Cyril of Alexandria for Academia

8/10/2019 Cyril of Alexandria for Academia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cyril-of-alexandria-for-academia 1/12

A Critical Assessment of St Cyril of Alexandria’s “On the Unity of Christ,” and its

Significance for Patristic and Modern Theology

The work of St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, is primarily focussed on Christology. He is possibly most

famous for his part in the Nestorian controversy, where he argued that Θεοτόκοσ (God-bearer) is an

appropriate and necessary title for Mary. One of his well-known works is “On the Unity of Christ” ,

and this essay will present a critical assessment of its arguments and assess its significance for

Patristic theology and for Christianity today. 1

In order to do this, it will explore the historical and theological background and context leading up to

“On the Unity of Christ” being written . It will then examine three of Cyril’s main arguments

presented in the text: the legitimacy of the title of Θεοτόκοσ , the heretical nature of Nestorian

Christology, and the communication of attributes. This essay will assess the reasoning provided for

each of these conclusions within the context. Finally, it will briefly examine how this work fits into

the development of Patristic theology, and see why it is important for theologians today.

Firstly, the historical and theological emergence of the Nestorian controversy shall be examined, to

give context for Cyril’s arguments . The Nestorian controversy inherited many problems which

resulted from the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople which “has itself created the conditions that

demanded a clearer resolution of Christological doctrine”. 2 In the Council of Nicaea, both the

Ebionites, who denied the divinity of Jesus, and Docetists, who deny the humanity of Jesus, are

deemed heretical, meaning that any future Christological attempt would have to accommodate both

humanity and divinity. 3

1 St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ , trans. John McGuckin (Chrestwood, New York: St Vladimir’sSeminary Press, 1995), 49-79.2

John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: the Christological Controversy, its History, Theology, and Texts (NewYork: E.J. Brill, 1994), 21.3 Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind (London: Random House, 2011), 182.



In the fourth century, the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools develop, with much animosity

between the two. 4 Both schools had very distinct Christologies, with the Alexandrians wanting to

emphasise the Divinity, with a λόγοσ -ςάρξ (Word-flesh) view. Athanasius, one of their most

prominent thinkers particularly wants to resist the notion that Christ is merely the divine Logos

(λόγοσ ) indwelling a complete human, saying that this would then be simply a divinely inspired

human – like a prophet. 5 Conversely, the Antiochenes believed that Christ was fully human and that

the divine logos lived within him, emphasising the humanity of Christ, employing a λόγοσ -ανθρωποσ

(Word-human) perspective. 6 So, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a prominent Antiochene, argued that the

divine logos indwelt the fully human person, Jesus. 7

The Patriarchy of Constantinople became vacant in 428 and Nestorius became Patriarch. 8 In his first

year, he preached sermons at Christmas time, arguing that the title Θεοτόκοσ (God-bearer) was

inappropriate for Mary, with radical Antiochenes wanting to call her ανθρωπόκοσ (man-bearer),

“propagating Antiochene theology”. 9 He followed his teachers, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore’s

classically view, presenting Christ as having two natures, one fully human and one fully divine, but

separate and not in union. So, Nestorius believed that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, and then

the logos indwelt this man, becoming conjoined – hence, he believed the term Θεοτόκοσ is highly

inappropriate. 10 His solution to this problem was to deny both titles, and instead called Mary

Χριςτοτόκοσ (Christ-bearer).

In 412, Cyril was made Patriarch of Alexandria. 11 Shortly after Nestorius gave his sermons, Cyril saw

his opportunity to recover Alexandria’s superiority over Antioch and wrote a letter to the Egyptian

4 Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 61.5 Daniel Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1991), 170-171.6 Ibid., 171.7 McGuckin, Cyril , 21-22.8 Ibid., 21.9

Ibid., 27.10 Cyril, Unity , 69.11 Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (London: Routledge, 2000), 3.



monks warning them of Nestorius’ views, ensuring that copies reach ed Constantinople. 12 A copy

reached Nestorius who preached a sermon in response – thus leading to a series of letters between

the two. 13 This soon became an international controversy, and pressure built up in Constantinople,

causing Nestorius to ask the Emperor to call an ecumenical council , which “would de facto take

precedence over the local synods of Rome and Alexandria” .14

The council was held in Ephesus where Cyril opened proceedings and excommunicated Nestorius

before his supporters, led by John, Patriarch of Antioch, could arrive; but when John arrived, he, in

turn, excommunicated Cyril. 15 In an attempt to resolve this, “the emperor decided to hold a colloquy

of theological experts” of both sides but this also proved inconclusive. 16 Nestorius eventually “lost

his stomach for a fight” and asked to be “allowed to return to his monastery near Antioch”, and Cyril

returned to Alexandria “to a triumphant welcome”. 17 Overall, the council was unsuccessful – the

only slight victory for Cyril was that the Eastern Church put out a statement that they had accepted

Θεοτόκοσ .

