Incapable of Suffering, Part 3

Now let us look at the matter this way. The words of the divine apostle are: “If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” They crucified the nature they knew, not the one of which they were wholly ignorant. Had they known the one of which they were ignorant, they would not have crucified the one they knew. They crucified the human because they did not know the divine. Have you forgotten their own words? “We are not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.” These words plainly prove that they recognized the nature they saw, while they were wholly ignorant of the invisible one. Had they known that nature, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. [a]

That is very probable. But the statement of the faith laid down by the fathers in council at Nicaea says that the only Son himself, true God, of one substance with the Father, suffered and was crucified. [b] You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and again. What do you mean? I mean that after the union holy Scripture applies to one person terms both of exaltation and of humiliation. But perhaps you also do not know that the illustrious fathers first spoke of his taking flesh and becoming man, and only afterward added that he suffered and was crucified. So they spoke of the suffering only after they had set out the nature that was capable of suffering. The fathers said that the Son of God, Light from Light, of the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.

I have pointed out more than once that both the divine and the human are ascribed to the one person. It is in keeping with this position that the thrice-blessed fathers, after teaching how we should believe in the Father, passed on to the person of the Son and did not immediately add “and in the Son of God.” Yet it would have followed very naturally that, after defining what concerns God the Father, they should at once bring in the name of Son. But their aim was to instruct us at one and the same time about the Godhead and about the plan of salvation, so that no one would suppose there was any distinction between the person of the Godhead and the person of the humanity. That is why they added to their statement about the Father that we must also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now after the incarnation God the Word is called Christ, for this name includes everything that belongs to the Godhead and to the humanity alike. Nevertheless we recognize that some properties belong to the one nature and some to the other, and this can be seen at once from the very words of the creed. Tell me: to what do you apply the phrase “of the substance of the Father”? To the Godhead, or to the nature that was formed from the seed of David? [c] To the Godhead, obviously. And the clause “true God from true God”: to which do you hold it belongs, the Godhead or the humanity? To the Godhead. So neither the flesh nor the soul is of one substance with the Father, for they are created. Only the Godhead, which formed all things, is. True.

Very well, then. When we are told of the suffering and the cross, we must recognize the nature that underwent the suffering. We must not attribute it to the nature that cannot suffer, but to the nature that was taken up for the very purpose of suffering. That the most excellent fathers acknowledged the divine nature to be incapable of suffering, and attributed the suffering to the flesh, is proved by the conclusion of the creed, which runs: “But those who say, ‘There was a time when he was not,’ and ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ and ‘He was made out of what did not exist,’ or who claim that the Son of God is of another essence or substance, or is changeable or variable, these the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.” See, then, what penalties are pronounced against those who attribute the suffering to the divine nature. [d] In that place they are speaking of change and variation. But what is suffering but change and variation? If he was incapable of suffering before he became man, and suffered after he became man, then he certainly suffered by undergoing change. And if he was immortal before he became man and, as you say, tasted death after becoming man, he underwent a complete alteration, becoming mortal after being immortal. But expressions of this kind, and their authors with them, have all been expelled by the illustrious fathers from the bounds of the church, and cut off like rotten limbs from a healthy body. So we urge you to fear the punishment and to abhor the blasphemy.

Now I will show you that the holy fathers held in their own writings the views we have stated. Of the witnesses I will bring forward, some took part in that great council, some flourished in the church after their time, and some lit up the world long before. But their harmony is broken neither by the difference of their times nor by the variety of their languages. Like a harp, their strings are many and separate; but like a harp, they make one harmonious music. I was hoping for such quotations, and I will be delighted to have them. Teaching of this kind cannot be contradicted, and it is most useful. Now, open your ears and take in the streams that flow from the spiritual springs.

The testimony of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr. From his letter to the Smyrnaeans: “They do not accept eucharists and offerings, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness raised.” [e]

The testimony of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. From the third book of his work Against Heresies, chapter 20: “It is clear, then, that Paul knew no other Christ than the one who suffered and was buried and rose and was born, whom he calls man. For after saying, ‘If Christ is preached, that he rose from the dead,’ he adds, giving the reason for his becoming man, ‘For since death came by man, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.’ “And on every occasion, in speaking of the suffering, the humanity and the death of the Lord, he uses the name of Christ, as in the text, ‘Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died,’ and again, ‘But now in Christ you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ,’ and again, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, by becoming a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” [f] From the same author, in the same work, chapter 21: “For as he was man so that he might be tempted, so he was Word so that he might be glorified. In his temptation, his crucifixion and his death, the Word was inactive; but in his victory, his patience, his goodness, his resurrection and his being taken up, it worked together with the humanity.” From the same author, in the fifth book of the same work: “When the Lord had ransomed us with his own blood, and given his soul for our souls, and his flesh in place of our flesh.”

The testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. From his letter to a certain queen: “So he calls him ‘the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep’ and ‘the firstborn from the dead.’ When he had risen and wished to show that what had risen was the same body that had died, when the apostles doubted, he called Thomas to him and said, ‘Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.’” [g] From the same author, in the same letter: “By calling him firstfruits he bore witness to what we have said: that the Savior took flesh of the same material as ours and raised it, making it the firstfruits of the flesh of the righteous, so that all of us who believe might have the hope of our own resurrection through trust in him who has risen.” From the same author, in his sermon on the two thieves: “The body of the Lord gave both to the world: the holy blood and the sacred water.” From the same author, in the same sermon: “And the body, though in human terms a corpse, has great power of life in itself. For there flowed from it what does not flow from dead bodies, blood and water, so that we might know what living force lies in the power that dwells in the body. So it is plainly a corpse unlike others, and it is able to pour out for us the causes of life.” [h] From the same author, in the same sermon: “Not a bone of the holy Lamb is broken. The type shows that suffering cannot touch the power, for the bones are the power of the body.” [i]

The testimony of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor. [j] From his book On the Soul: “Their impious slander can be refuted in a few words. They might be right, unless he gave up his own body of his own will to the destruction of death for the salvation of men. First of all, they attribute to him extraordinary weakness, in not being able to fight off the attack of his enemies.” [k] From the same author, in the same book: “Why, in cooking up their earthbound deceits, do they make so much of proving that the Christ took a body without a soul? So that, if they could lead anyone astray into holding that this is so, they might then attribute changes of feeling to the divine Spirit, and so easily persuade them that what is changeable is not begotten of the unchangeable nature.” From the same author, in his sermon on “The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways”: [l] “The man who died rose on the third day. And when Mary was eager to take hold of his holy limbs, he objected and cried out, ‘Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’ “Now the words ‘I have not yet ascended to my Father’ were not spoken by the Word and God, who came down from heaven and was in the bosom of the Father, nor by the Wisdom that contains all created things. They were spoken by the man made up of various limbs, who had risen from the dead, who had not yet gone back to the Father after his death, and who was keeping for himself the firstfruits of his advance.” [m] From the same author, in the same work: “As he writes, he expressly describes the man who was crucified as the Lord of Glory, declaring him to be Lord and Christ, just as the apostles with one voice, speaking to Israel according to the flesh, say, ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.’ It was Jesus Christ, who suffered, whom he made so. He did not make the Wisdom so, nor the Word, who has the might of lordship from the beginning, but the one who was lifted up on high and stretched out his hands on the cross.” [n] From the same author, in the same work: “For if he is bodiless, and cannot be touched by hands or seen by eyes of flesh, he receives no wound, he is not nailed with nails, he has no share in death, he is not hidden in the ground, he is not shut in a grave, he does not rise from a tomb.”

