Christological language

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I was hoping I could ask a few questions about what certain terminologies in the realm of Christology in the context of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils mean. I've done a certain amount of reading on this subject on my own but often just wind up getting confused by the texts. Note that I may be asking questions that may be inclined to long and complicated answers, but I hope we don't have to get to the level of whole treaties here.

1. What is meant by "hypostasis"? What is meant by the "hypostatic union"? What does it mean for Christ to be one hypostasis?

2. What is meant by "nature"? What does it mean for Christ to be "one Incarnate nature of God the Word"? What does it mean for Christ to "be made one according to nature"? What does it mean when it is said "Christ is of two natures"? What does it mean when it is said that "Christ is in two natures"? What does it mean when it is said that "Christ is two natures"?

3. What is meant by "will"? What does it mean for there to be two wills in Christ, divine and human?

4. What is meant by "energy" (which appears to be sometimes translated "operation")? What does it mean for there to be two energies/operations in Christ? What does it mean when some of the Fathers (including Pope Leo I) say that "the Word performs that which belongs to the Word and the flesh performs that which belongs to the flesh"?

[D. W. Dickens]

It seems the Church is very careful about this language. And I appreciate that care (after all there was blood shed over a single "iota"). But I've found in my studies before becoming Orthodox, that often I simply said these things and accepted them as dogma (in fact renounced my heresies concerning them) without grasping them in modern terms.

There are clearly anthropological and theological "models" behind the debates such that the terms take their meaning from the defense of Orthodoxy as expressing in those models.

This leads me to a question I'd like to add to Christopher's post.

5. Could we preserve the truth of the faith but express it in different models? Are there any good introductions to the models behind the terms?

[Kosta]

The hypostatic union is the incarnation. That the Son Of God united himself with humanity in the Child of Mary.

The best explanation of the 2 natures in the one hypostasis is reading the definition of chalcedon. Take note how the definition refers to Christ as "one and the same Son". Also note what it NOT means to be fully man and fully God, (It does not mean he is bi-polar or mixed etc etc.)

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/121-council-of-chalcedon-451-the-definition-of-faith-of-chalcedon

[Christopher Dombrowski]

The hypostatic union is the incarnation. That the Son Of God united himself with humanity in the Child of Mary.

The best explanation of the 2 natures in the one hypostasis is reading the definition of chalcedon. Take note how the definition refers to Christ as "one and the same Son". Also note what it NOT means to be fully man and fully God, (It does not mean he is bi-polar or mixed etc etc.)

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/121-council-of-chalcedon-451-the-definition-of-faith-of-chalcedon

Why is it that then that some of the Fathers speak as if there are two subjects of action within Christ according to nature, "the Logos" and "the flesh"?

[Kosta]

I may not be familiar with the content you have in mind. I believe you are refering to those things of the One and same Christ which are credited as being of the divine nature and those things emanating from his human nature.

This was a cornerstone of the christological theology of St. Amphilochius of Iconium. He was one of the first to lay out a theology of 'two natures in one hypostasis". Most likely the saint developed this theology (and terminology) from his battles with the Apollinarians who denied the full humanity of Christ. Supposedly the Apollinarians claimed that Christ did not have a human rational mind (or soul), instead the Logos filled that void.

Categorizing the actions of Christ between his divine and human natures was condemned at Ephesus, but St Cyril acknowledged that it was common in the Antiochan tradition to divide certain things amongst his human and divine nature. This is found in the formula of Reunion between the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Scroll down to paragragh 5:
http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/136-cyril-of-alexandria-epistle-to-john-of-antioch-regarding-peace
This epistle was accepted in the council of chalcedon.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I may not be familiar with the content you have in mind.

The first mention of it I am familiar with is in the Tome of Pope Leo I:

"For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries."

The Roman Synod, preceding the Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and led by Pope Agatho later confirmed this:

"...each nature preserving after the union its own proper character without any defect; and each form acting in communion with the other what is proper to itself. The Word working what is proper to the Word, and the flesh what is proper to the flesh; of which the one shines with miracles, the other bows down beneath injuries."

And finally the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself confirmed it:

"We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”"

This does not appear to be speaking simply of 2 natural wills and operations in Jesus Christ, but even that these two wills and operations are manifest in the divine nature on one hand in the human nature on the other hand, that they each distinctly act as if they are two subjects.

[Kris]

This does not appear to be speaking simply of 2 natural wills and operations in Jesus Christ, but even that these two wills and operations are manifest in the divine nature on one hand in the human nature on the other hand, that they each distinctly act as if they are two subjects.

