A Critical Commentary on the Book "On the Nature of Christ" by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III

Great is the mystery of piety:
God was manifested in the flesh
(1.Tim.3:16)

A Critical Commentary on the book ”On the Nature of Christ”
by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III
of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
By Seminarian Nicholas Vester,
St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Autumn 2005.

Introduction

In 1984 Pope Shenouda III gave a series of lectures at the Seminary of St. Mark, about the Christology of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church later decided to publish the lectures for educational purposes, and subsequently they were translated into English to be presented as a paper at a meeting of the Pro-Oriente Group* in October 1991. This small book bears the signature of Pope Shenouda III and can be taken as the official Coptic Christological Position. Most of the below critical commentary has been compiled from the exegetical and dogmatical writings of the Fathers of the Church. The reason for this is that Holy Scripture must be understood within the Tradition of the Church, which is the experience of the Church, and this experience is handed down to us through the writings of the Fathers. Pope Shenouda quotes many scriptoral passages, but very rarely does he quote any of these exegetical and dogmatical Patristic writings. Recognizing with great respect and love the ancient Tradition of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and especially Pope Shenouda’s steadfast defence of Orthodox Christianity through many struggles his homeland, Egypt, I shall nevertheless venture to give a critical commentary on the most important christological statements made by Pope Shenouda III in his book, as seen from a Chalcedonian, or Byzantine Christological position. In his book Pope Shenouda often seems to identify the term ”nature” with ”person”, which in my understanding results in a misinterpretation of the Byzantine Christology. Hopefully the following will explain and clarify the Byzantine Christological position on the person and natures of Christ the Incarnate Logos. Due to limited space, I have been forced to paraphrase most of Pope Shenouda’s statements, but have done my utmost to retain the essence of his statements without alteration. The statements of Pope Shenouda is in bold, and the commentary in normal typeface and the commentary follows the chapter headings in Pope Shenouda’s book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A Standing Commission of Oriental Orthodox Churches following the Oriental Orthodox Tradition

>>> To be continued

The Orthodox Concept regarding the nature of Christ:

The divine and human nature was united in a hypostatic union, without mingling, confusion or alteration. God the Logos took flesh from the Holy Virgin and, “The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin”*

The first statement is fully Orthodox and very sound indeed. But as for the second statement in the above - the Orthodox Church never taught a doctrine of ”original sin”, but always maintained that mankind has a liability to sin, which is know as the ancestral sin. The doctrine of ”original sin” was created in the Western Church, first suggested by St. Augustine, but later systematized and dogmatized by Anselm in the Latin Church. The idea of original sin leads to the depressing concept of the total depravity of mankind. The Orthodox teaching is that even though mankind exists in a fallen state, the image of God was not destroyed but only distorted. Man did not inherit any ”original guilt” from Adam. St. Cyril of Alexandria says, “How could all we who were not yet born, all be condemned with him...?”** Furthermore such a geneologically inherited original guilt does not correspond with the Angel’s salutation to the Virgin Mary, ”Rejoice thou who hast been shown grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women”.*** St. Leo says, ”What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault”.**** There was no ”immaculate conception”, like taught in the Western Church, but the Virgin Mary was purified when she accepted to bear God in the flesh, and became the Theotokos
__________________________________________________ ___
* The Nature of Christ p. 7
** The Ancestral Sin, p. 166.
*** Luk 1:28. ONT.
****Tome of St. Leo p. 256.

>>> To be continued

سلام و نعمة
...................

My dear brother :
1-The expression "original sin" equals that one we call"ancestral sin" which is the sin our father "Adam" committed
when he chose not to follow the will of God" And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"**
The sin it self is not a heritable character :But the Corrupt nature is the one.so we inherited that nature which does not follow the will of God,because it came out of the loins of Adam who beard that nature by sin and we inherited it as will as the judgment of death
2-The virgin Mary

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة John of the Ladder

was purified when she accepted to bear God in the flesh, and became the Theotokos

---

It is true 100%
.................................................. .
** Genesis 2:16,17

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة مايكل فيت

...................
The sin it self is not a heritable character :But the Corrupt nature is the one.so we inherited that nature which does not follow the will of God,because it came out of the loins of Adam who beard that nature by sin and we inherited it as will as the judgment of death
.................................................. .

