coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 02:58 PM

The following is from St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation".

<i>Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also. <b>Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?</b></i>

The issue: to me, this seems to contradict two core Christological teachings: (i) Christ's humanity was like ours in all respects, except for sin and (ii) that Christ did not use His divinity to give His humanity some kind of "advantage". If He couldn't get sick, then that's another way His humanity is not like ours; if He couldn't get sick because He prevented it, is that mixing and mingling?

Thoughts? Anyone know if St. Severus has written on this, maybe in the context of dealing with Julianism?

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

mikokiko

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 04:50 PM

He didn't say He COULDN'T GET sick (as if it was alien to His nature), but that it was not Fit for Him to get sick. Just as it would not be fit for Him for example to be a tax collector (not that it is actually ALIEN to His Nature to be one).

St. Athanasius is just saying, think for example, that Christ was a leper, and He came to heal other lepers? Or that He was a paralytic and was able to heal other paralytics. Plus, even if He was going to heal Himself in such a case, that would be kind of awkward and pointless. Christ healing Himself as a leper? Rather, Christ allowed the thing He came to DEFEAT for ALL of us, into His nature (Death), SO that He could defeat it. Christ promised us we could defeat Death too, He never promised an escape from sickness.

Maybe this makes more sense to you now?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1348

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 05:10 PM

Miko,

I bolded the last sentence for a reason: <i>Why, then, did He not <b>prevent</b> death, as He <b>did</b> sickness?</i>

St. Athanasius states that He <i>prevented</i> His sickness. That's what I'm having difficulty with.

As for the death part (and I don't want us to go on a tangent), He didn't "allow" death into His nature for two reasons 1) He wouldn't have allowed it into His divinity (nonsense, by definition), 2) death is already part of human nature. Just by taking on real humanity, He took on a nature that has death in it (there's no "allowing"). To relate that back to the issue - just by taking on humanity, He would have also taken on a nature susceptible to sickness.

Being an unjust tax collector is sinful (and He is without sin), getting sick is not sinful, so it doesn't run afoul His humanity being like ours in all things except sin.

See my problem?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

mikokiko

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 05:40 PM

I didn't say that He would be an unjust tax collector...I just said it was not fit for Him to be a tax collector, your setting up a premise I never said and debunking it.

Secondly, He Died yes, because He was human (that is a natural state of being human), however it is not necessarily natural for a human to get sick (who knows, He might have caught a couple of colds and fevers here and there, but not sick in the sense that He had any diseases or maladies), Just as it is not necessarily natural at all for a human to be a tax collector, and it was fitting that He should not be either of these things.

By prevention, he could have easily meant what I said, if not, then yes, your question still remains.

GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1348

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 06:51 PM

I wasn't trying to set up a strawman. I figured you could only mean unjust tax collector ... because there's no problem with Him being a JUST tax collector (if anything, He would have taught by example). So, if you mean otherwise, I disagree with you. But now we're just discussing the tangent (and I will hold my peace if you comment on this further).

Here's another quote to demonstrate to you that St. Athanasius, in no unclear words, seems to be saying what I wrote above:

<i>Firstly, because the death which befalls men comes to them agreeably to the <b>weakness of their nature</b>; for, unable to continue in one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. <b>But the Lord is not weak</b>, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. <b>If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men.</b> But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, <b>the body gained strength in Him</b>; while on the other, as death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at others' hands; the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice.</i>

Whatever his definition of "disease", he obviously thinks it COULDN'T (to use your emphasis) touch Christ. That aside, St. Athanasius explains the unweakness of His humanity by saying "the body gained strength in Him" due to being united with the Word - going back to the same issue I started with. Actually, that's explicitly stating the problem.

I realize this quote would've been better to start with, but from experience, better to keep the initial post short.

What do you mean by "prevention, he could have easily meant what I said?" I'm not sure which part of what you've written you're talking about.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

mikokiko

posted on Apr 06, 2010 - 10:49 PM

I meant that He might have meant that it just wasn't part of God's plan to have His Son become sick with a disease. But I recall now what St. Athanasius said...I think it's possible that St. Athanasius is simply speculating here. But I don't know. We know His human nature was susceptible to every human weakness (except that which is moral), such that He also felt distress, and pain, and Death, and rejection etc.

So it's possible that St. Athanasius simply makes his own speculation here, without really defining as theology, otherwise we could see what other fathers say (and if they agree with this).

