Tire Syrian Orthodox a11d tire Council ofCiralcedon
some words in his treatises against Nephaliu s: 3
THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX REACTION TO THE
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON:
JACOB OFSERUGH'S HOMILY ON HECOUNCILOF CHALCEDON
By
Dr Sebastian .Brock.
Oriental Institute
Oxford
To those within the Chiistian traditions represented by the Greek East
d the Latin West the rejection by the Oriental Orthodox C hurches of the
~~ctrinal formula produced at the Council of Chalcedo~ may s.een puz-
zling. ' What was it to which the~e C hurches a~ the tim e. objected so
strongly? The objections on the Synan Orthodox stde ar.e part tcularly well
documented above all in the writings Severus of Antioch (+ 538), (who
wroe in Gre~k), Philoxenos ofMabbug (+ 523) and Jacob of~erugh (+ 52 1)
(who both wrote in Syriac). Each of these three repr~sen ts a ~·O:erent sta nd-
point.2 Severus, undoubtedly o ne of the best the,ologtans ~fh:s tl~ e, reg~rd­
ed the Counci l's formula as a betrayal of t.he . A le.xan~nan chnsto logtc~l
tradition represented by Cyril: his basic objeCtiOn ts bneny summed up m
1. For an important modem study of the Council fr~m a Syrian Orthodox point of view, see
v .C. Samuel, The Council ofCha/cedon Re- Exam111ed(Madra s. 1977). . .
2. A basic introduction to a ll three is provided by R. Chesnut, Three M onotJhysrte Chnstolo -
gies: S e1·enrs ofAntioch. Phi/oxen us ofMniJbug ami Jacob of Saru~: (O~ford. 1976!. On Sc-
verus the fundamental study was provided by J. Lebo_n. Le m.ollop_l•ysrsme. se1·e~re11 (Lou-
vain, 1909): sec also his «L, christologic du monophySISmc syn cm> 1n A. Gnllmc•cr and H.
Bach! (eds). Das Konzil \'Oil Chalkedon (Wiirzburg. 195 1) I. pp._425-580: I.R.. Torrance, •<A
theological introduction to the lcucrs between Scverus of AntiOCh and Scrgms the Gram-
marian>> Ekklesia kai Theo/ogia 3 (1982). pp. 283-32 1.4 (1983). pp. 537-7 1: 5(1984). PP-
453-81. ~fwhich a revised form is to be found i? his Christology a[ter Chalcedoll: Se1·enrs of
A lllioch a 11 d Sergius the Monophysite (Norw1ch 19~8). On P~uloxenus: A. De J:Jallcu.x,
Philoxe11e de Mabbog: sa vie. ses t!crits. sn tht!o/og re (Louvam, 1963), CN. Tsn·-panhs,
'Some rcncctions on Philoxenos' christolosy' Greek Orthodox Tlreolo[lrcnl Rewcw 25
( 1980). pp. 152-62.
Texts and Swdies. ,·ol. VIII-X (1989-1991)
-448-
« It is obvious to all who have just a m odicum of training in the teach-
ings of true re ligion that it is contradictory to speak of two natures
with reference to the one Christ, he being one hypostasis. For when-
ever one speaks of one hypostasis one must necessaril y a lso speak of
one nature».
Severus' view of the illogicality of the C halcedonian definition is in fact
shared by the C hurch of the East: for both poles of the theological spectrum
qn)cnc; and orr6crta<nc; go togethe r, and so to speak of two natures and one hy-
4
postasis is illogical. The Church of th e East, fo r whom kyana/qn)cnc; ap-
proached the sense of ol>cria, took as its starting point «two natures», a nd
si nce qnoma (the Syriac rendering of o'lt6crtacnc;) was understood as the
individual manifesta tion of a kyana/ cpl.icrtc;, thi s resulted in a formula which
spoke of «two qnome». By contrast, from the po int of view of Severus (and
the Oriental Orthodox), for whom orrocrtacrtc; and rrpocrwrrov im ply one an-
other, a «one nature» formulation was essential.
