The First British Lutheran Blog Ever

Gone til April 2nd

Hey my fellow bloggers and blog-readers,

I was going to write a kick-ass aweXome post before I left, but I'm really running behind schedule and need to pack before I try getting the little sleep I'll get before I wake up just after 3 in the morning to get the bus to the airport. I'll be in Fort Wayne from tomorrow evening til Sunday morning, when I fly to St Louis. I'll be back home on Friday April 2nd, so look for some good posts shortly after that.

Now, I need to pack my travel documents and reading material for the flights into my backpack, after removing my school stuff. The fact that I have a Qur'an and an interlinear Arabic-English Book of Jihad from the Hadith of Muhammad in there, for my Early Islam class, probably wouldn't go down so well at the airport so I'd better make sure I leave those at home.

So that's it for now.

Peace be with you.

Latest news about me and my blog

I've changed the font sizes as suggested. I hope everyone's ok with the new sizes.

Honestly, parts 2B and C of my story are coming... whenever I get round to it. I have 4 essays I need to research/write/complete over the next few weeks, plus translating Psalms 50 and 51, reading a bunch of liberal commentaries on Psalms 46-48, 50-51... uggh... going through several exercises of "Elements of NT Greek" by Wenham, translating John 4, translating Matthew 25:1-18, but I will post the other parts to the story as soon as I can get around to writing them.

I've also now got a copy of "The Two Natures in Christ" by Chemnitz. I'm reading a chapter a day. I just bought it from amazon.com marketplace, and got an e-mail the next day from Thomas of romeonthebosporus blog fame. Oh well, 'tis a small world and getting smaller by the minute.

But coolest news of the week... I'm going to Fort Wayne and St Louis in 12 days! :) (I'll explain the complexity of my seminary decisions in part 3 of my story when I write it). But anyways, it should be pretty cool. I'll be attending some classes in both seminaries, too. Since I'm 20 with a British license, and couldn't find any company that would rent a car to me unless I was a year older, I'll be moving around by plane. 6 flights in 1 week... I'm no stranger whatsoever to air travel, but I've never flown THAT much in a short space of time. I'm very much looking forward to it.

I'm glad that John is actively blogging about his theological changes as he moves further from Canterbury and closer to Wittenburg. As time goes by, his blog archives will serve as a very precious and useful tool for the sharing of the pure doctrine with others.

Blogging's definitely brought in a new era of theological dialogue.

Answer me these questions... one

Shouldest I changeth the font sizes on this ye blogge?

Tellest thou me whatst thou thinkest ye which I shouldst deau or not I deau.

Right now I'm trying to write the first part of my essay on pre-Islamic Arabian religion. Here are my thoughts:

Cyril, Nestorius, and the Rastafarian Space Monkey

I was bored when I made the title up.

In my History of Early Christianity class on Friday, we looked at Cyril, Nestorius, and the Council of Ephesus. I'm going to try to communicate what was said here, to run it by those who know more about it than me. Whilst more dogmatic sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to favour Cyril and denounce Nestorius, the secular ones (I'm using W.H.C. Frend and Stuart Hall) are more sympathetic towards Nestorius and frankly make Cyril look like a jerk. But anyways, here's what I've heard and read. This is probably going to serve as the bulk of one of my essays I have to hand in, so if you've any comments or constructive criticism to give, I'd love to hear it.


