The Hypostatic Union: A Brief History
“He through whom time was made, was made in time; and He older by eternity than the world itself, was younger than many of His servants in the world; He, who made mad, was made man; He was given existence by a mother whom He brought into existence; He was carried in hands which He formed; He nursed at breasts which He filled; He cried like a babe in a manger in speechless infancy—this Word without which human eloquence is speechless!” — Augustine of Hippo
This past Sunday, we discussed a doctrine in Christian theology known as the “Hypostatic Union.” To refresh your mind, this is the doctrine of Christ which relates to Him being both truly God and truly man. What we couldn’t get into is the fascinating and tumultuous debate throughout church history over this doctrine. You may be aware that many times within the early church, councils met together to discuss and define doctrine according to their unified understanding of what the Bible teaches. While the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 dealt with practical issues for the early church—such as the problem of the circumcision party and what to do with the Gentiles flocking into the church—later ecumenical councils addressed doctrinal controversies and helped define orthodox teaching for the whole church.
After this, there were roughly seven councils that we, as Protestants, recognize as authoritative to the norms of Christian doctrine. Though these authorities do not rise above or to the level of Scripture, they are helpful documents which aid us, as modern Christians, in articulating the core doctrines of the faith. The two councils most relevant to our discussion are the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. Let’s first look at the Council of Ephesus.
The main thrust of the Council of Ephesus was to clarify what title ought to be given to Mary. Before you get confused and think this is primarily about Roman Catholic doctrine, note that the debate was actually about Jesus himself. The debate was over whether Mary should be called the “God-Bearer (Theotokos)” or the “Christ-Bearer (Christotokos).” This controversy arose largely due to a false teaching popular at the time called Nestorianism, which sought to emphasize a distinction between Christ’s nature and personhood.
Nestorius believed that, because Jesus had two natures (divine and human), he must also have been two persons, united in a close but uniquely separate way. Thus, he advocated calling Mary the “Christ-Bearer” instead of the “God-Bearer.” Nestorius favored a fully human picture of Jesus but struggled to reconcile the divine aspect of Jesus. The council condemned Nestorianism and affirmed that Jesus, while having two natures, was one person. Therefore, the Hypostatic Union as we understand it is articulated in contrast to Nestorianism.
Flash forward twenty years, and a new challenge had arisen. The Council of Chalcedon was largely convened to address Eutychianism, also known as Monophysitism, which was a new approach to the Hypostatic Union confirmed twenty years earlier. Monophysitism taught that the two natures of Jesus fused together to form one divine nature. This was the polar opposite of Nestorianism: though it recognized Jesus’ divine nature, it struggled to account for His human nature. At the end of this council, an important definition of Christ and His nature—aptly named “The Chalcedonian Definition”—rightly defined the Hypostatic Union in this way:
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 subsistence, 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.
Now, you may be wondering why the early church found this debate so incredibly important. After all, much of this may seem a bit extreme to us as Western readers. Isn’t this all a bit esoteric? Isn’t this just semantics? Yet, this couldn’t be further from the truth. As we mentioned on Sunday, there is no salvation without a detailed and accurate understanding of who Jesus is—so that we may rightly worship Him as Scripture teaches. As Gregory of Nazianzus said, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” If Jesus did not share our human nature, He could not be the great High Priest of Hebrews 4. Yet if Jesus were not God by nature, He could not live a perfect life for our substitution. Both natures must be equally represented in order for Him to be the perfect mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5–6).
Doctrine flows from our understanding of God’s Word, not the other way around. These councils sought to connect a clear reading of Scripture to carefully defined doctrines, systematically aligned to teach the most important aspects of the Gospel. We ought not to shy away from doctrine; we should instead embrace it for the treasure that it is and stand on the shoulders of giants as we gather under that same Gospel