Christ in Eastern Christian Thought

by John Meyendorff

English, French (translation)

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, History

248 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1975

About the author

Fr John Meyendorff (1926-1992) was a Professor of Church History and Patristics at St Vladimir s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and a professor of History at Fordham University, NY. He was a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1976-77), and a Guggenheim Fellow. He held honorary doctorates from the University of Notre Dame and General Theological Seminary, was a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and a Senior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks. In 1990 The Diploma of Honorary Member of the Leningrad Theological Academy was bestowed upon him.

Reviews

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe the 3rd time I read this book. Although it is a history of theology, it is very theological. Meyendorff does a great job in summarizing the controversies and issues being discussed through the centuries of Byzantium. He presents the theological decisions agreed upon in the various centuries. Theology is forever alive, dealing with the human effort to understand God. It takes centuries for ideas to be clarified, and it is true that some earlier fathers did not have the clarity of language that later Fathers enjoyed.

[Taylor Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tracing the development of Christology in the early church, climaxing with the Council of Chalcedon, Meyendorff leads us to a clearer understanding of not only the person of Christ, but even the natures of humanity and divinity which are not (as we so often assume) mutually exclusive. Just as God clothed Himself in human nature, we too may clothe ourselves with divinity.

[Tapio Juntunen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good general overview into the development of Christology in the Christian East. Highly recommended for anyone trying to deepen their understanding on the subject.

[DúviAurvandil Ericsson e Pereira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent review of the Christological discussions and debates within the Church from the early patristic period up until the 14th century Palamite controversy. It is especially commendable in its continuation of a thread that was perhaps best expressed by St Maximus, though existed as far back as St Irenaeus and as far forward as St Gregory Palamas, of the necessity of the two natures, the two wills, and the two energies in Jesus Christ the Godman. It is this 'anchor' that allows our salvation to be accomplished and all patristic thought is in someway connected to it, even the deeply individual ascetical pursuits of the great ascetics and monks of the Church. Meyendorff brings out the relation to this quite well. I may quibble with him on whether St Dionysius was actually neoPlatonic, but cannot deny that he tells this story of patristic Christology well.

[The format of this edition of the book is pretty terrible though -- hard to find the footnote reference in the back due to sparse labeling and blobby print of the minuscule footnotes.]

[Chesna · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book argues that "neo-Chalcedonian Christology...was not a simple concession to monophysitism." It was a chore to get through but a careful exposition of deification (particularly as a soteriological concept) in the Eastern Church now and in the early theologians. While I'm unsurprised that it wasn't addressed, I kept wishing for something about the possibility of a passible God. I often feel like a lot of Christological headaches and phusis-related intellectual gymnastics could be avoided by that one simple idea, which is probably only considered shocking because of the Greek philosophy that Christian patristics is baked in. Anyway, it's not too long, and I learned something. Worth the read.

[Rick Lee Lee James · Rating 5 out of 5]

The primary focus of this excellent book is "hypostasis," which is a fancy word for "person." It explains that being a true person isn't just about living your life on your own, but about connecting to God and sharing in His life. When we do that, it doesn't take away our freedom or personality—it actually makes us more fully human. This is why I love the theology of Eastern Christianity.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meyendorff does a great job in surveying the various strands of Byzantine Christology. He unites them under the idea of man's being made to participate in the life of God. This requires a Christology to match, so we see an emphasis on the Logos taking to himself human flesh and deifying, which flesh then becomes the theotic (I made up that word) life for all of humanity. Some of the figures surveyed below shed light on the Christology, but in many ways more importantly, the metaphysics of Byzantine Christianity.

The Image Concept: “Image implies a participation in the divine nature” (114). Commenting on Cyril, Meyendorff says “It appears from this passage that the proper dignity of human nature, as conceived by God and realized by Adam, consists of going beyond itself and receiving illuminating grace” (115). This is the Eastern version of the Latin donum superadditum. Byzantine piety was rooted in a geographical tradition where the idea of “image” had a cultic priority (173).

Spirituality: Prayer: principal means of liberating the mind. “This liberation implies for Evagrius a dematerialization…a prelude to the immaterial gnosis” (121).



Per Maximus the Confessor: It’s a beautiful metaphysics, maybe the most beautiful. While he did cut Origenism off at the knees, the spectre of Neo-Platonism and Ps. Dionysius haunts the realm. We hear absolutely nothing of the gospel proclamation extra nos. Meyendorff is quick to assure us that Maximus is no Pelagian. Fair enough (though see comments by Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 17), but is he a semi-Pelagian?

Critical questions: If salvation is simply participation, does this mean that salvation is in some sense an arising upward of the inner man? How does this square with the extra nos that comes by preaching? Further, how does it escape Feuerbach’s critique?

How coherent is it to speak of the mind knowing by going outside of itself? We are back to chain of being. Something is simply wrong with man qua man that we need something added to him. Therefore, we can ask another question: Was Christ really human? “Most Byzantine writers, however, have refused to recognize in Christ any ignorance, and explained such passages as Lk. 2:52 as a pedagogical tactic on the part of Christ” (87). Whatever faults Reformed Christology may have, it does not have this fault. Here we make a clean and healthy break with Byzantine Christology.

Their reasoning why is interesting. “There was also a certain philosophy of gnosis, which made knowledge the sign par excellence of unfallen nature” (87). Back to chain-of-being ontology. Ignorance, or lack, is sin.

Given the sharp distinction between person and nature, if we say that God truly suffered in the flesh, how does one maintain divine impassibility? Simply saying the divine person suffered in his human nature only removes the problem a step. It does not solve it, for the divine nature remains untouched. But given the strong union language used by the East, it seems unlikely that the divine nature should remain so untouched. This leads us to ask: are they really that far from Nestorius? In both cases there seems to be a “gap” between the divine nature and the human nature.

“The Word has the initiative in the work of the Incarnation, and it is evident that the theory of enhypostasis while asserting and underlying Christ’s humanity, shows in an unequivocal way the primordial greatness of the divinity” (156). No one will accuse John of Damascus of being a monothelite; in fact, his statement appears to be a restatement of the instrumentalization thesis. Calvinists never say that Christ’s divinity overrides his humanity, or that the Holy Spirit mechanistically does so. But if Calvinists are to be accused of monothelitism because the divine nature has precedence over the human nature, then the charge must also extend to John of Damascus.

Conclusion: as a work of historical theology this book is outstanding. It is well-written, well-formatted, and the scholarship is top-notch. Further, unlike many converts to EO today, Meyendorff is honest and open about the Byzantine's borrowing from both pagan and philosophical sources not friendly to biblical revelation. This touches on the basic failure of Byzantine Christianity. The apostle Paul said the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the Greek. Byzantine Christianity responded by downplaying the preaching and adding Greek philosophical systems that were respectable to the pagans.

[G Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meyendorff did a lot of good work, most of which was "standard", nothing outstanding, but better than good... kinda like a Packer of EO in the West... This book though, is one of my favorites by him... Good stuff, helpful - a bit uneven in places - but he truly is one of a handful of men who could have written this volume. Lots of helpful stuff on Christology, Trinity and Icons.