O.O.D.E.  Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiry

Various heretics with Monophysite inclinations try to support their views from within certain verses in the Holy Bible - which they distort, thus altering their meaning. We shall examine some of those verses here: the ones they use when arguing that Christ was not the Godman; He was just a human while on earth.

Let’s take a look at the basic verses that they use.

1. The meaning of the term “kenosis” (“emptying” - “voiding”)

Philippians 2:5–8: "5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a snatching to be equal with God, 7 but “reduced” [emptied] Himself, by taking the form of a bondservant, and becoming the likeness of men. 8 And finding Himself with the appearance of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the death, in fact death by the cross."

Their argument regarding this verse hinges on the term “kenosis” (voiding/emptying). They claim that He emptied Himself of His Divine existence, ergo, on earth He stayed only as a mortal human.

This assertion, of course, is entirely arbitrary and irrational. And it is for the following, basic reasons:

1. Being God (since He is uncreated), the Son is also immutable, given that Time does not count for God. And, being immutable, it is not possible for Him to cease being God at any point in created Time.

 

2. The claim that He emptied Himself of His Divine existence is arbitrary and unprovable.

 

3. When we say, "I emptied/voided the cup," the cup itself never ceases to be a cup; it is simply emptied of its contents - that is, of whatever liquid it may have contained. God the Son had thus “emptied” Himself of His glory, but not of His Divinity; He continued to be an omnipotent and immutable God. Since the subject is being examined in terms of Time, it is evident that with the use of the verb "emptied" in the past tense, we are referring to an event that took place within created Time – which in turn signifies that the reference to kenosis (emptying) pertains only to Christ’s human nature, which would be subject to created Time and changeable.

 

4. The Holy Bible itself proves that such a disrespectful notion (His "emptying” of His divinity) is erroneous, as it clearly informs us of the exact opposite: "¹⁹ For it pleased the Father that in Him, all the fullness should dwell, ²⁰ and that by Him, all things are to be reconciled to Him, by pacifying through the blood of His cross either the earthly things or the things in heaven " (Colossians 1:19–20).

 

What was the "fullness" that pleased God to dwell in Christ, so that through His sacrificial death on the Cross He would reconcile all things? Paul tells us, in the following chapter: "For in Him dwells the entire fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

 

The Holy Bible is absolutely clear. Not only was Christ NOT "voided" of His divinity; rather, the FULLNESS OF DIVINITY always dwells in Christ’s bodily form. He “emptied” Himself only of His glory, for the duration of His time living as a mortal human, ignominiously.

   5. Furthermore, as demonstrated elsewhere in ten different ways, Christ was not only a human; He was also GOD.

 Final remarks: Since we are focusing on this verse, it should be stressed that - based on this verse - Christ existed "in the form of God." In other words, He was God. He was not a "god-like" being - inferior to God, as understood by Arianists. For just as the wording "having taken the form of a bondservant" signifies that He became a human in essence (and not just in appearance), similarly, the wording " who, being in the form of God " signifies that in essence He was God, and not "god-like."

Moreover, the verse’s explicit statement that He was "equal to God" suffices to demonstrate that He was indeed His equal - including in terms of omnipotence and immutability, precluding any "point in Time" when He may have lacked His Time-less Divine state.

2. Verses containing supposed inferiority

A second way that Monophysites strive to prove that Christ was only a human while on earth, is their reference to various verses in which Christ is presented as saying that He obeys His Father; that He does whatever His Father tells Him; that He was sent by His Father, or, that the Father is the head of the Son, etc..

It is not necessary to quote these verses, as they are very many and very familiar. The point, however, is that Christ was the SON of God. And being His Son, His begetting by the Father was of course also Time-less. And it is from the Father that He received everything that He has and does - much like every human son from his own father.

Could it be, then, that a son who obeys his father is inferior as a human? Is someone who obeys a fellow human "less" of a human? Why, then, must the Son be considered inferior?

