Introduction
Our contemporary age is one marked by Christological error. The propensity of independent and individualistic thinkers, in a society where idealistic critical thinking is protected as a right (to which everyone should be grateful), nevertheless allows for resurrection of ancient heresy. One of the great privileges of the church throughout the ages is participation in the defense for an orthodox Christology, come what may. It is experientially frustrating to come across well-meaning Christians who have unwittingly derived their understanding of Scriptures and the Spiritual life by theological and philosophical errors which were previously condemned as heresy. Gnosticism, for example, “Claimed to have a special knowledge that was hidden from most people.”[1] It is true that faith in Christ must be revealed to its recipient by the Holy Spirit,[2] however, cultural movements and prophetic ministries who appeal for “special” revelation, or “enlightened” knowledge which goes beyond theological and philosophical reasoning most typically want to control the narrative and people involved. Proper theology celebrates critical-thinking, whereas a controlled narrative which controls people seeks to build an echo-chamber centered around ideas which must be specially ascertained. Those outside the infrastructure of special revelation simply cannot receive the “truth” of said special knowledge unless they attain it by spiritual means. We observe this today most commonly in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, social gospel liberation theologies, social activism, and a plethora of cults. For this reason, an orthodox Christology is essential to the preaching of the Gospel and evangelism. The church must become familiar and equipped to navigate these relevant conversations.
On the Unity of Christ was written by Cyril of Alexandria during the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus I (431).[3] The early centuries of the church are almost unanimously centered around Christological tensions to rightly appropriate the constitution of Jesus’ person and nature[s]. Question such as, how can corruptible human flesh and divine essence co-mingle together in unity? Does Christ have one nature and two persons? Does Christ have two natures and two persons? Is the humanity of Christ reduced to nothing at the expense of His’ divinity? These were serious inquiries which ultimately added to the division between the Eastern and Western Church, and furthermore, set in motion the historic Councils and Creeds where orthodoxy and heresy clashed. Alas, Nestorius and Cyril we destined to dual, and the implications of this Christological battle would carry on for centuries to come. In this brief exposition of Cyril’s On the Unity of Christ readership will be introduced to the historical context of the document, the documents impact on the church, a brief review of the document, and conclude with some application for the church today.
Historical Context
Cyril of Alexandria was born in 378 and died in 444.[4] Cyril’s life was anything but, uninteresting. He was the nephew of Theophilus, yeah, that Theophilus who reformed against paganism with power. Theophilus literally motivated monks to burn down pagan temples and transform remaining ones into churches; monks were out there flipping tables and causing riots.[5] Great swaths of support for the Alexandrian school of Christianity not only sympathized, but they also cheered and rejoiced at the demise of the enemies of God. The Alexandrian school’s expression of Christianity was famous throughout the region, even to the stature of understanding Rome as their proverbial student.[6] Cyril arrives in Alexandria by the request of Theophilus for educational purposes-so not only does Cyril stand on the shoulders of the Alexandrian greats, “Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Alexander, and Athanasius,”[7] his tutelage is encased with financial, social and political power. There is no doubt about it, Cyril was groomed his whole life for the position and influence he would come to steward.[8] The Alexandrian school was about as good as it ever was, under the leadership of “the great exegete Didymus the Blind and was found to be rich with examination “to prior patristic writings to determine what the tradition was, citing their texts as evidence of ‘the mind of the saints,’”[9] which became exceedingly important for the church later. Cyril put a lot of effort into understanding the writings of Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Gregory the Theologian, which is evident in extensive writings.[10] In 403, “Cyril was ordained lector of the church at Alexandria” until Theophilus’ death in 412, and although contested, Cyril was elected archbishop of Alexandria, a role he would serve for thirty-four years.[11]
