What Was Jesus?
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” – John 1:14
How much time and effort have you put into trying to understand the nature of Jesus? In the West, the predominant belief for centuries has been that Jesus was part human and part divine – the Word become flesh. But what exactly does this mean? Did Jesus access his divinity when he healed people? Did he use his divine, omnipotent nature to read peoples’ minds? Was it his humanity that was crucified or his divinity or both? What exactly was Jesus?
This question has been a popular topic for debates since Jesus’ time, and has also been a source for much division amidst the church at large. This controversial subject must not be confused with the doctrine of the Trinity. The inquiry here is not “Was Jesus God?” – rather, “How was divinity and humanity joined in Jesus?”1 Gonzales said that this is “the fundamental Christological question.”2
During the late 4th century and early 5th century AD, two schools of thought regarding this matter developed into a fierce rivalry. The school from Antioch of Syria, led initially by Theodore of Mopsuestia and then further supported by Theodoret of Cyrus, essentially claimed that Jesus had two natures in one person.3 Theodore suggested that Jesus’ emotions were rooted in his human nature. When he performed miracles and forgave sins, his divine nature was then manifested.4
The other school, which hailed from Alexandria in Egypt, was led by a man named Apollinaris. Originally, this camp held that Jesus was the Logos of God encased in a human body; this emphasized his deity at the expense of his humanity. This meant that Jesus did not have a “human mind” because the Logos took its place.
Controversy broke out, people took sides, and debates ensued. Apollinaris redefined his position after Theodore and Gregory of Nazianzus suggested Jesus’ lack of a “human mind” meant that he could not fully redeem mankind. The result was that Apollinaris adjusted his stance to say Jesus had the “lower part” of the human mind where emotions reside, but not the “higher part” where reason dwells.5 Nestorius, who took Theodore’s position a step further and said in Jesus there were “two natures and two persons,”6 was attacked by Cyril of Alexandria. The implications of Nestorius’ position meant that when Jesus died, only the “human nature” of Jesus could be credited. To say then that mankind was saved by a “man” meant God is not Savior.
As was custom in those days, councils were called to settle the arguments. In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon ruled in favor of the Antiochene view. This council wrote a “Definition of faith,” which posited that in Jesus there were “two natures in one person.”7
What is at stake in this theological inquiry? Practically speaking, what do we miss when we over emphasize either Jesus’ divinity or his humanity? How can we relate to a being who is God incarnate? How much of humanity did Jesus really experience?
These questions would be good for us to entertain (though with much caution and patience). For, to understand what Jesus was could turn into a deeper knowledge of who he is. Further clarity on Jesus’ nature should, in the end, help us and cause us to be more like the Master, walking in his Spirit to the glory of God the Father.
1Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1984), 252.
2Ibid.
3Paul B.Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus: Antiochene Christology from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451) (New York: Oxford, 2007), 2.
4William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology; An Introduction (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983), 81.
5Ibid.
6Gonzales, 254.
7Ibid, 257.
