But it still TASTES like bread and wine! So? The Church teaches that this is the LIFE-GIVING flesh of the Only Begotten Son. I take it by faith. How can I balance the fact that this is the true body of Christ while it still tastes like bread? That's a mystery. The balance is the mystery.
St. Paul says something very provocative. Christ on that Cross "became sin". How! Impossible! God, who abolishes sin, BECOMES SIN???!!! But of course, He became a sin offering, taking on our behalf, our wretchedness and filth, and destroys it, to draw us back to righteousness. He took responsibility for our sins! St. Paul said this, not me! But of course, the caveat...are you going to respond to this mercy, to this loving-kindness, to this divine forgiveness? If not, then you are on the road of grieving the Holy Spirit, and destroying the unity Christ offered for you, possibly even blaspheming the Holy Spirit by giving up. The spouse likewise, takes upon him/herself the sins of his/her partner, in hopes that the partner may repent. Marriage is supposed to be an aid to salvation. You choose marriage, not merely because you love your partner, but because you love how he/she takes you to Christ, by mingling you with his/herself! If this foundation did not exist in the first place, but only based on some Western-style romance novel of passionate love making and moral support, then the grace of the Holy Spirit means NOTHING.
Consider a baby. How much knowledge, food, work can a baby handle? Not as much as a child. And the child not as much as a teen. And the teen not as much as a young adult. And even then, every year, you feel like you've learned much more in life. You've grown in wisdom and stature. You've learned mistakes from the past. You've grown more experienced, hopefully more humble, more understanding, more loving. And does this growth stop? No! Even when we rise from the dead, and God willing, we all attain eternal life in Kingdom of Heaven, we still will grow. Oh we will even grow in virtues we don't even know about! We take in as much as we can grow into.
Let's contemplate on St. Athanasius' "knit into the Godhead." We are but a small thread in our infancy. From this thread we grow, and we are knitted more and more, and our created nature receives nourishment. In baptism, our clothe is also soaked into the Divine Ocean. The hands of the Father Himself, the Son and the Holy Spirit take us as wet clothe swimming into the sea of the divine nature, and we grow into this sea, being more wet and obtaining more cloth. In an indescribable mystery, the whole ocean may even dwell within us to knit us as we walk upon the earth, and this is not possible except by the knitting into Christ's body, for "it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20). For while we are swimming in this divine sea, we are also mysteriously walking with the Holy Trinity dwelling in us, and we spread the gospel of the Christ in us spraying Holy Water that resides in us wherever we go, just as Abouna sprays to us the water at the end of the Liturgy, as if like a command, to take the communion of Christ with the saints to the whole world and preach the gospel. We take the liturgical priesthood and we being "priests and kings" bless the world with our light and our salt.
God offered man the Law or the divine commandments, but it was no good for him. It exposed the weakness of man and revealed his sins (Rom. 7:13). Therefore man became in need of the intervention of the Creator Himself to renew his nature and sanctify his will. That man may return to God to find in Him an unique compassionate Fatherhood which encompasses and supports him, granting him hope in eternal life and enjoyment in sharing the everlasting inheritance in the company of the heavenly hosts. This is the divine grace which in its essence is the enjoyment of sharing the nature of God Himself. The Holy Trinity, acts in us to attain the Fatherhood of the Father, the membership in the Body of Jesus Christ, the dwelling of the Holy Spirit the Giver of sanctification and the partaking in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).
Through this abundant grace our will is strengthened in Christ, sanctified by His Holy Spirit and grows active and effective by the living faith.
Through this concept we believe in the grace of God not just as a dogma that suffices our mind, but as the presence of God in all aspects of our life, even when we are eating, drinking, sleeping, exercising or traveling about. It touches our worship and our daily life. (Fr. Tadros Malaty "The Divine Grace")
The answer to the original questions lies in the translation. When archangel Gabriel told St Mary that the Holy Spirit will descend on her he used oobnawma not bibnawma. But when the holy Spirit descended on our Lord in the Jordan River it was bibnawma. The original translations like Greek and coptic are careful to draw the distinction between the two to refer either to a hypostatic reception or a grace
The short answer to the question it is impossible for humans to receive the bibnawma hypostatically otherwise we will be in union with God hypostatically and become Gods like Him.
