Was Christ: Human or God - two or one natures?
 |
| Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). Wikipedia) |
The Ebionites, on the other hand, denied Christ’s divinity, claiming instead that Jesus was merely a human being who was invested with divine power at his baptism (Matt. 3:16–17). Thus, the early Church was faced with two opposing viewpoints which it was responsible to address.
The debate intensified when Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (fourth century A.D.), contended that Jesus Christ was not eternal, did not share in God’s divine nature, but was simply the first creature created by God the Father; thus he asserted that salvation was achieved by one who was neither human nor divine. The Church Fathers proclaimed the divinity of Jesus Christ and his equality with the Father at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325).
A second issue emerged for the church. If Jesus Christ is divine (the Son of God) and human (the son of Mary), how are the two “natures” related, the Fathers asked. Nestorius caused considerable commotion with his sharp distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures. For his views he was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431), but he may not have advocated dualism to the degree to which he was accused. Nestorius’ opponent Eutychus taught that Christ’s two natures were so intertwined that, after his incarnation, Christ was one person having one nature. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) the Fathers proclaimed that Christ’s two natures were neither wholly separate nor wholly united.
Theological Reflections
The Christian church has not called together another ecumenical council to further probe the relationship between Christ’s divinity and his humanity, nor has the Western branch joined the Eastern branch in its endless debates concerning the one nature and one will of Christ. (Such debates may have contributed to the downfall of Christianity in the East in the face of vigorous Muslim missionary zeal.) Even the Reformers accepted, on the whole, the Chalcedonian formula. The Lutherans have, however, charged the Calvinists with reintroducing a form of Nestorianism, and the Calvinists have launched the countercharge of incipient Eutychianism among Lutherans. Many modern Christians may object to the ancient Church Fathers’ infelicitous language, but by and large they accept the Chalcedonian substance because the Chalcedonian Fathers preserved the “essence of Christianity, the absolute character of the Christian religion, and thus also its own independence” (H. Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith [Grand Rapids: 1977], p. 321; cf. pp. 322ff.).
Bibliography. G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ (Grand Rapids: 1954), esp. chs. 1–6; O. Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: 1964); 1. H. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove: 1976).
Myers, A. C. (1987). In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (p. 211). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
The debate intensified when Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (fourth century A.D.), contended that Jesus Christ was not eternal, did not share in God’s divine nature, but was simply the first creature created by God the Father; thus he asserted that salvation was achieved by one who was neither human nor divine. The Church Fathers proclaimed the divinity of Jesus Christ and his equality with the Father at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325).
A second issue emerged for the church. If Jesus Christ is divine (the Son of God) and human (the son of Mary), how are the two “natures” related, the Fathers asked. Nestorius caused considerable commotion with his sharp distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures. For his views he was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431), but he may not have advocated dualism to the degree to which he was accused. Nestorius’ opponent Eutychus taught that Christ’s two natures were so intertwined that, after his incarnation, Christ was one person having one nature. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) the Fathers proclaimed that Christ’s two natures were neither wholly separate nor wholly united.
Theological Reflections
The Christian church has not called together another ecumenical council to further probe the relationship between Christ’s divinity and his humanity, nor has the Western branch joined the Eastern branch in its endless debates concerning the one nature and one will of Christ. (Such debates may have contributed to the downfall of Christianity in the East in the face of vigorous Muslim missionary zeal.) Even the Reformers accepted, on the whole, the Chalcedonian formula. The Lutherans have, however, charged the Calvinists with reintroducing a form of Nestorianism, and the Calvinists have launched the countercharge of incipient Eutychianism among Lutherans. Many modern Christians may object to the ancient Church Fathers’ infelicitous language, but by and large they accept the Chalcedonian substance because the Chalcedonian Fathers preserved the “essence of Christianity, the absolute character of the Christian religion, and thus also its own independence” (H. Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith [Grand Rapids: 1977], p. 321; cf. pp. 322ff.).
Bibliography. G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ (Grand Rapids: 1954), esp. chs. 1–6; O. Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: 1964); 1. H. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove: 1976).
Myers, A. C. (1987). In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (p. 211). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
