1

THE

HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE

TWO NATURES

IN THE ONE PERSON

OF JESUS CHRIST

REAL AND NOT BY IMAGINATION

By

His Eminence

PANTELEIMON LAMPADARIOS

Metropolitan of Antinoes (Retired Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa)

Holy Hesychasterion of St. George and Panagia Paramythias

Pentaplatanos-Goumenissa-Greece

2007

2

© : 2006,

His Eminence

PANTELEIMON LAMPADARIOS

METROPOLITAN OF ANTINOES (Retired Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa).

PUBLISHED BY :

His Eminence

PANTELEIMON LAMPADARIOS

METROPOLITAN OF ANTINOES (Retired Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa).

ADDRESS IN GREECE:

His Eminence

PANTELEIMON LAMPADARIOS,

METROPOLITAN OF ANTINOES

Holy Hesychasterion of St. George & Panagia Paramythias

Pentaplatanos, Goumenissa

P.O.BOX 703

Neos Mylotopos Giannitson

581 00 Giannitsa - Nomos Pellas

GREECE

MOBILE: +30-693-4637736

3

FEW WORDS FROM THE AUTHOR

Living in Egypt for four years (1997-1999 and 2004-2006) I

had the honour of serving in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of

Alexandria and All Africa. I served under the late Pope and Patriarch

Petros VII (1997-2004) as His Patriarchal Vicar in Alexandria and

during the last two years (2004-2006) as the Metropolitan of Pelusium

(Port Said, Damietta, Mansourah and Qantara East) under His

Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros II. During these four years I

had come across with many Copt-Orthodox Christians (Metropolitans,

Bishops, Priests, Deacons and laymen) who became my friends and

brothers in Christ. We had discussed in many occasions and in depth

the vital issue and main difference between the two Churches (the

Greek Orthodox which is known in Egypt and in the Arab world as

the Rum Orthodox Church and that of the Coptic Orthodox).

The main difference refers to the Doctrine of the 4th

Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon which took place in the year 451 and

declared that the Two Natures, Divine and Human, are united

Hypostatically in the One Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus

Christ. The Universal Orthodox Church proclaimed the Doctrine of

the 4th

Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon, the belief in Two Natures

united in the One Person of Jesus Christ, whereas the Copts

proclaimed the belief in the One Nature of Christ.1 This difference

became the reason for the Copts of Egypt to officially separate

themselves from the main Body of the Universal Orthodox Church in

the year 457 creating their own Church which is known today as the

Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt.

For more than fifteen and a half centuries these two Sister

Churches never came together to discuss and clarify this main issue.

In several occasions some Popes and Patriarchs of the Greek (Rum)

Orthodox Church attempted to achieve the unity of the two bodies, but

because of many political problems caused by the Arab Conquest in

Egypt, all failed. Lately, this problem has been faced and the two

Churches have come together and achieved some progress by

1 Shenouda III, Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, The Nature of Christ,

Cairo, revised COEPA - 1997.

4

declaring several agreements, acknowledging their common

background and traditions, especially in the Christological Doctrine

concerning the Two Natures in the One Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In my personal attempts to make closer the relationship and

understanding between the two Churches and moved by true love

towards my fellow Christians of Egypt, I have sent my books to His

Holiness Pope Shenouda III and to all the Metropolitans, Bishops and

Abbots of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt. These books were

the following:

1. Orthodox Teachings. The Catechism of the One, Holy,

Catholic and Apostolic Church according to Holy Scripture

and Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Port Said-Egypt, 2006. (In

English).

2. The Catechism of the Orthodox Church. Questions and

Answers, Port Said-Egypt, 2006. (In English).

3. The New Testament in Greek and Arabic, Port Said-Egypt,

2006.

4. Orthodox Faith. Questions and Answers, Port Said-Egypt,

2006. (In Arabic).

The purpose of this book is to promote even more, in the spirit

of truth and true love, the Theological Dialogue between the Two

Orthodox Churches that of the Greek (Rum) Orthodox and the Copt

Orthodox in order to achieve true and full unity, as both declare

Orthodox Faith.

This publication wishes to clarify the true Orthodox Teachings

of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church concerning the real

unity of the Two Natures (Divine and Human) in the One Person of

our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Son and Word of

God.

The context of this book has been taken mainly from my book

entitled “Orthodox Teachings. The Catechism of the One, Holy,

5

Catholic and Apostolic Church”2 and is presented here for the benefit

of all those who truly seek the correct Teachings of our Holy

Orthodox Church concerning the real unity of the Two Natures in the

One Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I humbly pray that everyone who reads these few pages will

benefit and come to knowledge of truth.

+PANTELEIMON, Metropolitan of Antinoes (Retired Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa)

Holy Hesychasterion of St. George,

Pentaplatanos-Goumenissa, 5th March 2007

2 Lampadarios Panteleimon, Archbishop of Pelusium, Orthodox Teachings. The

Catechism of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church according to Holy

Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Port Said-Egypt, 2006. Cf. Ibid, The

Catechism of the Orthodox Church. Questions & Answers, Port Said-Egypt, 2006.

Ibid, Orthodox Faith. Questions and Answers, Port Said-Egypt, 2006. (In Arabic).

6

THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD

Incarnation,3 Epiphany or Theophany are the terms which are

used by the Orthodox Church to refer to the Incarnation of the second

Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son and Word of God, Who

“…became flesh…” taking up human nature. Hence Divine Nature

was united with human nature. This work was the work of the three

Persons of the Holy Trinity. In the Incarnation, the Father having

conceded to send His Son into the world, the Son came down and was

incarnated, and the Holy Spirit sanctified the Ever-Virgin Mary and

Theotokos, giving her the power to conceive in her holy womb and to

bring forth the Only Begotten Son of God giving Him His human

nature.4

The question: “Why did the second Person of the Holy Trinity

have to be incarnated5 instead of one of the other two Divine

Persons?” remains an unapproachable and unsearchable Mystery to

the human mind. The main explanation given by the Holy Fathers of

the Orthodox Church is that the Word was incarnated in order that the

Hypostatic Attributes of the each Persons of the Holy Trinity would

remain unmovable. It was not intended for the Father to become the

“Son of Man,” rather than the Word Who has the Attribute of being

“the Son” in the Trinity. Christ‟s Incarnation is already an act of

Salvation. By assuming our broken humanity into Himself, Christ

restores it to its former condition.6

The Word of God, Who had formed man from the dust of the

earth and is the living Image of the Father, was being shown in order

to reform man for adoption, completely raising in Him the wounded

“image” since everything was made through the Son. In Christ

everything is renewed. He is the Light of the world Who knows the

Father. He is the only One Who can manifest the Father to us and

bring us into a new Creation.

3 Lossky, Theology, pp. 90-94. 4 Plato of Moscow, Orthodox Teaching, pp. 112-115. Dositheus, Confession, ch. 7,

p. 31. Mitsopoulos, Themata, p.74 Kefalas, Catechesis, pp.71-72 5 Cf. Evdokimov, Orthodoxia, pp. 189-193. 6 Ware, Way, p. 103.

7

The condescension of the Son in the Incarnation was not

enforced on Him because of some need. Instead it was an absolutely

free act, which is described by Holy Scripture as the “…good pleasure

of His Will.”7 It reveals not only the infinite Love of God towards

fallen man, but the infinite Divine Wisdom and Power that worked out

the supernatural, mysterious and effective way through which the

Justice and Holiness of God was satisfied and so that man, who was

led by sin to death, would rise and be restored into the blessed Life.

God became Man in order to deify humanity who in turn becomes

“..by Grace…” whatever God is “…by Nature.”8

In addition, the union of the unapproachable Divine Nature with

the limited human nature was characterized as a Mystery of Divine

Power, which shines upon all the other beneficial results for man. The

importance and necessity of the Incarnation of the Word of God is

manifested in the infinite Power of Salvation offered by Christ on the

Cross - a Sacrifice of perfect obedience to the Will of God the Father

without which mankind cannot be reconciled to God.

1. Definition of the Incarnation

The Incarnation of the Word of God can be defined as an act of

the Holy Trinity. Through this act, God the Word “…took up from the

beginning our nature, not in that it existed by itself and became a

person, but in that it existed in His own hypostasis.” From the Holy

Spirit and in the Holy Virgin, God the Word was conceived and His

human nature was formed from the Virgin‟s blood. On the other

hand, the Incarnation can be defined as the permanent and eternal

union of God the Word with human nature, in which “…the

hypostasis of God the Word became hypostasis in the flesh without

any change…” whereas His human nature was not absorbed by His

Divine Nature and each nature remained unchanged, preserving their

own Attributes.9 In other words: the Incarnation is the unmixed and

7 Luke 2:14; 10:21. Matth. 11:26. Ephes. 1:5, 9. Phil. 2:13. 8 Evdokimov, Orthodoxia, p. 127. 9 St John of Damascus, Exposition, About the difference between union and

incarnation, III, 55, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1024.

8

undivided union of human nature with Divine Nature in the

Hypostasis of God the Word in one Person. Thus, because of the real

and full union of the two natures in the God-Man Jesus Christ, He

says: “I and My Father are one.”10

He never said: “I and the Word

are one” because it is the human revelation of the Word.11

The

Incarnation is an act of identification and sharing. God the Word

saves us by identifying Himself with us, by knowing our human

experience from within His own experience.12

Similar terms of the meaning of the Incarnation used by the

Holy Fathers are: “manifestation,”13

“appearance,”14

“coming into

the world,”15

“taking the form of a bond-servant,”16

“Epiphany” and

“Theophany.”17

In the West, the term “Incarnation” prevailed

according to the use of the terms “flesh”18

and “flesh and blood”19

to

manifest the whole man.

St John the Apostle, Evangelist and Theologian proclaimed

“…and the Word became flesh…”20

and renounced all those who do

not confess that “…Jesus Christ came in the flesh.”21

St Irenaeus used the term “carnation”22

whereas St Justin the

Philosopher and Martyr used the phrase: “Jesus became flesh.”23

10 John 10:30. 11 Martensen, Dogmatique, p. 408. 12 Ware, Way, p. 104. 13 1 Tim. 3:16. 1 John 1:2, 8. 14 2 Tim. 1:10. Titus 2:11; 3:4. 15 Heb. 10:5. Origen, Against Celsus, I, 43; II, 38; VI, 78, in Migne, P.G., 11, 741,

860, 1417. St Basil the Great, To Psalm 29(30), in Migne, P.G., 29, 305. Tertullian,

De carne Christi, c. VI, in Migne, P.G., 2, 809. 16 Phil. 2:7. St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the divine Economia, III, 45,

in Migne, P.G., 94, 981. St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the

Word, § 46, in Migne, P.G., 25, 177. 17 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, §§ 1, 46 and 47, in

Migne, P.G., 25, 97, 177 and 180. St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 38, § 3, in

Migne, P.G., 36, 313. 18 Luke 3:6. John 17:2. Acts 2:17. Joel 2:28. 1 Peter 1:24. 1 John 3:2-3. 19 Matth. 16:17. Gal. 1:16. Ephes. 6:12. 1 Corinth. 15:50. 20 John 1:14. 21 1 John 4:3.

9

The term “Incarnate” was incorporated in the Nicene Creed but

to avoid any misinterpretation that favoured the heresy of

Apollinarius, (according to which Christ did not have a mind or

intellectual soul), after the phrase “…and was incarnate of the Holy

Spirit and the Virgin Mary…” the phrase “…and was made man…”

was added.

2. The Son was Incarnated according to the One Will and

Action of the Deity

In the Holy Trinity “…there is one Divine Brightness and

Action, simple and undivided…” and the Son “…does not have a

different Energy from the Father…” “…for in the Trinity there is one

Essence, one Goodness, one Power, one Will, one Energy, not three

similar to one another, but one and the same movement of the three

Hypostases.”24

Consequently, concerning the Incarnation of the

Word, although “…under no circumstances the Father and the Holy

Spirit participated in the Incarnation of God the Word…,”25

that

creation (the human nature of Christ) that the Virgin conceived and

brought forth, although referring only to the Son, was made possible

by all three Persons of the Holy Trinity since their Works are always

united and inseparable.

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, proclaimed

that He was sent into the world by the Father.26

St Paul referring to

the fullness of the time, assured us that “…when the fullness of the

time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under

the Law.”27

St John the Evangelist observed that “…in this the Love

22 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 11, §§ 3-4, in Migne, P.G., 7, 939. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 209-210. 23 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 1 Apology, § 66, 2, in B, v. 3, p. 197. 24 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the Holy Trinity, book I, ch, 8, §§ 13, 14

and book III, ch. 6, in Migne, P.G., 94, 828, 856, 860, 1005. Kefalas, Christology,

pp. 256-261. 25 St Augustine, in migne, P.L., 40, 252. 26 John 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 37; 6:38, 44; 7:29, 33; 8:18; 11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:20;

17:8, 21, 23, 24. 27 Gal. 4:4.

10

of God was manifested towards us, that God has sent His Only

Begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.”28

According to St Justin the Philosopher and martyr “...through and in

accordance to the Will of God the Word was made man for the human

race.” He emphasized also that “…the Father wanted and the Son

acted.” The Father did not remain out of the act and will of

Incarnation because “…everything is common to the Father and the

Son.”29

Whatever applies to the Father concerning the Incarnation also

applies to the Holy Spirit because “…by the good pleasure of God the

Father the Only Begotten Son and Word of God came down from

Heaven…” and “…became flesh from the Holy Spirit and Mary the

Holy Ever-Virgin and Theotokos…being conceived in her womb of the

Holy Spirit…”30

Who “…came down upon the Holy Virgin cleansing

her and giving her the power to bring forth…” in order that in her that

which is taken up by the Word (the human nature) “…becomes the

beginning of nature not by seed, but by the creative power through the

Holy Spirit.”31

Eugenius Boulgareos observed: “…only the Son took up

humanity, although it was the Work of the whole Trinity… as an

action it was perfected outside of the Deity; because the Father co-

acted, in that He made the body, according to the Psalm; and the Son

emptied Himself taking the form of a bond-servant32

and the Holy

Spirit acted according to the „the Holy Spirit will come upon you.‟33

Thus the Incarnation was only on the Son; therefore the Son and not

the Father or the Holy Spirit was Incarnated.”34

28 1 John 4:9. 29 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 1 Apology, 63, §§ 10 and 16, in B, v. 3, p.

196. 30 St John Chrysostom, To Ephesians, Homily 1, § 4, in Migne, P.G., 62, 15. 31 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the way of the conception of the Word

and His divine incarnation, book III, ch. 46, §§ 1 and 2, in Migne, P.G., 94, 984 and

985. 32 Phil. 2:7. 33 Cf. Luke 1:35. 34 Boulgareos, Theologicon, p. 437.

11

One must never forget that in the God-Man Jesus Christ

“…dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”35

In other words,

God dwells essentially within Jesus Christ.36

The actual Nature of

God dwelled in the nature of man, as the soul dwells in the body, so

that what was seen (the human nature of Christ) was united in reality

with the Only Begotten Son‟s Deity and was not an Energy of God

ruling over the body.37

We confess that God is “…one Principle,

simple, without synthesis, one Essence, one Deity…” while the Son is

“…perfect Hypostasis, inseparable from the Hypostasis of the

Father…” as the Holy Spirit “…exists in its own Hypostasis, but is

inseparable from the Father and the Son.”38

It is obvious that only the

Word became man, “…but all the perfect Nature of the Deity being

united in the one Hypostasis was united in the human nature…” and

“…the whole Deity partook in us through the one Hypostasis.” For

we confess that “…in each one of the Hypostases is all the perfect

Nature of the Deity.”39

3. An incomprehensible Mystery

The Incarnation of the Word and Son of God is a Mystery that

surpasses all human understanding. It is not an enigma, but a Divine

Mystery “…which from the beginning of ages has been hidden in

God.”40

This Mystery is admired even by the Angelic Hosts and

amongst men it is “…confidential, unutterable and beyond

understanding.”41

The Incarnation of the Word is in reality the

“…most new of all news, the only new [thing] under the sun…”42

and

35 Col. 2:9. 36 St Isedοrus of Pelusion, book IV, Epist. 166, in Migne, P.G., 78, 1256. 37 St John Chrysostom, To Colossians, Homily 6, § 2, in Montfaucon, v. 11, p. 422. 38 Theodoretus of Cyrus, To Colossians 2:9, in Migne, P.G., 82, 608-609. 39 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the Holy Trinity, book I, ch. 8, in Migne,

P.G., 94, 809, 821; Ibid, Exposition. That all the divine nature in one hypostases

was united to all the human nature, and not part, book III, ch. 50, § 6, in Migne,

P.G., 94, 1004-1005. 40 Eph. 3:9. 41 See decisions of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod. 42 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the way of the conception of the Word

and His divine incarnation, book III, ch. 46, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 94, 984.

12

even before it occurred it was unknown, not only amongst men but

also amongst Angels.

A Mystery also remains: “Why did the Son became Man and

not either of the other two Persons?” The Word became Man in order

that the Hypostatic Attribute of each Person would remain immovable.

With regard to the Deity, the Father is essentially “the Father,” not

born of another father as it is among men, remaining forever Father.

Likewise the Son is essentially “the Son,” never becoming a father as

do the sons of men who, in their adulthood when married, become

fathers. Thus in respect of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity the

Father is forever “the Father” while the Son is forever “the Son”

although in the Incarnation only the Son of God becomes also “the

Son of Man.” Thus the Hypostatic Attribute of the Son remains

immovable and as Man, the Word remains forever Son.

Clement the Alexandrian and Origen supported the opinion that

Christ, Who as the Word created man from dust, showed to the fallen

man the way of regeneration into sonship, in order to fulfill the Will of

God when He said: “Let Us make man in Our image and likeness.”

Christ “…is the beginning of those who became the Image of God.”

He is on the one hand, the Image of the Father whereas, on the other

hand, He is the image according to which men were created.43

Only through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of

God, Who came into the world, was it possible for the Image of God

to be restored. For it was impossible for men to accomplish this,

although “…they were also made in the Image…,” because they had

defiled it through the Fall. Neither could this restoration be

accomplished by the Angels “…for they are not in the Image.”44

Therefore, He Who “…gave us His Image and we did not keep it,

partakes in our weak nature, in order to make us once again partakers

of His Divinity.”45

Through this recreation, from deplorable servants,

43 Clement the Alexandrian, Pedagogus, I, 12, in B, v. 7, p. 125. Origen, To John, v.

1, ch. 17, in B, v. 11, p. 262. 44 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, § 13, in Migne, P.G.,

25, 120. 45 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the holy and precious mysteries of the

Lord, book IV, ch. 86, § 13, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1137.

13

we become sons of God through adoption by Grace. But, who else

could free us from such slavery, raising us to the rank of the sons of

God besides Him Who is by Nature from the same Essence as the

Father - the Son Who is born from all eternity, assuring us: “Therefore

if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.”46

St Cyril of Alexandria commented that “…everything is worked

through the Son.” As “…all things were made through Him…”47

likewise our restoration through the Son will be accomplished “…and

it will be impossible in the future for us to be partakers of the Father

except only through the Son…” 48

Who “…when all things are made

subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him Who

put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”49

Since man was corrupted after his creation, “…he was in need of

being recalled...” and restored in order to manifest again “…God the

Word…Who had made in the beginning from nothingness all

things…” and with them man.50

“For in no one else our life should be

founded…” except only in the Lord “…through Whom also He made

the world,‟51

in order that we might also inherit the Life, which exists

only in Him.”52

According to St Irenaeus He is the One Who will “…gather up

all things in one…,”53

including man, in Him. Thus the Invisible had

to become visible and the Unconceivable to become conceivable and

the Immortal to become mortal and the Word to become Man, in order

that all things, even fallen man, would be summed up in Him in such a

way that, as the Word of God is the Lord of the heavenly, spiritual and

invisible things, likewise in the visible and bodily He would be the

46 John 8:36. 47 John 1:3. 48 St Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 29, in Migne, P.G., 75, 434. 49 1 Corinth. 15:28. 50 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, § 7, in Migne, P.G.,

25, 108. 51 Heb. 1:2. 52 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, II, 77, in Migne, P.G., 26, 309. 53 Ephes. 1:10.

14

Ruler.54

St Irenaeus continued saying that it would not have been

possible for the Lord to gather up in Himself everything, if He had not

become flesh and blood, saving in Himself that which was lost in the

beginning in Adam.55

The regeneration of mankind was taken up by the Son in order

that He, through Whom “…all things were made…” “…and without

[Whom] nothing was made that was made…”56

Who “…breathed

upon his face the Breath of Life…”57

would restore to the first

condition our fallen nature and would recreate whatever He had

created. The Son of God as the Eternal Word, is the presupposition of

the Creation, through Whom all things were made; likewise in the

Incarnation, in which He is manifested in time as the Christ, He is the

purpose of Creation, Who through all things, as the supreme Head,

would unite all things and reconcile everything under His Command.58

The Word of God “…was the true Light which gives Light to

every man coming into the world.”59

If our Teacher, the Word, did not

become Man, it would be impossible to learn those things of God.60

“The Word of God vested Himself with human nature, in order that as

Man [he could] speak to men, as the Word and Wisdom of God [he

could] teach men to believe in the one and true God and to live

according to the Law, which He gave.”61

No one else could make the

Father known, except the Word Himself.62

It remained dependent

only on the Word through Whom “…all things were made…”63

and

Who is called “the Wisdom” by all the Prophets. He is the only

“…Teacher of all men, the Advisor of God, Who foreknows

54 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 16, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 7, 925. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 234-235. 55 Ibid, Heresies, book V, ch. 14, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 925. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, p. 226. 56 John 1:3. 57 Gen. 2:7. 58 Martensen, Dogmatique, p. 407. 59 John 1:9. 60 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book V, ch. 1, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 1120. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, p. 362. 61 Gennadius, in Karmeris, The dogmatics, v. I, p. 366. 62 John 14:6-7. 63 John 1:3

15

everything.”64

He “…from the beginning of the world „at various

times and in various ways,‟65

prepared and perfected everything.”66

He is the Light, which in the beginning shone in the darkness “…and

the darkness did not comprehend it.”67

All the seeds of Divine Truth, which are scattered throughout

the entire world by the Hand of the Son of God, were spread in the

souls of men. The Word had to appear in the restricted and

approachable form of Man to reveal God Whose unapproachable

Divine Splendour is impossible for mortal man to see. In Christ, the

Incarnated Word of God, man could understand the fullness of the

Deity within the limited ability of human nature and to see the

Attributes of the Divine Nature, although not in their Infinite Power

but according to man‟s capability. Thus in the Incarnated Christ,

instead of the All-presence of God, we meet the living, acting and real

presence of God, which enabled Christ to proclaim: “He Who has seen

Me has seen the Father.”68

Instead of the Divine All-knowing God,

we have in our midst the Wisdom of the God-Man Who explains the

Mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom to men who ignore them. The

creative Almightiness becomes in Him the Supreme Power, which

rules all the energies of nature and perfects them. The All-powerful

Holy Love can proclaim that: “All authority has been given to Me in

Heaven and on earth.”69

For all the Powers in Heaven and on earth,

all the powers of nature and man‟s history are in the Lord and Saviour

Jesus Christ and cooperate with Him in the preparation of the

Heavenly Kingdom, the Church of which He is the Head.70

4. The nature of the Incarnation

With regard to the nature of the Incarnation, we must first

remember the God-inspired words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For

64 Clement the Alexandrian, VI, 7, in B, v. 8, p. 199. 65 Cf. Heb. 1:1. 66 Martensen, Dogmatique, pp. 368, 398 and 409. 67 John 1:5. 68 John 14:9. 12:45. 69 Matth. 28:18; 11:27. 70 Ephes. 5:23.

16

it was fitting for Him, for Whom are all things and by Whom are all

things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their

salvation perfect through sufferings.”71

The Incarnation and the

sufferings of the Incarnated Word are characterized by Holy Scripture

as “…fitting for Him.” The Incarnation was not forced as a necessity

upon the Deity but as the Creation was a free act of God‟s Goodness,

Power and Wisdom, which can be characterized as “…fitting for

God…,” likewise the Incarnation was a free act “…fitting for God.”

Without any doubt it was an excellent manifestation of the Divine

Perfections, in other words, that of God‟s Goodness, Wisdom and

Power, which responded to the needs and desires of human nature.

Thus it appears as the most “…fitting for God.”

The Incarnation of the Word of God is a free act, an expression

of Divine Pleasure, which did not occur because God had any need of

it or because it was forced upon Him. It is the Divine Condescension

that manifests the Divine Attributes of God‟s Goodness, Wisdom and

Power. On the contrary, the Incarnation was necessary for humanity‟s

sake because if Divine Justice demanded a ransom, man would have

been unable to pay it and thus it would have been impossible for him

to be saved.

The fact that the Incarnation was a free act of God is

characterized by Holy Scripture as being His “good pleasure” or

“goodwill.” At the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem, the Angels sang:

“Glory to God in the Highest, and on earth peace, goodwill towards

men…”72

confirming that the Peace offered by our Saviour derives

from the Goodwill of God.73

St Paul proclaimed the revelation of the

Mystery of the Divine Economia as being fulfilled by God because of

His “Goodwill,” “…for by Grace you have been saved through faith,

and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”74

71 Heb. 2:10. 72 Luke 2:14. 73 Origen, To Luke 2:14, Homily 13. 74 Ephes. 2:8.

17

According to the above, God conceived the Plan of our salvation

and realized it not because of any need. God showed mercy to

mankind because He wants and loves His Creation.

Also the Will of God concerning the salvation of man was a free

act. God had the power to save man without sending His Only

Begotten Son into the world, for nothing is impossible for God. He

could have commanded and everything would have been restored.75

“It was not impossible for Him Who holds in His Almightiness the

power to save man.”76

“Nor did the Word of God have the need of a

body, for He is needless. He could have achieved our salvation only

by commanding.”77

However, God the Word became Man, not

because He could not have saved man otherwise, but because He

considered this way to be the most perfect.78

5. The Glorification of Divine Attributes

St Gregory of Nyssa commented on the manifestation of the

Divine Attributes revealed at the Incarnation of the Word of God as

follows: “It has revealed the Goodness, the Wisdom, the Justice, the

Power, the Immortality; everything was shown because of our

Economia.” The Goodness is revealed “…in that God wanted…” to

save the lost. “The Wisdom and the Justice were shown in the way of

our salvation…” while the Power was proved “…in the making…” of

the Infinite Word “…in the image of man according to our humble

nature…and being made He worked…” the salvation of men.79

75 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, § 6, in Migne, P.G.,

25, 105-108. Ibid, Against Arians, II, § 68, in Migne, P.G., 26, 292. St Gregory of

Nazianzus, Homily 19, § 13, in Migne, P.G., 35, 1060. Epist. 101, in Migne, P.G.,

37, 183. Theodoretus of Cyrus, Homily IV, in Migne, P.G., 83, (?). 76 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About wills and free-wills, book III, ch. 62, §

18, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1072. 77 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Lord, 18, in Migne, P.G., 75,

1448. 78 Kritopoulods, ch. III, in Karmeris, The dogmatics, v. II, p. 518. 79 St Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, § 24, in Migne, P.G., 45, 64.

18

Concerning the Goodness, Kindness and Love of God, one must

remember the words of St Paul: “God demonstrates His own Love

towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us...”80

and “…when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died

for the ungodly.”81

St John remarked on this Love of God by pointing

out that “…He first loved us.”82

“In this the Love of God was

manifested toward us, that God has sent His Only Begotten Son into

the world, that we might live through Him. In this is Love, not that we

loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the

propitiation for our sins.”83

“For God so loved the world that He

gave His Only Begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not

perish but have everlasting Life. For God did not send His Son into

the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might

be saved.”84

In addition, St Paul proclaimed once again that the Son

of God “…made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a

bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in

appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to

the point of death, even the death of the cross.”85

St John Chrysostom commented: “Think how much Love God

has, that He did „not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us

all‟86

who are worthless, ungrateful, enemies and blasphemers.”87

We

were far from God, “…alienated from the Life of God…”88

and

“…having no hope and without God in the world.”89

“As the human

race was fleeing from Him…” God “…pursued and captured, only

because His Philanthropia, Love and Guardianship realised this.” 90

God really did pursue the human race in order to save it and this is

80 Rom. 5:8. 81 Rom. 5:6. 82 1 John 4:19. 83 1 John 4:9-10. 84 John 3:16-17. 85 Phil. 2:7-8. 86 Cf. Rom. 8:32. 87 St John Chrysostom, To Romans, Homily 15, § 2, in Montfaucon, v. 9, p. 659. 88 Ephes. 4:18. 89 Ephes. 2:12. 90 St John Chrysostom, To Hebrews, Homily 5, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 63, 46.

19

evident in that “…man did not ascend to Heaven, but … He descended

to our negligible and worthless nature.”91

Divine Wisdom is apparent in that God “…found the most

beautiful solution for the poor…” man.92

For after the Fall of man,

one of the following consequences had to occur: “…either God [had]

to make everyone truthful...” by surrendering them to death according

to the warning that accompanied the Commandment, “…or [by]

showing love towards man…” to paralyze “the decision” and to prove

it inoperative by not realising the threat.93

“But see God‟s Wisdom.

For He kept the truth of the decision and acted the Love towards man.

Christ took upon the Cross the sins…” and suffered the consequences

of man‟s Offence, in order that he might be saved.94

“Christ took up

the punishments of the first Offence, in order to free us from the

Curse.” “He takes up the Way of our restoration as Good and

Wise.”95

God‟s Wisdom found the way to satisfy His Divine Justice

and simultaneously to save fallen man.

Justice appears in many ways.

1) It stresses that God‟s Justice appeared so that men would not

be under the tyranny of Satan. God could have detached man from the

Devil‟s enslaving sinful desires, but this would have been by force and

not a just way of restoration, which was to pay a ransom for the

enslaved in order to release them from the tyranny of the Devil.96

2) St Irenaeus supported another opinion, according to which

the enemy, having gained victory over man in the Garden of Delight,

“…would not have been justly defeated, if man had not defeated…”

him. Therefore the Word “…took up our first nature, in order that

through all virtues…” He would defeat Satan by “… wrestling the

opponent…” and “… reveal Himself…” as an “…Invincible Athlete.”

91 Ibid, To John, Homily 18, § 2, in Migne, P.G., 59, 115. 92 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the way of the conception of the Word

and His divine incarnation, III, 46, 1, in Migne, P.G., 94, 984. 93 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, XIII, § 33, in Migne, P.G., 33, 813. 94 St John of Damascus, About the two wills, 44, in Migne, P.G., 94, 185. 95 St Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, ch. 22, in Migne, P.G., 45, 60. 96 St Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, ch. 22 and 23, in Migne, P.G., 45, 60 and 61.

20

Then, as “…the Fall of the forefather became a common Fall…”

likewise “…the victory of our Saviour…” became “…our common

victory.”97

Consequently, we “…as victorious in Christ against sin,

will remove the mortality and escape death.” Since Christ gained

victory over the Devil and lived a sinless life, He “…made none other

victorious over the tyrant…” but through human nature, which He

united with Himself, made the fallen man victorious.98

3) Finally, there is the opinion of the satisfaction of Divine

Justice. Through Adam‟s Offence mankind insulted Divine Justice

and was condemned to alienation from God, which immediately

caused spiritual and then bodily death. “The Saviour dies for us and

offers to the Father a Sacrifice…” and “… being the One Who offers

and the One Who is being offered, in order to cleanse man from all

stain, He took up…” a Body, satisfying Divine Justice “…through the

proper Offering (perfect obedience to God the Father‟s Will).”99

Through this satisfaction “…He destroyed death for all who are like

Him…as all died in Him…” because “…instead of all, He gave

Himself as an Offering to the Father.”100

The Incarnation of God the Word was an admirable and

supernatural act of God. The truth is that healthy human nature, born

from the Ever-Virgin Mary the Theotokos, was able to be united with

the Divine Nature because “…neither the logic, or the intellect, or any

other such thing of human nature is opposite to virtue…” nor did it

present any obstacles that prevented God from touching “human

nature” uncorrupted by sin. God the Word at the Incarnation did not

become a rock or a plant or some kind of irrational being, but “flesh”-

a man, a rational and moral being.101

97 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 18, § 7, in Migne, P.G., 7, 937. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 242-243. 98 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the way of the conception of the Word

and His divine incarnation, book III, ch. 46, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 94, 984. 99 Ibid, Catechesis, book III, ch. 27, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1096. 100 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, §§ 8 and 9, in

Migne, P.G., 25, 109 and 112. 101 St Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, ch. 15 and 24, in Migne, P.G., 45, 49 and 64.

St Basil the Great, To Psalm 44, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 29, 400; About the Holy Spirit,

ch. 8, in Migne, P.G., 32, 100.

21

Man was not only made in the Image of God, but was also

created to be united with God, becoming His Temple, which is only

achieved in the union of the two natures. The two special Attributes

of Self-conscience and Freedom, which are found perfectly in God,

are also found in man and made human nature receptive to the Divine

Nature, for Divine Power is natural for the performance of wonders.

Nevertheless, for the unapproachable God to descend to the humble

creature, proves unlimited Power.

6. The Necessity of the Incarnation

From the human point of view the Incarnation was necessary,

especially if Divine Justice demanded satisfaction from sinful man for

the Offence. It is true that God could have only commanded in order

for man to be instantly restored and for Him not to have been

Incarnated in order to remove the Curse. But in that case, if God had

commanded the Curse to be expunged, for it was certainly possible for

Him to do so, then His Power would have been manifest, but mankind

would have become the same as Adam before the Offence.102

As a

consequence, man would face the danger of falling again, but even

into a condition far worse than before, having already experienced the

first Fall. Thus, it would be necessary once again for God to loosen

the Curse and no real progress would have been achieved.

St Cyril of Alexandria stated: “God the Word did not have the

need for a body…” because “…He could have worked our salvation

through His command alone…but He wanted to have something [in

common] with us in order to achieve communion.”103

The Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church proclaimed that it was

necessary for the Incarnate Word to die so as to save mankind by

paying a ransom equal in value to the price of all men. For what help

could man have offered to his fellow men, since all needed the same

help? How could the Curse be loosened since everyone was held

102 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, II, § 68, in Migne, P.G., 26, 292. 103 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Word, ch. 18, in Migne,

P.G., 75, 1448.

22

under the same bondage and all needed a Saviour? The Saviour had

to be absolutely sinless and unrestricted by death. Which man had the

ability to offer a ransom to God even for his own sins? How could

anyone have had the capacity for making such an offering for others?

What can anyone find in this world or this age that would be sufficient

in return for his soul? We were all enslaved and we all needed a

Ransom to be paid for our freedom. Consequently none of us could

have saved ourselves so how then was it possible to save others?

Not even the Angels could have saved mankind, because they

receive their holiness from their communion with the Holy Spirit.

How then would it have been possible to free men from all guilt and to

bestow sanctification upon them since they are not the Source of

Holiness? How could it be possible for a creature to loosen the

Commandment of God and to forgive sins, since this is the Work of

God alone?104

St Augustine remarked that “…men were able to sell themselves

as slaves to sin, but were unable to free themselves from sin.”105

This theory was clarified by Anselmus of Canterbury, according

to whom the Offence as an act of man is temporary (“offense Dei

active”); but as an Offence against the Infinite God (“offense Dei

passiva”) consisted of an eternal guilt. To reconcile this it was

necessary for a Ransom and Redemption of infinite value, and

accordingly the simple man was unable to offer it. The salvation of

man consequently had to be achieved by the God-Man as the

representative of all mankind and the only One capable of offering a

Ransom of infinite value.106

But according to this theory, the

Incarnation of the Word of God appears as something absolutely

necessary although it presents God as a cruel and not a loving and

merciful Judge, Who seeks absolute satisfaction of His Justice, being

bound by His own Attribute of saving man. St Augustine‟s opinion,

104 St Basil the Great, To Psalm 48 (49), §§ 3 and 4, in Migne, P.G., 29, 440 and

441. St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, II, § 69, in Migne, P.G., 26, 289. St

John of Damascus, Exposition. About the divine economia, book III, ch. 45, § 1, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 981. 105 St Augustine, Psalm 95, 5, in migne, P.L., 37, 1251. 106 Cur Deus homo I, 12 and 13; II, 4, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 38.

23

however, according to which God, through His Almightiness could

have saved and restored human nature through different ways, seems

more correct.

THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST

The fundamental Doctrine concerning the whole work of

Salvation, which Christ achieved for man, is that He is God

Incarnated.107

The Lord Jesus Christ was not only simply a perfect

Man Who came to save men, but the Son of God, perfect God and the

Only Begotten Son of God Who was born before all eternity from the

Father.108

As God He surpasses all creatures in Heaven and on

earth109

and His appearance on earth consists of the greatest of all

miracles in human history. As the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of

David110

and Son of Man,111

is the preeminently anointed Prophet,112

King and High Priest113

Who was spoken of in the Old Testament by

all the Prophets.114

When God the Father addresses the Son, He calls Him “Son”115

being born from Him “…before the rising star…” and to Whom He

will give as heritage all the nations.116

He invites Him to sit on His

Right Hand117

until He makes His enemies His “…footstool.”118

The

107 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 125-126. Mitsopoulos, Themata, p. 75. 108 Acts 4:12; 13:23. Ephes. 5:23. Phil. 3:20. 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10. Tit. 1:3, 4;

2:10; 3:4, 6. 2 Peter 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18. 1 John 4:14. Jude 25. 109 Ephes. 1:21. 110 Matth. 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9. Mark 10:47, 48; 12:35. Luke 18:38; 20:41.

Kefalas, Christology, pp. 292-294. 111 Matth. 13:37; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:30, 44; 25:13, 31; 26:2, 24. Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41.

Luke 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58; 12:8, 10, 40; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22,

48, 69; 24:7. John 1:52; 3:13, 14, 16; 4:27; 6:27, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34. 112 Deut. 18:15, 18-19. Matth. 16:16. Mark 8:29. Luke 4:18. 113 Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:16-17, 21; 9:11. Psalm 109(110):4. 114 Deut. 18:15-22. Is. 42:1-4. Acts 3:22-24. 115 Heb. 5:5. Psalm 2:7 116 Psalm 2:8. 117 Mark 16:19. 118 Matth. 22:44. Psalm 109(110):1.

24

Messiah, being the eternal High Priest119

according to the Prophets,

having the Priesthood without successor,120

appears to be anointed by

God Himself,121

being called “God” by King David and Whose Name

“….is called the Messenger of Great Counsel…” and “…His Peace

will have no end;”122

Who will be the Son of the Virgin as foreseen by

the Prophet Isaiah who said: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the

womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call His name

Emmanuel.”123

But generally all the Prophets emphasized the

Messiah‟s Divine descent and important Work of the salvation of all

men, which He fulfilled as the Lord, the Angel of the New Testament

and the Son of Man.

