Did the Logos assume human nature in general, or a complete human being?

[Daniel Smith]

I have lately been studying the Assyrian Church of the East and find it fascinating. One fascinating thing is that its Christology is not Nestorian, but the great systematizer of their CHristology was Babai the Great. He uses very Orthodox and chalcedonian sounding language, and I was wondering:

DId the Logos assume just a general human nature, or he did he assume a complete man? I do not doubt the Unity of Christ's two natures in one person, but I do not feel Chalcedon answered THIS question.

Naturally some things are given: a. The Complete reality of the Divinity of the Logos. b. The full and complete reality of the Humanity of the assumed nature. c. The real union of the Natures of each in the one Divine person of the Logos, Called Jesus Christ on earth. i.e. two "whats" in one "who".

But, supposing that the Logos did not assume the manhood in the Virgin's womb: Would she have given birth to a corpse? If we say yes, how do we account for the fact that the manhood assumed by the Logos had a rational soul? Would the manhood apart from the divinity then not have been a full and complete human person? For the Human personality resides in the Soul.

If we say no, The Virgin would have theoretically given birth to mere flesh, well then Apollinarius wins who said that the Logos took the place of the soul of the Humanity and was the vivifying principle.

Let us remember that the human soul of the manhood has its own properties of energy and will that are preserved intact in the union of assumption, according to the 6th ecumenical council.

SO, in other words, did the Logos assume a kind of mere humanity in general, or did he assume a man?

Again, if in theory the Logos abandoned the manhood, are we left with a corpse or a living man?

[Andreas Moran]

DId the Logos assume just a general human nature, or he did he assume a complete man?

Both, as I have been told.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The hymnody of the Church proclaims that Christ Jesus was both perfect God and perfect man. He was completely God and He was also completely human. Christ rested in the womb of the Theotokos, the true Ark of the Covenant. Her womb contains He who is uncontainable. If Christ had not "assume the flesh", there would not be a child in the womb.

We may as well ask if Christ were not one of the Trinity, would the Father and the Holy Spirit still be God?

The clear teaching of the Orthodox Church is that Christ was fully a man, even while at the same time, perfectly and fully God, although His divinity was "masked" by His humanity, except where He revealed Himself to His disciples at the Transfiguration on the mountain, where He partially "removed' His mask.

On Holy Saturday the Church sings that Christ is being glorified with the Father in Heaven while being in the Tomb and at the same time in Hades destroying its gates and freeing the captives, all this simultaneously. We may not fully understand the "how" but the "what" is pretty well laid out by the Orthodox Church.

[Ben Johnson]

I would agree with Herman, since Jesus called himself the "Son of man" and he was also called the "Son of David."

[Alex Haig]

The Logos was not joined to the embryo in the womb of the Theotokos, he was not somehow fused to a human and became "Christ". From the very moment of conception, the embryo was Christ, completely God and completely man.

As we will sing in only a few weeks:


The divine power of the Most High overshadowed the unwedded Maiden that she might conceive, and made her luxuriant womb appear as a luscious field for everyone who desires to reap salvation while chanting thusly: Alleluia.

In Xp

Alex

[Father David Moser]

I have lately been studying the Assyrian Church of the East and find it fascinating. One fascinating thing is that its Christology is not Nestorian, but the great systematizer of their CHristology was Babai the Great. He uses very Orthodox and chalcedonian sounding language, and I was wondering:

DId the Logos assume just a general human nature, or he did he assume a complete man? ...

SO, in other words, did the Logos assume a kind of mere humanity in general, or did he assume a man?

Again, if in theory the Logos abandoned the manhood, are we left with a corpse or a living man?

You do not see the Assyrian Church as Nestorian and yet these questions, while they can be understood in an Orthodox fashion, are in fact framed in a very Nestorian manner. The Son did not "assume" humanity or a person but He became man. Nor could He even theoretically "abandon the manhood" for the very notion that there was any kind of essential division is in and of itself unthinkable in Orthodoxy, but only conceivable from a Nestorian theology.

Fr David Moser

[Daniel Smith]

Like I said, I agree that there is no division, there is one Divine Person who assumed and made is own the nature of humanity. Just how complete was the assumed manhood though? What is the nature of the relation between the divine and human natures? Chalcedon did not address that.

