The
Nature Of Christ
The
Orthodox Concept Concerning The Nature of Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Logos Who took to Himself a perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling, confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe this union. It was said, that without controversy, "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." (I Tim. 3:16)
As
this union is permanent, never divided nor separated, we say in the liturgy
that His Godhead never departed from His manhood for a single moment nor even
for a twinkle of an eye.
The
Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of
the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and
sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would
inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united
with the Only-Begotten Son. This Unity took place from the first moment of the
Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb.
As
a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the
Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of
God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it.
After
the schism which took place in the year 451 A.D., when the Coptic Orthodox
Church rejected the motions of the Council of Chalcedon and its theological
struggles, we were called "Monophysites" that is, those who believe
in the "One Nature". Sharing our belief are the Syrians, the
Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Indians; who were also called "Non-Chalcedonian"
Orthodox Churches.
On
the other hand, the Chalcedonian Catholic and Creek Churches "The Roman
Orthodox" believe in the two natures of Christ; the Protestant Churches
also hold this belief. Consequently, these churches are known as "Diophysites"
- believers in the two natures of Christ.
The
Roman - or Chalcedonian - Orthodox Churches include those of Constantinople,
Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Romania, Hungary and Serbia as well as the Roman
Orthodox Churches of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, America and the St. Catherine
Monastery in the Sinai desert.
The
term "Monophysites" used for the believers in the One Nature has
been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain
periods of history. Consequently, the Coptic and the Syrian Churches in
particular were cruelly persecuted because of their belief, especially during
the period which started from the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A,D. and
continued to the conquest of the Arabs in Egypt and Syria (about 641 A.D.).
This
misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature
of Christ and denied the other nature.
We
wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies? Is it the
Divine nature? Certainly not, for our Church was the most fervent defender
against the Arian heresy in the Council of Nicea, held in the year 325 A.D.,
as well as before and after that. Or is it The Lord’s human nature that the
Church of Alexandria denies? St. Athanasius of Alexandria resolved this
entirely in the oldest and greatest book on this subject The Incarnation of
the Word,
The
expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone
nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into
One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos".
The
same applies when we speak about our human nature which comprises two united
natures: the soul and the body. Thus, man’s nature is not the soul alone nor
the body alone, but their union in one nature called human nature. We will
discuss this point in detail later on.
St.
Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So
we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature
within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again
about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression "two natures"
implies in itself division or separation, and although those who believe in
"the two natures" admit unity, the tone of separation was obvious in
the Council of Chalcedon - a matter which prompted us to reject the Council
and caused the exile of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.
Before
we go further in explaining the subject of the One Natures and the two natures
of Christ, we would like to give a brief description of the widely known
heresies concerning the Nature of Christ.
The
Widely known Heresies Concerning The Nature of Christ
A.
The Heresy of Arius (Arianism):
Arius
denied the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; he considered that Christ was
not consubstantial with the Father and that He was created. The roots of
Arianism still exist until this day. Even after being condemned in 325 A.D. by
the Council of Nicea, Arius and his followers caused trouble, dissension and
suspicions within the Holy Church.
B. The Heresy of Apollinarius:
Apollinarius
preached the Divine Nature of Christ, but did not believe in His complete
human nature; he considered that the human nature of Christ was not in need of
a soul and thus He was without soul because God the Logos provided the needed
life. As this implied that the human nature of Christ was incomplete, the Holy
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 381 A.D. condemned Apollinarius
and rejected his idea declaring it a heresy.
C.
The Heresy of Nestorus (Nestorianism):
Nestorus
was Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D., he was excommunicated by the Holy
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus held in 431 A.D. because he refused to name the
Virgin St. Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos). He believed that St.
Mary gave birth to a mere human and that Divinity descended and filled this
human; Thus the Virgin Mary would be called the "Mother of Jesus" (Christokos),
and not the "Mother of God" (Theotokos).
Nestorus’
priest, Anastasius, spread this teaching; and Nestorus then confirmed it and
wrote five books to refute the idea that the Virgin was the "Mother of
God". In doing so he is considered to have denied the Divinity of Christ.