I would disagree with your conclusion. When you read the Tome of Leo, for example, it is quite clear that he speaks of the Son of God as the single subject of both the divine and human natures. The fact that he associates 'the Word' with Christ's divinity should not lead one to think that he was guilty of some kind of crypto-Nestorianism, for the single Subject of which he ultimately speaks is not simply called Jesus or the Christ, but the Son of God. Thus he says that "we all, in the very Creed confess that 'the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried" and that we "confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh." He very clearly avoids the errors of the Antiochenes by affirming that the Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, suffered and was buried.

Only by removing St. Leo's comments from their theopaschitic context could one accuse him of speaking of two subjects.

St. Cyril the Great writes:
"For even if the only-begotten Son of God, incarnate and inhominate, is said by us to be one, he is not confused because of this, as he seems to those people, nor has the nature of the Word passed over into the nature of the flesh, nor indeed has the nature of the flesh passed over into that which is his, but while each one of them continues together in the particularity that belongs to the nature, and is thought of in accordance with the account which has just been given by us, the inexpressible and ineffable union shows us one nature of the son, but as I have said, incarnate." (Emphasis mine)

The only difference between the two is St. Cyril's last use of the word "nature." But, of course, he was using the Greek word "physis" in the sense of "hypostasis", while Leo was uses the Latin word "natura" in the sense of essence, or "ousia." Nevertheless, both clearly affirm that each nature retains that which is particular to it, all the while attributing both to the single, undivided subject of the only-begotten Son of God.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I would disagree with your conclusion. When you read the Tome of Leo, for example, it is quite clear that he speaks of the Son of God as the single subject of both the divine and human natures. The fact that he associates 'the Word' with Christ's divinity should not lead one to think that he was guilty of some kind of crypto-Nestorianism, for the single Subject of which he ultimately speaks is not simply called Jesus or the Christ, but the Son of God. Thus he says that "we all, in the very Creed confess that 'the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried" and that we "confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh." He very clearly avoids the errors of the Antiochenes by affirming that the Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, suffered and was buried.

Only by removing St. Leo's comments from their theopaschitic context could one accuse him of speaking of two subjects.

St. Cyril the Great writes:
"For even if the only-begotten Son of God, incarnate and inhominate, is said by us to be one, he is not confused because of this, as he seems to those people, nor has the nature of the Word passed over into the nature of the flesh, nor indeed has the nature of the flesh passed over into that which is his, but while each one of them continues together in the particularity that belongs to the nature, and is thought of in accordance with the account which has just been given by us, the inexpressible and ineffable union shows us one nature of the son, but as I have said, incarnate." (Emphasis mine)

The only difference between the two is St. Cyril's last use of the word "nature." But, of course, he was using the Greek word "physis" in the sense of "hypostasis", while Leo was uses the Latin word "natura" in the sense of essence, or "ousia." Nevertheless, both clearly affirm that each nature retains that which is particular to it, all the while attributing both to the single, undivided subject of the only-begotten Son of God.

I still don't understand why Leo says that the Word performs what is proper to the Word and the flesh performs what is proper to the flesh. Does that not sound as if he is saying that the divine substance performs divine things whereas the human substance performs human things? Why does Leo not rather say that the enfleshened Word performs both things divine and human?

[Kris]

I still don't understand why Leo says that the Word performs what is proper to the Word and the flesh performs what is proper to the flesh. Does that not sound as if he is saying that the divine substance performs divine things whereas the human substance performs human things? Why does Leo not rather say that the enfleshened Word performs both things divine and human?

Because, as he makes very clear at the beginning of his Tome, he is writing to counter the monophysitism of Eftychios (not to be confused with the essentially orthodox Cyrilline fundamentalism of the Orientals). He states that each nature performs what is proper to it in order to show that the two did not become confused, nor did one swallow up the other, but that the Son of God performs things divine by virtue of His being fully God, and things human by virtue of His being fully man. I really do not see how this is different to St. Cyril stating that each nature "continues together in the particularity that belongs to the nature." Again, St. Leo clearly attributes both to a single and undivided Person of the Son of God, stating that the Son of God was crucified and buried.

All that he writes must be understood in light of his clear and irrefutable affirmation that one of the Holy Trinity died in the flesh, something incompatible with any notion of two subjects.

