Incapable of Suffering, Part 1

Orthodoxos and Eranistes. [a]

In our earlier discussions we proved that God the Word cannot change, and that he became incarnate not by being changed into flesh but by taking a complete human nature. Holy Scripture, and the teachers of the churches who are the lights of the world, have plainly taught us that after the union he remained as he was: unmixed, incapable of suffering, unchanged, unbounded; and that he kept unimpaired the nature he had taken. From now on, then, our subject is his suffering, and it will be a very profitable one, for from it the waters of salvation have been brought to us. [b] I too think this discussion will be useful. But I will not agree to our earlier method. I propose to ask the questions myself. Then I will answer, and I make no objection to the change of method. Whoever has the truth on his side is upheld by the strength of the truth, not only when he asks the questions but also when he is questioned. So ask whatever you like. In your view, who was it that suffered? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then it was a man who gave us our salvation. No. Have we confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ was only a man? Then define what you believe Christ to be. The Son of the living God, who took flesh. And is the Son of God God? He is God, of one substance with the God who begot him. [c] Then God suffered. If he was nailed to the cross without a body, then ascribe the suffering to the Godhead. But if he became man by taking flesh, why do you exempt from suffering the nature that can suffer, and make the nature that cannot suffer subject to it? But the reason he took flesh was so that the one who cannot suffer might suffer by means of what can. You call him incapable of suffering, and then you ascribe suffering to him. I said that he took flesh in order to suffer. If he had had a nature capable of suffering, he would have suffered without flesh, and so the flesh becomes superfluous. The divine nature is immortal, and the nature of the flesh is mortal. So the immortal was united with the mortal, so that through it he might taste death. What is immortal by nature does not undergo death, even when it is joined to what is mortal. That is easy to see. Prove it, and clear up the difficulty.

Do you say that the human soul is immortal, or mortal? Immortal. And is the body mortal or immortal? Mortal, beyond question. And do we say that a human being is made up of these natures? Yes. So the immortal is joined to the mortal? True. But when the bond or union comes to an end, the mortal submits to the law of death, while the soul remains immortal. Yet it was sin that brought death in. Or do you not hold that death is a penalty? That is what holy Scripture teaches. We learn that when God forbade Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge, he added, “On the day you eat from it you will surely die.” [d] Then death is the punishment of those who have sinned? Agreed. Then why, when soul and body have sinned together, does the body alone undergo the punishment of death? It was the body that cast its evil eye on the tree, stretched out its hands and plucked the forbidden fruit. It was the mouth that bit it with the teeth and ground it small. Then the gullet passed it on to the stomach, and the stomach digested it and delivered it to the liver. The liver turned what it received into blood and passed it on to the hollow vein, the vein passed it to the neighboring parts, and they passed it through all the rest. So the theft of the forbidden food spread through the whole body. It is quite right, then, that the body alone underwent the punishment of sin. [e] You have given us a lecture on the nature of food: all the parts it passes through, and all the changes it undergoes before it becomes part of the body. But there is one point you have refused to notice. The body goes through none of the processes you have named without the soul. When the body is robbed of the soul, its yoke-mate, it lies without breath, without voice, without motion. The eye sees neither wrongly nor rightly; no sound of voices reaches the ears; the hands cannot stir; the feet cannot walk. The body is like an instrument that gives out no music. How then can you say that the body alone sinned, when without the soul the body cannot even draw a breath? The body does indeed receive life from the soul, and in return it hands over to the soul the possession of sin, with its penalty. How, and in what way? Through the eyes it makes the soul see what it should not; through the ears it makes it hear worthless sounds; through the tongue it makes it speak harmful words; and through all the other parts it makes it act badly. Then I suppose we may say: blessed are the deaf, and blessed are those who have lost their sight and been deprived of their other senses, for the souls of people so disabled have no share at all in the wickedness of the body. And why, my very wise friend, have you mentioned only the functions of the body that deserve blame, and said nothing about those that deserve praise? It is possible to look with eyes of love and kindness. It is possible to wipe away a tear of heartfelt sorrow, to listen to the sayings of God, to bend the ear to the poor, to praise the Creator with the tongue, to give good teaching to our neighbor, to move the hand in mercy; in a word, to use the parts of the body to gain goodness in full. All this is true. So keeping the law and breaking it are common to both soul and body. Yes. It seems to me that the soul takes the leading part in both, since it reasons before the body acts. What do you mean? First of all the mind makes a kind of sketch of virtue or of vice. Then it gives the one or the other its form with suitable materials and colors, using the parts of the body as its tools. So it seems. If, then, the soul sins together with the body, or rather takes the lead in the sin, since it is entrusted with bridling and directing the animal part of us, why does it not share in the punishment as it shares in the sin? But how could the immortal soul possibly share in death? Yet it would be just that, having shared in the wrongdoing, it should share in the punishment. Yes, it would be just. But it did not share it. Certainly not. At least in the life to come it will be sent to Gehenna together with the body. [f] That is why he said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Fear rather the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” [g] So in this life it escapes death, because it is immortal. In the life to come it will be punished, not by undergoing death, but by suffering punishment while it lives. That is what holy Scripture says. Then it is impossible for an immortal nature to undergo death. So it appears. Then how can you say that God the Word tasted death? If what was created immortal is plainly incapable of becoming mortal, how is it possible for him who is uncreated and eternally immortal, the Creator of mortal and immortal natures alike, to share in death? We too know that his nature is immortal. But we say that he shared in death in the flesh. But we have plainly shown that it is in no way possible for what is immortal by nature to share in death. Even the soul, which was created together with the body, is joined to it and shares in its sin, does not share death with it, for this one reason alone: its nature is immortal. But let us look at this same position from another angle. We have every reason to leave no means untried to arrive at the truth.