If we say that the Logos assumed the human nature and became the personality of Christ, is that not the same as apollinarius? For he taught that if the Logos did not replace the soul of the manhood, then he at least replaced its higher faculties. How do we address that and retain a complete manhood?

[Olga]

What does the Orthodox Church have to say about the Incarnation?

Selections from the Vigil for the feast of the Annunciation:

Today is the beginning of our salvation, the revelation of the eternal mystery. The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin as Gabriel announces the coming of grace. Together with him let us cry to the Mother of God: Hail, Lady full of grace, the Lord is with you. (troparion of the Feast)

The archangel Gabriel was sent from heaven by God to an undefiled virgin in the city of Nazareth in Galilee, to bring her glad tidings of the wondrous manner of her conceiving. The bodiless servant was sent to the living city and the spiritual gate, to make known to her the condescension and the coming of the Master. The captain of heaven was sent to the living pavilion of glory, to make ready an everlasting dwelling for the Maker. And coming before her he cried: Hail, fiery throne, more glorious by far than the four-faced living creatures. Hail, seat of the king of heaven. Hail, unhewn mountain and precious vessel. For in you the whole fullness of the Godhead has come to dwell bodily, by the good pleasure of the everlasting Father, and the joint working of the Holy Spirit. Hail, Lady full of grace, the Lord is with you.

The Mother of God heard the mysterious voice as the Archangel announced the words of glad tidings. When she accepted this salutation she conceived You, the eternal God, in her womb. Therefore we cry out with joy: Unchanging God who took flesh from her: Grant peace to the world and to our souls, great mercy.

Behold, our restoration is now made manifest: God is ineffably joined to man. At the words of the Archangel, error has vanished; the Virgin has received the joyful news, and the things of earth have become those of heaven. The world is released from the ancestral curse. Let all creation rejoice, singing a hymn of praise: Lord, our Creator and Deliverer, glory to You.

You seek to know from me the manner of your conceiving, O Virgin, but this is beyond all interpretation. The Holy Spirit will overshadow you in His creative power and shall make this come to pass.

The word of God has now come down upon the earth. The Angel stood before the Virgin and cried aloud: Hail, blessed Mistress, who alone among women has preserved the seal of your virginity, while yet receiving in your womb the pre-eternal Word and Lord, that He as God may save mankind from error.

Gabriel, the supreme commander, was sent from heaven by God; and he quickly presented himself before the living city, saying to her: “You shall receive the Creator in your womb, O Virgin, and shall truly give birth to Him in the flesh. Therefore, I am sent to announce to you your strange birthgiving, O pure one, and stand here, crying aloud to you: Hail, unwedded Bride!”

I have learned from the prophet who foretold in ancient times of the coming of Emmanuel, that a certain holy Virgin should bear a Child. But I long to know how the nature of mortal men shall undergo union with the Godhead.

The bush that burned with fire and yet remained unconsumed disclosed the mystery that shall come to pass in you. For after childbirth, you shall remain ever-virgin, pure Maiden, full of grace.

Tell me truly, O Gabriel, herald of the truth, shining with the radiance of Almighty God: how shall my purity remain untouched, and I bear in my flesh the bodiless Word?

I stand before you in awe, as a servant before his mistress, and I am afraid to look at you now in my awe, O Maiden. In His good pleasure the Word of God shall descend upon you, as dew upon the fleece.

You bring me good tidings of divine joy: that immaterial Light, in His abundant compassion, will be united to a material body. And now you cry out to me: All-pure One, blessed is the fruit of your womb.

Holy Virgin, replied the Angel, You tell me of the usual manner in which men are born. But I tell you of the birth of the true God! In ways that He alone knows, beyond words and understanding, He shall take flesh of you. Therefore, I cry rejoicing: All works of the Lord, bless the Lord.

The captain of the angelic hosts was sent by almighty God to the pure Virgin to announce the good tidings of a strange and secret wonder: That God as man would be born a Child of her without seed, fashioning again the whole human race. Proclaim, O people, the good tidings of the re-creation of the world. (Exaposteilarion of the feast)

Today is revealed the eternal mystery, the Son of God becomes the Son of man. By accepting the lowest, He grants me the highest. Of old, Adam was deceived: he sought to become God but he did not receive his desire. Now God becomes man, that He may make Adam God. Let creation rejoice; let nature exult: for the Archangel stands in fear before the Virgin, saying: Hail! He brings her the greeting by which our sorrow is healed. Lord, who in Your compassion became a man, glory to You.

