Diagram: Two Dyophysite Christologies

Speaker 1 0:00

We're going to continue our discussion on Christology, the mystery of Christ. Here you go, you see that. So what does diophysite mean? Okay, so it's two natures Theophysis, two natures, two natures. So these are two Christologies, both of which refer to the two natures in Christ. What do we have? Well, we have the divine nature and we have the human nature of Christ.

Symmetrical Christology - two analogies, two centers of consciousness

Asymmetrical Christology

Speaker 1 0:44

But how this union of our human nature in the person of Jesus Christ is understood is radically different between these two types of diophysite Christology. So the one is symmetrical and the other is asymmetrical. Let's take a look at the symmetrical first. So in the person of Christ we have the divine and human natures, two natures, and therefore we have physis, which is nature, and usia, which is a synonym of physis. Two natures or two essences in the single person of Christ. But having said that, I'm going to contradict myself immediately, because in this symmetrical diophysite Christology we also have a human hypostasis or a human prosopon. Again, these terms are synonymous. So in the symmetrical diophysite Christology, when we see Christ, when we look at Christ, when we consider the person of Christ, what we have in fact is what Theodore Mopsuestia and Nestorius referred to as the prosopon of union. So outwardly, you see a being, but what lies behind that being, what lies within that being, are two subjects, not one, objects not one. So in this symmetrical understanding of the two natures in Christ, you have the man Jesus, in whom the divine logos dwells, just as you have the spirit dwelling in the temple. They use this imagery, this analogy, the spirit dwelling in the temple in the vision of Isaiah. So, with the spirit dwelling in the temple, you have the Logos inhabiting the temple, so the divine Logos inhabits the man Jesus. And similarly, you have the analogy of the divine logos investing himself with our human nature and with a human person, like clothes, just as we put on clothes, the Logos put on human nature. And within that human nature we also have the hypostasis prosopon this is the Nestorian view the man in whom the Logos dwells. So you have, as I said, two subjects, you have two centers of consciousness and some and so on.

Cyril of Alexandria: “That Christ is One”

Speaker 1 4:53

Now the asymmetrical diophysite Christology is the Christology that was articulated and formulated by the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. Of Chalcedon in 451. The fathers of the fourth ecumenical council said yes, in the person of Christ we do indeed have two natures or two essences, the divine and the human equally present. However, the human nature and that's what this arrow is designed to show, the human nature exists within the hypostasis, or prosopon of the divine logos. So Christ is one. There is no second subject, no second center of consciousness in Christ. Christ is a single prosopic, taken from Metropolitan Karyznos, where and I think that this, although it's a beginning, it's a very good graphic description of the basic differences between the two diophysite Christologies the symmetrical and the asymmetrical.

Christ is a divine “prosopon” (person)

“Theotokos” (Nestorius)

Speaker 1 6:26

Nestorius said one who was two or three months old, I could not call God and I cannot worship a God who was born, died and buried. So Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who championed the Orthodox faith, especially on the question of the mystery of the person of Christ, and defended the Orthodox faith against these heterodox, shall we say, views, said no, christ is one. In fact, he wrote a treatise entitled that Christ is One and he is one by virtue of the fact that he is and we've said this before by virtue of the fact that he is and we've said this before he is the Son and Word of God. He is the divine Logos come in the flesh. In other words, he is a divine being. He's not a divine and human being in this symmetrical sense where you have two prosopo, two hypostases? No, and what you see externally is this prosopon of union. No, saint Cyril said the divine logos is the subject of all the miracles and sayings in the Old Testament and in the New. And now we're speaking especially of the New because we're speaking of the accomplishment of the Incarnation. So, with that in mind, consider the significance of Theodokos.

Speaker 1 8:16

It was the title, theodokos that Nestorius objected to, as I said, one who was born and died. I cannot call God, I cannot venerate as God. So what is he thinking of, nestor? He's thinking of the humanity of Christ first, and ultimately he's denying the reality of the incarnation. When you say that Christ is the man in whom the divine Logos dwelt, well, what differentiates him from a prophet?

