Suffering 'in His humanity' - the distinction?

[Evan]

The Fathers often refer to Christ suffering "in His humanity"--
but not in his divinity. Thus St. Athanasius: "Verily it is
strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not.
Suffered, because His own body sufffered, and He was in it,
which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being
by nature God, is impassible."

I am struggling with how to understand this. It is my
understanding that Christ was wholly God and wholly man, and
that He was "made sin, though He knew no sin"-- that is, He
took on the condition of fallen humanity (tabernacled in the
flesh), even unto death, but, being Word, "triumphed" over
the curse of corruption and death (not that God punished us,
but rather that Adam and Eve became mortal, and we are their
descendants).

If Christ is wholly God and yet a "real man," how can we
understand the distinction between suffering "as God"
and "as man?"

In Christ,
Evan

[Ryan]

The Fathers often refer to Christ suffering "in His humanity"--
but not in his divinity. Thus St. Athanasius: "Verily it is
strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not.
Suffered, because His own body sufffered, and He was in it,
which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being
by nature God, is impassible."

I am struggling with how to understand this. It is my
understanding that Christ was wholly God and wholly man, and
that He was "made sin, though He knew no sin"-- that is, He
took on the condition of fallen humanity (tabernacled in the
flesh), even unto death, but, being Word, "triumphed" over
the curse of corruption and death (not that God punished us,
but rather that Adam and Eve became mortal, and we are their
descendants).

If Christ is wholly God and yet a "real man," how can we
understand the distinction between suffering "as God"
and "as man?"

In Christ,
Evan

This is where the distinction between hypostasis and nature is important. Christ is one hypostasis in two natures. Christ suffers in His human nature; insofar as God is united to man as one acting subject (the hypostasis), God does indeed suffer, but only in the hypostasis and not in His divine nature.

To use a really imperfect analogy, consider the spork, a union of spoon and fork. When the spork is being used to scoop up soup, the spork's fork nature is not being engaged; nevertheless, they remain united in the same utensil.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Evan, you wrote:

The Fathers often refer to Christ suffering "in His humanity"-- but not in his divinity.

Here it is important to know the context in which a writing is forged. The writings of St Athanasius to which you refer, for example, were the produt of the post-Nicene dialogues in the Church, in which the established divinity of the Son, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father had been firmly declared. Their attention tends to be on how this one who is God co-divine with the Father, exists as man - hence the attention paid to His humanity. It does not deny the divinity; quite to the contrary, it takes it as the given of the discussion -- and so, given this divinity, how does one articulate its existence in human flesh and life?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Fathers often refer to Christ suffering "in His humanity"--
but not in his divinity. Thus St. Athanasius: "Verily it is
strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not.
Suffered, because His own body sufffered, and He was in it,
which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being
by nature God, is impassible."

I am struggling with how to understand this. It is my
understanding that Christ was wholly God and wholly man, and
that He was "made sin, though He knew no sin"-- that is, He
took on the condition of fallen humanity (tabernacled in the
flesh), even unto death, but, being Word, "triumphed" over
the curse of corruption and death (not that God punished us,
but rather that Adam and Eve became mortal, and we are their
descendants).

If Christ is wholly God and yet a "real man," how can we
understand the distinction between suffering "as God"
and "as man?"

In Christ,
Evan


I think that the interaction between St Cyril of Alexandria & Theodoret of Cyrus illustrates the main issues.

St Cyril in his 12th Anathema has:


If anyone does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and experienced death in the flesh, and became the first-born from the dead, seeing that as God He is both life and life-giving, let him be anathema.

and in direct reply to this Theodoret has:


Passions are proper to the passible, for the impassible is above passions. Thus, it was the form of the servant that suffered, the form of God of course being together with it, and permitting it to suffer on account of the salvation brought forth out of the sufferings, and making the sufferings its own through the union. Therefore it was not God Who suffered, but the man taken of us by God.

Here we can easily see that St Cyril has brought together the unity of Christ as single Person to a great degree. The Pre-eternal Word although impassible God suffered in the flesh, He was crucified in the flesh and more dramatically experienced death in the flesh. This leaves us in little doubt then that for St Cyril, Christ as God does experience suffering.

