Impact and Progression of the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union - Essay Example

Section/# Impact and Progression of the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union Introduction: One of the most interesting dynamics in studying early Christian theology has to do with an analysis for the way in which conflicting ideas and interpretations ultimately found their way into religious canon. In many cases, alternate ideas or approaches were oftentimes co-opted into new religious movements that in turn furthered the diversification and creation of different sects of Christianity. Other times, alternate ideologies or approaches were deemed heretical and actively persecuted. Likewise, some of the most major disagreements were concentric upon the nature of Christ and/4 the nature of salvation or the propitiation of sin that was affected as a result of Christ’s death. Whereas it might be tempting to assert the fact that the early Christian movement was somehow uneducated or inadequate to discern key levels of philosophical inference, individuals at the forefront of developing Christian theology were oftentimes the most educated members of society of that particular era. Accordingly, rather than delving into a broad discussion of the misunderstandings and disagreements that existed within early Christian thought, this particular analysis will instead focus specifically on the issue of disagreement related to what is known as the hypostatic union which was understood to have been exhibited within the person of Christ as he lived on earth. In simple terms, the hypostatic union denotes the fact that Christ exhibited both a divine and godly nature alongside a human one. Although this is excepted prima fascia among almost all believers of the Christian faith within the current world, it was a great deal of disagreement and argument that existed within the early church as doctrines were formulated and theology based upon Christ’s nature was defined. In this way, the following analysis will seek to provide and historical overview and prospectus with regard to how these differing approaches ultimately came to be considered as Christian canon throughout the ages. Historical Meaning: Before delving directly into the issue of a definition of the hypostatic union, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that this particular term did not originate with early Christian doctrine and/or theology. Instead, hypostasis was originally coined by the stoicism movement within ancient Greece; as denoting being of two natures at the same time. As individuals within the Stoic movement sought to incorporate this concept within their daily lives, it was a relevant term that was known among educated individuals within the early Christian community and as such was easily repurposed to designate a dual nature of humanity and divinity as it related to Christ’s life on earth. Moreover, as with so many words in different languages, the original intent and definition of this particular term came to be somewhat redefined as the early Christian movement co-opted its interpretation and understanding into discussions of theology and doctrine; apart from human philosophy and the means by which human nature could work towards two distinct essences at the very same time. Biblical Perspective and Importance in Defining Early Christian Beliefs and Doctrines: Rather than deriving of this controversy from thin air, it must be understood by the reader that the issue regarding Christ’s hypostatic union is a direct representation from many of the text of the New Testament. As such, as Christian theology began to grow and doctrines began to formulate, closer examinations of the means by which humanity and divinity were represented alongside one another in a single entity came to a further level of scrutiny. Taking Hebrews 1:3 example, the text indicates: “The Son is the radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (cite). Likewise, the first chapter of the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it”. Going further into the New Testament, 1st John verses 1-3 states: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.  The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.  We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ”. Yet, a further difficulty, beyond merely analyzing the teachings of the New Testament, correlates to the difficulties of interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament. Within almost all of the Old Testament prophecies which were messianic, the primary focus was upon the fact that the Messiah would be divine and would necessarily represent the father on earth. Whereas it is doubtless that the argument concerning hypostatic union is not based upon whether or not Christ is divine; it must be indicated that the differential between Old Testament prophecies and the understandings that are represented within the New Testament ultimately served to fan the flames of discord and disagreement that existed within early theologians and scholars of the Christian movement. At its core, hypostatic union delves into issues concerning divinity becoming flesh and the means by which these two can dwell alongside. Representations of two individuals becoming one flesh are of course indicated as far back as the book of Genesis where God indicates that the marriage union should provide for the unique arrangement