57.
And as to His saying, ‘If it be possible, let the cup pass,’ observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked 1 Peter, saying, ‘Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’ For He willed 2 what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness 3, that destroying this affection He might in turn make man undaunted in face of death. Behold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ’s enemies impute words of terror, He by that so-called 4 tenor renders men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles after Him from such words of His conceived so great a contempt of death, as not even to care for those who questioned them, but to answer, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men 5.’ And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they were rather passing to life than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself was in terror, through whom they despised death? But from that most enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men fear death. His word and deed go together. For human were the sayings, ‘Let the cup pass,’ and ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, ‘Now is My soul troubled;’ and He said divinely, ‘I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again 6.’ For to be troubled was proper P. 425 to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life 7 and take it again, when He will, was no property of men but of the Word’s power. For man dies, not by his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, ‘Thou shalt not leave My soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption 8.’ For it beseemed that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of the Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him.
-
Matt. xvi. 23 , cf. §§40, 41. ↩
-
[The human will of the Saviour is in absolute harmony with the Divine, though psychologically distinct.] Cf. Anast.Hodeg.i. p. 12. ↩
-
It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of thenatureof the Word, and of, not thenatureof man as united to Him, but offlesh, humanity,&c. (vid.Or.ii. 45, n. 2.) so here, instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word’swillingand humanweakness, terror,&c. In another place he says still more pointedly, ‘Thewillwas of the Godhead alone; since the wholenatureof the Word was manifested in the second Adam’shuman formand visibleflesh.’*contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Cf. S. Leo on the same passage: ‘The first request is one of infirmity, the second of power; the first He asked in our [character], the second in His own.…The inferior will give way to the superior,’ &c.Serm.56, 2. vid. a similar passage in Nyssen.Antirrh. adv. Apol.32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn from such passages, as if the will ‘of the flesh’ were represented as contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will of the Word. The whole of our Lord’s prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second, which corrects it, from Him as God [i.e. the first part is not humanas contrastedwith the second]; but the former part is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human will expressing its acquiescence in His Father’s, that is, in His Divine Will. ‘His Will,’ says S. Greg. Naz. ‘was not contrary to God, being all deified, θεωθὲν ὅλον .’ ↩
-
νομιζομένῃ , vid.Orat.i. 10. ↩
-
Acts v. 29 . ↩
-
John xii. 27 ; x. 18. ↩
-
This might be taken as an illustration of the ut voluitsupr. Or.i. 44, n. 11. And so the expressions in the Evangelists, ‘Into Thy hands IcommendMy Spirit,’ ‘Hebowed the head,’ ‘Hegave upthe ghost,’ are taken to imply that His death was His free act. vid. Ambros.in loc. Luc.Hieron.in loc. Matt.also Athan.Serm. Maj. de Fid.4. It is Catholic doctrine that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of His free will, and not as obeying an express command of the Father. Cf. S. Chrysostom on John x. 18 . Theophylact.in Hebr. xii. 2; Aug.de Trin.iv. 16. ↩
-
Ps. xvi. 10 . ↩