---

So, you are saying that we inherited the sin itself, because we inherited the judgment of death, but, you have no patrological reference, so your comment is not worthy to be considered, with all of my respect. Please see (again) the quotation of St. Cyril in the above response. This is the problem with Pope Shenouda III and the Coptic Church, there are no supporting writings from the fathers on what they believe (you will see this during the course of this subject). I am not offending anyone here, I am just telling this simple truth. Please refer to Rome 5: 12 and this subject in Arabic: The Ancestral Sin. Again:

اقتباس:

---

Holy Scripture must be understood within the Tradition of the Church, which is the experience of the Church, and this experience is handed down to us through the writings of the Fathers

---

Just keep this in mind to avoid being a Sola Scriptura follower. Also, keep in mind that the Orthodox Church distinguishes between the "Original Sin" and the "Ancestral Sin", and It doesn't equate them, simply because they have different definitions, so, please, don't make this confusion again

This unity of natures lead to the formation of “The One Nature of God” 1 , says Pope Shenouda quoting St. Cyril of Alexandria 2. The term “Monophysite” has been misinterpreted through the centuries, and has led to a false understanding among the Churches accepting the council of Chalcedon, that the Oriental Churches holding the Monophysite Christology, only believes in one nature of Christ and denies the other. Pope Shenouda says, “We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies?”3 It cannot be the divine nature, since the Alexandrian Church fought against Arianism. According to the Oriental Christology, “The expression One Nature does not in-dicate the Divine Nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is the The Nature of the Incarnate Logos”.4 It can be likened to the human nature, which is composed of two united natures - soul and body. The divine nature is hypostatically united with the human nature. The expression “two natures” suggests separation or division, and this was why the Coptic Church rejected Chalcedon, where the,
“tone of separation”,5 was obvious

Let us listen to St. John of Damascus, ”How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed? ...How can they ever say that Christ has two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature”.6 This is of course the Divine nature, since the flesh which the Lord took from the Mother of God was not pre-existent or consubstantial with the Divine Logos. What He took from the Virgin was created human nature. And when we speak of the human nature, ”...all share the nature of the soul and possess the substance of the body”.7 They form one species made up of human hypostases, individual beings with a soul and a body. However Jesus Christ is not an individual out of many, and there is no ”Christ-species” with whom He shares His hypostasis, because we are speaking about the Hypostasis of the second Person of the Holy Trinity. His Hypostasis is therefore different from the individual human hypostasis. His is one composite person (hypostasis) because, ”His natures are united in His person...and in this He differs both from the Father and the Spirit and from His Mother and us”.8 Again – Christ is not an individual, and therefore the union of the soul and body in one human nature cannot be compared to the union of the Divine nature and human nature in one Divine hypostasis!
__________________________________________________ __
1 The Nature of Christ p. 8.
2 No reference.
3 The Nature of Christ. P. 9.
4 Ibid. P. 10.
5 Ibid.
6 Writings p.272.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid. P. 275

>>> To be continued

Dear Brother
?is this a dialog or one sided mono-loge

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة سان مينا

Dear Brother
?is this a dialog or one sided mono-loge

---

Actually, I prefer not to interrupt the subject by old comments we use to see from your side, but if there is something new to say with reference to the fathers, then, there is no problem.

Just to remind you, you are not an active member in the forum, and just jump where you see someone talks about the Coptic church, and put yourself in the place of the defender. So, your existence here, is not for the understanding of the Orthodox Teaching, which is the main purpose of this site and forum, but to defend your church. So, I will ask you to get back to yourself, and think of this

سلام و نعمة
...................

