Nestorius and the Councils

steadfast7 · #1 (**permalink**) 09-28-2009, 10:54 PM

What are Reformed Christians to make of the council of Ephesus?

From my understanding, the council did two major things:

1. Condemn the teaching of Nestorius
2. Affirm the title of Mary as Theotokos.

Nestorius' teaching seems to have arisen in reaction to the litugical use of the term Theotokos. He argued that it is improper to call Mary the bearer of God, but she should be called Christotokos. He was condemned for having suggested that Jesus was both two natures AND two persons, although I don't think he actually went so far. He simply taught that the human and divine natures were two distinct and objective realities that should be kept distinct.

Are we to affirm Mary as Theotokos?

Hope I'm not being heretical, but it seems that there is some room to be sympathic to Nestorius' reaction, although he was ultimately condemned.

any thoughts?

DTK · #2 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steadfast7

What are Reformed Christians to make of the council of Ephesus?

From my understanding, the council did two major things:

1. Condemn the teaching of Nestorius
2. Affirm the title of Mary as Theotokos.

Nestorius' teaching seems to have arisen in reaction to the litugical use of the term Theotokos. He argued that it is improper to call Mary the bearer of God, but she should be called Christotokos. He was condemned for having suggested that Jesus was both two natures AND two persons, although I don't think he actually went so far. He simply taught that the human and divine natures were two distinct and objective realities that should be kept distinct.

Yes, Nestorius, according to sketchy details historically, thought that Christotokos was a more accurate description of the child conceived by Mary, because it is the title of the God-man. There was really no good reason for Cyril of Alexandria to reject that term as though it was unorthodox. In fact, Cyril of Alexandria himself came very close to the error of the Monophysites in his own language that can be understood (and has been by some) as a rejection of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ when he said for example...

Quote:

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): Once again those who twist the truth are unaware that in fact there is but one incarnate nature of the Word. See the Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus in John A. McGuckin, St Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 360.
Greek text: Ἠγνόησαν πάλιν οἱ τὰ ὀρθὰ διαστρέφοντες, ὅτι κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἐστὶ μία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. Ad Succensum (II), Epistola XLVI, §3, PG 77:241.

As the following prominent Eastern Orthodox theologian has pointed out, the language of Chalcedon was somewhat of a correction of Cyril's language at Ephesus...

Quote:

Meyendorff: The Chalcedonian definition of 451—two natures united in one hypostasis, yet retaining in full their respective characteristics—was therefore a necessary correction of Cyril’s vocabulary. Permanent credit should be given to the Antiochians—especially to Theodoret—and to Leo of Rome for having shown the necessity of this correction, without which Cyrillian Christology could easily be, and actually was, interpreted in a Monophysite sense by Eutyches and his followers. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 33.

As for your question below...

Quote:

Are we to affirm Mary as Theotokos?

In its original formulation, the term Theotokos was meant to protect the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in referring to Mary as the "God-bearer." And so long as this is one's intention with respect to the term, it is perfectly acceptable and orthodox.

The problem comes only when it is translated "Mother of God," for as Nestorius and others pointed out, Mary did not give birth to the divine nature.

Indeed, as Calvin observed...

John Calvin: Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church. Letter 300, To the French Church in London, “Exhortation to Harmony – Is It Lawful to Call Mary the Mother of God, and to Pray for the Pope?” September 27, 1552 in Selected Works of John Calvin, Vol. 5, p. 369.

In fact, when Romanists today accuse Protestants of Nestorian tendencies, they would likewise, if consistent, accuse Augustine (for Calvin was only echoing the same sentiments) with the same charge, for he said...

Quote:

Augustine (354-430): At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.

Augustine (354-430): Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come ?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, “That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross.” This, indeed, is the meaning of “Mine hour is not yet come.” For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came. For while He was God and the Lord of heaven and earth, He came by a mother who was a woman. In that He was Lord of the world, Lord of heaven and earth, He was, of course, the Lord of Mary also; but in that wherein it is said, “Made of a woman, made under the law,” He was Mary’s son. The same both the Lord of Mary and the son of Mary; the same both the Creator of Mary and created from Mary. Marvel not that He was both son and Lord. For just as He is called the son of Mary, so likewise is He called the son of David; and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Hear Him also declared the Lord of David; let David himself declare this: “ The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand. “ And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee ?” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VIII, §9, John 2:1-4.

Augustine (354-430): Each birth of his, you see, must be considered wonderful, both that of his divinity and that of his humanity. The first is from the Father without mother, the second from mother without father; the first apart from all time, the second at the acceptable time (2 Cor 6:2); the first eternal, the second at the right moment; the first without a body in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18), the second with a body, which did not violate the virginity of his mother; the first without either sex, the second without a man's embrace. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 6, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 214.6 (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), p. 153.

Augustine (354-430): While hanging upon the cross, at the will and command of the Father, he also abandoned into the hands of men the human flesh which he assumed from the holy virgin, Mary, and commended his divinity into the hands of his Father, saying, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit (Lk 23:46). For Mary gave birth to the body which was destined to die, but the immortal God begot the immortal Son. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, The Arian Sermon §7, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 133.

Those are some of my thoughts.

DTK

dannyhyde · #3 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 09:04 AM

You ought to read John McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2004).

DTK · #4 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

You ought to read John McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2004).

If this is being directed to me, I have. I quoted his translation of Cyril above. As an eastern orthodox priest, McGuckin is very biased where it concerns Cyril of Alexandria. In his eyes, Cyril of Alexandria could do no wrong. Other scholars disagree.

DTK

dannyhyde · #5 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009, 12:12 AM

I was answering the original message.

steadfast7 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-14-2009, 10:22 PM

I've been following the thread initiated by Pastor King, Brief note on Cyril of Alexandria
and the conversation has been very interesting, and at times heated. I highly recommend it!

My severe ignorance of the depth of historical knowledge makes me unworthy of making any comment in the above thread, but it has made me think more about the term Theotokos.

Indeed Protestants can affirm this title in its original formulation and intention, however, we know that the term has undergone doctrinal and liturgical development in the Roman and Eastern churches which are now considered unacceptable to us. A part of the Eastern divine liturgy prays the prayer, "Theotokos, Save us!" I'm sure it would take much investigation to understand what they actually mean by it, and I think (and hope!) that they don't mean what it seems to mean on the surface.

My question is: if, in a desire to maintain fidelity with orthodoxy, we affirm Mary as Theotokos, how can this be done without seeming to adhere with the present (and problematic) understanding of it?