Tuesday Bible Study (4/7/20)

The Question of Christ's Wills and Energies

The Third Council of Constantinople - 680-681 A.D.

A painting by Piero della Francesca of the  battle between Emperor Heraclius
and the Persians in 628 A.D. Heraclius tried to compromise with non-
Chalcedonian peoples in his realm by propagating monoenergism.

Scriptural Starting Places

Luke 22:42 - "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

John 4:34 - "My food," said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'"

John 5:30 - "“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

John 6:38 - " For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

>> The Greek word for "will" is thelema (θέλημα), which also has the meaning of "desire, pleasure, choice, inclination." The New Testament records that Christ our Lord has a human body, exactly like ours, yet He is fully divine, being the Word of the Father. When the Lord's will is mentioned, it is mentioned in the singular and ascribed to the Person of Christ, not to either His divine nature or human nature.  Christ Himself is ever mentioning His Father's divine will and His desire to obey it perfectly. A debate will arise in the 7th century over the will(s) of Christ in the wake of the Miaphysitism that was now commonly held by Christians throughout Armenia, Syria, Persia, Palestine, and Egypt. The question is, does Christ have one will or two wills? 

Background

The Emperor of the Byzantine Empire had a problem. Finally he had defeated the Persians in several crushing battles between 622 and 627, and had regained vast swaths of territory. On top of that, he had regained the True Cross from the city of Ctesiphon and restored it to Jerusalem.  However, most of the Christians in these newly liberated (or conquered) areas were non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites, meaning they did not share the same Christological views of the Emperor himself and established Byzantine Orthodoxy. Heraclius thought that a commonly held religion would be a unifying force in his empire, but in the face of these conflicting views, what was he to do? 

Aided by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, Heraclius attempted to attain a Christological compromise position that would bring together the various religious attitudes of the diverse areas of his empire.  The attempt at unity was aided by a  teaching that Heraclius and Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, hoped to popularize called Monenergism. Simply put, it was a compromise position which posited Christ had two natures but only a single energy or activity. Later, this teaching evolved into a teaching on the single activity of his will (thelema).  Heraclius and Sergius thought that this teaching might serve a unifying function in the kingdom by bridging Byzantine Orthodox theology with Miaphysite theology.  Sergius won over the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch with this teaching. Yet, beginning in 633, the teaching was opposed by Sophronius of Jerusalem and Maximus. At this time, Sergius sent the Psephos to a theologian of Alexandria, Cyrus, disallowing him and any others from talking about one or two activities (energies) in Christ. The Psephos was then an attempt at ending the conversation, to avoid further controversy. 

In 638 the language about the one energy of Christ evolved into the one will of Christ. Heraclius then issued the Ecthesis (Ἔκθεσις) which attempted to settle the Christological controversy by positing Christ's dual natures always worked through a single will. Sophronius and others rejected this. A contemporary scholar sums up very well the consequences of the Echthesis: "For what Sergius and the emperor had decreed was that there is in Jesus Christ only one will and one truly free and spontaneous activity, the divine activity and will. Granting the existence of a human nature, its activity is completely subordinate to that of the divine; the humanity in the power of the Word is merely a docile instrument which He uses and which is devoid of any initiative of its own" (Leo Donald Davis, 268). 

Maximus Confessor was the key theologian during this time. Fleeing to Carthage and then to Rome in the wake of the Muslim Arab conquest, Maximus was a stout foe of Monothelitism. He put forward the idea that a nature without will and operation is impossible. Christ's two natures therefore imply two wills, though his human will is not our fallen, sinful one (which Maximus calls the gnomic will, from γνώμη, gnṓmē, "mind, reason, opinion, judgment"), but rather, our "natural" one which is free of sin, as in Adam and Eve before the Fall. Christ has no fallen will, only an un-fallen one, which always chooses the Good, which is always obeying the divine will. 

By the time of Constans II, emperor of the Byzantine empire, the controversy was still raging, and the emperor released an edict called the Typos in 648. In it he forbade any more discussion on the question of Christ's energies or wills. This was rejected in the West by the Lateran Synod of 649, a synod which Maximus participated in. 

Finally, under the new leadership of Emperor Constantine IV (668-685), a decision was reached to initiate a universal council to decide the issues that had been dividing East and West for some 50 years. 

A mosaic in the Italian city of Ravenna of Christ, saints, and angels.

