Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine, which emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. It originated from the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431 AD. Nestorius rejected the long-established title of Theotokos (“God-bearer”) for Mary. He argued that she should be called Christotokos (“Christ-bearer”) instead, insisting that she only bore Christ’s human nature and not his divine nature.
Nestorius also articulated the doctrine that in Christ there were two separate persons – one divine and one human. He taught that Jesus was a common man who was “assumed” by the divine Logos, rather than being conceived by the Holy Spirit. This doctrine claims that the human and divine natures of Christ were joined only by will rather than personhood. Nestorius believed that the divine and human natures were so utterly distinct that it was erroneous to refer to Mary as “God-bearer.”
The Nestorian view of Christ asserted that the Logos dwelled in an otherwise normal man. Nestorius believed that the human and divine were conjoined, but separate to the point where there were two sons – one human, one divine. This was diametrically opposed to the orthodox position that the divine and human natures of Christ were united in one hypostasis, or one individual existence.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD condemned the teachings of Nestorius as heretical. The Council affirmed the doctrine that the divine and human natures of Christ were united, so as to be “unconfused, unchanged, undivided, and inseparable.” This Council officially marked Nestorianism as outside of orthodoxy and not a valid expression of Christian doctrine.
However, Nestorianism would continue to gain followers in the coming centuries. This was especially true in the Church of the East, which was centered in the Persian Empire. Many orthodox theologians continued to articulate objections to Nestorian Christology, citing its division of Christ into two separate persons.
Here are some key Bible passages that relate to the debate between Nestorianism and orthodox Christology:
John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This affirms that in the incarnation, the divine Logos truly became human in Jesus Christ. He did not merely “dwell” in a human body.
John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.” This indicates the unity of the Father and Son, challenging notions of their separation.
Philippians 2:6-7 – Christ was “in very nature God” but he “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.” This points to the divine nature of Christ taking on human attributes, rather than the indwelling of a man by a divine being.
Colossians 2:9 – “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” This argues against the Nestorian divide between the divine spirit of Christ and his human bodily existence.
1 John 4:2-3 – John warns against those who deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” The idea that the divine Son of God merely dwelled in Jesus, rather than actually becoming flesh, is equated with “the spirit of the antichrist.”
The essence of Nestorianism was the fundamental separation between the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. Nestorius and his followers could not reconcile that the infinite divine Logos could be fully contained within finite human flesh. But the Scriptures consistently witness to the full humanity of Jesus Christ. He is repeatedly identified as a man – born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), growing in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52), getting tired (John 4:6), weeping at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:35), dying on a cross (Phil. 2:8).
This makes Jesus’ divine identity all the more astounding. The same Jesus who walked and talked, who sweated and suffered – was truly God in the flesh. The author of Hebrews puts it this way: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3). The Nicene Creed also sought to articulate this paradox, describing Jesus Christ as “true God from true God” who “for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became fully human.”
In contrast to Nestorius, the early church emphasized that the person of Christ cannot be divided or separated. Cyril of Alexandria provided this critique: “We do not divide the indivisible… We do not separate the flesh and Godhead from one another… We do not disunite what is united.” The possibility of relationship between God and humanity rests upon the mediation of Christ, fully divine and fully human. Cyril argued strongly against the Nestorians: “If anyone distributes between two characters or persons the expressions used about Christ in the gospels… let him be anathema.”
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD offered the definitive statement of Christology for the early church. The Chalcedonian Definition states that Jesus Christ is “truly God and truly man… acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This affirms that Jesus Christ is one person existing in two natures. There is distinction between his divine and human natures, but no separation.
In the articulation of Chalcedon, “the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person.” It avoids the extremes of either separating or confusing the divine and human aspects of Christ into a mixed third thing. The Definition concludes by stating that Christ is “to be acknowledged as in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.”
The church recognized that finite human terms fail to capture the beautiful mystery of the Incarnation. But in response to Nestorianism, the orthodox position confessed that in Christ, there is both distinction and unity of the divine and human. This upholds the Incarnation as the fundamental event in which God becomes one with humanity in order to redeem and rescue his creation. The eternal Son joined himself to human nature, so that humans could join themselves to the divine.
Beyond the Incarnation, Nestorianism also threatened the meaning of Christ’s saving work. Cyril of Alexandria wrote that according to Nestorius, Christ “bore our sins as a man alone and not as also God-man.” Cyril recognized the devastating implications of this view: “If he was merely a man bearing our sins, then we have no salvation, for how can a mere man save?” The whole logic of the gospel collapsed if Christ merely play-acted at being human.
The church recognized that the atoning work of Christ was only efficacious because the one dying on the cross was truly divine. An ordinary man could not bear the sins of the world, but the God-man could. Because he was fully human, Christ could fairly represent humanity. Because he was fully God, Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite worth and value.
Later Protestant Reformers would heartily agree in their defenses of orthodox Christology against Nestorianism. John Calvin wrote against dividing Christ’s natures: “Heretics separate the natures to such an extent that they make two Christs. Thus they destroy the truth of the incarnation.” The one who bore our punishment was none other than the eternal Son, who shared in the very being of God.
Martin Luther explained the motivation behind Christological heresies like Nestorianism: “Heretics want to be considered Christians and do not want to abandon Christ altogether. Meanwhile they fleece him and diminish his glory in order not to be compelled to live according to his teaching and example.” Luther recognized that reducing Christ to a mere man made his teachings that much easier to ignore.
In summary, Nestorianism was condemned as heresy because it:
– Separated Christ into two persons – one human and one divine.
– Denied the full hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human natures.
– Objected to titling Mary “God-bearer” based on a faulty Christology.
– Reduced the Incarnation to a divine being merely indwelling a human body rather than becoming human.
– Threatened the efficacy of Christ’s atoning work since it was not seen as God himself bearing the sins of the world.
Church History provides helpful context and language for articulating the beautiful mystery and paradox of our one Lord Jesus Christ – truly God and truly man, two natures united inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The boundaries affirmed at Ephesus, Chalcedon, and in the creedal tradition enable us to marvel at the God who is both radically transcendent and intimately incarnate – the Word made flesh who dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.