Roman Catholics Don't worship Mary

Please keep that in mind when you read this. They don't worship Mary, really, they don't!

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 5 )

Regarding the union of divinity and Christ, Nestorius believes that one must reject every interpretation that claims that the union between the two natures is natural or hypostatic. To Nestorius, these two terms mean that the two natures came together and formed a third static and complete union. If this were true then Christ is result of the union. This is unacceptable to Nestorius, who believes that the integrity of the two natures is an inviolable principle. Why? Because only two incomplete natures could unite in this manner and neither divinity nor humanity is incomplete. If Nestorius understood the doctrine of the hypostatic union this way then it is no wonder that he rejected it.

Instead of using the term “natural union,” Nestorius uses the term “voluntary.” This speaks to a union that is the result of a decision but does no harm to either nature. A natural union is involuntary because two come together to form one; the properties of either nature are mixed or lost as a result. The union of the divine and the human is a voluntary one because both natures retain their distinctions. The union is voluntary because God the Father, by His own free choice, ordained that it would occur. From the human standpoint, it is voluntary because the humanity is compatible with the divine will; this is so because God foreordained it to be so.

Regrettably, because of his emphasis on the integrity of the two natures, it became difficult to see a real union between the two natures, especially for his opponents who thought in terms of static “natures.” The union between humanity and divinity was a conjunction – much like salt and pepper. The two go together and retain their own properties, and at the same time, are contained in one body and each shares in the activity of the other and vice versa. This is why he could not accept the doctrine of the communication idiomatum and this is why he could not accept theotokos as a title for Mary. God cannot have a mother and calling Mary the “bearer of God,” as Nestorius saw it, only blurred the lines between God and Man. Mary is the temple in which the divinity dwelt and the instrument by which the Logos took flesh. She is merely the anthrotokos, the “man-bearer” or the “Christ-bearer” to be precise. It was Nestorius’ excessive distinctions and his inability to speak of the union between the two natures in strong enough terms that got him in trouble. How can we say that God dwelt with humanity if we must take such great care to distinguish among the two natures? Theotokos was simply the tip of the iceberg because the debate had implications on the work of Jesus Christ. According to his opponents, to say that God was not “born of a virgin,” (i.e. a human being) was to imply that Christ (the God-man) was not completely human. In order to affirm that God dwelt among man (in the person of Jesus Christ) and also suffered and died for humanity one must affirm that Mary is the God-bearer.

Sadly for Nestorius, Cyril never made much of an attempt to understand him. The controversy was a result of a failure to define terms and the overzealous mindset of both parties. Cyril’s position was certainly as vulnerable as Nestorius’. Cyril emphasized the unity of Jesus so much that it became difficult for him to show how Jesus was really human and to avoid Christ’s humanity from being swallowed up by the divinity. Yet, Cyril has gone down in history as a great defender of orthodoxy and Nestorius as another adoptionist similar to Theodotus or Paul of Samosata.

Bibliography

Brown, Harold O.J. Heresies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1998.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought Vol 1. . Abington Press, 1987.

O'Keefe, John J. "Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth Century Christology." Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (1997): 39-60.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary Through the Centuries. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1996.

R.N. Swanson. The Church and Mary. Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer, 2004.

Sullivan, Francis. The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rome: Gregorian University, 1956.

White, James R. Mary - Another Redeemer? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Press International , 1998.

Wilken, Robert L. "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies." Church History 34, no. 2 (1965).

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 4)

So, what Nestorius a heretic? Scholars are in debate about this. Since he was declared a heretic there can be some doubt as to whether his views have come down to us accurately since the majority of what we know of his beliefs have come through the writings of his enemies. It is fair to say that his concerns over the word Theotokos were correct on at least one point—the term is liable to serious misuse and misunderstanding[1] This misuse is certainly see that within the Roman Catholic Church. [2]In 1889 the Book of Heraclides, Nestorius’ work persevered in Syriac, was discovered and sparked new discussion. Some say that the book shows Nestorius’ true thoughts and that the fragments of his work were twisted by his enemies. Others claim that the book is the apology of the defeated Nestorius trying to portray his orthodoxy and show the injustice of his situation twenty years after writing of the fragments. The proponents of this theory claim that the amount of time had allowed Nestorius to see fault in his attitude which brought moderation to his thought. There seems to be some truth to both theories. It is true that the Christology condemned at Ephesus was a caricature of Nestorius’ theology yet Nestorius did exaggerate his own claims in the heat of the debate and he certainly did not attempt to destroy the straw-man that Cyril had created. If the Book of Heraclides was Nestorius’ attempt to correct his error, it came too late.

