Nestorianism is a Christological heresy, which originated in the Church in the 5th Century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the Divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Thus, Nestorians reject such terminology as "God sufferred" or "God was crucified", because they believe that the man Jesus Christ suffered. Likewise, they reject the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, using instead the term Christotokos (Giver of birth to Christ) or Anthropotokos (Giver of birth to a man).
Origins of Nestorianism
Nestorian ideas were first developed in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus against the heresy of Appolinarius. In refuting Appolinarianism, Diodurus of Tarsus wrote that at the time of the Incarnation and after the Incarnation, the Divine and human natures of Jesus Christ were divided to such an extent that there was complete independence of natures and no union whatsoever.
These ideas were further developped by Theodore of Mopsuestia (3??-429), a scholar in the Antochian tradition. Theodore taught that the human and Divine natures of Christ were so completely separate that there was only contact between them, but no union of any kind. In developing his ideas, Theodore wrote that the Man Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary completely naturally and with all faults of men, and that God the Logos (Word), having foreknown the Man's triumph over sin, chose to redeem the human race through Him by becoming united with Him by Grace from the time of His conception. Because of His triumph over sin, the Man Jesus was made worthy of being called Son of God at the time of the Theophany. Then, after His complete triumph over sin during His passion, He was united even more closely with the Divine Logos, becomeing God's tool for the salvation of mankind.
Based on these ideas, Theodore was the first to be opposed to the use of language applying to God as a description of Jesus Christ. Thus, he was opposed to the terms "God was crucified", "God suffered", or "God was born", because, he believed, only the Man Jesus was born and God dwelt in the Man Jesus. For this reason, Theodore called Jesus the Theophoros (Bearer of God). He was also opposed to the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, because, he taught, she gave birth only to the Man Jesus. Theodore's beliefs were quite heretical, since, if taken to their logical conclusion, they deny redemption and salvation; if only the Man Jesus suffered on the Cross and died for the sins of men, then how does the suffering of a man redeem the human race?
Nestorianism as a public teaching
Nestorian ideas were originally confined to the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and their close followers in Antioch. However, in 428, Emperor Theodore II called the Antiochian Priest-monk Nestorius, known for his zeal, to come to Constantinople. Nestorius, who brought with him the Priest Anastasius was made Archbishop of Constantinople. In a series of homilies in Constantinople, Anastasius denied the existence of one Theandric Person (The Godman) in Jesus Christ, teaching in Him a division of persons, and attacked the use of the term Theotokos, using instead the term Anthropotokos. This was quite controversial, since the Constantinopolitan faithful were acustomed to using the term Theotokos for the Virgin Mary. To defend Anastasius, Nestorius also said a series of homilies, preaching the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, though using the term Christotokos instead of Anthropotokos.
Constantinopolitan theologians rose up against the teachings of Nestorius and accused him of preaching the heresy of Paul of Samosata (see Antitrinitarianism). Nestorius then called a council at Constantinople in 429 and condemned those who disagreed with him.
Resistance to Nestorianism
The fearsest opposition to Nestorianism came from St Cyril of Alexandria, a theologion from the Alexandria school. In a series of epistles and letters to Nestorius, Emperor Theodore II, and Empress Eudoxia, St Cyril outlined the Orthodox teaching and accused Nestorius of heresy. St Cyril then wrote to Pope Celestine of Rome about the teaching of Nestorius. In 430, Pope Celestine called a council at Rome, which condemned Nestorius and called for him to be deposed. Pope Celestine sent copies of the council's decision to St Cyril of Alexandria, who also called a council in Alexandria in 430. At this council, St Cyril issued his famous 12 anathemas against Nestorius, which stated:
- If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
- If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
- If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.
- If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.
- If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh", and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, according to the scriptures, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.
- If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the Divine Word and be called God along with Him, while being separate from Him, (for the addition of "with" must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to Him one doxology, even as "the Word became flesh", let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through Him and as having received from Him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was His own proper Spirit through whom He worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.
