Introduction
The Savior who entered the world granted humanity many great benefits, one of which is that human beings rediscovered their true purpose and dignity. Christ, who became a person, demonstrated to humans how valuable they are in the eyes of God. However, the perception of this revelation can only be in the context of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it is essential to trace the development of Christ’s theology through the ancient ecumenical councils and reflect on how they developed the Church’s understanding of Jesus beyond the New Testament.
The First Ecumenical Council
The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council composed a Creed called the Nicene Creed, in contrast to the Nicene Creed, now used in Orthodox liturgy. The majority of the Creed reveals the Orthodox teaching on the divine dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is stated briefly about human nature and the Incarnation of God in general: “for our sakes as men and for our salvation He became incarnate, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and came to judge the living and the dead”( Gentium 5) Despite the brevity, these phrases contain the two most critical doctrinal statements. The first is a brief statement of the meaning of the Incarnation of God, and the second testifies to the truth of what occurred and the reality of Jesus’ human nature. This testimony was necessary because, from the first centuries of Christianity, false teachers taught about the illusory nature of the Incarnation of God and the ghostliness of the Savior’s flesh.
The Second Ecumenical Council
At the second Ecumenical Council, convened to defeat Arianism, the Nicene Creed was supplemented. It is important to note that the Nicene Creed was not only supplemented concerning the last five members if we use its division, according to St. Philaret’s Catechism but also greatly expanded in that part of it which speaks of the Incarnation of God (Gentium 7). This addition is because, in the Arians’ discussions, there were questions about the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the Lord’s human nature. In addition, at that time, great confusion in the church environment was produced by the false teaching of Apollinarius of Laodicea. The bishop claimed that in Christ, the human mind had been replaced by the Divine Logos. Apollinarius, who somewhat modified the Arian teaching, gave prominence and popularity to their ideas concerning the human nature of Christ.
The Arians and Apollinarians essentially professed a form of Docetism, so the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council also added substantially to the part of the Creed that speaks of the reality of the Incarnation of God. The meaning of the Lord’s atoning sufferings was specified and elaborated through a concrete-historical description, which attested to the validity of the Incarnation of God and the truth of Christ’s human nature.
The Third Ecumenical Council
The Third Ecumenical Council did not produce a specific doctrine but condemned Nestorius and thus condemned Nestorian Christology. The teachers of Nestorius, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia are rightly considered to be the founders of the latter. However, since this Council did not clearly define content, Nestorian theology, having slightly modified (for example, agreeing with the veneration of the Virgin Mary), continued to exist after this Council (Albl 34). The dogmatic result of the Council’s work is also the granting of high doctrinal status to the 12 anathematisms of Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council
It was necessary to draw a clear distinction between Orthodoxy and Nestorianism, on the one hand, and Orthodoxy and Monophysitism, on the other. This was accomplished in the famous Chalcedonian Creed. The Chalcedonian Oros defines to confess the Lord according to humanity as “truly human, the same of mind and body” this statement means that the human nature of Christ is real and in one essence with the human race (Bevans and Gros 45). Thus, the Nicene expression “incarnate” was reinforced, and not only the Arian and Apollinarian ideas were rejected, but also any variant of Docetistic Christology. In addition, the Chalcedonian Oros confesses faith in Christ perfect in both natures. The human and divine characters of Christ are considered similar to men, but Christ was without sin. In proving Apollinarius wrong in teaching, the holy fathers stated that Christ was a perfect human being because of the presence of a human mind and without sinfulness.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council
In the theological literature, one frequently underestimates the significance of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In dogmatic terms, however, the 14 anathematisms of this Council can hardly be overestimated. In particular, the 12th anathematism contains the final Church-wide condemnation and anathema of the idea of Theodore of Mopsuestia regarding the gradually perfecting Christ (Bevans and Gros 38). Acknowledging the subjection of Christ’s flesh to original sin would be, in essence, an admission of the devil’s power over the human nature of the Savior. However, this fundamentally contradicts the Savior’s witness to Himself: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me” (Bevans and Gros 50) Thus, the Fifth Council is affirmed by the assertion that Christ came and left the earth without sin.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council
The Sixth Ecumenical Council revealed the doctrine of the perfection of Christ’s human nature in its voluntary aspect. The bishops pointed out that Christ, a perfect man, also had a human will. It may be argued that on the question of the two wills in Christ, the orthodox fathers also, in essence, upheld the doctrine of the perfection of Christ’s two natures. For if there were no divine and human will in Christ, both natures would not have natural fullness and thus would not have natural perfection (Valkenberg and Cirelli 11). In addition, in the materials of this council, there is an epistle of Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem. In addition to the evidence for the presence of the human will in Christ, the epistle contains profound considerations of the Savior’s unconquerable infirmities (Valkenberg and Cirelli 11). This explains the debate of the natural and the voluntary in the human nature of the Savior, indicating that these infirmities in the human nature of Christ were both natural and voluntary.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council
The Council was convened against the Iconoclastic heresy; it condemned and rejected the Iconoclastic heresy and determined to place holy icons in churches, to honor and worship them with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord. At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over iconoclasts and all heretics, the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established (Valkenberg and Cirelli 11). The Council thus upheld and preserved the tradition of icon-worship.
Conclusion
Therefore, it should be noted that no Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church placed questions about the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ at the center of its catholic consideration. They were covered in the context of other theological themes. It can be asserted, however, that each of the seven Ecumenical Councils has brought to important light attributes of the human and divine nature of the Savior. Hence it has been established that Christ is blameless and possesses a human mind and will. It was established that Jesus came to earth to save the human race.
Works Cited
Albl, Martin. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Saint Mary’s Press, 2009.
Bevans, Stephen B., and Jeffrey Gros. Evangelization and Religious Freedom: Ad Gentes, Dignitatis humanae. Paulist Press, 2009.
Gentium, Lumen. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. St. Paul, 1964.
Valkenberg, Pim, and Anthony Cirelli. Nostra Aetate. CUA Press, 2016.