Chapter 6 — Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II

Estimated reading time: 18–22 minutes

After Chalcedon in AD 451, the church had reached one of its most influential Christological formulations.

Jesus Christ was confessed as:

one person in two natures

truly divine and truly human,

without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

But Chalcedon did not end the controversy.

In fact, the centuries that followed showed that doctrinal definitions often raise new questions.

Three later councils became especially important:

Second Council of Constantinople — AD 553
Third Council of Constantinople — AD 680–681
Second Council of Nicaea — AD 787

Together, these councils addressed very different issues.

Constantinople II revisited unresolved Christological tensions after Chalcedon.

Constantinople III asked whether Christ had one will or two.

Nicaea II dealt with the use and veneration of icons.

These councils are less familiar to many Protestants than Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

Yet they had enormous consequences for the development of historic Christianity.

Constantinople II — AD 553

The Second Council of Constantinople met in AD 553 under the emperor:

Justinian I

Its central concern was not to overthrow Chalcedon.

Rather, it sought to defend a particular interpretation of Chalcedon that would appear more consistent with the theology of Cyril of Alexandria.

The council emerged from continuing division between Chalcedonian Christians and those who believed Chalcedon had moved too far toward the Antiochene tradition.

The Problem After Chalcedon

Chalcedon had affirmed:

one person

in:

two natures.

For many Christians, that formula successfully preserved both Christ’s unity and his full humanity.

But many opponents of Chalcedon remained suspicious.

They feared that “two natures” sounded too much like:

two subjects

or:

two Christs.

They believed the council had left too much room for theology associated with Nestorius.

The Emperor Justinian

Justinian was one of the most powerful Byzantine emperors.

He viewed religious unity as important to imperial stability.

He therefore became deeply involved in theological controversy.

His goal was partly theological and partly political:

reconcile anti-Chalcedonian Christians without abandoning Chalcedon.

This proved extremely difficult.

The Three Chapters

The controversy centered on what became known as:

the Three Chapters

This expression did not refer to three chapters of a book.

It referred to three bodies of theological material associated with Antiochene Christology.

These included:

The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia
Certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus
A letter associated with Ibas of Edessa

These figures were regarded by some as too close to Nestorian theology.

Why Condemn the Three Chapters?

Justinian hoped that condemning these materials would show anti-Chalcedonian Christians that Chalcedon had not endorsed Nestorianism.

The strategy was:

preserve Chalcedon

while:

condemning theologians suspected of dividing Christ too sharply.

The council therefore attempted to reinforce the unity of Christ.

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theodore was one of the most important theologians of the Antiochene tradition.

He died decades before Chalcedon.

He strongly emphasized Christ’s genuine humanity.

But later critics believed his language separated:

the divine Word

from:

the human Jesus

too sharply.

His theology became highly controversial.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus

Theodoret had been a major opponent of Cyril of Alexandria.

He later accepted the Chalcedonian settlement.

Certain earlier writings of his, however, were viewed as strongly anti-Cyrillian.

The council condemned some of these writings rather than condemning every aspect of Theodoret’s later theology.

Ibas of Edessa

A letter associated with Ibas of Edessa also became controversial.

It had criticized Cyril and spoken favorably of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Because Ibas had been restored at Chalcedon, critics feared that condemning his letter might undermine Chalcedon’s authority.

This created a serious ecclesiastical problem.

Did Constantinople II Reject Chalcedon?

No.

The council explicitly intended to defend Chalcedon.

But it interpreted Chalcedon through a strongly Cyrillian lens.

The message was:

Chalcedon must not be interpreted as permitting Nestorian division.

The one Christ remains the one divine Son incarnate.

One of the Council’s Strongest Themes

The council strongly emphasized that:

the one who suffered in the flesh is one of the Trinity.

This was meant to preserve personal unity.

The person who suffered is not:

a separate human person beside the divine Son.

It is:

the Son himself, incarnate.

“One of the Trinity Suffered in the Flesh”

This phrase requires careful interpretation.

It does not mean:

the divine nature itself ceased to be impassible.

It means:

the person who belongs to the Trinity truly suffered according to his human nature.

This is the same logic seen earlier in the communication of properties.

Biblical Support

The New Testament repeatedly speaks this way.

Paul says:

“The Son of God… loved me and gave himself for me.”
— Galatians 2:20

The person is:

the Son of God.

