Christological Controversy

When it comes to knowing God, man is at an incredible disadvantage. Though man was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), that image is not “all inclusive,” if it were, the debates regarding who God is, or even if He exists would not have taken place. If man were made completely like God (save that troubling aspect called “deity” of course), he would be able to look at himself and discover who God is, how He is formed and what this “Holy Spirit” is supposed to do. Alas, man was created in God’s image, but still has obvious limitations. The truth of the matter is that this is not a bad thing. The mysteries and depths of every question regarding God and who He is, is part of His appeal. The difficulty of this situation becomes more evident when someone who is willing to blindly believe is confronted with questions they have not answered about this mystery. What is a person to do when this happens? Should they respond with a typical “Sunday School” answer of: “I believe because I have faith”? When it boils down to it, the truth is that there is no easy answer, but the mystery must be explored, at least to an extent, while still holding onto that blind faith. In regards to the specifics of who God is, the person of Jesus Christ, the so-called “Logos” or “Son of God” has been the most explored and debated part of this mystery. The Christological controversy has been one where over thinking and attempts to put the mystery of the Gospel into human terms has taken the forefront while its truth and life-saving power has been neglected.

In tracing the debate that has lasted throughout the ages regarding who Christ is, one might receive a headache and quickly find themselves in the fetal position. It is confusing to say the least. There is no easy way to explain every conflict and difference of opinion, but looking at some of the ecumenical councils can shed light upon the major debates. According to Bruce Shelley, the Council of Nicea declared Christ to be fully divine. (Bruce L. Shelley, 2008, 114) What led up to this declaration was a man named Arius. Arius was the father of Arianism, which chiefly declared that God created the Logos, and the Logos was eternally subordinate to God. (Roger Olson, 1999, 142) By stating this, Arians were declaring that the Logos was not fully God. He was fully human. What lies behind this statement is a long-held philosophical thought that God is immutable, unchangeable and not passionate. Oddly, the “other side” of the debate rooted their beliefs in this same thought. (Olson, 1999, 143) The way the Arians interpreted this is that God could not suffer and die on the cross; therefore God could not be in the person of Jesus Christ. They would use the Greek word “homoiousios” which means “similar.” It would be used describing the person of Jesus Christ as being of a similar substance of God, but not the same. To them, the entire salvation of man depends on this term. As stated by Olson:

First, God is by nature removed from creatureliness, and if the Logos became human in Jesus Christ, he must be a creature. Second, salvation is a process of being joined with God by grace and free will, and if Jesus communicates salvation to us, it must be something he accomplished by grace and free will in a manner that we can emulate; and if he was God, then salvation would not be something we could accomplish. (Olson, 1999, 147)

Jesus had to be human. If this were not so, man (a human) would not be able to be like Jesus and would therefore be unable to achieve salvation.

To rebut Arianism came two men: Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius of Alexandria. These men largely held to the same thoughts in regards to why Arianism is heretical. As the Arians utilized the word “homoiousios,” these men used the word “homoousios,” with means “same.” Their stance was that the Logos and God were of the same substance, not just similar substance. There is an obvious and great difference between what amounts to one English letter. According to their argument, if “similar” were used instead of “same”, then God would have to have changed. As stated earlier, both sides of this debate had the same premise for their argument. As “The A’s” used this, they argued that for God to create the Logos, He would then change from not being a Father to being a Father. “Alexander turned the tables on Arius and charged that he in effect denied the immutability of the Father by saying that he was not always Father but only became so by creating a son.” (Olson, 1999, 148) Again, Athanasius’ argument is virtually identical: “The heart of the argument is that if the Father is God, then the Son must be God as well, for otherwise the Father would have changed in becoming Father.” (Olson, 1999, 168) These arguments have held out and eventually prevailed over the Arian argument in creating orthodoxy. Like Arianism, the second part of their argument also has ramifications in salvation. To “The A’s”, salvation is only possible through divinity. “For only if Jesus Christ is God are we saved.” (Olson, 1999, 150) This brings to light the aspect of the Logos that Arianism is quick to deny: He is fully divine. Athanasius argued this point well (and correctly) in equating the ability to “undo sin” with divinity. “Only God can undo sin and bring a creature to share in the divine nature.” (Olson, 1999, 169) Both of these arguments may be seen as just different from Arianism’s point view, but which one can be declared truth? Alexander’s use of the Gospel of John and apostolic writings gives him (and thus Athanasius) the upper hand. In this, he states how John 1 speaks of the Logos being “’in the beginning with God’ and the agent of God in all creation.” (Olson, 1999, 148)

