The Doctrine of the Person of Christ in the Early Church

Through political aspirations and thirst for power amongst its leadership, the early church was ultimately able to succinctly explain the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Introduction

Jesus Christ resides firmly in the center of the Christian religion. The doctrine of the person of Christ is essential for a Christian view of salvation. The belief that divine and human nature came together in one person, the God-man Jesus Christ, and that He would suffer and die for His creation sets Christianity apart from any other religion. Correct teaching concerning the person of Christ must affirm that He possessed both human and divine natures, and that these natures were united in one person. Many views were put forth that affirmed only one of the natures, denied their unity, or united them to the point that no distinction remained. These divergent teachings helped the church to articulate its doctrine as it had been handed down from the apostles. Through political aspirations and thirst for power amongst its leadership, the early church was ultimately able to succinctly explain the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

The Early Church Fathers

Although the earliest fathers (100-150 A.D.) did not compose detailed doctrinal treatises concerning the nature of Christ, but the writings of Clement of Rome (d. 101) and Ignatius (ca. 35-107 A.D.) in particular provide insight into what the earliest post-apostolic Christians taught. Ignatius affirmed both the deity and humanity of Christ. He went so far as to refer to Jesus as “the Christ God.” ¹ Although Ignatius did not have occasion to fully explain the incarnation, he understood that Christ had united flesh with spirit, and continued on in the flesh after His resurrection.² Clement of Rome, in his letter To the Corinthians spoke of Christ as the preexistent Son of God, and affirmed that Christ was united with the Father in glory after the resurrection.³ The earliest leaders in the church taught orthodox theology as it had been passed down from the apostles. Unfortunately, they only wrote in response to outside attacks, focused primarily on their pastoral duties to the persecuted church, with the result that the material from this era is rather sparse.

The Eastern and Western Apologists

The church in the era of the Apologists (150-300 A.D.) responded to attacks on orthodox Christological doctrine by heathen philosophers such as Celsus (ca. 178). Thus the church began to articulate the doctrine of Christ, particularly his simultaneous true humanity and true deity. The eastern apologists approached theology through a heavy veil of Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism. The foremost eastern apologists are Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian are the most significant among the western apologists. Without the hindrance of Greek philophy, the western church was able to make more strides in explaining the dual nature of Christ.

Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130-200 A.D.) vigorously opposed the Gnostics and docetists in his writings, emphasizing the unity of Christ in the flesh. Of Christ’s nature, he writes, “the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in himself…the Word of God is supreme…taking to himself the preeminence, as well as constituting himself head of the church, he might draw all thngs to himself at the proper time.”⁴ Because of his stress on the true humanity of Christ in opposing the Gnostics, Irenaeus is often incorrectly accused of Apollinarianism. ⁵

Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 155-240/60 A.D.) approached the Christological question with a background of firm Trinitarianism. In his work Against Praxeas, he argues, “Flesh does not become spirit nor spirit flesh. Evidently they can be in one. Of these Jesus is composed, of flesh as man and of spirit as God…”⁶ Tertullian argued for two natures in Christ, while stressing that He was only one person, providing a solid foundation for future theologians to expound upon.

Clement of Alexandria’s (ca. 150-211/16 A.D.) approach to the Scriptures led him to equate the Platonic definition of the Logos with the soul of the man Jesus Christ.⁷ Thus Christ’s humanity was deprecated and obscured even though Clement affirmed the human nature was present. Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254 A.D.) also approached the incarnation through the lens of Platonic thought, which led him to erroneously conclude that the human soul of Jesus became fully divine.⁸ These Eastern theologians did not make significant strides in Christology due to their Platonic interpretation of the Logos.

The Person of Christ in the Theologians

The period of the theologians (300-600 A.D.) saw three major heresies spring up that threatened orthodox Christology: Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. These heresies, along with the clash between the theological schools of Antioch and Alexandria, set the stage for the council of Chalcedon in 451. The church was forced to respond to heretical teachings and divergent doctrinal opinions within its own ranks.

