Did the Word have a fallen or unfallen humanity?

[Leo_The_Great]

Hey guys, I have a question that Pertains to the Hypostatic/Physical/Natural Union:

Some of the Miaphysite Theologians like Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus taught that the Word assumed the Pre-Fallen Nature of Man, not the Post-fall, because he was like us in all things but Sin.

HOWEVER He willfully went through all the EXPERIENCES of Post-fall humanity without it touching his humanity. So, his hunger, his suffering, his weeping, these were not the disordered compulsions of a fallen human nature, but the Willful experience of the Unfallen nature, being the second Adam.

Is this the Orthodox and Roman Catholic position?

I.E. Did Christ assume a fallen or unfallen nature?

 

[jimmy]

Hey guys, I have a question that Pertains to the Hypostatic/Physical/Natural Union:

Some of the Miaphysite Theologians like Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus taught that the Word assumed the Pre-Fallen Nature of Man, not the Post-fall, because he was like us in all things but Sin.

HOWEVER He willfully went through all the EXPERIENCES of Post-fall humanity without it touching his humanity. So, his hunger, his suffering, his weeping, these were not the disordered compulsions of a fallen human nature, but the Willful experience of the Unfallen nature, being the second Adam.

Is this the Orthodox and Roman Catholic position?

I.E. Did Christ assume a fallen or unfallen nature?

It isn’t the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox view. The orthodox view is that God became like us in all things except sin. God united humanity to himself perfectly so that everything that we experience, he experiences. He experienced hunger because he became man, not because he decided to experience it. Part of our nature is that we are mortal and consequently experience hunger, fear, pain, and death.

But what we can say is that Christ never had a gnomic will (we do), so his will was always directed toward the beautiful and the good. Maximus the confessor spoke of man having a natural will that is directed toward God as if by a passion that leads him toward what is beautiful (God). God is his natural end. But the result of the fall was that man developed a gnomic will which involves the deliberation that leads to a free choice. God assumed the nature of man entirely and was subject to the natural passions including hunger, fear, lonliness, and etc. But he was not subject to the unnatural passions that are the result of the gnomic will.

Severus of Antioch’s view was similar to Maximus the Confessor’s. The view that you mentioned sounds more like Julian of Halicarnasus, who was an opponent of Severus. He was an extreme monophysite, Severus was more moderate.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Logos became like us in all things except sin.

This means, among other things, that sin is EXTRINSIC to our human nature.

So Orthodoxy teaches.

 

[Benadam]

Our bodies rebel against our will. So we experience involuntary movements of our bodies. Jesus’ body was in perfect obedience to His will. I see in this obedience the end of the petition " Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. His bodies perfect obedience signifies rulership over the powers of nature.

[
Mark 4:40
And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet? And they feared exceedingly: and they said one to another: Who is this (thinkest thou) that both wind and sea obey him?](Douay-Rheims Bible, Mark Chapter 4)

This is the relationship we had with creation in the beginning when we did is will.

 

[marlo]

like us except sin? isn’t that pre fallen nature and human nature +sin = our current nature

The Logos became like us in all things except sin.

 

[jimmy]

like us except sin? isn’t that pre fallen nature and human nature +sin = our current nature

His nature was exactly like ours in every way. Sin is not part of the human nature.

 

[marlo]

adam’s human nature after the fall was weaken after his first sin, therefore, his human nature before the fall is different from his human nature after the fall.

His nature was exactly like ours in every way. Sin is not part of the human nature.

 

[Sunflower15]

adam’s human nature after the fall was weaken after his first sin, therefore, his human nature before the fall is different from his human nature after the fall.

In that concupiscence darkens our Intellect, weakens our Free Will and hardens our Hearts, but sin is NOT part of human nature, just a CHOICE…

If sin were PART of human NATURE we would have NO FREE WILL because it would be intrinsic to our very nature…right?

Sin is therefore one of the alternatives presented at every instance. We don’t by NECESSITY have to comply…therefore FREE WILL…

None of the ancient Christians hold the view that man is intrinsically evil or sinful, this concept was introduced by the Reformation [at least by some of the Reformers]. This concept of Man leads to the necessity of Pre-destination… both concepts negate FREE WILL as part of our being Human [our nature].

 

[Formosus]

adam’s human nature after the fall was weaken after his first sin, therefore, his human nature before the fall is different from his human nature after the fall.

When you get sick, the nature of your being doesn’t change. Sin is sickness and not part of our nature.

 

[mardukm]

This topic brings a quesiton to my mind – I am wondering how the Eastern Byzantine anthropology answers this question.

The Oriental anthropology, based for the most part from Pope St. Athanasius’ teaching, is that death and the ailments of the body are intrinsic to human nature. God created man naturally subject to death and corruptibility, but preserved him - before the Fall - from these by virtue of Grace. When humanity sinned, they lost the Grace, and humanity was left with its natural condition. In other words, sin, in Oriental anthropology, did not transform our human nature from immortality/incorruptibility to mortality/corruptibility. All that sin did was cause us to lose the Grace that preserved us from these.

