13 - Book III Chapters 17-22

Section 13 of The Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus, translated by S. D. F. Salmond. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Book 3, Chapter 17 Concerning the Deification of the Nature of Our Lord's Flesh and of His Will. It is worthy of note that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made equal to God and God in respect of any change or alteration or transformation or confusion of nature, as Gregory the Theologian says, whereof the one deified, and the other was deified, and, to speak boldly, made equal to God. And that which anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God. For these words do not mean any change in nature, but rather the economical union, I mean the union in subsistence, by virtue of which it was united inseparably with the Word of God, and the permeation of natures through one another, just as we saw that burning permeated the steel. For just as we confess that God became man without change or alteration, so we consider that the flesh became God without change. For because the Word became flesh, He did not overstep the limits of His own divinity, nor abandon the divine glories that belonged to Him, nor, on the other hand, was the flesh, when deified, changed in its own nature or in its own natural properties. For even after the union, both the natures abode unconfused, and their properties unimpaired. But the flesh of the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the Word, that is to say, the union in subsistence, without entailing any loss of its natural attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its own, but through the Word united to it, that it manifests divine energy. For the flaming steel burns not because it has been endowed in a physical way with burning energy, but because it has obtained this energy by its union with fire. Wherefore, the same flesh was mortal by reason of its own nature, and life-giving through its union with the Word in subsistence. And we hold that it is just the same with the deification of the will, for its natural activity was not changed, but united with His divine and omnipotent will, and became the will of God made man. And so it was, that though He wished, He could not of Himself escape, because it pleased God the Word that the weakness of the human will, which was in truth in Him, should be made manifest. But He was able to cause at His will the cleansing of the leper, because of the union with the divine will. Observe further, that the deification of the nature and the will points most expressly and most directly both to two natures and two wills. For just as the burning does not change into fire the nature of a thing that is burnt, but makes distinct both what is burnt and what burned it, and is indicative not of one, but of two natures, so also the deification does not bring about one compound nature, but two, and their union in subsistence. Gregory the theologian indeed says, whereof the one deified, the other was deified, and by the words whereof, the one, the other, he assuredly indicates two natures. Chapter 18 Further concerning volitions and free wills, minds too, and knowledges and wisdoms. When we say that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, we assuredly attribute to him all the properties natural to both the father and mother. For he became man in order that that which was overcome might overcome. For he who was omnipotent did not in his omnipotent authority and might lack the power to rescue man out of the hands of the tyrant. But the tyrant would have had a ground of complaint if after he had overcome man God should have used force against him. Wherefore God in his pity and love for man wished to reveal fallen man himself as conqueror, and became man to restore like with like. But that man is a rational and intelligent animal no one will deny. How then could he have become man if he took on himself flesh without soul, or soul without mind, for that is not man. Again, what benefit would his becoming man have been to us if he who suffered first was not saved nor renewed and strengthened by the union with divinity? For that which is not assumed is not remedied. He therefore assumed the whole man, even the fairest part of him, which had become diseased, in order that he might bestow salvation on the whole. And indeed there could never exist the mind that had not wisdom and was destitute of knowledge. For if it has not energy or motion it is utterly reduced to nothingness. Therefore God the Word wishing to restore that which was in his own image became man. But what is that which was in his own image unless mind? So he gave up the better and assumed the worst. For mind is in the borderland between God and flesh, for it dwells indeed in fellowship with the flesh, and is moreover the image of God. Mind then mingles with mind, and mind holds a place midway between the pureness of God and the denseness of flesh. For if the Lord assumed a soul without mind, he assumed the soul of an irrational animal. But if the evangelist said that the Word was made flesh, note that in the Holy Scripture sometimes a man is spoken of as a soul, as for example, with seventy-five souls came Jacob into Egypt. And sometimes a man is spoken of as flesh, as for example, all flesh shall see the salvation of God. And accordingly the Lord did not become flesh without soul or mind, but man. He says indeed himself, Why seek ye to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth? He therefore assumed flesh, animated with the spirit of reason and mind, a spirit that holds sway over the flesh, but is itself under the dominion of the divinity of the Word. So then he had by nature, both as God and as man, the power of will. But his human will was obedient and subordinate to his divine will, not being guided by its own inclination, but willing those things which the divine will willed. For it was with the permission of the divine will that he suffered by nature what was proper to him. For when he prayed that he might escape the death, it was with his divine will naturally willing and permitting it that he did so pray and agonize in fear. And