- The divine scripture says Christ became "the high priest and apostle of our confession"; He offered Himself to God the Father in an odour of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, therefore, says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that He offered the sacrifice also for Himself and not rather for us alone (for He who knew no sin, needed no offering), let him be anathema.
- If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides Him, united with Him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.
- If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God He is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.
The Third Ecumenical Council
Not all accepted the position of St Cyril of Alexandria and the Alexandrian council. Nestorius published 12 anathemas of his own, in which he condemned those who attributed suffering and birth to God. Nestorius believed that they denied God the honour due Him by teaching that the Uncircumscribable can be circumscribed or that the Changeless can suffer. Certain Syrian bishops also rose to the defence of Nestorius. Among them was Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, who wrote a refutation of the anathemas of St Cyril.
To put an end to the dispute, Emperor Theodore II called a council at Ephesus, which was to convene on the day of Pentecost, 431. This became known as the Third Ecumenical Council. St Cyril of Alexandria arrived with 40 Egyptian bishops; the other churches were represented by Yuvenali of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Thermos of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Flavian of Thessaloniki. Nestorius arrived with his bishops and two governement officials-Candidian and Ireneaus, representing the Emperor. Memnon of Ephesus hosted the Council. The only representatives not there were John of Antioch and the Syrian bishops and the legates of Pope Celestine of Rome.
After waiting for 10 days for the arrival of the absent delegates, St Cyril of Alexandria decided to convene the Council without them on 22 June (Old Calendar), 431. The 200 bishops present read the teachings of Nestorius, the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria, the writings of the Fathers, and found that Nestorius was teaching heresy and the St Cyril's teaching reflected the Orthodox position. The decisions of the Council were signed and sent to Constantinople for the Emperor and the Constantinopolitan faithful. Nestorius was invited to attend and defend himself, but refused to do so, and a wrote to the Emperor accusing St Cyril and Memnon of holding an illegal council and plotting against Nestorius.
At this time, John of Antioch and 33 Syrian bishops arrived at Ephesus. Not recognizing the decision of the Council, John and the Syrian bishops refused to enter into communion with St Cyril, and, together with Nestorius and a few bishops who defected from St Cyril's council organized a rebel council. At this council, they condemned St Cyril, Memnon of Ephesus, and the other Fathers, falsely accusing them of the heresies of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius. The proceedings were signed and sent to Constantinople.
Emperor Theodore, unsure of the proper course of action, ordered both councils to close, the proceedings to be destroyed, and the all the Fathers to convene one Council. While messengers were going back and forward between the Palace and Ephesus, St Cyril of Alexandria convened his Council again. At the second session, the Council found Orthodox the epistle of Pope Celestines, finally delivered by his legates. At the third session, the legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius. At the fourth session, the Council found invalid the condemnation of St Cyril and Memnon by John of Antioch and his council. At the fifth session, St Cyril and Memnon condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius, and the Council condemned John of Antioch and the rebel council. At the sixth session, the council decreed that no changes or additions can be made to the Nicene Creed (see Filioque). At the seventh, and final session, the Council made decisions concerning the boundaries of various dioceses.
Emperor Theodore, at the time under the influence of the Nestorian party at the Court, ordered Nestorius, Memnon, and St Cyril to be arrested and a new council to be convened. No agreement, however, could be reached. St Cyril, meanwhile, wrote to Abba Dalmatius in Constantinople, calling him to action for the defence of Orthodoxy. Abba Dalmatius, who for 48 years never left his monastery, marched together with the Constantinopolitan faithful to the Palace and called on the Emperor to release the Orthodox bishops and to condemn Nestorius. The people then proclaimed anathema on Nestorius.
The Emperor finally sided with the Orthodox position. To get the Fathers to agree, he called on deputies to be sent to Chalcedon from both councils. The deputies, which included the Papal legates and Bishop Yuvenali of Jerusalem on one side and Blessed Theodoret and John of Antioch on the other arrived, but could not agree. While the Syrian bishops agreed in principle to the condemnation of Nestorius, they rejected the anathemas of St Cyril, calling them heretical. The Emperor then ordered all bishops to return to their cathedras, and ordered the deposition of Nestorius.
