Developments in Christology in the Early Church History
By jidian, November, 2002
1. Introduction Christology is the section of Christian theology and doctrine about the identity and the person of Jesus Christ. The uestion of !"ho is Jesus Christ# is no doubt one of the most essential uestions for Christianity. Throughout the nearly 2000 years of history of the church, Christians have believed that Christ is truly man and truly $od, and %e is the &on of $od, 'ho is our savior and 'hom 'e 'orship, as the Bible teaches. %o'ever, historically, the orthodo( doctrine e(perienced a lot of struggles in its development in the early church history. The doctrine about the person of Christ is still much relevant today, as 'e are still facing many unorthodo( and heretical teachings about the person of Christ, e.g., the Jehovah)s "itness, the *ormonism and the !apostolic oneness# theology. +oo,ing bac, on the history of the developments of Christology can certainly help us to preserve, defend and proclaim the orthodo( Christian faith. -lthough Christology can also have a soteriological side to include the 'or, of Christ, the main focus of the early church theologians on the study of Christ 'as on the theology proper side . . The majority of the debates and controversies 'ere about the person of Christ / his deity and humanity, and the relationship of the t'o. The orthodo( doctrines of Christology 'ere established during this period of time, along 'ith other important orthodo( doctrines such as the Trinity. %o'ever, orthodo( Christology did not come into place automatically or easily. 0n the early church history, there 'ere a lot of heretical teachings and controversies about the person of Christ. -nd the orthodo( doctrine 'as developed out of continuous debates and fighting 'ith the 'rong doctrines. This paper revie's the development of Christology in early church history 1from apostolic fathers to the 2 th century, ca. -3 4052006. Because of the fact that in this period of time Christology 'as developed along 'ith the struggles 'ith the heretical thoughts, this paper is outlined mainly 'ith historical heresies and controversies as the thread. 2. Early Doctrines and Heresies 2... -postolic 7athers and 8arly Theologians
There are plenty of descriptions about Christ)s deity and humanity in the $ospels and the rest of the Ne' Testaments. The early apostolic fathers 1-3 405.906 emphasi:ed on both the deity and the humanity of Christ. 0gnatius ac,no'ledged the true deity and humanity of Christ 'hen he referred to !Jesus Christ our $od# and the !blood of $od# 2 . Clement began his sermon by !Brothers, 'e must thin, about Jesus Christ as about $od, as about . Ber,hof, +ouis, The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp .0.. 2 =0gnatius, !The &econd 8pistle to the 8phesians#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers2>-N750.>anf0.522.htm 1Nov. 20026 .
the judge of living and dead?# @ . -t a slightly later time 1-3 .<25.A26, *elito of &ardis spo,e clearly of Christ as both man and $od; !he 'as by nature $od and man? he is buried, and so he is manB he rises again, and so he is $od.# 9 . 0n his apologetic 'or,, Justin *artyr of the same time e(pressed his belief that Christ is the !logos# and has personality. %o'ever, he seemed to vie' Christ as another $od 'ho is inferior to the highest $od 1&ubordinationism6 2 . The teachings about Christ in this period of time lac,ed clarity and a'areness of the problems involved. 2.2. The 8bionism and 3ocetism Cerversions of the $ospel started to threaten the Church 'hen early heresies emerged. Dn the Christology side, the 8bionites denied both the divinity of Christ and at least some of them denied %is virgin birth. They believed that Jesus 'as mere man, 'ho became the *essiah only by his good 'or,s and strict maintaining of the la'. %e became conscious of his *essiah identity and received the %oly &pirit 'hen he 'as bapti:ed 1-doptionism6 < . The 3ocetists refused to ac,no'ledge Christ)s humanity and only believed in %is divinity. They claimed that Christ did not actually have a physical body, but only appeared to have flesh and blood. Jesus on earth 'as only some ,ind of !phantom# and the Theophany of $od. 0gnatius 'itnessed and refuted the 3ocetic teaching that Christ only !suffered in mere appearance#, but did not suffer in reality A . The $nosticism of the 2 nd century and many of the later heresies on Christology had a 3ocetic vie' about Christ E . The 8bionism and 3ocetism 'ere t'o of the earliest Christological heresies. -ll the other Christological heresies that follo'ed in the history may be divided into t'o broad categories 'ith similarity to these t'o; -doptionism 1as in 8bionism6 and 3ocetism. The former denied Christ)s divinity 'hile emphasi:ing Jesus) human nature, and the latter denied %is full humanity 'hile emphasi:ing %is divine nature. 