Following John Chrysostom's condemnation at the Synod of Oak, and his subsequent death, there was a period of peace in relations between Constantinople and Alexandria. Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria was content and left undisturbed. After his death in 412, his nephew Cyril succeeded him. Cyril was kept busy with the assumed responsibility over ecclesial affairs, suppressing schismatic churches and having Jews expelled, and also civil affairs, most notably the scandal following the lyching of the pagan philosopher Hypatia in 415 by those who claimed to be followers of Cyril. Cyril's concentration was not merely practical. He also produced a steady stream of theological literature, including commentaries, dogmatics and apologetics. In Constantinople, Patriarch Atticus kept a cordial relationship with Cyril, since Atticus had been one of John Chrysostom's opponents. However, following the death of Atticus and his short-lived successor, a dispute over the next successor ensued. After several months of arguing from various interested parties, Nestorius, a presbyter and superior of a monestary outside Antioch, was chosen and enthroned on 10 April 428. Nestorius became honoured for his monastic life and known for his preaching of serious and pure religion. He was quick to pick up on heresy or deceit in others, often offending his friends and irritating his enemies. Nestorius passionately opposed Arianism and Apollinarianism, seeing himself as a defender of the doctrine of Christ's deity and humanity.

However, relations between Nestorius and Cyril were damaged when Nestorius supported one of his presbyters, Anastasius, in criticizing the use of the title Theotokos for the Virgin Mary, and he himself publically rebuked its use by Proclus, a distinguished preacher in Constantinople and a former-rival in the election. Theotokos means “God-bearer” in Greek. The title was not outrightly opposed by all of the Antiochene school, so long as it was balanced with Anthropotokos (“Man-bearer”), lest Mary be honoured as Theodochos (“God-receiver”) since the Word enfleshed dwelt in her. Nestorius had trained under Theodore of Mopsuestia, and may have picked up his outright opposition to the title from him. According to Theodore, the One born of Mary was Christ, who was both God and Man. Mary was accurately called Christotokos (“Christ-bearer”). Theodore was probably thinking of the problems of Arian Christology: a God who suffers birth and death cannot be of the same substance as the transcendent Father, so he must be a distinct kind of created being. If Mary is simply called Theotokos, then one implies that his godhead is variable and inferior to the Father. Therefore, every aspect of humanity must be attributed to the man Christ Jesus, and not thought of as affecting the Word Himself. In like manner, Nestorius condemned the term Theotokos but without the qualifications and explanation of Theodore's discussion. This made it possible for Nestorius' view of Christ to be no more than an inspired man, personally distinct from the divine so much that he cannot be called “God” at all.

In Alexandria, as we have reason to believe from the discovery of the text of Didymus the Blind's Commentary on the Psalms written c. 390, the the question of Christ's natures was already being discussed over a generation before Nestorius. Cyril had been quite consistent with this tradition. In his Paschal homily for 421, he attacked “those who divide the One Christ.” The Word “was made flesh but not transformed into flesh”. How this came about was a mystery, but it must be believed that through the Incarnation, the Word made the the flesh to be “his one temple”. Christ was one subject (“hypostasis”) having his source in two natures (he is “out of two natures”). Many of Cyril's ideas had been taken from Apollinarian writings circulating under more reputable names, such as Athanasius and Pope Julius, but he nevertheless spoke for the native Christian of his own province and Asia, against a background of modalist traditions, and secured the support of Rome.

Nestorius was friends with the Emporer and Antiochene bishops but offended many others, as John Chrysostom had done before him. He offended the royal princesses by preaching against luxury. He trangressed jurisdictional boundaries when dealing with heresy. He intereceded on behalf of deposed Alexandrian clergy. He gave shelter to prominent Pelagians, such as John of Eclanum, who were deposed from their bishoprics several years earlier and had since emigrated to Constantinople. This may not have been accidental, since there is a logical connection between Pelagian anthropology and Antiochene Christology in that both emphasised the role of the human will in sancatification and redemption, and also the role of Jesus Christ as an example to follow. This aspect of Nestorius' teaching and actions angered Pope Celestine and drove his support towards Cyril. These actions opened the old wound of rivalry between the traditional ecclesiastical primacy of Alexandria and the claims of the new Christian capital. All of this coincided with an appeal to Cyril from supporters of the doctrine of Theotokos in Constantinople. Cyril saw his own position under attack and a possible future subversion by the Emporer's bishop as had happened to Athanasius. He wrote to his own monks to justify the Theotokos doctrine from Scripture, and wrote letters to the Emporer, various influential people at the court (including royal princesses whom Nestorius had offended). He also wrote to Nestorius, first briefly, then at greater length.

