The Unmixed, Part 3

“He who drew up from the lowest depths of hell the man first formed of the earth, when he was lost and held fast in the bonds of death; he who came down from above and lifted up the one who lay below; he who became the bringer of good news to the dead, the ransomer of souls, and the resurrection of those who lay in their tombs: this was he who became the helper of defeated man, the firstborn Word, made in himself like man. He visited the first-formed Adam in the Virgin: the spiritual seeking the earthly in the womb, the ever-living seeking the one who died through disobedience, the heavenly calling the earthly to the world above, the high-born intending to set the slave free by his own obedience. He turned into adamant the man who had crumbled into dust and become food for serpents. Hanging on a tree of wood, he made man lord over the one who had conquered him, and so by a tree of wood he is proved victorious.” [a] From the same writer, from the same book: “Those who do not now recognize the Son of God in the flesh will one day recognize him when he comes as judge in glory, though now he suffers wrong in a body without glory.” From the same writer, from the same book: “Moreover, when the apostles came to the tomb on the third day, they did not find the body of Jesus, just as the children of Israel went up on the mountain and could not find the tomb of Moses.” [b] From the same writer, from his interpretation of the second Psalm: “When he had come into the world, he was revealed as God and man. His humanity is easy to see, for he is hungry and weary; worn out with toil, he is thirsty; in fear he flees; in prayer he grieves. He falls asleep on a pillow. He prays that the cup of suffering may pass from him. In agony he sweats; he is strengthened by an angel, betrayed by Judas, dishonored by Caiaphas, despised by Herod, scourged by Pilate, mocked by soldiers, nailed to a cross by Jews. He commends his spirit to the Father with a cry, bows his head as he breathes his last, is pierced in the side with a spear, is wrapped in fine linen and laid in a tomb, and on the third day he is raised by the Father. No less plainly can his divinity be seen. He is worshiped by angels, gazed on by shepherds, waited for by Simeon, testified to by Anna, sought out by Magi, pointed out by a star. At the wedding feast he makes water into wine. He rebukes the sea when the winds stir it up, and he walks on that same sea. He makes a man blind from birth see, raises Lazarus, who had been dead four days, works many and various wonders, forgives sins, and gives power to his disciples.” [c] From the same writer, from his work on Psalm 24: “He comes to the gates of heaven. Angels travel with him, and the gates of the heavens are shut, for he has not yet gone up into heaven. Now for the first time flesh appears to the heavenly powers, going up. So the word goes out to the powers from the angels who run ahead of the Lord and Savior: ‘Lift up the gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory will come in.’” [d]

The testimony of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor. [e] From his work on the Titles of the Psalms: “He foretold that he would sit on a holy throne, showing that he has been set on the same throne as the divine Spirit because of the God who dwells in him continually.” From the same writer, from his work on the soul: “Before his passion, on each occasion, he foretold his bodily death, saying that he would be betrayed to the father of the high priest, and he announced the trophy of the cross. And after the passion, when he had risen from the dead on the third day and his disciples were in doubt about his resurrection, he appeared to them in his very body and declared that he had complete flesh and bones, putting his wounded side before their eyes and showing them the prints of the nails.” [f] From the same writer, from his discourse on “The Lord formed me in the beginning of his ways”: [g] “Paul did not say ‘conformed to the Son of God,’ but ‘conformed to the image of his Son,’ to point out a distinction between the Son and his image. For the Son, bearing the divine marks of his Father’s excellence, is an image of his Father; since like is born of like, offspring appear as true images of their parents. But the humanity which he wore is an image of the Son, just as images, even of different colors, are painted on wax, some made by hand and some by nature and likeness. Moreover, the very law of truth declares this. For the bodiless spirit of wisdom is not conformed to men who have bodies; but the exact imprint, made man by the spirit, has the same number of limbs as all the rest and is clothed in a like form.” [h] From the same writer, from the same work: “That he speaks of the body as conformed to the bodies of men, he teaches more clearly in his letter to the Philippians. ‘Our citizenship,’ he says, ‘is in heaven, from which we also wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body, so that it may be conformed to his glorious body.’ And if, by changing the form of men’s lowly body, he makes it like his own body, then the false teaching of our opponents is shown to be worthless in every way.” [i] From the same writer, from the same work: “But just as he is said to have been made man of a woman, because he was born of the Virgin, so he is described as made under the law, because he sometimes walked by the commands of the law. For instance, his parents eagerly saw to his circumcision when he was a child eight days old, as the evangelist Luke relates; and afterward ‘they brought him to present him to the Lord,’ ‘bringing the offerings of purification,’ ‘to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.’ So, since the gifts of purification were offered for him according to the law, and he was circumcised on the eighth day, the apostle very properly writes that he was in this way brought under the law. Not that the Word was subject to the law, as our slanderous opponents suppose, since he is himself the law; nor did God, who can cleanse and make holy all things with one breath, need sacrifices of purification. But he took from the Virgin the members of a man, became subject to the law, and was purified according to the rite of the firstborn. He did not submit to this because he had any need of such observance, but in order to redeem from the slavery of the law those who had been sold under the sentence of the curse.” [j]