If I send my son or a friend - or even my parent - to carry out a task for me, does that automatically imply they are inferior to me? Does it mean they are "less" of a human?  The infants who have received everything they have from their parents: are they "less" human than their parents?

And as for the matter of who is the "head": what the Holy Bible says about the Father and the Son, it also says about men and women! The Holy Bible states: "But I also want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3).  In other words, just because the man is the head of the woman, does that mean he is "more" of a human than his wife? Then why should Christ be considered "less" God than His Father - because His Father is the “head”?

We think there is no need to say more on this point, as the logical fallacy of the Monophysites regarding this issue is already obvious.

3. In what respect is the Father superior to the Son?

Admittedly, there is one verse that speaks quite clearly of the Son’s "inferiority" to the Father—a point that both Arianists and Monophysites attempt to exploit. This verse is John 14:28:  "My Father is superior to Me." In other words, Christ said: "My Father is greater than I am."

But “greater than the Son” in WHAT respect? This is not clarified by the text. At this is where various heretics begin to imagine Christ as a “lesser” deity, who also lacks omnipotence. This, naturally, leads them to polytheism, inasmuch as they accept the existence of more than one gods: superior and inferior ones.

But this verse has only one, very specific application. God the Logos is the Son of God; and as Son, the cause of His existence lies in the Father. It is ONLY in this respect (the cause of His origin) that the Father is superior to the Son. In everything else, the Son is both omnipotent and beginning-less, as is the Father. And He has been in existence for as long as the Father has existed - much like sunlight has existed ever since the sun itself. Furthermore, He too is truly God: just as sunlight is of the sun, thus the Logos-Son (aka the Reason) is of the Nous that begat Him.

Hence this verse does not pertain to Christ’s human nature, but only to His divine nature. This is evident from the fact that He explicitly refers to God as "my Father" - speaking, in that instance, as God. As God, whose cause lies within the Father, for there is only one principal within the Godhead: the Father. And since this verse has no bearing on Christ’s human nature, it cannot be used as an argument regarding whether He was merely a man or the God-man while on earth.

However, we have already analyzed the issue of the relationship between the hypostases within the Godhead in another relevant article.

4. Is the Son omniscient?

Heretics argue: "If Christ was also God, He would know everything, being omniscient. But Christ was not." As proof, they cite verses such as John 15:15: "all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you." They claim, therefore, that if He was indeed omniscient, He would not need to "hear" something in order to communicate it; He would have already known it.

A similar verse is found in Mark 13:32: "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Here, it is clearly mentioned that the Son does not know.

But even here, they have failed to grasp fundamental concepts.

Christ - as God - also received His omniscience Timelessly from the Father, given that everything within the Godhead originates from the Father. Just as every human son receives everything he has as a human being from his father and mother – without being less human than his genitors.

This applies even more so to Christ, who, while on earth, was not only God but had also assumed human nature. Aware that by being finite, human nature cannot possess the infinite knowledge of Divine nature. Thus, Christ’s human nature knew and articulated, at any given moment, everything that the Triune Godhead willed it to know and express. This is why Christ’s human nature was not omniscient. But this does not signify that it was not joined to His divine nature; because it was the divine nature of the Son that imparted to His human nature at every given moment, whatever He needed to know within the limitations of created Time. But not everything. This is confirmed by the words of His disciples, in John 16:30: "Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God." "We have come to know that You know everything!" the disciples said to Christ. But the source of His omniscience was always the Father.

Therefore, even verses of this kind do not constitute proof that Christ possessed only one nature. Rather, they demonstrate that His human nature knew, at any given time, whatever the Divine nature willed that He know.

5. God has a God?

The next relevant verse used by the Monophysites is Matthew 27:46: "And around the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lima savachthani?'—that is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'"

They argue, therefore, that since Christ here refers to God as "His God," He must have lacked divine nature Himself; otherwise, who would He be referring to as "God"?

