Very often, our adherence to particular phrases becomes no more than sloganeering, and we lose any real interest in communicating what we believe or understanding what others might be saying. St Paul
warns us against this in his first letter to St Timothy, when he writes:
“Remind people of these things, solemnly urging them before the Lord not to dispute about words. This is in no way beneficial and leads to the ruin of the hearers.”
We may easily become like the Pharisees when we think that insisting on particular words and terms is all that matters. This is a form of pseudo-Traditionalism, which has the appearance of being rigorous and faithful to the Tradition, but is, in fact, an empty shell and a clanging cymbal with nothing fruitful within it at all.
This is especially the case when we come to a Christological question, such as whether we confess “one nature Incarnate” or that Christ is “in two natures.” It might seem that a rigorous commitment to tradition requires us to insist on one or other of these phrases. But if we are not concerned with meaning, both on our own part and on the part of those with whom we discuss these things, then there is nothing traditional about us at all, since the Fathers of the Church were concerned with what was meant and not only with what was said.
As soon as I say that I will write about the Christological faith of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communions, I will receive at least a few messages insisting that the Oriental Orthodox Church does not share the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox and is a completely different church — indeed, no church at all. Most recently, when I questioned someone who wrote in such a way and asked him to describe the substance of the differences between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox faiths, he stated that the Oriental Orthodox were unable to accept a Diophysite confession of Christ and were therefore not Orthodox at all.
I want to consider this accusation in this presentation, and I will suggest that, in fact, the Oriental Orthodox communion has a Diophysite understanding of Christology when we reflect on meanings and do not simply hurl slogans at one another. This does not mean that the usual and traditional language of the Oriental Orthodox communion is not entirely valid within the context of its own lexicon. But it does mean that when we consider what the Eastern Orthodox communion means in its Christology, and what the Oriental Orthodox communion means in its Christology, we discover that we are saying essentially the same things, though we are using different terms.
I have been an Orthodox Christian for 26 years and have been a student of theology, especially Christology, for 30 years. In respect of Eastern Orthodox Christology, I consider myself very well read and to have a good understanding — certainly good enough to compare and contrast the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox expressions. In respect of Oriental Orthodox Christology, despite my many personal faults and weaknesses, I consider myself an expert, and I have written and taught about Christology extensively.
This presentation will not consider the history of the Christological controversy in great detail. Instead, I will reflect on the basic and essential aspects of an Orthodox Christology and will use authoritative texts from the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions to consider whether the same ideas are being confessed. Since this particular presentation is concerned with an analysis from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox and Diophysite position, I will begin by asking what it is that the Eastern Orthodox wish to say about Christ.
A useful explanation is found in the Catechesis of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, of the Moscow Patriarchate, published as The Mystery of Faith. He says about Christ:
“The Fourth Ecumenical Council, convoked in 451 at Chalcedon, condemned Eutychian Monophysitism and proclaimed the dogma of ‘a single hypostasis of God the Word in two natures, divine and human’. According to the Council’s teaching, each nature of Christ preserves the fullness of its properties, yet Christ is not divided into two persons; He remains the single hypostasis of God the Word.
“This belief was expressed in the Council’s dogmatic definition: ‘…We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Divinity, perfect in humanity, truly God, truly human being, with a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity…, one and the same Christ, the Son, the Only-begotten Lord, discerned in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’.
“Four terms were used to convey the union of the two natures: ‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’, and each was strictly apophatic.”
It is important that we start here, because this represents the measured view of a contemporary senior bishop of the Eastern Orthodox communion. When we are engaged in discussion, it must begin with those who are present with us and to us. This explanation by Metropolitan Hilarion is authentically Orthodox according to the Eastern Orthodox, and it represents the essential aspects of an Eastern Orthodox Christology. Of course, it is not a statement made in isolation, and, quite naturally, Metropolitan Hilarion references the statement of the Council of Chalcedon. This is not a problem when the goal is mutual understanding rather than mutual denunciation.
What does Metropolitan Hilarion say? How can we break down his statements to identify the essential aspects of Eastern Orthodox Christology without resorting to simplistic slogans? I think the points he presents are these:
1- There is a single hypostasis of God the Word-.
2- This single hypostasis is both divine and human.
3- The divinity and humanity preserve their properties.
4- Christ is not two persons.
5- Christ is the single hypostasis of God the Word.
6- The divinity of Christ is perfect.
7- The humanity of Christ is perfect.
8- Christ is consubstantial with the Father in His divinity.
9- Christ is consubstantial with us in His humanity.
10- The humanity and divinity are united.
11- The union is without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.
I think this is a reasonable list of essential characteristics based on the statement of Metropolitan Hilarion and his use of the definition of Chalcedon. The issue here is not whether Chalcedon is an authority for the Oriental Orthodox, nor is it whether some of those at Chalcedon held heterodox positions. The issue is, and must be to begin with, how the contemporary Eastern Orthodox communion expresses its Christology in the light of Chalcedon and the later councils which it organised.
Indeed, the Eastern Orthodox Christological position can surely be reduced, in order to make the necessary argument clear, to the statement that Jesus Christ is the one hypostasis of God the Word, who has become perfect man while remaining God, without change or division, so that He is consubstantial with the Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity.
This is essentially the Diophysite Christology. It wishes to emphasise that Jesus Christ, who is God the Word, is truly and perfectly human while remaining truly and perfectly divine. It describes a unity in Christ, who is the one hypostasis, identity, or subject of God the Word, while also expressing a duality — without separation or division — of humanity and divinity. When the Eastern Orthodox communion speaks of Christ being “in two natures,” whatever others might have meant in the past, it means to refer to the reality of the humanity and divinity in Christ.
The issue here is not what might be the best way of describing Christ, but what is actually believed by the Eastern Orthodox communion in its Christology. In the same way, as I now begin to compare authoritative statements by Oriental Orthodox Fathers with these different points, the question is not whether the same terminology is used exactly, but whether the same meaning is expressed. Therefore, I will especially use passages where the Fathers of the Oriental Orthodox communion seek to go beyond phrases and technical terminology, and actually describe what they mean.