The meaning of 'The Son cannot do anything of himself'

Regarding 'In that: The Son cannot do anything of himself' by Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, from the passage 'For the Son cannot do anything of himself'... How do you understand 'The Son cannot do anything of himself'? For 'cannot' is to be understood in two ways: both according to common usage and according to Holy Scripture. For it is said of the incapable and of those who are unable to contain something; for to be unable is one thing, and to be unable to hold something is another.

Concerning the incapable, Paul says thus: 'It is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins' (Hebrews 10:4); for the blood of a non-rational, logical soul does not cleanse passions. But concerning those who are unable to contain, in the Acts the apostles say: 'We are not able, we say, to speak what we have seen and heard' (Acts 4:20). And indeed they were not unable to not speak, but they could not remain silent, so that they might not be thought to deny the grace of the one performing wonders.

Say then here, regarding 'The Son cannot do anything of himself', in what way do you understand it: are you condemning his weakness, or are you nullifying the movements of his self-determining will, since whatever he wills, he is able to do? But why do you say 'he does not do of himself', when he works those things by fulfilling the command of God, toward whatever the Spirit of the one commanding looks? And how is this not the height of madness to say? For if he does absolutely nothing of himself, he neither fulfilled the whole economy by his will, nor by sympathy toward us, the flesh that took us upon herself, nor did he accept the death for our sake through free affection, but rather endured all things by force, being compelled by necessity.

If it is daring and blasphemous and beyond all impiety to say this, say to us in what sense you understand 'The Son cannot do anything of himself'. For, even if you do not wish it, you say that he is able to do whatever he wills, and you are clearly caught by the truth. But why do I spin out superfluous words? For the matter is resolved by the logical implication of the word; for he did not say that he cannot do anything of himself unless the Father commands something, but rather that if he does not see the Father doing something, the Son likewise does these things when he sees him doing it. Is it not so that he does what the Father appoints, not merely fulfilling a function, but as one being similar, as one being equal in power, as one being of the same divine nature; whatever he sees the Father doing, the Son likewise does.

After these things, he says, was the feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem (John 5:1). In order that they might not write the whole thing in water, he did not first pass the waters until an angel, having understood them, had sprinkled them, so that they might learn that even the waters of baptism do not cleanse the soul by themselves, before the angel of the great purpose comes to put a human body under the baptism. Now, there being many weak people, there was also a paralyzed man, thirty-eight years of age, being in weakness, whom Jesus seeing asks: 'Do you want to be made well?' (John 5:6). Look at his blindness; he did not say 'Do you want me to heal you', for he did not wish to...