In the New Testament Jesus Christ is witnessed by the Father as

His beloved Son,124

Who is above Moses and Elijah and all the

Prophets125

and even above all the Angelic Hosts126

and Who has the

power to forgive sins127

and which authority He passed down to His

Holy Disciples.128

Similarly the Father assures us that the Son is not

only a son, but the Son of God Who knows the Father and Who has

only been known by the Father.129

He announced that He would come

again, sitting on the Right Hand of God the Father130

and He gave

instructions that all His Disciples were to be baptised131

“…in the

name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”132

He is

the “…Only Begotten Son Who is in the bosom of Father…”133

Who

“…came down from Heaven to the earth…” although at the same time

119 Heb. 2:17; 3:1 120 Heb. 4:14-15; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21. Psalm 109(110):4. 121 Is. 61:1-3. 122 Is. 9:6, 7. 123 Is. 7:14. 124 Matth. 3:17; 12:18. Mark 1:11. Luke 3:22; 9:35. Ephes. 1:6. 125 Matth. 13:16-17. 126 Ephes. 1:21. Phil. 2:9-11. 127 Matth. 9:6. Mark 2:10. 128 Matth. 16:19; 18:18. John 20:22-23. 129 Matth. 11:27. John 10:15. 130 Matth. 25:31; 26:64. Mark 13:26. Acts 1:11; 7:55-56. Dan. 7:14. 131 Mark 16:16. Luke 24:47. 132 Matth. 28:19. 133 John 1:18.

25

being in Heaven.134

Furthermore, “…before Abraham was born…” He

was135

and He, together with the Father is one.136

St John the Apostle,

Evangelist and Theologian stated, before the world was created, He

existed together with the Father and is co-eternal137

as the A and Ω

(Alpha and Omega), “…the Beginning and the End…” of all.138

St Paul characterised Christ as “…the God of all…”139

and as the

“…first born…”140

Who was born of the Father before all Creation.

Being in the form of God, the Son emptied Himself in order to take

the form of a bondservant,141

thereby redeeming the Church with His

own Blood,142

being the Blood of God143

through Whom all things

were made.144

Even the Angels in the heavenly places and all things

are sustained in Him. Christ is the Brightness of the Glory and the

Character of the Hypostasis of the Father.145

The Truth concerning Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of

God is based on His own conscience, which was expressed by His

own testimony146

and proclaimed by all the God-inspired authors of

the New Testament. This Truth was inherited by the Orthodox

Church since the first century and is continuously proclaimed by the

Apostolic Fathers and all the Holy Fathers and Ecclesiastic Scholars to

this very day.

One understands the importance and clarity of the teachings of

the Apostolic Fathers concerning Christ, when one considers that St

Clement of Rome used the name “Lord” irrespective of whether

134 John 3:13 135 John 8:58. 136 John 10:30. 137 John 1:1-2. 138 Rev. 1:8, 11, 17; 21:6; 22:13. 139 Rom. 9:5. 140 Rom. 8:29. Col. 1:15, 18. Rev. 1:5. 141 Phil. 2:6-8. 142 Rom. 3:25; 5:9. Gal. 3:13; 4:5. Ephes. 1:7; 2:13. Col. 1:14, 20. Heb. 9:12, 14;

10:19-20. 1 Peter 1:19. 1 John 1:7. Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11. 143 Acts 20:28 144 John 1:3. 145 Heb. 1:3. 146 Matth. 26:64. John 4:26; 5:18; 9:35; 10:36.

26

referring to Christ or God the Father, calling Christ “…the Son and

Brightness of the Majesty…” of God.

St Ignatius of Antioch referred fifteen times to Christ as God

“…Who was made in flesh…” and “…existing before the ages with the

Father…” being “…united to the Father.”

St Polycarp of Smyrna called Christ “Lord” to Whom the Father

gave “…Glory on His right…” and Who is “…the eternal High-

Priest, the Son of God…Who will come to Judge the living and the

dead.”

The Epistle of St Barnabas presents Him as “…the Lord of all

the world, about Whom God had said…” as the Creator “…before the

creation of the world: „Let Us make man in Our image.”

Didache also assures us that the Lord will come upon the clouds

and that He commands that Baptism must be done “…in the name of

the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The Epistle to Diognetus presents Christ as the “…Only

Begotten Son of God…Artist and Creator of all…” being the Consular

of the Father in Creation.

Similar testimonies are used by the Apologists, although they

wrote Apologies (confessions of faith) to the idolaters Roman

Emperors in order to refute the false accusations against Christianity,

but they did not conduct systematic reports on the Christian Faith.

The Ecclesiastic Scholars after the Apologists, especially St

Irenaeus and Tertullian, supported the teachings concerning the

Divinity of the Incarnated Son and Word of God against the heretics,

Gnostics, Ebionites, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides and others, who

completely rejected the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

St Hippolytus and Tertullian opposed the Monarchians and

Patropaschites who renounced the Trinity.

27

Origen accepted the Holy Trinity and Christ as God and the Son

of God. Origen must have been the first to use the terms “….from the

same Essence” (“Oμοoύζιορ” – “Homoousios” i.e. “Consubstantial”)

and “God-Man” (“Θεάνθπωπορ”). Thus the entire ancient Orthodox

Church before the 1st Ecumenical Synod confessed and proclaimed

Jesus Christ to be the Only Begotten Son of God, being

Consubstantial with and Co-eternal to the Father.

1. The Messiah according to the Prophecies

The Person Who made the Promises to Abraham and the nation

of Israel is referred to in Holy Scripture as “Messiah” or “the

Christ,”147

being the most Anointed Prophet, High Priest and King148

Who shepherds Israel149

and Who contains within His Person the

threefold Offices. These Offices are found separately in different

people of the Old Testament who were anointed by special blessed oil

and who were called “…the anointed of the Lord.”150

The Lord,

however, was not anointed with material ointment made by the hands

of men.151

He was anointed by God through the Holy Spirit Who was

poured upon Him.152

He was anointed “…not as the rest of the high

men…and not by partial anointment, as in the case of the spiritual

men.”153

Thus “…under the name Christ is implied the One Who

anoints and Who has been anointed and the ointment through which

He was anointed. And the Father anoints, the Son is anointed in the

Holy Spirit, which is the Ointment.”154

In the Old Testament the Messiah appears to be the Son of God.

This term is also referred to the Angels, the just, the whole of Israel,

the Kings and Judges. However, with regard to the Messiah Who is

147 John 1:41. Kefalas, Christology, pp. 294-298. 148 Zach. 9:9. Heb. 1:9. 149 Ez. 34:23-24. Is. 40:11. Mich. 5:4. 150 Deut. 18:15, 18. Psalm 109(110):4 and Psalms 2, 44(45), 109(110). 151 St Ecumenius, To Hebrews, in Migne, P.G., 119, 288. 152 Psalm 2:2. Acts 4:26-27. Heb. 1:9. 153 Theophylactus of Bulgaria, To Hebrews, in Migne, P.G., 125, 200. 154 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 18, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 7, 934.

28

mentioned in the second Psalm,155

firstly His victory is described over

the kings and rulers of the earth who had gathered “…against the Lord

and against His Anointed…” and secondly, it refers to Him saying:

“Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.”156

Thus the Messiah

is presented not only as an invincible King Whose Kingdom is

extended throughout the world but also as the Son of God Who is born

of the Father. Under the scrutiny of the New Testament one sees in

this verse the Son of God Who is born of the Father and Who has

inherited “…the name which is above every name, that at the name of

Jesus every knee should bow, of those in Heaven, and of those on

earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”157

Furthermore, in Psalm 109(110) the Messiah is presented as being

superior to King David who acknowledges Him as his “Lord” Who is

vested with an Office that surpasses this world and Who is manifested

by the invitation of God: “Sit at My Right Hand, until I make Thine

enemies Thy footstool…”158

and Who has eternal priesthood

“…according to the order of Melchizedek.”159

“For this Melchizedek,

King of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham

returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom

also Abraham having a tenth part of all, first being translated „King of

Righteousness,‟ and then also King of Salem, meaning „King of

Peace,‟ without father, without mother, without genealogy, having

neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of

God, remains a priest continually.”160

The mysterious figure of Melchizedek represents an entirely

different kind of Priesthood. He appears in Genesis long before the

establishment of the Levitical Priesthood. He is given no genealogy

and nothing is said of his death. He received tithes from Abraham,

implying his superiority to Abraham – and by extension - superiority

to Abraham‟s descendants, the Levites as well. Melchizedek is not

only a Priest but a King too. In this dual Office he is able to reconcile

155 Psalm 2:2. 156 Psalm 2:7. 157 Phil. 2:9-11. Matth. 22:43, 45. Mark 12:35, 37. Luke 20:44. 158 Psalm 109(110):1. Matth. 22:44. Mark 12:36. Luke 21:42-43. 159 Psalm 109(110):4. Heb. 5:6, 10. 160 Heb. 7:1-3. Gen. 14:18-20.

29

the Justice of God (the work of a King) with His Mercy (the work of a

Priest). His name means “King of Righteousness” while his title

“King of Salem” means “King of Peace.” He may be a Theophany – a

pre-appearance of Christ. At the very least he is a type of Christ, as the

author of the Hebrews explains in detail.

The Priesthood of Melchizedek was without earthly genealogy,

so is Christ by virtue of His virginal Birth. Jesus Christ is God

Incarnate, Immortal and Sinless, therefore His Priesthood is able to

transform humanity. The power given at ordination is strong and

effective. The power of Christ‟s Priesthood is perfect and draws us

near to God. His Sacrifice is offered once for all. Since Christ is

Immortal, the Priesthood of Melchizedek needs only one eternal

Priest. Jesus Christ is more than a mere man, He is the Son of God,

the God-Man

In Psalm 44(45) it is written: “Thy Throne, O God, is forever

and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom.

Thou lovest Righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, Thy

God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness more than Thy

companions.”161

This Psalm announces the Divinity of the Messiah

King sitting upon His eternal Throne having been anointed by God as

He, too, is God.

Isaiah proclaimed the virginal Birth of the Messiah from the

Ever-Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (“God-bearer”), whose name would

be “Emmanuel”162

meaning “God with us.”163

Again the Prophet said:

“For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, Whose

government is upon His shoulder: and His name is called „the

Messenger of Great Counsel‟: for I will bring peace upon the princes,

and health to him. His government shall be great, and of His peace

there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon His

Kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with

righteousness, from henceforth and for ever. The zeal of the Lord of

161 Psalm 44(45):6-7. 162 Is. 7:14. 163 Matth. 1:23.

30

Hosts shall perform this.”164

According to Isaiah the “…people shall

see the Glory of the Lord and the Majesty of God.”165

God “…will

come and save us…”166

and “…all flesh shall see the salvation of

God.”167

According to the Prophet Ezekiel: “I will be to them a God, and

they shall be My people. And the nations shall know that I Am the

Lord Who sanctifies them, when My sanctuary is in the midst of them

for ever.”168

The Prophet Zachariah spoke in the Spirit saying: “Thus said the

Lord Almighty: Behold, I will save My people from the east country,

and the west country; and I will bring them in, and cause them to

dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be to Me a people, and

I will be to them a God, in truth and in righteousness.”169

In the Apocrypha (Second Canonical) Book of Baruch it is

written: “This is our God, and there shall be none other accounted of

in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge,

and has given it unto Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved.

Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with

men.”170

Micah prophesied on the one hand the coming of the human

origin of the Messiah from “…the house of Ephratha…to be a Ruler

of Israel…” and His Divine origin is characterised in the words:

“…and His goings forth were from the beginning, even from

eternity.”171

164 Is. 9:6-7. 165 Is. 35:2. 166 Is. 35:4. 167 Is. 40:5. 168 Ez. 37:27-28. Zach. 2:10. 169 Zach. 8:7-8. 170 Baruch 3:35-37. Gen. 9:27. 171 Mich. 5:2.

31

In Malachi is prescripted “…the beginning of the Gospel of

Jesus Christ…”172

and the Mission of God‟s “Messenger” “…and the

Lord, Whom you seek, shall suddenly come into His Temple, even the

Angel of the Covenant.”173

It is obvious that in these prophetic words

“…the Lord…” and “…the Angel of the Covenant…” refers to one and

the same Person.

All the Prophesies previously mentioned as well as those of the

Old Testament characterising the Messiah, find their harmonious

union in the God-Man, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of all

mankind.174

2. New Testament testimonies concerning the Divinity of Christ

We distinguish the Testimonies of the New Testament

concerning the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son

of God, into three categories:

a) Those of the Synoptic Gospels.

b) Those of St John the Apostle, Evangelist and Theologian and

c) Those of the rest of the Holy Apostles.175

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Testimony of God the Father first

appears during the Baptism of Christ by St John the Forerunner and

Baptist, according to which our Lord Jesus is His “…Beloved Son, in

Whom I Am well pleased.”176

This Testimony is repeated at the

Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor177

where His

superiority was evident when the two Prophets, Moses and Elijah,

172 Mark 1:1. 173 Mal. 3:1-3. 174 Kefalas, Christology, pp. 311-314, 326-329. 175 Ibid, Catechesis, pp. 258. Fragkopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 126-127.

Mitsopoulos, Themata p.76 176 Matth. 3:17. Mark 1:11. Luke 3:22. 177 Matth. 17:5. Mark 9:7. Luke 9:35.

32

appeared as His honouring companions,178

but not having the same

brightness as Him nor being witnessed to by the Father. He testified

that His Teachings and Mission are superior to those of Solomon and

Jonah.179

He also presented the testimony of the Prophet and King

David who spoke as a humble servant of the Supreme Lord by saying:

“The Lord said to my Lord.”180

Christ is superior even to the Angels

who ignore His Second Coming181

and with regard to the General

Judgement, He explained that they would be sent as His servants to

gather the just from the four corners of the earth.182

“Being in the form of God, He did not consider it robbery to be

equal with God.”183

Therefore Christ sent “…Prophets, wise men,

scribes…” and “…Apostles,”184

promising to give them the necessary

“… mouth and wisdom…”185

just as God had promised Moses that He

would speak through the mouth of Aaron.186

As God, He appears to

be the Law-giver Who fulfils the Law187

and proclaims to be the

Master of the Law concerning the Sabbath188

as well as divorce.189

As

the Heavenly Father made a Covenant with Abraham and his

descendants, likewise Christ offered His Blood as the Blood of the

New Covenant190

and promised His Disciples that He would

“…bestow upon them a Kingdom, just as His Father bestowed one

upon Him, that they may eat and drink at His table in His Kingdom,

and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”191

Jesus Christ, as Lord and God, demands that the faith of His

Disciples in Him must be the same as their faith in God, steadfast and

178 Matth. 17:3. Mark 9:4. Luke 9:30. 179 Matth. 12:41-42. Luke. 11:31-32. Jonah 3:5. 180 Psalm 109(110):1. 181 Matth. 24:36. Mark 13:32. Acts 1:7. Zach. 14:7. 182 Matth. 13:49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31. Mark 8:38; 13:32. Luke 9:26. Dan. 7:10. 183 Phil. 2:6. 184 Matth. 23:34. Luke 11:49. 185 Luke 21:15. 186 Ex. 4:10-17. 187 Matth. 5:17. 188 Matth. 12:8. 189 Matth. 5:32. 190 Matth. 26:28. Mark 14:24. Luke 22:20. 191 Luke 22:30.

33

faithful until the end, even if they have to offer their lives for His

name‟s sake.192

He also demands that the love of His faithful for Him

must be greater than that of their most beloved ones.193

Furthermore,

all those who confess Him before men, will also be confessed by Him

before His Father and those who deny Him in this life will be denied

by Him before His Father.194

Jesus Christ claimed the authority of the forgiveness of sins, an

authority that belongs exclusively to God, 195

and transmitted it to His

Holy Apostles and Disciples.196

Since Jesus Christ proclaims to be the new Law-giver equal to

the Heavenly Father and has the authority to forgive sins, it is natural

for Him to claim the Office of the Supreme Judge and to foretell that

He will return with all His Glory to Judge the world and to reward or

punish each man according to their deeds.197

For “…all authority has

been given to Me in Heaven and on earth.”198

In the texts of the Synoptic Gospels one finds verses in which

the Lord reveals why He believes that He is the Son of God. When

speaking of God the Father, our Lord Jesus always distinguishes His

relationship as the Son of God by Nature from that of the rest of men.

In the former, He always uses the term “My Father,” whereas in the

latter He uses the term “your Father.” He also accepts the confession

of faith by St Peter that was expressed at Caesarea Philippi: “Thou art

the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”199

Through this confession

Christ is placed in a superior position to that of St John the Baptist, St

Elijah, St Jeremiah and all the Prophets. Consequently He is

confessed as the Son of God, not in a moral meaning as the Prophets

and all the just were called. Our Lord Jesus also proclaimed that: “All

things have been delivered to Me by My Father. Nor does anyone

192 Matth. 10:22. Mark 13:13. Luke 21:17. 193 Matth. 10:37. Luke 14:26. 194 Matth. 10:32-33. Luke 12:8-9. 195 Matth. 9:2, 6. Mark 2:10. Luke 5:20, 24; 7:47-49. 196 Matth. 16:19; 18:18. John 20:22-23. 197 Matth. 25:31-46. John 5:22, 30; 8:16, 26; 12:47-48. Daniel 12:2-3. Ez. 37:1-14. 198 Matth. 28:18. Kefalas, Christology, pp. 48-49. 199 Matth. 16:16.

34

know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to

reveal Him.”200

In this verse everything that the Father has delivered

to the Son201

reveals the equality between the Father and the Son. It

also reveals that the Son is beyond any intellectual conception as is the

Father Who is known only by the Son. The Infinite Father is known

only by Christ, being His Son. No other creature can know the Son

besides the Father. This teaching is expressed in the Parable of the

Wicked Vinedressers202

according to which Christ is the “…one Son,

the Beloved…” Who is recognized as being “…the Heir…” and Who

is killed by the Jews.

When Judged by the High-priests Annas and Caiaphas, Christ

was asked and gave witness about Himself.203

“I put thee under oath

by the Living God: Tell us if thou art the Christ, the Son of God!

Jesus said to him, „It is you who said it. Nevertheless, I say to you,

hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the Right Hand of the

Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven.”204

If Christ is not by

Nature and Essence the Son of God, was it possible for Him to declare

that He would be “…sitting at the Right Hand of the Power, and

coming on the clouds of Heaven?” The reaction caused by His

declaration and the denunciation that followed because they perceived

Him to be a self-condemned blasphemer, proves that the High-priests

and members of the High Court understood the term “Son of God”

according to the special apocalyptic meaning. The Lord, unwilling to

explain further, confirmed through His silence that they had very

correctly understood the meaning of His testimony.

After Christ‟s Resurrection He gave instructions to His Apostles

and Disciples to “…go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

Spirit…”205

assuring them that “…thus it was written, and thus it was

200 Matth. 11:27. 201 John 16:15. 202 Matth. 21:33-46. Mark 12:1-9. Luke 20:9-19. 203 Matth. 26:57-68. Mark 14:53-65. Luke 22:54, 63-65. John 18:13-24. 204 Matth. 26:63-64. Mark 14:61-62. Luke 22:67-69. 205 Matth. 28:19.

35

necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the

third day.”206

3. The testimony of St John the Apostle and Evangelist

The fourth Gospel was “…written that you may believe that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have

Life in His name.”207

St John the Apostle and Evangelist established

this belief by hearing the Lord‟s teachings, witnessing Christ‟s

innumerable miracles, divine life and His personal testimonies.208

St

John firmly believed that our Lord Jesus is the eternal Word of God

Who existed from the beginning with the Father, and that “…the Word

was God…”209

through Whom “…all things were made…”210

Who

“…was the true Light which gives Light to every man coming into the

world.”211

When the time came, “…the Word became flesh…” and

was Incarnated thereby manifesting “…His glory, the glory as of the

Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”212

as he stressed

at the beginning of his Gospel, in order to convince his readers to

believe that our Lord Jesus is the Christ, “the Only Begotten Son Who

is in the Bosom of the Father.”213

In the Gospel of St John Christ refers more often to God as His

Father and calls Himself “Son of God.” The quotations are

innumerable. To identify Himself Christ used the terms “…the Son of

God…” stating “…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but

have everlasting Life.”214

“He who believes in Him is not condemned;

but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not

believed in the name of the Only Begotten Son of God.”215

If one is

206 Luke 24:46. 207 John 20:31. 208 1 John 1:1-3. 209 John 1:1. 210 John 1:3. 211 John 1:9. 212 John 1:14. 213 John 1:18. 214 John 3:16. 215 John 3:18.

36

convinced, that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, then “…the Son will

make him free, he shall be free indeed”216

.

The Lord uses the unique title of “the Son” that applies

specifically to Him and to no other creature. His Sonship differs from

that of mankind as evident from His words to St Mary Magdalene

following His Resurrection: “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet

ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, „I Am

ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your

God.”217

Furthermore, the Son has the Father by Nature and His

Nature is exactly the same as that of the Divine Essence long since

before He was Incarnated, having existed with the Father before all

time.

God the Father bears witness to Him and has sent Him218

so

“…that of all He has given Him, He should lose nothing, but should

raise it up at the Last Day.”219

Coming “…from above…” He “…is

above all…”220

and grants to all who believe in Him “…everlasting

Life.”221

He is the “…Bread of Life…,”222

“…the Living Bread which

came down from Heaven…” and He guarantees us that: “If anyone

eats of this Bread, he will live forever; and the Bread that He shall

give is His flesh, which He shall give for the Life of the world.”223

He

came from the Father, being loved by the Father “…before the

foundation of the world.”224

Therefore, “…all should honour the Son

just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does

not honour the Father Who sent Him.”225

When St John the Apostle and Evangelist, emphasised the

eternal pre-existence of the Incarnated Word by writing: “In the

216 John 8:36. 217 John 20:17. 218 John 5:37. 219 John 6:39. 220 John 3:31. 221 John 3:36; 6:47. 222 John 6:48. 223 John 6:51. 224 John 17:24. 225 John 5:23.

37

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word

was God…”226

he based this testimony upon the assurance of the Lord

Jesus Christ Who proclaimed that “…before Abraham was, I

Am….”227

In addition to this, the proclamation that “…the Word was

God…” is based upon the testimonies through which Christ declared

His equality with the Father.228

According to the Gospel of St John Christ stated: “My Father is

greater than I.”229

However, this refers only to His human nature.

Although the “…Jews sought all the more to kill Him because

He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father,

making Himself equal with God…”230

and they continued to persecute

Him,231

He continued to proclaim His Work as being from the Father

and for this reason He is equal to His Father. “Most assuredly, I say

to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father

do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.”232

“For

as the Father raises the dead and gives Life to them, even so the Son

gives Life to whom He Wills.”233

“All should honour the Son just as

they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not

honour the Father who sent Him.”234

“For as the Father has Life in

Himself, so He has granted the Son to have Life in Himself.”235

Clarifying the equality between Himself and His Father, Jesus

Christ proclaimed: “I and the Father are one.”236

“The „one‟ declares

the sameness of their Divine Essence (Homoousion), while the verb

„are‟ manifests the two Persons of the Trinity.”237

“One in Essence,

one in Principle, one in Opinion, one in Wisdom, but not one in

226 John 1:1. 227 John 8:58. 228 John 5:18, 23, 26. 229 John 14:28. 230 John 5:18. 231 John 5:16. 232 John 5:19. 233 John 5:21. 234 John 5:23. 235 John 5:26. 236 John 10:30. 237 St Cyril of Alexandria, To John, Homily 1, in Migne, P.G., 74, 24.

38

Hypostasis.”238

In His prayer before His Passions, Christ did not

hesitate to declare that: “I Am in the Father and the Father in

Me…”239

and “…he who has seen Me has seen the Father.”240

For

this reason He prayed “…that they may be one as We are one…”241

so

that the voluntary union of the Disciples becomes “…the image of the

natural union that applies to the Father and the Son…”242

and “…as

the Word Who is by Nature and Essence in His Father, likewise we

become some kind of type and seeing Him we become one with one

another in soul and the unity of the Spirit.”243

Jesus Christ also proclaimed to have the authority to forgive the

sins of men, which He passed down to His Disciples after His glorious

Resurrection.244

He demands faith in Him as one has in God the

Father.245

He assured us that “…he who believes in Him has

everlasting Life…”246

and that He is “…the Light of the world…”247

“…the Way, the Truth and the Life.”248

Exalting His relationship with

His Father, He promised to all who love Him and keep His

Commandments that the Father “…will give them [another] Helper,

that He may abide with [them] forever…”249

and “…if anyone loves

Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will

come to him and make Our home with him.”250

This testimony of the fourth Evangelist is supported in the other

works of St John: his three Catholic Epistles and the Book of

Revelation. The testimony of the latter is important not only because

it includes the Evangelist‟s belief but it also contains the belief of the

238 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Arius and Sabellius, § 8, in Migne, P.G., 45, 1293. 239 John 14:10-11; 17:21. 240 John 14:9. 241 John 17:11, 21. 242 St Cyril of Alexandria, To John 17:11, in Migne, P.G., 74, 516. 243 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, III, § 19-20, in Migne, P.G., 26, 364. 244 John 20:22-23. 245 John 14:1. 246 John 5:24; 6:47; 8:52; 11:26. 247 John 8:12. 248 John 14:6. 249 John 14:15-16. 250 John 14:23.

39

seven Churches of Asia Minor, which were under his spiritual

guidance.

According to St John, the Lord “…was from the beginning...”251

the “…eternal Life, which was with the Father and was manifested to

us.”252

He is “…His Only Begotten Son sent into the world, that we

might live through Him…”253

because “…He loved us and sent His

Son to be the propitiation for our sins…”254

and “…Saviour of the

world.”255

“This is His Commandment: that we should believe in the

name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another.”256

Because

“…this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal Life, and this

Life is in His Son. He who has the Son has Life.”257

“We know that

the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we

may know Him Who is True; and we are in Him Who is True, in His

Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and eternal Life.”258

According to the Book of Revelation, Christ is the “…Alpha and

Omega…” (A and Ω), “…the beginning and the end of all…”259

Who

has “…the keys of Hades and of Death.”260

He sits upon the Throne

and is blessed by “…every creature which is in Heaven and on the

earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea.”261

He is the

One Who is “…coming quickly…” to reward “…every one according

to his work.”262

251 1 John 1:1. 252 1 John 1:2. 253 1 John 4:9. 254 1 John 4:10. 255 1 John 4:14. 256 1 John 3:23. 257 1 John 5:11-12. 258 1 John 5:20. 259 Rev. 1:8, 11, 17; 21:6; 22:13. 260 Rev. 1:18. 261 Rev. 6:13. 262 Rev. 22:12.

40

4. The testimonies of St Paul concerning Christ’s Divinity

St Paul the Apostle persecuted Christ as a “false-messiah”

before he believed in Him, however, after his conversion, he

worshipped Him as the True and Perfect God Who existed before all

ages and Who was sent in due time by His Father to die for us sinners.

Henceforth, Jesus Christ is repeatedly called “…the eternally blessed

God…”263

as His Throne is the Throne of God, which is for ever. He

IS “…the firstborn over all Creation...”264

but NOT the “first-

created.” “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”265

Thus, St Paul ascribed to Him Divine Attributes, which are ascribed

only to God.

St Paul proclaimed that “…by Him all things were created that

are in Heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether

Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers. All things were

created through Him and for Him.”266

He ascribed Almightiness to

Christ, by which all things exist and “…all worlds were made.”267

Furthermore, St Paul ascribed infinite wisdom and knowledge to Him

“…in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and

knowledge.”268

By the expression “…all treasures…” he manifests

the Infinity of God and by the words “…are hidden all…” reveals all

the things that Christ alone knows.269

Christ is “…Self-wisdom and

Self-knowledge,”270

besides which He has the sameness and the

eternity of God according to the statement: “Thou art the same, and

Thy years will not fail…”271

and “…Jesus Christ is the same

yesterday, today, and forever.”272

263 Rom. 9:5. 264 Col. 1:15. 265 Col. 1:17. 266 Col. 1:16. 267 Heb. 1:2. 268 Col. 2:3. 269 St John Chrysostom, To Colosians, Homily 5, § 2, in Monfaucon, v. 11, p. 416. 270 Theophylactus of Bulgaria, To Colosians, in Migne, P.G., 124, 1236. 271 Heb. 1:12. 272 Heb. 13:8.

41

Christ is Perfect God “…Who, being in the form of God, did not

consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no

reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the

likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He

humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even

death of the Cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and

given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of

Jesus every knee should bow, of those in Heaven, and of those on

earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”273

“He had permanently secured and had not robbed the principal (of

the Divinity) and for this reason He was not afraid to descend from

His rank.”274

Through the Blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed on the

Cross,275

He sanctified the Church276

that is called “…the Church of

God which He purchased with His own Blood…”277

and by His

becoming our Saviour, we “…look for the blessed hope and glorious

appearance of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”278

It is obvious that St Paul proclaimed Christ as the Great God

Who has Divinity by Nature. When he referred to Him as “Lord,” he

ascribed to Him the same Name by which God is addressed in the Old

Testament such as “Jehovah” and “Adonai” - in other words, “Lord.”

In verses where the name “Lord” refers to God, St Paul applied them

to Jesus Christ such as in Romans 10:13 when he referred to Joel 2:32.

Likewise in 1st Corinthians 1:31 where he referred to Jeremiah 9:23

and 1 Samuel (1 Kings) 2:10; as well as in 1 Corinthians 2:16 where

he referred to Isaiah 40:13, and in his Epistle to the Hebrews 1:10

where he referred to Psalm 101(102):26. Also in numerous other

verses Christ is called “Son of God” by St Paul.279

273 Phil. 2:6-11. St John Chrysostom, To Philippians 2:6, Homily 7, § 1, in

Montfaucon, v. 11, p. 282. 274 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollynarius, in Migne, P.G., 45, 1164. 275 Col. 1:14, 20. Rom. 3:25; 5:9. Ephes. 1:7; 2:13. Heb. 9:14. 276 Heb. 13:12. 277 Acts 20:28. 278 Tit. 2:13. 279 Rom. 8:3, 32. Col. 1:13. Gal. 4:4-5. Heb. 1:3-4, 6.

42

5. Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers concerning Christ’s Divinity

The Apostolic Teachings concerning Christ as the Son and

Word of God and God Himself, which were cherished in the Books of

the New Testament, is also proclaimed in the writings of the

successors of the Holy Apostles and Disciples of Christ who are

known as the Apostolic Fathers. What was believed and preached

about Christ by His Holy Apostles was preached and worshipped by

their disciples as well. The quotations referring to Jesus Christ as

“Lord,” “God” and “Son of God,” are innumerable.280

St Clement the Bishop of Rome confirmed that “…through the

Blood of the Lord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in

God.”281

“The majestic sceptre of God, our Lord Christ Jesus, did not

come with the pomp of arrogance or pride (although He could have

done so), but in humility, just as the Holy Spirit spoke concerning

Him.”282

“This declaration of the blessedness was pronounced upon

those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to

Whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”283

“This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation,

namely Jesus Christ, the High Priest of our offerings, the Guardian

and Helper of our weakness. Through Him let us look steadily into

the heights of Heaven; through Him we see as in a mirror His

faultless and transcendent face; through Him the eyes of our hearts

have been opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind

springs up into the Light; through Him the Master has willed that we

should taste immortal knowledge, for „He, being the radiance of His

majesty, is as much superior to Angels as the name He has inherited is

more excellent.‟284

For so it is written: „He makes His Angels winds

and His ministers flames of fire.‟285

But of His Son, the Master spoke

thus: „Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I

280 Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 127-129. 281 St Clement of Rome, 1st Corinthians, 12, 7, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers,

pp. 34-35. 282 Ibid, 1st Corinthians, 16, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 36. 283 Ibid, 1st Corinthians, 50, 7, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 57. 284 Cf. Heb. 1:3-4. 285 Cf. Heb. 1:7.

43

will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the

earth for Thy possession.‟286

And again He says to Him: „Sit at My

right Hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.‟287

Who, then, are these enemies? Those who are wicked and resist His

Will.”288

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus

Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is

from God, and the Apostles are from Christ both, therefore, came of

the Will of God in good order. Having therefore received their orders

and being fully assured by the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ

and full of the faith in the Word of God, they went forth with the firm

assurance that the Holy Spirit gives, preaching the Good News that

the Kingdom of God was about to come.”289

In the Second Letter to the Corinthians St Clement of Rome

commented: “Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ, as we do of

God.”290

St Ignatius the Theophorus and Bishop of Antioch, referred to

Jesus Christ as “God” more than 15 times while in numerous other

cases he addressed Him as “Lord.” According to this Apostolic Father

the expression: “Jesus Christ our Lord”291

or “Jesus Christ our

God”292

means “…the Incarnated God…” “…Who before the ages

was with the Father and appeared at the end of time.”293

“For our

God Jesus Christ is more visible now that He is in the Father.”294

He

286 Cf. Heb. 1:5. Psalm 2:7-8. 287 Cf. Heb. 1:13. 288 St Clement of Rome, 1st Corinthians, 36, 1-6, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic

Fathers, p. 48. 289 Ibid, 1st Corinthians, 42, 1-3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 51. 290 St Clement of Rome, 2nd Corinthians, 1, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers,

p. 68. 291 St Ignatius of Antioch, To Ephesians, 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p.

88 292 Ibid, To Romans, Introduction; To Polycarp, 8, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic

Fathers, pp. 101, 102, 118. Ibid, To Ephesians, 20, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic

Fathers, p. 93. 293 Ibid, To Magnesians, 6, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 94-95. 294 Ibid, To Romans, 3, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 103.

44

is “…God Who appeared in human form…”295

but as our God Who is

in the Father. He is “…the eternal, the invisible, Who for our sake

became visible, the intangible, the unsuffering, Who for our sake

suffered, Who for our sake endured in every way.”296

He is “…the

Son of Man and Son of God…”297

Who is united with the Father and

“…as the Lord did nothing without the Father.”298

Dying for us, He

shed His Blood for our salvation. For this reason His Blood is the

“Blood of God”299

through which we are regenerated. His flesh is

“…the flesh of the Lord and in love (which is the Blood of Jesus

Christ)…”300

having “…one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our

Lord Jesus Christ,) and one cup which leads to unity through His

Blood…,”301

which are received in the Holy Eucharist. Thus His

suffering is the “…suffering of my God.”302

He died because “…He

suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be

saved; and He truly suffered just as He truly raised Himself.”303

St Polycarp of Smyrna, in his letter to the Philippians,

repeatedly called Jesus “…our Lord Jesus Christ…”304

“…Who

endured for our sins, facing even death, „Whom God raised up, having

loosed the pangs of Hades.”305

“We will never be able either to

abandon the Christ Who suffered for the salvation of the whole world

of those who are saved, the blameless on the behalf of sinners, or to

worship anyone else.”306

In the Epistle of Barnabas, Jesus Christ is proclaimed to be the

“…Lord of the whole world, to Whom God said at the foundation of

295 Ibid, To Ephesians, 19, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92 296 Ibid, To Polycarp, 3, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 116. 297 Ibid, To Ephesians, 20, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 93 298 Ibid, To Magnesians, 7, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 95. 299 Ibid, To Ephesians, 1, 2; To Smyrnaeans, 1, 1; 6, 1; To Philadelphians,

Introduction, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 86, 110, 112, 106. 300 Ibid, To Trallians, 8, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 99. 301 Ibid, To Philadelphians, 4, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 107. 302 Ibid, To Romans, 6, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 104. 303 Ibid, To Smyrnaeans, 2, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 110. 304 St Polycarp, To Philippians, 1, 2; 2, 1; 12, 2. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19, 2;

22,3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 123, 129, 143, 144. 305 St Polycarp, To Philippians, 1,2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 123 306 The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 142.

45

the world, „Let Us make man according to Our Image and

Likeness.‟307

”308

“He revealed Himself to be God‟s Son. For, if He

had not come in the flesh, men could in no way have been saved by

looking at Him. For when they look at merely the sun they are not

able to gaze at its rays, even though it is the work of His hands and

will eventually cease to exist. Therefore the Son of God came in the

flesh for this reason, that He might complete the full measure of the

sins of those who persecuted His Prophets to death.”309

Interpreting

the words: “He rested on the seventh day”310

he explains that

“…when His Son comes, He will destroy the time of the lawless one

and will judge the ungodly and will change the sun and the moon and

the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.”311

“If,

therefore, the Son of God, Who is Lord and is destined to judge the

living and the dead, suffered in order that His Wounds might give us

Life, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our

sake.”312

“So for this reason, brothers, He Who is very patient, when

He foresaw how the people whom He had prepared in His Beloved

would believe in all purity, revealed everything to us in advance, in

order that we might not shipwreck ourselves by becoming, as it were,

„proselytes‟ to their law.”313

“When He chose His own Apostles who

were destined to preach His Gospel (who were sinful beyond all

measures in order that He might demonstrate, that „He did not come

to call the righteous, but sinners).‟314

”315

“He was made manifest in

order that they might fill up the measure of their sins and we might

receive the Covenant through the Lord Jesus Who inherited it, Who

was prepared for this purpose, in order that by appearing in person

and redeeming from darkness our hearts, which had already been

paid over to death and given over to the lawlessness of error, He

might establish a Covenant in us by His Word...”316

“…in our heart,

307 Cf. Gen. 1:26. 308 Barnabas, 5, 5; 6, 12, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 167, 169. 309 Barnabas, 5, 9-11, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 167-168. 310 Cf. Gen. 2:2. 311 Barnabas, 15, 5, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 182. 312 Ibid, 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 170. 313 Ibid, 3, 6, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 164. 314 Cf. Matth. 9:13. 315 Barnabas, 5, 9, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 167. 316 Ibid, 14, 5, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 181.

46

in hope inspired by faith in Him…”317

Who will “…judge the living

and the dead…”318

and “…each person will receive according to what

he has done: if he is good, his righteousness will precede him; if he is

evil, the wages of doing evil will go before him.”319

In the Didache of the Twelve Apostles Jesus Christ is repeatedly

referred to as “the Lord”320

with the assurance that “…in the last days

the false prophets and corrupters will abound, and the sheep will be

turned into wolves, and love will be turned into hate. For as

lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one

another.321

And then the deceiver of the world will appear as a son of

God and „will perform signs and wonders,‟322

and the earth will be

delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations the likes of

which have never happened before. Then all humankind will come to

the fiery test, and „many will fall away‟ and perish; but „those who

endure‟ in their faith „will be saved‟323

by the accursed one himself.

And then there will appear the signs324

of the Truth: first the sign of an

opening in Heaven, then the sign of the sound of a Trumpet,325

and

third, the Resurrection of the dead – but not of all; rather, as it has

been said, „The Lord will come, and all His Saints with Him.‟326

Then

the world „will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of Heaven.‟327

”328

Concerning Baptism the Didache instructs: “After you have reviewed

all these things, baptize „in the name of the Father and of the Son and

of the Holy Spirit‟329

in running water. But if you have no running

water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to

baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither,

317 Ibid, 4, 8, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 166. 318 Ibid, 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 170. 319 Ibid, 4, 12, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 166. 320 Didache, Introduction; 8, 2; 9, 5; 10, 5; 11, 2, 3; 14, 3; 15, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 149, 153, 154, 155, 157. 321 Cf. Matth. 24:10-12. 322 Cf. Mark 13:22. 323 Cf. Matth. 24:10, 13. 324 Cf. Matth. 24:30. 325 Cf. Matth. 24:31. 1 Corinth. 15:52. 1 Thess. 4:12. 326 Zech. 14:5. Cf. 1 Thess. 3:13. 327 Cf. Matth. 24:30. 328 Didache, 16, 7-8, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 158. 329 Cf. Matth. 28:19.

