Letter 130

From: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus To: Timotheus, Chorepiscopus [rural bishop] Date: ~449 AD Context: A major theological letter in which Theodoret provides a careful, detailed defense of Chalcedonian two-nature Christology, arguing that Christ's divine nature is impassible while His human nature truly suffered. To Bishop Timotheus, The supreme Ruler does not allow the forces of evil to stir up waves of impiety without purpose. He does so to test the courage of His sailors: displaying some men's bravery, exposing others' cowardice, stripping the mask from those who put on an appearance of piety, and crowning others as champions of the truth. We have seen this in our own time. The storm rose high. Some revealed their hidden impiety. Others abandoned the truth they had been holding, went over to the enemy ranks, and now attack the very men they used to call their leaders. Those who witness this detest the enemy and pity the deserters -- but are afraid to help those under attack for defending apostolic doctrine. Press them harder, and they will perhaps cross over to the attackers themselves, showing no mercy to their fellow believers but driving barbs at them alongside the very men they accuse. They act this way even though Scripture teaches that wronging your neighbor brings punishment, while suffering injustice earns great and lasting rewards. Your own piety, your zeal for the faith, and your goodwill toward me have all been proven by this crisis. Twice you have written to me in defiance of every discouragement, showing your brotherly affection. You have also described the battle you are waging for the apostolic doctrines, and you ask me to explain in writing what we ought to think and preach concerning the passion of our salvation. I have received your request with delight and will proceed -- not to instruct you but to remind one who is beloved of God -- to set out what I have learned from Scripture and from the Fathers who have interpreted it. Know, then, most godly sir, that before all else we must observe the distinction of terms and understand the purpose of the divine incarnation. Once these are clear, no ambiguity will remain about the passion. Let us first put this question to those who try to contradict us: which of the names given to the Only-begotten Son of God belong to the period before the incarnation, and which to the incarnation itself? They will answer that "God the Word," "Only-begotten Son," "Almighty," and "Lord of all creation" are prior to the incarnation, while "Jesus Christ" belongs to it. After the incarnation, God the Word, the Only-begotten Son of God, is called Jesus Christ, for the angel said: "Unto you is born this day Christ the Lord" [Luke 2:11]. And because others had been called "christs" -- priests, kings, prophets -- the angels added the title "Lord" to "Christ" to demonstrate the supreme dignity of the one who was born. Gabriel said to the blessed Virgin: "You shall conceive and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" [Matthew 1:21]. Before the incarnation, He was never called either Christ or Jesus. The prophets used these names only in their predictions of things to come -- just as they prophesied about the birth, the cross, and the passion before the events occurred. Nevertheless, even after the incarnation He is called God the Word, Lord, Almighty, Only-begotten Son, Maker, and Creator. He did not become man by changing His nature but, remaining what He was, assumed what we are: "Being in the form of God, He took the form of a servant" [Philippians 2:6-7]. For this reason, even after the incarnation He retains the titles that preceded it, because His nature is unchangeable and immutable. But when describing the passion, Scripture nowhere uses the term "God," since that is the name of the absolute divine nature. No one hearing "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" [John 1:1] would suppose that the flesh existed before the ages, or is of the same substance as the God of the universe, or created the world. Everyone knows these terms belong to the Godhead. Nor would anyone reading the genealogy in Matthew suppose that David and Abraham were, by nature, forefathers of God -- for it is the assumed human nature that descends from them. Since these points are plain and indisputable even among the most extreme heretics -- and since we acknowledge both the nature that exists before the ages and the nature of recent time -- we are bound to recognize both the capacity for suffering in the flesh and the impassibility of the Godhead. We do not divide the union or split the Only-begotten into two persons, but contemplate the properties of both natures in the one Son. Consider the analogy of soul and body -- natures that are contemporary and naturally united. We describe the soul as simple, rational, and immortal, and the body as complex, subject to suffering, and mortal. Yet we do not divide the union or cut one person in two. How much more, then, in the case of the Godhead begotten of the Father before the ages and the manhood assumed from David's seed, should we follow the same course: recognizing the everlasting, eternal, simple, infinite, immortal, and unchangeable character of the one nature, and the recent, complex, limited, and changeable character of the other. We acknowledge the flesh to be now immortal and incorruptible, although before the resurrection it was subject to death and suffering -- for how else was it nailed to the cross and laid in the tomb? And though we recognize the distinction of natures, we worship one Son and confess Him to be both 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 natures, but the sharing of names does not confuse the natures themselves. Among right-minded people, some names are plainly appropriate to God and others to man. In this way both "passible" and "impassible" are properly used of the Lord Christ: in His humanity He suffered; as God He remained impassible. If, as the impious argue, it was the Godhead that suffered, then the assumption of the flesh was unnecessary. For if the divine nature was capable of suffering, He did not need the passible human nature. But if -- as