We have already covered the aspects of Christ’s humanity and divinity. For that discussion you can see part one of Understanding Jesus. In history there were also examples of wrong teaching regarding the incarnation. As we endeavor to accurately understand the incarnation of Christ, it can be helpful to look at what it is not. So, we now turn our attention to what the incarnation of Jesus does NOT mean.

Three Inadequate Views of the Incarnation

1. Apollinarianism (Apollinaris – Bishop of Laodicea, 361)
This view taught that Christ had only a divine nature in a human body. If this were the case, he would not have been fully man. The Biblical response to this is found in in Hebrews 2:17.

2. Nestorianism (Nestor Bishop of Constantinople, 428 May not have taught this himself)
This view taught that there were two, separate persons in the body of Christ. However, when Jesus referred to himself, it was singular (John 14:). Furthermore, when Jesus spoke as “we” it referenced him and the Father (John 14:23).

3. Monophysitism (Eutychianism) (Eutyches- Leader at a Monastery in Constantinople from 378-454)
This view taught that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by the divine nature. An example of this would be drop of ink in a glass of water. This view fails because in order to be an acceptable sacrifice, Jesus had to be fully man (Heb. 2:16-17).

The Solution to the Controversy
Chalcedonian Definition – Came at The Council of Chalcedon near Constantinople, AD 451

This is also called the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union, meaning the union of Christ’s human and divine natures into one being. This has been accepted as the standard, orthodox teaching by all Catholic and Protestant branches.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. (Grudem, 556-557)

So, in other words, Christ has two natures, a human nature and divine nature. The Divine nature is exactly the same as that of the Father; we use the word consubstantial, to describe this. The human nature is exactly like our human nature, yet without sin. In the person of Christ the human nature retains its distinctive characteristics and the divine nature retains its distinctive characteristics. The union of the two doesn’t change them or cause them to “morph.” Lastly, whether we can understand it or not, these two natures united together into the person of Christ (Grudem, 557-558).

Sources for this article:
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology; An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.
Lewis, Kevin. Personal notes from Essential Christian Doctrine Lectures. Biola University; La Mirada, CA, 2013.
Shedd, William G.T. Dogmatic Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003.