When we come to Theodoret however we see more of a hesitation to go as far as St Cyril concerning what the suffering of God means. Through all of his description it is clear that Theodoret ascribes the suffering mainly to Christ's humanity. This is due to the great emphasis which he places (along with the other Antiochians) on the redemptive work & sacrifice of the human aspect of Christ. Since it was human nature which sinned and fell then it must also be human nature which is redeemed in Christ through an integral human labour. Christ in His humanity suffers amidst this labour, first because only the human is passible & not the Divine; but also because our salvation can only be attained through the genuineness and integrity of Christ's humanity. This in turn for Theodoret (as for many of the Antiochians & Syrians) tends to focus on that human ascetic labour in Christ also necessary to attain our salvation. Here it is important to notice that 'suffering' for Theodoret and those who speak from this tradition always carries a very important & positive role in connection to the ascetic life.

Theodoret however has a great hesitation in ascribing such suffering to Christ's divinity. His divinity allows for the suffering as neccesary for our redemption; Christ's divinity also aids man in this suffering (ie through taking on human nature and bestowing His divine life on it). But for all that we could not say that Christ's divinity literally suffers.

St Cyril however goes considerably further in his understanding of the Divine taking on suffering than does Theodoret. For St Cyril, Christ as Divine Person does appropriate human suffering. Stress is placed on redemption as with Theodoret but with St Cyril there is more of a focus on the relation of human suffering to man's sin. So that by appropriating the full human condition as God, through the unity of His Person, sin & death are trampled down. Here although it would not be correct to portray St Cyril & Theodoret as being in fundamental opposition to each other on the subject of the unity of Christ, we can point to a greater emphasis in St Cyril on salvation as communion with God, whereas with Theodoret, Christ is somewhat like that model of struggle against sin & death; sharing in His life we are given the grace to obtain the victory He has gained. Although with St Cyril we are left in little doubt that the victory we share in is Christ's, with Theodoret Christ's victory is achieved precisely so that we too in His image may attain such. Again this is not a black & white difference as much as it is one of emphasis on the nature of the divine-human unity in Christ and its purpose.

Lastly there is an interesting question in regards to St Cyril's emphasis on the unity of the Person of Christ. St Cyril uses various words & phrases to convey this unity and that the Divine Pre-eternal Logos has fully taken on the human condition. But to my knowledge St Cyril does not go further and describe how Christ or God as impassible Divinity experiences human suffering. This indeed is a most urgent question for our times since we rightly ask concerning God's love for us and its nature.

Let's just say though that perhaps we could say following from St Cyril that Christ and God's impassibility does not negate experience of our suffering or even of our sinful passibility. Yes, we must maintain that God experiences such in an impassible fashion; but such Divinely Personal impassibility could very well mean that God experiences or knows our falleness and suffering in its true reality without this being a sinful Personal participation on His part. Is not the compassion of the saints a faint image of this?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Raphael,

I'm very grateful for your having brought in the comparison of language between St Cyril and Theodoret (whom I always remember for the rather amusing eulogy he delivered for Cyril!). In particular, you noted:



Theodoret however has a great hesitation in ascribing such suffering to Christ's divinity. His divinity allows for the suffering as neccesary for our redemption; Christ's divinity also aids man in this suffering (ie through taking on human nature and bestowing His divine life on it). But for all that we could not say that Christ's divinity literally suffers.


I'm grateful for the sympathetic tone you've given to Theodoret's emphasis on Christ's humanity existing in its integrity, for reasons that are wholly united with a desire to perceive salvation as the true taking-on of a true humanity by the Son. I'm equally grateful for this careful attention you've given to his hesitation - which is problematic - in ascribing human experiences to the divine nature when it comes to things like passibility and mutability (suffering, change). One of the fundamental issues here is the tendency, in Theodoret's thinking, to conceive of the 'human' and the 'divine' almost as 'things': as entities in their own right, which cannot be implicated one in the other -- particularly the divine in the human. So we see him give extensive stress to each existing in its wholeness, in its integrity; but when it comes to their mutual co-existence in the life of Christ, there are problems. But, as you write:


Again this is not a black & white difference as much as it is one of emphasis on the nature of the divine-human unity in Christ and its purpose.True, indeed. And yet it shows just how much is implied in not only the words we use to articulate the divine mystery of the incarnation - but also in the more general contexts in which we use them. Theodoret and Cyril tended to use identical vocabulary in most places; but the general contexts of approach meant that they found themselves bound by different 'limits' on how those words could be employed authentically.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Evan]

"Again this is not a black & white difference as much as it is one of emphasis on the nature of the divine-human unity in Christ and its purpose."