His
theory that Divinity descended and filled Our Lord meant that there was no
Hypostatic union, but rather meant that the Divinity descended to accompany
Him or to fill Him as in the case of saints.
In
other words, Nestorus’ concept meant that Christ became a dwelling for God
just as He became a dwelling for the Holy Spirit through His Baptism. As such,
Christ is considered a "Carrier of God" (Theophorus), which is the
same title given to St. Ignatius of Antioch.
He
Explained that it was impossible for the Virgin to give birth to God, as the
creation never gives birth to the Creator. Besides, whatever is born of flesh
will merely be flesh. Thus the opinion of Nestorus was that the relation
between the human nature of Christ and the Divine nature started just after
His Birth from the Virgin and it was not a Hypostatic union. He explicitly
said: "I distinguish between the two natures".
In
this way the Nestorian belief is against the Propitiation Creed, because if
Christ has not united with the Divine nature it would have been impossible for
Him to offer an unlimited propitiation (or sacrifice.) sufficient for the
forgiveness of all sins of all people throughout the ages.
When
our Church says that the Virgin is the "Mother of God", it confirms
that she gave birth to the Incarnate Logos and not that she was the source of
the Divine nature. Certainly not.
God
the Logos is the Creator of the Virgin, but He, in the fullness of time,
descended and filled her and she became pregnant and carried Him united with
the human nature and she gave birth to Him.
The
twelve Anathemas which St. Cyril issued include answers to all the Nestorian
heresies. He condemned those who said that the two natures resulted from being
joined together and those who said that God the Logos was working in the man
Jesus or that God the Logos was dwelling in Jesus. He also condemned those who
distinguished between Jesus and God the Logos claiming that He was merely a
man born of a woman.
D.
The Heresy of Eutyches (Eutychianism):
Eutyches
was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He zealously opposed
the Nestorian heresy and was so highly concerned about the unity of the two
natures in Christ, which Nestorus tore apart, that he fell into another
heresy.
Eutyches
said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as
a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of
Christ. After St. Dioscorus had excommunicated him, Eutyches pretended that he
repented and accepted the true faith and St. Dioscorus allowed him to return
on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again
declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held
in 451 A.D., and was also excommunicated by the Coptic Church.
The
Council of Chalcedon:
In
spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorus, the
Nestorian roots extended to influence the council of Chalcedon where the trend
to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is
two persons, a God and a human being; the one works miracles and the other
accepts insults and humiliation.
Following
the same trend, Lee, the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome
which was rejected by the Coptic Church. But the Council accepted and voted
for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity:
a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its
role.
Nestorus
claimed that those two natures were distinctly separate. The Cartage’s
Council proclaimed their union but Nestorus separated them by this
explanation. Just as he concluded that Christ had two natures, he also
concluded that He had two wills and two lines of action.
The
problem of the two natures and two wills has its roots here and thus began
disruption and conflict within the Church. Now we are trying to settle this
question by attempting to rewrite a satisfactory wording of our faith, which
would be acceptable to
all.
The
Nature of this Union: Union Without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration or
Transmutation
By
"one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling
as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea.
Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example
carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes
when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it
before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human
nature as a result of their unity.
Furthermore,
unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither
did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature,
transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human
nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
The
Example of the Union of Iron and Fire:
St.,
Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of
ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we
say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man".
In
the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into
iron.
Both
are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation
is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement,
but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to
retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire.
Likewise,
the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine
characteristics and all the human as well.
The
Example of the Union between the Soul and the Body:
This
example was used by St. Cyril, St. Augustine and a large number of ancient and
recent theologians.
In
this simile, the nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of
the body to form a union of one nature, which is the human nature.
This
united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both
together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation.
No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the
soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one
nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the
soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine
and the human into one Nature?!
Here
we’d like to raise an important question regarding the One Nature and the
Two Natures: Do we not all admit that the nature which we call Human Natures
contained before the unity two Natures: the soul and the body? yet, those who
claim that there are two natures in Christ: a divine and a human, do not
mention the two natures of manhood i.e. the soul and the body but consider
them one.
If
we go into details we would find ourselves before three natures in Christ!!!
the Divinity, the soul and the body, and each of them has its distinct entity
and essence... Of course, this is unacceptable on both sides.