My understanding of Eastern Byzantine anthropology is that death and corruptibility (including all the physical ailments) was not natural to man until after the Fall. The first sin transformed man, so that man became naturally subject to death and corruptibility.

Thus, in the Eastern Byzantine anthropology (from my understanding -subject to correction), death and sin are intimately connected – where there is death, there is sin, and where there is sin there is death.

But in the Oriental anthropology, sin and death are not so intimately connected – where there is sin, there is death, but where there is death, there need not be sin.

I believe the Oriental anthropology easily explains how Christ died though He did not sin (and, coincidentally, is hence more amenable to the dogma of the IC and Dormition/Assumption), and answers brother LeotheGreat’s question quite readily.

But how does Eastern Byzantine anthropology explain that Christ died, though He did not sin, given that Byzantine anthropology makes such an intimate connection between death and sin?

Not looking for argument, just explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Matariel]

The Logos became like us in all things except sin.

This means, among other things, that sin is EXTRINSIC to our human nature.

So Orthodoxy teaches.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches also.

 

[Benadam]

I have formed a belief in regards to Mardukm’s question. I don’t know if Byzantine theology resolves the question in the same way. The original state of immortality was maintained by the same grace as offered in the Sacrament of healing. The body can be traumatized to the point that the power to heal is overwhelmed. If this were to happen hypothetically to a person in a state of original innocense the physical continuation of their body would be spiritual in substance rather than earthly as it is when earthly life ends without experiencing death.

As for Jesus I believe He denied Himself divine power to not be overcome as He denied Himself divine power throughout His earthly life.:twocents:

 

[Matariel]

I have formed a belief in regards to Mardukm’s question. I don’t know if Byzantine theology resolves the question in the same way. The original state of immortality was maintained by the same grace as offered in the Sacrament of healing. The body can be traumatized to the point that the power to heal is overwhelmed. If this were to happen hypothetically to a person in a state of original innocense the physical continuation of their body would be spiritual in substance rather than earthly as it is when earthly life ends without experiencing death.

As for Jesus I believe He denied Himself divine power to not be overcome as He denied Himself divine power throughout His earthly life.:twocents:

This brings us to another question: how was the post-resurrection glorified Christ different from the Christ pre-resurrection? I would think that his nature did not change, as that sounds like heresy. But the evidence makes it seem that he was altogether different. Or was His nature elevated somehow? What was the difference? And was this the same situation during the Transfiguration?

 

[marlo]

Sin which is sickness became part of the human nature after the fall, because it can be transmitted through our Genes. Sickness itself does not automatically transmit to their offspring, even AIDS and diabetes, sometimes are not automatically transmitted.

When you get sick, the nature of your being doesn’t change. Sin is sickness and not part of our nature.

 

[Benadam]

This brings us to another question: how was the post-resurrection glorified Christ different from the Christ pre-resurrection? I would think that his nature did not change, as that sounds like heresy. But the evidence makes it seem that he was altogether different. Or was His nature elevated somehow? What was the difference? And was this the same situation during the Transfiguration?

Our purpose is to fulfill life proper to our nature. For us it is only human for Jesus it was also divine. But this reality didn’t change much in regards of the eternal destiny of the human body and soul of Christ. IMO His body and soul reached the perfection intended for human bodies and souls. His body had entered into the eternal state proper to the person of Jesus. Having fulfilled it’s duty it shares in His reward. Eternal existence proper to a soul that shares in the Divine Life. Before the resurrection it was subject to the laws of physics, afterwards it shares in the freedom of divine life and is only subject to the will of the soul. Since it obediently fulfilled it’s earthly purpose it’s test of obedience is passed and is fit to enjoy it’s share of Glory and rule over the laws of physics. All this yet there is no reason to believe that the state Jesus’ body is any different than the state intended for the human body in the beginning. That Our Blessed Mother can appear as an Aztec woman demonstrates this freedom.

I believe that the Divine will allowed the Glory of it’s nature to fill Jesus’ soul and spill over into the body so to speak. I believe the divine will allowed Jesus’ human soul to be lifted up into the glory proper to His divinity and this spilled over into the body and manifested the presence associated with the cloud of God’s presence of OT theophanies. Another way of saying it is ,I think the Divine Will manifested the Divine Presence as in the OT theophanies and this time it included a human body and soul. The cloud of presence that Moses was well familiar with and I’m sure Elijah too. On the Mount of Olives the body of Jesus experienced a foretaste of it’s destiny.

 

[jimmy]

This topic brings a quesiton to my mind – I am wondering how the Eastern Byzantine anthropology answers this question.

The Oriental anthropology, based for the most part from Pope St. Athanasius’ teaching, is that death and the ailments of the body are intrinsic to human nature. God created man naturally subject to death and corruptibility, but preserved him - before the Fall - from these by virtue of Grace. When humanity sinned, they lost the Grace, and humanity was left with its natural condition. In other words, sin, in Oriental anthropology, did not transform our human nature from immortality/incorruptibility to mortality/corruptibility. All that sin did was cause us to lose the Grace that preserved us from these.

My understanding of Eastern Byzantine anthropology is that death and corruptibility (including all the physical ailments) was not natural to man until after the Fall. The first sin transformed man, so that man became naturally subject to death and corruptibility.

