The Christology of Essential Orthodox Christian Beliefs: A critique (conclusion)

It is with fear that I approach the second part of my critique.  Why?  I feel totally insufficient for the task I have chosen to undertake.  So what does one do in such a circumstance?  Two things. Pray—pray to the Fathers who defined the Faith and seek assistance from contemporaries who are proven to be credible.  So, proceeding in this manner, I hope that God’s care for His Church will overcome my insufficiency and that something suitable for the faithful will be the end result. 

Reading the section entitled, “Jesus”, in Chapter 3: God, Jesus, and the Christian Life, brought to mind Father Thomas Hopko’s podcast “Jesus the Man”.  I did a critique of that podcast in the article “The Theology of Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko Orthodox or Opinion?”  In this present article I will make use of many of the same references I did in that critique. 

Throughout this particular section entitled “Jesus”, the author refers to our Lord Jesus Christ only with the name, “Jesus”.  Upon the background of my studies of Scripture and the ascetical writings of the Church it seemed strange to repeatedly refer to our Lord only with the name, “Jesus”.  Of course, in the historical books of the Gospels we primarily see only the name “Jesus” being used, the name which was announced by the angel for His life in the flesh; and this would be natural as the Gospels are a narration of the life of our Lord in this world.  But when we examine the Epistles, referring to the Lord in this way is very rare; and in the writings of our Holy Fathers it is even more so.  Furthermore, the manner in which our Lord is presented here seems to be a bit casual and lacking in the piety that we typically see among the saints.  But what is of utmost importance is that in this section “Jesus” there appears to be an overemphasis or exaggeration of the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ at the expense of its union with the Divine nature of the Son of God.  Allow me to explain.    

To begin with let us examine several quotes from the book.  Concerning our Lord Jesus Christ such things are stated as, “He knew that He possessed authority to forgive sins”; “He knew that He had authority to pass along his miracle-working authority to others”; “He took it for granted that it was his word and decision alone that would one day determine the eternal fate of every living person.” (pp. 40-41)  It is unknown if this was actually the intent of the author, but our Lord Jesus Christ is presented here in such a way that one could easily conclude there is a human knowledge in Him which is separate from the Divine.  This is more evident if we look a little further on.  In “Chapter 6-The Holy Trinity” on page 85 we read, “Like other men in Israel, Jesus referred to the Father as his God (John 20:17), and like other men, as a child He grew in size as well as favor with God, learning Torah and pleasing him by his life (Luke 2:52)”.  What is “learning the Torah”?  Is it something that God the Son did not know?  Is it something He did not know that He was in need of learning?  Here there is the strong implication that there is a human knowledge in our Lord Jesus Christ which is separate from the Divine—this, in turn, separates the Divine and human natures in our Lord Jesus Christ.     

Before going directly to the saints I will go back to the quote of a letter from a clergy friend which I used to introduce this subject.  This was written in response to my inquiry concerning similar expressions from Fr. Thomas Hopko’s podcast “Jesus the Man”. This particular priest wrote:

After speaking with a friend of mine here [that is, at the Aristotle University in Thessalonika], who has done much work on St. John of Damascus’ theology, here is what it comes to: In a word, NESTORIANIZI (theologizes in the style of Nestorius). The human nature of Christ does not exist independently from His Divine Nature. We do not know of the “man Jesus”, only the God-man Christ. The human nature of Christ as created is not everywhere present. However, it is everywhere present on account of its unity with Divinity. St. John Damascus presents this wonderfully in His Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith. These are theories found among non-Orthodox – not in the writings of the Fathers.

Another clergy friend commented on the above mentioned as follows:

This is not the Christology that I encounter in the Church Fathers and I believe because first and foremost there is not the piety that is present in the Church fathers. First of all, I know of no Church Father that speaks of our Lord’s humanity in the abstract, cut off from the divinity and not within the divine hypostasis of the Son. The one ecclesiastical figure who did so is Nestorius. Christ is the mystery of all mysteries and to explain that mystery in a logical fashion as do many liberal protestants simply takes that person away from Christ.

Now let us reply to the point in question by dealing with the passage from the Gospel of St. Luke which was referenced, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).What do the saints tell us about this? In his work, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, St. Cyril of Alexandria writes:

“He [that is, Christ] is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom—for God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things, and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead—but because God the Word gradually manifested His wisdom proportionately to the age which the body attained”. [p.64]

In reference to this, Blessed Theophylact makes the following observation:

He subjected Himself to His parents, giving an example even to us, that we should subject ourselves to our parents. The Virgin kept all these sayings in her heart. For both the Child’s actions and His words were divine, and not those of a twelve year old, but of a mature man. See here how the Evangelist explains what it means that the Lord increased in wisdom, by adding “and in stature”, showing that as the Lord increased in stature and age, He permitted more and more of His wisdom to manifest itself. And He found favor with God and man, that is, He did what was pleasing to God and what drew praise from men. First from God, and then from men. For we must first please God, and then men. (Blessed Theophylact, The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke, House Springs, Missouri: Chrysostom Press, p. 39)

Finally St. John of Damascus teaches:

He is said to have progressed in wisdom and age and grace, because He did increase in age and by this increase in age brought more into evidence the wisdom inherent in Him; further, because by making what is ours altogether His own He made His own the progress of men in wisdom and grace, as well as the fulfillment of the Father’s will, which is to say, men’s knowledge of God and their salvation. Now, those who say that He progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving an increase in these are saying that the union was not made from the first instant of the flesh’s existence. Neither are they holding the hypostatic union, but, misled by the empty headed Nestorius, they are talking preposterously of a relative union and simple indwelling, “understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm”. (ITim. 1:7)For, if from the first instant of its existence, the flesh was truly united to God the Word, or rather if it existed in Him and was identical in subsistence with Him, how was it that it was not endowed completely with all wisdom and grace?. [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 22]

So, even though, our Lord Jesus grew physically (including His brain) the fullness of divine wisdom was always with Him. This is because the ability of a human being to reason is not only a function of the human brain, but also, as our Holy Fathers teach, it is a faculty of the human soul that will continue to function even after the physical brain is dead.  In the Holy Fathers of the Church the mind is not equivalent to the brain. The mind (or nous as the Greek transliterates) is the inner essence of the reasoning faculty of the soul. The True place of the mind is the heart, not the brain. St. Sophrony (Sakharov) once related that while he was yet a young monk he was given the obedience to learn Greek. When he began to study he said that his mind was lifted from his heart and went to his head.

So let us hold on to what has been handed down and “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).