again, when his divine will willed that his human will should choose the death, the passion became voluntary to him. For it was not as God only, but also as man, that he voluntarily surrendered himself to the death. And thus he bestowed on us also courage in the face of death. So indeed he said before his saving passion, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Manifestly, as though he were to drink the cup as man and not as God. It was as man, then, that he wished the cup to pass from him. But these are the words of natural timidity. Nevertheless, he said, not my will, that is to say, not insofar as I am of a different essence from thee, but thy will be done, that is to say, my will and thy will, insofar as I am of the same essence of thou. Now these are the words of a brave heart. For the Spirit of the Lord, since he truly became man in his good pleasure, on first testing its natural weakness, was sensible of the natural fellow-suffering involved in its separation from the body. But being strengthened by the divine will, it again grew bold in the face of death. For since he was himself holy God, although also man, and holy man, although also God, he himself as man subjected in himself and by himself his human nature to God and the Father, and became obedient to the Father, thus making himself the most excellent type and example for us. Of his own free will, moreover, he exercised his divine and human will. For free will is assuredly implanted in every rational nature. For to what end would it possess reason, if it could not reason at its own free will? For the Creator had implanted even in the unreasoning brutes natural appetite to compel them to sustain their own nature. For, devoid of reason as they are, they cannot guide their natural appetite, but are guided by it. And so, as soon as the appetite for anything has sprung up, straightway arises also the impulse for action. And thus they do not win praise or happiness for pursuing virtue, nor punishment for doing evil. But the rational nature, although it does possess a natural appetite, can guide and train it by reason wherever the laws of nature are observed. For the advantage of reason consists in this, the free will, by which we mean natural activity in a rational subject. Wherefore, in pursuing virtue, it wins praise and happiness, and in pursuing vice, it wins punishment. So that the soul of the Lord, being moved of its own free will, willed, but willed of its free will those things which his divine will willed it to will. For the flesh was not moved at a sign from the word, as Moses and all the holy men were moved at a sign from heaven, but he himself, who was one, and yet both God and man, willed according to both his divine and his human will. Therefore it was not in inclination, but rather in natural power, that the two wills of the Lord differed from one another. For his divine will was without beginning, and all-affecting, as having power that kept pace with it, and free from passion, while his human will had a beginning in time, and itself endured the natural and innocent passions, and was not naturally omnipotent. But yet it was omnipotent, because it truly and naturally had its origin in the God-word. Chapter 19. CONCERNING THE THEANDRIC ENERGY. When the blessed Dionysius says that Christ exhibited to us some sort of novel theandric energy, he does not do away with the natural energies by saying that one energy resulted from the union of the divine with the human energy. For in the same way we could speak of the one new nature resulting from the union of the divine with the human nature. For, according to the holy fathers, things that have one energy have also one essence. But he wished to indicate the novel and ineffable manner in which the natural energies of Christ manifest themselves, the manner befitting the ineffable manner in which the natures of Christ mutually permeate one another, and further how strange and wonder-rid and in the nature of things unknown was his life as man, and lastly the manner of the mutual interchange arising from the ineffable union. For we hold that the energies are not divided, and that the natures do not energies separately, but that each conjointly, in complete community with the other, energizes with its own proper energy. For the human part did not energize merely in a human manner, for he was not mere man, nor did the divine part energize only after the manner of God, for he was not simply God, but he was at once God and man. For just as in the case of natures we recognize both their union and their natural difference, so it is also with the natural wills and energies. Note therefore that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we speak sometimes of his two natures and sometimes of his one person, and the one or the other is referred to the one conception, for the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures. Wherefore it is all the same whether we say Christ energizes according to either of his natures, or either nature energizes in Christ in communion with the other. The divine nature then has communion with the flesh in its energizing, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and to do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human, but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the word in its energizing, because the divine energies are performed so to speak through the organ of the body, and because he who energizes at once as God and man is one and the same. Further, observe that his holy mind also performs its natural energies, thinking and knowing that it is God's mind, and that it is worshipped by all creation, and remembering the times he spent on earth and all he suffered. But it has communion with the divinity of the word in its energizing, and orders and governs the universe, thinking and knowing and ordering not as the mere mind of man, but as united in subsistence with God, and acting as the mind of God. This then the theandric energy makes plain, that when God became man, that is when he became incarnate, both his human energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in his divine energy, and his divine