Exposition of the Nicene Creed 14–24

Hence the Fathers at Nicaea also, having set down “Lord Jesus Christ”, said that he is one only-begotten Son: not by the title, nor by the honour alone, but in the reality itself. Therefore they also called him consubstantial with the Father, and made flesh for us, and having suffered, the union being worked as a wonder, the nature not being confused. For if the Virgin was not altered and became a mother, and the birth took place without her virginity being altered, God working the birth for the Virgin as a wonder, why do you marvel if God, having so willed, accepted suffering while in an impassible nature, without laying aside his impassibility? For he who did not need to undo virginity in order to make a mother, when he wished to suffer did not need to change his own power. For he has a power that works wonders greater than the principles of nature. For this reason he both remained God and became man, and is called Jesus and Christ and Word. And he suffers, and remains impassible in nature; and he is crucified, and remains unconquered in substance; and he accepts death, and masters death: the one he works as a wonder, as being God; the other he endures, as having become man. Thus this one both dies and is not held by death; and he suffers, and undoes sufferings; the one working by the Godhead, the other enduring in his own flesh. He himself endures; he does not watch another enduring. For Peter too, discussing these things with the Jews about Jesus the Nazarene, said them in these very words: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene”; he names him from his earthly homeland, but afterwards signifies the Son of God. For the end of the speech shows one and the same being both earthly and heavenly; the same one coming both from the regions below and from the glory above: the one, being before the ages; the other, having become so later for us. “Men of Israel,” he says, “hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know, this man, delivered up by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you took and killed by the hands of lawless men, fastening him to the cross; whom God raised from the dead, loosing the pangs of death.” He shows one and the same being man and God, unconquered by death. For he died, he says, and “it was not possible for him to be held by death.” By “he died” he shows a man; by his not being able to be held by death he indicates God, showing one and the same being God and having become man.

For these reasons the Fathers at Nicaea also acted, so that we should not suppose Jesus to be some adopted son of God, and the Son by nature another. For so think those who have gone astray, setting the Son by nature apart from the one who was crucified, so that we may belong to that one and despise this one, and, worshipping a Son of God whom even Plato acknowledges, may set Christ aside. They name only the honoured nature of man Jesus, and keep this title down below, separating him from that one both in reality and in the properties of nature. The Fathers, overturning their way of thinking, say that this Jesus is “begotten from the Father,” and add, “that is, from his substance.” This is exactly what the great Peter did when he was asked by the Lord together with the other apostles. For when the Lord said to them, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” some answered, saying: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Then the Lord, showing that those who say such things honour the Son of Man but fall short of the truth, asks the apostles whether they had anything greater to think about him, and says: “But who do you say that I am?” But note that he says this while making his inquiry about the Son of Man. Answering this, Peter says: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He did not call him a man honoured by grace like many, but confessed that he is himself the only-begotten Son of God, who clearly had become man, recognizing this one as that one and nowhere dividing the realities. What, then, does the Lord do? Does he rebuke Peter for not distinguishing the natures, nor setting the Son of Man apart from the Godhead of the Word? Does he reprove him for not separating the natures of Godhead and manhood? Or rather, did he not call him blessed, saying: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”? For since he said about the one who was seen what he did not learn from the nature that was seen, he is called blessed, as one who had not learned what was said about the flesh from flesh and blood, but from the Father in heaven. For to recognize God the Word seen in the flesh truly belonged to the knowledge of the God and Father. For this reason the Fathers at Nicaea too called this Jesus, the Son of Man, about whom the Lord also questioned Peter, the Only-begotten, consubstantial with the Father, saying things in agreement with the great Peter about him and following in the footsteps of Peter's doctrines. For they confess this Jesus as the Son of the living God, begotten from the Father, that is, from his substance, consubstantial with the Father. For so that those who have gone astray might not think Jesus an adopted son, the Fathers added: “Begotten from the Father as only-begotten.” Then, defining the faith precisely, they say: “God from God” (clearly this Jesus), “light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both those in heaven and those on earth”; saying these things about the Son of Man, which Peter confessed briefly and was judged blessed.