The testimony of the holy Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. From his second discourse against the heresies: [k] “We would not have been redeemed from sin and the curse if the flesh the Word wore had not been human by nature, for we would have had nothing in common with what was not our own. In the same way, man would not have been made God if the Word who was made flesh had not been by nature from the Father, and truly and properly his own. And the joining is of this kind: the one who is man by nature is joined to the one who is God by nature, so that man’s salvation and his being made God are secure. Therefore let those who deny that he is by nature from the Father, the Son proper to his substance, also deny that he took true human flesh from the Virgin Mary.” From the same writer, from his letter to Epictetus: “The Savior’s body is human and comes from Mary, and the Scriptures describe it so. If on that account they imagine that a Four takes the place of the Trinity, as though the body made some addition to it, they are quite wrong. They put the creature on a level with the Creator, and suppose that the Godhead can be added to. They fail to see that the Word was not made flesh to make any addition to the Godhead, but so that the flesh might rise. He did not come forth from Mary to make the Word greater, but so that the human race might be redeemed. How can they think that the body, ransomed and given life by the Word, can add anything in the way of Godhead to the Word who gave it life?” [l] From the same writer, from the same letter: “Let them be told that if the Word had been a creature, he, a creature, would not have taken a body to give it life. For what help can creatures get from a creature that itself needs salvation? But the Word, being himself the Creator, became the maker of created things; and that is why, at the completion of the ages, he joined the creature to himself, so that once again, as Creator, he might renew it and be able to create it afresh.” From the longer discourse On the Faith: “We add this too about the words ‘Sit at my right hand’: they are said of the Lord’s body. For if, as Jeremiah says, ‘The Lord says, Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ and God contains all things and is contained by nothing, on what kind of throne does he sit? It is therefore the body to which he says, ‘Sit at my right hand.’ This was the body the devil and his wicked powers opposed, and the Jews and the Gentiles too. Through this body, too, he became and was called High Priest and Apostle, and he gave us its mystery, saying, ‘This is my body, for you,’ and ‘my blood of the new covenant,’ not of the old, ‘shed for you.’ Now the Godhead has neither body nor blood; it was the humanity he bore from Mary that was the cause of these. Of him the apostles said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you.’” [m] From the same writer, from his book against the Arians: “And when he says, ‘Therefore God has also highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name,’ he speaks of the temple of the body, not of the Godhead. For the Most High is not exalted, but the flesh of the Most High is exalted, and it was to the flesh of the Most High that he gave a name which is above every name. Nor did the Word of God receive the title of God as a favor; rather, his flesh was counted divine along with him.” [n] From the same writer, from the same work: “And when he says, ‘The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified,’ he means that his flesh was not yet glorified. For the Lord of glory is not glorified; rather, the flesh itself receives glory from the glory of the Lord as it goes up with him into heaven. That is why he says that the Spirit of adoption was not yet among men: because the firstfruits taken from men had not yet gone up into heaven. So wherever the Scripture says that the Son received and was glorified, it speaks because of his humanity, not his Godhead.” [o] From the same writer, from the same work: “So he is true God, both before he was made man and after he was made the mediator between God and men: Jesus Christ, united to the Father in spirit and to us in flesh, who mediated between God and men, and who is not only man but also God.” [p]

