www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Chalcedonian Creed

If the term "human being" is referring to the consubstantiality of Christ with humanity, then it follows that it is being used improperly in modern translations, because then it is really the same as saying that Jesus became "human nature," which is nonsenical. In the case of the term "human being" the word "being" refers to the existence, i.e., to the hypostasis of the "human" in question.

The existence of Christ's incarnate human nature comes from His divine person, because in Christology (i.e., in the Christology of Chalcedon and Constantinople II) existence corresponds to hypostasis. Thus, to claim that Christ is a "human being" is to say that He is a human person, and that proposition is Nestorian.

If it is truly ambiguous as you claim, then it follows that it should be avoided in liturgical and theological translations. That said, I do not agree with you that the term "human being" is ambiguous, because I believe that it refers specifically to the concrete act of being of a human person. In other words, it corresponds to, and substitutes for, the term "human person" and not "human nature" in modern English.

Your question is related to the one posted earlier by Harmon, and the only answer I can give is that Constantinople II, which clarifies Chalcedon's teaching by rejecting the Three Chapters, holds that the human nature of Christ (i.e., both body and soul) receives its being (i.e., its act of existence) from the hypostasis of the Logos, and so it has no connatural act of human existence, because if Christ had a human act of existence, He would be a human person.

To be continued.

A clarification: The quote, incorrectly attributed to me, ajk, is Mister Emu's.


I would like to see this argued/referenced more explicitly.

This goes back to the discussion in the RDL thread and then to the thread from which that was a spin-off. I am no fan of needing to use the term human being in liturgical translations, especially in the translation of the Creed (the immediate locus for the RDL threads on this topic). Even apart from translating the Creed, my instincts tell me it is not correct to say the Son (Jesus) become a human being; my objectivity given the use of homoousion in the Symbol of Chalcedon, however, is forcing me to inquire further.


"human being" = "human person" is the ambiguity. ousia ≠ hypostasis; ousia ≠ person.


More explicit instances/references here would be appreciated. I'm not arguing against the point, I just need more (well documented) convincing. For instance, though not saying just "human being" the previously referenced and linked Agreed Statement in translation(?) speaks of a "united real divine-human being":

Thank you. This helps to make my point. The use of the English word "being" is the problem, because "human being" either means "human person," or it means "human nature," and if it means the former it is heretical, and if it means the latter it is nonsensical. In the various liturgical texts that are trying to avoid the use of the word "man" by using "human being," they are either falling into the heresy of Nestorianism, or they are saying something nonsensical, because the liturgical text is indicate a concrete individual with the word "man," in this case it refers to the incarnate divine person of the Logos, or the liturgical translation is reducing something concrete to a mere abstraction, i.e., "human nature." Thus, if the word "being" in "human being" is used to indicate nature (or essence), it reduces liturgical text to saying that the human nature (i.e., human being) Jesus was born of the Holy Theotokos, which is utter nonsense.

In other words, my objection is focused solely on the use of the word "being" in the term "human being," because it either involves falling into Nestorianism, or it makes something concrete into something abstract with the end result that the text in question becomes nonsensical.

It is important that one understand the nature of certain words used in Christology: (1) hypostasis really means "subsistence" (i.e., to exist), while (2) prosopon (face or mask) properly translates into English as "person" (from the Latin persona, which means face or mask). Nevertheless, I do not have a problem with translations that translate the term hypostasis as person, even though that is not the most accurate way of rendering the word hypostasis in English.

Now as far as Christology in English is concerned, I still hold that one must avoid the use of the term "human being" (human would be better, although it comes off as rather abstract) because it either falls into Nestorianism, or it takes something (i.e., a specific prayer, etc.) that refers to the concrete reality of the incarnate Logos and turns into something abstract (i.e., it turns it into a reference to the nature assumed rather than the existent reality of the person of the Word).

In the English term "human being" the word being is indicating the concrete reality of the human (i.e., the man) in question. It is not referring to his nature or essence. In other words, it is referring to his subsistence (i.e., his hypostasis).

The error of Nestorius involved saying that the incarnate Christ was one prosopon (i.e., face, mask, or countenance), but two hypostaseis (i.e., two subsistences or existences) in two natures.

You're welcome. I agree about the liturgical-translation problems; these were discussed somewhat in the corresponding thread in the RDL forum that I referenced and linked in a previous post. Man/men should not be replaced by human being/human beings, for instance, in the Creed. The question here is, what does the term human being convey in common speech and more to the point what does it properly convey in the specialized terminology of theology and (Christian) metaphysics. Does it have a proper meaning in the latter sense; can it there properly mean the consubstantial with/to us according to Manhood/Mankind of Chalcedon?

Here is my two cents' worth:

Mary is the Theotokos. By her yes and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, she became the Bearer of God, the Mother of God. That is so, not because she is greater than God or God's cause. Rather, in her womb she bore a Divine Person (hypostasis) with a Divine nature (physis) who also took on our human nature (physis): Jesus.

Is this Person, Jesus, a human being? Of course, if that term means a man. In other word, the term "human being" serves to distinguish one kind of created being (human) from other kinds of created being (trees, chickens, rocks, etc.). The term "human being" also serves to underscore the unique dignity, worth and responsibilities of being human. In that sense of the word, Jesus is a human being: He is a man who is like us in all ways but sin.

But does Jesus' Personhood (His hypostasis) subsist in His humanity? No. His Personhood, His most basic Reality, His hypostasis -- is Divine.