These days were filled with political and religious tension. As with his predecessor, Cyril made reform his ambition, which took shape in his war against paganism and Judaism within the city of Alexandria. Not shockingly, Jewish zealots burnt down churches and harmed Christians, leading to a retaliation of Christians burning down synagogues at the approval of Cyril.[12] On another occasion, a popular Neo-Platonist philosopher was taken from her carriage, dragged to a church, and was subsequently stoned to death, and given the wider circumstances, Cyril’s influence led to him being “barred” from civil disputes for a few years.[13] But Cyril was beloved to the overwhelming masses of Alexandria, and he had already been awarded such positive international support that these incidents did not ruin him, whereas it may have ruined others in his position. Alexandria was king of theological opinion at that time, and Cyril lived in a brutal culture who, in modern terms he may have been subject to cancel-culture. Certainly, militant violence from clergy would face scrutiny in our contemporary context. Nevertheless, chronological snobbery would be “naïve,” at best, to dismiss him as a “demagogue, with few, if any, principles.”[14] Afterward, Cyril enjoyed approximately a decade of peaceful leadership, which only strengthened his support, especially from the Egyptian monks.[15]
In 428, the great theological crisis of Cyril’s era emerged. In the previous century a similar Christological debate culminated in the Council of Nicaea. In Know the Creeds and Councils, Justin S. Holcomb indicates that “The orthodox position had always been that Christ was both God and man, and the Council of Nicaea, in 325, had codified this position.”[16] Once again, a need to examine the fundamentals of Christ’ divinity was in order. Enter Nestorius. A man who was serving as a presbyter and head of a monastery in Antioch when Theodosius II made him the bishop of Constantinople in 428.[17] Nestorian came to Constantinople with an ambition to reform what appeared to him to be a loose asceticism, like what some might call cultural-Christianity today.[18] Consequently, he alienated, isolated, and angered pretty much anyone and any chance at support toward the impending theological crisis ahead. According to Holcomb, Ephesus was tied to serious political implications. Holcomb references J.N.D. Kelly, who explains, “’at no phase in the evolution of the Church’s theology have the fundamental issues been so mixed up with in clash of politics and personalities.’”[19] Which helps us understand why debates concerning the essentials of orthodox Christology raged on for centuries.
The controversy was ignited when Nestorian rejected the term, Theotokos (“God bearer”), wanting to implement the Greek word, Christotokos, “in place of Theotokos as a more appropriate title for Mary, for she was the mother of the resultant new person.”[20] Cyril became nemesis to Nestorian, for Cyril had a theological and political tenacity which drove his determination to defend his historical and patristic convictions. Here lies the rub: this whole controversy may have been an example of when both sides were so passionate to defend themselves that they missed what appears to be a misunderstanding, per se. Nestorian’s distinction, for him, was not a denial of Christ’ divinity,[21] rather, it was a distinction he deemed necessary to guard against the potential for making Mary out to be a god herself.[22] However, he did so in effort to defend his perspective which indicated two natures of Christ as separate-which was typical of his Antiochene school perspective.[23] Of course, his big mistake was the implication that if Christ had two natures, he logically must have two persons.[24]
Cyril, on the other hand, defended the term Theotokos as a way of supporting Jesus having two natures in one person. Ferguson writes, “The key text for Cyril’s Christology was John 1:14, ‘The Word became flesh.’”[25] Furthermore, “The self-emptying of the incarnation was a change in the circumstances in which the divine exists, but not a change in divinity itself.”[26] As the conflict grew it was causing dissentions throughout the Christian world. Nestorius was condemned in 430 by a synod in Rome, which led to the ecumenical council of Ephesus in 431.[27] The council was called together by Theodosius II and Valentinian III. But something strange happened. The Syrian bishops were delayed on their arrival, which represented Nestorius’ primary support. On June 22, 431, “with 153 bishops present. Forty more bishops later gave their adherence to the decisions,” the decisions of which included citations and excommunication.[28] Well, the Syrian brothers show up on June 26 and are livid the council didn’t wait for them. Not shockingly, they formed their own council meeting with 43 bishops and a counted vote from the emperor, and retaliated by declaring Cyril excommunicated.[29] Which then ends kind of strange, as well. Imagine good-old Theodosius II, probably appalled, then declares all the relevant excommunications as fitting. He’s feeling good about. Then, Cyril says, “Well, let me send the emperor a gift,” and just like that, the emperor changes his mind, sending Nestorius into exile and Cyril back to his position at Alexandria.[30]