energy was not without part in his human energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the other. Now this manner of speaking is called a paraphrasis, namely when one embraces two things in one statement. For just as in the case of the flaming sword we speak of the cut burn as one, and the burnt cut as one, but still hold that the cut and the burn have different energies and different natures, the burn having the nature of fire, and the cut the nature of steel. In the same way also we speak of one theandric energy of Christ. We understand two distinct energies of his two natures, a divine energy belonging to his divinity, and a human energy belonging to his humanity. Chapter 20. Concerning the Natural and Innocent Passions. We confess then, that he assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man, for he assumed the whole man, and all man's attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succor at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man. All then he assumed that he might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame, in order that he might prepare victory for us, and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was overcome of old, might overcome its former conqueror by the very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome. The wicked one then made his assault from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent, that Adam was assailed. But the Lord repulsed the assault, and dispelled it like vapor, in order that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old. Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature, and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in him after a natural manner, when he permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it. But they were above nature, because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in him, but all is voluntary. For it was with his will that he hungered, and thirsted, and feared, and died. Chapter 21. Concerning Ignorance and Servitude. He assumed it is to be noted the ignorant and servile nature. For it is man's nature to be the servant of God his creator, and he does not possess knowledge of the future. If then, as Gregory the theologian holds, you are to separate the realm of sight from the realm of thought, the flesh is to be spoken of as both servile and ignorant. But on account of the identity of subsistence and the inseparable union, the soul of the Lord was enriched with the knowledge of the future as also with the other miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of men is not in its own nature life-giving, while the flesh of our Lord which was united in subsistence with God the word himself, although it was not exempt from the mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through its union in subsistence with the word. And we may not say that it was not and is not forever life-giving. In like manner his human nature does not in essence possess the knowledge of the future. But the soul of the Lord through its union with God the word himself and its identity in subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of the future as well as with the other miraculous powers. Observe further that we may not speak of him as servant. For the words servitude and mastership are not marks of nature but indicate relationship to something such as that of fatherhood and sonship. For these do not signify essence but relation. It is just as we said then in connection with ignorance that if you separate with subtle thoughts, that is with fine imaginings, the created from the uncreated, the flesh is a servant unless it has been united with God the word. But how can it be a servant when it is once united in subsistence? For since Christ is one he cannot be his own servant and Lord. For these are not simple predications but relative. Whose servant then could he be? His father's? The son then would not have all the father's attributes if he is the father's servant and yet in no respect his own. Besides how could the apostle say concerning us who were adopted by him so that you are no longer a servant but a son if indeed he is himself a servant? The word servant then is used merely as a title though not in the strict meaning. But for our sakes he assumed the form of a servant and is called a servant among us. For although he is without passion yet for our sake he was the servant of passion and became the minister of our salvation. Those then who say that he is a servant divide the one Christ into two just as Nestorius did. But we declare him to be master and Lord of all creation the one Christ at once God and man and all-knowing. For in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge the hidden treasures. Chapter 22. Concerning his growth. He is moreover said to grow in wisdom and age and grace increasing in age indeed and through the increase in age manifesting the wisdom that is in him. Yea further making men's progress in wisdom and grace and the fulfillment of the father's goodwill that is to say men's knowledge of God and men's salvation his own increase and everywhere taking as his own that which is ours. But those who hold that he progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving some addition to these attributes do not say that the union took place at the first origin of our flesh nor yet do they give precedence to the union in subsistence. But giving heed to foolish Nestorius they imagine some strange relative union and mere indwelling understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. For if in truth the flesh was united with God the word from its first origin or rather if it existed in him and was identical in subsistence with him how was it that it was not endowed completely with all wisdom and grace not that it might itself participate in the grace nor share by grace in what belonged to the word but rather by reason of the union in subsistence since both what is human and what is divine belong to the one Christ and that he who was himself at once God and man should pour forth like a fountain over the universe his grace and wisdom and plentitude of every blessing. End of section 13