Christological Controversy

by Richard A. Norris Jr., William G. Rusch (Editor)

For more than thirty years, The Christological Controversy has been an essential text for courses in theology, church history, and early Christianity that seek to better understand the development of Christology from its earliest roots to the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

The volume gives modern readers an idea entry point into the issues by presenting clear, fresh translations of the most important primary sources, along with simple and informative introductions to explain the context of the writings.

Genres: Theology, Church History, Religion, Christianity, History, Nonfiction, School

136 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 1, 1980

Reviews

[Reynold Witmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a little odd to give a book like this 5 stars. It's not an easy read, its technical, at times dry, and very hard to understand.
But.
I think this is the best possible way to learn about anything. The book is a collection of twelve patristic letters and fragments revolving around issues of the incarnation, and Christology. Read chronologically, these excerpts take you from the 2nd century fathers like Melito of Sardis, and Irenaeus, to the council of Chalcedon in 451. You'll read multiple perspectives on the incarnation, including some now judged heretical. But even the heretics are treated fairly; some of their arguments are very relatable. Yet following the firm hand of history, these arguments are refined, refuted, and finally affirmed in the council of Chalcedon. Reading slowly through this progression of thought gave me new understanding of the necessity, and depth, of Christian doctrine, and a deeper appreciation for the patristic understanding of Christological language.

[John Pawlik · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished my first Beeson “textbook”! Cool!

[samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

• Introduction
o Early Christian preaching, however, was not based simply on the message ofJesus. Rather, it grew out of the conviction that the con- tent of his message had been both validated and actualized through his resurrection from the dead. The powers which rule the present world-order had repudiated Jesus and slain him. But God had raised him up, and this meant that in him and for him the promised transformation of the world, "the life of the age to come," was already real.
o Thus there were from the very beginning two things to be said about Jesus. The first was that God's salvation, the thing to which prophets and seers had always looked forward, had, for Jesus, already become real. He already belonged to that new order of things. The second was that Jesus was the one through whom others entered into the new order of things; he was the bearer of God's rule, the mediator of God's salvation.
o Christology (def): inquiry and reflection that are concerned with Jesus in his messianic character. asks what is presupposed and implied by the fact that Jesus is the elect "Son of God," the one through whose life, death, and resurrection God has acted to realize his purpose for humanity; and this fact imposes, from the beginning, a certain logic on Christology.
 Two threads of Jesus here 1. him in relation to God 2. him as representative character as human
o Paul: Christ is heavenly figure in form of God who enters world as human being, but did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. Christ is image of the invisible God. Personified divine Wisdom, the living expression of all that God is and all that God wills, and the one through whom God carries out his works.
o John: Jesus as Logos, Word of God become flesh
o Hebrews: through Son God created the world
o NT as a whole: cannot make sense of Jesus except by seeing his human life as the historical concretion of the very power through which God originally expressed himself in the creation of the world. This made his life, death, resurrection universally significant.
o Clement, Ignatius, Hermas stay close to NT: Jesus as God’s self-expression, God’s Son. Jesus has dual character, spiritual and fleshy, divine human
o Problems emerge
 1. issues on the nature and identity of the heavenly “power” which was said to become incarnate in/as Jesus
• 2c apologists Logos-theology (Justin Martyr): Jesus is Logos is God’s son, reality distinct from Father but begotten of him for creation of world. Logos made God known to people of old covenant. Logos humiliated himself but will have second coming. Logos = reason, in accordance with Stoic teaching, indwelling, active, formative principle of the cosmos. The divine power which orders and maintains the world-system. Logos is not first or ultimate deity but divine reason uttered as Word for sake of forming and governing word. Logos mediates God and creatures.
• Opposed by Monarchians who insist God is one and see Logos-theology as threat to monotheism. But Justin sees logos as lower level of divinity. Opposed also by those who ask: why does god need mediator?
 2. denials of the reality of Jesus’ flesh/humanness
• Docetists: Jesus’ flesh Is mere appearance and there is absolute contrariety between God and material order, which they pictured as independent creation of a second and evil, or inferior, God. Gnostic-ish. Marcionist: Marcion says flesh of Jesus is phantasmal). dualism which surfaces in this idea shows up in other forms as well: in a denial of continuity between the history of Israel and the Christian dispensation, for example, and in Christology, where it results in a belief in two Christs, a heavenly Christ and an earthly Christ, the former of whom only seems to have a physical or material embodiment.
o Enter Melito of Sardis. Christ is glorious, divine figure who becomes incarnate for the sake of redemption of humankind from suffering and death which were its inheritance from Adam. Incarnation is fulfilment of Mosaic covenant (typology). Standing against Docetism and Marcionism by embracing OT (obliged by his exegetical method). Melito insists that God's Son "put on" or "dressed in" a human being and genuinely "suffered for the sake of sufferers. Melito asks no questions about how this can be so.
o Irenaeus of Lyon. Attacks Marcions and Gnostics (many discrete groups lumped together)—these people are proporting “two Gods” or that the true God has no responsibility for or involvement in material world. Irenaeus asserts the ultimate God as creator who is involved with creaturely, material order. Logos is not mediator for him (this is plurality of divine and sets God apart from world), instead, Logos is a “hand” of God. The act of incarnation is the mediative force, Logos itself is not. Irenaeus sees Logos in OT. Incarnation is just recapitulation.
o Tertullian of Carthage. Confronts those that deny the whole human person of Jesus, his body and soul. Did resurrection entail the nonphysical and the physical? Yes: flesh, even with its ugliness, is an object of God’s love. Confronts Monacrhians who, again, are saying God himself was incarnate in Christ: how dare you say God suffers and dies. Yes, god is one in nature, but threefold in organization/articulation. It is not that son = flesh of Jesus and Father = divinity. Jesus cannot be separated. Duality is allowed in Christ. Jesus has two substances, flesh and spiritual.
o Origen of Alexandria. Greek Christianity, deeply influenced by philosophy and Neoplatonism (eclectic Platonism really). On First Principles. God begets his Wisdom or Logos eternally—there was never a time that Logos did not exist (this is new). Divine Wisdom is complete expression of God’s being. Wisdom is not God himself but his image, a second God, subordinate to the ultimate Father of All. Logos mediate God and created order, first of all in act of creation itself. Through his agency, God brings into being an immaterial cosmos of rational spirits, intelligences whose whole being is focused on the loving contemplation of God through his Wisdom. However, since these intelligences are finite and changeable and possessed of freedom, they can and do fall away from God—away from unity into dispersion, away from eternity into time, away from the immaterial into the material. So God creates form them a physical universe, a visible world. This is the scene of redemption, of slow education back to knowledge of God which alone fulfills their being. Wisdom as mediator to these fallen spirits, and is first mediated in incarnation.
 Stage 1 of mediation in incarnation: Logos is unified with one rational spirit who did not fall away from God, Jesus’ soul. Iron in fire. As the iron acquires all the qualities of fire, and indeed is interpenetrated and transformed by the fire without ceasing to be iron, so the soul which is Jesus is assimilated to the divine Wisdom, the Logos, and thus reveals and conveys Wisdom.
 2. Soul united to Logos becomes embodied through human birth. It is and remains a body (an elevated one that can transfigure, but still). Logos signifies himself to sense-bound intelligences through his body.
 This is a double mediation. Jesus is human being (soul inhabiting body), perfectly united as intelligence with its original, the divine Intelligence or Wisdom
• The Arians and Athanasius. We agree that Logos is divine—but how? Is it divine but not God? Not as God as Father? Origen would say yes. But this kind of hierarchical non-mixing God is weak. It also threatens unity of God.
o Arius. Logos cannot be God in proper sense. Logos performs an essential mediatorial role in relation of God to world. Logos belongs to created order but at the same time is a superior creature, ranking above all others bc he was brought into being by God before the ages HOW IS THIS DIFF FROM ORIGEN? THE CREATURE PART? This was repudiated at Nicaea: Logos is not creature but is eternally born out of God himself and is therefore divine in the same sense as the father: homoousios toi theoi.
