I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIRST FOUR ECUMENICAL COUNCILS#
The Trinitarian conflict of the fourth century was associated with two councils that came to be regardedas ecumenical, and so was the Christological controversy of the fifth century.
As an oversimplication, the relationship of these four councils can be expressed according to the following scheme:
Nicaea (325) emphasized the oneness of God (Jesus Christ is homoousios with the Father).
Constantinople (381) emphasized the threeness of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Ephesus (431) emphasized the oneness of Jesus Christ (Mary is theotokos
Chalcedon (451) emphasized the twoness of Jesus Christ (two physes or “natures”).
According to the unfolding logic of the theological debate, it may be said that the solution of the Trinitarian problem heightened the Christological problem. If Jesus Christ is fully and completely God, what is the relation of the deity to the humanity of Jesus?
II. RIVALRIES BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH#
The Christological controversies were primarily fought in the eastern half of Christendom. The westerners did not get as heavily involved as the easterners did, although Rome did have a crucial role in the official decisions.
Political rivalries, especially between Alexandria and Antioch, became even more prominent than before. If one is distressed by the political machinations in the Arian controversy, there is more to lament in the Christological controversies. The elevation of the see of Constantinople to second rank behind Rome at the Council of Constantinople in 381 was a humiliation of Alexandria and may be a factor in that see’s policies against Chrysostom, Nestorius, Flavian, and others.
In addition to ecclesiastical jealousy, one must note the different cultural and theological traditions influencing the churches of Antioch and Alexandria.
- The church in Antioch was in closer touch with Palestinian Jewish sources. It had more of a tradition of critical, rational inquiry.
The Antiochene school developed a typological interpretation of the Old Testament that gave full historical reality to the events it recorded and to the setting of its prophecies, while seeing those acts and words as foreshadowing Christian revelation. Church leaders at Antioch gave more emphasis to the humanity of Jesus Christ.
- The intellectuals in the church at Alexandria, on the other hand, were more under the influence of the philosophical Judaism represented by Philo and transmitted to later Christian thinkers by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. They had more of a tradition of contemplative piety.
In the interpretation of Scripture the school of Alexandria developed the allegorical method that had been employed by Greek philosophers in interpreting Greek mythology and by Philo in interpreting the Bible. This method saw the true meaning of Scripture to be the spiritual realities hidden in its literal, historical words. The leaders of thought in Alexandria put more emphasis on the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Approaches to the refutation of Arianism#
The differences between the Antiochians and Alexandrians had already surfaced in their different approaches to the refutation of Arianism, differences that set the stage for their Christological conflict.
The Arians made much of those New Testament passages that suggested a subordination of the Son of God to God the Father. Verses they quoted included John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” and Matthew 24:36, “No one knows . . . not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
- In their response to the Arians, the theologians at Alexandria argued that such passages were properly applied to the Son of God, but in his incarnate state.
The Alexandrian approach had no difficulty recognizing Jesus as God, but tended to diminish the importance of the human portrait of Jesus.
- The theologians at Antioch thought that this approach was in effect surrendering to the Arian claims of subordination. Taking another course, they referred such passages not to the divine Logos, but to the man Jesus — the human person.
The Antiochian approach seldom had trouble taking this portrait seriously, but always found it difficult to say how this Jesus could be one with God.
Both approaches provided a defense of the Nicene theology, a refutation of Arian arguments, and a framework for interpreting the Gospels.
This difference is why Arianism and the Nicene creed kept coming up in the Christological controversy. Each side thought the other was selling out to Arianism. Nestorius of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century were unable to distinguish the defense of the Nicene creed from the doctrine it sought to defend.
Although by the end of the fourth century Nicene dogma had become catholic orthodoxy, its defense rested on different theological approaches. By the fifth century these different defenses had shaped two different theological traditions, which as a result undercut the appeal to tradition.
The three phases of the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries concerned three positions that were judged heretical: Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism.
III. PRELIMINARY PHASE, 362–81: APOLLINARIANISM#
The problem in understanding the nature of Jesus Christ has been characterized as the conflict between two Christologies.
Alexandria followed a Word-flesh Christology, based on John 1:14, “The Word became flesh.”
Over against it, Antioch followed a Word-man Christology, speaking of the Word joined to a human being.