By that logic, then the Coptic gospel of John tells us that the Word was "oo-efnouti", which means He was only God by grace. Jehovah's Witnesses would rejoice at the day the oo-pnevma really becomes dogma, which is a terrifying aspect of our whole theology.
The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us does not mean we are united hypostatically to the Holy Spirit. That is a false presumption.
Didn't we already resolve this? The use of the indefinite (more accurately partitive) tense for pneuma has nothing to do with theology. Those who don't understand want to interject a theological reason that ends up creating an anti-Orthodox, anti-theosis theology. It's that simple.
Hi all, are there clergy and servants in our Church who do teach actively about theosis and the implications? Like who use the term directly and encourage people to live and encounter life in the Trinity?
Then in that case, Fr. Shenouda (if in fact he does teach this, which is very sad, and shows he actually is messing up his Coptic) has implicitly made the Coptic Church an Arian Church and condemned St. Athanasius in his troubles. If you read this whole thread, you can see that they disagree with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, that the whole Holy Spirit does dwell in us.
In answer to the difference between the Holy Spirit of Luke 1:35 (presumably oopnevma) and the Holy Spirit of Luke 3:23 (presumably pipnevma), check out the lectures on the Holy Spirit by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture XVII) and St. Gregory the Theologian (The Fifth Theological Oration). In both these lectures, you find that there is no such distinction. The Archangel Gabriel did not imply to say to St. Mary, "the grace of the Holy Spirit will come upon you." No! The actual Holy Spirit came upon St. Mary, the same Holy Spirit that descended upon Christ in the Jordan. Just read what St. Cyril wrote, and notice the parallels:
This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it. It is Gabriel who says to her, I am the herald of what shall be done, but have no part in the work. Though an Archangel, I know my place; and though I joyfully bid thee All hail, yet how thou shalt bring forth, is not of any grace of mine. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
...
This Holy Ghost came down when the Lord was baptized, that the dignity of Him who was baptized might not be hidden; as John says, But He which sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. But see what saith the Gospel; the heavens were opened; they were opened because of the dignity of Him who descended; for, lo, he says, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and lighting upon Him: that is, with voluntary motion in His descent. For it was fit, as some have interpreted, that the primacy and first-fruits of the Holy Spirit promised to the baptized should be conferred upon the manhood of the Saviour, who is the giver of such grace.
Notice the first part, "not any grace of mine", but rather the full hypostasis Himself, "the Holy Spirit".
And St. Gregory too makes the same parallels:
This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence of Scripture. But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost shall be shewn to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these facts:—Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes His place.
This whole oopnevma vs pipnevma business NEVER existed in the Holy Fathers. This is a new doctrine promulgated by a misuse of the Coptic language and a lack of understanding of the Church fathers.
St. Basil the Great repeats this, in his famous work "On the Holy Spirit":
39. But when we speak of the dispensations made for man by our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who will gainsay their having been accomplished through the grace of the Spirit? Whether you wish to examine ancient evidence—the blessings of the patriarchs, the succour given through the legislation, the types, the prophecies, the valorous feats in war, the signs wrought through just men;— or on the other hand the things done in the dispensation of the coming of our Lord in the flesh—all is through the Spirit. In the first place He was made an unction, and being inseparably present was with the very flesh of the Lord, according to that which is written, "Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is" (John 1:33) "my beloved Son"; (Matthew 3:17) and "Jesus of Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost". (Acts 10:38) After this every operation was wrought with the co-operation of the Spirit. He was present when the Lord was being tempted by the devil; for, it is said, "Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted." (Matthew 4:1) He was inseparably with Him while working His wonderful works; for, it is said, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils." (Matthew 12:28) And He did not leave Him when He had risen from the dead; for when renewing man, and, by breathing on the face of the disciples, restoring the grace, that came of the inbreathing of God, which man had lost, what did the Lord say? "Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:22-23) And is it not plain and incontestable that the ordering of the Church is effected through the Spirit? For He gave, it is said, in the church, "first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues," (1 Corinthians 12:28) for this order is ordained in accordance with the division of the gifts that are of the Spirit.
...