[Olga]

And, from the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord:

A great and wondrous mystery unfolds today. A virgin gives birth and remains a virgin. The Word is made flesh without leaving His Father. Angels and shepherds glorify Him. Let us join in their song: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace!”

Today the Virgin gives birth to him who is above all being,
And the earth offers the Cave to him whom no one can approach;
Angels with Shepherds give glory,
And Magi journey with a star;
For us there has been born
A little Child: God before the ages. (Kontakion of the feast)

The Creator, seeing humanity that He had made with his own hands perishing, bowed the heavens and came down; but He took its whole being from a divine, pure Virgin, being made truly flesh; for He has been glorified.

Adam, formed of dust, who had shared in a better breath of life and slipped down to corruption through a woman’s deception, seeing Christ born from a woman cries out: For me You have become as me; glory to You, O Lord!

You have made Yourself, O Christ, one in form with a moulding of vile clay, and by sharing in what is worse, our flesh, You grant a share in divine stock, becoming mortal, yet remaining God, and raising up our horn. Holy are You, O Lord!


A young Child has been born from Adam’s matter, and a Son has been given to the believers; this is the Father and Ruler of the age to come, and He is called the Angel of great counsel; this is the mighty God who holds by His authority all creation.

Today Christ is born of the Virgin in Bethlehem. Today He who is without beginning begins to be, and the Word is made flesh. The Powers of heaven rejoice, and earth with mankind is glad. The Magi offer gifts; the Shepherds proclaim the marvel, while we cry aloud without ceasing: Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth; to men of goodwill.

[Daniel Smith]

Amen! But still, how does the Word appropriate for himself the manhood without replacing the higher faculties of the soul? To be free of apollinarianism, we must contend that the Logos did not subsume any of the souls faculties. And are not the faculties of the soul, intellect, reason and self-awareness? How are we to understand this oneness brought about by the hypostatic union then?

If personhood is in the soul, and the Logos did not replace the soul, what became of the personhood of the manhood? If the Logos became the consciousness of the manhood, is this not a replacing of the higher faculties of the soul?

I do believe in the Hypostatic union as defined by Chalcedon.

However:

How complete was the hypostasis of the manhood?

[Paul Cowan]

How complete was the hypostasis of the manhood?

100 percent

[Alex Haig]

Amen! But still, how does the Word appropriate for himself the manhood without replacing the higher faculties of the soul? To be free of apollinarianism, we must contend that the Logos did not subsume any of the souls faculties. And are not the faculties of the soul, intellect, reason and self-awareness? How are we to understand this oneness brought about by the hypostatic union then?

We do not believe that the divine mind was joined to a human being, that is Apollinarianism which is a condemned heresy.

Christ has two natures, he is the Theanthropos, the God-man. This means that he is consubstantial with the Father (and the Spirit) regarding his divinity and consubstantial with us regarding his humanity. He is complete God and complete man. He therefore has two wills, divine and human. The following is quite a long quotation but I think it might add something to this discussion. It is from St Maximus' Disputation with Pyrrhus. It was written within the background of the monthylite dispute, that is, the question of Christ's wills, one or two.


Pyrrhus: In which of our conceptions have we abandoned the doctrine of Christians?

Maximus: In conceiving one will of the deity and the humanity of Christ. And not only thinking it, but also by harming the entire body of the Holy Church by propagating it through your novel Ekthesis.

Pyrrhus: What? Do you really think that whosoever thinks that there is one will of Christ moves away from Christian doctrine?

Maximus: Yes, I truly do. For what is a more irreverent conception than that which maintains that the same person with the very same will, which before the Incarnation created everything from nothing and which maintains, provides, and orders everything for salvation, after the Incarnation desired food and drink, changed from one position to another, and performed all manner of similar things that are free from blame and reproach, but which would by this means prove that the whole Economy of the Incarnation was not illusory?

Pyrrhus: But is Christ one or not?

Maximus: Yes, obviously He is one.

Pyrrhus: If Christ be one person, then he willed as one person. And if he willed as one person, then doubtless he has one will and not two.

Maximus: … Explain this to me: If Christ is one, is he God only, or man only, or both together, God and man?

Pyrrhus: Obviously, God and man.

