ANNOTATIONS ON THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

370 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES scope and scale of Sullivan's book would support this summary. I suggest that Theodore's Christology is no more and no less than what we should expect it to be in a man who lived in his time and his theological milieu. The Christology of Theodore is not the Christology of Ephesus and Chalcedon; nor do I think we should expect it to be. Neither is his terminology that which was elaborated in these Councils and in the theological discussions which took place before, during, and after them. The greatest single defect in Theodore's terminology is without doubt his lack of a clearly defined understanding of hypostasis. It is, however, no more than fair to ask where Theodore might have attained this understanding, which was the result of subsequent discussions. Sullivan attributes to Athanasius a Christology which did not have that degree of clarity and precision which Sullivan claims for it. The language of Athanasius, like the language of Theodore, was to a large extent determined by the heresies which he opposed. Actually, one may consider that the movement of Athanasius away from Arianism opened the door at least slightly for the error of Apollinaris; and Theodore, in refuting both the Arians and Apollinaris, moved not only back towards the center, but too far in the other direction, as did Athanasius, and—I think one may say—Cyril of Alexandria, whose insistence on the unity of person permitted his followers and successors to pervert his doctrine into a unity of nature. Possibly we shall have to renounce any effort ever to reach the true mind of Theodore. The condition in which his writings have been preserved certainly makes it extremely difficult. Further examination may disclose his mind more clearly, but at the present moment it seems doubtful to this writer. But the opposite hypothesis which I suggest is that Theodore had a Christology which was substantially orthodox but accidentally defective in its terminology and in some of its conceptions in detail. These defects were not such as to render his Christology unorthodox or even to permit the legitimate deduction of an unorthodox Christology from his principles. Hence one finds in his writings certain inconsistencies, as Sullivan has pointed out in abundance. There are explanations of doctrine which are not mere parrotings of orthodox formulae but statements in his own language; and these statements exhibit none of the basic defects which Sullivan attributes to him in his synthesis of Theodore's thought. With these— sometimes on the same page—we find other pages which are simply
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA 371 not correct in their use of philosophical terms. I have pointed out instances where these incorrect passages, read against the larger context of Theodore's writings, can be fitted into a basically orthodox Christology. Theologians who deal with these problems, it seems, deal with them on an antecedent presumption which is either favorable or unfavorable. In this respect greater objectivity is an ideal which all who study the matter should consider seriously. But I think a minimum of objectivity would demand that we do not charge Theodore with heterodoxy, or even with heterodox tendencies, because he fails to give a fully correct and precise answer to a question which was never proposed to him in the terms in which it was proposed to the Council of Ephesus. Sullivan has quoted and examined a great many passages of Theodore's writings. It will seem strange to many readers that at the end he has so little evidence to support his thesis. The reader will wonder that Theodore is able to speak of Christology so often without betraying the fundamental defects outlined in Sullivan's synthesis. The defects of Theodore's terminology, as I have indicated in several passages discussed above, can often be ultimately reduced to his use of biblical texts. Sullivan has stated that Theodore's favorite formula is that the Word is in man or dwells in man. Theodore certainly does use this formula frequently; he can support it by Col 1:19, 2:9. But perhaps an even more favorite formula is the form of God and the form of a slave, based on Phil 2:7. Both of these biblical texts are more easily open to a Nestorian misconception than "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14), as long as "flesh" is understood to mean "man." But I do not need to refer to the difficulties which were created in theology by the use of this biblical term "flesh." Hence Theodore, in selecting his terms, without feeling the necessity of emphasizing other texts—a necessity which he had no reason to feel from the theological discussions with which he was familiar—may easily use metaphors drawn from these passages which later theologians found it impossible to use. In fact, if the standards so strictly applied to Theodore were applied to the New Testament, one could easily show that these passages and others in the New Testament themselves exhibit a defective Christology. Of course they do not; but those who study these questions must bear in mind that the terminology of the New Testament is not the terminology of Ephesus and Chalcedon either, and that a theologian like Theodore, who was so familiar with
Page 1 and 2: ANNOTATIONS ON THE CHRISTOLOGY OF T
Page 3 and 4: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF MOPS
Page 25: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF MOPS
Page 29: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF MOPS

ANNOTATIONS ON THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THEODORE OF ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?