It was, essentia ll y, different starting points which led to the great divide
between the Antiochene and Alexandrian christological traditions which
the Council of Chalcedon sought to reconc ile. For the Ant iochenes, given
the o nto logical gap bet\veen humanity a nd God, a nd the utter transcen-
dence of God, how was it possible to formulate the union of the two, hu- .
ma nity and divinity, in Christ without imputing passibility and mutability ·
to God? The resull was abhorrence of any posi tion that could imply th eo-
paschism. For the A lexa ndri nes, on the other hand, the basic requirement
was to ensure the rea lity - a nd hence effecti veness- on the Incarnation of
God the Word, with the resul t that they abhorred an y formula tha t seemed
to d ivide C hrist, since thi s would imply that Inca rnation was not complete
(the O riental O rthodox position is thus in reality toto caelo different from
the western caricature of «mono physite christology»/ which gives the
3. J. Lebon, Se,·t•ri Antiocheni ora1iones ad Neplra/irrm (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium 11 9. Scr. Syri 64: 1949). p. 16 (the pase number of the text volu me, cited here.
is given in the margins of the translation volume. Scr. Syri 65).
4. Sec my 'The christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the finh to early seventh
centuries: preliminary considerations and materials', in G. Dragas (ed.), Aksunr- Tlryateira.
A Festschrift fo r Arclrbislrop Metlrodios (London, 1985). pp. 125-42.
5. To which Metropolitan Paulos Mar Grcgorios, V.C. Samuel and others rightly object: sec.
for example, V.C. Samuel's comment on the anicle on «monophysiles» in the 1958 edi-
tion or the Oxfo rd Dictionary of tire Christian Clrurclr: "what is noted in this article is ob-
viously not the teaching of the Church tradition that rejected the Council of Chalcedon. It
is the imagination or the writer, which the editorial board or the reputed repository or the
best English scholarshi p in ch urch History rather callously approved' ('The christological
controversy and the division of the Chu rch', in Orthodox ldcrrtit.vinlndia. Essays in Hon-
-449-
 S. Brock
false impression tha t the huma nity is swallowed up by the divinity- a posi-
tion represented only by Eutyches, and which has from the beginning al-
ways been specifically rejected by the Oriental Orthodox).
Though the differing theological formu lae provided theologians with
ample material for polemical writi ngs, they may well have served little
more than as ra llying cries for many ordinary Christians who lacked train-
ing in philosophical argumentation. For them, it was not the apparent illo-
gicality of the Cha lcedonian formul a but rather the idea that Christ was be-
ing divided which provided the real stumbling block. If the Incarnation was
to be understood as real, the subject of all Christ's actions needed to be one
and the same: those who ascribe <<the divine things to God (the Word) and the
human things to the Man» are in error, writes Philoxenos in a credal state-
ment.6 Rather, he goes on, «to the Exalted One who has been abased belong
the lowly things, and the human things are believed to belong to God who be-
came man», and thus it is <<the one and the same God from God who suf-
fered and died for us».
Whereas Philoxenos was deeply involved in theo logical controversy, hi s
contemporary the poet Jacob of Serugh studiously sought to avoid it- with
remarkable success, for he is a saint in both the Syria n Orthodox and the
Maronite Churches, and until fairl y recently even modem scholars disputed
ovcr' his sta nd over the Counci1. 7 Jacob's true position only emerged after
the publication of his letters, among which are a number where he is pressed to
come out into the open by his correspondents: thus in Letter 17, pressed by
8
the monks of the monastery of Mar Bassos, he explicitly says «My opinion
remains unchanged. I a nathematize, along with a ll the Church, Nestorius
and his teaching, and all like-minded people; likewise Eutyches, and all
who think like him; and likewise the Council of Chalcedon, seeing that it
too employed phraseology that was consonant with the opin ion of the ac-
cursed Nestorius». In another Jetter to the monks of the monastery of Mar
Bassus we learn that what he really objects to is «the dividing up and enu-
merating of the natures after the union, and the assignment of the properties
and individualities and operations to one or other of the two natures». His
own creda l statement, given in Letter 17, is very much in the trad ition of the
our of V.C. Samuel (ed. M.K. Kuriakose; llangalore, 1988). p. 130). The article in question,
which he justly criticizes. will appear in a completely difl'ercnt (and, one hopes, more ac-
ceptable) form in the forthcoming third edition.
6. E.A.W. lludgc, The Discourse.f ofPhiloxenus (London. 1894) II, p. xcvii.
7. The matter was finally laid to rest in a series of articles by T. Jansma, satisfactorily dispos-
ing oft he positions ofP. Peeters and P. Kruger. see, for example h is ' Encore le credo de Jac-
ques de Saroug',/. ·Orient Syrien 10 (1965). pp. 75-88. 193-236. 331-70.475-510.
