Chapter 34 — The error of Theodore of Mopsuestia concerning the union of the Word with man

It is clear then from what has been said that neither was the divinity lacking in Christ, as Ebion, Cerinthus and Photinus contended; nor was a true human body, as the Manicheans with Valentine erroneously maintained; nor again was a human soul, as Arius and Apollinaris asserted. Accordingly, since these three—namely, divinity, human soul, and a real human body—were united in Christ, it remains for us to seek what we are to hold in regard to this union from the teaching of the Scriptures.

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, his follower, explained this union in the following manner. They said that in Christ a human body and a human soul were joined together in a natural union, so that they formed a man of the same species as we are, and that God dwelt in this man as in his temple, that is to say by his grace, as in other men. Hence the words of Christ to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19), which words the Evangelist expounds by saying: But he spoke of the temple of his body (John 2:21). Hence too the Apostle says that in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell (Col 1:19). As a result, there was a further union of affection between that man and God, in that the man adhered to God by his good will, and God in his will accepted him: He who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him (John 8:29). Hence we may take the union between that man and God to be the union of which the Apostle says: He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him (1 Cor 6:17). And just as, by reason of this union, names which properly belong to God are applied to men, so that in various passages of Scripture they are said to be ‘gods,’ and ‘sons of God,’ and ‘lords,’ ‘saints,’ and ‘christs,’ so too, divine names may be applied to this man. Thus, by reason of God dwelling in him and being united to him in a bond of affection, he may be called God, the Son of God, Lord, the Holy One, and Christ. Yet, since there was a greater fullness of grace in this man than in other holy men, he was the temple of God more than the rest of men, and more closely united to God in the bond of affection, and by a special privilege shared in the divine names. For this reason, on account of the excellence of his grace, he received a share of divine honor and dignity, and was adored together with God. It follows from all this that the person of the Word of God is distinct from the person of this man who is adored together with God’s Word. And if we speak of them as being one person, this is on account of the aforesaid union of affections, so that this man and the Word of God would be called one person as man and wife are said to be no longer two, but one flesh.

Now a union of this kind does not allow of our saying of the one what we say of the other (for not all that is true of the husband is also true of the wife, or vice versa). And so, with regard to the union of the divine Word with this man, they think it necessary to observe that whatsoever is proper to that man as being part of human nature cannot be said truly of the divine Word or of God. For instance, it is proper to that man to be born of the Virgin, that he suffered, died, and was buried, and so on; all such things, they assert, cannot be said of God or the Word of God. Since, however, certain names, though belonging chiefly to God, are nevertheless applied to men (such as ‘christ,’ ‘lord,’ ‘saint,’ and even ‘son of God’), there is no reason why the aforesaid predicates should not be applied to them. Thus, according to them, it is quite correct to say that Christ, the Lord of Glory, or the Holy of Holies, or the Son of God, was born of the Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried. Hence they contend that the Blessed Virgin should be called not the Mother of God or of the divine Word, but the Mother of Christ.

Careful consideration, however, will show that this view excludes the truth of the Incarnation. According to this view, the Word of God was united to that man merely by the indwelling of grace, resulting in a union of wills. Now the Word of God by dwelling in man does not become incarnate, for the divine Word, and God himself, has dwelt in all holy men from the creation of the world, according to the saying of the Apostle: You are the temple of the living God; as God said: ‘I will live in them’ (2 Cor 6:16). Such an indwelling cannot be styled the ‘Incarnation,’ else God would have often become incarnate since the beginning of the world. Nor is the idea of ‘Incarnation’ realized by the divine Word (or God) dwelling in that man with a greater plentitude of grace, since more or less makes no difference in the kind of union. Seeing, then, that the Christian religion is based on faith in the Incarnation, it is clear that this view destroys the very foundation of the Christian religion.

Moreover. The falseness of this view is evident from the very terminology of Scripture. For Scripture is wont to indicate the indwelling of the divine Word in holy men by the following manner: The Lord spoke to Moses; or the Lord said to Moses; or: The Word of the Lord came to Jeremias (or some other prophet); or: The word of the Lord was made by Haggai (Hag 1:1). But never is it said that the Word of the Lord was made either Moses, or Jeremias, or any other. Yet it is in this singular way that the Evangelist describes the union of the divine Word with Christ’s flesh, when he says: The Word was made flesh, as we have observed above. Hence it is manifest that, according to the teaching of Scripture, the Word of God was not in the man Christ merely by dwelling in him.

