The Humanity of Jesus Christ: When Churchmen Presume to Split the Mind of God And Emperors Get to Pick Up the Parts Charleston C. K. Wang I. Great Controversies in Christology The rivalry generally attributed to the eastern churches of Alexandria and Antioch 1, the two leading cities of eastern Christianity 2, erupted into violence during the first half of the fifth century A.D. The triggering issue was the question of whether Jesus Christ embodied both the natures of God and man or just the singular nature of God. However, controversies in Christology are nothing new. The First Council of Nicaea The First Council of Nicaea (325) had condemned Arius who taught that the Son was created by the Father and being created there was a time when he was not (i.e. he was not eternal) and that while being the first-born, he is no different from the rest of creation. The Nicene Creed proclaimed that the Son was homo-ousios with the Father, i.e. "of the same essence" with the Father. 3 However others (including some in Alexandria and more in Constantinople) were unconvinced and continued to preach that the Son was homo-i-ousios with the Father ("of similar essence") 4. To stir up further confusion through an oversight at Nicaea 5, 1 Even amongst the theologians within Alexandria there was disagreement. 2 The early Church was divided amongst a Pentarchy: the Latin speaking see of Rome in the West, and the four Greek-speaking in the East: Constantinople, Alexandria (founded by St. Mark the Evangelist), Antioch (founded by Peter even before foundation of the see of Rome), and Jerusalem, the sanctity of which required no proof, since Christ Himself lived and died there. 3 This was the position of Athanasius. Homoousis is sometimes translated as "of the same substance." 4 E.g. a missionary named Ulfilas was sent out to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube River, and he converted the tribes to worship an Arian form of Christianity. 1
the Holy Spirit was also said by dissenters to be only of similar essence to the Father. 6 Eusebius of Nicomedia, after returning from exile, managed to regain favor with the emperor and actually succeeded in convincing Constantine to restore Arius in 336 but Arius died on the night before his re-consecration. Such was the power of Eusebius that he was the one to baptize Constantine on his deathbed in 337. 7 Athanasius (296-373), Bishop of Alexandria and others took the up fight against the persistence of Arianism and the debate raged. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the three Cappadocians) tried to settle the controversy by suggesting that God was homoousia with three hypostaseis (that which stands under). The matter became even more confused over linguistic differences between Greek and Latin speakers. The latter spoke of God as being of one substantia and three personae. This created misunderstanding as substantia was also the literal translation of hypostasis. To the Latins, the Greeks appeared to be talking about three Gods, each of a distinct substance. 8 The Brain-Splitting Dispute Nicaea inexorably failed to settle disagreements between contending theologians. Apollinaris of Alexandria began to elaborate that while Christ had a human body, he did not have a human mind - instead the divine Logos had taken the place of the human mind. This 5 Nicene had merely confessed belief in the Holy Spirit and did not elaborate on its nature. However Tertullian had viewed the Spirit as God over a hundred years earlier and since the days of Tertullian's Apology, the western Church had worshipped God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Tertullian's defense of and later association with Montanists caused him to lose some credibility within the orthodox. 7 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. I, (Harper San Francisco 1984) p. 166. 8 Augustine helped resolve this misunderstanding when he wrote: For the sake, then of speaking of things that cannot be uttered, that we may be able in some way to utter what we are able in no way to utter fully, our Greek friends have spoken of one essence, three substances,; but the Latins of one essence or substance, three persons." Eventually there was agreement over what was misunderstood. Augustine, On the Trinity 7:4.7 tr. by W.G.T. 2
drew the opposition of Theodore of Mopsuestia (a leading theologian of Antioch) who advanced the proposition that Christ was fully human in both body and mind. Apollinaris attempted a compromise by yet further splitting Christ's mind to into two parts - a highest part for reason and a lower part for physical feelings - the Logos yet remained in the highest part of this mind. Theodore cleverly countered that as Christ's salvation was intended for the entire man, and if Christ lacked human reason, then our salvation would be incomplete. The Council of Constantinople The Council of Constantinople was summoned in 381 by the emperors Gratian and Theodosius I 9 to resolve this brain-splitting dispute between Apollinaris and Theodore, and more importantly to examine the continuing loyalty of the eastern bishops to the orthodoxy of Nicaea. The Church of the East once again was made to formally reject as heresy Arianism in all its permutations. On the brain-splitting question, Constantinople preferred Theodore over Apollinaris. However, Theodore had to further explain himself by admitting to the orthodoxy that each of dual natures of Christ readily took on opposite predicates; Christ was fully human when He felt pain, and was fully divine when He raised the dead. 10 These first two ecumenical councils affirmatively settled the question of the identical divinity of the Second Person and of the Holy Spirit with the Father and affirmed the Doctrine of Shedd, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1 st Ser., ed. By Philip Schaff (Charles Scribner's Sons 1900) p. 109. 9 The Roman Emperor Gratian (375-383) after the death of Valens (378) elevated Theodosius from private life to fellow-emperor (Augustus) for the East (January 19, 379). 10 This mirrored the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444): the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum - as a consequence of the union of the two (divine and human) natures (i.e. physis) in the one person (i.e. hypostasis) of Jesus Christ, predicates belonging to one nature could freely be applied to the other - the natures were therefore interchangeable at will. 3
