Bible Internet
Quick References


 CONTENTS TOPICAL  SCRIP  ORDER BOOKS HOME AUTHOR CONTACT


Table of
Contents

Bibliography & Notes

Topical Scriptures
Basic Evangelism Training
Advanced Evangelism Training

Concerning Donations

1 Corinthians 9:11
"If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?"


www.layevangelism.com

 INTERNET QUICK REFERENCE  

















Back to:  A More Intensive Look At Jesus Humanity

Jesus Is
Fully God & Fully Man
Historical Christology

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Taken From the Textbook:
Relationship With Jesus
The Key To Effective Ministry

             ARIANISM: Denial Of The Full Divinity Of Jesus

             The Terms oJmoiusio", uJpostasi", and oJmoousio"
             
APOLLINARIANISM: Denial Of The Full Humanity Of Jesus
            
NESTORIANISM: Controversy Between the Two natures
            
EUTYCHIANISM: Denial of Jesusí Two Natures

             As translated in Philip Schaffís book
                  The Creeds of Christendom
            
As translated in Dale Moodyís book
                  The Word of Truth:

             English Terms
            
Greek Terms

__________________________

Who is Jesus Christ? This is a question that the early Church struggled with during the first 400 years of the Church. It was not until the Councils of Nicea A.D. 325 and Chalcedon A.D. 451 that the matter was officially settled in the Church in what is known as The Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds. In these Creeds, stated simply, Jesus was declared One person with two completely distinct natures: fully God and fully man. what does this mean? We will get to this later. First lets study the historical background of what led up to these Christological formulas which both the Catholic as well as the Protestant Churches have held to ever since.

The Jews believed God to be one person and the Law, Pentateuch of Moses, to be eternal. Jesus also expressed this view point in Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one point shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away."

What was the question? If the law of God is absolute and unchangeable, then how can the man Jesus be a further revelation of God? If God is One, how can He have a Son equal to Him of His essence? These were some basic questions that plagued the early Church in their trying to share the Gospel with Jews and men of other religions. There were also heretical offshoots of the early Church which taught things about Jesus that the early Church Fathers knew contradicted what they read in the writings of the Apostles. It was these questions and heresies that motivated the Church to dig into the Scriptures and come up with a unified belief and formula about who Jesus Christ was which culminated in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds. Lets study this background and then we will cover what is in these creeds.

HISTORICAL DENIAL
OF JESUSí HUMANITY AND DIVINITY

*EBIONISM: Denial of the Divinity of Jesus

There was a group of believers talked about by Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) and Eusebius (ca. 260-340), some early Church fathers, which they called Ebionites. The term Ebionite comes from the Hebrew word Ebionism meaning "poor."71/63 Justin Martyr said they consisted of two different sects: those who viewed obedience to the law necessary for salvation and those who not only believed this but tried to impose this belief on others.

They believed Jesus to be the messiah but only a man not of a virgin.70/43 Eusebius said about the Ebionites that they insisted on obedience to the Law. The first group taught that Jesus had a natural birth, was an ordinary man with unusual moral character. The second group taught that Jesus had a supernatural birth, but they rejected Jesusí preexistence as the Son and Logos.72/3.27

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403) distinguished between two groups he called Nazareans and Ebionaeans. These labels persisted as late as Jerome (ca. 340-420) Epiphanius called them, "Pretend to be Christians." He said that the Nazareans held to an orthodox belief in Christ but insisted on adherence to the law.73/112.13

A man by the name of Cerinthus (fl. 100) held to what is called Adoptionism. He held to elements of Gnostic thought. He taught that God did not create directly, but through angels, one of these the God of the Jews, who gave the Law. His Christology taught that Jesus was an ordinary human being whom God adopted as His Son.

He taught that because of Jesusí ethical qualities, God gave him a special gift of spirituality. After testing Him, at His water baptism, Godís Spirit descended upon him revealing the Father to Him and enabling Him to do miracles. He further taught that before Jesusí death that the Christ spirit withdrew from him. He said that the mission of the Messiah was educational rather than redemptive as a prophet. As a mere human His suffering and death had no special value for sin.

