Category: Nestorianism
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)?
The Trinity in the Old Testament: A Christological Hermeneutical Approach?
Yesterday I wrote a response to a Oneness Pentecostal theologian who placed emphasis on the lack of “Father-Son terminology” in the OT (see here). After I posted my thoughts I begin to ponder the hermeneutical approach to the OT exemplified both by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. Here are some of the ideas that crossed my mind that I would like to place here in order to hear responses from others:
(1) The ‘Son of God’ terminology in the OT referred primarily to a human. It was usually used of the Davidic king, but it could also be used of Israel in general. Yet Christianity, especially Johannine Christianity, placed special emphasis on ‘Son of God’ as a category of deity rather than mere humanity. Did the NT authors and the early church fathers abuse the original terminology to prove their a priori conclusions or did they recognize the sensus plenior of this statement thereby recognizing that the true ‘Son of God’ must be deity?
(2) If we allow for the NT authors and the church fathers to read back into the OT using a Christocentric hermeneutic why can we not allow for this same approach when we reinterpret the OT in regards to the Trinity? For instance, in the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Colossians it is obvious that there is a sense in which Genesis 1:1-3 has been reread through Christology. In John 1:1-3 the “Word” which was with God as well as being God is clearly derived from Genesis 1:3 where God speaks creation into existence. Furthermore, in Colossians 1:16-17 we see the transference of the wisdom of God–which Jewish literature depicts as God’s creative agent–to Christ. If Christ is the agent of creation he is understood to be the Word/Wisdom of God that was from the beginning.
(3) Equally, the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:1-28 us depicted as the agent of new creation. The Holy Spirit is redeeming the “sons of God”. In vv. 19-25 it becomes obvious that part of the Holy Spirit’s creative activity is new creation, or recreating. The whole cosmos groan and patiently wait for the children of God to be redeemed. Inherent in this text is the idea of resurrection. Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead; those who rise again to glorification are his siblings. The whole creation awaits this latter half because at that time it will be released from its own current bondage (hence, newly created itself).
It appears pretty obvious to me that the Apostle Paul understands the Holy Spirit as having a role in recreation. It is likely that the Holy Spirit as creator derives from Genesis 1:2 (at least). There the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters.
(4) If we maintain the hermeneutical approach of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, thereby closing off the OT to any discussion regarding the Triune nature of God, we cut off a hermeneutical approach shared by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. If these people could see God as Creator, Word, and Spirit in Genesis 1:1-3 and then apply these attributes to the personified expressions Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit, why can’t we do the same?
(5) Although it is true that the NT writers never used the word “Trinity” it is not true that the concept was not there. It is admitted by Oneness Pentecostals that there is some “personal” distinction between the Father and Son. The Father is understood to be God-transcendent; the Son as God-incarnate. But the Spirit is equally personified by Paul in Romans 8:26-28. The Spirit intercedes for us. Oneness theologians often used the incarnation to explain the prayers of Jesus (which is partially true since prayer was needed because of his incarnate state), thereby making the body/flesh pray to the transcendent Deity (often falling into Nestorianism). But what do we do of the Spirit’s intercession on behalf of Christians to the Father because the Spirit knows the will of the Father?
Usually Oneness theologians do a bit of exegetical gymnastics here. I have heard “The Spirit knows the will of the Father because the Spirit is the Father”. Ok, why didn’t Paul just say that? It would have cleared up a lot of confusion!
(5) Finally, I want to throw this out there although it is somewhat unrelated. Why do Oneness Pentecostals argue that the Trinity is an “extra-biblical development” (as if all theology isn’t?) yet affirm the Protestant canon? Let us be clear about this: the canon is equally a later development as the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals rightly affirm that the Scriptures that became canon where already canonical but had to be recognized. Yes, and I say the Trinity was proto-orthodox, it just had to be clarified.
Anyways, those are my five thesis. I am not Martin Luther. But I hope for some feedback if anyone has any thoughts on these matters.
Nestorius Lives On?