[Chapter 16] But since they declared that Christ Jesus is himself the Son before the ages, see how they again show that the Only-begotten before the ages has become man; establishing the union of the saving economy by these exchanges of predicates, and showing one and the same to be both the only-begotten God and become man for men's sake. For since they said that the Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father, the same one, not another, they say, for us men and for our salvation came down, was made flesh and became man, suffered and rose on the third day. For since they said that the only-begotten God the Word came down, so that you may not think of a movement of God from place to place (for the Godhead fills all things and does not withdraw from its own creation), they explain “came down” by saying, that is, “was made flesh”; not merely dwelt in the flesh, they say, but was made flesh, indicating more exactly by this expression the union of God and man. For this is “came down,” they say: that the one without flesh was made flesh for the life of men, his nature not being changed. For let the doctrines again be made secure, shutting every door of insult against error. God did not become man by being changed in nature (far from it!), but by working the union as a wonder; not by becoming passible in nature, but by suffering through his exact fellowship with what is passible. For if the bare nature of God had received suffering, we would truly be convicted of making God passible; but if we believe that God willed to suffer for men, and that, since his nature did not admit suffering, he was for this reason united to what is passible, and by this union received the suffering, then we call God not passible but loving toward mankind; not weakened by the suffering, but able to do what is beyond nature. For this reason the Fathers, having said that he was made flesh, added “became man”, by these words, as I said, setting down the utmost union of Godhead and manhood. For this reason they safely added, speaking of God, “suffered”, so that we may not think the nature of God passible, but God as having suffered because he became one with what is passible exactly.

And do not marvel when you hear of words that overcome reason. He became greater than nature. For the nature of men comes from seed; but the Saviour works wonders beyond our nature. For he did not need seed, and he became man. Do you marvel at this, having believed it, and not search it out with reasonings? Then believe that also, as you have believed about the Virgin. For if the Virgin was not altered and became a mother, God too, without being altered, became man. As you accept these things with wonder and without prying, accept those also, praising the condescension of God and nowhere stirring up arguments from nature. Both these and those have been God's wonders. Learn both by one faith, and do not throw yourself into endless questions, lest by seeking such things you sink into the depth of the argument and, unable to bear it, suffer shipwreck in the very abyss of the question, … the simplicity of faith. For by slandering us he deceived the simpler, as though we said the Divine is passible, since we say that because of the unspeakable and unconfused union with what is passible the sufferings have become God's own; which we say came about by a wonder of God, not by an alteration of his substance. For if we said that what is passible had suffered, what happened would have been no wonder; for that the passible should suffer is according to the order of nature. But I speak to you of a wonder, so that you may only believe, as with the other things done by God beyond expectation, and no longer fall back on the principles of nature. For that is called passible, and is so known by all, which has a nature able to suffer, even if it does not undergo the suffering. For wood is combustible, even if it is never given to the fire; and the body is said to be cuttable, even if it is never given to the edge of the iron. For such names belong to things from their nature, not from what is done to them. How, then, do you say that God is passible, you who do not say that he has a nature able to suffer? For he worked the suffering as a wonder for himself, being united beyond expectation to what is passible, and did not receive it according to his nature.

Therefore the most holy Fathers at Nicaea, led by the Holy Spirit to agreement in the faith, say that God the Word himself, who is consubstantial with the Father and impassible in nature, as we all know, came down for us men and for our salvation, that is, was made flesh, so that you may know that the Word became flesh. And if you do not yet understand “was made flesh”, they say “became man”. Then they say that the same one was, naturally, passible when he had become man; for this is what it was to be man: to suffer human things. Not being able to grasp this by faith, but bringing the wonder down to an inquiry of reasonings, the one who went astray thought that God, who in an impassible nature made the sufferings of men his own, is passible. But what is passible is not what suffers in some way or other, but what has a nature able to suffer. So too a virgin is not a bearer of a man, for virginity, while it remains, does not admit of giving birth; and yet Mary, remaining a virgin, gave birth to God the Word become man. Is, then, every virgin a bearer of a man, because one virgin gave birth? Not at all. So neither is God passible, because once, by the economy, he accepted suffering in his own flesh. For this reason the Fathers gathered at Nicaea boldly said that God suffered, and did not teach that he is passible; for what has been worked as a wonder by economy and wisdom no sensible person ascribes to the order of nature.