Cyril's Second Letter presents a moderate, well-thought out position. He asks Nestorius to avoid offending the flock with error, and based his arguments on the Creed of Nicaea. “He came down, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven” meant not that the Word changed, or was transformed into a human being, but that “the Word, having in an ineffable and inconceivable manner personally united to himself flesh animated with a living soul, became man and is called Son of Man”. Therefore, the union is personal (kath' hypostasin). The humanity of Christ belongs to the person of the Word, and is not another person distinct from or alongside him. Cyril especially rejects Theodore of Mopsuestia's idea of “voluntary” union, that is, the union is achieved only by divine good-pleasure (eudokia) like that bestowed on Christians, but especially so to the Son. Cyril's view is rather of an essential union, so that whatever the Person of Christ is and does has the Word of God as its subject. Christ has no more a voluntary association with his body than any man does. Nestorius seemed to emphasise the aspect of “outward appearance” in the word prosopon. Cyril repudiates the union as a mere outward experience, and insists that there is “true unity” and only one “Christ and Son”. Although the Word remains invulnerable and immortal, the body of Christ, born, injured, raised, is attributed to the Word in his incarnate state because it is His.

A copy of this Second Letter, with a Latin version, was also sent to Celestine. He was already irritated by Nestorius, having heard about his hospitality to the Pelagians expelled from their church positions in the West, then receiving a letter demanding an explanation for their excommunication. Celestine also had received (not necessarily authentic) specemins of his preaching. After a careful scrunity of Cyril's Second Letter at a synod in Rome in 430, Celestine replied to Cyril, stating that Cyril himself was to take action to make Nestorius recant or face excommunication. He was given only 10 days to do this, from the receipt of the Pope's letter, though this was unreasonable, and Cyril did not try to implement his plan in this timeframe.

Nestorius, in his rather rash reply, seems to have been using a copy of the Creed which diverges slightly from the one Cyril had used, though its form appears to be the closer forerunner of the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. However, the Antiochene approach of interpretation was very different from the Alexandrian one. Nestorius notes that the Fathers begin their account of Christ by using titles common to the divine and human natures, such as Lord, Christ, Son, etc. On this basis, they then described his incarnation and becoming man, and his human experiences, in order to prevent any misunderstanding that the visible human events might be attributed to his deity, and the deity thought to suffer or die. Nestorius argued that Christ said “Destroy this body and in three days I will raise it up” not “Destroy my godhead and in three days it will raise.” This reflects typical Antiochene Christology: Things which Christ does on earth sometimes reveal one nature, sometimes the other, sometimes both, both operating in him fully and freely.

At this point, Emporer Theodosius II intervened, and on 19 November 430 he summoned Cyril to a council in Ephesus to be held on Whitsun on 431. He rebuked Cyril for causing trouble, believing that an imperial council would be representative. From Constantinople it seemed that, since Cyril was rebuked in his summons for causing trouble, it would be Cyril that would be on trial. But with the authority of the Bishop of Rome on his side, he composed his Third Letter to Nestorius, trying to force Nestorius to retract or lose his office. Cyril presented twelve anathemas, condemning the main features of Antiochene Christology, and demanding that Nestorius not only adhere to the Creed but also Cyril's interpretation of it. Before this, the Church had been very reluctant to allow tests for orthodoxy beyond the Creed of Nicaea, though the Eastern churches had repeatedly tried to establish a supplement or alternative. Nestorius was shocked and offended at Cyril's demand for total theological adhersion to Alexandrian thought with the threat of anathema. He made sure that these anathemas were read by all his friends, most notably John of Antioch (with whom Cyril had been on reasonably good terms) and his bishops. He found many supporters for the upcoming council.

