Theodokos: Christology at the Core

Speaker 1 0:01

we can already see that the issue of the Theodogos , that the title Theodogos , is primarily Christological . So it's not an optional extra , it's not some other branch of theology . It's directly related to the mystery of the person of Christ , who Christ is . And the keystone to Cyril's thought is 1 Corinthians , 8 , 6 , verse 6 , which says but to us there is but one God , the Father of whom are all things and we in him , and one , lord Jesus Christ , by whom are all things and we by him . So the key to St cyril's christology is unity , the oneness of god , and that christ is one . We've said several times along the way that one of saint Cyril's most important treatises is his work entitled that Christ is one . And we noted that the problem with Mopsuestia and also the problem with Nestorius was when they considered the mystery of Christ , was when they considered the mystery of Christ they seemed to think in terms of two subjects in one . So we would be encouraged by them to see Christ as the man in whom the Logos dwelt , and we refer to the analogies of the spirit of god in the temple . So the logos is , as it were , the spirit of god dwelling in the human temple of the man jesus , and we were also encouraged to think of christ in terms of christ putting on his humanity as clothing , as a garment . So the logos puts on his humanity . At any rate . What is happening here is that we're thinking in terms of two subjects in Christ , and I think we also mentioned that Mopsuestia's vision of Christ was two prosopas , two persons who appeared outwardly as one , but this outward manifestation was in fact the product of a prosopic union , in other words a union of two prosopo in christ to prosopo in Christ . So in Chalcedon in 451 , which affirmed again the Christology of Saint Cyril of Alexandria but expressed it in terms of two natures , chalcedon said no , two natures in Christ , not two prosopo , but two natures . The divine nature of Christ , which is the content

Two Subjects vs. One Person

Speaker 1 3:52

, if you will , of the divine hypothesis of the Son and Word of God , has grafted onto itself , or united more correctly to itself , to its hypostasis , in other words the human nature of Christ consisting of a human body and a reasonable and spiritual soul , but not a prosopon . In his second letter to Nestorius , cyril of Alexandria says that Scripture did not say that the Logos united the prosopon of a man to himself , but that he became flesh , and this is very important . So Metropolitan Callistos Ware tells us that we have two affirmations which we need to bear in mind Firstly , that in Christ , god and man become one , and the second affirmation is that the basis of this unity is the divine logos .

Speaker 1 5:13

Metropolitan Callistos had a wonderful way of clarifying seemingly complex questions and , with the benefit of his own clear thinking , he would lay out before you the essentials in such a way that you could approach them and you could begin to understand yourself . God rest his soul . So one of the Trinity became incarnate . We sing this in every divine liturgy homo no genisios ke logos tu padros , the only begotten Son and Word of God , being immortal and so forth , became incarnate . Became incarnate Is on disai ghi astriados .

Speaker 1 6:08

One of the Holy Trinity became man , and this is something that we know purely by revelation , because we mentioned that , in fact , every action , every activity of the Most Holy Trinity is a unified action , or activity or energy . In other words , it involves the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . And we asked ourselves the question when we were looking at the Trinitarian theology of the Cappadocian Fathers . Well then , how do we know of the distinctiveness , of the threefoldness of God ? Wherein is that distinction revealed ? Well , it's revealed precisely in the event of the incarnation , and we'll come back to that point , because

One of the Trinity Became Incarnate

Speaker 1 7:15

St Cyril is the one who gives us language to refer to the incarnation . He's not the only one , but he does it in a brilliant way , again , in a very clear way , referring to the incarnation . He's not the only one , but he does it in a brilliant way , again , in a very clear way , referring to the incarnation .

Speaker 1 7:30

In the Old Testament , or in the Old Dispensation , as well as in the New , after the fact of the incarnation has taken place , we said that one of the Trinity became incarnate , taken place . We said that one of the Trinity became incarnate . So there is therefore a single subject , and that single subject vis-à-vis the Incarnation is none other than the Eternal Logos . Once again , st Cyril's second letter to Nestorius , in which he says that Scripture did not say that the Logos united the prosopon of a man to consciousness , the human prosopost . I'm not sure if we can define the hypothesis at all , but in inverted commas I think we can say the only center of consciousness is that of the divine logos . There is no other person in christ . Christ is the divine logos , enfleshed , incarnate , the Logos existing in a human way .

