To Theopompus on the Impassibility and Passibility of God 15–30

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

Whenever a sword passes through a flame of fire, it does not produce a separation by dividing the fire, although body passes through body. If, then, the division of bodies subject to corruption takes place imperceptibly, because the being of the fire remains wholly the same and does not admit a division at all, because of its unbroken coherence, despite the division by the iron (for the thinness of fire does not of itself admit an interruption, even when it is divided by the iron, because its vehemence surrounds it on all sides and, despite the passage of the iron that cuts it, it holds together on all sides and is not divided at all); if, therefore, the division of fire, which is a tangible body, can neither be searched out nor [more closely] shown, must we not say that he who is perfect and far from perishing, exalted above passible bodies and above beings and natures and higher than all concepts, remained always the same as he is even in his sufferings, his impassible nature not being seized by the sufferings in any respect in its mixing with the sufferings, but, because it can neither be touched by the sufferings nor subdued by them, despising the sufferings by its impassibility, since [precisely] when he takes on himself the test with iron he shows his power in every way, as one who cannot be harmed by it? For the purity of the Godhead (that is, its being unmixed with substances of another kind) and its foreknowledge and the incomprehensibility of the thin divine substance not only remains without division because of the smallness of the bodies that approach to pierce it, since he (God) is exalted and higher than all bodies, but we also assert that those bodies suffer division which would try to divide the Godhead, which [for its part] undergoes no division because of the fineness of its nature and the purity of its knowledge; and indeed it passes through all bodies and in a sense brings about a division in them, because it is easy for God to divide all bodies. Since this happens in this way, it is fitting for us to say that the Godhead makes known its impassibility through its sufferings and, even when it enters into sufferings, reveals its mighty wisdom in every respect.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

And do not suppose, my dear Theopompus, that the power of the perfect one cannot pass through all bodies that cause sufferings; just as we see that the light of the sun's rays also passes through clear glass, and that in general bodies are not prevented by other bodies unlike them from passing through them in a fine manner. If, then, one kind of matter does not prevent the power of another matter from passing through it by its fineness, must we not grant that the being of God, which is more exalted and stronger than all things, can by its fineness pass without hindrance through other bodies that meet it, and that the Godhead is in no way subject to the sufferings, because the perfect and incorruptible nature is found at all times remaining in the same condition, by its likeness to the appearance of the sun's rays of which we spoke? For the light remains in itself as it is, being diminished in nothing, even when it gives of its brightness to those in need. How much more is the perfect God, that is, God exalted above all, rich in his grace, in that he distributes of his gifts to those in need while remaining the same and losing nothing thereby; unlike what some say in their foolish tales, who call God's coming to the children of men, which can be neither searched out nor explained, a suffering of impossibility, and do not first consider that God cannot be searched out at all and is not prevented by his nature or by anything else from doing what he wills.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For we call him alone [truly] exalted and free who is not oppressed by the law of his nature, and who does not suffer compulsion because of resistance to his power, and is not forced by the might of riches to put off the dignity of his Godhead, and is not terrified before death. But if he were afraid of fire and alarmed at iron and anxious before the underworld and unwilling to venture among strong beasts, how could one call him God who so feared the sufferings that are harmful to men? But if God, the perfect and incorruptible, comes to the fire without fearing the fire, because he is at all times the same, he also despises the devouring fire, which is not always the same; for how could we say of fire, which slackens in its working, that it is always the same? But God, who despises iron and also mocks fire and does not fear death, is not he alone impassible, he who remains as he is even in his suffering, although he willingly takes human sufferings on himself, and does not suffer the pains that arise from human sufferings?