Maximus: Therefore, Christ exists as God and as man by nature. Then did he will as God and as man, or only as Christ? If it were Christ who willed and initiated actions, being both God and man, then it is clear that, being one and the same, he willed dually and not singly. For if Christ be nothing else apart from the natures from which and in which he exists, then obviously he willed and operated in a manner corresponding to each of his natures, in other words, as each nature is capable of operating. And if he has two natures, then he surely must have two natural wills, the wills and essential operations being equal in number to the natures. For just as the number of natures of the one and the same Christ, correctly understood and explained, does not divide Christ bur rather preserves the distinction of natures in the union, so likewise the number of essential attributes, wills, and operations, attached to those two natures does not divide Christ either. Fro throughout both of this natures there flowed the same activity and purpose, to wit, our salvation. This introduces no division – God forbid – bur rather shows that they are preserved unimpaired, in their entirety, even in the union.

Pyrrhus: But it is impossible not to imply some ‘willer’ along with the will itself.

Maximus: … if one suggests that a ‘willer’ is implied in the notion of the will, then by the exact inversion of this principle of reasoning, a will is implied in the notion of a willer. Thus, will you say that because of the one will of the superessential Godhead there is only one hypostasis, as did Sabellius, or that because there are three hypostases there are also three wills, and because of this, three natures as well, since the canons and definitions of the Fathers say that the distinction of wills implies a distinction of natures? So said Arius.

Pyrrhus: But it is impossible for two wills to exist in one person without opposition.

Maximus: [What would be] the real cause of this conflict? The natural will or sin? If you say it is the natural will, and since we already know that there is no other cause of this than God, then you make God the Author of the conflict [of wills]. But if the cause is sin, and if Christ be free from sin, then the Incarnate God had no opposition of any kind in those wills proper to his natures, since no effect can result from a cause that does not exist.

Pyrrhus: Therefore, the willing appertains to nature?

Maximus: Yes, the simple ‘willing’, at least, appertains to nature.

Pyrrhus: But if the willing appertains to nature, and if the more distinguished of the Fathers say that there is one will of God and his saints, then there will be one nature of God and the saints.

Maximus: … You must say whether the saints, when saying that there is one will of God and the saints mean the creative and essential will of God [itself], or whether they mean the object of that will. For the will and the object of that will are not the same things …

Pyrrhus: If in our wills we differ from ourselves, or from each other, and now will something and now do not will it, then not only shall we be of a different nature than other men – for we often differ with their wills – but we shall change our own nature any number of times as well.

Maximus: The will and the mode of willing are not the same …

Pyrrhus: If you say that the will is natural, and if what is natural be compelled and if you say that the wills in Christ are natural, you do in fact take away all his voluntary motion.

Maximus: Not only does his divine and uncreated nature have no natural compulsion, neither does his rational and created …

Pyrrhus: One should gladly accept what has been proven by this inquiry. And the argument [thus far] has shown with great clarity that there are two natural wills in Christ. However, just as we say that it is possible for there to be one composite nature from two natures, so it is also possible for there to be one composite will from two wills.

Maximus: … If you say there is a synthesis of wills [into one will], then you shall be forced to say that there is a synthesis of all other natural properties as well. In other words … of the Uncreated and the created, of the Infinite and the finite …

Pyrrhus: There is nothing, then, which the natures and natural properties have in common?

Maximus: Nothing, save only the hypostasis of the same natures …

[Kosta]

Dear Daniel,

You wont find the answers your seeking in the 4th council held in chalcedon because they were dealt with already in the third council of Ephesus. The third and fourth ecumenical councils go hand in hand, The former dealing with the hypostatic union and the indivisibility of the one Christ. The latter with the distinctions (yet inseperable) of the two natures in the one incarnate Christ. What your seeking could be found in the epistles of Cyril to Nestorius presented at Ephesus 431ad. This excerpt may help:

..."Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?) but as having become truly the very own of him who for us both became and was called Son of Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two (ἐκ δύο) and they diverse, yet he has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person (παρ’ ἑνὸς εἰρῆσθαι)."

[Daniel Smith]

Ok, let me redefine the thrust of my question: If Christ took a human nature that is complete, that is 100% Man, including the rational soul, intellect and will, and PERSONHOOD RESIDES IN THE SOUL, what became of the personhood of the man, or did he take a general nature and make it his own and not a particular one? IS it wrong to say that he made the person of the man his own? If so, then how does christ have a human soul disunited from the person of the manhood? If we say that The Divine person overwhelmed the personhood of the manhood, this would be the displacement of one of the highest faculties of the soul: Personhood. Hence, apollinarianism.