[Kosta]

The human nature of Christ voluntarily submits to the divine in virtue of His sinlessness. Likewise we are asked to do the same and pray in the Lord's Prayer, "Your Will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Of course we fail miserably because of our fallen nature which tends to cling to the earthly.
The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in Gethsemane, "O My Father, if it is possible let this cup pass from Me. nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."(Matt26.39,42)

St. Athanasios commenting on this passage says, "Whatever is written concerning our Savior in his human nature, ought to be considered as applying to the whole race of mankind because He took our body, and exhibited in Himself human infirmity."

And in the Gospel of John 12.27 ,The Lord prays, "Now my soul is troubled and what shall i say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour."

The following two Fathers interpreting the above verses are in agreement with Pope St. Leo and the other Fathers quoted on this thread:

St Maximus the confessor writes, "....It follows that the same One (Christ) not only willed appropriately as God in His Godhead but willled appropriatly as man in His humanity. For the things that exist came to be out of nothing, and have therefore a power that impels them to hold fast to existence, and NOT to non-existence, which power is simulateneously an inclination towards that which naturally maintains them in existence, and a drawing back from things destructive to their existence. Consequently the super-essential Word by virtue of his humanity, had of his humanity this self preserving power which clings to existence. And in fact, he exhibited both aspects of this power, willing the inclination and the drawing back on account of his human energy.....Fear is proper to nature when it is a force that clings to existence by drawing back from what is harmful, but it is contrary to nature when it is an irrational dread. The Lord did not have that fear which is contrary to nature.

St John of Damascus commenting on the above scriptural passage relates, "However, 'Not as I will but as Thou wilt', for inasmuch as He is God, He is identical with the Father, while inasmuch as He is man, He manifests the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally seeks escape from death."

We can see from these statements affirming what is taught by all the Fathers "that each nature does does in communion with the other what is natural to it."(paraphrased)

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Because, as he makes very clear at the beginning of his Tome, he is writing to counter the monophysitism of Eftychios (not to be confused with the essentially orthodox Cyrilline fundamentalism of the Orientals).

I certainly have not made such a confusion and I realize that the Cyrilline Miaphysitism of the Oriental Orthodox is distinct from the confusion of substances as found in Eutyches. And I certainly do agree with and respect this mission of Leo. There is nothing questionable about such an intention. It is simply some of the content used to accomplish this mission that I have a hard time with.




He states that each nature performs what is proper to it in order to show that the two did not become confused, nor did one swallow up the other,

But performance of actions is not something that a substance does. It is what an individual does. Though my soul and body remain of two different substances, I would not say that it is my soul that prays, but rather I that pray. How then is it appropriate to attribute action to two impersonal substances of Christ, even if it is for the purpose of developing the continuing dynamic reality of those substances in Christ?




but that the Son of God performs things divine by virtue of His being fully God, and things human by virtue of His being fully man.

I don't understand why it seems clear to people that "the Word performs that which belongs to the Word and the flesh performs what belongs to the flesh"

means: the Incarnate Word performs divine things by virtue of being God, and things human by virtue of being Man

rather than: each form**** vgfntrhjerh@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> does the acts which belong to, in Communion with the other, the Son of God performing things divine while the indwelt human performs things human.




I really do not see how this is different to St. Cyril stating that each nature "continues together in the particularity that belongs to the nature."

Really? It seems clear to me that Cyril is simply speaking of composition here. He is simply saying that humanity and divinity continue in Christ as the same humanity and divinity, with no mixture or confusion. Leo, however, is speaking of two distinct actors or performs, "the Word" and "the flesh", and designating two different actions and performances to them. That seems to be touching on subsistence rather than simply composition.




Again, St. Leo clearly attributes both to a single and undivided Person of the Son of God, stating that the Son of God was crucified and buried.

Theodore of Mopsuestia could just as easily have said that divine Christ was crucified and buried with respect to the humanity. Perhaps Leo is simply designating "Son of God" as the prosopon or persona of the prosopic union while designating two distinct subsistences: "the Word" and "the flesh".




All that he writes must be understood in light of his clear and irrefutable affirmation that one of the Holy Trinity died in the flesh, something incompatible with any notion of two subjects.

Perhaps with two subjects on a personal level. But it's not necessarily incompatible with two subjects on the level of subsistence.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

The human nature of Christ voluntarily submits to the divine in virtue of His sinlessness.

I've never heard of non-individual substances "submitting" at all. Are you suggesting that the human nature is its own subsistence that submits to the divine subsistence of Christ?




