And so, Christ is the God-man. This is what is meant when theologians refer to Christ as the Theanthropos (theo=God; ánthrōpos=human). This ontological characterization of Christ is summarized in the Chalcedonian Definition (CD) which asserts these four fundamental theses about Christ: (1) Christ is numerically one person; (2) Christ is both fully human and fully divine; (3) the human and divine natures of Christ are distinct; and (4) Christ unifies His human and divine natures. Although the CD successfully refutes a number of heresies, the claim that Christ is fully human and fully divine is not explained. This issue therefore continues to be a subject of controversy among philosophers and theologians. The primary controversy relates to the logical compatibility of human and divine attributes. The Bible is clear that Christ is God (Jn 1:1; Jn 10:30; Jn 20:28; Tit 2:13) and that Christ has many human attributes like a human body (Phil 2:7), the ability to suffer (1 Pt 3:18), and the ability to grow in wisdom (Lk 2:52). But the Bible does not explain how Christ can simultaneously be fully human and fully divine.
The logical problem of the CD can be represented as follows: (A) something fully human is not omniscience, omnipotence, nor omnipresence; (B) something fully divine is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; and (C) if Christ is a single person that is both fully human and fully divine, He must be both omniscient and not omniscient, both omnipotent and not omnipotent, and both omnipresence and not omnipresent. This difficulty cannot be dismissed as a mystery beyond human understanding as it seems to imply logical contradictions. I refer to this as the Chalcedonian Definition Difficulty (CDD). Each of the heresies addressed at Chalcedon solves the CDD with a different approach but, in doing so, contradict the CD in one-or-more areas.
Theologians have attempted to solve the CDD in many ways that are typically categorized as either abstract models or concrete models. Some abstract models include the Alvinized abstract-nature view, the Reaified abstract-nature view, neo-Apollinarianism, ontological kenotism, functional kenotism, and the abstract two minds view. These models all involve the Logos undergoing change in order to become human. Some concrete models include prophetic and compositional. These involve the Logos entering a relational union with a human body or soul-body. Brief descriptions of these Christological models are now provided.
Alvinized Abstract-Nature. This model was developed by Alvin Plantigna. It holds that the Logos became a human soul at the time of virginal conception. This involves the Logos adding any properties that are necessary and sufficient for it to become a human soul that exists within the material body of Jesus.
Reaified Abstract-Nature. This model was developed by Michael Rea. It holds that the incarnate Christ did not require a human soul. Rather, the Logos simply assumed the role of a human soul within the material body of Jesus at the time of virginal conception. In this model, Christ incarnate does not have a human soul per se, but a functional equivalent.
Neo-Apollinarianism. This view holds that the Logos already had all of the attributes required to be fully human prior to the incarnation. The only thing missing was a human body. Therefore, when the Logos joined with a human body, the resulting union possessed all of the elements required to be both fully human and fully divine.
Ontological Kenotism. This view holds that the Logos, in the instant before the incarnation, ceded all of the divine attributes that would prevent the God-man from being fully human. This concept is derived from the NT reference to kenosis. Kenosis is derived from the Greek word kenoō (κενόω), which means to empty or to make empty. It appears once in once in Scripture, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied (kenoō) Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:5-7).
Functional Kenotism. This view holds that the Logos did not actually cede any divine attributes during the incarnation. Rather, the Logos simply refrained from using any of the divine attributes that would have been incompatible with the God-man from being fully human. Functional kenotism therefore does not interpret Phil 2:5-1 to mean a literal emptying out of divine attributes, but a suspension of use of certain ones such as omniscience and omnipresence.
Abstract Two Minds. This model was developed by Thomas Morris. It holds that Christ incarnate has both a divine mind and a human mind, and that the human mind is contained within the divine mind. The result is a asymmetric accessing relationship where the divine mind has full access to the human mind but the human mind only has access to the divine mind to the extent that the divine mind allows. Of course, God can access any human mind and give any human mind access to divine knowledge. The difference in the abstract two minds model is that these two minds are part of the same person. Morris writes, “[T]he cognitive and causal powers of God the Son … under the constraints proper to the conditions of a fully human existence, were just such as to give rise to a human mind … two minds of one person, one center of causal and cognitive powers.”[i]
Prophetic Model. Prophetic models hold that Jesus was a prophet akin to OT prophets but was given a unique and special relationship with God the Father, most commonly understood to have occurred at His baptism. An example of the prophetic model is adoptionism.