8. G. Olinder. Jacobi Samgensis Epistulae (Corpus Scr. Christ. Or. 11 45 Paris, 1937). p. 85.
-45G-
The Syrian Orthodox and the Council ofChalcedon
early native Syriac theological writers, above a ll Ephrem - thou~h intro-
duc ing t he ubiquitous Cyrilline formu la )lio. q>om~ <oii eeoii A6you cre-
cro.pKW)lEVTJ: 9
«The G reat One who became small... , the Hi.dden Mystery that came
out into the open, whi le His mysterious Being was not laid bare ... , He
put on low estate in the nether regions; He who is hidden in light as in
a garment, was hidden in swaddling clothes after the manner of chil-
dren: God, like His Father, human being, like us; complete in His div-
inity, comple.te in His humanity, the Only-Begotten to whom two
wombs gave birth (i.e. the Father and Mary), the single nature who
became incarnate without receiving any addition (to Himself), one of
the Trin ity who became incarnate,' while the Trinity remained as it
was». .
It is basically the same objections to the Council which we find in the
Letters that rcappea r ·in an unpublished verse homi ly attributed to Jacob.
Since the homi ly in question is on.ly to be found in two com paratively late
10
manuscripts there is some doubt about its authenticity. The hom ily is,ne-
vertheless, very much in the style of Jacob, with a long- and beautiful- in-
troduction, so characteristic of his homil ies. Whether or not it is really' by
Jacob is in fact of no particular relevance here, si nce ou r concern is more
to d iscover why the Chalcedonian formu la so upset many ordinary Chris-
tians, as well as professional theologians like Severus and Philoxenos.
In the older of the two manuscripts containing it the hom ily on the
Council of Chalcedon follows another hom ily by Jacob, on the Cou ncil of
11
Nicaea. Since onl y a French translation containing a number of inaccura-
12
cies is availablc I give a complete translation of the homily.
Jacob ofSerugh, Homily on the Council o/Chalcedon
0 Val iant of Ages who saved his creation through his own might,
save your Church from servitude to those who deny your name!
0 mighty Power before whom all powers tremble,
hold back from you r flock the controversialists who abuse the tru th .
5 0 Son of God who in his love became son to a gi rl ,
9. Olindcr, Jacobi Sarugensis l:.pistulae, p. 86. .
10. British Library, Add. 14651. dated A pril AD 850, and Vatican syr. 11 7. of 12th/ 13th cen-
tury. I hope to edit the text elsewhere.
II. Edited, without translation, by J.J. Overbeck, S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabu/ae Episcopi Edes-
seni, Balaei alionmtque opera selecta (Oxford, 1865). pp. 392-408.
12. lly P. Kruger, 'La deuxii:mc homelic de Jacques de Saroug sur Ia foi au concile de Chalcc-
doine', L'Oriem SJ•rien2 (1957), pp. 125-36. ·
-451-
 S. Brock
the (divine) Intellect begot you a mid fla me-kindled fervo ur.
Him who is hi dden from the W atchers, who became mani fest for
Adam 's sake,
seek ho w they a re dividing hi m up into parts and measur~s: .
Yo u are one who is from one, and there is no place fo r dJVtdmg up:
10 he who wish'es to make division is da rkened in his n:ind. . b le,
May 1 become illumined thro ugh you , Lo rd, for wtthout your hght no
o ne can see; .
m ay 1 walk in you, for your path is sm ooth, without anythmg to cause
stumbling. ·
T o you m ay 1come, for you a re a refuge full of peace;.
may 1be with you , for it is m ost excellent, Lord, to be m your presence.
15 In you , Lo rd, may !live, for death no lo nger aff~cts you ..
0 (Source 0 1) Wealth , whose wea lth never gets tmpovcnshed,
grant to me in m y need el oquent utterance so that I may speak of you.
Whether or not I am worthy, act (a lithe same) on your part,
fo r it is your custom to thro w yo ur riche~ to beggars,
20 giving freely to worthy a nd unworthy ahke. . it is she who has caused sim ple people to fa ll away fro m God.
