Chapter 9 From the New Testament to Chalcedon As Christianity began to spread bey¢ i i Be, ‘yond it: into the Hellenistic world of the Roman Empire, itace challenge of finding a way to express its faith in the Greco-Roman world. Hellenisti me in Judaisin it was confronted by the : he thought categories of philosophy was to prove helpful here, Inguage of a very diffe culture. The challenge faced by the Church was Leone that of adopting the philo- sophical language of a new culture without simply “Hellenizing” its faith. Faith and the Dialogue with Culture That God’s salvation in Christ Jesus was good news, not just for Jews, but for non-Jews as well, was evident to many by the end of the first Christian generation. Paull’ letters are charged with this message; he saw his own min- istry as a ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16; 2:9), a “ministry of reconcilia~ tion” (2 Cor 5:18). Over half of the Acts of the Apostles is devoted to telling story of Paul’s missionary efforts. Thus the universal significance of the was recognized very early in the life of the Church, even if the painful break with Judaism was to come considerably later. rch in the post-New Testament period sought to proclaim to the nations, it found itself in a very different culture. The e Roman Empire did not think in the messianic, Wisdom, and ¢ categories that had informed the religious imaginations at the ish Christians. The educated of the Empire had a very dit es , formed by Hellenistic culture and thought. ane a y mergi: ogists and theologians were converts themselves ene aes istic philosophy, not the Jewish ellectual background was Hellenistic p Panne ae -w Christians who brought Christianity } pet vanes a defending the faith against its crit- ith the surrounding culture, ¢° sary, but often showing ing Greco-Roman theology where necessary, 147Ts Jesus? ical insights. For example, jus j Ri P a in on for por Alexandria (d-€2.215) sOUBht to iggy ) ana Clemet eco Roman philosophy Were more fully hyn tin himself was a philosopher who after yy Christianity as the true philosophy, ho}, ing philoso} Asi F. « nt ss jon tried to present - i Il men are th id among al the proy at ratever things were rightly sai 8 Property 9 - cal narratives and symbols, interpreted typoie2 8 ai oe ne Banary, but they also drew oe and Stoic thought to express Christian theolog. concepts such as the impas bility of God, the za ene the immor of the soul. Today we refer to this process as “inculturation’ The process was not always an easy one. The biblical language ja, largely mythopoetic, while Hellenistic culture, though rich in its own myth, used the more universal language and categories of Greek or Hellen philosophy. We might consider this as the “scientific” language of the gay. But incorporating the categories of Hellenistic philosophy presented a ney, challenge to Christian theology, particularly to Christology. “The New Testament church had been able to successfully balance its in. herited Jewish monotheism with its faith in the risen Jesus Christ, the Lord, invoked in its worship and honored with divine names and func. tions, Using symbols and images drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament authors developed their Christologies in largely functional terms; Jesus is described from the perspective of his “mission? that is, in relation to us (quoad nos). Thus, we have seen Christologies formulated in virtue of his Second Coming, or his being exalted at God’s right hand, or as Messiah, Lord, Son of God, Wisdom of God, and so on, But did the New Testament authors speak of Jesus, not just functionally, but as he is in himself (in se)? Walter Kasper has argued that the ongoing re flection on the titles “Son” and “Son of God” within the New Testament witnesses to a transition to a more metaphysical Christology, so that Chris- tologies of being and mission exist side by side. He sees the Fourth Gospel in particular as representing a divine Sonship that is ontologically understood, not on the basis of speculation, but in order to bring out soteriological inte ests.’ Others are less ready to find ontological implications in the New Test ment texts. We saw in the previous chapter that Roger Haight, noting the movement of the Johannine Prologue towards “the incarnation of a hypo tized being,” warns against “misreading” the text in a “literalist” way ‘Justin Martyr, 2 Apol,12,4, Nias arn, Jesus the Christ (New York: Paulist, 1976) 165-66. ger Haig) t, Jesus: Symbol of God (New York: Orbis, 1999) 176, 177. ristians. the Church Fathers, of Platonic, Neoplatonic, alyUy trac ew in, T te Oy difficult not to see some Testa, Sy is di Pf 1 onto MH 0 Chg P Afi, Ming oh sep the New Testament, Particularre@implicagig Mh 4g dy, hoy ig | by more than incorporate the py, ae ourth nS the cy rol Gospel, tela. Prop Sing nas ence for the holy name of God, yop oA Jewish co°P*l The aur yey oat iy use the divine formula, “| ay,» ST" bespgye ET ith jen oPelog i 4% ea ny his divine origin (John 8:42) yp) 4: oF have %: would yg stign Sem lly Pe aiot have Thomas confess him asyyy With the rap Pein 5 be thea tt wathout some understanding of what ie rd and my God 4 fc 30, 38, 5 Mon, Sh ghout whether the New Testament authors ies SUREesting na a 20:28) la uty cations suggested by their use of language eee he ontologic gument ; Buag. ‘ But what is without dispute is that in the a Cannot be re S i Ost-New 7 Sewn m ae sthe Church continued its evangelizing mission vy Ir estament period, r Hellen the Greco-Roman world, the next generation rea € different culture of 8€ Of the Stic siood their tradition as affirming the divinity of aa authors under. 2senteq. chim their christological faith in ontological terme regen ee © Po an Clement of Rome (ca. 96), Ignatius of Antioch (d, 1 iat Aposlic Fathers, : (4. 110), Hermas (ca, 15 valance ig were roughly contemporary with the later New Testament auth re in, monotheistic, they nevertheless presumed the sane preexistence of S Christ, the well as his role in creation and redemption, an Pay eS and func pret works, they did not hesitate to all es Got oN a Tiptures, the Ephesians, Ignatius of Antioch writes that “Jesus Christ our God waco ly functional ceived of Mary” and in a Letter to the Smymaeans he proche Jone 3” that is, in Christ, the Divine One who has gifted you with such wisdom" »rmulated in The Apologists who followed them, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Hippolytus, ght hand, or and Tertullian began to address more systematically the relation of Christ to the Father, turning to the concept of the Logos or Word, common to Hel- lenistic philosophy, the Septuagint, and to the Fourth Gospel, where it was used to describe Jesus as the preexistent Word of God. Also significant was the Gnostic emphasis on the role of the Logos in creation as an intermedi- ate being or emanation. From this point on, philosophy was to increasingly provide a useful intellectual framework for the Church’s theology. not without its own dangers ie i But the philosophy of the day was ie Christian theology. 158) : Charles Blacks 195 Eph. 18:2; Smyrnaeans 1:1. don: Adam and Chat ge *See J.D, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (ATT ay, From tO $5410) ; ristian T Chas + also Aloys Grillmeier, Christ i Ch Bi} don (451) (Atlanta: John Kno%s 1965) !highest reality was impersonal uni r Versal nay ato’ world ofthe forms, while the divine was concsiveg a” Plato's wé ineffable, free from passion, and utterly tra of this tradition, particularly Plato, tended town, the body which by its very materiality was enmeshed j coming and change. Socrates went to his death with equanimity, cin that he was about to realize the philosopher's goal of freeing ni the limitations of the body. His disciple Plato spoke of the sout asin oned” in the body. This was very different fro m the tis, which looked on the - is coe or the person died, the breath of life or s leparted and they." ceased to exist. The fact that so many Christians today sil ish el tively of life after death in terms of the immortality of the sou rather tha, | the resurrection of the body, in spite of the centrality of the Resurrectio, | to Christian faith, is evidence of how deeply Western culture he fy stamped by this Greek dualism. Th marked by, rd @ conten 1 the woy a fog is turned naturally to the concept of the logesin i But though the term was common ti given its Jewish heritage, and to Greek philosophy, . In the Hebrew traditio: Person, “word” (in Hb. dabar) the person’s personality and withdrawn. Similarly, Power, going forth to accomplish the divine will in creaton teen vin 4; Isa 55:11), or when spoken in God’s name by a prophet (Isa 927; Jer 72), ‘ nations. In the biblical tradition, Word. In the Fourth Gospel, though the language is Greek (Logos), the concept is profoundly Hebraic (Dabar); like Wisdom, the Word was DS sent with God in the beginning, active in creation, and took on flesh in Jesus. Thus the iologi . However in tht ition going back as far as Heraclitus (ca. 5008.05) logos, which could be translated as either “word” or “reason,” was @ cos" it was understood as a i vin ‘ wis zation, giving form and meaning to the cosmos, just as it did to the othe" meaningless sounds of the human voice, 'o the Church, it had very n, Which valued the word ofa was understood as a dynamic extension of Power. A word, once spoken, could not beFrom the ‘ow Testament to Chalcedon 151 age in the