Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 03: 23.01.31 The Impassible Part 2
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 03 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 23.01.31 The Impassible Part 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Eran.-Of course not.
Orth.-And when you hear the Patriarch Jacob saying "Bury me with my Fathers."hyperlink do you suppose this refers to the body or to the soul?
Eran.-To the body; without question.
Orth.-Now read what follows.
Eran.-"There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife and there I buried Leah."hyperlink
Orth.-Now, in the passages which you have just read, the divine Scripture makes no mention of the body, but as far as the words used go, signifies soul as well as body. We however 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.hyperlink
Eran.-True.
Orth.-And when we read in the Acts how Herod slew James the brother of John with a sword,hyperlink we are not likely to hold that his soul died.
Eran.-No; how could we? We remember the Lord's warning "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul."hyperlink
Orth.-But does it not seem to you impious and monstrous in the case of mere men to avoid the invariable connexion of soul and body, and in the case of scriptural references to death and burial, to distinguish in thought the soul from the body and connect them only with the body, while in trust in the teaching of the Lord you hold the soul to be immortal, and then when you hear of the passion of the Son of God to follow quite a different course? Are you justified in making no mention of the body to which the passion belongs, and in representing the divine nature which is impassible, immutable and immortal as mortal and passible? While all the while you know that if the nature of God the Word is capable of suffering, the assumption of the body was superfluous.
Eran.-We have learnt from the Divine Scriptures that the Son of God suffered.
Orth.-But the divine apostle interprets the Passion, and shews what nature suffered.
Eran.-Show me this at once and clear the matter up.
Orth.-Are you not acquainted with the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews in which the divine Paulhyperlink says "For which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying `I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee.' And again, `Behold I and the children which God hath given me.'"hyperlink
Eran.-Yes, I know this, but this does not give us what you promised.
Orth.-Yes: even these suggest what I promised to shew. The word brotherhood signifies kinship, and the kinship is due to the assumption of the nature, and the assumption openly proclaims the impassibility of the Godhead. But to understand this the more plainly read what follows.
Eran.-"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death ...and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life subject to bondage."hyperlink
Orth.-This, I think, needs no explanation; it teaches clearly the mystery of the oeconomy.
Eran.-I see nothing here of what you promised to prove.
Orth.-Yet the divine Apostle teaches plainly that the Creator, pitying this nature not only seized cruelly by death, but throughout all life made death's slave, effected the resurrection through a body for our bodies, and, by means of a mortal body, undid the dominion of death; for since His own nature was immortal He righteously wished to stay the sovereignty of death by taking the first fruits of them that were subject to death, and while He kept these first fruits (i.e. the body) blameless and free from sin, on the one hand He gave death license to lay hands on it and so satisfy its insatiability, while on the other, for the sake of the wrong done to this body, he put a stop to the unrighteous sovereignty usurped over all the rest of men. These firstfruits unrighteously engulfed He raised again and will make the race to follow them.
Set this explanation side by side with the words of the Apostle, and you will understand the impassibility of the Godhead.
Eran.-In what has been read there is no proof of the divine impassibility.
Orth.-Nay: does not the statement of the divine Apostle, that the reason of His making the children partakers of the flesh and blood was that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death, distinctly signify the impassibility of the Godhead, and the passibility of the flesh, and that because the divine nature could not suffer He assumed the nature that could and through it destroyed the power of the devil?
Eran.-How did He destroy the power of the devil and the dominion of death through the flesh?
Orth.-What arms did the devil use at the beginning when he enslaved the nature of men?
Eran.-The means by which he took captive him who had been constituted citizen of Paradise, was sin.
Orth.-And what punishment did God assign for the transgression of the commandment?
Eran.-Death.
Orth.-Then sin is the mother of death, and the devil its father.
Eran.-True.
Orth.-War then was waged against human nature by sin. Sin seduced them that obeyed it to slavery, brought them to its vile father, and delivered them to its very bitter offspring.
