Category: Christotokos/ Theotokos
Let’s discuss Cyril of Alexandria!
Cyril of Alexandria pondering how to bury Nestorius.
There are two things I know about Cyril of Alexandria: (1) he was the one who sought to bury Nestorianism and (2) he comes across as a thug.
Nestorianism is attributed to Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He sought to separate the divine and human natures of Christ or at least emphasize their distinction. This point was most important in the discussion over whether Mary the mother of Jesus should be called the “Christ-bearer” (Christotokos) or the “God-bearer”(Theotokos). Nestorius seemed to have feared calling Mary Theotokos because the divine nature of Christ was incarnate and eternal as the Word, not “born” which seems to indicate “coming into existence”. Others like Cyril argued that Christotokos seemed to deny the incarnation, as if the one born was somehow less than God. At least this is how I understand the debate.
Eventually Cyril won the day. Nestorianism because a heresy. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon seemed to have sided with Cyril, though there is a bit of tension here. Cyril’s view seems quite close to that of the monophysites, those who saw only “one nature” in Jesus, either God fully emptied into man or man fully engulfed into deity, not not two distinct natures. Chalcedon attempted to maintain the tension of Jesus being “fully God, fully man” with two natures that are not morphed into one yet completely united. I don’t know if Nestorius really, really disagreed or if he was framed as disagreeing by his opponents.
Cyril came across as a Christian mafioso in my estimation. He lead gangs of monks. He played the political game with much vigor. I don’t recall all I read, but I remember thinking of him as less of a pastor, more of a punk. I don’t know that he handled his dispute with Nestorius correctly. In fact, I doubt he did. That said, the past is the past and all our interpretations are history!
Let me know your thoughts on this man!
__________
See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:
If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.
If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.
If you’d like to discuss John Chrysostom, go here.
N.T. Wright on the Chalcedonian Definition
Council of Chalcedon
Tomorrow I will post my review of N.T. Wright’s chapter “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” from Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hay’s (eds.) Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright, but today I want to share something he says about the Chalcedonian Definition, wherein Jesus was stated to be fully human and fully divine over against the teaching of Nestorius, who was deemed a heretic and accused of splitting the divine from the human within Christ (though it seems many are not sure if this is actually what he taught or if it is merely how his opposition [e.g. Cyril of Alexandria] framed him).
Wright writes,
“…the Chalcedonian Definition looks suspiciously like an attempt to say the right thing but in two dimensions (divinity and humanity as reimagined within a partly de-Judaized world of thought) rather than in three dimensions. What the Gospel offer is the personal story of Jesus himself, understood in terms of his simultaneously (1) embodying Israel’s God, coming to rule the world as he had always promised, and (2) summing up Israel itself, as its Messiah, offering to Israel’s God the obedience to which Israel’s whole canonical tradition had pointed but which nobody, up to this point, had been able to provide. The flattening out of Christian debates about Jesus into the language of divinity and humanity represents, I believe, a serious de-Judaizing of the Gospels, ignoring the fact that the Gospels know nothing of divinity in the abstract and plenty about the God of Israel coming to establish his kingdom on earth as in heaven, that they know nothing of humanity in the abstract, but plenty about Israel as God’s true people, and Jesus as summing that people up in himself. The Council of Chalcedon might be seen as the de-Israelitization of the canonical picture of YHWH and Israelinto the abstract categories of ‘divinity’ and ‘humanity.’ I continue to affirm Chalcedon in the same way that I will agree that a sphere is also a circle or a cube also a square, while noting that this truth is not the whole truth.” (p. 135)
As I have talked with fellow evangelicals over the years it does seem that many find the Council of Chalcedon as being more political than doctrinal and few seem to think that anything substantial came from the decisions made there. Wright does not go that far, but he does seem to imply it only reached a half-truth and one could suggest that he doesn’t see the difference between the Christology of Cyril and that of Nestorius as being very relevant.
What are your thoughts? Do you think Wright undermines something very important that is found in the Chalcedonian Definition or do you fall to the side that sees the Council of Chalcedon as semi-irrelevant (or worse)?
Mary, the Mother of God: How Much Devotion is Due?
Mary, the Mother of God
Tomorrow is the day that the western church honors Mary, the Mother (or bearer) of God (theotokos). I know that many are not comfortable with the title theotokos for the same reason many did not affirm it in the third and fourth centuries. It was argued that the title christotokos was more fitting since technically the deity of Christ was not “born” at the incarnation, only the humanity. Therefore, it would be better to call Mary the one who bore “Christ”.