I would certainly hope so! What struck me about the quote from St. Athanasius I cited (out of context, as it happens) is it seemed to my untutored eyes to suggest that Christ was God and Man at different times, under different conditions. Which flew in the face of everything I thought I had encountered in the Fathers thus far!

Yet this passage from St. John of Damascus seems to insist on the same distinction:

"The Word of God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09328a.htm) 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 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/15073a.htm) 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 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/14153a.htm), 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."

I can trace several different propositions here: (1) Christ is wholly God and wholly Man (2) Men suffer (3) Divinity does not (4) Christ suffered (5) Christ suffered as Man, but not as God.

Here's the problem I'm having: Christ DID suffer. Really suffer. The spork analogy doesn't seem quite right to me, because (as I understand it) His divinity was revealed in and through His humanity. He wasn't "using" His divinity for certain tasks and His humanity for other tasks.

Is the idea here that "suffering" is something that the Word would not endure, had He not become flesh? That it is not in the nature of divinity to suffer, but insofar as the Word tabernacled in the flesh, He suffered in order to liberate us ultimately from suffering and death?

I beg your patience. I fear to tread into mysteries that are not susceptible to merely human reasoning (fallen humanity, that is).

In Christ,
Evan

[Herman Blaydoe]

I believe one of the stikars of Holy Saturday goes something like: "In Heaven with the Father, in the Tomb and in Hades were You O Christ our God..." He was in all these places at the same time. His humanity "clothed" and hid His Divinity, it did NOT encompass it, it did not contain it. "Wrapped in flesh, like bait on a hook..." is another wonderful word picture heard in the stikars of Matins. His Divinity did not become "mortal", His Divinity is still outside of time and space, even as His humanity was within it. Christ was bigger than His humanity. There was obviously more to Him than appearances.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen]

In the grave with the body, in Hades with the soul, being God; in Paradise with the Thief, and on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit, You, Christ, were filling all things, O Infinite One.

This is the first of the Troparia of Paschal Hours from the Bright Week daily prayers.

[Evan]

I believe one of the stikars of Holy Saturday goes something like: "In Heaven with the Father, in the Tomb and in Hades were You O Christ our God..." He was in all these places at the same time. His humanity "clothed" and hid His Divinity, it did NOT encompass it, it did not contain it. "Wrapped in flesh, like bait on a hook..." is another wonderful word picture heard in the stikars of Matins. His Divinity did not become "mortal", His Divinity is still outside of time and space, even as His humanity was within it. Christ was bigger than His humanity. There was obviously more to Him than appearances.

Herman the Pooh

But the Word DID come into the world, unto His own. If He was "bigger" than His humanity, I still don't see how it makes sense to say that the Word didn't suffer, insofar as He was clothed in human flesh, unless we say something like, "the Word WOULDN'T have suffered had He not become flesh." What is His divinity "doing" if it is not suffering with His humanity?

In Christ,
Evan

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, not sure of the specifics to be quite honest. Perhaps better minds than mine can comment further, especially if I have spoken incorrectly. I do know that the Church sees making the distinction as important, going so far as to call them "anathema" who say that Christ suffered in His Divinity. There IS a distinction. We say He has TWO natures, not one. His Divinity did not subsume His humanity, and His humanity did not encompass His divinity, they remained distinct. To make them "one" seems to this bear of admittedly little brain too dangerously close to monophysitism. Why is it so important for Christ to "suffer in His Divinity"?

Herman the Pooh

[Evan]

Well, not sure of the specifics to be quite honest. Perhaps better minds than mine can comment further, especially if I have spoken incorrectly. I do know that the Church sees making the distinction as important, going so far as to call them "anathema" who say that Christ suffered in His Divinity. There IS a distinction. We say He has TWO natures, not one. His Divinity did not subsume His humanity, and His humanity did not encompass His divinity, they remained distinct. To make them "one" seems to this bear of admittedly little brain too dangerously close to monophysitism. Why is it so important for Christ to "suffer in His Divinity"?

Herman the Pooh

Herman,

What I'm searching for is conceptual clarity. Perhaps, again, I've strayed from the narrow path in doing so!

Farbeit from me to deny His divinity OR His humanity. I know that the firm, unalterable testimony of Scripture and the Fathers, and the Councils, and the Creeds, etc., etc. is that the Son is everything that the Father is-- save that He is the Son, and not the Father. I also know that His humanity did not "diminish" or "limit" His divinity-- men don't resurrect the dead by their own power (even Elias asked for God's help), forgive sins, or cure people born blind.