Eran.-That is plain.
Orth.-So with reason the Creator, with the intention of destroying either power, assumed the nature against which war was being waged, and, by keeping it clear of all sin, both set it free from the sovereignty of the devil, and, by its means, destroyed the devil's dominion. For since death is the punishment of sinners, and death unrighteously and against the divine law seized the sinless body of the Lord, He first raised up that which was unlawfully detained, and then promised release to them that were with justice imprisoned.
Eran.-But how do you think it just that the resurrection of Him who was unlawfully detained should be shared by the bodies which had been righteously delivered to death?
Orth.-And how do you think it just that, when it was Adam who transgressed the commandment, his race should follow their forefather?
Eran.-Although the race had not participated in the famous transgression, yet it committed other sins, and for this cause incurred death.
Orth.-Yet not sinners only but just men, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and men who have shone bright in many kinds of virtue have come into death's meshes.
Eran.-Yes; for how could a family sprung of mortal parents remain immortal? Adam after the transgression and the divine sentence, and after coming under the power of death, knew his wife, and was called father; having himself become mortal he was made father of mortals; reasonably then all who have received mortal nature follow their forefather.
Orth.-You have shewn very well the reason of our being partakers of death. The same however must be granted about the resurrection, for the remedy must be meet for the disease. When the head of the race was doomed, all the race was doomed with him, and so when the Saviour destroyed the curse, human nature won freedom; and just as they that shared Adam's nature followed him in his going down into Hades, so all the nature of men will share in newness of life with the Lord Christ in His resurrection.
Eran.-The decrees of the Church must be given not only declaratorily but demonstratively. Tell me then how these doctrines are taught in the divine Scripture.
Orth.-Listen to the Apostle writing to the Romans, and through them teaching all mankind: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ"hyperlink and again: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."hyperlink And when introducing to the Corinthians his argument about the resurrection he shortly reveals to them the mystery of the oeconomy, and says: "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them which slept. For since by man came death by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."hyperlink So I have brought you proofs from the divine oracles. Now look at what belongs to Adam compared with what belongs to Christ, the disease with the remedy, the wound with the salve, the sin with the wealth of righteousness, the ban with the blessing, the doom with the delivery, the transgression with the observance, the death with the life, hell with the kingdom, Adam with Christ, the man with the Man. And yet the Lord Christ is not only man but eternal God, but the divine Apostle names Him from the nature which He assumed, because it is in this nature that he compares Him with Adam. The justification, the struggle, the victory, the death, the resurrection are all of this human nature; it is this nature which we share with Him; in this nature they who have exercised themselves beforehand in the citizenship of the kingdom shall reign with Him. Of this nature I spoke, not dividing the Godhead, but referring to what is proper to the manhood.
Eran.-You have gone through long discussions on this point, and have strengthened your argument by scriptural testimony, but if the passion was really of the flesh, how is it that when he praises the divine love to men, the Apostle exclaims, "He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all,"hyperlink what son does he say was delivered up?
Orth.-Watch well your words. There is one Son of God, wherefore He is called only begotten.
Eran.-If then there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle called him own Son.
Orth.-True.
Eran.-Then he says that He was delivered up.
Orth.-Yes, but not without a body, as we have agreed again and again.
Eran.-It has been agreed again and again that He took body and soul.
Orth.-Therefore the Apostle spoke of what relates to the body.
Eran.-The divide Apostle says distinctly "Who spared not his own Son."
Orth.-When then you hear God saying to Abraham "Because thou hast not withheld thy son thy only son,"hyperlink do you allege that Isaac was slain?
Eran.-Of course not.
Orth.-And yet God said "Thou hast not withheld," and the God of all is true.
Eran.-The expression "thou hast not withheld" refers to the readiness of Abraham, for he was ready to sacrifice the lad, but God prevented it.
