ماذا كان تفسير آباء الكنيسة عبر القرون في المناطق الجغرافية المختلفة لآية “أنا والآب واحد”؟

يوميات إرهابي هارب 32 تفسير آباء الكنيسة عبر القرون  لآية “أنا والآب واحد”

الحقيقة أني لا أعرف –بحد علمي- أي إتفاق بين آباء الكنيسة الأولين، أكثر من إتفاقهم أن هذا النص يشير إلى وحدة الإبن والآب في الجوهر، وألوهية المسيح! فالإتفاق مذهل حقاً! ودعوني أنقل لكم من آباء مختلفين أقوالهم عن هذا النص:

أمبروسيوس:

يقول المسيح نفسه: “أنا والآب واحد” [30]. يقول “واحد” حيث لا يوجد انفصال في السلطان وفي الطبيعة. لكن مرة ثانية يقول: “نحن” لكي ندرك الآب والابن، إذ نؤمن أن الآب الكامل يلد الابن الكامل؛ والآب والابن هما واحد دون خلط في الأقانيم بل في وحدة الطبيعة[1].

أغسطينوس:

يلزم أن يتقدم الإيمان الفهم، فيكون الفهم مكافأة على الإيمان…[2]

إنه قال، وقال بالحق: “أنا وأبي واحد”. ماذا يعني “واحد”؟ نحن طبيعة واحدة، جوهر واحد[3].

أثناسيوس الرسولي:

“أنا والآب واحد” [30]، وبعد ذلك يضيف: “أنا في الآب، والآب فيَّ” (يو 14: 30)، لكي يوضح وحده الألوهية من ناحية، ووحدة الجوهر من الناحية الأخرى. إذن هما واحد، ولكن ليس مثل الشيء الواحد الذي ينقسم إلى جزئين، كما أنهما ليسا مثل الواحد الذي يسمى باسمين، فمرة يُدعى الآب، ومرة أخرى يُدعى هو نفسه ابنه الذاتي… لكن هما اثنان، لأن الآب هو الآب، ولا يكون ابنًا، والابن هو ابن ولا يكون أبًا.

لكن الطبيعة هي واحدة، لأن المولود لا يكون غير متشابه لوالده، لأنه صورته، وكل ما هو للآب هو للابن (يو 16: 15). ولهذا فالابن ليس إلهًا آخر، لأنه لم ينشأ من خارج، وإلا فسيكون هناك آلهة كثيرون…

كلاهما واحد في الذات، وواحد في خصوصية الطبيعة، وفي وحدة الألوهية كما سبق أن قلنا حيث أن الشعاع هو النور وليس ثانيًا بعد الشمس ولا نور آخر، ولا هو ناتج من المشاركة مع النور، بل هو مولود كلي وذاتي من النور، ومثل هذا المولود هو بالضرورة نور واحد، ولا يستطيع أحد أن يقول أنه يوجد نوران. فبالرغم من أن الشمس والشعاع هما اثنان ألا أن نور الشمس الذي ينير بشعاعه كل الأشياء، هو واحد[4].

أغسطينوس:

• إلى هنا كان يمكن لليهود أن يحتملوه، وأما وقد سمعوا: “أنا والآب واحد” فلم يستطيعوا بعد أن يحتملوا… ها أنتم ترون أن اليهود فهموا ما لا يفهمه الأريوسيون. فقد غضبوا على هذا، وشعروا ما كان يمكن القول: “أنا وأبي واحد” إلاَّ إذا وجدت مساواة بين الآب والابن[5].
• إذ جاءت كلمة الله إلى البشر لكي يصيروا آلهة، فماذا يكون كلمة الله نفسه الذي عند الله إلاَّ أن يكون هو الله؟

إن كان بكلمة الله يصير البشر آلهة، إن كان بالشركة معه يصيرون آلهة، فهل يمكن لذاك الذي به ينالون الشركة ألا يكون هو الله؟

إن كانت الأنوار التي تُضاء هي آلهة، فهل النور الذي يضيء لا يكون هو الله؟

أنتم اقتربتم من النور فاستنرتم وحسبتم أبناء الله، فإن انسحبتم من النور تسقطون في غموض وتُحسبون أنكم في ظلمة، أما ذاك النور فلا يقترب (ليستنير) لأنه لا ينسحب من ذاته[6].

• يمكننا أحيانًا أن نقول: نحن في الله والله فينا، لكن هل يمكننا القول: “نحن والآب واحد”؟ أنتم في الله، لأن الله يحتويكم، والله فيكم لأنكم صرتم هيكل الله… لكنكم هل تقدرون أن تقولوا: “من يراني يرى الله” كما قال الابن الوحيد (يو ١٤: ٩)… “أنا والآب واحد”؟ تعرفوا على امتياز الرب الفائق، وعلى المنحة التي للخادم. امتياز الرب هو مساواة للآب، ومنحة الخادم هي الشركة مع المخلص[7].