o Athanasius. Logos made a human body his own in order to restore humanity to the state which God had originally intended for human race. Human beings, constituted of soul together with body, had been created to share the qualities of God’s own life by living in fellowship with their Creator. In sin they had turned away from knowledge of God, and in consequence 1. in their bodies they became subject to physical death and 2. in their souls they were subjected to spiritual death (loss of their character as images of God’s being). Restoration is done on those two fronts (body, spirit) by Logos 1. by death on cross and 2. by presence that enables people to share in divine life. Human beings, it holds, find themselves in God. Their true selfhood lies in their assimilation to God and their sharing in his way of being. For Athanasius, therefore, redemption can occur only through God's active presence with people. The incarnation is and must be the incarnation of one who is fully and truly God. He fucking hates Arius then. Redemption only works if Logos is God’s way of being personally present and active in the world. Criticism of Logos-theology. there must be real and direct union of God with humanity. He repudiates Logos-Anthropos model, the model of indwelling?
 Arians retort, tho: how was Jesus hungry? Ignorant? If Logos is God and not a creature how? But these assume 1. that Logos is the whole self in Jesus. Incarnation is just analogy of soul embodied (no human soul here!) 2. that there is basic inconsistency between God’s way of being and that of human persons.
 Athanasius responds. There is distinction between Logos in himself and Logos with his flesh. Logos in incarnate state like a sailor moon transformation. Affect is proper to the flesh which is proper to the Logos. They belong to him only indirectly (though no less truly). He argues explicitly that it is wrong to perceive the incarnation as the Logos' indwelling of a whole human being. That, he thinks, would make the incarnation a case of mere inspiration. No, in the incarnation what happened was that the Logos took to himself—made his own—"flesh" or "body" or what we might call "the human condition" and so became the self or subject in Jesus. Logos restrained himself for purpose of incarnation, acts “as if” he were human (he can’t really be ignorant but he can play it). This calls into question the full reality of Jesus’ humanness. Was there human consciousness here? He’ll never say…
• Apollinaris. Jesus did not have human consciousness. Logos-flesh model. The divine Logos "became human" in the sense that he became embodied and thus shared the structural constitution of a human being. He did not put on rational soul; just flesh. He’s an enfleshed intellect. Divine intellect (Logos itself) stuck in body. If the Logos had "put on" a rational soul as well as flesh, the result would, he thought, have been conflict. Either the Logos would simply dominate the human soul and thus destroy the freedom by which it was human, or the human soul would be an independent center of initiative and Jesus would be, in effect, schizophrenic. Much better to understand that the "human" intellect of Jesus was that of the model of humanity, the Logos. Jesus is one composite nature (one hypostasis) in which flesh and divine intellect share same life. Between human body and Logos mind. There is, to use the later phrase, an "exchange" or "sharing" of properties: communicatio idiomatum. Apollinaris makes a great deal of this idea because it states the truth to which his christological outlook wants to point: that Christ simply is the divine Logos himself, but enfleshed. In this respect, of course, he is mere- ly following lines of thought which Athanasius had also emphasized. Unlike Athanasius, however, he is clear and explicit in drawing out the consequences of his Logos-flesh model for the person of Christ. He does not forget or ignore a human center of life and consciousness in Jesus. He denies it.
• Antiochenes. Really into Logos-Anthropos/indwelling model that Athanasius and Apollinaris hate. Indwelling makes Logos not subject of affect (this corrupts divine). There are two hypostases (objective realities) in Christ.
o Theodore of Mopsuestia. Big indweller. Indwelling happens all the time, incarnation is just special example. The Logos unites himself to Jesus from the moment ofJesus' conception, and as Jesus' human life goes on, maturing and fulfilling itself more and more through his struggle against evil, the reality of this union comes to fuller and fuller expression until, in the resurrection, the human being and the Logos show that they have always been, so to speak, one functional identity one prosopon or, to use the inadequate English equivalent, one "person." Thus Theodore teaches a "prosopic" union—a union which has its root in the fact that by God's gracious initiative this human life is perfectly at one, in its willing and acting, with the Logos. There are two subjects in Christ, two hypostases, two natures in prosopic union. Dualism.
• Ephesus. Nestorius is refusing to call Mary theotokos and instead theodochos (recipient of God). He says Logos was not subject to human attributes of Jesus. Jesus is a human being who is intimately and completely indwelt by Logos.
o Cyril’s pissed. Jesus is “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos” an Apoll/Ath idea. Cyril uses formula “hypostatic union.” Nest says this implies mixture and confusion, and alteration of the deity of Christ. But for Cyril, "One hypostasis" and "one nature" were phrases which, for him, signified the fact that the humanity belonged so intimately to the Logos that there was actually only one subject or subsistent reality in Jesus. The one hypostasis and the one nature are the Logos himself, making a full human existence his own. They are not the "composite nature" that Apollinaris had taught.
o Cyril really means “two natures” and he starts to use that phrase.
o Mad deposing of anyone who says “one nature after union” (Eutyches)
• Chalcedon
o Leo I holds that Christ was one "person" having two natures, each of which was the principle of a distinct mode of activity. To a traditional Alexandrian, his language would have seemed strongly dualistic, but the letter makes clear Leo's conviction that the inner, ontological identity of Christ is the Logos him- self—a view which was the keystone of Cyril's position.
o Chalcedon: In Cyrillian style it emphasizes the unity of Christ. He is identified as the one divine Son, who possesses at once complete deity and complete humanity. At the same time, however, it insists not (with the For- mula of Reunion) that Christ is "out of two natures" but that Christ exists "in two natures," which are neither divided from each other nor confused with each other. At the level of language, therefore, the "Definition" accepts the central emphases of both the Antiochene and the Alexandrian schools. Jesus Christ is "one hypostasis" but "in two natures," that is, he is a single reality, the divine Logos, existing as such, and at the same time existing as a human being. Orthodoxy consists in the acknowledgment that Jesus is one subject, who is properly spoken of both as God—the divine Logos —and as a human being. To give an account of Jesus, then, one must talk in two ways simultaneously. One must account for all that he is and does by reference to the Logos of God, that is, one must identify him as God acting in our midst. At the same time, however, one must account for him as a human being in the ordinary sense of that term. Both accounts are necessary.

