The turbulent period of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century had just ended, and the Christian Church had entered a time of relative theological peace.  The hierarchy of the Church had come to a basic agreement on how to understand God as a trinity of persons in one nature.  The Nicene agreement was solemnly re-affirmed at the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, when it promulgated the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.  With the trinitarian controversy now settled a time of relative peace ensued within the Christian community, but appearances were deceiving because just under the surface of the trinitarian agreement lay a new controversy concerning the nature of the person of Christ, and how to understand the dogma of the incarnation.

          In the early fifth century all the great ecclesiastical centers were in complete agreement in rejecting the Arian and Apollinarian christologies.  These christologies rejected the full humanity of Christ by replacing the human soul with the Logos.  Their view of the incarnation was that God had assumed only human flesh, and not a complete human nature.  The christology of Apollinaris, who had been Bishop of Laodicea, was important because Nestorius’ own christology was formed as a reaction against it.

          In A.D. 427 Nestorius, who came from Antioch, was made Patriarch of Constantinople.  When Nestorius had established himself in Constantinople, “. . . he found a dispute over the title Theotokos had already started” [Grillmeier, 1:451].  There were two contending parties in the community arguing over whether Mary should be called Theotokos (Mother of God, or God-bearer) or Anthropotokos (Mother of Man, or Man-bearer).  Nestorius arranged for a monk named Anastasius to deliver a sermon in which he condemned the title Theotokos and explained that “Mary was ‘Mother of Christ’ rather than ‘Mother of God’” [Hughes, 1:240].  Thus the word Christotokos (Mother of Christ, or Christ-bearer) was Nestorius’ attempt at a middle ground between the two parties, but his new term did not succeed in bringing about peace, and in fact it made matters worse.

          Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, intervened in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople, and defended the traditional use of the word Theotokos.  The use of the word as a title of Mary and as a defense of the divinity of Christ can be traced back to the Alexandrian Catechetical School during the time of Origen in the third century of the Christian era [see Di Berardino, 2:833].  Cyril had to defend the term and attack Nestorius because he used the word in his own christological writings.  Cyril believed he was defending the oneness of Christ against what he perceived to be a form of adoptionism advocated by Nestorius.  The adoptionist heresy held that Christ was simply a man who in some way was adopted by the Father during his baptism in the river Jordan, and as a result of this he was not God by nature, but was simply infused with a divine power.

          Nestorius’ main concern was to defend the distinction between the two natures in Christ.  He defended them so vigorously that he appeared to be asserting not only two natures, divine and human, but two persons in Christ.  Modern scholars do not agree on how to answer the question of whether Nestorius actually believed that Christ was two separate persons, but they do admit that he denied the validity of the traditional doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties).  This doctrine allows one to ascribe the properties of one nature to the other nature because of the unity of Christ.  Since Christ is one divine person, who subsists in two natures, all of his actions in either nature flow from him as a single subject, and can thus be predicated of him as an individual.  It follows from this that Mary can be called Theotokos, not in the sense that she is the source of the Godhead, but in the fact that she gives birth to the incarnate word, who subsists as a single person.  Nestorius’ problem were thus compounded because he either had difficulty understanding this doctrine or was unwilling to accept it as legitimate.  Nestorius had reservations concerning this doctrine because it seemed to blur the distinction between the natures, and appeared to be a revival of the Apollinarian heresy.  As far as his opponents were concerned Nestorius was stuck at the level of the natures in Christ, and failed to fully grasp the consequences of the incarnation.  In fairness to Nestorius, Manlio Simonetti points out in his article that, “[Nestorius] rejected the charge of preaching two Christs, constantly confirming the indivisibility and unity of Christ, the incarnate Logos” [Di Berardino, 2:594].  It thus appears that Nestorius misunderstood his opponents position, and that they misunderstood his.

          In spite of what scholars believe today, at the time the victors in the struggle with Nestorius believed that his doctrine posited two natures and two persons in Christ.  If this were an accurate appraisal of his position, the doctrine of the incarnation would be imperiled because if Christ were two persons there would actually be no incarnation.  To settle the matter the Council of Ephesus was called in A.D. 431, but it was unable to propose any formula acceptable to both sides.  Instead, the settlement came two years later when the parties in the dispute composed what came to be called the Formula of Reunion.  The Formula was a victory for Cyril, and those who signed it had to accept the deposition and excommunication of Nestorius.  Moreover, they also accepted the use of the word Theotokos, while simultaneously confessing the oneness of Christ's person.

