Christians today take it for granted that the person of Jesus possesses two natures: one human and one divine. But what many Christians don’t realize is that in the earliest days of Christianity, many heretical views about Christ’s nature threatened to undermine the orthodoxy of the faith. One major Christological position that led to the formulation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea was Arianism. Two other significant ancient heresies that sparked growing unrest within the church are monophysitism and Nestorianism (which we talked about in the previous post). Over the centuries, however, the Church has always maintained the orthodox position by consistently teaching that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures. He is fully human and fully divine. In theology this idea is called the hypostatic union. Let’s take a look at why the hypostatic union was favored at Nicaea in 325 A.D. and why the heretical positions of Nestorianism, monophysitism, and Arianism lead to significant theological problems concerning not just Christology, but redemption and salvation.
Let’s start with Nestorianism. This heresy takes its name after Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople in the fifth century. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he was fervently against heretics, even destroying an Arian church and asking the Roman emperor Theodosius “to issue a severe edict against heresy in the following month.” Ironically enough, due to his firm opposition to Arianism, Nestorius himself created a heresy of his own.
Nestorius’ Christology was informed largely by the school of Antioch, which was vehemently anti-Arian. For now, suffice it to say that Arianism saw Jesus as part-human and part-divine. As stated earlier, Nestorius hated heresy, and his goal was to refute Arianism. As a result, his mission was to emphasize the humanity of Christ. However, in doing so, he neglected Christ’s divinity.
Like I mentioned in the last post, Nestorianism teaches that Mary gave birth to the human nature of Christ, while the divine nature remains in the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. This is problematic because mothers don’t give birth to natures, they give birth to persons. If Jesus is simply the human nature of Christ, then he would be a mere human being, while the divine nature rests in the Second Person of the Trinity. If Mary is only the bearer of the human Jesus, this makes Jesus a mere human being and not truly God. This results in Christ being two persons instead of one, which would really mean that there are two Christs.
Now we’ll turn to monophysitism, which was founded as a reaction against Nestorianism. The monophysite heresy is derived from the two Greek words monos (one), and phusis (nature). So monophysites hold that Jesus was one person with one nature. Unlike Nestorianism, they believe that Jesus only had a divine nature not a true human nature. Clearly, this position is the exact opposite extreme of what Nestorius held. Instead of professing that the two natures of Christ resided in two distinct persons, monophysites argued that Jesus was divine and human in a fused way, which we will explore below.
For some monophysites, Jesus’ single nature became flesh, meaning that His divine nature became human. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, this would imply that the divine nature, which is immaterial, unchanging, and eternal, suffered and died on the cross. But this makes no sense, because the divine nature cannot be subject to change, much less death. Another option some monophysites took was that each Person of the Trinity has a distinct substance, and so because Jesus’ divinity is of a different substance than the other two Persons, the Incarnation did not adversely affect God’s divine nature. The issue with this, though, is that it leads to tritheism, or the idea that there are three gods, not three Persons in one God. If each Person of the Trinity were a different substance, then they would be different beings and not the same God. No matter which way you look at it, therefore, monophysitism in all its forms is just as problematic as Nestorianism.
Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, held that Jesus was the highest of God’s creatures. In an effort to emphasize the transcendence of God, Arianism teaches that Christ is subordinate to the Father while being the Father’s highest creation, thereby denying the reality of the Trinity. For Arians, Jesus is not God. However, they also say that Jesus wasn’t fully human, because the divine nature took the place of a human mind and soul at the Incarnation. Thus, Jesus was more like a demigod, since He had parts of divinity and humanity, but was neither 100% human or divine.
Finally, let’s look at the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church that has been held since the earliest days of Christianity and was formulated at Nicaea in 325 A.D. As the Athanasian Creed articulates,
"…Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ…" (Catholic Answers)
Notice how the creed counters each heresy we discussed above. It rejects monophysitism by saying that “Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.” Jesus doesn’t have just one nature. The creed also rejects Nestorianism: “He is not two, but one Christ.” It affirms that Jesus cannot be split into two persons, but rather is one person with two natures. Finally, the creed rejects Arianism. By saying that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, it says that Jesus is not the first and highest creature of the Father, but is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father. At every Mass, we Catholics recite the Nicene Creed, in which we reaffirm that Jesus is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father...He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” Hence, at every Mass, we announce our faith in the hypostatic union, that Jesus is truly God and truly man.
Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church was able to arrive at a true understanding of the nature of Christ. While those outside the Christian faith may see this discussion as frivolous and unimportant, the hypostatic union is extremely important from a theological standpoint. Most significantly, it confirms the effectiveness of the crucifixion. The purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was to atone for our sins and to open the gates of heaven to humanity. It’s obvious that the human race is full of sinners; every single one of us has sinned. Technically, none of us are worthy of heaven by our own merits; we always fall short of that goal. If a mere human being were to sacrifice himself for all mankind, that would not be effective in the slightest. I’m so contaminated in sin that my life would immediately fail to be a perfect sacrifice upon trying. Only God, therefore, could provide a pure, holy, and unblemished sacrifice on behalf of all mankind. However, God would also have to be human, or else the sacrifice would have been meaningless, since logically, only a human being can atone for human sin. As such, only the hypostatic union can provide for the perfect sacrifice. By being fully God, Jesus can be the pure victim, and by being fully man, He can atone for the human race. As St. Athanasius declared, “God became man so that man might become God.” In other words, by becoming human, Christ gives us the ability to be “perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
Comments