 |
 |
||
Ukrainian Orthodoxy |
 |
Orthodoxie ukrainienne |
|
The Two Natures of Christ
Question:
I have recently been reminded of the debate of Christ's Divinity. Was he both Divine and Human at the same time and not two separate entities i.e. Monophysitism doctrine or the Chalcedonian doctrine where Christ was both but in two separate entities ? My understanding is the latter but wanted to hear your views in case I have misunderstood.
Response:
Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org
Our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is a Divine Person with two Natures, Divine and Human. As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He is fully God Who “bent the heavens” and came down to earth, receiving His Human Nature from His Mother, the Most Holy Virgin Mary. His two Natures were united in His one Person, but they were not intermingled. In other words, His human Nature was not somehow destroyed in the Divine Incarnation. If it were and His Humanity was simply a façade as the Docetists once taught, then He could not have suffered on the Cross for our salvation. He saves and divinizes us precisely by assuming our human nature as God. What is not assumed by Him, is not saved, as the Fathers teach us.
The Oriental Orthodox tradition clings to the teaching of St Cyril of Alexandria that describes Christ in terms of being “One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate.” Is this an heretical teaching? Does this mean that those who adhere to it are Monophysites? In fact, the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, Armenians and Indians) vigorously deny they are Monophysites and call themselves “Miaphysites” instead. They also say they condemn monophysism as a heresy i.e. that after the Divine Incarnation, there was only Christ’s Divine Nature alone. In ecumenical talks with Eastern Orthodox theologians, however, it was discovered that the term “Nature” in Oriental Orthodox theology is what the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christians mean by “Person” and this allowed the EO participants in the theological commission to report to their respective Churches that, from their perspective, there is no longer any problem on this Christological issue. The two sides remain separated however.
The real “Monophysite” at the time of the controversy appears to have been Eutyches, a monk who refused to admit that Christ took on our human nature. However, he had no problem accepting that Christ was “consubstantial with His Mother” that is, that He “took on His Mother’s human nature.” It appeared that Eutyches was squeamish about the idea that Christ as the Son of God would take on our sinful nature.| Your reaction to this response which will be posted here immediately: | |
| Reactions previously posted: | |
| By: Hrystyna Thank you for responding so quickly, your answer certainly reassured me as I always thought that Our Lord's suffering on the cross was paramount to God's relationship with man. I also applaud your comments in wanting to reach out to the younger members of the Church, having now read a number of books I have a "hunger" to learn more about my faith. My parents early teaching has stayed with me all my life and my faith sustained me when I lost them. I am however, disappointed that Christians, all have different interpretations, this is I feel is confusing for all members of all Christian denominations and is not helpful. I wish to your well with with your work and pray the Lord will continue to bless your efforts. I hope I can write again with more questions. | |
| By: Alex Thank you for the blessing of your words! Certainly, in the case of the Christian East, it was remarkable that the two families of Orthodox Churches found that they were really in agreement on the Person of Christ but divided on misconceptions they each had about what the other meant. One word, in fact, kept them separated for over a millennium and a half . . . The main source of division among Christians comes ultimately from the Reformation teaching that we may interpret the Bible ourselves, without the Apostolic Authority of the Church. For example, the Protestant teaching “Sola Scriptura” or that the scriptures alone are the authority is not in the Bible anywhere. If this were true, all Protestants would belong to the same visible ecclesial body. Moreover, they would not even have to publish Bible commentaries since one would only need to read the Bible and know immediately what it teaches etc. Martin Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation because they didn’t mesh with his theology. I also recently read of one Protestant teacher saying that the term “Mother of God” is unscriptural. Yet, St Elizabeth calls the Ever-Virgin Mary “the Mother of my Lord.” The reason why an Ecumenical Council decreed this (scripturally based) title was to teach about the Person of Christ – as your question posits. Left to only the Bible, the heretical priest Arius led many Christians astray by getting them to believe Christ was “more than man, but less than God (the Father).” And he quoted many bible passages to try to “prove” his point. The same fellow affirms also that Mary was not “Ever-Virgin” but had other children as the “scriptures teach.” And the scriptures teach no such thing and neither did the Protestant Reformers. Once we leave the Church’s teaching authority out of the equation of biblical interpretation, then we leave the door open to ecclesial fragmentation. May God richly bless you! | |
| By: Hrystyna I totally agree with your comments why there is fragmentation of the Christian Churches. It is dangerous and arrogant to \"go it alone\". I have read the Philokalia and read about \"prelest \" - a word which took a while for me to understand. The dispute between the churches thrives on these people who believe they have had a \"revelation\". That leads me to another question, if I may? Following the recent visit of the Pope to the UK, I started thinking about \"holiness\" and how it is used. I have always felt the word \"holy\" applied to God and the those who have been worthy enough to join Him in heaven. Which brings me to the question should we apply \"holy\" to anyone on earth? People I believe try to lead \"holy\" lives but no one is \"pure\" which is the true meaning of the word. What are your thoughts on the subject? | |
| By: Alex Yes, in Eastern Christianity holiness is seen in terms of how much of the Holy Spirit we have acquired throughout our life. We do this primarily through prayer, participation in the Mysteries, charitable works, spiritual reading/meditation and fasting. The Most Holy Mother of God, St John the Forerunner, St Nicholas and others reached a very high degree of holiness in this life. We are called to be holy and we can only do this by complete reliance on God through constant prayer – especially the Prayer of Jesus “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” So losing ourselves in prayer in God and Christ, in the Mother of God and the Saints and Angels – this is a life-long process, the process of Theosis. And according to the Orthodox East, our participation in God’s glory will continue to grow dynamically even when we are in heaven. This is why we also pray “for” the Mother of God and the Saints in the Divine Liturgy. Our life in Christ is dynamic growth and development, now and for all eternity. | |
| By: dima THANK YUO FOR GOOD APPOLOGETICS. KEEP DOING GOOD JOB. MAY GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR MINISTRY. | |
[ Home ] [ Articles ] [ Prayer ] [ Saints ] [ Theophilus ] [ Q & A ]
[About Us] [ 
]
Ukrainian Orthodoxy - Українське Православ'я