An extreme representative of the former approach was Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 315–92), one of the defenders of the Nicene creed. He explained that the divine Logos took the place of (replaced) the human soul or spirit in Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus had a human body in which dwelled a divine spirit.
The synod of Alexandria in 362 under Athanasius condemned those who rejected the belief that the Savior had a soul or mind, but the object of that condemnation may have been Arians (who also held to a Word-flesh dichotomy) rather than Apollinaris. The Council of Constantinople in 381 condemned Apollinarians by name.
Gregory of Nazianzus supplied the decisive argument against Apollinarianism with his aphorism, “What was not assumed was not healed” (Epistle 101). That means, for the entirety of human nature (body, soul, and spirit) to be saved, Jesus Christ must have taken on a complete human person.
IV. THE SECOND PHASE, 381–433: NESTORIANISM#
Diodore#
Cyril of Alexandria said that Nestorianism had its roots in Diodore. Diodore was a teacher in Antioch and later bishop of Tarsus (378–c. 390).
His students included John Chrysostom, later bishop of Constantinople (chapter 11), and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
He was an opponent of Arianism and of Apollinarianism.
In his Christology, Diodore distinguished the Son of God from the Son of David. “Never let the Word be thought of as Mary’s son,” he declared. The indwelling of the Logos in the human nature is like a person in a temple or a person in his garments. There are two sons of God — one by nature and one by grace.
Verbally, Diodore maintained the unity of the Savior, but he insisted on the completeness of Jesus Christ’s human nature, which the Apollinarians denied. The latter accused him of the error that the Word dwelled in Jesus as it did in the prophets.
Theodore of Mopsuestia#
Theodore of Mopsuestia was born in Antioch (c. 350) and also studied under Libanius with John Chrysostom. He then entered a monastery, where he studied under Diodore. He was ordained a presbyter in Antioch by bishop Flavian in 383 and then became bishop of Mopsuestia in Syria in 392.
Theodore of Mopsuestia was known in the West as an exegete and biblical critic who practiced a literal interpretation of the Scriptures based on historical context. In the Syriac-speaking “Church of the East,” which continued the tradition of the Antiochian church and of Nestorius, he rather than Nestorius is remembered as the authoritative theologian.
Theodore wanted a real humanity of the Lord. In describing the union of the divine and human he favored the language of indwelling. The Logos lived in the man Jesus. While there is a complete distinctness between the human and the divine in Jesus, yet there is also such a unity of will and operation that the result is one person. Since the union is not in essence, nor by activity, however, this union was understood by his critics as no more than a moral union.
Theodore thought in terms of the human Jesus who became God. Apollinaris thought in terms of the divine Christ who became man.
Theodoret#
Another important theologian and biblical scholar in the Antiochian tradition was Theodoret (393–c. 460). Born in Antioch, he had Chrysostom and Theodore as his teachers, and Nestorius and John of Antioch as fellow students. He became bishop of Cyrus in Syria in 423, where he began a purge of heresy, an extensive building program, and the writing of historical, polemical, and exegetical works.
Nestorius#
The name of Nestorius became attached to the Antiochian theological tradition by its opponents because of the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Nestorius was a presbyter and head of a monastery in Antioch when the emperor Theodosius II chose him to be the bishop of Constantinople, a position to which he was consecrated in 428. He soon started a harsh campaign against heretics, but became himself accused of heresy, charges prompted in part by jealousy and in part by his own aggressive personality.
The sticking point in the controversy about Nestorius was the word Theotokos (“God bearer”) as applied to Mary. The term became the flash point of conflict between the two separate theological traditions that had taken root in Alexandria and Antioch.
To supporters of the Alexandrian theology, the term seemed entirely appropriate. The divine Christ in the process of taking flesh was truly in the womb of Mary; to say anything less was to deny the full divinity of Christ and the completeness of his union with the flesh.
Nestorius and those of his theological tradition were concerned that the title made Mary a goddess. She was the mother of the man who was assumed by God, and nothing should be said that might imply she was the “Mother of God.”
In November of 428, Anastasius (chaplain to Nestorius) in a sermon denied that Mary is Theotokos, and Nestorius supported him against the protest that ensued because of the increasing honor to Mary in popular piety. In 429 the presbyter Proclus (later bishop of Constantinople) asserted that Mary is Theotokos, and Nestorius, who was present, began an extemporized answer. The controversy was under way.