[Andrew Silagi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gotta love the mic drop of The Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith at the end. It’s a great primer on christology and how Christians communicated in the early centuries of the Church in general. I struggle a bit with excerpts because we can so easily mishandle texts when we’re missing the overall line of reasoning. Nonetheless, this was a great text to discuss for the fellowship program I’m currently in. One of the key takeaways for me is how significant theological schools within different regions such as Alexandria and Antioch were to these disputations. Would love to go deeper into these Fathers when possible!

[Sagely · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm always thankful to read primary texts. I'm glad Norris included early texts, like Melito of Sardis' Homily on the Passover and selections from Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Though they both bear/bare the flaws of their historical moments (as I do of mine), these are fun reading at points.

The later writers, post-Tertullian (with the exception of Leo's Tome) are dry. The living fire of the first centuries is lost for the arid negotiations with the dominant philosophical categories. Reading the second half of this text was work.

Which goes to show, I guess, that most ecclesial and theological work is just that: work. A truly good sermon may not so much sing as hum a good tune others can catch. Fashioning a truly good tune can take hours at the piano.

I first picked up this text for a grad course. It is a worthwhile introduction, as far as it goes. It's approachable, readable, understandable.

But I think the name--until we get to Nestorious and Cyril of Alexandria--is false advertising. We don't hear much of the controversy. We hear the various arguments of the winners of history (perhaps because the winners burned losers' texts). I would have appreciated fuller indication (if primary sources were unavailable) of the other side(s) during this controversial time period.

[Cole Shiflet · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this text. Norris exposes the reader to various viewpoints throughout early church history including Athanasius, Tertullian, Apollinarius, Melito of Sardis, Nestorious, Pope Leo I, Irenaeus, and Cyril of Alexandria. Norris concludes the text with the Chalcedon and Nicean creeds. I read this as part of my requirement for my mDiv program at Beeson Divinity School. If you're looking to engage with some early primary texts, but want them curated towards Christology, this is a great place to start. I'm looking forward to reading the full texts of many of these works.

