The issue of the nature of Jesus' divinity while he was on earth had long occupied early Christian thought and judging from another thread, it still continues.
After 381 CE, the debate was made more, rather than less, difficult by the need to reconcile a definition of Jesus’ humanity with Nicene orthodoxy. One issue with the elevation of Jesus into the Godhead was to leave it unclear how his humanity, as described in the gospels, could be related to his new divine status. The Nicene creed simply stated that he had become a man but provided no further enlightenment
So what exactly was his nature and where did the divine part from the human?
Was his divine nature put into abeyance at the moment of his birth but somehow reactivated at the Resurrection? Or did it continue throughout his earthly ministry? Could he, for example, have a divine soul that was of a different quality from that of an ordinary human being, but still contained within a human body?
To what did Mary give birth? A man or a god? During his everyday life did Jesus switch back and forth from divinity to humanity? Did he act as a divinity when he performed his miracles, but as a human being when he ate and drank?
How were his teachings to be allocated? To his divine self or to his human one, depending on their content?
Did he have emotions or did he transcend them? Were they "real" emotions or only intended to ensure an effective contact with his followers.
How did his divinity affect the extent to which he could endure the suffering he apparently underwent for the saving of mankind? Could he suffer pain? If he could then was he really a deity? If he was a deity and could not suffer pain then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?
In the early development of the religion two opposing parties emerged. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was fully human but had been "adopted" by God at either his birth, his baptism, or at his resurrection [the precise moment was never actually defined]. However, that divinity which the Father bestowed on him did not compromise his humanity, and his suffering on the cross was the same agony that any other human being would experience.
At the other extreme were the Docetists who contended that Jesus went through the motions of being human but was actually divine all the time. Clement of Alexandria even claimed that while Jesus gave the appearance of eating and drinking he did not actually digest the food or have any need to excrete waste. It all somehow disappeared!
For the subordinationists such as Arius the problem had been avoided by simply saying that Jesus was a lesser divinity and his divinity was never great enough to deprive him of both human pain and emotions. However, after 381 CE this option could no longer be open to the new "orthodox" Christians and as a result the debates reached new levels of intractability.
Hence the concept of a single or a divided nature of Christ was entirely artificial and could never be related to any text from the gospels given the opposing views found in those four disparate works. How could the Jesus of Luke gain in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead? How could the Jesus of Mark tell a man that no one was good but god alone if he was part of the Godhead? John's gospel caused further problems because its Jesus appeared to contradict himself. If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater? Or that the Son could do nothing on his own but only what he saw the Father doing?
All these contradictory verses were of little help to anyone as it was impossible to propose that one gospel contained more theological truth than another.
Hence it was an issue that could either be considered as insoluble or, if the debate became too fractious, as one to be settled by imperial decree.
Which is precisely what happened.
In 451 CE the new emperor, Marcian presided over the session that affirmed a new Definition of Faith. Christ was declared to be "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man". He was begotten of the Father "as of his Godhead". but born of the Virgin Mary who was given the title Theotokos. Within this "one person" Christ had two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence."
Marcian had succeeded in imposing his will on the Church.
After 381 CE, the debate was made more, rather than less, difficult by the need to reconcile a definition of Jesus’ humanity with Nicene orthodoxy. One issue with the elevation of Jesus into the Godhead was to leave it unclear how his humanity, as described in the gospels, could be related to his new divine status. The Nicene creed simply stated that he had become a man but provided no further enlightenment
So what exactly was his nature and where did the divine part from the human?
Was his divine nature put into abeyance at the moment of his birth but somehow reactivated at the Resurrection? Or did it continue throughout his earthly ministry? Could he, for example, have a divine soul that was of a different quality from that of an ordinary human being, but still contained within a human body?
To what did Mary give birth? A man or a god? During his everyday life did Jesus switch back and forth from divinity to humanity? Did he act as a divinity when he performed his miracles, but as a human being when he ate and drank?
How were his teachings to be allocated? To his divine self or to his human one, depending on their content?
Did he have emotions or did he transcend them? Were they "real" emotions or only intended to ensure an effective contact with his followers.
How did his divinity affect the extent to which he could endure the suffering he apparently underwent for the saving of mankind? Could he suffer pain? If he could then was he really a deity? If he was a deity and could not suffer pain then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?
In the early development of the religion two opposing parties emerged. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was fully human but had been "adopted" by God at either his birth, his baptism, or at his resurrection [the precise moment was never actually defined]. However, that divinity which the Father bestowed on him did not compromise his humanity, and his suffering on the cross was the same agony that any other human being would experience.
At the other extreme were the Docetists who contended that Jesus went through the motions of being human but was actually divine all the time. Clement of Alexandria even claimed that while Jesus gave the appearance of eating and drinking he did not actually digest the food or have any need to excrete waste. It all somehow disappeared!
For the subordinationists such as Arius the problem had been avoided by simply saying that Jesus was a lesser divinity and his divinity was never great enough to deprive him of both human pain and emotions. However, after 381 CE this option could no longer be open to the new "orthodox" Christians and as a result the debates reached new levels of intractability.
Hence the concept of a single or a divided nature of Christ was entirely artificial and could never be related to any text from the gospels given the opposing views found in those four disparate works. How could the Jesus of Luke gain in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead? How could the Jesus of Mark tell a man that no one was good but god alone if he was part of the Godhead? John's gospel caused further problems because its Jesus appeared to contradict himself. If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater? Or that the Son could do nothing on his own but only what he saw the Father doing?
All these contradictory verses were of little help to anyone as it was impossible to propose that one gospel contained more theological truth than another.
Hence it was an issue that could either be considered as insoluble or, if the debate became too fractious, as one to be settled by imperial decree.
Which is precisely what happened.
In 451 CE the new emperor, Marcian presided over the session that affirmed a new Definition of Faith. Christ was declared to be "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man". He was begotten of the Father "as of his Godhead". but born of the Virgin Mary who was given the title Theotokos. Within this "one person" Christ had two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence."
Marcian had succeeded in imposing his will on the Church.
Comment