THE HYPOSTATIC UNION-

CHURCH RESPONSE TO HERESIES REGARDING JESUS` TWO NATURES

SANDIS BACNS
HBC1613961

TH-201.12 PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST

AT1- INTERACTIVE ESSAY

DUE DATE: 14/04/2017

SUBMITTED DATE: 14/04/2017

WORD COUNT: 1694

INTRODUCTION
There are terms in systematic theology that we all assume we understand, but few people can only
define what they really mean. Because of disagreements, and range of interpretations, the theology
of different subjects has caused confusion and even division in the church. There have been non-
ending discussions about subjects like Baptism, Holy Communion, and Salvation or the Second
Coming of Christ. But when I read the theme of this essay I was even more confused. I have read
materials and written assignments on previously mentioned subjects, but the phrase the Hypostatic
Union was exceptionally new for me. In order to gain basic knowledge about it, this essay is a great
challenge to do research on how can Christ be both fully God and fully man.

1. HISTORY OF 3 MAIN HERESIES

The first step of this part is to explore the reason of why the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and
Protestant Christian churches appointed the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Soon after the
establishment of the church, doctrinal errors arose concerning the person of Jesus Christ.
(MacArthur, n.d.) The reason to call together the council was simply to confront the heresies that
were created because of misunderstood meaning of Christ`s incarnation. This was the Church`s
successful attempt to correctly explain the relationship between Christ`s human and divine natures
and clear out the confusion amongst believers. Grudem notes:
The resulting statement, called the Chalcedonian Definition, guarded against Apollinarianism,
Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as a standard, the orthodox definition of
the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and
Orthodox branches of Christianity alike. (Grudem, 1994)

In the next step, I will address the early Church heresies. John the apostle clearly stated that there
will come false prophets who will not acknowledge the truth about Jesus. (1 John 4:1-4 NLT) The
term heresy comes from the Greek word hairesis, which refers to a sect, party or disunion. The word
can be found in the Acts referring to sects like Sadducees (Acts 5:17 NLT) and Pharisees (15:5 NLT).
(Mounce, n.d.)

The first leading heresy is called Apollinarianism found by a bishop of Laodicea named Apollinaris,
which taught that even though Christ had a human body, but His mind was replaced with a divine
one. This means that He could not be fully human. Grudem states:
But the views of Apollinaris were rejected by the leaders of the church that time, who realized
that it was no just our human body that needs salvation and needed to be represented by

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION 2

 Christ in his redemptive work, but our human minds and spirits as well: Christ had to be fully
and truly man if he was to save us. (Grudem, 1994)

This heresy was formed in A.D. 361 but was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in A.D.
381.

The next heresy is called Nestorianism created by Nestorius, a Patriarch of Constantinople in A.D.
428. Nestorianism is a form of dyophysitism, a theological term which from Greek means two
natures. Nestorian believed that Christ existed as two persons: the human Jesus and divine Logos,
rather than as one unified person. Dr. Martin Chemitz notes:
Nestorius taught that the Logos assumed a manhood which had been formed previously, and
to this manhood which subsisted of itself beforehand the Logos was afterward united, that is,
the Logos did not assume the nature of man but a person so that there were to hypostases of
the incarnate Christ. He taught that each of Christ`s natures carried out its own activities for
itself without communication with the other. He said that there was one nature in Christ which
performed divine things and another which did human things. (Chemnitz, 1971)

In addition to that, Nestorius did not agree with calling Mary the Mother of God which would
make her into a goddess, so he taught that she was the mother of Jesus human side. The issue with
this teaching is that if Jesus is two persons, then a contradiction arises about which person died on
the cross. If it was the human person then the atonement is not sufficient to cleanse mankind`s
sins. The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemned his teaching as a heresy. (Cairns, 1996)

The next central heresy emerged out of a reaction against Nestorianism. The doctrine of
Eutychianism is a form of Monophysitism which from the Greek language means one nature.
Eutyches, archimandrite of a monastery at Constantinople, reacted against over-emphasizing the
divine nature of Christ. Nixon writes about Eutyches position: He insisted that after the incarnation
both the divine and the human natures of Christ were fused together into a third new nature, a
tertium quid. (Nixon, 2000)
By this doctrine, a vital concern arose in the church, because with it, Christ was neither truly God
nor truly man. Grudem argues that: if it was so, he could not truly represent us as a man nor
could he be true God and able to earn our salvation. (Grudem, 1994)