Another heretical group called the Clementines, that was Essenes from eastern Palestine, distinguished between Jesus and the Christ. They taught that Christ, the Son of God, had appeared in a series of incarnations in perfect men, Jesus being the last. Jesusí death and Resurrection, therefore, had no special significance. Jesusí mission was to educate, not redeem.24/44-45

*DOCETISM: Denial of Jesus Humanity

Another teaching that came about during the early Church which denied Jesusí Humanity was called Docetism. The word Docetism comes from the greek verb dokei'n meaning: "to seem".77 This was the belief that Jesus was not genuinely human, that he merely seemed or appeared to possess human nature. This was one of the earliest heresies that was corrected by the Apostle John in the First Epistle of John.

This was especially evident under the teachings of Gnostics. Gnosticism taught that the spiritual reality is not connected to the physical reality. They are diabolically opposed. In light of this they taught that the demiurge, an intermidiary between God and man, who created the world and man, did it out of ignorance. As a result, man did not fall from perfection, but was created imperfect. Since creation is regarded as evil, anything that comes into being through the reproductive processes is corrupted because it involves the material aspect of man. The end result of this is a division between that which is spiritual and that which is physical. God is not the creator, but an intermediator, the demiurge, who should not have created it in the first place. This teaching depreciated the human reproductive processes. The logical conclusion of this position was that since the Material world is evil, Jesus could not have come in the flesh, but only appeared to have done so; therefore Jesus was not human.

In light of the teaching of Gnosticism, Docetists taught that though Mary was a virgin, she contributed nothing to Jesus, but was transmitted through or by means of Mary, but was not born from or of her. He derived no part of his being from her, but merely passed through her.58/1.7 Jesusí appearance of humanity, then, was only a means of revelation, used briefly for the introduction of the eternal into the world.70/47

Salvation, according to Docetistsí is a matter of coming to know the gnosis, the higher truth. The work of Christ was primarily revelatory, appealing to those who are of a high or spiritual orientation, and made clear by the special truth possessed by the enlighted (the Gnostics).70/44-47

Marcion (A.D. 140), a second-century heretic, while admitting that Jesus had a body capable of suffering in some sense, rejected the idea that it was a material body.59/1-5 Ignatius (A.D. 50-115), Bishop of Antioch, writing against these heresies, wrote that Jesus "was really born and ate and drank, was really persecuted by Pontius Pilate, was really crucified and died. . . [and] really rose from the dead."60/9

HISTORICAL DENIALS OF THE INTEGRITY
OF THE TWO NATURES OF JESUS

*ARIANISM: Denial Of The Full Divinity Of Jesus

Two historical movements called Dynamic And Modalistic Monarchianism aimed to preserve the uniqueness and greatness of God the Father. Monarchianism is a form of Adoptionism. According to this teaching God put his Spirit upon Jesus, thus adopting Him as the Son, but this did not make Jesus divine. Modalistic Monarchianism did not deny Jesusí divinitiy. They denied His separate identity from the Father.

Noetus (fl. 200), one of its leaders, held that there is only one God and that the Father suffered in Christ (Patripassianism).73/2 Hippolytus Summarized the teaching of Modalism: there is one God to which the terms Father and Son can be applied, no moment manifests Himself as Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

Arius (ca. 250-336) believed God is absolutely transcendent, therefore He could not be involved in His creation to the limitation of a body, thus Jesus could not be fully divine.74/3.8 He further taught that an earthly father precedes his son, so the Heavenly Father preceded Jesus, thus Jesus had a beginning and is not eternal in existence.75/1.15 In conclusion: Jesus is not of the same substance as His Father. Because Jesus created all else, He is less than the Father, but greater than all else created.76/198

Orthodox Response:
COUNCIL OF NICEA, A.D. 325
THE NICENE CREED

Emperor Constantine in A.D. 325, in order to settle these disbutes, called for The Council of Necea, A.D. 325. After much debate, they came up with the Nicean Creed which said the following:

We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (oJmoousion, homoousios)78 with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the HOLY GHOST.

[But for those who say: "There was a time when he was not;" and "He was not before he was made;" and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable"óthey are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]54/Vol.1/28-29

"What did he just say?" The Nicene Creed taught the following about Jesus:

  • There is One God, the Father Almighty, who is the maker of heaven and earth.

  • That there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotton of the Father.

  • That Jesus is the Only-begotton Son of God, thus of the essense of God, God Himself.

  • Therefore Jesus is God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God.

  • Jesus was begotten, not made; therefore of one substance (oJmoousion)78 with the Father.

  • That by Jesus all things where made both in the heaven and on earth.

  • That Jesus, for us men and for our salvation, incarnated into man, became man.

  • That Jesus suffered.