Naturally here too, some refuse to grasp that Christ was both God AND human – at times speaking as God, and at times as a human. Those words were clearly uttered by Christ’s human nature; for it was His human nature that was feeling abandoned by God - just as it was only His human nature that could die upon the Cross. At that moment, Christ was experiencing death only as a human, regardless of His own Divine nature. And it was His human nature that was abandoned to die, which had cried out those words to the Triune God.

That Christ is - with His Incarnation - both God and human is made abundantly clear in His own words: "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God" (John 20:17). Here we see that He is simultaneously speaking on behalf of both His natures. His Divine nature refers to God as "His Father" (thus indicating His Divinity), while His human nature refers to the Father as "His God" (thus indicating His humanity).

And it is precisely for this reason (that He is not an ordinary human being like the rest of us), that He identifies Himself differently compared to all of us, by not saying "OUR Father" or "OUR God." Instead He says separately: "My God and your God," and "My Father and your Father". Because He is “our God” and “His God” in a different manner, just as He also is “our Father” and “His Father” in a different way.

For Himself, He is God only to His human nature.

For us humans, He is God to our entire existence.

And while He is by nature the Father of His Divine nature, for us humans He is “our Father” only after adoption.

That is why, albeit being a human on earth, He had said: "For if you do not believe that it is I, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). And "Jesus said to them, 'When you hoist up the Son of Man, then you will know that it is Me, and that I do nothing on My own, but as My Father had taught Me I speak these things'" (John 8:28).

"It is I" – stated simply, without explaining "who He is." This is the very expression that in the Old Testament is used exclusively by Yahweh-God! It is in the present tense, which signifies the eternal "now" of God’s Time-less state. The Jews, therefore, being unable to conceive that Christ was calling Himself Yahweh, had asked Him, "Who are You?" (John 8:25).

Yes, He was very clearly the God-man!

6.  The Man Christ Jesus

Monophysites in particular make massive logical leaps and blunders when they cite this verse. The verse in question is 1 Timothy 2:5: "For God is one, and one is the mediator between God and men:  the man Christ Jesus."

So they exclaim: "See? It doesn't say 'God-man'; it says 'man'! Therefore, Christ was only an ordinary human."

Note, however, how deeply they are deluded and how sloppy their interpretations are:

1. Being a man does not preclude His also being God. Nowhere does the verse state that He was "only" a man.

2. This verse refers to Christ the Mediator, who IS the Mediator. in perpetuity. Just as He was, when those words were spoken: that is, very many years after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. This signifies that He is referred to as "man" even after His resurrection: something that many Monophysite-leaning groups, such as the Russellites, consider unheard of. This is because they believe that, following His resurrection, Christ ceased to be a man. Yet, here He is referred to as a "man," so many years after His resurrection!

3. In reality, the verse does not state that God is one entity and Christ the Mediator is another. Rather, it asserts that Christ Jesus Himself is the "one God" and the "one Mediator." He is God by virtue of His heavenly nature, and Mediator by virtue of His humanity. God acts as Mediator through His second, human nature. That is what the verse says.

7. The Second Adam

Certain Monophysite groups argue that Christ, as the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47), had to be a mere man - rather than the God-man - in order to "pay" a ransom on behalf of the First Adam, thereby enabling Him, through His Sacrifice, to liberate humanity from death.

Naturally, such a heretical view regarding the Antilytron is entirely irrelevant to reality; the fallacies inherent in this Augustinian theory have already been addressed in another, dedicated article.

In reality, only as God-man could Christ re-unite man with God and save him. He had to be God-human so that the humans who would become united to Him within His Church might also be united with His pre-eternal Divine nature and partake of the Divine life.

Because "redemption" means deliverance, not "payment of an equivalent cost."

Christ “paid” with a sacrifice of far greater value than the value of Adam’s life.  He “gave” far more, becoming the ”Second Adam” : that is, the second spiritual progenitor of humanity. Because "where sin abounded, Grace superabounded" (Romans 5:20).

Naturally, Monophysites also cite certain verses in order to show that, following His Resurrection, Christ had kept only one of His two natures - His Divine nature. (however every heretical group can imagine that).

But that is a subject for another study.

Translation AN