Chapter VIII.
In the last days we spoke gradually and sufficiently to your love of the doctrine concerning Christ, according to the teaching of our blessed Fathers. It behoves you now to remember the things spoken to you with so much care. They gave us a two-fold teaching concerning Christ our Lord according to the meaning of the Books, that He is not God alone nor man alone, but He is truly both by nature, that is to say God and man: God the Word who assumed, and man who was assumed. It is the one who was in the form of God that took upon Him the form of a servant, and it is not the form of a servant that took upon it the form of God. The one who is in the form of God is God by nature, who assumed the form of a servant, while the one who is in the form of a servant is the one who is man by nature and who was assumed for our salvation.
The one who assumed is not the same as the one who was assumed nor is the one who was assumed the same as the one who assumed, but the one who assumed is God while the one who was assumed is a man. The one who assumed is by nature that which God the Father is by nature, as He is God with God, and He is that which the one with whom He was, is, while the one who was assumed is by nature that which David and Abraham, whose son and from whose seed He is, are by nature. This is the reason why He is both Lord and Son of David: Son of David because of His nature, and Lord because of the honour that came to Him. And He is high above David His father because of the nature that assumed Him. |83
This is the reason why when our Lord asked the Pharisees: "Whose son was the Christ?" and they answered: "The son of David," He did not disapprove of the answer given. It is the same evangelist Matthew, in whose account is the fact that the Pharisees were asked this question by our Lord, who wrote also at the beginning of his Gospel: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." He would not have taught this at the beginning of his Gospel had he known that our Lord did not approve of it; indeed he who took so much trouble to write faithfully his Gospel according to the orders of Christ would not have dared to put down in writing a statement that was detrimental to Christ. It is indeed evident that our Lord did not disapprove of that which was said to the effect that Christ was the son of David, in the sense that it was not well and rightly said, the reason being that all the Pharisees and the Jews were expecting Christ to come as a simple man from the seed of David. In this they were in harmony with the words of the prophets, and were not aware that the one who assumed the other who is from the seed of David, was the Only Begotton of God, who dwelt in Him and through Him performed all the Economy of our salvation, and united Him to Himself and made Him higher than all the creation.
It is because the Pharisees were not aware of all this that our Lord asked them: "Whose son was the Christ?"; and after they answered what they knew to the effect that He was the son of David, He said to them: "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?' If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?" In these words He gave them, by a hint only and not openly, the doctrine concerning the Godhead. At that time they transcended the intelligence of the Jews so much so that even the blessed Disciples were not aware of their meaning before the crucifixion. "If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also." And again: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" And again: "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall |84 shew you plainly of the Father." And again: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." And again: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth."
One finds in the Book of the Gospel many passages which demonstrate that the Apostles were not aware of the Divinity of the Only Begotten before the Crucifixion, nor were they aware that God the Word was the Son of the Father and a true Son of God, whom we understand to be consubstantial with His Father. He knew that it was not yet time to promulgate openly this doctrine of His Godhead, but in His question He only gave a hint that they would not possess a complete knowledge about Christ as long as they believed that He was only a man and did not understand the Divine nature which was in Him and because of which the one who was from the seed of David became worthy of the honour of being Lord. David, from whose seed He was by nature, would not have called him His Lord if he did not believe that the one who was of the same nature as himself was something higher and better than the nature of men, and one who by His union with the Lord was elevated to such a great honour that He was believed to be Lord. He is, therefore, of the same nature as David because He is of his seed, but we understand Him to be also Lord because of the union that He had with the Divine nature which is the cause and the Lord of all.
We ought, therefore, to know the natures of both, the one who assumed and the one who was assumed, and realise that the former is God and the latter is the form of a servant, and that it is God who dwells and man is His temple which He built and constituted as His dwelling. This is the reason why He said: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," which the evangelist interpreted and said: "For He spake of the temple of His body." He called the man who was assumed His temple while showing that He Himself was dwelling in that temple, and through His dwelling He clearly showed us His power when He delivered it (His dwelling) to the destruction of death, according to His desire, and then raised it by the greatness of His might; and so that it might die He allowed it to suffer according to its nature while He, as Lord, impeded it from seeing |85 corruption and from being delivered to dissolution. He allowed it to die because He wished it, and after its death, He raised it up according to His will.