Compositional Model. The Chalcedonian Definition asserts that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. But the Incarnate Christ also involves concrete things such as the Logos, a human body, and a human soul. Compositional Christologies attempt to explain how these three concrete things become relationally related in the Incarnation. An example of a compositional model is Nestorianism, which is heretical in that it views the Incarnation as two separate persons (a divine person and a human person). Classical Christology is also considered a concrete compositional model. It holds that the Logos assumed human nature consisting of a human body and a human soul. This differs from heretical view like Apollinarianism, where the Logos joins with a human body but not a human soul. It also differs from the abstract two minds model in that the Logos acquires a human nature that includes a separate consciousness and a will rather than these being contained within the divine mind.
The concept of kenosis has been introduced above through the Christological models of ontological kenotism and functional kenotism. There are several other interpretations of kenosis that warrant mention. A strong form of ontological kenosis is Christ emptying Himself of all divine attributes during the Incarnation. A weak form of ontological kenosis is Christ emptying Himself of only some divine attributes during the Incarnation (e.g., omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence) while keeping others (e.g., holiness, truth, love). Both of these have a variation where Christ still retains all of His divine attributes, but in a modified form that is compatible with space-time existence. Last, some interpretations of kenosis do not involve divine attributes. An example is Christ emptying himself of His position of heavenly glory to become a humble man.
All of the above Christological models are, in some way, inconsistent with the CD. The sole exception is classic Christology, which is essentially an extension of the CD. However, classic Christology does not solve the CDD problem. There is not a biblical answer to the CDD, and so the best we can do it to identify at least one possible solution to show that the CD is not self-contradictory. One possible solution is called the divine preconscious model (DPM).[ii]
In the DPM, the Logos when becoming incarnate adds a human body and a human mind to His full divinity, just as with classical Christology. A human personality is not added since Christ is a single human/divine person and therefore only has a single personality. The human mind serves as the conscious mind. The divine mind serves as the preconscious mind. The preconscious has knowledge that is accessible to the conscious in a process similar to recalling a memory. The preconscious is still fully the Logos and is able to, for example, sustain creation and enable miracles. This model also allows the conscious to have a human will and the preconscious to have a separate divine will.
DPM has the Logos adding a human body and a human mind. The human body and mind interact like all humans, except that there is no original sin or original guilt. The divine mind acts as a pre-conscience that can interact with the human conscience as needed. For example, the human conscience will not normally be aware of people’s thoughts. But the human conscience can become aware of other people’s thoughts by accessing the divine pre-conscience. The divine pre-conscience can also enable miraculous acts through its divine power. For example, before feeding the masses Jesus’s human conscience could simply ask the divine pre-conscience what should be done. The divine pre-conscience would then instruct the human conscience and also empower the miracle.
To avoid the Apollinarianism heresy, Christ must have both a human and a divine will. In DPM these wills interact in a manner similar to the human conscience and divine pre-conscience. The human conscience is normally aware of the human will. However, the human conscience can access the divine will through the divine pre-conscience. This helps to explain Jesus’s plea to the Father, “Abba, Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will” (Mk 14:36).
DPM is speculative and cannot be shown true by Scripture. But that is not the point. Rather, DPM shows that the CD is not necessarily self-contradictory. Ultimately, the single person of Christ that is fully human and fully divine is a mystery beyond our full understanding.
[i] Thomas Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1986: 162.
[ii] More detailed treatment of the Divine Preconscious Model can be found in the following journal articles by Andrew Loke: “On Dyothelitism Versus Monothelitism: The Divine Preconscious Model,” Heythrop Journal, Vol. 57 Issue 1, Jan. 2016: 135-141; “On the Coherence of the Incarnation: The Divine Preconscious Model,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 51 no. 1, 2009: 50-63.
Leave a Reply