[Dion Talamante · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read

Most Christian now a days take for granted fundamental theological issues that the Church faced. I'm an Atheist​, and found this a very interesting. I still don't agree with the premise, but the following conclusion is mindbogglingly

[NDH · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Introduction is very good; concise, dense, and to the point. It’s a worthy read.
But I feel like I’m listening to a parade of Greek philosophers (with rabbis hovering as advisors) arguing logically and rationally, in languages no one truly understands (ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin), about the wave-particle duality of light based on experiential data (Torah, the four Gospels, the canonical letters) that are at best a few hundred years old. Sigh..,
It has been said (by Cardinal Newman, I believe) that to go ‘deep in history’ (ie, to have studied The Church Fathers) ‘is to cease to be Protestant.’ It seems to me, however, that to study the church fathers, one is equally if not more likely to conclude that nobody really has a clue.
Divine/Human? Wave/Particle? Who knows?
I’m reminded of that Saturday Night Live skit in which a couple (Gilda Radner and Dan Akroyd perhaps?)is arguing about whether the product in the spray can is a floor cleaner or a desert topping. (Kind of like the Schroedinger’s Cat problem, no?) Chevy Chase then comes on stage to reassure them that it’s both!
I feel so much better…

[Timothy Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very helpful anthology of such a vital doctrine!

[Brady Sabolik]

Read in THEO 210 - HIST DEV OF THE CHRIST CHURCH.

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I suppose this was a helpful collection of primary texts from early arguments about what percentage of Jesus is God vs. man, but I found I just don't care that much.

[Sooho Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is always surprising to see how much a scholar can put together in less than 200 pages. Richard A. Norris, Jr., has canvased the landscape of the early stages of Christological formation and brought this important, accessible, and resourceful together: *The Christological Controversy*. Landmark Church Father figures, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril, are listed with checkered figures, such as Apollinaris, Theodore, and Nestorius (Origen can be argued to be listed here, as well).

It would be ironic to say that heresies make orthodoxy, but that seems like the case for early Christological controversies. Many times, these heresies and the condemned herectis who espoused them were either trying to say *too much* or too neatly fixed that they *suffocate* orthodoxy. Most, or all, of the precise wordings of the (Four) Great Ecumenical Creeds were hammered during and after heated debates. So, it's important to keep in mind not only that these great creeds are in a very Hellenistic worldview but also in very complicated, drawn out debates (via pony express). To say Jesus is "true God from true God" shocks Arius, and "true man from true man" shudders gnostics and docetics.

To be sure, Norris nor even the great Church Fathers were attempting to solve a problem or fix a paradox. Jesus as God-Man is, utterly, mysterious. Yet, in the spirit of Augustine, so that we would not be silenced, we must say something -- rightly and worshipfully, orthodox and orthopraxis.

cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com

[Ryan Linkous · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has a lot of key texts concerning the early Christological controversies of the 2nd-5th centuries. Anyone interested in the doctrine of the person of Christ must read this book. However, it is not for the faint of heart. Some of the writings (like Origin), though not all, are pretty advanced and confusing. The content is incredibly helpful, I just can't recommend this to younger believers who don't have a lot of guidance and who aren't eagerly seeking to know more about the development of doctrine of the person of Christ. This is the place to start though.

[G Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ehhh... mixed bag... feels too Western in overall tone, but still good as a brief, super small, snap shot of the issues... not a great intro... nut not a bad one, if it is used strictly as a primer... One of the weaker volumes in this set from Augsburg/Fortress.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

In addition to the author's review of the Christological controversies and apologists arguments over the first few centuries, he presents actual translated texts of those same apologists. Very good for the student of theological history to read.

[Don · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid seminary reading on how the question of Christ's nature was resolved in the early church.

[P Chulhi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative collection of primary sources

[Tyson Guthrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Collections like these are a great way to familiar oneself with the issues of early Christianity.

[January]

skimmed

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice little book of primary sources.