Johannine Prologue, ionship between the Word and aan Sey ie concept in classical thought and the waa ied saa as mediator between the ineffable God ae aa. sing the divine Logos to a subordinate emma aa The Greek philosophical distaste for the world of cha d expression in two heterodox movements, Gnosticism sd open’ {tis interesting that these two heresies f and QaRaa faced by the Church is new c tural realm very early had difficulty, not with the Churctrs ut Ch a christol- ogy, but rather with its belief that the Logos/Word had become flesh Gnosticism _ Gnosticism (from the Greek gnosis, “knowledge”) was a syneretistic eli- gious movement, really a philosophical religion, that may have predated Christianity; it drew on both Hellenistic and Jewish sources and was not slow in incorporating Christian symbols as well. There may have been some Christians in the church of Corinth with Gnostic leanings (the mys- terious “Christ” party) and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas was a Gnos- tic work. What Gnosticism offered was a doctrine of salvation through knowledge, usually a secret knowledge available only to the initiated. For example, the Gospel of Thomas begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. And he said, “He who finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death?”* Like the Hellenistic culture out of which it came, Gnosticism was highly dualistic. Its concern was redemption, not in this world, but by escaping the world’s entanglements, thus, with the liberation of the person from bodily and material existence. This contempt for the bodily and the material resulted in two different expressions in practice. Some Gnostics rejected whatever had to do with the body, particularly marriage and ‘sexuality, Others, since bodily existence belonged to the fallen realm of ‘materiality and salvation was through a higher, spiritual knowledge, saw morality as unimportant; they practiced an antinomianism or libertinism.’ Ed ic : S 35. "The Apocryphal New Testament, ed. J. K Eliott (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 1 See Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 23-28.> wou e squne Christ party at Corinth justifying sexual immora, jose in Terpretation of Paul's teaching on fy dom (1 C9," othe, ONE eae of this tendency. Because Gnostcisiy gg '22 °° a ers benveen the ineffable God and the materia) rst! amos earl init with certain aspects of Christin doc larly Christology "" probabl more Docet Docetism was a christological expression of Gnosticism. While e casily saw Christ as a mediator, what they could not accept ya the divine Word had become flesh, with all its earthy connotations Thi they taught that Jesus only “seemed” or “appeared” (Greek dokeo,"to sen to have a human body. Marcion taught that he had only an appasentiey Valentine that he had a spiritual or pneumatic body. And if his body was, real, then his suffering was an illusion, ruled out by the divine impassabig, Both Gnostics and Docetists denied the humanity of Jesus. Docetict dencies must have appeared very early; arguments against them are gy dent in the Johannine letters (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7) as well as in Ignatiy of Antioch (ca. 110). Ignatius protests against those who claim that Chrig, had suffered only in appearance’ and “do not admit that the Eucharis the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins” But by the end of the second century or early third, others were denying the divinity of Jesus. From the Third Century to Nicaea The christological conflict known as Arianism that was to rend the Church in the fourth century expressed at least in part the struggle between two great catechetical schools, one at Alexandria in Egypt, the other at Antt och in Syria. At issue was a practical, pastoral problem, most evident inthe preaching of the time, and that was how to safeguard the unity of the perso" of Jesus. The confession _of Jesus Chri e Son | of God demanded ? ‘twofold demonstration: “frst-that-it-was compatible with Jewish mon” theism, and secondly that it was different from pagan polytheism. The st is as a on the possibilty of combining in Goda ml nction (between Father, Son and Spirit). Alexam in Eph. 7; Trall. 9; Smyrn, 1-3. * Smyrn. 