Incapable of Suffering, Part 4

“Why does the evangelist not pass this by? Why did he add the correction, ‘But he spoke of the temple of his body’? For he did not say, Destroy this ‘body,’ but ‘temple,’ so that he might show the God who dwelt within. Destroy this temple, which is far more excellent than the temple of the Jews. The Jewish temple held the Law; this temple holds the Lawgiver. The one held the letter that kills; the other, the Spirit that gives life.” [a] From the same writer, from the discourse “That what was said and done in lowliness was not said and done out of weakness of power, but on account of different arrangements”: [b] “How, then, does he say, ‘If it is possible’? He is showing us the weakness of human nature, which did not choose to be torn away from this present life, but stepped back and shrank from it because of the love for the present life that God planted in it in the beginning. If, then, when the Lord himself so often spoke in such terms, some have dared to say that he did not take flesh, what would they have said if he had spoken none of these words?” [c] From the same writer, from the same work: “Notice how they spoke of his former age. Put this question to the heretic: Does God feel dread? Does he draw back? Does he shrink? Does he grieve? If he says yes, stand away from him from now on. Rank him down below with the devil, yes, lower even than the devil, for even the devil will not dare to say this. But if he says that each of these things is unworthy of God, answer: Neither does God pray. For besides these, it will be yet another absurdity if these words are the words of God, since the words point not only to an agony but also to two wills, one of the Son and another of the Father, opposed to each other. For the words ‘Not as I will, but as you will’ are the words of one who points to this.” [d] From the same writer, from the same work: “For if this is said of the Godhead, a certain contradiction arises, and many absurdities follow from it. If, on the other hand, it is said of the flesh, the expressions are reasonable, and no fault can be found with them. For the flesh’s unwillingness to die brings no condemnation; such is the nature of flesh. And he shows all the properties of the flesh except sin, and in full abundance at that, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics. So when he says, ‘If it is possible, let this cup pass from me,’ and ‘Not as I will, but as you will,’ he only shows that he is truly clothed with flesh that fears death, for it is the nature of flesh to fear death, to draw back, and to suffer agony. Here he leaves the flesh abandoned and stripped of its own activity, so that by showing its weakness he may convince us also of its nature. At other times, however, he conceals it, because he was not a mere man.”

The testimony of Severian, bishop of Gabala. [e] From his discourse on the seals: “The Jews stand against what is seen, not knowing what is unseen. They crucify the flesh; they do not destroy the Godhead. For if my words are not destroyed along with the written letter, which is the clothing of speech, how could God the Word, the fountain of life, die along with the flesh? The suffering belongs to the body, but freedom from suffering belongs to the dignity.”

See, then, how those who work the fields in the East and in the West, in the South and in the North, have all been shown by us to condemn your empty heresy, and all openly to proclaim that the divine nature is incapable of suffering. See how both tongues, I mean Greek and Latin, make one harmonious confession about the things of God. I am astonished myself at their agreement, but I notice a considerable difference in the terms they use. [f] Do not be angry. The very force of their fight against their opponents is the reason they seem to go too far. The same thing can be seen with those who plant trees. When they see a plant bent one way or the other, they are not content to bring it back to a straight line. They bend it still further in the opposite direction, so that by being bent still further away from straight it may reach its upright stature. But so that you may know that the very promoters and champions of this many-shaped heresy try to outdo even the heretics of old by the greatness of their blasphemies, listen once more to the writings of Apollinarius, which proclaim that the divine nature is incapable of suffering and confess that the suffering belongs to the body. [g]

