systematic Theology: The incarnation of Christ Flashcards
When was the doctrine of the incarnation formulated?
Chalcedonian Definition in A.D. 451
Three inadequate Views of the Person of Christ
- Apollinarianism
- Nestorianism
3 Monophysitism (Eutychianism)
Apollinarianism
Thought by Apollinaris, who became bishop in Laodicea about A.D. 361
Chris had a human body, but not a human mind or spirit,
But the views of Apollinaris were rejected by the leaders of the church at that time, who realized that it was not just our human body that needed salvation and needed to be represented by Christ in his redemptive work, but our human minds and spirits (or souls) as well: Christ had to be fully and truly man if he was to save us (Heb. 2:17). Apollinarianism was rejected by several church councils, from the Council of Alexandria in A.D. 362 to the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.
Nestorianism
Taught by Nestorius who was a popular preacher at Antioch, and from A.D. 428 was bishop of Constantinople.
Nestorianism is the doctrine that there were two separate persons in Christ, a human person and a divine person, a teaching that is distinct from the biblical view that sees Jesus as one person.
It is important to understand why the church could not accept the view that Christ was two distinct persons.
- Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person, deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ.
- Nowhere do we have an indication of the human and divine natures talking to each other or struggling within Christ, or any such thing. Rather, we have a consistent picture of a single person acting in wholeness and unity.
- Jesus always speaks as “I,” not as “we,” though he can refer to himself and the Father together as “we” (John 14:23).
- The Bible always speaks of Jesus as “he,” not as “they.”
- And, though we can sometimes distinguish actions of his divine nature and actions of his human nature in order to help us understand some of the statements and actions recorded in Scripture, the Bible itself does not say “Jesus’ human nature did this” or “Jesus’ divine nature did that,” as though they were separate persons, but always talks about what the person of Christ did.
Therefore, the church continued to insist that Jesus was one person, although possessing both a human nature and a divine nature.
Monophysitism (Eutychianism)
The primary advocate of this view in the early church was Eutyches (c. A.D. 378–454), who was the leader of a monastery at Constantinople
the view that Christ had one nature only (Gk. monos, “one,” and physis, “nature”)
Eutyches taught the opposite error from Nestorianism, for he denied that the human nature and divine nature in Christ remained fully human and fully divine. He held rather that the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted. An analogy to Eutychianism can be seen if we put a drop of ink in a glass of water: the mixture resulting is neither pure ink nor pure water, but some kind of third substance, a mixture of the two in which both the ink and the water are changed. Similarly, Eutyches taught that Jesus was a mixture of divine and human elements in which both were somewhat modified to form one new nature.
Monophysitism also rightly caused great concern in the church, because, by this doctrine, Christ was neither truly God nor truly man. And if that was so, he could not truly represent us as a man nor could he be true God and able to earn our salvation.
The Chalcedonian Definition
In order to attempt to solve the problems raised by the controversies over the person of Christ, a large church council was convened in the city of Chalcedon near Constantinople (modern Istanbul), from October 8 to November 1, A.D. 451. The resulting statement, called the Chalcedonian Definition, guarded against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox branches of Christianity alike.
The statement:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has been handed down to us.
How did the Chalcedonian Definition refute Apolliniarism
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.”)
How did the Chalcedonian Definition refute Nestorianism
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.”
How did the Chalcedonian Definition refute Monophysitism
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.
According to the Chalcedonian definition of Christ, what is Christ actually like?
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 hypostasis, “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.
How can we say that Jesus has both returned to heaven while also being present with us on earth?
When we are talking about Jesus’ human nature, we can say that he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9–11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20); “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:20); “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). So we can say that both things are true about the person of Christ—he has returned to heaven, and he is also present with us.
What does it mean to say that one nature does things that the other nature does not do?
- Jesus human nature ascended into heaven, but his divine nature is present with us on earth
- Jesus as a human was approx. 30 years old, but we can say that his divine nature has eternally existed (John 1:1-2)
- Jesus human nature was weak, and go tired, but in His divine nature He is omnipotent
- Jesus in his human nature died, but in His divine nature did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead
- Jesus human nature was tempted but in his divine nature he was not tempted, because God cannot be tempted with evil
- Jesus Human mind did not know everything and had to learn, His divine nature was omniscient and knew everything
How do we know that Jesus had two distinct natures
- One nature does things that the other nature does not do
Did Jesus uphold the entire universe, while he was still a baby
If someone asks whether Jesus, when he was asleep in the boat, was also “continually carrying along all things by his word of power” (Heb. 1:3, author’s translation), and whether all things in the universe were being held together by him at that time (see Col. 1:17), the answer must be yes, for those activities have always been and will always be the particular responsibility of the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God. Those who find the doctrine of the incarnation “inconceivable” have sometimes asked whether Jesus, when he was a baby in the manger at Bethlehem, was also “upholding the universe.” To this question the answer must also be yes: Jesus was not just potentially God or someone in whom God uniquely worked, but was truly and fully God, with all the attributes of God. He was “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Those who reject this as impossible simply have a different definition of what is “possible” than God has, as revealed in Scripture. To say that we cannot understand this is appropriate humility. But to say that it is not possible seems more like intellectual arrogance.
The heresy of the Monothelite view
At this point it seems necessary to say that Jesus had two distinct wills, a human will and a divine will, and that the wills belong to the two distinct natures of Christ, not to the person. In fact, there was a position, called the monothelite view, which held that Jesus had only “one will,” but that was certainly a minority view in the church, and it was rejected as heretical at a church council in Constantinople in A.D. 681. Since then the view that Christ had two wills (a human will and a divine will) has been generally, but not universally, held through the church. In fact, Charles Hodge says:
The decision against Nestorius, in which the unity of Christ’s person was asserted; that against Eutyches, affirming the distinction of natures; and that against the Monothelites, declaring that the possession of a human nature involves of necessity the possession of a human will, have been received as the true faith by the Church universal, the Greek, Latin, and Protestant.[2]
Hodge explains that the church thought that “to deny Christ a human will, was to deny he had a human nature, or was truly a man. Besides, it precluded the possibility of his having been tempted, and therefore contradicted the Scriptures, and separated him so far from his people he could not sympathize with them in their temptations.”[3] Moreover, Hodge notes that along with the idea that Christ had two wills is the related idea that he had two centers of consciousness or intelligence: “As there are two distinct natures, human and divine, there are of necessity two intelligences and two wills, the one fallible and finite, the other immutable and infinite.”[4]
This distinction of two wills and two centers of consciousness helps us understand how Jesus could learn things and yet know all things. On the one hand, with respect to his human nature, he had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52). On the other hand, Jesus clearly knew all things (John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things and had limited knowledge with respect to his human nature but was always omniscient with respect to his divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to “call to mind” whatever information would be needed for his ministry. In this way we can understand Jesus’ statement concerning the time of his return: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to the earth.
At this point someone may object that if we say that Jesus had two centers of consciousness and two wills, that requires that he was two distinct persons, and we have really fallen into the error of “Nestorianism.” But in response, it must simply be affirmed that two wills and two centers of consciousness do not require that Jesus be two distinct persons. It is mere assertion without proof to say that they do. If someone responds that he or she does not understand how Jesus could have two centers of consciousness and still be one person, then that fact may certainly be admitted by all. But failing to understand something does not mean that it is impossible, only that our understanding is limited. The great majority of the church throughout its history has said that Jesus had two wills and centers of consciousness, yet he remained one person. Such a formulation is not impossible, merely a mystery that we do not now fully understand. To adopt any other solution would create a far greater problem: it would require that we give up either the full deity or the full humanity of Christ, and that we cannot do.