49. And His operations, what are they? For majesty ineffable, and for numbers innumerable. How shall we form a conception of what extends beyond the ages? What were His operations before that creation whereof we can conceive? How great the grace which He conferred on creation? What the power exercised by Him over the ages to come? He existed; He pre-existed; He co-existed with the Father and the Son before the ages. It follows that, even if you can conceive of anything beyond the ages, you will find the Spirit yet further above and beyond. And if you think of the creation, the powers of the heavens were established by the Spirit, the establishment being understood to refer to disability to fall away from good. For it is from the Spirit that the powers derive their close relationship to God, their inability to change to evil, and their continuance in blessedness. Is it Christ's advent? The Spirit is forerunner. Is there the incarnate presence? The Spirit is inseparable. Working of miracles, and gifts of healing are through the Holy Spirit. Demons were driven out by the Spirit of God. The devil was brought to naught by the presence of the Spirit. Remission of sins was by the gift of the Spirit, for you were washed, you were sanctified,...in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the holy Spirit of our God. There is close relationship with God through the Spirit, for God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6)
He who co-existed with the Father and the Son is He who is involved in the advent of Christ, that is the birth of Christ from the Virgin St. Mary. The same is He who is involved in the unction of Christ in the river Jordan.
11. What is this mighty folly of theirs? Once again, where in the Scriptures have they found the Spirit referred to as an angel? I am obliged to repeat what I have said before. He is called Paraclete, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of sanctification,Spirit of God, and Spirit of Christ; but never angel or archangel, or ministering spirit, as are the angels. Rather he is himself ministered unto with the Son by Gabriel when he says to Mary, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.' But if the Scriptures do not speak of the Spirit as an angel, what excuse have they for so great and absurd an audacity? ...
...For Zechariah himself, upon seeing the vision of the candlestick, says: 'And the angel that spake within me answered and said, Knowest thou not what these things be? And I said, No, my lord. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, Not by great might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord Almighty.' It is therefore clear that the angel who spoke to the prophet was not the Holy Spirit but an angel, while the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Almighty, to whom an angel ministers, who is inseparable from the Godhead and might of the Word. But as they make the words of the Apostle the basis of their plea, because after Christ he mentions the elect angels, let them tell us which of all these ' is the one who is ranked with the Triad. They do not all amount to one! Which of them is he who descended to the Jordan in the form of a dove? For 'thousand thousand' and 'ten thousand times ten thousand’ are they that minister. Why, again, when the heavens were opened, is it not written, 'One of the elect angels came down', but, 'the Holy Spirit'? Why did the Lord himself, when conversing with the disciples concerning the End,distinguish them by saying, 'The Son of Man shall send forth his angels'? And before this it says : 'The angels ministered unto him.' He himself says again: 'The angels shall come forth.' But in giving the Spirit to the disciples, he said: 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit.' And, when sending them out, he said: 'Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' He did not rank an angel with the Godhead; nor was it by a creature that he linked us to himself and to the Father, but by the Holy Spirit. And when he promised him, he did not say that he would send an angel, but 'the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father', and from him receives and gives.
...
31. This consideration also shows that the activity of the Triad is one. The Apostle does not mean that the things which are given are given differently and separately by each Person, but that what is given is given in the Triad, and that all are from the one God. Him therefore who is no creature but is one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father, who is glorified with the Father and the Son, who is confessed as God with the Word, who is active in the works which the Father works through the Son — is not the man who calls him a creature guilty of a direct impiety against the Son himself? For there is nothing that is not originated and actuated through the Word in the Spirit. Thus it is sung in the Psalms: 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their might by the Spirit of his mouth.' And in the one hundred and forty-seventh Psalm: 'He shall send out his Word and shall melt them; he shall breathe his Spirit and the waters shall flow.' We were justified, as the Apostle says : 'in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.' For the Spirit is indivisible from the Word. So when Christ says, 'We will come, the Father and I', the Spirit comes with them and shall dwell in us not otherwise than as the Son; as Paul writes to the Ephesians: 'That he would grant you according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man, that Christ may dwell ...'But if the Son is in us, the Father also is in us; as the Son says: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me.' ...
