To Bishop Timothy, on the Suffering of Christ

It is not without purpose that the supreme Ruler lets the spirits that are against us stir up the waves of impiety. He does it to test the courage of the sailors. He shows up the manliness of some and convicts others of cowardice. He strips the mask from the faces of some who put on a show of piety, and he proclaims others as the foremost fighters in the ranks of the truth. We have seen an example of this in the present time. The storm rose high. Some showed their hidden impiety. Some abandoned the truth they used to hold, went over to the battle line of our enemies, and are now, along with them, striking the very men they used to call their leaders. Those who see these things detest the enemy and pity the deserters, but they are afraid to give help to the victims of the attack on the apostolic doctrines. Indeed, if the traitors press them harder, they will perhaps go over to the attackers’ side themselves, give no quarter to their fellow believers, and shoot their arrows at them side by side with the very men they accuse. They will act this way even though the divine Scripture has taught them that a wrong done to one’s neighbor brings punishment, while suffering injustice brings great and lasting rewards. [a]

Your own piety, your zeal for the faith, and your goodwill toward me have been proved by this upheaval. Twice you have written me a letter, scorning everything that might have held you back, and so have shown your brotherly affection. You have also told me of the struggle you are carrying on for the apostolic doctrines. You ask me to tell you by letter what we ought to think and preach about the saving suffering. I have received your request with delight. Not to inform you, but only to remind one who is loved by God, I will go on to tell you what I have learned from the divine Scripture and from the fathers who have interpreted it. [b]

Know then, most godly sir, that before everything else we must observe the difference between the terms, and, besides this, the reason for God’s becoming flesh. Once these are made clear, no ambiguity about the suffering will be left. So first we will put this question to those who try to contradict us: which of the names given to the only Son of God belong to the time before the incarnation, and which to the time after it, or rather, are tied to the working out of the plan of salvation? They will answer that the names from before are “God the Word,” “only Son,” “Almighty,” and “Lord of all creation,” and that the names “Jesus Christ” belong to the incarnation. For after the incarnation God the Word, the only Son of God, is called Jesus Christ. For the angel says, “Look, to you is born this day Christ the Lord.” And because others had been called christs, that is, priests, kings and prophets, the angels joined the title Lord to the title Christ, so that no one would suppose him to be like them, and to prove the supreme dignity of the one who was born. And again Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, “Look, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus,” “for he will save his people from their sins.” Before the incarnation, however, he was never called either Christ or Jesus. The divine prophets did use these names in foretelling things to come, just as they prophesied about the birth, the cross and the suffering when those events had not yet happened. Yet even after the incarnation he is called God the Word, Lord, Almighty, only Son, Maker and Creator. For he was not made man by a change. Remaining just what he was, he took on what we are; for, in the words of the divine apostle, “being in the form of God, he took the form of a servant.” For this reason, even after the incarnation, he is also called by the names that belong to the time before it, since his nature does not vary and cannot change. But when it tells of the suffering, the divine Scripture nowhere uses the word God, since that is the name of the nature that is above all limitation. No one hearing the words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and other sayings like them, would suppose that the flesh existed before the ages, or is of one substance with the God of the universe, or was the Creator of the world. Everyone knows that these terms belong properly to the Godhead. Nor would anyone, reading the genealogy in Saint Matthew, suppose that David and Abraham were by nature forefathers of God, for it is the nature that was taken on that comes from them. [c]

Since, then, these points are plain and beyond doubt even among the most extreme heretics, and we acknowledge both the nature that is before the ages and the nature that is recent, we are bound to recognize together that the flesh is able to suffer and that the Godhead cannot suffer. We do not divide the union, nor separate the only Son into two persons, but we observe the properties of the natures in the one Son. In the case of soul and body, natures that came into being together and are naturally united, we are used to making this distinction. We describe the soul as simple, rational and immortal, but the body as compound, able to suffer, and mortal. We do not divide the union, nor cut one man in two. Much more, then, in the case of the Godhead begotten of the Father before the ages and of the manhood taken from David’s seed, is it fitting to take the same course. We must clearly recognize that the one nature is everlasting, eternal, simple, without limits, immortal and unvarying, and that the other is recent, compound, limited, and subject to change. We acknowledge that the flesh is now immortal and incorruptible, although before the resurrection it was subject to death and to suffering; for how else could it have been nailed to the tree and laid in the tomb? And though we recognize the difference between the natures, we are bound to worship one Son, and to acknowledge the same one as Son of God and Son of Man, form of God and form of a servant, Son of David and Lord of David, seed of Abraham and Creator of Abraham. The union makes the names common to both, but sharing the names does not mix the natures together. Those who think rightly see plainly that some names fit him as God and others as man. And in this way both “able to suffer” and “unable to suffer” are properly said of the Lord Christ, for in his humanity he suffered, while as God he remained beyond suffering. If, as the impious argue, he suffered in the Godhead, then, it seems to me, the taking on of the flesh was more than was needed. For suppose the divine nature had been able to undergo suffering: then he did not need the manhood that can suffer. But grant, as even their own argument holds, that the Godhead could not suffer and the suffering was real; then let them beware of denying what it was that suffered, or they will deny along with it the reality of the suffering. For if what suffers does not exist, then the suffering is not real. Now anyone who cares to open the fourfold book of the sacred evangelists can easily see that the divine Scripture plainly proclaims the suffering of the body. From them he can learn how Joseph of Arimathea came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; how Pilate ordered the body of Jesus to be handed over; how Joseph took the body of Jesus down from the tree, wrapped the body of Jesus in the linen cloth, and laid it in the new tomb. All four evangelists describe this, often mentioning the body. But if our opponents bring up the words of the angel to Mary and her companions, “Come to where the Lord lay,” let them be sent to the passage in the Acts which says that devout men “carried Stephen to his burial,” and let them notice that it was not the soul but the body of the victorious Stephen to which the customary rites were paid. And to this very day, when we come to the shrines of the victorious martyrs, we usually ask the name of the one buried in the tomb, and those who know the facts answer, perhaps, “Julian the martyr,” or “Romanus,” or “Timothy.” [e]

Very often it is not whole bodies that are buried but only very small remains, and yet we call the body by the name that belongs to the whole man. It was in this sense that the angel called the body of the Lord “Lord,” because it was the body of the Lord of the universe. Moreover, the Lord himself promised to give for the life of the world not his invisible nature, but his body. “For,” he says, “the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And when he took the symbol of the divine mysteries, he said, “This is my body, which is given for you,” or, in the apostle’s version, “broken.” Nowhere, when he spoke of the suffering, did he mention the Godhead that cannot suffer. [g]

So before everything else we must put this question to those who try to contradict us: do they confess that the perfect manhood was taken on by God the Word, and do they hold that the union was made without confusion? Once these points are granted, the rest will follow in due course, and the suffering will be ascribed to the nature that can suffer. I have now summed up these main points, and I have gone beyond the limits of a letter. I have also sent what I wrote lately, at the suggestion of a most godly and holy man of God, the lord —, in the form of a short instruction meant to teach the truth of the apostolic doctrines. If I find a good copyist, I will also send your holiness what I have written in the form of a dialogue, which carries the argument further and strengthens my positions by the teaching of the fathers. I have also now sent a few statements of the ancient teachers, enough to show the drift of their teaching. Give me in return, most godly sir, the help of your prayers, so that I may get through the terrible storm and reach the quiet harbor of the Savior. [h]