The action is:

self-giving in death.

Likewise:

“They crucified the Lord of glory.”
— 1 Corinthians 2:8

The language supports the unity Constantinople II was trying to protect.

Political Pressure and Papal Tension

The council also became controversial because of conflict with:

Pope Vigilius

Vigilius initially resisted the imperial campaign against the Three Chapters.

He feared that condemning them might appear to weaken Chalcedon.

His position shifted over time under intense pressure.

This episode again shows that councils could involve substantial political coercion.

Why Constantinople II Matters

The council’s lasting significance lies mainly in its clarification that Chalcedon should not be interpreted in a Nestorian direction.

The two natures belong to:

one person

the divine Son.

Thus:

distinction of natures

must never become:

division of Christ.

Constantinople III — AD 680–681

More than a century later, a new Christological controversy arose.

If Christ has:

two natures,

then another question follows:

Does he have one will or two?

This controversy became known as the debate over:

Monothelitism

and:

Dyothelitism.

What Is Monothelitism?

The term comes from Greek words meaning:

one will.

Monothelitism taught, in various forms, that Christ had only:

one will.

This view was proposed partly as a compromise between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christians.

The hope was that Christians might agree:

Christ has two natures

but:

one operative will.

Why the Proposal Seemed Attractive

The empire still suffered from deep Christological division.

Political leaders wanted unity.

If Chalcedonians said:

two natures

and anti-Chalcedonians feared division,

then perhaps one could say:

two natures, but one will.

That might preserve unity while retaining Chalcedon.

In practice, the compromise created another theological problem.

If Christ Has a Complete Human Nature, Does He Need a Human Will?

The opponents of Monothelitism argued:

Yes.

If Jesus lacks a human will, then his humanity is incomplete.

A complete human nature includes:

Human body
Human mind
Human rationality
Human will

Therefore Christ must possess a genuinely human will.

Maximus the Confessor

The most important defender of two wills was:

Maximus the Confessor

Maximus argued that Christ’s full humanity required a human will.

He also insisted that the human will of Christ was not rebellious.

It was perfectly aligned with the divine will.

This became one of the most important insights leading to Constantinople III.

Gethsemane

The biblical text most central to the debate is Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.

Jesus says:

“Not my will, but yours, be done.”
— Luke 22:42

The verse appears to distinguish:

Christ’s human will
The Father’s will

Yet the two are not morally opposed.

Jesus willingly submits.

This became powerful evidence for a genuine human will in Christ.

Does This Mean Two Conflicting Wills?

No.

The council did not teach that Jesus was internally divided between:

a sinful human will

and:

a righteous divine will.

Rather, Christ’s human will is genuinely human yet perfectly obedient.

The distinction is ontological, not sinful.

Hebrews and Obedience

Hebrews says:

“Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.”
— Hebrews 5:8

This language assumes genuine human obedience.

Obedience involves will.

Thus the full humanity of Christ includes real human willing.

Maximus’s Theological Principle

Maximus continued a principle already seen in Gregory of Nazianzus:

What is not assumed is not healed.

If Christ does not assume a human will, then human willing is not fully taken into the incarnation.

For Maximus, this had direct implications for salvation.

The Cost to Maximus

Maximus’s resistance to Monothelitism came at great personal cost.

He was arrested and punished.

According to traditional accounts, his tongue was cut out and his right hand mutilated so that he could no longer speak or write against the imperial theological policy.

He died in exile.

His life illustrates once again how theological disputes in the Byzantine world could become entangled with imperial coercion.

Pope Martin I

Another major opponent of Monothelitism was:

Pope Martin I

He also suffered under imperial authority because of his resistance.

He was arrested, taken to Constantinople, mistreated, and exiled.

This is an important reminder that the relationship between church and emperor was not simply one of cooperation.

Church leaders could resist imperial theology.

The Council’s Decision

The Third Council of Constantinople met in:

AD 680–681

It affirmed that Christ possesses:

Two natural wills
Two natural operations

corresponding to his:

Divine nature
Human nature

The two wills are not opposed.

The human will is perfectly obedient to the divine.

Why Two Wills Follow From Two Natures

The council’s reasoning can be summarized:

If Christ has a full divine nature, he possesses divine willing.

If Christ has a full human nature, he possesses human willing.

