Isaiah 42:8

It is the Son who possesses the glory of the Father, and it is in the glory of the Father that he will manifest himself, for the divinity of the Son and of the Father is one. Thus, if God says that he will not …

(Verse 8) I am the Lord, this is my name; I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to idols. And He declares: I am the Lord, this is my name; I will not give my glory to another, nor does He exclude the Son, to whom He said in the Gospel: Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with You before the world was (John XVII, 5), He Himself answered; And I have glorified, and will glorify. For He did not say, 'I will not give My glory to anyone,' for if He had said this, He would have excluded the Son as well, but He said, 'I will not give My glory to another, except to You, to whom I have given it, and to whom I am going to give it.' Therefore, I greatly admire the uniqueness of the holy Scripture, that the phrase 'another' all interpreters have translated consistently, unlike the many other instances where they differ. And so that we may know that the Son is not excluded by this statement, but rather idols are, the following words testify: 'And My praise to carved images.' Pro quo LXX: nec virtutes meas simulacris. Cum enim Christus Dei virtus sit, Deique sapientia, omnes in se virtutes continet Patris.

Since he is the only God, in a proper and true sense, he is the Creator of all, and so he is confessed to be by us; as the most wise Paul says: "Even though there may be many so-called gods and lords in heaven or on earth, yet for us there is one God and Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we exist." And since he presented himself to us as the author of great and marvelous things, he says that his glory, which is the virtues proper to God, is not to be given to lifeless idols or to any other created thing, but to be retained for himself alone. It follows, therefore, that the glory of the divinity cannot be attributed to any of the beings that differ from him in essence, but only to the ineffable and transcendent nature itself. Even though he says that his own glory is to be given to no one, he gave it to the Son who, of course, has been glorified in the same way as the Father who is worshiped in heaven and on earth. How, then, did [God] give [his glory] to someone who is not different from him, at least on the basis of consubstantiality, even though each is distinguished into his own hypostasis? For there is a single nature of the divinity on high in three distinct hypostases, and it is so understood and worshiped by right-minded people.

There was no other way to honor the slave [i.e., humanity] except by making the characteristics of the slave his very own so that they could be illumined from his own glory. What is preeminent will always conquer, and the shame of the slavery is thus borne away from us. He who was above us became as we are. He who is naturally free took on the limitations of our life. This was why honors passed even to us, for we too are called the children of God, and we regard his own true Father as our Father also. All that is human has become his own. And so, to say that he assumed the form of a slave expresses the whole mystery of the economy in the flesh. So, if [my opponents] confess one Lord and Son, the Word of God the Father, but say that a simple man of the line of David was conjoined as a companion of his sonship and his glory, then it is time for you to speak to people who choose to think like this.… It seems that they argue as though there are two sons unequal in nature and that a slave is crowned with the glory that is proper to God, that some bastard son is decked out with the selfsame dignities as the one who is really God's natural Son, even though God says quite clearly, "I will not give my glory to another." How can someone who has only been honored with a mere conjunction fail to be "other" to the true and natural Son when he has just been assumed for the office of servant, given the honor of sonship, just like us, and sharing in another's glory that he attains by grace and favor?So the Emmanuel must not be separated out into a man, considered as distinct from God the Word? On no account. I say that we must call him God made man, and that both the one and the other are this same reality, for he did not cease to be God when he became man, nor did he regard the economy as unacceptable by disdaining the limitations involved in the self-emptying.

[Eunomius says:] "…receiving glory from the Father, not sharing His glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as He hath said, 'My glory will I not give to another.'" Who is that "other" to whom God has said that He will not give His glory? The prophet speaks of the adversary of God, and Eunomius refers the prophecy to the only begotten God Himself! For when the prophet, speaking in the person of God, had said, "My glory will I not give to another," he added, "neither My praise to graven images." For when men were beguiled to offer to the adversary of God the worship and adoration due to God alone, paying homage in the representations of graven images to the enemy of God, who appeared in many shapes amongst men in the forms furnished by idols, He Who healeth them that are sick, in pity for men's ruin, foretold by the prophet the loving-kindness which in the latter days He would show in the abolishing of idols, saying, "When My truth shall have been manifested, My glory shall no more be given to another, nor My praise bestowed upon graven images: for men, when they come to know My glory, shall no more be in bondage to them that by nature are no gods." All therefore that the prophet says in the person of the Lord concerning the power of the adversary, this fighter against God, refers to the Lord Himself, Who spake these words by the prophet!