It is important to understand the terms being used in his argument. Terms such as nature, hypostasis, prosopon, union, etc. can be misunderstood. For Nestorius, the term nature is either complete or incomplete and its meaning depends greatly on the context. For example, the body and the soul are incomplete natures because they make up one human nature. Human nature, on the other hand, is complete because, when joined with a new nature, it does not produce a third; as it is with Jesus Christ. The reason that Jesus has two complete natures is because each one retains its own distinctions, differences, or characteristics, or as Nestorius puts it: separation. The term should not be understood to mean distance but rather distinction. Each nature, though joined, is distinct, definable, and knowable. When speaking of a complete nature, Nestorius uses the word hypostasis. Not to refer to something different from the nature itself or something added but that the nature in and of itself is complete.

Prosopon refers to the context of the doctrine of the trinity. It speaks to the characteristics of a nature, either divine or human. Concerning this, Gonzalez writes:

The natural prosopon is the form of a nature, the totality of the properties and distinctions that make a nature complete, so that it may be called hypostasis. Each complete nature is known and distinguished by its prosopon. Therefore, in the case of Christ, if humanity and divinity are to subsist as complete natures, without being dissolved into a third, each of them must have its own prosopon. [3]

This is the basis for the claim that there are two prosopon within the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, on the other hand, one must affirm that there is only one prosopon in Christ. This is what Nestorius calls the “prosopon of union,” “common prosopon,” “or “voluntary prosopon.”[4] This is the prosopon of the Son and identical to the second person of the trinity. Nestorius did not deny that the Word is this prosopon however this must be understood in his use of the terms Son and Word. The Word is the Second person of the Trinity while the first is used for the same person as a distinct prosopon. It is mealy a conceptual distinction and does not mean that the Son only came into existence after the incarnation. God has united the two prosopon in Christ yet this in no way destroys the two natural prosopon which are both complete natures in and of themselves. For Jesus to have a divine prosopon means that he acts and wills as God the Father acts and wills. In other words, he is the true revelation of God the Father. The incarnation, then, is a dynamic being and acting as God on the part of the human Jesus.

---

[1] For more on the subject, cf. White, James R. Mary - Another Redeemer? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Press International , 1998.

[2] The next section is largely reliant on Gonzalez, 359-367

[3] Gonzalez, 361

[4] Ibid

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 3)

For the Alexandrians the term was entirely appropriate. The Logos took flesh upon himself in the womb of Mary – to say anything less was to deny the full divinity of Christ. Nestorius and the Antiochenes, on the other hand, saw that the title made Mary a goddess. She was the mother of the man, Jesus, who was God incarnate and there should be nothing said that would imply that God originated from her. The term had been in use since the time of Bishop Alexander[1] as a way to divide the orthodox from the Arians, though it is arguably a poorly chosen word, since a number of prominent heretical leaders had no problem with the term. The Arians could use it because they acknowledged that a divinity of sorts had been born into the world and had suffered and died as a man. The Apollinarians were eager to accept the term since they confessed that there was only one incarnate nature of God the Logos.[2] The term does, however, does make sense when one understands that that the word is the consequence of the communication idomatum (that is, the communicable attributes of Christ). Since Jesus is fully God and fully man it requires that God was born, in a sense, and that the one that bore the God-man should be the “God-bearing one.” Nestorius, however, saw that the term was misleading. He saw the term implied that the One that Mary bore was not fully man.

Instead, one must say that Christ is born, thus implying, because God and man are one in Christ, that both God and Man are born. To call Mary either God-bearer or man-bearer, although both are correct in terms of the communication of attributes, appears misleading. [3]

Nestorius taught that the two natures of Jesus came together in one prosopon or one person which is actually an orthodox statement. His opponents, on the other hand, took him to mean that the two natures came together to make one appearance. The difference being that to be united in appearance would be to simply be associated and not completely joined. Nestorius held that there was an inseparable union between the Logos and the human in Christ from the moment of conception yet there was no mixture of the natures so each retains its properties. It was the humanity that was born, suffered, died, and raised again yet, even though there are two natures, there is one Son.