Then let us examine the matter this way. Do we say that, in virtue and in vice alike, some are teachers and some are followers? Yes. And do we say that the teacher of virtue deserves a greater reward? Certainly. And, in the same way, that the teacher of vice deserves double and triple punishment? True. And what part shall we give the devil, that of teacher or of disciple? Teacher of teachers, for he himself is the father and teacher of all wickedness. And who among human beings became his first disciples? Adam and Eve. And who received the sentence of death? Adam and all his race. Then the disciples were punished for the bad lessons they had learned, but the teacher, whom we have just declared to deserve double and triple punishment, escaped the penalty? Apparently. And though it happened this way, we both acknowledge and declare that the Judge is just. Certainly. But if he is just, why did he not call the devil to account for his evil teaching? He has prepared for him the unquenchable flame of Gehenna, for he says, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” And the reason the devil did not share death with his disciples here is that he has an immortal nature. [h] Then even the greatest wrongdoers cannot incur death if their nature is immortal. Agreed. If, then, even the very inventor and teacher of wickedness did not incur death, because his nature is immortal, do you not shudder at the thought of saying that the fountain of immortality and righteousness shared in death?

If we had said that he suffered against his will, there would have been some just ground for the charge you bring against us. But if the suffering we preach was freely accepted and the death voluntary, then instead of accusing us you ought to praise the greatness of his love for humankind. For he suffered because he willed to suffer, and he shared in death because he wished it. You seem to me to be quite ignorant of the divine nature. The Lord God wishes nothing out of keeping with his nature. He is able to do all that he wishes, and what he wishes is fitting and in harmony with his own nature. We have learned that all things are possible with God. [i] By speaking so loosely you include even what belongs to the devil. To say “all things” without any limit is to name not only the good but its opposite as well. But did not the noble Job speak without any limit when he said, “I know that you can do all things, and that nothing is impossible for you”? [j] If you read what that righteous man said just before, you will see the meaning of the one passage from the other. He says, “Remember, I beg you, that you made me like clay; and will you bring me back to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and fenced me in with bones and sinews; you granted me life and favor.” [k] And then he adds: “Having this in myself, I know that you can do all things, and that nothing is impossible for you.” So is it not all things of this kind that he says belong to the incorruptible nature, to the God of the universe? [l] Nothing is impossible for God Almighty. Then by your definition sin is possible for God Almighty? By no means. Why not? Because he does not wish it. And why does he not wish it? Because sin is foreign to his nature. Then there are many things he cannot do, for there are many kinds of wrongdoing. Nothing of this kind can be wished or done by God. Nor can the things that are contrary to the divine nature. What are they? For example, we have learned that God is spiritual Light, and true Light. [m] True. And we could not call him darkness, or say that he wished to become darkness, or could become it. By no means. Again, holy Scripture calls his nature invisible. It does. And we could never say that it is capable of being made visible. Surely not. Nor that it can be comprehended. No, for it cannot. No, for he is beyond comprehension, and altogether unapproachable. You are right. And he who is could never become nonexistent. Perish the thought! Nor could the Father become Son. Impossible. Nor could the unbegotten become begotten. How could he? And the Father could never become Son? By no means. Nor could the Holy Spirit ever become Son or Father. All this is impossible. And we will find many other things of the same kind that are equally impossible. The eternal will not become a thing of time, nor the uncreated become created and made, nor the infinite become finite, and so on. None of these is possible. So we have found many things that are impossible for God Almighty. True. But to be unable in any of these respects is proof not of weakness but of infinite power; and to be able would certainly be proof not of power but of weakness. How can you say that? Because each one of these proclaims that God is unchangeable and does not vary. That good cannot become evil shows the vastness of his goodness. That he who is just should never become unjust, nor he who is true a liar, shows the firmness and strength that lie in truth and righteousness. So the true Light could never become darkness, and he who is could never become nonexistent, for his being is everlasting and the light by its nature does not vary. And if you examine all the other examples, you will find that “not being able” declares the highest power. The divine apostle also perceived and laid it down that things of this kind are impossible for God. In his letter to the Hebrews he says, “so that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong encouragement.” He shows