Here's a handout on the Councils of Ephesus, Robbers', and Chalcedon that the youth group went through recently. Credit and thanks go to Dr. Steven Hallam for his class slides on the topic.

_____________________________________

The Councils of Ephesus (431), Robbers’ (449); and Chalcedon (451 A.D.)

The Issue

·         Was Mary the Θεοτόκος? (theotokos) - i.e. the mother of God?

o   Was Christ always divine, or was He human and became divine?

·         The combatants:

o   Cyril of Alexandria

o   Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople

Context

·         Mary was beginning to take on theological significance

o   Some questioned whether she should, as she might only be the mother of the man Jesus

·         Christ and His nature fell into two camps

o   Monophysite – Christ has a single nature

o   Diaphysite – Christ has dual natures

Cyril’s Position

·         Diaphysite to the core

o   Christ was born fully God and fully man

o   He remained so in life and remains so now

For Scripture says not that the Logos untied to himself the person of a human being but that he became flesh. And for the Logos to become flesh is nothing other than for him to “share in flesh and blood as we do” [ Heb. 2.14]…He did not depart from his divine status or cease to be born of the Father; he continued to be what he was, even in taking on flesh…And now we shall find the holy fathers convinced of these things. Accordingly, the boldly called the holy virgin “theotokos” to because the nature of the Logos…took the start of its existence in the holy virgin but because the holy body which was born of her, possessed as it was of a rational soul, and to which the Logos was hypostatically united, is said to have had fleshly birth.                –Cyril to Nestorius

Nestorius’ Position

·         Jesus was not born divine, therefore, Mary was not the mother of God

·         Took a monophysite approach to Christ

o   Christ was born a man, then the Divine came upon Him

o   The Divine slowly replaced the human nature

o   At birth: a man; at death: Divine      

The rebukes which your astonishing letter brings against us I forgive…Everywhere in Holy Scripture, whenever mention is made of the saving dispensation of the Lord, what is conveyed to us is the birth and suffering not of the deity but of the humanity of Christ, so that by a more exact manner of speech the holy virgin is called Mother of Christ, not Mother of God. Listen to these words of the Gospels: “The book of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” It is obvious that the son of David was not the divine Logos.”            - Nestorius to Cyril

The Council of Ephesus

·         Both men appeal to Rome for support

o   Empire is unified, but still viewed as East and West at this time

o   Both Alexandria and Constantinople are in the East, Rome is in the West

§  Alexandria was adamant that the Pope take their side

§  Religious vs. Political power

o   Rome doesn’t get involved

·         A council is called at Ephesus to resolve the matter

o   Neither side actually meets, and both excommunicate the other

o   Emperor Theodosius II steps in and sides with Cyril

§  He also banishes Nestorius

The Robber’s Council

·         The Fight doesn’t end with Cyril and Nestorius

·         Eutychus of Constantinople proposes a form on monophysite belief

·         Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople exiles Eutychus

·         Eutychus appeals for support from Rome

o   Pope Leo finally responds and advocates a mixed verdict

o   One-person, two natures

·         Emperor changes his mind and now backs the monophysites

o   He calls a new council at Ephesus in 449 to establish their view

o   The council is stormed by a mob and signatures are obtained by force

o   Flavian is beaten and dies from his wounds

The Council of Chalcedon

·         Pope Leo is furious about the second council of Ephesus (The Robber’s Council)

·         Flavian’s successor Anatolius calls a new council at Chalcedon in 451

·         Rejects the Robber’s Council, and names Flavian a martyr

·         Confirms Pope Leo’s Tome as the legitimate definition for the issue of Christ’s nature

o   The view is a compromise of one nature and two person ideology

·         Also introduces a request to make Constantinople equal in stature with Rome

Results

·         While the West quickly accepts the decision, the East largely does not

·         Widens the rift between West and East

o   Widens the rift between Rome and Constantinople

·         Christianity becomes Roman/Greek instead of Semitic

o   Jesus now goes from Messiah to Christ.

The Chalcedonian Definition:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.