47

then pour water on the head three times „in the name of Father and

Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let the one baptizing

and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are

able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for

one or two days beforehand.”330

Finally, the Epistle to Diognetus provides us with a short but

complete Christology. Truly, according to this Epistle, Jesus Christ is

the only “Beloved Child,”331

“…the Son of God alone…”332

“…for

God loved men, for whose sake He made the world, to whom He

subjected everything on earth, to whom He gave reason, to whom He

gave mind; them alone He permitted to took up to Heaven, them He

created in His own Image, to them He sent His one and only Son, to

them He promised the Kingdom in Heaven, which He will give to

those who have loved Him.”333

“For God, the Master and Creator of

the Universe, Who made all things and arranged them in order, was

not only tender-hearted but also very patient. Indeed, so He always

was and is and will be Kind, Good, without anger, True, and He alone

is Good.”334

God has sent His Son “…in gentleness and meekness, as

a king might send his son who is a king; He sent Him as God; He sent

Him as a Man to men. When He sent Him, He did so as One Who

saves by persuasion, not compulsion, for compulsion is no Attribute of

God.”335

“But when our unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been

made perfectly clear that its wages – punishment and death – were to

be expected, then the season arrived during which God had decided to

reveal at last His Goodness and Power (oh, the surpassing Kindness

and Love of God!). He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge

against us; instead He was patient and forebearing; in His mercy He

took upon Himself our sins; He Himself gave up His own Son as a

Ransom for us, the Holy One for the lawless, the Guiltless for the

guilty, „the Just for the unjust,‟336

the Incorruptible for the corruptible,

the Immortal for the mortal. For what else but His Righteousness

330 Didache, 7, 1-4, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 153. 331 Epist. to Diognetus, 8, 11, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 301. 332 Ibid, 9, 4, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 302. 333 Ibid, 10, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 303. 334 Ibid, 8, 7-8, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 301. 335 Ibid, 7, 4, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 301. 336 Cf. 1 Peter 3:18.

48

could have covered our sins?”337

“When He sent Him, He did so as

one calling, not pursuing; when He sent Him, He did so as one loving,

not judging. For He will send Him as Judge, and who will endure His

Coming?”338

6. Teachings of the Ecclesiastical Scholars concerning Christ’s

Divinity

The writings of the Apologists, although they are addressed to

the Roman Emperors and idol worshippers, in order to defend the

false accusations against Christianity, are not full reports of the

Christian Faith but their faith in Christ‟s Divinity continues to be

confessed as in the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic periods.

Thus in the 2nd

century, the Apology of Aristides declared that

“…the Christians are from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is confessed to

be the Son of the Most High God, Who in the Holy Spirit came down

from Heaven for the salvation of men; and was born of the Holy

Virgin immaculately and took up flesh.”339

Aristides proclaims

Christ‟s Sonship and His pre-existence with the Father, as well as His

Incarnation in time from the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, while

the rest of the Apologists bore witness concerning the Holy Trinity

and the Incarnation of the Word of God.

St Justin the Philosopher and Martyr wrote: “We confess God

(the Father of Justice and Wisdom) and His Son Who is with Him and

taught us…” “…Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate as the Son of

God.” He, “…the Son of God and Apostle Jesus Christ, Who is the

Word and appeared in the form of fire…and in other cases in a

bodiless image…to Moses and other Prophets…now born of the

Virgin, becoming Man according to the Will of God, suffered for the

salvation of those who will believe.” Hence those who believe in Him

337 Epist. to Diognetus, 9, 2-3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 302. 338 Ibid, 7, 5-6, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 301. 339 Aristides, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 55.

49

and are baptized “…are reborn in the name of the Father … and our

Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.”340

Athenagoras believed that “…the Son of God is the Word of God

in image and energy; for by Him and through Him all things were

made.”341

This “Word,” “…coming from the Power of the Father…”

and having been “…born in the beginning, regenerated our

creation…” and became “…God in the form of Man.”342

“This

Word…,” God the Father “…had as ambassador of men and through

Him made all things.” Therefore, “… it is said that He rules over all

things which were created through Him.”343

Generally speaking, the Apologists do not clearly explain the

relationship between the Son and His Father although every one of

them holds fast to the belief of the pre-existence and Deity of Christ

Whom they characterise as the Word of God Who is related

essentially and inseparably to God. He is the Son of God, not as in a

mortal or human manner but supernaturally and essentially.

Although influenced by the philosophy of their time, all of them

believed that the Word is a Divine Person and not the Word of the

world, as the Pantheists and the Stoic Philosophers believed. In

addition, they believed that the Word was absolutely and only a

worldly principal Who created and governed the Cosmos. They also

taught that He was a Person through Whom the perfect Divine

Revelation was made known to men and that new relationships were

made through Him with the Heavenly Father.

The “…Word became flesh…”344

specifically in order to save

mankind. This salvation and redemption was accomplished not only

through Divine Knowledge to which the Incarnated Word led

mankind through His Divine Teachings and the new moral Law but

340 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 1 Apology, 15, 1; 6, 1; 13, 3; 63, 10 and 16;

61, 3, in B, v. 3, pp. 147, 164, 167, 196, 194, 178, 187. Ibid, 1 Apology, 32 and 50.

Ibid, Dialogue, 40, 54, 111, 134. 341 Athenagoras, Deputation, 10, in B, v. 4, p. 288. 342 Tatianus, Homily to the Greeks, 5, 13, 21, in B, v. 4, pp. 245, 269, 256. 343 Theophilus of Antioch, 2 Autolycus, 10 and 22, in B, v. 5, pp. 27, 36 and 37. 344 John 1:14.

50

through the outpouring of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that were

derived as a consequence of His Death.

The first scholars, after the Apologists, were called to defend the

Divinity of the Incarnated Son and Word of God against the heresies

of the 2nd

and 3rd

centuries. Cerinthus who was a heretic

contemporary of St John the Apostle and Evangelist, the Ebionites and

different Gnostics, are few of the heretics who are mentioned in their

writings,345

specially those by St Irenaeus,346

the Church Historian

Eusebius347

and those by St Epiphanius.348

The Ebionites excluded the teachings of St John and St Paul

from their Christology, as well as those concerning the pre-existence

of Christ‟s Divinity. While they accused St Paul of apostasy, they

practiced circumcision, led a strict Jewish life and worshipped God in

Jerusalem. Cerinthus believed that Jesus Christ was born like the rest

of men from St Joseph and St Mary until after His baptism when the

Holy Spirit came down upon Him and He then became the Christ Who

remained a spiritual Being without suffering. Then, during His

Passion only Jesus [the Man] suffered, whereas Christ [the Son of

God] was recalled to Heaven.

The heretics Gnostics and Carpocrates taught that our Lord

Jesus was born from St Joseph and was similar to men except that he

had a pure soul and that God had sent Divine Power to his soul in

order to escape the Angels who created the world. Marcion separated

God the Father from the Creator mentioned in the Old Testament. He

taught that God was manifested in our Lord Jesus in order to buy men

from the cruel Creator, while he identified the Father as being Jesus

Christ. Finally, the Alogoi, rejected the fourth Gospel as well as the

Book of Revelation, denying that the Apostles preached the Word of

345 Theodoretus of Cyrus, Heresies, book II, chs. 1, 5, 24, in Migne, P.G., 83, 388,

392. Tertullian, Adversus Marcianem, I, 11, 14; II, 27; III, 9; IV, 7, in migne, P.L.,

2, 259, 262, 326, 333 and 369. 346 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch. 25, § 1; ch. 26, § 2; ch. 27, 2; book III, ch. 11, §

9, in Migne, P.G., 7, 686-687, 688, 890. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 94, 97,

97-98, 213. 347 Eusebius, Church History, III, 27 and 38, in Migne, P.G., 7, 273 348 St Epiphanius, Heresy, 27, 28, 41-42, 51, in Migne, P.G., 41, 368, 377, 696, 888.

51

God. According to St Epiphanius, they did not actually deny the

Teaching of our Lord Jesus being the Son of God, because in regard to

this, they agreed with the Teachings of the Church.

St Irenaeus defended the Truth against these heresies

proclaiming the belief “…in one God the Father Almighty…and in

one Jesus Christ, the Son of God Who was Incarnated for our

salvation…and in the Holy Spirit…” as received by the Church from

“…the Apostles and their disciples.” He also maintained that the Son

of God is Truly God, summing up all things in Him, “…in order that

in Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King all knees will

bow down…” and that He Who made all things, was made Saviour by

“…the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…Who is His Son Who always

exists with the Father and Who manifests Him to the Angels.”349

Rejecting the heretic teachings of the Gnostics and Cerinthos, St

Irenaeus restored the True Faith, calling upon the testimonies of the

two Synoptics, as well as those of St John and St Paul, in conjunction

with the prophesies in Psalms 77(78):5-7, 131(132):2, Isaiah 9:6,

Jeremiah 33:15 etc., by stating that it was necessary for the salvation

of man that God be Incarnated. “For if man was not united with God,

he would not be able to partake of immortality.” Refuting the

teachings of the Gnostic Basilides, (who supported the heresy that the

world was made by the Angels), St Irenaeus proclaimed that God,

through the Word, made all things and that God is the Father of our

Lord Jesus. He stressed that there is no other Father above the

Creator, nor is the Begotten Son different from the Word and neither

is the Christ different from the Saviour. “The Apostles did not

proclaim a different God; nor that a different Christ suffered and was

raised, or a different one was raised and remained without suffering,

but one and the same God and Saviour and Christ Jesus Who was

risen from the dead.” St John knew one and the same Word of God,

the Only Begotten Who was Incarnated for our salvation, Jesus Christ

our Lord and the same truth was proclaimed by St Matthew, St Paul

and St Mark as well.350

349 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch.10, § 1; book II, ch. 30, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 7,

549, 821, 823. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 64, 178. 350 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book II, ch. 2, § 4 and ch. 19, § 9; book III, ch. 12, § 2; ch.

16, §§ 1, 2-3; and ch. 17-19; ch. 18, § 7; ch. 19, § 2, in Migne, P.G., 7, 919, 937-

52

Besides the abovementioned heretics, there were others known

as the Monarchians who denied the Holy Trinity and taught that God

the Father was incarnated and had suffered for us. These heretics

were also called Patropaschites (Noetus and Praxeas). Other heretics

taught that our Lord Jesus suffered before being adopted by God

(Theodotus Scyteus). St Hippolytus fought against the heresy of the

Monarchians with his writings as mentioned by Eusebius: “Against

Artemon or Artemas…to the heresy of Noeros…” and as in the two

last Books IX and X of his Book “Accusations Against All Heresies.”

Tertullian with his writings: “Adversus Praxeam” and Novatianus in

chapter XVIII-XXIX of his writings “De Trinitate” contested their

heresies as well.

St Hippolytus proclaimed that God “…Who is Being, was

neither irrational, nor unwise, nor weak, nor without will…” but

instead was “…of all that were made Leader and Counselor and

Worker Who had Begotten the Word, Whom He had within Him.” “All

things were made through Him… He alone from the Father, …

becoming the firstborn…for this He was God of God‟s Essence.”

“This Word the Father had sent in latter days…to be

revealed…receiving a body from the Virgin.” “Thus we see the

Incarnated Word.” “Knowing the Economia of the Father, the

Word…after His Resurrection gave to His Disciples, saying, „Go and

make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,‟351

showing that whoever

remains out of these, does not believe in God. For through the Holy

Trinity the Father is glorified because the Father wanted, the Son

made and the Spirit revealed.”352

Tertullian, determining the Christian Faith, observed that we

believe in one God, under Whose Economia [Dispensation] one God

will be His Son and Word, Who came from Him, through Whom all

things were made and without Him not even one thing was made. He

940. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 113, 150, 214, 230-231, 231-233, 237-245,

242-243, 244. 351 Cf. Math 28:19 352 St Hippolytus, To the heresy of Noetus, 10, 11, 12 and 14, in B, v. 6, pp. 16, 17

and 18. Ibid, Heresies, 10, 33, in B, v. 5, pp. 375 and 376.

53

was sent by the Father to the Virgin and was born from her, Man and

God, Son of Man and Son of God and was named Jesus Christ, as we

proclaim. Before all things were made God was alone, although even

then He was not completely alone for His Word was with Him

because the rational God and the Word in Him made everything.

This, the Greeks called “Word” (“Logos”). God begot the Word. This

is similar to the root of a bush, the spring of the river or the brightness

of the sun because these projections are of the same essence from

which they originate.353

Elsewhere he proclaimed that God lived

amongst men in order that they would learn to do whatever is Divine.

In relation to man, God came as an equal so that man, likewise, would

be able to become godly by Divine Grace. God first appeared as

someone tiny, in order that mankind would become great and if you

deny a God like that, then I doubt that you truly believe in God.354

Amongst the later Fathers until the 1st Ecumenical Synod, we

mentioned Origen who believed in the Christian Trinity, which he

referred to as the “Holy Trinity,” “Eternal Trinity,” “Primary Trinity,”

and “Worshipped Trinity.” He believed that the Son of God is called

by God “Second God,” “the Word of God” and “God the Word.”355

From the 2nd

century, as one can see from the inscriptions of

Abercius and Pectorius, the symbol of the fish prevailed because the

Greek word for fish, “Ι Χ Θ Υ Σ”, hid a full confession of faith

concerning the Divinity and Humanity of the Lord. (I = “Jesus,” X =

“Christ,” Θ = “God‟s,” Τ = “Son,” = “Saviour”), in other words:

“Jesus Christ, God‟s Son, the Saviour.”

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, addressing those who

doubt the Divinity of the Incarnated Word observed: “Behold, we

transmit this idea from fathers to fathers, but you as young Jews and

disciples of Caiaphas, which of your words do you have to show us?

353 Tertullian, Adversus Praxeam, c. 2, 5 and 8, in migne, P.L., 2, 179, 183 and 186. 354 Ibid, Adversus Marcianem, II, 27, in migne, P.L., 2, 345. 355 Origen, About Principals, Introduction I, 1-4, in Migne, P.G., 11, 115-121. Ibid,

Fragments to John, 36, To John book 10, 23, in Migne, P.G., 14, 384. Ibid, To

Matthew, book 15, 31, in Migne, P.G., 13, 1345. Ibid, To John, books 2, 2; 6, 17, in

Migne, P.G., 14, 108, 257. Ibid, Against Celsus, III, 37; V, 39; VI, 61; VII, 17, in

Migne, P.G., 11, 968, 970, 1244, 1392, 1445.

54

But none of the wise you are able say. For all of them turn away from

you.”356

THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST

The Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect Man. He

“…became flesh…”357

partaking of “…flesh and blood…”358

and

becoming similar in everything to us but “…without sin.”359

He

confirmed the reality of this by calling Himself “…the Son of

Man…”360

manifesting in this way that He is a descendant of man. By

adding the article “the,” He revealed that He is the perfect and pre-

eminent Man. In addition, the title “Son of David,”361

which is used in

the genealogies found in the Gospels,362

is not rejected by Christ

during His last entrance into Jerusalem.363

He accepted this title when

the people addressed Him as the descendant of King David and He

used it as the basis of His argument that, although He is the Son of

David, how then could David address Him “Lord?”364

It is of equal importance to stress that the forth Gospel

emphasizes not only the Divine Nature of the Word but also presents

His human nature, which reveals Christ as being tired, thirsty and

asking for water, being moved to tears, troubled by the remembrance

of death, angry against those who disrespect the Temple of His Father

and compassionate towards His Disciples.

356 St Athanasius the Great, Epist. the Synod of Nicene, § 27, in Migne, P.G., 25,

465. 357 John 1:14. 358 Heb. 2:14. 359 Heb. 4:15. Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 129-131. Mitsopoulos, Themata, p. 77. 360 Matth. 8:20; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 25;

18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:44; 25:13, 31; 26:2, 24, 45, 63. Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38;

9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62; Luke 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44,

56, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:21, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:36; 22:22, 48, 69;

24:7. John 1:52; 3:13, 14, 16; 4:27; 6:27, 53,62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31. 361 Matth. 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9. Mark 10:47, 48; 12:35. Luke 18:38; 20:41 362 Matth. 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38. 363 Matth. 21:8-11. Mark 11:1-10. Luke 19:28-44. John 12:12-19. 364 Matth. 22:41-46. Mark 12:35-37. Luke 20:41-44. Psalm 109(110):1.

55

Similarly the Synoptics speak of His Conception in the Virgin‟s

Womb,365

His Birth, Circumcision, His Presentation on the fortieth

day in the Temple, as well as His conversations when He was twelve

years old with the teachers in the Temple. They present Him hungry,

crying, in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and going through all

the aspects of human emotions that any holy man would have

experienced in the different circumstances of life.

St Peter referred to Him as “Man of God” Who took up our sins

on the Cross in His Body. St Paul calls our Lord the “…Man Jesus

Christ…” the “…Man Who will judge the world in the future…born of

a woman…” and “…taking the form of a servant…” since “…He

emptied Himself…” and was tempted in all things similar to us but

“…without sin…” and “…learned obedience from what He suffered.”

According to the above Biblical Teaching, the Holy Fathers of

the Orthodox Church proclaimed that our Lord Jesus is the Christ, the

Incarnated Son of God, being both God and Man, Who took up in

reality the full human nature in all its aspects such as hunger, thirst,

tiredness, pain, tears and sweat but without any sin. For, at the

beginning, sin did not exist in the human nature of Adam before the

Fall. As the first forefather, Adam, was directly created by God

without any genetic parents, likewise the new forefather, Christ, was

conceived supernaturally through the direct intervention and creative

action of God because humanity was afflicted by sin. The Lord, being

born without sin, lived without sinning and thus had the right to avoid

death, but instead He surrendered His rights and gave His Life as a

Ransom for the whole world, “…having the power to give it up and

the power to receive it back.” Man was created as a participant of the

Nature of God and God, through the Incarnation, participates in

human nature.366

The human nature of Christ was rejected by the Docites as well

as other Gnostics who believed that not having a real but an imaginary

body, the Lord dwelled amongst men. They supported the opinion

that the Saviour was unable to assume a human and material body

365 Ware, Way, pp. 100-103. 366 Evdokimov, Orthodoxia, p. 118.

56

since matter is the basis of evil and the work of “an evil Creator.” St

John the Apostle and Evangelist, St Irenaeus, Tertullian, St

Hippolytus, St John Chrysostom and many other Holy Fathers

defended the Truth against their heretical teachings

The teachings of the Docites uprooted the Divine Economia of

the Salvation of Jesus Christ because if He did not assume true and

perfect human nature, He could not rescue the lost sheep. Arius and

Apollinarius rejected the full human nature of Jesus Christ as the

former believed that the Incarnate Word was deprived of a human soul

and that the Word replaced it, becoming the centre of His spiritual

expressions, whereas Apollinarius, based upon the Platonic three-fold

elements, alleged that the Word took on a human body and an

irrational soul, although he denied Christ had a mind, which the Word

replaced in Him. St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, St Gregory

of Nyssa and St Gregory of Nazianzus defended the Truth against the

heresy of Apollinarius, which was officially condemned by the 2nd

Ecumenical Synod.

The expression of St Gregory of Nazianzus “…that which

cannot be taken up is incurable, that which is united with God, is

saved…” is classical.

Essential influences or simple remnants of Docetism are found

in the teachings of 5th

century heresies of the Gaïanites who were also

referred to as “Worshippers of Immortality.” These heretics believed

that the Lord‟s Body was like ours, except that its elements were

transformed by the power of the Word. Some of these heretics were

misled into complete Docetism and were called Actistites. St

Anastasius of Sinai and St John of Damascus opposed these heresies.

1. The New Testament Teachings of the Lord’s Humanity

According to the Holy Gospels, the title “the Son of Man” is

used most often. In the Gospels of St Matthew it is found (32) thirty

two times, St Mark (14) fourteen times, St Luke (25) twenty five

times, St John (11) eleven times and (3) three times in the other Books

of the New Testament.

57

These verses emphasize the fact that the Lord is the descendant

of man and the article is used to signify that He is the perfect and most

preeminently Man. They also assure us that Christ is “…truly

Incarnated and not by imagination.”367

In the Gospels and especially in the Synoptics, it is stressed that

the Lord is the “Son of David.”368

This title was used particularly by

the people during Christ‟s childhood as well as by all the afflicted who

sought His help. Although the Lord showed some reluctance towards

this title because it epitomized the earthly and ethnic expectations of

His contemporary Israelites, He did not refute it. During Christ‟s last

triumphant entrance into Jerusalem,369

He appeared to accept the title

and blessed the children who addressed Him as “…the Son of

David.”370

He used this title as a basis of proving His Divine origin

by opening the minds of the Israelites so that they would “…remember

the promises… which God promised to Abraham and to David that He

will raise from their offspring the Christ.”371

The Jews awaited the

Messiah as the descendant of King David, as a powerful King and

conqueror who would restore the old glory of the royal throne of King

David.372

The Holy Apostles presented Christ as being relative to us in

everything. St John the Apostle proclaimed that “…the Word became

flesh and dwelled among us.”373

He also presented Him as having

been tired from traveling, sitting at Jacob‟s Well to rest and asking for

a drink of water from the Samaritan woman in order to quench His

thirst.374

He presented Him not only as being “…troubled…”375

367 Zigabinos, To Matthew 8:20, in Migne, P.G., 129, 293. Cf. Mitsopoulos, Themata, pp. 77-78, 142-147. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 131-132. 368 Matth. 1:1, 6, 21; 3:31; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15; 22:42. Mark 10:47, 48;

11:47; 12:35. Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4; 3:31; 18:38; 20:41. John 7:42. 369 Matth. 21:9. 370 Matth. 21:16. Mark 11:10. Luke 19:38. John 12:13. 371 Zigabinos, To Matthew 1:1, in Migne, P.G., 129, 117. 372 Acts 1:6. 373 John 1:14. 374 John 4:5-42. 375 John 12:27; 13:21.

58

before He surrender to the arresting authorities but also as being

“…thirsty…” during His Crucifixion.376

He presented Christ as

enduring all human sensations and emotions. He “…groaned and was

troubled…” as all men are at the death of a beloved friend, as in the

case of St Lazarus.377

He drove out and overturned the tables of the

money changers as well as the seats of those who sold doves in the

Temple.378

He referred to Himself as “…a Man…” Who spoke “…the

Truth…”379

and expressed His Love towards His Disciples.380

Contrary to the fourth Holy Gospel, the three Synoptic Gospels

portray the Humanity of Jesus Christ. They speak clearly of His

Conception within the Ever Virgin Mary,381

His Birth,382

His

Circumcision,383

His Presentation at the Temple384

and His physical

growth.385

At the age of twelve He appeared386

in the Temple,

listening and questioning the teachers as a disciple,387

“…not

teaching, but simply listening…” and “…giving the example to all

youth not to be insolent.”388

Appearing to be hungry,389

“…eating and

drinking…” He was accused by the Pharisees of being a “… glutton

and a winebibber.”390

Being exhausted from the day‟s work,391

our

Lord slept on the boat, completely unaware of the storm.392

In the

Garden of Gethsemane He was extremely troubled by His

approaching Death to such an extent that He literally sweated

blood.393

Furthermore, on various occasions, He became indignant, He

376 John 19:28. 377 John 11:33 378 Matth. 21:12. Mark 11:15. Luke 19:45. John 2:15. 379 John 8:40. 380 John 13:1. 381 Luke 1:35. 382 Matth. 1:25. Luke 2:7. 383 Luke 2:21. 384 Luke 2:22-24. 385 Luke 2:40, 52. 386 Luke 2:42. 387 Luke 2:46. 388 Origen, To Luke 2:46, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 64. 389 Matth. 4:2; 12:3; 21:18. Mark 2:25; 11:12. Luke 6:3. 390 Matth. 11:19. 391 John 4:6. 392 Matth. 8:24. 393 Matth. 26:38. John 12:27.

59

became angry, He wept, He was compassionate, He was merciful and

He truly experienced every sensation and emotion to which any holy

man would be subjected. He participated in the joy and sadness of His

fellow men, never refusing their invitations to sit with them at dinners

or wedding feasts. After Christ‟s Resurrection He allowed the

Apostles to touch and feel His wounds. Christ is perfect Man only

because His Nature is in “communion” with His Divine Nature - with

perfect God.394

St Peter, addressing the Jews, referred to the Lord as the

“…Man from God…” “…Who Himself bore our sins in His own Body

on the tree…” so that by His “…stripes we were healed.”395

St Paul assured us that “…one is the mediator between God and

men, the Man Christ Jesus…”396

Who “…is ready to judge the living

and the dead…”397

whom He shall raise from the dead. Teaching the

Christians of his time, he affirmed that “…since by one man came

death, by [one] Man also came the Resurrection of the dead…”398

and

that the Gift of Grace399

came through one Man - Jesus Christ – as

well. According to St Paul the Lord is the Son of God Who was born

from the offspring of David “…according to the flesh…”400

and

“…Who made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a

bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in

appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to

the point of death, even the death of the cross…”401

“…the firstborn

among many brethren.”402

St John Chrysostom, interpreting Hebrews 2:17, observed that

Christ “…had to be made like His brethren…not in imagination nor in

image, but in truth, because that which is „like‟ cannot save…” and

394 Evdokimov, Orthodoxia, p. 118. 395 1 Peter 2:24. Heb. 9:28. Is. 53:4-5. 396 1Tim. 2:5. 397 1 Peter 4:5. 398 1 Corinth. 15:21. 399 Ephes. 2:8. 400 Rom. 9:5. 401 Phil. 2:7-8. 402 Rom. 8:29.

60

“…as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself

likewise shared in the same…”403

because “…He was born, nourished,

grown, suffered and at the end died. Tempted „in all points as we are,

yet without sin,‟404

„He learned obedience by the things which He

suffered. And having been perfected, He became the Author of eternal

salvation to all who obey Him.405

” 406

2. The Decree of the 4th

Ecumenical Synod

“Pursuantly therefore to the Divine Fathers we all consonantly

join voices in teaching outright that we confess one and the same Son

or Lord Jesus Christ, perfectly the same in Divinity, and perfectly the

same in humanity. Truly a God, and truly a human being, the same

(composed) of a soul and body and One Who is at the same time of

like Essence with the Father in respect of Divinity, and of like Essence

the same with us in respect of humanity, in all respects like us, apart

from sinfulness. Though begotten before the ages out of the Father in

respect of Divinity, yet in latter days born out of Mary the Virgin and

Theotokos, in respect of humanity, the same for us and for our

salvation. One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten

(composed) of two Natures unconfusably, inconvertibly, inseparably

identifiable, there being nowhere anything removed or annulled in the

difference of the Natures on account of the union, but rather on the

contrary the peculiarity of each Nature being preserved, and

concurring in one Person and one Substance. Not being divided or

parted into two Persons, but (forming) on the contrary one and the

same Son and Only-Begotten God Logos, Lord Jesus Christ, precisely

as the Prophets formerly had prophesied concerning Him and as He

Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, did explicitly teach us, and the Symbol

(i.e. the Creed) of the Fathers has imparted the matter to us.”407

403 Cf. Heb. 2:14. 404 Cf. Heb. 4:15. 405 Heb. 5:8-7. 406 St John Chrysostom, To Hebrews 2:17, Homily 5, § 1, in Montfaucon, v. 12, p.

73. 407 Pedalion, pp. 241, 243. Kefalas, Catechesis, p. 259.

61

3. The Holy Fathers on Our Lord’s similarity to us with the

exception of sin

According to Holy Scripture the Son of God “…consented to be

in the form of a bondservant like His fellow servants…”408

“…having

within Him the whole man…becoming everything which we have,

without sin.409

In other words with body, soul, mind…” He “…united

Himself to that which was condemned…in order to sanctify man

through Himself…” and to free human nature from the curse.410

“By

nature and reality becoming Man, He took up the human nature and

all the natural things…not receiving another flesh, but that which had

suffered.”411

Hence “…He took up all the natural motions of man.” In

other words, Christ took on all the illnesses and weaknesses of human

nature. However, because the human nature of Christ does not depend

on human will, being completely natural, it is therefore free of guilt

and sin.412

These natural human weaknesses are called

“irreproachable passions” being “hunger, thirst, tiredness, pain,

tears, mortality, fear, agony, which is the cause of sweat and drops of

blood,413

the human weakness and the others, which by nature are

found in men.”414

Christ did not take up sin because His human nature was

“…from the immaculate and spotless Virgin, pure and without the

mixing with men.” Conceived by the Holy Spirit, the human nature of

Christ is absolutely sinless and Holy from its Conception since the

Annunciation by the Archangel Gabriel when he told the Virgin: “The

Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest will

overshadow thee; therefore, also, that Holy One Who is to be born

will be called „the Son of God.”415

408 Cf. Phil. 2:7. 409 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 132-134. 410 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 30, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 36, 109 and 132. 411 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About familiarization, III, 69, 24, in Migne,

P.G., 94, 1093. 412 St John Chrysostom, To Romans, Homily 13, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 60, 514. 413 Luke 22:44. 414 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the natural and incontestable passions,

III, 64, 20, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1081. 415 Luke 1:35.

62

Christ‟s sinlessness does not alienate Him from our relationship

because, although He is sinless and was born supernaturally by the

Virgin Mary, He does not cease being true Man, our Brother, being

the same in everything as us, bearing the same human nature but being

completely without sin.

This is understood when we consider that sin is unnatural, nor

was it included in our nature by our Creator. Instead sin is the result of

the devil‟s sowing because at the Offence and afterwards, he deceived

the rational nature of man by implanting sinful thoughts and desires,

establishing “…the law of sin in the nature of man.”416

Since the Lord

was sent by His Father into the world in order to restore fallen human

nature417

as another forefather and as a new Adam, it was natural to

assume the human nature that “…Adam had sinless from the first

creation…” and this, which Adam “…threw into mortality and

death…” the Lord will raise “…according to His sinless Nature.”418

So the Word and Son of God did not take up another type of

human nature that was different from that which He had created and

the same as we have, but a healthier nature, uncorrupted by sin, which

presented Him as perfect Man, as Adam had been in Paradise before

the Fall.

The first Adam was from the dust of the earth, while the second

Adam was from Heaven. The first Adam‟s creation was from Divine

Grace that existed externally and which was not from himself. The

second Adam, on the contrary, had Divine Grace within Himself

because of the Hypostatic Union of the human nature with the Divine

Nature in the one Person of Jesus Christ. Life came to the human

nature of the first man (Adam) from a Source separate to him, whereas

the human nature of the Lord received Life from the Source of Life

that was inseparably united with it, similar to members of a body

receiving life from the head or branches receiving sustenance from the

416 St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the Word, § 8, in Migne, P.G.,

25, 109. St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the natural and incontestable

passions, III, 64, 20, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1081. 417 St Symeon, Euriskomena, Homily XXXVIII, pp. 179-181. 418 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, Homily II, § 6 and Homily I, § 7,

in Migne, P.G., 26, 1141 and 1104.

63

trunk of the vine to which they are naturally united. Since the human

nature of Christ directly receives from the Source of His Divine

Nature with which it is inseparably and Hypostatically united, the

Grace that was received was superior to that which the first Adam

partook of, such as the comparison of a great river to a small

stream.419

Concerning the supernatural virginal Birth of the Lord, St John

Chrysostom believed that “…the entrance of our common Lord…”

into our world “…had to be more decent than that of our own because

it was a royal entrance.” It is a common belief that “…the Lord was

born from the womb…” as it was “…common to us; that He was born

without marriage… was higher than us.” As “…the pregnancy of the

Lord was without union…” it was“…proclaimed … more decent than

the human nature, in order to be superior…” to ours. However, the

Holy Father did not explain how this “superiority” took place.420

The

full explanation is given by St Irenaeus who observed that if “…the

first Adam had a father and was born from the sperm of a man...” then

it would have been only natural for the second Adam to have been

born from Joseph. But Adam “…was taken from the earth by God

Who formed him,” so it was appropriate that “… the One Who

regenerated him who was formed by God…” had “…a similar Birth.”

The Lord, as the second forefather and as the new Adam through

direct Divine Intervention and Creative Action, had to have a similar

birth to that of the first Adam. It was appropriate for a new creation to

occur so that the regeneration as well as the new creation of mankind

who has been recalled, would be sinless and perfectly healthy.421

Because this new beginning had to be created within the regenerated

human race as well as that of the old Adam, “…God did not take dust,

but made the formation from the Virgin Mary in order not to make a

different formation, not different from the one being saved…” and

thereby restoring the fallen man.422

“From a Virgin…” the Lord

“…took up…all which God from the beginning used for the creation

of man and made without sin…” and the Only Begotten of God was

419 Scheeben, Les Mystères, pp. 330-331. 420 St John Chrysostom, To Genesis, Homily 49, § 2, in Migne, P.G., 54, 416. 421 St Symeon, Euriskomena, Homily XXXV, pp. 167-170. 422 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 21, § 10, in B, v. 5, p. 151.

64

well pleased “…in the fullness of His Deity…” to raise for Himself

“…through natural birth and not to lose the union…” of “…the first-

type of the formation of man and the making of the new from the

womb of the Virgin, in order to achieve the salvation of men.”423

4. The Lord’s Own Will and Authority

Since the new Adam of Grace “…committed no sin, nor was

deceit found in His mouth…”424

He had the right to enjoy the same life

without any suffering or pain as that of Adam before the Fall. Born of

the Virgin in a condition “…with the possibility of not dying…”

(“posse non mori”), He did not face death as being unavoidable and

necessary as we have to do and although the Divine Saviour “…was

rich, yet for our sake He became poor, [so] that we, through His

poverty, might become rich.”425

Consequently, surrendering His

rights that were offered because of His sinlessness, He became a

“…partaker of our irreproachable passions…,” in order to achieve

our restoration, having “appropriated” as the Incarnated Word

“…those things of the flesh…” in order to wipe them out “…and

henceforth for men not to remain in their own passions as sinners and

lifeless, but according to the power of the Word, to be raised and

remain eternal and immortal.”426

Hence it is understandable how the

Lord‟s Death was absolutely by His own Will, and it shines light upon

the words that He Himself spoke: “I lay down My Life that I may take

it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have

power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”427

These

words are not addressed to us who, when we fall “…into the hands of

those who wish to kill us, we do not have the power to lay down…”

our life “…or not, but without our will they slay us,” whereas the

God-man “…had the Power not to lay down His Life…” by abolishing

423 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, Homily 2, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 26,

1140. 424 1 Peter 2:22. Is. 53:9. 425 2 Corinth. 8:9. 426 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 2 Apology, 13, 4, in B, v. 3, p. 207. St

Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, Homily III, § 33, in Migne, P.G., 26, 393. 427 John 10:17-18.

65

every adversity and hostile power.428

These words were also spoken

in reference to the “…possibility of not dying…” (“posse non mori”),

which through sinlessness would be replaced with true immortality.

Christ at His glorious Transfiguration had the power, if He Willed it,

to enter into the Glorious Immortality and Theosis (Deification) even

without sacrificing His own Life, but then human nature would not

have been saved. Our Lord spoke of this salvation with the two

Prophets, St Moses and St Elijah “…who appeared in glory and spoke

of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem…”429

“…speaking among themselves about the Mystery of the Divine

Economia of the Incarnation and the Redeeming Suffering on the

Cross.”430

“The Lord being Immortal…” has the power to make His

“…mortal flesh…” Immortal and “…with authority as God…” as well

as being the new sinless Adam “…to depart from the body and again

to take it back…” surrendered Himself to death by His own Will for

our sake.

Thus the Lord achieved the “…natural and essential …

familiarities…” of our nature. He “…became experienced with our …

irreproachable passions…” and the “…personal and relative...”

aspects of life. “He took up our personality and, taking our place…”

as our Guarantee, He sacrificed His Life willingly “…and became

familiar with our curse and abandonment and the rest of these things

which are not natural...” for although He was not accursed Himself

He became so for us.431

5. Those who renounced the Lord’s Humanity and the Holy

Fathers who opposed them

At the end of the first century various heresies renouncing

Christ‟s Humanity began to surface.432

Among these were:

428 St John Chrysostom, To Genesis, in Migne, P.G., 59, 330. 429 Luke 9:31. 430 St Cyril of Alexandria, in Migne, P.G., 72, 653. 431 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About familiarization, III, 69, 25, in Migne,

P.G., 94, 1093. 432 St Ignatius, To Ephesians, 7, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 88. St

Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101, in Migne, P.G., 37, 177. St John Chrysostom, To

66

a. Docetism about whom St John the Apostle, Evangelist and

Theologian mentions in his 1st Epistle: “Every spirit that does not

confess that Jesus Christ has come in flesh, is not of God. And this is

the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is

now already in the world.”433

According to them, Christ was simply

a higher spirit who dwelled among men with an imaginary but not

real body. Hence they did not partake of Holy Eucharist because they

did not accept that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Christ.

b. Some of the Gnostics based their heresies on the belief that

matter opposes the spirit because of the evil that exists in matter.

Consequently they did not accept that the Redeemer was able to take

up material flesh, which is the basis of evil. Thus they were led to

Docetism and believed that the Body of Christ was a deceptive body

and not real (Marcion434

and Basilides435

). Others ascribed a celestial

and Heavenly Body to Christ (Apelles and Ualentinus436

).

St Ignatius the Theophorus opposed their beliefs in his writings.

Tertullian also wrote special articles criticising them as did St

Irenaeus, St Hippolytus and many other Fathers of the 4th

and 5th

centuries.437

The fact that these heretical beliefs are without solid

foundations, has been proved by Biblical narrations concerning the

Death as well as the Life of Jesus Christ in general. Our Lord and

Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was “…conceived by the Virgin

Mary…”438

and “…came from the Virgin‟s flesh…”439

according to the

testimonies of the Angel who assured the Virgin Mary that she would

Matthew, Homily 4, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 57, 43. St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis,

XII, § 32, in Migne, P.G., 33, 765. St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch. 27, § 2, in Migne, P.G., 7, 688. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, p. 167. Tertullian, Adversus

Marcianem, I, 19; IV, 6, in migne, P.L., 2, 292 and 397. 433 1 John 4:3. 434 Cf. St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch. 27, §§ 2-4, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 97-98. 435 Ibid, Heresies, book I, ch. 24, § 3, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 92-93 436 Ibid, Heresies, book I, ch. 1-10, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 44-66. 437 Tertullian De carne Christi and Adversus Marcionem. Mogilas, I, 38, in

Karmeris, The dogmatics, v. II, p. 612. 438 St Ignatius, To Ephesians, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 439 St John Chrysostom, To Matthew, Homily 4, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 57, 43.

67

“… conceive in the womb and bring forth a Son…”440

and who

appeared in St Joseph‟s dream declaring “…for that which is

conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”441

St Paul also stated that

Christ was “…born of a woman…”442

thus sealing the mouths of those

who say that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a channel.