in which two separate individuals can become one. However, the inverse of this is not represented in either the Old Testament or the New Testament; creating a situation that has thus far been described – namely one in which early Christians struggle to define the way in which two unique persons could exist simultaneously in one body/on mind/one essence. Even though the discussion regarding hypostatic union may seem a bit out of place within the early church, this representation/understanding was integrally related to an understanding of Christ’s morality, temptation, and death. In terms of understanding a dual nature, these particular issues underpinned the very core precepts of what propitiation meant and how Christ’s example could be utilized as a model for Christian behavior; notwithstanding the fact that the believer themselves was not capable of hypostatic union (Kelly, 2006). The importance of this should not be interpreted in terms of hairsplitting; as Hebrews 4:15 helps to underscore: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin”. Likewise, the crux of understanding Christ’s nature and seeking to define the way in which a godly life could be lived was contingent upon representing the fact that he was both human and divine; having been tempted just as humans are but relying upon his strength of belief, rather than his divinity, to succumb these temptations. The Early Debate Intensifies: One of the first Christian thinkers to utilize the term hypostasis was that of Apollinaris of Laodicea. As such, his interpretation of hypostasis was one that ultimately encouraged a great deal of debate amongst future thinkers and theologians as he defined Christ’s duel nature as being responsible for the creation of a single essence or single hypostasis (Moulder, 1986). This was of course difficult to understand at his time as well as our own; due in part to the fact that even though Apollinaris of Laodicea agrees with the fact that a dual nature exists and was represented within the character and body of Christ, this nature somehow came to represent a singular person that was not defined by either one but essentially was a different essence as a result of the inclusion of these two. By leaving the door open to interpretation in doctrine and theology, further disputes concerning the hypostatic union that Christ exhibited in his person were all but guaranteed for the future of early Christianity. A secondary round of disagreement was born out of the disagreement between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius; concerning the issue of hypostatic union and how it impacted upon the teachings of Christian doctrine and belief. Nestorius ultimately argued for the fact that two distinct natures of Christ must exist in and of themselves; furthering the belief that Christ, as God, could not be born. In such a manner, Nestorius, and others like him, believed that Jesus was born and that the spirit or essence of God (Christ) inhabited his body shortly thereafter. Accordingly, Nestorius found himself on a slippery slope in terms of Christian doctrinal belief; due in part to the fact that pointing to the exact moment and/or time that Christ inhabited Jesus of Nazareth’s body was further problematic and called individuals that doubted this theory to be even more vehement in their rejection of it (Turner, 1976). In effect, Nestorius argument was partially concentric on the fact that as Jesus was born of a human female, his divine nature could not have been exhibited from the start of Jesus first breath. Instead, his divinity must have come later. This particular doctrinal approach was of course a less than popular with many individuals within the early Christian church. For instance, the first Council of Ephesus labeled Nestorius as a heretic and deposed him from his position. Backed early, is forced dismissal was far more favorable than the treatment that many individuals who were deemed as heretics would be subjected to later as the early Christian Church morphed into more politically active and dynamic entity. Furthermore, the doctrinal fallacy that Nestorius point of view was guilty of violating, at least in terms of how the first Council of Ephesus understood the issue, was that Nestorius was representing what is known as a neo-adoptionist viewpoint of Christ’s divinity and the fulfillment of messianic prophecy. It was at this juncture that the hypostatic union came to be an essential component for how early Christianity would define spiritual practice going forward and seek to norm the behavior and inquiries of theologians to conform with such an interpretation as will be discussed presently. After removing Nestorius from his position, Cyril of Alexandria penned a letter to him that came to be the cornerstone for how Christian doctrine on the issue of Christ’s hypostatic union would be defined in the decades and millennia to come. Said Cyril of Alexandria concerning the hypostatic union of Christ’s existence, “We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind what ‘having been made flesh’ means …. We say … that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man” (Green, 2004). Theologians and biblical scholars that question the point of view that Cyril of Alexandria represented point to the fact that Nestorius may have very well exhibited the first heresy that the early church indicated in terms of human rationalism taking root. Although it is not the purpose of this particular analysis to indicate whether or not the church was correct or incorrect to deem this particular individual inherited and move forward with a definition of Christ’s hypostatic union, as is understood today, it is nonetheless interesting to consider the ramifications that this particular judgment had and the means by which the future Christianity was determined (Evans, 2004). Nevertheless, the teachings and spirituality of the early church concerning this particular issue was not settled with the deposition of Nestorius. Instead, another theologian, only several decades after this particular incident, represented the complete opposite opinion that Nestorius had so eloquently argued within his letter to Cyril of Alexandria. This particular individual, named Theodore of Mopsuetsia, argued that within Christ there were two natures (both human and divine). Yet, beyond this, Theodore of Mopsuetsia also indicated that there were also two essences represented within the character of Christ as well; that of an essence of a person and that of the essence of God. Naturally, this confused the matter to an even further degree and had many Biblical scholars of the time attempting to make sense of Theodore of Mopsuetsia’s argument. Yet, much of the debate is concentric upon the fact that his particular point of view was attempting to coalesce the major groups of individuals that had come to see the issue from different vantage points. By serving up an inclusionary tactic, Theodore of Mopsuetisa hoped that more individuals could leave the issue behind and focus on more compelling components of the Christian faith. However, as fate would have it, this tactic somewhat backfired; as Theodore of Mopsuestia was instead embroiled in controversy between those that did not accept the doctrine of the hypostatic union, those that did, and those that ridiculed him for expanding even further upon it (Collins, 1995). Once again, seeking to create a level of uniformity of the faith, the early church addressed this particular issue within what came to be known as the Chalcedonian Definition (Davis et al., 2004). Within this definition, the church indicated that there were two essences of Christ that were immediately apparent upon conception of his body within Mary’s womb. This cemented the doctrine of hypostatic union as it would become to be known throughout the remainder of extant church history. Furthermore, this was the first juncture in which the doctrine of the Trinity came to be represented alongside, and in tandem with, the doctrine of the hypostatic union. According to the Chalcedonian Definition, the hypostatic union was indicative of incarnation; as if to indicate that the nature and not the “person” of God were present within the body of Christ (Grillmeier 1975). Within this particular sense, the Council was able to define and subsequently determine that Christ’s two natures both retained their own distinct properties; together uniting and one substitute force to create a single individual. Not surprisingly, the definition that was provided by this particular counsel was not rapidly accepted by all individuals within the Christian communities throughout the world. For instance, those that rejected the ruling of the Council came to be viewed as “monophysites”; or those that could only accept a definition of Christ’s nature that was singular in its application. As can immediately be understood, this divergence of opinion was ultimately what encouraged the schism between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches (Hill, 1985). To this very day, the Assyrian churches of the Orthodox tradition promote the understanding that venerates Nestorius; whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church upholds the rulings and councils that determined the hypostatic union to be established belief and doctrine for the way in which Christian belief would be taught. Impact on Subsequent Christianity: Ultimately, the relevance of the early Christian Church to engage with a hypostatic union theology is one that has had a lasting impact with respect to the way in which evangelism has taken place and Christianity as a whole has evolved. For the most part, the largest branches of the Christian church have utilized the teaching of the hypostatic union as a means of engaging an understanding that God’s divinity alongside humanity was the recipe of salvation and the proof that the temptations that are experienced along the way can in fact be conquered; utilizing a reliance upon a relationship with the father and continual communion with Him as a means of effecting similar triumphs within the life of the Christian (Kapser, 1976). By comparison and contrast, the understanding that schism that developed within the church and was concentric upon the point in time at which Christ became God or whether he represented a dual nature was partially what separated these components of the early Christian Church from others. As differences increased, this misunderstanding and disagreement deepened; effecting a change in the way that the believers of the respective faith’s came to understand the role of Christ’s earthly ministry, the impact of salvation, and the necessity for evangelism. As Christian denomination after Christian denomination has formed as a result of different belief systems and interpretations of the