A rivalry developed between the church leaders and theological schools in the east. Those in the cities of Antioch and Alexandria had vastly different approaches to scripture, which naturally resulted in some disagreements in theology. The Antiochian scholars used a literal hermeneutic and sharply distguished Christ as Son of God (deity) and Son of Man (humanity).⁹ Their primary studies were of the person of Christ in the Gospels. These scholars vigorously opposed any doctrine that denigrated or destroyed Christ’s humanity, including Docetism and Apollinarianism (see below). However, this stress on the humanity of Christ caused them to obscure His deity. Conversely, the Alexandrian school greatly subordinated the human nature of Christ to the divine. The stress on the transcendental side of Christ’s person resulted primarily from their mystical, speculative hermeneutic. The Alexandrians concerned themselves with the affect of Christology on Soteriology, whereby they viewed Christ’s divinity as much more important. The focuses of Antioch on Christ’s humanity and the Alexandrians on Christ’s deity produced a natural rivalry, for each school obscured what the other supremely valued.¹⁰

The Apollinarian Controversy

The first major Christological heresy following Arianism stemmed from the teachings of Apollinarius (ca. 310-90 A.D.), commonly referred to as Apollinarianism or the Logos-Sarx model of Christology. Apollinarius’ view arose from a trichotomist understanding of human nature, which he interpreted according to Platonic thought.¹¹ Apollinarius taught that the soul was merely the impersonal life principle of the body, and the spirit was the source of all personality and rational ability. Thus he concluded that the nature of Jesus Christ consisted of the Word occupying the place of the spirit, and the Word was then joined to a body and soul. Apollinarius correctly confirmed the deity and unity of Christ, but erred in totally obscuring His human nature.¹²

The group known as the Cappadocians consisted of three theologians that opposed the teachings of Apollinarius. These men, Gregory of Nazianius (329-89 A.D.), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395 A.D.), and Basil of Caesarea (d. 379 A.D.), recognized the importance of Christ’s true humanity to a correct Christian doctrine of salvation. Gregory of Nazianius writes, “If anyone has put his trust in Him (Christ) as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that (humanity) which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.”¹³ The Cappadocians attacked Apollinarianism from 370 onward until the heresy was finally condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. However, the only explicit refutation of Apollinarianism in the Creed of Constantinople comes in the phrase “incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” Additionally, though a one nature Christ had been rejected, neither the Cappadocians nor the Council of Constantinople offered a final solution for the explaining interaction of the two natures. The Council had been primarily concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity, the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to one another. Thus the door was left open for continued debate surrounding the person of Christ.

The Nestorian Controversy

Nestorius (d. ca. 451 A.D.) became the bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D. Nestorius’ view of the person of Christ became known as Nestorianism, or the Logos-Anthropos model of Christology, the second major heresy that faced the theologians. Nestorius effectively taught that there were two Christs. Christ was both fully human and fully divine, but these two natures were in no way united, though they co-existed in a close moral union.¹⁴ He greatly objected to referring to Mary as “mother of God,” or theotokos, because humans must remain entirely separate from the divine. Nestorius had correctly affirmed the dual nature of Christ, but offered a disunited person that was unacceptable to orthodoxy.

Cyril of Alexandria was the primary opponent of Nestorius, though his reasons were a mix of the political and the theological. He was a faithful defender of the unity of Christ’s natures, with an emphasis on His divinity. A strong advocate of Alexandrine Christology, he was repulsed by the fragmented Christ of Nestorius. Additionally, a potential condemnation of Nestorius would reaffirm the authority of the Alexandrian church over Constantinople. Rome traditionally favored Alexandria over Constantinople (due to Constantinople claiming equal authority with Rome), and Nestorius treated the Pelagians lightly, a heresy of primary importance to Rome. If the support of Rome was not enough to have Nestorius condemned, Cyril was in control of a great deal of gold, and with it some other powerful authorities supported him.¹⁵

Cyril and Nestorius exchanged heated letters pronouncing anathemas against one another, and though Nestorius was condemned at the Roman Synod of 430, the Emperor Valentinian III was forced to call a general council at Ephesus in 431 to resolve the matter. Celestine, the bishop of Rome, immediately condemned Nestorius, who was not present. Four days later Nestorius arrived with John, the bishop of Antioch, who convened their own council and condemned Cyril. But the emporer sided with Cyril and Celestine, and Nestorius was sent away to a monastery in Antioch.

