Patristic Christology Through Chalcedon

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

time to do homew- YOOOOO new Jordan Cooper lecture just dropped!!!

[@smez]

It's funny that many of those who argue that John's Christology is too high for the time of the synoptics and thus must be a result of later theological development have no problem admitting that Philippians is earlier than the synoptics, and some of them even saying that the Carmen Christi in particular might be even older than the epistle itself, as that seems to tell the exact same incarnation account that John does :)

[@chemnitzfan654]

It is indeed ironic and just shows that so much of liberal scholarship is based on supporting a conclusion instead of finding one.

[@logicaredux5205]

Rich, deep and fulfilling sampling of early Christology. Gloria Christo!

[@cwstreeper]

Per usual, an excellent commentary and exposition of early Christology. Thank you.

[@carlpeterson8182]

Yes, most patristic scholars I know have rejected the two school theory. they were rejecting it at least 15 years ago. So it has been awhile. One scholar asked me what is the great orthodox Antichene theologian? He had already pretty much ruled out Chrystosom but he is looked at as a great pastor and rhetorician more than the church scholar like an Origen (not so orthodox) , Athanasius, and Cyril. But yes the major Antichene theologians of that time writings have not faired too well in conservative and orthodox circles. Cyril was a jerk but his theology is one of the best during the Patristic time period. He really had some great thoughts. My favorite church fathers have always been Irenaeus (what Prostestant does not love him), Athansius, Gregor of Nazianzus (because I think I understand his personality and he has some great thoughts and rhetoric) and finally Cyril of Alexandria. I get some of my high view of the Eucharist and what grace it provides from Cyril. It does not provide a grace for justification but it does for sanctification and deification (Christofication (sp?) for Dr. Cooper) But I really think the Eucharist is a medicine for the soul. Preaching and teaching the word is great but so are the sacraments. And so is prayer. The sacraments and prayers get side lined in some later Reformed thought as second casas citizens. I like a view held by Calvin and Nevin more than the more divine absence view of some of the later Reformed theologians.

[@collettewhitney2141]

An absolute amazing presentation as always another thought provoking material to think over God bless you brother 💕💞💔✝️

[@shooterdownunder]

I think you could pull off the philosopher’s robe

[@josephparks4270]

I love your acknowledging that critical positions exist. We do ourselves no favors by pretending that those positions don't exist, or that they do exist but are "ok."

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Historical-critical scholarship deserves every critique you throw at it. I was trained that way, but never felt comfortable with it because of all of its untested assumptions and the fact that those assumptions determine the conclusions. I think the dating of the gospels needs to be totally reevaluated without Historical critical assumptions that were made. I have seen some treatments of that but cannot recall where.

[@augustinian2018]

Dr. Cooper, love the channel! Though I’m Anglican, I think you Lutherans do basically have the strongest Christology. That said, have you ever considered interviewing the Australian Anglican biblical scholar Michael Bird on early Christology and early heresies like Ebionism? He’s pushed back on some of the historical critical “orthodoxy” that the Ebionite groups were uniformly adoptionist and active in the 1st century, and he’s also part of/associated with the early high Christology club (but makes a concerted effort to maintain orthodoxy, basically defending the position that the early church did ultimately get it right; as he rather amusingly puts it, “Tradition is how you learn which mushrooms in the forest are poisonous without a trip to the hospital.”) He and you seem to share much of the same alarm regarding new (/old) teachings like eternal functional subordinationism as Matthew Barrett-he had an interview with Matthew Barrett that was quite similar to yours. (His KZbin channel is unsubtly named Early Christian History with Michael Bird, for what it’s worth.)

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Yes, I am vey familiar with Bird's work from a time when I was reading a lot on the New Perspective on Paul debates. And yes, his work on early Christology is very much worthwhile.

[@augustinian2018]

@@DrJordanBCooper I can see how the new perspectives on Paul might be a point of contention. I’ve been hoping to eventually get time to do a deep dive into Pauline soteriology to make a much closer reading of the Pauline epistles in my NA27 as well as the relevant second temple Jewish and Ante-Nicene Christian sources with an eye to this topic, in addition to the classic and contemporary literature by folks like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Bird, Das, Westerholm, Barclay, Moo, Schreiner, and Gorman, as well as you yourself and Matthew Thomas for studies on the reception history. While I do incline toward Bird’s both/and fusion of NPP insights and something like the traditional Lutheran stance, I just haven’t made a sufficiently deep dive yet myself to be convinced of any set of particulars. Still in the middle of a similar project on historical Jesus studies and early Christology (which is how I became acquainted with Michael Bird’s work), so it might be a while before I get off the ground on a Paul study (I do find the evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels and early high Christology quite convincing-that at least I’m settled on). I do wish more contemporary Lutheran exegetes were active in this field, though-the only work by a living confessional Lutheran arguing for early high Christology I’ve come across is the CTSFW prof Charles Gieschen’s work on Angelomorphic Christology, thanks to a footnote in Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Gieschen’s work actually overlaps quite nicely with Simon Gathercole’s from the book of his you referenced, The Pre-existent Christ: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

[@drewpanyko5424]

Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Any chance you'll do a video on the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

It would be worthwhile, but honestly I'd have to spend a little more time in St. Maximus.

