Nestorius

NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATION
PROF. M. M. NINAN
And if someone considers, or teaches others, that suffering and change have attached to
the divinity of our Lord, and (if) he does not preserve, with respect to the union of the
prosopon of our Saviour, a confession of perfect God and perfect Man, let such a person be
anathema.”
(Translated by. S. P. Brock)
Until the present day, this profession was unjustly condemned as heretical. Here, in Diphysite
terms, the necessity of the existence-in-itself of each complete nature, without mixing or change, is
set forth. Nevertheless, there is an inseparable bond between divinity and humanity, a union of the
person. As with Narsai, here the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the position of the
Antiochenes, each of which excludes Theopaschism (the suffering of the divinity), is determinative.
This Christology respects the integrity of divinity and humanity and admits no hint of
“Nestorianism.”……………..
The creed of the Church of the East of 612 speaks of the inseparable unity of the God-Logos and
the human nature, recognized in Jesus Christ as one person (prosopon). It is further expressed in
Babai’s terminology that “Christ is two kyane (natures) and two qnome.” In the past, the Syriac term
qnoma had been equated with the Greek hypostasis or even translated as “person.” Thus the
misconception developed that the Church of the East believed in two natures and two persons in
Christ. However, for neither Babai nor the creed of 612 did qnoma denote a self-existent hypostasis.
Kyana refers to the general, abstract nature, that is, the human being and the God being, while
qnoma describes the concretization and individualization of this nature. Babai thus usually
employed the formulation “the two natures and their qnome” which are united from the moment of
conception. Both Babai’s most important treatment of the matter, the Book of Union and the
document of 612 clearly express that each nature needs a qnoma in order to exist concretely. Were
one to equate qnoma with hypostasis, one would reach a faulty understanding of the statement; a
translation of “person” is incorrect. Because of this terminology, the East Syriacs were also unable
to comprehend the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, which speaks of two natures in one
person and hypostasis. This finds clear expression in the Christological letter of the future
catholicos Ishoyahb II of Gdala, which was written in 620 and used Babai’s terminology.
95