The Question of Christ: An Historical Study
C. Douglas Honeyford - CBC Venice – April 2008
“What think ye of Christ?” The problem of the Person of Christ has been a subject of consideration and controversy in every age of the Christian Church. Every generation has been faced with the question: “Who do men say that I am?” When Jesus asked His disciples this question their answers reflected several shades of opinion. “Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” Popular opinion judged Him to be only a man. But Jesus was not satisfied with this estimate of Himself. His second interrogation was personal and pointed: “But who say ye that I am?” Peter’s inspired answer was a declaration of eternal truth: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Mankind is still divided over the question of Christ-some say He is man, but others claim He is God.
The question is still urgent. What is the correct answer? No problem of greater importance can demand the earnest attention of man’s mind. All other questions are subordinate. Philip Schaff, in his Introduction in The Person of Christ, writes: “The question of Christ is the question of Christianity, which is the manifestation of his life in the world; it is the question of the Church, which rests upon him as the immovable rock; it is the question of history, which revolves around him as the sun of the moral universe; it is the question of every man who instinctively yearns after him as the object of his noblest and purest aspirations; it is the question of personal salvation, which can only be obtained in the blessed name of Jesus.” For nineteen centuries the Person of Christ has been the centre of discussion and debate by both His friends and foes. On the answer given depends an issue of paramount importance-Is Jesus Christ God?
I. Orthodoxy
For the first six centuries of the Christian era there was waged within the Church a battle for belief. In this extended Christological controversy some of the greatest Christian thinkers labored to formulate the truth concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. Exact definitions of terms were required. Many crucial problems had to be settled. Minds of great acumen and power were called upon to decide such questions as-In what sense was Jesus Christ God? Was His humanity real or only apparent? How were the divine and human natures united in one person? Was He a single or a dual personality? Great Church councils were convened to analyze these doctrinal problems and to register decisions. The champions of truth and error, like gladiators in an arena, wrestled in debate over these questions. As the outcome of this prolonged polemical struggle four doctrines were established as the truth concerning the person of Jesus Christ.
1. Deity
As the Son of God Jesus Christ was truly God. He was not the Son of God in the same sense as Christians are called the sons of God. His sonship was unique. Based upon the data of the Bible the early contenders for the faith came to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ was “Very God of Very God.” “The divinity of Christ,” writes Dr. Dale, “is in solution in the Bible as salt is in sea water.”
Jesus Christ submitted to His doubting generation two evidences of His deity-His WORDS and His WORKS. “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake” (John 14:11). On every word He spoke, and on every work He performed, was the stamp of deity. His words were the words of God. “My teaching,” Jesus claimed, “is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16). He was conscious of His deity. “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
The Greek language, as the medium of inspiration, was marvelously accurate in its expression. “Are” is in the masculine gender and the plural number, meaning-we (two persons) are. “One” is in the neuter gender and singular number, meaning-one thing.
The correct exegesis of this text is that the Father and the Son have one interest and one purpose. Christ is not claiming that He and the Father are one person which would have been the case had “one” been in the masculine gender. The equality, unity and distinctness, of the Father and the Son are all implied. This text became the safeguard against two heresies, one of which denied the distinction of the persons in the Godhead, and the other the unity of their essence. Space does not permit an examination of all the Scriptural proof, but the abundant and convincing character of the evidence, justifies the verdict that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh.