These heretics contradict their own teachings, for, if they accept

the Birth, they must also accept that the Lord took flesh and blood

from the Virgin Mary because birth and flesh are so closely related.

Furthermore, flesh cannot exist without birth, nor can birth occur

without flesh.443

Thus, if they do not accept that the Lord took up

flesh from the Virgin then “…what is the purpose of the womb?”444

It

would be unnecessary for “…His descent in Mary. For what was

dwelling in her, if He was not to be conceived by her?”445

They also

contradict the teachings of the Prophets that the Christ would be from

the offspring of King David. Now, “…if Christ came through a

channel how is He from the root of Jesse? How is He the rod? How is

He the Son of Man? How did Miriam became a mother? How is He

from the offspring of David? How did the Word became flesh? How is

it that St Paul speaks in Romans: that Christ is from (the Jews)

according to the flesh?”446

St Ignatius the Theophorus, opposing Docetism, proclaimed that

“…our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God‟s

Plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. He was born

and baptized…”447

by St John the Baptist in order “…to fulfill all

righteousness by Him.”448

Moreover “…He was truly nailed in the

flesh for us under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch…and He

440 Luke 1:31. 441 Matth. 1:20. 442 Gal. 4:4. 443 Tertullian, De carne Christi, ch. 1, in migne, P.L., 2, 799. 444 St John Chrysostom, To Matthew, Homily 4, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 57, 43. 445 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 22, §§ 1 and 2, in B, v. 5, p. 152. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 252-253. 446 St John Chrysostom, To Matthew, Homily 4, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 57, 43. 447 St Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 448 Cf. Matth. 3:15. St Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, 1, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic

Fathers, p. 110.

68

truly suffered as He truly raised Himself - not as certain unbelievers

say, that He suffered in appearance only.”449

“For if these things

were done by our Lord in appearance only, then I am in chains in

appearance only.”450

“But if, as some atheists (that is, unbelievers)

say, He suffered in appearance only (while they exist in appearance

only!), why am I in chains?”451

He urged: “Be deaf, therefore,

whenever anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, Who was of

the family of David, Who was the Son of Mary; Who really was born,

Who both ate and drank; Who really was persecuted under Pontius

Pilate, Who was crucified and died while those in Heaven and on

earth and under the earth looked on; Who, moreover, really was

raised from the dead when His Father raised Him up, Who – His

Father, that is – in the same way will likewise also raise us up in

Christ Jesus who believe in Him, apart from Whom we have no true

Life.”452

Tertullian, referring to the details of the Annunciation of the

Theotokos and the Birth, the worship of the three Wise Men from the

East, the Circumcision and the Presentation in the Temple, proclaimed

the historic reality of the Conception of the Lord in the holy womb of

the Ever-Virgin Mary the Theotokos and all that followed His

Birth.453

St Irenaeus correctly observed that, if the Lord did not receive

anything from the Ever-Virgin Mary the Theotokos, then “…He did

not receive from the earth‟s food, from which the body is nourished…”

and neither would He have become hungry after forty days of fasting

in the desert “…since the body was demanding food…” nor would the

Apostle have written: “Jesus, tired from the journey, sat…” besides

Jacob‟s Well; nor would the Lord have shed tears “…on Lazarus;

neither would He have sweated blood; neither would He have said

449 St Ignatius, To Smyrnaeans, 1, 2 and 2, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p.

110. 450 Ibid, To Smyrnaeans, 4, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 111. 451 Ibid, To Trallians, 10, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 100. 452 Ibid, To Trallians, 9, 1-2 in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 110. 453 Tertullian, De cane Christi, ch. II, in migne, P.L., 2, 800.

69

„My soul is troubled…‟” and when His Side was pierced neither would

blood and water have come out.454

St Cyril of Jerusalem, criticizing the followers of Docetism

and referring to the events of the Lord‟s Conception and Birth

commented: “Even if the heretics contradict the Truth, they are

criticized by the Holy Spirit; the Power which overshadowed the

Virgin will be angry; Gabriel will be replaced on the Day of

Judgment; the place of the Manger, which received the Master, will

disgrace them; the Shepherds who were then evangelized, bear

witness and the army of Angels glorifying and singing.”455

“Christ

saying: „Why are you seeking to kill Me, a Man Who has told you the

truth‟456

should seal their mouths, those who oppose the Humanity (of

the Lord). For they oppose Him Who said „Feel Me and see for a

spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.‟457

” 458

St John of Damascus remarked: “…if by appearance was

achieved those things by Christ, then the Mystery of the Economia was

a put-on and scheme; and in appearance and not in reality was the

Lord Incarnated; and in appearance and not in reality we have been

saved.”459

“Our faith then is false and an illusion of everything in

which we hoped from Christ.”460

“For, if the Incarnation was a

fantasy, then a fantasy was the salvation.”

According to St Irenaeus, as through man who was defeated,

our kind fell into death, likewise again through Man Who is

victorious, we will return to Life. As death ruled over us through

man, likewise again we, through Man, will rule over death.461

If

454 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 22, §§ 1 and 2, in B, v. 5, p. 152. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 252-253. 455 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, XII, §§ 32 and 33 in Migne, P.G., 33, 765 and

768. 456 Cf. John 8:40. 457 Cf. Luke 24:39. 458 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, IV, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 33, 468. 459 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About mortality and corruption, III, 72, 28, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1100. 460 Tertullian, De cane Christi, ch. V, § 3, in migne, P.L., 2. 461 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book V, ch. 21, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 1179. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, p. 395.

70

Christ was not true Man and if He had not really suffered then He

appears to have deceived us when He urged us to turn our other cheek

to him who strikes us on the one. If He deceived those who slapped

Him on His face by appearing to be what He was not, likewise now

He deceives us by urging us to suffer those things which He has not

suffered Himself.462

St John Chrysostom stated that, if “…Christ came as through

a channel…” from the Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos, receiving

nothing from her, then His flesh “…was another…” and “…not from

our dough…” and He then ceases carrying the lost sheep on His

shoulders.463

St Cyprian assured us that, if Christ, Who carried all of us and

took up our sins, had remained in Heaven, then this alone would have

been enough to cancel our salvation. Furthermore, if we wanted to

believe that the Lord was crucified and raised in appearance only and

not in reality, then He would have not really died and we would have

been deprived of the most precious price of salvation. If Christ was

merely a phantom, then He would not have had the same essence of a

Body with which He could offer for our bodies.464

The Fathers of the Orthodox Church used Biblical verses

against Docetism such as: “The first man was of the earth, made of

dust; the second Man is the Lord from Heaven…”465

and “God by

sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin…

condemned sin in the flesh.”466

St John Chrysostom noted that: “…the Lord from Heaven…”

does not mean “…the nature, but the perfect Life.”

St Gregory of Nazianzus also stated that the human nature of

Christ, being in fullness the same as that of the first Adam before he

462 Ibid, Heresies, book III, ch. 18, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 7, 936. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, p. 242. 463 St John Chrysostom, To Matthew, Homily 4, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 57, 43. 464 St Cyprian, Epist. 58, 13. 465 1 Corinth. 15:47. 466 Rom. 8:3.

71

sinned, by saying “…from Heaven…” we must understand that this

reveals the perfect union of the Human and Divine Natures of

Christ.467

Concerning the second verse, Tertullian observed that Christ

was “…in the likeness of the flesh of sin…” not because He took up

flesh in appearance only and therefore did not have a true Body, but

through “…the likeness of the sinful flesh…” he wanted to signify that

the flesh of Christ was real and sinless.468

The term “…sinful flesh…”

was used “…because he spoke about sin. For Christ did not have

sinful flesh but (although) similar to our sinful nature, (He was)

sinless, and in nature the same as ours.”469

In other words, he did not

simply say “…in the likeness of flesh…” but instead “…in the likeness

of sinful flesh, in order for us to learn…” that “‟…the „likeness‟ was

used…” because our Saviour was free “…from all sin…” and He only

took up“…the human nature, which was ruled by sin, but (He) was

not bound by its bondage.”470

Didymus the Blind, referring to St Paul‟s words, “…do you not

know that your bodies are members of Christ?”471

also used another

Biblical verse to oppose the teachings of Docetism by observing that

“…from this Apostolic phrase are cast out…” as heretics “… those

who criticize the flesh of the Master from Heaven, proclaiming that It

was not human…” because if the Master‟s flesh was not human, how

could we become Its members?472

467 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 176-189. 468 Tertullian, De carne Christi, ch. XVI, in migne, P.L., 2, 826. 469 St John Chrysostom, To Romans, Homily 13, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 60, 515. 470 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Word, I, in Migne, P.G., 75,

1429. 471 1 Corinth. 6:15. 472 Didymus the Blind, About the Trinity, III, 8, in Migne, P.G., 39, 849.

72

6. Those who renounced the Integrity of the Lord’s Human

Nature & those who opposed them

If the Docites completely renounced the reality of Christ‟s

human nature, Arius (+336), like Apollinarius of Laodicea (+ about

390), renounced its integrity.

Arius, according to his heresy, supported the opinion that

“…instead of the inner man, that is, the soul, the Word became in the

flesh.”473

The Incarnated Word was deprived of a human soul since

He replaced it and was the Source of the spiritual expressions and life.

Arius believed that by introducing such teachings, he would prove that

the Word was created.

Apollinarius, although agreeing to the Nicene Creed and

enjoying the eminent respect and fame among Orthodox Theologians,

supported the opinion based on the Platonic Trilogy, (body, soul and

spirit = man). He believed that when the Word was Incarnated He

took up only body and irrational soul, the mind or spirit being

unnecessary for Christ, since the Word was united to the Divine Mind,

replacing the soul or the human mind. Apollinarius‟ intention was not

to diminish the God-Man Jesus but rather to honour Him, believing

that through his teachings he was supporting and strengthening the

unity of the God-Man Person of the Lord and His sinlessness;

believing that “Nature” and “Person” are inseparable and that

consequently he who accepts two perfect Natures in Christ, must also

accept two Persons in Christ. Furthermore, he also supported the

belief that the Incarnated Word has “…one Hypostasis and one

Person.” He taught that the Word of God has “…not two Natures, but

one Incarnated Nature…” merely because “…two perfects cannot

make one.”474

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Against Apollinarius,

books I and II): and others such as St Gregory of Nyssa (Homily

objecting to the teachings of Apollinarius) and St Gregory the

473 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, II, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1136,

1137. 474 Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 74.

73

Theologian of Nazianzus (To Cledonius Epistle 101, and Homily 51)

through their various writings contested the heresy of Apollinarius,

which was eventually condemned by the 2nd

Ecumenical Synod (381).

The opinion of the Holy Fathers was supported by St Cyril of

Alexandria as follows: “He did not merely take up flesh without

rational soul, He is truly born from a woman and is revealed Man, He

Who lives and exists and is co-eternal with God the Father, God the

Word Who took up the likeness of a servant, and is as in the Deity

perfect, likewise in humanity is perfect, not only being from Deity and

flesh one Christ and Lord and Son, but from two perfect (Natures),

humanity and Deity, in one and the same united paradoxically.”475

Apollinarius tried to find a basis for his heresy in the verse of St

John‟s Holy Gospel: “…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among

us…”476

in which he explained that “…many times the whole is

expressed through the part, and by the soul, the whole man is called,

by the flesh, the whole animal is expressed.”477

Similarly in the

following verses: “…As you gave Him authority over all flesh.”478

“For all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of

the son, they are Mine: the soul that sins, it shall die.”479

“And the

Glory of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh shall see the salvation of

God…”480

and “..All flesh will bless His Holy Name.”481

It is obvious

from these verses the word “flesh” manifests the whole man.

To the quibble of the Apollinarians, according to which in Christ

“…two Perfects cannot be contained…” in other words, the perfect

God and the perfect Man, St Gregory of Nazianzus answered: “Where

is the perfect mind of man or Angel…” when compared to the Deity

“…in order that the other can be cast out by the Supreme One?” Our

mind is perfect for ruling the soul and body but compared to God, it is

475 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Word, ch. I, in Migne, P.G.,

75, 1220. 476 John 1:14. 477 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Word, ch. XVIII, in Migne,

P.G., 75, 1448. 478 John 17:2. 479 Ezek. 18:4. 480 Is. 40:5. Luke 3:6. Is. 52:10. 481 Psalm 144(145):21.

74

“…a servant and a pawn but not co-princely nor equal.” Moreover,

the inseparability that applies to the material and physical, does not

apply to the bodiless and intellectual.482

St Gregory opposed another argument that the Apollinarians

presented whereby “…our mind is condemned…” and was therefore

not fit to be received by the Incarnated Word. Their belief that the

flesh was condemned was far worse than their belief that the mind is

condemned because, if “…the worst was received…” by the Word

“…in order to be sanctified through the Incarnation…” would not the

Supreme Mind be received so as to be sanctified through the

Incarnation? If the flesh which came from dust “…was mixed and a

new dough was made…” which consists of the Image of God in us,

would it not be mixed with God in order to be Deified through the

Divinity? Moreover, because the mind in us is the Image of God,

being closer to God and more susceptible than that of the body, it is

easier to be united with the Word.

The Apollinarians ended up in madness by insisting on tying

God to flesh, as they believed that the mind was the middle wall that

prevented the true union of the two Natures of Christ. On the

contrary, “…the Mind…” (the Word) Who was Incarnated is closer

and more relative “…to the mind…” of man. Furthermore, the mind

that “mediated” between the “Divinity” and humanity is absolutely

simple, spiritual and of the flesh. Accordingly the Bodiless God is

united in a perfect manner with the flesh-bearing human nature.

St Gregory observed: “That which cannot be received and is

incurable, when united to God is saved.”483

Tertullian noted that “…in order for Christ to make the soul (of

man) whole and healthy, He received a perfect human soul within

Him…” and “…the soul (of man) would not have been healed if

Christ had not taken up a perfect human soul. Consequently our soul

482 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 176-189. 483 Ibid, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 176-189.

75

would not have been freed because the soul of Christ is not of flesh,

but our soul is.”484

St Irenaeus clearly proclaimed that, if the Incarnated Word did

not become whatever we are, then Christ would not have

accomplished anything important for which He suffered and

endured.485

Neither would He truly have saved us by His own Blood,

if He had not become truly human.486

Consequently, in order for the

Lord to save the human race He took “…upon His shoulders all the

lost sheep, not only the sheep‟s skin.” In reality, what makes man

“…an intellectual sheep…” is his mind. Should this have been absent,

we would not have had an intellectual existence but merely “a skin” of

an intellectual sheep. However, Christ “…had not left anything of our

nature which He did not take up…” and “…in order to make whole

the Man of God, He mixed the soul and body with the Deity.” If

truthfully only “…half of Adam sinned…” He would have taken up

that half because “…the half would have had need of salvation.”

Since the whole of Adam sinned, “all” with the body and the mind

“…in all He [Christ] is born and united and thus saves.” It was so

necessary for the Incarnated Word to take up our mind, as the mind

“…not only sinned in Adam, but first suffered, as the doctors say

about the ill.” For the mind “…received the Commandment…” from

God although it thought about and decided to commit the Offence

“…and did not keep the Commandment.” Since Adam dared to

disobey the Commandment “…he also needed salvation…” and

exactly for this reason “…it was taken up…” by the Word Who, as He

partook of flesh “…for the flesh which was condemned…” and a

living soul “…for the soul…” likewise He partook of the mind “…for

the mind.”487

Finally, St Gregory answered the argument of the Apollinarians

that “…the Deity was enough, instead of the mind…” and that it was

possible for God “… without the mind to save man.” He accepted the

484 Tertullian, De carne Christi, ch. X, in migne, P.L., 2, 818. 485 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 22, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 956. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 252-253. 486 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book V, ch. 2, § 1; ch. 7, in Migne, P.G., 7, 1124. Cf. Ibid,

in Hadjephraimides, pp. 363-364 and 371-372. 487 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, II, in Migne, P.G., 45, 545.

76

possibility of Christ saving mankind even “…without flesh, and only

through His Will, as everything He made [was] without body.” He

then added that since the Word was well pleased to be Incarnated, He

also took up our mind. For “…the Deity only with the flesh is not a

full man…” but neither with “…only the soul…” is He fully Man. In

fact, neither with “both,” - in other words, flesh and soul - “without

mind,” is He completely Man because the mind of man is more than

the flesh and the living soul. He believed that to truly benefit from the

Incarnation, it is necessary to “…keep the man…” whole “…and mix

the Deity.”488

St Cyril of Alexandria concluded that, if “…the Nature

which was taken up by the Word did not have a human mind…” then

He Who fought against the devil was not a true Man, but God.

However, in the event of God having gained the Victory, man would

then not have benefited at all from this Victory, resulting in the devil

boasting that “…he was struggling with God and by God he was

defeated.”489

6. The Worshippers of Incorruptibility

One finds relics or influence of Docetism in the teachings of the

Gaïanites who were named after their first Bishop, Gaïanus, while

others referred to them as “Worshippers of Incorruptibility” or

“Julianites,” being named after their most important theologian,

Julianus, Bishop of Alicarnassus.

Clement the Alexandrian, although accepting that Christ had a

real Body, Blood and a human nature that could suffer,490

also

considered it ridiculous to believe that “…the Body of Christ

demanded as body, the essential needs.” His belief that although the

Lord had no need of food He “…ate not for sake of the body…” but

for the sake of those who were with Him, in order for them not to

“…believe that He was in appearance…” only. He also believed that

488 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 183. 489 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the incarnation of the Word, XV, in Migne, P.G.,

75, 1444. 490 Clement the Alexandrian, Stromata, III, 17, in Migne, P.G., 8, 1205, 1208. Ibid,

Stromata, VI, 19; VII, 17, in Migne, P.G., 9, 292, 553. Ibid, Pedagogus, I, 2, 6, in

Migne, P.G., 8, 252, 301.

77

Christ was truly without any “...emotion of suffering or pleasure or

sadness.” Nevertheless Clement proclaimed that “…the Word, the

only one who is both God and Man…” benefited us as God and as

Man.491

Worshippers of Incorruptibility believed that the Body of the

Lord was the same as ours and that “…it was not by nature without

suffering and incorruptible.” They also believed that the Body became

free of suffering and incorruptible “…through the union with God the

Word.” Some of these heretics supported the opinion that the body of

the Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos “…was transformed and was

changed from its nature by the power of the Word…” and thus the

nature that was received from her holy womb “…was different…” to

ours because the Virgin‟s blood was changed and “…the flesh of the

Lord became Incorruptible.”

Generally speaking, they believed that the flesh of Christ “…at

the time of conception, as soon as He touched the virgin flesh and

blood, what was conceived was made incorruptible…” because it was

impossible for the Body of Christ, rather than abandoning the

corruptible nature, to be “… united with the Incorruptible Word.” In

addition, they believed that Christ suffered in the flesh although “…

not necessarily by nature, but because of the Economia of the Word

Who allowed (Himself) to suffer.” Despite accepting that Christ

suffered “…hunger and thirst and tiredness…” they did not believe

that He suffered these “…in the same manner as we do.”

There was also another group of Incorruptible-Docetism under

Ammonius who believed that the Body of the Lord was not created

immaterial as the Divine Essence, and hence they were called

“Actistites.”492

The Emperor of Byzantium, Julianus, wanted to

enforce the heresy of Incorruptible-Docetism upon the Orthodox

491 Clement the Alexandrian, Stromata, VI, 9, in Migne, P.G., 9, 292. Ibid,

Stromata, III, 7; Protrepticus, III, 1, in Migne, P.G., 8, 1161, 61 and 557. 492 Leon Byzantius, Homily 2, Against Impershable-docites, in Migne, P.G.,86,

1325.1328-1329. St John of Damascus, About heresies, § 84, in Migne, P.G., 94,

756. Timothy the Presbyter, About those who enter the Church, in Migne, P.G., 86,

44.

78

Empire493

but his death prevented more serious problems for the

Church.

As it is apparent in the Homily of Eusebius of Thessalonica

against someone by the name of Andrew, of which part is saved in the

Myriobiblos of St Photios,494

among the Incorruptible-Docetis, some

believed that Adam was formed “…incorruptible and immortal by

nature and without suffering.” Based on this opinion, one concludes

that Christ‟s Body as the second Adam, “…was mortal by nature and

could suffer, but through the Divine Grace it was preserved immortal

and without suffering until the Offence stripped it.”495

The body of the

forefather [Adam] had the possibility of immortality and the

susceptibility of incorruptibility (“posse non mori”), but by nature it

was mortal and after the moral perfection of Adam, it would have

become incorruptible. According to the Orthodox Teachings, if we

accept that the Body of Christ was incorruptible, then it ceases to be of

the sameness (homoousion) as ours, which is corruptible.496

It is

obvious that we have a slight objection to this answer when we recall

the words of St Paul stating that at the General Resurrection “…we

shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed – in a moment, in the

twinkling of an eye, at the last Trumpet. For the Trumpet will sound,

and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and for this mortal must

put on immortality.”497

Consequently, that the Body of Christ after

His Resurrection appears to be Incorruptible and Immortal, as our

bodies will become after the General Resurrection, does not mean that

before His Resurrection His Holy Body was Incorruptible, neither

does it mean that if it was Incorruptible, it was substantial

(homoousion) to our body.

493 Euagrius Ponticus, book VI, ch. 39, in Migne, P.G., 86, 2781. 494 Eusebius of Thessalonica, in St Photius, ch. 162, in Migne, P.G., 103, 452 and

453. 495 Ibid, ch. 162, in Migne, P.G., 103, 452. 496 Leon Byzantius, Comments from the voice of Theodorus … Act X, in Migne,

P.G., 86, 1260. St Anastasius of Sinai, Guide, ch. 23, in Migne, P.G., 89, 295. St

John of Damascus, About heresies, 84, in Migne, P.G., 94, 756. 497 1 Corinth. 15:51-53.

79

The abovementioned heretics in order to support their teachings

used the Biblical verse “…for Thou will not leave my soul in Sheol,

nor will Thou allow Thy Holy One to see corruption.”498

Julianus of

Alicarnassus believed that the term “corruption” meant complete

dissolution, and supported the opinion that if the Lord did not know

corruption, He did not know the way that leads to it, which is through

corruption. We must accept that His flesh, from the moment of its

union with the Word, became Incorruptible.499

But this verse, according to the God-inspired interpretation of St

Peter, was fulfilled in the Body of Christ after His Death.500

According to the observations of Didymus the Blind, “…the Body of

Jesus did not see corruption manifest, not that He did not die; for He

had died and was placed in the Tomb; but it means that it did not

decompose.”501

Obviously death is already corruption. Hence St John

of Damascus, distinguishing between the two meanings of corruption,

observed that “…the term „corruption‟ has two meanings.” It means

the irreproachable human passions such as “…hunger, thirst,

tiredness, the perforation of the nails, the death; in other words the

separation of the soul from the Lord‟s Body, for He took up everything

willingly.” It also means “…the corruption and the perfect dissolution

of the elements of which the body is composed of.” This [physical]

corruption “…the Lord‟s Body had not experienced…” according to

the Prophecy of King David.502

498 Psalm 15(16):10. 499 Severi Antiocheni, Adversus Julianum Halicarnassensem, in Mai, Spicilegium

romanum, p. 192. 500 Acts 2:31. 501 Didymus the Blind, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 80. 502 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About mortality and corruption, III, 72, 28, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1100.

80

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE TWO NATURES

IN THE ONE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

REAL AND NOT BY IMAGINATION

INTRODUCTION

According to the Teachings of Holy Scripture, the Two

Natures, the Divine and the human, were united in One Person in the

eternal Hypostasis of God the Word, Who, at His Incarnation, took up

the human nature in the holy womb of the Ever-Virgin Mary,503

the

Theotokos. The human nature did not pre-exist but became

Hypostasis in the Incarnated Word.

Holy Scripture bears witness to this Hypostatic Union of the

Two Natures in Christ, either indirectly or directly. Indirectly, it is

evident when ascribed to the Son of Man Divine Attributes, which are

not human, as well as to Christ as the Word and Son of God, by means

of birth and human descent, a body that suffers in addition to suffering

by the shedding of blood accompanied by death. Directly, Holy

Scripture gives witness of this union when it proclaims that the Word

became flesh, having emptied Himself and taking the form of a

servant.

The early Holy Fathers, in order to express this union, used

terms that were inaccurate although they explained these terms in an

Orthodox way. St Ignatius the Theophorus used the expression

“…clothed in flesh…”504

to describe the One Who was in the Virgin‟s

Womb, Who was an offspring of King David and Who was born of

the Holy Spirit: our God, Jesus, the God Who became flesh.

The Holy Fathers, during the 3rd

Ecumenical Synod, used

different terms such as: “union,” “relevance,” “contract,” “union by

synthesis,” “synthesis,” “co-mixture,” “mixture,” “inhabitation” and

many others, which were used in an orthodox understanding and

503 Cf. Plato of Moscow, Orthodox Teaching, p. 115. Kefalas, Catechesis, pp. 74-

75. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 134-137. Mitsopoulos, Themata, pp. 78-79,

148. 504 St Ignatius, To Smyrnaeans, 5, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 111.

81

manifested the union in the One Hypostasis or Person of the Two

Natures, not externally or morally connected, but naturally and

essentially united, without any confusion or mixture, perfectly

preserving their own Attributes.

This real and hypostatic union of the Two Natures in Christ

was renounced by the heretic Nestorius, who, due to the influence of

the theories of Aristotle, supported the opinion that true nature co-

exists as a personality; hence the human nature in Christ consists of a

personality. Consequently, the union of the Two Natures in Christ is a

union of two personalities, which is achieved through the moral

entrance of the one into the other, resulting in one moral personality.

It is a moral union, and not a union of Two Natures in One

Hypostasis. In this moral union the two personalities exist separately

as two “I” (=”ego”). Henceforth, Nestorius concluded by not calling

the Ever-Virgin Mary “Mother of God” (=“Theotokos”) but “Mother

of Christ” (=“Christotokos”) and used the terms “well pleased,”

“inhabitation,” “relevance,” and “relative union.”

St Cyril of Alexandria opposed the teachings of Nestorius. In

the 3rd

and 4th

Ecumenical Synods the truth of the Doctrine concerning

the hypostatic union of the Two Natures in Christ was clarified.

According to the Doctrine of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon (451), the

Two Natures were united in the One Person of Jesus Christ being

undivided and inseparable, so that one and the same Son and Word of

God would simultaneously be God and Man, whereas on the other

hand, unchangeably and without confusion, the Incarnated Word

would be perfect God and perfect Man, “…without departing from the

Divine Nature‟s simplicity…” or its infinite Perfection. Neither would

“… the human nature…” be absorbed by the Divine Nature, nor would

it be “…changed into Divine Nature or dissolving into non existence.”

However, neither by mixture nor confusion of the Two Natures would

there be “…something synthetic resulting from the two.”505

This

Doctrine was even more clearly defined when the heresies of

505 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites,

III, 47, 3, in Migne, P.G., 94, 988.

82

Nestorianism,506

Monophysitism507

and Monothelitism508

made it

necessary for the official declaration and clarification of this Doctrine.

The terms “Nature” and “Essence” on the one hand, and the

“Hypostasis” and “Person” on the other, became synonymous. The

union of the Two Natures or Essences in the God-Man was

determined as a “…union by Hypostasis…” and the Incarnated Word

was proclaimed as being “…Two in Natures, but not in Hypostases…”

when the Two Natures, the Divine and the human, united undividedly,

unchangeably and without any mixture in the One Person of Jesus

Christ.

Nestorianism was opposed by the Archimandrite Eutyches

although he came to an opposite conclusion by characterizing the

union of the Two Natures as being a mixture consisting of the human

nature having been completely absorbed by the Divine Nature. Thus

the heresy of Monophysitism appeared. An essential role in the

correct and Orthodox opinion opposing this heresy was that of the

Epistle of Pope Leo I addressed to Flavianus of Constantinople. In his

letter, Pope Leo I exalted the unconfusion of the Two Natures in

Christ, which the 4th

Ecumenical Synod declared as an unchangeable,

undividable and inseparable union in the One Person.

Leontius Byzantius509

struggled against the heresies of

Nestorianism and Monophysitism who determined that the human

nature in Christ was hypostatic in the Word. From Monophysitism

derived the heresy of Monothelitism, which was supported by Sergius

of Constantinople and accepted by Pope Honorius. This heresy was

opposed by Sophronius and Maximus and was finally condemned by

the 6th

Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople (680). 510

The basis of the theoretical justification of the Two Wills in

Christ was the principle: “What is different in essence, is different in

506 Kefalas, Synods, pp.118-121. 507 Ibid, pp.141-143. 508 Ibid, pp.160-162. 509 Leontius Byzantius, Against Nestorians and Eutychians, Homilies I-III; Against

Nestorians, Homilies I-VII, in Migne, P.G., 86, 1268-1768. 510 Kefalas, Synods, pp. 164-169.

83

will and in energy.” Since in Christ we have Two Essences or

Natures, we also confess that the Two Wills and Energies are

different. Furthermore, the expression concerning “…the new Godly

Energy…” was accepted not as a synthetic energy that is composed of

Divine and human Energy but for the exaltation of the unity of the

Person of Christ Who is One and the same Who wants and acts in a

Godly as well as a human way.

This union is an unapproachable and inconceivable Mystery,

really new and unknown even to the Angels. It is a union of the Two

Natures in One Godly Person that of Jesus Christ united without

confusion, undividedly and inseparably.

1. The Teachings of Holy Scripture

concerning the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ

The Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ is testified

in Holy Scripture either indirectly or directly, especially in the New

Testament. It is testified indirectly when Christ, as the Son of God

and as God, is ascribed with actions and sufferings that are completely

alien to His Divine Nature although natural to the human nature, or

vice versa, when Divine Attributes are ascribed to the Son of Man that

are unnatural to the human nature, whereas it is directly testified to in

a few verses that clearly proclaim that the Word became Man by

emptying Himself and taking the form of a servant.

Beginning with the indirect testimonies that assure us that

“…concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord Who was born of the

seed of David according to the flesh…”511

He is “…the eternally

blessed God…” Who descended “…according to the flesh…”512

from

the “…Israelites…”513

and is the blessed “…seed of Abraham.”514

The

Son of God at the fullness of time was sent by God the Father and

511 Rom. 1:3. 512 Rom. 9:5. 513 Rom. 9:4. 514 Rom. 9:7.

84

“…was born of a woman…”515

therefore He was a real descendant of

Abraham. Hence, although He is “…the Word of Life…”516

He

“…was manifested…”517

in the midst of men and the Holy Apostles

“…have seen Him with their eyes and their hands handled Him…”518

“… being found in the appearance as a Man.”519

Thus to Jesus

Christ, as the Word and Son of God and God, is ascribed birth and

human descendant, life and a human body that suffered and faced

death, which was capable of suffering and shedding of blood.

Jesus the Son of Man, as God Who existed “…before Adam

was…”520

“…is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.”521

He pre-

existed and came “…into this world to save sinners.”522

He “…gives

eternal Life…” to His sheep and no one can “…snatch them out of…”

His Hands.523

In the Epistles of St Paul, Jesus Christ is called “…our

Lord Jesus Christ…” fifty times. He was “…highly exalted…” after

His Resurrection above “…those in Heaven, and those on earth and

those under the earth…”524

as the Christ “…Who is over all, the

eternally Blessed God…”525

Who sits on the Right Hand of God526

and

Who is “…far above all Principality and Power and Might and

Dominion…”527

and is worshipped by all the Angels.528

He sent the

Holy Spirit to His Disciples529

and through Him one sees the Father

because He is in the Father and the Father in Him,530

for they are

One.531

He is “…the only Begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the

515 Gal. 4:4. 516 1 John 1:1. 517 1 John 1:2. 518 1 John 1:1. 519 Phil. 2:8. 520 John 8:58. 521 Heb. 13:8. 522 1 Tim. 1:15. 523 John 10:27-28. 524 Phil. 2:9, 10. 525 Rom. 9:5. 526 Mark 16:19. 527 Ephes. 1:21. 528 Rev. 5:11-14. 529 John 15:26. 530 John 14:9-10. 531 John 10:30.

85

Father…”532

“…for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead

bodily.”533

He Who was touched by St Thomas and bears the prints of

the nails on His Hands and Feet, is our Lord and God.534

By

“…looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great

God and Saviour Jesus Christ…”535

we await Him as “…our true

God…”536

“…Who is the eternally Blessed God.”537

From the above Biblical verses and many others, it is obvious

that the One Whom St Paul calls “…the Man Christ Jesus…”538

has

Divine Attributes and Who not only as Man is perfect but as God is

truly the One “…Who came down from Heaven…”539

and as the Son

of Man, dwelt among men in the flesh, simultaneously being in

Heaven as “…the only Begotten Son of God...”540

“…Who is in the

bosom of the Father.”541

Christ Himself, whenever He spoke of

Himself, confirmed that the only Begotten Son of God is the same as

the Son of Man.

The Hypostatic Union of the Divine and human natures of

Christ is evident in the Biblical verses of St John 1:14: “…And the

Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” and in St Paul‟s Epistle to

the Philippians 2:6-7: “…Who, being in the form of God, did not

consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no

reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the

likeness of men.” St Paul proclaimed the eternal pre-existence of

Jesus Christ as being in the form of God by Nature and not by

robbery, stating that He emptied Himself by coming in the likeness of

men. One must note that in the first verse the words “…and the Word

became flesh…” is equivalent to “…the Word became Man…” as Holy

Scripture usually refers to the word “flesh” as being the whole

532 John 1:18. 533 Col. 2:9. 534 John 20:27-29. 535 Tit. 2:13. 536 1 John 5:20. 537 Rom. 9:5. 538 1 Tim. 2:5. 539 John 3:13. 540 John 1:14-15. 541 John1:18.

86

“man.”542

He became flesh “…without changing His Essence into

flesh…for the Divine Essence is beyond any change…but taking up…”

human nature, “…that Essence remained untouched.”543

In other

verses Christ is presented as “…coming in flesh…”544

and that “…He

came forth from the Father and had come into the world…”545

by

“…coming down from Heaven.”546

St John Chrysostom commented that “…the Son of God did

not grab the Principal, but had it by Nature, permanent and secured.

He was not afraid to descend from the rank…” so He emptied

Himself, taking up “…what He was not and becoming flesh He

remained God, being the Word.”547

Thus after the Incarnation “…He

has Two forms. For the Son of God being Man and God did not

dissolve the Divine Form, neither being God rejected the human

form.”548

2. The Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists

In the Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers one clearly finds the

Doctrine concerning the hypostatic union of the two Natures in Christ,

although they ignore the exact Doctrinal term that declares this union.

Thus in the Epistle of Barnabas it is specified that “…the Lord…”

Who “…submitted to suffer for our souls…is Lord of the whole world,

to Whom God said at the foundation of the world, „Let Us make man

according to Our Image and Likeness‟” and “…the Son of God, Who

is Lord and is destined to judge the living and the dead.”549

542 St Athanasius the Great, To Serapion II, § 7; Against Arians, IV, § 30, in Migne,

P.G., 26, 620 and 388. 543 St John Chrysostom, To John 1:14, in Monfaucon, v.8, p. 74. 544 1 John 4:2. 545 John 16:28. 546 John 6:41. 547 St John Chrysostom, To Philippians 2:6, 7, in Montfaucon, v. 9, pp. 282 and 285. 548 St Athanasius the Great, Fragments from the Against Arians, in Migne, P.G., 26,

1256. 549 Barnabas, 5, 5 and 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 167 and170.

87

St Ignatius the Theophorus of Antioch used the term

“…clothed in flesh…”550

signifying the Incarnation of the Lord. He

explained that “…there is one Physician, Who is both flesh and spirit,

born and unborn, God in Man, true Life in death, both from Mary and

from God.”551

“For our God Jesus the Christ was conceived by Mary

according to God‟s Plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy

Spirit. He was born and was baptized…”552

and His suffering is

“…the suffering of God…”553

as His Blood is “…the Blood of

God.”554

Thus it is made clear that He Who was crucified for us is

God‟s “…Son, Who is His Word…”555

“…Christ our God…”556

“…Who was of the family of David; Who was the Son of Mary; Who

was really born, Who both ate and drank; Who was really persecuted

under Pontius Pilate; Who was really crucified and died while those

in Heaven and on earth and under the earth looked on; Who,

moreover, was really raised from the dead when His Father raised

Him up.”557

According to The Epistle to Diognetus, “…the omnipotent

Creator of all, the invisible God…sent to men…the Designer and

Creator of the Universe Himself…by Whom all things have been

ordered and determined and placed in subjection.” God “…sent Him

as a Man to men…as a king might send his son who is a king, He sent

Him as God.”558

God “…did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a

grudge against us; instead He was patient and forbearing; in His

Mercy He took upon Himself our sins; He Himself gave up His own

Son as a ransom for us.”559

Jesus Christ Who was crucified for us and

was sent as a Man, is one and the same with the Creator and Provider

and Preserver of all things.

550 St Ignatius, To Smyrnaeans, 5, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 111. 551 Ibid, To Ephesians, 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 88. 552 St Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 553 Ibid, To the Romans, 6, 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 104. 554 Ibid, To the Ephesians, 1, 1, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 86. 555 Ibid, To the Magnesians, 8, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 95. 556 Ibid, To the Romans, Introduction, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 101. 557 Ibid, To the Trallians, 9, 1-2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 100. 558 The Epist. to Diognetus, 7, 2 and 4, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 300

and 301. 559 Ibid, 9, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 302.

88

According to The Shepherd of Hermas, “…the Son of God is

far older than all His Creation, with the result that He was the

Father‟s Counselor in His Creation…” and “…He was revealed in the

last days of the consummation; that is why the door is new, in order

that those who are going to be saved may enter the Kingdom of God

through It.”560

According to the Apologists, “…the Lord Jesus Christ…” is

“…the Son of the High God…” Who “…came down from Heaven for

the salvation of men…”561

Who “…was born from a Holy Virgin

without seed and imperishably took up flesh…” He is “…the Word of

God…” Who “...became Man for the human race…” “…Who was

born according to the Will of God and Father…” “…and becoming

partaker of our passions…” in order “…to heal them.”562

“He pre-

existed…” as “…the Son of the Creator of all, being God and

becoming Man through the Virgin…” “…suffering the same as us,

having flesh as man born from men.”563

Hence the Holy Gospel

proclaims “…that God has become in the likeness of Man…” He Who

“…is God and perfect Man, assured us that He has the two Essences

of His Deity and His humanity.”564

3. The Teachings of St Irenaeus, Tertullian and St Hippolytus

The Ecclesiastic Scholars who followed after the Apologists,

St Irenaeus, Tertullian and St Hippolytus ascribed more accurate

expressions to the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of the Two

Natures in the One Person of Jesus Christ.

560 Shepherd of Hermas, Parable 9, 12, 2 and 3, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers,

p. 272. 561 Aristides, Apology, 15, in B, v. 3, p. 147. 562 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 1 Apology, 63, §§ 4 and 10. Ibid, 2

Apology, 6, § 5 and 13, § 4; Ibid, Dialogue 48, § 2-3, in B, v. 3, pp. 195-196, 203,

207 and 250-251. 563 Tatianus, Homily to the Greeks, § 21, in B, v. 4, 256. 564 Meliton Sardeis, Extract 7, in Migne, P.G., 5, 1221.