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1348

jydeacon

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 12:15 AM

Sickness became a result of our corrupt nature and sin. Before Adam and Eve's fall, there was of course, no sin. After they sinned they became susceptible to all kinds of corruption of body including sickness. Since Christ is sinless and did not have a corruptible body/and was not holding a nature uncorrupted(although in essence its the exact same NATURE as we have) how would sickness be found in Him? If He is sinless and perfect in all things, isn't sickness a sign of imperfection?I think when we say He was like us in everything except sin, this includes the effects that sin would put on us. I'm not sure if I'm making sense?

Pray for me

Joined: Jan 16, 2007 | Posts: 199

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 03:46 AM

What you just stated is a heresy called Julianism, which St. Severus refuted a long time ago. Here's a quote from "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined": "Julian maintains that Christ's manhood was incorruptible, because God the Son assumed the manhood of Adam before the fall."

St. Severus teaches that "incorruptibility" has two meanings: 1) sinlessness and 2) "the non-possession of the capacity to undergo guiltless passions" (hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc...). Of course we all agree Christ is sinless. St. Severus asserts that the reverse of #2 is a property of human nature, which Christ also took on when He took on our nature (in other words, if we say His human nature was incorruptible, then we'd be saying He didn't take on our human nature).

As for Adam's nature before the fall - both St. Athanasius (in "On the Incarnation" itself) and St. Severus teach that human nature before the fall wasn't much different from human nature after the fall. What changed after the fall is that Adam and Eve lost the grace that God had bestowed on them immediately after their creation.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

AMoussa01

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 08:45 AM

Perhaps it would help if you provided the rest of the commentary after the one you did in your first post. Maybe he answers the statement that you decided to highlight in bold in another paragraph. When i read it, it sounded as if he was asking this to later provide an answer and maybe some insight to the reader.

Also, maybe your making a false assumption by assuming that St. Athansius was talking about Christ's sickness. Perhaps we was talking about the sickness of others, not necessarily His. After all, it says "He did sickness" not "He did HIS sickness."

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 09, 2007 | Posts: 588
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 02:44 PM

It's a whole book - you want me to paste the whole book into here? I provided most of the relevant texts, and having read the book several times, I can tell you the question is not answered anywhere else. If it was, I wouldn't have started the thread .

No natural reading of the whole paragraph about Jesus would make us think St. Athanasius randomly changed subjects and talked about the preventing of sickness in the people. The whole paragraph distinguishes how "regular" people can get sick and die as opposed to Jesus.

Both quotes above come from the same paragraph. Here's the whole paragraph (paragraph 21 from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm )


<i>Why, now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we, the faithful in Christ, no longer die the death as before, agreeably to the warning of the law; for this condemnation has ceased; but, corruption ceasing and being put away by the grace of the Resurrection, henceforth we are only dissolved, agreeably to our bodies' mortal nature, at the time God has fixed for each, that we may be able to gain a better resurrection. 2. For like the seeds which are cast into the earth, we do not perish by dissolution, but sown in the earth, shall rise again, death having been brought to nought by the grace of the Saviour. Hence it is that blessed Paul, who was made a surety of the Resurrection to all, says: “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; but when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is your sting? O grave where is your victory?” 3. Why, then, one might say, if it were necessary for Him to yield up His body to death in the stead of all, did He not lay it aside as man privately, instead of going as far as even to be crucified? For it were more fitting for Him to have laid His body aside honourably, than ignominiously to endure a death like this. 4. Now, see to it, I reply, whether such an objection be not merely human, whereas what the Saviour did is truly divine and for many reasons worthy of His Godhead. Firstly, because the death which befalls men comes to them agreeably to the weakness of their nature; for, unable to continue in one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. But the Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, the body gained strength in Him; 6. while on the other, as death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at others' hands; the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also. 7. Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness? Because it was for this that He had the body, and it was unfitting to prevent it, lest the Resurrection also should be hindered, while yet it was equally unfitting for sickness to precede His death, lest it should be thought weakness on the part of Him that was in the body. Did He not then hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. But He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it. Hence, even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For [His body] rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none other, but to the very Life.</i>

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

jydeacon

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 05:48 PM

Truthseeker, Thanks for correcting my misconceptions. Could you provide quotes by st. severus about this?

