Anastasius and the Word Theotokos

Nestorius had an associate whom he had brought from Antioch, a presbyter named Anastasius. He held this man in the highest regard and consulted him in managing his most important affairs. One day this Anastasius, preaching in the church, said: “Let no one call Mary Theotokos. For Mary was only a woman, and it is impossible for God to be born of a woman.” These words caused a great stir and troubled many of both clergy and laity. For they had always been taught to acknowledge Christ as God, and on no account to separate his humanity from his divinity because of the plan of the incarnation. They heeded the voice of the apostle when he said, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer,” and again, “Therefore, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” [a]

While, as we have said, great offense was being taken in the church at what had been put forward, Nestorius was eager to establish Anastasius’s proposition, for he did not want the man he esteemed to be found guilty of blasphemy. So he gave several public sermons on the subject, in which he took a combative stand and rejected the title Theotokos altogether. So the question was taken one way by some and another way by others, and the debate that followed divided the church. It was like a fight in the dark, with all sides making the most confused and contradictory claims. In this way Nestorius gained the reputation among the general public of holding the blasphemous teaching that the Lord is a mere man, and of trying to bring into the church the teachings of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. The contention raised such an outcry that it was thought necessary to call a general council to examine the matter in dispute.

I have read the writings of Nestorius myself, and I have found him an unlearned man. I will state frankly my own conviction about him. Just as I have already mentioned his faults, entirely free of personal dislike, so in the same way I will not let the accusations of his opponents lead me to take away from his merits. I cannot, then, grant that he was a follower of either Paul of Samosata or Photinus, or that he denied the divinity of Christ. But he seemed frightened of the term Theotokos, as though it were some terrible bogeyman. In fact, the groundless alarm he showed on this point simply exposed his great ignorance. For since he was a naturally fluent speaker, he was thought to be well educated, but in reality he was disgracefully unlearned. He scorned the hard work of carefully examining the ancient commentators, and, puffed up by his readiness of speech, he paid no attention to the ancients but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was plainly unaware that in the First Catholic Letter of John it was written in the ancient copies, “Every spirit that separates Jesus is not from God.” The mutilation of this passage is due to those who wanted to separate the divine nature from the plan by which he became man; or, to use the very words of the early interpreters, some people have corrupted this letter, aiming at “separating the humanity of Christ from his Deity.” But the humanity is united to the divinity in the Savior, so as to make not two persons but only one. That is why the ancients, made bold by this testimony, did not hesitate to call Mary Theotokos. For this is what Eusebius Pamphilus writes in the third book of his Life of Constantine:

“And in fact ‘God with us’ submitted to be born for our sake, and the place of his birth is called Bethlehem by the Hebrews. Therefore the devout empress Helena adorned the place where the God-bearing virgin gave birth with the most splendid monuments, decorating that sacred spot with the richest ornaments.”

Origen too, in the first volume of his Commentaries on the apostle’s letter to the Romans, gives a full explanation of the sense in which the term Theotokos is used. It is clear, then, that Nestorius had very little acquaintance with the writings of the ancients, and for that reason, as I said, he objected only to the word. For his own published sermons fully show that he does not assert that Christ is a mere man, as Photinus or Paul of Samosata did. Nowhere in these sermons does he do away with the proper personality of the Word of God. On the contrary, he always maintains that the Word has an essential and distinct personality and existence. Nor does he ever deny his real existence, as Photinus and the man from Samosata did, and as the Manichaeans and the followers of Montanus have also dared to do. That, in fact, is how I find Nestorius, both from reading his own works myself and from what his admirers assure me. But this idle quarrel of his has caused no small upheaval among Christians. [f]