89

St Irenaeus spoke of “…the union of the Word of God with His

creation.”565

This terminology is used by later Fathers566

although it

does not express the Hypostatic Union but can be used to describe the

meaning of the moral union (e.g. the union of man and woman in

marriage or our union with God), as well as that of the mixture of two

different elements (e.g. the wine and water). St Irenaeus, and

particularly Tertullian, used the Latin terms “commisti”

“commixtus”567

and “commixtio,”568

meaning “mixture” as applied by

the great Holy Fathers.569

Although these terms express the close,

undivided and inseparable union of the Two Natures, they do not

exclude the confusion, change and synthetic result of something new.

St Irenaeus, Tertullian and St Hippolytus, as well as the rest of the

Holy Fathers, further explained this union and mixture of the Two

Natures, determining in an Orthodox way the Doctrine of the

Hypostatic Union.

St Irenaeus declared the faith “…in one Jesus Christ, the Son

of God, Who was Incarnated for our salvation…”570

Who not only

simply dwelt in the Man Jesus but being the exact Word, the Only

Begotten Son of God, was Incarnated for us in such a way that the Son

of the High God and the Son of David is one and the same Person.571

Our Lord “…Jesus Who suffered for us, Who dwelt in us … is the

565 St Irenaeus, Heresies, IV, 33, 11 and III, 18, 6, in Migne, P.G., 7, 1080 and 937.

Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 333-334, 242. 566 St Athanasius the Great, Epist. to Epictetus, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1065. St

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, ch. 10 and 11, in Migne, P.G., 45, 41 and 44. St

Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101, in Migne, P.G., 37, 181 and 188. 567 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 19, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 938. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 243-244. 568 Tertullian, Apologeticus, 21, in migne, P.L., 1, 457; and Ibid, Adversus

Marcianem, II, 27, in migne, P.L., 2, 345. St Hippolytus, About Christ and Antichrist, IV, in B, v. 6, p. 199. 569 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 45, § 11, in Migne, P.G., 33, 633. Ibid, 2

Apology,§ 23, in Migne, P.G., 35, 431. Ibid, Homily 38, § 13, in Migne, P.G., 36,

325. St Gregory of Nyssa, Catechesis, § 35, in Migne, P.G., 45, 66. Ibid, Against

Apollinarius, in Migne, P.G., 45, 1275. St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius,

book I, ch. 3, in Migne, P.G., 76, 33. Ibid, Treasure, 24, in Migne, P.G., 75, 399. 570 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch. 10, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 7, 549. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 64-65. 571 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 16, §§ 1-3, in Migne, P.G., 7, 919-922. Cf.

Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 230-233.

90

Word of God…” “…the Only Begotten Son Who, according to the

pleasing Will of the Father, became Man for men…”572

and becoming

as we are, although remaining God Almighty and indescribably

having His Generation,573

became visible He Who is Invisible,

conceivable He Who is Inconceivable and suffering He Who is above

all suffering and the Word Man, resuming all things to Himself,574

“…in order that as the Word is the Prince in the Heavenly and

spiritual and invisible, likewise for Him to have the dominion among

the visible and bodily.”575

Thus “…the Carnation…” was “…the pure Birth of the Word

of God…” and those who renounce it “…are ungrateful to the

Incarnated Word of God Who, for this reason … became Man, in

order that man, by vesting the Word, enjoys the adoption and becomes

a son of God.” Thus Christ had a double Nature, “…as Man, in order

to be tempted, likewise as the Word in order to be glorified; the Word

being peaceful when He was tempted and crucified and dying, being

related to man in being victorious and patient and being raised and

lifted up.” Hence the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of God

the Father as well as the Son of Man because He was from the Ever-

Virgin Mary and Theotokos who had her generation from men and

who was human, was born in accordance to man and thus became the

Son of Man.576

Proclaiming elsewhere that the union of the Two

Natures in the One Hypostatic Person of Jesus Christ classifies those

who divide the Lord into Two different Hypostases577

as blasphemers.

St Hippolytus, stressing the union of the Two Natures in

Christ, asserted that Christ “…coming into the world as God, was

572 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book I, ch. 9, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 7, 541. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, p. 63. 573 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book IV, ch. 33, § 11, in Migne, P.G., 7, 1080. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 333-334. 574 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 16, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 7, 925-926. Cf. Ibid,

in Hadjephraimides, pp. 234-235. 575 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 16, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 7, 925-926. Cf. Ibid,

in Hadjephraimides, pp. 234-235. 576 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 19, §§ 1 and 3, in Migne, P.G., 7, 939 and

941. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 243-244 and 244-245. 577 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 16, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 7, 925. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 233-234.

91

revealed in flesh.” “For the bodiless Word of God vested the holy

flesh from the Virgin [and] as a vested Bridegroom [He assumed] the

suffering on the Cross.” He continues: “…in order to mix our mortal

body to His own Power”. He achieved this “...by mixing the mortal to

the Immortal and the weak to the Powerful in order to save the lost

man.” Using the terms “mix” and “mixing” he stressed the undivided

and inseparable natural and essential union. The prototypical

explanation that “…the flesh on its own without the Word could not

exist, for it has its existence in the Word…” belongs to St Hippolytus.

In other words, the central line of the Doctrine of the Hypostatic

Union, according to which the Incarnated Divine Nature was not

incarnated in a human hypostasis that already pre-existed, but that the

human nature became Hypostasis in the Hypostasis of the Word,

which was already Hypostasis. St Hippolytus used the terms “mix”

and “mixture” excluding any confusion or change or alteration of the

Two Natures.578

The expressions of Tertullian being exact and accurate were

adopted by the Holy Ecumenical Synods. According to Tertullian, we

see double the natural condition that is not confused but united in the

One Person of the God and Man Jesus. Furthermore, the Attributes of

each Essence remain unharmed and act according to its own Attributes

such as the virtues, the works and the signs.579

It is obvious, when

Tertullian uses the Latin terms “commixtio”, “mixtus” and “commisti”,

he wants to express the inseparable and undivided union of the Two

Natures, and under no condition the mixing or confusion or their

synthetic change.

4. Complete clarification of the Union of the Two Natures

and accurate terms.

The heresy of Apollinarius580

made it necessary to completely

clarify the manner of the union of the Two Natures in Christ, thereby

578 St Hippolytus, To the heresy of Noetus, 15, 17; Ibid, About Christ and Anti-

Christ, 4; in B, v. 6, pp. 19, 20-21, 199. 579 Tertullian, Adversus Praxeam, XXVII, in migne, P.L., 2, 215. 580 Kefalas, Synods, pp.111-112

92

gradually establishing more accurate terms in order to explain this

union.581

St Alexandrus of Alexandria, in his letter to Alexandrus of

Constantinople, spoke of the “…unchangeability of the Word…” at the

Incarnation and introduced the term “unchangeable,” which

subsequently the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon accepted.

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, explaining the

unchangeable union of the Two Natures that are Hypostatically united

in the God-Man, observed that “…neither is man the Son of God…”

nor did God abolish “… the Divine Form; nor being God did He

renounce the human form.” In the God-Man “…two things were

united; two in one. For neither God the Word is divided from the

body, nor do we see two Sons and two Christs, but the One Son of God

Who is before all ages and in later times became perfect Man.”

Hence the human nature of the Lord, although “… being from the

creation,” “... became flesh.” Consequently, “…when we see that

Body, we do not refrain from worshipping the Word or, wanting to

worship the Word, we do not depart from the flesh.”

The Body became God‟s Body, for the Word of God at the

Incarnation did not “…inhabit a holy man, but the same Word became

flesh…” and “…being truly the Son of God, became also the Son of

Man.” “The Son of God, Who was before Abraham, was not different

from the one after Abraham, but He was the same Who asks „Where is

Lazarus placed?‟ whom He divinely raised.” From the beginning

“…the flesh became the Word‟s and not any just man‟s…” and “…by

unconfused natural union…” the human nature became the flesh of the

Word. Thus the Lord was Incarnated “…not showing change in the

Deity…” but “…receiving everything from the Virgin, everything

which God at the beginning used for the creation of man without sin,

natural birth and inseparable union, a new creation from the Virgin‟s

Womb He raised Himself.” Because the flesh is not of the same

essence (homoousios) as that of the Divine Nature, the union with the

Divinity was made Hypostatically. “For the consubstantial

(homoousion) to the consubstantial union by hypostasis was by

nature.” For this inseparable “…and undivided…” and by Hypostatic

Union “…the Son Who suffered was not different from the one who

581 Lossky, Theology, pp. 95-100.

93

suffered (Jesus). For the Word was not different from Him (Jesus)

Who took up death and suffering…” but “…He Who is confessed …

truly suffered and is without suffering…in order to be truly Man and

truly God.” According to the above, St Athanasius elsewhere referred

to the Word as “…vested flesh…” or of the Word‟s “…communion

and union…” with the Body, describing the human nature as being the

“house,” “temple,” “instrument,” “vestment,” and “garment” of the

Incarnated Word.582

However, these terms under no circumstances

were used by St Athanasius to express the external but not the

Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ.

Didymus the Blind proclaimed in an Orthodox manner that

this union of the Two Natures in Christ exist as “…other and other…”

not “…another and another.” They are two different Natures in the

God-Man, not Two different Persons, although the different Natures

exist in one and the same Person. Concerning the Lord‟s human

nature, Didymus observed that “…according to the Economia, the

Word of God became flesh unchangeable and completely and truly; as

One Person said to be Divine and human.”583

St Gregory of Nyssa and St Gregory the Theologian of

Nazianzus, so as to explain the union of the Two Natures, used the

terms “mixture,” “physique” and “commixture.” Nevertheless St

Gregory of Nazianzus determined that “…this new mixture of God

and man…” in order to be “…One from Two and through One

Two…”584

although “…the natures are two, the sons are not two, nor

are they two gods.” In the Saviour it is distinguished as being the

“…other and other, those of which the Saviour consists, and not

another from another.” Determining this he observed that we should

confess that the Holy Trinity is “…another and another, in order not

582 St Athanasius the Great, Fragments from Against Heresies; Ibid, To Adelphius. §

3; Ibid, The volume to Antiochean, § 7; Ibid, Against Apollinarius, Homily I, §§ 10

and 12, and Homily II, §§ 2, 5 and 6; Ibid, Against Arians, Homily II, § 69; Ibid, To

Epictetus, §§ 9 and 10; Ibid, Against Arians, Homily III, §§ 34, 52 and 53; Ibid, To

Adelphius, §§ 3 and 4; in Migne, 26, 1256, 1076, 804, 1109, 1140, 1113, 1333,

1140, 293, 1065, 396, 397, 433, 1068 and 1076. 583 Didymus the Blind, About the Trinity, III, 12; Ibid, To Psalms, in Migne, P.G.,

39, 860 and 1232. 584 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily II Apology, § 23, in Migne, P.G., 35, 432.

94

to confuse the Hypostases…” but never the “…other and other…”

because the One Essence in the Trinity is “…One in the Three and the

same in the Deity.” On the other hand, it is stressed that this

“…mixture in One…” of the Two Natures was not made for confusion

of change. But the Incarnated God is “…suffering in flesh, without

passion in the Deity, describable in body, indescribable in Spirit, He

Himself earthly and heavenly, visible and intellectual, containable and

uncontainable.” Henceforth, he who does not “…worship the

crucified, let him be anathema and let them be with those who killed

God…” as he is condemned and the other, who “…does not take in

consideration as the Theotokos the Holy Mary.” This name is to be

properly addressed to the Mother of the Lord because “…no man was

formed…” in her, in order that “…afterwards God will vest…” him.

For this will not be “…a birth of God, but avoidance of birth.” St

Gregory clearly determined that by saying “mixture,” does not mean

confusion and change, but union inseparable from the Two Natures,

the human never having received its own hypostasis, but from the

beginning within the Virgin‟s Womb was united Hypostatically with

the Incarnated Lord and remaining forever united. St Gregory

renounced everyone who would deny “… the holy flesh…” or say

“…the Deity stripped from the body.”585

St Gregory of Nyssa unmistakably distinguished the Attributes

of each of the Two Natures of Christ. “The humanity (of Jesus) was

raised after the suffering and through the Lord, became the Christ…”

when “…He was raised on the Right Hand of God and became,

instead of the subject, Christ the King, instead of the humble the

Highest, instead of the Man the God.” St Gregory emphasized the

state of each Nature‟s Attributes which influenced one another before

the Ascension and Deification. “The Divine does cry for Lazarus, for

the tears are the quality of man.” “What was pierced with the nails?

What form was struck during the sufferings?” He concluded that

“…because of the union and commonality of the Two Natures, the

Master took up the wounds of a servant and the Servant was glorified

in the Master‟s honour.”586

585 Ibid, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 180. 586 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Homily V, in Migne, P.G., 45, 705 and

697.

95

St Epiphanius, stressing the wholeness and the immixture of

the Two Natures in their essential union observed that “…the Word

becoming flesh…” did not change “…being God…” neither was

“…the Divinity changed into humanity…” but “…the same Hypostasis

of God the Word included man to be Hypostasis…” not “…dwelling in

man as speaking, dwelling and in power and acting in the Prophets,

but … became flesh.” Likewise He did not “…suffer alteration…” but

“…completely Incarnated…took up the whole man…” and

“…regenerated the flesh to Himself…” uniting the humanity and the

Deity “…in one holy union…” in such a way that “…the Lord Jesus

Christ is One and not Two, the same God, the same Lord, the same

King.” He suffered the Passion “…in reality, in the flesh and in the

perfect Incarnation He united it to the Deity, but not changed (so as)

to suffer, being without suffering and unchangeable.” Thus Christ

suffering in the flesh for us remained “…without suffering in the

Deity…” without being “…separate man…” and separate Deity but

instead the Deity being united with the man, without suffering due to

the purity and incomparability of the Divine Essence.587

St John Chrysostom appeared to use the common terms that

were used in the Antiochian School. He spoke of “connection,”

“inhabitation,” “dwelling” and “vestment” of the Divine Nature “…in

the flesh…” and “…through the flesh…” but he clarified these terms

so as to exclude any misinterpretation or misunderstanding. “The

Word became flesh…” without diminishing “…His own Nature from

this descent…” and without the Divine Essence falling into flesh,

“…but remaining what It is, likewise He took up the likeness of a

servant…” and “…became the Son of Man, being the pure Son of

God.”

The Divine Essence remained “untouched” because It “… was

beyond any change.” Explaining the Biblical term “…and dwelt

among us…”588

he deduced that through this, “…the change of that

which is unchangeable...” is excluded. The Holy Father concluded his

587 St Epiphanius, Ancyrotus, 75 and 119, in Migne, P.G., 43, 233 and 236; Ibid,

Short true homily about faith, § 17, in Migne, P.G., 42, 813. 588 John 1:14.

96

thoughts by stating: “I said „another‟ according to the Essence; for in

the union and in the connection one is the God Word and the flesh,

being without confusion, neither diminishing the Essences, but

through a mysterious and unutterable union.” He then remarked that

the Word “…through all inhabits the tent…” for He vested our flesh,

not abandoning it, but having it with Him forever. Elsewhere he

clearly expressed the Orthodox opinion concerning the “emptying” of

the Word: “Remaining what He was, He took up what He was not,

and becoming flesh remained God, being the Word.” Interpreting the

Apostolic expression “…was found as Man…” he adds: “…and

correctly he said „as Man‟; For He was not one of the many, but as

the One of many. For God the Word became Man, not changing in

Essence, but appeared as man.” Thus exalting the immixture and

unchangeability of the Two Natures, he stressed their real union by

concluding: “…One God, One Christ, the Son of God. When I say,

the One, I mean the union, not a mixture of this Nature in the

other.”589

In his letter to the Monk Caesarius, he commented that in

Christ the Attributes of each Nature are connected and because of this

“…it is said that He suffered and did not suffer, suffering in flesh, but

not suffering in the Deity.” For “…the Divine being in the Nature of

the Body is One Person.”590

This Person is known “…not in One

Nature, but in Two perfect Natures…” although without confusion and

united undividedly. For, if in Christ was only One Nature, how could

the “…immixture, how the undivided…” exist in Him? How would it

be possible to spare the Union since it is impossible for the One

Nature to be united or confused or divided? Whosoever renounces the

human nature “…holding only the Divine, they renounce our

salvation.” Whosoever holds only the human nature, renounces the

Divine. Only then is the Union saved, when and after the unity the

Attributes of both Natures are saved. For, otherwise we would not

have had Union “…but confusion and diminishing of the Two

Natures.”591

589 St John Chrysostom, To John, Homily 11, §§ 1 and 2, in Montfaucon, v. 8, pp.

73-75. Ibid, To Philippians, Homily 7, §§ 2-3, in Migne, P.G., 62, 232. 590 St John Chrysostom, To Caesarius, in Migne, P.G., 52, 756. 591 Ibid, To Hebrews, § 1, in Montfaucon, v. 12, p. 37. Ibid, To Genesis 1, in Migne,

P.G., 49, 352, 358, 360. Ibid, To the betrayal of Judas, § 3, in Migne, P.G., 49, 386.

Ibid, To Isaiah 7:6, in Migne, P.G., 56, 85-86.

97

5. Mystery Great and Inconceivable but not Illogical

We must never forget that the Hypostatic Union consists of a

great and beyond any conception Mystery and the manner of the

Incarnation is not at all possible for our limited mind to understand.

Thus Pope Leo the Great stated that the human language cannot

explain the Union of the Two Natures in One Person, unless it is

conceded to by faith.592

Nothing in nature is similar to the

supernatural union that remains unique, being a Mystery to which no

image of this world can relate. Only once in the supernatural order it

met in the Incarnated Word.

Truly, the union of Divine Grace with the faith of the faithful

and the inhabitation of God within them, according to Christ‟s

statement: “…and We shall come and make Our home in him…” is not

essential and Hypostatical but moral, through which the faithful

become “Theophorus” (God-bearers) but never “God-men.” The

union of the soul with the body that was used by the Holy Fathers as

an example to explain the Mystery of the Hypostatic Union, remains

weak and under a thick cloud. In man, soul and body, which are our

two elements, are united to make one nature, whereas in Christ Two

Natures are united in One Person.

Since one accepts this Mystery in good faith and with piety,

then one will understand that it is beyond any word of explanation

although it does not contradict logic. Thus:

a) The unchangeability of the Deity is preserved untouched

by this Union. For the Word of God does not lose anything nor does it

add anything to it in order to become more perfect. The Word became

Man “…without changing the Nature of His Deity into the essence of

the flesh, nor [did] the essence of His flesh change into the Nature of

the Divinity.”593

According to the observation of St Augustine, the

Word was not changed through the taking up of man‟s nature, as

members of a body do not change when they are vested with cloths,

592 Leon, the Great, Sermo XXIX, 1, in migne, P.L., 54, 226. 593 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites,

III, 47, 2, in Migne, P.G., 94, 988.

98

although the human nature that was taken up was united indescribably

with His Divine Nature.594

b) The Incarnation is not contrary to God‟s simplicity, for the

human nature does not enter into the Divine Nature as something that

completes it, but conversely the human nature, not having with this

union its own Hypostasis, is completed by the Person of the Word,

which becomes “en-hypostasis” in Christ. The phrase used by the

Holy Fathers, “…One Hypostasis of the Son of God synthetic…” or

“…of Christ…”595

must not be understood as being that the Word

became synthetic of two parts. The Divine Nature of the Word by

nature is simple and non-synthetic. It must be understood that the

simple Person and the non-synthetic Hypostasis of the Word unite

Two Natures and only in relation to the Two Natures is a Hypostasis

synthetic. In other words the Hypostasis and the Person of the Word

born from all eternity from the Father is not the result of the unity of

the Two Natures but pre-exists from all eternity and in time

unchangeably took up human nature.

c) From the human aspect there was no obstacle preventing

the realization of this supernatural union. Certainly the human nature

as mortal is greatly distanced from the Divine Nature. Although this

distance is humanly impassable and impenetrable, the Infinite God

when He wants, can bridge this chasm in such a way that the spiritual

nature of man has the possibility of being united with Him. Man was

formed by God in His Image and his soul is spirit created by the Spirit

of God. The union of the Two Natures in Christ was accomplished

“…by the soul which stands between the Deity and the flesh.” The

fact that human nature, when it was taken up by the Word and Son of

God, was deprived individually from its own hypostasis and became

en-hypostasis in the Person of the Word, is not deprived of anything

from its fullness or wholeness. On the contrary, through the union

with the Word, it became a more perfect individual Person, taking up

594 St Augustine, Lib. de diversis quaest, 83 and 73, in migne, P.L., 40, 85. 595 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites,

III, 47, 3 and 4, in Migne, P.G., 94, 993. Ibid, Exposition. About the way of the

antidosis, III, 48, in Migne, P.G., 94, 997.

99

all human nature and consequently presented the perfect Man Who

was made according to His Creator Who formed Him.

THE RESULTS OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

INTRODUCTION

Since the Two Natures, the Divine and the human, were united

inseparably and undividedly in the One Person of the Word, “…the

differences of the Natures are not refuted because of the unity, but the

Attributes of each Nature are leading to the One Person and

Hypostasis…” and for this reason “…one and the same was He Who

was performing the Divine and human in each form…” “…with the

communion of both.” Consequently the Word, by taking human nature

into His Hypostasis, “…became familiar to the human things…” that

were part of His own flesh and as a result, He transmitted His own

Divinity to humanity according to the measure it is capable of

receiving.596

Thus, in the Person of the God-Man, the sharing or notification

of the Attributes “…through the containing of each member in one

another and the union by Hypostasis…”597

is established whereby we

sometimes refer to the Christ as being from on High while at other

times being “…only from the lowly…” thus ascribing to His One

Hypostasis the Attributes of both Natures without them being mixed.

Hence we can speak of the Blood of God and of the glorification of

the crucified Lord, but we may not speak of an uncreated or suffering-

free human nature of the Incarnated Word, nor of Divinity that

suffered. Generally speaking, when the Incarnated Word is called

“Son of God” and “God” because of His Divine Nature, He is ascribed

with the Attributes that are united with His Divine Nature and when

He is called “Man” and “Son of Man” because of His human nature,

He is ascribed with the Attributes of His human nature. Subsequently

we address Christ always according to both His Natures that are

596 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, p. 134. 597 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites,

III, 47, 3, in Migne, P.G., 94, 993 and 996.

100

united undividedly, remaining unmixed, preserving their own

individual Attributes while transmitting to one another because of

unity of the Person or the One Hypostasis of the Word, in which both

Natures are united naturally and inseparably. In order to manifest the

inter-relationship of the Two Natures of Christ, we may use the

example of the colour change of a piece of iron that occurs when it

becomes red hot from its union with fire. Simultaneously, although a

visible change occurs, the iron is still distinguishable from the fire.

With reference to the inter-relationship of the Two Natures of

Christ, we must never forget that it is different from the inter-

relationship of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. For in the

Trinity, the Essence of Nature is one and the same and infinite.

Furthermore, the three Persons are co-eternal and without beginning.

Hence the inter-relationship is perfect, common and united in Essence.

In the Person of the God-Man, however, we have the inter-relationship

of Two Essences of Natures, of which only the Divine is Infinite. The

human nature of Christ, although limited, is completely penetrated by

the Divine Nature, whereas the human nature is unable to completely

enter into the Divine Nature because of its limitations.

From the above, it is obvious that we cannot speak of separate

natural sonship and the adoption by Grace of the God-Man because

this would strongly differentiate the Two Natures of Christ, leading to

the heresy of Nestorianism. In the God-Man we have Two Natures

but One and the same Son. Consequently, since His human nature is

inseparable and undivided from the Hypostasis of the Word, it is also

inseparably honoured and worshipped with the Word of God because

it is inseparable and undivided from Him. The acceptance of the

taking up of human nature that was accomplished by the Word from

the moment of His conception in the Virgin‟s Womb, declares the

Ever Blessed and Holy Mary as truly the Mother of God and

Theotokos (“God-bearer”).

Through this union of the Two Natures, the human nature

became a “…partaker of the Divine Nature…”598

as in no other God-

bearing (=“Theophorus”) or God-inspired men ever before,

598 2 Peter 1:4.

101

participating in the perfection of human knowledge, will and power of

the Divine Nature. The Knowledge of God and the Heavenly things

are transmitted to His human nature by direct supervision, vision and

enlightenment, not as with us human beings, externally through

movement, error and ignorance but instead supernaturally, infallibly

and completely free of errors, not being identified with the All-

knowledge and All-wisdom ascribed only to the Divine Nature of the

God-Man.

The Lord took up the sanctification according to the human

aspect, as “the Yeast” for all humanity through which we too shall

receive, thereby being consecrated from His fullness. As a negative

aspect of the perfect Holiness of the Lord, we can characterize His

absolute sinlessness. This sinlessness was assured from the beginning

because of His complete purity from all sinful inheritance from Adam.

It was an automatic turn towards good. The Divine Grace that was

derived from the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures from the

extreme conception did not enslave the freedom of the human will of

the Lord. Instead, it made sin morally impossible for Him to commit.

Thus the Lord became our moral Prototype, although it is impossible

for anyone to be as absolutely sinless as He is. Consequently mankind

was raised from a sinful condition to holiness. However, we must not

forget that the Deification of the Power in the God-Man did not

become Almightiness. It was raised to a far more superior level than

any of the holy men because of the wonders and signs performed by

Him, since He did not borrow any external Power to perform the

miracles as the Prophets or the Holy Saints had to do. He healed all

and raised the dead by His own Divine Power and for that reason, the

Mystery of Holy Communion, His Flesh and Blood, are characterized

as being Life-giving.

1. The transmission or communion of the Attributes

The result of the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures is the

transmission or communication in Christ of the Attributes of the Two

102

Natures.599

This consists of the transmission and the offering of the

Attributes of each Nature, the Divine and human, “…for the

Hypostasis‟ identity and their inter-communion…” to the One Person

of Christ the Incarnated Word. All the Attributes of the human nature

are ascribed to the Incarnated Word, as all those of the Divine Nature

are ascribed to the human nature in man. “According to this we can

say of the Christ that our God has been seen on earth and dwelt

among men…” as “…this Man is not created without suffering and

indescribable.”600

Truly, in Holy Scripture it is written that “…the Lord and God

… purchased the Church with His own Blood…”601

and that God,

being without suffering and Immortal, did not suffer on the Cross. It

is proclaimed that “…we were reconciled to God through the death of

His Son…”602

Whom the rulers of this world crucified, not knowing

that He is “…the Lord of Glory…”603

and “…the Son of God…”604

Who was sent into the world, Who “…was born of a woman…”605

“…and gave Himself up…”606

for our sake, being also “…the Son of

Man Who came down from Heaven…” and “…Who is in

Heaven…”607

while at the same time able to speak to Nicodemus.608

St Athanasius of Alexandria, noted that “…Christ is not called

only in one way…” because, through the one name, “…two things, the

Divinity and the humanity, are manifested.”609

Thus “…Christ is

called „the Christ‟ and „God‟, and „the God-Man‟ is the Christ and

599 Cf. Fragkopoulos, Christian Faith, pp.134-137. Mitsopoulos, Themata, pp.148-

149 600 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the way of the antidosis, III, 48, 4, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 997 and 1000. 601 Acts 20:28. 602 Rom. 5:10. 603 1 Corinth. 2:8. 604 Gal. 2:20. 605 Gal. 4:4. 606 Gal. 2:20. 607 John 3:13. 608 John 3:1-21. 609 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, Homily I, § 13, in Migne, P.G.,

26, 1116.

103

one is the Christ.”610

For one is the Christ and one is He Who unites

Two Natures. For this reason “…being God, He does not renounce

those things which are human…” and the same as man, He

“…hungers and is tired after the journey, thirsts and sleeps, He Who

by Nature as God never sleeps…Who is glorified by the Angels and is

seen by the Shepherds.” “He, being by Nature God, is born man.”611

For He Who accepted “…death and the suffering…” is not different to

the Word. Nevertheless, He Who is without suffering and bodiless,

partakes of human birth, “…inhabiting the things of the body…” and

in the suffering, “…the Body of the Word was nailed on the Cross…”

and “…the flesh of God and the soul took up the suffering and the

death and the Resurrection.”612

“A new union and paradox mixture,

He Who is the Being becomes man, He Who is not created is created

and He Who is not contained is contained, and He Who is rich

becomes poor and He Who is full is emptied…”613

because of the

Hypostatic Union. “Our God was conceived by Mary…”614

and

“…He Who cannot be touched is touched and He Who is beyond

suffering, for our sake, suffered…”615

and “…born and unborn, God

in Man, true Life in death, both from Mary and from God, first

subjected to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.”616

When He is called “Son of God” and “God” because of His Divine

Nature, He is ascribed with the Attributes of the human nature that is

united with “…God Who is with suffering and Lord of glory

crucified.” Again, when He is called “Man” and “Son of Man”

because of His human nature, He is ascribed with the Attributes of His

Divine Nature similar to when He is referred to as the “…Child before

all time and Man without beginning…” not because as a Child or as a

Man He is without beginning and before time, “…but being God

before all eternity and without beginning He became at the end a

Child and a Man.”617

610 St Hippolytus, To the heresy of Noetus 18, in B, v. 6, pp. 20-21. 611 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, Homily I, § 7 and 12, in Migne,

P.G., 26, 1105 and 1113. 612 Ibid, Against Apollinarius, Homily II, § 16, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1160. 613 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 38, § 13, in Migne, P.G., 36, 325. 614 St Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 615 Ibid, To Polycarp, 3, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 116. 616 Ibid, To the Ephesians, 7, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 88. 617 St John of Damascus, Catechesis, III, 4, in Migne, P.G., 94, 997 and 1000.

104

This transmission of the Attributes in the Incarnated Word can

be understood in three different ways:

a) According to the Nestorians, as a clearly moral transmission,

which is based upon the mutual relationship of the two Persons, the

Divine and the human, which is for example, similar to the

transmission of the name, honour and conditions of the life between a

husband and his wife, or that of a king to his queen, or his first

minister and vice versa.

b) According to Monophysitism this transmission was seen as a

confusion of the two Natures and their Attributes.

c) According to Orthodox Teaching, the Two Natures remain

without confusion, transmitting and communicating their Attributes to

one another in the one Person in which they are united naturally and

undividedly. Although “…the Natures are inter-related to one

another, each one unchangeably preserves its own Attributes.” For

this reason we may say “God suffers” or “God is crucified” or

“Human without beginning” but we must never say of Christ‟s

humanity is uncreated nor that the Divinity suffers. We believe that

Christ is everywhere but never that His human nature is All-present.618

Eugenios Boulgareos commented that: “It is not correct to say

that the Man-God is Almighty, eternal and the similar; and vice versa,

that God suffered, was buried, raised, descended … It is not correct to

say that the Divinity became humanity or the opposed … But it is a lie

to say that the Christ was a Man All-present.”619

Eugenios debated

the question: “Is it true that the Incarnated Word is a creation and a

servant of God?” To the question of “creation” he answered that

“…the humanity is called „a creation‟ among the Fathers.”620

The

second part of the question he answered that “…the „servant‟ is taken

under a wider understanding, according to which the Son … is said to

618 St John of Damascus, Exposition. That all the divine nature was united all to the

human nature, and not in part, III, 50, 5 and 4, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1001 and 997. 619 Boulgareos, Theologicon, p. 443. 620 St Ambrosius, Homily 5 to Psalm 118. St Augustine, Epist. 57 to Dardanus. St

John of Damascus, Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites, III, 47,

3, in Migne, P.G., 94, 993, 996.

105

be serving the Father and to be served… naturally it is heard in the

Scriptures that the Son of God is called a „servant‟ according to

Isaiah.621

”622

.

Under this same concept we must understand the “Theosis”

(Deification) of the human nature of the Lord from the time of Its

conception in the Holy Womb of the Ever-Virgin Mary the

Theotokos. This was accomplished not because of the change of

human nature but, as it is confessed, the Incarnation was accomplished

“…without change or alteration…” of the Divine Nature of the Word.

Thus we believe that His human nature was Deified without changing

“… its own Nature or its natural Attributes.” His human nature was

enriched by the Divine Energies because “…of the Hypostatic Union

according to which it is united with the Word of God and because of

the containing in each other of the Two Natures…” without “…falling

from their own natures…” but remaining in their own natural

boundaries. It is literally witnessed and clearly stated by the 6th

Ecumenical Synod that “…the Theotokos gave life immaculately…” to

Christ‟s “…flesh (which,) although Deified, was not destroyed but

remained in its own boundary and reason.”623

To understand the unmixed inner relationship and entrance of

the Two Natures, the imagery of the red hot iron was used. The iron,

by nature, does not have “…the energy of heat but it receives it by its

union with the fire.” The “heat” of the iron does not change its nature

even after it becomes red hot. As the iron is distinguished from the

fire, “…likewise the Theosis” (Deification) of Christ‟s human nature.

This Theosis does not change His human nature into Divine Nature,

neither does it result in the Two Natures becoming a third synthetic

nature as a consequence of confusion and change of the Two Natures.

Instead Theosis preserves His human nature with its own attributes,

transmitting to it from its Divine richness, according to the measure of

its capability so that the enriched nature remains human and is not

transformed into Divine Nature.

621 Is. 42 and 49. 622 Boulgareos, Theologicon, p. 444. 623 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the deification of the nature of the flesh

and the will of the Lord, III, 61, 17, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1068, 1069.

106

It is obvious that this “inter-containment” of the two Natures

of Christ is not the same in value or level as that of the three Persons

of the Holy Trinity. The inter-containment of the Holy Trinity occurs

among the three Co-eternal Persons Who are distinguished from each

other, although being of one and the same infinite Essence of the

Deity. In the Person of the God-Man, the inter-containment takes

place in the one Person of the God-Man, between the two Natures

from which only the Divine is Infinite. On the contrary, the human

nature remains limited and although completely permeated by the

Divine Nature, it cannot enter the Divine Nature to the same degree

due to its human limitations. In the Holy Trinity, however, the three

Persons‟ inter-containment of one another is perfect, mutual and

unified by the one Essence, whereas in the two Natures of the God-

Man, the inter-containment preserves the Divine Essence in its Infinity

that cannot be penetrated by His limited human nature.

The basis of the inter-containment of the Holy Trinity is the

Infinite, Unique, Undivided and simple Essence of the Deity, while in

Christ this inter-containment occurs between Two different Natures,

having the One Person of Jesus Christ as its basis. Consequently in

this inter-containment of the two Natures, the Infinite Nature of the

Word does not partake of the limited human nature although it alone

acts and transfers from its Infinite Perfection to His human nature,

which accepts the Charismata (Gifts) from His Divine Nature,

according to its limitations so that it is elevated by this union with His

Divine Nature, without being changed from its restricted character and

always remaining human and unmixed with His Divine Nature. Thus

the “…Deity transmits its own…” (Attributes) to His human nature,

“…sharing always in its own boundaries and reason…” as expressed

by the Doctrine of the 6th

Ecumenical Synod whereby His Divine

Nature “…remains, not partaking of the suffering of the flesh…and

penetrates through all as it Wills, but … not contained.” “For, if our

sun gives us its energies yet remains without participating in ours,

how much more the Creator of the sun and the Lord?”624

624 Ibid, Exposition. About the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ, III, 59, 15 and 7, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1057, 1060 and 1012.

107

His human nature and flesh “…is not extended to the Infinite

Deity of the Word…” and the two Natures “…are united by

Hypostasis, being contained in one another…” “…without confusion

being united and each of them preserving their own natural

differences.” As St Gregory of Nazianzus expressed it: “…they are

mixed and are contained in one another because of the common

growth.”625

2. One Worship of the God-Man

A direct consequence of the acceptance that the human nature

is inseparable and undividable from the Hypostasis of the Word, is

that the one worship that is offered to the Word as God, must not be

distinguished or differentiated from the worship that must be offered

to His human nature. Already the 5th Ecumenical Synod in its 9

th

Canon had condemned anyone who said “…Christ should be

worshipped in two Natures…” and from which is introduced “…two

worships, separately to God the Word and separately to the Man.”

The Synod determined that we should worship by means of “…one

worship [of] the God Word Incarnated with its own flesh.”

Christ our Lord and Saviour proclaimed that “all” should

“…honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not

honour the Son does not honour the Father Who sent Him.”626

St Paul

reminded us that for the obedience Christ showed by humbling

Himself “…to the point of death, even death on the Cross…” and the

Father had “…highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is

above every name…” so that at the mention of His Sacred Name

“…every knee should bow, of those in Heaven, and of those on earth,

and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”627

St

Stephen the Archdeacon and first Holy Martyr of Christ called upon

625 St John of Damascus, Exposition., III, 59, 7 and 8, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1060. Ibid,

Exposition. III, 52, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1013. St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to

Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 176. 626 John 5:23. 627 Phil. 2:8, 9, 10-11.

108

the name of “Jesus Christ,” which expresses the human nature of the

Lord, saying “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”628

“In the name of the

Lord Jesus…” St Paul exhorted the Colossians to do whatever they

had to do “…in word or deed.”629

In Revelation the “…blessing and

honour and glory and power…” is addressed not only “…to Him Who

sits on the Throne…” but also“… to the Lamb.” In other words it was

addressed to the Son Who bears the human nature and before Whom

“…the twenty-four Elders fell down and worshipped.”630

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria typified as proper,

(“clear”) worship of “…the Lord Who became in Body and is called

Jesus…” because “…worshipping the Lord in the flesh, we do not

worship a creature, but the Creator Who vested the created body.”

Since “…the flesh is undivided from the Word…” we must take the

Church into consideration by not calling Christians “…who do not

honour nor worship the Word Who came in flesh.” Truly, by

worshipping the human nature of the Lord, we do not worship a

creature because “…we do not worship such a Body, dividing it from

the Word, nor…” when we worship the Word, do “…we distance Him

from the flesh.” He then asks: “How you do not worship the Body of

the Lord, the Holiest and Most Honorable, which was evangelized by

the Archangel Gabriel, formed by the Holy Spirit and became the

Vestment of the Word?” 631

St Gregory of Nazianzus believed that anyone is worthy of

anathema and accounted among “…those who killed God…” all those

who do not worship “…the crucified…” Christ.632

St John Chrysostom expressed his admiration and surprise that

“…the flesh which is from us…” is set on High and is worshipped

“…by Angels and Archangels and the Seraphim and the

Cherubim.”633

628 Acts 7:59. 629 Col. 3:17. 630 Rev. 5:13, 14. 631 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, I, § 43; Ibid, To Adelphius, §§ 6, 5, 3, 7,

in Migne, P.G., 26, 100, 1080, 1076, 1081. 632 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 180. 633 St John Chrysostom, To Hebrews, homily 5, § 1, in Monfaucon, v. 12, p. 73.

