Theodore of Mopsouestia’s Christology more appealing in the West

Speaker 1 0:00

Now I want to give you an idea of the extreme tendencies of Theodore Mopsuestia and Nestorius, his purported disciple. It's not that we should focus on heretics and heresies, but I think it does really help to bring out the significance of Saint Cyril's contribution Number one, because I think we mentioned this last time Mopsuestia's view of Christ seems to be more appealing to the Western mind and even to many of our Orthodox. But it's Saint Cyril of Alexandria who gives us the foundations of Orthodox Christology, it's not mopsuestia. And we have several points that outline the differences between alexandria and antioch. But when I say that, I immediately have to. But when I say that, I immediately have to qualify by saying that we're speaking here of general tendencies and in the case of the extreme tendencies of the so-called school of Antioch, we're speaking of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. So what is the first point of contrast? Then, father George Florovsky. He used to speak of an anthropological minimalism and an anthropological maximalism. He identified the so-called school of Alexandria with an anthropological minimalism and he identified the so-called school of Antioch with the anthropological maximalism, because he saw certain tendencies. First, on the level of soteriology, he said that the role of God in the work of salvation for alexandria is underlined, man's contribution is not emphasized quite so much, whereas in the antiochian tradition, shall we say, there's an emphasis on the role of man. The role of man is stressed and we have such language as synergia synergy where man's contribution is significant. So with Alexandria, you have the tendency to see salvation as or in terms of theosis, while in Antioch salvation is seen in terms of obedience to the will of God. There's also the Eucharistic level, the level of Eucharistic theology of the divine liturgy, whereas the language of Alexandria is identified as strongly the Christian in communion eats divinized flesh. And again, the extreme tendencies of the Antiochian tradition would see the divine Eucharist in more symbolic terms. Symbolic terms not merely symbolic, but the eucharist is an image of the heavenly liturgy, and here we are referring to theodore of mopsuestia, particularly his baptismal homily, section 4, paragraph 15. At the eucharist the worshiper shares in the eternal self-offering of christ in heaven.

The Logos did not unite the “prosopon” of a man to Himself

Speaker 1 4:54

And if we were to look at scripture and try to identify a basic text, we would say that the basic text for Alexandria. Of course, this is a great generalization, but nevertheless it does reveal something. The basic text for Alexandria, the key biblical text, would be John 1.14. The Logos became flesh became flesh, logos became man, and for antioch the basic text would be philippians 2 the logos assumed or took the form of a servant man, and I'll remind you again of cyril, of alexand himself, but that he became flesh. So that's actually point number two.

3. Christ’s humanity: archetypal or individualized?

Christ “God-man” not “Man-God”

Christ true and perfect God and true and perfect man

Speaker 1 6:11

Point number three, that in alexandria the tendency is to say that christ is man, in other words, christ is representative of the human race, humanity, he is archetypal, whereas for antioch they would say, or the extreme representatives of antioch would say, that christ is a man, in other words, you have an individualized humanity in christ. I mean that's why we spoke about two subjects in christ, that mopsuestia, as well as Nestorius, spoke of Christ in terms of, or at the very least implying very strongly that there are two subjects in Christ, that there is God, the Word, on the one hand, and the man, jesus, on the other. So this is relating specifically to this question Christ is man, according to, not a man, which the extreme representatives of antioch seem to think in terms of. And also we mentioned the fact that christ is the god man. He is the god man, but he's not the man God. You must remember that Christ is first and foremost God himself.

But Christ is not also a human being: He is the divine Person of God the Word

Christ not “a God” but “the God”

Speaker 1 8:11

Yes, we say that he is true and perfect God and true and perfect man. And the definition of faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 underlines this for us true and perfect God and true and perfect man. But that doesn't mean that he is also a human being. He is a divine being who, as we shall see, made our human nature his own. He did not unite the prosopon of a man to himself. He became flesh and that means he grafted our human nature onto his hypothesis. And by human nature we mean human body and a reasonable and spiritual soul. He is God, the Word. He is not also a human being? He is consubstantial with God, the Father. When we say that Christ is God, we don't mean that he is a God. We mean that he is a God. We mean that he is the God and as God, he is the one who makes our human nature his own. Again, very helpful to think in terms of Saint Cyril's line.

Speaker 1 9:48

Scripture did not say that the Logos united the prosopon of a man to himself, but that he became flesh. So there is not this second subject which is distinguishable from the person of the Logos that is somehow united. We'll say how Mopsuestia especially, but also Nestorius, regarded the union of the divine and human. Nestorius regarded the union of the divine and human. I was saying that Chalcedon does say that Christ is true and perfect God and true and perfect man, but that doesn't mean that he became a human person or united a human person to himself. To himself, he's still logos, the son and word of god, who became flesh, assumed our human nature and perfected it and deified it from the very moment of his conception in his mother's womb by the holy ghost. So so, yes, for Alexandria, christ is man. For Antioch, it's a bit unfair to identify Antioch with Lopsuestia and Nestorius. There are so many great saints who came out of Antioch and did not think this way. But these general tendencies do help us to understand, as I said earlier, the significance of Saint Cyril's contribution.