Heresies

Monoenergism (μονοενεργητισμός): the teaching that preceded Monothelitism and posited Christ has two natures but only a single energy (ἐνέργειᾰ ). Though rather vague, monoenergism was essentially an attempt to reconciled Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Byzantine Empire. It was accepted by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Pope Honorius famously accepted it (or at least did not condemn it) in his 635 epistle. 

Monothelitism (μονοθελητισμός ): the teaching that Christ has two natures but only one will. This teaching emerged from Constantinople in 638 as a response to Sophronius' condemnation of Monoenergism as another form of Monophysitism. This view was propagated by the Ecthesis and won widespread approval in the East. Following the death of Honorius, all of the popes in Rome condemned the doctrine. 

Miaphysitism: the non-Chalcedonian position that Christ has a single physis, or nature. Miaphysitism was wide-spread throughout the East. Essentially it posits that the single nature of the Word became enfleshed, fully human, while remaining the Word. Monophysitism is a direct rejection of Chalcedon and implies that Christ has a solitary nature only: the divine. 

Tritheism: emerging in Alexandria in the 6th century, Tritheism posited that the Three Persons of the Trinity were consubstantial but distinct in their properties. A chief proponent of this view was John Philoponus (c. 490 - c. 570) who was an Aristotelian philosopher of Alexandria and a Monophysite. Essentially Tritheism is any theology which emphasizes or separates the distinctness of each Person at the expense of the unity. 

Pope Honorius I (pope from 625 - 638) initially
supported Monothelitism, though he did not know
what was at stake. He was careful to guard against
the teaching of two contrary wills in Christ.

Key Personages

Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610 - 641): a very successful military commander, Heraclius waged war against the Persian Sassanian Empire and won a series of major victories. Unfortunately, most of his gains were reversed a short time later during the Muslim Arab invasions. Famously, Heraclius re-captured the true cross from the Sassanians in Nineveh and restored it to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. During peace time, Heraclius was keen to unite the disparate Christian groups of his vast empire. The theological foundation for unity was the compromise doctrine of Monenergism (later, Monothelitism) formulated by Sergius I. Indeed, for around 40 years there was a rough reconciliation between Armenians, Jacobite (followers of Jacob bar Addai, the so-called "Syriac Christians"), and Egyptian Copts, but this did not last long. 

Sergius I of Constantinople (patriarch from 610 - 638): the architect of Monenergism and Monothelitism which were two attempts at preserving the Chalcedonian distinction of the two natures of Christ while also admitting the single activity of will of Christ. This was more acceptable to the various Monophysite groups in Armenia, Syria, Persia, and Egypt. It was hoped by Heraclius and Sergius that this formulation would unite the empire.


Pope Honorius I (pope from 625 - 638): a controversial figure, Honorius was embroiled into this Christological controversy which he did not fully understand. In a letter to Sergius he writes, "Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt, was assumed by the Godhead..." Honorius was careful to preserve the sinless aspect of Christ and was afraid that attributing a human will to him meant also attributing ignorance, sin, and imperfection. Honorius probably did not have the vocabulary to defend his position, as his successor to the papacy points out. Despite this, he was anathematized in the canons of Constantinople III. 

Pope Agatho (pope from 678 to 681):  the pope during the Third Council of Constantinople, Agatho's letter Considerante mihi as well as a synodal letter from the Synod of Rome were read and approved by the council fathers. Agatho wrote in his letter, "When we, however, confess two natures and two natural wills and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we affirm that they are not against or contrary to one another... nor are they as if separated in two persons or subsistencies.  Rather we affirm that just as there are two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, so does he have two natural wills and two operations, namely, divine and human; the divine will and operation he has in common from eternity with his co-essential Father; the human he has temporarily from us with our assumed nature." 


Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560 - 638): a monk and ascetic, friend of John Moschus the chronicler of the monks of Palestine. He was a staunch defender of Dyothelitism (the teaching of the two wills of Christ) and famously viewed the Muslim invaders of Palestine as "unwitting representatives of God's inevitable chastisement of weak and wavering Christians." All that survive of his writings is the so-called synodical letter, written to other bishops in the East and warning of the heresy of Monothelitism. It was read aloud at the council almost 50 years after Sophronius's death. 