Pray for me

Joined: Jan 16, 2007 | Posts: 199

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 07, 2010 - 06:23 PM

I don't have exact quotes (other than the second definition of incorruptability), what I wrote above is either quoted or a summary from "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined" (pgs. 269-71 I think - I don't have the book with me), but is not controversial (in other words, there's no contention that this is a misinterpretation of what Severus was saying). I Did do some searches to try to find you the primary sources though, the best I could do is find where you can find them:

Severus's Philalethes, Orationes ad Nephalium, Liber contra Impium Grammaticum, and his writings against Julian of Halicarnassus are available in volumes 4–7, 68–69, 104–105, 124–127, and 136–137 of Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum, Scriptores Syri (Paris, 1929–1971). English translations, by E. W. Brooks, of Severus's letters and hymns can be found in volumes 6, 7, 12, and 14 of Patrologia Orientalis, edited by R. Graffin and F. Nau (Paris, 1911–1920).

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

minasoliman

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 08:29 AM

Ya, this was a sore point for me too. There was a point in time when I was a Julianist because I misunderstood St. Athanasius' writings.

Julian definitely teaches that there is a huge difference in nature in the human nature before and after the Fall. St. Athanasius doesn't teach this, and St. Severus follows his lead.

What is taught is that the definition of "corruptible" used by St. Severus is indeed to be able to undergo what is natural to the human nature, i.e. hunger, thirst, pain, death, etc. Julian believed that Christ's human nature was "incorruptible," therefore Christ would be UNABLE to experience hunger, thirst, pain, or death, but allow his incorruptible body to experience them, as if they were not real, but rather an illusion of hunger, thirst, pain, and death. St. Severus rejected this outright, and said that these things were not an illusion, but were real, and so it is necessary to confess that Christ's humanity is corruptible.

When St. Athanasius teaches that Christ prevented illness, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christ's humanity is not corruptible. Christ allows His corruptible body to undergo certain passions, and there are other things He may have not allowed to undergo, such as a simple flu or something. In fact, we must also remember, Christ laid down His own life; He did not lay die out of weakness to the Cross, but waited at a certain point, and gave up His Spirit willingly, like a warrior ready to conquer death, not like one who loses the battle. That is a huge point we need to remember, and St. Athanasius wanted to make very clear that Christ's humanity was not weak, but at the same time, because of its corruptible nature, it underwent these pains for real, but because of the union with the Divine nature, these pains were weapons against human weakness.

What St. Severus fought against is not whether Christ went through all things human in a natural way, but whether those things He went through were REAL or NOT. St. Severus would probably agree with St. Athanasius that Christ may have prevented illness. But St. Severus would fight to say that there is no real difference in pre and post fall humanity, as Julian believed.

If Iqbal is reading this, I think he can explain it better than I can; he helped it get through this little issue I had. But I hope this explanation helps.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 04:34 PM

From minasoliman:Christ allows His corruptible body to undergo certain passions, <b>and there are other things He may have not allowed to undergo,</b> such as a simple flu or something.

This takes us back to my first post. Isn't this the exact mingling and confusion we do not believe in? I just don't know what mingling would be, if using His divinity to make His humanity stronger is not it. St. Athanasius says "Did He not then hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. <i>But He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it.</i>" To me, that very statement is problematic.

The other point is that St. Athanasius really seems to be saying that His humanity was stronger than ours (with no on and off switch). If His humanity is stronger than ours because it's united to the Word ... and His humanity was always united to the Word, then for all time, it is different from ours. If we even grant that getting "sick" is not necessary for a human, aging and getting weaker with age is - St. Athanasius attributes this to weakness in us that Christ did not have.

From minasoliman:In fact, we must also remember, Christ laid down His own life; He did not lay die out of weakness to the Cross, but waited at a certain point, and gave up His Spirit willingly, like a warrior ready to conquer death, not like one who loses the battle.

I always understood the verses about Christ laying down His life to mean that, having power to stop His death, He did not use it (specifically in the sense that He could have easily stopped the Jews from killing Him). I never took it in the sense that He forced His death (what I take "but waited at a certain point" to mean). Akin to in Romans I when St. Paul says that God "gave them over to ...", he doesn't mean that God forced them to sin (far from it), he means that God removed more and more of His grace from them.

