The Question of Christ's Hypostasis (Person)
God's peace.
Because of the Coronavirus situation, we are continuing our Immanuel Tuesday morning Bible study via the internet. This post will be the most substantial portion of our study on the Second Council of Constantinople, and a video on our YouTube channel (Immanuel Fairmont), will supplement it. If you can, follow this blog post like our class handout as I teach in the video. Or, watch the video first, and then read through the handout as review.
Last week we were introduced to St Benedict of Nursia and his influence on Western Christianity and culture. Today, we're picking up with the fifth ecumenical council - the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.). In this I am heavily indebted to the study by Leo Donald Davis (1983).
 |
| "Second Ecumenical Council" painted by Russian realist Vasily Surikov (1848-1916) |
Scriptural Starting Places
Matthew 16:16 - "Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'"
John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 17:5 - "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Hebrews 1:3 - "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"
Hebrews 2:14 - "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil"
>>> Comments: The New Testament writers were not waging the same battles that theologians and emperors would fight in later centuries. The Gospels are clear that the Word (Logos) became flesh. Precisely how the Word and flesh simultaneously co-existed within the God-Man was not a debate during the first century. We might say, that for these writers, the focus was instead on the why of the Incarnation. Most of the key theologians of the 6th century were in agreement on topics such as the sacraments, tradition, and Holy Scripture. Widespread, schismatic debates on these wouldn't occur until Reformation times. Where these theologians differed was the issue of how Christ's humanity and divinity related to each other, and how human Jesus was - that is, whether he experienced ignorance and corruptibility. There were many ways to answer the question of Christ's nature(s) and the major figures during these times were not always willing to compromise or even meet face to face. This gave rise to schism and heresy, excommunication and banishment.
Definitions
- persona (Latin): “mask, character”
- πρόσωπον (prósōpon): “face, visage, mask, appearance, person”
- ὑπόστασις (hupóstasis): “sediment, foundation, existence, essence”
From Wiktionary: Hypostasis = "The essential person, specifically the single person of Christ (as distinguished from his two ‘natures’, human and divine), or of the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity (sharing a single ‘essence’)
- Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) = “God bearer”
>>> Comments: Definitions are important. It is common for Christians today to talk of "the three Persons of the Trinity" without knowing at all where that vocabulary comes from. It comes from these Christological debates raging in the 5th and 6th centuries. The confusion is how these terms were being used. Cyril of Alexandria used the word nature (physis) when he was actually referring to the person (hypostasis) of Christ Jesus. Monophysites latched onto this and noted that Christ can't have two natures because that would make two Christs - two separate beings. It would take more arguing and theological work to fine-tune the language. Others were so vigilant in denouncing Nestorius that they fell into Eutychianism, while others settled for the language of "enfleshment" to describe how the Word became flesh and can be said to have been "born, suffered, and died" despite being perfect, impassable God.
The Issue
Since the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) new Christological positions have popped up and new heresies uncovered. It will be remembered that at Chalcedon the bishops rejected the position of Eutyches, an aged abbot operating near Constantinople. He had been teaching that out of Christ's two natures, a new nature emerged. He adopted this view to be radically opposed to Nestorius, and to emphasize that Christ was not two separate beings (or natures), but one. In this, Eutyches fell into error himself and argued for something that had not previously existed in the writings of the fathers.
Eutyches essentially proposed a kind of mingling or confusion of the human and divine in Jesus, where Nestorius proposed two separate natures. Eutyches emphasized the mingling where Nestorius emphasized the separation. Neither was the Orthodox position.
In the century after this Fourth Ecumenical Council, battles raged across the East on the matter of Christ's nature(s). Monophysites, often close to the thought of Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 - 444), argued that Chalcedon's definition of two natures in one hypostasis came too close to Nestorius and seemed to create two separate beings.