After the Fathers spoke, about the Only-begotten who was begotten from the Father, of his being made flesh, becoming man, and suffering, they add that he rose on the third day; for this was the benefit of God's suffering; this the fruit of God's choosing death for men. For it is so that the immortal one may raise up mortal nature together with himself that he shares with us in human things. Wishing to show this clearly, the great apostle Paul said: “He raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He does not say “he raised”, but “he raised together”, so that you may recognize not the death and resurrection of a man alone, but also of him who raised him, who endured these things by his own wisdom and not by an alteration of nature. Hence we call him not mortal but loving toward mankind; for by death he abolished death, and by sufferings he healed what is passible. Otherwise let them tell us: “Who emptied himself to death, even death on a cross,” if not God, who shared this with men voluntarily, not compelled by nature? “For let this mind be in you,” he says, “which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” What do you say, wonderful Paul? He who was “in the form of God”, and is therefore known to be equal to God, “emptied himself”? And what is the manner of the emptying? Tell us. Taking the form of a slave, he says. And yet if he merely took on in addition the form of a slave, did he empty himself? But consider, he says, the way in which he took up the form of the slave, and you will know that he first emptied himself. For if God had taken up a man without coming down to man, he would only have taken the form of a slave, and would not have emptied himself. But since he himself, he says, became man (“for being found as a man,” Paul says, “he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross”), he rightly said, “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.”

Otherwise, how did he who was in the form of God, and did not count equality with God a thing to be seized, empty himself? Let those who deny the grace of the economy in Christ tell us. But they cannot say how God emptied himself, since they say that Christ is an honoured man, and do not wish the Word to have become flesh. Hence the one who has dared to preach this error openly steals from the apostolic teaching this very phrase, “he emptied himself”, fearing the words as able to show God's fellowship with human things, which he himself has utterly denied, saying that Christ is not God become man but a man deified by grace. For writing in reply to the exhortation of the great Cyril and contradicting it, and mentioning this expression of the Apostle in his letter to that great man, he sets out the saying with such art that those who do not know the turn of the passage are swept away into error. So that what I say may be clear, I will set beside it the very words of the deceived man's letter, in which he speaks thus in these very words: “The Apostle,” he says, “being about to introduce what concerns the suffering, first sets down ‘Christ’, the name common to the two natures, as I said a little before, and then brings in a statement suited to both natures.” For what does he say? “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be seized.” And keeping silent about what follows, as hostile to him, he goes on: “But, not to speak of each point, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” And yet the words the Apostle spoke in between were not many. For the middle has only this: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave”; yet he passes over it as though it were long. For the man is clever at overshadowing the truth by stealing words. For just as above, having removed from the Fathers' exposition the words “and in one Lord” in the article of belief, he gave himself licence to call the name “Christ” common to several natures, so here he removes “he emptied himself” from the passage, as being enough to teach that God came down into fellowship with human affairs.

But the deceiver did not remain unrefuted, even though he removed the more crucial parts of the passage. For since he was ashamed to steal much of the passage, fearing even to be caught in theft, he set down, unwillingly but still, what Paul said next about the Only-begotten, and was clearly convicted of setting aside the more crucial part of the economy: the fellowship of God the Word with human things. For by saying of him what Paul said, “Becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross,” he is clearly convicted of falsifying the faith and wrongly assigning the sufferings to a man alone. For if he who was in the form of God and was equal to God became obedient to death, even death on a cross, it is plain that he himself was the one who suffered, not in the nature of the Godhead, but in his own flesh, which he united to himself exactly. But the deceived man, coming to grips with all the limits of nature, stealing some things and playing the sophist with others by false reasoning, opens a door of defence for the Jews, wishing to show their guilt over the cross as small, as though they had crucified only a man and had dared nothing against God. But the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea say that the only-begotten Son of God himself, begotten from the Father and not made, that is, from the substance of the Father, consubstantial with the Father, was made flesh, became man, and suffered; keeping silent for the moment, for brevity, about the manner of the impassible one's suffering. For they do not introduce a passible nature of Godhead, but teach the utmost union of God the Word with what is passible, which they also declare to be the cause of the divine suffering. And teaching the benefit of the death, they show Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father, made flesh for us and for our salvation, having suffered, risen on the third day, gone up into the heavens, coming to judge the living and the dead. For so that we may have a judge who is our kinsman, God without change becomes man, so that we, who have no confidence from our own achievements, may take courage from our kinship with the judge. For since he is fearsome as God, he also becomes desirable to us as man, so that we may both fear and long for the same one, his authority producing the fear and his kinship granting the longing. So he who shared human things with me comes to judge the living and the dead, so that he may be a just judge, judging those whose sufferings he first shared himself, and may be a judge who pardons, according to the great Apostle, “having learned obedience from what he suffered.” For [even if] the Only-begotten, being God, knows all things, yet he took on experience of things which the nature of the Godhead neither was nor became capable of. For having united to himself the nature taken from Mary, in it he receives experience of things of which the nature of the Godhead had no experience.

