Scripture and God in Christianity

In the literal sense "the Logos has assumed humanity. Hence, it can be said that 'God is born', that
'God suffered', if only it be added, 'according to the flesh'. 694 He also insisted that "Since the holy
Virgin gave birth after the flesh to God who was united by hypostasis with flesh, therefore we
say that she is theotokos..." 695 H.V. Campenhausen observes, that "From his theological point of
view this was not only quite consistent but it thereby secured for him the wide support of the
masses. From historical standpoint the victory which he was to gain over Nestorius must be regarded
as the first great triumph of the popular worship of Mary." 696 He further argues that "In
the light of later dogmatic formulations his Christology was quite inaccurate and Monophysite.
But Cyril never doubted that belief in Christ could be rightly professed and defended only in the
way to which he was accustomed. He abhorred all "tolerant" dilutions and discussions of the
truth, and where he had power he was always ready to use it mercilessly to suppress all opposition
to his spiritual dominion." 697
Cyril, in view of Campenhausen, "was not greatly concerned with the truth; outwardly, however,
he continued to play the part of the anxious, thoughtful leader who refuses to take action for reasons
of purely personal spite, leaving the first steps to his best friends and go-between." 698 It was
due to Cyril's efforts and political genius 699 that Nestorius was made guilty of heresy and deposed
in the general Council of Ephesus (431) but the final settlement was reached at the Council of
Chalcedon.
The views about the person of Jesus which were held by Theodore and were at bottom not much
different from the orthodox Fathers caused Nestorius the stigma of heresy. Some modern scholars
like J. F. Bathune-Baker, F. Loofs and M. V. Anastos 700 have tried to rehabilitate Nestorius'
orthodoxy. Anastos, for instance, observes, "If Nestorius and Cyril could have been compelled to
discuss their differences calmly and to define their terms with precision, under the supervision of
a strict and impartial arbiter who could have kept them under control until they had explained
themselves clearly, there is little doubt that they would have found themselves in substantial
agreement theologically, though separated toto caelo as far as their respective archiepiscopal sees
was concerned." 701 Kelly observes that "When we try to assess the character of Nestorius's teaching,
one thing which is absolutely clear is that he was not a Nestorian in the classic sense of the
word." 702 Grillmeier observes that "we can recognize just as clearly that he need not have been
condemned had attention been paid to his care for tradition and to the new problem which he
posed, despite his speculative `impotence' (G. L. Prestige) to solve it." 703 F. Young writes: "Nestorius
was the victim. He has become the symbol of one type of christological position taken to
extremes. And for that he suffered. He could legitimately complain that his condemnation had
been unfair: Cyril had plotted his downfall; Cyril chaired the synod; Cyril was his accuser and his
judge; Cyril represented Pope and Emperor. Cyril was everything! Nestorius had no chance of a
hearing. There can be few who would defend the proceedings at Ephesus." 704 P. Tillich observes,
that "If we say that Nestorius became a heretic, we could say that he was the most innocent of all
heretics. Actually he was a victim of the struggle between Byzantium and Alexandria." 705
When looked from the perspective of our topic, it becomes evident that traditional Christianity,
for the sake of salvation and redemption, has always intended to crucify God and denied all efforts
to make just the human person suffer. This is crystal clear corporealism and could have not
been maintained just by speculative theology or any logical effort. It needed the exploitive and
86