3. Gnosticism and Monarchianism -fter the 2 nd century, serious heretic teachings came into e(istence to challenge the early church about 'ho Christ is. 0n the 2 nd century, the biggest heresy 'as $nosticism, and in the @ rd century it 'as *onarchianism. @ =Clement, !The &econd 8pistle of Clement#, http;>>'''.earlychristian'ritings.com>2clement.html 1Nov. 20026 9 =*elito of &ardis, !Crayer in Craise of Christ#, http;>>'''.catholic5forum.com>saints>pray029A.htm 1Nov. 20026 2 =Justin *artyr, !The 7irst -pology of Justin#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N75 0.>just>justinapology..htmlF&ection9< 1Nov. 20026 < Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. 99. A =0gnatius, !+etter to the Trallians#, 45.0, &ection 9.. in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. E !3ocetism#, in 7erguson, &. B. and "right, 3. 7., 8d., Ne' 3ictionary of Theology, 8ngland; 0nter5 Harsity Cress, .4EE 2
@... $nosticism and -nti5$nostic Theologians $nosticism covered a 'ide range of belief, and most of their teachings that 'e ,no' today 'ere obtained from the patristic -nti5$nostic 'or,s 4 . 0n terms of Christology, $nosticism believed that the &upreme $od 'as incomprehensible and inaccessible, but from %im came a series of progressively lesser deities 1aeons6. Jehovah of the Dld Testament is the lo'est of these aeons, and Christ is one of the highest aeons. &ince $nosticism believed that all matter is evil, it usually had a 3ocetic vie' of Christ that he 'as a spirit being having only an apparent body or temporarily associated 'ith a man Jesus 'ho 'as a special emissary sent to the 'orld to deliver man,ind from the dar,ness .0 . 0n his anti5heretic 'or,, 0renaeus listed out various Christological heresies that are due to $nostic influence, especially the 3ocetic vie's .. . 0n the Ne' Testament, these $nostic vie's on the $odhead 'ere already refuted, e.g., by John in his $ospel and other 'ritings and by Caul in Colossians. The early apostolic fathers and theologians also had many 'or,s 'ith the purpose of fighting against $nostic teachings including its Christology. The debates contributed significantly to the development of orthodo( Christology. Drigen believed that Christ is the 3ivine Geason, and !the mediator bet'een $od and flesh#. %e noted that !through the 'hole of &cripture the divine nature is spo,en of in human terms, and at the same time the human nature is accorded the distinctive epithets proper to the divine# .2 . %e used the 'ord !homoousios# to state that Christ has the same essence of the 7ather, but at the same time he seemed to be also a &ubordinationist 1e.g., he taught that the +ogos 'as a !copy# of the original $od and inferior to the 7ather6. 0renaeus stressed the unity of $od, but he did not have much speculation about the !+ogos#. The &on and the !"isdom# 'ere involved in the Creation. %e emphasi:ed that Christ 'as both $od and man, and rejected the separation of !the heavenly Christ# and !the earthly Christ#. %e held a recapitulation 1restoration6 theory about Christ)s &alvation .@ . Tertullian believed that Christ is fully $od and fully man at the same time, and rejected the idea of !divine5human alloy#. %e stressed that the +ogos is an independent Cerson 'ho 'as begotten by 1and thus proceeded from6 $od. There 'as still a little &ubordinationism in his discourse of Christology, as evidenced in a crude form of a greater and lesser participation of the first and second persons of $od .9 . @.2. *onarchianism and 0ts Dpponents *onarchianism sought to assert that $od has only one being but as a result denied the Trinity. 0t 'as divided into t'o different classes, 3ynamic *onarchianism and *odalistic *onarchianism. 4 !$nosticism#, ibid. .0 Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. 9A59E. .. =0renaeus, !adversus haereses#, 0.((iv..52, in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. .2 =Drigen, !de principiis#, 00.vi.@, &ection 9.2 in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. .@ Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. <95<2. .9 ibid., pp <25<<. @