From the same author, in the same book: “‘No one takes it from me. … I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.’ If as God he had this double power, he still gave way to those who in their evil counsel were striving to destroy the temple; but by his resurrection he restored it in greater splendor. It is proved by evidence that cannot be disputed that he rose of himself and renewed his own house; and yet the great work of the Son is to be ascribed to the divine Father, for the Son does not work without the Father, as the unimpeachable words of the holy Scriptures declare. That is why at one time the divine Parent is described as having raised the Christ from the dead, and at another the Son promises to raise his own temple. “If, then, from what has been laid down already, the divine spirit of the Christ is proved to be incapable of suffering, the accursed attack the apostles’ definitions in vain. If Paul says that the Lord of Glory was crucified, plainly referring to the humanity, we must not on this account attribute suffering to the divine. Why then do they put these two things together, saying that the Christ was crucified out of weakness?” [o] From the same author, in the same work: “But if it had been fitting to attribute any kind of weakness to him, someone might have said that it was natural to attach these qualities to the humanity, but not to the fullness of the Godhead, nor to the dignity of the highest Wisdom, nor to him who, according to Paul, is described as God over all.” [p] From the same author, in the same book: “This, then, is the kind of weakness by which Paul describes him as coming to death: for the man lives by God’s power, since he is plainly joined with God’s spirit. For from what has been said before, the one who is believed to be in him is proved to be also the power of the Most High.” [q] From the same author, in the same work: “As by entering the Virgin’s womb he did not lessen his power, so his spirit is not defiled when his body is fastened to the wood of the cross. For when the body was crucified on high, the divine Spirit of Wisdom dwelt within the body, and also walked in heavenly places, filled the whole earth, ruled over the depths, visited and judged the soul of every man, and went on doing everything that God always does. “For the Wisdom that is on high is not imprisoned and held within bodily matter, the way wet and dry things are held within their vessels, contained by them but not containing them. This Wisdom, being a divine power beyond words, embraces and strengthens alike all that is inside the temple and all that is outside it, and going on beyond, it holds and governs all matter at once.” From the same author, in the same work: “But if the sun, a visible body perceived by the senses, endures such opposing influences everywhere without changing its order or feeling any blow, small or great, can we suppose that the bodiless Wisdom is defiled and changes its nature because its temple is nailed to the cross, or destroyed, or wounded, or corrupted? The temple suffers, but the substance remains spotless and keeps its full dignity undefiled.”

From the same author, in his work on the titles of the Songs of Ascents: [r] “The Father, who is perfect, infinite and beyond comprehension, and who can be neither adorned nor disfigured, receives no glory added to him. Nor does his Word, who is God begotten of him, through whom are the angels and heaven and the boundless mass of the earth and every form and material of created things. But the man Christ, raised from the dead, is exalted and glorified, to the open defeat of his enemies.” From the same author, in the same work: “But those who have raised up their hatred against him, though they are walled about by the forces of his enemies, are scattered, while the God and Word gloriously raised up his own temple.” From the same author, in his commentary on Psalm 92: [s] “Moreover the prophet Isaiah, following the track of his sufferings, cries out with a mighty voice, among other words, ‘And we saw him, and he had no form or beauty. His form was dishonored and rejected among the sons of men.’ So he shows clearly that the marks of dishonor and the sufferings must be applied to the human and not to the divine. And right after this he adds, ‘Being a man under the blow, and able to bear weakness.’ “He it is who, after suffering outrage, was seen to have no form or beauty, and then again was changed and clothed with beauty. For the God dwelling in him was not led like a lamb to death or slaughtered like a sheep, for his nature is invisible.” [t]

The testimony of the holy Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and confessor. From his letter to Epictetus: [u] “Who ever went so far in impiety as to think and say that the Godhead itself, of one substance with the Father, was circumcised, and from perfect became imperfect; and to deny that what was crucified on the tree was the body, claiming instead that it was the very creative substance of Wisdom?” From the same author, in the same treatise: “The Word took to himself and brought upon himself what the humanity of the Word suffered, so that we might be able to share in the Godhead of the Word. And it was a marvel that the one who suffered and the one who did not suffer were the same: he suffered, in that his own body suffered and he was in it as it suffered; he did not suffer, because the Word, being by nature God, was incapable of suffering. He himself, the bodiless one, was in the body that could suffer, and the body held within itself the Word who could not suffer, who was destroying the weaknesses of his body.” From the same author, in the same letter: “For being God and Lord of Glory, he was crucified in the body without glory. But it was the body that suffered when it was struck on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side; yet, being the temple of the Word, it was full of the Godhead. That is why, when the sun saw its Creator suffering in his outraged body, it drew in its rays and darkened the earth. And that very body, though of a mortal nature, rose above its own nature because of the Word within it. It is no longer touched by its natural corruption, but, having put on the Word who is more than human, it became incorruptible.”