6, q "Grillner, rillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. I, 106.dan incarnational Log, sropological Logos-anthropos 133 h) Christology Antioch an human being) Christology, Word-man or xandria: Logos-Sarx ‘placed great emph comes-“attached” to human flesh. In Ro core “lies in the consistent unity or continuous self. ‘or heavenly Son through the three stages of its career? so te speak’ focus is always on the Logos. Thus Clement:speaks'of Chiist as having “clothed Himself with a man,” bein, 18 “God in the form of aman, unsuillied” and Origen, who believed that human souls preexisted in a world of spir- itual beings, taught that the Logos became fused with the soul of Jeves.” The danger here is a tendency to slight the full humanity of Jesus, a ten. dency that became effective denial later in the case of Apollinaris, Antioch: Logos-Anthropos The other great school was at Antioch, found Antioch (d. 312) in the second half of the third theologians were a fractious lot; and a number of their rep) led perhaps by Lucian of century. The Antiochene they were responsible for several schisms, resentatives were excommunicated. Antioch’s “emphasis was on a Logos-anthropos Christology which emphasized the full A of Jesus. Again Haight: “The core of Antiochene christology lies in a consistent vision of Jesus Christ as an historical figure or person who two distinct natures.” Antioch’s focus was on Jesus of Nazareth, alry between the two schools was strong, driven in part by po- nterests, Alexandria against Antioch and the new capital of Con- ple. There have been competing theological schools in every age of rch, Dominicans and Jesuits arguing over grace in the seventeenth onerganians and Rahnerians disputing over method in the twen- the conflict between Alexandria and Antioch was fundamentally over theological language. How could Christians speak about the Jesus in a way that respected both his humanity and his divinity? explain the unity of Jesus with God and with us? Alexandria Haight, Jesus: Symbol of God (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1999) 262-63. Early Christian Doctrines, 154-55. 267,jg hous a pur the struggle was not just erm ri the mystery of Jesus into a phiog Brant use, for se he risk of each affirmation being aj. allye eran tl also 4 4, cone nH je mystery AF take w8 the very hea fy he some other 35 F God's revealing presence j rs ology. the full meaning Of God's revealing presence in jee ng Christology> a ‘ the controversy between these two Scho, efore investigate Before we investigh' me of the terms that they used. need to look briefly at so Term Basic Meaning Usage/Sense >) that which stands under oy “hypostasis Gk. £ hupo istemi, “to stand \ ee) “eel that supports the various a | ities or appearances ofathng | | substantia | Lat. sub stare, “to stand ‘Thus subsistent being, ata | (Lat) “under” existing: by itself, substance, (Medieval example, “transub- stantiation”) being; distinct entity, natu, | Gk., substantive of vb. Cappadocian formula: one einai, “to be? “being” “nature (ousia), three hy- Postases (hypostasis)_ \ ousia | homoousios | homo, “same” being one in being, consubstantial_| | homoiousios | _homoi, “like” being _of like being \ | Phusis nature |_nature, essence \ (Ck) face, countenance, mask concrete appearance; particu- lar individual; person; “persona” was defined by Boethius (6" cent.) as “indi: a a mask, character, individual “God-bearer” “Christ-bearer”From the New Testa, oo: ent t0 Chalcedon 135 jul of Samosata was a bitter ~ ©ppone: . the humanity of Jesus, he taught thor Cri8e?: Concerned to sate: ce” (homoousios) with the Fath, ‘ioe ‘ Fs though he used hen Ok ONE Sud dl thet. e Bote ic ‘erm not in the the Father: That left the question, who then ee APE sme Person of = man in whom the Spirit had come to dwell He gu fot Pat Jesus was Bay an in rare ase 5 4G he na Paul’s Christology was adoptionist; anteed — ee Jesus by a radical separation of the person of Jesus from ihe wanaties z condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268, a. Arius was born in Libya in 256, His back is theological education was at Antioch ui him within the Alexandrian traditio tor of a major congregation in Alexandria about the time that Bckep Alexander of Alexandria, began preaching the Alexandrian Logos sare Christology. Alexander was using Origen’s concep ense of the same nature or being, Bround is disputed; some say inder Lucian; Grillmeier places ® Ordained in 311, he became pas- tion of eternal genera- ‘suggesting the Logos or Son’s divine status. In response, Arius began ing his conclusions about the nature of the Word in 318, Affirming, Jute uniqueness of God, Arius argued that the being o essence ) of God—who is unique, transcendent, indivisible—cannot be ‘The Logos or Word, he concluded, was created out of nothing, had inning in time, is dissimilar from the Father’s essence and being, and e liable to change and certainly to suffering.'