... Thus when the Spirit is said to be in anyone, it means that the Word is in him, bestowing the Spirit. When the prophecy was being fulfilled, 'I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh',Paul said: 'According to the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ unto me.' And to the Corinthians he wrote, 'If ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me'. ...But if he who spoke in him was Christ, then clearly the Spirit that spoke in him was Christ's. For when Christ was speaking in him, he said once again in Acts: 'Now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit testifieth to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.' Hence, if the saints say, 'Thus saith the Lord', they speak not otherwise than in the Holy Spirit. And if they speak in the Holy Spirit, they speak the things of the Spirit in Christ. When Agabus says in Acts, 'Thus saith the Holy Spirit',it is not otherwise than by the Word coming to him that the Spirit too bestows upon him the power to speak and to testify to the things that were waiting for Paul at Jerusalem. So when the Spirit once again testified to Paul, Christ, as aforesaid, was speaking in him, so that the testimony which came from the Spirit belonged to the Word. So too when the Word visited the holy Virgin Mary, the Spirit came to her with him, and the Word in the Spirit moulded the body and conformed it to himself; desiring to join and present all creation to the Father through himself, and in it ‘to reconcile all things ... having made peace ...whether things in the heavens or things upon the earth’.
Notice St. Athanasius talks about the same Holy Spirit that the archangel Gabriel ministers to is the same Holy Spirit that descended upon the Holy Virgin Mary to bring forth the incarnation. The same Holy Spirit "thousands and thousands" and "myriads of myriads" minister to is the same Holy Spirit that descended to Christ on the Jordan in the form of a dove. And as the Father is in the Son, so is the Holy Spirit in the Son, and as the Holy Spirit dwells in us, so is the Son, and so is the Father. If the Holy Spirit spoke in St. Paul, then it is Christ through the Holy Spirit who spoke in St. Paul. If the Son was born of the Virgin, it was done with the Holy Spirit.
You see therefore, even St. Athanasius did not think that there was a difference between the Holy Spirit in Luke 1:35 and Luke 3:23. And as St. Athanasius thought so, so did St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory the Theologian. They all thought the same, that there is no difference. The same Holy Spirit who is coessential with the Father and the Son, is the same Holy Spirit who came upon the Holy Virgin to bring about the incarnation, who is the same Holy Spirit who came down on Christ in the form of the dove, who is the same Holy Spirit who dwells in each and everyone of us since our baptism and chrismation. Let us do away with this oopnevma vs. pipnevma nonsense, because this is against the Holy Fathers.
I'd like to point out first that there seems to be some cross arguments here. The use of the indefinite article to prove the Word was a god is Arianism=Jehovah's Witness. The use of the indefinite article for the Holy Spirit to prove we do not partake of the divine nature is a separate issue. I still don't fully understand what the exact controversy is with oupneuma. I assume that some have argued that oupneuma applied to the Holy Spirit proves that there are different spirits (also called gifts or grace of the Holy Spirit) that do different works of the Holy Spirit. This sounds more like Seballism (divine masks) applied to the Holy Spirit, rather than the Trinity. I assume then that the conjecture is if we only partake of a gift of the Holy Spirit, then there is no real theosis. These are all separate issues in reality being crossed over to create confusion.
I was arguing pretty much that if the indefinite article implies "work of" or "grace of" rather than the actual subject/noun itself, then it becomes a slippery slope for John 1:1c. In other words, if "oopnevma" implies "work of the Spirit", then to maintain consistency, John 1:1c would imply "Word is a work of God," rather than "the Word is God".
I pretty much showed patristically how the idea that the indefinite article implies "work of the Spirit" never really existed, and that this idea is a late and novel development within the minds of some Copts in opposition to the Fathers. It also does imply a rejection of deification as well.
Excellent. I addressed that same concept of John 1:1c in the document. The fact that we can show the indefinite article in John 1:1c cannot mean "a work of God", then we can use the same argument to show that the indefinite article for the Holy Spirit cannot mean "a work of the Holy Spirit". Let me know what you (or anyone else) thinks.
There is a difference between dwelling and being in union. Yes the Holy Spirit does dwell in us but in what capacity? Is it a dwelling like the dwelling of the human spirit in the human body? Certainly not. for the human spirit unites with the body and both along with the soul constitute the human nd define the human nature.
This is not the same with the Holy Spirit as He dwells in us not in a way to change our nature from human to Devine. We are still humans but with the capacity to return pure and holy as God had intended for us in the beginning.
Comments
I pretty much showed patristically how the idea that the indefinite article implies "work of the Spirit" never really existed, and that this idea is a late and novel development within the minds of some Copts in opposition to the Fathers. It also does imply a rejection of deification as well.