The Doctrinal Situation

Perhaps we can better understand the character of these writings if we compare them with the homilies of St John Chrysostom or with those of St Ephraim Syrus, and not, for instance, with the treatises of and Athanasius or the Orations of Nazianzus.

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

Sarkissian examines several works of Armenian Christian doctrinal literature that existed coming into the time when Chalcedon was formally rejected.  As I noted in my last post, this is an area where the Christological nuance can get so fine that I get lost.  However, as will be seen, this is also recognized by many of the authors of this Armenian literature.  I will focus on only the points made that speak directly to the Christological discussion, although there are a few other statements worth noting. 

From the “Teaching of St. Gregory,” the following is offered:

“God the holy Son was sent from God (the Father); he took flesh from the Virgin [and became] perfect man with perfect Godhead; he showed forth the power of the divinity and exposed the weakness of the flesh.”

“The true faith is this: He descended and mixed [his] Godhead with [our] manhood and the immortal with the mortal.”

Can this be explained in any meaningful detail?  The author of the piece thinks not:

“Believe in the Trinity; believe in the truth of the unity in utter silence [or] in silent faith.  How can we, earth-bound creatures, search and know the unexplorable and unsearchable Highest?  How can we who have beginning examine him who is without beginning and is incomprehensible?”

In all of this, there is a strong emphasis on the unity.  While the connection of this work to Alexandrian Christology may not be sufficiently strong, the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers is quite visible, especially that of Gregory of Nazianzus.  It most certainly is not an Antiochene Christology.

Following, “The Homilies of John Mandakuni.”  The homilies are focused almost exclusively on the moral teaching of Christ, but there is one homily that touches on Christology:

“The only-begotten Word by the will of the Father came to the earth and took flesh from the holy Virgin; he suffered, was buried, the third day rose and sat on the right [side] of the Father; he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead”

Mandakuni continues:

“He who was without mother as regards [his] essence and without father as regards [his] economy (i.e. the Incarnation), came to save us, the creatures.”

“…he is one and the same, united, through the union of the flesh and God-head.”

Yet, he does not explain how this can be, how the unity can be explained.  He was not concerned with a technical exposition of the Christological doctrine.

From here, Sarkissian examines two documents that are specifically Christological.  The first is “The Treatise of Movsēs Xorenaçi.” 

It is an apologia for the “One Nature” and, at the same time, a refutation of the “Two Natures.  The arguments for his thesis are of a philosophical (dialectical) nature.  The author has also given due weight to the scriptural evidence.

It is the work of a highly competent theologian, one also well-versed in Greek philosophy and in Biblical exegesis.  The treatise opens with a strong assertion of the idea of “One Nature.” 

He says that as the living creatures being composed of many elements have but one nature, so according to the divine Scriptures the Word Incarnate is one nature.

No one can understand the “how” of God’s work.  It is simply unknowable like the formation of bones in the womb of a pregnant woman.

God, with one command, created the world and man, but we are not told exactly how.  A Mystery, just as the precise explanation of the Incarnation is a mystery. 

Therefore we have to confine ourselves to what the Scriptures say and not raise problems.

I could go off on many tangents based on just this one statement.  I will make two small points: we raise problems when we try to make too many deductions from Scripture; second, Sola Scriptura (or, at least, Prima Scriptura) wasn’t born, it seems, in the Reformation.  At least not for the Armenians.

The Incarnation of the Word must be understood in the same manner.  If we cannot understand how this happens, we need not be surprised, because the descent of Christ is above all miracles.

Then, citing Xorenaçi:

“But, if some considering this answer impossible, suppose the contrary, as if it were proper to say “Two Natures” Let them know that the same impossibility is recognizable in [the case] of man, and this [is seen] not only through philosophical categories but also in the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures.”

The Bible presents that the flesh is created out of worthless clay, and the soul by the breathing of the Uncreated.  Yet, these are not two natures as if two entities each endowed with will. 