Nestorius was not a theological radical like Arius. Arius fell into heresy with his desire to be brilliant. Nestorius, on the other hand, wanted to be precise and it was something he sought zealously at all costs. The church, however, did not hold the same enthusiasm for that kind of precision. The attack from Alexandria was not simply a result of a misunderstanding. It would seem that the attack came firstly out of a personal and regional pride and ambition to be the dominating theology of the eastern Roman Empire. However, the intentions of the Alexandrian church (namely Cyril) can be debated. Whether or not the debate was fuelled by the rivalry or the issue was used as an opportunity to gain political superiority will never be known and it is not a question that I will try to answer in this work. As Cyril understood Nestorius, the saving acts of Christ were done in his humanity only and, as Cyril saw it, they could have no saving power. The union between God and man must go beyond a mere association if our human nature is to participate in the purification and sanctification that only the union with the deity can bring. Cyril, like Apollinarius and Gregory of Nazianzus, insisted on the unity between God and man—yet in contrast to Apollinarius and with much greater clarity than Gregory, Cyril taught that the humanity and the divinity remained unmixed and unchanged. There are two natures in Christ, according to Cyril, but they exist in a natural unity. The term “henosis kath’hypostasin (unity according to the person) was introduced—the true unity is both natural and hypostatic. This resulted in a kind of third nature: the incarnate nature. Cyril is, of course, straining the use of the word. It is not a deified nature but more of a theological term that Cyril used to portray the real unity of two unchanged, unmixed natures in the person of Christ.

The Council of Ephesus – 431 A.D.

A council was called at Ephesus in 431 to settle the disputes. With only some of the bishops present (153) and Cyril presiding Nestorius was declared a heretic, deposed, and excommunicated to the joy of the city. Four days later (June 26^th) John, the bishop of Antioch, and the Syrian bishops arrived and held a rival council at John’s lodgings. With only 43 bishops and a representative of the Emperor they declared Cyril deposed and excommunicated him. The rival sessions continued and the excommunications piled up until word reached Theodosius II and both sides came to plead their case. After some expensive gifts from Cyril and the intercession of his friends, Theodosius II sided with Cyril. Nestorius was sent into exile and a new bishop of Constantinople was consecrated. Following the council, Cyril agreed to a formula that asserted a duality of natures yet affirmed Mary as theotokos. The creed states that Jesus was of one substance with the Father according to his deity and of one substance with us according to his humanity. He had a rational soul and his two natures are unified. The formula answered all of the concerns of the Antiochenes but since Nestorius had been exiled their ideas were discredited despite their acceptance as orthodox.

---

[1] Died in 326 A.D.

[2] Brown, 172-173

[3] Ibid, 173

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 2)

Nestorius was a presbyter and head of a monastery in Antioch until Theodosius II chose him to be the bishop of Constantinople in 428. As student of Theodoret, Nestorius was of the Antiochene tradition. After his position had been consecrated he began a harsh campaign against heresy but was accused of heresy himself, partially out of his aggressive policy and partly out of jealousy from rival churchmen. [1] He objected to the term theotokos as it applied to Mary. His reasons for this objection are many and to understand his objection it is necessary to examine the context behind his objection. The problem really began with the heretic Arius and the varying responses to his teaching. Arianism had been condemned by Nicaea but that pronouncement hardly stamped the movement out and the line of orthodox, semi-Arian, and Arian councils that stretched from Nicaea to Constantinople are a testament to that fact. The responses from the Alexandrian church and the Antiochene church differed. The Arian syllogism went like this:

The word is the subject of the human operations and sufferings of Christ.

Whatever is predicated of the Word must be predicated of him according to his own nature (kata physin).

Ergo, the nature of the word is limited and affected by the human operation and sufferings of Christ, and is subordinate to the Father. [2]

In other words, The Word is limited by humanity. The humanity suffered and therefore the divinity suffered and since God cannot suffer, Christ must be created and subordinate to The Father. For the Nicene theologians this required an adequate apology – not only to answer the Arian problem but a comprehensive hermeneutic to counter the passages in the Arian armory. Two approaches emerged: One from Alexandria and the other from Antioch. These two replies to Arianism created a problem that would come to fruition in the conflict between Nestorius and Cyril – the two divergent replies created a breeding ground for tension, namely the inability to distinguish between the doctrine being defended and the defense itself.[3] In other words, to take issue with the defense was to take issue with the doctrine itself. By the fifth century, Nicaea had become the established tradition of the church but the two defenses had grown into separate theological traditions. By the time of Cyril and Nestorius, the question now became one of apostolic tradition and which side was correctly walking in that tradition.