109

St John of Damascus analyzed this truth in detail and

concluded that if we separate His two Natures “…with weak thoughts,

the one which has been seen from that which has been thought of…”

surely then the flesh of the Lord is “…unworshipped as being

creative.” Christ is “…one, perfect God and perfect Man.” We

worship Him with His flesh that is worshipped “…in the one

Hypostasis of the Word…” which has become Hypostasis in the flesh,

not existing on its own but being inseparable and undividable from the

Deity and “…as the one Person and one Hypostasis of God the Word

Who consists of His two Natures.” As wood is not

“…unapproachable to the touch…” until it comes into contact with

fire and becomes hot and unapproachable, similarly “… the flesh (of

Christ) according to its Nature…” is not worshipped until it came into

contact with “…the Incarnated God the Word…” not “individually,

but because of its unity by Hypostasis with God the Word.” We do not

say that “…we worship „the flesh,‟ but „the flesh of God.” In other

words, we worship “God Incarnated,” believing that once “…from

the Womb…” human nature was taken up by God the Word,

continuing to remain united with Him for all eternity and we do not

say that it will ever “..put aside…the Holy Flesh and the Deity, to be

naked of the Body and not with that which has been taken up and is

and will come again…” at the Second Coming.634

3. The Mother of the Lord Truly Theotokos

The acceptance of the taking up of the human nature by the

Word of God “…from the womb…” appoints the Ever-Virgin Mary

and Mother of the Lord to be truly “THEOTOKOS.”635

Since there

was not a moment according to which the human nature was separated

from the Word because He immediately existed with the Word‟s flesh

at the conception in the Virgin‟s Womb and as such grew within the

Virgin,636

it is obvious that it was completely wrong to name her “the

634 St John of Damascus, Exposition, III, 52, 8, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1013. Ibid,

Exposition, IV, 76, 3, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1105. St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist.

101 yto Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 181. 635 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 139-141. 636 St Symeon, Euriskomena, Homily XLV, pp. 210-211.

110

Mother of Christ” (“Christotokos”) as Nestorius proclaimed and not

“…truly…” and “mainly Theotokos” (“Mother of God” or “God-

bearer”).

In the New Testament the Virgin is addressed by St

Elizabeth as the “…Mother of my Lord,”637

and is greeted as such.

Similarly St Paul declared that “…when the fullness of time had come,

God sent forth His Son, born of a woman.”638

Tertullian observed that the Christ was not born as the

Gnostics proclaimed “…through the Virgin…” or “…in the Virgin…”

but “…from the Virgin…” taking up flesh from her pure blood.639

St Ignatius the Theophorus of Antioch stressed that “…our

God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God‟s Plan,

both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.”640

Consequently,

the term “Theotokos” was introduced earlier by the Ecclesiastic

Scholars. Thus, according to Origen “...the first volume of the Epistle

of the Apostle to the Romans interprets how she is called

Theotokos.”641

St Alexandrus of Alexandria, writing to Alexandrus of

Constantinople, emphasized that “…our Lord Jesus Christ vested

body not by appearance from the Theotokos Mary for the ending of

the centuries in violation of sin…”642

and He came down to mankind.

St Athanasius repeatedly declared Mary to be “…the Virgin

Theotokos.”643

637 Luke 1:43. 638 Gal. 4:4. 639 Tertullien, De carne Christi, 20, in migne, P.L., 2, 830. 640 St Ignatius, To Ephesians, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 641 Socrates, Church History, VII, ch. 32, in Migne, P.G., 67, 812. 642 St Alexandros of Alexandria, in Theodoretus, Church History, I, 3, in Migne,

P.G., 82, 908. 643 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius 1, § 12, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1113.

Ibid, Against Arians, III, 29, in Migne, P.G., 26, 385.

111

St Gregory of Nazianzus proclaimed that “…if anyone does

not take into consideration that the Holy Mary is the Theotokos, he is

without the Deity.”644

St Cyril of Alexandria commented “…if anyone does not

confess God to be truly the Emmanuel and thus the Holy Virgin to be

Theotokos who was born fleshly and gave flesh to the Word Who is

from God…Let him be anathema.”645

The 4th

Ecumenical Synod646

literally decreed Mary the Ever

Virgin to be called “Theotokos” (“…and for our salvation from Mary

the Virgin and Theotokos according to the humanity…” born).647

The

5th Ecumenical Synod

648 repeated the anathema against anyone who

“…does not acknowledge truly Theotokos the Holy glorious and Ever-

virgin Mary…or calls her „Anthropotokos‟ or „Christotokos‟…but not

mainly and truly confesses her Theotokos.”649

In the Doctrine of the

6th Ecumenical Synod,

650 the proclamation of the Birth of Christ is

repeated that “…at the end of days for us and for our salvation from

the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, the mainly and truly

Theotokos.”651

St John of Damascus exhibited the meaning of this Doctrine

by observing that “…we proclaim the Holy Virgin to be mainly and

truly the Theotokos…” not because the Deity of the Word took up

“…Its beginning from her…” but because God the Word was born

without time, before all ages, from the Father Who inhabited “…her

womb and from her unchangeably…” was Incarnated and Born. The

Lord did not carry “…the Body from Heaven…” and did not pass

through the Virgin “…as through a channel.” Neither did He inhabit a

“…pre-formed man as in a Prophet…” but from the Holy Virgin took

644 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101, in Migne, P.G., 37, 178. 645 1st Anathema of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Pedalion, pp. 646 Kefalas, The Ecumenical Councils, pp. 134-152. 647 4th Ecumenical Synod. 648 Kefalas, The Ecumenical Councils, pp. 152-163. 649 6th Canon of the 5th Ecumenical Synod. Pedalion, pp. 299; 2nd Canon of the same

Synod, Cf. Pedalion, pp.294-296. 650 Kefalas, Synods, pp. 164-190. 651 6th Ecumenical Synod.

112

up “…flesh substantial to ours…” and “…in His Hypostasis received

an intellect and logical soul with the living flesh…becoming Himself

its Hypostasis.” The aim of the Incarnation would be fulfilled since it

“…took place for this, in order that the sinful and fallen and

corrupted nature becomes victorious over the deceiver tyrant…”

according to the Apostolic words “…since by man came death, by

Man also came the Resurrection of the dead.”652

Under no

circumstances do we call “…the Holy Virgin „Christotokos‟…,” nor

do we call “…He Who is born from the Virgin, „Theophorus‟…”

(“Carrier of God”), “…as Nestorius the thief said in his madness…”

because at the Incarnation of the Word there were “…three things

together…the engagement, the existence and the Theosis by the

Word…” of the human nature. As soon as the conception occurred

there was “…the existence within the Word of the flesh;, the Mother of

God giving supernaturally to the Creator to be formed and for God to

become Man.” On the other hand, He Deified that which He received,

without confusion or change of the two united Natures. Truly then the

Holy Virgin is Theotokos because “…from the first existence…” of

the Lord‟s human nature, He existed “…in both…” human and Divine

Nature. Thus “…from extreme conception…” His human nature

existed “…in the Word.”653

4. The Theosis (Deification) of Human Nature

Human nature was Deified because of the Hypostatic Union

of the two Natures of Christ.654

When we take into consideration how

much we benefit from the moral union of those who are sinners and

yet are united with the Deity, becoming “…partakers of the Divine

Nature…,”655

we get a vague idea of the supernatural through the

fullness and richness of the Charismata [Gifts] and Divine Exaltation

that human nature receives by means of the essential and Hypostatic

Union in Christ with His Divine Nature. The measure, according to

652 1 Corinth. 15:21. 653 St John of Damascus, Exposition, About the holy Theotokos; against Nestorians.

III, 12, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1028, 1029 and 1032. 654 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, p. 137. Mitsopoulos, Themata, p. 150. 655 2 Peter 1:4.

113

which Divine Nature is transmitted from Its infinite richness to human

nature, was in this unique circumstance, determined by the infinite

boundaries of the Divine Nature, through which the Divine

charismata and benefits are assigned. Even in the God-Man, the

human nature did not cease to be a creature and a creation, and as such

had to remain according to the Theosis and its perfection.

This measure was as supernatural and unique as the union of

the two Natures of Christ. Consequently our nature, besides its

limited measure and transmission, was exalted in the God-Man as

never before. It did not occur in the past in the Patriarchs or the

Prophets, nor afterwards in the Saints. Neither will anything like it

occur in the future, having made a new creation in Christ and the God-

bearing and God-inspired men becoming “…partakers of the Divine

Nature.”656

The Perfection of Divine Nature can be differentiated into

perfection and charismata that refer to human knowledge, human will

and human power.

5. Transmission of supernatural knowledge to the Human Nature

of Christ

It must be noted that the perfection that human knowledge

received from the Divine Nature of the God-Man, was raised to the

Knowledge of God. The Heavenly things were revealed through

direct supervision and vision, not like other men who are gradually led

from complete ignorance to the Knowledge of God and the Divine

through participation in the Mysteries of the supernatural Revelation.

Man‟s worldly knowledge is always subject to errors.657

According to the fourth Gospel, the Lord verified that “…what

He has seen and heard…”658

and that which He does “…which are

shown to Him…” by the Father659

He is ready to do, even those things

that are “…greater than…” the paradox, which was the healing of the

656 2 Peter 1:4. 657 Cf. Mitsopoulos, Themata, pp. 150-151. 658 John 3:32. 659 John 5:20.

114

Paralytic, when these were manifested to Him by the Father. “Greater

than these He will show Him…” says the Lord. Correctly speaking,

the term “show” refers to the “…in time action…” of the God-Man.

He appears to be speaking “…of what He has seen from His

Father.”660

In other words, what “…He saw through implanted

knowledge…” judging “…as He hears…” “…from the Father.”

“commanding…” Him “…as Man; as from the form of a servant, not

from the form of God, saying „As I hear, I judge.‟661

”662

Additionally,

in the Book of Acts, St Peter presents Him as being predestined

according to the humanity of the Lord “…always on His Right

Hand…”663

and always understanding His presence. During His

childhood, He was found in the Temple of Jerusalem, having forgotten

His Mother and Joseph, His Righteous Guardian, where for three

whole days He had not left the Temple but rather indulged in the

events and discussions that took place there.664

According to these

Evangelic and Apostolic testimonies, the God-Man is in direct

communication with the Father. He sees Him and “…what He sees

He testifies.”665

Christ continuously accepted revelations from the

Father and “…as He hears…” He judges the new and greater Works

of the Father accordingly. 666

This direct vision and communication of the Divine

Knowledge and Wisdom was called “implanted knowledge” by the

Holy Fathers when they spoke of “…the brightness of the Wisdom of

the Word of God … growing gradually according to His Body‟s

age…” and of the Divine Nature “…which revealed Its Wisdom

according to the measure of the Body‟s age…” when they observed

that the humanity of the God-Man “…increased in Wisdom and

stature, and in favour with God and men.”667

The Wisdom of God

and the Divine things are not received from an external Source outside

660 John 8:38. 661 Cf. John 5:30. 662 St Cyril of Alexandrian, To John 8:38, in Migne, 73, 873. 663 Acts 2:33. 664 John 2:42-50. 665 John 3:11. 666 Zigabinos, To John, in Migne, P.G., 129, 1225. St Augustine, In Johannis

evangelium, Tractatus XXIII, 15, in migne, P.L., 35, 1592. 667 Luke 2:52.

115

of the Deified human nature, nor was this graduation “… externally

from the Word, but „the flesh which increased in Him…‟” and from

God giving Wisdom to Him.668

Besides this supernatural vision and internal transmission of

the Divine Wisdom to the human nature of Christ, the God-Man

received knowledge from experience as well, advancing according to

the measure of His human nature. Hence, it is written in Holy

Scripture that “…although He was the Son…He learned obedience…”

from the things that “… He suffered.”669

“Through experience, He

learned about death…”670

“…taught by the sufferings…”671

and

“…learned the obedience to God as a Man.”672

Christ

“…continuously learned to obey…”673

and gained “… obedience from

the sufferings.”674

Furthermore, by means of His experience and the

temptations that He resisted, He learnt “…to sympathize with our

weaknesses.”675

It is obvious that the supernatural, the direct Divine godly

vision and revealed wisdom, as well as the knowledge that Christ

gained from His experience of the material world, could not be

compared to the Word‟s All-wisdom and Infinite Knowledge. No

matter how supernatural the direct Divine enlightenment was, it

remained a rich treasure of Truth, Divine, uncontaminated by errors or

lies and a vessel for the limited human nature of the Word. Hence He

was admired by the teachers of the Temple who “…were astonished

at His understanding and answers.”676

Christ proclaimed Himself as

being the “… Light of the world…which came into the world…”677

to

free from darkness those who believe in Him. He declared that He is

668 St Cyril of Alexandrian, To John 8:38, in Migne, 73, 873. Ibid, To Luke, in

Migne, P.G., 72, 508. St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, III, § 53, in Migne, P.G., 26, 433. 669 Heb. 5:8. 670 St Ecumenius, To Hebrews, in Migne, P.G., 119, 325. 671 Theophylactus of Bulgaria, in Migne, P.G., 125, 244. 672 Zigabinos, To John, in Migne, P.G., 129, 1225. 673 Kalogeras, II, p. 374. 674 St John Chrysostom, To Hebrews, Homily 8, § 2, in Montfaucon, v. 12, p. 120. 675 Heb. 4:15. 676 Luke 2:46-47. 677 John 12:46.

116

“…the Truth…”678

and that “…He came into the world, in order to

witness the Truth.”679

He claimed the title of “Teacher” under a

unique meaning, discouraging His Disciples from being referred to as

“teachers,” “…for one is our Teacher, the Christ.”680

All these

Divine declarations testify that above every Holy Prophet or God-

inspired man, Christ our Lord is the Teacher of the Truth681

Who

Incarnated the Divine Truth within Him. For this reason He is the

unique “…Light of the world…”682

Who gave mankind the supremely

perfect Revelation and Divine Enlightenment.683

Whenever He reveals

the unknown future to men, what is to happen to the Church and to the

servants of the Gospel684

as well as what is to happen elsewhere, or by

showing that He knows and “…searches the minds and hearts…” of

men,685

He reveals His supernatural knowledge and pronounces that

“…for the sameness of the Hypostasis, the Lord‟s Soul was enriched

with the things of the future and unknown knowledge.”686

Although Christ, according to His human nature, is the fullness

of the saving Truth, He does not ignore anything concerning the

means of salvation and without any error, He interprets the perfect

Revelation of God to us. He appears to ignore either details of human

knowledge or elements of Divine Truth that God does not want to

reveal. Although these remain unknown, they do not affect the

perfection of Divine Revelation. Thus, for example, in Bethany He

inquired where St Lazarus had been buried.687

“As Man, asking and

crying and doing all and willing by both of His Natures other things of

humanity, other than those of Divinity.” Another example was when,

after His Transfiguration, a demon-possessed youth was brought to

Him whereupon He asked the boy‟s father: “How long has this been

678 John 14:6. 679 John 18:37. 680 Matth. 23:8. 681 John 1:45. 682 John 8:12. 683 John 1:9. 684 Rev. 1:19. 685 Rev. 2:23. 686 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the natural and incontestable passions,

III, 64, 21, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1084. 687 John 11:34.

117

happening to him?”688

At the time of His Second Coming, He

verifies that “…of that day and hour no one knows, not even the

Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”689

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria commented that

“…concerning the time of the end of all…” the Lord “… as the Word

knows, but as Man, He ignores…” and since He became Man “…He is

not ashamed because of the flesh to say that „I do not know.” He did

not say that “…neither does „the Son of God‟ know, in order that the

Deity does not appear ignorant, but simply „the Son,‟ in order that the

ignorance comes from „the Son of Man.” As “…Man born among

men, He hungers and thirsts and suffers. Likewise as Man, He does

not know.” For example, “… about Lazarus, as a Man He asks...” but

as God He knows that “…He will recall Lazarus‟ soul.”690

St Gregory of Nyssa, assigning the irreproachable passions to

the human nature of Christ, asserted that His human nature and not

His Deity “…suffers, nurses, swaddles, eats … runs to the fig tree…

ignores the tree and the hour of crop… the day and the hour He does

not know…” opposing Apollinarius who proclaimed that the human

nature of the Lord was deprived of an intellectual soul and instead of a

mind and soul, He had „the Word.‟ “How does his (Apollinarius‟) God

Incarnated ignore the day and the hour? How does He not know the

time of the fig that at Pascha He would not find a crop on the tree?

Who is ignorant?”691

St Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus observed that the

God-Man “…knows as God…” but He “… ignores as Man.” “He

takes the ignorance to be of His humanity and not His Divinity.”692

St Basil the Great, referring to the Biblical verse of St Mark,

commented that Christ “…showed that the ignorance was by

688 Mark 9:21. 689 Mark 13:32. 690 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, III, §§ 43 and 46, in Migne, P.G., 26,

413 and 421. 691 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius, 24, in Migne, P.G., 45, 1173. 692 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 30, § 15, in Migne, P.G., 36, 124.

118

Economia and that He progressed among God and men with Wisdom

and Grace, not receiving from any external source this Wisdom.”693

Eulogius of Alexandria excluded any ignorance of the present

and future from the Lord. His opinion was supported and accepted by

Gregory the Great in the West.694

5. Transmission of the Holiness & Sinlessness of the Divine

Nature to the Human Nature of the Lord

The Divine Nature‟s perfection that was transmitted to the

Lord‟s human nature is the Lord‟s holiness and absolute sinless

condition.695

St Luke in his Holy Gospel, when speaking of the

Annunciation of the Theotokos by Archangel Gabriel, characterized

that which would be born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin as the

“Holy One.”696

In St Joseph the Betrothed‟s dream, the Angel

comforted him with the assurance that “…that which is conceived in

her is of the Holy Spirit.”697

It is obvious that from the time of the

Word‟s Incarnation in the Virgin‟s Womb, “… the Word became

flesh.” Christ‟s flesh was anointed with Deity and “…with us it is

sanctified according to human capability.” Because of the conception

by the Holy Spirit, the anointing occurred. As a result “…the

sanctification of the flesh, which is not by nature Holy…” happened,

due to being a “…participant with God.”698

Jesus Christ is the absolute Anointed One, the CHRIST,

because “…when He became flesh…” “…He was anointed with the

Oil of Gladness; in other words, with the Holy Spirit by God the

Father…” Who gave Him unrestricted “…energy of the Holy Spirit…”

693 St Basil the Great, Epist. to Amphilochius 236, § 1, in Migne, P.G., 32, 877. 694 St Gregory the Great, Epist. X, 39, see in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 132.

Ott, Precis, p. 238. 695 Cf. Frangopoulos, Christian Faith, pp. 137-139. Mitsopoulos, Themata, p. 151. 696 Luke 1:35. 697 Matth. 1:20. 698 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About when was Christ called, IV, 79, 6, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1112. St Cyril of Alexandria, To Psalm 44, in Migne, P.G., 69,

1040.

119

“…for God does not give the Spirit by measure.”699

He was anointed

with “…the Oil of Gladness… more than (His) companions…”700

or

more than anyone who participated in this anointing. Christ was not

anointed by the Holy Spirit as were other Holy men by their limited

capacity. The Father did not give Him “…one or two Energies…” but

bestowed upon Him “… all the Energy…” of the Holy Spirit so that

the Christ “…has essentially the Spirit.” His anointing was “…not by

Energy which sanctified other anointed ones…” but was accomplished

“…in the complete Presence of Him Who anointed.”701

The Lord, through the anointing of His flesh, did not receive

the sanctification for Himself only as it transpires with humanity. He

received it so that “…it will become for all men as it is for Himself.”

The Lord sanctifies “…through Himself the whole man, as becoming

the yeast for the whole dough…”702

of mankind “…and uniting to

Himself that which was once condemned, loosens all who were bound

because of the Offence.”703

Thus “…we have the Grace of the Holy

Spirit, receiving it from His fullness…”704

being “…full of Grace…”705

“…which we all receive.”706

Origen remarked that “…it is not said…” in the Gospel of St

John “…‟His fullness,‟ but „from His fullness…,‟as from an eternal

spring.”707

For “…all the Saints were not filled from all the fullness,

but received a small portion of it…”708

because as “…self-spring and

699 John 3:34. 700 Heb. 1:9. Psalm 44(45):7. Is. 61:1-3. 701 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About when was Christ called, IV, 79, 6, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1112. St Cyril of Alexandria, To Psalm 44, in Migne, P.G., 69,

1040. Zigabinos, To John 3:34, in Migne, P.G., 129, 1181. St Ecumenius, To Hebrews, in Migne, P.G., 119, 288. St John Chrysostom, To John 3:34, in

Montfaucon, v. 8, 199. Theophylactus of Bulgaria, in Migne, P.G., 123, 1221. St

Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 30, § 21, in Migne, P.G., 36, 132. 702 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians I, § 47, in Migne, P.G., 26, 109. 703 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 30, § 21, in Migne, P.G., 36, 132. 704 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians I, § 50, in Migne, P.G., 26, 117. 705 John 1:14. 706 John 1:16. 707 Origen, To John 1:16, in B, v. 12, p. 342. 708 St Cyril of Alexandria, To Psalm 44, in Migne, P.G., 69, 169.

120

self-root…”709

Christ pours out this richness “…to all others,

remaining full and under no circumstances decreasing because of the

transmission to others.”710

Many of the Holy Fathers accept that when our Lord Jesus was

anointed in the River Jordan, “…the Holy Spirit came upon Him as in

the form of a dove…”711

“…and the descent of the Holy Spirit was

essential and He was anointed with the spiritual Oil of Gladness…”

and “…as a dove, appeared the Holy Spirit descending and resting

upon Him…and He received as a Man.” The same Holy Fathers who

refer to the anointing of Christ during His Baptism in the Jordan River

also refer to it occurring previously, during the pregnancy of the

Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos. This manifests that the

anointing took place in both cases. The conception and unity of the

Word of God with the flesh that He received, was simultaneously the

anointing and sanctification of His flesh, according to which the

Incarnated “…was He Who was anointing and the anointed; anointing

as God and being anointed as Man.” “Anointing as God the Body to

His Deity, being anointed as Man…” and “…the Deity anointing the

humanity.” Our Lord‟s Holy baptism was exalted by the special

Grace that was granted after He reached manhood in order to

complete the Messianic Work for which He was called. The one who

was sanctified from His immaculate conception and who pleased the

Heavenly Father, was anointed “…by the Father as the Saviour of the

whole world with the Holy Spirit.”712

This repeated anointment of the

Lord according to His humanity, appears to be in agreement with the

testimony of St Luke, according to which the Lord “…increased in

wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men.”713

Hence the

709 Origen, To John 1:16, in B, v. 12, p. 343. 710 St John Chrysostom, To John 3:34, in Montfaucon, v. 8, 90. 711 Matth. 3:16. Mark 1:10. Luke 3:22. John 1:32. 712 St Cyril of Alexandria, To Psalm 44, in Migne, P.G., 69, 1040. St Cyril of

Jerusalem, Catechesis, III, 1-2, in Migne, P.G., 33, 1088 and 1089. St Athanasius

the Great, About the incarnation epiphany of God the Word and against Arians, § 9,

in Migne, P.G., 36, 997. St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the genealogy of

the Lord and about the holy Theotokos, IV, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1161. Ibid,

Exposition. About the two natures, against Monophysites, III, 47, 3, in Migne, P.G.,

94, 989. St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, III, 2, in Migne, P.G., 33, 1089. 713 Luke 3:52.

121

Holy Fathers, referring to the second anointment proclaimed that

“…as a price of good achievements, we think that it was given…” to

Christ and that “…the Son of sinlessness was anointed with praises

according to us as a Man, being worthy of the anointment of the Holy

Spirit…” in that He descended and remained upon Him forever. Thus

the Lord, having the Hypostatic Union in Him as well as the full

Grace of sanctification, received an additional anointment, by leading

a Holy Life during His thirty three years of earthly time, thereby

pleasing the Father Whose Divine Words He heard at the Jordan

River:714

“This is My beloved Son, in Whom I Am pleased.”715

Hence the scholastics theologians and the new Roman

Catholics distinguished in the fullness of Christ‟s Grace the

“substantial grace of holiness” (“gratia substantialis” or “gratia

increata”), which the Lord had from the first moment of His human

conception and which made Him inwardly and especially Holy

(“gratia accidentalis” or “gratia creata”), according to which each

soul as a creation and mortal creation becomes Holy716

.

According to St Augustine, our Lord Jesus Christ as God not

only gave the Holy Spirit to others but also, as Man, received the Holy

Spirit.717

St Cyril of Alexandria spoke of the anointing from the Father

and the sanctification of the Lord‟s flesh, “…which was not by nature

Holy, but became such within its participation with God.”

Sanctification is granted to those creatures who receive the richness of

His Grace externally. Consequently, the human nature of our Lord, as

a creation, “…is sanctified with us according to His humanity…”

although internally His human nature receives it from His uncreated

and Divine Nature. Thus He Who received “…the new name

714 St Basil the Great, Homily to Psalm 44, § 5, in Migne, P.G., 29, 397. St Cyril of

Alexandria, About the incarnation of the only Begotten, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1369. 715 Matth. 3:17. Mark 1:17. Luke 3:22. 2 Peter 1:17. 716 Bartmann, Theologue Dogmatique, I, p. 396. Ott, Precis, pp. 243-244. 717 St Augustine, De Trinitatis, XV, 26, 46, migne, P.L., 42, 1093.

122

„Christ‟…as being anointed by the Father…” and being the Word of

God and God “…is the Giver of sanctification to the others.”718

As the negative side of the Lord‟s perfect human holiness, one

can characterize His sinlessness, which is guaranteed by the

Hypostatic Union of the two Natures. Truly, if even a shadow of sin

had ever entered in the God-Man, the contaminated human nature

would have immediately separated from the absolute Holy Divine

Nature and the God-Man would not exist. Since our Lord, until the

end, “…had conquered the world…”719

and “…the ruler of the

world…” could not find anything with which to accuse Him,720

even at

the last moments, He had the right to say to His Father: “The Work I

have completed, which Thou had given to Me to do…” and thus He

requested to be glorified by the Father “…with the Glory which He

had from Him before the world was made.”721

We have complete

assurance that throughout His entire life Christ remained sinless. This

was verified by our Lord Himself Who confronted His opponents by

saying to them: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?”722

and asserting

that “…as My Father had commanded Me, thus I do…”723

thereby

distinguishing Himself from other men724

who were forced to seek the

forgiveness of God by means of their repentance but which He never

had to ask of the Father.

Furthermore, the hope of those Disciples who surrounded Him

for three years bears witness of His sinlessness. St John the Apostle

convinces us that “…He was manifested, in order to take up our sins

and sin was not found in Him.”725

St Peter proclaimed that Christ

“…committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth.”726

St Paul

manifested the universal belief of the Church that is based on the

718 St Cyril of Alexandria, in Migne, P.G., 68, 662. Ibid, To Psalm 44(45), in

Migne, P.G., 69, 1040. 719 John 16:33. 720 John 14:30 721 John 17:4, 5 722 John 8:46. 723 John 14:31. 724 Matth. 6:9; 7:11 etc. 725 1 John 3:5. 726 1 Peter 2:22.

123

evidence of all the eyewitnesses of our Lord that “…He knew no sin,

but became for us sin…” and conquered sin in order that “…we

become righteous of God in Him.”727

In the Epistle to the Hebrews,

the Lord is described as “…the High-priest…” Who is “…Holy,

harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners…”728

and

“…compassionate to our weakness … without sin.”729

The Angelic words addressed to the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary

and St Joseph the Betrothed that our Lord Jesus was conceived by the

Holy Spirit and that from the moment of His conception He was Holy,

assure us that the Lord was completely free of the Original Sin as well

as evil desire (“concupiscentia”).

The 5th

Ecumenical Synod condemned Theodorus of

Mopsuestias and all those who said that Christ had sinful passions of

the soul, desires of the flesh and that He progressed from the worst

state towards a perfect and blameless life.730

The 6th

Ecumenical

Synod proclaimed Christ to be “…consubstantial to us according to

the humanity; in all the same with us without sin…” “…His human

will not opposing, but submitting to His Divine Will.”

Concerning the question of whether our Lord could have

committed sin, being free of the tendency towards evil and being

completely free of sinful desire, the second Adam (Christ) was in a

more superior state than Adam before the Fall. The first Adam was

called to progress within the union with God by means of the Grace

that was granted to him externally, which assured his permanent

adoption by Grace. The second Adam Who came from Heaven, was

united with God the Word from His conception in the Ever-Virgin‟s

Holy Womb, having by Nature the Sonship as a result of the

Hypostatic Union of His two Natures. In the first Adam, the Divine

Life was externally transmitted like a fountain, whereas the human

nature of the second Adam was received from the Divine Fountain of

Life that was hypostatically united with it like members of one and the

727 2 Corinth. 5:21. 728 Heb. 7:26. 729 Heb. 4:15. 730 Canon 12 of the 5th Ecumenical Synod, Pedalion, pp. 303-305.

124

same body that receive the source of life from the head or as the

branches of a tree are nourished directly from their source. It is

obvious that the new Adam of Grace received the richness of Grace

directly from the Source of the Deity that dwelt within Him.

Indisputably, the Lord‟s human nature is not Infinite, for even after

the Hypostatic Union the human nature continued to be restricted. In

relation to us who are extracted from sin and who are struggling daily

against sin, His human nature is incomparable, being “…the fullness

of Grace and Truth.”731

Consequently the God-Man could never have

sinned, being from the beginning, untouched by sinful heredity,

having the purest moral conscience and the automatic tendency

towards good since His conception in the Ever-Virgin‟s Womb. Thus

St Basil the Great concluded that other “…men through pain, exercise

and attention achieve the desire towards good and the aversion to the

corrupt…” whereas our Lord was “…by Nature familiar towards the

good and alien towards lawlessness.”732

According to Holy Scripture the God-Man appears “…familiar

in all…” to us.733

The Lord‟s temptations were neither a type of

fantasy, delusion nor imagination. They transpired within the God-

Man as much as “…the Deity which dwelt in Him allowed…”734

“…and in absentia, left the flesh naked of its own Power, in order to

reveal its weakness and thus to ascertain its nature.”735

The weak

human nature struggled against the temptations while at the same time

being assisted by the Deity that dwelt within Him, just as the first

Adam would have been divinely assisted had he resisted the Tempter.

Thus the Lord “…had to put on the form of a servant in order to gain

victory for the one who was once defeated…and gave Power to the

(human) Nature…” in order that “…that which was once defeated by

those temptations, through the same, to gain victory over the one who

once became victorious.”736

Otherwise, if His human nature had not

731 John 1:14. 732 St Basil the Great, To Psalm 44(45), § 8, in Migne, P.G., 29, 405. 733 Heb. 4:15. 734 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the Lord‟s incarnation, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1457. 735 St John Chrysostom, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 397. 736 St Cyril of Alexandria, Homily II, ch. 36, in Migne, P.G., 76, 1384. Ibid, About

the Lord‟s incarnation, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1464. St Athanasius the Great, Against

125

gained victory over Satan as it happened with the first Adam at the

Fall and had the Divine Nature of the God-Man gained victory over

him instead, then fallen man would have gained nothing and Satan

would have boasted that he had “….fought with God and was defeated

by God.” Death would not have been defeated if the human nature of

our Lord had not been delivered unto death. Likewise, according to

the opinion of the Holy Fathers, the Lord had to be tempted by each

passion of the flesh so as to gain victory over them, thereby moving

them to apatheia (“without passions”) and causing the nature of the

entire human race to benefit. If the Lord had not lost courage in the

Garden of Gethsemane, “…human nature would not have been freed

from this passion; if He had not been saddened, He would not have

been freed of sadness…” and generally the irreproachable passions are

changed for the better in Christ.737

During the Lord‟s temptations “…the Tempter attacked Him

externally…not through thoughts…” that are caused by sinful

tendencies or desire, of which the Lord was completely free. We

could never accept that “…in discrimination of thoughts…” and with

wavering, the Lord renounced “…the corrupt…” and preferred “…the

good.” In spite of this, Satan took advantage of the circumstances that

arose due to the Lord‟s irreproachable passions, attempting to enter

His inner parts. After the forty days of fasting in the desert, the Lord

was hungry and “…that of the flesh prevailed, in order to gain

experience and for the tempter to be ashamed; and the first man who

had fallen because he partook from the forbidden fruit, through self-

restraint to be raised.”738

The Tempter had found an opportunity in

the inner need of hunger, which at that moment the God-Man

suffered. Similarly in the Garden of Gethsemane “…the human

Apollinarius II, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1148. St John of Damascus, Exposition.

About the natural and unslandered passions, III, 64, 20, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1081. 737 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the Lord‟s incarnation, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1444.

St Athanasius the Great, To the Now My soul is troubled, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 597. St

Cyril of Alexandria, in Migne, 75, 397 and Mansi v. 11, p. 409. 738 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the natural and unslandered passions,

III, 64, 20, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1081. St Cyril of Alexandria, To John, book IV, 20,

5, in Migne, P.G., 73, 657.

126

nature of Christ was found weak…”739

because through the

irreproachable passion of repugnance of death, He experienced “…the

opposite to that of the flesh…”740

whereupon the Divine Nature

“…immediately moved to assist…” the irreproachable passion of fear

and cowardliness by transforming “…immediately to incomparable

daring that which was defeated by cowardliness.”741

It appears

clearly that in the Garden of Gethsemane “…death was not wanted by

Christ because of the flesh and the inglorious suffering of the

Cross.”742

“Although He was in agony…” He did not resign from His

obedience to His Heavenly Father for the benefit of mankind743

and

through Divine Assistance, the “…very weak of will was made into

wanting.”744

Consequently in the God-Man the “non potuit peccare”

presupposed the “potuit non peccare.”

In the Hypostatic Union of the two Natures, the human

freedom of the God-Man was not lost but was raised and Deified

“…manifesting the sinlessness by Nature and by Power.” The

Hypostatic Union of the two Natures contributed to the natural

inability of sinning, whereas the direct Vision of God contributed to

the moral determination not to sin.745

We can understand Christ‟s

natural inability to sin when we refer to St John‟s words that

“…whoever is born from God does not sin, for His seed remains in

him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.”746

From

the beginning, before the Fall, Adam‟s nature “…was made not to

sin.”747

We “…were led from the natural to the unnatural (state)

739 St Cyril of Alexandria, To John, book IV, ch. 1, in Migne, P.G., 73, 529. See

also the 10th Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 420. 740 St Athanasius the Great, To Now My soul is trouble, in the 14th Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 597. 741 St Cyril of Alexandria, To Matthew, in Migne, P.G., 72, 926, passage in the 10th

Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 413. 742 St Cyril of Alexandria, To John, book IV, ch. 1, in Migne, P.G., 73, 529. Passage

in the 10th Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 420. 743 St John Chrysostom, To John, book II, homily 67, in Mansi, v. 11, p. 408. 744 St Cyril of Alexandria, in Migne, P.G., 72, 456. Mansi, v. 11, p. 412. 745 Ott, Precis, p. 243. 746 1 John 3:9. 747 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, II, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 36, 1145.

127

because of the Offence.”748

Consequently, “…sinning became a

necessity.”749

However, “…the condition of this necessity and the law

of sin…”750

was smashed by the human nature of our Lord Jesus and,

being united with the Word of God, “…brought us back from the

unnatural to the natural…” state.751

Power was revealed when the

God-Man “…captured the tyrant of captivity…”752

and “…changed

the (fallen human) nature towards a greater and Divine

condition…”753

so as not to be moved or overthrown due to weakness

of virtuous effort. This absolute sinless condition of our Lord did not

deprive Him of His freedom to choose between good and evil, nor did

it decrease His freedom, since it is impossible for God to turn towards

evil. Committing wickedness is not perfection but imperfection and

weakness of will.

It is therefore evident that our Lord Jesus Christ became our

moral Prototype in reality and not implausibly, in view of the fact that

He became like us in everything except sin, being “…without sin.” He

cultivated virtue as Man and His moral perfection is projected to us in

order to be imitated. His human nature fulfills the receptive capacity

of our human nature. Although He was tempted as one of us, it was

only externally because His inner world is free of all tendency to sin.

The victory over the Tempter was achieved through the One Who was

similar to him who was once deceived in the Garden of Eden, by

projecting the form of the servant against the enemy. In flesh, Christ

fulfilled the obedience as perfect Man within Himself. Through

Himself He submitted human nature to God the Father, thereby

offering us a perfect type and model to imitate. In His struggle against

sin, He gained victory over the ruler of this generation and over his

instruments, not by using the Power of His Deity nor by calling upon

the Angels for assistance but by becoming one responsible Person

748 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1044. 749 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, II, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 36, 1145. 750 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1044. 751 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, II, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 36, 1145. 752 St Cyril of Alexandria, To Matthew, book VIII, in Migne, P.G., 72, 921. 753 Fragment from the 10th Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, 11, 413.

128

Who was tempted and Who anointed the Man Who was taught virtue

and justice to the extreme.754

In addition, the Lord‟s perfection in Virtue and Knowledge as

Man increased as He grew and progressively became alienated from

all “evilness.” Although our Lord became like us, He advanced to a

more superior level of Knowledge. He learnt “…obedience from what

He had experienced, receiving the experience as His teacher … not

knowing (the obedience) before the experience…” “…taking the

perfection in part…” “…continuing to be obedient to God and

becoming perfect through all that He experienced.” Throughout His

Life on earth there was not a moment when He was disobedient

despite being imbued with the tendency from His birth. His obedience

was manifested especially at the time of His Passions “…where He

honoured the obedience to the Father by His action…” and “… which

He experienced from the suffering.” Our Lord Jesus Christ was

always sinless and Holy. In His growth of virtue “…He is shaped in

all according to the human capacity…”755

not progressing from

weakness towards power or from defectiveness towards perfection but

instead always manifesting the power and tendency towards virtue

that were within Him.

It is impossible for us human beings to be absolutely sinless

like our moral Prototype. We can, however, partake in the fullness of

His Holiness and gain victory as He gained victory over the world.

7. The Deification of the Power in the God-Man

The human nature of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the

instrument of the Word of God, partook of the Power to perform

754 St Athanasius the Great, Against Apollinarius, II, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1148.

St John of Damascus, Exposition. About wills and free-wills, III, 62, 18, in Migne,

P.G., 94, 1076. St Cyril of Alexandria, About the Lord‟s incarnation, in Migne,

P.G., 75, 1433. Ibid, That one is the Christ, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1332. 755 St Cyril of Alexandria, About the Lord‟s incarnation, in Migne, P.G., 75, 1457.

St John Chrysostom, To Hebrews, Homily VIII, § 2, in Migne, P.G., 63, 70. St

Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 30, § 6, in Migne, P.G., 36, 109. St Athanasius the

Great, To Psalm 15 (16), in Migne, P{.G., 27, 104.

129

supernatural works of the Divine Nature according to the natural

world. This Deification of Power in the human nature of our Lord did

not eliminate its limitations nor did it change into Almightiness

ascribed only to the Infinite Divine Nature. The Lord acted

supernaturally on a level incomparably more superior than that of any

other holy men who performed miracles in the past, present or future.

In the Holy Gospels, the Lord Jesus Christ healed everyone

who was presented to Him including those who, by simply touching

Him, received restoration of health.756

Christ did not borrow Power

from anyone else like it had been necessary for the Prophets and other

holy men who did not possess Power by nature. Instead they received

it from Above and only through God‟s Grace were they able to

perform miracles.757

The Lord, on the contrary, “…being the fountain

of all Good has all the Power coming out of Him…” and not only as

Man but “…being by Nature God…” and “… although He became

flesh, He healed everyone by the outpouring His Power.”758

His

human nature became “…the Instrument of the Divinity…” serving the

Work of miracles, being “…the Body of God.”759

The supernatural Energy within the moral field of the Lord‟s

flesh is manifested particularly in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist,

where the Lord‟s flesh is characterized as “…Life-giving…” and as

“…the Bread of Life…” “…which nourishes us in the eternal Life…”

and “…uproots from the foundations the mortality and death which

inhabited the human flesh.”760

For this flesh is not “…the flesh of a

high man, but that of the Son…” Who was Incarnated “…full of all

the Deity…” and to it the Word “…was united to the extreme.” For

this reason, “…it is Life-giving, although it remained what it was and

did not change into the Word‟s Nature.”761

Although through the

union with the Divine Nature “…It is not one Nature, but one of the

756 Matt. 4:23-24; 8:7, 16; 10:1; 12:22; 14:14; 17:18; 19:2. Mark 1:34; 3:10, 15;

6:13. Luke 6:18; 7:21; 8:43; 9:1, 6; 13:14. 757 Theophylactus of Bulgaria, To Luke 6:19, in Migne, P.G.,123, 772. Ibid, To Luke

8:46, in Migne, P.G.,123, 809 758 St Cyril of Alexandria, To Luke 6, 19, in Migne, P.G., 72, 588. 759 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, III, § 31, in Migne, P.G., 26, 389. 760 St Cyril of Alexandria, To John 6:35 and 55, in Migne, P.G., 74, 517 and 584. 761 Ammonius, To John 6:55, in Migne, P.G., 85, 1440.

130

Body, and another of the Deity, which is united with it…”762

“…the

Lord‟s flesh is spiritual Life-giving, for it was conceived by the Life-

giving Spirit and thus it is Life-giving and Divine.”763

8. The Deification of the Lord’s Human Nature after His

Resurrection

The Deification of the Lord‟s human nature, as previously

mentioned, refers to the period of Christ‟s Life on earth when He

emptied Himself so as to appear in the form of a servant and dwell

amongst men. From the moment the Lord died on the Cross, His

human nature was elevated after His Suffering, “…putting aside all

the irreproachable passions…” such as “…the mortality, the hunger

and the thirst, the need of sleep and weariness and all the similar…”

sensations, having a “Body” that is imperishable, immortal and

glorious, as well as a soul that is “… intellectual … and spiritual…”

with which “…He was raised into the Heavens and thus…” is now

“… sitting at the Right Hand of God…” “…His flesh being glorified.”

Furthermore, He was given all the authority in Heaven and on earth.

The transmission of the richness of the Divine Nature to His human

nature was accomplished to an even greater degree, although His

human nature preserved its restrictions and remained unaltered

although being elevated to such level that even “…the Heavenly and

invisible Powers…” give more “…honour…” to it. Thus before the

Sufferings and the Resurrection “…the Nature of the flesh was not

glorified, nor enjoyed immortality, nor participated of the Royal

Throne…” for He said to His Father: “…Father glorify Me, with the

glory which I had with Thee before the world was made.”764

Immediately after His glorious Resurrection He prevented St Mary

Magdalene from touching Him, commanding her: “Do not touch Me,”

762 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the holy and precious mysteries of the

Lord, IV, 86, 13, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1149. 763 Ibid, Exposition. About the holy and precious mysteries of the Lord, IV, 86, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1152. 764 John 17:5.

131

but at the same time assuring her that “…this Body is not the same as

the one during His Life on earth, but the Heavenly from above.”765

By the specific words “…from above…” we must distinguish

the Deification (Theosis) of the Lord‟s human nature during the period

of His humble estate and emptiness (Incarnation), from that of the

Theosis, in which His human nature participated after the Resurrection

and the sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father that is connected to

the Royal Office of Christ as King.

9. The Lord as the High Prophet Because of the Hypostatic Union

of His Two Natures

Jesus Christ is the most unique and only Teacher and Prophet

compared to all other Prophets. He is incomparably perfect and the

only One Who is worthy to be called “Teacher” with the absolute

meaning of the term and according to which no other man could ever

be truly called “Teacher” or “Prophet.” The incomparable perfection

of the Office of our Lord Jesus is due to the Hypostatic Union of His

human nature with the Divine Nature of the Word. He “...witnesses

what He has seen...” not only due to the condition of His Eternal and

beginninless pre-existence with the Father and the Holy Spirit but

during His life on earth, by preserving His communion with the Father

and as “...the Son of Man Who is in the Heavens...”766

judging “...as

He hears...” “...for He does not seek His own Will, but the Will...” of

the Father.767

Christ‟s incomparable superiority having come as the Son of

God768

is compared to all other Prophets who were sent throughout

different periods as servants into the Divine Vineyard. Our Lord did

765 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the after the resurrection, IV, 74, 1 and

2, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1101 and 1104. Matt. 28:18. Heb. 2:9. St John of Damascus,

To 1 Corinth. 13:1 in Migne, P.G., 95, 692. St John Chrysostom, To John 17:5, in

Montfaucon, v. 8, p. 544. John 20:17. Theophylactus of Bulgaria, To John, in

Migne, P.G., 124, 296. 766 John 3:13. 767 John 5:30. 768 Matth. 21:38-42.

132

not receive the Light as did the other Prophets because He is the Light.

The Prophets received Divine Revelation in their daily lives

throughout the different centuries. The Supernatural conditions they

experienced was temporary and the miracles would pass by whereas

Christ is “...the Prophet powerful in words and in deeds.”769

His Life

is a continuous Miracle and Supernatural condition. Every deed and

word is a manifestation of the Great Miracle of the Incarnation of the

Word and Son of God. Christ is the Eternal Word of the Father Who

Enlightened the Prophets. He is the Anointed Messiah about Whom

the Prophets spoke and Who was the final goal of all their Prophecies.

He is the Divine Revelation Himself.

Origen proclaimed that “...previously the Christ and Word of

God was in Moses and the Prophets, for without the Word of God how

was it possible for them to prophesy about the Christ?”770

This

opinion was based on Holy Scripture that not only proclaims the Word

of God as “...the Light which Enlightens every man coming into the

world...”771

but also ascertains that “...the Spirit of Christ...” which

was within the Prophets “...manifested the sufferings of Christ and the

glory after them.”772

The activities of the Prophets referred to the

coming of the Great Prophet and His Activities. This was a

preparation. The Prophets of old pre-announced the realisation of the

Divine Plan of Salvation in Christ by prophesying the future

Economia of Salvation. When the time was accomplished, the Great

Prophet came announcing the establishment of this new Economia, of

which He is the Leader and in Whom all Prophecies are fulfilled.

The Prophecy of Christ is the end of all Prophecies. All the

Prophets who will follow after Him, will be His witnesses and will

continue although they will be unable to announce any new

Prophecies.773

Christ pre-announces the future similar to the Prophets

of old except that an essential difference exists between them and

Him. The Prophets did not prophesy about Christ and His Coming by

769 Luke 24:19. 770 Origen, About Principals, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, ΙΙ, p. 155, note 10. 771 John 1:4. 772 1 Peter 1:11. 773 Martensen, p. 451.

133

means of their own abilities but through the Enlightenment of God

whereas when Christ speaks of the future, He refers to Himself and

reveals Himself as being the Centre of the Age to come. He appears

as the One Who will come to Judge the living and the dead.774

Until

the Second Appearance, the New World (His Church) will develop as

a Supernatural structure built upon the ruins of the old world, which is

the Kingdom of Heaven and of which He is the King.775

The Church

is a God-built structure which is also His Body776

and over which He

rules as its glorious Head.777

10. The Hypostatic Union Gives a Priceless Value and Power to

the Representative Sacrifice

The fact that the Sacrifice of Christ was able to lift up the sin of

the whole human race, from Adam to the last man to be born before

the Second Coming, was the result of the Son of God, as the second

Adam and the absolutely sinless, most precious and perfect Man,

consenting, by His own Will, to represent the human race and by

offering Himself as an Expiatory Sacrifice to God the Father for all of

us. This second Adam is not merely man. What could any man find

to offer for his life? Christ is True Man and He is True God the Word

Who became Man. He is not a fine Man but the Only Begotten Son of

God Who takes up a body in order to change all people and through

His Death to end their mortality through the Grace of Resurrection.

The Sacrifice on the Cross was not a Sacrifice of a fine Man but that

of the Word of God. As High Priest He offered and as Sacrificial

Victim He was offered for all humanity‟s freedom from guilt and by

His Death He defeated Satan through His Most Proper Offering.778

774 2 Tim. 4:1. 775 Rev. 11:15; 22:5. 776 1 Corinth. 12:27. 777 Ephes. 4:5. Col. 1:18. 778 St Basil the Great, To Psalm 48 (49), § 4, in Migne, P.G., 29, 440. St

Epiphanius, in Migne, P.G., 43, 185. St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, XIII, § 1-2,

in Migne, P.G., 33, 773. St Athanasius the Great, About the incarnation of the

Word, § 9, in Migne, P.G., 25, 112. St Cyril of Alexandria, That one is the Christ,

in Migne, P.G., 75, 1337.

134

According to the above, the Sacrifice offered by the God-Man

was a representative Sacrifice that the Son of God offered not only for

the sake of sin but also for the sake of all sinners. He took the place of

all sinners by suffering that which they had to endure and completed

whatever was required of them. This Sacrifice was the Ransom that

was paid for all mankind. The Death of the One Who “...died for

all...” and who “all died” in Him779

“...Redeemed us from the curse of

the Law...” by “... becoming for us a curse.”780

He carried the heavy

weight of the guilt of all sinners. His obedience and love with which

He suffered so patiently for others, was beyond price because He Who

died for all is more valuable than all humanity, for He is by Nature

God, the Word of God Who presented His own Body as a “...sweet-

smelling aroma...”781

and Who became the starting point of all

Virtue.782

The Heavenly Father admired this New Beginning, the

worthiness of Him Who offered the Sacrifice and the purity of Him

Who presented Himself as the Offering. Consequently, Christ being

familiar to the Heavenly Father He was accepted in His Hands with

the words: “Sit on My Right Hand.”783

St Gregory of Nyssa stressed that “...the Lord Who knew no sin

became sin for us and our enmity to God...” which was caused

because of our sins. “He took up and killed...” and “...through Himself

again united the human race to God.” He did not simply resolve the

enmity but in addition, the human nature that He took up built “...Him

into the new man according to God...” and, becoming familiar with it

because of the relationship with all of us, “...all the common things of

His Body and familiar nature, made friends with the Grace.” This

Sacrifice, which was so elect and spotless, became acceptable to the

Heavenly Father as though it had been offered by the sinful human

race. Through faith in Jesus Christ all those who believe are

incorporated into Him, the Deified Beginning, being at the same time

779 2 Corinth. 5:14-15. 780 Gal. 3:13. 781 Ephes. 5:2. 782 St Cyril of Alexandria, in Migne, P.G., 76, 1208 and 1436. Ibid, To John, book

IV, ch. II, in Migne, P.G., 73, 569. 783 St John Chrysostom, To the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, § 3, in Migne,

P.G., 50, 446.

135

united with Him Who pleases God.784

For the Son of God became

Man so that He may Deify us in Himself and so that He may make us

“....a chosen generation, a Royal Priesthood, a Holy Nation...”785

and

“...partakers of the Divine Nature.”786

THE MOTHER OF GOD

Since the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ was

accomplished from the moment of conception, the Mother of the

Saviour, Mary is truly honoured to be called “the Mother of God,”

“Ever-Blessed”, “Ever-Virgin”, “Above all Saints” and “Theotokos,”

for she did not give birth merely to a fine Man but to the Incarnated

Word and Son of God Who is the unique and only true God-Man.787

This Truth was proclaimed by the four Ecumenical Councils who

interpreted the Teachings of the New Testament and the Sacred

Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church. They acknowledged the

real Motherhood of the Ever-Virgin Mary in relation to Christ and the

conception by her of the Incarnated Son and Word of God.

Conceiving the God-Man in her holy Womb from the Holy Spirit, she

remained Ever-Virgin. She is the only woman to ever be

simultaneously a Mother and a Virgin, a Virgin and a Mother. Her

supernatural and immaculate conception and birth-giving of the God-

Man did not damage her virginity at all, neither before the Birth nor

during the Birth of her Child because even after the Birth she

remained a Virgin.

Mary, the Mother of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

never had any sexual relationship with St Joseph the Betrothed before

or after the Birth of the Incarnated Son of God. The “brothers” of

784 St Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Homily 12, in Migne, P.G., 45, 889. St

Athanasius the Great, To Adelphius, § 4, in Migne, P.G., 26, 1077. St Cyril of

Alexandria, Homily IV, That the Son is not a creation, in Migne, P.G., 75, 905.

Ibid, To John, book XI, ch. X, in Migne, P.G., 74, 545. Ibid, To Isaiah, book IV,

Homily II, in Migne, P.G., 70, 965. Ibid, To 1 Corinthians, in Migne, P.G., 74, 913. 785 1 Peter 2:9. 786 2 Peter 1:4. 787 Cf. Evdokimov, Orthodoxia, pp. 202-209.

136

Christ who are mentioned in Holy Scripture are not the children of the

Ever Blessed Mary but of St Joseph‟s first marriage.

“The election of the Virgin Mary is therefore, the culminating

point of Israel‟s progress toward reconciliation with God, but God‟s

final response to this progress and the beginning of New Life comes

with the Incarnation of the Word. Salvation needed „...a new root...‟

„...for no one, except God, is without sin; no one can give life; no one

can remit sins.‟ This „new root‟ is God the Word made flesh; the

Virgin Mary is His „temple.”788

From the beginning the Orthodox Church proclaimed Mary to

be Ever-Virgin and Theotokos and above All Saints (= “Panagia”).

Her virtuous and spotless life made her higher in Holiness than the

Cherubim and more honourable than the Seraphim, for she gave birth

to the God-Man. Although we confess her as Ever-Virgin, spotless,

stainless and undefiled from any personal sins, she was not free of

Original Sin. We believe that she was cleansed from Ancestral Sin at

the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit descended upon her and she

conceived the Incarnated Word of God supernaturally. Addressing

her as “Panagia,” meaning “Above all Saints,” we proclaim and

confess that she surpassed all righteous men and women of all times in

holiness. However, she was not completely sinless as having been

born of Adam she was guilty of Original Sin, although her Son, the

God-Man, is the only sinless One.

1. The Term “THEOTOKOS”

The 3rd

Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, using the first

Anathema of St Cyril of Alexandria, condemned Nestorius who

insisted that the Ever-Virgin Mary gave birth to the Man Christ and

consequently she should be referred to as “Man-bearer” (i.e. Mother

of the Man Who was never united with the Word) or “Christotokos”

(i.e. Mother of Christ but not Mother of the God-Man). This Council

proclaimed the Ever-Virgin to be truly “THEOTOKOS” (“God-

Bearer”) for she had indeed given birth to the Word of God Who

788 Meyendorff, Theology, p. 147.

137

became flesh. This term was repeated by the 4th

Ecumenical Council

in Chalcedon, which proclaimed that Christ “...during these last days

for us and our salvation...” was born “...from Mary the Virgin and

Theotokos according to His Humanity.”

The 6th

Ecumenical Council also proclaimed “...Mary to be

Virgin...” “...mainly and truly Theotokos.” Obviously by calling her

“Above all Saints Virgin” (“Panagia”), it is proclaimed that she is

“Mother” for she gave real birth to the human nature of the God-Man,

whereas she is certainly the “Mother of God” because she conceived,

carried and gave birth to the Incarnated Word and Son of God, the

Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who is true God. She did not give

birth to His Divine Nature but only to His human nature, which He

took up Hypostatically.

The Ever Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary was truly, not falsely,

the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This fact is

witnessed by Holy Scripture that refers to her as “...the Mother of

Jesus...” or “...His Mother...”789

and by the Archangel Gabriel when

he announced that she would conceive in her “...womb and bring forth

a Son.”790

To St Joseph the Betrothed the same Archangel announced

that “...that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”791

The

Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos was first addressed as “...the

Mother of the Lord...” by St Elizabeth, the mother of St John the

Baptist.792

St Paul stated that “...when the fullness of the time had

come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the

Law...”793

and that “...Jesus Christ our Lord, ... was born of the seed of

David according to the flesh.”794

The real motherhood of the Ever-Virgin Mary in relation to the

Lord was defended by the Holy Fathers and Ecclesiastic Writers of the

Orthodox Church, such as St Ignatius the Theophorus who declared

789 Matth. 1:18; 13:55. Mark 3:31, 32; 6:3. Luke 2:33, 43, 48. John 2:1; 19:26.

Acts1:14. 790 Luke 1:31. 791 Matth. 1:20. 792 Luke 1:43. 793 Gal. 4:4. 794 Rom. 1:3.

138

that our Lord “...is truly of the family of David with respect to human

descent...” and that He was “...truly born of a Virgin.”795

Elsewhere

the Apostolic Father said: “...for our God, Jesus the Christ was

conceived by Mary.”796

St Irenaeus confessed that because He was born of the Virgin

Mary, a descendant of men and a human being, the Lord was born as a

Man and thus He became the “Son of Man.”797

He added “...for what

reason then was He nourished in her, if He did not receive anything

from her?”798

Tertullian proclaimed that Christ was not born as the Gnostics

claimed “per virginem” (“through the Virgin”) or “in virgine” (“in the

Virgin”), but “ex virgine” (“from the Virgin”).799

The term “Theotokos” was first used by Origen and then by the

Holy Fathers. St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria believed that the

Son of God became Man by taking flesh “...from the Virgin

Theotokos.”800

St Gregory of Nazianzus accused all those “...who do not take

into consideration the Holy Mary as being Theotokos...” “... of being

without God.”801

St Cyril of Alexandria emphasised that: “Truly and Theotokos

and Virgin-Mother the rightly Blessed should be called. For Jesus

Who was born from her was not merely a fine Man.”802

795 St Ignatius, To Smyrnaeans, 1, 1, in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 110. 796 Ibid, To Ephesians, 18, 2, in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 92. 797 St Irenaeus, Heresies, III, 19, 3, in Migne, P.G., 7, 941. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 244-245. 798 St Irenaeus, Heresies, III, 22, 1-2, in Migne, P.G., 7, 955-956. Cf. Ibid, in

Hadjephraimides, pp. 252-253. 799 Tertullian, De carne Christi, 20, in migne, P.L., 2, 830. 800 St Athanasius the Great, Against Arians, III, § 29, in Migne, P.G., 26, 385. 801 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101, § 4, in Migne, P.G., 37, 176. 802 St Cyril of Alexandria, Homily against those who do not confess the holy Virgin

to be Theotokos, § 4, in Migne, P.G., 76, 260.

139

St John of Damascus, rejecting the term “Christotokos”

observed that “...rightfully and truthfully we should call the Holy

Mary Theotokos...” “...for He Who was born from her is truly God.”803

Mogilas observed that “...the Incarnation of Christ was

realised by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. As the Virgin, before

she had conceived was a virgin, likewise at her conception and after

the conception she remained a virgin even during the birth; for from

her He was born, preserving her virginity. So, even after the birth,

she remains forever a virgin.” For this reason “...the Most Pure

Virgin Mary... the Theotokos...” who was worthy to fulfil such a

Mystery, all Orthodox Christians are obliged to glorify accordingly

and to honour her as the Mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,

in other words as the “Theotokos.” “The Word of God, Who is

beginningless, came down from Heaven without carrying flesh with

Him, but in the Womb of the Holy Virgin and from her pure blood

took up flesh, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit and was born

from her as from a pure Mother.” “We also call her „Theotokos,‟

because she gave birth to God according to His Humanity, and from

her Christ was born, perfect God and perfect Man.”804

2. The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos according to H. Scripture

and the H. Fathers

Holy Scripture clearly bears witness to the Virginity of the

Theotokos in relation to the time of the conception and nourishment,

primarily in the question of the Ever-Virgin Mary who said: “...how

can this be, since I do not know a man?”805

St Matthew the

Evangelist bore witness to this by proclaiming that “...the Virgin shall

be with child...”806

and “...that which is conceived in her is of the Holy

Spirit.”807

803 St John of Damascus, Exposition. That the holy Virgin is Theotokos, III, 56, 12,

in Migne, P.G., 94, 1028. 804 Mogilas, in Karmeris, Τα Δογμαηικά, v. II, pp. 613-614. 805 Luke 1:34. 806 Matth. 1:23. Is. 7:14. 807 Matth. 1:20.

140

Consequently, the Teaching of the Church from the time of the

Apostolic Fathers was that the Son of God was born “...truly from the

Virgin...”808

and that “...the Power of God came down upon the Virgin

and overshadowed her and made her to be with child, being a

virgin...”809

according to the Prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah: “Behold,

the Virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His

name Emmanuel.”810

St Irenaeus referred to the above Prophecy by underlining the

part that speaks about Mary being a “virgin” and stressed that this was

given to her through the Incarnation of God. He also condemned

those heretics who dared to “...misinterpret the Scriptures...” by

changing the word “virgin” to the word “young girl” and saying:

“Behold, the young girl shall be with child...” as did Theodotion the

Ephesian and Acylas Ponticus in their translation of the Old

Testament from the original Hebrew text. The heretics Ebionites,

preferring to use these translations instead of the Septuagint (Greek

Old Testament, LXX), were led to renounce the supernatural

conception of Christ in the Virgin proclaiming that “...He was born

from Joseph.” Oh! What blasphemy!!! Comparing the Virgin Mary

to Eve he observed that “...as Eve had a husband, but still being a

virgin, she disobeyed and through this disobedience she became the

cause of death to herself and for all the human race, likewise Mary

being betrothed but being a virgin showed obedience and became the

reason for salvation to herself and to all the human race.”811

Tertullian812

repeatedly spoke of the Virgin‟s supernatural

conception, which preserved her virginity. With one voice, all the

Fathers and Ecclesiastic Writers of the Orthodox Church proclaimed

that Mary was “...a virgin before the Birth, during the Birth and

808 St Ignatius, To Smyrnaeans, 1, 1, in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 110. 809 St Justin, the philosopher and martyr, Apology 1, 33, § 4, in B, v. 3, p. 178. Ibid,

Dialogue, 76-78, in B, v. 3, pp. 280-282. 810 Is. 7:14. 811 St Irenaeus, Heresies, book III, ch. 21, § 1 and 22, 4, in Migne, P.G., 7, 946 and

951. Cf. Ibid, in Hadjephraimides, pp. 247-248 and 2553-254. 812 Tertullian, Apologeticus, 21, in migne, P.L., 1, 453. Ibid, De virg. vel. 6, in

migne, P.L., 1, 2946. Ibid, De carne Christi, 17, in migne, P.L., 2, 827. Ibid, De

monogamia, 8, in migne, P.L., 2, 989.

141

after the Birth.” No one renounced this great honour of the Ever-

Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, except the heretics Ebionites, Celsus,813

Julian the Offender, Jehova Witnesses, some contemporary

Protestants and Pentecostals heretics who have renounced Apostolic

Tradition.814

During the Birth of Jesus Christ, the Ever-Virgin Mary and

Theotokos, remained a Virgin. We must take note that her purity and

spotlessness as a virgin consisted of the purity of her heart and the

preservation of her mind as well as her complete inner and external

existence, which was far from any corruption of the flesh, thought,

desire or will. This purity and chastity of her heart was preserved

during the time that she gave birth as “virginity of mind” (“virginitas

mentis”), “virginity of senses” (“virginitas sensus”) and “virginity of

body” (“virginitas corporis”).815

Origen referred to the Prophecy that proclaimed that “...every

male who opens the womb shall be called Holy to the Lord...”816

and

he commented that: “...only Christ opened the womb of a virgin when

He was born; for no one before Christ touched that sacred Womb; all

the firstborn, although are firstborn, yet, they do not open the womb,

but the husband.” Origen concluded that “...not all the virginal gates

have been opened by the will of those who are nourished in them,

according to the Prophecy: „This Gate shall be shut; it shall not be

opened and no one shall pass through it; for the Lord God of Israel

shall enter by it and it shall be shut.”817

Clement the Alexandrian held the opinion that “...when Mary

was giving birth, she was found to be a virgin.”818

813 Origen, Against Celsus, I, 32, in B, v. 9, p. 92. 814 Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 208. 815 Ibid, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 208-209. 816 Luke 2:23. Ex. 13:1. 817 Origen, To Luke, Homily 14, in Migne, P.G., 13, 18 and 34. Jez. 44:2. St

Amphilochius of Iconium, To the Presentation of the Lord, Homily II, in Migne,

P.G., 39, 48-49. 818 Clement the Alexandrian, Stromata, VII, ch. XVI, in Migne, P.G., 9, 529.

142

St Ambrosius of Mediolan also stated that when Mary was

giving birth, she remained a virgin.819

St John of Damascus, proclaiming the above Truth, observed:

“As Christ was conceived He preserved the Virgin, and thus when He

was born, He preserved her virginity unharmed, for He alone passed

through her and it remained shut....” “... for it was not impossible for

Him to pass through this gate and not to harm her virginity.”820

To the above we can add that the spotless and Most-Holy Birth

of our Lord from the Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos not only

preserved the purity of her virginity but also exalted it and raised it to

a higher glory.

3. The Theotokos after the birth remained a Virgin

The Doctrine that the Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos

remained a Virgin even after the birth of the Lord, was renounced by

the heretic Antidicomarianites,821

Helvidius,822

Bonosus Bishop of

Sardica, some contemporary heretic Protestants, Pentecotals and

Jehovah Witnesses, although Martin Luther accepted the Ever-

Virginity of the Theotokos. The reason for this renouncement was

based on the Gospel of St Matthew: “...and did not know her u n t i l

she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”823

Concerning this biblical phrase “... u n t i l she had brought

forth her firstborn Son...” we must stress that Holy Scripture often

expresses such terms for limited time, but does not exclude the

continuation after that period. For example, in Genesis it is written:

“...and he sent forth a raven; and it went forth and returned not until

819 St Ambrosius, Epist. 42, in migne, P.L., 16, 1172-1177. 820 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the geneology of the Lord, and about the

holy Theotokos, IV, 87, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1161. 821 St Epiphanius, Panarion, Herecy LXXVII, book III, § 1, P.G., 43, 641-699. 822 St Jeronymus, De perpetua virginitate B. Marie Adversus Helvidium, in migne,

P.L., 23. 823 Matth. 1:25.

143

the water was dried from off the earth...”824

although the raven never

returned to the Ark. The Lord said: “... lo, I Am with you always, even

to the end of the age...” 825

although this does not mean that He would

not be with His Disciples after the end of the age. St Paul said: “...

thus we shall always be with the Lord...”826

after the General

Resurrection. The term “f i r s t b o r n” means the first to be born,

even if he is the only child.827

The children of St Joseph “...were n o t

from Mary...” but “...from the first wife which lived together with

Joseph before Mary.”828

It is a real and natural result that “...the office of Mary (as a

Virgin) be preserved in virginity till the end, in order that her body...”

before the descent of the Holy Spirit, was found worthy to serve the

Mystery of the Incarnation.829

It was therefore impossible for her,

being “...the beginning of purity...” among all women, to have a

relationship with a man having been the one who “...gave birth to God

and learned the Miracle from experience.”830

Many Holy Fathers besides Origen, such as St Ambrosius of

Mediolan,831

St Jeronimus,832

St Augustine833

and St Epiphanius834

defended the Truth of this Doctrine against all the heretics who

opposed the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos. St Augustine‟s words

824 Gen. 8:7. 825 Matth. 28:20. 826 1 Thess. 4:17. 827 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the geneology of the Lord, and about the

holy Theotokos, IV, 87, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1161. St John Chrysostom, To

Matthew 1:25, in Migne, P.G., 57, 58. Zigabinos, To Matthew 1:25, in Migne, P.G.,

129, 136. 828 Origen, To Luke, homily 17, and To Matthew, 13, 55, in B, v. 13, pp. 13 and 29. 829 Origen, To Matthew, 13, 55, in B, v. 13, p. 29. 830 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the geneology of the Lord, and about the

holy Theotokos, IV, 87, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1161. 831 St Ambrosius, De inSt Virgin et S. Mariae virginitate perpetus, in migne, P.L.,

16, 319-348.. 832 St Jeronymus, De perpetua virginitate B. Marie Adversus Helvidium, in migne,

P.L., 23. 833 St Augustine, De haereasibus 56 and 84, in migne, P.L., 42, 40 and 46. 834 St Epiphanius, Panarion, Herecy LXXVII, book III, § 1, P.G., 43, 641-699.

144

became the classic testimony: “As a Virgin she conceived, as a

Virgin she gave birth and as a Virgin she remained.”835

4. The Relative Sinlessness of the Theotokos

The Orthodox Church teaches that the sinless condition of the

Ever-Virgin Theotokos836

was a “...relative condition and by Grace...”

not by nature, “...for only God is absolutely sinless by Nature.”837

The

Mother of God was born a human being and thus a descendant of

Adam. She participated in Original Sin as do all human beings. She

achieved a state of relative sinlessness due to her virtuous life and the

Grace of God that overshadowed her at the Annunciation when she

humbly and obediently accepted Motherhood of the Son of the Most

High. She became “blameless” as St Paul said of herself when she

became “blameless” according to “...the righteousness which is in the

Law.”838

Amongst all the ancient Fathers and scholars of the Church only

St Augustine accepted the Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos as being

completely sinless and free from any personal sin. All men should

consider themselves as sinners “...except the Holy Virgin Mary, about

her, for the honour of the Lord, when it comes to refer about sin, I do

not want to place the matter.”839

These words referred to the sinless

condition of the Ever-Virgin Mary and did not imply that she was free

from the Original Sin.840

St John of Damascus proclaimed that the Theotokos “...became

the source of all virtues, of all life and rebuked the sexual desire from

the mind ... thus she preserved her soul and body in virginity, as

should the One who was to be received within her bosom, the Son of

835 St Augustine, “Virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo permansit”, Sermo 51, 11, 18,

in migne, P.L., 38, 343. 836 Mitsopoulos, Themata, pp. 151-154. 837 Karmeris, Synopsis, p. 50. 838 Phil. 3:6. 839 St Augustine, De natura et gratia, XXXVI, 42, in migne, P.L., 44, 267. 840 Ott, Precis, p. 288.

145

God.” For this reason, we the Orthodox, confess her to be “Above All

Saints” (“Panagia”).841

HERESIES AND THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS

1. The Heresy of Arianism

After the defeat and surrender of Licinius in the autumn of 324

Emperor St Constantine found the Christians of the East as violently

divided as he had found those of Africa in 313. The Emperor ordered

St Hosius of Cordova to hold an enquiry into the troubles at

Alexandria and in Asia Minor. Because the problem proved so

complex, once again he had to summon a Council.

For some years or possibly only some months (318, or possibly

only in July 323) Arius, a Priest of the Church of Alexandria and

perhaps a deserter from the Melitian Schism, had shown violent

opposition to his Bishop, St Alexander of Alexandria. This time,

however, the issue was extremely important, being nothing less than

the Theology concerning the Holy Trinity.

Arius was determined to safeguard the originality and privileges

of the Father within the Trinity as being “…the only One to be

„agennetos,‟ that is to say, not engendered but also not „become,‟ (no

precise distinction was made between the two participles derived from

the Greek verbs “gennao” (=I give birth) and “gignomai” (=I am

born) nor having entered into being. The Father alone is eternal, He

alone is without beginning; in short He alone is True God.” For – and

this is the essential point – He is absolutely alone as being the

Principle of all beings.

This emphasis led Arius to devalue the Logos to a

corresponding degree. The Logos, he declared, “…is not eternal, nor

co-eternal with the Father, nor uncreated like the Father (literally,

not-engendered, not-become, like the Father).”

841 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the genealogy of the Lord, and about the

holy Theotokos, IV, 87, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1160.

146

Hence arose formulas that Orthodoxy considered as

blasphemous, such as “…He was not before He came to be

engendered.” Arius claimed that: “There was a time when the Word

did not exist.” He was trying to express an Ontological superiority

rather than a chronological priority but he increased his precautions in

vain, saying that the generation of the Word took place “…before all

time, before all the ages…” and pointing out that even if the Word had

been “created,” (Pro 8:22, the most important verse for the Arians) He

was a perfect Divine Creature incomparable to other created beings.

Reaction was not long in coming. In the Church of Egypt so

firmly kept in hand by the Bishop of Alexandria, no one could attack

the Theology professed by its head and remain unscathed. St

Alexander of Alexandria called a Council of nearly a hundred Bishops

from Egypt and Libya, which anathematized the errors of Arius and

excommunicated him together with his partisans who comprised a

small group of five other Priests, six Deacons and only two Bishops

belonging to the western dependencies of Egypt: Theonas of

Marmarica and Secundos of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. The matter was

not confined to Egypt. Arius, who did not accept this condemnation,

had already sought support in Palestine from Eusebius of Caesarea.

Arius had also sought assistance in the rest of the East and Asia Minor

from those who, like himself, had been pupils and disciples of Lucian

of Antioch.

St Constantine was now master of the whole Roman Empire.

He ignored the existence of its Sassanid rival and gladly identified

with the civilized universe. The Council would be a World Council

(Ecumenical) – the first in history. Nevertheless the three hundred and

eighteen Bishops who came together in Nicene, near Nikomedia, on

the 20th May 325, were not drawn in equal numbers from the various

Provinces. More than a hundred of the Bishops came from Asia

Minor, about thirty from Syria-Phoenicia and less than twenty from

Palestine and Egypt. The Latin West was hardly represented at all: the

three or four Bishops who attended may have been at the imperial

court for some personal reason as, for example, Hosius of Cordova.

Pope Sylvester delegated two Roman Priests to attend in his place.

147

We can picture the different Theological tendencies in the

Council like an open fan. At the extreme left lay the small hard core of

the first Arians, supported by their Co-Lucianist (Sylloukianist)

friends, grouped around Eusebius of Nicomedia. Next was a sort of

left centre whose spokesman was Eusebius of Caesarea, grouping the

moderate Subordinationists in the tradition of Origen with those who

could be called “conservatives.” These conservatives were composed

of uncertain or timid Theologians (a similar tendency will be found

more than once in later Councils) more concerned with unity than for

precise definitions and hence hostile to all new formulas. They tried to

hold on to traditional Teaching expressed in strictly Biblical terms.

Further to the right were those who had discovered the danger of

Arianism: St Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his Deacon

and future successor, St Athanasius) and St Hosius of Cordova, who

seems to have played an especially active role. They were supported

by an extreme right wing whose backing they seemed to consider free

of danger: Eustathius of Antioch and especially Marcellus of Ancyra.

The latter was all the more violently anti-Arian in that his passionate,

one-sided devotion to the principle of Divine “Monarchy” led him to

veer into the diametrically opposite heresy. His enemies seem to have

been correct in attributing to him an acknowledged or implicit

Modalism, the old error of Sabellius.

The Council took as its basis the Profession of Faith proposed

by Eusebius of Caesarea, but added to his rather vague text certain

very precise definitions. Not content with proclaiming the Son “God

of God, Light of Light,” they expressly stated that He is True God of

True God, Engendered and not created, Consubstantial with his

Father, (Homoousios).

2. The Heresy of Nestorius

The real and Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures was

renounced by Nestorius842

who became Archbishop of Constantinople

in the year 428. His letters and fragments of his homilies were

preserved in Greek, Latin and Syrian, and were published by F.

842 Kefalas, Synods, p.118-121.

148

Loofs,843

as well as the Book of Heraclides of Damascus, which was

written as his Apology when he was exiled and which has been

preserved in a Syrian translation. This document was published in

French in 1910 by F. Nau.

Nestorius and his teacher, Theodorus of Mopsuestias, were

influenced by Aristotelian philosophy that held the opinion that

wherever true and real nature exists, a person co-exists.

Consequently he believed that the human nature of Christ consists of

an individual Person, having an individual hypostasis and ego,

independent of the Hypostasis of the Word of God, in order for it to

exist. “The humanity is complete and has no need of this union with

the Divine Nature in order to be a Man.”844

According to Nestorius

the union of the two Natures with the two Persons is not accomplished

naturally but merely by good will and willingly, and for this reason

one moral Will exists in them. “We see that they have One Will and

Energy and Dominion, which is manifested in equality.”845

Through

the moral infiltration of the two Persons, the Divine and human, they

result in one moral Person, Whom Nestorius called a “Person of

unity.” This Person was the result of the moral union and not the

Person of the Word of God Who took up human nature. The Person

of unity does not consist of the union of two Natures in the one

Hypostasis, which, according to Nestorius, exists as individual

Persons and Hypostases. They are the result of the infiltration

between them and the use of one another whereby the Word uses the

Person of the humanity and vice versa. The Person in Jesus Christ‟s

human nature uses the Divine Person. Neither the Divine Nature

alone, nor the human nature consists of this common Person of union.

Although it consists of the synthesis of the two Persons whereby the

two Persons continue to exist on their own as Persons in such a way as

being subject to the Person of the union as its synthetic elements.

Generally speaking, Nestorius distinguished the “natural Person”

Who is identified by Nature or Essence and the “Person of union”

who in reality was something fictitious and deceptive, something by

843 F. Loofs, Nestoriana fragmenta vatia, Halle, 1905. 844 Heracleides, in Trempelas, Dogmatique, v. II, p. 96. 845 Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 224.

149

name and technical,846

who had the two Persons, the Divine and the

human, united by the good pleasure and common love. The Will of

the Word and the will of the man were united by common love in one

Person, hence the union of the Incarnation is unnatural although a

union of good pleasure and willingness.

From the moment that Nestorius supported the concept that the

Person of the Word and the Person of the man exists as individuals,

two egos distinguishing one from the other exists. Their union was not

natural and essential but only moral and willing. It was not possible to

ascribe to God the Word, the attributes and energies of the human

Person, nor to the human Person the Divine Attributes of God the

Word. No one could possibly say that the Word was born from the

Virgin Mary and that He suffered and died. Hence Nestorius refused

to call the Holy Virgin Mary “THEOTOKOS” (“God-bearer” or

“Mother of God”).847

The “antidosis” (exchange) of the Attributes

that Nestorius accepted was only on the hypothetic Person of the

union, in other words, in relation to the names “Christ,” “Son” and

“Lord.” The terms that Nestorius preferred with which to express the

union of the two Natures, were the same as Theodorus of

Mopsuestias: “good pleasure,” “inhabitation,” “connection” and

“relative union.”

St Cyril of Alexandria countered Nestorius and his heresy by

proclaiming that “…it was not that at first a common man was born of

the Holy Virgin and afterwards the Word came down upon Him.”848

It

was impossible for the human nature to have its own hypostasis or to

be a separate person. The Word, without being changed into flesh, or

being changed into a whole man, was united “…within Him by

hypostasis indescribably and beyond any conception…within her

womb…taking up flesh and intellectual soul…” and “…became

Man…not only by will or good pleasure…” as Nestorius asserted.

