Between Ephesus and Chalcedon

In the course of the first decade of this period the doctrinal position of the Armenian Church became established with such a firm foundation that the succeeding years of bitter Christological controversies could never shake it.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

The period in question is that between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon: 431 – 451.  Sarkissian examines five letters written between 432 – 438 that give shape to the discussion and issues that drove this firm Christological foundation within the Armenian Church. 

The issues of the time were critical.  The Antiochenes were struggling in every way to defend their tradition, which was deeply disturbed at Ephesus.  Meanwhile, the Cyrillines were working to complete their victory. 

The Armenians were not present at Ephesus, nor were they informed directly or officially of the decisions.  Yet the news regarding this council must have arrived fairly quickly, as the aforementioned letters reflect an understanding of the decisions and controversies.  Eventually, the canons set up in the council were brought to the Armenians by Armenians who were studying in Constantinople.

The discussion within the five letters revolved around the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia – not always by name (as Theodore was still in good standing with the Church), but through his students such as Nestorius, who was condemned and deposed at Ephesus.

The key figures in this exchange of letters, as follows:

·         Sahak: also known as Isaac the Great, the Catholicos (Patriarch) of All Armenians

·         Mashtots: Armenian theologian and statesman, best known for inventing the Armenian alphabet

·         Acacius: a bishop at Melitene, west of Armenia in today’s central Turkey

·         Armenian Nakharars: heads of large, noble families

·         Proclus: the archbishop of Constantinople from 434 until his death in 446

With that, to the first letter from Acacius to Sahak.  This letter was written soon after the Council of Ephesus, probably in 432.  He notes in it the “malicious heresy of Nestorius,” who, “in some places had won the simple-minded to his ill-will.”  He continues:

“Caught by the fear that a stain [of the heresy] might have gained space also in your Churches, and having in mind the common good we deemed it good to advise you that these people are moulded in no other [disease] than in the Jewish disease…”

The labeling as a “Jewish disease” is a reference to the view that Jesus was merely a man; those who separated Christ in two were likened to the Jews.

From here, Acacius would show evidence from Scripture; he criticizes those who think of Christ as a person no greater than the apostles and saints.  He concludes that he fears that there may be people found in the Armenian Church who follow the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, having fallen victim to the doctrines of Nestorianism.  Acacius makes clear that the bishops who recently met in Ephesus did away with this doctrine.

In all of this, it should be kept in mind that until this point, the Armenian Church – despite the stronger connection to Constantinople – had relations with the Syriac Church, and a large portion of Armenia was under the political authority of Persia – both of which had Nestorian tendencies if not officially holding to that doctrine.

Sahak’s reply to Acacius is the second letter.  He would thank Acacius for his care for the preservation of orthodoxy in the Armenian Church.  He would condemn any such people that stray from this orthodoxy, and promises to persecute any of these men if they appear in Armenia.

“If we suddenly find here men of those [heretics] not only do we not accept or persecute them, but also we do not hesitate to bring them under heavy punishment.”

He exhorts Acacius to do the same, noting that Acacius has the privilege of the emperor’s protection and support.  It should be kept in mind that Sahak lives under Persian overlordship.

He concludes his letter by asking for prayers, and that if anything is written in error in this letter due to ignorance, that Acacius kindly corrects and rectifies this.

“But as regards the heresy which you wrote to us to abhor, at this time, by the grace of God, nothing of that sort has reached [us]; however, if there is something of that venom hidden, surely we will endeavor to extirpate that obstacle so that we can glorify Christ in concord.”

Third is the letter of Acacius to the Armenian Nakharars. 

He says that the followers of the teaching of Nestorius and Theodore did spread the poisonous and pernicious doctrine of their masters even in Armenia.

“We thought it worthy and right to write to you as to God-loving people, that God by his grace make your saintly and truthful teachers stand firm and unshaken on the foundation of the true faith and not yield to the fierce wolf to find time for stealing anyone from Christ’s flock.”

This Nestorian evil was overcome at Ephesus, and the Nicaean faith was re-established.  Anyone who teaches outside of this faith, be anathema. 