The Eutychian Controversy

Eutyches (ca. 378-454 A.D.), a monk of Constantinople, taught that after the incarnation Christ had only one nature. This final heresy that faced the church was known as Eutychianism. He postulated the human and divine natures were mixed and utterly impossible to distinguish. Thus both Christ’s humanity and deity were deprecated in this view, although he had made an attempt at explaining the unity. His view, while difficult to exactly ascertain, was probably that the human body of Jesus had been deified in such a way that it no longer had any resemblance to humanity. Eutyches was condemned at a local synod in Constantinople in 448.

Dioscurus, Cyril’s successor as the bishop of Alexandria, sought to have the condemnation of Eutyches overturned, for doing so would elevate Alexandria to the dominant church in the East. Dioscurus’ Christology had a distinct Apollinarian bias, greatly emphasizing the unity of Christ’s natures, and thus he was a supporter of Eutyches. Once Eutyches was condemned by Flavian, a patriarch in Constantinople, Dioscurus was confident that Rome would overturn the condemnation.¹⁶ Dioscurus’ hope rested on the historical precedent of the support of Rome against Constantinople. However, with Constantinople and Antioch already discredited, only Alexandria and Rome had unblemished theological histories. Rome had merely to side with Constantinople against Alexandria to firmly establish its supremacy among the major theological centers.¹⁷

Dioscurus appears to have sealed his fate at the Council of Ephesus in 449, which he chaired. The council declared Eutyches’ view as orthodox, silencing Flavian’s objections. Flavian died a few days later, most likely do to his violent treatment at the Council. Leo, Bishop of Rome, had sent a letter in support of Flavian and dual nature Christology, but it was left unread. Leo thus branded this council a “robber’s synod.”¹⁸

The Council of Chalcedon

The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 condemned Discurus along with Eutychianism. Leo’s previously unread letter, known as Leo’s Tome, argued for two distinct natures in Christ after the incarnation, yet without denying their unity as had the heretic Nestorius. The orthodox Christological views of Leo, that Christ was of two natures united in one person, were then articulated in the Chacedonian Creed. It is important to note that the 520 bishops gathered at this council were not seeking to dispose of the Nicene Creed as inadequate. The Nicene Creed had been affirmed as the orthodox statement faith for Christendom, and the purpose of Chalcedon was to offer a commentary on Nicea that took into account the heresies that had arisen since 325.¹⁹

The language of the Creed specifically addressed the previously mentioned heresies. Against Apollinarius, the Council stated that Christ had a “rational soul and body.” To counter Nestorius, the Creed discussed the two natures of Christ “without dividing,” “without contrasting,” and as “not divided or cut into two prosopa (persons).” Finally, in denunciation of Eutychianism, the unity of the Christ’s dual nature was articulated “without confusing” and “without transmuting” them. In the incarnation “both natures concur,” that is, neither Christ’s humanity nor his deity is nullified.²⁰

Conclusion

Remarkably, more than four centuries after the death of Christ, the church had withstood numerous heresies and internal rivalries to articulate the orthodox definition of the person of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon. Further developments in articulating this doctrine were to be done within the parameters laid down by the Council. As the Creed states, “Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, that He is perfect in godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man…in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, the distinction of the two natures being preserved and concurring in one person.”

1.	Bromiley, Geoffrey, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 4.
2.	Ibid., 5.
3.	Hannah, John, “HT200 Class Notes,” Dallas Theological Seminary , ( 2004), 10.2.
4.	Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, quoted in Ibid., 10.4.
5.	Ibid., 10.4.
6.	Ibid., 10.4.
7.	Ibid., 10.5.
8.	Ibid., 10.6.
9.	Ibid., 11.2.
10.	Ibid., 11.5.
11.	Gonzalez, Justo, A History of Christian Thought, Vol I (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 347.
12.	Hannah, John, “HT200 Class Notes,”, 10.10.
13.	Ibid., 10.12.
14.	Ibid., 11.8.
15.	Gonzalez, Justo, A History of Christian Thought, Vol I, 355.
16.	Hannah, John, “HT200 Class Notes,”, 11.12.
17.	Ibid., 11.13.
18.	Ibid., 11.14.
19.	Gonzalez, Justo, A History of Christian Thought, Vol I, 380.
20.	Bingham, Jeffrey, “HT200 Class Notes,” Dallas Theological Seminary , ( 2004).