the Trinity and the consubstantiality of the Triune God 11. The Apollinaris-Theodore affair notwithstanding, the question about the humanity of Christ continued to attract controversy. I. The Role of Cyril of Alexandria In the Christology controversies, Cyril of Alexandria is best remembered as the polemical foe of Nestorius, Patriach of Constantinople. Paying no heed to the brain-splitting fiasco of Apollinaris, Nestorius and his followers vowed that Jesus Christ comprised of two separate persons, one human and one divine. Nestorius also asserted that the Virgin Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus and cannot be called Theotokos, ("Mother of God") and at most she could be Christatokos ("Mother of Christ"). Due to the militant efforts of Cyril, Nestorianism was declared a heresy during the reign of Theodesius II of the Eastern Roman Empire 12, through the Council of Ephesus in 431 13. Nestorius' main adherents, John of Antioch and his party were late in arriving. The irascible Cyril 14 forced through his great victory over the Nestorians. Cyril's dogma of both God and man inseparable in the one person of Christ (in contravention to the existence of two separate persons in Christ) was accepted as orthodoxy. However, others were prepared to disagree with Cyril and it appeared that Cyril had also won the displeasure of the pious Theodosius. 11 However, the Greek tended to emphasis the three and the Latins, the one of the Trinity. An extreme emphasis on the oneness led to Sabellianism, the belief that the three persons (hypostaseis) of the Trinity are merely different modes or aspects of God, rather than three distinct persons. The idea of Modalism is traced to Sabellius, who preached in Rome in the second century. Such thinking is also referred as Patripassianism from the Latin patris for "father", and passus for "to suffer". This name was given because the doctrine implies that God the Father came to earth and the suffering of Jesus was actually borne by the Father. Cf. docetism, a form of gnostism, which claims that the suffering of Christ is an illusion and the entire humanity of Christ was an "appearance." 12 Rome had fallen in 410 to Alaric of the Visigoths, and with her the Emperor Honorius. 13 The Emperor was most desirous of the presence of Augustine of Hippo, but this great theologian had died the previous August during a siege of Hippo. 14 Professor Placher refers to Cyril as "one of the nastiest controversialists in the history of theology." Id at pg. 82. 4
Shortly after Cyril's death in 444, Eutyches (c.378 c.452), an elderly archimandrite in Constantinople 15 bolstered by the stronger arm of Dioscurus, the successor of Cyril 16 advanced the belief that Christ had only the nature of God by reason that Christ's humanity was fully integrated into his divinity (this is also referred to as Monophysitism 17 ). In accordance with the dangerous imperial tradition of plunging into ecclesiastical quarrels set by Constantine at Nicaea, Theodosius II seized this opportunity to intervene on behalf of Eutyches and to finally overrule Cyril. A council was called to convene once again at Ephesus on August 1, 449. Dioscurus, using similar methods as Cyril before him 18, first disenfranchised many of his opponents and then summoned armed men to intimidate the others into affirming Eutyches' view on the one nature of Christ. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople died shortly being manhandled and the Roman legate was lucky to escape alive. The hard fought dogma of Cyril was deposed - but only temporarily - in 450 Theodosius died in a horse-riding accident. The Council of Chalcedon One year later, the Empress Pulcheria 19 (elder sister of Theodosius) and the Emperor Marcian, continuing the unfortunate imperial tradition of taking sides in spiritual controversy, 15 Professor William C. Pacher reports that "[s]hortly Cyril's death in 444, an elderly monk named Eutychus blundered onto the scene" and that "[h]e seems to have been fuzzy on a great many theological points, but he was absolutely sure that Christ had only one nature." W.C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology, (Westminster John Knox Press 1983) p. 83. 16 In 444 Dioscurus became the successor of Cyril of Alexandria and retained all the combativeness of his predecessor against whom he vehemently disagreed. 17 Monophysite thinking is not new - it can be traced to the Alexandrines such as Clement. Origen was accused of the same heresy and was condemned later in 553 by the emperor Justinian in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (2 nd Constantinople). See., e.g. "We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Origen Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]). 18 Professor Placher reports that "[w]ith the help of a troop of Egyptian monks who threatened recalcitrant bishops, he [Cyril] secured the condemnation of Nestorius." Id. at p. 83. 5
