Revision as of 18:50, 20 June 2006

Prosopon and the Prosopic Union

Prosopon: The self-manifestation of an individual that can be extended by means of other things. e.g., a painter includes his brush within his own prosopon. (Grillmeir, 126)

Christological Significance

Prosopon is the form in which Hypostasis appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon ‘countanance’. It gives expression to the reality of the nature with its powers and characteristics. (Grillmeir, 431)

Two distinct Antiochene Christologists (see Christology), Theodore of Mopsuestia followed by Nestorius, a disciple of Theodore, supported the Prosopic Union of the two natures (Prosopon) of Christ rather than the accepted Hypostatic Union.

Theodore of Mopsuestia maintained a vision of Christ that saw a prosopic union of the divine and human. This was a union where Jesus was only a man indissolubly united to God through the permanent indwelling of the Logos. (Grillmeir, 428-39) He believed the incarnation of Jesus represents an indwelling of the spirit of God that is separate from the indwelling that was experienced by the Old Testament Prophets or New Testament Apostles. Jesus was viewed as a human being who shared the divine sonship of the Logos; the Logos united himself to Jesus from the moment of Jesus’ conception. After the resurrection, the human Jesus and the Logos reveal that they have always been one prosopon. This oneness of Jesus and the Logos is thus the Prosopic Union. (Norris , 25)

Theodore addresses the Prosopic Union in applying Prosopon to Christ. He accounts for two expressions of Christ – human and divine. Yet, he does not mean Christ achieved a unity of the two expressions through the formation of a third prosopon, but that one prosopon is produced by the Logos giving his own countenance to the ‘assured man’. (Grillmeir, 432) He interprets the unity of God and man in Christ along the lines of the body-soul unity… Prosopon plays a special part in his interpretation of Christ. He rejected the Hypostatis concept – believing it to be a contradiction of Christ’s true nature… He espoused that, in Christ, both body and soul had to be assumed. Christ assumed a soul and by the grace of God, brought it to immutability and to a full dominion over the sufferings of the body. (Grillmeir, 424-27)

Nestorius furthered Theodore’s belief in the Prosopic Union as thus: “prosopon is the ‘appearance’ of the ousia: ‘the prosopon makes known the ousia.’” The two prosopa are united “In Christ… the ‘one’ prosopon does not belong to a nature or hypostasis which arose through the ‘natural union’ of Godhead and manhood, but to the unity of the two unconfused natures.” (Grillmeir, 510)

References

Grillmeir, Aloys, 1975. Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume One. Norris, Richard A. Jr., 1980. The Christological Controversy. Nestorius: Encyclopedia Brittanica Online - http://cache.britannica.com/ebc/article-5191

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 =Christological Significance=
-''Prosopon'' is the form in which [[Hypostatis]] appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon ‘countanance’. It gives expression to the reality of the nature with its powers and characteristics. (Grillmeir, 431)
+''Prosopon'' is the form in which [[Hypostasis]] appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon ‘countanance’. It gives expression to the reality of the nature with its powers and characteristics. (Grillmeir, 431)
 Two distinct [[Antiochene]] Christologists (see [[Christology]]), [[Theodore of Mopsuestia]]