  • That Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day.

  • That Jesus ascended into heaven.

  • That Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead.

  • Finally, it affirmed the separate existence of the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed denied:

  • There was a time when Jesus did not exist.

  • That the Father preexisted the Son.

  • That the uJpostasi"79 or substance of Jesus differed from that of the Fatherís.

  • That Jesus is a creature similar in every way to other creatures.

  • That the Son is subject to alteration and moral change.

The Book of Hebrews teaches about Jesus,

"And He is the reflected-brightness of His glory and the exact-image of His essence, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Heb 1:3)

In this passage the writer of Hebrews uses three Greek words describing the full divinity of Jesus Christ:

  • ajpauvgasma (apaugasma) meaning: a reflected brightness. It means that Jesus reflects Godís glory and character perfectly and completely, not partially.92

  • carakth;r (karakter) meaning: exact-image. Jesus does not just represent God the Father, but is the exact image of God Himself in all His substance, character and power.93

  • uJpostavsew" (hupostosios) meaning: essence. Not only is Jesus an identical exact-image of the Father, not only does he reflect the fullness of Godís glory and character, but Jesus is of the essence of God Himself and therefore truly God himself.94

"But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of Your kingdom." (Heb 1:9)

The Father stated clearly that Jesus is God.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever." (Heb 13:8)

Jesus is unchangeable.

These denials in turn are denials of two underlying assumptions of the Arians: that the Father-Son relationship is literally the same as that between earthly fathers and sons; that the birth of Jesus should be equated with His origin or the beginning of his existence.

What the Nicene Creed affirmed:

  • oJmoousion: the essence or substance of the Son is the same as that of the Father. No resemblance to creatures but exactly identical in nature to the Father.

  • Creation and redemption could be accomplished only by one who was himself uncreated and divine in the same sense and to the same degree as the Father.76/203

PROBLEMS AFTER THE NICENE CREED
WHICH LED TO THE
CHALCEDONIAN CREED

*The Terms oJmoiusio", uJpostasi", and oJmoousio"

First, there was a party who put forth the term oJmoiusio", meaning simular substance.80 Part of the problem was the use of the term uJpostasi"81 that is identical to the Latin substantia. Both are compounds of a preposition meaning "under" and a verb meaning "to stand". To Greek speakers uJpostasi" signified "individual personality" as well as "essential nature." This, to the western thinker, was obliterating the threeness of God. Arius further aggrevated the situation by speaking of three uJpostasi"81. In the midst of this confusion oJmoiusio"80 was commended as a way of stressing that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father and yet distinct from Him.

To different groups the term meant different things. To some it meant the same as oJmoousio"78 in the Nicene Creed, thus not lessening Jesusí deity but establishing his individual personhood. Others interpreted it as merely a moral resemblance between Father and Son. For the next fifty years efforts were made to improve the Nicene Creed. Some tried to avoid any terms not found in the Bible.

Increasing attention was being given to the Holy Spirit. In the Council of Constantinople in 381 it was affirmed that the Holy Spirit was of the same essence, oJmoousio", as the Father and the Son. The Nicene affirmation of the Son was reaffirmed, thus settling the matter for some time.

*APOLLINARIANISM: Denial Of The Full Humanity Of Jesus

Now the battle moves from the focus of Jesusí full divinity to Jesusí full humanity. What is the relationship between the person Jesus and His two natures. The Alexandrian School held to the Word-Flesh Christology, while the Antiochene School maintained the Word-Man Christology.

The Word-Flesh Christology held that in the incarnation the Eternal Word took a human body. The word incarnate is derived from two latin words meaning "in-flesh". Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) insisted that in the incarnation Christ did not merely enter into a man, but actually became a man.75/3.26 Athanasius also saw the incarnation as not altering the transcendent status of the Word in any significant way. While encompassed in a human body, Jesus continued to govern the universe.55/17

Athanasius said that the Word fashioned a body for Himself in the virginís womb. Athanasius further held that just as the Logos, lovgo"82, is the animating principle of the entire universe, so His human Soul, a close copy of the logos, serves as the animating principle of the human body.56/59.2

The Antiochene Christology, Word-Man, said the word only took on a man, but did not become man. This openned the door for Adoptionism, according to which the Word united with a preexisting individual human being.

