At stake was Christ’s identity and the nature of the union (70). Since all agreed that the divine nature was impassible, this necessitated a hard distinction between person and nature.
Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa saw the image of God not applying to every individual but to the whole of mankind (74).
Leontius of Jerusaelm: the hypostasis of Christ is the archetype of the whole of mankind (ibid). If this is true, as JM notes, how can Christ have a concrete manhood?
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.