Christological Controversies (2) I. Introduction A. 2 John 1:9-11 B. The nature of Jesus of Nazareth has always been controversial 1. Is He God? 2. How is he both God and man? 3. What is His relationship with His Father? C. These and many other questions were hotly debated in the first centuries after Jesus' death D. Why is this important? Why study these matters? 1. Many question why we should study these things 2. After all, there's not much in the way of application 3. Furthermore, we are not God, and are dependent on His revelation to understand anything about Him (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9) 4. On the other hand, we do not want to fall into heresies (cf. Galatians 5:19-21)! 5. Many times our thoughts about the way God "must be" are not properly conditioned by Scripture, and that must not be! 6. Since there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9), it is good to consider these ancient controversies so we do not fall into the trap that others fell into! E. Let us study two such controversies 1. Jesus and His human and divine natures: Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Chalcedonian orthodoxy 2. Jesus and the Holy Spirit: the filioque II. Jesus and His Natures A. The Council of Nicaea and its aftereffects solidified the "orthodox consensus" for a short time 1. The Word as unbegotten, eternal, of the same substance (homoousios) and of the same essence (ousia) as the Father and the Spirit 2. The Word as a distinct in existence/reality (hypostasis) from the Father and Spirit B. Yet, within a generation of the settling of the Arian controversy, a new challenge came about! C. What is the relationship between the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ? 1. Divine nature: the Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14) 2. Human nature: His functioning as a man: Matthew 26:36-39 for example 3. Jesus as both the Son of God, Son of Man 4. How did this work? D. Nestorius (early fifth century CE) 1. Disagreed with calling Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), p referred Christotokos (Mother of Christ) 2. He believed and taught that the two natures of Christ were distinct 3. Since Nestorius (as almost all Christians of this period) held God to be impassible (unable to suffer pain), concluded that the divine nature of Christ did not suffer on cross: human part died, not divine part 4. Furthermore, according to Nestorius, Jesus as God omnipotent, omniscient, Jesus the man neither 5. Opponents believed that this division implied two different persons with two different experiences: essentially, two Christs! 6. Nestorius affirmed that he believed that Jesus had two distinct natures in one Person (prosopon) 7. Nestorius opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, declared heretic and his views heretical at Council of Ephesus in 431 8. Views remained popular among Syrian Christianity, Church of the East E. Monophysitism 1. Soon after Nestorius was condemned as heretic, Eutyches went to the other extreme 2. In this view, Jesus has one nature: the human and the divine were somehow "fused" into one nature 3. His human nature "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea" into His divine nature 4. Called monophysitism: "one nature" (mono phusis) 5. Apollinarism: Christ has human body, human "living principle," but His mind (nous) entirely overtaken by the divine nature 6. Eutyches condemned as heretic in 448 7. 449, Second Council of Ephesus: Eutyches restored, opponents deposed 8. Council of Chalcedon, 451: Eutyches again condemned, monophysitism condemned as heresy 9. Monophysitism embraced by majority of Egyptian Christians (Coptics), accepted by some among the Syrians, others 10. Later (ca. 629), monothelitism advanced: Jesus as human and divine but having only one will 11. Monothelitism, monergism (one energy), other such views condemned as heretical at Third Council of Constantinople, 681 F. Chalcedonian Orthodoxy 1. There was a recognition that both Nestorianism and Monophysitism went too far in opposing directions 2. Council of Chalcedon establish to try to settle the questions 3. An attempt to preserve Cyril of Alexandria, considered fully orthodox in 432-433, yet maintain two natures of Christ in inseparable union 4. Hence, Chalcedon's statement: "We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one reality (hypostasis)" 5. Held to inseparability and indivisibility of two natures of Christ against Nestorius 6. Held to two natures without confusion or change against Monophysitism 7. Council also repudiated Second Council of Ephesus G. The Nature of Jesus Christ 1. Jesus was the Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14) 2. Able to do great and wonderful things, know all things (cf. Matthew 11:4-5, 9:4, 12:25; Luke 9:44) 3. Yet experienced human feelings, growth, pain (Matthew 26:38-39, Luke 2:52) 4. No indication is given that the divine is lost in the human, or the human lost in the divine 5. Also no indication that the "human" Jesus could be separated in any way, shape, or form from "divine" Jesus while on the earth 6. Certainly Jesus' soul did not die on the cross, but went to Paradise (Luke 23:43, 46) 7. Therefore, Nestorianism and Monophysitism go beyond what Scriptures would indicate H. Jesus, therefore, has two natures, human and divine, remained distinct yet were inseparable in one Person III. The Filioque A. The last major controversy of the ancient world regarding Christ involved the Filioque B. Filioque: "and the Son" 1. Involved the Nicene Creed 2. As originally affirmed, established that the Holy Spirit proceeded through the Father 3. Seen first as interpolated into creed at Third Council of Toledo (589) 4. Became the point of contention between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox 5. RCC: Creed correct with filioque 6. EO: Creed should be kept as originally affirmed, without filioque C. Procession of Spirit 1. John 15:26, 20:22 seem to indicate that the Son can send the Spirit as well as the Father 2. On a theological level, Roman Catholics probably accurate 3. On a creedal level, Eastern Orthodox correct: councils and creeds cannot be updated without full council D. While the Spirit can most likely proceed from both Father and Son, the value of this matter of disputation highly questionable E. Remains the major doctrinal disputation between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox IV. Conclusion A. We have seen the latter Christological controversies B. Regarding more speculative matters 1. Difficult to ascertain much from Scripture regarding interaction among natures of Christ 2. Much of these disputes fueled by rivalries, politics, and the like C. Nevertheless, good warnings for us 1. Importance of not allowing our attitudes about how God "must be" to color our view of Scripture, but let Scripture define how God "must be" 2. Importance of not going beyond the doctrine of Christ in any direction (2 John 1:9) D. Let us affirm that Jesus is the Christ, fully human, fully God, of distinct yet inseparable human and divine natures, and the Risen Lord! E. Invitation/songbook Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). Many have wondered about the relationship between Jesus’ divine and human natures. Some have explained the relationship in ways that make Jesus seem to be two entirely different persons, one divine, one human. This view has been called Nestorianism. Jesus is not so described in Scripture! 2: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth (John 1:14). In response to Nestorianism many went too far the other way. In denying two separate natures, some began to affirm one nature of Jesus, the divine nature. This view is called monophysitism. The Scriptures recognize Jesus’ divinity but never suggest His humanity was subsumed by it. May we recognize Jesus as both human and divine! 3: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel”; which is, being interpreted, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). The Council of Chalcedon attempted to pilot through the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Its conclusion is broadly agreeable; Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, yet one Person, preserving both divinity and humanity. Jesus is the Immanuel, God with us in bodily form. Let us seek His will! 4: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). One of the major theological divisions between West and East involved whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son. There is evidence for both claims in Scripture; the latter may have the better case. In the end, God is one; may we serve God in Christ!