Apollinarius (ca. 310-390), supporter of Athanasius, took the Alexandrian position to the extreme. He protested against the idea that a man joined with God. He said this results in two sons: the Son of God and the Son of Mary.57/81 He believed the scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is a unity.57/2, 9 He was motivated by soteriological (salvation theology) considerations. He believed that if the human and divine are separated, then our redemption is jeopardized. Considered merely as man, Jesus has no saving power.58/9

He used terms such as "God incarnate," "flesh bearing God," and "God born of woman." These terms meant that the human flesh of Christ was, from the moment of conception, joined with the Godhead in an absolute oneness of being, not wrapped in human flesh.57/36

In Apollinariusís understanding the flesh is not a separate complete living entity, unlike other humans who depend on the human soul for movement and action, Jesus body depended on the divine logos for movement and action. Thus, Jesus is not completely human because he does not have a human soul, spirit, or mind according to Apollinarius.57/2 In the "God-Man", Jesus Christ, the Word is both the principle of Intelligence and the source or basis of life; and the flesh has no basis of life apart from the Word which takes the place of the human soul. The Apollinarius Jesus is a single compounded entity of the Word and Flesh, not two separate complete natures.57/107 His scriptural basis: Phil 2:7-8 Likeness,83 appearance.84

Apollinarius was a Monophysite: he held that Jesus had just one nature. The implication of Apollinariusís fushion of the Word and flesh are the following: first, he regarded Jesusí flesh as being glorified. It is now "divine flesh" or "the flesh of God." Second, since, now, Jesusí flesh cannot be separated from the Word, it is a proper object of worship. Finally, he held to the communicatio idomatum: the flesh shares the names and the properties of the Word, and vica versa.57/155

The Church first rejected and condemned Apollinariusís views at a Council held in Rome in 377. This was repeated at a Synod held at Alexandria in 378 and Antioch in 379 and then again in the Council of Constantinople in 381. Emperor Theodosius I censured and outlawed Apollinarianism in a series of decrees issued in 383, 384 and 388.60/295-296

What were the objections to the Apollinarius views? First it was a Docetic perspective: Jesus was not really a man but only appeared to be such.61/2.4 Second, because the psychological aspect of the human nature was missing, Jesus was not human, but a monstrosity.62/23,29,33,45 Third, Jesusí lack of inner psychology conflicted with the Gospel descriptions of Him which showed signs of ignorance and he experienced human emotions. Fourth, if Jesus did not assume full humanity, His redemptive work was undermined. How could a divine willís resistance to sin achieve our salvation from sin. Jesus had to be fully human with a human will and human limitations to save us fully.

*NESTORIANISM: Controversy Between the Two natures

The controversy over Jesusí two natures started over the term: Theotokos (qeotokos): God bearing. Nestorius, a Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 428), represented the Antiochene approach to Christology which emphasized the duality of the two natures. The Alexandrian school emphasized the unity of Jesusí Person. Nestorius was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who went to great pains to emphasize the completeness of Jesusí humanity.

Nestorius, asked to render judgment on the priority of Theotokos, felt the term doubtful unless the term anqrwpotokos (anthropotokos): "human bearing" was also used.63/1,3 He preferred cristotovkos (Christotokos): "Christ bearing" or "the Mother of Christ". The term Theotokos followed from the concept of communicatio idiomatum, meaning: the flesh shares the names and the properties of the Word, and vica versa. Nestorius taught that God cannot have a mother; that no woman can give birth to God. What Mary bore was not God, but humanity, the vehicle or instrument of divinity. He felt these statements were necessary to guard against Arianism86 or at least Apollinarianism87.

Cyril of Alexandria bitterly disagreed. He suggested that Nestorius was proposing that Jesus had two natures joined in a purely moral union.64/10 Out of this came the concept that Nestorius was teaching that Jesus was not one person but two: human & divine. Nestorius repudiated this teaching but the name to the error has persisted.

This resulted in the Council of Ephesus June 7, 431. The Antiochene bishops where late, thus Cyril persuaded the present members to endorse his view and Nestorius was condemned.

When the Eastern bishops arrived on June 26, 431, they held their own council, deposing Cyril and the local bishop, Memnon, and rejected Cyrilís twelve anathemas. When the papal delegation arrived on July 10, they supported Cyril. It is this meeting that has gone down in history as the Third Ecumenical Council. This did not settle the issue. There were major obstacles to Cyrilís 12 anathemas and condemnation of Nestorius. Cyril spoke of one nature in Christ which smacked of Apollinarianism.