The testimony of Apollinarius. From his summary: “John spoke of the temple that was destroyed, namely the body of the one who raised it. And the body is entirely united to him, and he is not another among them. And if the body of the Lord was one with the Lord, the properties of the body became his properties because of the body.” [h] And again: “And the truth is that his joining with the body does not happen by the Word’s being confined within it, so that he has nothing beyond his being embodied. That is why, even in death, immortality remains with him. For if he goes beyond this composition, he goes beyond its dissolution too. Now death is dissolution. But he was not contained within the composition; had he been, the universe would have been left empty. Nor in the dissolution did he suffer, as the soul does, the loss that follows dissolution.” And again: “Just as the Savior says that the dead bodies come out of their tombs, though their souls do not come out from there, so he says that he himself will rise from the dead, although it is only his body that rises.” In another work of the same kind he writes: “Rising from the dead belongs to man; raising the dead belongs to God. Now Christ both rose and raised, for he was God and man. Had Christ been only man, he would not have given life to the dead; and if he had been only God, he would not on his own account, apart from the Father, have given life to any of the dead. But Christ did both; the same being is both God and man. If Christ had been only man, he would not have saved the world; if he had been only God, he would not have saved it through suffering. But Christ did both, so he is God and man. If Christ had been only man, or only God, he could not have been a mediator between men and God.” [i] And a little further on: “Now flesh is an instrument of life, fitted to the capacity for suffering in keeping with the divine will. Words do not belong to the flesh, and neither do deeds. Made subject to the capacity for suffering, as is natural to flesh, it prevails over the suffering because it is the flesh of God.” And again, a little further on: “The Son took flesh from the Virgin and made his way into the world. He filled this flesh with the Holy Spirit to make us all holy. So he handed death over to death, and destroyed death through the resurrection, for the raising of us all.” From his tract on the faith: “Since the sufferings belong to the flesh, his power kept its own freedom from suffering. So to ascribe the suffering to the power is an ungodly error.” And in his tract on the incarnation he writes further: “Here, then, he shows that the same one is the man who rose from the dead and the God who reigns over all creation.”

You see, then, that one of those who profess an empty heresy plainly preaches that the Godhead is incapable of suffering, calls the body a temple, and insists that this body was raised by God the Word. I have heard, and I am astonished. And I am truly ashamed that our teachings should look less defensible than the novelty of Apollinarius. But I will bring you a witness from yet another heretical herd, who plainly preaches that the Godhead of the only Son is incapable of suffering. Whom do you mean? You have probably heard of Eusebius the Phoenician, who was bishop of Emesa near Lebanon. [j] I have come across some of his writings, and I found him to be a supporter of the teachings of Arius. Yes, he did belong to that sect. But in his effort to prove that the Father was greater than the only Son, he declares that the Godhead of the Son he belittles is incapable of suffering, and he fought for this opinion with long and remarkable perseverance. I would be very grateful if you would quote his words too. To meet your wish, I will bring forward a rather longer piece of evidence. Now listen to what he says, and imagine that the man himself is speaking to us.

