Library › Constantine Callinicos › Greek Orthodox Catechism
Greek Orthodox Catechism
Constantine Callinicos, London, 1926
Part I. Dogmatical, 6. The Holy Incarnation
When did the Incarnation of the Son of God take place?
About twenty centuries ago, and many centuries after the original sin was committed. And this, in order that time should elapse to make possible the reception of a holy mystery. On the one hand, man should be left for some time without a Saviour, that, under ever increasing hardships, he should realise the greatness of his disease, and himself call in the aid of the Physician. And on the other hand, Israel needed previously to be shaped and educated and so to become able, through its prophecies and messianic hopes, to guide the nations to Christ. A common expectation, such as was preached by Judaism; a common civilisation, as that which united Europe, Asia and Africa under Alexander the Great; a common organ of talk, as the Greek language, which was spread by him; a common Empire, as that under the Roman Cæsars; all these were necessary first to pave the way as far as possible; and, in the fulness of time God should send forth His Son. (Gal. iv. 4.)
Upon whom was conferred the supreme honour of giving birth to the Son of God?
Upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, on whom the Holy Ghost descended. She, in an immaculate and inexpressible manner, offered to the Son of God human nature from her own blood, and in time gave a fatherless birth to Him Who was born of the Father before the ages, motherless. For that reason the Orthodox Church venerates her greatly; and, although it does not bestow on her honours due to God alone, yet it does glorify and magnify her, as being a worthy instrument in the consummation of such a wondrous mystery. It calls her Theotocos, as having really begotten God; Most Pure, as being purified from the original sin by the coming to her of the Holy Ghost after the Angel’s visit (Luke i. 35); and Ever-Virgin, since before, during and after her child-birth, she remained a Virgin. —
Was human nature actually united with the divine nature in the person of our Saviour?
Yes. As our Saviour was wholly God, so He became also wholly man, uniting in Himself the perfect human nature together with the perfect divine nature. The human nature, which He took from the Virgin, was not soulless and mindless flesh, but a human body made alive by a reasonable soul, a humanity altogether like our own, our infirmities and pains not excepted. The one and only difference existing between Christ’s humanity and our humanity lay in the fact that, while ours is sinful, His “knew no sin,” because it was the humanity of the Holy, the Guileless, the Undefiled, the One separated from sinners and Higher than the Heavens. (2 Cor. v. 21; Hebr. iv. 15; vii. 26.) Thus two complete natures met and from these was formed the one Emmanuel or God-Man, in the same way as two quite opposite elements, the body on the one hand, and the soul on the other, come together in us, and the twofold nature of man results. As regards the manner of the union we note this: that the two natures were united in Christ, not in a moral sense, such as unites husband and wife in marriage, which leaves them, even after their union, two persons, because this is the heresy of Nestorianism; neither in the sense of the one nature being mingled or absorbed by the other, because this is the heresy of Monophysitism; but in the sense of a real unity, in which the elements are inseparable and indivisible on the one hand, unconfused and unchanged on the other, a unity which, while uniting the two natures in one Person, yet does not confuse the two, so as to cause the disappearance of either.
What follows from this teaching?
That if two unconfused natures, the divine and the human, exist in our Emmanuel, then there must exist a double activity also. When eating, drinking, walking, holding converse with people, sleeping, feeling pain, weeping, covered with the sweat of agony, dying on the Cross, our Lord acts as a man, not as a God. When multiplying the loaves of bread, walking on the sea, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons, raising Lazarus from the dead, or raising Himself from the dead, He acts not as a man, but as God. And, as the two natures in the one God-man have as an immediate result the dual quality of His activities, so they have as another result, His double will. As man, the Saviour has one will, as God, He has another. As man, He shrinks from death, and says at Gethsemane:—“O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me.” But above His human will stands the divine will, to which the former subjects itself; wherefore Christ adds immediately:—“Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” (Matt. xxvi. 39—40.)