Christology

Christological controversy found expression in the acute differences between the school of Alexandria and that of Antioch; on the one hand, the monophysites confused the two natures, supposing the human absorbed by the divine; on the other, the diphysites dissolved them, dividing the one God-human into two persons.

Bulgakov situates Chalcedonian Christology as the resolution of competing Alexandrian and Antiochene errors, grounding his sophiological synthesis in the patristic unity-of-person-within-duality-of-natures formula.

Bulgakov, Sergei, Sophia, the Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, 1937thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Not only Christology but anthropology — the fundamental issue of what it means to be a human being — was at stake. Is the true self located in the body or in the soul/spirit? Christology in these cases conforms to anthropology.

King argues that early Christological disputes were inseparable from anthropological ones, so that any account of Christ’s nature simultaneously determined the account of human nature and salvation.

Karen L. King, What Is Gnosticism?, 2003thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

He who does not distinguish the two natures in Christ has no basis for affirming that the Logos became flesh without change. He does not acknowledge that after the union that which assumed and that which was assumed are preserved according to their nature in the single person of the one Christ.

The Philokalia passage asserts that the Chalcedonian distinction of natures is logically necessary for any coherent affirmation of the Incarnation without confusion or change.

Palmer, G. E. H. and Sherrard, Philip and Ware, Kallistos (trs.), The Philokalia, Volume 2, 1981thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

We confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and that He consists of two natures, and exists in two natures.

Damascus articulates the Chalcedonian double confession — perfect God and perfect man, two natures, one subsistence — as the irreducible formula of orthodox Christology.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing that we recognise that He has two natures but only one subsistence compounded of both, when we contemplate His natures we speak of His divinity and His humanity, but when we contemplate the subsistence compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have reference to His double nature.

Damascus establishes the linguistic logic of Christological predication: different modes of speech are appropriate depending on whether one contemplates Christ’s natures or His single compound subsistence.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Through the union in subsistence the flesh is said to be deified and to become God and to be equally God with the Word; and God the Word is said to be made flesh, and to become man.

Damascus describes the communicatio idiomatum as the reciprocal exchange enabled by hypostatic union, whereby divine attributes may be predicated of the flesh and human attributes of the Word.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

He was born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as He became man, and did not take up His abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but became Himself in essence and truth man.

Damascus refutes the adoptionist reading by insisting that the Incarnation constitutes a genuine hypostatic becoming-man, not a divine indwelling of a previously existing human subject.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Divine-humanity is the unity and complete concord of the divine and the created Wisdom, of God and his creation, in the person of the Word. The dynamic aspect of this union of the two natures in Christ means that in him God is redeeming humankind, reconciling the world unto himself.

Bulgakov reframes the Chalcedonian union soteriologically through his sophiological category of Divine-humanity, presenting the two-natures doctrine as the ontological ground of cosmic redemption.

Bulgakov, Sergei, Sophia, the Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, 1937supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The Son of God became Son of Man in order that His individuality might endure. For since He was the Son of God, He became Son of Man, being made flesh of the holy Virgin and not losing the individuality of Sonship.

Damascus grounds the Incarnation in the continuity of the divine person’s individuality, arguing that the hypostatic identity of the Son is preserved unaltered through the assumption of human nature.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

When we speak about the flesh, we use the terms deification and assumption of the Word and exceeding exaltation and anointing. For these are derived from divinity, but are observed in connection with the flesh.

Damascus categorizes the modes of Christological predication operative before, during, and after the union, systematizing how divine and human attributes are mutually exchanged across the two natures.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

We have already pointed out the close connection between Christology and anthropology: the image of Christ as emblem of the inner image and of the ideal form in which the human being appears to himself.

Corbin identifies a structural homology between Christology and anthropology within Sufi theophanics, where the image of Christ functions as the paradigm of the inner, ideal human form.

Corbin, Henry, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, 1969supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

He Who dies is none other than He Who reigns, He Who commends His spirit than He Who gives it up: He Who was buried, rose again: ascending or descending He is altogether one.

Damascus insists on the strict identity of the dying and the reigning Christ, rejecting any functional Nestorianism that would separate the suffering human from the triumphant divine subject.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will.

Damascus nuances the doctrine of Christ’s human passions, arguing they were genuinely natural yet uniquely subjected to the divine will, precluding any involuntary compulsion in Christ’s suffering.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Does any one deny that Christ remained in the nature of God or believe Him separable and distinct from the only true God?

Damascus poses a rhetorical challenge aimed at those who, in affirming Christ’s obedient humanity, risk severing his identity from the divine nature of the Father.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The Incarnation is a fact of history, which can be situated by historical co-ordinates; it is the meaning of history, of which it is itself the center. Its time is continuous abstract psychic time.

Corbin contrasts the historical singularity of the Incarnation with the discontinuous, subjective time of theophanic experience, arguing that the psychological event of theophany cannot be reduced to the historical datum of Incarnation.

Corbin, Henry, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, 1969supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The Son of God is nailed to the cross; but on the cross God conquers human death. Christ, the Son of God, dies; but all flesh is made alive in Christ.

The Hilary passage in the Damascus collection presents the paradox of the Passion as the definitive Christological statement: the death of the Son is simultaneously the divine conquest of death for all flesh.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

There is a fear lest, abstracting the double principle of action and wisdom from Christ, we should glorify a mutilated Christ. Now, is it possible to divide Christ whilst we adore His Godhead and His flesh?

Ambrose, cited by Damascus, warns that the liturgical and devotional separation of Christ’s divine and human aspects amounts to a practical Nestorianism that mutilates the integrity of the incarnate person.

John of Damascus, Saint John of Damascus Collection, 2016aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

When the Word became flesh, then it was, we say, that He was called Christ Jesus. For since He was anointed with the oil of gladness, that is the Spirit, by Him Who is God and Father, He is for this reason called Christ.

Damascus, citing Cyril of Alexandria and Athanasius, establishes that the name ‘Christ’ properly belongs to the Word only from the moment of Incarnation, linking the title’s meaning to the anointing of the assumed humanity by the Spirit.

John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2021aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →