Proof That the Savior’s Godhead Cannot Suffer

We have been taught, both by the divine Scripture and by the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, to confess that the Son is of one substance with God the Father. That the Father cannot suffer is also taught by nature and proclaimed by the divine Scripture. So we will further confess that the Son cannot suffer, for the sameness of substance requires this conclusion. Whenever, then, we hear the divine Scripture proclaim the cross and the death of Christ the Master, we attribute the suffering to the flesh. For the Godhead, which by nature cannot suffer, is in no way capable of suffering. [a] “All that the Father has is mine,” says Christ the Master, and one of all these things is freedom from suffering. If, then, as God he cannot suffer, he suffered as man. For the divine nature does not undergo suffering. [c]

The Lord said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And again: “I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep and am known by mine… and I lay down my life for the sheep.” So the good shepherd gives both body and soul for the sheep, who have soul and body. [d] Human nature is made up of body and soul. But it sinned, and it needed a sacrifice free from every spot. So the Creator took a body and a soul, kept them clean from the stains of sin, and gave his body for the bodies of human beings and his soul for their souls. If this is true, and true it is, for these are the words of truth itself, then those who attribute suffering to the divine nature are wild and blasphemous.

The blessed Paul called Christ “the firstborn from the dead,” and I suppose that the firstborn has the same nature as those of whom he is called the firstborn. As man, then, he is the firstborn from the dead, for he was the first to destroy the pangs of death, and he gave everyone the sweet hope of another life. As he rose, so he suffered. As man, then, he suffered; but as God, who is to be held in awe, he remained beyond suffering. [e] The divine apostle calls Christ our Savior “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” But the firstfruits are akin to the whole of which they are the firstfruits. So he is not called firstfruits as God, for what kinship is there between Godhead and manhood? The one is an immortal nature, the other mortal. Such is the nature of those who sleep, whose firstfruits Christ is called. To this nature belong death and resurrection, and in its resurrection we have a proof of the general resurrection. [f] When Christ the Master wished to convince the doubting apostles that he had destroyed death and risen, he showed them parts of his body: his side, his hands, his feet, and the marks of the suffering kept in them. So it was this body that rose, and this, I think, that was shown to those who did not believe. What rose is what was buried; what was buried is what had died; and what had died is, of course, what was nailed to the cross. So the divine nature united to the body remained beyond suffering. [g]

Those who call the Lord’s flesh the giver of life make life itself mortal by what they say. They ought to have seen that the flesh gave life through the Life united to it. But if, by their argument, the Life is mortal, how could the flesh, which is mortal by nature and was made life-giving through the Life, remain life-giving? God the Word is immortal by nature, and the flesh is mortal by nature; but after the suffering, by its union with the Word, the flesh itself became immortal. How, then, is it not absurd to say that the one who gave it such immortality shared in death?

Those who maintain that God the Word suffered in the flesh should be asked what they mean. If they have the nerve to answer that when the body was pierced with nails the divine nature felt pain, let them learn that the divine nature did not take the place of a soul, for God the Word had taken a soul along with the body. If they reject this as blasphemous, and say that the flesh suffered by nature, and that God the Word made the suffering his own as the suffering of his own flesh, then let them not put forward puzzling and murky phrases, but set out clearly the meaning of their ill-sounding phrase. In this interpretation they will have as supporters all who wish to follow the divine Scripture.

The divine Peter, in his general letter, says that Christ suffered in the flesh. But whoever hears that Christ suffered does not think of God the Word without a body, but of God the Word made flesh. The name Christ points to both natures; but the word “flesh,” joined to the suffering, shows that not both, but one of the two, suffered. For whoever hears that Christ suffered in the flesh thinks of him as beyond suffering insofar as he was God, and attributes the suffering to the flesh alone. When we hear Peter say that God swore to David that from the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ, we do not say that God the Word took his origin from David, but that the flesh which God the Word took was akin to David. Just so, whoever hears that Christ suffered in the flesh must recognize that the suffering belongs to the flesh, and confess that the Godhead cannot suffer. [h]

When the Lord Christ said on the cross, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit,” the Arians and the Eunomians say that this spirit was the Godhead of the only Son, for they hold that the body he took had no soul. But the heralds of the truth say that it was the soul that was called spirit, and they base their view on the following passages. The most wise evangelist adds at once, “And having said this, he gave up his spirit.” So says Luke, and the blessed Mark likewise adds, “He gave up his spirit.” The divine Matthew writes, “He yielded up his spirit,” and the divine John, “He gave up his spirit.” All of them speak as people commonly speak, for we are used to saying all these things of those who die. None of these expressions carries any meaning of Godhead; they all point to the soul. And even if someone were to accept the Arian sense of the passage, even so it will show the immortality of the divine nature. For Christ committed it to the Father; he did not yield it to death. Those who deny that he took a soul, who maintain that God the Word is a creature and claim that he was in the body in place of a soul, still deny that he was handed over to death. If so, how can those obtain pardon who confess one substance of the Trinity, and leave the soul in its own immortality, and yet shamelessly dare to say that God the Word, of one substance with the Father, tasted death? [i]

If Christ is both God and man, as the divine Scripture teaches and as the illustrious Fathers kept on preaching, then he suffered as man, but as God he remained beyond suffering. If they acknowledge that he took flesh, declare that it was capable of suffering before the resurrection, and preach that the nature of the Godhead cannot suffer, why do they pass over the nature that can suffer and attribute the suffering to the one that cannot?

If our Lord and Savior nailed the handwriting to the cross, as the divine apostle says, then he nailed the body. For every person marks the prints of his sins on his body, like letters. That is why, on behalf of sinners, he gave up the body that was free from all sin. [k] When we say that the body, or the flesh, or the manhood suffered, we do not separate the divine nature from it. It was united to one who hungered, thirsted, grew weary, even slept, and underwent the suffering; it was affected by none of these things itself, but allowed the human nature to be affected in its own way. In the same way it was joined to it even when it was crucified, and allowed the suffering to be completed, so that by the suffering it might destroy death. It did not receive pain from the suffering, but it made the suffering its own, as the suffering of its own temple and of the flesh united to it. It is because of this flesh that the faithful are called members of Christ, and he himself is called the head of those who believe. [l]