To confuse the matter, in 484 Felix of Rome excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople and Acacius excommunicated Felix. The problem was due to Acacius' installation of questionable bishops and his imprisonment of papal legates in Constantinople. This "schism" lasted until 518; it was yet another marker of bad things to come between Latin West and Orthodox East.
The events between Chalcedon in 451 and Constantinople II in 553 are extremely complicated. Essentially the problems brewing at this time revolve around ecclesiastical authority and Christology. Constantinople as the "New Rome" was seeking to exert its political and ecclesiastical influence through the emperor and patriarch, and the various groups and sects in the East were arguing over the nature(s) of Christ.
During this time the "Theopaschite Formula" was a mark of Chalcedonian orthodoxy: "One of the Trinity suffered and died for us."
Heretics
"The Three Chapters:" a collection of letters and writings from three deceased theologians: Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 - 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393 - 458), and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457). These writings were extremely controversial and contained the kernels of Nestorian (or perceived Nestorian) teachings. Justinian I anathematized Theodore and the writings of Theodoret and Ibas. Anathematizing the Three Chapters became a mark of pro-Chalcedonian orthodoxy during this time. The problem is that Chalcedon had restored Theodoret and Ibas into communion with the Church, and Theodore died in communion with the Church, being considered orthodox at the time.
Monophysites (μόνος monos, "single" and φύσις physis, "nature"): the large group of bishops, writers, pastors, and laypeople that emerged after the 451 Council of Chalcedon. Rejecting Leo's Tome, they affirmed that Christ had a single, divine nature which had become human.
Aphthartodocetists (aka "Phantasiasts," aka "Julianists") (original name in Greek, Ἀφθαρτοδοκῆται, from ἄφθαρτος, aphthartos, "incorruptible" and δοκεῖν, dokein, "to seem"): stemming from Bishop Julian of Halicarnassus, this group believed that Christ was impassable, His flesh incorruptible. His body was not susceptible to natural laws, but in His love, He willed his own death for the sake of mankind. The Julianists were especially active in Lower Egypt. They clashed with the Severians (Monophysites who believed Christ's flesh was corruptible).
Agnoetes: a group of Severus's followers who strongly opposed the Julianists and concluded that Christ was as ignorant as other men.
Halacephalites: people who believed that by hanging head down for a number of hours for twenty days, one could become impassable and purified of evil.
Origenists: a very broad label for Christians during this time who were in some way influenced by or committed to Origen of Alexandria's (c. 184 - 253) Neoplatonic teachings. Origenism was condemned sometime before, during, or after the council. Essentially, the tenets that were deemed heretical involved the preexistence of souls and the possibility of demons regaining perfection. It is questionable how much of the real Origen is actually behind these 6th century Neoplatonic ideas.
 |
| Mosaic of Justinian I at San Vitale, Ravenna. Justinian brutally suppressed Monophysite groups during his reign. |
Personages
Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523): Syriac writer who was one of the principal theologians for Monophysitism. His view was this: "There is no nature without person, just as there is no person without nature. If there are two natures, there must be two persons and two sons."
Severus of Antioch (c. 459 - 538): the chief theologian of the Monophysite position. As bishop of Antioch, he exerted considerable influence on the monks and leaders in a large area around his see. Severus's books were banned by Justinian I and exiled. For Severus, Christ was one unique, compound being sharing in the essence of God and of man. His basic idea was that Christ is "out of two natures and in one nature."
Emperor Justinian I (reigned 527 - 565): immensely influential as a statesman, lawmaker, theologian, and builder, Justinian was emperor of the East and took a keen interest in Church matters during his reign. Interestingly, his works on the natures of Christ were considerably influential. Along with the pro-Chalcedonian bishops of his time, his writings also contribute to the official Christological position of the Orthodox Church today. Justinian brutally opposed heretical groups and initiated strong missionary movements on the frontiers of his kingdom.