Again. That which has been made something is whatever it has been made. Thus that which has been made a man is a man, and that which has been made white is white. Now, the Word of God was made man, as stated above. Therefore, the Word of God is man. But when two things are distinct in person, hypostasis, or supposita, one of them cannot be predicated of the other. Thus when I say, ‘man is an animal,’ the very same thing that is an animal is a man; and when I say, ‘the man is white,’ the man himself is declared to be white, although whiteness is extraneous to the notion of humanity. Consequently, by no means can I say that Socrates is Plato, or any other individual of the same or of another species. Accordingly, if the Word was made flesh, that is to say man, as the Evangelist declares, it is impossible for the divine Word and that man to be two persons, hypostases, or supposita.

Further. Demonstrative pronouns refer to a person, hypostasis, or suppositum; for no one would say, ‘I run’ and mean that someone else runs (except metaphorically, if this other runs in his stead). Now this man who is called Jesus says of himself: Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58), and: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and many similar statements, which clearly refer to the divinity of the Word. Therefore, it is manifest that the person and hypostasis of him who said these things is the person of the Son of God.

Moreover. It is evident from what has been said that neither did Christ’s body come down from heaven, which was the error of Valentine; nor his soul, as Origen erroneously asserted. Therefore, it follows that it was the Word who is said to have come down from heaven, not by local movement, but in reference to his union with a lower nature, as we have already stated. (Ch. 30.) Now this man speaking in his own person said that he came down from heaven: I am the living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51). Therefore, that man’s person or hypostasis must be the person of the Word of God.

Again. It is evident that ascent into heaven applies to the man Christ who, while the Apostles looked on, was raised up (Acts 1:9); but descent from heaven applies to the Word of God. Now, the Apostle says: He who descended is he who also ascended (Eph 4:10). Therefore, that man’s person and hypostasis is the person and hypostasis of the Word of God.

Again. One whose origin is from the world, and who was not in existence before the world, cannot be said to come into the world. Now, the man Christ had his origin from the world as to his flesh, since he had a real human and earthly body, as we have proved. (Ch. 27.) As to his soul, he was not in existence before the world, since he had a real human soul which, by its nature, does not exist before its union with the body. It follows, then, that it is not by reason of his human nature that this man is said to come into the world. Yet he says that he himself came into the world: I came from the Father and have come into the world (John 16:28). Thus, it is clear that something pertaining to the Word of God is truly said of this man, since it belongs to the divine Word to come into the world, as John the Evangelist expressly declares: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own (John 1:10–11). Therefore, the person and hypostasis of the man who said the words quoted above must be the person and hypostasis of the Word of God.

Again. The Apostle says: When Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me’ (Heb 10:5). Now he that comes into the world is the Word of God, as we have shown. (Ch. 11.) Therefore, it is to the Word of God that a body is fitted in as in such a way that it was his own body. But this could not be said unless the hypostasis of the Word of God were also the hypostasis of that man. Therefore, the Word of God and this man have the one and the same hypostasis.

Moreover. Any change or suffering affecting the body of a man can be ascribed to the person to whom that body belongs. Thus if Peter’s body be wounded, scourged, or dies, it can be said that Peter is wounded, scourged, or dies. Now the body of this man was the body of God’s Word, as we have shown. Hence whatsoever that body suffered, the Word of God may be said to have suffered. Rightly, therefore, may we say that the Word of God, or God, suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. But those men denied this.

Again. The Apostle says: It was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering (Heb 2:10). From this we gather that he for whom are all things, who brings men into glory, and who is the author of man’s salvation, suffered and died. Now these four things belong exclusively to God, and are ascribed to no one else. For it is said: The Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4); and of God’s Word it is said: All things were made through him (John 1:3); and: The Lord will give grace and glory (Ps 84[83]:12); and elsewhere: The salvation of the just is from the Lord (Ps 37[36]:39). Therefore, it is evidently right to say that God, the Word of God, suffered and died.

Moreover. Though a man may be called a lord by reason of his sharing in the divine lordship, no man (nor indeed any creature) can be called the Lord of glory, because God alone by nature possesses the glory of the happiness to come; others possess it by the gift of grace. Hence it is said: The Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory (Ps 24[23]:10). Now the Apostle says that the Lord of glory was crucified: If they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). Therefore, it may be truly said that God was crucified.

Further. The Word of God is the Son of God by nature, as we have shown; (Chs. 11, 14.) but man, by reason of God dwelling in him, is called a son of God by the grace of adoption. Hence, according to the opinion aforesaid, we shall find in our Lord Jesus Christ both kinds of sonship, because the indwelling Word is God’s Son by nature, and the man in whom he dwells is God’s son by the grace of adoption. Consequently, that man cannot be called God’s own, or only-begotten, Son, but only God’s Word, who by reason of the special manner of his birth, was the only offspring of the Father. Now Scripture ascribes Passion and death to God’s own and only-begotten Son. For the Apostle says: He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him (Rom 8:32). Again, it is said: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). That he is speaking of being delivered up to death is clear from his using the same terms in relation to the crucified Son of Man: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that whoever believes in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting (John 3:14–15). Again, the Apostle declares Christ’s death to be a sign of God’s love for the world: God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). Rightly, therefore, may we say that God, the Word of God, suffered and died.