The testimony of the holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan. [q] In his Exposition of the Faith: “We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, was begotten of the Father before all ages, without beginning; and that in these last days the same one was made flesh of the holy Virgin Mary and took on humanity in its completeness, a rational soul and a body. He is of one substance with the Father in his Godhead, and of one substance with us in his humanity. For a union of two complete natures has taken place in a way beyond words. Therefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. We know that he is coeternal with his own Father in his Godhead, by which he is also Creator of all. After the holy Virgin had given her consent, when she said to the angel, ‘Behold the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,’ he was pleased to build himself a temple from her in a way beyond words, and to unite this temple to himself by her conception. He did not take and unite with himself a body coeternal with his own substance and brought from heaven, but one from the material of our substance, that is, from the Virgin. God the Word was not turned into flesh, and his appearing was not unreal. Keeping his own substance always without change or variation, he took the firstfruits of our nature and united them to himself. God the Word did not take his beginning from the Virgin; being coeternal with his own Father, he was pleased, in his boundless kindness, to unite to himself the firstfruits of our nature. He underwent no mixture, but appeared one and the same in each substance, as it is written: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ For the divine Christ is destroyed in respect of my substance, which he took; and the same Christ raises the destroyed temple in respect of the divine substance, in which he is also Creator of all things. Never at any time after the union, which he was pleased to make with himself from the moment of the conception, did he leave his own temple; nor indeed, because of his love for mankind, which is beyond words, could he leave it. [r] “The same Christ is both able to suffer and beyond suffering: able to suffer in his humanity, and beyond suffering in his Godhead. ‘See, see me: it is I; I have undergone no change.’ And when God the Word had raised his own temple, and in it had accomplished the resurrection and renewal of our nature, he showed this nature to his disciples and said, ‘Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.’ He did not say ‘am,’ but ‘have.’ So he speaks of both the possessor and what is possessed, so that you may see that what had taken place was not mixture, not change, not alteration, but union. For this reason too he showed the prints of the nails and the wound of the spear, and ate in front of his disciples, to convince them by every means that the resurrection of our nature had been renewed in him. Moreover, since, in keeping with the blessed substance of his Godhead, he was unchanged, beyond suffering and immortal, and lived in need of nothing, he allowed by concession everything that can be felt to be brought upon his own temple; by his own power he raised it up, and by means of his own temple he made the renewal of our nature complete. [s] “So there are those who assert that Christ was a mere man; or that God the Word was able to suffer, or was changed into flesh; or that the body he had was of one substance, or that he brought it from heaven, or that it was unreal; or who assert that God the Word, being mortal, needed to receive his resurrection from the Father; or that the body he took was without a soul, or his humanity without a mind; or that the two natures of Christ became one nature by confusion and mixing. There are those who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was two natures without confusion, but one person, just as he is one Christ and one Son. All these the catholic and apostolic church condemns.” [t] From the same writer: [u] “If, then, the flesh of all men was in Christ, or was in Christ subject to injury, how can it be held to be of one substance with the Godhead? For if the Word and the flesh, which takes its nature from the earth, are of one substance, then the Word and the soul, which he took in its completeness, are of one substance. For the Word is of one nature with God, both according to the word of the Father and according to the Son’s own confession, in the words, ‘I and my Father are one.’ So the Father would have to be held to be of one substance with the body. Why, then, are you still angry with the Arians, who say that the Son is a creature of God, when you yourselves assert that the Father is of one substance with his creatures?” [v] From the same writer, from his letter to the emperor Gratian: [w] “Let us keep a distinction between the Godhead and the flesh. One Son of God speaks in both, since both natures are in him. The same Christ speaks, yet not always in the same way, but sometimes in a different way. See how at one time he expresses divine glory and at another human feeling. As God he speaks the things of God, since he is the Word; as man he speaks humbly, because he speaks in my essence.” From the same writer, from the same book: “As for the passage where we read that the Lord of glory was crucified, let us not suppose that he was crucified in his own glory. But because he is both God and man, God in his Godhead and man by taking on the flesh, Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, is said to have been crucified. For he shares in both natures, that is, the human and the divine. In the nature of humanity he underwent the passion, so that the one who suffered might be called, without distinction, both Lord of glory and Son of Man, as it is written: ‘He who came down from heaven.’” [x] Likewise, from the same writer: “So let idle disputes about words be silent, for, as it is written, the kingdom of God is not in ‘persuasive words’ but in ‘demonstration of the Spirit.’ For there is one Son of God who speaks in both ways, since both natures are in him. But though it is he himself who speaks, he does not always speak in the same way; you see in him at one time the glory of God, at another the feelings of a man. As God he speaks divine things, being the Word; as man he speaks human things, since it was in this nature that he spoke.” [y] From the same writer, from his work on the Incarnation of the Lord, against the Apollinarians: [z] “But while we are refuting these, another group springs up who assert that the body of Christ and his Godhead are of one nature. What hell has spewed out so terrible a blasphemy? The Arians are really more bearable. Because of these men their unbelief grows stronger, so that they deny all the more fiercely that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance; for they did at least try to maintain that the Godhead of the Lord and his flesh are of one nature.” From the same writer, in the same chapter: “He has often told me that he holds to the statement of faith set out by the Council of Nicaea. But in that inquiry our fathers laid down that the Word of God, not the flesh, is of one substance with the Father, and they confessed that the Word came from the substance of the Father, but that the flesh is from the Virgin. Why, then, do they hold out to us the name of the Council of Nicaea, while in reality they are bringing in new ideas that our forefathers never thought of?” [aa] From the same writer, against Apollinarius: “Refuse to allow that the body is by nature on a level with the Godhead. Even if you believe that the body of Christ is real, and bring it to the altar to be transformed, yet do not distinguish the nature of the body from that of the Godhead, we will say to you, ‘If you offer rightly but do not distinguish rightly, you sin; be still.’ Distinguish what belongs to us by nature from what is proper to the Word. For I did not have what was his by nature, and he did not have what was mine by nature; but he took what was mine by nature in order to make us sharers in what was his. And he took this not for confusion but for completion.” [ab] From the same writer, a little further on: “Let those who say that the nature of the Word has been changed into the nature of the body say so no more, or else, by the same interpretation, the nature of the Word might seem to have been changed into the corruption of sin. For what took is one thing, and what was taken is another. Power came upon the Virgin, as the angel said to her: ‘The power of the Most High will overshadow you.’ But what was born was from the body of the Virgin. For this reason the descent was divine, but the conception human. So the nature of the flesh and the nature of the Godhead could not be the same.” [ac]

The testimony of Saint Basil, bishop of Caesarea. [ad] From his homily on giving thanks: “So when he wept over his friend, he showed that he shared in human nature, and he freed us from two extremes, allowing us neither to grow too soft in our sufferings nor to be unfeeling in pain. The Lord felt hunger after the solid food he had eaten was digested, and thirst when the moisture in his body was used up, and weariness when his muscles and sinews were strained by his journeying. This was not because his divinity was weighed down with toil, but because his body showed the usual signs of its nature. In the same way, when he allowed himself to weep, he let the flesh take its natural course.” [ae] From the same writer, against Eunomius: [af] “I say that being ‘in the form of God’ means the same as being in God’s substance. For just as having taken ‘the form of a servant’ shows that our Lord was of the substance of humanity, so the statement that he was in the form of God ascribes to him the distinctive qualities of the divine substance.” [ag]

The testimony of the holy Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus. From his discourse on New Sunday: [ah] “Believe that he will come again at his glorious appearing to judge the living and the dead, no longer flesh, yet not without a body.” [ai] “So that he may be seen by those who pierced him, and may remain God without grossness.” [aj] From the same writer, from his letter to Cledonius: “God and man are two natures, as soul and body are two; but there are not two sons, nor are there two men here, even though Paul speaks this way of the outward man and the inner man. In a word, the sources of the Savior’s being are of two kinds, since the visible is not the same as the invisible, nor the timeless the same as what belongs to time; but he is not two beings. God forbid!” [ak] From the same writer, from the same exposition to Cledonius: “If anyone says that the flesh has now been laid aside, and that the Godhead is bare of a body, and that it is not now, and will not come, with what was taken, let him be deprived of the sight of the glory of his coming! For where is the body now, if not with the one who took it? It has certainly not been swallowed up by the sun, as the Manichaeans tell in their fables, so that it might be honored through dishonor. It has not been poured out and dissolved into the air, like a voice, or a stream of perfume, or a flash of lightning with no substance. And where would be its power to be handled after the resurrection, in which it will one day be seen by those who pierced him? For the Godhead in itself is invisible.” [al] From the same writer, from his second discourse on the Son: “As the Word, he was neither obedient nor disobedient, for these qualities belong to those who are in subjection and to inferiors: obedience to the more willing, disobedience to those who deserve condemnation. But in the form of a servant he comes down to the level of his fellow servants and puts on a form that was not his own, bearing in himself the whole of me with all that is mine, so that in himself he may consume and destroy what is worse, as wax is consumed by fire or the mist of the earth by the sun.” [am] From the same writer, from his discourse on the Theophany: [an] “Since he came forth from the Virgin having taken on two things opposed to each other, flesh and spirit, of which the one was taken up into