From the same author, in his longer sermon on the faith: “Was it man or God that rose from the dead? Peter the apostle, who knows better than we do, explains it and says, ‘And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb; but God raised him from the dead.’ Now the dead body of Jesus, which was taken down from the tree, laid in a tomb, and buried by Joseph of Arimathea, is the very body that the Word raised, saying, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ “It is he who gives life to all the dead, and he gave life to the man Christ Jesus, born of Mary, whom he took to himself. For if, while he was on the cross, he raised the bodies of saints that had already decayed, how much more can God the ever-living Word raise the body he wore! As Paul says, ‘For the word of God is living and powerful.’” [v] From the same author, in the same work: “Life, then, does not die, but gives life to the dead. For as light is not harmed in a dark place, so life cannot suffer when it has come to a mortal nature. For the Godhead of the Word is unchangeable and invariable, as the Lord says in the prophecy about himself, ‘I am the Lord; I do not change.’” [w] From the same author, in the same work: “Being alive, he cannot die, but on the contrary he gives life to the dead. So by the Godhead that comes from the Father he is a fountain of light. But the one who died, or rather rose from the dead, our intercessor, who was born of the Virgin Mary, whom the Godhead of the Word took up for our sake, is man.” From the same author, in the same work: “It happened that Lazarus fell sick and died. But the divine man did not fall sick, nor did he die against his will. Of his own accord he came to death in the plan of salvation, strengthened by God the Word who dwelt in him, who said, ‘No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.’ So the Godhead that lays down and takes up the life of the man he wore belongs to the Son. For he took on the humanity in its completeness, so that in its completeness he might give it life, and with it the dead.” [x] From the same author, in his discourse against the Arians: “So when the blessed Paul says that the Father ‘raised’ the Son ‘from the dead,’ John tells us that Jesus said, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. … But he spoke’ of his own ‘body.’ So it is clear to those who pay attention that it is at the raising of the body that Paul says the Son was raised from the dead, for he refers what concerns the body to the person of the Son. In just the same way, when he says, ‘The Father gave life to the Son,’ it must be understood that the life was given to the flesh. For if he himself is life, how can life receive life?” [y]

From the same author, in his work On the Incarnation: “For the Word knew that the ruin of men could be undone in no other way than by death to the uttermost, and it was impossible for the Word, who is immortal and the Son of the Father, to die. So to accomplish his purpose he takes a body capable of death, so that this body, united to the Word who is over all, might become subject to death in place of all, and because of the Word dwelling in it might remain incorruptible, and so, by the grace of the resurrection, corruption might from then on lose its power over men. “So, offering to death the body he had taken up, as a sacrifice and victim free from every spot, by this corresponding offering he at once destroyed death’s power over all his kind. For being the Word of God, above and beyond all men, he fittingly offered and paid his own temple, his bodily instrument, as a ransom for all the souls that were owed to death. “And so, by sharing a body like theirs with all men, the incorruptible Son of God fittingly clothed all men with incorruption by the promise of the resurrection. For the corruption that belongs to death no longer has any place among men, because of the Word who dwelt in them by means of the one body.” From the same author, in the same work: “That is why, after the divine signs he showed in his works, he now also offered sacrifice on behalf of all, giving up his own temple to death in place of all. He did this so that he might make all men free of liability and free from the ancient transgression, and might show himself stronger than death by displaying his own body as the incorruptible firstfruits of the resurrection of mankind. “For the body, as sharing a common substance, since it was a human body, although by a new miracle it was formed from the Virgin alone, was mortal and died like others of its kind. But because the Word had come down into it, it no longer suffered corruption according to its own nature; because of God the Word who dwelt in it, it was set free from corruption.” From the same author, in the same work: “So, as I have said, since it was not possible for the Word, being immortal, to die, he took on himself a body capable of death, so that he might offer this same body for all, and so that he himself, suffering on behalf of all through his coming into this body, might ‘destroy him who has the power of death.’” [z] From the same author, in the same work: [aa] “For the body suffered and died, as is the nature of bodies, but it had the promise of incorruption through the Word who dwelt in it. For when the body died, the Word was not harmed. He himself was incapable of suffering, incorruptible and immortal, being God’s Word; and, being joined with the body, he kept from it the natural corruption of bodies, as the Spirit says to him, ‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’” [ab]

The testimony of the holy Damasus, bishop of Rome: [ac] “If anyone says that in the suffering of the cross it was God the Son of God who felt the pain, and not the flesh with the soul, which the form of a servant put on and took to itself, as Scripture says, let him be anathema.” [ad]

The testimony of the holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan. [ae] From his book On the Catholic Faith: “There are some who have gone so far in impiety as to think that the Godhead of the Lord was circumcised, and from perfect was made imperfect, and that it was the divine substance, the Creator of all things, and not the flesh, that was on the tree.” From the same author, in the same work: “The flesh suffered, but the Godhead is free from death. He gave up his body to suffer according to the law of human nature. For how can God die, when the soul cannot die? ‘Do not fear,’ he says, ‘those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.’ If, then, the soul cannot be killed, how can the Godhead be made subject to death?” [af]

