Thursday Scholarly Notes
7/3/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter 12: The Christological Settlement." (pp. 310-343). Harper: San Francisco. (Personal Library)
Kelly considers the period of 428-451 as a critical time of Christological evaluation, as the start is marked by the beginning of Nestorianism and the end by the council of Chalcedon (Kelly 1978, p. 310). He has previously described the basic positions as "Word-flesh," in which the Word is of primary interest and the human soul in Christ is downplayed, and the "Word-man" position, in which the real and complete human nature in Christ may become of prime importance. The clash of theology, politics, and personalities was a pronounced factor in the discussion. The terms used in the debates were applied to Mary. Whether she was θεοτόκος (God-bearer) or χριστοτόκος (Christ-bearer) took on importance (Kelly 1978, p. 311). Nestorius, followed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, maintaining that God cannot have a mother, argued for χριστοτόκος. The other view, in his opinion, is Arian as it asserts the Son as a creature. Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, maintained that Nestorius' position advocated adoptionism and divided the Christ into two persons (Kelly 1978, pp. 311-312). Later, Nestorius, in his Book of Heracleides, which was only re-discovered in the 20th century, endorses the view of Chalcedon, demonstrating that Nestorius was not a Nestorian (Kelly 1978, p. 312).
Kelly finds that Nestorius considered the divine and human natures in Jesus each to be complete, unaltered, and distinct. At the same time, neither could be diminished and they could not be separated (Kelly 1978, p. 312). He was clear that Chrsit is one and only one person, but bearing two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 314). Kelly observes that Nestorius took a divergent view of the communication of attributes. Rather than maintaining that in Christ the divine took on some of the attributes of the human, Nestorius saw it as a moot point, as both the human and the divine were fully operational in the one person of Christ (Kelly 1978, p. 316).
Cyril of Alexandria vigorously opposed Nestorius, taking him to create "a merely external association between the Word and an ordinary man" (Kelly 1978, p. 318, Kelly's words). This could lead to the idea that an ordinary man died on the cross and that there is no divine presence in the Eucharist. In Kelly's opinion, Cyril's understanding of Nestorius was strongly influenced by the fact that Cyril adhered to the "Word-flesh" view, rather than the "Word-man" view. Cyril's response to the Nestorian controversy was to forcefully emphasize the unity of Christ almost to the exclusion of the existence of two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 321). Kelly observes that with the passage of time, Cyril came to see a greater role of the fully human nature in his Christology than he had before, though he always guarded against any hint of separating the two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 323).
Cyril and Nestorius both appealed to Pope Celestine, with a considerable volume of writing on the part of Cyril. On August 11, 430, Celestine condemned the teaching of Nestorius in writing, giving him ten days after receiving notification to repudiate his points of view (Kelly 1978, p. 324). Cyril was responsible for evaluating any change. He, accordingly, sent Nestorius a set of twelve anathemas for his agreement. This action, along with the wording of the anathemas, which were predictably offensive to Antiochene theologians, was problematic to Pope Celestine (Kelly 1978, p. 325). The conflict between the Antiochian and Alexandrian factions persisted. In June of 431, in Ephesus, Cyril held a council in which Nestorius was deposed and anathematized (Kelly 1978, p. 327). The Antiochian delegation, which had been delayed, four days later deposed Cyril and rejected his anathemas. When the papal delegation arrived two weeks later, they took the side of Cyril. Kelly goes on to describe the correspondence among the parties to the debate in some detail. Much of the dissent had died down by 433 (Kelly 1978, p. 330). However, in 448, a Christological controversy arose again.
"Matters were brought to a head by the cause of Eutyches, the aged and muddle-headed archimandrite who, because of the favour and influence he enjoyed at court, found himself the rallying-point of all who disliked the accord of 433" (Kelly 1978, p. 331). In November of 448, he was condemned as teaching a form of monophysitism in which the humanity of Christ was absorbed by his divinity. Kelly describes Eutyches' views in some detail, citing a number of self-contradictory statements. Eutyches was reinstated in August of 449, though some of the erroneous formulations involved in the dispute were condemned (Kelly 1978, p. 334).
In Western Christianity, Kelly sees little Christological development (Kelly 1978, p. 334). The theologians associated with Rome tended to describe the divine and human natures in Christ, but were hesitant to suggest any new formulation (Kelly 1978, pp. 335-336). Consistent with this pattern, Leo's Tome, written in response to the controversy over Eutyches, serves as a commentary on ideas already widely articulated (Kelly 1978, p. 337). This work did go a long way toward bridging the rift between Antioch and Alexandria (Kelly 1978, p. 338).
Kelly notes that, while the synod which rehabilitated Eutyches was an imperial synod, Leo's work with the Time was under papal control (Kelly 1978, p. 338). The conflict between emperor and pope was defused by the accidental death of the emperor in July of 450. The new emperor, Marcian, called a council in Chalcedon in 451 to resolve differences in faith (Kelly 1978, p. 339). The council, rather than creating a new Christological confession, drew from a number of previous works, creating a mosaic of orthodox explanations of Jesus (Kelly 1978, p. 341). The existence of a fully divine nature and a fully human nature in the one person of Christ was well established in the West (Kelly 1978, p. 342). The East, however, retained some monophysitic tendencies.