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For he who is harmed by no suffering is God, and it is proper to him that he remains at all times as he is. But whoever is harmed by sufferings, afflicted by pains, and prevented by the power of necessity from doing good works ceases [to be God], even if he is called God. But he who is not subject to death and makes known his impassibility in his suffering comes and accomplishes what it is fitting for the helping God to do; and he changes for my sake into my (human) form while remaining in his unchangeableness, and he is all things while being outside all things. For that is an impassible will which is not prevented by the fetters of the power of necessity from coming to men who long for a godly way of life.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

But if he regarded only the dignity of his Godhead, and because of the loftiness of his blessedness chose rest for himself and delighted only in the happiness of his own person, while showing disregard for all things, because above all he preferred an idle rule, must we not say that the race of mortals is far more exalted than this perfect one, namely those who did not spare their lives for their native city and out of love for their friends, and were exalted above sufferings by their will, and to whom, because of their extraordinary courage, their sufferings did not seem sufferings? In ancient times one named Theos (Codrus) chose death so that they would not become slaves of the Lacedaemonians; and Epaminondas too was killed so that the Athenians would not be subjected. Leucippus let himself be killed so that the Aetolians would not be carried off as captives. Theodorus cut off his tongue so as not to become a betrayer of his friends. Pison was crucified so as not to give up the freedom of speech that was his own. Anaxarchus was sawn apart so as not to have to flatter Nicocles with lies. Diagoras was driven out by the Athenians, Socrates was put to death, and Philoxenus had to hollow out stones. Callimachus and Cynaegirus we must not only praise but also admire; for when he was wounded all over his body by a multitude of spears and, as they say, was already dead, he was still a terror to his enemies and a helper and a wall for his countrymen. Chiron too gladly and unsparingly gave up his head to his enemies. And must one not admire Eumenes, who made light of the pain of his wound, came in a swift run to his city and announced the victory his people had won over their enemies, and as soon as he had come into the city and had announced to all at once, as well as he could, “Rejoice, for we have conquered,” at once fell down dead? Further, Eurotas, when he was confined to bed by illness and heard concerning the war that the Lacedaemonians were just then gaining the advantage in the war against his fellow citizens, driven by love for his countrymen ordered his servants nothing else than to carry him into the battle, so that he might be killed with his fellow citizens. Aristodemus, on the other hand, who withdrew from the war and fled to Sparta, appeared contemptible and shameful to all. Look, therefore, my good friend, at mortal men who showed such contempt of death for their native city and for their friends, and displayed excellence and wisdom and enthusiasm, and, because they felt themselves one with their friends, did not spare their wives and held their lives cheap and gave up their lives gladly and without hesitation for their native city; who, by virtue of their unrestricted freedom and in striving after perfection, gladly let themselves not only be sawn apart by tyrants but were not even ashamed to be fastened with nails to the wood, and gladly bought with their death the right to speak their thoughts freely. But God, who has no need of praise and is far exalted above sufferings, came willingly to death, without fear or terror touching him in the least.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

But if [in our opinion] God takes a disgrace upon himself by his suffering, given the glory proper to him, then by wishing to ascribe honor to him we prevent him from showing his help to men. For what dishonor could God suffer, since by virtue of his immortality he despises death through his death in his death? But God also does not know the suffering of shame, so that he is not ashamed to suffer, because pride is wholly foreign to him. What weakness, or shame, or disgrace could befall God in going into death in order to separate death from men? For he who strives after vain glory and is afraid of losing it will never be willing to endure a suffering from death. For far from there being fear in God, as though his glory could be taken from him and he could lose it altogether, suffering by iron and fire is rather more welcome to him than the expectation of vain glory. For if the suffering of vainglory were present in God, it would be a suffering that could not be healed even by him.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

But if God does not strive after glory, because he is exalted above all sufferings, he can go into death, he who is the life and exalted above death, inasmuch as he does not have to bear sufferings from death, and redeems mortals from death, by virtue of his being God, who remains at all times in his impassibility, even when he is in sufferings. For he who, being impassible, takes suffering on himself and at the same time keeps it far from himself, why should he not hasten with joy to go into death in order to destroy death?