Although Nestorius retired into monasticism, many of his followers, the Nestorians, still held his

beliefs. In the last years of his life, Cyril wrote “On the Unity of Christ”, in an attempt to tackle the

views of this theological remnant.

Now that the historical and theological context has been explored, this essay will offer a critical

assessment of the reasoning Cyril presents in “On the Unity of Christ”. Firstly, Cyril’s reasoning used

towards the conclusion that Θεοτόκοσ should be used as a title for Mary, rather than Χριςτοτόκοσ,

as the Nestorians claim will be examined.

12 McGuckin, Cyril , 33.13 Ibid., 33-49.14 Ibid., 38- 39; John McGuckin, “Introduction,” in On the Unity of Christ (Chrestwood, New York: St Vladimir’sSeminary Press, 1995), 23.15

Ibid., 23; Russell, Cyril , 46-51.16 Ibid., 51.17 Ibid., 51.



Cyril’s main argument for using Θεοτόκοσ is that it is a necessary requirement for the divine logos to

be born “according to the flesh” in order to be capable of death, and so He could be raised and, in

doing so, enabling the “resuscitation of the dead” and the “revitalisation of human bodies”. 18 It also

highlights the unity of Christ. So, here, Cyril is arguing that in order for Christ to die, Christ needs to

be physically born of a woman as anyone else capable of dying must be – hence “the death of the

one who knew not death… evidently and entirely depended on birth from a woman”. 19

The obvious question that arises here is that if Christ needed to be born naturally in order to save

humanity, then why was He not required to be conceived naturally too? Cyril recognises that for

many this is an important question, especially since “God did not hold the marriage bed in

dishonour”. 20 Cyril’s answer is that “the Son… was made man, in order to reconstitute our condition

wit hin himself” and hence was not conceived sexually, “so that he could trace a path for grace to

come to us, ” enabling “intellectual regeneration and spiritual assimilation to himself ,” and hence

remains “free of corruption as no longer owing our first father, that is Adam, in whom we were

corrupted”. 21 So, Cyril believes that Christ is not conceived sexually, so that He does not inherit the

Original Sin passed down through conception, from Adam.

However, there seems to be a flaw in Cyril’s logic here. He argues that the logos necessarily has to be

born of Mary, because if He is not born, then He cannot die, and hence cannot be raised and enable

the salvation of humanity. But, by the same logic, a necessary prerequisite of being born in a human

way is bein g conceived in a human way. Obviously, it is a legitimate argument that, due to God’s

omnipotence, the logos could have been conceived via the Holy Spirit and born of Mary, but Cyril

seems to argue that Christ emphatically is required to be born “of the flesh” in order to die, as if He

has to follow the natural human progression, which evidently does not happen with conception and

18 Ibid., 62.19

Ibid., 59-62.20 Ibid., 62.21 Ibid., 62-63.



birth. Despite this, Cyril’s attempt to defend the Θεοτόκοσ title is very persuasive, especially in its

historical context.

Secondly, Cyril’s critique of the Nestorian perception of the Incarnation will be evaluated. Nestorians

believe that the logos “assumed a man of the line of the divine David and Abraham, and took care to

form him in the Holy Virgin and then conjoined himself t o him”, made him die, raised him and sat

him “at the right hand of God” – however, Cyril believes that this means Nestorians are “speaking in

vain” in saying that “God became man”. 22 Cyril bases his incarnational Christology on the Johannine

verse, “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14) and hence believes that Nestorians “have turned the

mystery of the economy in the flesh completely on its head” because, by their argument, “o ne

cannot see how God the Word” assumed “the form of a slave”. 23 He actually thinks that they have

reversed John’s incarnational statement, as they seemingly deify one particular man, and exalt him

“into the glory of the Godhead and the pre -eminence over all things”. 24 Cyril goes on to argue that,

in doing this, the Nestorians are pushing the Only Begotten Word out, and replacing Him with this

creature that they claim had become conjoined to Him – posing the question that if this man is

seated “alongside the Father”, then “where would the Only Begotten position his own throne after

this?” 25

He also points out that it becomes hard for the Nestorian to say that the Only Begotten was the

Saviour of the World but rather, He seems to “have been the Patron or Promoter of the man by

whom we were saved”, meaning that they are presenting this man as “the fulfilment of the law and

the prophets”. 26 It goes against Paul, for whom Cyril has such high regard due to his classical