Again. A man is said to be his mother’s son because he derives his body from her, although he does not receive his soul from her, but from another source. Now the body of this man was taken from the body of his Virgin Mother; and it has been shown that the body of this man is the body of God’s natural Son—that is, of the Word of God. Therefore, it is right to call the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God’s Word, and even the Mother of God, although the Word’s divinity is not from her, because it is not necessary for a son to receive his entire substance from his mother, but only his body.

Moreover. The Apostle says: When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman (Gal 4:4). Now from these words we are able to gather the sense in which the Son of God was sent. For we are told that he was sent inasmuch as he was made of a woman, and this would not be true unless the Son of God had been in existence before he was made of a woman, since what is sent into something must exist before being in that thing. Now, according to Nestorius, this man, who is an adopted son, was not in existence before being born of a woman. Hence the words, God sent forth his Son, cannot refer to an adopted son, but to his Son by nature—namely God, the divine Word. But it is through being made of a woman that a man is said to be the son of a woman. Therefore, God, the divine Word, is the son of a woman.

Perhaps, however, someone might object that the saying of the Apostle means not that the Son of God was sent to be the son of a woman, but that the Son of God, who was made of a woman and under the Law, was sent to redeem those who were under the Law. In this case the words his Son refer not to his Son by nature, but to this man who is son by adoption. But this interpretation is excluded by the very words of the Apostle. For no one can absolve from a law unless he is above the law; that is, the author of the law. Now the Law was given by God; therefore, God alone can free anyone from the bondage of the Law. But the Apostle ascribes this to the Son of God, of whom he is speaking. Therefore, the Son of God, of whom he is speaking, is God’s Son by nature. Therefore, it is true to say that God’s Son by nature (namely, the divine Word of God), was made of a woman.

Moreover. The same conclusion follows from the fact that the redemption of mankind is ascribed to God himself: You have redeemed me, Lord God of truth (Ps 31[30]:6).

Again. The adoption of the sons of God is the work of the Holy Spirit: You have received the spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15). Now the Holy Spirit is not a gift of man, but of God. Therefore, the adoption of sons is effected not by a man, but by God. Now it is the work of the Son of God, sent by God, made of a woman, as evidenced by the Apostle continuing the text: that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal 4:5). Therefore, the text of the Apostle refers to God’s Son by nature. Consequently, God, the Word of God, was made of a woman—that is to say, of the Virgin Mother.

Further. John says: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14). Now he did not take flesh except of a woman. Therefore, the Word was made flesh of a woman, that is to say, of the Virgin Mother. Therefore, the Virgin is the Mother of the Word of God.

Moreover, the Apostle says that Christ is from the fathers according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever (Rom 9:5). But he is not from the fathers except through the Virgin. Therefore, God, who is over all things, is from the Virgin according to the flesh. The Virgin, therefore, is the Mother of God according to the flesh.

Moreover. The Apostle, speaking of Jesus Christ, says: Who, though he was in the form of God . . . emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil 2:6–7). From these words it is clear that if, with Nestorius, we distinguish in Christ two persons, namely the man, who is a son by adoption, and the Word of God, who is God’s son by nature, these words cannot refer to this man. For if this man were a mere man, he was not first in the form of God, and afterwards made in the likeness of men. On the contrary, after being a man, he became a participator in the divinity; by this he was not emptied, but exalted. Therefore, the text means that the Word of God, who first was from eternity in the form of God (namely, in the nature of God), afterwards emptied himself . . . being born in the likeness of men.

Nor can this emptying mean simply the indwelling of God’s Word in the man Christ Jesus, because from the beginning of the world, God’s Word has dwelt in all holy men by grace, and yet he did not empty himself by so doing. For God suffers no loss in giving a share of his own goodness to creatures, but in a sense is exalted, insofar as the height of his perfection is manifest by the goodness of creatures; the greater the creature’s goodness, the more is God exalted. Hence, if the Word of God dwelt with greater plenitude in the man Christ than in other holy persons, he emptied himself less in him than in the others.

Consequently, it is clear that the union of the Word with human nature does not merely mean, as Nestorius contended, that God’s Word dwell in that man, but that the Word of God was truly made flesh. For there can be no emptying save in the sense that the Word of God emptied or lowered himself by putting on human lowliness, not by putting away his own greatness. Thus if the soul existed before the body, we might say that it becomes a corporeal substance (namely man) not by a change in its own nature, but by being united to a corporeal nature.