The testimony of the holy Basil, bishop of Caesarea: [ag] “It is perfectly well known to anyone who has the slightest understanding of the apostle’s words that he is not handing on to us teaching about the Godhead, but explaining the reasons for the plan of salvation. For he says, ‘God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.’ So he is plainly directing his argument to his human and visible nature.” [ah]

The testimony of the holy Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus. From his letter to the blessed Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople: [ai] “The saddest thing in all that has happened to the churches is the boldness of the speech of Apollinarius and his party. I cannot understand how Your Holiness has allowed them to claim the right to hold assemblies on the same footing as we do.” [aj] And a little further on: “This I will no longer call serious. The saddest thing of all is that God the only Son himself, the Judge of all that exist, the Prince of Life, the Destroyer of Death, is made mortal by him and is said to have undergone suffering in his own Godhead. He represents the Godhead as sharing with the body in the dissolution of the body’s three days of death, and so as being raised again by the Father after the death.” From the same author, in his first letter to Cledonius: [ak] “The Arians contend that the humanity was without a soul, so that they can attribute the suffering to the Godhead and make the same power both move the body and suffer.” From the same author, in his discourse on the Son: “It would remain for us to deal with what was commanded him, and his keeping of the commandments and doing all things pleasing to him; and further with his being made perfect, his exaltation, and his learning obedience by what he suffered; his priesthood, his offering, his betrayal, his plea to the one who had power to save him from death, his agony, his bloody sweat, his prayer, and similar things, were it not clear to all that none of these expressions connected with his suffering refers in any way to the nature that was unchangeable and beyond suffering.” [al] From the same author, in his second Easter sermon: “‘Who is this who comes from Edom,’ and from the earth? And how are the garments of one who has no blood and no body red, like those of one who treads the winepress? Answer by pointing to the beauty of the garment of the body that suffered, that was made beautiful by its suffering and made splendid by the Godhead, than which nothing is lovelier or more fair.” [am]

The testimony of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. [an] From his Catechetical Discourse: “And this is the mystery of God’s plan concerning the humanity and the resurrection from the dead: not to prevent the soul from being separated from the body by death, according to the necessary law of human nature, but to bring them together again through the resurrection.” From the same author, in the same work: “The flesh that received the Godhead, and that was exalted with the Godhead through the resurrection, is not formed of some other material, but of ours. So, just as in our own body the working of one of the senses moves the whole person united to that part to a shared sensation, in the same way, as though all nature were one single living creature, the resurrection of the part spreads through the whole, carried from the part to the whole by what is continuous and united in nature. What, then, do we find so strange in the mystery, that the one who stands upright stoops down to the fallen in order to raise up the one who lies low?” From the same author, in the same work: “In this part too it would be natural not to attend to the one and neglect the other, but to see the human in the immortal, and to examine closely the more divine element in the humanity.” [ao] From the same author, in his work against Eunomius: [ap] “It is not the human nature that raises Lazarus to life. It is not the power that cannot suffer that sheds tears over the dead. The tear belongs to the man; the life comes from the Life itself. The thousands are not fed by human poverty; it is not almighty power that hurries to the fig tree. Who was weary from the journey, and who sustains the whole world by his word without growing weary? What is the brightness of his glory, and what was pierced by the nails? What form is struck in the suffering, and what is glorified forever? The answer is plain and needs no explaining.” [aq] From the same author, in the same treatise: “He blames those who attribute the suffering to the human nature. He wants to make the Godhead itself wholly subject to the suffering. For since the question is twofold and open to doubt, whether it was the divinity or the humanity that was involved in the suffering, the denial of the one becomes an outright condemnation of the other. So, while they blame those who see the suffering in the humanity, they will give unqualified praise to those who hold that the divinity of the Son of God is capable of suffering. “But the point they establish by these means only confirms the absurdity of their own teaching. For if, as they claim, the Godhead of the Son suffers, while that of the Father, in keeping with its substance, is kept wholly beyond suffering, it follows that the nature that cannot suffer is at odds with the nature that undergoes suffering.” [ar]