The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in Gethsemane, "O My Father, if it is possible let this cup pass from Me. nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."(Matt26.39,42)

Isn't that Jesus submitting to the will of the Father rather than His (Jesus') human nature submitting to His divine nature?




The following two Fathers interpreting the above verses are in agreement with Pope St. Leo and the other Fathers quoted on this thread:

St Maximus the confessor writes, "....It follows that the same One (Christ) not only willed appropriately as God in His Godhead but willled appropriatly as man in His humanity. For the things that exist came to be out of nothing, and have therefore a power that impels them to hold fast to existence, and NOT to non-existence, which power is simulateneously an inclination towards that which naturally maintains them in existence, and a drawing back from things destructive to their existence. Consequently the super-essential Word by virtue of his humanity, had of his humanity this self preserving power which clings to existence. And in fact, he exhibited both aspects of this power, willing the inclination and the drawing back on account of his human energy.....Fear is proper to nature when it is a force that clings to existence by drawing back from what is harmful, but it is contrary to nature when it is an irrational dread. The Lord did not have that fear which is contrary to nature.

St John of Damascus commenting on the above scriptural passage relates, "However, 'Not as I will but as Thou wilt', for inasmuch as He is God, He is identical with the Father, while inasmuch as He is man, He manifests the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally seeks escape from death."

We can see from these statements affirming what is taught by all the Fathers "that each nature does does in communion with the other what is natural to it."(paraphrased)

In the words of Maximus as above and John as above I see "the Word does what is proper to His humanity and His divinity, the two being in perfect hypostatic union". I do not see "each nature does in communion with the other what is natural to it".

[Kosta]

The will of Christ is one as pertaining to the divinity, and the human will is one with our will, except sin. Hence perfect God and Perfect man. The 2 natures are not seperate but distinct. A distinction must remain for without it, one ceases to be truly human and in the case of the divinity it would assume an increase in the Holy Trinity. They are unmixed, without comingling, united in a real union in the one person of Christ. Saint Maximos says, "The sentence, 'however, not as I will but as thou wilt', excludes all opposition, and demonstrates the union of the human will of the Savior with the divine will of the Father, since the whole Logos has united Himself essentially to the entirety of human nature."

It is the one and same person who acts, The one the 12 disciples beheld, who is Jesus of Nazareth the incarnate Son, but in somethings we attribute to the natures- the lower things to his humanity and the higher to his divinity. Not that the historical Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth exhibited a disorder of multi-personalities or bi-polarity, but he exhibited that which is natural for a human but not natural for God. He was able to get sick, to have an upset stomach, and to fear death, yet he went to the cross voluntarily. Anotherwords His perfect humanity harmoniously accepts the Will of the Father. Do you see the neccesity of the distinction of the natures? For God the Word is consubstantial with the Father but the created finite human nature is not.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

The will of Christ is one as pertaining to the divinity, and the human will is one with our will, except sin.

The "will of Christ" is a completely human and completely divine will, sure.




Hence perfect God and Perfect man.

Yep.




The 2 natures are not seperate but distinct.

Only to a certain extent. On the level of substance, composition, make-up, essence, etc., the humanity and divinity of Christ certainly remain distinct. On the level of their concrete operation and subsistence, however, they have been made as one into the nature of the union.




A distinction must remain for without it, one ceases to be truly human and in the case of the divinity it would assume an increase in the Holy Trinity. They are unmixed, without comingling, united in a real union in the one person of Christ.

Certainly.




Saint Maximos says, "The sentence, 'however, not as I will but as thou wilt', excludes all opposition, and demonstrates the union of the human will of the Savior with the divine will of the Father, since the whole Logos has united Himself essentially to the entirety of human nature."

I don't really see how Jesus' "human will" would require any such submission at that point in time. Any such submission, at least in terms of inconsistencies, must have been accomplished at the hypostatic union. Perhaps in this passage we can think of Jesus being afraid of dying, because this is a natural human impulse, but such fear was not really inconsistent with the divine will. Perhaps though you are thinking of something different by submission. When I think of submission I think of two contrary wills that are made consistent with each other by the repentance of one of them. I do not think such a thing could be possible in Jesus Christ, as there never could be any contrary content in His will with relationt to the Father's.




It is the one and same person who acts, The one the 12 disciples beheld, who is Jesus of Nazareth the incarnate Son, but in somethings we attribute to the natures- the lower things to his humanity and the higher to his divinity.