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة John of the Ladder

So, you are saying that we inherited the sin itself, because we inherited the judgment of death, but, you have no patrological reference, so your comment is not worthy to be considered

---

Saint Athanasios said

"1 for this, then there was more death and shed the corruption on human beings, and therefore the human race was walking towards the destruction, this on the one hand, on the other hand was a wise man and the creature bearing the image of God to fade, and the creature of God, taking into decay.
2 because the death is also, as I said earlier, became a sovereign legitimacy of us (because of the infringement), since that time onwards, it was impossible to escape the judgment of law, because God is the one who put it because of the infringement, if this happened the result would be terrifying really and inappropriate in the same time.
3 because of that (first), it is inappropriate of course, that after God spoke something once it is clear that later a liar, that God is after that that man shall surely die, that exceed the commandment not die, but invalidated the word of God. And God will be not telling the truth that man does not die after that God said he would die."*

We were all sinners so the judgment is a normal consequence of sin due to the corrupt nature

quote=John of the Ladder;66708]keep in mind that the Orthodox Church distinguishes between the "Original Sin" and the "Ancestral Sin", and It doesn't equate them, simply because they have different definitions, so, please, don't make this confusion again[/quote]

I want to tell you that when I heard about the"Original Sin" it was in Sunday school the explanation of the word equated the explanation"Ancestral Sin"but frankly speaking the the expression"Ancestral Sin"is the one that i heard from all the Priests &read in books,so you may Kindly explain the difference
.................................................. .................................................. ........................................
*personal translation from the book incarnation of the logos
the Arabic scripture is

1ـ لأجل هذا إذن ساد الموت أكثر وعم الفساد على البشر، وبالتالى كان الجنس البشرى[1] سائرًا نحو الهلاك، هذا من ناحية، ومن ناحية أخرى كان الإنسان العاقل والمخلوق على صورة الله آخذًا في التلاشى، وكانت خليقة الله آخذةً في الانحلال.

2ـ لأن الموت أيضًا، وكما قلت سابقًا[2]، صارت له سيادة شرعية علينا (بسبب التعدى)، منذ ذلك الوقت فصاعدًا، وكان من المستحيل التهرب من حكم الناموس، لأن الله هو الذى وضعه بسبب التعدى، فلو حدث هذا لأصبحت النتيجة مرعبة حقًا وغير لائقة في نفس الوقت.

3ـ لأنه (أولاً)، من غير اللائق طبعًا أن الله بعدما تكلم بشئ مرة يتضح أنه فيما بعد كاذب، أى أن الله بعد أن أمر أن الإنسان يموت موتًا، أن يتعدى الوصية ولا يموت، بل تبطل كلمة الله. وسيكون الله غير صادق إن كان الإنسان لا يموت بعد أن قال الله إنه سيموت.

Dear Mike,

I have to ask you about the page numbers for the quotations to study them in their context.

Regarding the difference between the "Original Sin" and the "Ancestral Sin", I prefer to return to the subject I mentioned above: The Ancestral Sin, but I may make the following comment: Original sin used to mean that we inherit the sin, and hence, the death as a punishment. This leads to the unavoidable result that God is the creator of death. Whereas the fathers say that death is the separation from the True Life, God, and this separation is because of the sin. So, the sin committed by Adam at the Paradise with free will, brought the corruption and death to the human nature. So, when Christ came, he came to break the corruption and death, which is done through His human nature, and when we baptized and contribute the Eucharist, we unite with His human nature, which is in hapostatic union with God the Word from the first moment. Otherwise, you will reach to the result that God was angry (change), and create death, and someone has to die in place of all others, and must be unlimited to be able to this sacrifice to be sufficient for all human race from Adam to the end of the world, ..., etc. God is the All-Good, Live-Giving, and He doesn't anger or change. Try to tell me what is the fate of the infants before baptism? We will get to the unavoidable result also, that they will be burn in Hell. We must understand the Ancestral Sin in this context, to correctly understand the purpose of the Incarnation

سلام ونعمة
.................

