Thoughts on Jacob of Serug

This week (well, actually last week; I'm running behind) we read several of Jacob of Serug's homilies on the Mother of God. This is a challenging subject for Protestants like me, but it was quite fruitful.

Jacob's style is totally different from everything else we have read. He writes in poetic form. This took a little getting used to, but I found it wonderful and refreshing. Theology is supposed to lead us to worship. Jacob's theology in its entirety is a hymn of praise to God.

The basic problem I have with adoration and veneration of Mary is that it seems to compromise the exclusive claim of Christ. If Mary was without sin, doesn't that mean she didn't need the cross? If the role of Mary in salvation is emphasized, doesn't that take away from what Christ accomplished? If Mary is honored, doesn't that take away from the honor given to Christ? If we pray to Mary, doesn't that diminish Christ's role as the only intermediary? This is the mindset I had when I began reading Jacob.

I am not comfortable with everything Jacob says about Mary, but I was able to appreciate much more of what he said than I was expecting. When he ponders Mary, it leads him to honor and glorify Jesus. For him, the virgin birth is a subset of the mystery of the incarnation: the one who cannot be contained by the heavens chose to be born in a womb as a baby.

Jacob develops the theme of Mary as the "Second Eve who generated Life among mortals, and paid and rent asunder that bill of Eve her mother." Eve listened to the serpent and so brought the curse on the world; Mary listened to Gabriel and so allowed the curse to be overturned. Eve didn't question what the serpent said; Mary questioned what Gabriel said and only accepted it when she understood. Eve had caused enmity between heaven and earth; through Mary this enmity was ended. However, it was not simply Mary herself but what Christ accomplished through her:

The wall of iniquity which the serpent had built then,
by his descent the Son of God broke it down that it might
never again be restored.
When He descended He broke down the hedge which was
placed between the sides,
that there might be peace between dwellers on earth and in
heaven.

What I find most fascinating is how Jacob interprets Mary's visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56). John the Baptist leaps in the womb when Elizabeth and Mary meet. Jacob compares this to David dancing before the Ark of the covenant. This is strange, yet compelling. Not only that, but through Mary's voice Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on John for prophecy. This is crazy stuff! I like it, but I don't know what to do with it. It is totally foreign to the way I think about everything. It led me to worship, though.

Hilary of Poitiers - On The Trinity

Hilary begins his work On The Trinity in an unexpected way: by recounting his search to find the meaning of life. He started off by realizing that there must be more to life than the possession of leisure and riches. That thought began him on a lengthy philosophical and theological journey. Eventually he gets to the Trinity, but it takes quite a long time.

Interesting: for Hilary, the answer to "What is the meaning of life?" is found in the Trinity. Few modern Western Christians would answer in this way. It seems to me that we don't know what to do with the Trinity. Most Christians know they are supposed to believe in it, but aren't sure why it matters. Yes, it matters that Jesus is God, but much more central to salvation are what Jesus did on the cross and his invitation to have a personal relationship with Him. The doctrine of the Trinity is more of an academic construct that systematizes our theology, tying up some loose ends.

However, it appears to me that for Hilary (and Cyril and Irenaeus), the being of Christ was just as important for salvation as His actions. It is not only that the Son of God died and rose again; it is also that the Son of God united humanity and divinity in His person. The relationship of the believer with God is defined in Trinitarian terms as well. We share in the divine Father-Son relationship through our union with Christ. This union is made possible by the Son of God's becoming flesh.

Hilary brings in the Eucharist at this point:

If the Word has indeed become flesh, and we indeed receive the Word as flesh in the Lord's food, how are we not to believe that He dwells in us by His nature, He who, when He was born as man, has assumed the nature of our flesh that is bound inseparably with Himself, and has mingled the nature of His flesh to His eternal nature in the mystery of the flesh that was to be communicated to us? (285)

This is quite a sentence, and I'm not sure I understand all of it. But I gather that we share in Christ's nature through partaking of His body and blood. Thereby we enter into the very life of God, participating in the divine Father-Son relationship.

Another thing I like about Hilary is that he thought a lot about the task of theology and approached it humbly. For example:

A firm faith rejects the captious and useless questions of philosophy, nor does truth become the victim of falsehood by yielding to the fallacies of human absurdities. It does not confine God within the terms of ordinary understanding...the power of eternal infinity surpasses the comprehension of the earthly mind. (14)

The best reader is he who looks for the meaning of the words in the words themselves rather than reads his meaning into them, who carries away more than he brought, and who does not insist that the words signify what he presupposed before reading them...let us concede to God the knowledge about Himself, and let us humbly submit to His words with reverent awe. For He is a competent witness for Himself who is not known except by Himself. (18)

Quick Thoughts on Scholia on the Incarnation

I wish I had time to get into this text more, because it has been my favorite so far. But my Holy Week activities have prevented me from really digesting it.