His works were the works of God. Jesus said, “the Father abiding in me doeth his works” (John 14:10R.V.). He challenged the Jews by saying, “If I do not the works of my Father believe me not. But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:37, 38R.V.). Christ’s words, apart from His works, were to men of spiritual perception, sufficient proof of His deity. But to those who lacked insight He offered His works as corroborative evidence. He claimed and exercised the powers and prerogatives of God. He healed the sick, He walked on water, He calmed the storm, He cast out demons, He forgave sins, and He raised the dead. All His miracles were of divine character. It is logical to suppose that a supernatural Person could and would perform supernatural works. But the greatest miracle is the miracle of His Person. The miraculous birth, character, teaching, works, death and resurrection, can only be accounted for in the light of His miraculous Person. Every effect requires an adequate cause. None but a sculptor with the genius of Michel Angelo could carve a statue of “Moses.” None but an artist with the skill of a Raphael could paint the “Transfiguration.” None but a poet with the gifts of a Milton could write “Paradise Lost.” So none but Jesus Christ, the Son of God, could perform the matchless miracles of the New Testament. The Deity of Jesus Christ is the most patent fact of the Gospel.
2. Humanity
As the Son of Man Jesus Christ was perfectly man. His human nature was as perfect and complete as His divine nature. The early theologians of the church held unequivocally to the tenet that Jesus Christ was “Perfect man, of reasoning soul and human flesh subsisting.” He was a true man in body and in soul, not only physiologically but also psychologically. A search of the Scriptures will yield abundant and convincing proof that the church has been right in maintaining this doctrine. Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas observed that “the true humanity of Jesus Christ is a patent fact of the New Testament record, and yet the way in which His life transcended humanity is equally patent.” (Christianity is Christ, p. 108).
As to the real body of our Lord the statements of Scripture are most explicit. He possessed in perfect proportion all the senses, instincts and faculties of a normal human being. The Eternal Word became flesh (σὰρξ εγένετο), i.e. became (what He had not hitherto been) man. Deity, by the mysterious miracle of the virgin birth, became permanently united to humanity. During the brief period of His earthly existence Jesus passed through all the experiences common to mankind. He entered His phase of human life by the gateway of birth. He experienced the weaknesses and limitations of infancy and childhood. As a normal boy Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature.” In developing, as Dr. Alfred Plummer comments, “at each stage he was perfect for that stage.” He endured the physical sensations of hunger and thirst, fatigue and pain. By the pathway of suffering and death He made His exit from the stage of human experience. “In all things He became like unto us.”
But there was one experience which He did not share with mankind-the experience of sin. Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He came into the world “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Stifler’s comment on this remarkable phrase is to the point: “He did not come in the likeness of flesh, or he would have been no proper man, and he did not come in sinful flesh, or he would have been a sinner; but he came ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh.’ He was neither a phantom, nor a sinner, but a perfect man.”
A “reasonable soul” as well as a true body was essential to the constitution of our Lord’s human nature. Both in body (σω̂μα) and in soul (ψυχή) He was truly man. His human nature was a compound of physical and psychical elements. The psychology of Jesus, a study of His mind, is a fascinating subject. The three elements of mental activity are Cognition, Affection and Conation, or, in other words, Intellect, Emotion and Will. It is interesting to notice in the Gospels the references to the mental activity of Jesus.
The intellectual power of our Lord more than once provoked men to exclamations of amazement. Twice we are told that as a child He “advanced in wisdom.” In the temple, at the age of twelve years, “all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” The Greek word for “understanding” is σύνεσις and means “practical discernment,” “intelligence,” or, literally, the ability “to put things together.” In the days of His public ministry the Jews marveled, saying, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” It was evident to the Jews that Jesus was “a man of letters,” thoroughly educated and conversant with the scholarship of His day: yet He had never studied in the rabbinical schools. Dr. Westcott, in his commentary on John, wrote: “The marvel was that Jesus showed Himself familiar with the literary methods of His time, which were supposed to be confined to the scholars of the popular teachers.” The records of His life lead us to believe that this knowledge was acquired by ordinary processes. The question is sometimes raised, was our Lord’s knowledge limited? Recognition of the fact that Jesus Christ was one Person-true God and perfect Man-should dissolve any difficulty on this point. Omniscience is an attribute of Deity. Repeatedly Jesus indicated that His knowledge was superhuman. He was conscious of His own preëxistence. He knew the past life of the women at the well. He knew from the beginning who it was that should betray Him. He foreknew the denial of Peter, the manner of His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem. He knew He would be the future Judge of mankind. Yet coupled with these expressions of omniscience He confessed to limitations of knowledge. In the midst of the multitude He asked, “Who touched my garments?” With reference to Lazarus’ tomb He inquired, “Where have ye laid him?” With regard to the date of His Second Advent He stated: “But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). On the Cross He cried, “Why hast Thou forsaken me.” In the light of these revelations of the mind of the Master, the only way to account for His intellect and knowledge, is to designate Him the God-Man.