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION 3

2. HYPOSTATIC UNION
Grudem writes: The first official response of the church to the heresies and misunderstandings of
the relationship between Jesus` human and divine natures was made in the Nicene Creed in 325
and was later revised in 381. (Grudem, 1994) Alister McGrath amplifies: Niceasettled the Arian
controversy by affirming that Jesus was hoomoousios (one in being or of one substance) with
the Father. (McGrath, 1998)
Then the church in A.D. 451 called the fourth ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon in, which
not only affirmed the decisions made in Nicea, they also responded to the 3 main heresies that are
mentioned above. (McGrath, 1998)
In the response to the heresies regarding Christ's union between His two natures, the theological
term Hypostatic Union was initiated in the Council of Chalcedon. The word hypostatic is derived
from Greek word hypostasis and to define it, Chafer notes:
a union of hypnosis character is a union of natures that are within themselves independent and
distinct. The expression hypostatic union is distinctly theological and is applicable only to Christ in
whom, as in no other, two distinct and dissimilar natures are united. (Chafer, 1993)
Matt Slick writes: Jesus`s two natures are not mixed together as would (Eutychianism), nor are
they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in
the one person of Jesus. (Slick, 2008) Dr. Thiessen confirms: Jesus speaks of himself as a single
person; he does not evidence a split personality. Sometimes he would act from his human self-
consciousness, at other times from his divine, but the two were never in conflict. (Thiessen, 1949)
For humankind to be saved, Jesus had to be both fully man and fully God. Chafer explains:
He is God`s gift, God`s one and only solution for a lapsed race. Within man, there are no
resources whereby he might provide a daysman whose right and authority are both perfectly
divine and perfectly human. Nothing that man could produce could redeem a soul from sin or
could provide the essential sacrificial blood which alone can satisfy outraged holiness. (Chafer,
1993)

To close this essay, I want to bring up an example of two theological doctrines, concerning Jesus
two natures and His ability to sin, which shows how hard is for the human mind to comprehend
God. John F. Walvoord introduces the doctrines:
The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term peccability, and the doctrine
that Christ could not sin is referred to as the impeccability of Christ. Adherents of both views
agree that Christ did not sin, but those who affirm peccability hold that He could have sinned,
whereas those who declare the impeccability of Christ believe that He could not sin due to the
presence of the divine nature. (Walvoord, 2008)

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION 4

A question has to be asked about Jesus being tempted to sin: Could Jesus sin while being on earth?
On the one hand, the peccability view argues that if Jesus was truly man then he must have been
able to sin because temptation indicates the probability of sinning. If it was impossible for Christ to
sin, then His temptation was not real and Christ can`t sympathize with our weaknesses (Hebrews
4:15, NLT). (Hodge, 1968)
But on the other hand, those who argue for the impeccability doctrine would say that even though
Jesus was able to be tempted did not mean that He was able to give in to that temptation. (Nixon,
2000) Grudem explains:
If Jesus` human nature had existed bu itself, independent of His divine nature, then it would
have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve.It would have been
free from sin but nonetheless able to sinBut Jesus` human nature never existed apart from
union with His divine nature, From the moment of His conception, He existed as truly God and
truly man as wellAn act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have
involved the whole person of ChristBut if Jesus as a person had sinnedthen, God, himself
would have sinned, and He would have ceased to be God. (Grudem, 1994)

Both Hodge and Grudem make remarkable arguments for the two doctrines of Jesus capability to
sin, which makes it difficult to choose one doctrine and say that it is the right one. But that being
said- both sides agree, that Jesus did not sin.

CONCLUSION
Just for 1500 words, writing this essay has been an intriguing and provocative journey. Researching
the heresies of the early church makes sense of why it was important to compose term the
Hypostatic Union. Understanding Christs` nature nowadays is just as relevant as it was in the time
when people interpreted Jesus divinity and humanity incorrectly. There is a necessity to have a
proper understanding on this matter. Movements like Jehovah`s Witnesses (focuses on his
humanity, ignoring his deity) and Christian Scientists (denies his true humanity) who are
contradicting the essential Christian doctrine, are causing confusion in the society. This, like many
other theological terms, has to be introduced to believers in churches today, because of eye-
opening experience of understanding our Saviour profoundly more.

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cairns, E. E. (1996). Christianity Through the Centuries. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Chafer, L. S. (1993). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mi: Kregel Publications.

Chemnitz, M. (1971). The Two Natures In Christ. Preus J.A.O. (Ed). . St. Louis, Mi: Concordia Publishing
House.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine . Leicester: Inter-Varsity

Press.

Hodge, C. (1968). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

MacArthur, J. (n.d.). Questions. Retrieved from Grace to You:

http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA137/i-heard-john-use-the-term-hypostatic-union-
what-does-that-mean-and-where-did-it-come-from

McGrath, A. E. (1998). Historial Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.

Mounce, B. (n.d.). Greek Dictionary. Retrieved from Billmounce.com: https://billmounce.com/greek-

dictionary/hairesis

Nixon, D. (2000, December). The Hypostatic Union. Toccoa Falls, Georgia, United States of America.

Slick, M. (2008, 11 24). Jesus` Two Natures: God and Man. Retrieved from carm.org: https://carm.org/jesus-
two-natures

Thiessen, H. C. (1949). Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mi: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.

Walvoord, J. F. (2008, January 1). The Person and Work of Christ. Retrieved from bible.org:
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-impeccability-christ

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION 6