Thus, in the Eastern Byzantine anthropology (from my understanding -subject to correction), death and sin are intimately connected – where there is death, there is sin, and where there is sin there is death.

But in the Oriental anthropology, sin and death are not so intimately connected – where there is sin, there is death, but where there is death, there need not be sin.

I believe the Oriental anthropology easily explains how Christ died though He did not sin (and, coincidentally, is hence more amenable to the dogma of the IC and Dormition/Assumption), and answers brother LeotheGreat’s question quite readily.

But how does Eastern Byzantine anthropology explain that Christ died, though He did not sin, given that Byzantine anthropology makes such an intimate connection between death and sin?

Not looking for argument, just explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think Maximus (as well as many other fathers) believed that man was created mortal. Through divinization/theosis he had the opportunity to become immortal, but he sinned and so the opportunity was lost. Originally the passions directed man toward his end according to the logos (reason or purpose of his creation) of his creation. But man is now ignorant and so he has developed a discursive will through which he determines what the better path is. Man lives for this world and his passions are directed toward things of this world. The diffrence between Christ and us is that Christ didn’t have a gnomic/discursive will and he was always directed according to his natural will toward God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matariel,

This brings us to another question: how was the post-resurrection glorified Christ different from the Christ pre-resurrection? I would think that his nature did not change, as that sounds like heresy. But the evidence makes it seem that he was altogether different. Or was His nature elevated somehow? What was the difference? And was this the same situation during the Transfiguration?

The general language of the Church (all Churches) proclaims that after the Resurrection, Christ’'s body was glorified, whereas before it was not. What that implies, the Church has not stated, but the Church generally does not speak of Christ’s nature (human or otherwise) being transformed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marlo,

Formosus:

When you get sick, the nature of your being doesn’t change. Sin is sickness and not part of our nature.

Sin which is sickness became part of the human nature after the fall, because it can be transmitted through our Genes. Sickness itself does not automatically transmit to their offspring, even AIDS and diabetes, sometimes are not automatically transmitted.

I tend to agree with brother Formosus that sin is not part of our nature. That is why the Fathers have consistently called sin a stain, or a filth, or a blemish, on the human nature.

I think the apparent difference in our perspective is due to the fact that the Western (Latin) Catholic Church has a somewhat more expansive definition of “sin” than the Eastern or Oriental Churches. To the Easterns and Orientals, sin is an action. But the Council of Trent has included in the definition of “sin,” the state of separation from God. So it is, as usual, merely a matter of terminology. We all agree that “sin” is action, and we all agree that we are naturally separated from God because of the Fall. It’s just that the Westerns tend to include that separation from God in the definition of “sin.” Forget the terminology, and the basic beliefs are the same.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

I think Maximus (as well as many other fathers) believed that man was created mortal. Through divinization/theosis he had the opportunity to become immortal, but he sinned and so the opportunity was lost. Originally the passions directed man toward his end according to the logos (reason or purpose of his creation) of his creation. But man is now ignorant and so he has developed a discursive will through which he determines what the better path is. Man lives for this world and his passions are directed toward things of this world. The diffrence between Christ and us is that Christ didn’t have a gnomic/discursive will and he was always directed according to his natural will toward God.

Thank you for the response. I am aware that there is much evidence from the first millenium for the belief that man was originally created mortal and would be immortal through Grace (or theosis, as St. Maximus puts it). That is amenable to the Oriental teaching. But that is not what I read from EO apologists nowadays. I very often hear/read from them that the immediate result of the Fall was physical death - the transformation of human nature from immortality/incorruptibility to mortality/corrputibility. This is distinct from the Oriental (and Western) teaching that the immediate result of the Fall was spiritual (i.e., the loss of Grace) which in turn resulted in physical death. I will add that as late as St. Palamas, the Western and Oriental teaching coincided with the the Eastern teaching (that the primary result of the Fall was spiritual).

But I don’t want to discuss (or argue about) developments in Eastern Byzantine anthropology. I accept that what I hear from EO apologists nowadays may not be completely representative of the Eastern Byzantine Tradition (i.e., that St. Maximus’ teaching still exists within the Eastern Byzantine Tradition)…

Hence, please forgive me for having generalized “Eastern Byzantine anthropology.” I did not intend to. I should have been more precise in my question. I.e., How does the particular strain of Eastern Byzantine anthropology that intimately connects death and sin answer brother LeotheGreat’s question (or my own).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Benadam,

As for Jesus I believe He denied Himself divine power to not be overcome as He denied Himself divine power throughout His earthly life.:twocents:

I believe that begs the question:

Did He deny Himself divine power to not be overcome during His Passion, or did the effect of this denial of divine power exist when He first took on our human nature (naturally subject to death) at His Incarnation?

From another angle, when we say that Jesus willfully died for us, do we mean that he willfully gave up divine immortality during his Passion, or was His “willfulness” in reference to the fact that he was innocent and did not deserve to die (having given up divine immortality when he took on our humanity, which is naturally subject to death, at His Incarnation)?

We must remember the ancient addage - what was not taken on by Christ was not transformed.

Blessings,
Marduk