He who slanders the Virgin's giving birth to God seems ignorant of the mystery of God's wisdom. For this birth was not the beginning of the Godhead, but the prelude to the Word's becoming flesh. For since he chose to become man, though he was God before the ages, and birth is the beginning of manhood, he accepts the beginning of the economy, laying this down as the foundation for what followed. Being always, he begins to be man: the one, as being God; the other, as having chosen to become man also. The Fathers at Nicaea also showed this clearly in writing, when they said about the Only-begotten: “But those who say, ‘There was once when he was not,’ and ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came into being from things that are not, or who claim that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or changeable, or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.” For so that you may not think the birth the beginning of the Only-begotten's Godhead, they anathematize those who say, “There was once when he was not”; and they banish from the Christian hope those who say “that before he was begotten he was not”, making strangers to our salvation those also who say of Christ that “he came into being from things that are not”. And yet if he were only a man, as those who have gone astray hold, honoured with divine dignity, he would have come into being from things that are not, according to that blasphemous tongue. But since he who was before the ages became man, it cast out from salvation and from the Christian hope those who say that Christ came into being from things that are not.

So much for that. But so that we may not think the Only-begotten became man by a change of the Godhead, they anathematize also those who say that the Son of God is changeable or alterable. For it was not a change of the divine nature that showed the Only-begotten as man, but an economy, and an unspeakable wonder of divine wisdom. For this is what we call the paradox: that God became man while remaining God. Wishing to make this wonder a common thing, those who have gone astray search out with reasonings things beyond understanding; and, striving to destroy the paradox by arguments, they have turned aside to an inquiry of vain reasonings. For it is truly vain and rash to search out with arguments things worked as wonders beyond reason. For if they were to grope at all God's wonders with reasonings, they would leave nothing of the wonders; nor would the natural philosophers allow any sign or portent to come from God, doing violence to all portents. For to search out the reasons of all things is to destroy wonders, and to provoke God, when he is called to account by us in his works of wonder. For this reason God condemned Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, to silence, because when grace was working a wonder, Zechariah pried into the manner of it, not believing it as a wonder but seeking reasons for God's working. And when Gabriel said, “Your wife Elizabeth” (she was barren) “will bear you a son,” he sought a proof of what was said, saying, “How shall I know that this will be so for me?” But since … [he was condemned] to silence, receiving the punishment as the proof of what he sought. And the priest's tongue, which had served unbelief, is punished, so that the silence of Zechariah may teach us all to receive God's paradoxes in silence, and may persuade all to believe God when he works wonders, and not to demand a reason for things made new beyond all reason.

These things, then, the Fathers gathered at Nicaea knew about the Only-begotten, and taught the churches to believe. About the Holy Spirit, since there was no inquiry at that time, they were content to indicate his divine dignity in a few words, saying that we believe, with the Father and the Son, also in the Holy Spirit. For by saying that we believe also in the Holy Spirit, as we believe in the Father and the Son, they indicated the equal dignity of those believed in. For a faith of equal honour shows the Godhead of those believed in to be of equal honour. For no one would suppose that they teach us to believe at once in a slave and a Master, or in the Creator and a creature, or in a greater God and a lesser; for where there is no fellowship of nature, one faith would not be fitting for them on the part of men. But let this be said now in passing about the Holy Spirit, since we have discussed his divine lordship more fully in three other books; reading them, you will be taught from the divine Scripture that the Holy Spirit is glorified together with the Father and the Son. And now, dear friend, we dedicate to you these gifts of our words, unable to speak worthily of what you commanded, but having set out a sufficient refutation of those now deceived, not from ourselves and from our own resources, but both from the divine Scripture and from the exposition of faith of the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea.