Tweet
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Origen’s claim, to later be affirmed also by Cyril – as cited by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen,
We do not affirm that the nature of the Logos underwent a change and became flesh, or that it was transformed[4] into a whole or perfect human consisting of flesh and body; rather, we say that the Logos . . . personally united itself to a human nature with a living soul, became a human being, and was called the Son of Man[5].
Matthew Pereira notes that the “Biblical writers never attempted to explain how these two natures coexist in the one and same Lord Jesus Christ[6].” Philip Jenkins states that “The Bible is anything but clear on the relationship between Christ’s human and divine natures, and arguably, it is just not possible to reconcile its various statements on this matter[7].” Jenkins notes that the Chalcedonian formula is by no means the only possible Christology available to the reader of the New Testament: “we easily find passages that suggest that the man Jesus achieved (emphasis added) Godhood at a specific moment during his life, or indeed after his earthly death[7.5].
Cyril taught that the Divine nature had not been transformed into what it was not, and that the human nature had not been transformed to that of Logos himself, but there is one son “and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul,” bonding to the human in a manner analogous to the bonding of human flesh with its soul[8]. Philip Schaff notes Leo’s agreement, citing
"The Lord of the universe," as Leo puts the matter in his epistle, "took the form of a servant; the form of a servant; the impassible God became a suffering man; the Immortal One submitted himself to the dominion of death; Majesty assumed into itself lowliness; Strength, weakness; Eternity, mortality." The same, who is true God, is also true man, without either element being altered or annihilated by the other, or being degraded to a mere accident. This mysterious union came to pass, in an incomprehensible way, through the power of the Holy Ghost, in the virgin womb of Mary[9].
The broader record of the New Testament shows that Logos, having emptied himself to become a man[10] – in all things like his brothers[11](Harold W Attridge says, “the emphatic ‘in all things’ indicates that the likeness is not a superficial, quasi-docetic one.”); lesser than the angels[12]; anointed by God with the Holy Spirit[13] (i.e. a christ); attested by the miracles which God performed through him[14] - dwelt and died among us. In sum, there is a wealth of explicit statements declaring that Jesus was a man. Argument is raised, that when he says Logos emptied himself, Paul does not state what Logos emptied himself of; in what sense then, “emptied?” According to Archibald Robertson,
Not of his divine nature. That was impossible … Undoubtedly, Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. … He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty[15]
[1] Alister E McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader: Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition. Kindle Edition. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2007), 273.
[2] There is argument that John appropriated Greek terminology in his writing, particularly in his use of “Logos” for the second person of the Trinity. However, given that the Word is already in the Hebrew scriptures and John has stated that Logos (Word) is God, not a demiurge as in the Greek concept, the argument is open to question. The Hebrew scriptures on occasion ascribe action to the Dabar (Word) of God, and the Targumim – the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures – ascribe action to the Memra (Word) of God on a greater number of occasions, often in places where the Hebrew scriptures ascribe that action to God himself. It does not seem that John would necessarily have borrowed “Logos” from Greek philosophical concepts. (cf Jewish Encylopedia: Memra)
[3] Alister E McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader: Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition. Kindle Edition. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2007), 274 (comment box).
[4] Once again, the concept of Logos transforming is presented and argued against. “We do not say” (as it is said we do) or (as do the ~) would be expected, but the statement as it stands, without any reason for its presence, presents a conundrum.
[5] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Christology: A Global Introduction, Kindle Edition. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 56.
[6] Matthew J. Pereira. “The Council of Chalcedon 451: In Search of a Nuanced and Balanced Christology.” in Seven Icons of Christ: An Introduction to the Oikoumenical Councils. (Piscataway: Georgias Press, 2016), 1. https://www.academia.edu/25536582/_T...nical_Councils
[7] John Philip Jenkins. Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. (Pymble. Harper Collins ebooks, 2010), KL (Kindle Location) 60.
[7.5]John Philip Jenkins. Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years. (Pymble. Harper Collins ebooks, 2010), KL 117. Jenkins’ “achieved” (KL 118) cannot be found in scripture. Jenkins also says, “The words that Jesus uses for “I am” — in Greek, egō eimi — recall the declaration that God made to Moses from the burning bush” (KL 65). Egō eimi however is not the Koine Greek name for God, and does not declare the speaker to be God. The man who had been blind from birth also uses “egō eimi” when people were questioning whether he was in fact the one who had been blind (John 9:9). Hebrew lacking the substantive “am,” the general pattern in the LXX is to translate the Hebrew anaki/ani (I) as egō eimi, regardless of who says it (Had Jesus been speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, the translation can be expected to follow the pattern established by the LXX)God said to Moses, “tell them that ho ōn has sent you,” not “egō eimi has sent you” (Exodus 3:18). In Koine Greek, God’s name is therefore, ho ōn. cf Gary Manning Jr. Does "I Am" always refer to God in the Gospel of John?” (He found more than I did.)
[8] Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ Kindle Edition (Fig Books, 2012), 22: Diodore had objected to the analogy on the basis that “it implies a limitation and alteration of the Word;” and a soul is an incomplete nature, where the Logos is a complete nature. (see Rowan A Greer. “The Antiochene Christology Of Diodore Of Tarsus” in The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 2 (October 1966), 334.
[9] Philip Schaff. History Of The Christian Church: (Volumes 1-8) Cross-linked to the Bible. Kindle Edition. (Omaha: Patristic Press, reprint 2019), KL 38276-38279
[10] Philippians 2:6-7: Harold W Attridge. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 95. (footnote 182): “Christ is sent in the ομοιωμα of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), but also emptied himself, being in the ομοιωμα of human beings (Phil 2:7), which implies his full identity with them.”
[11] Hebrews 2:17: Harold W Attridge. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 95.
[12] Hebrews 2:7.
[13] Acts 10:38.
[14] Acts 2:22.
[15] Archibald T Robertson. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament. Kindle Edition. (www.FreeBibleSoftware.com: E4 Group, 2014), KL 156257
What? Mainstream belief does NOT consider that Logos became flesh. Mainstream belief states that Logos remained God - he did not become anything other than what he already was.
Comment