Why is he writing to the nobles instead of to Sahak, the Patriarch of the Church?  He heard a good report of them, that they had tied up the writings of Theodore.  It should be pointed out that Theodore was not at this time condemned by the Church, and would not be for more than one hundred years. 

While it was understood that Theodore’s teaching was foundational to Nestorian doctrine, the blame would fall on Nestorius.  This reality – that Theodore remained within the Church – only adds to the confusion that must have been felt within the Armenian Church.

The fourth document, the Tome of Proclus, was written in response to a request by some Armenian bishops to condemn the doctrines of Theodore.  It was written at a critical time generally when considering the Christological discourse of the time, as this was during the time when Theodore’s writings were starting to be considered as controversial.

Here, the tome will be examined in its Armenian text, and not in the original Greek – as the present subject is Chalcedon and the Armenian Church.  There are differences in the two texts of some significance. 

The first two sections of the tome are missing in the Armenian, so only the Greek is available.  Proclus shows sympathy with these Armenian bishops regarding the suffering at the hands of heretics.  He writes of those who preach foolishly; these are unable to see past earthly things:

He speaks of the virtues which the Greeks had taught and he adds that they are not sufficient; only the Christian virtues may enable us to see the truth.

Proclus then moves directly to the Christological issues: Christ became man in the truest sense of the word – not by entering a perfect man, but by descending into nature itself.  The key words for Proclus are two Scriptural expressions: “He became flesh,” and “He took the form of a servant.”

When these two “are understood in the orthodox sense they become seeds of salvation for us.”

Christ became man, thereby saving his through His sharing in our suffering; and He, as evil-hating God, was able to conquer the one who had the power of death, namely Satan.  Citing from Proclus:

“Thus it is not so that Christ is one and God the Word is another – God forbid! – because the divine nature does not know two Sons.”

Sarkissian then makes an extensive Christological point, indicating what would become a divide for the Armenians regarding the Tome of Leo presented at Chalcedon some fifteen years later:

It is very significant to note that one can describe Christ acting as God and as man; more precisely according to his divine or human nature.  But this can be done only after having conceived him as One in his being.  This is a very important point which appears over and over again in all the later Armenian theologians.

This is, indeed, a conception of unity which sounds quite different from the doctrine of Leo as formulated in his Tome where he describes the two natures as being, so to speak, centres of activity in themselves.  The logical conclusion was naturally the division.

Proclus then names some trouble-makers, heretics: Arius, Eunomius, and Macedon.  In the Greek, he concludes with a section on why he wrote this letter: we have heard that some evil-speakers have befallen your country, wanting to contort the purity of the teaching.

Then come some lines which are found in the Armenian text, but not the Greek.  In the Armenian, Nestorius and Theodore are named as two who “showed forth the evil plant and the malicious novelties which exceeded the denial of the Jews…. keep yourselves safe from them…”

After this, the Armenian and Greek again agree: hold fast to that which was received from Nicaea. 

Finally, the last letter is the response by Sahak and Mashtots to Proclus.  In many places, many of the same phrases are used as were used in Sahak’s response to Acacius.  One difference: in the earlier letter, he wrote “if” such heretics are found; here, he writes that he has given instructions that the people should not listen to such heretics. 

What follows is a Christological statement which corresponds to that which was written by Proclus – not in every detail (which, I have come to learn, is where all these Christological controversies lie, and on the differences, I am not really qualified to comment).

Following, just as they asked Acacius, they ask Proclus to watch diligently and use the imperial power of the king to sweep away these heresies.  Then, in the last passage, a short paragraph in which Theodore of Mopsuestia is named: that there are disciples of his here, as of now nothing of this has been named.  But if any are found, we will endeavor to extirpate that obstacle.

Conclusion

The examination of the impact and meaning of these documents will come in the next post – this one is too long already.  They are not self-explanatory, and many questions need to be answered, to list a few:

·         Why is the Armenian text of Proclus’s letter different than the Greek, specifically in adding Theodore’s name?

·         Why does Sahak, in both of his letters, almost deny the existence of any followers of Theodore?

·         Why did Acacius write two letters – the first to Sahak, and the second to the Armenian Nakharars, or nobles?