Controversies about Christ: Struggling with Christ’s Humanity and Deity

Controversy about Jesus’ identity has been raging since the first century. In the Gospel of John, the author records disagreement about Jesus during a festival in Jerusalem:

Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.”

Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.”

But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders. (John 7:12-13)

In the next chapter, Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed (8:48).

Mark records the following exchange between Jesus and his disciples:

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” (8:27-29)

Within Jesus’ lifetime, then, the following opinions were expressed about his identity:

• A good man
• A deceiver
• A Samaritan and demon-possessed
• John the Baptist
• Elijah
• One of the prophets
• The Messiah

Church History

Intense debate about Jesus’ identity continued for hundreds of years even within the Church. Although Christians agreed that Jesus was the Messiah, understanding how he could be both human and divine resulted in many debates.

When I was in my early twenties, I heard about the ancient Christological controversies, but I thought much of it was needless hair splitting and political maneuvering.

Now that I am much older, the disputes make more sense. Granted, over-rationalization and the struggle for power were elements in these fights, but substantial theology was at stake. The New Testament contains the essential data about Jesus, but it doesn’t make everything explicit, so debates are inevitable. For example, the word “trinity” is not used in the Bible nor is its definition, “one God in three Persons” but the foundational data is expressed.

In what follows I will try to show how the history of Christological controversy makes sense. This is one of the most technical topics in Christian thought so if you can read to the end of this post, congratulations! In case you get lost in the details, here’s the main idea: church leaders were trying to hold on to three ideas simultaneously:

1. Christ is fully human
2. Christ is fully divine
3. Christ is one person

The struggle to affirm these concepts required wrestling with many false solutions, which were eventually labeled as heresies. But these heresies served a purpose: they motivated Christians to come together and clarify orthodox teaching. Since the unfolding debate is a huge and fascinating story, I am only seeking to scratch the surface in this post by highlighting the major movements.

1st, 2nd, and 3rd Century

Docetism – The unchangeable Creator would never take on mortal changeable human flesh so Christ was not fully human but only appeared to be. His body was purely spiritual. Hence, he did not die on the cross. The term docetic comes from a Greek word meaning “to seem” or “appear to be.” This view, common among the Gnostics, arose so early that it is refuted in the New Testament (see 1 John 4:2-3; 2 Jn 7).

Dynamic Monarchianism – Christ was a human being divinely empowered by God at his baptism. In other words, divinity is not intrinsic to Christ; instead divine power was given to him later in life. The term “dynamic” refers to divine power; “monarchianism” highlights the monarchy of the Father. This view is similar to Ebionism, which was a Jewish Christian movement.

Modalistic Monarchianism – Father, Son, and Spirit are merely different names of the one God meaning that God transforms from Father to Son to Spirit. What does this view do to Christ’s humanity? If God is merely transforming from one form to another, it cannot do justice to Christ’s full humanity because God leaves the human body behind when he becomes Spirit. Modalism is also known as Sabellianism because Sabellius was an early advocate of this teaching. Both forms of monarchianism subordinate the Son to the Father and were ultimately rejected by the Church.

Eternal Generation – The view that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father’s own essence. Since this generation is eternal, the Son never began to exist. The Son’s generation is also continuous and spiritual. This view also subordinates the Son to the Father, but it doesn’t make the Son a different essence than the Father. Origen of Alexandria (AD 185-253) is credited with this concept, which was largely accepted by the Church.

4th Century

Arius (c. AD 256-336) – Arius was a priest in Alexandria who taught that the Son had a beginning: “Before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten” (Bettenson, 3^rd ed., 43). Notice that Arius uses the term “begotten” without Origen’s explanation that it means “eternally begotten.” Hence, Arianism asserts that Christ is a demigod—a middle being, less than God but more than man. This view has the following implications:

1. Only God the Father is eternal.
2. God was not always the Father.
3. The Father and the Son are not of the same essence (ousia).
4. Worshipping the Son is technically idolatry. (However, Arius still taught that Jesus should be worshipped, which led to the accusation of idolatry.)

Similarities have been noted between Arianism and the teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that before he was born, Jesus was the archangel Michael, meaning that ultimately, he is a creature.

Some have also labeled Mormon teaching as Arian, but Mormonism is more complex. It affirms that Jesus is the spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother so there is overlap with Arianism in that the Son did not always exist. But Mormonism also teaches that God the Father was once a mortal man on another planet so the God of this planet also did not always exist. Moreover, Mormons believe that the path of salvation leads to humans becoming gods on our own planets.

Athanasius (c. AD 296-373) – a patriarch of Alexandria and fierce critic of Arius. Athanasius argued that no mere human could save us from sin and death so God came down to us in Christ to save us. Thus, our salvation depends on Christ’s divinity. However, in describing how the Logos (the “Word”) takes on a human body, Athanasius “seemed to imply (without stating it in so many words) that the Logos took the place of the human soul in the Incarnate Jesus” (Noll, 68). In sum, Athanasius’s answer strongly affirmed Christ’s divinity but left something lacking in Christ’s humanity.

Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. AD 310-390) – Apollinaris strongly affirmed Christ’s divinity but failed to honor Christ’s full humanity. He taught that Christ had a human body but not a human mind: “The mind (nous) of Christ must be changeless, not ‘prey to filthy thoughts, but existing as a divine mind, immutable and heavenly’” (Frend, 634). This view was criticized as Gnostic and repudiated at the second ecumenical council called the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381).

Nicene Creed (AD 325/381) – the emperor Constantine called the first ecumenical (“worldwide”) council of bishops known as the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). (Technically, “worldwide” refers only to the Roman Empire.) Traditionally, it is understood that 318 bishops attended. After more than two months of deliberation, a creed was agreed on by almost all bishops with only two refusing to sign. This creed was slightly expanded at the second ecumenical council or the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381). Here’s what the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (usually called Nicene Creed) says about Jesus:

We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Notice how the Nicene Creed affirms Jesus’ full divinity and full humanity. This statement is affirmed by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and many other Protestant churches, making it the most important creed in Christianity. The Nicene Creed was influenced by the three Cappadocian Fathers—Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa—who made a distinction between essence (ousia) and person (hypostasis). God is one essence (ousia) in three Persons (hypostasis). And Christ is of the same essence (homoousia) as the Father.

5th Century

Nestorius (AD 386-451) – a monk who became bishop of Constantinople in 428. He preached a sermon denying that Mary was the God-bearer or mother of God (theotokos). Instead, Mary was the Christ-bearer or mother of Christ (Christotokos) who gave birth to Jesus’ human nature but not to his divine nature. Nestorius’s teaching was viewed as rejecting the union of the two natures, resulting in two separate Sons. To maintain the unity of the person of Christ, the two natures must be fully united. Hence, Christ must be fully God and fully man at the same time. Additionally, asserting that Jesus became God at a later point denies his deity in its fullness because it would mean that he grew into his divinity in some way. With the help of Cyril’s letters, Nestorianism was rejected at the third ecumenical council, The Council of Ephesus (AD 431).

Cyril (c. AD 375-444) – archbishop of Alexandria for more than thirty years who fought against Nestorianism. Cyril taught that Christ was fully God and fully man with both natures having their distinct qualities while completely united in the person of Christ. Cyril says the holy fathers “boldly called the holy Virgin ‘God’s mother [theotokos], not because the nature of the Logos . . . took the start of its existence in the holy Virgin but because the holy body which was born of her, possessed as it was of a rational soul, and to which the Logos was hypostatically united, is said to have had a fleshly birth” (Noll, 71). So Mary gave birth to the physical body of Christ to which the Logos (divine person of the Word) was fully united. Hence, she gave birth to one person who was God and man so it is appropriate to call her “mother of God,” but obviously God existed before this birth. Politics were involved in the struggle between Cyril and Nestorius and Cyril was far from perfect in his tactics. You can read letters between Cyril and Nestorius here.

Eutyches (c. AD 378-454) – A monk at Constantinople who taught that after Christ became man, he only had one nature—divine. Eutyches said, “I admit that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union one nature” (Bettenson, 53). This teaching was condemned at the fourth ecumenical council or the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and the fifth ecumenical council called the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553). At the later council, the fourth anathema reads:

The supporters of the wickedness of Apollinarius and Eutyches have asserted that the union is produced by a confusing of the uniting elements, as they advocate the disappearance of the elements that unite. Those who follow Theodore and Nestorius, rejoicing in the division, have brought in a union which is only by affection. The holy church of God, rejecting the wickedness of both sorts of heresy, states her belief in a union between the Word of God and human flesh which is by synthesis, that is by a union of subsistence. In the mystery of Christ the union of synthesis not only conserves without confusing the elements that come together but also allows no division.

Creed of Chalcedon (AD 451) – this creed, formulated at the Council of Chalcedon with 500 (or 600) bishops in attendance, elaborates on the two distinct yet inseparable natures of Christ.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized IN TWO NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [hypostasis], not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Bettenson, 56)

This creed was influenced by Leo’s Tome (449). Leo was the bishop of Rome (440-61) who weighed in on the Christological controversies. He wrote, “the properties of each nature and substance were preserved entire, and came together to form one person. . . Each nature . . . performs its proper functions in communion with the other” (Bettenson, 54-56). The idea of communion or interaction between the natures would be developed later by Lutheran theologians.

Monophysite (one singular nature) – Christ transmuted his human nature into divine nature. Monophysites thought if Christ had two natures, he would be two persons. The Council of Chalcedon rejected monophysitism in favor of dyophysitism. It’s important to note that some churches that have been labeled monophysite argue that they are actually miaphysite, meaning they affirm one united or composite nature rather than one singular nature. Hence, they teach that Christ has two natures, but those natures work together as a single unified nature.