God, and the other displayed the grace of the Godhead.” From the same writer, a little further on: “He was sent, but as man. For his nature was twofold; for certainly from then on he was weary, and hungry and thirsty, and suffered agony and shed tears, as a human body does.” From the same writer, from his second discourse on the Son: “He would be called God not of the Word but of the visible creation, for how could he be God of one who is God in the full sense? In the same way, he is called Father not of the visible creation but of the Word. For he was of a twofold nature. So the one title belongs in the full sense to both, but the other not in the full sense. For he is in the full sense our God, but not in the full sense our Father. And it is this joining of the names that gives rise to the error of the heretics. A proof of this is that when the natures are distinguished in thought, the names are distinguished too. Listen to the words of Paul: ‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.’ Of Christ he is God, and of glory he is Father. And if both are one, this is so not by nature but by their joining together. What could be plainer than this? Fifth, let it be said that he receives life, authority, the inheritance of the nations, power over all flesh, glory, disciples, or whatever you like. All these belong to the humanity.” [ao] From the same writer, from the same work: “‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’ As man he still pleads for my salvation, because he keeps with him the body which he took, until he makes me God by the power of the incarnation; though he is no longer known according to the flesh, that is, by the feelings of the flesh, and though he is without sin.” [ap] From the same writer, from the same work: “Is it not plain to everyone that as God he knows, and that as man, he says, he does not know? That is, if one separates what is seen from what is grasped by the mind. For what gives rise to this opinion is that the title ‘the Son’ is used absolutely, without relation to anything, since it is not added whose Son he is. So, to give this ignorance the most reverent sense, we hold that it belongs to the human, and not to the divine.” [aq]

The testimony of the holy Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. From his catechetical discourse: [ar] “And who says this, that the infinity of the Godhead is held within the limits of the flesh, as in a vessel?” From the same writer, from the same work: “But if the human soul, though by the necessity of its nature it is mingled with the body, exercises its authority everywhere, what need is there to assert that the Godhead is confined by the nature of the flesh?” From the same writer, from the same work: “What prevents us, then, while we recognize a certain union and nearness of the divine nature to the human, from keeping a right understanding of the divine even in this nearness, believing that the divine, even when it is in man, is beyond all limitation?” From the same writer, from his work against Eunomius: “The Son of Mary talks with brothers, but the only Son has no brothers; for how could the name of only Son be kept among brothers? And the same Christ who said, ‘God is spirit,’ says to his disciples, ‘Handle me,’ to show that only the human nature can be handled, and that the divine cannot be touched. And the one who said, ‘I am going,’ indicates moving from place to place; while he who holds all things, ‘by whom,’ as the apostle says, ‘all things were created, and by whom all things hold together,’ had nothing outside and beyond himself, among all the things that exist, toward which he could stand in any relation of motion or of moving from place to place.” [as] From the same writer, from the same work: “‘Being exalted by the right hand of God.’ Who, then, was exalted? The lowly, or the Most High? And what is the lowly, if not the human? And what is the Most High, if not the divine? But God, being Most High, needs no exaltation. So the apostle says that the human was exalted: exalted, that is, by being ‘made both Lord and Christ.’ Therefore by the term ‘he made,’ the apostle does not mean the everlasting existence of the Lord, but the change of the lowly into the exalted, which took place at the right hand of God. By this word he declares the mystery of godliness. For when he says, ‘exalted by the right hand of God,’ he plainly reveals the plan of the mystery, which is beyond words: that the right hand of God, which created all things, which is the Lord, by whom all things were made and without whom nothing that was made exists, lifted up to its own height, through the union, the humanity united to it.” [at]

The testimony of Saint Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. [au] From his discourse on “My Father is greater than I”: [av] “From now on, distinguish the natures, that of God and that of man. For he was not made man by falling away from God, nor made God by growth and advance from man.” From the same writer, from his discourse on “The Son can do nothing of himself”: “For after the resurrection the Lord shows both: both that the body is not of this nature, and that the body rises. Remember the account. After the passion and the resurrection, the disciples were gathered together, and while the doors were shut the Lord stood among them. He never did this at any time before the passion. Could Christ not have done this long before? For all things are possible with God. But he did not do it before the passion, so that you would not suppose the incarnation to be something unreal or a mere appearance, and think of Christ’s flesh as spiritual, or as having come down from heaven and being of a different substance from our flesh. Some have