Nestorius was banished by the emperor after the Council of Ephesus in 431. While in exile, Nestorius wrote a book preserved in Syriac under the title Bazaar (more accurately Proceedings) of Heracleides, setting forth his life and defending his position.
He warned against Apollinarianism and “paganism” (i.e., the idea that God changes).
He claimed that the Word was associated with the human person at the first moment of life
He offered Christotokos in place of Theotokos as a more appropriate title for Mary, for she was the mother of the resultant new person.
Modern efforts to rehabilitate Nestorius find him more of a schismatic in temperament than a heretic, for he denied the teaching for which he was accused, namely that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were two different persons. Nevertheless, he lacked a vocabulary and the theological sophistication to relate the divine and human in a convincing way.
The principal opponent of Nestorius was Cyril of Alexandria (bishop 412–44). Like other bishops of Alexandria before him (Athanasius, Theophilus), Cyril was a passionate theologian and determined politician. In his Paschal letter of 429, Cyril defended the term Theotokos. The key text for Cyril’s Christology was John 1:14, “The Word became flesh.”
Cyril applied a grammatical model to the understanding of the incarnation.
The Word is the subject; the flesh is the attribute that the Word took on.
Becoming flesh involved no change in the divine nature.
The self-emptying of the incarnation was a change in the circumstances in which the divine exists, but not a change in divinity itself.
Hence, the unity of Jesus Christ’s person is maintained, so much so that Cyril could speak of “one nature” because there is only one acting subject.
The Logos unites flesh to himself.
The one person is not constituted by the union, but the one person of the Logos extends himself so that humanity is included with himself.
This appropriation of the flesh is what Cyril meant by “composition.” His essential analogy was predication, not physical analogies. His comparison of the incarnation to the union of soul and flesh was not an illustration of how the union occurred, but of the change of circumstances in which the one subject lives.
A central theological difference between the Antiochians and the Alexandrians had to do with their approach to the question whether the divine was subject to suffering.
Nestorius maintained the divine impassibility and so insisted on the difference between the divine and human in Jesus Christ. Because the divine impassibility was an axiom of Greek philosophy, the Alexandrians hesitated to assert that the divine suffered in Christ, but Cyril’s emphasis on the union of the divine and human in Christ approached an acknowledgment of this in his paradox that Christ “suffered impassibly.”
When bishop Celestine of Rome heard of the dispute, he selected John Cassian (c. 365–c. 433) to respond to Nestorius, which he did in On the Incarnation (430). Celestine determined to side with Cyril and to try to reclaim Nestorius.
The alliance of Rome and Alexandria still held: a synod in Rome condemned Nestorius in 430, and Celestine asked Cyril to conduct proceedings against him. Cyril had Nestorius condemned in a synod at Alexandria and sent notice of the action to Nestorius with a covering letter and a statement of Twelve Anathemas that stated the Alexandrian position in an uncompromising form.
V. THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) AND ITS AFTERMATH#
Theodosius II and Valentinian III called a general council for Ephesus. As the bishops began to gather in 431, the tactical maneuvering resulted in the most confused set of proceedings of any of the ecumenical councils.
The council opened on June 22, 431, with 153 bishops present. Forty more bishops later gave their adherence to the decisions. Cyril presided. Nestorius was served citations, but he repudiated them. He was then declared deposed and excommunicated, and the city of Ephesus rejoiced.
On June 26, John, bishop of Antioch, and the Syrian bishops, who had been delayed, arrived. John held a rival council in his lodgings, consisting of forty-three bishops and a count representing the emperor. They declared Cyril and Memnon deposed. Further sessions of the rival councils extended the number of excommunications.
Reports of the activities reached Theodosius II, and representatives of both sides pled their respective cases against their opponents. Theodosius’s first instincts, probably correct, were to confirm the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius. Finally, lavish gifts from Cyril and the intercession of his friends carried the day. Theodosius dissolved the council and sent Nestorius into exile, and a new bishop of Constantinople was consecrated. Cyril returned triumphantly to Alexandria.
