Nestorianism

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: Departure From The Faith | May 1972

Last month we specified the two areas of investigation to be covered in this series of articles: first, doctrinal heresies in the early centuries A.D.; and, second, departure from the apostolic pattern of church constitution and practice. For the sake of clarity we are looking at the doctrinal heresies before tracing the deviations which culminated in the union of Church and State. But the two strands of error cannot be divorced. For this reason: the development of Christendom created an ecclesiastic hierarchy which battled for 'power and prestige, and the doctrinal squabbles of this period were often conducted with an arrogance and violence which brought grave discredit on the professing Church. No doubt there were among this hierarchy some noble and devoted Christians, but there were also some wolves in sheep's clothing. To read the ecclesiastical history of this period is a distressing exercise. The tactics of some of these early 'Fathers' expose them as utterly unfitted for the role of champions of the Faith. This matter will come under notice in a later article. We refer to it here because it should be borne in mind at this stage of our enquiry. Not always was doctrinal orthodoxy the paramount consideration in these struggles; ecclesiastical mastery also became a prominent issue.

In the controversies which followed the triumph of Athanasius over the Arians at the Council of Nicaea, two churchmen, Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea, and Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, took a prominent part. These two names have been attached 'by theologians to opposing theories of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

It appears that Apollinaris, anxious to maintain the deity of Christ, was led, like some of the early Gnostics, to deny His real humanity, or at least to propound a theory which seemed to do this. He taught that the Person of the Redeemer consisted of a body with a soul; 'but that the spiritual nature was supplied by the Logos-the Word. Thus, while in Scripture language man was 'body, soul and spirit', Christ was body, soul and Divine Logos. This theory was condemned at the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381, where a modified Creed of Nicaea (now called the Nicene Creed) was adopted. This put a stop to controversy on the doctrine of our Lord's Person for a while. 'But eventually the theory of Apollinaris revived in other forms and paved the way for the great controversy on the doctrine of the Two Nature's of Christ in the next century and divided Christendom. Nestorius was a central figure in this dispute.

In Fathers and Heretics (the Bampton Lectures for 1940), Dr G. L. Prestige makes this observation, "When we turn from Apollinaris to Nestorius we are passing from a singularly Christian and religious heretic, whose individual errors were discarded within a short space of years by most of his disciples, to the still more remarkable phenomenon of a heresiarch who in the most explicit terms repudiated the heresy of which he was accused; ... of a party leader who believed that the views which ultimately triumphed in the course of the controversy were identical with his own, but who, for all that, was personally outcast and became the cause of the most extensive schism originating in ancient Christendom". If this assessment is correct, and history tends to confirm it, then we have here an example of the despicable tactics alluded to in the opening paragraph of this article.

Our main purpose here is to discuss the doctrinal heresies the circumstances of the controversies are mentioned incidentally to balance the picture. Standard Church Histories follow in detail the history of the professing Church and the early Ecumenical Councils. Nestorius himself was arrogant and ruthless and it could be said with justice that his temper and methods contributed to the alleged misunderstanding of his theories. But fuel was added to the fire 'by the rivalry between the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria, the chief opponent of Nestorius, was enraged at the truculence of what he regarded as the upstart Bishopric of Constantinople. The haughty and implacable Cyril outwitted Nestorius and by shameful trickery at the Council of Ephesus in 431 had him condemned and excommunicated without a hearing. The proceedings of this Council were a travesty of justice. But Nestorius succeeded in dividing Christendom: a division "fathered by autocratic impatience, and mothered by ecclesiastical jealousy" (Prestige).

The opponents of Nestorius were convinced that he really believed that a divine being and a human being had somehow been combined in order to form Christ; that there were two separate Sons of God, of whom one was a natural Son, God the Word, and the other was an adopted Son, Jesus. If Nestorius himself repudiated such a conclusion, certainly some of his followers advanced it, and this is the heresy which has been labelled Nestorianism.

Scripture clearly teaches that our Incarnate Lord is both God and Man; Divine nature and human nature co-existing in His blessed Person. At the Incarnation the Divine Son became flesh while retaining His essential Deity. Thus the Gospel records present to us a Divine-Human Person who could say, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58), and, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Yet this same Person, subsisting of body, soul (Matt. 26:38) and spirit (Luke 23:46), experienced hunger (Luke 4:2), weariness (John 4:6), sorrow (Matt. 26:37) and tears (John 11:35). And the Epistles throughout consistently assert the dual nature of Christ. "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4); "He did not send His Son to join a man born of a woman; which would have been an alliance of two persons, not a harmony of two natures in relation to one Person. The Manhood was, and is, never independently personal.... In Him full Godhead and full Manhood were always present, in harmony" (Moule).