When
we accept the union of the soul and the body in one nature in Christ, and when
we use the expression theologically, it becomes easier for us to use the
expression "One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God, the
Incarnate Logos".
Just
as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or
natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Logos, that He is one entity of
two elements or natures.
If
the Divine nature is claimed to differ from the human nature, how then do they
unite? The reply is that the nature of the soul is fundamentally different
from the nature of the body, yet it is united with it in one nature, which is
the human nature.
Although
man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one
person. All man’s acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul
alone or to the body alone.
Thus
when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept,
or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry,
or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man’s acts are attributed to him as
a whole and not only to his body.
Similarly,
all the acts of Christ were attributed to Rim as a whole and not to His Divine
nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone.
This
was explained by Leo in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall give further
explanation to this point later on, God willing.
The
union of the soul and body is an intrinsic real union, a Hypostatic one. So is
the union of the Divine nature of Christ with the human nature in the
Virgin’s womb. It is a hypostatic union, self-essential and real and not a
mere connection, then separation as Nestorus claimed.
Though
the example of the union of the soul and body in the human nature is
inclusive, still it is incomplete as it does not explain how the soul departs
the body by death nor how they reunite again in the resurrection.
But
as for the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an
inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one
single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye.
The
Unity of Nature and the Birth of Christ
To
whom did the Virgin give Birth? Did she give birth to the Godhead only? Did
she give birth to the manhood only? Did she give birth to God and man or did
she give birth to the Incarnate God?
It
is impossible to say that she gave birth to God alone, because she gave birth
to a Child who was seen by everybody, nor that she gave birth to man only (or
a pure human nature), otherwise we revert to the heresy of Nestorus.
What
does the Bible mean by saying, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore , also, that Holy One
who is to be born of you will be called the Son of God. " (Lk. 1:35)?
Again, what is the meaning of the verse stating that the Son shall be named
Emanuel which is interpreted "Goal with us. "(Matt. 1:23)? And what
is the meaning of Isaiah’s words: "for unto Us a Child is born, unto Us
a Son is given and the government will be upon His shoulder, and His Name will
be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting, Father, Prince of
Peace." (Isaiah 9:6). Therefore, He (Christ) is not just a man, but the
Son of God, Emanuel and the Mighty God.
The
Virgin did not give birth to a man and God, otherwise she would be said to
have had two sons: one being God and the other, man. We are thus left with the
evidence that she gave birth to the "Incarnate God."
Christ
is not two Sons, one the Son of God to be adored, and the other a man and not
to be worshipped.
We
can not separate between the Divine and the human nature of Christ. As stated
by St. Athanasius the Apostolic regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, he is not
bi-natured, to one we kneel down and to the other we do not, but He is rather
of One Nature - the Incarnate Logos - that is one with His Body and before
whom we kneel down in one genuflection,
Therefore,
our worship is not offered to the Divine nature apart from the human nature.
There is no separation and consequently, all worship is to the Incarnate God.
The
Lord Jesus is the Only-Begotten Son, Who was born from the essence of the
Father before all ages. He Himself is the same Son of Man who became the first
born among many brothers (Rom. 8:29). According to one of the fathers, He was
born from the Father before all ages without a mother, and was born from a
Virgin in the fullness of time without an earthly father.
Hence
St. Paul the Apostle said: "But when the fullness of time was come, God
sent His Son, born of a woman, according to Law. " (Gal. 4:4).
Therefore,
He who was born of the Virgin was the Son of God and at the same time the Son
of Man as He used to call Himself.
The
Son (the Logos) filled the womb of the Holy Virgin, took from her His human
nature and then she delivered Him. This differs from what Nestorus claimed
that the Virgin gave birth to an ordinary man and that later on, God dwelt in
this man or filled Him or that Christ just became a Theophorus (a carrier of
God) without a hypostatic union.
For
this reason we worship this born Child and say to Him in the Trisagion hymn:
"Holy is God, Holy is the Almighty, Holy is the Ever-living, who was born
of the Virgin, have mercy upon us". This conforms with the words of the
holy angel who told the Virgin: "The Holy One born of you is called the
Son of God".