Athanasius, who set the pattern for the Alexandrian position, attacked the second (minor) premise of the Arian syllogism.

If it false, argued Athanasius, to claim that any action predicated of the Logos must be predicated of him according to his own nature (kata physin). For the Gospel teaches us that the divine and eternal Logos took on human flesh and became a man. When He became man he assumed the characteristics of the man such as weakness, hunger, suffering, etc. Therefore we can rightly say that it is the Logos who hungers, suffers, etc.; but we do not say that he does so in according to his own nature. Rather He suffers according to the flesh, according to his humanity (kata sarka). [4]

Athanasius is setting up two types of predication: one according to the nature of the flesh and the other according to the nature of the Logos. Jesus always was and is God the Son but at a certain time he “took flesh from the Virgin Mary, the theotokos, and became man.” [5] the passages of scripture that the Arians used to say that Jesus was subordinate to The Father were explained in this manner: Sometimes, Jesus does things divinely, such as heal, raise the dead, or know the thoughts of those opposing Him. Other times, Jesus does humanly things: he hungers, thirsts, and suffers. When it says, for example, in Luke 2:52 that Jesus advanced in wisdom, it was interpreted that the Logos advances humanly or in other words: the human nature advanced. The point is this: whether Jesus performs the divine actions or the human actions, Jesus is always the Divine Son but, depending on the action, the actions must be assigned to the Son as he is according to his divinity or as he is according to His humanity.

On the flipside, the Antiochene School put forth a completely different defense. Contrasting Athanasius, the Antiochenes accepted the minor premise of the Arian syllogism and denied the major premise. The asserted that there was only one kind of predication possible: predication according to the divine Logos (kata physin). This, of course, suggested that God was limited by his own nature and Arianism was the logical end. To counter this, the Antiochenes said that the Word is not subject to the human operations of Christ, rather the passages that speak of Christ suffering and feeling hunger and thirst must be attributed not to the Logos or to the flesh but to the man Jesus. He is the one who hungers, thirsts, and suffers. In a way, Jesus was the production of the divine and human natures – this is how Jesus could both heal and raise the dead and yet at the same time feel the need for nourishment and require sleep. The objective was the same for both sides: Give an apology against Arianism, defend Nicene theology, and give a hermeneutic for interpreting and expounding the Gospels. The Alexandrians had no trouble recognizing that Jesus was God yet their Christology tended to downplay the humanity of Jesus. The Antiochenes, on the other hand, also recognized the divinity but had trouble explaining how Jesus could be one with God. The first, worked out by Athanasius, was inherited by his successor: Cyril and the other found its expression in Nestorius. These two traditions provide the backdrop for Nestorius and his objection to the term theotokos. As we will see, the term is not simply about Mary but it is about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Ferguson, 259

[2] Sullivan, 158ff

[3] Wilken, 128

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

The Christology of Nestorius (Part 1)

I wrote this paper for my Church history class. I wrote about Nestorius, his Christology, and why it led him to reject the Greek term theotokos (which means God-Bearer) as a title for the virgin Mary. Since it is twelve pages long, I will be posting it in segments.

==================================================

We in the 21^st century church are very far removed from the controversies of the early church. It is very easy for us to forget that it was their struggles that fleshed out the foundational doctrines that are taken for granted by the majority of those who claim the name of Christ. We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants. It is easy to marvel at the nuances that men were willing to go to the mat about, especially in this post-modern era. The Christians of the early centuries realized that worship requires right knowledge and right thinking about God; yet, on the other hand, we must acknowledge that their struggle was, at times, as much about political positioning as it was about the truth of the Scriptures. There were times when they genuinely misunderstood each other and other times when neither side was interested in correctly representing the other. When studying the early Christian theologians it is important to remember that these men were simply tools in the hands of God and the best man is a man at best. Each one came to the table with a unique background, different traditional influences, and with different emphases. One such man was Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople and a man condemned for heresy. In this paper I would like to briefly explore who Nestorius was and the background and tradition from which he emerged. Secondly, I would like to examine the controversy that erupted as a result of his Christological teaching, specifically on the term theotokos, and finally conclude with the examination of this question: Was Nestorius a heretic?