Skip to main content

Hilary of Poitiers: The Painlessness of Christ

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–367) is one of the greatest of the Western church fathers, but he is the least studied. His work, De Trinitate, in response to Arianism (and also Sabellianism), is a meticulously profound piece of theology, constructed with great passion and enthusiasm for the clear teaching of the Faith—the triunity of God. So, why then is he not as well-known nor well received as others? For one, he was a Westerner, so his Latin tongue did not find its way over the Eastern church walls. His work on the Trinity seemed more of a detailed and lengthy response to an epistle from an Arian, which soon deteriorated and was forgotten about. His writing style and form of argumentation is challenging to follow and use for instruction. Furthermore, Hilary’s work was soon overshadowed by a later, masterful work on the Trinity from none other than St. Augustine. Hilary, though an original thinker, was not a great systematician nor did he order his thoughts in a clear and organized manner.[1] And lastly, Hilary has gone down in infamy as the orthodox theologian who claimed that Jesus didn’t feel pain, though he suffered unto death. And because of such views, those to follow found it hard to look to Hilary as a bulwark of sound theology when he affirmed ideas that evacuated the faith of Christ, our redemption, and even Christ of himself.[2] Hilary’s dissenting views on the painlessness of Christ will be the focal point of this post. (The following material is an excerpt from my exposition on De Trinitate for a course I am teaching. If you are interested in reading the entire piece, click here.)

The Painlessness of Christ
For many, book X of De Trinitate is where Hilary’s brilliant theology find its end. It is here, some say, that Hilary loses his orthodoxy, thus loses Christ and the Faith. In book X Hilary takes up the notion of Christ’s suffering in the flesh. Hilary believes that while he suffered, he did not feel pain. Why does Hilary think that? Prior to his discussion on it, Hilary responds to heretical claims against Christ having an impassible nature because of the fear he demonstrated during his Passion week, thus ultimately submitting to suffering (De Trin. 10.9). He challenges their reading of these texts (Matt 26:38–39, 46; Luke 23:46), asking why would he, who drove away the fears of death in his apostles with the inheritance of glory to come, fear suffering and death? If death is life (i.e., Matt 10:38­–9), “what pain can we think He had to suffer in the mystery of death, Who rewards with life those who die for Him?” (De Trin. 10.10). And Hilary questions why would Christ, whose life and act of death that were by his own choosing, according to the plan of God, be stricken with fear, as the one who has the power to lay down his life and to take it up again? And so, he concludes, stating, “if Christ died of His own will, and through His own will gave back His Spirit, death had no terror, because it was in His own power” (De Trin. 10.11).

Interesting to say the least. Hilary continues his dialectical monologue, asking that if Christ did fear death, was it terrible to his Spirit or his body? It cannot be to his body because the Holy One will not see corruption as Scripture foretold (Ps. 15:10) nor can it be his Spirit, in that we see Lazarus rejoicing in Abraham’s bosom, and obviously Christ is supremely greater than them; therefore, the abyss of hell is not waiting for him, and so he has nothing to fear (De Trin. 10.12). In conclusion, Hilary rather pointedly states:

It is foolish and absurd, that He should fear death, Who could lay down His soul, and take it up again, Who, to fulfil the mystery of human life, was about to die of His own free will. He cannot fear death Whose power and purpose in dying is to die but for a moment: fear is incompatible with willingness to die, and the power to live again, for both of these rob death of his terrors. (De Trin. 10.12)

But Hilary questions the issue further, inquiring about the kind of body “the Man Jesus was, that pain should dwell in His crucified, bound, and pierced body.” The human body, writes Hilary, is endued with life and feeling, by conjunction of a sentient soul. Thus, it is the soul that feels various sensations (cold, heat, pleasure, hunger, paint, etc.). And through a “transfusion of the soul” with the body, when the body is pierced, for example, it is the soul that feels and suffers pain. The implication of this psycho-somatic pathology is that when a limb becomes diseased, it loses the feeling of living flesh, and it can be cut or burnt, and no pain is sensed “because the soul is no longer mingled with it” (De Trin. 10.14). And when a limb needs to be cut off, drugs can lull the soul to sleep, whereby the limb can be removed without pain. Hilary’s estimation of this phenomena leads him to conclude that “the body lives by admixture with a weak soul, that it is subject to the weakness of pain” (De Trin. 10.14).