Maximus Confessor (c. 580 - 662): erudite, well-travelled, and fearless, Maximus picked up the mantle of orthodoxy from Sophronius and defended Dyothelitism until his tragic death. He was born into a well-to-do family in Constantinople, and was a chief secretary to Emperor Heraclius before becoming a monk. In the face of Muslim conquest, he left the East for Carthage and then for Rome. Under Constans II, Maximus was called to Constantinople and punished for his views. His tongue was cut out of his mouth and his right hand was severed. He died later in exile on the Black Sea.  Many of his writings are still extant. Maximus argued that in the Incarnation Christ "accomplishes in all truth the true human destiny that he himself had predetermined as God, and from which man had turned: he unites man to God." 

Pope Agatho depicted in a Byzantine service book, c. 1000 A.D.

The Council Itself

It opened on Nov. 7, 680 with 43 bishops present. Eighteen separate sessions would meet over the next 10 months, with the final session ending Sept. 16, 681. 

Papal legates (representatives) demanded the clergy of Constantinople to explain the doctrines of Monenergism and Monothelitism. Macarius of Antioch (a Monothelite) did not aid his side's case when he produced volumes of extracts from Church Fathers which were corrupted and twisted out of context. In the eighth session, the patriarch of Constantinople, George, compared Patristic texts in Constantinople to the texts that the legates presented in favor of two wills. He was convinced, and confessed two wills. 

When it was discovered that Macarius and his assistant had falsified Patristic texts in an attempt to make their heresy sound orthodox, they were deposed. A new patriarch of Antioch was accepted in Macarius's place. 

At one point, a Monothelite priest named Polychronius attempted to prove the validity of his party's position by raising a dead man to life. It failed. Another priest named Constantine proposed a view that upon the cross Christ had abandoned his human will so that only the divine will remained. These two men were removed from the priesthood, their views condemned. 

Eventually all patriarchs of Constantinople from 610 to 666 were condemned for their heretical views, and Pope Honorius (d. 638) was condemned for his Monenergist views presented in his letter. 

The final Christological teaching espoused by the council fathers was this: "We likewise proclaim in [Christ], according to the teaching of the holy Fathers, two natural volitions or wills and two natural actions, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion. The two natural wills are not - by any means - opposed to each other as the impious heretics assert; but his human will is compliant; it does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. For, as the wise Athanasius says, it was necessary that the will of the flesh move itself, but also that it be submitted to the divine will; because, just as his flesh is said to be and is the flesh of God the Word, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to be and is God the Word's very own, as he himself declares: 'I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.' He calls the will of his flesh his own will because the flesh also has become his own."

The council also confessed two actions (energies) in Christ, "without division, without change, without separation, without confusion, namely, a divine action and a human action... For we do not in any way admit one natural action of God and the creature, so as neither to raise to the divine essence what is created nor to lower the sublime nature to the level proper to creatures. For we know that both the miracles and the sufferings belong to one and the same, according to the different natures of which he consists and in which he has his being..." 

Aftermath

This council would have far-reaching ramifications for the Vatican I doctrine of papal infallibility, given that Honorius I is specifically condemned for his heretical views. This was a condemnation the papal legates knew and accepted at the council, 680 - 681. 

Lutheran scholastics in the late 16th and early 17th centuries would further develop the Chalcedonian and Constantinopolitan definitions. The technical idea here is called the communicatio idiomatum - the "communication of attributes (properties)."  Lutheran theologians organized the attributes into three genera ("classes, kinds"): 

- genus idiomaticum (idioma = "attribute"): the properties of one nature, human or divine, is transferred or applied to the whole Person. There is not a "fleshly Christ" and a "heavenly Christ," for this would be Nestorianism.  An example of this genus in action would be something like Peter says in 4:1 of his letter: "Christ suffered in the flesh," etc. 

- genus apotelesmaticum (apotelesma = "work"): the actions of Christ belong to the whole Person of Christ. One or the other nature does not "shut off" during a particular action. The Apostles do not speak of the "divine nature" becoming a ransom, but of the Christ Himself.  An example could be what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5 - "[T]here is one man Jesus Christ who gave himself as a ransom for all..." 

- genus maiestaticum (māiestās = "dignity, prestige"): the human nature of Christ is clothed and magnified by the attributes of the divine nature. An example of this would be Paul's words in Philippians 2:10 - "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and earth..." Another example would be the Lord's Supper: by eating the flesh and blood of Christ we are also partaking of His very divinity. 

If you are interested in learning more about Orthodox Lutheran Christology (which is essentially Cyrillian, check out: https://concordiatheology.org/2011/01/christology-illustrated-from-the-ct-vault/ 

Mosaic of Christ at Sant'Apollinaire Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy (6th century)