Bible or other theological basics, an interesting aspect to considers it the fact that the issue of Christ’s nature and the hypostatic union is one that has not entered into the religious debate for hundreds of years. As separate and distinct forms of Christianity have branched from one another, for instance Protestants from Catholics, virtually no interest was placed on redefining Christ’s hypostic union with both the human and the divine (Butterworth, 1977). Instead, it has been accepted prima fascia by almost each and every Christian denomination with he exception of certain of the Orthodox faiths that took this particular issue as a fundamental causation for their initial schism from the early Christian church. The teachings of Christ’s nature and the belief that he was both human and divine is one of the cornerstones of modern Christian doctrine; with the exception of those entities that have been discussed previously. Nevertheless, in an age in which an increased focus is being directed towards the need for ecumenical movements, it is noted that there is some resurgence of this topic between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern/Assyrian Orthodox Churches (not to mention the various Apostolic Faiths and African sub-branches of Orthodox Christianity). As this discussion continues to develop between these churches and their respective leaders, there is at least an existential possibility that some degree of development may occur within the near future; however, with the understanding of how fractious Christianity has been up until this point in time, it is the interpretation of this author that the existing differences regarding theological understanding of Christ’s nature between church’s with respect to the issue of the hypostatic union will remain firmly entrenched in perpetuity. Importance within the Future Development and Understanding of Christology: As anyone remotely familiar with Christology will be quick to point out, the exemplification and power of Christianity that continues to prompt evangelical overtones has to do with the juxtaposition of Christ’s in perfect and imperfect nature. By means of invoking this as an example for how humanity can strive towards perfection, different branches of Christianity are effectively able to denote the fact that even though the center lives within a fallen world, the exemplification of Christ existing within the same all the world and not reverting to send this serves as a continual reminder of the fact that Christ’s divinity was not the only aspect of virtue that contributed towards his resistance to send. Instead, mainstream Christianity continues to point to the fact that it was his connection to the father, through prayer, that facilitated the strength. As such, whereas the average believer is not able to exhibit a situation in which they have continued access to a divine character, they are in fact able to exhibit a situation in which they can continually rely on our prayer as a means of effecting a change within the world around them and an internal change within their own lives. Conclusion: From the information that has thus far been discussed, it is difficult to imagine a world in which the majority of mainstream Christianity did not accept the doctrine of hypostatic union. Moreover, it can also be indicated that this particular doctrine has been so widely accepted within so many branches of Christianity as it does not even elicit a level of discussion or consideration within the theological discussions that continue to be ongoing within the current era. Although this does not indicate that this particular doctrine is solid and represents the true and righteous path that the Bible seeks to represent, it does indicate that this topic has been, at least in the minds of most individuals, all but settled for further debate. Even aspects concerning the triune nature of God and issues pertaining to whether or not Christ’s propitiation on earth was sufficient in and of itself or whether or not an ongoing perpetuation within heaven is required for salvation continue to be debated heavily. If anything, the understanding that a broad level of agreement exists between different Christian faiths on this topic illustrates the fact that the doctrine of hypostatic union forms one of the very tenets of what helps to define and describe modern-day Christianity. Bibliography Collins, Gerald, Christology. A biblical, historical, and systematic study of Jesus Christ (Oxford, 1995)  Butterworth, R. "Has Chalcedon a Future?" In: The Month  April (1977) Davis, Stephen T., Kendall, Daniel, and OCollins, Gerald, The Incarnation. An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God (Oxford, 2004) Evans, G.R., ed., The First Christian Theologians (Blackwell, 2004) Greene, Colin J. D., Christology in Cultural Perspective. Marking out the Horizons (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2004) Hill, E., The Mystery of the Trinity (Geoffrey Chapman, 1985) Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. I, 2nd ed. (Mowbrays, 1975) Kasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ. Transl. by V. Green. (London, 1976), 230-274 Moulder, J. "Is Chalcedonian Theology Coherent?" In: Modern Theology  2 (4) (1986) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London: Continuum, 2006 Turner, H. E. W., The Classical Statement, Jesus the Christ (London, 1976) Read More