Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement Fletcher, Stanley P. How to cite: Fletcher, Stanley P. (1972) The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9976/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk THE REVEREND STANLEY P. FLETCHER, B.A. THE CHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THE GHRISTOLOGY OF NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT - ABSTRACT The assessment of Nestorius1 Christology begins with a consideration of his indebtedness to Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The tradition of Alexandria i3 reviewed, referring primarily to Athanasius, Apollinarius and Cyril. The historico-political background is outlined and an account of the Theotokos affair given. The subsequent fall of Nestorius at Ephesus 431 is recounted. An examination of the christological vocabulary of the period, followed by a detailed study of the terminology and metaphysics of Nestorius, concludes that his foremost concern was the diagnosis of duality in the Incarnation but assesses him a moderate Dualist thinker. No conclusion is made on whether he provided satisfactorily for the unity of Christ's person. An account is given of the reconciliation of Cyril and John of Antioch on the basis of the Formulary of Concord. It is recounted how Dioscorus repudiated this and, following the affair of Eutyches, enforced his views at the Latrocinium only for the sudden death of the Emperor, to lead to another General Council : Chalcedon. The proceedings of Sessions 1-6 are recorded, describing the condemnation of Dioscorus and the promulgation of the Chalcedonian Definition. This composition is examined to show that, while defining little, it was the means of reconciling Cyril and Leo. Moreover, it rehabilitated moderate Eastern dual ism and set guide-lines for future christological speculation. It is considered whether the Christology of Nestorius falls within the permitted limits of Chalcedon. The anti-Nestorian temper of Chalcedon is noted and the verdict is given against Nestorius. The conclusion examines the judgement passed on Nestorius1 Christology by Loofs, Hodgson and Grillmeier. Cyril and Nestorius' are contrasted, showing how the former, despite shortcomings of character, had the sounder position theologically. Abra^lowski, s critical analysis of the Treatise is discussed in the Appendix. CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. - THE ROOTS OF THE GHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS 1-37 CHAPTER 2. - THE TRAGEDY OP NESTORIUS 38 - 59 CHAPTER 3- - THE CHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS 60 - 107 CHAPTER 4. - BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OP EPHESUS 431 AND CHALCEDON 108 - 123 CHAPTER 5. - THE COUNCIL OP CHALCEDON 124 - 139 CHAPTER 6. - NESTORIUS AND CHALCEDON 140 - 144 CHAPTER 7. - CONCLUSION 145 - 155 APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER ONE - THE HOOTS OP THE CHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS' The heresy of Arius, the presbyter from Alexandria, was to deny full divinity to Jesus Christ. As his great opponent Athanasius records in his De Synodis this Arius taught : Por He ( the Son ) is not eternal, or co-eternal, or co-unoriginate with the Father... ^ This teaching was condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325, which went on to formulate a standard of faith as a safeguard for the future. Thus the Council received a creed in which was introduced the great phrase which no Arian c •— * "77" could accept or explain away, namely that the Son is <y*OO(J0'/O)/ 1u HeiT^i. This creed of the Council of Nicaea, though primarily a landmark in orthodox Trinitarianism, may be taken also as a landmark in the development of precision in orthodox Christology. Henceforth, all discussions on the person of Jesus Christ must accord with the clear postulate of the Council of Nicaea.. This is that Jesus Christ is truly God. However, Arianism did not vanish overnight, and in 381 we find the Emperor Theodosius summoning a great council to Constantinople with an intent to put an end to the long drawn-out Arian controversy. This council also proves to be a landmark in the development of precision in orthodox Christology. This is so because the first canon of the Council of Constantinople reads thus : That the faith of the 318 Fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia, is not to be made void,. but shall continue established; and that every heresy shall be anathematized, and especially that ... of the Apollinarians. This specific condemnation of Apollinarianism brings a second postulate into all discussions on the person of Jesus Christ. This is that Jesus Christ is truly man. To these two postulates, that Jesus Christ is truly 1. H.G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke III, 1 p.13. - 2 - God and truly man, is to be added a third. This is the clear picture derived from Scripture that Jesus Christ is one person. So we arrive at the problem of orthodox Christology which is how can these two statements (that Jesus Christ is truly God and also truly man) be true of one person. It is a problem that can be stated in at least three ways : How could God and man be united in one person? How could God, remaining God, become also man? How could man, remaining man, become also God? These questions, immediately above, reveal for us the two basic approaches possible to the problem of Jesus Christ. The one is to stress that in Jesus Christ we meet with God. This approach would appeal particularly to those who wanted and needed to have from their religion a physical presence of the divine. A.C. Headlam thus describes this reed : The Egyptian monk or devotee who gave up everything for Christ, and lived in the desert an ascetic life, hoping more and more to gain some union with God, had his mind overborne by the fact that in Jesus Christ he saw the Godhead on earth; that God thus incarnate in man had taken frail human nature capable of sin and had glorified it by union with Himself and made it divine; and he lived always with the vision that just in the same way, his own weak and imperfect and frail nature might be made divine. 1 Paul Tillich explains how this need may be filled : Imagine a simple-minded human being who wants to have God. If you tell her: "There is God, on the altar; go and have Him there." then she will go. But how is this possible? Because of the incarnation, for in the incarnation God became something which we can have, whom we can see, with whom we can walk, etc. ^ Clearly such a need would dictate that the christblogical problem be approached from the side of how God, remaining God, became also man. This, the approach of the Alexandrian School of Theology, is to be seen in the writings of Cyril, Bishop of Alenandria. For him the given position is that redemption is an act" centred in" God and wrought by God in 1. H.Jd. Relton, A Study in Christology. Preface p.ix. 2. P.Tillich, A History of Christian Thought p. 85. - 3 - the flesh. God remains God. Nothing in the act of Incarnation does anything to change the Logos. Cyril writes : We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed in order to become flesh, nor that it was transformed into a complete man of soul and body: but rather this, that the Word united to Himself in an objective reality, ineffably and incomprehensibly, flesh ensouled with a rational soul, and thus became man. With this theory that the Logos asarkos is self-identical with the Logos ensomatos it follows that Cyril was unable to accept any doctrine of kenosis which would involve a loss of attributes on the part of the Logos. Later in this dissertation we shall see Cyril defending the term Theotokos against Nestorius. His reason for so doing is that just outlined above. It is not that he wishes to deify the Virgin Mary or to assert that she, creature as she was, brought forth God the Logos, but that the Incarnate and Biscarnate persons are in essence and in principle one and the same. Again, for the same reason, we find Cyril able to speak of God the Logos as suffering in the flesh: He Himself, who is the Son begotten of God the Father and is God only-begotten, though He is impassible in His own nature, suffered in flesh for us according to the Scriptures; and in the crucified body He was making His own, impassibly, the sufferings of His own flesh. 2 Being united to manhood like ours, He could, impassibly, endure human sufferings in flesh that was His own.