Now that 1 have approached to ask for m ercy, grant tim to m_c, Lo rd,
m ay 1 not be a stranger to your gift as _a result of m y wr~mgdomgs;
.for my course of life rebukes me , (telhng me) to keep silent,
b ut your great love urges me o n to speak.
25 Let not your door be closed in m y face beca_use of m y errors,
o therwise 1 shall be someone empty a nd votd, fu ll (only) of woe.
It is q uite true, 0 Son of God, that l have done harm
but it is t rue, too, tha t your mercies arc plenteous:
never has your doo r, 0 Son of God, been cl~s~d.
30 except in the fa ce of him who denies your chvmtty.
Th e person who comes to you in love and fait~ . 65 ever since she was p rocl a imed in the church es a nd mo naste ries,
will find the door of mercy wide open before htm , m ve ry tru th .
1take refuge (in you), 0 true Son , and in confidence,
I a pproach to spea k with fai th .
35 May m y narrati ve be to your glo ry, 0 Son ofG_od,
not that you need this, but so that I m ay be e nnched by you;
for you have fiery ba nds of(beings ol) na m e, . o ne aga inst ano th er,
ranks (of a ngels) of fire and spi rit who attend to rrur serv tce,
seraphs who cry out Holy, holy, hol y, our Lo rd,
40 angels too, who shout praise on their harps,
13. Cf. Isaia h 6:3.
The Syrian Orthodox and the Council ofChalcedon
14
c hoir upo n choir of m inisters of fi re and of spirit
who stand before you in great awe a nd fea r:
no thing remains silent or idle, nor is there confusion
as they a ll attend to your pra ise, 0 Son of God.
45 But because Adam 's praise is dear to you , despite its being contempti-
so it is p leasing to you that Adam's children sho uld give your praise.
Accordingly I now seek to give glory
a nd a pproach th e praise of you with (all sorts ol) excuses;
Do no t ho ld back fro m me this request! m ake of you, Lo rd ,
50 fo r I am striving th a t m y na rrati ve should confess you (pro pe rl y).
Beca use o f th e schisms and confli cts that have multipli ed in these days
I am stirred by great sorrow to speak;
concerning this Sister of the Night a nd of Darkness
zea l urges me on to utter he r sto ry in sorrow.
55 It is she who has becom e the cause of death for huma n be ings:
the earth has quaked, tottered and fallen m ost b itterl y
cutt ing them off from spi ri tua l com munio n;
it is she who has been th e cause for wra th (fa ll ing) upon all creation,
60 the sword, capti vi ty, a nd blood which has been shed all over the earth·
it is she who has been the cause of so many am ictions for the ea rth 's i ~­
habi ta i1 ts,
and now the entire world is in a state of confussion, li ke a d ru nken
man.
It is she who, from t he m oment she spilled (her) sta in upon the C hurc h
of the Son,
never set huma nity right aga in, from t hat mo me nt:
crazed Legio n has e nte red creation and upset the whole of it.
It is she who, having seen the perfect 'covcnant' 15 in the C hurch of the
Son,
crept in a nd caused disturbance, commotio n, a nd division;
it is she who has caused d ivisio n amo ng the priests of the Son, setting
-
70 causing schism amo ng mi nisters to the Godhead.
It is she who, upon seeing the 'covena nt' lumino us and fill ed with pea-
·ce,
14. cr. Ps. 104( 103):4.
15. Probably a reference to t he bnay qyiinul, 'members of the covennlll', ra1her than 10 t he
clergy; the bna_11 qyrlnul consisted of people. both lay a nd ordained. who had undertaken
 S. Brock The Syrian Orthodox and the Coli neil ofChalcedon

mi xed her fo ul brew-:- and whoever has drunken of it has gone out of if there is a ny room for utterance to speak in a clear fashion.
his mind. 0 new Jews who have sprung up a ll of a sudden,
It is she who has driven upright people from thei r own homes, why is it the Church of the Son of God is tom in schism?
be reaving them of thei r dwell ing place, (leaving) them to wander in the I OS What necessity was the re for the profitless conflicts?
wilderness. Come, a nd let us approach the (b iblica l) lections concern ing the divi n-
75 It is she who has brought down the perfect from their pillars, ity
a nd expelled venerable men from their caves. a nd from them let us .learn the truth, that he is (one) without any
It is she who brought great disgrace upon the servants of the King, dispute.
