I started The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600.
My latest reading was interesting because it shed light on the
personalities of key figures of the Arian controversy. Arius was a
dynamic preacher who also wrote songs, and Arius was able to argue
biblically and philosophically while also breaking down his theology so
that the masses could understand it. And Athanasius was tried for
murder, but he was found not guilty when his "secret service" found that
the alleged murder victim was still alive!
Something on page 93
stood out to me, and it concerned the sorts of issues that came up at
Chalcedon, pertaining to the proper way to characterize Christ's
nature. (Was it only divine? Was it divine and human? If so, how did
those two natures relate to each other, if they even did so?) Frederick
Norris states on that page regarding the Antiochian Christian Theodore
of Mopsuestia (whose literal-historical interpretations of the Psalms I
have cited in my weekly quiet time write-ups here):
"He attacked
Arians and Apollinarians for many of the same reasons as Diodore did and
thus fell under suspicion from Cyril of Alexandria as a precursor of
Nestorius. He also spoke about the actions of the divine Son and those
of the 'assumed man' and insisted on grace as the category through which
to understand the incarnation, rather than the body/soul analogy
employed particularly by Cyril and the Miaphysites. That allowed him to
read many Gospel passages more literally, yet it made his understanding
of the unity of Jesus' person seem insubstantial...His writings were
declared heretical at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), but not his
person."
There are things that I do not understand about this
quote, which shows that some background reading may be necessary on my
part! I have difficulty conceptualizing the positions of Cyril and
Theodore. Cyril used a body/soul analogy. What was that, exactly? Did
it say that, in the same way that humans have a body and a soul, which
are different, so Jesus had a human and a divine nature? What's
interesting is that another thinker, Theodoret, used that sort of
argument against Cyril (see my post here).
Theodore referred to "the assumed man" and saw the incarnation as an
act of grace. What's that mean? That the divine son only assumed
humanity without being truly human? Or that Jesus was God incarnate
through an act of divine grace, in that God the Father empowered him to
be perfect and to do wonders? And how did Theodore read Gospel passages
literally? Did he take at face value the Gospel passages about Jesus'
limitations (i.e., Jesus not knowing certain information, Jesus being
empowered by the Father, or Jesus being unable to do certain things,
such as healing in a place that had no faith)?
The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following about Theodore's Christology:
"Theodore's
Christology exercised a more direct and eventful influence on the
doctrine of his (mediate) disciple Nestorius. The contemporary polemics
against Arianism and Apollinarianism led the Antiochenes (Diodorus,
Theodore, and Nestorius) to emphasize energetically the perfect Divinity
and the unimpaired Humanity of Christ, and to separate as sharply as
possible the two natures. Thus, in a sermon which he delivered at
Antioch (perhaps the first as bishop), Theodore vehemently attacked the
use of the term theotokos, long employed in ecclesiastical terminology, because Mary was strictly speaking anthropotokos, and only indirectly theotokos.
It was only by recalling his words and correcting himself that Theodore
could appease the excitement resulting from this view (see John of
Antioch, "Epist. ad Theodosium imper." in Facundus Herm., 'Pro
defensione trium capp.', X, 2; P.L., LXXXVII, 771). It cannot indeed be
denied that the Antiochene separation of the natures must result in an
improper weakening of the union in Christ. Like Nestorius, Theodore
expressly declares that he wished to uphold the unity of person in
Christ; perhaps they recognized some distinction between nature and
person, but did not know exactly what was the distinguishing factor, and
therefore used faulty paraphrases and comparisons, and spoke of the two
natures in a way which, taken strictly, presupposed two persons. Thus,
according to Theodore, the human nature of Christ was not only passibilis, but also really tentabilis,
since otherwise His actual freedom from sin would be the result of His
physical union with God, not a merit of His free wilt. The union of the
human and Divine nature happens not kat ousian nor kat energeian, but kat eudokian (at will), and indeed a eudokia hos en houio, which effects a enosis eis en prosopon. The two natures form a unity, 'like man and wife' or 'body and soul'. Consequently, according to Theodore, the communicato idiomatum, fundamentally speaking, is also lawful."
This
sheds a little more light on the situation. Theodore was considered to
be a Nestorian, one who believed that Christ had two radically distinct
natures within him (and I realize that I have more to learn on that). Moreover,
for Theodore, Christ was capable of emotion and could be tempted, which
was why his freedom from sin was a result of his free will and not so
much his physical union with God. Moreover, the unity of the natures is somehow achieved through an act of will, and does not relate so much to being.
Then there's this passage from a web site,
which I cannot vouch for (since I do not know who the author is or what
his credentials are), but the author does document his claims:
"[Theodore]
answered the great question of how Christ was fully man and fully God
by stating that Jesus had in fact two natures within him, both
possessing a human soul and the divine Logos. This is accomplished by
what Theodore calls 'indwelling'. Though there may be different ways of
indwelling conceived, Theodore feels that the only way this is possible
considering the nature of the Divine and the person of Jesus was that
he was indwelled by God by good pleasure, that is the
purposeful will of God 'which he exercises when he is pleased with those
who are zealous to be dedicated to him, because of their standing in
his sight.' With Jesus more specifically he was indwelled 'as in a
son', meaning that he not only indwelled but in fact united with him,
equipping him to share the honor and glory of divinity... This
indwelling, however, was not a 'reward' for some kind of character God
saw in Jesus, thus adopting him as his own later in life, rather this
union was from the time of the initial conception, so that in the person
of Jesus God did not 'come upon him' but rather as Jesus was formed in
his mother’s womb, the uncreated Divine Logos was already being united
with him. The person of the man is complete in having both a human body
and a human soul, and God is complete in the person of the Logos, so in
this union of God and man in Jesus we find one who is uniquely able to
save humanity from sin and destruction. He had both a human soul and
the divine Logos within him, cooperating in a union which provided
salvation and allowed others to participate in this salvation."
This
clarifies more how Jesus' incarnation was an act of grace and will: God
in God's good pleasure (or, perhaps more accurately, the Logos) decided
to indwell Jesus, and this occurred at Jesus' conception. But it was
not the Logos coming upon Jesus, but rather being united with Jesus at
conception.