          The unifying Formula described Christ as “. . . perfect God and perfect man composed of a rational soul and body,” it went on to say that Christ is one, and that “In accordance with this union without confusion, we profess the Holy Virgin to be Mother of God (Theotokos)” [Dupuis, 199-200].  But Cyril did not get everything he wanted, because he had to give up “His favorite phrase, ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’” [Hughes, 1:248].  In the years to come this phrase would become the source of the next christological dispute.

          After the Council of Ephesus and the promulgation of the  Formula of Reunion the Nestorian position was basically defeated, and from that moment on, “The strict Nestorian party began to hive off and form an exclusively Nestorian Church” [Frend, Monophysite, 20].  But almost immediately two new factions developed:  the first group (Dyophysites) defended the concept of two natures in Christ after the incarnation, while the second group (Monophysites) promoted Cyril’s concept of, “one incarnate nature of God the Word” [Hughes, 1:248].  Cyril’s favorite phrase had come back to haunt the Church.

          Cyril’s theology can be interpreted to support either a Dyophysite position or a Monophysite position, but Cyril himself tended toward a Dyophysite explanation of his own terminology.  When he spoke of a natural union in his twelve propositions, he “explained that natural was used in the phrase in contradistinction, not with person, but with moral or virtual” [Hughes, 1:248].  In Cyril’s view Nestorius had only accepted a moral union between the divine and human natures in Christ, and he felt that a real union, a hypostatic union, was required in order to safeguard the unity of action in Christ.  As long as Cyril lived, he was able to “. . . keep his own followers loyal to the agreement of 433" [Hughes, 1:248], but when he died in A.D. 444 the Church was thrown into disarray.

          Dioscorus, who succeeded Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria, was determined to “. . . stamp out the embers of Nestorianism wherever they might be found” [Frend, Christianity, 764].  Meanwhile, in the imperial capital the aged archimandrite Eutyches was promoting a doctrine based on Cyril’s phrase, “one incarnate nature of God the Word” [Hughes, 1:248], but which he interpreted in a way that was substantially different from Cyril’s own interpretation.  Eutyches believed that Christ’s flesh, “could not be human flesh,” and “he challenged therefore the view that Christ’s humanity was our humanity, or in theological language, that Christ was consubstantial with man” [Frend, Monophysite, 30].  Flavian, who was Patriarch of Constantinople at the time, condemned Eutyches as a heretic.  Dioscorus, who saw Flavian as a crypto-Nestorian, came immediately to Eutyches aid, and supported him in his battle with the Patriarch of the imperial capital.

          This battle culminated in what has been called the robber synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449.  Dioscorus presided at the council, and thus was able to guarantee the outcome he wanted.  He had Flavian deposed as Patriarch of Constantinople, and guided the synod into issuing a statement that there were, “‘two natures before the union, one afterwards’” [Frend, Christianity, 768].  The famous Tome of Pope Leo, which defended the concept of the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties), and which firmly held to a Dyophysite position, was not read at the council.  The Monophysites were victorious at the synod of Ephesus, but their victory was not to stand.

          The Council of Chalcedon was convened two years after the robber synod had ended.  This time Dioscorus was not in charge, and the new Council deposed him and rejected his christological position.  The Creed of Nicea was read to the assembled Bishops, followed by the Tome of Pope Leo, and the two letters of Cyril to Nestorius.  The Bishops then declared that, “Cyril and Leo taught alike” [Frend, Christianity, 770], and proposed that a new definition of the faith be prepared.  That new definition, known as the Chalcedonian decree declared that, Christ “must be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation” [Dupuis, 203].  It also protected the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties) by saying that, “the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union but rather the character proper to each of the natures was preserved as they came together in one person [prosopon] and one hypostasis” [Dupuis, 203].  The definition was conformed to fit both Cyril’s theology and that of Pope Leo.  The division between the Dyophysites and the Monophysites was now inevitable.

          The Council of Chalcedon’s definition was unacceptable to the Monophysites because it insisted that there were two natures in Christ after the incarnation.  The Monophysites viewed Dyophysitism as a revival of the Nestorian heresy.  The believed that the Dyophysite position was a denial of the reality of the incarnation, and that it simply posited a moral union between the two natures, and as a consequence of this, a denial also of the possibility of salvation.  If Christ were merely a man indwelt by the Spirit of God he would not have the ability to redeem humanity, because only God was greater than sin and so only God could make atonement for sin.