The main proponents of 3ynamic *onarchianism 'ere Theodotus 1.40 -36 and Caul of &amosata 12<052A2 -36. -ccording to %yppolitus, Theodotus believed Jesus 'as a mere man, but 'ith the highest moral virtue, and a dynamic po'er 'as conferred to him 'hen he got bapti:ed .2 . Theodotus) teaching 'as challenged by %ippolytus, and 'as condemned by the &ynod of -ntioch in 2<E -3. Caul of &amosata also believed that Jesus 'as a mere man, but he 'as besto'ed the divine +ogos at his baptism, 'hich is an impersonal po'er and an attribute of $od. Jesus 'as given the dynamos of 'isdom more intensively than any others and it empo'ered him to have moral perfection, and thus e(alted him to divine status 1-doptionism6 .< . Caul of &amosata 'as repeatedly challenged by the church and finally e(communicated in 2<4 -3. *odalist *onarchianism 'as originated by Cra(eas and the most influential *odalistic *onarchianist 'as &abellius. Cra(eas believed that 7ather and &on are different names of the same $od. The 7ather became man and suffered and died on the cross. Tertullian called this ,ind of vie' Catripassianism, and identified it in his attac, on Cra(eas 'ith the famous sentence !%aving driven out the Caraclete 1%oly &pirit6, he 1Cra(eas6 no' crucified the 7ather# .A . "hile maintaining the unity of the person of Christ, Tertullian distinguished the proper functions of the humanity and deity of Christ; !"e do indeed believe that there is only one $odB but 'e believe that under this dispensation...there is also a &on of this one only $od, %is "ord, 'ho proceeded from %im and through 'hom all things 'ere made and 'ithout 'hom nothing 'as made. "e believe that %e 'as sent by the 7ather into a Hirgin and 'as born of her, $od and man, &on of man and &on of $od, and 'as called by the name Jesus Christ# .E . &abellius 'as also a Catripassianist, and he included the reference to the %oly &pirit in his theory. %e believed that the 7ather, the &on and the %oly &pirit are plurality of the manifestations of $od)s essence. $od is one indivisible substance, but 'ith three fundamental modes, appearing successively as the 7ather 1in creation and giving of la'6, as the &on 1in the incarnation6, and as the %oly &pirit 1in regeneration and sanctification6 .4 . 4. he !rian Controversy 9... The -rian Hie's .2 =%yppolitus, !Gefutation of -ll %eresies#, Boo, H00, Chapter II000, http;>>'''.'ebcom.com>Jgnosis>library>hypKrefutA.htm 1Nov. 20026 .< !*onarchianism#, in 7erguson, &. B. and "right, 3. 7., 8d., Ne' 3ictionary of Theology, 8ngland; 0nter5Harsity Cress, .4EE .A =Tertullian, !-gainst Cra(eas#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N750@>tertullian>part2>againstKpra(eas.html 1Nov. 20026 .E ibid. .4 Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. A4. 9
-n important controversy in Christology, the -rian controversy, too, place in the 9 th
century. The -rian controversy mainly concerned the relationship of $od the 7ather and $od the &on, and had its root in the past unclear conception of the Trinity. The result of this controversy established the basic elements of orthodo( doctrine of the Trinity, but the ,ey issues of the controversy 'ere much related to Christology. -s a matter of fact, development of orthodo( of Christology 'as usually intermingled 'ith that of the Trinity at that time in history. -rius stressed that there is only one unbegotten $od and unoriginated $od. %e believed that there is a real difference in the essence bet'een the 7ather and the &on. Christ 'as neither $od nor man, but some being in bet'een, or a lesser $od. The &on is a created being, he !has a beginning#, and !there 'as a time 'hen he 'as not#. The &on might also be mutable 20 . 