The Oneness of Christ: that Christ is a divine and human being, but One Person

Speaker 1 0:00

So we are in the process of covering the Christology of Saint Cyril of Alexandria , and that is extremely important . I think we mentioned last time the importance of the oneness of Christ , that Christ is a divine and human being

The divine Person of the pre-eternal Logos of the Father

Speaker 1 0:31

human being . But when we say that Christ is a divine person , his hypostasis is the hypostasis of the Son and Word of God . He is God , he is the Son of God , he is the Logos , the pre-eternal Logos

In OT theophanies the Invisible Logos becomes visible = movement towards the Incarnation

Speaker 1 0:43

who in the Old Testament theophanies , appeared prophetically as the one who was to come in the flesh . Because the fact that God is at all visible is already a movement towards the incarnation . God is invisible

Cf. John 4.24: “God is spirit”

Speaker 1 1:06

. The Lord says . God is a spirit and God is invisible .

Cf. John 1.18: “No man hath seen God at any time…”

Speaker 1 1:14

No man hath seen God at any time . But he becomes visible as he appears prophetically vis-a-vis the great event of the incarnation and he becomes incarnate , in fact in the historical context . So this is what we're talking about

The eternal reality of the Incarnation = union of our human nature to the Person of God the Word

Speaker 1 1:46

the reality of the incarnation . And when we say the reality of the incarnation we mean the eternal reality of the incarnation that God became man . He united our human flesh , body and , as we say , reasonable and spiritual soul to his person . He makes that human nature his own .

Human nature (flesh) of Christ comes into existence at the moment of conception in His Mother’s womb

Speaker 1 2:23

It doesn't pre-exist , it comes into existence , at the very moment of its conception in his mother's womb . Now , I may be expressing myself in a slightly clumsy way here , because it's from the moment of his conception in his mother's world . Because who is the one that we see in the flesh , who is the one that we see being born , who is the one who is hanging upon the cross , the cross , and who rises from the dead ? It is the logos , it is the son and word of god in the flesh .

As source of life, God cannot die; but He did die “according to the flesh”

Speaker 1 3:21

When the worship of the church teaches us this , god cannot die right . God is the source of life , god is immortal , but he did die . The same one God himself experienced death in the flesh , according to his humanity , and we have that wonderful hymn , so

“One nature of the Word of God made flesh”

Speaker 1 3:44

in the tomb . So , after the union , st Cyril speaks of one nature . We said μία φύσης του Θεού , λόγου σε σαρκωμένη , one nature of God , the Word made flesh . I'll come back to that in a

“Natural union” («φυσικὴ ἕνωσις») vs “hypostatic union” («ὑποστατικὴ ἕνωσις»)

Speaker 1 4:14

moment . Well , he uses the phrase natural union , ένωσης φυσική , and actually , after the outbreak of the controversy I think I mentioned this before right , he prefers υποστατική ένωση to φυσική ένωση , not that φυσική .

Speaker 1 4:40

The physiki enosis is incorrect by this time . In the Cappadocian Fathers , usia and physis are synonyms . So enosis . Physiki refers to the fact that the union which took place in Christ is a natural union . It's a union of natures .

The Person of the Divine Logos is the bearer of both the divine and human natures

Speaker 1 5:14

So what we have is the human nature being united to the divine nature , of which the Logos is the bearer . He is the bearer of the fullness of the divine nature , or the divine essence .

Cf. Col. 2.9: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”

Speaker 1 5:37

The whole of the Godhead resides in him . Bodily , says St Paul , resides in him . Bodily , says St Paul , that nature is the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . So it is the nature of the Father and of the Holy Spirit as well as of the Son . But when we say that , it does not yet disclose the mystery that only one of the Trinity became flesh .

“Hypostatic union” («ὑποστατικὴ ἕνωσις») = more specific = “Personal union”

Speaker 1 6:12

So after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy in 430 , st Cyril began to prefer the term hypostatikii enosis , precisely because hypostasis contains the fullness of the nature .