* Arius had thus re- e Word to a demigod, a creature.” His theology represented a Hel- ion of Christianity, turning the Logos into a mediator between the ble and unchanging God and the world of multiplicity and change." (325) .d with the help of catchy slogans such as his famous “there = ‘hen he was not,” Arius’ theology soon had the Empire in a : ress this and other issues, the Emperor onsanene ana which met at Nicaea in Turkey in 325. Some 318 bishop: lly, Early Christian Doctrines, 140. oy Ree Gre in Christian Tradition, Vol. One, 2 ly, Early Christian Doctrines, 225-30. bid., 230. asper, Jesus the Christ, 158.es of the East. Their concern was nop pings of Scripture and tradition, Thy ey, baptismal creed of his church 8 sa dg q ity with the Father te ym church rm the teach ‘d by Eusebius as th 1 his equal he Eather all powerful, maker of all things jy Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-be Sey see the Father that is from the substance of the Father, Gogr"® oiten tue God from true God, begotten not made, through whom all things came to be, both q, th; for us humans and for our salvation p, became human, suffered and rose up Nicaea, claime the divinity of Jesus and We believe in one God t in one and unseen. And be God. light from light, t stantial with the Father, heaven and those in ear down and became incarnate, third day, went up into the heavens, dead, And in the holy Spirit."" ‘The council did a number of things. First, it condemned several Arig, propositions: “And those who say “There once was when he wasinot, ag ‘hefore he was begotten he was not, and that he came to be from thing, that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and ap ostolic church anathematises.”*” Second, Nicaea affirmed in no uncertain terms the divinity of Jesus. in opposition to Arius, the council asserted that Jesus is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial (homoousion) with the Father.” But as Brian McDermott has observed, the council did not really define what it understood by the term homoousios.! The council’s teaching was “received” by the churches, but only after con- siderable controversy and further clarifications in the council's aftermath. In a real sense, the controversy reflected the struggle to find the proper theological language to express the Church's faith. nuh Nose ig 1 Came ; ae is coming to judge the living any the From Nicaea to Chalcedon In the aftermath of Nicaea controversies continued among three rival parties, those of the Nicene party who insisted on the term homoowsies the Arians who avoided it, and a moderate group in the middle, usually referred to as the “Homoiousians” (“of like substance”), though they ha fc eae of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. One: Nicaea Ito Lateran V, ed. Norman 13S = ae Georgetown University Press, 1990) 5. id. * Brian O. McD P : egeville: The Lee Te Word Become Flesh: Dimensions of Christology (College"From the New Testament to Chat fairly labeled as “SemisAvians> as xy, both’ of whom worked to asius of Alexandria (d. 373) in th (d. 367). Athanasius sought to mal jos; explaining it in terms of the 157 cS mans defenders of Nicaean ~— Homoiousians, were 2 ae Hilary of Poitiers in the concrete Nicaea’s term, ho- ust divinit I the Son are distinct (other), the Son a aaa ather's substance dis of the same nature as He i yr gn Gane ne ney early one, not by a. union of person, but by a-unity of mee = thus points to a distinction of person within a unity ea Nicaea had affirmed the divinity of Jesus. But there remained th Jem of safeguarding his full humanity. Athanasius and Hilary in their cron to secure the divinity of Christ against Arius, had failed to acknowhed\ eh implications of his humanity. Stressing the uncreated status of the Dee ‘Athanasit ns sought to remove any weakness from Jesus, suggesting that his apparent ignorance in the Gospels was a result of his restraining his omni science. Hilary, though he taught that Christ possessed a human mind and d that he personally experienced real ignorance, hunger, fear, or joving in the direction of a “practical docetisim.”® cllinaris of Laodicea (4. 390) went further, effectively denying the jumanity of Jesus. A friend of Athanasius, Apollinaris followed the x theology of Alexandria even though he taught in Antioch. ng the “one incarnate nature (phusis) of the divine Logos} he main- {that the Logos took the place of the human soul of Christ, or atleast the higher soul, the nous.” This means of course that Jesus was not truly being, as Apollinaris was apparently willing to admit: “This not a man,” ran his refrain in one work.” As Haight says, “in the andrian tradition Jesus does not seem to be conceived as an integral being. He lacks a rational soul, or is not a human subject, or is 8 ita principle of human individuality, freedom, and action: elly, Early Christian Doctrines, 244. Trinitate, IV, 42; cf. McDermott, Word Become Flesh, 169; Kelly, Early Christian ¢ Christological Controversy, trans. and. edo Richard A. Norris (Philadelphia: 1980) 20-21. jus McDermott, Word Become Flesh, 199. id., 199. Piet Smulders, The Fathers on Chi St. Norbert Abbey Press, rristology (De Pere, Wis laight, Jesus: Symbol of God, 266.158 Who Is Jesus? The Cappadocian Fathers of Asia Minor, Basil of Caesareg @ Gregory of Nyssa (335-94), and Gregory of Nazianzus (330_g5) ay major role in securing the proper relationship between the Bathe May Son; they taught that the Son was fully and equally God, nor reality (as in Arius), but eternally begotten while the Father sun Most useful was their formula in reference to the Godhead. on di {ure (ousia) and three hypostases (hypostasis). They also affirm atte i di Vinity of the Holy Spirit.” Constantinople I (384) The first Council of Constantinople (381) reaffirmed the faith of Nig and formulated its own creed, different from that of Nicaea in a number ways. The creed eliminated the phrase, “that is, of the substance (usa the Father” and expanded Nicaea’s brief article on the Spirit by adding, holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father co worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who Spoke through the prophets.” The council also added a final article Confessing he lief “in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptisn ie the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead ani, in the age to come. Amen. The council also condemned the Apolinatan The period between Constantinople I and Chalcedon was dominated y the struggle between the rival theologies of Alexandria and Antioch, par ticularly as represented by two strong churchmen, Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius. An Antiochene monk, Nestorius (d. 451) became patriarch of Constantinople in 428 at the time of the controversy over the title Theotokos (“Mother of God,’ literally “Godbearer”). The title had been used of Mary apparently as early as 220 in virtue of the fact that the son she bore, Jesus, had both human and divine attributes, expressed by the theological con- cept of the communicatio idiomatum, the “commu ion of attributes’ which was implicit in Nicaea’s Creed: Nestorius thought this represented an Arian and Apollinaran reduction of Christ’s humanity to passive flesh animated by the Logos, thus, the Logos-sarx theology. He questioned the use of Theotokos for Mary in a sermon. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, was already irritated at Nestorius who had supported charges brought against him by some Egyptian monks. Nene sermon was too much. Denouncing him to Pope Celestine in Rome os argued in a series of letters that Jesus is the “one incarnate nature of the“ * McDermott, Word Become Flesh, 171-72. » Tanner, Decrees, 24.isa ee °' He thus rejected the 8 One person (prosop5; g roso} amas or seDarate. Norris ch aera ristological monisi siti _ sm and cl jualism respectively.” The real tragedy is that both = pats a genuine in- hts, but were not able to find a common theological language to espn a 638 1 the two natures remain d and Nestorius’ ps “Ephesus I (431) With conflict again growing, the Emper il which was held at Taneaae in BL A eee Gf Hal esis Ga Jace. The first, presided over by Cyril, not surprisingly am eraneaae Nestorius. Acknowledging the traditional communicatio idioma- tum, it affirmed that Mary could be called Theotokos. When John, bishop of Antioch showed up, he held another meeting which excommunicated Gyril. Finally when the papal legates arrived, they endorsed Cyril's gather- ing which henceforth would be known as Ephesus I. Cyprian’s interpreta- tion had prevailed as the authoritative interpretation of the Nicene Creed. _ Though the struggle was not yet over, there were efforts underway to bring the two sides together. In August John of Antioch sent to Cyril a docu- it known as the Symbol of Union. Confessing Jesus as “perfect God and ‘man, it acknowledged a union of two natures without confusion Ys claim) as well as the unity of Christ as one person (using the An- language of one prosopén) and the title Theotokos for Mary, both n concerns. Most interesting is the document's explicit reco; sroblem of different theological languages: “As for the evangeli- ostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians 1¢ indifferently in view of the unity of person but distinguish. v of the duality of natures.” Cyprian accepted the Symbol titled, “The Heavens Rejoice” (Laetentur coli). differences over how to speak about the person of Jesus communion of the churches. On the Alexandrian side, not ological Controversy, 26-28; McDermott, Word Become Flesh 253-56. istian Doctrines, 314-15. gical Controversy, 28. ian Doctrines, 329-all of Cyril’s