invented all these theories, thinking that they honor the Lord by them, forgetting that by their very thanksgiving they themselves blaspheme and accuse the truth of a lie; I say nothing of the lie being utterly absurd. For if he took another body, what has that to do with mine, which needs salvation? If he brought flesh down from heaven, what has that to do with my flesh, which came from the earth?” [aw] From the same writer, from the same work: “So it was not before the passion but after the passion that the Lord stood among the disciples while the doors were shut, so that you may know that your natural body, after being sown, is ‘raised a spiritual body,’ and so that you may not suppose that the body which is raised is a different body. When Thomas doubted after the resurrection, he shows him the prints of the nails; he shows him the marks of the spears. But did he not have power to heal himself after the resurrection too, when even before the resurrection he had healed everyone? Yet by showing the prints of the nails he shows that it is this very body; by coming in while the doors were shut, he shows that it does not have the same qualities. It is the same body, to fulfill the work of the incarnation by raising what had become a corpse; but it is a changed body, so that it may not fall again under corruption or be subject to death again.” [ax]

The testimony of the blessed Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. From his work against Origen: [ay] “Our likeness, which he took on, is not changed into the nature of the Godhead, nor is his Godhead turned into our likeness. For he remains what he was from the beginning, God, and he remains so while keeping our real existence in himself.” From the same writer, from the same treatise: “But you keep on with your blasphemies, attacking the Son of God and using these words: ‘As the Son and the Father are one, so also the soul which the Son took and the Son himself are one.’ You do not know that the Son and the Father are one because of their one substance and the same Godhead, while the soul and the Son are each of a different substance and a different nature. For if the soul of the Son and the Son himself are one in the same sense in which the Father and the Son are one, then the Father and the soul will also be one, and the soul of the Son will one day say, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father.’ But this is not so. God forbid! For the Son and the Father are one because there is no difference between their qualities; but the soul and the Son are distinguished both in nature and in substance, since the soul, which by nature is of one substance with us, was made by him. For if the soul and the Son are one in the same way that the Father and the Son are one, as Origen would have it, then the soul, just as much as the Son, will be ‘the brightness of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his person.’ But this is impossible. It is impossible that the Son and the soul should be one as he and the Father are one. And what will Origen do when once again he attacks himself? For he writes that the soul, distressed and ‘very sorrowful,’ could never be ‘the firstborn of all creation.’ For God the Word, being stronger than the soul, the Son himself, says, ‘I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.’ If, then, the Son is stronger than his own soul, as is agreed, how can his soul be equal to God and in the form of God? For we say that ‘he emptied himself and took the form of a servant.’ In the excess of his impieties Origen surpasses all other heretics, as we have shown. For if the Word exists in the form of God and is equal to God, and if Origen, writing so daringly, supposes that the soul of the Savior is in the form of God and equal with God, how can the equal be greater, when what is inferior in nature testifies to the superiority of what is beyond it?” [az]

The testimony of the holy John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople. [ba] From the discourse delivered in the Great Church: “Your Lord raised man up to heaven, and you will not even give him a share of the marketplace. But why do I say ‘to heaven’? He seated man on a royal throne, and you drive him out of the city.” [bb] From the same writer, on the beginning of Psalm 42: “To this day Paul does not stop saying, ‘We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading with you through us; we beg you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.’ Nor did he stop there, but taking the firstfruits of your nature, he sat down ‘far above all principality and power and might, and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in the world to come.’ What could equal this honor? The firstfruits of our race, which has offended so much and is so dishonored, sits so high and enjoys so vast an honor.” [bc] From the same writer, on the division of tongues: “Think what it is to see our nature riding on the cherubim, with all the power of heaven gathered round it. Consider too Paul’s wisdom, and how many words he searches out to set forth Christ’s love for men. For he does not say simply ‘the grace,’ nor simply ‘the riches,’ but ‘the exceeding great riches of his grace in his kindness.’” [bd] From the same writer, from his doctrinal oration on the theme that the words Christ spoke and the deeds he did in humility were not spoken and done because of weakness, but because of differences in the plan of salvation: [be] “And after his resurrection, when he saw his disciple disbelieving, he did not shrink from showing him both the wound and the prints of the nails, and from letting him put his hand on the scars, and he said, ‘Examine and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones.’ The reason he did not take on humanity at full age from the beginning, but was pleased to be conceived, to be born, to be nursed, and to live so long on the earth, was that by the long stretch of time and all the other circumstances he might give a guarantee of this very thing.” [bf] From the same writer, against those who assert that demons govern human affairs: “Nothing was more worthless than man, and nothing has become more precious than man. He was the last part of the rational creation, but the feet have been made the head, and through the firstfruits they have been carried up to the royal throne. Think of some noble and generous man who sees a poor wretch escaped from a shipwreck, who has saved nothing from the waves but his bare body. He welcomes him with open arms, clothes him in a splendid robe, and raises him to the highest honor. So too has God done toward our nature. Man had lost all that he had: his freedom, his fellowship with God, his home in Paradise, his life free of pain. He came out of it like a man naked from a wreck. But God received him and clothed him at once, and taking him by the hand, led him on step by step and brought him up to heaven.” From the same writer, from the same work: “But God made the gain greater than the loss, and raised our nature to the royal throne. So Paul cries out, ‘And he has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places,’ at his right hand.” [bg] From the same writer, from his third oration against the Jews: “He opened the heavens; he made friends out of enemies; he brought them into heaven; he seated our nature at the right hand of the throne; he gave us countless other good things.” From the same writer, from his discourse on the Ascension: “To this distance and this height did he raise our nature. See where it lay below, and where it went up. It was impossible to go lower than where man came down to; it was impossible to rise higher than where he raised him.” From the same writer, from his interpretation of the letter to the Ephesians: “‘According to his good pleasure, which he purposed in himself,’ that is, which he earnestly desired, he was, so to speak, in labor to tell us the mystery. And what is this mystery? That he wishes to seat man on high, as in fact came to pass.” [bh] From the same writer, from the same interpretation: “‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ’ is said of this, and not of God the Word.” [bi] From the same writer, from the same interpretation: “‘And when we were dead in sins, he made us alive together in Christ.’ Again Christ stands in the middle, and the work is wonderful. If the firstfruits live, we live too. He made both him and us alive. Do you see that all these things are said with reference to the flesh?” [bj] From the same writer, on the Gospel according to Saint John: “Why does he add, ‘and dwelt among us’? It is as though he said: Imagine nothing absurd from the phrase ‘was made.’ For I have not spoken of any change in that unchangeable nature, but of dwelling as in a tent, and of living within. Now what dwells in a tent is not the same as the tent; one thing dwells in another, or else there would be no dwelling in a tent. Nothing lives inside itself. I spoke of a difference of substance. For by the union and the joining together, God the Word and the flesh are one, without confusion or destruction of the substances, by a union beyond words and beyond description.” [bk] From the same writer, on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: “Just as someone standing in the space between two people who are separated from each other stretches out both his hands and joins them together, so too did he, joining the old and the new, the divine nature and the human, his own and ours.” From the same writer, on the Ascension of Christ: “For when two fighters stand ready for battle, someone who steps in between them at once stops the struggle and puts an end to their hostility. So too did Christ. As God, he was angry, but we made light of his anger and turned our faces away from our loving Lord. Then Christ threw himself into the middle, reconciled both natures to love for each other, and himself took on the weight of the punishment the Father had laid on us.” From the same writer, from the same work: “See, he brought the firstfruits of our nature to the Father, and the Father himself approved the gift, both because of the high dignity of the one who brought it and because of the faultlessness of the offering. He received it with his own hands; he made his own throne its seat; more than that, he seated it at his own right hand. Let us recognize, then, who it was to whom it was said, ‘Sit at my right hand,’ and what that nature was to which God said, ‘Dust you are, and to dust you will return.’” [bl] From the same writer, a little further on: “What arguments to use, what words to speak, I do not know. The nature that was rotten, worthless, declared the lowest of all, has conquered everything and overcome the world. Today it has been counted worthy to be raised higher than all. Today it has received what angels have desired from of old. Today archangels are able to see what they have longed for through the ages, and they gaze on our nature shining on the King’s throne in the glory of his immortality.” [bm]

The testimony of Saint Flavian, bishop of Antioch. [bn] On the Gospel according to Saint Luke: “In all of us the Lord writes the exact imprint of his holiness, and in various ways he shows our nature the way of salvation. He gives us many clear proofs, both of his coming in the body and of his Godhead working by means of a body. For he wished to give us assurance of both his natures.” From the same writer, on the Theophany: [bo]