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For the life of those who fear to suffer death through death is no life; but if life is not subject to death, he (that is, God, who alone is not subject to death) challenges death, in order to make known through his death that he is the life. For see, we see with light also that when it mixes with darkness, its rays do not mix [with it] in the least and [so] become dark, although they are in the darkness. For through the mixing of darkness with light it does not darken the light, but on the contrary the light illuminates the darkness by the brightness that goes out from it, and it (the darkness) is swallowed up as something weaker than the greater, more excellent and stronger; but where the light does not pass through, the darkness remains in its darkness. In just the same way with God: when he willingly went into death, he was not so perverse as [only] to show his omnipotence by its (the omnipotence's) being seized by the resistance of the power of death; rather he emptied himself of the lordship over all that was his own, although his divine nature remained without corruption even in death and by the strength of its impassibility subdued the sufferings, after the manner of light when it unites with darkness.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For sufferings must then in truth be regarded as strong when they unite with beings opposed to them and yet those beings remain in the form proper to them; and [the union] must not be merely a mixing (of the sufferings with the sufferers) thought of in fancy and imagination, but they must in truth bear the stamp of their union (with the sufferers), even if these (that is, those struck by the sufferings) are beings opposed to them (that is, to the sufferings), which by the strength of their nature remain without pain and without suffering in their mixing with other beings: as the salamander, which can mock the flame, and as the diamond, when struck by the iron, as said above, remains impassible not merely in fancy and appearance. And talc too, when it bears fire upon itself, remains unharmed, being in no way damaged by its union with fire. If, then, we see useful material beings not changing their nature through their union with other, harm-bringing natures, remaining unharmed and unchanged, since they in no way give up their being, why do we hesitate, and why is it so hard for us to confess that the unchangeable being of God is also in the state of impassibility, even when it is in circumstances that bring about suffering? [24] Do not suppose either, dear Theopompus, what some craftily maintain only in order to persuade, that he is blessed and unchangeable who has no activity and gives to no one else; for he who is like that is also in weakness. For what word teaches that he who does not reveal his glory, and does not make men understanding, and does not instruct others in wisdom, and does not intend noble things, and does not direct the healing of souls, and is not able to accomplish good, that we must call him blessed and doing good? For what kind of blessed and unchangeable God would that be, who did not wish to root out the source of the rise of evil thoughts and, by the abundance of the goodness proper to him, to blot out the deadly impulses from souls as by a burning? Rather, he is unchangeable and perfect who kills the sufferings and makes men wise and plants divine wisdom [in them] and reveals his glory. But that, we assert, would be a great suffering for God, if he did not care for men and did not wish good works done and neglected the care of men. But he who roots out the destructive sufferings from the root of the stock of human disposition and who sees to it that the despised are changed and become virtuous men, must not he be called impassible, he who roots the sufferings out of men and [so] kills the sufferings? Consider, therefore, Theopompus, in your heart as before a tried tribunal, like one well versed in the paths of wisdom, and look and see with unprejudiced thoughts and an open mind, whether it is fitting to think that it is a suffering for the incorruptible and perfect one when he shows himself helpful and merciful and generous with his gifts of grace, or if he were hard-hearted and unmerciful and without all grace and mercy. But on the contrary, in our view, the impassible God is rather the one who performs noble deeds and makes the foolish wise. For there is no law by which we would have to call him perfect and incorruptible who does not care for men at all.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For if we recognize the wise and understanding man by the works he carries out by his skill, and [if] he is not called an artist and one skilled in art until he has shown that he can form shapes from poor and misshapen materials and by his skill bring a work into being (for the perceptible form of the works of art, when it appears, makes manifest the silent thought of the artist), how much more clearly, then, must we call the perfect one perfect when the perfect nature which he has and which is always his comes to light as perfect, inasmuch as we see the deeds from which we can learn most of all about him.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

