|
The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His
divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion.
For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and
humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that
part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should,
but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering.
For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the
pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but
only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not
share in the suffering of the body.
Observe, further, that we say that God suffered in the flesh, bat
never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered
through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the
axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun remains
uncleft and void of passion, much more will the passionless divinity of
the Word, united in subsistence to the flesh, remain void of passion
when the body undergoes passion. And should any one pour water over
flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I
mean, the fire, that is quenched, but the steel remains untouched
(for it is not the nature of steel to be destroyed by water): much
more, then, when the flesh suffered did His only passionless divinity
escape all passion although abiding inseparable from it. For one must
not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed, in the
examples, one must consider both what is like and what is unlike,
otherwise it would not be an example. For, if they were like in all
respects they would be identities, and not examples, and all the more
so in dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an example that
is like in all respects whether we are dealing with theology or the
dispensation.
|
|