called for a council to take place at Chalcedon. The primary purpose of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) was to overrule the robber s synod of 449 and to properly resolve the fundamental Christological question of how divinity and humanity are joined in Jesus Christ. Chalcedon to the surprise of none, exiled the Eutyches party and reaffirmed the belief that (1) the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures one divine and one human. (2) the two natures of God and man exist inseparably (and therefore interchangeably) in the one person of Jesus Christ. It seems that Cyril of Alexandria had prevailed posthumously. A major unintended outcome was the ill feelings generated between the Latin speaking and Greek speaking churches when Pope Leo was hailed as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church coupled with the papal refusal to accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon which recited the primacy of Constantinople in the East. 20 19 Pulcheria is considered by many historians as the driving force behind the weak Theodosius while he was on throne. 20 FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-god (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. (Canon 28, Chalcedon) See, http://www.ccel.org/fathers/npnf2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm 6
II. When Emperors (and Pope) Get To Pick Up the Pieces III. Emperor Constantine During Constantine's reign, the emperor first denied Arianism and then towards the end of his life, he allowed himself to be persuaded to change his mind and rehabilitated the Arian party. The intricate theological question of his day was whether Christ was of the same essence as the eternal Father or creature and therefore inferior to the Father. The historical record seems to indicate that all Constantine wanted was to maintain the tranquillity and unity of his hard won empire and thereby keep himself on the throne. This emperor and many after him carefully kept themselves abreast of conflicts in religion and looked for every opportunity of schisms to enhance their own prestige. The determinative proof can be found in the fact that Constantine, while recognizing Christianity as an official religion of Rome, was not baptized until his deathbed. A plausible motive is his political desire not to totally alienate himself from the old religions of Rome and the conquered lands. So effective was Constantine's approach to Christianity that it became emulated as a time honored imperial technique. After Constantine, Christianity qua state religion and the interminable Christian controversies became integrated as routine part of the politics of empire. Theodosius II and Pulcheria Theodosius II was observed with a similar inconsistency towards complex religious dogma - in his case, the question of the humanity of Christ. First he appeared to support Cyril, in all fairness perhaps reluctantly; then he reversed course and condemned Cyril in favor of the 7
dogma of Estyches. After his umtimely death, his dominating elder sister Pulcheria 21 and her husband Marcian quickly called a Fourth Ecumenical Council and deposed Monophysitism. The preceding council of Theodosius was to be remembered as the "robber synod" and for her devotion, Pulcheria was canonized a Saint. The vacillations of Theodosius can be explained as the manifestations of the power struggle between Pulcheria and Aelius Eudocia. Theodosius took purple at the age of 7 after the death of Arcadius in 408 but in 414, Pulcheria was proclaimed Augusta (co-empress) by the Senate and made regent for her infant brother. As Theodosius leaned towards scholarship and showed an inability to govern, Pulcheria effectively ruled for 10 years. Pulcheria even arranged the marriage of Theodosius with a non-christian, Aelius Eudocia but things worked against her expectations. Eudocia converted to Christianity and under her influence, Theodosius began to assert himself, and eventually took over the reins from Pulcheria. With respect to ecclesiastical controversies, Pulcheria was orthodox in that she opposed Nestorius and Eutyches. Eudocia supported Nestorius. Thus the battle was joined behind Theodosius. Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus of 431, but in 449,Theodosius found the strength to strike a blow for the opposition by overruling Cyril in favor of Eutychism. Theodosius died unexpectedly in 450 and Pulcheria lost no time in taking purple (together with her husband Marcian). Mercifully for Eudocia, she was able to live out her retirement to Jerusalem where she devoted herself to literary and charitable work, including the construction of the Pool of Siloam, St. Stephen's Church and the extension of the southern wall to encompass Mount Zion. Pope Leo 21 Pulcheria ruled for the weak Theodosius II until his marriage to the poet Aelia Eudocia, after which Theodosius with the help of his wife attempted personal rule. 8
Another beneficiary of the great disputes between the eastern centers of Alexandria and Antioch was the Roman Church. In the case of Chalcedon, it was Pope Leo - he was acclaimed by the counciliars as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church, but having received, Leo in a glaring show of lack of diplomatic generosity, refused to acknowledge Canon 28 which was the consolation prize for the Patriarch of Constantinople. This inevitably caused great and lasting bitterness between the East and West, an unhappiness that led to the permanent break of communion in 1054. The many centuries of theological strife since the First Ecumenical Council had the effect of splintering the Greek Church. For every blow struck between the ancient sees of Alexandria and Antioch, Rome gained in prestige at the expense of the entire Greek communion, including Constantinople. Eventually, de facto as well as de jure primacy passed from the east to the west. When Constantinople was taken by Turkish forces of Sultan Mehmed and II (1432-1481) in 1453, the rest of Christendom failed to relieve the holy city and therefore acquiesced in the conquest an Islamic power. 