The title theotokos won the day because christotokos seemed to miss the point. Yes, God was born though God did not come into being–this is two different assumptions. It is similar to the statement in Acts 20.28 that the church was purchased through the blood of God. The incarnation must be taken seriously as God being fully in Christ.
Yet there is a reason that I am not Roman Catholic (OK, a few). While I am more than willing to honor Mary as the theotokos it seems to me that her devotion has gone too far in much of the western church. For instance, I cannot understand why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is of any value (i.e. Why does Mary, born of a sinful man and woman, need to be somehow born “sinless”? Why can’t this sinless birth begin with Christ who was born of a sinful woman, but not a sinful father, because the Holy Spirit did a direct work?). While I am not against people praying to her, per se, it does confuse me when she is given such a prominent place in penance. What atoning work has Mary done?
How much devotion do you give to Mary and why? What are your reasons for standing alongside the developed tradition of the church or your reasons for not doing so?
How (NOT) to Explain Theotokos (Θεοτόκος)
W.B. Moore has responded to several writings on the doctrine of Theotokos (including mine here) by arguing that it is better to use the term Christotokos than Theotokos because ”most people will miss the nuances involved in its use” (see here). While I understand his concern (like I understand that of Nestorious) it does not follow that we should abandon a pivitol doctrine because it may be misunderstood.
Moore says that most people understand Theotokos to include the following:
1) Jesus is God
2) Mary gave birth to Jesus.
3) Mary existed before time to give birth to God.
4) The divine person of God the Son was created when Mary gave birth.
5) One should pray to Mary who, being the mother of Christ, will interceed with Christ for man. After all, what son doesn’t want to do what his mother asks?
In response I think that people would reach points #3, #4 and #5 only if whoever doing the teaching is completely ignorant of what it means to call Mary the “God-bearer” or if there is intention to subvert the doctrine by claiming that it teaches that which it does not teach.
We argue for Mary as God-bearer because we believe Jesus is one person with two natures. We do not believe he is two persons (one divine, one human). To call Mary Christ-bearer is to insinuate that somehow Jesus was born human in a way that is disconnected from his deity. While it is understood Mary contributed the human nature what was born in her is no One other than God Himself.
If we begin moving down the pathway of teaching people doctrines we find easiest we will move the direction of the Jehovah’s Witnesses/Arians with the incarnation or the Oneness Pentecostals/Modalist/Sabellians with the Godhead. Yes, we need to be cautious as we teach the Christian faith but we don’t need to change it to make it sensible. Sometimes Christianity claims to be true what senses say is false.
Mary, the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος)
According to the Western tradition (and the Eastern tradition?) today is the day that we celebrate Mary, the mother of God. When I was younger I remember being told that this title was inappropriate because it somehow suggested the eternality or deity of Mary. It was emphasized that Mary was the mother of the humanity of Jesus. It was not until I was in college that I learned that this was a subject debated in the early church.
The defenders of the term Theotokos (Gk = one who gives birth to God [Θεοτόκος]) debated those who argued that the term Christotokos (Gk = one who gives birth to Christ) was more appropriate because God is eternal and God cannot be born. Against the defenders of Christotokos it is argued,
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ. [1]
Adrian Fortescue wrote,
It follows obviously from the hypostatic union: she is the mother of Christ, the mother of a person, and that person is God. The relation of mother and son concerns persons. The mother of a person who is God is just as much Mother of God as the mother of a person who is man is mother of man. [2]
Those who were in error–the Christotokos–were mistaken in their understanding of Christ. Most at the time of the controversy were of the party of Nestorius who said Christ was two persons. [3] Orthodoxy maintains that Christ is one person with two natures. Therefore, we cannot speak of Christ as being human on one end and God on another. Since Christ is God it is understood that Mary is the mother of God who was born in the incarnation.
It needs to be understood by those who reacts negatively to this title that it does not suggest the eternality of Mary nor does it suggest that the eternal God is temporal. Mary, the mother of God, suggest that the incarnation was a real occurrence in our history in our world. We confess that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the creator God.
___________________________
[1] “Mary, Mother of God” accessed from http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp on 1 January 2010.
[2] Adrian Fortescue, The Greek Fathers: Their Lives and Writings, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2007 (reprint from 1908). 171-172.
[3] Ibid. 170.