In
Christ, the Divine nature was united with the human nature in the womb of the
Virgin. That is why when the Virgin visited Elizabeth, the blessed old woman
said to her; "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should
come to me." (Lk. 1:43). At that time St. Mary was still pregnant and
yet, was entitled "The Mother of God".
The
Creed states: "We believe in one God, Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son
(of God), who was born before all ages... who for us (we human beings) and for
our salvation descended from heaven and was conceived of the Holy Spirit and
of the Virgin Mary, became Man and was crucified for our sake. He suffered,
was buried and rose..."
Therefore,
this Only-Begotten Son is the same One who descended from Heaven and was
Incarnated. He is God Himself who descended into the Virgin’s womb and was
incarnated.
This
opposes Nestorus’ claim that he was Originally man and that God dwelt in Him
after His Birth! The One Who was Incarnated was originally the Only-Begotten
Son of God born before all ages.
Thus
He was able to say to the Jews while speaking to them, "Before Abraham
was, I am." (Jn. 8:58). He did not say, "My Divine nature existed
even before Abraham", but He said, "I am" which proves the
unity and Oneness of His Nature.
Possibility
of Such Unity
This
unity between the Divine nature and the human nature is possible, otherwise it
would not have been fulfilled, it was known to God ever since the world began:
He has preconceived and planned it through His fore - knowledge of what man
needed for his salvation. For this reason St. Paul the Apostle said about the
Incarnation of the Lord Jesus: "According to the revelation of the
mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,... but now is made
manifest. " (Rom. 16:2~5).
There
is also a contemplation by one of the fathers on the verse "eye has not
seen, nor ear heard nor have entered into the heart of man the things which
God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9), which refers to
eternal happiness; that father said the things that had not entered into the
heart of man were the Incarnation of God (becoming man), His crucifixion and
His death for our sake in order to redeem and purchase us with His precious
Blood.
Another
father said that the presence of God among His creation takes 3 forms: either
general existence due to His being present everywhere, or through His Grace
bestowed On His Saints, while the third unique form which happened only once,
is His consubstantiality with Christ when the Divine nature united with the
human nature in the Virgin’s womb.
The
One Nature of the Incarnate Logos: It is One Nature (one entity) but has all
the properties of two natures
It
has all the properties of the Divine nature and all those of the human nature.
In this One Nature, the body was not transmuted to the Divine nature but
remained as a body, the body of God the Logos. The Logos, also was not
transmuted to be a human nature but remained as it is the Divine nature though
united with a body. His Divine nature is not susceptible to death while His
human nature is liable to die. Both the Divine and the human natures united in
essence in the Hypostasis and in nature without separation.
No
separation occurred between the Divine nature and the human nature at
Christ’s death:
As
we say in the Syrian Fraction, concerning the death of Christ "The soul
left the body but His Divinity never departed neither from His Soul nor from
His Body. His Soul likewise, whilst united with His Godhead, descended into
hell to preach those who died in the faith and to open to them the gates of
Paradise and let them enter. Yet His Body, also united with His Godhead,
remained in the grave. "
On
the third day His soul, united with His Godhead, came to unite with His body
which was also united with His Godhead; Thus resurrection took place.
Consequently,
the Incarnate God risen from the dead was capable of coming out of the tomb
while it was closed and sealed by a huge stone. It was also possible for the
One Lord to enter through the closed doors and meet with His disciples (Jn.
20:19).
Did
He enter through the closed doors by His Divine nature or by His human nature?
Is
not this an evidence of the One ‘Nature? and which one came out of the tomb?
was it the Divine nature, the human nature, or Christ the Incarnate Logos? We
are not dealing here with two natures: God and a man, for this expression
signifies two and not one, and the term "Two" does not ever denote
unity.
A
Union, actually, cannot be separated into two.
I
would like to use the term "union" to talk about what happened in
the Virgin’s womb, but at the next stage we call it "One Nature".
Similarly, the term "Two" denotes separation or the liability to
separate.
The
Importance of the "One Nature" For Propitiation and Redemption
The
belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and
fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation
sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through
all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to
offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus,
if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the
act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited
propitiation for man’s salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two
natures, each having its own specific tasks.