When it was time for the Council at Ephesus, the responsibility was laid at Cyril's feet to justify his anathemas, which appeared to many to have strong Apollinarian influences. Having accepted a general council called by the Emporer, he could no longer fall back on Celestine's permission for him to proceed in action against Nestorius, but he did not let that deter him. The Egyptian fleet included fifty bishops, and also lower-ranking clergy, fanatic and untutored monks who intimidated opponents, Cyril's bodyguard, the parabolani, and Egyptian sailors. He arrived in the city in good time and found himself an ally in the person of Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus. Also to Cyril's support were fifteen bishops who accompanied the prelate Juvenal of Jerusalem. Nestorius could only count on the support of the Macedonian bishops and clergy, the powerful Syrian delegates under John of Antioch, and the fairness of the imperial commissioner, Count Candidian. However, John of Antioch had been travelling by land, and was delayed, as had the Roman delegation. Cyril took this opportunity to claim to have the authority of Celestine, and summoned the council to meet at one day's notice on 22 June. Despite the protests of 98 bishops and Count Candidian, he persisted. The next day, 158 bishops met in the Church of the Virgin. Candidian was barred from the Council, since Cyril insisted that a layman should not be present in an ecclesial council of bishops. Nestorius refused to attend what he called “Cyril's Council.” The Council affirmed the Creed of Nicaea, endorsed Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius, heard Celestine's commission to Cyril, accepted Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, and used Nestorius's statements in such a way as to misrepresent him. So Nestorius was denounced as a heretic, called “the new Judas” and excommunicated, all in one day without Nestorius being heard himself. There was much celebration by the people of Ephesus, demonstrating day and night in favour of Cyril. Then, four days later, on 26 June, John of Antioch arrived and immediately held a council at his lodgings where 43 bishops were present. Cyril and Memnon were declared deposed for their disorderly proceedings and heterodoxy. Count Candidian had given his support to this council, but riots ran through the city. On 29 June, Theodosius II sent a letter forbidding those who took part in these councils to leave the city and notifying them of the dispatch of another imperial commissioner. However, on 10 July, the Roman deligates arrived. Cyril put aside the decisions John's Council, and held another council, this time with his Roman supporters, who endorsed Cyril's actions, and passed several canons, which, amonst other things, condemned Pelagianism, and forbade the use of any Creed but the Nicene for doctrinal purposes.

The government, having been frustrated and confused by the deadlock, six weeks later produced an imperial letter, rebuking the bishops, and upholding the depositions of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon. Nestorius withdrew to Antioch, and ultimately to the Egyptian desert, where he wrote a self-defence, preserved in Syriac under the name “The book of Heracleides”, which was only re-discovered after the Second World War, where he explicitly denies the heresy which the Council of Ephesus condemned him for. He did not hold that the man Jesus and the divine Word were two distinct persons, “adding a forth to the blessed Trinity”, or that Christ was a “mere man”. His fundamental christological concept is the prosopon of unity, in which the two concrete realities of God and man were joined. Each nature or essence exists in its own hypostasis, but whereas other beings have their own prosopon, in Christ the two natures have only one, as a body and soul of a human being have only one. Within this “prosopic union” the divine Word generates and indwells the one Person of the man Christ Jesus, whose birth, life, and death are therefore salvific. Cyril and Memnon went back to their bishoprics, their imperial permission to do so following after them. Although Cyril was “victorius”, many were dissatisfied with his approach. The influential monk, Isidore of Pelusium wrote to Cyril, “A number of those who have been at Ephesus represent you as a man burning to avenge a personal injury, not to seek in right teaching the glory of Jesus Christ. He is, as they say, the nephew of Theolophilus.” Even in Egypt, Cyril was criticised for his predeccessor, in whose stead he stood, having removed John Chrysostom, “the Saint, the Friend of God.”