Dyophysite (two natures) – Christ has two distinct yet inseparable natures. This became the official view of most of the Western church because it was believed that only this idea could do justice to Christ’s full humanity and full deity. The Council of Chalcedon rejected Monophysitism and affirmed Dyophysitism.

6th Century

Leontius of Byzantium (d. 543) – Christ’s personhood (hypostasis) comes from the Logos, which was with the Father from all eternity. In other words, before he was born to Mary, the Logos was a person with the Father. As John says, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Since the Logos became human, Christ’s human nature has its hypostasis or personhood in the Logos (enhypostasia). This view affirms the full human nature of Christ but asserts that the human nature exists within the Logos. Some viewed the concept of enhypostasia as a theological breakthrough.

7th Century

Monothelitism – the teaching that Christ has one will (divine). The sixth ecumenical council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680-81), rejected this teaching because it failed to do justice to Christ’s two natures. The official statement reads: “We also preach two natural wills and two natural operations, without division, without change, without separation, without partition, without confusion . . . his human will following his divine will and omnipotent will, not resisting it nor striving against it, but rather subject to it” (Bettenson, 101). The official view, then, affirmed  dyothelitism – two wills with the human will in subjection to the divine will.

Beyond

Martin Luther (1483-1546) – in opposition to Zwingli who taught that only Christ’s human nature suffered and died, Luther taught that since the two natures are united in Christ, we can say that God suffered and died. Lutheran doctrine would go on to affirm the communicatio idiomatum or “the communication of attributes,” meaning that the divine and human natures “communicate” with each other. So when Christ was thirsty, God was thirsty, and when Christ rose from the dead, a man rose from the dead. This means while the two natures are preserved intact and remain distinct, we cannot draw a sharp line between them because they interact with each other.

Reflection

• Christians are the beneficiaries of centuries of reflection on the mystery of the incarnation. Instead of trying to recreate the wheel, we should work with what has been formulated, while recognizing that there is always more to be said. Additionally, it is wise to give more weight to councils than the ideas of one individual.

• This debate makes sense because people had to wrestle with a one-of-a-kind mystery. Only one person in the history of humanity had both a divine and human nature so it’s not surprising that it would take centuries for people to begin to understand it.

• No one has claimed to fully understand this mystery. The creeds simply put boundaries around the true teaching without explaining all the details.

• The false teachings helped to clarify the truth about Christ. For example, Athanasius refuted Arianism and laid down the precedent for orthodox teaching and Cyril responded to Nestorius.

• On the spectrum of teachings, if we place God on one side and man on the other, many of the ancient doctrines were more on the God side: Docetism, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism. It seems that  ancient believers struggled more with Christ’s humanity than with his divinity, which makes sense. If Jesus was God, wouldn’t his divinity swallow up his humanity?

• Arius’s solution was novel but dead wrong. It results in Christ being a hybrid creature, neither fully God nor fully human.

• There’s a logical flow to the whole debate: from Christ being fully God and fully man to the discussion of his two natures to the discussion of his two wills.

• Why didn’t God simply give us official creeds from the beginning? He must think that wrestling with Scripture produces something good in us. Obviously, theological debates force us to look at the text, think about it, and discuss it. Perhaps this is one of God’s ways of getting us into Scripture. If the biblical text we have is inspired by God, it certainly shows that God wants us to put in the mental work of seeking to understand.

• The debates were intense because there is a lot of biblical data to synthesize. For example, if the Word “was God” (John 1:1), how do we make sense of Jesus’ statement, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)? Here a distinction between rank and nature is helpful. Is your boss greater than you? In role, yes; in nature, no.

• Those who want to be in line with classical Christianity must hold to Christ’s full humanity and full divinity while maintaining the unity of his person. This is what believers have tried to do for the past two millennia. I won’t go into the biblical evidence at this point, but I do think the Church accurately summarized the biblical data in the creeds using the language and concepts of the time.

• Think of this debate from a big picture perspective. There is an incredibly vast gap between the eternal God and mortal humans. How can we ever know the infinite God? Since we can never reach up to God on our own, the Creator must come down to us on our level. And the ultimate way to come down to our level, is to become one of us. Without this revelation, we cannot have assurance that our knowledge of God is accurate. If God doesn’t fully reveal himself to us in a way that we can understand, how do we know that another revelation won’t come along that provides more accurate knowledge of God? We need a definitive, full, and final revelation of God. And this revelation must come from God himself. Moreover, how can humans be saved from sin and death? A mere mortal human cannot save us from these problems because that person is also subject to sin and death. Could an angel save us? The consequence of sin is death so how could an angel forgive our sins against God and cancel the consequence of death? Only God can forgive us and cancel the consequence. In sum, we need God to reveal himself and we need God to save us. Hence, if Christ is truly the revelation of God and our Savior, he must be God. What about his humanity? All four Gospels attest to the fact that Jesus was a real human being with a mortal body who eventually suffered and died. So Christ must be fully God and fully human.