imprisoning them in towns a nd in peoples' (houses). A nd in so far as (the t ruth) sha ll rebuke him , tha t person t rave ls in
It is she who has pu t division between wives a nd their husbands, darkn ess, in what belongs to him (?) 16
80 dividing children, too, against their parents. Look at the Son's types trul y present in the Prophets:
It is she who has caused between bridegrooms and brides 11 0 that first great prophet, full of wise words,
envy, deceit, quarrels and great anger. · the upright Moses who guided his flock in wise fashion,
It is she who has been th e cause why th e entire world is collapsing wrote clearl y of the Son of God in his books:
17
and who is there to prop it up, apart from your bidding, 0 Son of God? In the beginn ing was the Son; a nd he ex pla ined it to us;
85 It is she who has caused the entire world to quiver like a reed, and again, 'The Lord will raise up a prophet from your brethren'.
and now the whole of creation is in a state of devastation because of li S This is Jesus the Word who was born of the Daughter of David.
her: And Joshua son of Nun clearly depicted an image for him ,
they have tom down chu rches, overthrown monasteri es a nd destroyed bearing his very name, and escorting it all over the place.
altars. Samue l too depicted him in his glorious state.
The offerings bei ng made in the sanctua ries have come to an end,. Come, Isaiah, a nd bring out you r weighty words:
and how much more should I speak, or how much should I keep stlent 120 Behold, a virgi n sha ll conceive a nd give birth to Emanuet, 18
90 which have multiplied upon earth through this crazy assembly? - who is with us, the Son of God, in very truth .
But who is this who has performed all this upon earth? He is the 'Val iant One', a nd he is the 'Wonder': 19 who wi ll dispute it?
Reveal and ex plain to us, for she is spoken of darkly. One (prophet) ca lls him the 'Grass which sprung from the m idst of the
0
She is the Synod of Cha lcedon earth ' /
which the demons gathered, a nd for whi ch th e devi ls acted as counsel- another ca lls hi m the ' Radia nce'21 which shone out from the House of
lors. David;
95 Let the mighty ban of Paul the elect be upon the head 125 anoth er calls hi m the 'Stone, hewn without ba nds', 22
23
of its leaders, those who assembled it, and those who estab lished it: anoth er cal ls him the 'Blessed Shoot from the Daughter of Jesse'
may the Son of God separate them from hi s inheritance,
leaving them to torment with the cruc ifiers in Gehenna,
seeing that they have cast schisms into the Church of the Son of God. 16. Trn nslation uncertain.
100 Let the ban of Simon, head of th e disciples, accom pany them. 17. Cf G en. I: I. where the seco nd word in Syriac is bra. 'he created'. but Jacob remarkably
0 wretches, it is you I am addressing fro m now on takes it as the noun bra 'son'. Dcut. 18:15.
18. Isaiah 7: 14.
19. Isaiah 9:6.
20. Psalm 72 (7 1): 16.
21. Jeremia h 23:5.
certain ascetic vows (p robably at adult baptism. at least at an early period). For th is d istinc- 22. Daniel 2:34.
tive fea ture of the earl y Syriac C hu rch (no doubt on its way out in Jacob's da y). see G. Nc- 23. Isaiah II : I. Somewhere around here a line must be missing. since the new sentence 'The ac-
dungatt. 'The covenanters of the early Syriac-speaking C hurch'. Oril!nta/ia Christiana Pu - cursed J?COple .. .'. should be an odd-numbered line. T he exact positioning of the lacuna is
iadica 39 ( 1973). pp. 19 1-215. 4 19-44. uncertain.

-454- -455-
 S. Brock
All these clear and glorious utterances
were spoken by the holy prophets of truth . in hi m who descended to the depths ofSheol is my hope,
130 concern ing Jesus the Word w ho was born o~the Da ughter.ofDa vld.
The accursed people are saying that 'M ary m truth gave b1rth
to one God and o ne Human , a nd we confess him'.
God the Word of the Father did not taste death, . How fair is you r hope, 0 daughte r of the A rameans, how fai r is your
rather it was Jesus who tasted death , for he was Huma n Bemg.
135 God is immortal and not subject to sufferi~g, . t rue as we ll is you r faith, 0 Betrothed of the Son;
a nd (so) did not accept to tasted dea th , scem g tha.t he IS not mortal.