My dear brother
1-thank You for your comment,of course God did not create death that's refused as well as creating a sinner by nature to live with him.In the liturgy of saint GREGORY we say about the LOGOS Who, for the sake of goodness only, formed man out of what existed not, and put him in the paradise of joy.And when he fell, through the guile of the enemy and disobedience of Thine commandment,and Thou desiredst to renew him, and to restore him to his first estate.THAT'S our faith in the same liturgy we say
One plant did Thou forbid me to eat of.That concerning which Thou said to me, “Do not eat of it
only.”

I did eat, out of my will.I put away from me Thy law out of my counsel.I became slothful about Thy commandments.I plucked for myself the sentence of death
2-I read the The Ancestral Sin as you told me from the firs time you advised me &it is great
3-the page is 15 ,chapter 6 that explain why God incarnated

That is different from what I have heard Pope Shenouda III once, that God condemned by death Adam and Eve and all their offspring (he used the terms man sperms and woman eggs) which approves that the Original Sin in the context of the Coptic Church theology, is biologically inherited. Otherwise, we can say, again, that there is some departure from the ancient teaching of the Coptic Church in these days.

Anyway, regarding St. Athanasius and his statements quoted by you previously, as I said we must understand them in the theology context of St. Athanasius as a whole, and not making out-of-context quotations, which may lead to misunderstanding. Listen what St Athanasius says in the same book: On the Incarnation of the Word:

اقتباس:

---

For God has not only made us out of nothing; but He gave us freely, by the Grace of the Word, a life in correspondence with God. But men, having rejected things eternal, and, by counsel of the devil, turned to the things of corruption, became the cause of their own corruption in death, being, as I said before, by nature corruptible, but destined, by the grace following from partaking of the Word, to have escaped their natural state, had they remained good. 2. For because of the Word dwelling with them, even their natural corruption did not come near them, as Wisdom also says : “God made man for incorruption, and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death came into the world.” But when this was come to pass, men began to die, while corruption thence-forward prevailed against them, gaining even more than its natural power over the whole race, inasmuch as it had, owing to the transgression of the commandment, the threat of the Deity as a further advantage against them.

---

So, God by His knowledge in advance, warned Adam from eating from the forbidden tree, because when he eats from it, he will sin, and this sin separates him from God, the Life-Giving, which leads naturally to death and corruption.

Shall we continue?

In IC XC

سلام و نعمة
..................

Dear John
I said:-

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة مايكل فيت

We were all sinners so the judgment is a normal consequence of sin due to the corrupt nature

---

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة John of the Ladder

So, God by His knowledge in advance, warned Adam from eating from the forbidden tree, because when he eats from it, he will sin, and this sin separates him from God, the Life-Giving, which leads naturally to death and corruption.

---

You are right death was not the well of God it was the man's own well so I also said

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة مايكل فيت

In the liturgy of saint GREGORY we say about the LOGOS Who, for the sake of goodness only, formed man out of what existed not, and put him in the paradise of joy.And when he fell, through the guile of the enemy and disobedience of Thine commandment,and Thou desiredst to renew him, and to restore him to his first estate.THAT'S our faith in the same liturgy we say One plant did Thou forbid me to eat of.That concerning which Thou said to me, “Do not eat of it only.” I did eat, out of my will.I put away from me Thy law out of my counsel.I became slothful about Thy commandments.I plucked for myself the sentence of death

---

HOPE IT'S CLEAR NOW

I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE TILL TH END OF THE BOOK OF
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III:sm-ool-02:

:sm-ool-02::sm-ool-02::sm-ool-02:

As a conclusion on this part, and all parts at once, can you give me precisely what the Original Sin means, citing a reliable reference from the Coptic church patriarchate? because I feel that I am confused by contradictory here, as with the "One Nature" term. You say something, and explain something else. Where is the connection between what you say, and what you mean? Pardon me, but your explanation alone does not represent the official stand of the Coptic church on this matter.

I may not continue, because, if just one paragraph took all these comments, imagine if I write the whole book.