Another way to propose the question: Did The Logos Take a Human Personality? If so, It sounds like Nestorianism, if not, it sounds like apollinarianism. Can anyone adress this nuance? Please remember I accept Ephesus and Chalcedon.

I see Nestorius and Cyril's Dillemma.

[Olga]

Dear Daniel, consider also what the Orthodox Church says about the natures of Christ in the Matins service for the Raising of Lazarus, the prelude to Palm Sunday:

O Fountain of wisdom and foreknowledge, You asked the companions of Martha when You came to Bethany: Where have you laid My friend Lazarus? Shedding for him tears of tender love, You called to him in Your compassion and raised him by Your voice, though he was four days dead; for You are Giver of life and Lord.

In the beginning You brought all creation out of nothing, and You know the secrets of our hearts; and now as Master You foretold the falling asleep of Lazarus to Your disciples.

O Christ, You became man, taking human nature from the Virgin, and as man You asked where Lazarus was buried, although as God You were not ignorant of this.

Displaying Your two energies, O Saviour, You made manifest Your two natures: for You are both God and man.

Though You are the Abyss of knowledge, You asked where they have laid the body of Lazarus. For it was Your purpose, O Giver of Life, to raise him from the dead.

Going from one place to another as a mortal man, You have appeared circumscribed; but, as God uncircumscribed, You fill all things.

O Lord who works miracles, standing in Bethany by the tomb of Lazarus, You shed tears for him in accordance with the law of nature, confirming the full reality of the flesh which You have taken, O Jesus my God.

The sisters of Lazarus stood beside Christ and, lamenting with bitter tears, they said to Him: “O Lord, Lazarus is dead.” And though as God He knew the place of burial, yet He asked them, “Where have you laid him?” Coming to the tomb, He called Lazarus that was four days dead; and he arose and worshipped the Lord who had raised him.

Foreknowing all things as Creator, You warned the disciples at Bethany, saying: “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep today.” And, though You were not ignorant, You asked: “Where have you laid him?” Weeping as a man, You prayed to the Father; You called Your friend Lazarus from hell, O Lord, and raised him when he had been four days dead. Therefore we cry to You: Accept, O Christ our God, the praise we dare to offer, and count us all worthy of Your glory.

You prayed to the Father, not because You are in need of any help, but to fulfil the mystery of Your Incarnation; and so, almighty Lord, You raised up a corpse that was four days dead.

Co-eternal with the Father, the Word that was revealed from the beginning as God, now offers prayers as man, though it is He that receives the prayers of all.

You are my might, O Lord, You are my power; You are my God, You are my joy. You were not separated from the Father, yet You have visited our poverty. Therefore with the Prophet Habakkuk I cry to You: Glory to Your power, O You who loves mankind.

As true God You knew of the falling asleep of Lazarus and announced it beforehand to Your disciples, giving them a proof, O Master, of the infinite power of Your divinity.

You who are by nature uncircumscribed was circumscribed in the flesh; coming to Bethany, O Master, as man You weep over Lazarus, and by Your power as God You raise him on the fourth day from the dead.

As mortal man You asked where Lazarus was buried; as Maker, You raised him from the dead by Your royal command. Hell was afraid of him when he cried out to You: “Praise the Lord and exalt Him above all for ever.”

As a mortal, You search for Lazarus; as God, You raise him by Your word, though he was four days dead. Therefore we sing Your praises forever.

As man You pray to the Father, as God You raise Lazarus. Therefore, O Christ, we sing Your praises forever.

You walk and weep and speak, my Saviour, showing the action of Your human nature; and, revealing Your divine nature, You raise Lazarus.

In ways beyond words, my Master and Saviour, You have brought about my salvation by the free will exercised in each of Your two natures.

O Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life of man, standing by the tomb of Lazarus You have confirmed our faith in Your two natures, O forbearing Lord, proving that You were born from the pure Virgin as both God and man. For as man You asked, “Where is he buried?” and as God by Your life-giving command You raised him from the dead on the fourth day.

