Vrej Nersessian, an Armenian Christian priest and scholar, wrote the following in defence of the Armenian rejection of the Hypostatic Union:
WITNESS OF THE SCRIPTURE
Here is not a single Biblical text which proves decisively that Christ is two natures after the Union. Rather the reverse, all the Biblical texts are on the side of the Armenian position. Thus St. John is explicit: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. (1.4). In Revelation, Our Lord declares: “I am the first and the last, and the Living One, and I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore and have the keys of Death and Hades” (1:17, 18). The pronoun is “I”—there is no duality in this passage. It is He who is the first and the last, and it is He who was dead. The same meaning is clear in other passages: “And no man hath ascended into Heaven, but He that descended out of Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven” (John 3:13). In that case He is the One who is in Heaven, as well as being the Son of Man on earth. Always the same one: one essence, one hypostasis, one nature. St. Paul, speaking to the Ephesian leaders, claim the same union: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). How could the Apostle say that the blood shed was the blood of Christ if there were any duality in Chris in any sense? The same Apostle states in his first letter to the Corinthians: “For had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (2:8). The crucified one is the Lord of Glory Himself. There is no duality, and other passages state the same fact: “Great is the mystery of Godliness; God was manifested in the flesh” (Tim 3:16). “Who being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient even unto death” (Phil. 2:6-8).
DANGER OF TWO NATURES
The expression “two natures united together” is theologically a dangerous one. It implies a duality or even a kind of separation between the Godhead and Manhood. Otherwise there would be no need to insist on the expression two natures—since there is a union. It does not denote a real union. Instead it expresses the existence of two separate natures coming tougher or combined together. Consequently, an expression like this lays one open to Nestorianism, condemned as a heresy by the Chalcedonian Churches. The expression “o two natures combined together” is a dangerous one in terms of our salvation. If there were two natures in Christ after the union, then the redemption of Christ was an act of His Humanity, for it was the flesh which was crucified. In which case the death of Christ would have no power to save the human race. The value of Christ’s death lies in the fact that the one who was crucified was the Incarnate Word of God. Surely the Godhead did not suffer crucifixion, but the Godhead gave the crucifixion its infinite value and capacity to save all the human race. The expression “One nature which has the properties of the two natures”, saves our belief in the redemption of our Lord. The expression “two natures” implies the possibility of a crucifixion of the flesh of Christ, but not of Christ Himself. All scriptural passages are against such an understanding. The blood, says St. Paul, is the blood of God: “The church of God, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). (Vrej Nersessian, Christology of the Armenian Church [London, 2013], 22-23)
Paypal