The emotions of Jesus were like the strings of a perfectly tuned harp which vibrated with music to the touch of humanity. Love was the dominant emotion of His soul. He loved the rich young ruler; He loved the disciple who leaned on His bosom. Sometimes His soul burned with anger and righteous indignation. The critical attitude of the Pharisees provoked Jesus to look on them with anger. His indignation was aroused when He saw money-changers profaning the holy temple. There were times when His soul was exalted and He “rejoiced in spirit,” and there were times when joy gave way to grief. He grieved over the hardness of men’s hearts. He wept and “groaned in spirit” at the grave of His friend Lazarus. He shed tears of sorrow over Jerusalem. Twice we are told He “sighed” when surrounded by trying circumstances. As He contemplated the Cross He confessed, “Now is my soul troubled.” These emotional responses to the varied experiences of life are disclosures of His perfect manhood.
The will is the regal faculty of the soul. In the universe the will of God is sovereign and supreme. The greatness and glory of Jesus Christ is found in the fact that He never deviated from the path of the Divine will. He expressed His high and holy purpose in the words: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me.” Although oppressed by many trials and temptations He remained firm and resolute of will. The crisis in the garden of Gethsemane involved a choice between His will and the Father’s will. “He kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done” (Luke 22:42).
Jesus prayed to ascertain the “will” (βούλομαι) of the Father, i.e. the divine plan and purpose; a word implying deliberation and counsel. Once that was revealed He yielded His will to the Higher Will-“not my will (θέλημα) but thine be done,” i.e. “an act of the will”; a word implying intention, resolution, determination. The question is sometimes raised; did our Lord have two wills-one divine and one human? In answering this question we must be on our guard lest we dispart the Person of Christ. The problem is created by a failure to recognize the unity of His Person. It is illogical to suppose that Christ thought, spoke and acted one time “as God,” and at another “as man.” His personality was not divided but harmonious. He had one consciousness and one will, which can only be adequately described by the adjective theanthropic. Intellectually, emotionally and volitionally, He was the God-Man. Thus it is conclusive that the humanity of Christ was not apparent but real. In body and in soul His human nature was perfect and complete.
3. Union
The unique personality of Jesus Christ was constituted by the conjunction of the two natures in one Person. The early Church Fathers declared this union to be “unmixed, unchanged, undivided, not to be separated.” There were not two natures and hence two persons, one divine and one human; but two natures and one person-the Theanthropos. Our Lord was not God and Man but the God-Man. We do not worship a double Christ. There is not the slightest evidence in the Gospels that He was a dual personality. He always used the first personal pronoun “I”-never “we”-in referring to Himself. Calvin, in treating this subject, wrote, “For we assert such a connection and union of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its properties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ” (Institutes, Bk. 2, Chap. 14).
4. Distinction
The Incarnation requires three elements, (a) perfect Divinity, (b) perfect humanity, and (c) a perfect union between the two. How were the two natures united in one Person? We are at a loss for an answer. It is a mystery beyond our comprehension. And yet, as Dr. Griffith Thomas observes, “beyond comprehension is not necessarily beyond apprehension.” The union was not a fusion, or the result would be a person who was neither God nor man but a tertium quid. The two natures were never confounded nor confused, but always distinct and disparate. To denominate Jesus Christ “the humanized God,” or “the deified Man,” is to betray an ambiguity of mind, because the two natures are not clearly distinguished. Since the divine nature was eternal and the human nature temporal, having no existence except in conjunction with the divine, it is right to say that “Christ was not a human person with a divine nature, but a divine person with a human nature.” Theological orthodoxy affirms that in the unique personality of Jesus Christ were united without fusion, Deity and Manhood, both perfect and complete.
Against these four impregnable positions of the Christian faith were directed the attacks of four subtle and insidious heresies. In this battle for belief the future of Christianity was at stake. The fight for the faith was a prolonged struggle, lasting for five or six centuries; for as soon as one foe was vanquished, heresy appeared in another form, and the conflict was renewed. These heretical opinions, however, never became totally extinct, in spite of all the anathemas and excommunications delivered by the defenders of the faith. They reappeared from time to time in the history of the Church with a different name but the same nature.
The root meaning of the word “heresy” (αἵρεσις) is “choice,” derived from the Greek verb αἱρει̂ν, “to choose.” An heretic is a person who adopts views which are not in accord with the opinions embraced by the Church as a whole-opinions which are divergent from the accepted interpretations of Scripture. “The heretical spirit,” observes Dr. Alfred Plummer, “is seen in that cold critical temper, that self-confident and self-willed attitude, which accepts and rejects opinions on principles of its own, quite independently of the principles which are the guaranteed and historical guides of the Church.” Such was the character of the heresies that threatened to undermine the foundations of the Christian faith.
Christological Heresies
1. Arianism -
Arianism originated in the church of Alexandria in Egypt. Its proponent, Aries, was a presbyter of the church-a man of ascetic habits, possessing great pulpit eloquence and marked forensic ability. When it became apparent that his teaching concerning the Person of Jesus Christ was inconsistent with the doctrine of His Deity, Alexander the bishop excluded him from the fellowship of the church. The controversy, however, was not localized in Alexandria but immediately spread through all the churches of the Roman Empire.
The peculiar teachings of Arius may be more easily understood if some of his own phraseology be quoted. “God,” wrote Arius, “as the cause of all, is alone without beginning...” “God is before all things, wherefore He is prior to Christ.” “He (Christ) was created and made” and “once He was not.” Arius’ logic was expressed in the syllogism that that which is true of human is true of the relation between the Father and the Son; but the Father’s priority of existence is true of human fatherhood; therefore it is true in regard to the Father and the Son. Milman, in his History of Christianity, vol. ii, page 358, gives the essence of Arianism:-“There was a time before the commencement of the ages when the parent Deity dwelt alone, in undeveloped, undivided unity. At a time, immeasurably, incalculably, inconceivably remote, the majestic solitude ceased, the Divine unity was broken by an act of the sovereign will; and the only-begotten Son, the image of the Father, the vice-regent of the Divine power, the intermediate agent in all the long subsequent work of creation, began to be.” In other words Arius believed and taught that “once there was no Son.” Even while declaring that the Son was “Perfect God” he was faced with the illogical and untenable position that there must be two Gods-one uncreated and the other created; one without a beginning and another with; one of one substance and another of one absolutely different. His doctrine robbed the Son of His Deity and equality with the Father, and destroyed the unity of the Godhead. The simple-minded Goths accepted the doctrine of Arius, but the Greeks with their logic and acumen rejected Arianism as irrational.
A church council, the first of its kind, assembled in the month of May, in the year 325 A.D., in the city of Nicea, to settle the controversy aroused by Arius. The Emperor Constantine, himself, convened the council and presided over some of its sessions. It is doubtful if he understood or appreciated the nature or the importance of the doctrinal debate; nevertheless, in his opening address he said: “Discord in the Church I regard as more grievous than external warfare; delay not, therefore, to dissolve all controversies by the laws of peace.”
The number of delegates in attendance was three hundred and eighteen. The majority of the bishops were from the East, six only being present from the West. Brave men who had endured hardship as good soldiers of Jesus Christ attended this epochal assembly. They bore in their bodies the marks of suffering and persecution. Two bishops from Egypt had each lost an eye; another had been hamstrung; another’s hands had been paralyzed with red-hot irons. Some were men of great saintliness and simplicity of character.