that this inability is not weakness but power itself, for he declares God to be so true that it is impossible for there to be even a lie in him. So the power of truth is shown by its lack of power. And writing to the blessed Timothy, the apostle adds, “This is a trustworthy saying: if we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we suffer, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us; if we do not believe, he still remains faithful; he cannot deny himself.” Here again the phrase “he cannot” points to infinite power. Even if all people deny him, he says, God is himself, and cannot exist otherwise than in his own nature, for his being cannot be destroyed. That is what the words “he cannot deny himself” mean. So the impossibility of change for the worse proves infinite power. [n] That is quite true, and in harmony with the divine words.

Granted, then, that many things are impossible for God, namely everything that is contrary to the divine nature. How is it that you pass over all the other qualities that belong to the divine nature, such as goodness, righteousness, truth, invisibility, incomprehensibility, infinity and eternity, and the rest of the attributes we say are proper to God, and maintain that only his immortality and his inability to suffer are subject to change? In these alone you allow the possibility of variation, and you give God a capacity that shows weakness. We have learned this from holy Scripture. The divine John cries out, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,” and the divine Paul says, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life.” [p] Of course all this is true, for these are the words of God. But remember what we have often confessed. What? We have confessed that God the Word, the Son of God, did not appear without a body, but took a complete human nature. Yes, we have confessed this. And he was called Son of Man because he took a body and a human soul. True. So the Lord Jesus Christ is truly our God; for of these two natures, the one was his from everlasting, and the other he took on himself. Beyond question. Then while he suffered as man, as God he remained incapable of suffering. Then how does holy Scripture say that the Son of God suffered? Because the body that suffered was his body. But let us look at the matter this way. When we hear holy Scripture saying, “And it came to pass, when Isaac was old, that his eyes were dim, so that he could not see,” where is our mind carried, and where does it rest: on Isaac’s soul or on his body? [q] On his body, of course. Do we then suppose that his soul also shared in the condition of blindness? Certainly not. We say that only his body was deprived of the sense of sight? Yes. And again, when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos, “O seer, go, flee away into the land of Judah,” and Saul asking, “Tell me, I beg you, where the seer’s house is,” we understand nothing bodily. [r] Certainly not. And yet the words used point to the health of the organ of sight. True. Yet we know that the power of the Spirit, when it is given to purer souls, inspires the gift of prophecy and makes them see even hidden things. And because they see in this way, they are called seers and beholders. What you say is true. And let us consider this too. What? When we hear the divine evangelists telling how they brought to God a paralyzed man lying on a bed, do we say that this was a paralysis of the parts of the soul, or of the body? [s] Plainly of the body. And when, reading the letter to the Hebrews, we come on the passage where the apostle says, “So lift up the hands that hang down and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be turned out of the way, but rather be healed,” do we say that the divine apostle said these things about the parts of the body? [t] No. Shall we say that he meant to remove the feebleness and weakness of the soul, and to stir the disciples to courage? Obviously. But we do not find these things distinguished in holy Scripture. In describing Isaac’s blindness the writer made no reference to the body, but spoke of Isaac as simply blind. Nor, in describing the prophets as seers and beholders, did he say that their souls saw and beheld what was hidden; he named the persons themselves. Yes, that is so. And he did not point out that the paralyzed man’s body was paralyzed, but called the man himself paralyzed. True. And even the divine apostle made no special mention of souls, though it was souls that he meant to strengthen and stir up. No, he did not. But when we examine the meaning of the words, we understand what belongs to the soul and what to the body. Naturally enough, for God made us reasoning beings. Then let us use this power of reason in the case of our Maker and Savior too, and recognize what belongs to his Godhead and what to his humanity. But by doing this we will destroy the supreme union. In the case of Isaac, of the prophets, of the paralyzed man and of the rest, we did this without destroying the natural union of soul and body. We did not even separate the souls from their own bodies; by reason alone we distinguished what belonged to the soul and what to the body. Is it not outrageous, then, that while we take this course with souls and bodies, we should refuse to do so in the case of our Savior, and confuse natures that differ, not by as much as soul differs from body, but by as vast a distance as the temporal from the eternal, and the Creator from the created?