0 accursed wretches, sons of perdition an~ heretics,
why is it you travel in the dark and obs~unty? . ,
The Word took it upon himself to be m ne months 1n Mary s womb
140 out of his great lovefor Adam , . seeing that th ey are prying into the blessed C hild of Divinity;
a nd likewi se to be three days among those subJected to death.
Is not you r audacity plumbing the deptl.l s, o.quarrclsome man?
Th e entire strategem of your argument IS th1 s:
so tha t you can enumerate the Son as two, in wicked fashio n ,
145 the one God who performs mighty miracles. . . . .
a nd the o ne Human Be ing who bore the sufferings and .md.'gn1t1cs;
the o ne who was a lien to suffe ri ngs, death and the c ruclfi xJO.n ,
and the o ne, who is Jesus, who was crucified betwc~n the th1cves.
The accursed people enu merate Jesus on the one s1dc, and the Wo rd on
the other,
1SO a nd the properties of the one do not to.u~h the oth~r.
This is what the accursed sons of perd1t1on arc saymg,
and when someone hears their b lasp~cmi cs, wha t can he s~y
apart from crying out loudl y a nd (t~mg) to resurrect them .
And anyo ne who is so bold as to a t.tnbutc by an~ mea~s at a ll
155 cnumc mtion or division in the C h!l d from (Gods) ~c mg,
accursed be his mo uth- and his thoughts as well- 1fh e does not repent.
'The Son of God is one, he is one!', shouts the Ch urch,
and she is unswaycd by the controversia lists and disputants:
' I have learnt the t ruth from hi s Father, 0 wretches,
160 and 1 do not accept the murky dregs of your teach ings.
In him who was bo rn from the womb of the glorious (Ma ry),
in him is my pride, for it is he who has given me birth from the water;
in him who was whipped with lashes at Pilate's command.'
in him is m y glory, for it is he who holds ~c back from stnpes.
165 In him who was crucified between the th1evcs on Golgo tha, .
in him is my confidence, for he will raise me up to the he1ghts of h1s
Fathe r;
-456_:
The Syrian Orthodox and the Council ofChalcedon
for he raises me from the da rkness in whi ch I was sitting.
In him who split open the graves with hi s cry and raised the dead,
170 (in hi m) is m y expectancy, for he will raise m e up at his right hand'.
hope;
ra ise up your voice a nd stretch forth your hands to God
so that he may a ll of a sudden sh ine forth and exact judgement on those
who persecute you ,
175 repaying them with a nger, wrath and vexation
but with you , (0 C hurch), who have shown him love in faith , and with-
o ut a ny division ,
may your head be raised up through the sal vation which sha ll suddenly
shine fo rth;
a nd upon the sinner wh o toiled and laboured on behalf of the bride
180 may there be your m ercy on the day of you r advent , 0 Son of G od.
T he passionate fee ling of sorrow at the discord caused by the Council
whi ch is ex pressed in the ho mily speaks fo r itself. It is, however, a little ha rd
to discern the fo rce of the biblica l testim onia adduced (l ines 116-26) in
fa,vou r of the author's standpoint, since these arc sta ndard testimonia with
which a ny side in the controversy wou ld presumably have been ha ppy. But
what is of much greater interest from our present point of view is th e clear
sta te me nt of th e reasons why the Counc il was unacceptab le (lin es 143-50): it
is the d ividing up of the p ro perties, ascribing them either to the human o r to
the divine natu re. It was precisel y the emphasis o n thi s aspect in the To me
of Leo and the Letter of !bas that led to th e disapproval of th ese two pa rticu-
lar documents of t he Council by the o pponents of C halcedon, and it is inter-
esting to see how, in the earl y sixth century, there was a lso some embarrass-
24
ment fe lt at them in some Chalcedoni a n circles in the East. What Jacob
24. From Ihe Syrian Onhodox accou nt of the Conversmions between the Onhodox and Orien-
tal Onhodox held in 532 at Justinian's bidding it is clear that there was some ane mpt to
suppress the Lcn er ofl bas from I he Acts of 1he Council of C halcedon: see my 'The conver-
. sations wilh the Syrian O n hodox under Justinia n (532)'. Oriemalia Christia11a Periodica
47 ( 198 1). pp. 87- 12 1. esp. p. 102. (A b rief accoun t of this imeresting Syriac text, 1he coun -
tcrpa n to Innocent ius of Maronia's Latin accoum oft he meeting, wrinen fro m the Chalce-
donian viewpoint. can be found in my 'The Onhodox - Oricmnl Onhodox conversations of
532'. ;lpostolos Vamm·as (Nicosia) 4 I (I 980). 2 I 9-27. rcpri nled in my Srriac Perspectil·es
011 !..ate l llltiquity( London, 1984). ch. X I).