But those who are of the opinion and view about the perfect one that he is occupied only in his dwellings and turns to himself and contemplates himself, despising all things alike and holding rest more desirable than care for all and taking his delight in it (rest), and who ascribe sufferings to him if he is zealously concerned for men, I do not know how to say how it can be fitting for them to call the perfect and unchangeable one perfect, if he cannot examine the nature of men. But if this is so, give up your opinion that this is God's true nature, since you have not yet known God at all, having asserted that he is always and from eternity at rest in his essence. For how can he be perfect and incorruptible who cannot be known by you, Theopompus, or how can he be wise and generous with his goods if he does not come to examine you? I, on the other hand, say this: that he is full of grace and bestows grace who shows himself a helper of men and a savior of those who are without hope.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For just as we cannot perceive with our reason the wickedness of evil men unless we first see their evil deeds (for we cannot see exactly the full extent of their actual doings while they are still hidden in each one's thoughts, until they have come to light), so too we call the perfect and incorruptible one perfect only when he carries out the deeds befitting his blessedness, the good works he reveals being clearly visible; for the sight of the visible bears witness to the invisible. For a wise and merciful man is not recognized in the character of his disposition until he gladly presents the performance of deeds corresponding to his virtue.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

For how can we set forth to men the nobility of the perfect one's disposition, if not even a possibility of comprehending the perfect one gives us anything to say? For as to him who does not exhort us by his good deeds and does not draw us to himself by his call, how can we ascribe perfection to him, if the evidence of his blessedness and his overflowing goodness is wholly hidden from us in every respect? But if you hold this opinion about God, that is your affair and not that of the perfect God who is generous with his gifts, from the knowledge of whom you are far removed, because he has not revealed to you his incorruptible nature exalted above all, being occupied, as he is, with an enjoyment exalted above wealth, which also befits God, as you maintained in your opinion that this is truly fitting for God: that he occupies himself with himself and delights in himself, and that he has no occupation and gives occupation to no one else. For everyone who is like that is weak.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

Tell us, therefore, wise one, what suffering or what weakness has befallen God, the perfect or unchangeable, because of the help that men can lay hold of, and more particularly for the sake of those who for lack of knowledge are without his goods, and are drawn to the underworld by the power of the dominion of the sufferings, and, as far as lies in them, cannot attain perfection. But if it is fitting to speak out boldly, yet truly: he is not perfect and incorruptible who does not call those who have, as it were, fallen from the ship and are sinking because they have not known his goodness, and does not seek to draw them to himself; namely, those who are drawn by the world as in a great sea, so that they cannot know virtue and [so] become estranged from God. What kind of perfect God is that, then, generous with his gifts and exalted by the riches of his grace, to whom belong neither activity nor providence nor abundance of blessing nor any deeds that correspond to virtue and form the resources of the God rich in resources?

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

If, therefore, you are moved by a lively fancy and wish to construct and fashion a God who loves himself and delights in his wealth and is happy in his glory and will not be moved to help another, while men are wholly despised and rejected and far from the help of the perfect one, oh, what lovelessness [of God], when many perish through ignorance of virtue! On the contrary: even if God were such a perfect and gracious one, he would at once give up [such a life] and go to the wise men and learn from them the practice of exalted philosophy, since they call with great zeal and bring near those who have fallen and let themselves be led astray by this natural world. But if the philosophers had kept silent despite the ruin of so many, Critias too would have perished through his love of power, because he kept silent, and Alcibiades would have perished through his extravagance with gifts, in spite of his speaking. And the Persians and Medes in Susa would have had greater advantages if they had not armed themselves to march against the Macedonians. Why, then, were you silent, blessed one (that is, God), when all these [many] perished, because the wise preferred rest instead of helping? This is the nature of virtue, perfect one; this is the fruit of philosophy: that those must be called blessed and beneficent whose zeal was not only for care of themselves but also for their neighbors, and especially for those seized by a sickness of soul. And Diogenes the Cynic too, when he was asked mockingly by an Attic youth why, if he praised the Lacedaemonians and thought little of the Athenians, he did not take up residence in Sparta, gave him this answer: “Physicians too usually go to the sick and not to the healthy.”