even their own argument concedes -- the Godhead is impassible, and the passion was real, then let them beware of denying the nature that suffered, lest they deny the reality of the passion itself. If the subject of suffering does not exist, then the suffering is not real. Anyone who opens the four Gospels can see that Scripture clearly proclaims the passion of the body. Joseph of Arimathea came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate ordered the body of Jesus to be handed over. Joseph took down the body of Jesus from the cross and wrapped the body of Jesus in linen cloth and laid it in the new tomb [Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42]. All four evangelists make repeated mention of the body. If our opponents cite the angel's words to Mary, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" [Matthew 28:6], let them consider the passage in Acts that says "devout men carried Stephen to his burial" [Acts 8:2]. It was not Stephen's soul but his body that received the burial rites. And to this day, when we approach the shrines of the martyrs, we ask, "Who is buried here?" and those who know will answer: "Julian the martyr," or "Romanus," or "Timotheus." Often it is not an entire body that is buried but only small relics, yet we speak of the body by the name of the whole person. In the same way the angel called the body of the Lord "Lord," because it was the body of the Lord of the universe. The Lord Himself promised to give not His invisible divine nature but His body for the life of the world: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" [John 6:51]. And when He instituted the sacrament, He said, "This is my body, which is given for you" [Luke 22:19] -- or, in the Apostle's version, "broken" [1 Corinthians 11:24]. Nowhere in speaking of the passion did He mention the impassible Godhead. It is therefore essential, above all, to ask those who contradict us whether they confess that God the Word assumed complete manhood, and whether they affirm the union was made without confusion. Once these points are admitted, everything else follows naturally, and the passion is attributed to the passible nature. I have summarized these points and have, I fear, exceeded the limits of a letter. I have also sent what I recently wrote at the suggestion of a godly man of God, in the form of a concise instruction designed to teach the truth of apostolic doctrine. If I find a good copyist, I will also send your holiness a work I have written in dialogue form, expanding the argument and strengthening my positions with the teaching of the Fathers. For now, I have included a few statements of the ancient teachers, enough to show the direction of their instruction. Give me in return, most godly sir, the help of your prayers, that I may pass through this terrible storm and reach the quiet harbor of the Savior.

Letter 130 Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99... To Bishop Timotheus. Not without purpose does the supreme Ruler allow the spirits that are against us to agitate the waves of impiety. He does so that He may try the courage of the sailors, and, while He exhibits some men's manliness, convicts others of cowardice, stripping the mask from the faces of some who put on an appearance of piety, and proclaiming others as foremost fighters in the ranks of the truth. We have seen an instance of this in the present time. The storm rose high; some showed their secret impiety; some abandoned the truth which they were holding, went over to the phalanx of our foes, and now, with them, are smiting the very men whom they used to call their chiefs. The witnesses of these things detest the enemy and pity the deserters, but are afraid to give aid to the victims of the attack upon the apostolic doctrines. Nay, suppose the traitors to urge them with greater insistency, they will perhaps themselves pass over to the side of the assailants, will give no quarter to their fellow believers, but will drive against them their barbs side by side with the very men whom they accuse. They will act thus though they have been taught by the divine Scripture that a wrong done to one's neighbour incurs punishment, while the suffering of injustice entails great and lasting rewards. Your own piety, your zeal for the faith, and your good will to myself, have been proved by this agitation. Twice you have written me a letter in contempt of all that might deter you, and have thus shown your brotherly affection. You have also indicated the conflict you are sustaining on behalf of the apostolic doctrines. You ask me to tell you by letter what we ought to think and preach concerning the passion of salvation. I have received your request with delight, and, not indeed to give you information but only to remind one who is beloved of God, will proceed to tell you what I have learned from the divine Scripture and from the Fathers who have interpreted it. Know then, most godly sir, that before all things it is necessary to observe the distinction of terms, and, in addition to this, the cause of the divine incarnation. Once let these be made clear, and there will be no ambiguity left about the passion. We will therefore first, to those who endeavour to contradict us, put this enquiry. Which of the names given to the only begotten Son of God are anterior to the incarnation, and which posterior, or rather, connected with the operation of the œconomy? They will reply that the terms anterior are, God the Word, only begotten 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 begotten Son of God is called Jesus Christ; for Behold He says unto you is born this day Christ the Lord and because others had been called christs, priests, kings, and prophets, lest any one should suppose Him to be like them, the angels conjoined the title Lord with that of Christ, in order to prove the supreme dignity of Him that was born. And, again, Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, Behold you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son and shall call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins. Before the incarnation, however, He was never called either Christ or Jesus. For truly the divine Prophets, in their predictions