The thing I find most striking about Cyril's Scholia on the Incarnation is the tension he is able to hold in the Incarnation. He states that God and man were united into one Christ in the Incarnation, but still holds that suffering, death, etc. are properly said to have taken place in Christ's flesh. It is his ability to hold this tension that seems to separate him from his opponents. He can say that Christ suffered in the flesh, while remaining impassible in his diety. He can also say that the whole person of Christ suffered, by virtue of his being united as one person.

I find this quite helpful.

Cyril's Old Testament exegesis is also strange and fascinating. I wish I had time to reflect on that more.

Thoughts on Cyril and Nestorius

This week, we read Cyril of Alexandria's 2^nd letter to Nestorius, Nestorius’s Reply, Cyril’s 3^rd letter to Nestorius, and The Explanation of the Twelve Chapters (a further elaboration of Cyril's 3rd letter). These documents are part of a debate concerning the relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ and whether Mary should be called "Mother of God" (theotokos).

In my opinion, this correspondence contains two subjects of interest. The obvious topic is the Christological controversy. But I think the debate itself is interesting, as well. Here we get to see how a major disagreement was handled in the fifth-century church. That's what I want to consider first.

The most noticeable feature of this argument is that Cyril and Nestorius don't mince words. For example, Cyril says things like "certain people have scorned the teachings of the truth and filling their own minds with demonic crookedness they strive to debase the mystery of truth" and "Nestorius introduced a host of strange and profane blasphemies." And Cyril is the nicer of the two! All of this sounds very jarring to us. We more often avoid conflict and try to see how we can get along with those with whom we disagree. Accusing someone of being filled with "demonic crookedness" or of leading others astray would be seen as arrogant in the extreme and not at all "pastoral".

Despite the fact that both Cyril and Nestorius use strong language, there is a world of difference between the two. Cyril is, in fact, pastoral in the true sense of the word: he is concerned above all with building up the church. Nestorius, on the other hand, seems motivated by a personal power struggle. He sarcastically mocks Cyril's style and questions his intelligence. Nestorius also boasts of the success of his own flock and threatens to use his position of power in Constantinople against Cyril. You can practically tell who is on the right side of this debate without even considering the issue.

It's easy for our reaction to be, "what's the big deal?" That was my reaction when I first read these letters in seminary. The differences between Cyril and Nestorius seem subtle and of little consequence. We think, "I'm sure glad we don't fight over that any more" and feel that we are enlightened compared to those ancients. However, over time I have concluded that this is a pretty lame opinion to have. Here is the first reaction I wish I had: "Hey, at least these people cared about the identity of Jesus!" I happen to be part of the PC(USA), a denomination with much more divergent views about Jesus than Cyril and Nestorius, yet we are not even having a debate about Christology. Instead we are fighting about things like ordination standards (which I do think is an important issue) and control of church property (which is disgraceful).

After that artificial first reaction, here is the second reaction that I propose: "Let's try to figure out why this particular point was so important to these people." The only real opinion I had in the past was that I didn't want to call Mary "Mother of God." But I didn't get the Christological distinction. I'll try to do better now. Here are the two positions as I understand them: Nestorius claimed that the human things that Jesus did only happened in his humanity. Only the humanity of Jesus was born. Only the humanity of Jesus suffered and died, etc. Therefore, Mary could be called the Mother of Christ, but not of God. Cyril, on the other hand, said that, because the Word of God and man were united in Christ, all of Christ participated in everything that he did. Even though it makes no sense for God to suffer, somehow through the humanity of Christ, God suffered. And even though it makes no sense for God to be born, somehow through the human birth of Christ, God was born. Therefore Mary can be called the Mother of God.

I think that for Cyril, all of the work of Christ would turn on this point. If the Word of God didn't truly participate in Christ's passion, then salvation was not accomplished. If the divinity of Christ is not communicated to the humanity, then neither is humanity glorified through Christ. This is pretty important, after all.

I do not yet understand the emphasis on Mary, though. I see why Cyril could say that Mary was Mother of God, but why was it important to do so? And what implications does this have for Mary?