[@drewpanyko5424]

@@DrJordanBCooper Understood; I always appreciate your insights. The books by Andrew Louth and Lars Thunberg are great places to start. Thanks for replying!

[@theknitfoxvideography5795]

Dr. Cooper, have you ever read or considered doing a video/response on the book How Catholic Art Saved the Faith by Elizabeth Lev? I know you are interested in art as well as theology and this was a good book for those discussions. I feel like she is very triumphalist in her writing and I can't remember even a mention of protestant artists, but it's a good read and good fodder for a discussion and a critique.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello I’m at 12:54 I don’t think John says anything about a pre existent figure becoming flesh He doesn’t say the son of man became flesh He doesn’t say Jesus became flesh He says the word became flesh Nowhere in the Old Testament is the logos ever a person I don’t think he’s saying that at all God’s word or wisdom was seen as embodied in the Torah It pitched its tent in Jacob (Wisdom literature) I think the idea is that God’s word/wisdom, the logos is now embodied by the human Messiah It doesn’t say Jesus became flesh Or the son became flesh I think 1 John supports this The word of life, God’s word “That which” Not “he who” The word is not a person also don’t think ego eimi is a divine name reference He says it earlier in the same chapter and nobody gets upset They actually say “who are you?” The idea that he claims the divine name doesn’t really work when the Jews respond “who are you?” Also like 11 verses later in John 9:9 The healed blind man says “ego eimi” He’s not claiming the divine name (Btw I enjoyed your video on prayer to saints in the early church and enjoy listening to you, not just here disagreeing to disagree) In the prayer to saints video you mention how Catholics and Protestants both may take excerpts here and there and try to make us sound like a text supports a position (example papacy) I think we need to be careful not to do that with John or any text of the New Testament “Gave birth to God” You’d think such an idea would be expressed in scripture We have whole chapters and sections on things, but it’s crazy to think it wasn’t important enough to write a chapter about “giving birth to God” or something so bold

[@dylancooper3690]

Very interesting. Please continue with this topic.

[@DrMJS]

Philosopher Robe? Hmmm I'd like one too

[@eddieck123]

I think Christians and Christianity's scholarship has admitted just John's gospel, the three epistles and revelations as the only John's heritage omitting the other branch of its heritage, as the misscalled gnostic writings such as the apocryphon of John and Sethian literature, as the very least, even when you can trace them from the same time. If you want to talk about the Johannine heritage so do it completely, because as any of the canonical texts was written by him, the same happens with the other branches and they also reclaim John's heritage This historical overview was pretty amazing, thank you very much

[@Outrider74]

I have a friend who helps out with an Assyrian church. He could probably tell you more about what they believe.

[@donatist59]

The Catholic Church signed an agreement some years ago with the Assyrian Church of the East affirming that both share essentially the same christology. But the Assyrians still don't explicitly accept Ephesus.

[@carlpeterson8182]

Gavrilyuk's book suffering of the impassible God is amazing. So is Thomas Weinandy's book Does God Suffer? I read those a long time ago when I studied impassibility for a paper I was writing for seminary. Gavrilyuk's book just came out. Both use Cyril of Alexandria's theology a lot. I think Cyril is the king of patristic Christology. Chalcedon could be seen as a debate of 2 sides or understandings of his Christology. Patristic Christology is so interesting. So many just skip most of it to get to Chalcedon too quickly. I am Reformed but I am not always happy with Reformed Christology. I have really been too influenced by Orhtodox and patristic christology. Some of the Refomred arguments against Lutheran and other real presence views are not the greatest. I still hold to spiritual presence but I am very sympathetic and have an almost real presence view. not a fan of the roman Catholic view but an Orthodox or Lutheran view I find much more palatable. At least how I understand both of them. the Lutheran view can be a little tricky to know what is taught. I have heard multiple teachings on what consubstantiation means and if it is even a Lutheran understanding at all. John Behr's 2 book Nicene Faith series which is a follow up to his first book Way to Nicaea is a great book on Christology also. It speaks about deification and really is a major book on patristic theology according to the scriptures. but the series tackles a lot of patristic theology including the doctrine of the trinity and Christology.