For example, St. Chrysostom's commentary on:

<b>John 10:18:</b> No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

From St. Chrysostom:

Because they often took counsel to kill Him, He telleth them, “Except I will, your labor is unavailing.” And by the first He proveth the second, by the Death, the Resurrection. For this is the strange and wonderful thing. Since both took place in a new way, and beyond ordinary custom. But let us give heed exactly to what He saith, “I have power to lay down My life.” <b>And who hath not “power to lay down his life”? Since it is in the power of any that will, to kill himself. But He saith it not so, but how? “I have in such a way the power to lay it down, that no one can effect this against My will.”</b> And this is a power not belonging to men; for we have no power to lay it down in any other way than by killing ourselves. And if we fall into the hands of men who plot against us, and have the power to kill us, we no longer are free to lay it down or not, but even against our will they take it from us. Now this was not the case with Christ, but even when others plotted against Him, He had power not to lay it down. Having therefore said that, “No man taketh it from Me,” He addeth, “I have power to lay down My life,” that is, “I alone can decide as to laying it down,” a thing which doth not rest with us,1613 for many others also are able to take it from us. Now this

He said not at first, (since the assertion would not have seemed credible,) but when He had received the testimony of facts, and when, having often plotted against Him, they had been unable to lay hold on Him, (for He escaped from their hands ten thousand times,) He then saith, “No man taketh it from me.” But if this be true, that other point follows, that He came to death voluntarily. And if this be true, the next point is also certain, that He can “take it again” when He will. For if the dying1614 was a greater thing than man could do, doubt no more about the other. Since the fact that He alone was able to let go His life, showeth that He was able by the same power to take it again. Seest thou how from the first He proved the second, and from His death showed that His Resurrection was indisputable?

P.S. To everyone, I'm not just trying to be difficult and shoot explanations down. A large part of my ready responses is that I thought about most of the explanations I received before posting the topic.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

minasoliman

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 07:40 PM

To answer one of your points, Christ did not kill Himself. He laid His own life, meaning He allowed His flesh to die.

And there's no confusion. It's only a communication of properties that goes on, or as St. Cyril would say, "communicato idiomatum." Christ never lost anything human about Him, so there was no confusion with the divinity. Confusion would entail that part or all of His humanity is absorbed or changed in some sort of way. His essential humanity never changed, and His properties and willing along with it.

In addition, we don't preach simply an undivided and unconfused Christ, but a Christ where there was a sharing of properties. Christ was not coal and fire side-by-side, but fire making the coal glow. St. Cyril taught this very point to make sure people understood that Christ being fully human also provided a means to communicate His divinity to others. He walked on water, a woman with the blood disease was healed by touching the hem of His garment, He rose people from the dead, etc.

And when He did human things, they were not just there for Christ's experience, but He also glorified the human actions He made. When He hungered, it was to bless human hunger and by it to take away our own hunger. When He suffered, He blessed suffering to take away our suffering. When He cried, He blessed humanity's cry to take away our own. When He was in mental agony, He blessed it to take away our own.

This is the communication of properties. He communicated His divinity humanly, and raised up the humanity divinely. In St. Athanasius' mind, to raise up the humanity divinely seemed to be the avoidance of getting sick. Perhaps, the science of their day made it as if sick was unnatural part of humanity, whereas all things Christ did humanly was both natural and blessed.

It is also because of the communicato idiomatum when we can say things like "Theotokos" or "Holy God, Who was crucified for us" or "The Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God."

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

mikehenry

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 07:56 PM

Forgive me for butting in with a rather uninformed opinion on this, but when St. Athanasius writes:

Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also.

...might he only mean that it wouldn't make sense for Christ to "fall sick" when He healed others from their sicknesses--As if becoming ill would almost seem a discontinuity for someone with the power to heal others miraculously?

It doesn't seem like he's making a point about Christ's nature as much as he is making one about the potential absurdity of the idea that Christ fell sick even though He healed others of sickness.

Correct my mistakes.

Thanks,
Mike Henry

_________________
Mi,ayl Henri

Joined: Jan 20, 2006 | Posts: 158
Location: St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Boston

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 08:50 PM

From minasoliman:To answer one of your points, Christ did not kill Himself. He laid His own life, meaning He allowed His flesh to die.

That is what I wanted to make sure is being said, instead of something else. But to take it further, part of the issue is that St. Athanasius seems to be saying that if He wasn't killed, He would have never naturally died. There's nothing more humanly natural than natural death.

From minasoliman:Confusion would entail that part or all of His humanity is absorbed or changed in some sort of way.

That's the problem - St. Athanasius is saying His humanity was not weak like the rest of us. That's the change.

I'm glad you fleshed out the communication of properties (I was concerned it might get lost in what I'm saying). This doesn't answer the question, however. St. Peter was allowed to walk on water, handkerchiefs from St. Paul performed miracles. In neither case is a hypostatic union with the Word implicated.