Sozomen, in reporting the council, wrote, “Athanasius with his bishop Alexander took the most prominent part in the discussion.” Anthanasius perceived that the question at issue was one of supreme importance involving the redemption of mankind. He declared “a true incarnation is needed in order to redemption. Only the Divine Son could atone for the sins of the world. He was made man that we might be made divine.” Like many religious controversies both heat and light were generated.
As Arius gave expression to his views “the bishops stopped their ears,” and when Eusebius of Nicodemia presented his creed of Arianism it was torn to shreds and rejected as heretical. Eusebius of Caesarea then proposed a second statement of doctrine which was adopted, with certain additional words and clauses supplied by Athanasius, and pronounced the Nicene Creed. The most important insertion was the expression “of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father.” This was the test word in the long debate.
The Arians defined their conception of the Person of the Son, and of His relationship to the Father, by the use of the word “similar” essence (ὁμοιούσιος). It was a matter of profound importance to decide whether Jesus Christ was of the “same” or “similar” essence or substance with the Father; and yet, Carlyle, and Gibbon before him, betrayed an appalling lack of spiritual discernment, when he asserted that “the Christian world was torn in pieces over a diphthong.” Later, however, he realized that Christianity itself was the issue involved. “Athanasius stood for that without which there would have been no church to divide.” The deity of Jesus Christ, His equality and oneness with the Father, is the keystone in the arch of Christian truth. The conclusion reached by the Council of Nicea was that “the Son is begotten out of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father.”
2. Apollinarianism
Once the problem of the relation of the Son to the Father had been settled to the satisfaction of the majority the Christian thinkers began to analyze the person of Christ. The relation of the two elements-the divine and human natures-in the one personality of Christ came to be a subject of theological speculation. Origen and Arius had both expressed themselves but their theories did not arouse much controversy because the church was engrossed in other matters. Apollinaris, the bishop of Laodicea, a friend of Athanasius, and a loyal supporter of the Nicene Creed, was the first and ablest theologian to discuss this profound question.
The problem that concerned him was the reconciliation of a perfect and complete manhood with a true and proper deity in the personality of Christ. His trend of thought followed along the lines of the Platonic school which divided human nature into three elements-body, soul and spirit. Christ, Apollinaris reasoned, had a human body and soul, but the place of the human spirit was filled by the Divine Logos.
As soon as Apollinaris’ theory became known opponents arose to confute it. Upon examination, even while it was apparent that he recognized Christ’s divinity and attempted to formulate a doctrine that would preserve the unity of His personality, Apollinaris’ view really denied Christ’s complete humanity. A Divine incarnation must include three factors: a perfect divinity, a perfect humanity and a perfect union between the two. Heresy arose in the church when all of these factors were not incorporated into their doctrinal statements. Apollinaris erred in fusing the divine and human natures in Christ instead of keeping them complete and disparate. Several synods pronounced the doctrine of Apollinaris unorthodox, and he was finally condemned for heresy by the second General Council which met in Constantinople in the year 381.
3. Nestorianism -
Another aspect of the long Christological controversy originated with Nestorius, the devout, learned presbyter of the church of Antioch, who, in the year 428, was made the patriarch of Constantinople. Arius erred in denying to Christ the attribute of deity. Apollinaris’ heresy robbed Christ of His essential humanity. Nestorius formulated a doctrine which made Christ a dual personality. Nestorius contended that in Christ the two natures remained distinct and complete, and yet were closely united, and harmonious in will. The union was moral rather than organic and personal. In other words Christ was God and man instead of the God-man-a dual and not a single personality. He labored to prove that when “the Word became flesh” the only personality in Christ was the Logos. The Logos clothed Himself with humanity, but the human element in this connection had no personality apart from the Logos. The theory of Nestorius, however, when thoroughly analyzed results in a doctrine of two natures and two persons.
