Christ divine and human natures remain distinct
 |
| Christ icon in Taizé (Photo credit: lgambett) |
Against the view of Apollinaris that Christ did not have a human mind or soul, we have the statement that he was “truly man of a reasonable soul and body … consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us.” (The word consubstantial means “having the same nature or substance.”)
In opposition to the view of Nestorianism that Christ was two persons united in one body, we have the words “indivisibly, inseparably … concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.”
Against the view of Monophysitism that Christ had only one nature, and that his human nature was lost in the union with the divine nature, we have the words “to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedly, unchangeably … the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.” The human and the divine natures were not confused or changed when Christ became man, but the human nature remained a truly human nature, and the divine nature remained a truly divine nature.
The eternal Son of God took to himself a truly human nature, and that Christ’s divine and human natures remain distinct and retain their own properties, yet they are eternally and inseparably united together in one person.
Some have said that the Chalcedonian Definition really did not define for us in any positive way what the person of Christ actually is but simply told us several things that it is not. In this way some have said that it is not a very helpful definition.
But such an accusation is misleading and inaccurate. The definition actually did a great deal to help us understand the biblical teaching correctly. It taught that Christ definitely has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. It taught that his divine nature is exactly the same as that of the Father (“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead”).
And it maintained that the human nature is exactly like our human nature, yet without sin (“consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin”). Moreover, it affirmed that in the person of Christ the human nature retains its distinctive characteristics and the divine nature retains its distinctive characteristics (“the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”). Finally, it affirmed that, whether we can understand it or not, these two natures are united together in the one person of Christ.
When the Chalcedonian Definition says that the two natures of Christ occur together “in one Person and one Subsistence,” the Greek word translated as “Subsistence” is the word ὑπόστασις (G5712) “being.” Hence the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one person is sometimes called the hypostatic union. This phrase simply means the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one being.
Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (pp. 557–558). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.
When the Chalcedonian Definition says that the two natures of Christ occur together “in one Person and one Subsistence,” the Greek word translated as “Subsistence” is the word ὑπόστασις (G5712) “being.” Hence the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one person is sometimes called the hypostatic union. This phrase simply means the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one being.
Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (pp. 557–558). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.
