Three meanings of nature: Nature is understood either from an abstract point of view - which has no substance in itself - or from a point of view that includes all persons equal in kind - and it is said that it has a nature visible in an individual - and it is also visible in its kind. Therefore, God did not assume a nature in His incarnation in the sense of an abstract view, because this is not an incarnation. It is nothing but an illusion of incarnation and deception. He also did not take a visible nature in its kind, because he did not take it to be present in all persons, but rather he took it to be unique in its type and it is the first fruits of our dough and does not exist on its own, nor was it first an individual and then he took it as it is, but rather it took its existence in its hypostasis, because the hypostasis of the word of God Himself has become a hypostasis of incarnation. In this sense, the Word became flesh without transformation, the flesh became the Word without change, and God became a man. The word is God, and man is God - because of their union in the hypostasis. Hence, it can be said that the nature of the word is the nature of the individual. This alone truly clarifies the individual or hypostasis, not what is general in persons, but rather the general nature in one of its persons, visible and examined.
The difference between union and incarnation: Union is one thing and incarnation is another. Union indicates connection alone. As for what this connection is, it is not clear. As for incarnation - which itself is called incarnation - it demonstrates the connection with a body or with a person, just as the heat of iron indicates its union with fire.
A clarification by Cyril himself about “the nature of the one incarnate Word”: Accordingly, the blessed Cyril, in his second letter to Soknasin, says this, and he explains the phrase “the nature of the one incarnate Word of God.”
Μία φύσις τού Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη
If we had said: The nature of the one word and remained silent, not adding to it the incarnate one, but rather turning away from the measure, perhaps those who argue with their questions would also have undeniable words, and if all is one nature, then where is the perfection in humanity? Or how did the essence that is our example come about? But since the perfection of humanity and the clarification of the essence that is like us occurred through our incarnate words, then how could these people be able to put a cane in their place! Therefore, Cyril uses here the nature of the word instead of nature. If he had used the hypostasis instead of nature, it would not have been objectionable for him to say what he said in isolation from the incarnation. We do not hesitate to say it firmly. The hypostasis of the one Word of God. Likewise, Leonidius of Byzantium also understood that what is said about nature is not the opposite of what is said about the hypostasis. Blessed Cyril - in his protest against Theodoretus’ refutation regarding the second sanctuary - says thus: “The nature of the word, that is, the hypostasis, is the word itself.” Therefore, what is said about the nature of the Word does not mean the hypostasis alone nor what is general to the hypostases, but rather the general nature of the hypostasis of the Word as a whole.
A selection of commonly heard and accepted expressions: So it is a phrase that says that the nature of the Word was incarnated or that it was united with a body. We have never heard until now that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh. But we learned that Christ suffered physically. We conclude from this that saying the nature of the word does not seem to mean the hypostasis. It remains, then, for us to say that incarnation is the union with His body, and that the Word becomes flesh is that the hypostasis of the Word itself becomes flesh without transformation. -It is said that God became man and man became God. Because since the Word was God, He became man without change. As for it being said that the Godhead became a human being, or that he was incarnated, or that he became human, we have never heard it. We have learned that divinity is united with humanity in one of its hypostases. It is said that God disguises himself or disguises himself as a stranger or as someone who is like us. The word of God is valid in all hypostases. As for the word divinity, we cannot say it about a hypostasis because we have not heard the word divinity said in the Father alone, nor in the Son alone, nor in the Holy Spirit alone. Because the Godhead indicates nature and the Father indicates the hypostasis, just as humanity indicates nature and Peter indicates the person. The word God means what is general in nature and refers equally to all hypostases, and so does the word man. For he is God, the one who has a divine nature, and he is a human being, the one who has humanity.
Know that in everything that was discussed above, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the incarnation under any circumstances, except for miracles, pleasure, and satisfaction as well.