Orth.-Well; in the story of Abraham you were not content with the letter, but unfolded it and made the meaning clear. In precisely the same manner examine the meaning of the words of the Apostle. Your will then see that it was by no means the divine nature which was not withheld, but the flesh nailed to the Cross. And it is easy to perceive the truth even in the type. Do you regard Abraham's sacrifice as a type of the oblation offered on behalf of the world?
Eran.-Not at all, nor yet can I make words spoken rhetorically in the churches a rule of faith.
Orth.-You ought by all means to follow teachers of the Church, but, since you improperly oppose yourself to these, hear the Saviour Himself when addressing the Jews; "Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad."hyperlink Note that the Lord calls His passion "a day."
Eran.-I accept the Lord's testimony and do not doubt the type.
Orth.-Now compare the type with the reality and you will see the impassibility of the Godhead even in the type. Both in the former and in the latter there is a Father; both in the former and the latter a well beloved Son, each bearing the material for the sacrifice. The one bore the wood, the other the cross upon his shoulders. It is said that the top of the hill was dignified by the sacrifice of both. There is a correspondence moreover between the number of days and nights and the resurrection which followed, for after Isaac had been slain by his father's willing heart, on the third day after the bountiful God had ordered the deed to be done, he rose to new life at the voice of Him who loves mankind.hyperlink A lamb was seen caught in a thicket, furnishing an image of the cross, and slain instead of the lad. Now if this is a type of the reality, and in the type the only begotten Son did not undergo sacrifice, but a lamb was substituted and laid upon the altar and completed the mystery of the oblation, why then in the reality do you hesitate to assign the passion to the flesh, and to proclaim the impassibility of the Godhead?
Eran.-In your observations upon this type you represent Isaac as living again at the divine command. There is nothing therefore unseemly if, fitting the reality to the type, we declare that God the Word suffered and came to life again.
Orth.-I have said again and again that it is quite impossible for the type to match the archetypal reality in every respect, and this may also be easily understood in the present instance. Isaac and the lamb, as touching the difference of their natures, suit the image, but as touching the separation of their divided personshyperlink they do so no longer. We preach so close an union of Godhead and of manhood as to understand one personhyperlink undivided, and to acknowledge the same to be both God and man, visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumcscribed, and we apply to one of the persons all the attributes which are indicative alike of Godhead and of manhood. Now since the lamb, an unreasoning being, and not gifted with the divine image,hyperlink could not possibly prefigure the restoration to life, the two divide between them the type of the mystery of the oeconomy, and while one furnishes the image of death, the other supplies that of the resurrection. We find precisely the same thing in the Mosaic sacrifices, for in them too may. be seen a type outlined in anticipation of the passion of salvation.
Eran.-What Mosaic sacrifice foreshadows the reality?
Orth.-All the Old Testament, so to say, is a type of the New. It is for this reason that the divine Apostle plainly says-"the Law having a shadow of good things to come"hyperlink and again "now all these things happened unto them for ensamples."hyperlink The image of the archetype is very distinctly exhibited by the lamb slain in Egypt, and by the red heifer burned without the camp, and moreover referred to by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he writes "Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."hyperlink
But of this no more for the present. I will however mention the sacrifice in which two goats were offered, the one being slain, and the other let go.hyperlink In these two goats there is an anticipative image of the two natures of the Saviour;-in the one let go, of the impassible Godhead, in the one slain, of the passible manhood.
Eran.-Do you not think it irreverent to liken the Lord to goats?
Orth.-Which do you think is a fitter object of avoidance and hate, a serpent or a goat?
Eran.-A serpent is plainly hateful, for it injuries those who come within its reach, and often hurts people who do it no harm. A goat on the other hand comes, according to the Law, in the list of animals that are clean and may be eaten.
Orth.-Now hear the Lord likening the passion of salvation to the brazen serpent. He says: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."hyperlink If a brazen serpent was a type of the crucified Saviour, of what impropriety are we guilty in comparing the passion of salvation with the sacrifice of the goats?