In 433 a statement was drafted to which all parties could agree. The Antiochenes abandoned Nestorius. This compromise which uses the term theotokos, specifies that Jesus has two natures that are united without confusion.60/327-327

*EUTYCHIANISM: Denial of Jesusí Two Natures

The settlement in 433 did not satisfy anyone. Extreme Antiochenes called Cyril a heretic. Right wing followers of Cyril felt he gave up too easily on Christ having only one nature. When Cyril died in 444, his successor, Dioscorus, reasserted the one nature doctrine.

The controversy finally broke around Eutyches (ca. 375-454). He had favor and influence at the court of Theodosius II, and was a rallying point for all the Alexandrians who disliked the accord of 433.

The standing Synod of Constantinople led by Flavian the local patriarch, met in November 448. Eutyches summoned, he stated that in the incarnation, the two natures become one. This resulted in Eutyches being deposed and excommunicated and the one nature doctrine rejected.

Eutyches, through political influence of the emperor, had another council convened in Ephesus in August 449. The assembly restored Eutyches, vindicated his orthodoxy and condemned and disposed Flavian & supporters for there two nature view. Physical force was used to coerce the signatures of bishops which gave this counsel the name Robber Synod.

The Orthodox Response:
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 451:
CHALCEDONIAN CREED

When the emperor died after falling off a horse, the new emperor, Marcian, sympathetic to the two nature doctrine, responded to calls for a general council. This Council took 3 steps of action: it reaffirmed the Nicene Creed; it rejected both Nestorianism and Eutychianism; finally, it adopted a statement of its own which has been the standard of orthodoxy to the present day called The Chalcedonian Creed. It states the following:

*As translated in Philip Schaffís book, The Creeds of Christendom:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhood and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial89 [coessential89] with the Father according to the Godhood, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhood, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (provswpon, prosopon)88 and one Subsistence (uJpostasi", hypostasis)81, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only begotten, God the Word (lovgo", Logos)82, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.54/62-63

*As translated in Dale Moodyís book, The Word of Truth:

Therefore, following the Holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in Manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his Manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his Manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, recognized IN TWO NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence91, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.66

The Chacedonian Creed taught the following about Jesus:

  • Jesus is the Only Son of God.

  • Jesus is our Lord.

  • Jesus is perfect in Godhood.

  • Jesus is perfect in Manhood.

  • Jesus humanity consists of rational soul and body.

  • Jesus is one in essence with the Father in dividnity--truly God.

  • Jesus is one in essence with man in His humanity-truly Man.

  • Jesus is like us in all respects, except without sin.

  • Jesus was begotten of the Father before all ages as to His Godhood.

  • Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, thus making Mary the mother of God.

  • Jesus has two separate natures that are without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

  • The distinction of Jesusí two natures are in no way taken away by the union of the two, but rather the properties of both natures are preserved.

  • That Jesus is one individual person with two distinct individual natures: a Divine nature and a Human nature.

What is the importance of understanding who Jesus is? A Christian cult is that which deviates from this Christological definition of Christ one way or another. For example: Jehovah witnesses believe that Jesus was only an angel. Mormon's believe Jesus started out as a man who in time became God. Unitarians believe that Jesus was only a man, no divine nature. By clearly understanding who Jesus is: fully God and fully man in one person, you will automatically be able to discern error when a Christian cult starts talking about who Jesus is which is really another Jesus, not the Jesus talked about in the New Testament.

Secondly, understanding who Jesus is, is all wrapped up in our salvation. If God the Son did not come down out of heaven and become fully man with all of man's limitations as a man in spirit, soul and body, how could He have been truly tempted by sin as a man, truly resist that sin with the limitations of a man and be able to attain our salvation for us by truly suffering on the cross as a man? It is through our receiving the God-Man, Jesus Christ, that we receive His eternally living divine nature which is what gives us eternal life: the very divine life of Jesus Himself.

Christological Terms & Meaning
(English & Greek)

ENGLISH:

: The Word, Logos, united with a preexisting individual human being. As a result God adopted this preexisting man as his son, but this did not make the man divine.

*Anthropotokos: human bearing.

*Apollinarianism: no human spirit, filled by logos. A denial of the full humanity of Jesus.

*Arianism: Denial of the full divinity of Jesus.

*Coessential: United in essence; having the same essence and nature.65/260

*Communicatio Idomatum: the flesh shares the names and the properties of the Word, and vica versa.