The fundamental difference between Alexandrian and Antiochene theological schools of thought is contrasted well by Ferguson, who wrote, “Church leaders at Antioch gave more emphasis to the humanity of Jesus Christ… [and] The leaders of thought in Alexandria put more emphasis on the divinity of Christ.”[31] Furthermore, the Antiochene thinkers favored “critical, rational inquiry,” while Alexandrian’s emphasized “contemplative piety.”[32] This tension still exists in the church today. Cyril and his Alexandrian supporters won the day. Nestorian, probably falsely accused of “adoptionism” to ensure his disposal, was condemned as a heretic and all his works were burned.[33] Later on, the Council of Chalcedon (451) would find the language to settle Nestorius’ original concerns, but his move toward Christ being two persons sealed his fate as a historically reliable theologian. Most importantly, “by taking a decisive stand for Christ’s being a single person, the church had moved one step closer to a more articulate Christology that helped believers better understand the work of salvation.”[34]
Impact on the Church
Initially, the Syrian Church rejected Nestorius’ excommunication “as having been unjustly condemned.”[35] To show their disapproval, the Syrians said of archbishop Maximian, “not my archbishop,” which led “Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople” disbanding communion with the Syrian church for a few years.[36] However, the unity of the church, especially with its political allegiances was just as much a motivation as God’s command for the church to be unified. Meaning, it should not astound one to find Cyril being willing to hang his hat on a healthy compromise which fostered unity. Unfortunately, unity was short-lived by the Syrian church. John Anthony McGuckin indicates the Council of Chalcedon (451) as the final nail in the coffin of the Syrian position.[37] The victor was clearly Cyril. In 438, he led a royal pilgrimage to Jerusalem where Syrian supporters encountered him and delivered a message. In effect, they reported to Cyril that the East was still fully committed to the teachings of Nestorius, “were still held up as the highest theological authorities, as if the condemnation of Nestorius had meant nothing at all.”[38] Cyril left Jerusalem with a newfound ambition-he had to effectively convince everyone that the teachings of Diodore (Nestorius’ teacher) Theodore, and one’s like Nestorius himself, were in fact inconclusive with Scripture and Tradition. Cyril gave the rest of his life to this purpose, even at risk to his position as bishop of Alexandria.[39] Nevertheless, he prevailed.
In the years to come the fires of Christology would continue to burn. The Synod of Ephesus in 449 was not ecumenical but served to bring a new Christological controversy. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Cyril died in 444) brought the controversy front and center, this time with Eutyches and Monophysitism. Essentially, Eutyches blurred the lines of the nature of Christ into thrice-natures, consequently resulting in the Council of Chalcedon, which dealt specifically with the two natures of Christ.[40] Eutyches rejected Nestorius’ two-person formula, only to advocate for a three-natures formula. At the Synod of Ephesus, Eutyches had won the day, however, two-years later, Chalcedon and its definition reversed the effects of the former. The most important step taken at Chalcedon was the introduction and acceptance of a unifying word named, hypostasis. Hypostasis “declared that the human nature of Christ did not exists as a person without the divine person of the Logos to assume it.”[41] Furthermore, inspired by the late Cyril and late Leo, “The statement “without any confusion, change, division or separation” excludes both Eutychian and Nestorian teachings. Against Eutyches, the creed also says that the union does not destroy the difference between the two natures; there is not a third nature created in the union. Against Nestorius, the definition declares that these two natures are joined into one person. There can be no separation of the two natures, only a union in one hypostasis or person.”[42] The result, Jesus Christ has hypostatic union with the divine essence; namely, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures-fully God, fully man. Then, at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, Justinian hinged his arguments on the Christology of Cyril, which would prove to have the works of Diodore and Theodore finally removed from theological orthodoxy.[43] Near the end of his life, Cyril composed his On the Unity of Christ, of which has been regarded “as one of his most mature theological works.”[44] To this day, the Eastern and Western Churches have never fully reconciled.