7/3/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter 12: The Christological Settlement." (pp. 310-343). Harper: San Francisco. (Personal Library)
Kelly considers the period of 428-451 as a critical time of Christological evaluation, as the start is marked by the beginning of Nestorianism and the end by the council of Chalcedon (Kelly 1978, p. 310). He has previously described the basic positions as "Word-flesh," in which the Word is of primary interest and the human soul in Christ is downplayed, and the "Word-man" position, in which the real and complete human nature in Christ may become of prime importance. The clash of theology, politics, and personalities was a pronounced factor in the discussion. The terms used in the debates were applied to Mary. Whether she was θεοτόκος (God-bearer) or χριστοτόκος (Christ-bearer) took on importance (Kelly 1978, p. 311). Nestorius, followed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, maintaining that God cannot have a mother, argued for χριστοτόκος. The other view, in his opinion, is Arian as it asserts the Son as a creature. Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, maintained that Nestorius' position advocated adoptionism and divided the Christ into two persons (Kelly 1978, pp. 311-312). Later, Nestorius, in his Book of Heracleides, which was only re-discovered in the 20th century, endorses the view of Chalcedon, demonstrating that Nestorius was not a Nestorian (Kelly 1978, p. 312).
Kelly finds that Nestorius considered the divine and human natures in Jesus each to be complete, unaltered, and distinct. At the same time, neither could be diminished and they could not be separated (Kelly 1978, p. 312). He was clear that Chrsit is one and only one person, but bearing two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 314). Kelly observes that Nestorius took a divergent view of the communication of attributes. Rather than maintaining that in Christ the divine took on some of the attributes of the human, Nestorius saw it as a moot point, as both the human and the divine were fully operational in the one person of Christ (Kelly 1978, p. 316).
Cyril of Alexandria vigorously opposed Nestorius, taking him to create "a merely external association between the Word and an ordinary man" (Kelly 1978, p. 318, Kelly's words). This could lead to the idea that an ordinary man died on the cross and that there is no divine presence in the Eucharist. In Kelly's opinion, Cyril's understanding of Nestorius was strongly influenced by the fact that Cyril adhered to the "Word-flesh" view, rather than the "Word-man" view. Cyril's response to the Nestorian controversy was to forcefully emphasize the unity of Christ almost to the exclusion of the existence of two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 321). Kelly observes that with the passage of time, Cyril came to see a greater role of the fully human nature in his Christology than he had before, though he always guarded against any hint of separating the two natures (Kelly 1978, p. 323).
Cyril and Nestorius both appealed to Pope Celestine, with a considerable volume of writing on the part of Cyril. On August 11, 430, Celestine condemned the teaching of Nestorius in writing, giving him ten days after receiving notification to repudiate his points of view (Kelly 1978, p. 324). Cyril was responsible for evaluating any change. He, accordingly, sent Nestorius a set of twelve anathemas for his agreement. This action, along with the wording of the anathemas, which were predictably offensive to Antiochene theologians, was problematic to Pope Celestine (Kelly 1978, p. 325). The conflict between the Antiochian and Alexandrian factions persisted. In June of 431, in Ephesus, Cyril held a council in which Nestorius was deposed and anathematized (Kelly 1978, p. 327). The Antiochian delegation, which had been delayed, four days later deposed Cyril and rejected his anathemas. When the papal delegation arrived two weeks later, they took the side of Cyril. Kelly goes on to describe the correspondence among the parties to the debate in some detail. Much of the dissent had died down by 433 (Kelly 1978, p. 330). However, in 448, a Christological controversy arose again.
"Matters were brought to a head by the cause of Eutyches, the aged and muddle-headed archimandrite who, because of the favour and influence he enjoyed at court, found himself the rallying-point of all who disliked the accord of 433" (Kelly 1978, p. 331). In November of 448, he was condemned as teaching a form of monophysitism in which the humanity of Christ was absorbed by his divinity. Kelly describes Eutyches' views in some detail, citing a number of self-contradictory statements. Eutyches was reinstated in August of 449, though some of the erroneous formulations involved in the dispute were condemned (Kelly 1978, p. 334).
In Western Christianity, Kelly sees little Christological development (Kelly 1978, p. 334). The theologians associated with Rome tended to describe the divine and human natures in Christ, but were hesitant to suggest any new formulation (Kelly 1978, pp. 335-336). Consistent with this pattern, Leo's Tome, written in response to the controversy over Eutyches, serves as a commentary on ideas already widely articulated (Kelly 1978, p. 337). This work did go a long way toward bridging the rift between Antioch and Alexandria (Kelly 1978, p. 338).
Kelly notes that, while the synod which rehabilitated Eutyches was an imperial synod, Leo's work with the Time was under papal control (Kelly 1978, p. 338). The conflict between emperor and pope was defused by the accidental death of the emperor in July of 450. The new emperor, Marcian, called a council in Chalcedon in 451 to resolve differences in faith (Kelly 1978, p. 339). The council, rather than creating a new Christological confession, drew from a number of previous works, creating a mosaic of orthodox explanations of Jesus (Kelly 1978, p. 341). The existence of a fully divine nature and a fully human nature in the one person of Christ was well established in the West (Kelly 1978, p. 342). The East, however, retained some monophysitic tendencies.
RSS Feed