From the standpoint of church history, the post-council activities were more important than the council itself. John of Antioch sent a representative to Alexandria with a compromise creed.
This asserted the duality of natures, in contrast to Cyril’s formulation, but accepted the Theotokos, in contrast to Nestorius.
This compromise creed anticipated decisions to be reached later at Chalcedon.
The church at Antioch sacrificed Nestorius for the sake of peace. Cyril assented to the creed and a reunion of the churches occurred in 433.
Either way, the real loser was Nestorius. Theodosius had his books burned, and many who agreed with Nestorius’s theology tacitly dropped their support.
Those who represented his theological emphases continued to carry on their work in eastern Syria, becoming the Church of the East. For a time, it was a flourishing separated church that spread in Persia and in lands to the east. Today it is greatly reduced in numbers.
VI. THE THIRD PHASE, 433–51: EUTYCHIANISM#
Both sides of the conflict had their extremists.
Nestorius was judged an extreme representative of those who stressed the “twoness” of Jesus Christ, although he later denied that he taught the position he was accused of holding, that Christ represented “two persons.”
The Cyrillian emphasis on the “oneness” of Christ was continued by Eutyches and Dioscorus both of whom lacked Cyril’s balance and exhibited some of Nestorius’s pugnacious personality.
Eutyches was condemned for an extreme advocacy of the one nature of Jesus Christ (so-called Monophysitism). As an aged presbyter and monastic leader in Constantinople, he had opposed Nestorius. This formula gave lip-service to the humanity of Christ, but only as an abstraction, for from the moment of the conception of Christ the divinity was the acting subject in the person of Christ. Christ was essentially divine.
At a synod in Constantinople in 448, at which its bishop, Flavian, presided, Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated for teaching the one-nature of Christ (Monophysitism).
Cyril was succeeded as bishop of Alexandria by his arch-deacon Dioscorus (444–51). He has been described as a brutal, proud, fierce ecclesiastic. Eager to vindicate Eutyches, and seeking to duplicate the success of his predecessor, he planned another general council for Ephesus.
Meanwhile, the Roman bishop, Leo I (440–61), had confirmed the actions of the synod of 448 and had written Tome, a letter-treatise to Flavian giving an analysis of Christology from a Roman perspective.
Dioscorus presided over a gathering of 135 bishops at Ephesus in 449.
Theodoret was excluded from the gathering.
The orthodoxy of Eutyches was affirmed
The Twelve Anathemas of Cyril were approved as correct doctrine
Representatives of a two-nature Christology (Dyophysitism) were condemned.
Theodoret, Flavian, Ibas, and others were deposed.
The club-wielding Egyptian monks who accompanied Dioscorus showed their anger at Flavian by so beating him up that he died later of the wounds inflicted. The atmosphere of intimidation was so strong that the papal delegates feared to read the Tome of Leo to the assembly.
Dioscorus had overreached himself and the Roman-Alexandrian alliance — so important in the theological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries — now snapped.
Leo protested the actions at Ephesus in 449 and called the meeting not an ecumenical council but a “Synod of Robbers”. The Alexandrian theology lost its imperial patronage when Theodosius II died in 450. He was succeeded by his sister Pulcheria, who chose the general Marcian as her consort. Pulcheria favored Leo and the Dyophysites.
VII. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451#
Pulcheria and Marcian called a general council for Nicaea in 451, but turbulent conduct forced them to move the meeting place to Chalcedon, nearer Constantinople. Appoximately 450 bishops assembled, the largest of the ancient councils. They were all easterners except for the Roman delegates and two North African bishops.
The first three sessions were concerned with the trial of Dioscorus and related matters. When the minutes of the Robber Synod were read, Theodoret was shown into the assembly at the mention of his name. The minutes of the synod at Constantinople in 448 were read, and Flavian was declared orthodox.
As a result, Juvenal of Jerusalem and the bishops of Palestine and Illyricum abandoned Dioscorus and went over to the Dyophysite side. Leo’s Tome was read and greeted with the acclamation, although to some it sounded Nestorian. Dioscorus’s deposition was pronounced and signed by the bishops.
The fourth to sixth sessions dealt with the question of drawing up a new Definition of Faith, which many were reluctant to do. It was agreed that the faith was to be based on the Creed of Nicaea as confirmed by Constantinople, expounded by Cyril at Ephesus, and set forth in Leo’s Tome.
