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

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

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

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. 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. 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.

Eucharist = Body and Blood of the Logos

Two natures and One nature language in Cyril

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 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 union.

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

Human “psychology” - the human soul of Christ

Speaker 1 11:57

So now, coming 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, 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.

Main criticism of modern western scholars

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 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.

Western approach to the history of Christian doctrine

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, 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.

For Cyril “flesh” means perfect humanity

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

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

Addendum: Question of the Knowledge of Christ

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.

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

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

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

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, he is the God-man and 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 too.

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

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, 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?