Holy Scripture says that the Son of God suffered. We deny that anyone else suffered. But all the same, taught by holy Scripture, we know that the nature of the Godhead is incapable of suffering. We are told of the inability to suffer and of suffering, of humanity and of Godhead; so we ascribe the suffering to the body that could suffer, and we confess that the nature that could not suffer underwent no suffering. Then it was a body that won our salvation for us. Yes, but not the body of a mere man; it was the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. If you consider this body insignificant and of little account, how can you hold that its symbol is to be worshiped and brings salvation? And how can the original be cheap and insignificant when its symbol is worshiped and honored? [u] I do not consider the body of little account. But I object to dividing it from the Godhead. We do not divide the union, my good sir. We pay attention to the distinctive properties of the natures, and I am sure that in a moment you will take the same view. You talk like a prophet. Not like a prophet, but as one who knows the power of truth. But now answer me this. When you hear the Lord saying, “I and my Father are one,” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” do you say that this refers to the flesh or to the Godhead? [v] How could the flesh and the Father possibly be of one substance? Then these passages point to the Godhead? True. And so with the text, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God,” and others like it. [w] Agreed.

Again, when holy Scripture says, “Jesus, being weary from his journey, sat thus by the well,” how is the weariness to be understood: of the Godhead, or of the body? [x] I cannot bear to divide what is united. Then it seems you ascribe the weariness to the divine nature? I think so. But then you flatly contradict the prophet, who cries out, “He does not faint or grow weary; there is no searching out his understanding. He gives power to the faint, and to those who have no might he increases strength.” And a little further on: “But those who wait on the Lord will renew their strength. They will mount up with wings like eagles; they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint.” Now how can he who gives others the gift of freedom from weariness and need possibly be subject himself to hunger and thirst? [y] I have said again and again that God is incapable of suffering and free from all need. But after the incarnation he became capable of suffering. But did he do this by admitting the sufferings into his Godhead? Or did he do it by allowing the nature that could suffer to undergo its natural sufferings, and so by its suffering proclaim that what was seen was no illusion, but had truly been taken from human nature? But now let us look at the matter this way. We say that the divine nature is unbounded. Yes. And an unbounded nature is bounded by nothing. Of course not. So it has no need to pass from place to place, for it is everywhere. True. And what has no need to pass from place to place has no need to travel. That is clear. And what does not travel does not grow weary. No. It follows, then, that the divine nature, which is unbounded and has no need to travel, was not weary. But holy Scripture says that Jesus was weary, and Jesus is God: “and our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” [z] But the exact words of holy Scripture are that Jesus “was wearied,” not that he “is wearied.” We must consider how the one and the other can be said of the same person. [aa] Well, try to show this, since you are always forcing distinctions of terms on us. I think even a barbarian could easily make this distinction. Once the union of unlike natures is granted, the person of Christ, because of the union, receives both, and to each nature its own properties are ascribed: to the unbounded nature, freedom from weariness; to the nature that can pass from place to place and travel, weariness. For travel is the work of the feet, and it is the muscles that are strained by too much exertion. No one disputes that these are bodily experiences. Well then, the prediction I made, which you mocked, has come true. For look: you have shown us what belongs to the humanity and what belongs to the Godhead. But I have not divided the one Son into two. Nor do we, my friend. But paying attention to the difference of the natures, we consider what befits Godhead and what is proper to a body.

This distinction is not the teaching of holy Scripture. It says that the Son of God died. So the apostle: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” And he says that the Lord was raised from the dead, for “God,” he says, “raised the Lord from the dead.” [ab] And when holy Scripture says, “And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him,” would anyone say that his soul was laid in the grave along with his body? [ac] Of course not. And when you hear the patriarch Jacob saying, “Bury me with my fathers,” do you suppose this refers to the body or to the soul? [ad] To the body, without question. Now read what follows. “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.” [ae] Now in the passages you have just read, holy Scripture makes no mention of the body; as far as the words go, it means the soul as well as the body. But we make the proper distinction, and say that the souls of the patriarchs were immortal, and that only their bodies were buried in the double cave. [af] True. And when we read in the Acts how Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword, we are not likely to hold that his soul died. [ag] No, how could we? We remember the Lord’s warning: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” [ah] Then does it not seem to you impious and outrageous to act as you do? In the case of mere men you set aside the constant joining of soul and body. Where Scripture speaks of death and burial, you distinguish the soul from the body in thought and connect these things with the body alone, and, trusting the Lord’s teaching, you hold that the soul is immortal. Yet when you hear of the suffering of the Son of God, you take quite a different course. Are you right to make no mention of the body, to which the suffering belongs, and to represent the divine nature, which is incapable of suffering, unchangeable and immortal, as mortal and capable of suffering? And all the while you know that if the nature of God the Word can suffer, his taking a body was superfluous. We have learned from holy Scripture that the Son of God suffered. But the divine apostle explains the suffering, and shows which nature suffered. Show me this at once, and clear the matter up. Do you not know the passage in the letter to the Hebrews where the divine Paul says, “For this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the church I will sing praise to you.’ And again, ‘Here am I, and the children whom God has given me.’” [ai] Yes, I know it. But it does not give us what you promised. Yes, it does: even these words point to what I promised to show. The word brotherhood means kinship; the kinship comes from his taking our nature; and his taking it openly proclaims that the Godhead is incapable of suffering. But to understand this more plainly, read what follows. “Since, then, the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise took part in the same, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death … and set free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” [aj] This, I think, needs no explanation. It plainly teaches the mystery of the plan of salvation. [ak] I see nothing here of what you promised to prove. Yet the divine apostle plainly teaches this. The Creator took pity on our nature, which death had not only seized cruelly but had made its slave all through life. So he brought about the resurrection of our bodies through a body, and by means of a mortal body he undid the dominion of death. Since his own nature was immortal, he justly wished to halt the reign of death by taking the first fruits of those who were subject to death. He kept these first fruits, that is, the body, blameless and free from sin. On the one hand, he gave death leave to lay hands on it and so satisfy its greed. On the other, because of the wrong done to this body, he put a stop to the unjust reign that death had seized over all the rest of humankind. These first fruits, unjustly swallowed up, he raised again, and he will make the race follow them. Set this explanation side by side with the apostle’s words, and you will understand that the Godhead is incapable of suffering. In what has been read there is no proof that the Godhead is incapable of suffering. Is there not? The divine apostle says that the reason he shared with the children in flesh and blood was that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death. Does that not plainly mean that the Godhead is incapable of suffering and the flesh capable of it, and that because the divine nature could not suffer, he took the nature that could, and through it destroyed the power of the devil? [al]