He would not have said, "Destroy this temple" had He not known that He had the power (to say so), and since He is Lord He implied two things in the sentence "Destroy this temple": although it is in its nature to be destroyed yet I have it in My power that this should happen or not. I will allow it to be destroyed according to its nature, and if I do not wish it I have the power to impede it from being destroyed. "Destroy this temple," because it is impossible that I myself should be destroyed, as My nature is undestroyable, but I will allow this (temple) to be destroyed because such a thing is inherent in its nature; I would not have allowed this to happen to it had I not intended to do a higher thing to it; I am allowing this (to happen) to it because I am prepared to do another thing:
What is the meaning of the sentence "and in three days I will raise it up"? (It means) that when it has been destroyed I will build it up again and will raise it up at the resurrection from the dead in a state higher and better than the first; it will not be then mortal and destroyable in its nature as it is now, but immortal, indissoluble, impassible, and immutable; it is in this way that I will raise it up to a much higher state than that in which it is at present by nature; I will allow it to be destroyed in order that I may do something higher to it. Destroy, therefore, this temple; fulfil your wish; make use of your artifice; I will allow you to do what you wish so that after you have done it you should feel my power which is higher than all, as it is by it that I will raise it up from the dead and make it into something higher than it is now. You will then realise that you would not even have been in a position to destroy it if I had not willed it, and that it would not have died if I had not permitted it; since I will it, however, it will be good to it: "destroy, therefore, this temple and m three days I will raise it up."
In these words He showed sufficiently the difference between Him and the one who was destroyable, because the latter was the temple and the former its dweller; the latter His dwelling as a temple, and the former its dweller as a God; not a temple for a short time only |86 and not one in which God the Word sometimes dwelt and sometimes not, but a temple from which it will never be separated, as it possesses an ineffable union with the one who is dwelling in it. He made Him perfect through His sufferings, as the blessed Paul said, and He received these sufferings according to His nature while He was in need of the One who was to deliver him from passion, the One who changed His nature and made Him impassible and crowned Him with sufferings. As to Himself He dwelt in Him, and He is by nature impassible, and has the power to make Him impassible also although (by nature) passible. In this way He perfected through sufferings and made immortal and immutable in everything the form of a servant which was assumed as His temple, that is to say the man who was assumed for our salvation.
The blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one about whom the Book testifies, 'What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands and Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.'" After having shown that He did not take on Him the nature of angels but of man, he explained to us who was this man and said: "We see Jesus Christ who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of His death crowned with glory and honour " in order to show that this man Jesus, who was assumed for our salvation, became a little lower than the angels because He tasted death, and that honour and glory are also placed on His head because He rose from the dead and through His union with God became higher than all creation.
And in order to teach us why He suffered and became "a little lower" he said: "Apart from God He tasted death for every man." |87 In this he shows that Divine nature willed that He should taste death for the benefit of every man, and also that the Godhead was separated from the one who was suffering in the trial of death, because it was impossible for Him to taste the trial of death if (the Godhead) were not cautiously remote from Him, but also near enough to do the needful and necessary things for the nature that was assumed by it. It was necessary for the one through whom and for whom everything was (done) to perfect with sufferings the source of the life of the many children whom he brought to His glory. He Himself was not tried with the trial of death but He was near to him and doing to him the things that were congruous to His nature as the Maker who is the cause of everything, i.e. He brought him to perfection through sufferings and made him for ever immortal, impassible, incorruptible, and immutable for the salvation of the multitudes who would be receiving communion with him.
In this way the Sacred Books teach us the difference between the two natures, and so it is indispensable for us to ascertain who is the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. The one who assumed is the Divine nature that does everything for us, and the other is the human nature which was assumed on behalf of all of us by the One who is the cause of everything, and is united to it in an ineffable union which will never be separated. This is the reason why on account of our association with it the gift which we are expecting to receive will also remain truly with us. The Sacred Books also teach us this union, not only when they impart to us the knowledge of each nature but also when they affirm that what is due to one is also due to the other, so that we should understand the wonderfulness and the sublimity of the union that took place (between |88 them). As such is the statement: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ (came), who is God over all." It is not the one who is of the Jews in the flesh who is by nature God over all, nor the one who by nature is God over all is also by nature from the Jews, but in his sentence the Apostle showed us the two natures. In saying, "of whom is Christ concerning the flesh" he alluded to His humanity, and in saying, "who is God over all" he taught us concerning the nature of His divinity; and he referred his teaching to one only by saying, "of whom Christ concerning the flesh, who is God over all."
As such also are the words uttered by our Lord in the Gospel: "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before." Lo, it is known that the Son of man who was a man by His nature was not in heaven before, but ascended up because of the Divine nature which was in Him, and which was in heaven. When He said also of His body that it can give immortal life to those who eat it, because the words that He uttered were not believed by the hearers, He endeavoured to convince them from the fact that although His words were incredible at the present time they will be credible later, as if He were saying to them: When you see that I have become immortal and have ascended up to heaven you will believe that you will partake of the things that will happen to me because of your association with me in those things, as the Divine nature which dwells in me and which was before in heaven will grant immortality to this one and will take Him up to heaven and will grant you also communion with Him. He (Christ) uttered these words as of one in order to demonstrate the close union that took place: If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before—If this were not as we said He was bound to say: If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where the One who is in Him was,—you will understand the greatness of the Divine nature which is dwelling in Me and you will be astonished at the wonderfulness of the things that will happen to Me, and because of Me to you also.