So here is how I try to understand it, sinner that I am. Jesus is a Person who is fully God and fully Man (in all ways but sin). Specifically, His most Basic Reality / Personhood / hypostasis is Divine, and His nature (physis) is Divine too. And, in the fullness of time, out of love for us to redeem us, He also took on our human nature (physis) too. Thereby, He became like us in all ways but sin and without losing any of His divinity. And so, Jesus' Divine Personhood (hypostasis) is not lost; and His Divine and human natures (physis) are not confused, not changed, not separated, and not divided. (cf. the Abna Bishoy declaration of 1989)

And so, in my little opinion, it is ok to call Jesus a human being in ordinary, everyday English: IF it is understood and accepted that He is also fully God.

And in more precise English, I would say that Jesus is the Second Divine Person of the Trinity who, in the fullness of time, assumed human nature also: being one Divine Person in two natures (Divine and Human).

And in the Symbol of Faith, He should be called a man, not a human being, because Jesus was (and is) a man; and to deny His manhood is to deny a significant part of His human nature.

The rest, brothers, is a mystery which is frankly beyond me, except to bow before it.

-- John

I agree, and so for me the key question is: What does the word being in the term "human being" mean?

As I see there are two possibilities:

1. Human being = human subsistence, a concrete existing human, i.e., a particular human person.

or

2. Human being = human nature or essence, in which case it stands for an abstract concept referring to what is common to humanity in general.

Now number (1) is Nestorian, while number (2) is abstract and makes no sense when applied to a text that is referring to the concrete existence of the incarnate Logos. Thus, the statement of Pilate in the Gospel of John if translated as "Behold the human being," would either involve promoting the Nestorian error, that is, if "being" in the term "human being" refers to subsistence because in that case it means human person, or it would involve the nonsensical idea that Pilate was meaning "Behold the human nature."

What I mean can be further illustrated by looking at the incarnation itself and the words used to describe it, for Mary is not the mother of the human nature of Christ; instead, she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated divine person of the Logos made flesh. To put it more succinctly, Mary gave birth to a divine person, and not merely to a human nature.

In modern English the term "human being(s)" clearly refers to the concrete notion of a particular existent human individual (i.e., a human person), or a group of human individuals (i.e., a group of human persons) and not to an abstract notion of essence, and so its use in liturgical and biblical translations should be avoided because it ultimately promotes a Nestorian division in Christ.

I inadvertently left out a small portion of text when I was cutting and pasting my post into the Byzcath message box. Below is the correction:

Now number (1) when used in translations of Christological texts is Nestorian, while number (2) is abstract and makes no sense when applied to a text that is referring to the concrete existence of the incarnate Logos. Thus, the statement of Pilate in the Gospel of John if translated as "Behold the human being," would either involve promoting the Nestorian error, that is, if "being" in the term "human being" refers to subsistence because in that case it means human person, or it would involve the nonsensical idea that Pilate was meaning "Behold the human nature."

In general, I agree and noted this as the colloquial use and understanding. But again, what of well informed theological use, pastoral and academic and, ultimately, dogmatic? Does saying Christ is a human being say no more or less than saying He is consubstantial with/to us according to Manhood/Mankind as stated by Chalcedon?

It seems that the traditional dogmatic constructions in Greek and Latin do not provide us the specific form using as in and even (?) in formulating a Christology. While not the clearest construction (perhaps that's why it was not used) can it still be inferred?

Summarizing the terminology of Chalcedon:

hypostasis = person = (Latin) persona = prosopon

ousia = being = substance/essence = (Latin) substantia

physis = nature


With that understanding we say:

Jesus in a divine person; Jesus is not a human person.

Can we also say:

Jesus is a divine being; Jesus is a human being?

hypostasis = subsistence / existence
prosopon = person

Hypostasis concretizes prosopon giving it existential value.

ousia = essence

The Latin term substantia is more closely related to hypostasis.

I agree.

I agree.

I do not believe that we can say that Jesus is a "human being" because the word "being" refers to that which is particular, i.e., it refers to an existing human individual, and the particular in Christ is the divine Logos, for there is no human individual in Christ. The Logos did not assume a human being; instead, He assumed a human nature and in the process He gave it being (i.e., with the divine act of being of His own hypostasis). Ultimately the use of the term "human being" is Nestorian.

To speak of two beings in Christ is to divide the Logos, and that, as I have said before, is simply a form of Nestorianism. Now in order to safeguard the doctrine of the Church against that very heresy, Fr. de la Taille in his book on the incarnation said that Christ is "one being, purely and simply such, to the exclusion of any aggregate of various existences" [Fr. de la Taille, "The Hypostatic Union," page 5]. Anything that asserts an act of human existence (being) in the incarnate Christ divides the person of the Logos by asserting that he has two existences (i.e., one divine the other human), and if that is the case it follows that there is no incarnation, and Christ was a mere man possessed by the Logos at a particular moment in time, which is the teaching of Nestorius. The human nature assumed by the Logos received its existence from the eternal Son of God, and so it has no human act of being, which would make Christ a human individual (i.e., a human being or a human person).

It did, and having done so, the equivalence of the terms, and those derived from them, are now established and are part of our theological vocabulary. According to Chalcedon:

Thus, Zizioulas, Being as Communion, page 33:

Originally, yes, but that is not the Christian dogmatic usage. In the received Latin text of the NC Creed hoomousion is consubstantialem. Similarly Symbol of Chalcedon


is in the received Latin text link [ccel.org]

Thus for example Zizioulas in “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution,” Chapter 2 in Christoph Schwöbel, ed., Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on Divine Being and Act. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. page 47:

Todd and ajk,

Great discussion. Very interesting. I had never considered the idea of "human being" being at all problematic from the vantage point of Christology.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel