Christianity offers no greater question than the identity of Jesus and what he accomplished. Paul sees Christ’s resurrection as the linchpin for Christian faith. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Christ being the object of faith means that there is no greater dilemma than a misunderstanding of Christ. The historic church debated and clarified the nature of Christ in order to affirm what he accomplished.

Historical Narrative

Like most moments of doctrinal clarity, Christological clarity was forged through the fires of controversy. The controversy began with Gnosticism, then Monarchianism, then Arianism. Once these three major controversies were largely settled, specific controversy on the exact relation of the human and divine natures of Christ arose.

The first major controversy that questioned the identity of Jesus was Gnosticism. Though some believe New Testament authors were already dealing with some early form of Gnosticism, historical evidence verifies that it was certainly dealt with by the time of Irenaeus (c. 130-200).[1] Gnosticism was influenced by Platonic dualism which separates the physical from the spiritual. This dualism concludes through sophistry that the physical is bad and the spiritual is good. Gnosticism made these same major ontological claims about reality: that the spiritual is real and good and the physical is bad and illusory. It claimed the creator of the physical world to be evil and all who oppose this physical creator (like the serpent) to be good. Gnosticism adapted Christ as a figure who came to rescue people from this physical world and bring them into a spiritual world. They would claim that Jesus only seemed to be physical but was really only spiritual. And thus, they denied the true humanity of Christ.[2]

The second major controversy surrounding Christology was Monarchianism. Monarchianism looks to passages that teach the absolute unity of God. As Dr. Presley says, “Stressing the unity of God could not always understand ho there might be diversity within the unity. . .”[3] Monarchianism emphasized that God was one to the exclusion of the Son and the Spirit within the Godhead. The divinity of the Son is assumed in the New Testament documents and early Christian writers such as Ignatius and Mathetes (in The Epistle to Diagnetus). Hippolytus explains how Jesus became God in the understanding of dynamic Monarchianism, “Jesus was a (mere) man. . .he subsequently—at his baptism in the Jordan River—received Christ.”[4] This merely gave him divine power, though he himself was not divine. Modalistic Monarchianism, on the other hand, taught that Christ was another “mode” of God, not a unique person. So, while one view of unitarianism denied the deity of Christ, the other denied the uniqueness of Christ.

Arianism came along as a form of Dynamic Monarchianism because it essentially denied the divinity of Christ. Arianism was unique because of its immense popularity. Arius was convinced of the impassibility of God which led him to the conclusion that Christ could not be God because he is passible. Arius popularized his teaching with his song writing.[5] Arius wrote a credal statement post-Nicaea that is an attempt at appeasement:

. . .and in Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son who came into existence from him before all the ages, God the Word, through whom all things in the heavens and on earth came into existence, who came down and assumed flesh and suffered, rose and went up into the heavens, and comes again to judge the living and the dead.[6]

Another unique attribute about Arianism is his willingness to call Jesus, “God.” Though he did not mean God in the same since as the one true God, he still used the term in a lesser since. Though Jesus is God, Arius would deny that he is “homoousios” with the Father. Arius was convinced that there was a time “when the Son was not,” and thus denied the true divinity of Christ.

Through all of this, the church meets at an ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325 and again at Constantinople in 381. Both the true divinity and true humanity of Christ are both affirmed as essential. However, how these two natures interact is not cleared up until the Chalcedonian definition. Along the way to Chalcedon, Nestorianism, Eutychianism,  Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism arose as possible answers to the conundrum of communicatio idiomatum—which is the idea that, “Scripture assigns properties of one nature to the other nature (and vice versa).”[7]

Doctrinal Summary

The Scripture affirms the true humanity of Christ. He was born as anyone else save the supernatural conception. He grew in wisdom and statue (Luke 2:52). He ate, grew tired, wept. He suffered and died. For the early Fathers the importance of the true humanity of Christ was often tied to his salvific work. Ignatius writes:

There is only one Physician—
Very flesh, yet Spirit too;
Uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in one agreed;
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary’s seed;
At once impassible and torn
By pain and suffering here below:
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.[8]

Elsewhere Ignatius speaks to the communication of the beautiful antimony of the two natures in one person:

Look to Christ, the Son of God; who was before time, yet appeared in time; who was invisible by nature, yet visible in the flesh. . .who was impassible as God, but became passible for our sakes as man; an who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.[9]