Speaker 1 9:15

So this is where we began to say that Saint Cyril and I'm taking this breakdown of how St Cyril works this out from Metropolitan Callistos who , with great clarity , says first , we see , there is the theme in Cyril of the two births of the Logos , of the two births of the Logos . Secondly , we're coming back to the title Theodogos . Thirdly , there is the concept of appropriation . Fourth , the mystery of kenosis . Fifth , the question of nature , physis , and there is also a question regarding human psychology , human psychology in the theological sense , so psychologia referring to psyche , the soul , the human soul of Christ . Let's take each one of these in turn to elaborate upon them briefly for the sake of greater clarification .

Speaker 1 10:38

So , the two births what do we mean when we say that we see two births of the Logos

Two Births of the Divine Logos

Speaker 1 10:43

in Saint Cyril ? Saint Cyril is referring to the fact that the Divine Logos was begotten twice , before and after the incarnation . Before the incarnation , we have the pre-incarnate word , the asarcos logos . After the incarnation , we have the incarnate word , or the enfleshed word , the ensarcos logos . So , outside of time , before the incarnation , the logos is born in a divine way of the father with no mother , of the Father with no mother . Within time , the Logos is born in a human way , of the Virgin Mary , with no father , but the same one . The same Logos is the subject , and Saint Cyril always refers to the person of the Logos , the hypostasis of the Logos . You'll notice that what Saint Cyril is doing , in fact , he's applying hypostasis to the mystery of Christ , to Christology . In that sense , he's continuing the work of the great Cappadocian fathers .

Speaker 1 12:18

So what about Theodogos ? What about the term that we already mentioned ? Well , perhaps we could just add briefly to that as well that in the incarnate Christ , the divine Logos is the unique subject . And so it's necessary , therefore , to confess Emmanuel , god with us , to be God in truth , and for the Holy Virgin to be the mother of God according to the flesh , for she is the mother of the person of God , the Word made flesh , and for this reason , the Holy Virgin is not the mother of a nature , she is the mother of a person , the divine person of the Logos made man , who united to himself our human nature . And also for this reason , anthropotokos is simply wrong , precisely because Anthropotokos treats Christ's humanity as a second , separate subject and , as such , denies the unity , the oneness of Christ's person . With this in mind , therefore , anyone who says Christodokos should also be willing to say Theodokos . So Theodokos is not an optional title , a title of devotion , but an expression of the unity of the person of Christ , and this is very important .

Speaker 1 14:24

Next , we have the concept of appropriation , eikiosis

Appropriation and Divine Self-Emptying

Speaker 1 14:30

. We've been talking about this all the time . Really , egosis , appropriation is making something one's own . So this is precisely what takes place christ takes our human nature and makes it his own .

Speaker 1 14:50

At the , the incarnation , god the Word appropriates humanity or makes it his own , and for this reason , god the Word , is truly born and truly suffers . Of course , god cannot suffer . As God in his divine nature , he is impassable beyond suffering , and Saint Cyril knows this and accepts it . He says that God as God , transcends suffering . But at the incarnation , the Word , the Logos , is involved in suffering . God in his nature doesn't suffer , but the person of the divine Logos does suffer according to the flesh , katasarka in the flesh , according to the flesh , the point being that God appropriates that which does not belong to him in his own nature . This is why we refer to him as the bridge which unites the created to the uncreated , and for this reason , the mystery is that he suffered impassibly epathen apathos . He suffered epathen , apathos , without suffering .

Speaker 1 16:29

And the basic idea behind the insistence of both aspects of this mystery of the suffering servant is that if God himself did not die and rise , then there could be no healing . Which takes us back to a famous phrase in St Gregory the Theologian in St Gregory the Theologian , that which is not assumed cannot be healed . So it was by assuming , by taking into himself , by appropriating our human nature , that he healed it . The healing took place by virtue of the fact that he made our human nature his own To a proslipton , geatherabipton . That which is not assumed cannot be healed . Assumed cannot be healed . But Christ did heal us , and he healed us by means of his incarnation .