[@benmizrahi2889]

So, just to clarify something once and for all: The Lutheran understanding of the real presence, regardless of how one understands the term co-substantiation (I also heard multiple definitions for the term as a Lutheran, some of them are truly bizarre) is the Sacramental Union view. That simply says we have both physical bread and wine and the physical body and blood of Jesus, and that the eating of the real body and blood is a mystical rather than Capernaitic (read, cannibalistic and carnal) eating and leaves it at that.

[@georgorwell-cq2vw]

what is the role of Christ himself in his own resurrection in lutheran theology : was he himself also ACTIVELY effected his own resurrection or he was just PASSIVELY resurrected by the father & the holy spirit .. ?

[@arthurbrugge2457]

I watched an interview with a former catholic, now baptist, and he used some strange, forced alternative expression for mother of God/Theotokos. He also seemed to have some other suspect ideas regarding christology. I'm not sure if they do it to take a dig at catholicism, or just because of faulty theology.

[@NB-qo4ds]

Thanks for the shout out to classicists. Gratias ago tibi.

[@carlpeterson8182]

Yes, Cyril's one nature view should be looked at as a one subject view more than what some would call a one nature view. He actually was okay with a two nature view per a later letter. Where did you find that Cyril taught that Chrsit's human nature was almost emotionless? I do not remember that from my studies but it has been a whole since I seriously studied Cyril's theology or really read his works.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I'll go back and look through my underlines and such in Cyril's writings. I can't recall exactly where I came across that.

[@carlpeterson8182]

@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you. It is not super important but I would like to know. I know Cyril does make much use of Christ's human nature being affected in the positive by his divine nature while still remaining human.

[@SolarSiege]

Well we need to understand what was meant by one nature

[@fluffyhead04]

This was helpful

[@richardfrerks8712]

Question.. Dr. Cooper.. Would you do a study series in the Book of Hebrews?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Maybe. I have thought about doing some book studies.

[@dukeofstonehaven4039]

This is a great talk. Wish I had had half as good a presentation of this subject at University. I tend to lean towards Reformed theology and I have found Reformed people who I read and listen to affirm the hypostatic union and Mary as theotokos. As you compare Lutheran and Reformed Christology, can you be as quote heavy as possible, as right now I don't buy your claim that the Reformed would be Nestorian. God bless.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Don't worry, we'll get to that.

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

Why does Ignatius say "first passible, then impassible"? It seems to be adoptionist?!

[@mitchellc4]

I’m only 34 minutes in but you don’t seem to mention that a lot of the early people you talk of were subordinationist, logos theorists etc They may have called Jesus “god” Thought he pre existed Was “divine” But they didn’t teach that he was the one God Some taught he was a lesser divine figure or held second place and that the Father was the one God, Jesus was a lesser divine figure who may be called “god” or “divine”, they may even say there was a time when the Son was not So for people who don’t know these things they may hear this and think all these people you mention believed Jesus was “fully God”, “co equal” Co substantial”, believed in a tri personal God When that’s simply not the case There’s no talk of a tri personal God even at Nicea There’s no talk of a second co equal person along side the one God A lot of them were subordinationist And believed the Father was the one God and Jesus was lesser

[@Mygoalwogel]

Jn 1:3 “Without him became *not one* that has become.” How many ‘things’ is Logos? One. How many things came to be without Logos? Zero. The Bible _does_ say Jesus is Uncreated Creator. Col 2:9 “For in him dwells all the fullness of The Deity bodily.” What aspect of The Deity does Jesus lack? None at all. Rom 9:5 “Christ according to the flesh being over all God.” What is Christ over? All. The Bible _does_ say Jesus is “My God” Jn 20:28, “God over all” Rom 9:5, “Our God and Savior” 2 Peter 1:1; 3:18, “the only-begotten God” Jn 1:18 The Bible _does_ say Jesus is “The God” Heb 1:8, “The Great God” Titus 2:13, “I AM” Jn 8:58, That we can pray to him Acts 7:59, and that God bought us with his own blood. Acts 20:28 Prototokos means preeminent: Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9 (LXX 38:9); Ps 89:27; 2 Sam 19:43; Heb 12:23

[@mitchellc4]