Again. It is evident that the Holy Spirit dwelt in the man Christ, since it is said that Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan (Luke 4:1). Consequently, if the Incarnation of the Word means nothing more than that the Word of God dwelt with the greatest plenitude in that man, we shall have to say that the Holy Spirit also became incarnate. This is utterly contrary to the teaching of faith.

Further. It is certain that the Word of God dwells in the holy angels, for they are filled with understanding by participating in the Word. Thus the Apostle says: Surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham (Heb 2:16). It clearly follows, then, that the assumption of human nature by the Word does not merely mean his dwelling in it.

Again. If, as Nestorius contended, there are two distinct personalities in Christ—namely, the Word of God and the man—the Word of God cannot possibly be given the name of Christ. This is evident both from the way of speaking usual in Scripture (where, before the Incarnation, God or his Word is never given the name of Christ), and from the very meaning of that name. For Christ is so called because he is anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, with the Holy Spirit, as Peter expounds it (Acts 10:38). Now it cannot be said that the Word of God was anointed by the Holy Spirit, since then the Holy Spirit would be greater than the Son, as the sanctifier is greater than the sanctified. Consequently, this name Christ can only indicate the man. When, therefore, the Apostle says: Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus (Phil 2:5), he is referring to the man. Now he continues: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (Phil 2:6). Therefore, we may say with truth that this man is in the form, that is to say, in the nature, of God, and equal with God. And, though men are called ‘gods’ or ‘children of God’ on account of God dwelling in them, they are never said to be equal with God. Therefore, the man Christ is called God not merely because God dwelt in him.

Moreover. Though the name of God is applied to holy men, on account of indwelling grace, none of the things that belong to God alone (such as the creation of heaven and earth, and the like) are ever ascribed to any saint by reason of the grace dwelling in him. Yet the creation of all things is ascribed to the man Christ. For it is said: Consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession. He was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s house (Heb 3:1–2). Now these words refer to the man, and not to the Word of God, both because the Word of God, according to the view of Nestorius, cannot be called Christ (as we have shown), and because the Word of God was not made, but begotten. And the Apostle continues: Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house (Heb 3:3). Hence the man Christ built the house of God, and the Apostle goes on to prove this: For every house is built by some one, but the builder of all things is God (Heb 3:4). Accordingly, the Apostle proves that the man Christ built the house of God from the fact that God created all things. But this argument would prove nothing unless Christ were God the Creator of all. Thus, then, the creation of all things, which is the work of God alone, is ascribed to this man. Therefore, the man Christ is God in person, and not merely by God dwelling in him.

Further. It is quite clear that the man Christ ascribes many divine and supernatural attributes to himself. For instance, I will raise him up in the last day (John 6:40); and: I give them eternal life (John 10:28). And it would indicate the highest degree of pride if the man who spoke thus were not God in person, and merely had God dwelling in him. But this accusation cannot be brought against the man Christ, who says: Learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matt 11:29). Therefore, this man and God are one and the same person.

Moreover. Just as the Scriptures state that this man was exalted*:* Being exalted at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33), so do they say that God was emptied: he emptied himself (Phil 2:7). Therefore, even as sublime things may be ascribed to the man by reason of the union—for instance, that he is God, that he raises the dead to life, and so forth—so may lowly things be attributed to God—for instance, that he was born of the Virgin, that he suffered, died, and was buried.

Again. Relative terms, nouns or pronouns, relate to the same suppositum. Now the Apostle, speaking of the Son of God, says: In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible (Col 1:16), and afterwards he adds: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead (Col 1:18). Now it is clear that the words: In him all things were created, refer to the Word of God; and the words: The first-born from the dead, to the man Christ. Consequently, the Word of God and the man Christ are one suppositum, and therefore one person; and whatsoever is said of that man may be ascribed to the Word of God, and vice versa.

Further. The Apostle says: One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things (1 Cor 8:6). Now Jesus, the name of that man through whom are all things, evidently is the name of the Word of God. Accordingly, the Word of God and this man are one Lord, neither two lords nor two sons, as Nestorius maintained. And hence it also follows that the Word of God and this man are one person.

Now, if we consider the matter carefully, this opinion of Nestorius as regards the Incarnation differs but little from the opinion of Photinus, since both of them asserted that this man was God solely by reason of indwelling grace. Photinus, however, asserted that this man merited to be called God and to be raised to glory through his Passion and good works; but Nestorius admitted that he had this name and glory from the moment of his conception, by reason of the singular fullness of God dwelling in him. But as regards the eternal generation of the Word, they differed utterly, since Nestorius admitted it, whereas Photinus denied it altogether.