Now, on the one hand, I am not sure I completely embrace the comparison made here.  Then again, if it is so in man, why not in the God-man? 

In the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must confess Christ One in his nature, because it is said “the Word became flesh” and that “he took the form (lit. “image,” “resemblance,” or “likeness”) of a servant.”

Therefore, the two, the Word and the flesh, which were distinct, separate, became one.

Then he attacks those who preach some sort of duality:

Christ had always been confessed one in everything he did.  He was not man at one time and God at another time.

He then identifies many Church Fathers, referencing their work in support: Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nazianzus, among others.  He further offers several Biblical citations in support of these views.

He assures his readers that it is impossible to find any scriptural evidence for two natures as separated or divided.

He closes his treatise with an exhortation to glorify God and never to confess the Incarnate Lord as man and God separately but united, and, finally, not to attempt presumptuously to understand the mystery which is unsearchable.

And on that last part, I wholeheartedly agree.

Finally, “The Demonstration of John Mandakuni.” 

…here…we find a more Biblical justification of the same doctrine accompanied by a remarkably pastoral and irenical character. 

Nowhere in the Scriptures is there mentioned a duality of the two natures.  We have received the truth from the Holy Spirit; whoever takes this honor on himself should be condemned.  We have been taught an unshakeable and true faith: to believe in one Father, in his Word without beginning, and in the Holy Spirit.  As to the Incarnation:

“Our mind cannot understand this, because the Almighty comprehends everything [and] he remains incomprehensible.”

He then attacks the heretics who teach a separation in Christ: 

…those who speak of many natures and strive to search the divine being (which is unsearchable) are miserably mistaken….

…the nature of the flesh and of the soul and of the spirit are different things, and yet man is one nature.

It seems ultimately that the argument focusses on the issue of trying to put into words that which cannot be at all understood by man.  Mandakuni writes:

“So, if one cannot search the [nature of] man made one of many [natures] or his closest companion or even himself, how then would one be able to comprehend the Creator by defining the inexplorable mystery of the Incarnation?”

“For, we must not contemplate more than to confess him as Almighty and Creator and Lord.  In the same way, the Creation – how God created us out of nothing – is above all understanding.  Only the Creator knows.”

He then approvingly references those who met at the first council in Nicaea, and follows with much Scriptural evidence.  The apostle Paul writes that Christ died for our sins and also writes that He alone has immortality.

“Does he, in fact, preach two Christs?  Here is what he himself confesses, namely ‘One Lord is Jesus Christ’”

Without naming him, he seems to be writing a direct refutation of Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius); here – again, not yet condemned by an official council, although he would eventually be so condemned.

Conclusion

There is no need to comment in detail on the Christological contents of these documents.  They are quite clear in themselves.

Whatever can be said of the yet to come rejection of Chalcedon by the Armenians, one cannot say that the theological mind of the Armenians was a tabula rasa.  They certainly were not ignorant of the conversation and the issues. 

Yes, there may be some passages that demonstrate a naïve approach to the problems at hand, but all of Christendom was struggling with the language and the issues at this time.  One can say the same of many of the earliest Church Fathers.

The one question we find difficult to answer is this: Was Mandakuni refuting the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon having before him the text of Leo’s Tome or the Chalcedonian Definition?

Some see a connection to Leo’s Tome, but Sarkissian offers that it can be just as true that it offers a refutation to the Antiochene Christological doctrines – which brings us back to where we began: the Armenians saw in Chalcedon an Antiochene Christology, one that they felt was too closely related to Nestorianism.  In any case, the anti-Chalcedonian attitude was not something arrived at suddenly:

Rather it was the natural consequence of a traditional theological relationship with the thoughts of the Cappadocian Fathers which served them as a very general background.

These Cappadocian Fathers, along with Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, were all translated into Armenian well before Chalcedon, and helped to shape their theological and Christological understanding.