@@Mygoalwogel Hello Let’s do one at a time John 1:3 Nothing was made without the logos I agree! Now, can you find a single example where the word of God (the logos) is a person in the Old Testament?? Did you know I believe most if not all translations before the KJV said “it” All things were made through it The logos is not a person It’s God’s word In John 5 Jesus said to his critics that God’s word (logon) didn’t dwell in them for they do not receive the one God sent Are we really to believe Jesus is saying that a pre existing spirit being didn’t dwell in them?? Again, God’s word is never a person in the Old Testament See 1 John 1 The word of life That which Not “he who” “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was the Father”?? That won’t work

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@mitchellc4 Sounds like a good format. Takeaway so far: 1. You *_agree_* with Trinitarians that Logos is Uncreated Creator. Good. 2. You *_disagree_* with Trinitarians that Logos has personhood. Is that correct? 3. You seem to *_misunderstand_* Trinitarians when you suggest, "'In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was the Father'??" No Trinitarian draws this conclusion. Concerning 2, above: Premise 2.1: The Deity is Personal. Premise 2.2: Jn 1:14 Jesus = Logos. Premise 2.3: Col 2:9 “For in him dwells all the fullness of The Deity bodily.” What aspect of The Deity does Jesus lack? None at all. Conclusion 2.4: Logos is Personal.

[@mitchellc4]

@@Mygoalwogel Hello I’m not claiming that trinitarians say that claim about John 1:1 I’m claiming that’s what their argument leads to The word was with God Clearly the word was with the Father I assume we agree Well we probably won’t change the meaning of God the next time So it means the Father both times - the word was with the Father, the word was the Father - You can’t insert Jesus or the Son for the word and have that be coherent You can however leave it as God’s word, which was with him, and is him Your word isn’t someone else You claim the logos os personal but you didn’t address my question Where in the Old Testament is the logos, the word of God, ever a person?? I’m still waiting on that John doesn’t say the Son became flesh He doesn’t say Jesus became flesh He says God’s word (which you haven’t shown to be a person) tabernacles among us Became flesh The word tabernacled in Jesus God’s word, dwelt in Jesus The Father dwelt in Jesus, as he said in John! The Father who dwells in me does the works! It’s not “the Son tabernacled in Jesus” Or “Jesus tabernacled in Jesus” That doesn’t work I haven’t seen you provide an example where the logos is a person in the Old Testament Similar to Wisdom in Proverbs Jesus is referred to by Paul as the Wisdom of God Does that mean a female spirit being named Wisdom transformed into a human named Jesus?? Paul calls Jesus the Power of God, does that mean a pre existing being named power transformed into a human?? And the logos did too? Three beings transformed into a human? No Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom and power By the way this doesn’t seem to have much to do with my comment I’m happy to have this discussion though! But my comment was how these early people mentioned like Justin Martyr and so on, we’re not trinitarians They were subordinationist Some saying Jesus was a lesser god Some saying there was a time the Son didn’t exist And I wondered why he never mentions that at all They may call Jesus “divine” or “god” But they don’t see him as the ONE GOD That is the Father for a lot of them

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@mitchellc4 Okay, you are seriously misunderstanding Trinitarianism. You said, "Clearly the word was with the Father I assume we agree" No. "The Word was with Deity and the Word was Deity." No mention of the Father. Your entire point here is invalid. You requested "Let’s do one at a time," which is good enough reason to wait with your Old Testament demand. Moreover, it is merely a Gideon's fleece of your own invention. The point can be proved or disproven without it, which I believe I did in my last reply. We can get to that after coming to a understandings "one at a time." It does not say the word tablernacled in Jesus. Rather it says "Logos egeneto sarx." The Logos egeneto sarx is who tabernacled among *us.* The Word made flesh is who tablernacled among us. The Word made flesh is clearly Jesus. Sticking to the good rule, "Let's do this one at a time," I'm presently disregarding your Proverbs speel, and am not addressing whether your initial post is historically accurate or not.

[@Mike65809]

Chalcedon had it wrong by maintaining that Christ had two natures. BUT he said he did his miracle by the Father dwelling in him. It was not his own power. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Right? All he said and did came from the Father. So where did the two natures idea come from? What was deity was his spiritual identity of the Logos. That Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit.

[@donatist59]

What Church do you speak for?

[@Mike65809]

@@donatist59 I don't represent any church. I am trying to communicate what the Bible actually teaches about our Lord. Man's ideas are trumped by the Bible, always. It almost seems that the Chalcedon framers forgot the Gospel of John. Amen?

[@evan7391]

@@Mike65809 except for your ideas right? Your reasoning is never flawed 🤦

[@Mike65809]

@@evan7391 Not at all. Just look at what the Scripture says about him and let the chips fall where they will. Don't worry. I believe Jesus is Lord. His identity never changed in the Incarnation and he was given the HS without measure. But he did become a man.