Christology, and the Bible more widely, to believe that “such a man, who is not God truly or by

nature, should parade himself in a div ine situation”. 27 This teaching, in Cyril’s opinion, “represents

22 Ibid., 69-70.23 Ibid., 69-70.24 Ibid., 70.25

Ibid., 70.26 Ibid., 70.27 Ibid., 71.



the ultimate in sacrilege and impiety”, and turns the “most holy worship” into “nothing more than

the idolatry of a man”, with the Nestorians stealing “the worship from Him who is really the Son, and

persuade us to worship someone conjoined to Him in some kind of relationship, instead”. 28 This man

“has only been given the external appearances of deity by God’s will as if they were external

decorations, but someone who is not God in truth”. 29

This is a strong critique from Cyril, showing how the Nestorian concept of the incarnation clearly

goes against the Johannine idea. One potential problem here, however, is that Cyril does not explore

what John means by “flesh”. Does it mean that God literally became ςάρξ (flesh) which is most

commonly used negatively in the New Testament, with N.T. Wright commenting that it is merely a

“description of physicality ”, or does it mean that He became human or even humanity as a whole? 30

It is possible that Cyril is here following the classic Alexandrian λόγοσ -ςάρξ Christology, which would

mean that he believed “flesh” meant a sinful human. However, this is mere speculation, and Cyril’s

omission of an explanation of “flesh” is a flaw in his argument.

Cyril also believ es it very important to critique the Nestorians’ use of the word “conjunction” rather

than the customary and conventional term “union”, which “comes down to us from the holy

Fathers”. 31 Cyril believes that the use of this term, in particular, highlights the foolish nature of the

Nestorian’s interpretation of the incarnation. He argues that a “conjunction” with the logos is not

“enough to allow him to grasp the proper glory of God and rise above the bounds of the created

order” or to make “him an object of worship” by citing two biblical references. 32 Firstly of someone

singing to God, “My soul is bound to you” (Psalm 63:8); and, also Paul saying that “Whoever is bound

to the Lord is one spirit with him”. 33 Obviously, neither show someone being deified or becoming an

object of worship. A conjunction is, after all, “something that any other man could have with God”

28 Ibid., 71-72.29 Ibid., 71-72.30 N.T. Wright, “ Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity ,” accessed October 22, 2013,http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm . 31

Cyril, Unity , 73.32 Ibid., 73.33 Ibid., 73.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm





with Cyril using two further examples of a discipl e who “could be said to ‘attach’ himself to a teacher

in terms of love of study”, and “when someone assists another in a task” they could be considered to

have been “conjoined by will to the one who receives his assistance.” 34 Whilst these examples are

perhaps a little weak and too metaphorical, they do show a deep weakness in Nestorians’

incarnational system.

Through both his systematic critique of how the Nestorian approach goes against the Johannine

incarnational quote, “The Word became flesh”, and his attack on their use of “conjunction”, Cyril

thoroughly and effectively explains why the Nestorian explanation of the incarnation is invalid. As

said previously, there are some deficiencies in Cyril’s argumen ts, but this does not prevent them

from successfully arguing against the Nestorians.

Now, this essay will examine Cyril’s reasoning towards his affirmation of a communication of

attributes ( communicatio idiomatum ). Nestorians would have believed that although Christ suffers,

and has human attributes, these belong to Christ’s humanity, an d because they believed that the

humanity and divinity were conjoined, but not in union, these attributes remain strictly with the

humanity, and so are not communicated to the divinity – however, Cyril is arguing against this.

Christ “emptied himself, assu ming the form of a slave … he humbled himself becoming obedient

even to death”. 35 He did not “disdain the poverty of human nature” and “thought it good to be made

man and in his own person to reveal our nature honoured in the dignities of the divinity”. 36 In talking

of Christ becoming incarnate, one “also implies all those other things that are economically brought

to bear on the one who willin gly suffered this ‘emptying out’, as for example hunger and tiredness” ,

which means that through the incarnation, the human attributes of hunger and tiredness are

communicated to God. 37 Whilst saying that God sinned is something that Cyril is keen to avoid, he

upholds that one of the attributes which is communicated is the susceptibility to sin, but this is “in

34 Ibid., 74.35

Ibid., 54-55.36 Ibid., 55.37 Ibid., 56.



order that he might bring sin to an end” – one of the purposes of the incarnation espoused through

the communication of attributes. 38

Another purpose of the incarnation realised through this communication of attributes is that “ he

took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was his”, so that “we might be

enriched by his poverty” (2 Cor inthians 8:9). 39 This is necessary for the incarnation, according to Cyril

for, “if he who is rich does not impoverish himself… then we have not gained his riches but are still in

our poverty, still enslaved by sin and death.” 40 This line of thinking heavily echoes that of Athanasius,

also an Alexandrian, with his famous line that "God became man so that man might become a

god". 41 So, Cyril has managed to develop a good argument showing that the communication of

attributes is possible, and this is important not merely for his Christological model but also for

salvation as a result of the incarnation.