5. Alexandria: Christ’s humanity an “instrument” (“organon”)

Speaker 1 11:28

Now, following on from this, is point number four. With Alexandria, we begin with the reality of christ's manhood and then to ask if he is both man and god, in what sense can he be one? And you may recall that I said that there's an erroneous approach in this. When we approach the mystery of the person of Christ first as man, we're almost inevitably bound to end up in heresy, precisely because of what we said before, christ is God and he's not a god, he's the God. So O Theos Simon Iisus Christos. Point number five In the Alexandrian tradition, christ's manhood tends to be regarded as an organon, an instrument, and in Nestorius we see that the union of the divine and human in Christ tends to be a moral one.

Antioch: union of the divine and human in Christ a moral one

6. Terminology: one nature language vs two nature language

7. Attribution (οἰκείωσις)

Speaker 1 13:29

I think it's Mopsuestia, but it's also historians who speak of an enikisis katevdokia, that's an indwelling according to God's goodwill, katevdokian theou, or an indwelling according to or by the good pleasure of God. So yes, the tendency is that it's a merely moral union that takes place in Christ. If we look at the terminology used by Alexandria, there's an emphasis on one thesis, language, thesis, language, one thesis, one hypostasis, one prosopon. And the formula used by St Cyril of Alexandria is mia thesis, tu theu logo cesarcomeni. But with Antioch there is an emphasis on two faeces, two natures, two hypostases, two prosopa. In the case of Mopsuestia and Nestorius they seem to think in terms of not only two faeces but two hypostases and two prosopa. But Saint Cyril, although for reasons we shall address later, uses the mia fisi language, he does also say two fisis in certain contexts. So now we move to point seven attribution.

The healing of the leper (Mt. 8.2-3, Mk. 1.40-42)

“Father… let this cup pass from me…” (Mt. 26.39, Mk. 14.35-36, Lk. 22.42)

“The Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28)

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27.46, Ps. 22.1, Mk. 15.34)

Blameworthy and blameless passions

8. “Exchange of natural properties” (“communicatio idiomatum”)

Speaker 1 15:24

In Alexandria, the logos is the subject of all acts and sayings in the Gospels. We are referring now to the Logos Incarnate, and in Antioch there is the tendency to divide the acts and sayings. So now Christ is speaking as God, now he's speaking as man, and the truth is once again. These are extreme tendencies, but they are also to be found in the other school. When Christ heals the leper and what he says there he says as God. Or the raising of Lazarus, that's an act and these are words where you see him speaking as God. Whereas when he says Father, let this cup pass from me, unless not my will, but thy will be done, there he's speaking as man. Or if he says Father is greater than I, there he's speaking as man. Or if he says, my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken yes, we're not thinking of blame one who came in the flesh in certain passages where we see him acting and saying how do we attribute those? Well, alexandria tends to think that it's the Logos who's doing all these things. That's correct. And Antioch tends to focus on the natures that, yes, it's Christ, but now he's speaking as God, now he's speaking as man. When you take either of those approaches too far, then you're at risk of ending up in heresy, right? So let's see point number eight.

“Hypostatic union” = “prosopic union” = “personal union”

Speaker 1 17:56

I had mentioned before something called the communicatio idiomatum, so the communication of characteristics or idiomata properties. And when we think in terms of the hypostatic union, the prosopic union of our human nature to the hypothesis of christ, we can call the mother of god theodocos, called Theotokos. In other words, the Mother of God gives birth to the Logos, to the Theos Logos, and because she does so, she is Theotokos. I think both Mopsuestia and Nestorius said you could just get away with Theotokos if you qualified it, but really she's Anthropotokos, really she's Christotokos. See what they're doing when they say Anthropotokos, they're separating the humanity of christ from his divinity, saying look, she gave birth to the humanity of christ. God can't be born, he's god. And christ as the god man man, his human nature, was born. Mary, according to alexandria, bore the person of the divine logos, whereas mopsuestia and company would say no, she bore a man in whom the logos dwelt. Alexandria would point to God the word the logos again who suffered and died according to the flesh, whereas Antioch the extreme representatives of Antioch would say that the man was crucified. And this is exactly what Theodore Mopsuestia says in his work on the Incarnation, 15. 15.

Speaker 1 20:49

Nestorius, as I mentioned last time, said in one of his sermons, sermon 27, I cannot worship a God who was born, died and was buried. And he's reported also to have said by Socrates, the church historian, that one who was two or three months old I would not call God. He regarded this as an absurdity, and Socrates preserves this in his Ecclesiastical History, book 7, section 34. Anyway, in 429 in saint cyril's paschal letter, he first defends the title theodogos, theodogos, and by 430 the so-called Nestorian controversy begins.

Speaker 1 21:58

Two points firstly, god willing, I'm going to translate this into a book, so it will be part of of a book, god willing. But that's something that will emerge, by God's grace, within the next year or two, once I finished the cycle of basic instruction in theology and spiritual life. I'm going to put all of that together and this, if you can get hold of a decent text of saint john damascene's exact exposition of the orthodox faith, the day fide orthodoxa. It's a monumental work. Book three is on the person of Christ. It really does go through each of these points one by one. It's a serious read, but it will give you that Now, if you don't have it for didactic purposes, I like to use a text that's closer to the original Greek.

Life of Mother Mary of Egypt (6th century) by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (560-638)

Appeal

Speaker 1 23:11

Some translations can be brilliant, but they're more poetic translations, meaning they don't follow the literal wording. So, blessed Sunday of St Mary of Egypt. If you get a chance, read her life, the life of St Mary of Egypt by St Sophronius of Jerusalem. Please subscribe to our channel and share with your friends. Click on the notification bell and on the join button below our video and become a friend or reader of the Mount Tabor Academy. Support our drive to introduce the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church to the wider community.