9.2. The Council of Nicea -rius) o'n bishop -le(ander 'as the first one to oppose him and contended for the eternal sonship of Christ by generation. -le(ander called the Council of -le(andria 1@2. -36, and -rius 'as e(communicated. But -rius continued to get more follo'ers. Constantine decided to intervene to maintain peace, and called the Council of Nicea 1@22 -36. This 'as a larger council and the . st ecumenical one. Both -rius) supporters 1e.g., 8usebius of Nicomedia6 and strong opponents 1e.g., -le(ander and -thanasius6 'ere minorities. The majority 'as the middle party 1!semi5-rian# people, e.g., 8usebius of Caesarea6. They suggested using the 'ord homoiousios to state that the &on is of similar essence as the 7ather, instead of homoousios to state that the &on is of the same essence of the 7ather. Constantine 'as actively involved and finally 'ith the emperor)s pressure the Council adopted a statement 'ith !homoousios# in it and the party of -le(ander and -thanasius had a temporary victory. The Creed of Nicea, 'ith its focus on Christology, is 'idely regarded as the basis of orthodo( Christianity. 0t affirmed the full divinity of Christ against the -rian vie' of his creaturely status; !"e believe in one $od, the 7ather almighty, ma,er of all things visible and invisible. -nd 'e believe in one +ord Jesus Christ, the &on of $od, begotten from the 7ather, only begotten, that is from the 7atherLs substance, light from light, true $od from true $od, begotten not made, of one substance 'ith the 7ather. Through him 'ere made all things, both in heaven and on earth. 7or us and for our salvation he came do'n, 'as incarnate and became human. %e suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens and is coming to judge the living and the dead. -nd 'e believe in the %oly &pirit. But those 'ho say, Mthere 'as once 'hen he 'as not) and Mbefore he 'as begotten he 'as not), and that Mhe 'as made out of nothing), or 'ho affirm that Mthe &on is of a different hypostasis or substance), or that he is mutable or changeable 5 these the catholic and apostolic church anathemati:es.# 2.
The Creed is uneuivocal in its e(pression that the &on is of the same essence as that of the 7ather. 0t also included e(plicit condemnations of -rian vie's. %o'ever, many 20 =-rius, !- +etter to 8usebius, Bishop of Nicomedia#, &ection 9.< in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. 2. =!The Creed of Nicea#, http;>>'''.gospelcom.net>chi>$+0*C&87>$limpses>glmps0EE.shtml 1Nov. 20026 2
people at that time still had concerns about using the 'ord !homoousios# 'hich 'as not biblical and had been used by the heretic Caul of &amosata. The decision reached by the influence of the strong hand of the emperor 'as not satisfactory. 9.@. 3efending the Nicene Drthodo( -fter the Council of Nicea, &emi5-rianism came bac, and 'as on the rise, 'ith -thanasius fighting alone for the Nicene orthodo(. 0n a letter dated around @20 -3, -thanasius argued for the divinity of Christ as 'ell as the full humanity of Christ; !Being $od, he became a human beingB and then as $od he raised the dead, healed all by a 'ord, and also changed 'ater into 'ine. These 'ere not the acts of a human being. But as a human being, he felt thirsty and tiredness, and he suffered pain. These e(periences are not appropriate to deity? -nd yet these are not events occurring 'ithout any connection, distinguished according to the their uality, so that one class may be ascribed to the body, apart from the divinity, and the other to the divinity, apart from the body.# 22
-thanasius 'as repeatedly banished and e(iled. -fter Constantine died, the Goman 8mpire 'as divided. Constantius in the 8ast supported -rius, but -thanasius 'as 'elcome in the "est ruled by Constans, and the Council of &ardica 1@9@ -36 endorsed his doctrine. Then Constans died and Constantius became the sole emperor. Constantius called a fe' synods councils 1&ynods of -rles and *ilan, Council of &irmium6 to force -rianism. %o'ever, the -rians had divisions among themselves. There 'ere no' three camps; 1.6 e(treme -rians 'ho believed in heteroousios, 126 moderate -rians 'ho believed in homoiousios and 1@6 Nicene orthodo( 'ho believed in homoousios 23 . 9.9. The Cappadocian 7athers *ean'hile the Cappadocian fathers 1Basil the $reat, $regory of Nyssa and $regory of Na:ian:us6 did great service to the orthodo( doctrine of the Trinity by dra'ing a distinction bet'een !ousios# and !hypostasis#. Their starting point 'as the three !hypostasis# instead of the one divine ousia of $od. By this they made it clear that $od is one in essence, but three in persons. 