Two Natures in Christ

Nicene Christology The Councils The Council of Nicaea convened in 325. The Council of Constantinople followed in 381. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were convened in 431 and 451 respectively. At all of these councils, the main issues were around the nature and personhood of Christ. His relationship to the Father, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both, the meaning of the Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Christ—all of this was discussed and argued in different ways.

The arguments went on for more than one hundred years as new ways of thinking about Jesus and God arose. People like Arius and Nestorius were trying to apply logic and reason to an issue that had to largely be taken on faith. In other words, they were trying to rationalize the God-Man so that it made sense, but the Church wanted them to accept the mystery of God Christ as both deity and man at one and the same time.

The main issue at the Council of Nicaea was the Arian heresy. Arius had raised questions about the nature of Christ—was he wholly god or wholly man? What was his nature? Arius held an essentially anti-Trinitarian view of God and believed the Christ was begotten by the Father but not pre-existing like the Father from all time. Thus, Arius maintained Christ had a different nature.

The Council proclaimed that Christ had two natures—a human and a divine, both existing simultaneously in His One Person, which was equal to the other Two Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Nicene Creed was codified, in which Christ was defined as being consubstantial with the Father. Emperor Theodosius called the Council of Constantinople to order. The Nicene Creed had to be confirmed and the Macedonian heresy had to be addressed.

Arianism was also still an issue, and a new pope needed to be selected who was not an Arian. Athanasius was exiled for being an opponent of Arianism, as many church members leaned towards the heresy. At the same time, the Macedonian heresy attacked the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The outcome was that the Creed was confirmed and the heresies condemned. Emperor Theodosius II called the Council of Ephesus to order.

The heresies of Nestorius and Pelagius were addressed and the idea that Mary only conceived the man Jesus and not God the Christ was also addressed. Cyril of Alexandria opposed Nestorius, who advocated for the position of Mary conceiving only the human nature of Jesus—i.e., Theotokos rather than Christokos. Cyril convinced the Council that Nestorius was wrong—but Nestorius refused to submit nonetheless. Emperor Marcian called to order the Council of Chalcedon.

Nestorius was still spreading the idea that Christ had two personalities rather than two natures. The Council aimed to show that Christ had one personality that was whole and unified—i.e., that He was both God and man, without any division or separation between his two natures ever at any point. The Chalcedonian definition put forward by the Council was that Christ had two natures that were joined in hypostasis. Christ was affirmed as being One Person rather than as having two distinct personalities.

He had two natures that hypostatically unified, but he was one person. Theodoret of Cyrrhus had been in attendance and had been sympathetic to the position of Nestorius—but he agreed to reject the ideas of Nestorius so as to keep his position in the Church. With that, the Nestorian heresy began to fizzle out.

Outcome The Church Fathers reached the conclusions they did because it was important for them to recognize Christ as being One with the Father and the Holy Spirit and also as having unity in and of himself. Allowing Christ to be defined only as a man in one regard opened the door to people banishing the idea of Christ’s divinity altogether. Indeed, Meyendorff (1964) makes the case the Arian heresy helped lead to the development of Islam, which viewed Christ only as a prophet and not as divine.

In other words, the Church was conscious of the idea that by separating Christ’s divinity from His humanity would cause some to view him as man only, which is what Meyendorff (1964) says Islam did. Thus, the Council of Nicaea affirmed the two natures of Christ. The Council of Constantinople affirmed the Trinity. The Council of Ephesus affirmed the Christokos, and the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the hypostatic union.

By affirming the single personhood of Christ and the dual-nature aspect of Christ, as well as the union of the three divine persons in one God—i.e., the Trinity—the Church was able to clearly define the doctrines that the early Christians were expected to believe. The Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition helped to bring clarity and light to an issue that was causing serious division and threatening the breakup of the Church.

Athanasius, after all, spent much time in exile because he was rejected by the Arians in the Church, but now he is recognized by the Church as a saint. The Church was thus in danger of being overwhelmed by views that would have undermined the teachings that had been handed down from the days of the Apostles, and the councils helped to resolve these issues over time.

Ando (2008) states that it was necessary for the Empire to have a religion supporting it (Christianity) that was cohesive and clearly defined and that this is another reason why it was important for the Councils to clearly defined what adherents of Christianity were expected to believe—doing so helped to preserved order in the Eastern Empire while the West fell into decline. Application and Analysis In my contemporary Christian fellowship/church experience, the Christology of contemporary Christian churches is much less defined.

Unless they are students of theology, they are unlikely to have any sense of what is meant by the hypostatic union—or it might be something they learned once but the importance of this bit of information is more like trivia than a firm position on which they base their faith. Faith for modern contemporary Christians is more experiential than anything: it is based on the personal connection to God (Bingham, 2014).

There is some value and some allure that doctrine provides, but this is more like a guide, a signpost pointing the way to God so that one can feel more secure and confident in the world. There is no pressing need to identify as a specific kind of Christian or as having your beliefs firmly defined.

There is a lot of leeway that is accepted among the churches because a lot of people are coming to faith from different backgrounds, and from one generation to the next there is a lot of give and take in terms of what one is expected to believe, affirm or renounce. Contemporary Christology thus compares with Nicene Christology in a rather dissimilar way.

Whereas Nicene Christology was very divisive in terms of assessing the nature of Christ—whether He was God and Man or just Man or all God and no Man or whether or He had distinct persons—a Divine Christ and a human Christ, contemporary Christology is far less concerned about these issues. I think that one of the reasons is because there is so much agnosticism in today’s world that just making an act of faith is hard enough.

Arguing over what the nature of Christ is seems beyond the capabilities of a lot of people. They are not interested in the ramifications of these ideas or the practical conclusions that they lead to. Likewise, it compares to Nicene orthodoxy in the same way. There is not much orthodoxy today. Today’s Christians range in variety far more than they did at the time of the Council of Nicaea. Back then there was much more orthodoxy in terms of conformity and unity of belief.

That is why the divisions were so particularly important—people were breaking off over details that today are.