This is part 21 of the Early Church History class.
In the fifth century Christians waged a theological civil war that ended in a massive church split. The issue was over the dual natures of Christ. How was he both divine and human? Did he have a human soul and a divine soul? Did his two natures fuse into one new nature? Although such abstruse distinctions would hardly get anyone’s blood boiling today, these doctrinal distinctives resulted in a zero sum war for supremacy involving not only theological argumentation, but also political conniving and outright gangster tactics in the battles that led to the famous Council of Chalcedon in 451. Though church history textbooks often whitewash this period of theological creativity, this episode will give you a brief but unapologetic overview of the major players and their deeds in the dual natures controversy.
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
—— Links ——
- More Restitutio resources on Christian history
- See other classes here
- Support Restitutio by donating here
- Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF
- Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air
- Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.
- Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here
—— Notes ——
Options for Two Natures
- Athanasius (c. 357) affirmed Jesus as God and man but did not explain how the natures united. He called Mary Theotokos (God-bearer).
- Apollinarius of Laodicea (d. 382) said the Word became flesh without assuming a human mind (Apollinarianism).
- Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) condemned Apollinarius and said that what God has not assumed, he has not healed.
- Eutyches of Constantinople (380-456) said the divine and human natures combined to form one new nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism)
- Nestorius (c. 429) denied Mary as Theotokos, calling her instead Christotokos, and allegedly taught that Christ had two distinct natures in two persons (Nestorianism/dyophysitism).
- Leo I said Christ had two natures united in person, though the two natures remained distinct (Chalcedonian dyophysitism).
Condemning John Chrysostom
- John Chrysostom represented the Antiochene school of thought (as opposed to the Alexandrian).
- 397 Chrysostom became bishop of Constantinople.
- Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius, worked with Theophilus of Alexandria to depose Chrysostom.
- 403 Synod of the Oak deposed Chrysostom.
- 404 Chrysostom exiled.
- 407 Chrysostom marched to death
Condemning Nestorius
- 428 Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople.
- He immediately began persecuting “heretics” as a defender of orthodoxy.
- 429 Anastasius of Antioch preached in Constantinople that no one should call Mary
- Pulcheria, sister of emperor Theodosius II, worked with Cyril of Alexandria to depose Nestorius.
- 431 1st Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius.
Condemning Flavian
- 446 Flavian became bishop of Constantinople.
- 448 Held a synod that interrogated and condemned Eutyches
- 449 2nd Council of Ephesus reinstated Eutyches and condemned Flavian.
- Dioscorus of Alexandria instigated violence against Flavian that resulted in his death.
- Known to history as the “Robber Synod”
Chalcedon
- 450 Theodosius II fell from his horse and died, leaving Pulcheria, his sister the nun, to marry Marcian, the new emperor.
- 451 Marcian and Pulcheria called the council at Chalcedon to reverse the 2nd Council of Ephesus and depose Dioscorus.
- Pope Leo’s tome was read and accepted.
- After much debate, they codified the definition of Chalcedon, declaring Mary as Theotokos and Christ as having two natures in one person.
- When Nestorius read Leo’s tome, he agreed with him and called it orthodox.
- Several important groups of churches, both Nestorian and Monophysite, rejected Chalcedon, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Persia.
Review
- Deciding how the divine and human natures worked in Christ became the chief focus for many Christians in the fifth century.
- Apollinarius of Laodice proposed that the logos (Word) replaced the human mind, the rational part of the soul, in Christ (Apollinarianism).
- Eutyches proposed that Christ was one nature after the union of the divine and human (monophysitism).
- Pope Leo I said the two natures retained their distinctive characters in the one person of Christ (dyophysitism).
- Nestorius allegedly taught that the two natures in Christ were not united in one person (Nestorianism), though this was probably a misrepresentation of Cyril of Alexandria.
- Powerful Alexandrian bishops worked with powerful empresses to outmaneuver and depose Constantinopolitan bishops John Chrysostom in 404 and Nestorius in 431.
- Nestorius tried to steer people away from calling Mary Theotokos (God-bearer) by calling her Christotokos (Christ-bearer), but this offended many.