22 IV. After Chalcedon Not to my surprise, Chalcedon failed to conclude the Christological debate, especially in the Greek speaking east. 23 History shows that the ecumenical councils contributed much to the climactic delineation of differences and little to their satisfactory resolution. I see this as the 22 Turkish design towards Europe was finally ended with the raising of the siege of Vienna in 1683 and the tide turned against the Ottomans thereafter with the rise of the nation-states of Europe. 23 As a matter of theology, the settlement of the relation between the human and divine natures of Christ did not stop the arguments. The issue of the relationship of the wills of Christ soon emerged. Did Jesus have both a divine and human will? If so, were they equal or was one subordinate to the other? This dispute was officially settled at the 9
result of the ever-readiness of the temporal authority to step into the fray - with the involvement of the imperial power, no compromise in doctrine can ever the contemplated. The emperor with his court in Constantinople, became the ecclesiastical judge of Christendom. The imperial jurisprudence was to vindicate one party and condemn the other. Inevitably, the aftermath of the councils was schism, major and minor. The temporal authority would declare an ecclesiastical victor. The vanquished would be officially exiled (some unlucky ones may lose their lives) from the sees of power and have their texts forcibly destroyed. But their thoughts remained in the hearts of die-hard followers and they would gather again to form exiled churches. The dogma of Arian, Nestor, Eutyches, and many others would live in minority churches in places more distant (some of them in the Dar-es-Salam or Land of Islam) and oftentimes in secret. The first Great East-West Schism of Christianity was the parting of ways of the Latin and Greek Churches over another great Christology issue - that of the filioque. 24 Filioque is the Latin term which expresses the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son as one Principle, the Holy Spirit being subordinate to neither. The filioque was first inserted into the Nicene Creed at the Synod of Toledo in 447; this was despite the injunction of the Third Council at Ephesus against amending the Nicene Creed. The Greeks took the theological position that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. Ecumenical Councils after the seventh are recognized as infallible only by Roman Catholics. Council of Constantinople (680-681) with the declaration that the two wills of Christ exist in Him in a harmonious unity in which the human will is subject to the divine will. 24 Filioque expresses the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son as one Principal. 10
In 1054, this long festering disagreement 25 came to permanent rupture. The inability of the early Ecumenical Councils to resolve theology disputes in a fraternal manner certainly contributed to this Great Schism. An impetuous Pope Leo IX oversaw the exchange of excommunications between his representative Humber and Patriach Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. 26 The rift between the East and West which started in 451 ended with the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, with both claiming to be "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Though there have been frequent attempts to settle differences the breach has not been healed 27, except for a brief moment before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 - that too was an illusion for Constantinople remained a part of the Ottoman Empire under the Turkish name of Istanbul and glorified under the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificient (1494-1566). 28 V. Conclusion: Councils Do Not End Disputes But Generate Schisms The succinct conclusion to be reached in this paper is that Ecumenical Councils do not settle disagreements of faith. They merely provide a glossed-over political outcome that benefited the temporal authority and even the enemies of Christendom. The theological difference is a matter of the heart and soul and lives on with the dissenters. The result is schism 25 In addition of the filioque, there were other disagreements, e.g. the use by the Western church of unleavened bread for the Eucharist; jurisdictional clashes over who had jurisdiction in the Balkans; the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be an Universal Patriarch, and arguments over whether the Patriarch of Rome (i.e the Pope) should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs (all five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church had agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four; they could not agree over whether the Pope had actual authority over the other four). 26 In 1962 Pope John XXIII established as one of the principal themes of the Second Vatican Council as the reunion of all Christians with the Church of Rome and this held the hope of eventually healing the rift between the Churches. 27 Healing has proven difficult during this period was Western Crusaders made rough use of the hospitiality of the Easter Church. 28 See Note 22. 11
or separation, great and small. For examples of little schisms, we can compare the doctrine of the Jehovah Witnesses with the beliefs of Arius; the Armenian Church and groups in Abyssinia, Syria and Egypt with that of Eutyches and Monophysitism; the Assyrian Church of the East (and those of Oriental Orthodoxy) with that of Nestorius. When we do so, we shall discern striking similarities in these small but nonetheless precious offshoots of the greater Churches. Charleston C. K. Wang August 9, 2003 12