Ecce Homo

On the Divine Unity of Christ

Aaron Riches

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781467445443
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie et éthique systématiques

Interacting with theologians throughout the ages, Riches narrates the development of the church's doctrine of Christ as an increasingly profound realization that the depth of the difference between the human being and God is realized, in fact, only in the perfect union of divinity and humanity in the one Christ. He sets the apostolic proclamation in its historical, theological, philosophical, and mystical context, showing that, as the starting point of "orthodoxy, " it forecloses every theological attempt to divide or reduce the "one Lord Jesus Christ."

PART 1

The Unity of Christ

CHAPTER 1

Against Separation

If anyone does not confess that the Logos of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, . . . let him be anathema.

Cyril of Alexandria

A. The Nestorian Crisis

The dogmatic controversy that ignited the Nestorian crisis concerned the traditional title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Theotokos” (Θεοτόκος), the Mother of God or God-bearer. While Church Fathers no less eminent than Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) had set a precedent of using the Marian title,¹ it was popular piety that fixed it at the heart of the Church’s proclamation.² Devotion to the Theotokos was already considerable and flourishing in Asia Minor when Nestorius (c. 386-450) was invested as archbishop of Constantinople in 428.³

A pupil of the reputed Antiochene theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428), Nestorius was installed in the See of Constantinople in the year of his mentor’s death,⁴ apparently resolved to be vigorous and precise on questions of doctrine and to propagate the standard of “orthodoxy” he had learned at Antioch.⁵ As he preached in the presence of Theodosius II: “Give me, O Emperor, the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven in return. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians.”⁶ Convinced that the Christian religion had done away with the “passible” gods of pagan mythology,⁷ Nestorius detected a dangerous imprecision in the popular Marian title “Theotokos,” an imprecision that to him betrayed a residual pagan confusion of divine and human attributes. A human being, Nestorius reasoned, cannot be the Mother of God, since God can neither be born nor die.⁸ “Strictly speaking” (ἀκριβῶς), Mary is neither the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), nor is she the mother of a mere man (ἀνθρωποτόκος); she is the Mother of Christ (Χριστοτόκος).⁹

By publicly rejecting the traditional Marian title, Nestorius excited a controversy that spiraled out of his control. In his own diocese, clergy began preaching openly against him, admonishing their archbishop for either having revived the heresy of Paul of Samosata (adoptionism), or for maintaining a “two sons” Christology, traceable to Diodore of Tarsus (d. c. 390), the mentor of the young Theodore of Mopsuestia.¹⁰ The local dispute moved beyond Constantinople, meeting with a formidable and intransigent rival in the person of Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444), the patriarch of the metropolitan See of Egypt.¹¹

Cyril, responding to an influence of Nestorius’s teaching among the desert monks under his canonical remit, issued a letter to them in the spring of 429.¹² The letter charged, among other things, that the Marian title “Theotokos” is a truth received from the Fathers and is in accord with Nicene faith.¹³ Denial of the Marian title, argued Cyril, amounts to a parsing of the one Lord Jesus¹⁴ that undermines the salvific power of the Incarnation, since to separate divinity and humanity in Christ is to separate God from the Cross.¹⁵ Cyril ensured that copies of his letter found their way to Nestorius, provoking, at first, only a mild response.¹⁶ Cyril then wrote his famous second letter to Nestorius, in which he argued more forcefully that Nestorius was dividing the one Christ. At the heart of the matter, Cyril argued, lies a concern with fidelity to the Credo of Nicaea: “The holy and great Council stated that the only-begotten Son himself . . . [came] down (κατελθεῖν), was incarnate, made man, [and] suffered (παθεῖν).”¹⁷ On this basis, he reasoned, we cannot separate the attributes of the divinity of the Son, eternally born of the Father, from the humanity in which he was born of Mary and through which he died on the Cross. So basic is this unity to a correct doctrine of Christ, Cyril argued, that to depart from it is to depart from Nicene orthodoxy. The “declarations” (λογοίς) and “doctrines” (δόγµασιν) of Nicaea, “we too must follow, in order to realize [by them] what it means for the Logos of God to be made incarnate and made man.”¹⁸ For Cyril, therefore, the faith is simple, yet highly paradoxical: the divine Son, the one through whom all things were made, truly came down from above and truly died on the Cross; he is none other than the eternal Logos of the Father, and because he is born of Mary, she is truly Theotokos. Thus to understand the Incarnation aright, we must begin with the one Lord proclaimed at Nicaea, with the unity and identity of the subject who is at the heart of the events of eternal filiation, creation, filiation of Mary, and the death suffered at Calvary. Only by following these precepts do we come to realize what it means to say rightly “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