Brief Review of On the Unity of Christ
Until Cyril, the real Christological formula had not stood up. As stated above, the earlier formulas had led to a dividing emphasis concerning Jesus’ humanity and divinity; one emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, and the other elevating His’ divinity. John Anthony McGuckin summarizes Cyril’s Christological hermeneutic well, writing:
“Cyril is motivated by a profoundly mystical understanding of the indwelling power of God, one that makes the incarnation of the Logos not merely a theological nicety of dogmatic history, but the primary way in which a Christian person experiences the presence of the Lord and the effects of his deifying grace. This practicality and religious spirit is visible even in those passages where our author makes demands on the philosophical acumen of his readers.”[45]
Cyril’s development of the hypostatic union came from his understanding of the mystical union of Christ and the human experience to participate with Christ’ indwelling union for two reason: (1) To make a distinction such as Nestorius’ fault did not align with the truth of Christ dwelling in us by the Spirit; and (2) Nestorius’ vision “did not convey enough of the power and intimacy of the “Union” between divinity and humanity, or its effects on the human nature, which Cyril saw to be the very heart and central purpose of the whole scheme of the incarnation. In short, for Cyril the primary message of the incarnation was not about the discrete relationship of God and man, but nothing less than the complete reconciliation of God and Man in Jesus.”[46] Cyril believed the intimate union of the humanity and divinity of Christ was so central to the sanctification and transfiguration “of Christ disciples,” that “for the redeemed person, union with God would not cramp individuality but rather liberate personhood and enhance it.”[47] Over and against modern psychology, Cyril believed true personhood was not found in the “material based consciousness, but on the contrary, consciousness was the effect of a divinely created personhood.”[48] For Cyril, the hypostatic union involves:
“The person of the Logos is the sole personal subject of all the conditions of existence, divine or human. The Logos is, needless to say, the sole personal subject of all his own acts as eternal Lord, but after the incarnation the same one is also the personal subject directing all his actions performed within this time and space, embodied acts which form the context of the human life of Christ… He approached personhood with a God-given and transcendent mystery, with the full destiny of such an identity lying in another age and another condition: the Kingdom of God”[49]
For Cyril, the divine Logos in the union of Jesus’ humanity and divinity held utmost importance for human participation in their union with Christ. Essentially, in the person of Jesus Christ divinity and humanity created a union for Christ to participate and sympathize with the human experience and for humanity to participate in a very real reconciliation with God and to experience the mystery of God’s presence in Christ.[50] Meaning, “In other words, neither the deity or humanity of Christ was diminished by the incarnation, but both were, in a real sense, “developed” by the experience: the humanity ontologically and morally so, the divinity economically so.”[51] Alas, Nestorius’ vision to keep the two-natures separate destroyed the intimacy of the indwelling union of Christ as fully God, and fully man. There was no need to conflate the human experience with the divine experience. Rather, Christ could experience the human plight of suffering and death and “not become dominated by suffering or death. It is the same with His deity as with humanity: the conditions of the one do not wipe out the distinct realities of the other, even though there is a dynamic mutual experience passing between the two.”[52] The result of Cyril’s Christological formula, as detailed throughout, was very successful. One the Unity of Christ accomplishes its goal. Even though it was written toward the end of his life, one will find Cyril’s name and work on every major Christological victory in the immediate centuries after his death. Again, it has been regarded “as one of his most mature theological works.”[53] As much as it would be great to assume On the Unity of Christ as merely a historical foundation for Christology, the church today is still rampant with previously condemned Christological heresies.[54]
Conclusion
Today, On the Unity of Christ has just as much relevance and application as it did in the early church. From academic theology to social justice, from church ecclesiology to missiology, and every function and structure of the church, one’s formula for Christology informs every aspect of methodology and application. In respects with what has been written above, we will conclude with, (1) why this document is relevant to the church today, and (2) what can the church learn from this document for today.