0n @E. -3 the Council of Constantinople affirmed the approval of the Creed of Nicea, and mar,ed the final triumph of the Nicene orthodo(. The !Niceno5Constantinoplitan Creed#, 'hich had a longer discussion of the person of Christ, became the orthodo( !Nicene Creed# as 'e call it today. The part of this Creed that concerns Christology states; !0 believe in?one +ord Jesus Christ, the only5begotten &on of $od, begotten of the 7ather before all 'orldsB $od of $od, +ight of +ight, very $od of very $odB begotten, not made, being of one substance 'ith the 7ather, by 'hom all things 'ere made. "ho, for us men for our salvation, came do'n from heaven, and 'as incarnate by the %oly &pirit of the virgin *ary, and 'as made manB and 'as crucified also for 22 =-thanasius, !8pistulate ad &erapionem#, 0H..9, &ection 9.A in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. 2@ Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. EA5EE. <
us under Contius CilateB %e suffered and 'as buriedB and the third day %e rose again, according to the &cripturesB and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the 7atherB and %e shall come again, 'ith glory, to judge the uic, and the deadB 'hose ,ingdom shall have no end.# 29
". he Christological Controversies - fe' other controversies specifically concerning Christology follo'ed in the 9 th and the 2 th century. By that time there 'ere t'o schools of thoughts concerning Christology. The -le(andrian &chool tends to stress the unity of the t'o natures of Christ and focused more on the deity of Christ. The -ntiochian &chool tends to stress the distinction of the t'o natures and focus more on the humanity of Christ. -s a result, there 'ere t'o main controversies concerning Christology; the -ppollinarian controversy and the Nestorian controversy. 2... The -ppollinarian Controversy 1-3 @<25@E.6 7rom the -le(andrian school)s point of vie', -ppollinarius maintained that Christ is $od, and %e is homoousios 'ith $od the 7ather. %e believed Jesus has a human body and soul, but does not have human spirit. Christ is the 3ivine +ogos. Christ never sinned li,e a human, and %is moral center 'as purely divine. 0n one of his letters -ppollinarius uneuivocally said; !"e confess that the "ord of $od has not descended upon a holy man, 'hich 'as 'hat happened in the case of the prophets. Gather, the "ord himself has become flesh 'ithout having assumed a human mind / that is, a changeable mind, 'hich is enslaved to filthy thoughts 5 but 'hich e(ists as an immutable and heavenly divine mind.# 22
-ppollinarian opponents stressed that Christ is fully *an as 'ell as fully $od. "hile the -ppollinarian vie' affirms the full divinity of Christ, it denies the full humanity of Christ. Nltimately it 'ill lead to the denial of full incarnation and a 3ocetic vie' of Christ. "ithout full incarnation, there 'ill be no real redemption. $regory of Na:ian:en refuted the -ppollinarian thesis that Christ 'as not fully man, and pointed out that humanity cannot be redeemed if Christ did not possess a human mind; !3o not let people deceive themselves and others by saying that OChristP?is 'ithout a human mind. "e do not separate the humanity from the divinityB in fact, 'e assert the dogma of the unity and identity of the Cerson, 'ho aforetime 'as not just human but $od, the only &on before all ages, 'ho in these last days has assumed human nature also for our salvation?# 2<
29 !The Nicene Creed#, http;>>'''.reformed.org>documents>nicene.html 1Nov. 20026 22 = -ppollinarius, !+etter to the Bishops at 3iocaesarea#, &ection 9.E in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. 2< =$regory of Na:ian:en, !+etter .0.#, &ection 9.4 in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. A