[@paulvoit5610]

​@@Mike658091) How can you possibly get that Jesus is not a man in the Gospel of John? 2) How can you possibly get that Jesus is not God in the Gospel of John?

[@honey2badger]

Sometimes I feel like theology is a riddle. The trinity is 1 nature 3 persons, but those 3 persons are NOT in society with each other. All 3 persons share the same will and each work together and can do nothing without the other ad extra. This is all monotheistic and make for only ONE GOD. Then Jesus is 2 nature's but only 1 person and yet has 2 wills in that 1 person. I feel like the word person has 2 different definitions in each theological position. Just something I've noticed...

[@smez]

No person (hypostasis) refers to the same thing in both cases, which is a particular of something general (the general being ousia, or nature). In the case of Christ, he is one hypostasis of the divine ousia, and this is eternally true as he is eternally generated from the Father and derives his ousia from him as his true offspring. In the incarnation this one hypostasis assumes into himself our human ousia and unites his divinity with our humanity within his own person (which is why the doctrine of the two natures of Christ is also called the hypostatic union, i.e. the union of two ousiai in one hypostasis). So Christ is a divine hypostasis who becomes a divine and human hypostasis (but still one single hypostasis) by assuming the second ousia (human nature) into his person, uniting the divine and the human without change in either ousia but both retaining their particular characteristics (including the natural will belonging to each nature, hence the two wills of Christ). As this doesn't somehow produce another person - there's still just one Christ, before and after the incarnation - there is always just one single hypostasis of Christ, but since the incarnation this single hypostasis has two ousiai, the divine ousia and the human ousia. So there is one divine ousia which exists in the Father, and which is communicated to the Son because he is eternally generated from him and derives his ousia from him, and in the Holy Spirit because he also derives his ousia from the Father, by eternally proceeding from the Father through the Son. So there is one divine ousia which exists in three inseparable hypostases. One of these hypostases - the Son - assumes our humanity into his hypostasis in the incarnation, the hypostatic union, and thus has two natures in his one person. So hypostasis/person refers to the same thing in both the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the hypostatic union (and likewise ousia/nature of course also refers to the same thing in both doctrines).

[@Lay-Man]

@@smez So Jesus has two ousia? What happened to the human ousia?

[@smez]

@@Lay-Man yes, he has two ousiai - the divine ousia and the human ousia. As Chalcedon says: "Our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood." What do you mean by "what happened to the human ousia"? It was assumed into the hypostasis of Christ in the incarnation, and is since this hypostatic union forever united with his divinity in his person.

[@honey2badger]

@@smez really well explanation of the 2 doctrines. But my original message still stands even when you replace English with Greek. The point is the theology is confusing because we have the person (hypostasis) taking on flesh but not the entire ousia (God). So it doesn't quite make sense what a hypostasis (person) is in both contexts if we hold to the 2 doctrines of inseparable operations and divine simplicity.

[@Lay-Man]

@@smez So Jesus has two ousias? So does the trinity?

[@user-zero0945]

Why the dilemma of whether to call Mary mother of God or mother of Christ? Why not just repeat what the Bible says? Mary was the mother of the Son of God. She wasn't the mother of the Father or mother of the Holy Spirit

[@donatist59]

But we confess Jesus as fully God, not a piece of God.

[@mitchellc4]

I feel like your so close to getting the idea Jesus was a temple The logos tabernacled in him The Father tabernacled in him Jesus called himself a temple (John 2) Repeatedly says the Father dwells in him And you get to “the same can be said of me” Yes! God (the Father) wants to dwell in us Are we the same intimate temple the Messiah was? No but are we not the body of Messiah? Does the Father not dwell in the body of Messiah? There’s no incarnation of a pre existing person named logos or Son It’s God, the Father dwelling in a temple God’s word Tabernacled in the Messiah Not a transforming of some divine figure into a human Sorry I’ve got so many comments :)

[@saintsword23]

I wanted to find this helpful, but from the start you're doing the exact thing that you accuse other scholars of doing: you're letting your conclusions guide your interpretation. I don't feel like I have a better understanding of Chalcedon and its debates, because I don't think these early church fathers thought about the religion at all like you do. I have to wholeheartedly reject your idea that Chalcedon was just about language and not about substantive Christological debates. No, it wasn't. You're just wanting to believe that because it lets you believe that the present day view you hold was one that was there from the beginning, when it clearly wasn't. I know I'm being abrasive, but it's REALLY clear you're reading your conclusions into these debates rather than stepping back from them and seeing them for their own merits. And it hurts your presentation of the debate so thoroughly that it's pretty well useless to someone like me who doesn't have a dog in the race.