I may continue in one condition, with no comments which aimed for dialogue, and at the end, you can take this subject and study it alone, with references from our Church. I am not here to spent my time to explain our Faith in words, not because it is not worthy, but rather, because it is already there in the Website, and well expressed by great Orthodox saints and theologians, ancient and contemporary.

I pray for you

سلام و نعمة
....................

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة John of the Ladder

can you give me precisely what the Original Sin means, citing a reliable reference from the Coptic church patriarchate?

---

You can read the encyclopedia of the Bishop Gregory part one when he discuses theory of saint Augustin contra pillagios He explained the term "original sin" saying that It was the sin of the origin of mankind (Adam he meant)so it's by this meaning only It equals ancestral sin

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة John of the Ladder

I may continue in one condition, with no comments which aimed for dialogue,

---

I agree.......&pray for You and all my brothers

:sm-ool-02::sm-ool-02::sm-ool-02:

Dear Mike, thanks for your replies, and the explanation of the Original Sin according to the Bishop Gregory. But our debate is about the meaning of the Original Sin, its consequences and effects as relating to us. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to go through this any more.

OK then, I will continue, as soon as I can

Appolinarius

The Coptic Church condemns Appolinarius because he taught that Christ did not have a human soul when He became Incarnate. He preached that Christ had a divine nature but since he did not believe that Christ had a human soul, Appolinarius did not believe in Christ having a fully human nature.

However Appolinarius like Pope Shenouda also taught that Christ had only One Nature after the union for, ”just as man is one nature, so is Christ Who has come in the likeness of men...One incarnate nature of the Divine Word”.1 This statement sounds dangerously close to what the Coptic Pope says. Appolinarius was actually the first to introduce the word hypostasis2 in Christology.3 However Appolinarius mostly used the term prosopon4 for Christ’s Person, whereas Pope Shenouda uses the term hypostasis. According to St. John of Damascus, the followers of Appolinarius taught that, the Word only was made flesh”,5meaning that Christ did not take flesh from the Virgin, even though He was born from her. So in Appolinarius’ view Christ was not consubstantial with mankind. Obviously the Coptic Church condemn Appolinarius, but the, perhaps unwilling, overemphasizing of the divine nature, and somewhat erronous understanding of the Chalcedonian use of the terms person and nature, might result in the over-emphasizing of respectively both the divine and the human nature in Christ, depending on the context.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Kelly p. 293.
2 Ιποστασις – Substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. (Bauer) Used by the Orthodox Church to describe the Persons in the Holy Trinity.
3 Kelly p 293.
4 Προσωπον – Face, countenance (Bauer). Used in ancient pagan Greek drama for ”mask”.
5 Writings p. 131.

Note: With all of my respect, any response from a non-Chalchedonian that aim for controversy will be deleted without any notification

The Council of Chalcedon

Pope Shenouda lists the Council of Chalcedon together with Appolinarius and other “widely known heresies”. He explains: Even though Chalcedon had excommunicated Nestorius, it was still Nestorian itself (How is that!!!!). The Council declared that Christ is two persons (I will append later the statement of the Council of Chalchedon, where such a statement was not in it, on the contrary it is condemned. As always misleading statements based on emotions, not facts): A God and a human being. The first person is working miracles and the latter does the suffering and accepting humiliation. St. Leo of Rome was also a Nestorian (We will see) and his Tome confirmed that Christ had two natures. Pope Shenouda reminds us, that Nestorius said that the two natures were distinctly separated and that Christ had two wills, and two actions.