You have granted to Your disciples, O Christ, tokens of Your divinity, but You have humbled Yourself among the crowds, wishing to conceal it from them. Foreknowing all things as God, You have foretold to the apostles the death of Lazarus; yet at Bethany, when in the presence of the people, You have as man asked where Your friend was buried, being ignorant of this. But then You raised him four days after he was dead, and so he rendered manifest Your power as God. O almighty Lord, glory to You.

[Anna Stickles]

But still, how does the Word appropriate for himself the manhood without replacing the higher faculties of the soul? To be free of apollinarianism, we must contend that the Logos did not subsume any of the souls faculties. And are not the faculties of the soul, intellect, reason and self-awareness? How are we to understand this oneness brought about by the hypostatic union then?

If personhood is in the soul, and the Logos did not replace the soul, what became of the personhood of the manhood? If the Logos became the consciousness of the manhood, is this not a replacing of the higher faculties of the soul?

If Christ took a human nature that is complete, that is 100% Man, including the rational soul, intellect and will, and PERSONHOOD RESIDES IN THE SOUL, what became of the personhood of the man
In all of these you seem to be equating personhood with the soul. This is not how the Fathers understand personhood. Personhood comprises the whole man.

To quote Fr Dn Matthew (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5724-1-Corinthians-15-the-spiritual-body-and-the-bodily-resurrection&p=74102&viewfull=1#post74102) explaining a quote from St Ireneaus on person

"This, St Irenaeus stresses, includes all aspects of the human creature, physical as well as spiritual; and this leads him to discuss (in one of his more famous comments) the relationship of body, soul, spirit to the overall ‘person’. Namely, the soul is part of man, but not man; the body is part of man, but not man. ‘Man’ is the communion of these divinely-fashioned realities."The whole post is well worth reading.

If our personhood encompasses both soul and body, it seems consistent to say that Christ's personhood encompasses the fullness of both of His natures. There are more technical aspects of personhood that I have not delved deeply enough to understand but in all of them personhood is not the soul but a more encompassing reality.

[Paul Cowan]

A Spiritual Psalter from St. Ephraim the Syrian published by St. John Kronstadt Press 1990, Pgs.45-48 Ch. 23 "Our Savior, Both God and Man"

We confess one and the same individual as perfect God and perfect Man. He is God the Word Which was flesh.

For if He was not flesh, why was Mary chosen? And if He is not God, whom does Gabriel call Lord?
If He was not flesh, who was laid in a manger? And if He was not God, whom did the angels who came down from heaven glorify?
If he was not flesh, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes? And if He is not God, in whose honor did the star appear?
If He was not flesh, whom did Simeon hold in his arms? And if He is not God, to whom did Simeon say: Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace?
If He was not flesh whom did Joseph take when he fled into Egypt? And if He is not God, who fulfilled the prophesy: Out of Egypt have I called my Son?
If He was not flesh, whom did John Baptize? And if He is not God, to whom did the father say: This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased?
If He was not flesh, who hungered in the desert? And if He is not God, unto whom did the angels come and minister?
If He was not flesh, who was invited to the marriage in Cana of Galilee? And if He is not God, who turned the water into wine?
If He was not flesh, who took the loaves in the desert? And if He is not God, who fed the five thousand men and their women and children with five loaves and two fish?
If He was not flesh, who slept in the ship? And if He is not God, who rebuked the waves and the sea?
If He was not flesh, with whom did Simon the Pharisee sit at meet? And if He is not God, who forgave the sins of the harlot?
If He was not flesh, who wore a man's garment? And if He is not God, who healed the woman with the issue of blood when she touched His garment?
If He was not flesh, who spat on the ground and made clay? And if He is not God, who gave sight to the eyes of the blind man with that clay?
If He was not flesh, who wept at Lazarus' grave? And if He is not God, who commanded him to come forth four days after his death?
If He was not flesh, whom did the Jews arrest in the garden? And if He is not God, who cast them to the ground with the words: I am He?
If he was not flesh, who was judged before pilot? And if He is not God, who frightened pilot's wife in a dream?
If He was not flesh, whose garments were stripped from Him and parted to the soldiers? And if He is not God, why was the sun darkened upon His crucifixion?
If He was not flesh, who was crucified on the cross? And if He is not God, who shook the foundations of the earth?
If He was not flesh, whose hands and feet were nailed to the cross? And if He is not God, how did it happen that the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the rocks were rent and the graves opened?
If He was not flesh, who hung on the cross between the two theives? And if He is not God, how could He say to the thief: Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise?
If He was not flesh, who cried out and gave up the ghost? And if He is not God, whose cry caused many bodies of the saints which slept to arise?
If He was not flesh, whom did the women see laid in the grave? And if He is not God, about whom did the angel say to them: He has risen, He is not here?
If He was not flesh, whom did Thomas touch when he put his hands into the prints of the nails? And if He is not God, who entered through the doors that were shut?
If He was not flesh, who ate at the sea of Tiberius? And if He is not God, on whose orders were the nets filled with fish?
If He was not flesh, whom did the apostles see carried up into heaven? And if He is not God, who ascended to the joyful cries of the angels, and to whom did the Father proclaim: sit at My right hand?
If He is not God and man then, indeed, our salvation is false and false are the pronouncements of the prophets.