Such a thing is certainly acceptable when speaking of derivation and composition. We can say that (before the Resurrection) that the humanity of Christ was subject to corruption and decay. But we must also test and balance this by affirming the communication of attributes in the hypostatic union, such that the divinity participates in these attributes, though not assuming them as proper to it. We must say that God the Word suffered and died, not just say that His humanity suffered and died.




Not that the historical Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth exhibited a disorder of multi-personalities or bi-polarity, but he exhibited that which is natural for a human but not natural for God.

And yet what is natural for a human is become natural for God the Word.




Anotherwords His perfect humanity harmoniously accepts the Will of the Father.

Again, this language sounds a little sketchy. God the Word from all eternity inherited the will of the Father and submitted Himself to it. Then he united to Himself a perfect and complete humanity and began to subsist in it as His own, and He continued to submit to the will of the Father completely even as a human.




Do you see the neccesity of the distinction of the natures?

Of course I do. On the level of composition, it must be affirmed that though Jesus' humanity is "divinized" and "made incorrupt", that in essence His humanity remains wholly distinct from His divinity and that there is no mingling or mixture. However, on the level of subsistence, there must be no such distinction, for Christ has remained one.




For God the Word is consubstantial with the Father but the created finite human nature is not.

God the Word Incarnate is simultaneously completely consubstantial with the Father and also with respect to His non-divine aspects not consubstantial with the Father.

[Kosta]

I believe our thinking on this subject is very similar, although we may differ in understanding what the 6th council meany in saying, ".....But his human will follows, and that not as resisting or reluctant, but rather as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will..."

For it was right that "the flesh should be moved" suggests his human nature exhibiting that which makes it human, as in the case when Jesus prayed, "...if it is possible let this cup pass from me".

In another thread theres currently a discussion on natural will and gnomic will (which played a part in the 6th council), which can shed light on this area. In my previous thread i quoted St Maximos which made the distinction between the natural will of fearing death and an unnatural kind of fear resulting in crippling dread. The Lord in contemplating his death was immuned with the latter kind.

I agree, that we should not say that Christ's humanity died, it seems a denial of the hypostastic union (as you rightly say). But i would reject saying God the Word suffered and died since both examples seems to divide the natures, (in the first example the human nature is singled out as the element which is capable of suffering and dying, in the latter the divinity). Now perhaps you meant "God the Word Incarnate" suffered and died, this i affirm. As the blessed Virgin Mary is called Theotokos because she gave birth to God the Word according to the flesh likewise God the Word Incarnate (the child of Mary) suffered in His flesh.
I also say this because human nature consists of a body and a rational soul. The human soul itself does not die. As Christ taught, 'Fear not he who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul'. St John Chrysostom on his commentary on the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus says how violence cannot be incited against the soul. I say this to distinguish a general reference to humanity with what is meant by "human nature", the flesh may die but the nature is still there in the soul.

Anyhow, it was Jesus Christ who was crucified, a cohesive individual, perfect man and perfect God, the one and same cried out ,"My God, My God why have you forsaken me"?! This is a cry for all humanity, his human energy, his emotions, that nature which is one with our nature except sin, or paraphrasing "the particularity of the natures continuing together".

[Owen Jones]

The term "nature" is problematic in and of itself. It was used at the time because the Church drew on the philosophical language of the day. It certainly has a common sense meaning that we use all the time. It is the nature of water to be wet. It is the nature of lead to be heavy. At a certain point in scientific and philosophical development, these were extremely important revelations.

But when we are trying to apply this term to human beings and to God , or perhaps we can use it in reference to reality -- e.g. it is the nature of reality that... the problem arises that there is always flux. And the term itself seems to imply some fixity. Some constant. And we know that human beings are not constant, and one of the very basic tenets of the Church is that we can be and are to be changed. And we know this from science that something can be changed into something else. Water can become gas. Lead is an element, but it can be fused with other things to make something new. And there is an identifiable process for fusing lead with other metals.

So when we are fused with God we become something new, and the term nature does not quite cut it.

And so too, in a sense, with trying to speak of a divine nature. Because what is more important is what is the process between God and man. And we cannot really speak of either God and man apart from that process. That is the key. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as man, apart from the process between man and God.

Now, many if not most people today use terms like "encounter." But to me this does not really speak to what is happening, which is a process, which by analogy is like the process of forging a metal or turning water into a gas. It is certainly an encounter when the metal encounters heat! But there is an underlying process underway that is the key.

Of course a term like process can be misused to the point of being ridiculous, as with some of the so-called process theologians. They have taken a good concept that they borrowed from a really good philosopher and turned it into a junk concept by claiming that God changes.

