The two natures were united in the tomb, even as his true, rational human soul was temporarily separated him his body in death. The two natures were united in the resurrection and ascension. The incarnation is a great mystery, of course, but we can say what we should say and we should always say that Christ is one person, not a composition, in whom two, distinct natures are indivisibly, inseparably united and that the incarnation is for our salvation and for the glory of God.

Early in post-apostolic Christian history confused believers and heretics alike sought either to conflate the two natures of Christ, with the result that Christ was made, as it were, to have only one nature (the monophysite heresy) or to separate the two natures so that Christ was made to be essentially, as it were, two persons. Eutyches (c. 378–454) reacted to Nestorius (c. 351–c.451) by concluding, in effect, that there was more than a union of two natures in one person. He taught that, after the incarnation, there was only one nature (hence monophysite, μόνος, one + φύσις, nature). He was condemned, then acquitted briefly by Leo I—the indefectibility of the papacy—who reconsidered and condemned him in his famous Tome. Eutyches was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which declared:

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 Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, 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 Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the theotokos (θεοτοκος), according to the humanity; 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 and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, 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.

Note the adverbs “inconfusedly” and “unchangeably” and the clause, “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union” and the clause: “the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence….” These were all aimed at Eutyches and the Eutychian or monophysite error. Jesus is one person with two natures. His humanity does not become deity (even though it is resurrected and glorified; glorification is not deification) and his deity does not become humanity. Eutychianism leads to the notion that Jesus’ humanity (not his person) is omnipresent or ubiquitous. Again, there is no question among Christians whether Jesus is omnipresent but the question is whether we may speak of his true, consubstantial (with us) humanity as if it possessed the properties of the deity. For more on the implications of this debate see the explanation of Heidelberg Catechism Q. 18.

The other heresy to be avoided is Nestorianism, named for Nestorius, an Antiochene Monk who was made Archbishop of Constantinople over the objections of the locals. He was accused doing more than distinguishing the two natures of Christ. He was accused of separating them and thereby, were it possible, creating two persons. It is now disputed by scholars whether Nestorius actually taught this but it is certain that he used infelicitous language at best. Cyril of Alexandria, whom Gerald Bray calls an “unscrupulous” man, had asked Nestorius whether Mary was the Theotokos God bearer (θεοτοκος), i.e., whether she bore in her womb God the Son incarnate.

Nestorius affirmed but was uncomfortable with this language and preferred Christokos, Christ bearer. He and others thought that Theotokos smelled of adoptionism. It was also being used by some to foster an unhealthy devotion to the Virgin Mary. His reluctance, however, gave Cyril what he needed and a council was held in Rome (430) and Nestorius was condemned by Celestine. He was sentenced at the Council of Ephesus (431). Most of Nestorius writings were destroyed but one of his later works, written after his banishment, suggests that he actually agreed with the orthodox against Eutychianism. He preferred to speak of a “conjunction” (συνάφεια) of the two natures and a union of the will rather than a union (ἕνωσις).¹ The latter became the language of orthodoxy and much to be preferred over Nestorius’ language. In Reformation polemics, the Reformed refusal to affirm the omnipresence of Christ’s humanity has been falsely labelled “Nestorian.” The Reformed heartily affirm the Chalcedonian formulae, “indivisibly, inseparably,” and “not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son….”

This controversy and its Reformation successor lay in the background to the language of Heidelberg Catechism 48:

Read More