As such also is the meaning of the sentence: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." He did not say that no man hath |89 ascended up to heaven, and I ascended up because of the Divine nature which dwells in Me and which is even now in heaven, but He referred His words jointly to one: "no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." He did not wish to say separately that no man ascended up to heaven but the Son of man who was dwelling in Him and who came down and was in heaven. He did not approve of this method of speaking and uttered His sentence in a way that it refers to one individual, and this in order to demonstrate and confirm the wonderful things done to the one who was visible.
Any time the Book wishes to speak of the things done to the human nature, it rightly refers them to the Divine nature because they are high above our nature; in this it shows the union (of the Divine nature) with that man in order to make credible the things done to Him: it shows also that it is through the wonderful Divine nature which was united to Him that He became worthy of all this honour and glory, and it assures us that these same things will in the future be done to us. Indeed that man would not have been the possessor of such great benefits if He had no union with God, nor would we be hoping for all the future good things if the Divine nature that put on the form of a servant had not wished to grant to Him all those good things and extended their delight to us.
Because of all this let us learn the distinction between the natures and their union from the Holy Scripture and let us hold steadfast to this doctrine and understand the difference between these natures: that the one who assumed was God and the Only Begotten Son, while the one who was assumed was the form of a servant, which is man; that God assumed (man) for the benefit of our human race, and that (man) was assumed so that He should remain in virtues and bestow on us the communion of His grace. We should also be mindful of that inseparable union through which that form of man can never and under no circumstances be separated from the Divine nature which put it on. The distinction between the natures does not annul the close union nor does the close union destroy the distinction between the natures, but the natures remain in their respective existence while separated, and the union remains intact, because the one who |90 was assumed is united in honour and glory with the one who assumed according to the will of the one who assumed Him.
From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly. All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart.
All things said of two take the qualification of two when one of them is not differentiated by the object through which it receives the number two; as such is the sentence of the Scripture in which mention is made of four beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard and another more dreadful. The Book said "four" because each one of them is a beast in its nature. As such also is the sentence: "The testimony of two men is true," because each one of them is by nature that which the other is. Likewise in the sentence: "No man can serve two masters" because any man who serves mammon with the same care as he serves God has both as masters.
Here also if each of them was Son and Lord by nature it would be possible for us to say two Sons and two Lords, according to the number of the persons, but one being Son and Lord by nature and |91 the other being neither Son nor Lord by nature, we believe that the latter received these (attributes) through His close union with the Only Begotten God the Word, and so we hold that there is one Son only; and we understand that the one who is truly Son and Lord is the one who possesses these (attributes) by nature, and we add in our thought the temple in which He dwells and in which He will always and inseparably remain on account of the inseparable union which He has with Him and because of which we believe that He is both Son and Lord.
In any other passage in which the Book calls the one who was assumed "Son," it will be seen that He is called Son because of the close union that He had with the one who assumed Him. When it says: "Concerning His Son who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," it is evident that it calls here Son the one who was made of the seed of David in the flesh and not God the Word but the form of the servant which was assumed. Indeed it is not God who became flesh nor was it God who was made of the seed of David but the man who was assumed for us, and it is Him that the blessed Paul clearly called Son. We understand Him to be Son and we call Him so; not for Himself but because of the union that He had with the true Son. It is in this sense that our Lord taught His disciples when He said: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
This teaching we uphold in this way: as we call the Father Divine nature, and the Holy Ghost Divine nature from God the Father, so we call the Son the Divine nature of the Only Begotten, as in the case of the Father and of the Spirit, but to our knowledge concerning the Godhead we add the man who was assumed and through whom we received our knowledge of the Divine nature of which is the one who assumed Him, who is God the Word, and also His Father |92 and of the Holy Ghost. It is written: "The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth these works" and of the Holy Spirit it is written that it descended like a dove and dwelled in Him. Indeed as the Father cannot be separated from the Son nor the Son from the Father—"I am in my Father and my Father is in me —so also the Father cannot be separated from the Holy Spirit. The Scripture says: "For what man knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," in order to show us that the Holy Spirit is always and without separation with God the Father in the same way as our soul is never separated from us as long as we live and are human beings. He was, therefore, Son by necessity in that form of a servant which was assumed, and the Father was with the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If He said concerning all men: "He that loveth me keepeth my commandments, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him," and: "I and my Father will come unto him and make our abode with him," why should you wonder if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh dwelleth the Father together with the Son and the Holy Spirit? Inasmuch as when we say ' Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' we name the Godhead in which we ought to be initiated to religion and be baptised, so also when we say "Son" we refer to the Divine nature of the Only Begotten while rightly including also in our thought the man who was assumed on our behalf and in whom God the Word was made known and preached and is now in Him, while the Father and the Holy Spirit are not remote from Him, because Trinity is not separable, consisting as it does of one, incorporeal and uncircumscribed nature. We learned these things from the Sacred Books, and we ought to think and to believe accordingly.
Since the measure of things said suffices let us add here to our discourse glory to God the Father, to the Only Begotten Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.—Amen.
Here ends the eighth chapter. |93