supporters were comfortable with his acceptance o age of two natures, while at Antioch resentment over the tyeqt® hn, es, while a 7 guage . When Cyril died im444 his successor py janguage which postulated thar cyo¥, Nestorius still smoldere tried to return to the one nature z : together in one divine nature, thus di. vinity and humanity came to; ae EE hs "oni his humanity, From this came th " (one.nature-ism),effetively denying the hunsanity of leses- Mean Constantinople, Eutyches, an elderly and cantankerous monk, was Agitatin, : fare in against the Symbol of Union. The patriarch, Flavian, convened a say % Constantinople in 448 at which Eutyches was conceonned after the Patri. arch read a confession of faith containing the formula, “We confess that Christ is of two natures after the incarnation, confessing one Chiig, Son, one Lord, in one hypostasis and one proposdn.” His Greek read jas ally, “out of two natures.” which caused some misunderstanding cj.) cedon would later correct it. But significantly, for the first time the Words “person” (prosopdn) and “substance” (hypostasis) had been used together The “Robber” Council (449) Both Flavian and Eutyches appealed to Rome, occasioning Pope Leg famous “Tomus ad Flavian” or letter of 449, echoing Flavian’s two-nature language: “So the proper character of both natures was maintained ang came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weak- ness by strength, mortality by eternity.”* Eutyches, however, tefused to ac- cept his excommunication and with the help of Dioscorus, appealed to the Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council. The council, which met at Ephesus in 449, was “dominated with brutal efficiency by Dioscorus”” Though the papal legates were present with Pope Leo's Tome, they were not allowed to read it. One of them, the deacon Hilary who was not able to speak Greek, could only shout out his disagreement in Latin.” Intimi- dating the bishops with the help of the military, Dioscorus had Eutyches declared orthodox and Flavian condemned. To make matters worse, at his signal the soldiers and monks were let into the assembly, causing such an uproar that the council has gone down in history as the “Robber Council” (Latrocinium) of Ephesus. It was not Teceived by the Church. * See Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 331. *Tomus ad Flavian, in Tanner, Decrees, 78; Leo’s tome for the first time brought Wester Christology to bear in the controversy; see Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 334-38. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 334 e Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. One, 528.Fro "the New Chalcedon (451) New Testament y o E > '© Chalcedon when Eutyches’ protector Theodog zt porse, the new Emperor Marcian proved ie, he reas o forageneral council. Though Leo had were ofl fom hig was to be the site, until Marcian transferre in itto be hela talon the Bosporus. The council opened on orga hee Nicaea ine en assembly of bishops in the a 8 three papal legates The council accepted the Creed of Nicaea, the won at ome of Leo, and Flavian’s profession of faith, Home Of Ctl th “veil, the: p y ; th. Hower by the bishops remained ambiguous, ter the payal ones pee ‘al legates threatened to ‘move the council to Italy, a new commission w, vas 5 h ‘ fonfession of faith that was acceptable to all In sure een Produced a é lary, it read: ‘we all with one voice teach th i PORT: the same rene Se aaa same Son, our Lord BEE nd truly man, ofa rational pul and ct ey te same MMMM; rczards his divinityand the dame cantina ieee SI sity; like as all eepects eae te Seed Sth Father as regards his divinity andi the lst aye the mets ME cu: salvation: rom’ May, the vutan Cod aera ee es Sey onc and the same Christ, Son, Lord, ony- begat Seal edged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no oe no separation; at no point was the difference berween the natures ates y through union, but rather the propery of both natures is preserved and comes together nt single person anda sing ssn sing he fot parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same ony stten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ. . . 