0n this letter $regory of Na:ian:en used the term theotokos 1!$od5bearer#6 to call *ary. 2.2. The Nestorian Controversy 1-3 92E59@.6 &ome of the -ntiochian school people 'ent to another e(treme and denied that the term theotokos could be applied to *ary. Nestorian believed that to call *ary !theotokos is to say that a creature gave birth to the Creator and is thus blasphemous. $od cannot have a mother. %e 'hom *ary conceived is not $od, but a man in 'hich $od !clothed# %imself. The Cerson of Jesus is a !temple# for the 3ivine +ogos. The t'o natures of Christ should be separated 2A . -ccording to the church history by &ocrates, Nestorius sponsored the proposition of -nastasius 'ho preached; !+et no one call *ary the Theoto,os; for *ary 'as only a human being, and it is impossible that $od should be born of a human being# 2E . Nestorian opponents refuted that the term !theotokos stresses the unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ. To reject it is to reject the true union of the t'o natures of Christ in one person. 3ichotomy of the t'o natures can eventually lead to the denial of Christ)s full deity. Cyril 'as the most prominent opponent of Nestorianism, although he 'as heavy5handed personally. Cyril 'rote t'elve condemnations on the propositions of Nestorian Christology and other heresies, starting 'ith the denial of !theotokos; !0f anyone does not ac,no'ledge that 8mmanuel is truly $od, and that the holy virgin is, in conseuence, Mtheotokos), for she gave birth in the flesh to the "ord of $od 'ho has become flesh, let them be condemned?# 24
-t the Council of 8phesus 19@. -36, the term !theotokos 'as officially endorsed as the proper title for *ary. Cyril celebrated the dignity of *ary for bearing Jesus Christ in his %omily at this Council @0 . 0n his discussion about the incarnation, Cyril stressed the real union of Christ)s divinity and humanity; !The natures 'hich 'ere brought together to form a true unity 'ere differentB but out of both is one Christ and one &on. "e do not mean that the difference of the natures is annihilated by reason of this union, but rather that the divinity and the humanity, by their ine(pressible and ine(plicable concurrence into unity, have produced for us the one +ord and son Jesus Christ#. @. 2.@. The 8utychian Controversy 1-3 9946 2A Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. .095.02. 2E =&ocrates, !%istoria 8cclesiastica#, H00, @2, &ection 9..0 in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. 24 =Cyril, !+etter IH00, .2 1Third +etter to Nestorius6#, &ection 9... in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. @0 =Cyril, !%omily at the Council of 8phesus#, &ection 9..@ in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. @. =Cyril, !+etter 0H, @52 1&econd +etter to Nestorius6#, &ection 9..2 in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. E
8utyches the archimandrite 'as the e(treme of the anti5Nestorian -le(andrian &chool. %e stressed the divine nature of Christ to the point of neglecting the human aspect of Christ. 8utychian believed that Christ has only one true nature 1*onophysites6, i.e., the divine one, after the incarnation. $od 'as born !theotokos, and $od 'as crucified and died @2 . The 8utychian opponents refuted by stressing that Christ has t'o natures instead of one, in one Cerson. Christ is fully $od and fully *an, con5substantial 'ith the 7ather and has complete *anhood. Christ had true incarnation, and there 'as no conversion from man to $od or the deification of man 1nor 'as there humani:ation of $od6. 0n his famous !Tome of +eo# in 994 -3, +eo 0 critici:ed the 8utychian vie's, and in particular his rejection of Christ)s true humanity; !O8utychesP did not reali:e 'hat he ought to believe concerning the incarnation of the "ord of $od? "e could not overcome the author of sin and death, unless OChristP had ta,en our nature and made it his o'n, 'hom sin could not defile or death retain? Thus there 'as born true $od in the entire and perfect nature of true humanity, complete in his o'n properties, complete in ours (totus in suis, totus in nostris).# @@
2.9. The Council of Chalcedon 192. -36 -fter some more struggle bet'een the 8utychian party and its opponents 1including the &econd Council of 8phesus in 994 -3, 'hich 'as nic,5named the !the Gobber Council#6, the Council of Chalcedon 'as held in 92. -3. The 8utychian teachings 'ere condemned, and the Tome of +eo 'as elevated to a position of authority as a statement of Christological orthodo(y. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon issued its famous statement of the doctrine of the Cerson of Christ in its definition of faith; !