The Christological Councils- NICAEA & EPHESUS: Context and
Response
Christological Councils
from Nicaea (325) to Constantinople III (681) have influenced significantly the
evolution of the Christological dogma.
The historical context,
the significance of the Church’s formulation of faith and the abiding of both
questions and responses will briefly expose.
I.
THE
COUNCIL OF NICAEA
The
Context of Nicaea
The context of the Council of Nicaea is that of the
Alexandrian School of Christology and especially the denial from Arius,
a priest in Alexandria of the
equality of the Son of God with the Father. The Christology of the New
Testament affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ and it has been been a
significant characteristic of the Christology of the early Kerygma.
Arius
based his argumentation on (i) Old Testament text Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD created me at the beginning of his
work, the first of his acts of long ago” (NRSV) (ii) To the divine
“monarchy’ to Neoplatonism and the Stoic philosophy of the logos-creator.
Arius held that the Son
of God (Jesus Christ) was ‘begotten’ (gennetos),
he affirmed in the generic sense of “produced” (gennetos) but understood in the specific sense of ‘made’,
‘created’. The Son was therefore inferior to the Father, being created in time
by God and becoming g in turn the instrument in God’s action of creating the
world. Not truly God or equal with God, the Son for Arius was not truly man
either, for the flesh (sarx) that the
Word (logos) had united with did not constitute true, complete human. It appears
that the lagos-Sarx perspective led Arius to a reductionist Christology,
principally based on Philosophical consideration tending to a hellenization of
content.
The
Meaning of Nicaea
In response to Arian
crisis the Council of Nicaea (325) affirmed the Sonship of God in which the New
Testament attributes to Jesus Christ. It spoke directly of Jesus Christ whom it
affirmed the divine Sonship. To the biblical category of the ‘only begotten’
(monogenes) of the Father it added by way of explanation (toutestin) that of
being ‘from the being’ (ousia) of the Father, of being born (gennetos), not
made (poietheis) and this is the decisive term of being ‘of one substance’
(homoousios) with the Father. Nicaea affirmed that in Jesus Christ the Son of
God not only ‘became flesh’ (sarkotheis) but added by way of explanation ‘was
made man’ (enanthropesas).
It also argues that if
Jesus Christ was neither truly God nor
truly man, as the lagos-sarx
Christology claimed by Arius claimed, neither was he capable of saving nor
could humankind have been saved in him. The traditional axiom ‘He became man
that we might be divinized’ was thus being denied from both ends and on both
counts and with it the foundational experience of the Apostolic Church. So the
humans might be able to share in Jesus Christ Sonship of God, it was necessary
that the Son incarnate be truly God and truly man; that is, mediator uniting in
his person both divinity and humanity.
Nicaea thus showed the
close bond that exists between Soteriology and Christology ; that is between
what Jesus Christ is for us and who he is in himself. It also showed the
necessary bond between the ‘economic’ and the ontological’ or immanent Trinity.
Thus, Nicaean profession of Christology faith inserts itself in a Trinitarian
symbol of faith.
The
Significance of Nicaea
Nicaea interpreted it
in keeping with the biblical meaning but by making use of the Hellenistic
ontological terminology. The Christology of Nicaea also has implications for
the Christian concept of God. It underscored its singularity at two distinct
levels. God communicates personally in the human existence of the man Jesus;
this self-communication of God in God’s incarnate Son unveils the self-communication
between persons that exists in the mystery of God’s inner life. The economic
Trinity manifests the Ontological Trinity. Arius failed to recognized in Jesus
Christ the ‘human face of God’ (J.A.T. Robinson), according to Jesus word in
John’s Gospel “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn.14:9). It boldly
affirmed that God’s absolute transcendence and freedom make God capable of
total self-communication to human being in a man. Such divine
self-communication to humankind opens up a new perspective on who God is:
eternal self-communication between Father and Son. Nicaea’s Christology thus
leads to new insights into the mystery of God: Jesus Christ is truly God,
beacuaes he is the true son of God.
II.
THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
The
Context of Ephesus
The problem of Nicaea
had been from below: Is Jesus Christ truly Son of God? Ephesus was the
reverse-from above. It asked “In what
sense and in what manner has the Son of God become human in Jesus”?Nestorius, a
priest in Antioch who had become patriarch of Constantinople asked the question
of the true divine-human unity in Jesus Christ. Starting according to the
Antiochian tradition from the man Jesus, he asked, how he was united with the
Son of God. Nestorius Christology was the homo
assumptus. His opponent Cyril of
Alexandria, bishop of that city held the opposite. Cyril starts from the Word
of God He asked how God had assumed true humanity in Jesus Christ. His was logos-sarx
Christology.
The conflict between
Nestorius and Cyril, ambiguity and confusion still remained concerning the
terminology. When Cyril spoke of ‘one nature (phusis) only in Jesus Christ’ he meant the unity of person (hupostasis). When Nestorius spoke of two
‘natures’ (phuseis) he seemed to
intend two persons (prosopon). Nestorius
refused to attributes the events of human life of Jesus personally to the word
of God. In particular, human generation could not be predicted of the Son of
God. Consequently, though Mary could be called mother of Christ (khristokos),
but could not be the mother of God( theotokos). The unity between them was
conceived by Nestorius as ‘conjunction’ (sunapheia) supposing two concrete
existing subjects.
Nestorius rejected the
realism of the incarnation. In response to Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria noted
the symbol of Nicaea attributed personally to the son of God- the only begotten
from the Father, personally identified with Jesus Christ- the vents affecting
Jesus’s human life. In New Testament expression referring to divinity and
humanity of Jesus are attributed to one and same “I” 9ego); the same “I” is
used in John’s gospel to refer to Jesus human being and to the son originated
from the Father (cf.Jn 8:58; 8:40; 14:9; 10:30; 17:5).
The
meaning of Ephesus
The Council of Ephesus (431) produced no
dogmatic definition. The dogma is found in Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius
which was officially approved by the Council. After Ephesus a compromise was
sought between the Antiochian and Alexandrian approaches in the “Formula of
Union”, A professional of Christological faith written by John of Antiochian
key was accepted by Cyril of Alaxandria in which the unity of Christ and the
attributes of the incarnation of the Word of God are clearly affirmed The
hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ accounted for his
true and unique mediation between God and humankind. His humanity was God’s
very presence among human beings; his human action, God’s action on their
behalf.
The
significance of Ephesus
The mystery of the
hypostatic union Jesus is clearly resolved. Jesus Christ is God humanized not
man divinized. The incarnation is an event of which God is the source and
agent: It is God’s becoming human; not a human being made into God. The
authentic humanization of God in Jesus Christ is at once the foundation of
God’s self-communication to humankind and the revelation to it of the mystery
of God. Jesus is the Son of God as man does not mean that he is a created
being. K. Rahner writes “God can become something he who is unchangeable in
himself can himself become subject to change in something else”.
.jpg)
.jpg)