Speaker 1 18:00

Next , we have genesis , or kenosis , to pronounce it the English way , which is based on Latin pronunciation , by the way . So genesis , we said that in the act of appropriation , implies the restriction of God to include man , whereas Saint Cyril's understanding of appropriation contains the idea of divine love as ecstatic , as ecstatic , so going out of oneself in love to the other . So for Saint Cyril , god , the words self-emptying his genesis , rather than signifying that God is making room for man , means that God himself is appropriating human experience and becoming the subject of the measures , the medra of humanity . And in this sense we are placed before yet another great mystery and paradox that God , in his incarnation , in his genesis and appropriation of our human nature , transcends even himself . This is his ecstatic love . He goes out of himself in love towards his creature . So nature .

Speaker 1 19:48

Firstly , saint Cyril will speak of two natures . Before the

Natural vs. Hypostatic Union

Speaker 1 19:52

Incarnation , christ is said to be from two natures ek , thio , physion . After the Incarnation , however , the two natures may be distinguished only by contemplation , says Saint Cyril Theoria moni , says Saint Cyril Theoria moni . Now , we should note that for Antioch , during this period , physis is synonymous with usia two natures , two essences , two physis , two usia in Christ . For Alexandria , physis is probably best understood as hypostasis . So when Saint Cyril says mia physis tu Theou logo se sarcomeni , one nature of God made flesh , he means , and in fact it's clear from the context mia fisis tu Theou logo right . So one nature of God , the Word , who is God , the Word , the hypostasis of God , the Word . Who is God , the Word , the hypostasis of God , the Word . So it's the thesis , and the hypostasis of God , the Word .

Speaker 1 21:20

Cesar Comeni refers to the enfleshed human nature of Christ which is united to the divine hypostasis . After the union , saint Cyril speaks of one nature and he also uses the phrase natural union . Actually , the phrase natural union he uses before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy . After the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy he prefers to use the term hypostatiki enosis , hypostatic union . Let's come back to that next time because I don't want to rush . So it's an important point . Let me come back to that next time because I don't want to rush through it . It's an important point .

Speaker 1 22:23

Let me just finish today by saying is physiki enosis wrong ? No , it's perfectly correct , because what Saint Cyril is referring to is the fact that christ , united to his divine nature , our human nature . But his divine nature is the very same nature of god the father and of god the holy spirit as well , because he is one in nature , one in . He is one in nature , one in essence . Thesis and usia at this point are synonyms . So he is one in physis or usia with god the father and god the holy ghost .

Speaker 1 23:19

So why does he prefer to use hypostatic union after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy in 430 ? It is simply because it is more specific . Hypostatic union refers to the specific hypostasis which became flesh , which became incarnate . So , as we said natural union , physiki , enosis , is not wrong because he is God , holy and truly and perfectly God . But it does not specify that it is the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity , uniquely and solely who became flesh . And this brings us back to that point . How do we know of the threefoldness of god , the distinctiveness of god that we see in the divine economy culminating in the incarnation , that the protagonist , the one who became flesh , is none other than the second hypothesis of the holy trinity , the son and eternal word of god .

Speaker 1 24:56

All right , so the basic idea is what Saint Athanasius said Only God could save , only

Only God Himself Could Heal Us

Speaker 1 25:10

God himself could heal . Now the Arians disagreed with that and they said that well , god saved us through a lesser being , the Son , but Saint Athanasius insisted that only God himself could actually heal us . It was necessary for God himself to truly become man , not by appearance only , but to truly make his own our human nature , and by doing so , that's where the healing takes place . We mentioned St Gregory the Theologian , where the healing takes place . We mentioned St Gregory the Theologian .

Speaker 1 26:07

So the understanding of salvation is fundamentally different . Notice that , first of all , it's about healing . Secondly , that that healing can only take place when our human nature becomes the human nature of the very God himself when he takes it upon himself , when he grafts it upon himself . That's where the healing takes place . Salvation is not some power that God zaps us with through an intermediate creature . It's the very fact that he took the human nature , that it came into existence the very moment it was conceived in his mother's womb . That's where the salvation took place . It's very important , but that's the basic

Call to Action and Closing

Speaker 1 27:18

idea . 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 .