2” . thetieto had safeguarded the divinity of Jesus, Chalcedon placed equal n his full humanity, juxtaposing four carefully balanced double ons. which echoed the earlier council: Jesus was perfect in divin- in humanity; truly God, truly man; consubstantial with the substantial with us; begotten before the ages, in the last day the 5. . . from Mary. “ways the Chalcedonian co! nfession was a synthesis of views. an concerns for the union of Jesus with the divine Logos were sopan and one hypostasisy aS Flavian’s expression, “one pri 0 ; 2 that the > repetition of the words “the same, and the eae 0 the two natures does not mean any division or SP: rees, 86.General Councils $$ | Council Leading Figures Issue Nicaea (325) Arius (not present): Rejected Arius view nar] “there was atime when | the logos is created, he was not.” Christ is “homoousion” 318 bishops present with the Father Constantinople I Cappadocian influence | Affirmed Nicene faith (381) new creed which af- firmed the divinity of Spirit; our creed combi. nation of the two Nestorius: conjunction | Condemns Nestorius, Ephesus I (431) of natures, Mary is Mary is theotokos chrisotokos; but Cyril and John of John of Antioch; Antioch excommunicate Cyril of Alexandria: each other hypostatic union; Mary is theotokos Flavian of Constanti- Dioscorus dominates, Ephesus II (449) nople: “out of two na- rejected Flavian’s for- (“Robber Council”) tures, in one hypostasis_| mula: out of two na- | and in one person” tures, one person. But (formula of union); council was itself re- Dioscorus of Alexandria | jected. 600 bishops; Tome of Condemns Dioscorus, Chalcedon (451) Leo written in support accepts Tome of Leo: of Flavian; papal legates | teaches two natures in insist on new profes- one person and one hy- sion of faith postasis, truly God and truly man els iEFrom the Nev Tey éstament to Chalee alcedon did not answer all the christolog; eer would address Monophysite lone Bia! duestions poo onophysite leanings in the ether Christ had one will or two. But the couney Conan fers for the subsequent debate, In many way. ie First of all, Chalcedon represented a synthesis competing theological Schools. Those representis ted to emphasize “the union of the divine and the nos, lear the presence of God in Jesus and thus in the ‘with their emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, asless than a full, integral human being, He is trul Y one of us. In thi Jong struggle to reconcile the human and the divine in Jesus, the tine tion made between person and nature was key.* Secondly, Chalcedon exemplified the ability of the Church to express its faith in the philosophical language of the day, In the struggle to guard ite faith against less adequate expressions and heterodox views, whether from the culture or from the Church, the great dogmas of Christology and Trin- ity were set forth in the creeds. Establishing this “rule of faith? clarifying and making explicit what in the New Testament had been at best implicit, repre- sented a high point in a dialogue with culture that is no less important today. i reformulation of the Church’s christological faith in the philo- Did the 8! P Janguage of the time result in a Hellenization of Christianity, as ‘nineteenth-century liberalism and some recent Catholic theologians have maintained, or was the unique meaning of the person of Jesus safe- ‘guarded even as it was newly expressed in the language of another culture? 4 case can be made that Christian theology, while adapting Greek hilosophical language, actually transformed it, and in so doing, moved n culture to a new level of understanding. Walter Kasper argues con- that the distinction introduced by the Cappodocians ee is e (ousia) and the three hypostases (hypostasis), madersted "4 + ent te realizations of a universal nature, was a real — aces z gj ‘ime. Even 1 did not exist in the philosophy oy the ie hae eck ae st yet understood as person, it meant “nothing le i the re was no longer regarded as the supreme reality and that Subsequent aUestions over ad set out the parame= S a great achievement, vine; making world. The Antiocheans, resisted any tendency to see « Paulist, 1975) 106. (New York Pat . orld Come of Age (New York “Christian (Garden City NV not Lane, The Reality of, Jesus: An : . e Leslie Dewart, The Future of Belief: ues i o : and Herder, 1966) 132-35; Hans King, O" oubleday, 1976) 439-40, 450.Ts Jesus? tological way of thinking was giving way to thinking in x Peo in other words, rather than seeing impersonal universa, a der the influence of Christianity the moat ting individual hypostasis/substance, a rea “ulti. 7M of fe supreme reality, be seen as the € would mately, as personal Its c concep, of God remained highly colored by Greek ideas of the divine impassab; A Ssabilty ranscendence. But in its Christology, andt us God's revelation in Je = is Hot just-self-revelation, but icati God is both transcendent and immanent. Philosophy continued to play an im] i ; portant role in the develo, Western theology; in the Middle Ages it was known as the oh theology: It is no less important today, guarding against ie s Be fideism pe when working in consort with theology, aaa at compatibility of faith and reason so characteristi ac ae hai P ct ae teristic of the Catholic tra-