The difference between the two Natures was not refuted for the sake

846 Theodorou, Christological, p. 28. 847 Mansi, v. IV, p. 1099. 848 St Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. to Nestorius, IV, in Migne, P.G., 77, 45. Ibid,

Homily against those who do not want to confess Theotokos the holy Virgin, § 4, in

Migne, P.G., 76, 260. Ibid, in Migne, P.G., 68, 1005

150

of the union, but because they consisted of the One Lord and Christ It

is said that the union of the Word with humanity is “…from the

womb…” and the Word was “…born in flesh as familiarising the birth

of flesh.” Thus we say that the Word suffered and was raised, not

because God the Word suffered in His own Nature or because of

“…wounds or piercing of nails…” but because “…the Divine is

without suffering” as it is also bodiless. We say this “…because He

suffered these in His own Body and the Word, without suffering, was

within His Body that suffered.” St Cyril believed that the term “…One

Incarnated Nature of God the Word …” originated from St

Athanasius, he adopted it in an Orthodox manner. By means of this

term St Cyril meant that “…the common Nature…” of the Divinity

“…is seeing as a whole in the Hypostasis of the Word…(One Nature

of God the Word) Incarnated.” In other words, having the human

nature not as an individual Hypostasis, but “…in hypostasis…” in the

One Hypostasis of the Word. Opposing the common Person of the

union that Nestorius supported, St Cyril declared the Hypostatic

Union and characterised it as an “empty-voice” to appoint each

member and to place “…man and God as being joined to one another

in the unity of value and authenticity.”849

He rebuked as error the

teaching that “…God the Word inhabited, as in a common man who

was born of the Holy Virgin…” as a result of which Christ would have

been a God-bearing Man (Theophorus). If in Holy Scripture it is

written that “…the Word dwelt among us…” and that in the Christ the

whole Godhead dwelt bodily, we must understand that the Word

became flesh. Consequently, we do not accept “…that the way of the

dwelling and inhabitation was equal in the Christ, as it said about the

Saints.” We believe that “…He was united by Nature and that the

inhabitation was accomplished without being changed into flesh…”

just as “…the human soul inhabits its own body.”

St Cyril, explaining this image, observed that “…as the body is

different from the soul but comprises one man…” who is from two

elements, “…likewise from two perfect Hypostases of God the Word

849 St Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. to Nestorius 4, in Migne, P.G., 77, 45. St John of

Damascus, Exposition. About the difference between union and carnation, III, 55,

11, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1025. St Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. to Nestorius 3, in

Migne, P.G., 77, 109 and 112.

151

and of humanity…” is “…One Christ Who exists in the same God and

Man together.” Besides, in the unity of soul and body, in order for

them to comprise the man, “…the soul familiarizes itself with all

things of the body…” although, because of its spiritual nature, “…it

remains without participating in the body‟s passions.” Likewise

“…the body moves according to natural desires and feels the unity…”

of the soul that exists in the body. If the body is wounded “…it is

altogether in pain…” including the soul, “…as a member of the same

body that suffers…” but if the soul was of an individual nature, it

would not suffer. Likewise in the God-Man “…the Word familiarizes

Himself with those things of its own flesh; that is, its own Body and

not an alien…” body. Because Divine Nature cannot suffer, God the

Word did not feel the pain that was brought upon His human nature,

although united with it. Instead His “… human nature suffered without

the Divine suffering.” It familiarizes “…the weakness of the flesh as

its own Body…” and “…notifies…” the united human nature as being

its own Energy of the Godly Power that exists in the Word.

St Cyril characterizes as natural, real and true, the unity of the

Two Natures and drops “…the term of connection as not being

enough to signify the union…” renouncing those who join the

Hypostases of the Man and the Word “…through connection

according to the value; in other words, the authenticity and

dominion…” of moral unity, which comprises the third Person

according to Nestorius, “…for the equalization does not unite the

Natures.” Neither must we consider this union “…as relative

communion…” because we are joined with Christ as one spirit with

Him.

“We do not call the Word „God or Master of Christ,‟ in order

not to divide into two the One Christ.” It would be ridiculous “…and

even irreverent…” to say that the Word Who was united

Hypostatically with the flesh “…is His own servant and Master.”

Also “…we do not say concerning Christ: We honour Him Who vests

that which was vested, to worship the invisible seeing the visible…”

because he who says such things, “…divides Christ again into two…”

when He is the One God-Man and “…knowing Him as Man and as

God, but denying the union.” St Cyril, referring to the natural unity,

meant “…the real (union), which does not confuse the Natures…” nor

152

mixes them in order to alter them, making “…each one to be different

to what they are.” When he said that “…the Word became flesh…” he

did not mean that confusion, connection, change or alteration

occurred. “For we know that the Divine and Supreme Nature does not

accept any change.” The Word became “…Son of Man by remaining

what He was…” so that He is eternally the same, “…perfect in Deity

and perfect in Humanity, the same being understood as in One

Person…” without ignoring the difference of the Two Natures or by

being confused or mixed. 850

St Cyril‟s struggle against Nestorianism, which divided the

Theologians of Antioch and Alexandria, resulted in peace that was

brought about by the terminology of John of Antioch and the Bishops

under St Cyril of Alexandria:

“We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of

God, perfect God and perfect Man … Consubstantial (Homoousios)

with the Father, the same according to the Divinity and consubstantial

to us according to the humanity. For Two Natures were united. For

this reason we confess One Christ, One Son, and One Lord.

According to the union without confusion, we confess the Holy Virgin

to be Theotokos, for the God Word took up flesh and was Incarnated

and from the time of the conception uniting to Him the Temple which

He received.”851

3. The Heresy of Monophysitism

Nestorianism was opposed by the Archimandrite Eutyches852

of Constantinople who ended up on the opposite side by

characterizing the union of the two Natures as a mixture, in which the

850 St Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. to Nestorius III, in Migne, P.G., 77, 112. Ibid, To

Theodoretus, ch. 3 and 1, in Migne, P.G., 76, 405 and 396. Ibid, Epist. to John of

Antioch, in Migne, P.G., 77, 180. Ibid, Against the defamations of Nestorius, III, ch.

6, in Migne, P.G., 76, 85. 851 Mansi, V, pp. 781 and 783. St Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. to John bishop of

Antioch, in Migne, P.G., 77, 177. 852 Kefalas, Synods, pp.130-131.

153

human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine Nature.853

Supporting the opinion of St Cyril according to which “…One

Incarnated Nature of the Word…” exists within Christ, he confessed

One Hypostasis and One Person in the Incarnated Word and although

accepting that “…the Lord was of two Natures before the Unity…” he

insisted that “…after the union one Nature existed in Him…” but

refusing to accept that “…the Body of the Lord and our God was

homoousion with ours.”854

Thus, from Eutychianism came

Monophysitism, which proclaimed the teaching of the One Nature in

Jesus Christ after the Union.

Fundamentally important to Orthodox Teachings was the letter

of Pope Leo I addressed to Flavianus of Constantinople the main

points of which are the following:

1. One and the same is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of

Man.

2. The Attributes of each Nature and Essence are conserved in

the One Person of Jesus Christ; in other words, the Majesty of God

took up the humbleness of humanity; the Almightiness of God took up

the weakness and the Eternal God took up mortality.

3. Because each Nature preserves its own Attributes and as the

likeness of a servant was not wiped out by the Likeness of God,

similarly the Likeness of God was not diminished by the likeness of a

servant.

4. Each of the two Natures act as their own in communion with

one another: the Word acting according to the Nature of the Word and

the flesh acting according to the nature of the flesh.

5. Because of this unity of the Person, which must be considered

for both Natures, it is written that the Son of Man came down from

Heaven. The Son of God took up flesh from the Virgin from which He

was born; and again, it is said that the Son of God was crucified and

853 Ibid, pp.131-132. 854 Mansi, VI, pp. 741 and 744.

154

buried. He did not suffer these in His Deity according to which He is

the Only Begotten Son of the Father, Co-eternal and Consubstantial to

the Father, but only in the weakness of the human nature.855

Finally, Pope Leo I expressed his surprise concerning the

foolishness and irreverent confession of Eutyches according to which,

before the union, the Lord had two Natures but after the union only

One!

Mogilas commented that “…Christ suffered on the Cross

according to the flesh and not according to the Deity. For the Deity

did not suffer, was not nailed on the Cross nor was spat upon or

mocked, nor died … But the Deity, taking up the Humanity, was never

separated from it, not at the time of the Passion nor at death on the

Cross, nor after death. Although the Soul was separated from the

Body, the Deity was never separated from either the Body or from the

Soul for the reason that, at the time of death, the Hypostasis of Christ

was One and the same.”856

The 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon (451) declared the

Doctrine of the Union of the Two Natures in the One Person of Christ

and proclaimed against the heresies of Docetism, Arianism and

Apollinarius by decreeing:

“We confess One and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

perfect in Deity and perfect in Humanity, truly God and truly Man, the

same from intellectual Soul and Body, substantial to the Father

according to the Divinity and consubstantial the same to us according

to the Humanity.”

Against the Nestorians and Monophysites the Orthodox

Fathers declared that: Christ was “…(born) from Mary the Virgin, the

Theotokos, according to the humanity, One and the same Christ, Son,

Lord, Only Begotten, being known in Two Natures, unconfused,

unchanged, undivided, inseparable; not anywhere retracted the

difference of the Natures because of the Unity, but rather each Nature

855 Mansi, V, p. 1366. Leon of Rome, in migne, P.L., 54, 763. 856 Mogilas, I, 46, in Karmeris, The dogmatics, v. II, p. 615.

155

saving its own Attributes and in One Person and One Hypostasis, and

not being divided into two Persons.”857

These terms of the 4th

Ecumenical Synod were supported by

Leontius Byzantius, especially against the Nestorians and

Monophysites who asserted that the human nature of Christ was

something without Hypostasis.858

Leontius accepted that the Nature

exists not without itself but in its own parts, proclaiming that “…non-

hypostatic nature or essence cannot ever exist.” Nature without

hypostasis comprises a subtraction and a fine idea. When we ascribe

to Christ human nature, we are forced to accept in Him a human

hypostasis. This is a serious error because between hypostasis and

non-hypostasis, is an “en-hypostasis,” which is a non-existence on its

own, but exists in another and consists of something whole. Thus the

Humanity of Christ is non-hypostasis because it exists. It does not

exist on its own, but exists as an “en-hypostasis,” because it exists in

the Word Who assumed it as His own. Therefore belonging to Him,

He gave it its own hypostasis. It is en-hypostasis, since “the en-

hypostasis manifests that which does not exist, which has its existence

in something else and is not seen in itself.” To clarify this

differentiation, Leontius used examples and comparisons such as the

example of the lit candle that unites two elements into the one burning

flame 859

and also especially that of the unity of the soul with its body.

This union was used as an example of the Hypostatic Union

because:

a) The soul is essentially united with the body, as the Two

Natures are united in the Word.

b) In man the soul preserves its own spiritual attributes while the

body preserves its own physical attributes. Likewise in the Incarnated

Word each Nature preserves its own Attributes and characteristics.

857 Mansi, VII, p. 116. See also the Pedalion for the text, pp. 241-243. 858 Leontius Byzantius, Against Nestorians and Eutychians, in Migne, P.G., 86,

1277, 1280, 1301, 1344. Ibid, Against Severus, in Migne, P.G., 86, 1917, 1921, 1928 859 Leontius Byzantius, Against Nestorians and Eutychians, in Migne, P.G., 86,

1280, 1277 and 1304.

156

c) The union of the soul and body in one person and in one

hypostasis being the one man, leads us to the concept of the union of

the Word and the human flesh that Christ took up, in the One Person,

One Hypostasis.

Leontius, in using the above example of the soul and body,

warned that one must be very cautious because from this unity in men,

not only one person or only one man is derived, but a type of human

nature of which many people partake (i.e. humanity is many people).

In Christ this does not happen. From the union of the Two Natures,

no other nature is derived that could be called a “type of Christ” and

which could be transmitted to others, resulting in “many Christs”

similar to the one human nature that exists in many men. Christ is

One and absolutely unique. He is not One Nature but One

Hypostasis Who is unique and Who cannot be reproduced. Through

this statement Leontius refuted the Nestorians, pointing out that the

Word being perfect, took up perfect human nature. This nature does

not exist on its own, but exists in the Word to Whom it belongs and

Who gives existence to it. He told the Monophysites that if the

personal characteristic of the human nature is “…the logic, it is also

mortality…” that is found in Christ. Hence, we are forced to accept

that human nature is in Him and consequently that Christ has Two

Natures, Divine and human.860

4. The Heresy of Monothelitism

The heresy of Monophysitism troubled the whole Byzantine

Empire in the East and created dangerous divisions between the

citizens of the State. In order for reconciliation and peace to be

restored to both parties, bringing the Monophysites of Armenia and

Syria closer to the State and the Church of Constantinople, Patriarch

Sergius of Constantinople proposed acceptance of the One Energy in

the God-Man as a formula of unity to Emperor Heraclius. With the

support of Cyrus and Macedonius of Antioch, Patriarch Sergius

managed to obtain the cooperation of Pope Honorius, whereupon the

860 Ibid, in Migne, P.G., 86, 1277, 1944, 1317, 1320.

157

“Report” (“Ekthesis”)861

was prepared in the year 636. It was signed

by Emperor Heraclius in 638 and was accepted by the majority of the

Bishops of the East who declared: “We confess One Will of our Lord

Jesus Christ the true God, as there was no time when the intellect of

His flesh acted separately and against the Will of the God Word with

Whom it was united by Hypostasis, but whenever and whatever God

the Word wanted.”862

Thus Monothelitism863

(“One Will”) as well as

Monoenergitism (“One Energy”) was born.864

Monoenergitism

maintained the belief that the human nature of Christ became some

kind of instrument without any of its own energy, being under the

dominion of the Word, restricted and controlled by a pure, dynamic

condition, never expressed and active.

St Sophronius of Jerusalem and St Maximus the Confessor

contested these heresies. The teachings of Monothelitism were first

condemned by Pope Martinus I in 649 and then by the 6th Ecumenical

Synod of Constantinople (680-681)865

that also condemned Sergius

and Pyrus, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, as well as Pope Honorius.

The Holy Fathers of the Synod made the following declaration:

“We confess that Two natural Wills are in (Christ) and Two

natural Energies, undivided, unchangeable, inseparable, unmixable,

according to the Teachings of the Holy Fathers; and Two natural

Wills not contrary, certainly not as the irreverent heretics said, but

consequently His human Will which did not contradict or fight, but

rather submitting to His Divine and All-powerful Will; for it was

necessary for the Will of the flesh to move, and to be subject to the

Divine Will according to the all-wise Athanasius.”866

St Maximus the Confessor philosophically opposed the

teachings of Monotheletism by distinguishing the “natural Will”

861 Kefalas, Synods, pp.162-163. 862 Mansi, X, p. 996. Cf. Makarios of Antioch, in Hardouin, Acta Counciliorum, v.

III, p. 1172. 863 Kefalas, Synods, p.160-161. 864 Ibid, p.161. 865 Ibid, pp.165-169. 866 Mansi, XI, 637.

158

(“θέλημα θςζικόν”) and the “proverbial Will” (“θέλημα γνωμικόν”),867

literally establishing the true Teaching. Pope Agathon, addressing his

letters to Emperor Constantine Pogonatos, also used these terms.868

St

Sophronius was the first to condemn the heresy of Monotheletism by

means of his enthronement letters that he sent to Pope Honorius,

Sergius of Constantinople and all the other Patriarchs.869

The reasoning that was applied to the condemnation of

Monotheletism was completed by St John of Damascus who explained

it as follows: According to the Holy Gospel of St Mark 7:24, our

Lord, while visiting “…Tyre and Sidon… entered a house and wanted

no one to know it, but He could not be hidden.” Considering that the

Divine Will of the God-Man is “…Almighty…” and therefore

“…cannot commit errors even if He wanted to… as Man wanting,

[He] could not….” whereas whatever He Wills as God, nothing can

prevent the realisation of His Almighty Will. The Lord was “…with

Will and at the same time Man.” Furthermore, the Lord at Golgotha

“…said „I thirst‟870

and they gave Him „sour wine‟ mingled with

myrrh to drink, but He did not take it.”871

Therefore, because the Deity

is without passion, the Lord did not thirst as God but “…as Man…”

and as Man He refused to drink after testing what was offered to Him.

Consequently He was “…with Will as well as Man.” St Paul said that

the Lord “…became obedient to the point of death, even the death of

the cross.”872

The obedient “…of the truly wanting is obedience, not

that which does not want. For the irrational…” which is deprived of

will is not “…obedient but we should rather call it disobedient.” The

Lord as Man “…became obedient to the Father, not as His Divine

Nature became…” obedient, “…but as Man.”873

Furthermore, in the

Garden of Gethsemane He prayed to His Father: “…if it is possible,

let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I Will, but as Thou

867 St Maximus, To Marinus, in Migne, P.G., 91, 12, 21, 153, 192, 308. 868 Mansi, XI, 234-315. 869 Mansi, XI, 461-509. Migne, P.G., 87, 3148-3200. 870 John 19:28. 871 Mark 15:23. Matth. 27:48. 872 Phil. 2:8. 873 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and freewills of the Lord, III,

48, 15, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1040-1041. Matth. 27:34. Phil. 2:8.

159

Will.”874

He was to drink the cup of death not as God but as Man.

Although “…as a Man He wants the cup to pass…” He added “…but

not as I Will, but as Thou Will…” thereby manifesting the Two Wills

– His own Will and the Will of the Father - being “…contrary one to

the other, as the Father wanting Him to be crucified, He not wanting.”

Thus the Lord in this case experienced “…the opposition from the

flesh.” For Christ to become obedient “…the Will of the flesh must

move to be obedient to the Divine Will.” According to Pope Agathon

the Two Wills of Christ are revealed by His statement: “I have come

down from Heaven; not to do My own Will, but the Will of Him Who

sent Me.”875

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Lord says to His Father:

“Behold, I have come to do Thy Will, O God…”876

and “…yet He

learned obedience by the things which He suffered.877

”878

The basis for the theoretical justification of the Doctrine

concerning the Two Wills of Christ was the principle that just as

“…the Essence is the same, … the Will and the Energy are the same;

whatever of the Essence is different… the Will and Energy differs.”

Since in Christ we have Two Essences or Natures, different to one

another, “…seeing the difference of the Natures we confess together

that the Wills and Energies are different.”879

Man is “…by nature

with will…moving according to his will as master…” and being made

“…in the Image of the Blessed and Supreme Deity” Who “…is

independent by Nature and Will.” And the man as the image of God

is “…independent by nature and will.” This exists in all human

beings and characterizes them as persons”. The Lord “…taking up

our nature… became (man) by nature with will.”

874 Matth. 26:39. Mark 14:36. 875 John 6:38. John 4:34; 5:19, 30; 14:31. 876 Heb. 10:9. 877 Heb. 5:8. 878 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and freewills, III, 62, 18, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1073, 1076. St John Chrysostom, fragment from „Father if it is

possible”, in the 8th Act of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, XI, p. 373. St

Athanasius the Great, fragment from the “Now My soul is troubled”, in the 14th Act

of the 6th Ecumenical Synod, in Mansi, XI, p. 597. Bartmann, Theologie

Dogmatique, v. I, p. 384. 879 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1033.

160

The main basis of the argument of the Monothelites was that

the acceptance of Two Energies in Christ introduce division in Him

that leads to the acceptance of Two Wills that are “…opposite to one

another…” and which would be irreverent to accept with regard to the

Incarnated Word. For this reason the Monothelites argued that the

natural movement of the human nature in Christ became “…whenever

and whatever and inasmuch as God the Word wanted.” The human

nature of Christ was to the Word whatever our body is to the soul by

which it is dominated, decorated and guided according to its will.

Likewise in the God-Man, the human nature was something

“…always God-moved and led in everything by the deity of the

Word.”

Against this Monotheletic opinion, St Maximus opposed the

differentiation between “the natural will” and “the sententious will.”

The “natural will” is brought automatically towards the good, free

from any error and oscillations. We must notice that “…speaking

about the natural will, we say that it is not by force but by

independence…”880

certainly because error and sin is excluded from

Christ. We must then understand that He moves in a higher freedom.

God freely wants according to this way. For “…being by Nature good

and by Nature Creator and by Nature God, He has no need of these

things.” However, supernatural independence is ascribed to Him.

Besides, the “sententious will,” being subject to error, moves

according to logical reasons and observations, and presupposes in him

who wants examination, wavering and hesitation, “…demand and

want…” afterwards, which follows “…the free-will which chooses

between this or that.” These derive because the One who wants, does

not have direct and complete knowledge of the character of the object,

to which it is led. This is purely human and for this reason incomplete

and subject to errors. After this differentiation, St Maximus observed

that since “free-will” and “independence” consists of elements and

characteristics of human nature, if the Incarnated Word truly took up

this nature, He took it up with “independence,” free from “want” and

880 Epist. of Sergius to Cyrus of Alexandria, in Mansi, XI, pp. 533 and 536. St

Maximus, To Marinus, in Migne, P.G., 91, 12 and 21. St John of Damascus,

Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus Christ, III, 58, 14, in

Migne, P.G., 94, 1041.

161

“faults” of fallen man. The Lord had “natural Will” but not the

“sententious will.”881

As St John of Damascus commented, the Lord

“…was not only a fine Man but simultaneously God…” “…free from

the need of thoughts and discussion and will and judgment and

naturally having the familiarity towards good and the alienation

towards evil.” The Hypostatic Union of the human nature with the

Divine Nature was free from any errors, enjoying the Light of

supernatural knowledge, “…having by Nature the good, by Nature He

had the Virtues…” and according to the Prophesy of the Prophet

Isaiah: “…for before the Child shall know good or evil, He refuses

evil, to choose the good.”882

Jesus Christ had no need to consider His Will in order to act,

neither to balance the “pros and cons,” nor to be influenced by

anything external. The good always emerged automatically and since

before the beginning He was led towards good without any obstacles.

Consequently, accepting the human will in the God-Man, we are

distanced from the danger of facing any contradiction or clash

between the Two Wills of Christ. Two Wills are distinguished in

Jesus Christ although “…one and the same.” “He … wants according

to each Nature…” “…godly and humanly…” “…not only wanting

what is natural to God,” but wanting “what is natural to the human

nature.”883

The One Jesus Christ, as perfect God and perfect Man did not

behave merely “… as simple Man...” nor was His behaviour Divine

only because He is not “…a naked God.” However His human nature

is humble although it is “…not without the… Divinity…” for when He

suffered on the Cross, the Lord as Man also had “…the Deity …

united within Him, remaining without suffering and working the

881 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14 and 15, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1041 and 1044. St Maximus, To

Marinus, in Migne, P.G., 91, 73. Ibid, Dialogue to Pyrrus, in Migne, P.G., 91, 301

and 308. 882 Is. 7:16. 883 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1036, 1037, 1044. Ibid, Exposition. About the

energies in our Lord Jesus Christ, III, 58, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1045. St Maximus,

Dialogue to Pyrrus, in Migne, P.G., 91, 308.

162

salvation.” When again the Divinity in the God-Man “…was working

the godly wonders…” He was acting “…not without the flesh…” but

“…through touching and word and such things He worked the

wonders.” Speaking of the God-Man Energy, we mean “…the Two

Energies of the Two Natures…” of the God-Man. In other words,

“…the Divinity‟s the Divine, the humanity‟s the human Energy…”

unmixed and unchangeable but inseparable “…because One is He

Who acts Divinely and humanly.” According to this opinion we speak

of “…Deification of the Will…” of Christ and we do not accept change

of “…the natural movement…” from which this Will is. We must

never forget that this movement of the human nature of Christ is

“…united to His Divine and Almighty Will…” and consequently, we

confess that the human Will of the God-Man always remains and

becomes “…the Will of the Incarnated God” Who Deifies the flesh,

not “…changing its own Nature or its natural Attributes, which

remain after the union, and both Natures not connected and

untouched.”884

As we proclaim the Saviour to be of Two Natures,

likewise He is of Two Wills and Two Energies. We know that the

Will of humanity submits always to the Will of the Deity, according to

Christ‟s words: “Let it be not according to My Will but to Thine.”885

5.The Heresy of Adoptionism

The teachings of Adoptionism were proclaimed during the 8th

century during the struggle against Sabellianism by Elpinadus,

Archbishop of Toledus (+802) and Felix, Bishop of Urgel (+818).

According to this heresy, the God-Man as God, was the natural Son of

God but as human by grace and adoption. This heresy was

condemned by Pope Adrian I (772-795) and the Synod of Frankfurt in

the year 794.

884 St John of Damascus, Exposition. About the wills and free-wills of our Lord Jesus

Christ, III, 58, 14, 15, 19, 17, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1044. Ibid, Exposition. About the

energies in our Lord Jesus Christ, III, 59, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1052, 1056, 1057.

Ibid, Exposition. About the God-Man energy, III, 63, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1080,

1081. Ibid, Exposition. About the deification of the human flesh and will of the

Lord, III, 63, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1069. 885 Kritopoulos, ch. 3, in Karmeris, The dogmatics, v. II, p. 518.

163

Christ as Man was not adopted because He was the natural Son

of God. That which is external is by adoption and becomes familiar.

However, the Person of the God-Man did not become Son through

anything external.886

Holy Scripture clearly witnesses against this heresy. The Holy

Apostles repetitively declared that they personally “…have heard…”

and “…have seen…” with their eyes that which they “…have looked

upon...” and which their “…hands have handled, concerning the

Word of Life.”887

Moreover, they “…beheld His glory… glory as of

the Only Begotten Son of the Father… full of grace and truth.”888

This Only Begotten Son is He Who “declares”889

the Father to men

and Whom God gave to us for the sake of our salvation. He “…did not

spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us…”890

so “…that

whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting Life.”891

Holy Scripture certainly does not acknowledge two Sons of God and

therefore, St Augustine justifiably challenges anyone who doubts by

stating: “Read all Scripture but you will not find anything in it

concerning the Christ, that He is the Son of God by adoption.”892

Adoptionism also led to Nestorianism by introducing two Sons

and strongly distinguishing the two Natures of Christ. Since we

accept One Hypostasis in the God-Man, the Hypostasis of the Word,

which was born before all eternity from God the Father, Who took up

His human nature not as individual Hypostasis but as en-hypostasis

within the Word, we can no longer speak of “two Sons” in the

Incarnated Word. For in this case “…we introduce two Sons, one

from God the Father, and the second from the mother, but not one and

the same…” whereas on the contrary in the God-Man there are “two

Natures, God and Man, but not two Sons…” “…for both became One

in the Union of the God Incarnated, and Man Deified.” We thus

confess “…One Son of God after the Incarnation and Son of Man the

886 Boulgareos, Theologicon, p. 445. 887 1 John 1:1. 888 John 1:14. 889 John 1:18. 890 Rom. 8:32. 891 John 3:16. 892 St Augustine, Contra Secund. Manich., 5, in migne, P.L., 42, 581.

164

same, One Christ, One Lord, the Only Begotten Son and Word of

God.”893

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, Holy Scripture and Sacred Apostolic

Tradition strongly proclaim the real Hypostatic Union and existence

of the Two Natures in the One Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus

Christ. Refusal to accept these Orthodox Teachings result in the

heresies of Monophysitism, Monothelitism and Mono-energytism. In

fact, concerning the Orthodox Faith, we cannot compromise. The

Truth of Holy Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition must be

accepted in its fullness and not just partially, because this leads to

heresy.

As pure Orthodox Christians we declare Christ to be the true

Son of God incarnated in true Human Nature (body and soul). We

acknowledge the Doctrine of the 4th

Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon

(451) and all the Holy Teachings and Doctrines of all Seven

Ecumenical and Local Councils of the One Universal Orthodox

Church. The holy Fathers who partook in these Holy Councils

condemned all heretics of their time who proclaimed the belief in One

Nature (Monophysitism), One Will (Monothelitism) and One Energy

(Mono-energytism).

Concluding this work, we Greek Orthodox confess that our

Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Son and Word of God

the Father, has two perfect Natures, two perfect Wills and two perfect

Energies (Divine and Human) united Hypostatically in the One Person

of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. We also confess the Ever-Virgin Mary

to be truly the Mother of God (“Theotokos”) because She gave true

birth to the human Nature of the Incarnated Son and Word of God in

Whom the two Natures (Divine and Human) were hypostatically

united in the One Person, that of Jesus Christ.

893 St Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 101 to Cledonius, in Migne, P.G., 37, 180. St

John of Damascus, Exposition. About the one synthetic hypostasis of God the Word,

III, 51, 7, in Migne, P.G., 94, 1009.

165

I pray that this book will assist the Theological Dialogue

between the two sister Orthodox Churches (Greek and Copt) in order

that the true unity be accomplished for the glory of our One and only

True God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B = Βηβιηοζήθε Διιήλωλ Παηέρωλ, έθδοζες Αποζηοιηθής Γηαθολίας.

(Liberary of the Greek Fathers, ed. Apostoliki Diakonia). (in Greek).

Bartmann, Theologie Dogmatique = Bartmann Bernard, Precis de

Theologie Dogmatique traduit par M. Gautier, v. I and II, Mulhouse,

1951.

Boulgareos, Theologicon = Δσγελίοσ ηοσ Βοσιγάρεως, Θεολογικόν,

Βελεηία, 1872.

(Eugenios Boulgareos, Theologicon, Venice, 1872). (in Greek).

Frangopoulos, Christian Faith = Αζαλαζίοσ Φραγθοπούιοσ, Η

Οπθόδοξορ Χπιζηιανική Πίζηιρ μαρ. (Τι Πιζηεύομεν) – Λαϊκή

Δογμαηική-, 12ε έθδ., Αζήλα, 1999.

(Athanasius Frangopoulos, Our Christian Faith. (What we believe) –

Public Dogmatique, 12th ed., Athens, 1999). (in Greek).

Harduin, Acta counciliorum = J. Harduin, Acta Counciliorum, Paris,

1715.

Kalogeras, Maria = Ιωάλλοσ Καιογήροσ, Μαπία η Αειπάπθενορ

Θεοηόκορ καηά ηην οπθόδοξον πίζηιν, Θεζζαιολίθε, 1958.

(I. Kalogeras, Mary the Ever-Virgin Theotokos according to the

orthodox faith, Thessalonica, 1958). (in Greek).

Κarmeris, The dogmatics = Ι. Καρκίρε, Τα Δογμαηικά και Σςμβολικά

μνημεία ηηρ Οπθοδόξος Καθολικήρ Εκκληζίαρ, ηόκοη Ι & ΙΙ, Αζήλαης

1952, 1953.

(I. Karmeris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic books of the Orthodox

Catholic Church, volumes I & II, Athens, 1952, 1953). (in Greek).

Kefalas, Catechesis = Αγίοσ Νεθηαρίοσ Κεθαιά, Μεηροποιίηοσ

Πεληαπόιεως, Οπθόδοξορ Ιεπά Καηήσηζιρ, 4ε έθδ., Θεζζαιολίθε,

2001.

(St Nektarios Kefalas, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, Orthodox Holy

Catechesis, 4th Ed., Thessalonica, 2001). (Ιn Greek).

167

Κefalas, Synods = Αγίοσ Νεθηαρίοσ Κεθαιά, Μεηροποιίηοσ

Πεληαπόιεως, Αι Οικοςμενικαί Σύνοδοι. Πεπί ηων Αγίων Εικόνων,

Θεζζαιολίθε, 1972.

(Κefalas, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, The Ecumenical Synods. About

the Holy Icons, Thessalonica, 1972). (in Greek).

Lampadarios Panteleimon, Archbishop of Pelusium, Orthodox

Teachings. The Catechism of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

Church according to Holy Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition,

Port Said-Egypt, 2006.

Lampadarios Panteleimon, Archbishop of Pelusium, The Catechism of

the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Questions and

Answers, Port Said-Egypt, 2006.

Lampadarios Panteleimon, Archbishop of Pelusium, Orthodox Faith,

Questions and Answers, Port Said-Egypt, 2006. (In Arabic).

Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers = J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The

Apostolic Fathers, edited and revised by M. W. Holmes, 2nd

Edition,

U.S.A., 2000.

Loofs, Nestoriana = F. Loofs, Nestoriana fragmenta vatia, Halle,

1905.

Lossky, Theology = Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology. An

Introduction. New York, 1989.

Mansi = Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et ampilissima

Collection, vs. 1-53, Paris, 1901-1927.

Migne, P.G. = Accurante J.- P. Migne, Patrologie Cursus Completus

seu bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda,

oeconomica, omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum Scriptorumque

Ecclesiasticorum, sive Latinorum, sive Graecorum, Patrologiae

Graece, Parisiis, 1857-1894.

Mitsopoulos, Themata = Νηθοιάοσ Μεηζοπούιοσ, Θέμαηα

Οπθοδόξος Δογμαηικήρ Θεολογίαρ, Αζήλαη, 1983.

168

(Nicholaos Mitsopoulos, Themata of Orthodox Dogmatique Theology,

Athens, 1983). (in Greek).

Ott, «Precis» = L. Ott, «Precis de Theologie Dogmatique», traduit par

M. Grandclaudon, Paris, 1955.

Pedalion = The Rudder (Pedalion) of the Metaphorical ship of the

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians

or all the Sacred and Divine Canons of the Holy Councils,

Ecumenical as well as Regional, and of individual Divine Fathers, as

Embodied in the original Greek text, for the sake of authenticity, and

explained in the vernacular by way of rendering them more

intelligible to the less educated, By Agapius, a Hieromonach and

Nicodemus, a Monk, Published by the Orthodox Christian

Educational Society, Illinois, USA, 1957

Plato, Orthodox Teaching = Πιάηωλος, Μεηροποιίηοσ Μόζτας,

Οπθόδοξορ Διδαζκαλία, κεηάθραζης σπό Αδακαληίοσ Κοραή θαηά ηελ

4ελ

έθδοζηλ ηοσ έηοσς 1851. Έθδοζης Βαζ. Ρεγοπούιοσ,

Θεζζαιολίθε, 1995.

(Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, Orthodox Teaching, translated by

Adamantios Koraes according to the 4th edition of the year 1851.

Published by Bas. Regopoulos, Thessalonica, 1995). (In Greek).

Shenouda III, Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, The

Nature of Christ, Cairo, revised COEPA - 1997.

St Irenaeus, Heresies = Αγίοσ Δηρελαίοσ Δπηζθόποσ Λοσγδούλοσ,

Έλεγσορ και Αναηποπή ηηρ Ψεςδονύμος Γνώζεωρ. Δηζαγωγή-

Μεηάθραζη-τόιηα, σπό Δηρελαίοσ Υαηδεεθραηκίδε, Γ.Θ.,

Αρτηκαλδρίηοσ, Θεζζαιολίθε, 1991.

(St Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon, Heresies, Translated by Irenaeus

Hadjephraimides, Archimandrite, Introduction – Translation-Notes,

Thessalonica, 1991). (In Greek).

St Symeon, Euriskomena = Σοσ Οζίοσ θαη Θεοθόροσ παηρός εκώλ

σκεώλ ηοσ Νέοσ Θεοιόγοσ, Τα Εςπιζκόμενα, Θεζζαιολίθε, 1997.

(St Symeon the New Theologian, Euriskomena, Thessalonica, 1977).

(In Greek).

169

Trempelas, Dogmatique = Παλαγηώηοσ Ν. Σρεκπέια, Δογμαηική ηηρ

Οπθοδόξος Καθολικήρ Εκκληζίαρ, ηόκ. 1-3, Αζήλαη, 1978.

(Panagiotes N. Trempelas, Dogmatique of the Orthodox Catholic

Church, volumes I-III, Athens, 1978). (In Greek).

170

INDEX

FEW WORDS FROM THE AUTHOR …………………………… 3

THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD ………………………….. 6

Definition of the Incarnation ………………………………………. 7

The Son was Incarnated according to the One Will and Action

of the Deity …………………………………………………………. 9

An Incomprehensible Mystery ……………………………………. 11

The Nature of the Incarnation ……………………………………... 15

The Glorification of Divine Attributes …………………………….. 17

The Necessity of the Incarnation ………………………………….. 21

THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST ……….……………………. 23

The Messiah According to the Prophecies. ……………………....…27

N.Testament testimonies concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ … 31

The Testimony of St John the Apostle and Evangelist ……………. 35

The Testimony of St Paul concerning Christ‟s Divinity .…………. 40

Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers concerning Christ‟s Divinity ... 42

Teachings of the Ecclesiastical Scholars concerning the Divinity

of Jesus Christ ……………………………………………………... 48

THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST …………………………… 54

171

The New Testament Teachings of the Lord‟s Humanity ………….. 56

The Decree of the 4th Ecumenical Synod ………………………….. 60

The Holy Fathers on Our Lord‟s similarity to us with the exception

of sin ……………………………………………………………….. 61

The Lord‟s Own Will and Authority …………………………......... 64

Those who renounced the Lord‟s Humanity and the Holy Fathers

who opposed them …………………………………………………. 65

Those who renounced the Integrity of the Lord‟s Human Nature

& those who opposed them ………………………………………... 72

The Worshippers of Incorruptibility and the struggle against them... 76

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN THE

ONE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST REAL AND NOT BY

IMAGINATION

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………. 80

The Teachings of Holy Scripture Concerning the Hypostatic Union

of the Two Natures in Christ ………………………………………. 83

The Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists …………... 86

The Teachings of St Irenaeus, Tertullian and St Hippolytus ……… 88

Complete clarification of the Union of the Two Natures and

accurate terms. ……………………………………………………... 91

Mystery Great and Inconceivable but not Illogical ………………... 97

THE RESULTS OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

172

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………. 99

The Transmission or Communion of the Attributes ……………… 101

One Worship of the God-Man ……………………………………. 107

The Mother of the Lord Truly Theotokos ………………………... 109

The Theosis (Deification) of Human Nature ……………………... 112

Transmission of Supernatural Knowledge to the Human Nature

of Christ …………………………………………………………... 113

Transmission of the Holiness & Sinlessness of the Divine Nature

to the Human Nature of the Lord ………………………………… 118

The Deification of the Power in the God-Man …………………… 128

The Deification of the Lord‟s Human Nature after His

Resurrection ……………………………………………………….130

The Lord as the High Prophet Because of the Hypostatic Union of

His Two Natures ………………………………………………….. 131

The Hypostatic Union Gives a Priceless Value and Power to the

Representative Sacrifice ………………………………………….. 133

THE MOTHER OF GOD ………………………………………... 135

The Term “THEOTOKOS” ……………………………………… 136

The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos according to H. Scripture and

the H. Fathers …………………………………………………….. 139

The Theotokos after the Birth remained a Virgin ………………... 142

The Relative Sinlessness of the Theotokos ………………………. 144

173

HERESIES AND THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS

The Heresy of Arianism ………………………………………….. 145

The Heresy of Nestorius ………………………………………….. 147

The Heresy of Monophysitism …………………………………… 152

The Heresy of Monothelitism ……………………………………. 156

The Heresy of Adoptionism ……………………………………… 162

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………... 164

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………... 166

INDEX …………………………………………………………… 170