A little while ago, a friend posted a Facebook status update about a teaching on Nestorian Christians. I was curious as to what the view was on this so I asked for clarification. I was directed to an audio of and some notes on the teaching. I have not listened to the sermon yet, but I did go through the media presentation. The view is in favor of Nestorian Christians. More specifically, the presentation implied that Nestorian Christians were the remnant of the original—perhaps even the true—Christians.
I am always wary of these kinds of views. There are a few reasons: 1) Nestorius was condemned by the council of Chalcedon; 2) the Nestorian view is generally condemned by modern, orthodox Christian scholars; and 3) the view does not line up with Scripture.
It seems the Chalcedon statement is thus far the most definitive document produced by the church on the nature of Christ. I can appreciate the wrestling that the church leaders did in trying to produce a statement about what they believed regarding Christ’s humanity and deity.
Modern orthodox Christian scholars—many, at least—reject Nestorianism. Among these would be those like Millard J. Erickson. I suspect that scholars like Gary Tuck, Earl E. Cairns, Roger E. Olson, M. James Sawyer, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen do also. Even Oneness theologian Daniel L. Segraves rejects Nestorianism in favor of a more Chalcedonian christology. He writes of Nestorianism in Oneness Pentecostal circles in a negative light:
Although Oneness theology elevates Jesus Christ, . . . the Christology of some early proponents sacrificed or compromised the integrity of Christ’s person [referring to those who held the insufficient views of Apollinarianism, incipient Certinthianism, and Sabellianism], the hypostatic union of deity and humanity. . . .
Some of these views faded in Oneness theology in the latter half of the twentieth century, but there is still a struggle to avoid and overcome the Nestorian tendencies of some perspectives.1
Because Nestorianism divides the person of Jesus Christ into virtually two persons within one body, and Holy Scripture does not suggest this, it must be rejected. The logical outcome of Nestorianism is that one nature can act independently of the other nature. Contrary to this, Scripture speaks of the opposite:
God has a face:
They [the servants] shall see His [God's] face, and His name shall be on their foreheads (Revelation 22:4).2
If Christ’s two natures were really as separate as Nestorianism makes it seem, then this statement would be meaningless: the face would belong exclusively to the human person and not to God in any degree.
The one with a human body is called God:
And Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
Here, Thomas is speaking to Jesus, one who has a human body. While Thomas is not saying that the human body is God, the one he is speaking to is both God and human. If Nestorianism is true, then Thomas is not speaking to Jesus, the one standing there, but a spirit Jesus who is known as God. Some within the ranks of Oneness Pentecostalism have put forth this view. The problem is that the pronoun “Him” refers to the one who stood in the midst of the room. That person had a human body.
The one who forgives sins is called “a man”:
So He got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own city. Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”
And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!”But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” And he arose and departed to his house. (Matthew 9:1-7).
Jesus has a chance to correct the scribes regarding their thoughts about Jesus being a man. The scribes are correct. Yet, Jesus does not correct them and does not refer to Himself as the Son of God (often thought to refer to Jesus’ divinity); instead, Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, which many have taken to be a reference to His humanity. If the latter reference is correct, then the conclusion that can be drawn here is that the one who forgives sins is human but also other-than-human. However, Jesus’ humanity cannot be neglected as being involved in some way with this act.
One last note is that some groups, like Oneness Pentecostals, will claim a connection to Nestorius, or hold a christology similar to his. A Oneness Pentecostal who advocates Nestorianism might argue that if Nestorian Christians are the true Christians, and Oneness Pentecostals hold to Nestorianism, then Oneness Pentecostals are true Christians. However, what must not be overlooked is that those involved in the Nestorian debate in that day held to the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, a Oneness Pentecostal cannot argue for the truth of Oneness Pentecostal theology/christology on the basis that a Oneness person aligns himself or herself with Nestorius.
______
1Daniel L. Segraves, “Oneness Theology,” in Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, ed. Stanley M. Burgess (London, UK: Routledge, 2006), 343. It would be helpful to note that before Segraves’s article was submitted for publication, it was reviewed and approved by Kenneth F. Haney, the then-general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), and by David K. Bernard, a Oneness Pentecostal theologian and current general superintendent of the UPCI.[Back]
2All Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982).[Back]