And not only is the full humanity of Christ affirmed by the early Fathers, but so is the divinity of Christ. Justin Martyr after describing the charge of atheism for denying the false gods identifies the true God he worships saying, “. . .not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness. . .But both him and the Son. . .and the Spirit, we worship and adore.”[10] In answering claims that Jesus is not almighty, Tertullian in Against Praxeas writes, “As if, indeed, He which is to come were not almighty; whereas, even the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.”[11] And ironically, the very term Arius pounded to prove the creaturely nature of God is used to show his divinity. While Arius stressed that “begotten” meant “created,” the natural reading of the term means that the one begotten is of the same nature (homoousios) of the begetter.[12]

All of this focuses in on how the two natures of Christ relate in one person. “How is it possible to unite the diving and human in one human being. . .?”[13] Apollinaris proposed that Christ did not have a human soul, but a divine soul and human flesh.[14] This would end up with some hybrid creature which is not truly human nor truly divine. And in this case, the divine nature would swallow up the human nature completely. And though related but not necessarily a result of this, people would refer to Mary as theotokos—that is “bearer of God.” Nestorius was wary of this title because it too made it seem like Christ’s divine nature had overtaken his human nature. Though he continued to make distinctions between the two natures to the extent that it seemed if Christ were two persons rather than one.[15] Salvation being at the core of the controversy over the natures of Christ forced Cyril, in the tradition of Athanasius, to say that Christ in his full person has suffered death and overcome it. If that is only true of the divine nature that would have no efficaciousness for the human race. If that is only true of the human nature, then it would be impossible for Jesus to have conquered death.[16] Tertullian teaches that these two natures are not mixed to form some new nature that is neither God nor man. Rather, “We see plainly the twofold state—which is not confounded but conjoined in one person—Jesus, God and Man.”[17]

Reflection

Worship in the church has ebbed and flowed throughout history in any given moment. Specifically, worship of Christ has had different emphases revolving around his two natures. When Christ’s divinity is stressed, so is his transcendence, judgement, and power. Fear can easily overcome joyful gratitude in such worship. When Christ’s humanity is stressed, one’s own personal experience with him in his immanence becomes the focus. The modern church has thrown both imbalances out and as instead decided to focus on individual’s personal problems and Christ’s ability to fix those problems.

When those problems are big, perhaps “miracles” and Christ’s divinity is stressed. When those problems are internal and based on everyday stressors, Christ’s humanity and sympathy is stressed. The modern problem is deeper than just having a wrong emphasis on the natures of Christ. The modern problem is separating Christ from his work. The ancient church saw Christ’s nature as inseparable from his work. When discussing Christ’s humanity, it was tied to his ability to intercede for humans. When discussing Christ’s divinity, it was tied to his ability to overcome the grave and save humanity from sin and its consequence of death.

The modern theological fad has redefined the problem of ontologically objective sin and rebellion against God into a subjective need of self-fulfillment and self-worth. The goal for the worship of Christ has become to make oneself feel better and encouraged rather than a response of gratitude for redemption or bowing the knee in adoration of his majestic lordship.

In summary, modern Christology (on a popular level) has separated Christ’s nature from his work and emphasized his humanity for sympathy and divinity for mere individual psychological aide. When worship becomes a means it betrays its object and shows that the thing adored and worship is really the self not the savior.

What is needed is a whole Christ for whole worship. The early church understood the importance of keeping Christ’s nature together with his work. The two are inseparable. The early church also learned through controversy to have balance on the hypostatic union. And the two natures are united in one person for a purpose: to magnify the work of the God-man. Truly God and truly man, Christ Jesus is to be worshipped, not as a means to an end, but as an end in and of himself.

[1] Alister Edgar Mcgrath, Historical Theology : An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 24.

[2] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, vol. 1 (New York: Harperone, 2010), 72.

[3] Stephen Presley, “The Trinity in the Early Church,” 25270 WW: Early Christian Doctrine (class lecture, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, accs. 24 April, 2025).

[4] Gregg R Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011), 235.

[5] Timothy P Jones, Christian History Made Easy (Peabody, MA: Rose Publishing, 2009), 38-39.

[6] William G Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 53.

[7] Stephen O. Presley, Biblical Theology in the Life of the Early Church: Recovering an Ancient Vision (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2025), 112.

[8] Michael A G Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers : Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 43.

[9] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A, Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 94.

[10] Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 164.

[11] Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian, vol. 3, 613.

[12] Ronald E Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine: Introducing the Essentials of the Ancient Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 71.

[13] Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine, 80.

[14] Stephen Presley, “Christology in the Early Church,” 25270 WW: Early Christian Doctrine (class lecture, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, accs. 29 April, 2025).

[15] Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine, 83.

[16] Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine, 86.

[17] Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian, vol. 3, 624.