[Daniel Smith]

I see a bit more clearly now, especially on the personhood issue. Thanks Paul and Anna.

[Anna Stickles]

"For He did not receive from us a human person, but assumed our human nature and renewed it by uniting it with His own Person."

Here is a quote from St Gregory of Palamas on this issue, that might also be helpful.

[Richard A. Downing]

I see Nestorius and Cyril's Dillemma.

Could this dilemma, and your own, not stem from our perceiving God as being 'in time' whereas time itself is part of His creation? The arguments you quote are all full of tenses, and there is no tense about the Incarnation (or anything else), except as we perceive it as happening in Palestine 2000 years ago.
Forgive me, if this is going over old ground, but this is always where I get to when listening to the early Christological discussions.
InXC
Richard.

[Daniel Smith]

After having read St. Cyril's "That Christ is One," the issue is very much clarified now. Thank you all for so much Patience.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The following are abstracts from a translation of an article written by Senior Priest Vladimir Mustafin, Professor of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg, from Russian into English. I think it bears on this topic because it specifically discusses the union of God and man in Christ.


The Theological Basis for the Veneration of the Icon of Jesus Christ
In the 8th and the 9th century the iconoclasts put forward a much subtler argument rather than a simple reference to the biblical commandment forbidding images of God. They proceeded from the Chalcedonian Creed that recognized two natures, in Jesus Christ, human and divine, united within themselves, unconfused, indivisibly, inseparably, and unchangeably. If that is the case, said the iconoclastic theologians, then the icon image of Jesus Christ is indeed impossible because no image can represent both of His natures (His divine nature cannot be made out of any material - paint, mosaic, marble, gypsum, etc). Separating the two natures is the Nestorian heresy, concluded the iconoclastic theologians.

The iconoclastic argument seemed to be logical. That is why the anti-icon movement was lasting for so long (about 150 years) swallowing up many outstanding people of that time. Nevertheless that argument had a fundamental theological error, and specifically a Christological one, which finally became fatal to the iconoclastic theory. The Orthodox Defenders of images of Christ found out that the iconoclastic theologians kept passing in silence the other major category of this dogma 96 the category of person of Jesus Christ - the hypostasis!

The category of hypostasis is the basis for the iconography of Christ. The Icon of Christ portrays neither His divinity nor His humanity but His hypostasis, marvelous and mysterious to human wit - it is the hypostasis that unites together both natures (human and divine) unconfused, indivisibly, inseparably, and unchangeably according to the Confession of Chalcedon.

The icon of Christ served as the basis for Christian iconography. On this basis it was easy enough to prove the legitimacy of other icons: the icon of the Mother of God, the New Testament saints, the Old Testament prophets and righteous men. The veneration of Holy Relics of Saints and the veneration of the Cross were also proved by this icon. On the contrary, starting from the denial of the icon of Christ iconoclasts would inevitably, though sometimes not at once, deny the icons at all, deny Holy Relics and the Cross.

One of the major definitions of the Seventh Council of Nicaea (met in 787) is that the iconic images of the Savior, Mother of God, Saints and also Relics of the Holy martyrs and the image of Cross must always be venerated in the Orthodox Church.

Translated by Oleg Anishchenkov

[Andreas Moran]

In short, icons are not portraits.

[Olga]

All credit to Fr Vladimir Mustafin for his work. Here's perhaps my favourite and erudite quote on the matter, from St John of Damascus:

"Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected."

There are so many riches to be gleaned from this short statement.