Theodore of Mopsouestia: Christ two “prosopa”

Cyril: Christ is the Logos in the flesh (one Prosopon)

“Flesh” = human nature, body and soul

Speaker 1 9:03

Theodore Mopsuestia, who was possibly Nestorius' teacher, said there is a difference between the prophets and Jesus Christ in the sense that the grace of God, by virtue of the indwelling of the Logos in the man, jesus, the grace of Alexandria, pointed out that because Christ is one, because Christ is the person prosopon of the Son and Word of God, who assumed our human nature and made it his own, he grafted upon his person our human nature. So we said, when we say human nature, when we say flesh, we mean body and a reasonable and spiritual soul. So he made that his own. He appropriated our human nature. When we see Christ, we see the Logos in the flesh. We do not see the man, jesus, in whom the Logos dwells. When we touch Christ, christ, when we receive holy communion, we receive the body and blood of the son and word of god. When we venerate the icon of christ, we do not venerate an abstract human nature. We venerate the person of the Son and Word of God come in the flesh.

“And the Word was made flesh” (Jn 1:14)

Speaker 1 11:04

Who was it who died? The Logos died on the cross, according to the flesh. You'll notice this qualification in all the church services. In the prayer for the ninth hour we say O thou who, at the ninth hour, for our sake, didst taste death in the flesh. That is Sarka Sarks. Saint Cyril of Alexandria says.

Could Christ have sinned? - knowledge of Christ

Nestorianism and Arianism: two sides of the same coin

Speaker 1 11:35

Scripture does not say that the Logos united a human prosopon to himself, but that he became flesh. Geologos, sarx egenido, and the word was made flesh. You know, this, strange as it may seem, is something which, sadly, a lot of our own theologians don't understand. And when they're asked such questions as could Christ have sinned and what did Christ know? How should we understand the knowledge of Christ? The answers that they give are sadly mistaken, because they do not understand this basic principle, probably because they haven't been taught, it hasn't been passed on to them. In the West, by the way, mopsuestia is very fashionable Because Nestorianism is the other side of the same coin as Arianism.

Speaker 1 12:50

So what you have in Arianism is a subordinationism, so it's the belief that God could not possibly have lowered himself to such a degree that he would appear in the form of a man, in the form of a sin. Nestorianism is the other side of that coin. Why? Because by saying that you have the man, jesus, in whom the logos dwelt, as I mentioned earlier, it's basically saying the same thing.

Speaker 1 13:28

They cannot believe that the great god and our creator would deign to truly be united with our limited, mortal, corruptible, temporal flesh. And yet that's exactly what he did, not in appearance only, but really, and he did so eternally. In other words, the significance of the incarnation continues into eternity. It does not stop, as some believed in the early church, after the ascension, Once the saving work of Christ had been accomplished. Once the saving work of Christ had been accomplished, there were those who said well, there's no need for him to retain his human nature, his sulks, his flesh, so it would be discarded after the ascension. But saints are always saying no, this is an eternal, permanent reality. The mystery of the Son and Word of God becoming man, as Saint John Damascene says, is the only truly new thing under the sun.

Theodore of Mopsouestia: “mixture” (krasis) of two natures

Speaker 1 14:54

So Theodore Mopsuestia says, did not like the idea that the two natures of Christ would be mixed together in the person of Jesus Christ. That's how he understood what was being said by the Orthodox. But the graces which takes place, that does indeed mean mixture. That graces is an energetic graces. So how do the two natures exist in Christ?

Cyril: “hypostatic union” & “energetic exchange of natural properties”

Communicatio idiomatum = exchange of natural properties

Chalcedon 451: ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρήστως

Speaker 1 15:35

Well, first of all you have the divine logos who, in his very person, hypostasis, contains the fullness of the divine nature to which was united our human nature. But when our human nature was united in his prosopon, in his hypostasis, that union is firstly hypostatic, so it's a union to his person, the one person of the Son and Word of God. And secondly, what follows naturally from that is what is known as the communicatio idiomatum, the exchange of natural properties. So the divine nature are shared with the divine nature. This is the communication of the idiomata, the characteristics of each nature in the single hypostasis, hypostasis of the logos. This is known as communicatio idiomatum, yes, antidosis idiomatum in Greek. So this is what gives the oneness of the two natures. So the natures, as Chalcedon said, is without confusion. It's a union which is without separation, but it's also without confusion. So what did the Chalcedonian definition give us in 451? Asychidos is without confusion, synchitos is without confusion, Synchisis is confusion and atreptos without change, and then adiaretos is without division and achoristos is without separation.

