Gregory of Nazianzus
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (John 1:14a).
The New Testament writings exist, in large part, to explain the Christ-event. But while the New Testament offered the post-Apostolic church (c. 100-600 A.D.) much explanation and clarification regarding the coming of Messiah, some questions remained unasked and unanswered.
We have already seen that during the trinitarian debates of the 4th century the central question was "How can God be both one (i.e. the covenant LORD) and more than one (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?" Many answers were offered. Perhaps the Son and the Father are just modes of the one God (i.e. modalism)? But if that is true, in what sense are they distinct? Perhaps the Son is divine in every way except eternality. Perhaps “there was when he was not” (i.e. Arianism, Adoptionsim). But if eternality is an essential aspect of divinity, how could a finite Son be thought of as truly divine? And if he is not truly divine, how can we have any hope of salvation? Jesus must be truly divine in every way that the Father is divine in order to be our creator, redeemer, and the rightful object of our worship (e.g. Athanasius). Furthermore mustn’t the Spirit, who applies such a great salvation, be truly divine (e.g. Basil of Caesarea)? The orthodox Christian doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Son and the Spirit was recognized and formally defended in creeds at the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.
But another question arose concerning the person of Christ: If the Son is divine, how can he also be human? Or in other words, how can divinity be united with humanity? Four false answers were (or with respect to Docetism, had already been) proposed: (1) Docetism, (2) Apollinarianism, (3) Nestorianism, and (4) Eutychianism (Monophysitism). In the end, the church officially recognized and defended the orthodox view of the incarnation in an ecumenical creed called the Definition of Chalcedon.
Docetism
Docetism (from the Greek dokeo, “to seem, appear”) was one of the earliest Christological heresies (late 1st and 2nd centuries). We read the Apostle John dealing with what appears (pun intended) to be a proto-docetic sect in 1 and 2 John:
Docetism is the logical conclusion of applying a Gnostic worldview to the person of Christ. In Gnosticism, reality has two fundamental aspects (i.e. dualism): spiritual and material. The spiritual is good; the material is bad. God is spiritual. Therefore, the divine Christ could not have had a physical body. He only "seemed or appeared" (dokeo) to have a physical body.
On the natures of Christ:
(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Denied the humanity.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not.
Apollinarianism
Apollinarius (c. 310-c. 390) bishop of Laodicea offered an answer. He affirmed both the divine and human natures of Christ but reduced the human so that what was left was something less than human. An easy way to remember Apollinarianism is the phrase "God in a bod." He affirmed that Christ was materially human. He had a human body. He also affirmed that Christ was partially immaterially human. He had a human spirit. But he divided immaterial humanity into two parts, spirit and soul (mind), and denied that Christ had a human soul (mind). The soul (mind) of Christ was the divine aspect of Christ.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-384) wrote of Apollinarius’ view:
Gregory argued that Apollinarius’ view does not account for John 1:14, which says the Son “became man” not the Son became mind, or Philippians 2:5, which calls Christians to have the attitude and mind of Christ. Also, if Christ was not human, how could he redeem humanity?
On the natures of Christ:
(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Reduced the humanity to something less than human.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not.
Creed of Constantinople (381)
An ecumenical council met at Constantinople in 381 and reissued the Nicene Creed with a fuller statement on the humanity of Christ as well as a fuller statement on the Holy Spirit. This creed is often referred to as the Nicene Creed or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Notice the reference in bold below to Christ’s incarnation, being born of the Virgin Mary, and being therefore “made man.”
Nestorianism
After the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed clearly affirmed the humanity of Christ, another question arose. How do we explain the relationship between the two natures of Christ? In other words, we have affirmed the absolute necessity of confessing two natures, but how are the two one?
While there is some debate over provenance, an explanation identified with Nestorius (b. after 351; d. after 451) bishop of Constantinople was offered. Nestorianism taught that he Virgin Mary was Christ-bearer (Christotokos) but not God-bearer (theotokos). Mary bore the human nature but not the divine nature of Christ. Christ has two natures separated from one another in every way except their moral function (i.e. their sinlessness). Sometimes Christ might act from his human nature and other times from his divine nature and always without sin. But he never acted as both divine and human simultaneously. At the transfiguration, Jesus acted out of his divine nature only. On the cross, he suffered in his human nature only. An ecumenical council met and condemned Nestorianism at Ephesus in 431.