-457-
 S. Brock The Syrian Orthodox and the Council ojChalcedon

(and the Oriental Orthodox) objected to was the suggestion of a schizoph- cal Dialogue between the Orth odox C hu rch a nd the Oriental Orthodox
reni c Christ; hence the impassioned cry which Jacob puts into the C hurch's Churches after it second meeting, held at the Monastery of Anba Bishoi in
mo uth in line 155 'The Son of God is o ne, he is one!' Egypt in June 1989.28
Basically, what we have here is a radical difference of pe rspective. T o
those who gathered at C ha lcedon what was of concern was to provide a de-
finiti on, as it we re in the abstract, of the relationship between the human ity
and di vi nity in the incarnate Ch ri st/ 5 by contrast, Jacob did not lind this an-
alytical approach a t all satisfactory, since his primary concern was with the
d ynam ics of the inca rnation , that is, with its end result and savi lic effectiv-
eness (which he sees as being seriously imperi lled by the Chalccdonian de-
21
fin iton). As Jacob pointed out in his great Homily 94, on Faith ' , if t here is a
separate divine nature in Christ which is not involved in the death and suf-
ferings of the Cross, then he who died on the Cross is neither Saviour nor
t rue Bridegroom of the C hurch (Jacob sees the water a nd blood from the
·side of Christ, John 19:34, as his brida l $ift (i.e. the Sacra m ents) to the Ch ur-
ch).27 This is precisely the concern underlying lines 16 1-70 of th e present
verse homi ly.
Seen fro m Jacob :s pe rspective - which was clearly that of a large number
of o rdinary Christians in the eastern provinces of the Roma n Empire- the
defin ition of fai th la id down at the Council of C ha lcedon im p lied something
quite different from what was intended by those who formulated it. Given
h is standpoint (and the same a pplies to that of Severus), t he defin ition was
at best misleading, and at worst, seriously mi sguided in its fo rmulation.
What was needed on both sides of the divide was sufficient imagination a nd
willingness to look at the question from the o pponents' perspective: only .
then docs it become possible to sec that it is not a question of either/ or, but
of both/ a nd. Such a willingness was sadly a lmost entirely absent in the sixth
century, but in the twentieth cen tu ry, when it is possible to benefi t from a
cooler hi sto ri cal vision, the situatio n is fortu nate ly much more hopeful , wit-
ness the recent communique issued by the Joint Commission for Theologi-

25. Severus. who of cour1>e was very much in tune with this analytical perspective. is prepared
to admit that one can speak of two natu res in the incamnte Christ <<mentally>> (tv O&oop(f;!
~6v1J . as opposed to 'in reality': The Leuer.! ofSel•l!rus. ed. E.W. Brooks. Patrologia Orien·
talis 12 (19 16). p. 101.
26. Ed P. Bedjan, Hom iliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis Ill (Paris/Leipzig, 1907). p. 621.
27. The betrothal of the Church to Christ on the Cross is n cent ral theme in Jacob ofSerugh's
writings; see F. Graffin, 'Recherches sur le theme de J'Eglisc-Epousc dans les liturgies et Ia 28. Printed, for example, in Sobom ost/ Eastem Churches Re1•iew 12: I ( 1990). pp. 78-80. For
litterature de langue syriaque', L'Orient Syrien 3 (1958). pp. 317-36. and my 'La fcsta nu- documentation concerning earlier discussions, see Archbishop Methodios Fouyas, The
ziale di sangue sui Golgota. Un insolito aspetto di Gv 19.34 nella tradizione siriaca', in Ani Person ofJ esus Christ in the Decisions ofthe Ecumenical Councils (Addis Ababa, 1976).
della V Seuimana di Swdi 'Sangue e antropologia nella Teo/ogia' ( 1987), 97 1-84. pp. 212-32.253-67.

-458- -459-