In pastoral terms we are used to hearing about salvation as a kind of journey or pilgrimage. Also, in the early days, our faith was described as "the way." But there is a distinction between pastoral terminology used in worship, and theology proper which involves distinctions, and I think it is an important distinction to be aware that there is no such thing as man apart from the process between man and God.

Maybe one of these days I will come up with a better term and write a book about it! Unless someone here beats me to it.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I believe our thinking on this subject is very similar,

This is the impression I get as well. I haven't found any persisting disagreements in our explanation of the faith. And the interpretations you have provided for these texts appear to be orthodox. My only problem is that I do not yet see how these explanations truly coincide with what is said in the source texts.




although we may differ in understanding what the 6th council meany in saying, ".....But his human will follows, and that not as resisting or reluctant, but rather as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will..."

While I do have a feeling of suspicion from this text, given that there is no "moving of the flesh" aside from the direct and united experience of the Incarnate Word. The only "subjection" that the human will endures is one of perfect communion with respect to the hypostatic union.




For it was right that "the flesh should be moved" suggests his human nature exhibiting that which makes it human, as in the case when Jesus prayed, "...if it is possible let this cup pass from me".

And yet given the reality that the divine nature is perfectly united to the human nature in the hypostatic union, I really do not understand why we do not simply say that the Incarnate Word is exhibiting that which makes Him human, and thus identifying the experience with the subject rather than the impersonal substance He is composed of.




I agree, that we should not say that Christ's humanity died, it seems a denial of the hypostastic union (as you rightly say). But i would reject saying God the Word suffered and died since both examples seems to divide the natures, (in the first example the human nature is singled out as the element which is capable of suffering and dying, in the latter the divinity). Now perhaps you meant "God the Word Incarnate" suffered and died, this i affirm.

Well, it certainly would be correct to say that "God the Word Incarnate" died, because this is in reference to the one subsistence of Jesus Christ in which He experiences the death. However, I have often heard the phrase "God the Word" referring to the person of Jesus Christ rather than to His divine nature, and in that context I do think it would be appropriate to say that God the Word died.




Anyhow, it was Jesus Christ who was crucified, a cohesive individual, perfect man and perfect God, the one and same cried out ,"My God, My God why have you forsaken me"?! This is a cry for all humanity, his human energy, his emotions, that nature which is one with our nature except sin, or paraphrasing "the particularity of the natures continuing together".

Certainly.

[Andreas Moran]

'I was never so bethump'd with words.'

(Shakespeare, King John, II, i)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Christopher and others,

There have been some interesting comments in the above, which I have only now been able to read. I'm encouraged at the productive discussion.

It is particularly important to keep context very much in the forefront of one's mind as one reads the writings of this period. Individuals like St Leo, St Cyril, and many others were not making Christological statements intended to be taken as overarching, fully-adequate-in-their-own-right statements: rather, they were responding to specific problems, perversions, distortions, etc. The tendency to take specific statements, made in reaction to a certain point, and find problems with it when taken more broadly, is one that goes all the way back to the era itself; and a great number of the disputes that took place in the fourth and fifth centuries had at their core some of precisely this.

For St Leo's part, his emphasis on the two natures each acting according to their proper characteristics ('the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh...') is specifically aimed to refute the Eutychian monophysitism he saw in Constantinople - and which he couldn't quite believe others there had not yet challenged directly. He does not aim to deny the single subject of Christ, and so again and again refrains in his Tome that these are the works of the 'one and the same Son'. The problem was that in the context of the period, emphasis on Christ as one had led to a diminution of the true and full realities of both natures; and so it is this that he chooses to stress.

It is well and good to ask, as you do, 'Why does Leo not rather say that the enfleshened Word performs both things divine and human?', but this is to take a rather anachronistic view of history, as well as to give absolute monopoly to one form of Christological expression, which the Church does not do. Your statement, which is esentially Cyrilline in form, is good and accurate in its own right; but similar statements had led precisely to mis-readings that forged the basis of Eutyches' assertions. Statements such as St Leo's are necessary to ensure that the full dimensions of Christ's two natures are not lost.

This is not to suggest that there are not weaknesses in St Leo's articulation of Christ's person. There are definitely some difficult moments in the Tome. But one must see those writings in the proper context of response to issues at stake at the moment, as well as in the necessity to have a breadth of expression in order to ensure a right proclamation of the mystery of Christ's incarnation.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Kosta]

Very well said, Father!