Empress Theodora (reigned 527 - 548): wife of Justinian, Theodora was a Monophysite and secretly aided numerous Monophysite leaders. Behind Justinian's back, she was partially responsible for the flourishing of Monophysitism in areas like Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.
Pope Vigilius (served 537 - 555): a supporter of Chalcedon, Vigilius refused to sign the anathema against the Three Chapters. He was summoned to Constantinople by Justinian and appeared in person. Basically imprisoned in Constantinople for eight years, Vigilius eventually condemned the Three Chapters. He died on his return voyage to Rome.
 |
| Mosaic from the Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, depicting the Theotokos with Christ in the centre, Constantine on her left, and Justinian on her right |
The Council
Convened on May 5, 553 at the patriarchal palace of Constantinople, about 160 bishops attended, with no bishops present from Gaul (France) or Italy. Much of the beginning of the council revolved around Pope Vigilius and his refusal to denounce the Three Chapters, which he eventually did.
The council fathers affirmed the previous four ecumenical councils, noting that they correspond to the four Gospels. In the anathemas, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Appolinarianism, and Monophysitism are all cursed. The fathers stressed that Christ's two natures are united unconfusedly with no separation, thus steering between Eutyches and Nestorius.
The council produced no creed, but affirmed the previous councils and issued anathemas. It also condemned Neoplatonic Origenism.
The third anathema is important: "If anyone says that the Word of God who did wonders was one and Christ who suffered was another, or says that God the Word was together with Christ who came of woman, or was in him as one in another, but not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man, and that the wonders and the sufferings, which he voluntarily endured in the flesh, were of the same, let him be anathema."
The eighth anathema is also worth quoting: "For when saying that the unique Word was united by hypostasis, we do not mean that there was any mixture of the natures with each other, but rather we think of the Word as united with flesh, each remaining what it is. Therefore Christ is one, God and man, the same consubstantial with the father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood. Equally therefore does the Church of God reject and anathematize those who divide into parts or cut up, and those who confuse the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ."
A key position at the council was formulated by Leontius of Jerusalem: "The Word is said to have suffered according to the hypostasis, for within this hypostasis he assumed a passable essence beside his own impassible essence, and what can be asserted of the passible essence can be asserted of the hypostasis."
Another key position was formulated by Leontius of Byzantium who noted the example of a torch to explain the natures of Christ. A torch is not a stick nor is it a flame, however, it is a stick aflame. The wood partakes of fire and fire partakes of wood. He writes, "It remains, then, that from this examination of the character of substantial union, we should grasp the unmixed identity of deity and humanity, according to the previous examples, gathering a fain image from all these of the truth which is above all things, which shows that one entity is produced out of these, of which I do not care whether you call it Person or hypostasis or indivisible being or substratum, or anything else you may prefer. For the argument has now beaten and put to flight those who separate them in their relationship speaking of dignity or authority or some other relation of divided things, showing that they divide the natures into separate hypostases, and such natures can have no real fellowship or share in an exchange of qualities."
 |
| The Hagia Sophia church in modern day Istanbul (built 6th century by Justinian, minarets added by Muslims after 1453) |
The Aftereffect
Even to this day, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are split over the matter of Christ's nature(s). The Oriental Orthodox Church is most active in Egypt and Syria, though it is rapidly shrinking. Constantinople II did not expunge Monophysitism, but gave its cause many martyrs. The orthodox imperial church leaders in the Middle East began to be called "Melkites" during this time. The name exists to this day. It is from the Semitic verbal root M-L-K which means "royal, kingly." The Melkites accepted Chalcedon and therefore Constantinople II.
It took several centuries for the Latin West to accept Constantinople II, but it did at the Lateran Synod of 649.
It would be worthwhile to look at the situation in 6th century Christendom and seek to understand why these battles were raging. What was at stake?
It's interesting that today our theological battles are raging over the body, sexuality, hell, politics, and environmentalism. What is at stake today? How did we get to this point?
No comments:
Post a Comment