Eran.-Because John called the Lord "a lamb,"hyperlink and Isaiah called Him "lamb" and "sheep."hyperlink
Orth.-But the blessed Paul calls Him "sin"hyperlink and "curse."hyperlink As curse therefore He satisfies the type of the accursed serpent; as sin He explains the figure of the sacrifice of the goats, for on behalf of sin, in the Law, a goat, and not a lamb, was offered. So the Lord in the Gospels likened the just to lambs, but sinners to kids;hyperlink and since He was ordained to undergo the passion not only on behalf of just men, but also of sinners, He appropriately foreshadows His own offering through lambs and goats.
Eran.-But the type of the two goats leads us to think of two persons.
Orth.-The passibility of the manhood and the impassibility of the Godhead could not possibly be prefigured both at once by one goat. The one which was slain could not have shewn the living nature. So two were taken in order to explain the two natures. The same lesson may well be learnt from another sacrifice.
Eran.-From which?
Orth.-From that in which the lawgiver bids two pure birds be offered-one to be slain, and the other, after having been dipped in the blood of the slain, to be let go. Here also we see a type of the Godhead and of the manhood-of the manhood slain and of the godhead appropriating the passion.
Eran.-You have given us many types, but I object to enigmas.
Orth.-Yet the divine Apostle says that the narratives are types.hyperlink Hagar is called a type of the old covenant; Sarah is likened to the heavenly Jerusalem; Ishmael is a type of Israel, and Isaac of the new people. So you must accuse the loud trumpet of the Spirit for giving its enigmas for us all.
Eran.-Though you urge any number of arguments, you will never induce me to divide the passion. I have heard the voice of the angel saying to Mary and her companions, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay."hyperlink
Orth.-This is quite in accordance with our common customs; we speak of the part by the name which belongs to all the parts. When we go into the churches where are buried the holy apostles or prophets or martyrs, we ask from time to time, "Who is it who lies in the shrine?" and those who are able to give us information say in reply, Thomas, it may be, the Apostle,hyperlink or John the Baptist,hyperlink or Stephen the protomartyr,hyperlink or any other of the saints, mentioning them by name, though perhaps only a few scanty relics of them lie here. But no one who hears these names which are common to both body and soul will imagine that the souls also are shut up in the chests; everybody knows that the chests contain only the bodies or even small portions of the bodies. The holy angel spoke in precisely the same manner when he described the body by the name of the person.
Eran.-But how can you prove that the angel spoke to the women about the Lord's body?
Orth.-In the first place, the tomb itself suffices to settle the question, for to a tomb is committed neither soul nor Godhead whose nature is uncircumscribed; tombs are made for bodies. Furthermore this is plainly taught by the divine Scripture, for so the holy Matthew narrates the event, "When the even was come there came a rich man of Arimathaea named Joseph who also himself was Jesus' disciple: he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered, and when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre and departed."hyperlink See how often he mentions the body in order to stop the mouths of them who blaspheme the Godhead. The same course is pursued by the thrice blessed Mark, whose narrative I will also quote. "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if He were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether He had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph, and he brought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre,"hyperlink and so on. Observe with admiration, the harmony of terms, and how consistently and continuously the word body is introduced. The illustrious Luke, too, relates just in the same way how Joseph begged the body and after he had received it treated it with due rites.hyperlink By the divine John we are told yet more, "Joseph of Arimathaea being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes about a hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day, for the sepulchre was nigh at band."hyperlink Observe how often mention is made of the body; how the Evangelist shows that it was the body which was nailed to the cross, the body begged by Joseph of Pilate, the body taken down from the tree, the body wrapped in linen clothes with the myrrh and aloes, and then the name of the person given to it; and Jesus said to have been laid in a tomb. Thus the angel said, "Come see the place where the Lord lay,"hyperlink naming the part by the name of the whole; and we constantly do just the same. In this place, we say, such an one was buried; not the body of such an one. Every one in his senses knows that we are speaking of the body, and such a mode of speech is customary in divine Scripture. Aaron, we read, died and they buried him on Mount Hor.hyperlink Samuel died and they buried him at Ramah,hyperlink and there are many similar instances. The same use is followed by the divine Apostle when speaking of the death of the Lord. "I delivered unto you first of all," he writes, "that which I also received how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,"hyperlink and so on.