Yet my rational mind is having trouble coming to terms with the notion that "only part" of a concrete person-- God-Man though He may be-- suffered.

I'm not "demanding" that He suffer because it's somehow less of a humiliation for the Incarnate Word to be called a Samaritan possessed by demons and rejected by the stiffnecked people He saved from Egyptian whips and ultimately from death itself.

I just don't "get" how someone -- some person-- can suffer and yet not suffer. I'm not for a minute questioning whether Christ was both wholly God and wholly Man. If it's impossible to affirm that Christ is both God and Man and suffered as both God and Man-- if divinity somehow CAN'T suffer, what's happening to the Word while Christ the human being is hanging on the cross?

In Christ,
Evan

[Herman Blaydoe]

What is "suffer"? It is pain, physical or mental. Christ is not just "some person". Divine Christ is not physical, so there can be no physical pain. Pain and suffering is a consequence of sin and God did not/does not sin. How then, is it possible for Christ in His Divinity to suffer? Suffer, what, exactly?

Herman the rather confused Pooh

[Evan]

Let me run this by you. Men can't forgive sins-- only God forgives sins. Christ is both God and Man. Christ forgives sins. Would it be correct to say that Christ forgives sins as God, but not as Man?

If so, I think I may be able to grasp the significance of the distinction. I hope I'm not straining your patience-- remember, I'm new here!

[Paul Cowan]

Let me run this by you. Men can't forgive sins-- only God forgives sins. Christ is both God and Man. Christ forgives sins. Would it be correct to say that Christ forgives sins as God, but not as Man?

If so, I think I may be able to grasp the significance of the distinction.

Man hungers, God does not. Man needs sleep, God does not. Man feels pain, God does not. God can forgive sin, Man cannot. God can live forever, man cannot. God can create life, man cannot.

The God-Man can do, feel, experience all the above at the same time. Just because our weak human minds cannot grasp this does not mean it cannot be true. Sometimes 2+2 do not = 4.

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

Yet my rational mind is having trouble coming to terms with the notion that "only part" of a concrete person-- God-Man though He may be-- suffered.

I'm not "demanding" that He suffer because it's somehow less of a humiliation for the Incarnate Word to be called a Samaritan possessed by demons and rejected by the stiffnecked people He saved from Egyptian whips and ultimately from death itself.

I just don't "get" how someone -- some person-- can suffer and yet not suffer. I'm not for a minute questioning whether Christ was both wholly God and wholly Man. If it's impossible to affirm that Christ is both God and Man and suffered as both God and Man-- if divinity somehow CAN'T suffer, what's happening to the Word while Christ the human being is hanging on the cross?

I think part of the problem is in the terminology.

We usually think of "suffer" as meaning merely to experience something negative - pain, grief, etc. But the word generally implies that the person is affected in a significant way by that experience. To use myself as an example - I've been in sub-freezing cold numerous times without sufficient warm clothing. Most of the time I have been affected both physically (shivering, etc.) and psychologically ("I can't take it anymore - where's a heater? Aaagh!"), while a few times I have not been affected (no shivering or strong desires to run for warmth, etc.). In the former cases, I was suffering; in the latter, I was not.

Now, one of the doctrines about God is that He is impassible - that is, He is not subject to being affected by anything - and this is also true of the Son in His divine nature. So, while He can experience pain and the like, it is impossible for Him to actually suffer because He cannot be affected by it.

His human nature, on the other hand, being passible and changable, can suffer. So it was "in the flesh" that He suffered, not in His divinity.

It's not that only "part" of Him suffered. But it was important that Christ be able to suffer yet also not be affected. Fr Raphael had a post in the "Did Christ feel emotions?" thread that I think speaks very well to that idea:


It is very important that we keep in mind the term that the Fathers eventually formulated for Christ's manner of relation to human nature. This is summed up in the term, 'the blameless passions.' That is Christ fully adopts human nature including certain results of the Fall but He does this in a sinless way.

This last point is what is most important here for it relates to how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature without disdaining its present weaknesses. But the manner in which He does this as the pre-Incarnate Word of God is always in reference to man's original divine purpose.

Thus He feels hunger but without greed; He fears death but without fleeing from it. In other words Christ knows & experiences our sin inexpressibly more fully than we do but the way in which He does so is sinless.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

In Christ,
Michael

[Evan]

Michael,

That was an extraordinarily helpful post. I'll reflect upon it today.

In Christ,
Evan