The unity of the divine and the human in Christ: The Chalcedonian definition and Paul Tillich’s Spirit Christology

The Christological disputes of the 6th–7th centuries (the polemics of Leontius of Byzantium with the Nestorians and Eutychians, and Maximus the Confessor with the monoenergistes/monothelites) showed that the Chalcedonian definition gives rise to a number of problems that cannot be solved within the framework of traditional theology: the unclear ontological status of human nature without a human hypostasis; the inconsistency of the ontological models underlying trinitology and Christology; the need to resort to an artificial interpretation of the gospel testimonies about Christ. However, the Chalcedonian definition is only one possible way to describe the unity of the divine and the human in Christ. The Christology of Paul Tillich is considered as an example of an alternative description in which the above problems do not arise. Tillich’s idea is to replace the traditional concept of the Logos incarnated in man with the concept of the Spirit of God transforming man. According to this view, God does not act on human nature without hypostasis, but on the hypostasis of man through its unifying center. During the earthly life of Christ, this effect occurred only in the hypostasis of Christ as man. And after (and thanks to) the death on the cross and the resurrection of Christ, it extends to all people.

Tracing the Spirit: Christology in Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium III

While Gregory of Nyssa formulated a Spirit-based account of the unity of Christ in Antirrheticus adversus Apolinarium (c.383) I argue that he already held this view when he wrote Ad Eustathium (c.381) and hence when he wrote Contra Eunomium III (c.382). That Gregory makes no explicit reference to Christ’s anointing by the Spirit in Contra Eunomium III is best explained by his need to adapt his Christology to the Eunomian context where any appeal to a Spirit-based Christology would be useless and, worse, self-defeating. I propose criteria for detecting probable traces of a Spirit-based Christology in Contra Eunomium III and analyse two texts found in Parts 3 and 4 that satisfy these criteria. How we understand Gregory’s account of Christ’s unity in Contra Eunomium III therefore needs to be reframed.