Apollinarius or Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390)

Theodore of Mopsouestia (c. 350-428) and Nestorius of Constantinople (d. c. 451)

Speaker 1 17:58

Okay, so I was talking about mopsuestia, I think, actually a little earlier than Mopsuestia. You have the influence of Apollinarius. For two perfect things to become one is not possible. So if Christ is indeed true and perfect God and true and perfect man, then you cannot have this grasis, you cannot have this mixture. Now, in Apollinarius' case, he resolved the problem, so to speak, by saying ah, well, in that case the logos must have taken the place of the human mind, of the man Jesus, of the human mind of the man jesus. And so you have apollinarianism, which is characterized chiefly by this feature the logos takes the place of the human mind of Christ. This was rejected. This was not the teaching of the church, it was rejected. Now, when you come to Theodore Mopsuestia, actually a friend of St John Chrysostom, you have a similar concern. How can two perfect things become one, in other words, perfectly united? Everything has to give, and this is basically Aristotelian philosophy. So yes, mopsuestia rejected the hypostatic union and proposed in its place this union of prosopo, shown in the diagram.

Socrates, Church Historian (c. 380-450)

Speaker 1 20:17

He says in his treatise on the Incarnation. And in that treatise Mopsuestia says in section 15, the man was crucified. You see what he's doing? He's separating the man Jesus from the Logos. God is immortal and he's impassable. How could he possibly have suffered on the cross? Only the man Jesus could suffer and die on the cross, because suffering and dying are characteristic of us fallen creatures, certainly not of God and furthermore, nestorius, and also in the Church Historian Socrates. We have another saying attributed to Nestorius, one who was two or three months old, I would not call God. Mopsuestia was probably Nestorius's teacher and it's generally acknowledged that Nestorius presents a cruder form of what Mopsuestia taught. But what Mopsuestia taught does seem to be behind what Nestorius believes.

Nestorius’ view: Christ’s humanity 1. individualized, 2. fallen, 3. obedient

Speaker 1 22:23

Move on now to the ways by which saint cyril works out his christology, in response to nestorius in the first instance, but which is also a response to mopsuestia. But before I do, I want to say something about how Nestorius works out his Christology. Because he says, firstly, that Christ takes individualized humanity. Secondly, nestorius believed that Christ takes fallen humanity. And thirdly, nestorius believed that Christ takes obedient humanity.

Speaker 1 23:05

So with the first, that Christ takes individualized humanity, for Nestorius, christ must not only be man but a man. Christ's humanity, argued Nestorius, is a real, specific humanity, and he accuses Cyril of talking of a man that does not really exist, because Saint Cyril did not speak of a man or the man Jesus, he spoke of man. Christ becomes man. Right Anthropos yined, secondly, that Christ takes fallen humanity.

Speaker 1 23:56

Well, christ must have taken fallen humanity, argues Nestorius, and therefore he believed that Christ could have sinned. He could have sinned, but he did not in fact sin. And here we have the levels of nature and of obedience. The sinlessness of christ is to be sought not on the first level but on the second, in other words on the level of obedience. So it's not on the ontological level of nature, but on the moral level. But thirdly, just to round this off, nestorius believed that Christ assumed obedient humanity, free humanity.

Appeal

Speaker 1 25:01

Nestorius thinks in terms of Christ as having the freedom to choose good or evil, and this seems close to what we find in certain earlier fathers, but it's not in fact. In certain earlier fathers, but it's not in fact. Nestorius dislikes the term physiki enosis, natural union, because he takes this to mean a compulsory union, and he regards Cyril's understanding of union in Christ as crypto-Polynerian. Ironically enough, because he does not allow free will to the humanity of Christ, cyril did not accept that Christ could have sinned. So for Nestorius, as for Theodore of Mopsuestia, the union in Christ is katevlogia of good pleasure or of good will. And this brings us to the Christology of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Please subscribe to our channel and share with your friends. Click on the notification bell and on the join button below our video and become a friend or reader of the Mount Tabor Academy. Support our drive to introduce the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church to the wider community.