Synopsis of the Chapter
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 opened a new era in Eastern Christian thought and at the same time caused a schism within the Eastern Church that endures to this day. It was at this Council that Christ was defined as one person with two unconfused natures (human and divine). Furthermore, this council was the collision of two waring schools of thought. On the one hand was the school of Antioch and on the other the school of Alexandria, led by Cyril an "ebullient" scholar. Out of the ashes of this conflict, Byzantine theology would accomplish a "creative synthesis between the traditions of Alexandria and Antioch" (p 14). The differences between the two schools center on soteriology (doctrine of salvation).
The two schools arose out of a previous controversy over the nature of God, the Trinitarian controversy that flowed into and out of the Council at Nicea. Nicea simultaneously opposed Arius and Apollonarius. The school at Antioch sought to refute the Apollonarian heresies while the Alexandrian school focused on rebuffing the Arian. "The two schools, formed by different mentalities and exegetical methods, produced ultimately contradictory Christologies" (p. 15).
Part of the difficulty, of course, comes from the fact that the theological vocabulary of the times was still in its infancy. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in trying to rectify the ambiguity in Antiochene Christology between the "assuming Word" and the "man assumed" introduced the formula: "one person (πρόσωπον) and two natures (φύσεις)" (p. 16). This terminology still had problems insofar as πρόσωπον can be taken to mean 'mask' (i.e., that Jesus just appeared as a person) and therefore did not require the Virgin Birth. This was the "object of conflict between Nestorius, a disciple of Theodore, and St. Cyril of Alexandria" (p. 16-17).
Over against Apollonarius, Antioch sought to preserve Christ's whole human nature. In so doing representatives of this school would never accept Cyril's theopaschism, that it was God who died upon the cross. "Theopaschism ... was the surest sign of Monophysitism and implied in Christ the absence of a genuine human nature,..." (p. 17). "In opposition to Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria tended to stress mainly that salvation is given and accomplished by God alone" (p. 18). Since he understood Christ not as a cooperation of human and divine but a union of the two, to reject the Virgin Mary's ancient title θεοτόκος (theotokos) was to reject that Mary bore the whole undivided Christ. It is to deny the mystery of the Incarnation. Cyril's terminology was still insufficient to "provide the framework of a universally acceptable Christology" and tended towards an "anthropological minimalism" (p. 19) and would seem to be the basis for his being a suspected Monophysite.
In Cyril's attack of Nestorian ideologies, he employs the terminology of μία φύσις (one nature) ... μία ὑπόστασις (one substance), which sounds Apollonarian. Elsewhere, we are affirmed that Cyril was not Apollonarian, for he writes, "that two natures became united without separation, without confusion and without transformation..." (p. 20). It is clear that the meaning of φύσις and ὑπόστασις for Cyril do not both identical.
Cyril's victory at Ephesus in 431 had the negative effect of defeating the "Nestorian temptation" and positively taught that Christ's Humanity was wholly human, "constituting the principle of the deification to which all those who are 'in Christ' are destined." It was at Ephesus that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was designated θεοτόκος (theotokos), the Mother of God, because she was not the mother of Christ's flesh but the mother of the whole Christ, who was God in flesh (p. 21).
Cyril, for an unknown reason did not apply the existing and accepted Cappadocian definitions of φύσις (fusis), οὐσία (ousia), and ὑπόστασις (hypostasis); thus, he had great difficulty shaking the Apollinarian suspicions that had plagued him. As with most great thinkers, the followers tend towards extremes that their predecessor never intended. Indeed "the heresy of Eutyches drew attention to the dangers of triumphant Alexandrianism", which quickly became "the only criterion of orthodoxy" (p. 23).
The Synod of Constantinople in 448, presided over by Bishop Flavian, condemned Eutyches, a monophysite who would not confess two natures of Christ existing after the union of the human and divine. Dioscorus of Alexandria engineered the reversal of the Synod of Constantinople in what has come to be known as the "Robber Council" which was prosecuted under the "martial leadership" of Cyril's nephew in the name of Cyril's theology.
The Council at Chalcedon in 451 would reverse the ruling of the Robber Council, condemning Monophysitism as "fundamentally repugnant to the Eastern Church, except Egypt alone" (p. 24). The problem with Cyril's terminology continued and ultimately it was by making recourse to Western Christology that the distinction between nature and hypostasis was made. Pope Leo's Tome to Flavian provided a way to uphold the full reality of the two substantiae in Christ without being Nestorian. This served to keep the Antiochene school from being overtaken by the great Monophysite wave, while at the same time, Cyril's great insight about the basic unity of Christ was not abandoned (p 24). The Council of Chalcedon identified Pope Leo's persona with ὑπόστασις and put an end to Cyril's μία φύσις (one nature). Significant excerpts from the Chalcedonian definition follow:
...truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a reasonable soul and body...born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as touching the manhood, one and the same Chrirst, son, Lord, Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being in no way abolished because of the union ... (p. 25-6).There was much laborious compromise before the final text of the Council was produced. Each bishop voted that Pope "Leo's [Tome to Flavian] was ... a new expression of the true faith proclaimed at Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and in Cyril's letters" (p. 27). Positively, resulted in theologians having adequate language by which to simultaneously address Christ's unity and duality. Negatively, proponents of the hypostatic union were unsatisfied in their fundamental soteriological point. The ultimate deification of humanity could be sustained only if Christ's wholeness not be undermined.
Reflections on the Chapter
As I reflect on this chapter, I am amazed at the voracity that these bishops had for veracity about their Savior. At tension here are conceptions of soteriology (doctrine of salvation) as well as the obvious Christology. The discussion orbits around the Incarnation. For what purpose did God become human and in what degree did He accomplish this?
Monophysite and Orthodox alike see the need for underscoring the unity of Christ and at the same time the mystery of the Lord's dualism presents an insurrmountable tension at which we poke with little words hoping to articulate something of its magnitude. As the incarnate God, Jesus is also the eschatological man. I still struggle to get my head around much of the Eastern Church's terminology; however, the idea of deification seems to mirror much of what the Reformed tradition has at least at one time taught. Christ is the person who is truly human, because he alone kept covenant with the Living God. He lived with an active obedience in such a way that He was himself righteous. He willingly gave himself upon the cross, as a substitute for the salvation of His church, who lives their lives in Christ (εν Χριστω). The heinousness of sin is that Humanity, being made in God's image, does precisely what is unlike God. Christ the Eschatological Human does what is like God and to such a degree that he tells Thomas, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." It is precisely in this true imago Dei (image of God), the Lord Jesus, that believers are transformed into His likeness. It is this mystical union that does in fact have a telos (goal, purpose) which is nothing short of restoring the likeness of God to humanity as God's image.
Just thoughts... I would love your comments.
0 comments:
Post a Comment