of things to come, used the words, just as they prophesied about the birth, the cross, and the passion, when the events had not yet come to pass. Nevertheless, even after the incarnation He is called God the Word, Lord, Almighty, only begotten Son, Maker, and Creator. For He was not made man by mutation, but, remaining just what He was, assumed what we are, for Being in the form of God, to use the words of the divine Apostle He took the form of a servant. On this account, therefore, even after the incarnation, He is called also by the titles which are anterior to the incarnation, since His nature is invariable and immutable. But when relating the passion the divine Scripture nowhere uses the term God, since that is the name of the absolute nature. No one on hearing the words In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God and similar expressions, would suppose that the flesh existed before the ages, or is of one substance with the God of the universe, or was Creator of the world. Every one knows that these terms are proper to the Godhead. Nor would any one on reading the genealogy of St. Matthew suppose that David and Abraham according to nature were forefathers of God, for it is the assumed nature which is derived from them. Since then these points are plain and indubitable even among extreme heretics, and we acknowledge both the nature which is before the ages, and that which is of recent time, so are we bound to recognise at once the passibility of the flesh, and the impassibility of the Godhead, not dividing the union nor separating the only begotten into two persons, but contemplating the properties of the natures in the one Son. In the case of soul and body, which are of natures contemporary and naturally united, we are accustomed to make this distinction, describing the soul as simple, reasonable, and immortal, but the body as complex, passible, and mortal. We do not divide the union, nor cut one man in two. Far rather, then, in the case of the Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, and of the manhood assumed of David's seed, is it becoming to adopt a similar course, and distinctly to recognise the everlasting, eternal, simple, uncircumscribed, immortal, and invariable character of the one nature, and the recent, complex, circumscribed, and fluctuating nature of the other. We acknowledge the flesh to be now immortal and incorruptible, although before the resurrection it was susceptible of death and of passion; for how otherwise was it nailed to the tree, and committed to the tomb? And though we recognise the distinction of the natures, we are bound to worship one Son, and to acknowledge the same 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 causes the names to be common, but the community of names does not confound the natures. With them that are right-minded some names are plainly appropriate as to God, and others as to man; and in this way both the passible and the impassible are properly used of the Lord Christ, for in His humanity He suffered, while as God He remained impassible. If, according to the argument of the impious, it was in the Godhead that He suffered, then, I apprehend, the assumption of the flesh, was supererogatory; for suppose the divine nature to have been capable of undergoing passion, then He did not need the passible manhood. But grant that, as even their own argument contends, the Godhead was impassible, and the passion was real, let them beware of denying that which suffered, lest they deny with it the reality of the passion; for if that which suffers does not exist, then the passion is unreal. Now for any one who likes to open the quaternion of the sacred evangelists, it is easy to perceive that the divine Scripture distinctly proclaims the passion of the body, and to learn from them how Joseph of Arimathæa came to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus; how Pilate ordered the body of Jesus to be delivered, how Joseph took down the body of Jesus from the tree and wrapped the body of Jesus in the linen cloth, and laid it in the new tomb. All this is described by the four evangelists with frequent mention of the body. But if our opponents adduce the words of the angel to Mary and her companions, Come where the Lord lay, let them be referred to the passage in the Acts which states that devout men carried Stephen to his burial and observe 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 approach the shrines of the victorious martyrs, we commonly enquire what is the name of him who is buried in the grave, and those who are acquainted with the facts reply perhaps Julian the martyr, or Romanus, or, Timotheus. Very often it is not entire bodies that are buried, but only very small remains, yet nevertheless we speak of 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 on behalf of 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 divine mysteries, He said, This is my body which is given for you. Or according to the version of the Apostle, broken. In no place where He spoke of the passion did He mention the impassible Godhead. It is therefore before all things necessary that the question should be put to those who are endeavouring to contradict us whether they confess that the perfect manhood was assumed by God the Word, and assert the union to have been made without confusion. Once let these points be admitted, and the rest will follow in due course, and the passion will be attributed to the passible nature. I have now summed up these heads and have exceeded the limits of my letter. I have sent also what I lately wrote at the suggestion of a very godly and holy man of God, the lord — in the form of a concise instruction designed to teach the truth of the apostolic doctrines. Should I find a good copyist, I will also send your holiness what I have written in the form of a dialogue, extending the argument, and strengthening my positions, by the teaching of the Fathers. I have moreover now sent a few statements of the ancient teachers, sufficient to show the drift of their instruction. Give me in return, most godly sir, the succour of your prayers, that I may pass through the terrible tempest and reach the quiet haven of the Saviour.