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 08:54 PM

Mike,

I apologize for the bad ordering of the quotes. But if you read the long paragraph I pasted, the "not fit" part comes after St. Athanasius explains how Christ could not have gotten sick (because His humanity is stronger than ours). In other words, it's like saying, "X is true" and then saying, "good thing that X is true, because of A, B and C."

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 08, 2010 - 09:05 PM

So we don't lose St. Athanasius' words in the discussion, here's the core of the issue:

From St. Athanasius:

Firstly, because the <i>death which befalls men</i> comes to them agreeably to the <b>weakness of their nature</b>; for, unable to continue in one stay, <i>they are dissolved with time</i>. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. But <b>the Lord is not weak</b>, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner of men, <i>it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men</i>. <b>BUT</b> since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, <b>the body gained strength in Him</b>.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

lowlyman

posted on Apr 09, 2010 - 09:37 PM

From Truth.Seeker:<b>the body gained strength in Him</b>.

I don't think it's wrong or contradictory to say that the body gain strength in him. To me, the human nature does indeed benefit from divinity or grace. If the grace of God is with you, then that's a benefit to human nature. How can it not be?

According to the principle: " that which He assumed, He Also Healed." then how can His human nature be corruptible, since he healed it? If before the fall, human nature was indeed good and Christ 's coming restored human nature to its original beauty, why would He suffer any sickness He who knew no sin? As to His death, Christ indeed died willingly to destroy death and as a result of Adam's Original Sin. That is, He paid the penalty of Adam's sin on the cross. Finally, another evidence that He was not corruptible is His resurrection. As the psalmist sang seeing His day: "for you shall not leave my soul in Hades, neither should you suffer your holy one to see corruption".

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 288

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 09, 2010 - 10:50 PM

lowly,

Shouldn't just ignore the whole discussion and throw random things at me. That just makes us go in a circle.

We become incorruptible after our resurrection as well ... so what? Did you skip over the whole discussion of what "corruptible" means?

Before the fall, human nature was no different from after the fall ... did you skip over our whole Julianism discussion?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 09, 2010 - 11:20 PM

So a friend asked a bishop this question, and the bishop said a couple of things:

1) Christ could get sick, but His sickness could never kill Him.

2) The only reason Christ died on the cross was because the wages of sin is death, and on the cross He not only carried our sins but became sin for us. Only after that was He susceptible to death.

_____________________

My thoughts: I don't think the bishop was pointed to the text from On the Incarnation, so he might have been disagreeing with St. Athanasius without realizing it, but in any case, he seems to be disagreeing with St. Athanasius because St. Athanasius said that Christ couldn't get sick at all.

With regard to Christ only being susceptible to death after becoming sin for us, two things are pulling at each other in my thoughts: 1) since human nature before the fall is no different from human nature after the fall, then man's mortality (which is part of human nature) has nothing to do with sin, BUT 2) we know that the grace bestowed upon Adam and Eve was enough to stop their death if they had continued in His commandments; of course Christ's humanity, being united with the Word, was sanctified much more than Adam and Eve before the fall ... if grace was enough to keep death away from them, then being united with the Word is definitely enough.

I think parts of #2 already came out on the thread (but it's more clear to me with the comparision to Adam and Eve). I lean toward #2 more, but I need to think about this whole thing more, and make sure other implications of this explanation aren't problematic. Going to ask some bishops myself and see what they say. Not sure if they'd be so quick to disagree with St. Athanasius if they had the text infront of them.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

minasoliman

posted on Apr 10, 2010 - 02:39 AM

From Truth.Seeker:From minasoliman:To answer one of your points, Christ did not kill Himself. He laid His own life, meaning He allowed His flesh to die.

That is what I wanted to make sure is being said, instead of something else. But to take it further, part of the issue is that St. Athanasius seems to be saying that if He wasn't killed, He would have never naturally died. There's nothing more humanly natural than natural death.


When we read about how Christ interacted humanly, we always read from the Church fathers that Christ emptied Himself, that is He allowed His humanity to experience some things. For instance, when St. Cyril was commenting on Christ growing in wisdom and stature, one can wonder how can the source of all wisdom and strength grow in wisdom and stature. It's precisely because He allowed His humanity to experience ignorance and to learn. It is also stressed that this issue is a mystery and because it's a mystery, we at this moment believe, the more we delve into the mystery the more we will be lost, as mysterious as the properties and essence of God Himself.

