Hypostatic Union

Hypostatic Union

By Craig A. Blaising

The doctrine of the hypostatic union, first set forth officially in the defini­tion of faith produced by the Council of Chalcedon (451), concerns the union of the two natures (dyo physes) of deity and humanity in the one hypostasis or person of Jesus Christ. It can be stated as follows: In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united for­ever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion, so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man.

Several important christological issues are highlighted by this doctrine: (1) the unipersonality of the Savior. Nestorianism, which divided the natures as persons, is ruled out. There is only one who is at the same time God and man. Obviously this doctrine excludes any separation between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. (2) The continuity of the Savior's personality. Jesus Christ is the same person who was the pre-existent Logos, the Son of God (John 1:1, 14; 8:58). Thus, every form of adoptionism is ruled out, since the hypostatic union excludes the in­dependent personal subsistence of the human na­ture. (3) The complexity of the Savior's personal­ity. While there is continuity of identity, there is this difference. It is no longer the divine nature alone which is expressed in his person. The human nature, not an impersonal appendage, has its personal subsistence in the Logos. The in­carnate Christ is theanthropos, the God-man. (4) The distinction of the natures. Eutychianism, which confused the natures into a tertium quid, is excluded, along with every form of monophysitism. (5) The perfection of the natures. Every Christology that diminishes either the deity or the humanity of Jesus Christ, from docetism to Socianism, from Arianism to Apollinarianism, would be considered inadequate from the stand­point of this doctrine. Jesus Christ is truly, perfectly, and wholly God, and he is truly, perfectly, and wholly man.

Admittedly, this doctrine leaves many meta­physical questions unanswered. However, it should be noted that this doctrine was not pro­duced as the fruit of philosophic speculation on the possible singulary cosubsistence of the finite and the infinite. Rather it was offered as a precise description of the incarnation recorded in Scrip­ture, drawn from the greatest extent of biblical data and making use of whatever language that might help in that descriptive task (such as the introduction of a technical distinction between physis and hypostasis). The considered biblical data include all the major passages on the incar­nation (such as John 1:1-14; Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 1:1-3), as well as the Gospel narratives and epis­tolary references where the attributes of both na­tures are manifested in one person, the communicatio idiomatum.

Bibliography. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology; G. C. Berkouwer, Person of Christ; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines; R. Norris Jr., ed., Christological Controversy; R. V. Sellers, Council of Chalcedon.

Source: Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.