Speaker 1 6:38

But there are three hypostases in God . Mystery of the Holy Trinity is that the one God exists trihypostatically , in three hypostases , and the mystery of the incarnation resides in the fact that only one of those three hypostases became man . So , uniquely , the hypostasis of the Son and Word of God becomes flesh . Who becomes man ? Not the Father , not the Spirit , but the Logos , uniquely , becomes flesh , that is to say , he assumes our human nature and makes it his

Eucharist = Body and Blood of the Logos

Speaker 1 7:39

own . So when we receive the Body and Blood of Christ , when we receive the Divine Eucharist , the Body and Blood of Christ , when we receive the Divine Eucharist , the Body and Blood of Christ , we receive the Body and Blood of the Logos , god , the Word . We do not receive the Body and Blood of the Father or of the Spirit , though the Father and the Spirit are involved in the saving work of Christ , uniquely and distinctively only the Logos , the second hypothesis of the Son and Word of God . And that is what hypostatikī enosis or enosis kathipostasin , according to the theories of Mopsuestia , of Nestorius and of others . So what Saint Cyril is referring to is a personal union , a hypostatic

Two natures and One nature language in Cyril

Speaker 1 9:05

union .

Speaker 1 9:06

Now , saint Cyril does also refer to two natures . When he refers to one nature , as in this passage here and I should say a word about the history of this particular formula Saint Cyril believed that the formula mia fisis tu theulogu sesarcomeni , one nature of God , the Word , made flesh , that that was in fact written by Saint Athanasius the Great . That's why he took it , he respected , respected it and he interpreted his christology based on it

Fr. John Romanides: “One physis or hypostasis of God the Word”

Speaker 1 9:51

. Father john romanides points out that it would be more correct to understand feces here the term thesis in this formula as denoting hypostasis , one thesis or hypostasis of god , the word made flesh .

The “One physis” formula written by Apollinarius or Apollinaris of Laodicea (c.310 - c.390)

Speaker 1 10:19

In fact , the formula was not written by Saint Athanasius , it was written by Apollinarius , who had a heretical understanding of the mystery of Christ

Apollinarius: “It is not possible for two perfect things to become one”

Speaker 1 10:34

. He believed that two perfect elements could not coincide , could not exist together , and he would say For two perfect things to become one perfect thing , not possible . And so he said something has to give . So he said something has to give . Well , what has to give ? He chose the human element , had of the human nous of Christ

Apollinarius: that the Logos took the place of the human “nous” of Christ

Speaker 1 11:14

. And so he has this formula , which you can see if you look at it mia fisis tu Theou logos esarcomeni . Yeah , that would work for Apollinarius . The amazing thing is that Saint Cyril took it and interpreted it , out of respect for Saint Athanasius the Great , in a perfectly orthodox manner . This is important .

Speaker 1 11:57

So now , coming

“One Nature” in Cyril language refers to “Prosopic Unity” («ὑποστατικὴ ἕνωσις») in Christ

Speaker 1 11:58

to Saint Cyril , when does he use two-nature language ? Because Saint Cyril knows that two natures this is referring to the divine and human natures in Christ . But when he speaks of one nature , but when he speaks of one nature , he's actually referring to the prosopic unity , the hypostatiki enosis , the hypostatic union in Christ . And we said that the one nature for Apollinarius refers to a new nature formed only after the incarnation . But when Cyril uses the formula

The Logos is the “sole Personal subject”: “That Christ is One”

Speaker 1 12:50

, he is referring to the logos as the sole personal subject . There we have it again the oneness of Christ , that Christ is one . So I think we've said enough about that . For now

Human “psychology” - the human soul of Christ

Speaker 1 13:10

.

Speaker 1 13:10

Let's move on to our last point , which I believe is human psychology psychologia referring to the human soul of

Main criticism of modern western scholars

Speaker 1 13:24

the Lord . Now , when modern Western scholars look at the Christology of Cyril , they say typically why does he not mention the human soul of God , mention the human soul of ? He doesn't pay sufficient respect to the human nature of christ as consisting also of a human soul , kind of what they do with most things , right , why doesn't saint paul say more about the church ? Or why doesn't he say more about ? You know , this is modern scholarship . They think everything is a , is a confession of faith , when in fact saint paul is responding to certain specific pastoral needs , and so he would say what he says in response to those pastoral needs , those arguments , those whatever it is heresies that might be out there confusing the people . And so too is St Cyril of Alexandria . Here he's responding to pastoral needs .

Speaker 1 14:39

The main criticism made against Saint Cyril of Alexandria is on the question of the human soul in Christ . As we said , it is conceded that Saint Cyril is not an Apollinarian . All right , thank you very much . He does not diminish the human soul in Christ . Polonius , what did he do when he said the logos takes the place of the human nous ? That is diminishing the human soul of Christ , since Saul doesn't do that . And more serious scholars out there , they know , like Grillmeyer for example . These people know that St Cyril doesn't do that , but they do ask whether Cyril gives full importance to the human soul ,

Western approach to the history of Christian doctrine

Speaker 1 15:47

full importance to the human soul .

Speaker 1 15:49

And here of course we come up against the Western approach to the history of Christian doctrine , which I just mentioned a moment ago in the example of St Paul . And so this Western approach searches for terms , in this case looking for the actual word psiki , soul , and regards the introduction of each theological term in history as a real advance in our understanding of divine revelation . So when you look at the history of Christian doctrine from a Western standpoint , you look for these key phrases , these key terms , and you say homousios , that's it . Saint Basil the Great Cappadocians , hypostasis , alright , and now they're looking for the term soul . Not finding it , they say well , this is missing , still lacking . So we don't have a perfect Christology in Saint Cyril .

The “Logos-sarx” framework of Cyril (cf. John 1.14)

Speaker 1 17:06

But Saint Cyril , in his responses to Nestorius , who was patriarch of Constantinople at the time , prefers to use the Logos Sarx framework . So Sarx is flesh and this is the framework that he uses . This is the language that St John the theologian uses in the prologue to his Gospel Keologos Sarx , aenadon , and contained within Sarx . Cyril understands this to refer to the full humanity of Christ . So he really refers specifically to Christ's human soul . It's not the subject of the debates . Sure , it's related . I mean it's included in as much as we're speaking of the fullness of Christ's human nature . Christ is true and perfect God and true and perfect man , and St Cyril knows this

For Cyril “flesh” means perfect humanity

Speaker 1 18:22

. But for Saint Cyril , of course , the term flesh means perfect humanity and hence also means human

Aloys Grillmeier (1910-1998), “Christ in Christian Tradition”, Vol. 1, 1975, pp. 475-6.

Speaker 1 18:35

soul .

Speaker 1 18:35

Now I mentioned Brillmeier . He wrote Christ in Christian Tradition . It's a very academic , scholarly work , but it goes through the ages , diachronically , through the various figures who give us their teaching regarding the person of Christ . Volume 1 , I'm referring to now , and in particular Volume 1 , I'm referring to now , and in particular pages 475 to 476 . This is Grillmeier's section on the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and , vis-à-vis , the question of the human soul of Christ . Grillmeyer says , and I'm quoting now Cyril can be acquitted of all suspicion of an Apollinarian monophysite tendency . Ellipsis marks right , dot , dot , dot . Suffering is transferred to the soul as well as to the body . Suffering is transferred to the soul as well as to the body . In other words , yes , christ , according to saint cyril , has assumed the fullness of our human nature , perfect humanity , as we said , and hence also a human soul . So this is our overview . We've looked at the understanding put forward by Theodore Moxvestia , we looked at Nestorius , who was St Cyril's theological opponent at the time after 430 , and we've looked at saint cyril and the way that he presents the mystery of the person of Christ . So I hope that's been of some help to you

Addendum: Question of the Knowledge of Christ

Speaker 1 20:56

.

Speaker 1 20:56

Discuss the question of the knowledge of Christ . Well , it's bound up with the same question of could Christ have sinned ? Who is Christ ? Christ is God , the Word , the word . Christ is god , unless you have in mind two separate subjects , coexisting , co-inhabiting , right , the human form of christ , in which case you would not be following an orthodox understanding of Christ , saint Cyril emphasizing again the oneness of Christ , the oneness of Christ based on the divine logos

Christ is a divine being, the God-man - True and Perfect God & True and Perfect man

Speaker 1 21:47

. Christ is a divine being , he is the God-man and

“Asymmetrical” Christology: Christ is the divine Hypostasis of the Son and Word of God

Speaker 1 21:55

those aspects of Christ that he is true and perfect . God and true and perfect man are not symmetrical , they're not equal in the sense that , in the sense that he is the divine hypostasis of the Son and Word of God , who has , as we keep saying , assumed , united to himself , our human nature , not the prosopon of the man , but human flesh . So in that context is how we would understand the knowledge of God

Cf. “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature…” (Luke 2.52)

Speaker 1 22:40

too .

Speaker 1 22:41

And Christ is portrayed at times in the Gospels as increasing . I mean Saint Luke says he increased in knowledge and in stature before God and man ,

The human nature of Christ enriched by characteristics of His divine nature

Speaker 1 22:57

which the Lord , he Himself , allows His human nature to experience . We see the Lord growing in knowledge and in truth , but he is God . We have to keep going back to this . We can talk about this next time . We'll talk about these things and we'll also talk about the abandonment of God . My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me ? How that is understood when the person in question is God himself . What sense do we understand the abandonment which is described there ? So great mysteries , important subjects , and we haven't even arrived at the mystery of the two wills in Christ . Okay , although we touched on it briefly when we talked about could Christ have sinned ?