Eran.-In the passages we have just now read the Apostle does not mention a body, but Christ the Saviour of us all. You have brought evidence against your own side, and wounded yourself with your own weapon.
Orth.-You seem to have very quickly forgotten the long discourse in which I proved to you over and over again that the body is spoken of by the name of the person. This is what is now done by the divine Apostle, and it can easily be proved from this very passage. Now let us look at it. Why did the divine writer write thus to the Corinthians?
Eran.-They had been deceived by some into believing that there is no resurrection. When the teacher of the world learnt this he furnished them with his arguments about the resurrection of the bodies.
Orth.-Why then does he introduce the resurrection of the Lord, when he wishes to prove the resurrection of the bodies?
Eran.-As sufficient to prove the resurrection of us all.
Orth.-In what is His death like the death of the rest; that by His resurrection may be proved the resurrection of all?
Eran.-The reason of the incarnation, suffering, and death of the only begotten Son of God, was that He might destroy death. Thus, after rising, by His own resurrection He preaches the resurrection of all.
Orth.-But who, hearing of a resurrection of God, would ever believe that the resurrection of all men would be exactly like it? The difference of the natures does not allow of our believing in the argument of the resurrection. He is God and they are men, and the difference between God and men is incalculable. They are mortal, and subject to death, like to the grass and to the flower. He is almighty.
Eran.-But after His incarnation God the Word had a body, and through this He proved His likeness to men.
Orth.-Yes; and for this reason the suffering and the death and the resurrection are all of the body, and in proof of this the divine Apostle in another place promises renewal of life to all, and to them that believe in the resurrection of their Saviour, yet look upon the general resurrection of all as fable, he exclaims, "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen, and if Christ he not risen ...your faith is vain, you are yet ill your sins."hyperlink And from the past he confirms the future, and from what is disbelieved he disproves what is believed, for he says, If the one seems impossible to you, then the other will be false; if the one seems real and true, then let the other in like manner seem true, for here too a resurrection of the body is preached, and this body is called the first fruits of those. The resurrection of this body after many arguments he affirms directly, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept, for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,"hyperlink and he does not only confirm the argument of the resurrection, but also reveals the mystery of the oeconomy. He calls Christ man that he may prove the remedy to be appropriate to the disease.
Eran.-Then the Christ is only a man.
Orth.-God forbid. On the contrary, we have again and again confessed that He is not only man but eternal God. But He suffered as man, not as God. And this the divine Apostle clearly teaches us when he says "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."hyperlink And in his letter to the Thessalonians, he strengthens his argument concerning the general resurrection by that of our Saviour in the passage "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."hyperlink
Eran.-The Apostle proves the general resurrection by means of the Lord's resurrection, and it is clear that in this case also what died and rose was a body. For he would never have attempted to prove the general resurrection by its means unless there had been some relation between the substance of the one and the other. I shall never consent to apply the passion to the human nature alone. It seems agreeable to my view to say that God the Word died in the flesh.
Orth.-We have frequently shewn that what is naturally immortal can in no way die. If then He died He was not immortal; and what perils lie in the blasphemy of the words.
Eran.-He is by nature immortal, but He became man and suffered.
Orth.-Therefore He underwent change, for how otherwise could He being immortal submit to death? But we have agreed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable. Having therefore a nature superior to change, He by no means shared death.
Eran.-The divine Peter says "Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh."hyperlink
Orth.-This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.
Eran.-How then can you deny that God the Word suffered in the flesh?