So, despite containing some weaknesses, Cyril’s arguments are generally very strong. All of them

have the strong theme that the incarnation in this way is necessary for the redemptive salvation of

humanity.

Now that this essay has examined Cyril’s reasoning in three of his main conclusions, it will briefly

examine its significance in Patristic theology and in modernity. This text, and Cyril’s Christology as a

whole, is most significant in Patristic theology because it cleared up the Christological ambiguity that

existed in the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea. Nicaea formulated that in the incarnation, Christ

was both fully human and fully divine – however this blatantly left a lot of scope for imagination.

Whilst Nestorius and other theologians of the period such as Apollinaris are deemed heretical, both

have the intention of creating an Christological formula staying inside Nicene orthodoxy, due to its

ambiguous nature.

38 Ibid., 57.39 Ibid., 59.40

Ibid., 59.41 St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, On the Incarnation (New York: St Vl adimir’s Seminary Press, 2011),93.



What Cyril managed to do, is to create a Christological formula, which both follows the Nicene

Creed, and is also Biblical – especially using “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) – thus emphasising

the indivisible unity of full humanity and full divinity. Because of his work in “On the Unity of Christ”

and elsewhere, he was hugely influential in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Chalcedonian Creed

held that Christ is, “perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man” and is

“for us and for our salvation… born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God”, and is “to be

acknowledged in two natures, in-confusedly, unchangeably, indivis ibly, inseparably.” 42 Very

evidently, this has been greatly influenced by the work of Cyril, as presented in “On the Unity of

Christ”, and without his work, it is question able that the Council of Chalcedon would have reached

this conclusion.

In more contemporary Christian theology, two of Cyril’s issues which have become more prominent

are of Christ’s self -emptying, kenosis, and of the communication of attributes. William Witt

comments that some contemporary Roman Catholics, such as Hans Küng, Elizabeth Johnson and

Roger Haight are very Nestorian in their belief that God was making decisions in and for Christ – thus

denying the communication of attributes which Cyril presents. 43 Some modern Christologies which

are more similar to that of Cyril are to be found in kenotic Christologies. One modern theologian to

note is E.L. Mascall, whose Christology allows for the communication of attributes, especially of

knowledge, but develops Cyril’s thought slightly by arguing that Christ knows all that “is p ossible for

a human mind to know.” 44 Some even more modern theologians, such as H.C. Sproul develop this

kenotic theory further. 45

42 “The Chalcedonian Definition: Agreed at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 ,” Early ChurchTexts, accessed October 23, 2013,http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/chalcedonian_definition.shtml . 43 William Witt, “ The Christology of Cyril of Alexandria and Its Contemporary Implications ,” accessed October23, 2013, http://willgwitt.org/the-christology-of-cyril-of-alexandria/ . 44 E.L. Mascall, Christ, the Christian and the Church: A study of the Incarnation and its Consequences , (London:Longmans, Green and Co., 1946), 56-58.45

R.C. Sproul, “How Could Jesus be both Divine and Human,” Online Christian Theological Virtual Library,accessed October 23, 2013, http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-How-Could-Jesus-Be-Both-Divine-and-Human.htm .

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/chalcedonian_definition.shtml


http://willgwitt.org/the-christology-of-cyril-of-alexandria/



http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-How-Could-Jesus-Be-Both-Divine-and-Human.htm










What is also important to note is that Cyril’s theology is still very important in Christian theology

today in the same way that it was in the late-Patristic period. It clears up the ambiguity of

Christology left from the legacy of Nicaea and allows Christians, even today, to think of Christ in a

correct, orthodox manner.

This essay has now placed the text, “On the Unity of Christ” is its historical and theological context,

has analysed the reasoning used to accomplish three of its most significant conclusions, and has

assessed its importance in Patristic and contemporary theology. As a result of this study, it seems

clear that, d espite there being some flaws in Cyril’s work, it is a solid critique of the Nestorian

perspective, and develops a Christological model based in the Johannine verse, “ the Word became

flesh”, which, very importantly, enables salvation through the incarnatio n. This essay has shown that

in the Patristic period, this text and Cyril’s argument as a whole, were very important in the

aftermath of the Council of Nicaea and enabled the formulation of the Chalcedonian Creed and

continues to have many implications for Christian theology today.



Wright, N.T. “Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity.” Accessed October 22, 2013.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm .




Cyril of Alexandria for Academia

Documents

Transcript of Cyril of Alexandria for Academia