The God-Man

The church, from the apostles themselves (e.g., Rom.1:2-4; 9:5; Heb.1:2-12; 2:14-18), to the apostolic fathers (e.g., 1Clem.32:2; 36; Ignatius, Eph.7:2), and on through the Nicene and Post-Nicene age, has always taught the human-divine duality of Christ’s person. This basic and primitive christology was given precise definition in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, and has since been recognized by the church as having established the clear boundaries of christological orthodoxy.

During the controversies of the 4th and 5th century, a number of important works were written. One of these was the so-called "Tome of Leo," written to Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople in 449 AD. It is worth taking the time to read it, if you can grab an hour one night. The Tome was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon as giving orthodox expression to the duality of Christ, and as a correction to the teachings of Eutyches in particular.

To this author was attributed the famous dictim: "What he was (Deity), he remained; what he was not (humanity), he assumed." A short and sweet summary of the mystery of the incarnation. God the Son took on human nature, without compromising either His divine nature or the humanity He assumed through His miraculous conception in Mary's womb. That is what happened, according to Scripture. How it happened is a mystery to us.

Another important and profound document written during an earlier, critical juncture in the history of the church regarding Christ's Person is Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation." A true Christian classic!

In light of this duality of natures, we often struggle with overemphasizing one aspect over and against the other. That is, we tend to lean either toward Arianism (Jesus, though great, is not fully God) or docetism (Jesus, though he appeared to be, was not really a man).

In what ways have we tended toward Arianism in recent history?

In what ways have we tended toward docetism?