On the natures of Christ:
(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Affirmed the humanity.
On the person of Christ:
Contrasted and separated the the natures into what was effectively two persons.
Problem:
If only the man of the God-man suffered in our place, then the debt we owed could not have been paid. Only God can repay God for a personal offense.
Eutychianism (Monophysitism)
Eutyches (c. 378-c. 454), a teacher in Constantinople, also offered an answer to the question of how Christ can be both divine and human. Strongly emphasizing the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, Eutyches taught that the two natures of Christ melted together, so to speak, into another nature that was neither divine nor human. Before the council that condemned him, he confessed: “Our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union one nature.”
On the natures of Christ:
(1) Reduced the deity.
(2) Reduced the humanity.
On the person of Christ:
Affirmed the unity of the person.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not. Also, if Jesus is not fully God then he cannot save humanity. Only God can repay God for a personal offense.
Definition of Chalcedon (451)
In 451 A.D. and ecumenical council was called at Chalcedon to recognize and defend the orthodox Christian doctrine of the person of Christ, particularly the doctrine of the incarnation. What follows is the orthodox answer to the question “How can divinity be united with humanity?”
Summary and Conclusion
Here is a summary chart (click on the image for a larger/clearer view):
Here we see:
[Also, for an interesting discussion on this subject, see the comments under this post.]
[All charts except the summary chart from Charts of Ancient and Medieval Church History, John D. Hannah]
We have already seen that during the trinitarian debates of the 4th century the central question was "How can God be both one (i.e. the covenant LORD) and more than one (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?" Many answers were offered. Perhaps the Son and the Father are just modes of the one God (i.e. modalism)? But if that is true, in what sense are they distinct? Perhaps the Son is divine in every way except eternality. Perhaps “there was when he was not” (i.e. Arianism, Adoptionsim). But if eternality is an essential aspect of divinity, how could a finite Son be thought of as truly divine? And if he is not truly divine, how can we have any hope of salvation? Jesus must be truly divine in every way that the Father is divine in order to be our creator, redeemer, and the rightful object of our worship (e.g. Athanasius). Furthermore mustn’t the Spirit, who applies such a great salvation, be truly divine (e.g. Basil of Caesarea)? The orthodox Christian doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Son and the Spirit was recognized and formally defended in creeds at the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.
But another question arose concerning the person of Christ: If the Son is divine, how can he also be human? Or in other words, how can divinity be united with humanity? Four false answers were (or with respect to Docetism, had already been) proposed: (1) Docetism, (2) Apollinarianism, (3) Nestorianism, and (4) Eutychianism (Monophysitism). In the end, the church officially recognized and defended the orthodox view of the incarnation in an ecumenical creed called the Definition of Chalcedon.
Docetism
Docetism (from the Greek dokeo, “to seem, appear”) was one of the earliest Christological heresies (late 1st and 2nd centuries). We read the Apostle John dealing with what appears (pun intended) to be a proto-docetic sect in 1 and 2 John:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life (1 John 1:1).
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already (1 John 4:1-3).
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist (2 John 7).
Docetism is the logical conclusion of applying a Gnostic worldview to the person of Christ. In Gnosticism, reality has two fundamental aspects (i.e. dualism): spiritual and material. The spiritual is good; the material is bad. God is spiritual. Therefore, the divine Christ could not have had a physical body. He only "seemed or appeared" (dokeo) to have a physical body.
On the natures of Christ:
(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Denied the humanity.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not.
Apollinarianism
Apollinarius (c. 310-c. 390) bishop of Laodicea offered an answer. He affirmed both the divine and human natures of Christ but reduced the human so that what was left was something less than human. An easy way to remember Apollinarianism is the phrase "God in a bod." He affirmed that Christ was materially human. He had a human body. He also affirmed that Christ was partially immaterially human. He had a human spirit. But he divided immaterial humanity into two parts, spirit and soul (mind), and denied that Christ had a human soul (mind). The soul (mind) of Christ was the divine aspect of Christ.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-384) wrote of Apollinarius’ view:
He assumes that man who came down from above is without a mind, but that the Godhead of the Only-begotten fulfills the function of mind, and is the third part of his human composite, inasmuch as soul and body are in it on its human side, but not mind, the place of which is taken by God the Word” (Letter to Nectarius 438).