أوريجانوس:

Our Savior and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh or one spirit but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous person is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh or spirit but more honorable than these—God. This then is the sense in which we should understand “I and the Father are one.” Dialogue with Heraclides 3–4.^[8]

نوفاتيان:

This word can be true of no human being, “I and the Father are one.” Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of his divinity. On the Trinity 13.^[9]

هيبوليتوس الروماني:

Hippolytus: And if he [i.e., Noetus] were to say, “Jesus himself said, ‘I and the Father are one,’ ” let him [Noetus] apply his mind to the matter and learn that Jesus did not say, “I and the Father am one” but “are one.” “We are” is not said with reference to one but with reference to two. He revealed two persons but a single Power. Against Noetus 7.1.^[10]

كبريانوس:

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, “And these three are one.”³⁷ Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? The Unity of the Church 6.^[11]

كبريانوس:

Cyprian: The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, “And these three are one.”³⁷ Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? The Unity of the Church 6.^[12]

كيرلس السكندري:

ونحن نقول إن الآب والابن هما واحد غير مازجين فرديتهما باستعمال العدد واحد، كما يفعل بعض الذين يقولون إن الآب والابن هما نفس الشخص، بل نؤمن أن الآب هو قائم بذاته والابن قائم بذاته موحدين الاثنين فى نفس الجوهر، وعارفين أيضًا أن لهما قدرة واحدة، حتى أن هذه القدرة ترى بدون اختلاف فى الواحد كما فى الآخر. وبكلمة “واحد” يشير إلى وحدة الجوهر، وبكلمة “نحن” يشير إلى اثنين، ثم بعد ذلك يوحدهما معًا فى لاهوت واحد.[13]

ديونسيوس:

That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must neither be separated into three divinities, nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by having applied to it the name of creation, but we must believe on God the Father Omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that the Word is united to the God of all, because He says, “I and the Father are one; ”¹⁰ and, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.”¹¹ Thus doubtless will be maintained in its integrity the doctrine of the divine Trinity, and the sacred announcement of the monarchy.

ترتليان:

“I and my Father are one” in essence—Unum—He shows that there are Two, whom He puts on an equality and unites in one. He therefore adds to this very statement, that He “had showed them many works from the Father,” for none of which did He deserve to be stoned.³⁰² And to prevent their thinking Him deserving of this fate, as if He had claimed to be considered as God Himself, that is, the Father, by having said, “I and my Father are One,” representing Himself as the Father’s divine Son, and not as God Himself, He says, “If it is written in your law, I said, Ye are gods; and if the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that He blasphemeth, because He said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, even if ye will not believe me, still believe the works; and know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.”³⁰³ It must therefore be by the works that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that the Father is one with the Son. All along did He therefore strenuously aim at this conclusion, that while they were of one power and essence, they should still be believed to be Twofor otherwise, unless they were believed to be Two, the Son could not possibly be believed to have any existence at all.

ألكسندروس أسقف الإسكندرية:

“I and My Father are one,”²⁹ which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father, inasmuch as He has by nature impressed upon Him His similitude in every respect, and is the image of the Father in no way discrepant, and the expressed figure of the primitive exemplar. Whence, also, to Philip, who then was desirous to see Him, the Lord shows this abundantly. For when he said, “Show us the Father,”³⁰ He answered: “He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,” since the Father was Himself seen through the spotless and living mirror of the divine image.Similar to which is what the saints say in the Psalms: “In Thy light shall we see light.”³¹ Wherefore he that honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father also; ”³² and with reason, for every impious word which they dare to speak against the Son, has reference to the Father.

يوحنا ذهبي الفم:

But He said not so, but, “out of My Father’s hand.” Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, “I and the Father are One.” As though He had said “I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One.” Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power11 be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also.

هيلاري أسقف بواتيه:

I and the Father are one. The Son’s hand is the Father’s hand. For the Divine nature does not deteriorate or cease to be the same in passing through birth: nor yet is this sameness a bar to our faith in the birth, for in that birth no alien element was admitted into His nature. And here He speaks of the Son’s hand, which is the hand of the Father, that by a bodily similitude you may learn the power of the one Divine nature which is in Both; for the nature and the power of the Father is in the Son. And lastly, that in this mysterious truth of the birth you may discern the true and indistinguishable unity of the nature of God, the words were spoken, I and the Father are One. They were spoken that in this unity we might see neither difference nor solitude; for They are Two,and yet no second nature came into being through that true birth and generation.

يوحنا السكندري:

We say the Son and the Father “are one,” not to blend their individuality by the use of that number, as some do who say that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. Rather, we believe that the Father and the Son are two unique persons, and we regard the two together in one identical essence, knowing that they possess one might, so that this divine essence is seen without variation in both.

[1] On the Christian Faith, Book 1:1:9.

[2] Sermon on N.T. Lessons, 89:1.

[3] Sermon on N.T. Lessons, 98:2.

[4] Discourses Against the Arians, 1: 23 (3, 4).

[5] St. Augustine: On the Gospel of St. John, tractate 48: 8.

[6] St. Augustine: On the Gospel of St. John, tractate 48: 9.

[7] St. Augustine: On the Gospel of St. John, tractate 48: 10.

^[8]Elowsky, J. C. (2006). John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (358). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[9]Elowsky, J. C. (2006). John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (358). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[10]Elowsky, J. C. (2006). John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (359). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

³⁷ 1 Jn 5:7 (kjv). Cyprian seems to be quoting the so-called Comma Johanneum text of 1 Jn 5:7 that has an explicit reference to the Trinity. See Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7–8 (Tempe, Ariz.: Comma Publications, 1995), 38, although Daniel Wallace disagrees with Maynard’s conclusions. See his article on the web, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.

^[11]Elowsky, J. C. (2006). John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (359). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

³⁷ 1 Jn 5:7 (kjv). Cyprian seems to be quoting the so-called Comma Johanneum text of 1 Jn 5:7 that has an explicit reference to the Trinity. See Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7–8 (Tempe, Ariz.: Comma Publications, 1995), 38, although Daniel Wallace disagrees with Maynard’s conclusions. See his article on the web, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.

^[12]Elowsky, J. C. (2006). John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (359). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[13] شرح إنجيل يوحنا الجزء الخامس للقديس كيرلس الأسكندرى (الإصحاحان التاسع والعاشر)، ترجمة ومقدمة د. موريس تاضروس و د. نصحى عبد الشهيد يناير 2004م، صـ151