Therefore:

two complete natures imply two natural wills.

But because the person is one, the willing remains perfectly harmonious.

Biblical Significance

The doctrine preserves passages where Jesus genuinely:

Obeys
Chooses
Suffers
Prays
Submits

These are not theatrical performances.

They belong to real human agency.

Thus Christ’s humanity is not passive or incomplete.

Christ as the New Adam

This also connects with Paul’s presentation of Christ as the new Adam.

Adam disobeyed.

Christ obeyed.

Paul writes:

“By the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”
— Romans 5:19

For Christ’s human obedience to be meaningful, he must possess a genuine human will.

Constantinople III and Chalcedon

The third council did not replace Chalcedon.

It extended its logic.

Chalcedon said:

two natures.

Constantinople III clarified:

therefore two natural wills.

This became the final major Christological refinement among the first six ecumenical councils.

Nicaea II — AD 787

The Seventh Ecumenical Council addressed a very different controversy.

The issue was no longer primarily:

Who is Christ?

Instead, the question became:

Can Christians use and venerate sacred images?

This was the great controversy over:

icons.

What Is an Icon?

The word:

icon

comes from the Greek:

eikōn

meaning:

image.

In Eastern Christianity, icons are sacred images depicting:

Christ
Mary
Angels
Saints
Biblical scenes

They are used in worship and devotion.

The controversy concerned whether such images were legitimate or idolatrous.

Iconoclasm

Those opposing religious images became known as:

iconoclasts

literally:

image-breakers.

They argued that sacred images violated biblical commandments against idolatry.

Some emperors supported iconoclasm and ordered religious images removed or destroyed.

Iconodules

Those defending icons are often called:

iconodules

or:

iconophiles

meaning those who venerate or favor icons.

They argued that the incarnation changed the theological question.

Since the Son truly became visible in human flesh, Christ can be depicted.

The Second Commandment

The central biblical concern for iconoclasts was obvious.

God commands:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image… You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”
— Exodus 20:4–5

This appears to provide a strong warning against religious images.

The iconoclast argument was:

sacred images risk becoming idols.

But Scripture Also Commands Images

The biblical picture is more complex.

God commanded artistic images in the tabernacle.

Cherubim were placed over the ark.

Exodus says:

“You shall make two cherubim of gold.”
— Exodus 25:18

The temple also contained extensive artistic imagery.

Therefore the biblical prohibition cannot mean:

every religious image of any kind is forbidden.

The issue is more specifically:

idolatrous worship of images.

The Bronze Serpent

The bronze serpent provides an illuminating example.

God commanded Moses to make it.

Numbers says:

“Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole.”
— Numbers 21:8

Later, however, the Israelites began burning incense to it.

King Hezekiah destroyed it.

Why?

Because an originally legitimate object had become an object of improper devotion.

This example is highly relevant to the icon controversy.

The Incarnation Argument

Defenders of icons made a distinctly Christological argument.

Before the incarnation, God was invisible.

But:

“The Word became flesh.”
— John 1:14

Jesus became:

Visible
Tangible
Historically embodied

Therefore depicting Christ’s human appearance did not necessarily deny God’s transcendence.

It could affirm the reality of the incarnation.

John of Damascus

One of the greatest defenders of icons was:

John of Damascus

He lived before Nicaea II and under Muslim rule, outside direct Byzantine imperial control.

This gave him unusual freedom to criticize iconoclastic emperors.

John argued that he did not worship matter.

Rather, he honored the God who had entered material creation through the incarnation.

Matter and Christianity

This became an important theological point.

Christianity does not regard matter as inherently evil.

God created the material world.

The Son became flesh.

Christians use physical elements in:

Baptism
Lord’s Supper
Anointing
Laying on of hands

Therefore physical objects can participate in religious symbolism without becoming gods.

Worship and Veneration

The council made a crucial distinction between:

worship

and:

veneration.

The Greek terms often used are:

latreia

for worship properly due to God alone,

and:

proskynesis

for honor or veneration that can have a broader range of meaning.

The council permitted veneration of icons while reserving worship for God.

“Honor Passes to the Prototype”

Defenders of icons argued that honor given to an image is directed beyond the material object toward the person represented.

For example:

honor shown to an icon of Christ is intended for Christ, not for wood and paint as divine objects.

This became an important theological rationale.