Orth.-Because we have not found this expression in the divine Scripture.
Eran.-But I have just quoted you the utterance of the great Peter.
Orth.-You seem to ignore the distinction of the terms.
Eran.-What terms? Do you not regard the Lord Christ as God the Word?
Orth.-The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us,hyperlink both God and man, but the term "God the Word" so said signifies the simple nature before the world, superior to time, and incorporeal. Wherefore the Holy Ghost that spake through the holy Apostles nowhere attributes passion or death to this name.
Eran.-If the passion is attributed to the Christ, and God the Word after being made man was called Christ, I hold that he who states God the Word to have suffered in the flesh is in no way unreasonable.
Orth.-Hazardous and rash in the extreme is such an attempt. But let us look at the question in this way. Does the divine Scripture state God the Word to be of God and of the Father?
Eran.-True.
Orth.-And it describes the Holy Ghost as being in like manner of God?
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-But it calls God the Word only begotten Son.
Eran.-It does.
Orth.-It nowhere so names the Holy Ghost.
Eran.-No.
Orth.-Yet the Holy Ghost also has Its subsistence of the Father and God.
Eran.-True.
Orth.-We grant then that both the Son and the Holy Ghost are both of God the Father; but would you dare to call the Holy Ghost Son?
Eran.-Certainly not.
Orth.-Why?
Eran.-Because I do not find this term in the divine Scripture.
Orth.-Or begotten?
Eran.-No.
Orth.-Wherefore?
Eran.-Because I no more learn this in the divine Scripture.
Orth.-But what name can properly be given to that which is neither begotten nor created?
Eran.-We style it uncreated and unbegotten.
Orth.-And we say that the Holy Ghost is neither created nor begotten.
Eran.-By no means.
Orth.-Would you then dare to call the Holy Ghost unbegotten?
Eran.-No.
Orth.-But why refuse to call that which is naturally uncreate, but not begotten, unbegotten?
Eran.-Because I have not learnt so from the divine Scripture, and I am greatly afraid of saying, or using language which Scripture does not use.
Orth.-Then, my good sir, I maintain the same caution in the case of the passion of salvation; do you too avoid all the divine names which Scripture has avoided in the case of the passion, and do not attribute the passion to them.
Eran.-What names?
Orth.-The passion is never connected with the name "God."
Eran.-But even I do not affirm that God the Word suffered apart from a body, but say that He suffered in flesh.
Orth.-You affirm then a mode of passion, not impassibility. No one would ever say this even in the case of a human body. For who not altogether out of his senses would say that the soul of Paul died in flesh? This could never be said even in the case of a great villain; for the souls even of the wicked are immortal. We say that such or such a murderer has been slain, but no one would ever say that his soul had been killed in the flesh. But if we describe the souls of murderers and violators of sepulchres as free from death, far more right is it to acknowledge as immortal the soul of our Saviour, in that it never tasted sin. If the souls of them who have most greatly erred have escaped death on account of their nature, how could that soul, whose nature was immortal and who never received the least taint of sin, have taken death's hook?
Eran.-It is quite useless for you to give me all these long arguments. We are agreed that the soul of the Saviour is immortal.
Orth.-But of what punishment are you not deserving, you who say that the soul, which is by nature created, is immortal, and are for making the divine substance mortal for the Word; you who deny that the soul of the Saviour tasted death in the flesh, and dare to maintain that God the Word, Creator of all things, underwent the passion?
Eran.-We say that lie underwent the passion impassibly.
Orth.-And what man in his senses would ever put up with such ridiculous riddles? Who ever heard of an impassible passion, or of an immortal mortality? The impassible has never undergone passion, and what has undergone passion could not possibly be impassible. But we hear the exclamation of the divine Paul: "Who only hath immortality dwelling in the light which no than can approach unto."hyperlink
Eran.-Why then do we say that the invisible powers too and the souls of men, aye and the very devils, are immortal?