*Consubstantial: Of one and the same substance, essence and nature.65/289

*Docetism: Jesus was not human but only seemed human. The word Docetism comes from the greek verb dokei'n meaning: "to seem". John the Apostle corrected this in 1 John.

*Dyothelitism: Jesus has two wills.

*Dyophysitism: Jesus has a human soul and a divine soul.

*Ebionism: Denies Jesus' Divinity. Teaches he was only a man.

*Ecthesis: written by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, promulgated by the emperor Heraclius in 638, and endorsed by Pope Honorius I. Dealing with Jesusí qhlemato"-wills human & divine; it outlawed both and said what was important was that Jesus Christ had done the action. But the very statement supported Monothelitism.

*Eutychian: Taught that Jesus had only one nature.

* *Henoticon: issued by emperor Zeno in 482. It declared that the Son of God, while coessential (of the same substance) in His deity with the Father and with us in His humanity, is not two but one, and that the miracles and sufferings are to be predicated of the same subject.

*Hypostasis: individual single person. a. One of the three real and distinct subsistences in the one substance of God. c. The one personality of Christ uniting the human and the divine.65/654

*Incarnate, derived from two latin words meaning "in-flesh".

*Kenetic Christology: Taken from the Greek word ejkevnwsen (kenow, kenov", 2/228) meaning to empty or divest oneís self of oneís prerogatives, abase oneís self (Phil 2:7), 2/124, 128. It means that though Jesus was God, while a man on earth, He did not draw upon His divinity but only his humanity and the help of His Father when provided. Evidences of this are Matt 24:36, Mark 9:21, Luke 2:52.

*Lateran Council of 649 and Pope Martin 1 taught that there really and truly were two natures in Christ, and that this required two wills. To deny the two wills, in their judgment, was to deny the reality of the incarnation. The emperor exiled Pope Martin I.

*Monergistic: Christís actions were divine-human meaning one combined willed effort, not two separate wills.

*Monophysite: Denial of two natures in Jesus, only one nature.

*Monothelitism: the teaching Jesus had only one will, not a separate divine and a separate human will.

*Nestorianism: Taught that Jesus was two persons: The Logos and the Man himself.

*Patripassianism: The Father suffered in Christ.

*Sabellianism: The teaching that God is one person, not three, who manifests himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

*Sixth Ecumenical Council 680-681 ruled in favor of the Dyothelite position: two-wills.

*Subsistence: An independent existence, entity (see hypostasis).65/1310 In Christology referring to Jesusí individual personhood within the one Triune God consisting of three persons.

*Word-Flesh Athanasius insisted that in the incarnation Christ did not merely enter into a man, but actually became a man.75/3.26

*Word-Man The Antiochene Christology, "Word-Man", said the word only took on a man, but did not become man. This openned the door for "Adoptionism," according to which the Word united with a preexisting individual human being.

GREEK

anqrwpotokos, human bearing.71

ajpauvgasma a reflected brightness, thus, radiance. n. nt. (ajpov from, away from; hence, it variously signifies departure; distance of time or place. prep. & aujgavzw, aujghv to shine, give light. intrans. 2/40, 59). Heb 1:3. 2/36, 4/68.

dokei'n to seem, appear; to think, imagine, suppose, presume; Christological term. pres. infin. Lk 19:11. dokevw. 2/104.

ejkevnwsen to empty, evacuate; to divest oneís self of oneís prerogatives, abase oneís self. 3 pers. sing. aor. 1, ind. act. Phil 2:7. kenovw, kenov". 2/124, 228.

qeotokos, God bearing.70

lovgo" Logos, Word. John 1:1. 2/253, 248.

oJmoiusion similar substance. Christological Term. o{moio" like, similar, resembling. adj. Matt 11:16. 2/288, 4/608.

oJmoousion, same substance66

oJmoiwvmati likeness, resemblance, similitude; that which is conformed or assimilated; form, shape, figure. dat. sing. Phil 2:7. oJmoivwma, o{moio" like, similar, resembling. 2/288.

provswpon person, presence; front, face, appearance. Christological Term. n. nt. (prov" genitive: from; metaph.: for the benefit of; dat.: near, by, at, by the side of, in the vicinity of. prep. & w[y. 2/346, ). Gal 2:6. 2/353, 4/761.

schvmati appearance, guise; form; fashion, external show. dat. sing. Phil 2:8. sch'ma. 2/394.