Gregory argued that Apollinarius’ view does not account for John 1:14, which says the Son “became man” not the Son became mind, or Philippians 2:5, which calls Christians to have the attitude and mind of Christ. Also, if Christ was not human, how could he redeem humanity?
On the natures of Christ:(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Reduced the humanity to something less than human.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not.
Creed of Constantinople (381)
An ecumenical council met at Constantinople in 381 and reissued the Nicene Creed with a fuller statement on the humanity of Christ as well as a fuller statement on the Holy Spirit. This creed is often referred to as the Nicene Creed or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Notice the reference in bold below to Christ’s incarnation, being born of the Virgin Mary, and being therefore “made man.”
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Nestorianism
After the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed clearly affirmed the humanity of Christ, another question arose. How do we explain the relationship between the two natures of Christ? In other words, we have affirmed the absolute necessity of confessing two natures, but how are the two one?
While there is some debate over provenance, an explanation identified with Nestorius (b. after 351; d. after 451) bishop of Constantinople was offered. Nestorianism taught that he Virgin Mary was Christ-bearer (Christotokos) but not God-bearer (theotokos). Mary bore the human nature but not the divine nature of Christ. Christ has two natures separated from one another in every way except their moral function (i.e. their sinlessness). Sometimes Christ might act from his human nature and other times from his divine nature and always without sin. But he never acted as both divine and human simultaneously. At the transfiguration, Jesus acted out of his divine nature only. On the cross, he suffered in his human nature only. An ecumenical council met and condemned Nestorianism at Ephesus in 431.
On the natures of Christ:(1) Affirmed the deity.
(2) Affirmed the humanity.
On the person of Christ:
Contrasted and separated the the natures into what was effectively two persons.
Problem:
If only the man of the God-man suffered in our place, then the debt we owed could not have been paid. Only God can repay God for a personal offense.
Eutychianism (Monophysitism)
Eutyches (c. 378-c. 454), a teacher in Constantinople, also offered an answer to the question of how Christ can be both divine and human. Strongly emphasizing the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, Eutyches taught that the two natures of Christ melted together, so to speak, into another nature that was neither divine nor human. Before the council that condemned him, he confessed: “Our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union one nature.”
On the natures of Christ:(1) Reduced the deity.
(2) Reduced the humanity.
On the person of Christ:
Affirmed the unity of the person.
Problem:
If Jesus is not human then he cannot save humanity. Jesus cannot substitute for that which he is not. Also, if Jesus is not fully God then he cannot save humanity. Only God can repay God for a personal offense.
Definition of Chalcedon (451)
In 451 A.D. and ecumenical council was called at Chalcedon to recognize and defend the orthodox Christian doctrine of the person of Christ, particularly the doctrine of the incarnation. What follows is the orthodox answer to the question “How can divinity be united with humanity?”
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} [contra Apollinarianism] and a body [contra Docetism]. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer (theotokos) [contra Nestorianism] in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ--Son, Lord, only-begotten--in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other [contra Eutychianism], without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function [contra Nestorianism]. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the properties of each nature are conserved [contra Eutychianism] and both natures concur in one person and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons [contra Nestorianism], but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us.
Summary and Conclusion
Here is a summary chart (click on the image for a larger/clearer view):
Here we see:
- Orthodox Christianity- affirming one person with two natures
- Eutychianism- affirming the one person but denying the two natures
- Docetism and Apollinarianism- affirming the one person and divinity but denying the humanity
- Nestorianism- affirming the two natures but denying the one person
- Adoptionism/Arianism (which we didn't discuss since it more properly belongs in the trinitarian debates discussed in class 2)- affirming the one person and humanity but denying the divinity
[Also, for an interesting discussion on this subject, see the comments under this post.]
[All charts except the summary chart from Charts of Ancient and Medieval Church History, John D. Hannah]
0 comments:
Post a Comment