Orth.-We do say so; that God is absolutely immortal. He is immortal not by partaking of substance, but in substance; He does not possess an immortality which He has received of another. It is He Himself who has bestowed their immortality on the angels and on them that thou hast just now mentioned. How, moreover, when the divine Paul styles Him immortal and says that He only hath immortality, can you attribute to Him the passion of death?
Eran.-We say that He tasted death after the incarnation.
Orth.-But over and over again we have confessed Him immutable. If being previously immortal He afterwards underwent death through the flesh, a change having preceded His undergoing death; if His life left Him for three days and three nights, how do such statements fall short of the most extreme impiety? For I think that not even they that are struggling against impiety can venture to let such words fall from their lips without peril.
Eran.-Cease from charging us with impiety. Even we say that not the divine nature suffered but the human; but we do say that the divine shared with the body in suffering.
Orth.-What can you mean by sharing in suffering? Do you mean that when the nails were driven into the body the divine nature felt the sense of pain?
Eran.-I do.
Footnotes
29 Gen. xlix. 29.
30 Gen. xlix. 31.
31 "The Machpelah," always in Hebrew with the article hl/p'b;+axa
= "the double (cave)."
It is interesting to contrast the heathen idea, that the shadow goes to Hades while the self is identified with the body, with the Christian belief, that the self lives while the body is buried e.g. Homer (Il. i. 4) says that while the famous "wrath" sent many heroes' souls to Hades, it made "them" a prey to dogs and birds. cf. xxiii. 72. "yuxai eidwla kamontwn."
32 Acts xii. 2.
33 Matt. x. 28.
34 Vide note on Pages 37 and 220.
35 Heb. ii. 11, Heb. ii. 12, Heb. ii. 13.
36 Heb. ii. 14, Heb. ii. 15.
37 Rom. v. 15, Rom. v. 16, Rom. v. 17.
38 Rom. v. 18, Rom. v. 19.
39 I. Cor. xv. 20, I. Cor. xv. 21, I. Cor. xv. 22.
40 Rom. xiii. 32.
41 Gen. xxii. 16.
42 John viii. 56.
43 The sacrifice of Isaac so far as his father's part in it is concerned is regarded as having actually taken place at the moment of his felt willingness to obey. In the interval of the journey to Mount Moriah Isaac is dead to his father.
44 upostasij.
45 proswpon.
46 It is to be noted that Theodoret thus apparently regards the divine image as consisting in the intelligence or logoj. And in the implication that Isaac had the divine image he expresses the Scriptural view that this was marred, not lost, by the fall.
47 Heb. x. 1.
48 I Cor. x. 11.
49 Heb. xiii. 12.
50 4 Lev. xvi.
51 John iii. 14, John iii. 15.
52 John i. 29, John i. 36.
53 Is. liii. 7.
54 II. Cor. v. 21.
55 Gal. iii. 13.
56 Matt. xxv. 32.
57 Gal. iv. 24 et seqq.
58 Matt. xxviii. 6.
59 St. Thomas was buried at Edessa. Soc. iv. 18, Chrys. Hom. in Heb. 26.
60 Vide p. 96.
61 St. Stephen's remains were said to have been found at Jerusalem, and widely dispersed. cf. Dict. Christ. Ant. II. 1929.
62 Matt. xxvii. 57-60.
63 Mark xv. 42-46.
64 Luke xxiii. 50 et Seqq.
65 John xix. 38-42.
66 Matt. xxviii. 6.
67 Deut. x. 6.
68 I. Sam. xxv. 1.
69 I. Cor. xv. 3, I. Cor. xv. 4.
70 I. Cor. xv. 12, I. Cor. xv. 13, I. Cor. xv. 17.
71 I. Cor. xv. 21, I. Cor. xv. 22.
72 I. Cor. xv. 21.
73 I. Thess. iv. 14.
74 I. Peter iv. 1.
75 Matt. i. 23.
76 I. Tim. vi. 16.