Cyril of Alexandria took issue with Nestorius and another controversy was precipitated. Cyril employed every means at his disposal to overthrow his rival and to strengthen his own position and authority. Political intrigue, religious riots and bitter rivalry characterized this dispute, the story of which is one of the most sordid pages in church history.
In an effort to reach the truth in the debate, and to reconcile the opposing factions, the Emperor Theodosius II, issued a call for the third General Council of the Church to meet in Ephesus in 431. Nestorius was not given a fair trial. The friends and supporters of Nestorius were slow in arriving, and Cyril’s faction, seeing their opportunity, immediately organized and condemned him in the first day’s session. The arrival of the rest of the delegates led to a violent reaction and Cyril himself was condemned and deposed for his unlawful proceedings. The final outcome of the strife, however, led to the banishment of Nestorius, but his teachings survived and developed into a widespread missionary movement which reached as far as India and China.
4. Eutychianism
The fourth system of error in the doctrine of Christ was advanced by Eutyches, a monk of Constantinople. He stated his faith in the words: “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union (i.e., the incarnation), but after the union one nature.” His heresy consisted in the fusing of the divine and human natures in one person. His mistake was Apollinarianism carried to its logical conclusion. The mingling of Christ’s divinity and humanity constituted a tertium quid, or a third nature. Eutyches illustrated his view of the two natures in Christ by the example of a drop of honey in the ocean. The divine so absorbed the human in Christ so as to make it virtually nonexistent, and yet, as the result of the mingling the quality of both natures was changed, The Eutychian Christ was nothing else than a semi human demigod.
The theologians of the church were not slow in detecting this new aberration from the truth and at once became involved in debate. A local synod in Constantinople condemned Eutyches, but this action aroused widespread opposition. The Emperor Theodosius II convened a council in Ephesus in the year 449. Many stormy sessions were held but the council was a failure because no opportunity was given for discussion or debate or general participation in the proceedings. Leo, the bishop of Rome, denounced the assembly of a “synod of robbers.” The next step in the order of events, was, the calling of a new General Council, which came to be known in church history as the fourth, to meet in Chalcedon in 451. More than six hundred bishops were present. The heresies that had beset the church-Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, were condemned. The most constructive action taken by the Council was the adoption of the famous creed of Chalcedon which has come to be recognized as the Christology of the majority of Christians. An analysis of this statement of faith leads to the conclusion that the essential elements of a true Scriptural Christology are recognized and defined. It reads in part: “We teach that Jesus Christ is perfect as respects godhood, and perfect as respects manhood; that he is truly God, and truly a man consisting of a rational soul and a body; that he is consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity, and consubstantial with us as to his humanity, and like us in all respects sin excepted.... He is one Christ existing in two natures without mixture, without change, without division, without separation.” Thus after centuries of conflict the faith of the church was crystallized into a Creed. The heretics compelled the Christian theologians to seek the truth and to give exact definition to their faith, and to this extent the church owes a debt to the heretics. The creed of Chalcedon is the answer of the Church to the question of Christ: “But who say ye that I am?”
The unique personality of Jesus Christ is a divine mystery which the human mind cannot solve. The great thinkers of the church in all ages have sought to sound the unfathomable depths of the incarnation only to find that the plummet-line of their reasoning and logic was too short. “No man knoweth the Son, save the Father,”-the nature of the Son is a mystery that only the mind of God can comprehend. “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness (πλήρωμα) of the Godhead bodily.” Christ is not only the centre but also the substance of Christianity. Henry B. Smith summarized the whole truth in a sentence: “Let us come to Jesus,-the person of Christ is the centre of theology.” The words of Robert Browning express the faith and experience of every Christian:
“I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ,
Accepted by the reason, solves for thee
All questions in the earth and out of it,
And has so far advanced thee to be wise.”
Bibliotheca Sacra