The testimony of the holy Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. [as] From his sermon on the text, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life”: [at] “Whose, then, are the sufferings? The flesh’s. So if you give the suffering to the flesh, give it also the lowly words, and ascribe the exalted words to the one to whom you assign the miracles. For God, when he is working wonders, naturally speaks in high and lofty language worthy of his works; and the man, when he is suffering, fittingly speaks lowly words that match his sufferings.” From the same author, in his sermon on “My Father is greater than I”: [au] “But when you give the sufferings to the flesh and the miracles to God, you must of necessity, even against your will, give the lowly words to the man born of Mary, and the high and lofty words that befit God to the Word who was in the beginning. “The reason I speak sometimes lofty words and sometimes lowly ones is that by the lofty I may show the nobility of the Word who dwells within, and by the lowly make known the weakness of the lowly flesh. So at one time I call myself equal to the Father, and at another I call the Father greater. In this I am not contradicting myself; I am showing that I am God and man: God by the lofty words, and man by the lowly. And if you want to know in what sense my Father is greater than I, I spoke in the flesh, and not in the person of the Godhead.” From the same author, in his sermon on “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me”: [av] “Do not, then, ascribe the sufferings of the flesh to God, who cannot suffer. For I am God and man, you heretic: God, as the miracles prove; man, as the sufferings show. Since, then, I am God and man, tell me, who was it that suffered? If God suffered, you have spoken blasphemy. But if the flesh suffered, why do you not attribute the suffering to the one to whom you ascribe the dread? For while one is suffering, another feels no dread; while the man is being crucified, God is not troubled.” [aw] From the same author, in his discourse against the Arians: “And not to drag out what I am saying, I will put a short question to you, heretic. Did the one begotten of God before the ages suffer, or Jesus, who was born of David in the last days? If the Godhead suffered, you have spoken blasphemy. If, as is the truth, the humanity suffered, why do you hesitate to attribute the suffering to the man?” From the same author, in his discourse concerning the Son: “Peter said, ‘God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ,’ and he also said, ‘This Jesus, whom you crucified, God has raised up.’ Now it was the humanity, not the Godhead, that became a corpse; and the one who raised it was the Word, the power of God, who said in the Gospel, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ So when it is said that God has made the one who became a corpse and rose from the dead both Lord and Christ, what is meant is the flesh, and not the Godhead of the Son.” [ax] From the same author, in his sermon on “The Son can do nothing of himself”: [ay] “For he did not have a nature such that his life could be held fast by corruption, since his Godhead was not forced down into suffering. How could it be? But the humanity was renewed in incorruption. So he says, ‘For this mortal must put on immortality, and this corruptible must put on incorruption.’ Notice how precise he is: he points expressly to ‘this mortal,’ so that you may not imagine the resurrection of some other flesh.” [az]

The testimony of the holy Flavian, bishop of Antioch. [ba] On Easter Day: “That is why the cross is boldly preached by us, and the Lord’s death is confessed among us, though the Godhead suffered in nothing. For the divine cannot suffer, but the plan of salvation was carried out through the body.” From the same author, on Judas the traitor: “So when you hear of the Lord being betrayed, do not bring the divine dignity down to nothing, and do not attribute the sufferings of the body to the divine power. For the divine cannot suffer and does not vary. For if out of his love for mankind he took on himself the form of a servant, he underwent no change in nature. Being what he always was, he gave up the divine body to experience death.” [bb]

The testimony of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. From his volume of festal letters: [bc] “The souls of creatures without reason are not taken away and given back; they share in the corruption of their bodies and are dissolved into dust. But after the Savior, at the time of the cross, had taken the soul from his own body, he restored it to the body again when he rose from the dead. To assure us of this he spoke the words of the psalmist, that prophetic cry, ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption.’” [bd]

The testimony of the blessed Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: [be] “He was bound, he was wounded, he was crucified, he was handled, he was marked with scars, he received the wound of a lance; and all these indignities were borne by the body born of Mary. But what was begotten of the Father before the ages no one could harm, for the Word had no such nature. For how can anyone hold the Godhead captive? How can anyone wound it? How can anyone stain the bodiless nature red with blood? How wrap it in grave clothes? Grant now what you cannot contradict, and, compelled by reason that cannot be overcome, honor the Godhead.”

The testimony of the holy John, bishop of Constantinople. [bf] From his sermon on the words, “My Father is working until now, and I am working”: [bg] “‘What sign do you show us, since you do these things?’ What, then, does he himself reply? ‘Destroy this temple,’ he says, ‘and in three days I will raise it up,’ speaking of his own body; but they did not understand him.” [bh] And a little further on: [bi]