Nestorianism after the Council
On their way back to their cathedras, the Syrian bishops called two more councils. At the first council, at Tarsus, they once again condemned St Cyril and Memnon. At the second council, in Antioch, they confessed that the Lord Jesus Christ is fully Divine and fully human, except without sin, based on a unity in Him of Divine and human natures, and that, therefore, the Virgin Mary may be called the Theotokos. Thus they condemned Nestorianism, though they refused to condemn Nestorius. Peace was restored a few years later, by the work of Paul of Emessa, who convinced John of Antioch to condemn Nestorius and St Cyril of Alexandria to agree to the Antiochian confession without, however, refuting his 12 anathemas.
The Ephesian Council was not, however, accepted by some in Syria. Among those who agreed with the Orthodox teaching but rejected the Council was Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. Thus, a strong Nestorian party arose in the Syrian and Mesopotamian churches. After agreeing to a common confession with St Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch began working on eradicating Nestorianism in the Eastern churches. What could not be accomplished by conviction was done with the help of the civil authorities, who imprisoned several Nestorian bishops.
John of Antioch ordred the destruction of the Edessa theological school, which bread Nestorian ideas. Ivo of Edessa and other theologians who accused St Cyril of unorthodoxy were exiled. At the same time, St Cyril wrote a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. However, this refutation, too, was not accepted by all. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus defended Theodore of Mopsuestia. Meanwhile, Ivo became bishop of Edessa, and spread Nestorian ideas. In his famous letter to Marius the Persian, Ivo of Edessa condemned Nestorius for refusing to use the term Theotokos but also condemned St Cyril for preaching Appolinarianism. In 489, the Edessa school was again destroyed, and Nestorian theologians fled to Persia were they finally broke with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In 499, at a council in Seleucia, the Third Ecumenical Council was condemned and the Nestorians formally split from the Church. They formed the Chaledean or Assyrian Church, which governs itself with its own Patriarch. Nestorians also have a community in India, called the Thomites.
Nestorianism and the Fifth Ecumenical Council
In their sturggle against Nestorianism, some theologions went as far as the other extreme. They denied completely the presence of human nature in Jesus Christ, accepting only one Divine Nature in one Divine Hypostasis. Thus, they are called Monophysites (believers in one nature). Condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, Monophystes accused the Council and the Church of restoring Nestorianism.
The basis for accusation in the 6th Century was the Church's unclear position on Theodore of Mopsuestia, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ivo of Edessa. Their writings, which became known as the Three Chapters were a cause of debate that resulted in the calling of the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553.
At the Council, the Church condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia as a heretic. In addition, the Church condemned the writings of Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus against St Cyril of Alexandria and the letter of Ivo of Edessa to Marius the Perian. The Church did not condemn Theodoret and Ivo because they repented of Nestorianism and condemned Nestorius. See Fourth Ecumenical Council, Fifth Ecumenical Council, Monophysitism.
Nestorian Communities Today
Information on the Assyrian Church would go here
Protestant Theology as a form of Crypto-Nestorianism
In their refusal to venerate the Virgin Mary, modern Evangelical Protestants deny the use of the term Theotokos. In defending this, many Evangelical Protestants argue that the Virgin Mary could not have given birth to God but only to the man Jesus. They thus again separate in the Theandric Godman Jesus a human and a Divine person and teach Nestorianism.
The error of this thinking lies in the failure to understand the intricacies of Christology and the doctrine of Incarnation. A proper understanding of the Virgin Mary is required for a proper understanding of Jesus Christ. If Mary is not Theotokos, then Christ is not Godman. Likewise, if Christ is Godman, then Mary is Theotokos. If Mary is not Ever-Virgin, then Christ did not become God Incarnate. If Christ became God Incarnate, then Mary is Ever-Virgin. If Mary is not the Queen Mother, then Christ is not King; if Christ is King, then Mary is Queen Mother.
For more on the importance of Our Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary to a proper understanding of the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity, see George S. Gabriel, Mary, the Untrodden Portal of God
Talberg, D. N., И