&o, follo'ing the saintly fathers, 'e all 'ith one voice teach the confession of one and the same &on, our +ord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly $od and truly man, of a rational soul and a bodyB consubstantial 'ith the 7ather as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial 'ith us as regards his humanityB li,e us in all respects e(cept for sinB begotten before the ages from the 7ather as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from *ary, the virgin $od5bearer as regards his humanityB one and the same Christ, &on, +ord, only5begotten, ac,no'ledged in t'o natures 'hich undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separationB at no point 'as the difference bet'een the natures ta,en a'ay through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent beingB he is not parted or divided into t'o persons, but is one and the same only5begotten &on, $od, "ord, +ord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the +ord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it do'n to us.# @9
@2 Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. .0<. @@ =+eo 0, !+etter 2E to 7lavian 1.@ June 9946#, &ection 9..9 in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. 4
The Council of Chalcedon set its o'n purpose to study and decide the central issues of Christology and 'as much self5conscious of its o'n goal to establish the orthodo(y of Christology. 0t affirmed the orthodo( Christological doctrines from the Niceno5 Constantinopolitan Creed. 0t used the four negatives 1!no confusion, no change, no division, no separation#6 to e(plain the relationship of Christ) divinity and humanity, 'hich 'as a great theological accomplishment that not only pointed out the doctrinal errors before the Council, but also set a clear boundary by clarifying 'hat is out of the range and thus forbidden. @2 The Chalcedon 3efinition put together a clear statement about the issue 'ith several important elements; 1.6 Jesus Christ is truly $od and truly man, in one person, 'ith t'o natures. 126 Jesus Christ is the real incarnation. There 'as no conversion bet'een the divinity and the humanity of Christ. There 'as neither the deification of man, nor humani:ation of $od. 1@6 Christ is not a temporary association 'ith $od and man. %e is fully $od and fully man, but does not have t'o persons. 196 Christ has t'o natures 1$od and man6 forever, but has the perfect hypostatical union of divine and human. These established the essential foundations for orthodo( Christology. 2.2. -ftermath of Chalcedon The Council of Chalcedon did not put all Christological disputes to rest. There 'ere still strong follo'ers of Cyril and 8utyches in 8gypt, &yria and Calestine. They insisted that Christ only had one holy nature instead of t'o natures after the union. 7or this reason they 'ere called *onophysites. They thought that t'o distinct natures 'ould necessarily lead to t'o persons @< . The later *onophysites rejected the Chalcedonian definition of !t'o natures# in their petition; !"e ought to confess one nature of $od the "ord, 'ho too, flesh and perfectly became a human being. 7or this reason, $od the "ord, 'ho 'as previously simple, can not be considered to have become composite in a body, if division results after this union through his having t'o natures? OChristP 'ho 'as personally united to and joined by composition 'ith a flesh 'hich possesses a soul can not be Min t'o natures) on account of his union or composition 'ith a body.# @A
+eontius of By:antium and later John of 3amascus defended the Chalcedonian Christology against the *onophysites. +eontius stressed that the human nature of Christ 'as not impersonal but in5personal. %e taught that the human nature of Christ 'as not an independent hypostasis 1anhypostatic6, but 'as enhypostatic, i.e., it had its subsistence in and through the +ogos. @E . @9 =!3ogmatic 3efinition of the Council of Chalcedon#, http;>>'''.e'tn.com>faith>teachings>incac2.htm 1Nov. 20026 @2 !Chalcedon, Council of#, in #, in 7erguson, &. B. and "right, 3. 7., 8d., Ne' 3ictionary of Theology, 8ngland; 0nter5Harsity Cress, .4EE @< Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. .0E. @A =!The Cetition of the *onophysites to the 8mperor Justinian#, &ection 9..A in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. @E Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4, pp. .0E5.04. .0
