Nestorius
Nestorius’ Life:
Nestorius was named Patriarch of
Constantinople in 429 CE. Three years later
he was deposed as Bishop of the Byzantine
capital and later exiled to Egypt. In 431 CE
at the Council of Ephesus, Nestorius was
excommunicated for teaching Nestorianism,
which proclaimed the existence of two
Christs (one Divine and one human) dwelling
in the body of Jesus. In fact, Nestorius did
not teach Nestorianism and was wrongly
condemned as a heretic. We know this
now due to the survival of his only complete
work, The Bazaar of Heracleides
that was rediscovered by theologians in 1897.
Icon of St. Gregory
In this work Nestorius repeatedly argues
against Nestorianism:
“that as also God the Word is conceived to have become flesh and the flesh is one, and there are not two fleshes, so also the flesh is Son and there are not two Sons.”[1]
Ironically, Chalcedon vindicated the ideas of Nestorius but without realizing so, since Nestorianism was equated with Nestorius, both were directly condemned at Chalcedon. Carl Braaten notes, “While it [Chalcedon] was anathematizing Nestorius, it was canonizing his doctrine.”[2] Nevertheless, Chalcedon defended a Christology of Christ as two natures commingled in one hypostatic being (i.e. person). This is nearly identical to Nestorius’ Christology, which is distinct from the Nestorian Christology of Nestorianism (two persons in Christ).
Nestorius’ Christology:
Nestorius’ primary concern was the impassibility of God. Just as any other Antiochene theologian, it was impossible for him to think that the nature of God could suffer. God was utterly transcendent. Nevertheless, Nestorius thought that Christ was a single subject with the nature of the Son and the nature of humanity in perfect union. In order to maintain the impassibility of the Word and the passibility of humanity, Nestorius kept the natures completely distinct and never confused. Despite the indissoluble union of the dual natures of Christ, that union occurs on a single prosopon.
I praised thee for having said it and having made a distinction of the natures of the doctrine of the divinity and of the humanity and coherence of these in one prosopon… but it was not a diversity which became a union, since the things which are therein to remain without confusion, as the bush in the fire and the fire in the bush.[3]
It important to note that the type of union of the two natures is distinct from the substantial (i.e. natural union) of Cyril, but rather a voluntary union grounded in spiritual love and mutual self-giving between the prosopon of the Word and the prosopon of Jesus. Yet, these two prosopa exist in one prosoponic union.
Braaten explains that, “Nestorius rejected the idea of a substantial union, such a union would result in a confusion of God and man, and yield only a third kind of being.”[4] Again Nestorius appeals to Scripture to determine the type of union:
God the Word is so voluntarily and not by force: I have authority over my life, that I should lay it down and I have authority to take it again {Jn 10:18}. Therefore the words of the Divine Scriptures befit not Christ in any other manner than this; but as we have examined and found, all refer not to the union of nature but to the natural and hypostatic prosopon.[5]
Thus, the union is a voluntary one based on will and love, but not a natural union of ousias. Therefore, the “divine and human substances are untouched by the exchange,” which protects the impassibility of God while allowing God to intimately interact with human nature.[6] For Nestorius, the notion of a voluntary union defends Nicene theology and further refutes both Arius and Cyril:
If thou predicatest the hypostatic union of the nature, thou sayest, as the Arians, that it is natural and not voluntary, because he suffered with a natural passibility. He suffered as a result of the natural union, for the sufferings of the soul are the sufferings of the body in the natural composition…This [union] then is corruptible and passible, but the union of the prosopa of the natures is neither passible nor corruptible as [having taken place] through a voluntary appropriation.[7]
The Christology of Nestorius is Not Platonic
At first glance, one may be inclined to understand Nestorius in Platonic terms. In fact, Nestorius does use Platonic language in order to “move back and forth between the two realities and the one reality in Christ in the same paragraph.”[8] Certainly, Nestorius is deeply committed to the transcending nature of God and thus rejects any notion of impassible suffering, but Creation is equally important to Nestorius. The understanding of Christ as the union of God and Creation as One suggests the intimacy and the necessity for both to have a part in salvation. Without Christ, there is no salvific value in Christianity. Remember that Christ to Nestorius means the two natures (human and divine) indivisibly united. Therefore, the flesh is absolutely necessary for salvation just as the divine is necessary for salvation. Thus, Nestorius may use Platonic images to describe his Christology but he does not suggest a Platonic thought system.
Nestorius is Contra Boyarin
Although Nestorius was condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon, his Christology is very orthodox. Nestorius’ thought system represents a valuable Christological approach that emphasizes the particularity through the Incarnation. . Historically speaking, there appears to be some validity in Boyarin’s argument that Paul’s universal hermeneutic belittled the Jewish experience. But in the end, the Christology of Nestorius and the early Church did not devalue the flesh, but rather appreciated its own sacredness in the Resurrection of Christ. Nestorius notes,
that those who are in Christ might comport themselves after the likeness of Christ, not only by the grace of the Resurrection but also by the works and manner of life of each one of them; for the former is universal but the latter individual.[9]
Thus, Nestorius equally values the universal and the particular. And it is through the particular imitation of Christ’s worldly life that sin may be conquered and salvation achieved. Therefore, Nestorius’ Christology does protect the particularity and in the image of the Resurrection, places both the universal and the particular as equally important.
It is important to note that Nestorius’s Christology is nearly identical to the Chalcedonian teaching. The primary difference is that Chalcedon understands the union of the two natures in Christ to be a hypostatic union, while Nestorius taught a prosoponic union. Therefore it seems that Chalcedon too repudiates the claims of Boyarin that Christianity necessarily capitulates to Platonism.
Click Here for Further Analysis on Nestorius
Third Century Sarcophagus