Nestorianism leads to the idea that if Christ has to distinct persons, these must necessarily be a divine and a human hypostasis, or persons. Chalcedon did not declare that Christ is ”two persons”, but two natures1. St. Maximos the Confessor says, ”...a forth person is not added to the Trinity, which would be the case if the Incarnate Christ was divided into two persons”.2 But is is necessary to distinguish between the two natures in Christ because, ”nothing can be coessential or cognate with the Divinity...in other words, in the Incarnation the two natures have united to form a single person, not a single nature”.3

It is true that St. Leo’s Tome could be accused of occasionally being somewhat unclear in the language used to describe these concepts. Especially this phrase by St. Leo, ”...each ”form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word...performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to flesh...one shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries”.4 This has been greatly criticized by the Coptic Church as being ”Nestorian”, but hear how St. Leo explains this in the very next sentence of his Tome, ”...as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind...For...He is one and the same, truly Son of God and truly Son of Man”.5 Obviously Pope Shenouda’s fear that St. Leo is speaking of ”two persons”, is unfounded. When speaking about the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ6, St. Leo used the Latin word substantia which in Greek was translated into hypostasis. Etymologically these two terms are very similar ”hypo-stasis”, and ”sub-stantia”, but after the Arian controversy, hypostasis was used by the Greek Fathers for the Latin ”persona”. Substantia was then translated into ”ουσια” in Greek (nature or essence). Unfortunately St. Leo was probably not aware of this. But if one reads the few examples given above it is obvious that St. Leo spoke about the two natures in Christ, and not of two persons. St. Leo emphasized that these two natures in Christ were, ”active in communion with each other”.7 He did so against Nestorianism and the heretical claim that Christ was a mere man, in whom the Divine ”indwelled”. Leo’s emphasis on this is essential for the Orthodox concept of Theosis or perfection through Christ the Mediator, because Christ became man, so that man could become God. The concept of Theosis seems not to be considered at all by Pope Shenouda. St. Leo also affirmed Theopaschism, which was in perfect harmony with what St Cyril taught. It is also a fact that the Council of Chalcedon found no discord between the teachings of St. Cyril and of St. Leo. The Tome of St. Leo was compared with the letters of St. Cyril, and there is no reason to believe that St. Cyril’s letter of anathema against Nestorius was not considered by the Council, thereby elevating Chalcedon above any suspicion of Nestorianism.8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 See Appendix ( to be appended later).
2 Philokalia Vol 2 p. 250.
3 Ibid.
4 NPNF Ser 2 Vol XIV p 256.
5 Ibid.
6 C F. Oxford Dictionary p 1553
7 Meyendorff p. 173.
8 Ibid. P. 174.

>>> To be continued

The Nature of This Union

”The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature”.1 To illustrate this, Pope Shenouda quotes St. Cyril, who used the analogy of fire and iron: When iron is heated, it does not become two natures, fire and iron. But rather the iron unites with the fire. The fire and the iron is united but retains all their respective properties. In the same way the Incarnate Logos is not ”God and man”.

St Cyril and St Augustine2 used the example of the union between the soul and the body, ”...both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person.”3 Those who believe that Christ had two natures never mention the two natures in man, but consider them one4. In fact, ”If we go into detail we would find...ourselves before three natures in Christ!!! The Divinity, the soul, and the body, each and each of them has its distinct entity and essence.”5 If we accept the union of soul and body in one nature in Christ, it becomes easier for us to use the expression ”One Nature in Christ”.6 And ”just as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Logos, that He is one entity of two elements or natures.”7

The above allegory is not valid, because the union of the soul and the body does not constitute a union between two different human natures – as Pope Shenouda himself affirms in the above. St. Maximos says about the Incarnate Logos that, ”We speak of a distinction of natures to avoid asserting that the flesh is coessential in its nature with the Logos”.8 Which is exactly the heresy of Appolinarius, whom Pope Shenouda rightly condemns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Shenouda p 16.
2 No reference.
3 Shenouda p. 18.
4 St. John of Damascus explains the two natures in man. See p. 2 of this paper.
5 Shenouda p. 18.
6 CF. Ibid. pp. 18-19.
7 Ibid. P. 19.
8 Philokalia Vol 2 p. 250.