          The Dyophysites believed that Monophysitism was a form of the Docetic heresy of the second century because they felt that it denied the reality of Christ’s human nature, positing in its place some kind of heavenly flesh, or worse still, that the original human nature of Christ was somehow absorbed by God.  If this concept of the absorption of Christ’s humanity were true, it follows that the divine nature itself would have to be seen as changeable, but God is eternally and essentially immutable, and this notion was seen as heretical by both sides.  The crux of the Dyophysite argument against the Monophysite position rested on the necessity of Christ’s consubstantiality with man.  If Christ did not become man, it follows that man is not redeemed, because Christ can only save what he assumed.

          The divisions caused by the christological controversies of the fifth century continue to the present day, although a certain rapprochement between the Roman Catholic Church and individual Nestorian and Monophysite churches has recently occurred.  In 1994 the Roman Catholic Church and the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East issued a common christological declaration expressing a unity of faith in the area of christology.  This was followed in 1996 by a common christological declaration between Rome and the Monophysite Armenian Church.  That declaration clearly states that, “[Christ’s] divinity is united to his humanity in the person of the Only-Begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation” [The Pope Speaks, 42:181].  So there are signs of hope for Christian unity in this area, though much work remains to be done.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Anthropotokos:  Literally “the Man-bearer,” normally translated as “The Mother of Man.”  This is a christological title that the heretic Nestorius, and all those who denied the divinity of Christ, was willing to apply to the Virgin Mary; it is an affirmation of Christ's role as man and a prophet, but does not – when taken alone – safeguard the full reality of the doctrine of the incarnation.

Christology:  The theology of the nature of the person of Christ.  It concerns how the Church understands that God has become man.

Christotokos:  Literally “the Christ-bearer,” normally translated as “The Mother of Christ.”  This is a christological title that the heretic Nestorius was willing to apply to the Virgin Mary; it is an affirmation of Christ's role as Messiah, but does not – when taken alone – safeguard the full reality of the doctrine of the incarnation.

Communicatio idiomatum:  The doctrine of the communication of properties in the one person of Christ.  This doctrine allows one to predicate operations of either of Christ’s two natures to the person of the incarnate Word.  

Hypostasis:  This term literally means, "subsistence" or "existence," which makes it a more concrete term than "prosopon" to indicate "person."  The term "hypostasis" is used by the Fathers and Council in order to rule out a Sabellian understanding of the Trinity, while simultaneously excluding a Nestorian approach to Christology.

Hypostatic union:  This doctrine was defined at the Councils of Ephesus (AD 431) and Chalcedon (AD 451) in order to exclude the weak Nestorian prosopic union, which did not safeguard the reality of the incarnation.  That said, the doctrine of the hypostatic union concerns the way in which the union of the two natures in the one person (prosopon) and subsistence (hypostasis) of Christ is described, i.e., that the union takes place at the level of the person as an existing reality, and not at the level of the natures themselves.  So, the two natures are united in the one person (prosopon) and one subsistence (hypostasis) of Christ, but they are not mixed or confused, nor after the union are they separable.

Incarnation:  The doctrine that God has become man in Christ, that the eternal Word of God has assumed a full and complete human nature.  In the words of the Gospel of John, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” [John 1:14].

Prosopon:  The Greek word "prosopon" is literally translated into English as "face," but means person or personal countenance.

Theotokos:  Literally “the God-bearer,” normally translated as “The Mother of God.”  This is a christological title that is applied to the Virgin Mary; it is an affirmation of the divinity of Christ and of the doctrine of the incarnation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Karl Adam.  The Christ of Faith.  (New York:  Pantheon Books, 1957).

Angelo Di Berardino.  The Encyclopedia of the Early Church.  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1992).  2 Volumes.

Jacques Dupuis.  The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church.  (New York:  Alba House, 1996).

W. H. C. Frend.  The Rise of Christianity.  (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1984).

W. H. C. Frend.  The Rise of the Monophysite Movement.  (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1972).

Aloys Grillmeier.  Christ in Christian Tradition.  (Atlanta:  John Knox Press, 1975).  2 Volumes.     

Philip Hughes.  A History of the Church.  (New York:  Sheed and Ward, 1952).  3 Volumes.

Periodicals:

The Pope Speaks:  The Church Documents Bimonthly.  (Hunington, Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor).

          Volume 40, Number 2, 1995.

          Volume 42, Number 3, 1997.

The Person of Christ

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Philosophy 501:  Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Dr. Fred Astren

30 March 1998

Copyright © 1998-2024 Steven Todd Kaster