The Council of Nicaea II

The council met in:

AD 787

at:

Nicaea

the same city where the first ecumenical council had met in 325.

It was convened under:

Empress Irene

who acted as regent for her son Constantine VI.

The council restored the legitimacy of icon veneration.

What Nicaea II Affirmed

The council permitted:

Icons of Christ
Icons of Mary
Icons of angels
Icons of saints

It distinguished veneration from divine worship.

The goal was to reject both:

iconoclasm

and:

idolatry.

Why Christ’s Image Was Especially Important

The strongest theological argument focused on Christ.

If Jesus was genuinely human, then he possessed a visible human appearance.

To deny that Christ can be depicted might appear to undermine the reality of the incarnation.

This is why Nicaea II connected image theology with Christology.

But Scripture Never Commands Icons

This is where Protestant criticism becomes important.

The Bible allows artistic imagery.

But it nowhere commands Christians to use devotional icons of Christ or saints.

Therefore Protestants often argue that:

permissibility of art

does not automatically establish:

legitimacy of devotional veneration.

The distinction must be examined carefully.

Roman Catholic Perspective

Roman Catholicism accepts Nicaea II as the seventh ecumenical council.

It permits sacred images and distinguishes:

Adoration owed to God
Veneration offered to saints
Special honor given to Mary

Catholic theology does not officially teach that statues or icons themselves are gods.

Eastern Orthodox Perspective

Nicaea II is especially important in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Icons are deeply integrated into Orthodox spirituality and worship.

They are often described as:

windows into heaven.

The Orthodox defense of icons is strongly connected with incarnation theology.

Protestant Perspective

Protestant reactions vary.

Lutheranism

Many Lutheran churches retained religious art and images.

Anglicanism

Anglican practice ranges from minimal imagery to extensive use of icons and statues.

Reformed Christianity

Reformed traditions have often been much more skeptical.

Some historically removed religious images from churches.

Baptist and Evangelical Traditions

These vary widely, though most reject devotional veneration of images and saints.

Thus Protestantism has no single visual tradition.

Reformation Iconoclasm

During the Protestant Reformation, some communities destroyed statues, paintings, relics, and other religious objects.

They believed these had become instruments of superstition or idolatry.

Other Reformers opposed destruction and retained Christian art.

This controversy shows that the icon question did not disappear after 787.

The Commandment Against Idolatry Still Matters

Whatever one’s position on icons, Scripture’s warning remains absolute:

“You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”
— Matthew 4:10

No image may become an object of divine worship.

No saint may replace Christ.

No material object may become spiritually necessary in place of God.

The Danger of Functional Idolatry

Theological distinctions can be clear on paper while devotional practice becomes less clear.

A person may officially say:

I am not worshiping the image.

But the practical question remains:

What role does the object actually play in the person’s devotion?

This is where pastoral discernment becomes necessary.

The Opposite Danger: Rejecting Material Creation

Icon defenders also raise a legitimate warning.

Christianity should not become suspicious of:

Beauty
Art
Bodies
Material creation

The incarnation affirms that the material world can participate in God’s redemptive purposes.

Thus:

idolatry must be rejected

without:

treating matter itself as evil.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils as a Sequence

The first seven councils can now be seen as a developing theological sequence.

Nicaea I — 325

Is the Son truly divine?

Answer:

Yes.

Constantinople I — 381

Is the Holy Spirit divine?

Answer:

Yes.

Ephesus — 431

Is Christ one personal subject?

Answer:

Yes.

Chalcedon — 451

How are divinity and humanity united?

Answer:

One person in two natures.

Constantinople II — 553

Can Chalcedon be interpreted in a Nestorian way?

Answer:

No.

The one who suffers in the flesh is the divine Son.

Constantinople III — 680–681

Does Christ possess a genuine human will?

Answer:

Yes.

He has divine and human wills corresponding to his two natures.

Nicaea II — 787

Can sacred images be used and venerated?

Answer:

Yes, according to the council, provided worship is reserved for God.

Why the First Seven Councils Matter

These councils became foundational for historic Christianity because they addressed:

Trinity
Christology
Incarnation
Worship
Church practice

Their language still shapes Christian theology today.

Even Christians who have never heard of:

Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II

often hold theological views influenced indirectly by their decisions.