The testimony of Eusebius of Emesa: “Why, then, does he fear death? So that he may not suffer something from death? For what was death to him? Was it not the parting of the power from the flesh? Did the power receive a nail, that it should be afraid? Our soul does not suffer the body’s weaknesses when it is united with it. The eye goes blind, and yet the mind keeps its strength; a foot is cut off, and yet the reasoning power does not limp. Nature shows this, and the Lord sets his seal on it in the words ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul.’ And if they cannot kill the soul, it is not because they do not wish to, but because they are not able, though they would like to make the soul share the suffering of the body yoked with it. If that is so, shall the one who created the soul and formed the body suffer as the body suffers, even though he does take the body’s sufferings on himself? But Christ suffered for us, and we do not lie. ‘And the bread that I will give is my flesh.’ This he gave for us. [k] “What can be mastered was mastered; what can be crucified was crucified. But the one who had power alike to dwell in it and to leave it said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit,’ not into the hands of those who were trying to hasten his death. I am not fond of controversy; I would rather avoid it. With all gentleness I wish to look into the points at issue between us, as between brothers. Am I not right to say that the power could not be subject to the sufferings of the flesh? I say nothing; let whoever wishes say what the power suffered. Did it fail? See the danger. Was it put out? See the blasphemy. Did it cease to exist? That is the death of power. Tell me what could so master it that it suffered, and I withdraw. But if you cannot tell me, why do you object to my not telling you? What you cannot tell me, that it did not receive. Drive a nail into a soul, and I will grant that one can be driven into power. But it was in sympathy. Tell me what you mean by ‘in sympathy.’ As a nail went into the flesh, so pain went into the power. Let us understand ‘was in sympathy’ in this sense. Then pain was felt by the power, which was not struck. For pain always follows on suffering. But if a body often despises pain while the mind is sound, because of the vigor of its thought, then in this case let someone explain fairly what suffered and what suffered with it, or was in sympathy. What then? Did Christ not die for us? How did he die? ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ The spirit departed; the body remained; the body remained without breath. Did he not die, then? He died for us. The Shepherd offered the sheep, the Priest offered the sacrifice; he gave himself for us. ‘He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all.’ I do not reject the words, but I want the meaning of the words. The Lord says that the bread of God came down from heaven, and though I cannot put it more plainly because of the mysteries, he says by way of explanation, ‘It is my flesh.’ Did the flesh of the Son come down from heaven? No. How, then, does he say, and that by way of explanation, that the bread of God lives and came down from heaven? He refers the properties of the power to the flesh, because the power that took on the flesh came down from heaven. Turn the terms around, then: he refers to the power what the flesh suffers. How did Christ suffer for us? He was spat on, he was struck on the cheek, they put a crown around his brow, his hands and feet were pierced. All these sufferings were of the body, but they are referred to the one who dwelt in it. Throw a stone at the emperor’s statue. What is the cry? ‘You have insulted the emperor.’ Tear the emperor’s robe. What is the cry? ‘You have rebelled against the emperor.’ Crucify Christ’s body. What is the cry? ‘Christ died for us.’ But what need is there of me and you? Let us go to the evangelists. How have you received from the Lord the way the Lord died? They read, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ The spirit on high, the body on the cross for us. Insofar as his body is ascribed to himself, he offered the sheep.” [l] From the same writer, from the same book: “He came to save our nature, not to destroy his own. If I agree to say that a camel flies, you immediately think it strange, because it does not fit its nature, and you are quite right. And if I say that men live in the sea, you will not accept it, and you are quite right; it is contrary to nature. So then, just as you think it strange if I say strange things about these natures, if I say that the Power that was before the ages, by nature without a body, in dignity incapable of suffering, who exists with the Father and at the Father’s side, at his right hand and in glory, if I say that this bodiless nature suffers, will you not stop your ears? If you do not stop your ears when you hear this, I shall stop my heart. Can we do anything to an angel? Strike him with a sword? Or cut him in pieces? Why do I say to an angel? Can we do it to a soul? Does a soul receive a nail? A soul is neither cut nor burned. Do you ask why? Because it was created so. Are his works incapable of suffering, and he himself capable of it? I do not reject the plan of salvation; on the contrary, I welcome the ill-treatment. Christ died for us and was crucified. So it is written; so the nature allowed. I do not blot out the words, nor do I blaspheme the nature. But this is not true. Very well, then, let something truer be said. A teacher is a benefactor, never harsh, never an enemy, unless the pupil is headstrong. Have you anything good to say? My ears are gratefully open. Does anyone want to quarrel? Let him quarrel at his leisure. Could the Jews crucify the Son of God and make the power itself a corpse? Can the living die? The death of this power is its failing. Even when we die, our body is left. But if we make that power a corpse, we reduce it to nothing. I am afraid you cannot hear. If the body dies, the soul is separated from it and remains; but if the soul dies, since it has no body, it ceases to exist altogether. A soul, by dying, altogether ceases to be. For the death of the immortal ones is a contradiction of their existence. Consider the alternative; I do not dare even to mention it. We say these things as we understand them, but if anyone is contentious, we lay down no law. But I know one thing: every man must reap the fruit of his opinions. Each man comes to God and brings before him what he has said and thought about him. Do not suppose that God reads books, or is troubled with having to remember what you said or who heard you. Everything is laid bare. The judge is on the throne. Paul is brought before him. ‘You said I was a man; you have no life with me. You did not know me; I do not know you.’ Up comes another. ‘You said I was one of the things that are created. You did not know my dignity; I do not know you.’ Up comes another. ‘You said that I did not take on a body. You made light of my grace. You will not share my immortality.’ Up comes another. ‘You said that I was not born of a Virgin to save the body of the Virgin; you will not be saved.’ Each one reaps the fruit of his opinions about the faith.” [m]

You see that the other sect of your teachers, from whom you supposed you had learned that the Godhead of the only Son suffered, abhors this blasphemy, preaches that the Godhead is incapable of suffering, and breaks ranks with those who dare to ascribe the suffering to it. Yes. I am astonished at the conflict, and I admire the man’s good sense and his opinions. Then, my good sir, imitate the bees. As your mind flies about the meadows of divine Scripture, among the lovely flowers of these illustrious fathers, build up in your heart for us the honeycomb of the faith. If perhaps you find anywhere plants that are bitter and not fit to eat, like these fellows Apollinarius and Eusebius, yet not wholly without something that may serve for making honey, it is reasonable that you should sip the sweet and leave the poisonous behind, like bees that often light on harmful bushes, yet leave all the deadly poison behind and gather all the good. We give you this advice, dear friend, in brotherly kindness. Accept it, and you will do well. And if you do not listen, we will say to you in the words of the apostle, “We are pure.” As the prophet says, we have spoken what we were commanded. [n]