- Alexandrian bishops from Theophilus to Cyril to Dioscorus increasingly used gangster tactics to intimidate, coerce, beat, and even kill their theological-political opponents.
- The Chalcedonian definition of 451 condemned Nestorius and Eutyches while endorsing Cyril and Leo, promoting a diophysite statement of two natures in one person, united but not confused.
- Though trumpeted as “orthodox”, Chalcedon alienated a huge portion of Christianity, including the Coptic Church, Ethiopian Church, Syrian Church, Armenian Church, and Assyrian Church.
I’ve loved this class. I started because i wanted to understand the history of the apostles creed. Do you have any other podcasts on this topic?
What a great overview that sheds light on so many problems with the traditions of the Universal Church. Here are some of my thoughts as I listened.
The idea of “becoming man rather than indwelling man” I think is most important. God indwelling man (in Jesus) is just as significant, if not more so, than God “becoming” a man. Jehovah incarnating is not supported by scripture. Gods incarnating is actually a pagan tradition that was not so unique and claiming that Jehovah did this basically puts Him among all the other gods who did this. Jehovah “indwelling” man, on the other hand, is actually a unique occurrence.
Jehovah indwelling man was a phenomenon that had not occurred since creation. Adam and Eve were complete, a body, soul, and spirit; a spirit that was alive and directly connect to Jehovah through His spirit. From the fall to Jesus, God’s spirit had not been “among men” in any permanent way. Granted, the spirit “came upon” people to accomplish some special tasks, but language is important. The spirit “coming upon” someone is not the same as that person’s spirit being brought back to life and connected to Jehovah through His spirit that actually “indwelled” the individual. Jesus is the only human to be born a body, soul, and (live) spirit connected to Jehovah through His spirit. Adam was created that way. Jesus was born (begotten) that way. That is why he is called “Emanuel” or “God ‘with us.” God was not “among” humankind until this point in time. Now God remains “Emanuel” as He indwells every believer.
The statement that the “Word of God descended upon a holy man” is another example of taking a concept that is not in scripture and applying it to scripture. The “Word of God” that is “logos” is not want “descended upon a holy man.” The “spirit” of God is what descended upon holy men. God’s agent, His “holy spirit” is what worked through the prophets – not the concept of God’s “logos.” This is where so many will formulate their narrative and apply their pretext by using what I call “sleight of word” magic. They coin a phrase then use that phrase in whatever way they need to in order to make their narrative sound convincing. I think we should take great care not to use words from scripture in ways that are different than how they are originally used in scripture, or “in context.”
I have a question on the use of “godhead.” My understanding is that “godhead” was not a word until the 1200s. Is this the first time that the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus were translated? If not, what other words were used to convey his original words? I am not a “fan” of the word because I think it, like “trinitas”, was another of the many created terms that were needed to “explain” how folks wanted to apply the pagan tradition of a trinity to Jehovah and His Messiah.
It seems the driving force behind this issue is really the application of “incarnation.” Again, a word that didn’t exist until the 1300’s. As I said above, the idea of gods “taking on human flesh” is a long-standing pagan tradition going back to Nimrod and Semiramis’ son being referred to a god “in the flesh.” All these problems exist because of the successful blending of pagan tradition into the Universal Religion of the Roman empire that was created by Constantine and Theodosius 1.
The fact that politics even played a role should cause one to recognize how religion is corrupted by politics. If we would heed Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”, we could avoid all this corruption. This corruption is what complicates matters. I find it remarkable how so many evangelical apologists try to insist that their “explanations” make sense. They present what they claim are seemingly simple, logical, and reasonable arguments. However, their arguments are actually complicated, illogical and unreasonable. They essentially embrace a teaching without any consideration of how it originated. They gloss over the true historical record and claim all these issues were “worked out” by the “church fathers”; and all we need to do is embrace them. Not only that, but the so-called “church fathers” are cited as if they were on the same level as the writers of scripture. They are not. That is why I am drawn to the restorationist idea of restoring Christianity to what is was in the first century, the way it is described in scripture. I think most people avoid that because studying to identify how man got so far off course takes desire and dedication.
Thanks again for the great class!