Simply put, the contemporary Western Church is laden with Christological re-envisioned heresies. Remember, the primary stumbling block which all the early heretics shared was an overemphasizing of the humanity or divinity of Christ at the expense of the other. For example, liberation or the social gospel theology esteems the humanity of Christ. By prioritizing the humanity of Christ above the divinity of Christ, social goodness becomes the central duty of the church, even at the expense of other Scriptures. As McGuckin conveys:
“It is certainly the case that, in European literature of the last hundred years Cyril has been degenerated both as a thinker and as a person, in ways that suggests unspoken doctrinal battles are being waged behind the front of historical scholarship. In several influential modern studies, the Antiochene tradition which Cyril attacked (that of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius) has been offered as a legitimate and ancient part of an authentically pluralist Christian vision, and Cyril has been censored as one who arrogantly crushed it.”[55]
Nevertheless, the hypostatic union Christological formula prevents one from elevating the humanity or divinity above and/against the other. As we have seen, the Logos is the subject which bridges infinite harmony between the two natures of the one person in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the works of the church compliment the truth of God’s Word. Meaning, goodness toward humanity harmonizes with God’s moral law and structure for the church to relate toward the social dynamics of the human experience. Therefore, it is both good and right to show goodness toward humanity while simultaneously presenting the whole Gospel. There is no need to dismiss general acts of goodness toward humanity or dismiss God’s design for Christian’s to grow in holiness according to the Word. Controversial as it may be, goodness toward humanity is an overflow of grace, however, goodness at the expense of God’s gracious commands is not truly goodness according to the plan of God. McGuckin’s observation is relevant because without the hypostatic union clarifying the one person and two natures of Jesus Christ, then any manner of the humanity or divinity may be twisted to suit one’s own corrupt vision for theological methodology. Rather, hypostatic union stands up amidst error, invites humanity to participate with the presence of Christ by the mystery of the indwelling Holy spirit, so that humanity may experience true reconciliation and union with God in in the person of Christ. The result of such a union, none other than an appropriate relation of goodness toward humanity, while simultaneously upholding the truth of God in Word and deed.
The Church, foremost, may learn from Cyril’s On the Unity of Christ given its relevant and profoundly insightful Christological analysis. As explored in brief above, one of the fundamental distinctions between the Eastern and Western schools of theology is contrasted by observing the Antiochene school of theology versus the Alexandrian school of theology. The Antiochene school emphasized the humanity of Christ and favored “critical, rational inquiry.””[56] The Alexandrian school emphasized the divinity of Christ and “contemplative piety.”[57] Prior to Cyril, both schools of thought had a propensity to favor the humanity or the divinity at the expense of the other, respectively. It is no small task achieved by Cyril and the men who followed in their footsteps. The hypostatic union made sense of humanity and divinity of Christ and the human relationship in Trinitarian union and communion. From this foundation all other theological doctrines progress on a solid foundation. Getting Christology right matters because it effects the entire life and godliness of the church. And in the spirit of Cyril of Alexandria, this is not about right doctrine alone, it is about participating in our reconciliation and union with God; namely, our communion with Christ by the mystery of the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, would the real Christological formula please stand up and guide the church back to orthodoxy.
[1]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Heretics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 33. Print.
[2]ESV. English Standard Version. Wheaton, ILL: Crossway, 2001. John 3:5-6. Print: “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’”
[3]Cyril of Alexandria. Translation and Introduction by John Anthony McGuckin. One the Unity of Christ. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995. P. 39. Print.
[4]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 11, 31.
[5]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 10.
[6]Ibid., McGuckin. Pp. 9, 10.
[7]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 10.
[8]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 11.
[9]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 11.
[10]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 11.
[11]Ibid., McGuckin. Pp. 11, 12.
[12]Ibid., McGuckin. Pp. 12, 13.
[13]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 13, 14.
[14]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 14.
[15]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 15.
[16]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 41. Print.
[17]Everett Ferguson. Church History, Vol. I: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2013. P. 259. Print.
[18]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 259.
[19]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 42.
[20]Ibid., Ferguson. Pp. 259, 260.
[21]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 19.
[22]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 260.
[23]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 133.
[24]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 133.
[25]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 260.
[26]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 260.
[27]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 261.
[28]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 261.
[29]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 261.
[30]Ibid., Ferguson. Pp. 261, 262.
[31]Ibid., P. 256.
[32]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 256.
[33]Ibid., P. 48.
[34]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 50.
[35]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 28.
[36]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 28. Emphasis Added.
[37]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 28.
[38]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 29.
[39]Ibid., McGuckin. P. P. 29.
[40]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 54.
[41]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 57.
[42]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 57.
[43]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 30.
[44]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 30.
[45]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 33.
[46]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 34.
[47]Ibid., McGuckin. Pp. 35, 37.
[48]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 41.
[49]Ibid., McGuckin. Pp. 40-41.
[50]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 42.
[51]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 42.
[52]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 44.
[53]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 30.
[54]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 46-47.
[55]Ibid., McGuckin. P. 47.
[56]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 256.
[57]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 256.