This second letter raised the ire of Nestorius and provoked a strong response. Furious at the insinuation that he was departing from the standard of Nicaea, Nestorius in turn accused Cyril of misconstruing the Credo. To attribute birth and death to the divine Son, wrote Nestorius, is “either the work of a mind that errs in the fashion of the Greeks [i.e. Hellenistic paganism] or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and Apollinarius.”¹⁹

By the summer of 430, news of the crisis had spread to Rome,²⁰ where Pope Celestine I (d. 432) convened a synod of Italian bishops to address the question. The synod ruled against Nestorius.²¹ Recognizing the gravity of the situation, Nestorius requested the emperor Theodosius II to convene a council, presuming it would play to his advantage and be held in Constantinople. The emperor was persuaded and convened a general council for the following year. Theodosius, however, called the council to convene in Ephesus, a city with a long history of Marian devotion in which, according to tradition, the Virgin herself had lived her last days. It was unlikely that Nestorius would receive a favorable reception in this place.

Unaware of the emperor’s decision, Cyril convened a synod in Alexandria to confirm the Roman synod’s pronouncement against Nestorius. Whereas the Roman synodical letter had not made any Christological exposition, this synod did so in the form of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters,²² a list of twelve anathemata directed precisely at the core teaching of Nestorius. A bold statement of the unity of Christ, the anathemata are highly paradoxical and include the famous anathema 12: “If anyone does not confess that the Logos of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, . . . let him be anathema.”²³ Cyril appended these Twelve Chapters to his third letter to Nestorius.²⁴ On the eve of the council, the stakes of the dispute were at their highest pitch of intensity.

The Council of Ephesus had been called by Theodosius to open on Pentecost Sunday, 7 June 431.²⁵ Nestorius and his company arrived first, followed by Cyril and his entourage and a little later by Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem. The council was delayed by the Roman delegation of Pope Celestine and a large group of Syrian bishops led by John of Antioch, a childhood friend of Nestorius known to be sympathetic with his cause.²⁶ On 22 June, after waiting for more than two weeks, Cyril opened the council without either John and the Syrian bishops or the Roman delegation, a right he claimed based on the fact that he was the ranking bishop present.

Nestorius refused to appear before the council when it opened. In his absence the Credo of Nicaea was solemnly read, as were the second and third letters of Cyril to Nestorius, along with a florilegium of earlier Fathers and selections of the writings of Nestorius.²⁷ The results of the council were quickly determined against Nestorius. He was condemned and his rejection of the doctrine of the Theotokos deemed heretical.

A few days after Cyril’s council adjourned, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with his company. The Syrian bishops were dumbfounded to discover that the council had been opened and resolved before they had even arrived. Enraged, they convened a second council of Ephesus that condemned Cyril and the council over which he presided.

Having received notice of the parallel “councils” of Ephesus, the emperor attempted to resolve the matter by calling together seven bishops from each faction. The seven bishops met, with Theodoret of Cyrrhus representing the Syrians and Acacius of Melitene representing Cyril’s council. The results were inconclusive and did not re-establish communion between the Syrians and those who supported Cyril’s council. The Syrians did, however, declare their acceptance of the Marian title “Theotokos,” which would in time become the basis of the Formula unionis of 433. By late autumn, Nestorius, tired of the fight, gave up the see of Constantinople and petitioned to return to his monastery outside of Antioch.²⁸

The final resolution of Cyril’s council of Ephesus, and what would finally secure it as “The Third Ecumenical Council,” came two years later in response to new pressure from the emperor to resolve the matter.²⁹ The result was the Formula unionis of 433.³⁰ While not a bold statement of the unity of Christ, the Formula unionis unequivocally upholds the doctrine of Mary “Theotokos.”³¹ Moreover, it crucially reaffirms the Credo of Nicaea as the basis of orthodoxy and proceeds from its Christological point of departure:

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his divinity, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father (ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν) in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity (ὁµοούσιον ἡµῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα), for a union of two natures (δύο . . . φύσεων ἕνωσις) took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord (ἕνα Χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱὸν, ἕνα κύριον).³²

B. Nestorian Doctrine

The logic of Nestorius is animated in all things by separatio; the integral difference of divinity and humanity can only be maintained if the two remain “two.” Thus he reasoned:

What was formed in the womb was not itself God, what was created by the Spirit was not itself God, what was buried in the tomb was not itself God — for if that were the case, we would evidently be worshippers of a man and of the dead.³³

In his Christological program, Nestorius followed his mentor and teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia.³⁴ Theodore had attempted to reconcile the Ni...

Table of contents

• Interventions
• Centre of Theology and Philosophy
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Foreword, by Rowan Williams
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Author’s Note about Sources
• Introduction
• Part One: The Unity of Christ
• Part Two: The Synergy of Christ
• Part Three: The Existence of Christ
• Coda: The Communion of Jesus and Mary
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Names and Subjects