Dther additional uestions also arose, such as if the 'ill of Christ belongs to the person or the nature, or if there is one 'ill in Christ or t'o. Dne sect of people asserted that there is only one 'ill in Christ based on the unity of the Cerson. They 'ere called *onothelites as a result. 7or a time the term !'ill# 'as replaced by !energy#. 0t 'as in the later A th
century that the doctrine of t'o 'ills and t'o energies 'as adopted to be orthodo( @4 . #. Concluding $emar%s -lthough most of the fundamental orthodo( doctrines of Christology 'ere established by the closing of the patristic era, the Christological debates did not end at this time. 0n the history to follo', there 'ere other controversies such as the -doptionist Controversy in &pain in the A th and E th century. Christology 'as not in the foreground in the *iddle -ges. The *iddle -ges theologians accepted the authority of patristic Christology and identified 'ith -ugustine)s stress on the real humanity of Christ in his atoning 'or,. Christology 'as not of essential importance to the Geformation debates. +uther)s Christology 'as based on Christ as true $od and true man in inseparable unity. Calvin also approved of the orthodo( Christological statements of the church councils. %o'ever, Christology once again became of major importance during and after the 8nlightenment of the .4 th century. The liberal theologians proclaimed it their goal to isolate the !true historical Jesus# from the !$od5man# 'ho has been 'orshipped and adored by the Church throughout the history. The divinity of Jesus Christ is presumed to be a myth. *any of the modern Christological debates gave rise to uestions about the relationship of faith and history. 0n the 20 th century and today, the doctrine of the Cerson of Christ has often been represented in a naturalistic 'ay, 'hich has departed from the orthodo( doctrines as reflected in the historical creeds such as the Chalcedon 3efinition. 90 7or contemporary Christians 'ho are committed to preserving, defending and proclaiming the orthodo( Christian faith, 'e often need to go bac, to the historical orthodo( doctrine of Christology, 'hich is no doubt one of the most essential parts of historical Christian doctrine. -nd 'e find that as this brief survey of the development of Christology in the early church history has sho'n, most of the fundamental orthodo( Christological doctrines 'ere developed before the beginning of the *iddle -ges through the struggle 'ith the erroneous teachings. The discussions and important historical creeds concerning Christology help us to set boundaries from historical insight. They are valuable theologically for determining the important parameters. -lthough 'e still need to have space for further theological discussion, they help us to avoid repeating the errors in the history. This is especially important in a time li,e ours 'hen many of the historical heretic teaching are reappearing in old and ne' forms. &elected 'i(liography Ber,hof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, .4<4 @4 ibid., pp. .045..0 90 ibid., pp. ..95.2@. ..
Clement, !The &econd 8pistle of Clement#, http;>>'''.earlychristian'ritings.com>2clement.html 1Nov. 20026 7erguson, &. B. and "right, 3. 7., 8d., Ne' 3ictionary of Theology, 8ngland; 0nter5 Harsity Cress, .4EE %istorical 3ocument, !The Creed of Nicea#, http;>>'''.gospelcom.net>chi>$+0*C&87>$limpses>glmps0EE.shtml 1Nov. 20026 %istorical 3ocument, !The Nicene Creed#, http;>>'''.reformed.org>documents>nicene.html 1Nov. 20026 %istorical 3ocument, !3ogmatic 3efinition of the Council of Chalcedon#, http;>>'''.e'tn.com>faith>teachings>incac2.htm 1Nov. 20026 %yppolitus, !Gefutation of -ll %eresies#, Boo, H00, Chapter II000, http;>>'''.'ebcom.com>Jgnosis>library>hypKrefutA.htm 1Nov. 20026 0gnatius, !The &econd 8pistle to the 8phesians#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers2>-N75 0.>anf0.522.htm 1Nov. 20026 Justin *artyr, !The 7irst -pology of Justin#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N75 0.>just>justinapology..htmlF&ection9< 1Nov. 20026 *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac,'ell, .442. *elito of &ardis, !Crayer in Craise of Christ#, http;>>'''.catholic5 forum.com>saints>pray029A.htm 1Nov. 20026 Tertullian, !-gainst Cra(eas#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N75 0@>tertullian>part2>againstKpra(eas.html 1Nov. 20026 .2