uJpostavsew" essence, subsistence. gen. sing. Heb 1:3. uJpovstasi". 2/419.

uJpostasi" individual single person. A Christological term. uJpostavsew" essence, subsistence. gen. sing. Heb 1:3. uJpovstasi". 2/419. a. One of the three real and distinct subsistences in the one substance of God. c. The one personality of Christ uniting the human and the divine.65/654.

carakth;r exact-image, an impress. n. masc. Heb 1:3. cavragma an imprinted mark, ingraver from caravssw to notch, engrave. 2/433-434, 4/913.

cristotovkos, "Christ-bearing," or "Mother of Christ." First used by Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople 428 A.D.71

__________

Bibliography & Notes

1. Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1850.

2. Mouton, Harold K. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

3. Wigram. The New Englishmanís Hebrew Concordance. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers; 1984 by Jay P. Green, Sr.

4. Wigram. The New Englishmanís Greek Concordance and Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers; 1982 by Jay P. Green, Sr.

5. Young, Robert. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

6. Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1851.

7. Bright, Bill. How to Know the Will of God For Your Life According to the Sound Mind Principle. San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1963.

8. Herbert, A. S. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1973.

9. Farah, Charles Jr. From the Pinnacle of the Temple. Logos, 1980.

10. Henrichsen, Walter A. Many Aspire Few Attain. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1975.

11. Frost, Robert. "The Love of God," The Holy Spirit in the Now. Tulsa: Oral Roberts University, 1977.

12. Schaeffer, Francis A. He is there and He is not Silent . Wheaton: Tyndale, 1972.

13. Bright, Bill. How to Know the Will of God For Your Life According to the Sound Mind Principle. San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1963.

14. Herbert, A. S. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.

15. MacNutt, Francis. Healing. New York: Bantam Books, 1977.

16. Farah, Charles. From the Pinnacle of the Temple. Logos, 1980.

17. Henrichsen, Walter A. Many Aspire Few Attain. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1975.

18. Frost, Robert. "The Love of God," The Holy Spirit in the Now. Tulsa: Oral Roberts University, 1977.

19. Schaeffer, Francis A. He is there and He is not Silent. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1972.

20. Jn 6:44, 63a; 16:8-15; Acts 1:8; Jn 3:14-15.

21. Rev 3:20; 1 Jn 5:11-13; Eph 2:8-9, 13- 15; Rom 3:23, 6:23; Jn 17:3

22. Martin, Walter. How to Witness to Mormons (Cassetts). Santa Ana: Vision House Publishers, Inc, 1976.

23. Galatians 5:22-23.

24. Erickson, millard. The Word Became Flesh. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. 663 pp.

25. Bethure-Baker, J.F. An Introduction To The Early History of Christian Doctrine To The Time of The Council of Chalcedon. London: Methuen, 1903.

26. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History.

27. Jerome. Letters.

28. Mackintosh, Hugh Ross. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. New York: Scribner, 1912.

29. Barrett, C.K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.

30. Hamerton-Kelly. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press, 1973.

31. Argyle, A.W. "The Evidence for the Belief that Our Lord Himself Claimed to Be Divine," Expository Times. 61.8 (May 1950):231.

32. Dunn, James D.G. Unity andDiversity of the New Testament.

33. Bethune-Baker, J.F. An Introduction To The Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time of the Council of Chalcedon. London Methuen, 1903.

34. John, Fred. Messiah in Both Testaments. Denver: Meldau Christian Victory Publishing Company.

35. Irenaeus, Against Heresies.

36. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ.

37. Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians.

38. Begbie, Harold. Twice-Born Men. New York: Grosset & Dunlap Publishers, 1909. 280 pp.

39. Bruce, F. F. The Real Jesus -- Who Is He?. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985. 232 pp.

40. Bruce, F. F. Jesus: Lord & Savior. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986. 228 pp.

41. Bruce, F. F. What the Bible Teaches About What Jesus Did. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1979. 144 pp.

42. Chandler, Walter M. The Trial of Jesus, Volume 2. New York: The Empire Publishing Co., 1908). 406 pp.

43. Conant, William C. Narratives of Remarkable Conversions and Revival Incidents: Including a Review of Revivals. New York: Derby & Jackson, 1858. 444 pp.

44. Kerr, Hugh t. & Mulder, John M. Conversions: The Christian Experience. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983. 265 pp.

45. McDonald, H. D. Jesus Human and Divine. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968. 144 pp.

46. Nee, Watchman. Christ The Sum of All Spiritual Things. New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1973. 96 pp.

