Cristological Controversy

The Christological Controversy

The Early Church had developed an interest to decipher the identity of Jesus as the son

of G_d. Most of the problems they faced emerged when attempting to reconcile the

nature of Jesus whom they thought was fully human and fully divine. To solve this

ambiguity the early fathers of the Church had to create several ideas about Jesus and his

relationship to the G_dhead to make congruent arguments and eschew misconceptions of

their relationship.

To establish a firm belief in the nature of Jesus as fully human and fully divine

brought about issues concerning polytheism. Apollinaris was the bishop of Laodicea in

Syria, and upheld that Jesus was fully man in regard to his body, i.e. his complexion as a

human being; however, his mind was not that of a human being. Apollinaris maintained

that Jesus’ mind was divine, in other words, the result of G_d’s intellect being emptied in

the person Jesus (Apollinaris, [6]).

Apollinaris says that Jesus was G_d’s son, and therefore, he was equal to G_d

(Apollinaris, [15]). Moreover, he stressed the idea that Jesus was the incarnation of G_d

(Apollinaris [6]). His views bring about some disparities, for instance, if he believed

Jesus to be G_d how could he have proposed that G_d, who is believed to be omnipotent

and omnipresent, suffered pains and humiliations in body and emptied Himself in a

human “container”. He believes that Jesus as the son is equal to the Father, this is indeed

not plausible, and in the Christian doctrine it would produce misconceptions, for it is

believed that “G_d so loved the world that he gave His one and only son, His only

begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John

3:16). This verse clearly demonstrates that G_d is not equal to the son, or vice versa.

Rather, it says that there is a G_d and a son, it does not specify that the son is the Father

or the Father the son. In addition, if it were believed that Jesus is G_d, and hence he is

worshipped, a transgression would be occurring; for, if there is only one G_d, He has to

be worshipped according to monotheistic beliefs.

Nestorius, the Bishop of Antioch, says that G_d had “emptied Himself taking the

form of a slave” (Nestorius, 125). Thus, G_d appeared in the condition of a human being.

So, Nestorius concluded that “I worships the one that I see because of the one who is

hidden” (Nestorius, 130) . Departing from this point one cannot arrive at a safe

destination when thinking about the unity of G_d because if He is believed to be of two

natures, the digit two as a number is contradictory to the one which is unity , hence, not

something with oneness. If Jesus, as G_d, is said to have two essences in the body of

Christ, He is therefore not perfect, for something perfect should not be liable to suffer

pains as the body of Christ did. Moreover, not only is G_d one, but also He is being

worshipped through a human form when it is evident by this verse that G_d is not a

human: “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should

repent” Num. 23:19. Therefore, if it is said that G_d is a man, or a

...