From these two arguments, the Council of Nicea summarized that the person of Jesus Christ is fully divine. The only downfall is that the humanity of Jesus Christ was not emphasized well enough. Much of the debate that followed this council landed upon the person of Jesus Christ. Yes, He is fully God, but he obviously had a human body while He was at least on earth. What was the nature of this human body? Did the Logos simply reside in the body? Was the Logos somehow one with this body, yet still separate? These questions plagued the Eastern Church and created continual division and strife.

After the Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantinople I occurred. At this council, according to Shelley, Christ’s humanity is affirmed. (Shelley, 2008, 114) The chief players in this council were a trio known as “The Cappadocian Fathers.” What these men (consisting of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa) did, was simply clarify the issue, putting it into more concise terms while reconfirming what the Nicene Creed stated. In regards to the Trinity as a whole, they stated, “God is one ousia and three hypostases.” (Olson, 1999, 175) This means that God is one person but three substances. They also stated that: “we confess one God not in number, but in nature.” (Olson, 1999, 184) From this, the Christological debate was also summarized.

The basic idea is to distinguish between the “whatness” and “whoness” –substance and person... “A crude paraphrase of this elegant expression [the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity] might read ‘In Christ there are two “whats” and one “who”; in God there are three “whos” and one “what”’” (Olson, 1999, 194)

Following the work of these men came the Council of Constantinople I where needed clarification was made regarding Christ’s humanity without neglecting his divinity. Their writings and thoughts enabled a more concise summary of the Logos to be defined. Though little attention is being given to these men here, their impact has proven exponential. Their purpose seems to have mostly been to clarify, but that clarification was pivotal. Regretfully, there still existed arguments regarding the “how” the Logos and person of Jesus Christ existed as fully human and fully divine after this point.

The next great debate has two players: Nestorius and Cyril. These men debated the idea of Christ being one nature or two. Nestorius knew that there was more to Christ than just His humanity, but saw the two natures co-existing as different natures as opposed to completely unifying. He challenged Cyril with the question: “How can you say that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly human if you deny that he was the union of two different natures?” (Olson, 1999, 215) Though all of Nestorius’ arguments were what Cyril responded to, it is Cyril’s arguments that hold the greatest impact on orthodoxy. This debate culminated with the Council of Ephesus, where the unified person of Christ was declared. What Cyril did was bring to the debate a term called “hypostatic union.” This is the “union of two realities in one hypostasis or personal subject.” (Olson, 1999, 219) In regards to explaining Jesus and who He is,

Cyril proclaimed, “that the subject of the life of Jesus Christ was the Son of God who took on himself a human nature and existence while remaining truly divine.” (Olson, 1999, 218) With Cyril’s writing the debate finally hit the home stretch. Christ was no longer declared “fully God” without His humanity, nor was He declared “fully human” without his divinity. This debate still had much to go through, but what was left equated to loose ends being tied together, which mostly occurred at the Council of Chalcedon.

At the Council of Chalcedon, re-affirmation was made regarding Christ being two “whats” and one “who.” The heart of their definition is this: “... we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son; the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man...” (Olson, 1999, 231) This definition is further clarified by Olson when he says: “Jesus Christ was and is God with a human nature and not a man elevated into a special relationship with God or a hybrid of God’s being and human being.” (Olson, 1999, 234) This cleared up the debate (for the most part) of who the Logos is and how He is connected to the man Jesus Christ. In regards to the significance of the Christological controversy, it’s two-fold. Yes, much of what is now known and has been figured out is important. Salvation does lie with the question of whether the Logos was created by God or not (his divinity). Whether Christ was two natures in one person and what that looked like was important as well. Overall, Christology is doomed; it is impossible to fully explain in human terms something that is Divine. God is much bigger than any word man can define. Lying below the surface of all of the debates regarding the Logos there is a message of hope. There is the Gospel, the Good News that there is a God who wanted to bring people to Him. In order to do that, the Son of God came to earth and died. In this, is the truth and life-saving power that has too often been neglected in the Christological controversy.