47. Osborn, T. L. How To Be Born Again. Tulsa: T. L. Osborn, 1977. 160 pp.

48. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus -- God and Man. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1977. 427 pp.

49. Robinson, John A. T. The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1973. 269 pp.

50. Hypolytus, Against Noetus.

51. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition.

52. Athanasisu, Four Discourse.

53. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 4 Vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971-1985.

54. Schaff, Philip, ed. The Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed., 3 vols. New York: Harper, 1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990 reprint).

55. Athanasius, On the incarnation of the Word.

56. Athanasius, Letters (to Epictetus)

57. Apollinarius frag. 81, 2, 9, 36, 155 Lietzmann( Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, ed. Hans Lietzmann [Tubingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1964].

58. Apollinarius, On Faith and the Incarnation.

59. Apollinarious, Epistle to Dionysius. 1.2.

60. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.

61. Athanasius. Against Apollinarious.

62. Gregory of Nyssa. Against Apollinarius.

63. Nestorius. Epistle to Celestine.

64. Cyril of Alexandria. Letters.

65. Stein, Jess, ed. The Random House College Dictionary. New York: Random House, Inc., 1975.

66. Moody Dale. The Word of Truth. Eerdmans, 1981.

67. Von Harnack, Adolf. Outlines of the History of Dogma. Boston: Beacon, 1957.

Gregory of Nazianzus Epistles.

69. John of Damascus On the Two Wills in Christ 28.

70. Thomasius, Gottfried. "Christís Person and Work," in God and Incarnation in Mid-Nineteenth Century German Theology, ed. Claude Welch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

71. Dorner, Development.

72. Honorius I, Epistles.

73. Heraclius, Ecthesis.

74. Maximus the Confessor. Theological and Polemical Opuscula.

75. John of Damascus. On the Two Wills in Christ.

76. Maximus the Confessor. Theological and Polemical Opuscula & John of Damascus. On the Two Wills in Christ.

77. dokei'n to seem, appear; to think, imagine, suppose, presume; Christological term. pres. infin. Lk 19:11. dokevw. 2/104.

78. oJmoousion same substance. Christological term.

79. carakth;r exact-image, an impress. n. masc. Heb 1:3. cavragma an imprinted mark, ingraver from caravssw to notch, engrave. 2/433-434, 4/913.

80. oJmoiusion similar substance. Christological Term. o{moio" like, similar, resembling. adj. Matt 11:16. 2/288, 4/608.

81. uJpostasi", individual single person. A Christological term. uJpostavsew" essence, subsistence. gen. sing. Heb 1:3. uJpovstasi". 2/419.

82. lovgo" Logos, Word. John 1:1. 2/253, 248.

83. oJmoiwvmati likeness, resemblance, similitude; that which is conformed or assimilated; form, shape, figure. dat. sing. Phil 2:7. oJmoivwma, o{moio" like, similar, resembling. 2/288.

84. schvmati appearance, guise; form; fashion, external show. dat. sing. Phil 2:8. sch'ma. 2/394.

85. qeotokos God-bearing.

86. Arianism: Denial of the full divinity of Jesus.

87. Apollinarianism: The teaching that Jesus did not have a human spirit, that He was filled by logos. A denial of the full humanity of Jesus.

88. provswpon person, presence; front, face, appearance. Christological Term. n. nt. (prov" genitive: from; metaph.: for the benefit of; dat.: near, by, at, by the side of, in the vicinity of. prep. & w[y. 2/346, ). Gal 2:6. 2/353, 4/761.

89. consubstantial: of one and the same substance, essence and nature. 65/289.

90. coessential: united in essence, having the same essence and nature. 65/260

91. subsistence: independent existence, entity. 65/1310.

92. ajpauvgasma a reflected brightness, thus, radiance. n. nt. (ajpov from, away from; hence, it variously signifies departure; distance of time or place. prep. & aujgavzw, aujghv to shine, give light. intrans. 2/40, 59). Heb 1:3. 2/36, 4/68.

93. carakth;r exact-image, an impress. n. masc. Heb 1:3. cavragma an imprinted mark, ingraver from caravssw to notch, engrave. 2/433-434, 4/913.

94. uJpostavsew" essence, subsistence. gen. sing. Heb 1:3. uJpovstasi". 2/419.

 

Next:  More on the Deity of Jesus
Top of Page