When all has been said we cannot penetrate this inscrutable mystery, much less comprehend it. The recorded facts of that unique, birth, life, death and resurrection are the foundation of the Christian Faith. And, while that Faith is defensible on reasonable grounds, because it is divine revelation, attempts to rationalize the mode of existence of our Incarnate Lord should be treated with the utmost reserve. As we have insisted throughout this series of articles, Holy Scripture is the sole arbiter in respect of Christian doctrine and practice. We must continually bring our minds back to the source lest we import ideas which have not the warrant of Scripture. The Person of Christ, revealed in Scripture, defies human analysis. Happy indeed are they who in worshipping faith can say with Thomas, " My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

Nestorianism, by asserting that God came to dwell in a Man, in effect denied a real incarnation, and separated our Lord's Deity from His Humanity. This theory falls short of Scripture revelation, and taken to its logical conclusion robs the Man Christ Jesus of His full Deity. It does not, for example, accord with Paul's great statement on the Incarnation in Philippians 2:5-11. As Gifford says in summing up his classic exposition of this passage, now unfortunately out of print: "Paul has thus shown us in brief outline the essential features of the Incarnation, the perfect Godhood and perfect Manhood united in one Divine Person, who is the subject of the whole passage, and never to be divided, seeing that the Human nature, denoted in the name Jesus, is now highly exalted in inseparable union with the Divine."

The Christological controversies in the sub-apostolic age followed a general pattern. The pendulum swung first one way and then the other, each heresy being the rebound of a former one. Apollinarianism was the reaction to Arianism and in turn provoked Nestorianism. These heresies, in the main, were distortions of truth through undue emphasis on the one side of it at the expense of the other. Revealed truth is indivisible and must be held in balance. This is the lesson that stands out clear in the 'history of Christian doctrine in the sub-apostolic age.

The inevitable reaction to Nestorianism came from Eutyches, a zealous monk of Constantinople, who vigorously denounced Nestorianism but was himself eventually charged with heresy. He was condemned and deposed for teaching that our Lord had but a single nature after His incarnation. The supporters of Eutyches fought back, and at a second 'Council at Ephesus in 449 A.D., known to history as the infamous "Robber Synod", the decision was reversed. But the conclusions of the "Robber Synod" were hotly opposed by Western Christendom, and this paved the way for the fourth Ecumenical Council which was held at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. This Council, the largest that had yet been held, was attended by over five hundred prelates of Christendom. It set aside the decisions of the "Robber Synod", reaffirmed the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, and issued a Confession known as the Definition of Chalcedon. This was a comprehensive document summing up and condemning the heresies, and defining the orthodox faith of Christendom on the doctrine of our Lord's Person.

We do not reproduce the document here; those not familiar with it may consult the standard Church Histories. Reading it with hindsight we may well consider that its archaically worded phrases confuse rather than enlighten. We may also question whether it goes too far in attempting to rationalize what Scripture leaves to the exercise of faith. And while we remind ourselves that no Ecumenical Council is invested with any kind of authority to define Christian doctrine, we must take into account that its main propositions have secured substantial acceptance among Christians down the centuries.

One criticism levelled at the Definition of Chalcedon is the sanction 'it gives to the use of the term Mother of God (Greek, Theotokos) as a description of the virgin Mary. While theologically it may be argued that the term is sound, meaning no more than that Mary's child was God, yet its inclusion here has given support to a devotional use of the title tending to make Mary an object of worship, which developed into the terrible error of Mariolatry in the Roman Church. This illustrates the danger of departing from Scriptural phraseology when combating heresy or defining doctrine.

This brief survey of the doctrinal deviations of the early centuries has followed the mainstream of the history of Christendom. It does not take into account the minority of genuine Christians in dissident movements who were aloof from these controversies but who, nevertheless, retained in substantial purity the true Scriptural doctrine of our Lord's Person without recourse to the Creeds and Confessions of Christendom. But this belongs to another part of our subject.

The heart of every true Christian warms to the glorious truth of the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord. He feels instinctively that it is holy ground and is no subject for impious speculation. In dealing with this subject and the controversies it has aroused, the words of a great expositor have been in our thoughts, "May He spare the hand which has been put forward to touch His Ark" (Atford).

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | May 1972
Departure From The Faith