Death is yes natural. I believe St. Athanasius believed sickness is unnatural, which is probably why he believed Christ didn't get sick. It's natural to grow, to learn, to cry, to feel pain, to suffer, to groan, to die. Probably what is unnatural is sickness, and when St. Athanasius talked about sin, he treated sin like a disease that kept getting worse and worse to an "even more unnatural degree" (I think that's what he said). So, also was illness; at the time, no one knew of viruses or bacteria; many people thought just as you try to stay away from a man of sin so that he doesn't spread his uncleanliness to you, so shouldn't a man with a disease touch you either.

Was Christ really sick? That could be a personal theological opinion for people as we start to know more about the science of the world.

From minasoliman:Confusion would entail that part or all of His humanity is absorbed or changed in some sort of way.

That's the problem - St. Athanasius is saying His humanity was not weak like the rest of us. That's the change.

I'm glad you fleshed out the communication of properties (I was concerned it might get lost in what I'm saying). This doesn't answer the question, however. St. Peter was allowed to walk on water, handkerchiefs from St. Paul performed miracles. In neither case is a hypostatic union with the Word implicated.

Change does not entail humanity being not weak. We have many saints in the Church who lived their lives precisely like Christ, strong in the Spirit. And indeed, it is the Holy Spirit working with the Apostles that allowed them to perform miracles. When Christ was performing miracles, the Church fathers also believed that it was the Holy Spirit as well. The only difference was that the Holy Spirit was CHRIST'S VERY OWN, whereas we receive the Holy Spirit working in us and with us, as St. Cyril wrote in his anathema:

"If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs upon men; and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom He hath wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema."

So yes, we speak of the miracles done by Christ as befitting His divinity through the workings of His Holy Spirit, whereas the miracles done by the Apostles and saints as befitting the workings of the grace of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Christ was like us in all things except sin. That's the key point here. We are weak, and therefore we sin. In Christ, He was able to prevent sin, even to the point of temptation, as He confronted Satan like a soldier on a battlefield. While we pray "lead us not into temptation," Christ ensnared Satan to Him both in the mountains and on the Cross, defeating him twice. In the same ferocity He confronted temptation, Christ confronted death. This is strength, and His being tempted and dying on the Cross became the source of our own strength. We needed Christ to be strong so that He may strengthen us. We needed Him to be sinless so that He may provide for the forgiveness of our sins. In the same vein, St. Athanasius probably believed that sickness could not be acceptable to a natural and strong humanity. And like a vaccine, when He "became sin" on the Cross, it's as if a virus met its match in a pool of vaccinated cells, ready to destroy it. This is probably how St. Athanasius perceived illness, that when disease touched Christ, a person was instantly healed, just like the woman who touched the hem of His garment, or those of the demon-possessed who were in His presence.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 10, 2010 - 10:18 PM

No where in St. Athanasius' discourse about this does he say that the weakness of man and their susceptibility to disease was because of sin. Even if he thought this, the logical conclusion from that would be that, before the fall, human nature was not susceptible to weakness and/or disease and then death since there was no sin. That's knocking on Julian's door.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 965

minasoliman

posted on Apr 11, 2010 - 12:36 AM

I don't see how that's the logical conclusion. Just because St. Athanasius didn't believe Christ's wasn't susceptible to disease doesn't mean He wasn't susceptible to death.

And no where did I say that St. Athanasius believed illness was a result of sin. I was making an analogy to sin, not putting the two together. Just like touching a sinner was taboo, touching a sick person was also taboo. So just as the adulteress woman was able to touch His feet to receive forgiveness, so was the woman with blood disease receive physical healing for her blood disease by touching the hem of His garment.

When I talk about weakness, I talk about our own weakness in sinning. Therefore, it is this type of weakness St. Athanasius seemed to connect with sickness too. As for human nature's limitations, like hunger, or human strength like lifting the Cross, and death, this "weakness" I don't say He didn't have. It's the issue of His own immunity to disease and purity from sin. Today, we can be quite immune to most diseases in a natural way. I don't see St. Athanasius' belief as Julianism.

Julian believed that Christ was unable to die, therefore His death logically was an illusion. St. Athanasius believed that Christ was able to die. Therefore His death was real. Julian was condemned for thinking Christ was unable to die, and for thinking there was a difference between pre-Fall and post-Fall human essence. St. Athanasius did not believe these things, and therefore he wasn't a Julian. St. Severus would probably agree with St. Athanasius as well. I don't think St. Severus would have ignored a passage like that from St. Athanasius if he was dealing with Julian, and he was a very well-read man.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789