>>> To be continued

If the divine nature is different from the human nature, then how do they unite? The reply is that the nature of the soul is different from that of the body, but they still unite in one human nature (They unite in one human person, not nature). All man’s acts are attributed to him as a whole being. All Christ’s actions are similarly attributed to Him – not to this nature or that nature (That is contrary to what St. Cyril says and approves, even though the Coptic Church relies on him for their believe about the one nature, which was not the believe of St. Cyril as Alexius explained). The union of (the natures) is a real and hypostatic (Personal not nature) union, which took place in the Virgin’s womb. The example of the union of soul and body in man is inclusive (but it is also misunderstood, because human nature is not a nature from two natures in strict sense) – it is only incomplete in the sense that it does not explain why the soul leaves the (body) at death, nor how they reunite in the resurrection.1

The Hypostatic union of the natures in Christ, which took place in the womb of the Virgin was not between soul and body. Because as already mentioned, Christ was not an ordinary individual hypostasis. The union was between the human nature of the Virgin’s flesh and the divine nature of God the Logos, and it happened for our healing. St. Paul says somewhere that there is only one mediator between God and man, Christ. This mediation becomes possible exactly because of the two natures in Christ. St. Gregory Palamas says, ”Being twofold in nature, He could truly be a mediator, joining each of the two to the other”.2 As for the resurrection of the dead, it is truly a real reuniting of body and soul. The rising of Lazarus3 is proof of this. As to Pope Shenouda’s question how this will take place? – hear St. John of Damascus, ”How do the dead rise again? Oh what lack of faith” Oh, what stupidity! He who just by His will changed dust into a body...will He not much more be able to raise up again the body...? Senseless man, if thou art callous enough not to believe the words of God, then at least believe His works...”4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 CF. Shenouda . p. 20
2 Palamas, Homily 16 p.191.
3 Jn. 11:1-46.
4 Writings p 405.

>>> To be continued

The Unity of nature and the birth of Christ

”Christ is not two Sons, one the Son of God to be adored, and the other a man and not to be worshiped”.1 It is not possible to separate between the two natures. We must make one genuflection to One Christ.2 A father3 said that, ”He was born (weak, and not accurate expression. Imagine how would he understand Ancient Greek, the language of the Fathers of the Church) from the Father before all ages without a mother, and was born from a Virgin in the fullness of time without an earthly father”.4

There was indeed never two Sons. However the Divine Logos was not born, but begotten from before all ages, as our Creed says. Born denotes an event taking place in historical time having a beginning and an end. Begotten is without a beginning and with no end - from all eternity, and outside historical time. About the adoration St. John of Damascus says, ”...according to its own nature His flesh is not adorable...when, however it has been united with God the Word, it is adorable because of Him and in Him”.5 So we adore One Christ, Who in order to fully become one of us, let Himself be born in historical time from a human mother, the Virgin Mary from whom He took flesh. Likewise St. Joseph took care of the Lord Incarnate, when He was a child – just like any real father would do. Christ submitted Himself to earthly parenthood. This is important to emphasize in order to point out just how fully He accepted to become one of us in His human nature, while eternally remaining God the Logos and part of the Holy Trinity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Shenouda. P. 22.
2 CF. Ibid.
3 Ibid. (No reference)
4 Ibid.
5 Writings p. 336.

>>> To be continued

The One Nature of the Incarnate Logos

”It is One Nature (one entity) but has all the properties of two natures”1 And there was no separation between the two Natures at Christ’s death. ”On the third day His soul, united with His body which was also united with His Godhead; thus resurrection took place”.2 When Christ left His tomb, and when He walked through closed doors (John. 20:19) was it the divine or the human nature?, or was it Christ the Incarnate Logos?3


There was never any separation of the natures at Christ’s death, and here Pope Shenouda is in full agreement with Chalcedonian Christology. St John of Damascus says, ”...the person of Christ was always one, since, even though the soul was separated from the body in place, it still was hypostatically united to it through the Word”.4 Regarding when Christ walked through the closed doors and appeared in the midst of His disciples - closed doors obviously present no hindrance to Him Who let Himself be born from a Virgin!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Shenouda. P. 26.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. P. 27.
4 Writings p. 333.

>>> To be continued