But Their Authority Is Not Understood Equally

Roman Catholicism recognizes the seven as ecumenical and continues to recognize later ecumenical councils as well.

Eastern Orthodoxy generally treats these first seven as uniquely foundational.

Oriental Orthodox churches accept the first three but reject Chalcedon and later Chalcedonian councils.

The Church of the East follows a different conciliar history.

Most Protestants affirm many early doctrinal conclusions but do not regard all seven councils as infallible.

Thus the phrase:

Seven Ecumenical Councils

describes a particular historical tradition, not a universally accepted council list across all Christians.

Scripture and the Later Councils

These councils became increasingly distant from the apostolic period.

That raises an important Berean question.

How should later doctrinal development be evaluated?

The answer cannot simply be:

The council came later, therefore it is false.

Nor:

The council was ecumenical, therefore it must be true.

Instead, each conclusion must be tested.

The Value of Theological Development

Later councils sometimes clarified implications already present in earlier doctrine.

For example:

Chalcedon says:

Christ has two complete natures.

Constantinople III reasons:

complete human nature includes human willing.

That is theological development through inference.

The important question is whether the inference is faithful to Scripture.

The Danger of Theological Development

The same process can also move beyond what Scripture clearly teaches.

This is especially important when later councils address practices not commanded explicitly in Scripture.

Nicaea II therefore raises more difficult questions for many Protestants than Constantinople III.

The distinction between:

legitimate doctrinal clarification

and:

later ecclesiastical addition

becomes increasingly important.

Conversation Partners

Several figures are especially important in understanding these councils.

Justinian I

Justinian sought both theological and imperial unity.

His role illustrates the increasingly close connection between church doctrine and imperial policy.

Maximus the Confessor

Maximus became one of the greatest defenders of Christ’s genuine human will.

His suffering under imperial pressure made him an enduring symbol of theological resistance.

Pope Martin I

Martin resisted Monothelitism and suffered exile for doing so.

His story reminds us that church leaders could oppose imperial religious policy.

John of Damascus

John became the great theological defender of icons.

His argument linked sacred imagery with the reality of the incarnation.

A Historical Pattern Emerges

By the eighth century, a clear pattern had developed.

The church repeatedly faced controversy.

Then:

Theologians argued
Bishops gathered
Emperors intervened
Councils issued definitions
Opponents rejected them
Later generations interpreted the result

This history is neither:

purely spiritual

nor:

purely political.

It is both theological and human.

Berean Reflection

The later ecumenical councils show how theological reflection can become increasingly precise.

Constantinople II guarded the unity of Christ.

Constantinople III guarded the completeness of his humanity.

Nicaea II attempted to distinguish devotional imagery from idolatry.

These are not equally simple questions.

The Christological conclusions of Constantinople III follow naturally from the biblical insistence that Jesus is fully human.

The icon controversy is more complex because Scripture both:

Prohibits idolatrous images
Permits religious art in certain contexts

The Berean must therefore resist simplistic answers.

We should ask:

What exactly is being practiced?

What theological meaning is being claimed?

What does Scripture permit?

What does Scripture forbid?

The councils help us understand how earlier Christians answered these questions.

They do not relieve us of the responsibility to examine the biblical evidence ourselves.

Scripture as Our Final Authority

The later councils achieved important theological clarifications.

Constantinople III’s affirmation of Christ’s genuine human will fits naturally with Jesus’ prayer:

“Not my will, but yours, be done.”
— Luke 22:42

It also fits Hebrews’ description of Christ’s obedience.

Likewise, the incarnation gives Christian theology a strong affirmation of material creation:

“The Word became flesh.”
— John 1:14

But Scripture also gives unmistakable warnings:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image… You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”
— Exodus 20:4–5

and:

“Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.”
— Matthew 4:10

Therefore the Berean conclusion must remain careful.

The councils are valuable witnesses.

They show how generations of Christians tried to protect:

Christ’s full divinity
Christ’s full humanity
The unity of his person
Proper Christian worship

But they remain subordinate to Scripture.

The first seven ecumenical councils brought the ancient church’s great doctrinal debates to a kind of conclusion.

The next major development would be different.

The great question would no longer be only:

What should Christians believe about Christ?

It would increasingly become:

Who possesses authority within the church?

That question would contribute to the widening division between the Christian East and West.

Next Chapter → Chapter 7 — East and West Divide