Several efforts to find an acceptable wording failed, but a committee finally produced the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith. The crucial affirmation was that Jesus Christ consisted of two natures (divine and human), but was only one person.
The official promulgation occurred in the sixth session before the emperor, with Pulcheria given the honor of presiding.
The remaining nine sessions settled questions involving various bishops and adopted canons regulating affairs and relationships among the churches.
There were four aspects of the Council of Chalcedon, 451, of importance for the history of the church.
A. Dogmatic Aspects#
The Definition of Faith in regard to the mystery of the incarnation is the chief element for which the Council of Chalcedon is remembered. The Logos was made man, so he had two natures: two physeis or ousiai in Greek, two naturae or substantiae in Latin.
Cyril of Alexandria had a different nomenclature. Instead of using physis for each substratum of Jesus Christ’s being, he used physis or hypostasis for the unity of personality. Hence, he became the great saint of those called by their opponents Monophysites. For the duality of Christ, he used such expressions as “quality of existence,” “natural quality,” or “property.”
Both sides claimed Cyril for themselves.
The so-called Monophysites maintained his literal language of “one nature.”
The Chalcedonians claimed they were preserving his intentions by establishing a more precise terminology.
At Chalcedon the word persona or hypostasis was adopted for the unity of Jesus Christ’s being, and the word physis or natura for the duality. Christ was affirmed to be not only homoousios with the Father, but also homoousios with humanity, sin excepted.
The Chalcedonian formula rejected:
The tertium quid of Apollinarianism
The two persons alleged against Nestorius
The one nature affirmed by Eutyches
The formula does not really explain how the two natures became one person; rather it adopts a terminology for the “oneness” and the “twoness” and marks out the boundaries of acceptable speculation. It preserved the mystery rather than explaining it.
B. Conciliar Aspects#
The Council of Chalcedon was important for defining the authority of councils. It identified the three preceding ecumenical councils: Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.
Up to this time, no one could have spoken of two or three ecumenical councils, for only Nicaea had general recognition as such. Indeed, there was considerable resistance to the idea of drawing up another creedal statement, for that implied the inadequacy of the one definition of Nicaea.
The council also defined which councils’ canons would be authoritative for the churches, so this was an important step toward codifying a common canon law for the church.
C. Monastic Aspects#
The canons of Chalcedon defined the place of monks in the church. It was decreed that monks may not invade other parishes (no more of the Egyptian monks intimidating bishops at general councils). It also decreed that monks must be subject to the bishop in whose diocese their monastery was located. No new monasteries were to be set up without the bishop’s permission.
Chalcedon was a further step in bringing what was almost a rival church under the control of the episcopally organized great church.
D. Constitutional Aspects#
The Council of Chalcedon confirmed the place of the church of Constantinople as next to Rome. The twenty-eighth canon grounded the authority of the Roman bishop in his place of residence, and not on his connection to the apostles. Thus was laid the basis for a long-standing dispute between Rome and the East on the constitutional basis of the church.
- The East followed a principle of accommodation, so the ranking of churches could be accommodated to political realities.
Since Constantinople was now the capital of the empire, the new Rome, its bishop should be given a rank reflecting that reality. A primacy of honor was accorded to the bishop of Rome because of the historic associations of Rome as the old capital of the empire.
- The bishop of Rome, on the other hand, steadfastly insisted on a principle of apostolicity: Rome had its position because of its connections with Paul and Peter.
Leo accepted only the dogmatic part of the Council of Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, because his legates had the prudence to withdraw before the session at which the twenty-eighth canon was approved. He protested that the canon unfairly elevated Constantinople ahead of the apostolic sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and others.
The ranking of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as the principal sees of Christendom established a protopatriarchal system of church government.
The language of Patriarchs for these sees would be employed in the next century under Justinian.
The Council of Chalcedon formally closed the Christological controversy for the West, but in the East it inaugurated a new period of debate. Although the wording adopted at Chalcedon has been accepted by the Western churches and many of the Eastern churches as the definitive statement on Christology, the council by no means settled the controversy.
Instead, the controversy continued to rage in various places throughout the East with ever sharper intensity.