In
such case, the death of the human nature alone is in sufficient. Accordingly
St. Paul Says: "For had they known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of Glory. " (1 Cor. 2:8).
He
did not say; they would not have crucified the man Jesus Christ. The term
"Lord of Glory" here affirms the One Nature and its necessity for
redemption, propitiation and salvation; this is because the one who was
crucified is the Lord of Glory. Obviously, He was crucified in the body, but
the body was united with the Divinity in One Nature, this is the essential
basis for salvation.
St.
Peter says to the Jews: "But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and
desired a murderer to be granted unto you and killed the Prince of Life.
" (Acts 3:14,15). Here he confirms that the One crucified was the
"Prince of life" a term which denotes divinity. St. Peter never
separated the two natures or facts involved in the crucifixion, due to the
importance of their unity for the enactment of redemption. St. Paul also says
in his letter to the Hebrews: "For it became Him, for whom are all things
in bringing many sons unto glory to make the author of their salvation perfect
through suffering. " (Heb. 2:10)
Whilst
suffering, He never forgot His divine message: "For by Him were all
things created. "(Col. 1:16). In another instance St. Paul says:
"For Him and by Him all things." When the Lord Jesus Christ appeared
to St. John the Visionary, He said to him; "I am the First and the Last,
I am He that lives, and was dead and behold, I am alive for evermore Amen...
and have the Keys of hell and death. " (Rev. 1:17,18). Thus it is He Who
was dead that is the First and the Last and in Whose Hands are the keys of
hell and death.
Here
Christ did not separate His Divine nature from His human nature while speaking
about His death. Therefore, He who died is the Lord of Glory, the Prince of
life, the Prince of Salvation and the First and the Last.
It
is very dangerous, for our salvation, to separate between the two natures.
Perhaps some would say ‘who declared such separation? Is it not the Council
of Chalcedon that declared the belief in two united natures?! Yes, it did but
the Tome of Leo says also that Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished
us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering!
What
then? If that one being is alone the receiver of suffering, then where is the
salvation we gained?
Let
us now move to the next point.
The
One Nature and the Suffering
Surely,
Divinity is not susceptible to suffering, but when the human nature underwent
suffering, it was united with the divine nature. Thus pain was inflicted upon
this one Nature.
This
Explains why the Creed set by the Holy Council of Nicea says, "The
Only-Begotten Son of God descended from heaven, was Incarnate and became man
and was crucified for our sake in the reign of Pilate, suffered and was buried
and rose from the dead".
There
is a great difference between saying that the human nature alone, apart from
the Divine nature, suffered, and that the Incarnate Only-Begotten Son was
crucified, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead. Thus, here we find the
advantage of believing in the One Nature which provides effective unlimited
redemption.
But,
did the Divinity suffer?
We
say that, essentially, the Divine nature is not susceptible to suffering yet
He suffered due to His humanity, and was physically crucified. Hence we say in
the prayer of the None (the sixth hour), "You Who have tasted death
physically in the sixth hour" He, the man, united with the Godhead,
physically died and His death provided unlimited atonement.
The
holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of
the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became
united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes
the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire
united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched
though it bends with the iron.
As
for the crucifixion of Christ, the Holy Bible presents us with a very
beautiful verse; St. Paul the Apostle speaks to the bishops of Ephesus asking
them: "... to feed the Church to God which He has purchased with His Own
Blood" (Acts 20:28); he ascribes, the Blood to God, although God is
Spirit, and the Blood is that of His human nature. This expression is the most
wonderful proof of the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos; what is related to
the human aspect can be attributed to the Divine nature at the same time
without distinction, as there is no separation between the two natures. The
separation between the two natures claimed by Nestorus failed to provide a
solution to the question of propitiation and redemption. The Coptic Church
insisted on the expression of the One Nature due to the importance of this
matter and to its consequences.
We
often say "Mr. X died" but we do not say that his body alone died,
seeing that the spirit is in the image of God, and God has bestowed on it the
blessing of immortality.
If
the first aim of the Incarnation is redemption, and redemption cannot be
fulfilled through the human nature alone, faith in the One Nature of the
Incarnate Logos is an essential and undeniable matter. Redemption cannot be
fulfilled if we say that the human nature alone underwent suffering,
crucifixion, blood-shedding and death. Turn to the Holy Bible and read what it
says about God the Father, "He that spared not His Own Son but delivered
Him up for us all. ) (Rom. 8:32) and also, "For God so loved the world
that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not
perish..." (Jn. 3:16), and "But that He loved us, and sent His One
Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ) (1 Jn. 4:10).
Thus,
the One sacrificed by God is the Son, the Only Begotten Son, that is, the
Second Hypostasis (Person) of the Holy Trinity; the Logos. The Bible did not
say that He sacrificed His humanity or anything of the kind although He died
on the cross with His human body, this is clear proof of the One Nature of God
the Logos, and herein is the importance of this unity for the act of
redemption.
The
Bible also says in this context, "God the Father Who has delivered us
from the power of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of His Dear
Son, in Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of
sins, Who is the Image of the Invisible God." (Col. 1:13-15).
When
the Bible speaks about the forgiveness of sins through the Blood of Christ, it
attributes this to the Son Who is the Image of the Invisible God, and to Whom
is the kingdom. This is more evidence of the One Nature and the concern of the
Holy Bible dealing with the matter of redemption.
Another
Similar example is apparent in the parable mentioned by Christ about the
wicked vinedressers. He says: "But when the vinedressers saw the Son..
They caught Him and cast Him out of the vineyard and killed Him. " (Matt.
21:37-39). Here, death is attributed to the Son, and He did not specify His
human body. How profound are these words concerning the One Nature".
The
Holy Bible proves to us the One Nature of Christ by attributing to the
Incarnate Word all acts and qualities that some attribute to one of the two
natures, and we shall start by quoting the verses which throw light on the Son
of Man.
The
Term "Son of Man"
The
Use of the Term "Son of Man" Where Reference is to the Divinity:
No
doubt, the term "Son of Man" denotes the human nature of Christ just
as the phrase "Son of God" denotes His Divinity. However, our Lord
Jesus Christ used the term "Son of Man" on several occasions where
He meant "Son of God" of which I mention a few:
1.
He explained that the Son of Man is in heaven and on earth. He told Nicodemus
"no man has ascended up to heaven but He that come down from heaven, even
the Son of Man which is in heaven. "(Jn. 3:13). So who is that Son of Man
who descended from heaven? And who is he that is in heaven and speaks to
Nicodemus on earth? Is it the Divine nature or the human nature? He cannot be
the Incarnate Logos. Therefore, this statement very clearly indicates the One
Nature.
2.
The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the
Sabbath day." (Matt. 12:8) If the expression "Son of Man" means
(or denotes) the human nature, and "the Lord of the Sabbath" denotes
the divine nature, then being put together in one statement is another proof
of the One Nature.
3.
He said, that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6).
But no one forgives sins except God alone. So was the one who said to the
paralyzed man "Your sins are forgiven" the human nature or the
Divine one? Is it not preferable to say that it is the Incarnate Logos?
4.
The Lord Jesus Christ says that the Son of Man is the One Who shall Judge the
world. So is it the human nature that will judge the world or the Divine
nature? He also says: "For the Son of man will come in the Glory of His
Father with His angels and then He will reward every man according to his
works. " (Matt. 16:27). We notice here that: He says the "Son of Man
" and at the same time "in the glory of His Father". That is:
He defines "Son of Man" and "Son of God" in one statement,
indicating the One Nature. Further He Says: "The Son of Man with His
angels" while the words "His angels" indicate His Divine
nature.
Thus,
we notice here that the term "Son of Man" cannot indicate the human
nature alone nor the Divine Nature alone, but indicates the unity of the two
natures or the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
5.
We find the previous term in (Matt. 25:31-34): "When the Son of Man shall
come in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit upon the
throne of His Glory... and He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the
goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand come you
blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world".
Here
the "Son of Man" and "Father" are used in one phrase. This
means that the speaker is the Son of Man and the Son of God at the same time.
And the Son of Man is the One Who will Judge the World while judgment proceeds
from the Son of God (Jn. 5:22). And here the unity of natures (the One Nature)
is obvious.
6.
The Lord Jesus Christ said to the high priest during His trial,
"Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:63-65). In this
context, St. Stephen said at the time of his martyrdom: "Behold, I see
the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God?"
(Acts 7:57).
So,
who is the One sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of
heavens? Is He the One with the human nature or the one with the Divine
nature? It is impossible to separate here but we can say that it is the One
Nature, the Nature of the Incarnate Logos.
7.
The Son of Man calls the Angels "His angels" and the elect "His
elect" He says, "And He (the Son of Man) will send His angels with
great sound of a trumpet, and they shah gather together His elect...,"
(Matt. 24:29-31).
Here,
as the "Son of Man", He acts as God, we cannot explain this phrase
by saying that in one instance it is the human nature and in the other it is
the Divine nature. For the speaker is the Lord Jesus the Son of Virgin Mary,
as well as the Son of God, the Judge of the whole world, Who has supreme power
over the angels and can send them, and has power over human beings and can
collect His elect from the extremities of the heavens. It is One Nature which
cannot be split or severed into two.
8.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, talking to His disciples said, " What, and if you
will see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before. " (John 6:62).
What is important here is the phrase "Where He was before" meaning
that he was in heaven at first. Obviously He Who was in heaven is the Son
"Hypostasis". But here, due to the One Nature, He says concerning
the Son of’ Man what He says about the "Hypostasis" of the Son
because He is the Incarnate Word.
This
is consistent with what He said to Nicodemus about the Son of Man, that is it
"He that came down from heaven. " (Jn. 3:13), while He that came
down from heaven is the Son "hypostasis", meaning the Divine nature.
In
the same sense, St. Paul says about the Lord Jesus Christ that He is the
"Lord from heaven." (1 Cor. 15:47).
Evidences
from the Bible
1.
God the Father Himself testified for Jesus Who was baptized by John the
Baptist saying, "This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. "
(Matt. 3:17). Certainly, He did not say this about the human nature of His
Son, as His human nature is inseparable from His Divine nature. This verse
cannot indicate two, it refers to one, and here it indicates the One Nature of
the Incarnate Word.
2.
John the Baptist gave the same testimony when he pointed at Christ and said:
"This is the One of whom I spoke. He that comes after me is preferred
before me for He was before me. " (John 1:15,30).
So
how could He have been before hint and come after him? Our Lord came after
John the Baptist by human birth and was before him by the Divine nature. The
Baptist did not separate between the human nature and the Divine nature, as he
said, "This who came after me (the Incarnate Logos) Was before me".
Here the One Nature is obvious, for the One Who John baptized was He Himself
who was before him.
3.
St. John The Evangelist says in his Gospel "No Man has seen God at any
time, the Only-Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared
Him. " (Jn. 1:18). The Only-Begotten Son is God the Logos, and the Second
Hypostasis. How then did He declare the Father? Certainly when He became
Incarnate. Can we say then that the One who declared this was the human
nature? St. John Says about Him: "The Only-Begotten Son Who is in the
bosom of the Father, He has declared" while we know that it is the Man
Jesus Christ who declared Him, and this indicates the One Nature.
4.
The same words are spoken by the same apostle in his first epistle, "That
Which was from the beginning which we have heard and which we have seen with
our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched. " (1 Jn.
1:1).
He
talks about Him Whom he has seen and touched, as the One Who was from the
beginning, that is, God. So how did they see God and touch him unless He was
the Incarnate logos? These words are not about the human nature alone, nor
about the Divine nature alone because the human nature was not eternal from
the beginning and the Divine nature alone cannot be touched.
5.
The same meaning is conveyed in the conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ
and the man who was born blind. When the Lord opened his eyes, the man asked
Jesus "Who is the Son of God" and the Lord told him "you have
seen Him and it is He that talks with you. " (Jn. 9:35-37). The Son of
God is God the Logos incarnate, that is, the Divine nature. But who was
speaking with the blind man, was it merely the human nature? It cannot be the
human nature alone because the Lord Jesus Christ confirms that "it is He
that talks with you, the Son of God. " Thus He is the Incarnate God Who
was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).
6.
St. Paul the Apostle says about the Jews when they were in the desert of
Sinai, "As they did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of
the spiritual rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." (1 Cor.
10:4). It is well known that those Jews were in the desert of Sinai fourteen
centuries before the birth of Christ, so how could He be with them quenching
their thirst unless St. Paul is speaking about the Divine nature which is God
the Logos? Yet God the Logos was not called Christ until the time of His
Incarnation. But due to the One Nature the Apostle Could not distinguish and
spoke about the eternity of Christ and His presence before His Birth.
The
Apostle proceeds in the same manner: "Neither let us tempt Christ as some
of them also tempted and were destroyed by serpents. " (1 Cor. 10:9).
7.
Before whom did the Wise men fall down and worship (Matt. 2:11)? Did they
worship the Divine nature alone? No, they fell down and worshipped a Child in
a manger and they presented unto Him gifts. Did they worship the human nature?
The human nature cannot be worshipped.
Thus
the only answer left is that they worshipped the Incarnate God just as the man
born blind did later, and as those who were in the ship did, when the Lord
rebuked the wind and walked on the water; They did not worship Him merely out
of respect for "Those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him,
saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God’." (Mt. 14:23),
8.
We also ask who it was who walked on the sea water and rebuked the wind, was
it the Divine or the human nature? There is no doubt that He was the Incarnate
Logos. The same applies to all the other miracles of Christ; Who worked those
miracles? was it the Divine nature alone?
Then
what is the meaning of the Phrase "and He laid His hands on every one of
them and healed them. " (Lk. 4:40)? and what can we understand from the
healing of the woman, who had a flow of blood and it dried up when she touched
His clothes (Mk. 5:29)? In opening the eyes of the blind, who was it who spat
on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the eyes of the blind
with the clay. No doubt it was He Who performed all those miracles and several
similar ones, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos. St. John, the
Evangelist, says "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of
His disciples which are not written in this book. " (Jn. 20:30). Notice
here the use of the name (Jesus).
We
shall be satisfied with presenting the above examples, because if we follow
closely the Holy Bible we may indulge in an endless process, as the verses
referring to the One nature are extensively used throughout. For this reason
we shift now from discussing the One Nature to a related subject, i.e.
"the One Will".
The
One Will and the One Act
Has
the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human
will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine act and a human act? As we
believe in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great
called it, likewise:
We
believe in One Will and One Act:
Naturally,
as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also
each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that
chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict
whatever between the will and the action of both.
The
Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me to
finish His work. " (Jn. 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as
that of the Father. In this context, He said about Himself "The Son can
do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do, for what things soever
He does, these also does the Son likewise. " (Jn. 5:19). He does not seek
for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father. Consequently He
Says "Because I seek not Mine Own Will, but the Will of the Father, who
has sent Me. " (Jn. 6:38).
It
is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for
the Lord Jesus Christ said: "I and My Father are One," (Jn. 10:30).
Hence,
since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is essentially one with Him
concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was
fulfilling the Will of the heavenly Father. Thus it must be that He Who united
with the manhood had One Will.
In
fact, Sin is nothing but a conflict between man’s will and God’s.
But
remember that our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He challenged the Jews
saying: "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?. " (Jn. 8:46). Therefore,
His Will was that of the Father.
The
Saints who are perfect in their behavior achieve complete agreement between
their will and the Will of God, so that their will becomes that of God, and
the Will of God becomes their will.
And
St., Paul the Apostle said "But we have the mind of Christ. "(1 Cor.
2:16). He did not say that our thoughts are in accord with the mind of Christ,
but that "we have the mind of Christ", and here the unity is
stressed.
If
this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more
the unity between the Son and His Own manhood would be in all that is related
to the will, the mind and the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has
united with the human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union without
separation-not for a second nor a twinkle of an eye,
If
there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His
human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from
Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His
footsteps (1 Jn. 2:6)?.
The
complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to His
Divine as well as His Human will.
The
same is true of the salvation of mankind, the message for which Christ came
and said: "For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost. "
(Matt. 18:11). This is the same Will of the Father who ‘Loved us and sent
His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. " (I Jn. 4:10). Thus, the
crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it
not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own
Will for our sake.
Since
the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One. Here we do not distinguish
between the two natures.