How did he destroy the power of the devil and the dominion of death through the flesh? What weapons did the devil use in the beginning, when he enslaved human nature? The means by which he took captive the one who had been made a citizen of Paradise was sin. And what punishment did God set for breaking the commandment? Death. Then sin is the mother of death, and the devil its father. True. So war was waged against human nature by sin. Sin lured those who obeyed it into slavery, brought them to its vile father, and handed them over to its very bitter offspring. That is plain. So with good reason the Creator, meaning to destroy both these powers, took the very nature against which the war was being waged. By keeping it clear of all sin, he both set it free from the rule of the devil and, by means of it, destroyed the devil’s dominion. For death is the punishment of sinners; and since death, unjustly and against the divine law, seized the sinless body of the Lord, he first raised up what was unlawfully held, and then promised release to those who were justly imprisoned. But how do you think it just that the resurrection of the one who was unlawfully held should be shared by bodies that had rightly been handed over to death? And how do you think it just that, when it was Adam who broke the commandment, his race should follow their forefather? Although the race had no part in that famous transgression, it committed other sins, and for this reason incurred death. Yet not sinners only, but righteous men too, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and men who have shone in many kinds of virtue, have been caught in death’s net. Yes, for how could a family sprung from mortal parents remain immortal? It was after the transgression and the divine sentence, after he had come under the power of death, that Adam knew his wife and was called a father. Having himself become mortal, he became the father of mortals. So it is reasonable that all who have received a mortal nature follow their forefather. You have shown very well why we share in death. But the same must be granted about the resurrection, for the remedy must fit the disease. When the head of the race was condemned, the whole race was condemned with him; and so, when the Savior destroyed the curse, human nature won its freedom. And just as those who shared Adam’s nature followed him in his going down into Hades, so the whole of human nature will share in newness of life with the Lord Christ in his resurrection. [am] The doctrines of the church must not only be stated but proved. So tell me how these doctrines are taught in holy Scripture. Listen to the apostle writing to the Romans, and through them teaching all humankind: “For if through the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace that comes by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many. And the gift is not like what came through the one who sinned; for the judgment came from one offense to condemnation, but the free gift came after many offenses to being counted righteous. For if by one man’s offense death reigned through one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” And again: “So then, as through the offense of one, judgment came on all people to condemnation, even so through the righteousness of one, the free gift came on all people to their being counted righteous and given life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many will be made righteous.” And when he introduces his argument about the resurrection to the Corinthians, he briefly reveals to them the mystery of the plan of salvation, and says, “But now Christ has risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came by a man, the resurrection of the dead came by a man too. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” So I have brought you proofs from the words of God. Now set what belongs to Adam beside what belongs to Christ: the disease beside the remedy, the wound beside the salve, the sin beside the wealth of righteousness, the curse beside the blessing, the sentence beside the release, the breaking of the law beside the keeping of it, death beside life, hell beside the kingdom, Adam beside Christ, the man beside the Man. And yet the Lord Christ is not only man but eternal God. But the divine apostle names him from the nature he took, because it is in this nature that he compares him with Adam. Being counted righteous, the struggle, the victory, the death, the resurrection: all these belong to this human nature. It is this nature that we share with him; in this nature those who have trained themselves beforehand in the way of life of the kingdom will reign with him. It was of this nature that I spoke, not dividing the Godhead, but referring to what is proper to the humanity. [an]

You have gone through long discussions on this point, and you have strengthened your argument with the testimony of Scripture. But if the suffering really belonged to the flesh, how is it that the apostle, when he praises God’s love for humankind, cries out, “He who did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for us all”? What son does he say was handed over? [ao] Watch your words carefully. There is one Son of God; that is why he is called the only Son. If, then, there is one Son of God, the divine apostle called him his own Son. True. Then he says that he was handed over. Yes, but not without a body, as we have agreed again and again. It has been agreed again and again that he took a body and a soul. So the apostle was speaking of what relates to the body. The divine apostle says plainly, “He who did not spare his own Son.” Then when you hear God saying to Abraham, “Because you have not withheld your son, your only son,” do you claim that Isaac was slain? [ap] Of course not. And yet God said, “You have not withheld,” and the God of all is true. The words “you have not withheld” refer to Abraham’s readiness. He was ready to sacrifice the boy, but God prevented it.