In contrast to the nature of the human body, Jesus’ body, which is of true humanity after the likeness of our flesh, Hilary writes, “when it was struck with blows, smitten with wounds, or bound with ropes, or lifted on high, He felt the force of the suffering but without its pain” (De Trin. 10.23). Hilary identifies a key distinction between Christ’s body and our bodies: “His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults” (De Trin. 10.25). In Christ taking on flesh, his sinlessness, due to his divine nature, meant that the body he took “possessed a unique nature of its own” (De Trin. 10.23); it could suffer, but it could not feel pain. Hilary’s position stems from his understanding of the term “likeness.” For Hilary, likeness implies the truth of his birth, but it removes sin and human weakness from him. In his decision to take on flesh in the form of a servant, Hilary bifurcates the Incarnation, delineating the human and the divine side of Christ, stating that “Christ as man submitted to a human birth; yet as Christ He was free from the infirmity of our degenerate race” (De Trin. 10.25). For Hilary, it is imperative that he retain the fullness of each nature in the person of Christ, with the distinction noted above. The Word taking on flesh, because he is the Word and is not of human origin, does not “vacate the nature of His Source.” And while we must believe that the Word is flesh (which he made), in his dwelling among us, “the flesh was not the Word, but was the flesh of the Word dwelling in the flesh” (De Trin. 10.25). And because of the unique nature of his body, brought forth through “spiritual conception,” not a natural one, the Word had the power to expel the infirmities of the body (De Trin. 10.35).

Hilary is confident that he has proved his point. But, it is still baffling to hear his closing confession of book X, when he writes:

He was born for us, suffered for us, died for us, rose again for us. This alone is necessary for our salvation, to confess the Son of God risen from the dead: why then should we die in this state of godless unbelief? If Christ, ever secure of His divinity, made clear to us His death, Himself indifferent to death, yet dying to assure that it was true humanity that He had assumed: why should we use this very confession of the Son of God that for us He became Son of Man and died as the chief weapon to deny His divinity? (De Trin. 10.71, emphasis added).

In our study of Hilary (again, this is taken from my lecture notes), his theological prowess and apologetical resolve were quite remarkable. His engagement with his subject matter was intense, his rigorous attention to the details of an argument and ability to make tight, logical connections was astounding. So, it is perplexing to see how someone of his intellectual stature could arrive at the conclusion he did regarding Christ’s painlessness. One the one hand, there is a speculative logic that makes sense, but on the other, if Christ is to redeem man, then he had to take up man—all of that is proper to man (minus the sinfulness). And pain is a distinct aspect of the human condition that can drastically impact what we do. Fear of pain and actual pain in the flesh can cause us to cave in to our own sinful desires and turn away from the Lord. And if Jesus was to redeem man for his weakness, then he must also overcome pain of the body in order to be obedient to the Father. No human can look at the passion of Christ without first intuitively considering the pain he went through. And that is one of the glorious aspects of the resurrection—no more pain. And that is what we are promised in Revelation 21:4.

~ Romans 11:36

___________________________________
1. The following statements are a summary from the Introduction on Hilary in NPNF, 2nd Series.
2. Carl L. Beckwith, “Suffering without Pain: The Scandal of Hilary of Poitiers’ Christology,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J (Notre Dame: IN, 2008), 71.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

    John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus   One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’.   Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway...   I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop right i

“A New Heaven and New Earth” ~ A (Partial) Preterist Reading of Isaiah 65:17–25

When God says he will create a new heaven and a new earth, what will this new heaven and earth be like? Is it describing an obliteration of the material world, with a new material heaven and earth to follow? Early Church Father Jerome did not see a destruction of the elements; instead, he saw newness , a change into something better. Commenting on this passage, he writes, “The Apostle Paul said, ‘for the form of this world is perishing’ [1Co 7:31]. Notice that he said ‘form,’ not ‘substance.’”[1] Thomas Aquinas sees the new heavens and earth to be “the restoration of goods, for behold I create a new heavens , with new help from heaven, and a new earth , new benefits from the earth; this refers to the day of judgment, when the world will be renewed to the glory of the saints: the former things have passed away (Re 21:4).”[2] Closer to the immediate historical context, another understanding sees this as “a hyperbolic expression of the future restoration of the people of Judah after the