Many studies and books have been published on the different Christologies of the fifth-century. The intense clashes that occurred between the powerful See of Constantinople, with its Bishop Nestorius, and the theological powerhouse, that is the See of Alexandria, with its Bishop Cyril, indeed makes for interesting literature. However, this paper will seek to pinpoint a few of the main points and methods used by Saint Cyril, who ultimately came out victorious, in his defense of Orthodoxy.1 In order to understand Saint Cyril, and the approaches he uses, one must first understand the context and reason for his writing. Therefore, a survey of the opposing Christology of the time will be presented, then, once the reason for Cyril’s zeal is explained, this paper will contrast his fundamental argument with that of Nestorius, whose writings are not as readily available in English as Cyril’s causing the Author to use secondary sources2 to gain insight into his thought. From there the paper will discuss Cyril’s use of ‘economy’ to explain the Lord’s suffering, his use of scripture and analogies to support his point, and his seeming compromise after the Council of Ephesus. It is the opinion of this author that Saint Cyril was not as interested in making a concrete formulaic expression as he was in preserving the orthodoxy of his predecessors and insisting on the single subjectivity of Christ and what that means for humanity’s salvation.

• For a more in-depth study of the Christological controversy of the fifth century, including analysis of both Cyril and Nestorius’s respective Christology, see John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004).

² Primarily the chapter entitled “The Christology of Nestorius” in John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004).

As mentioned earlier, in order to contextualize Saint Cyril’s writings, one must understand the great danger he saw in the rise of, in his opinion, Antiochene Two Sons Christology.3 He saw in Nestorius’ teaching a division in the Incarnate Word of God due to Nestorius’ insistence on using the term “two prosopa,” also concluding two hypostases, in the one prosopon of the historical Christ. This raised a red flag for Cyril, and it is at this point that a definition for prosopon, hypostasis, and physis must be given in order to understand why this concerned him so much. The word “physis,” for a large portion of the world at this time, had meant nature in the sense of physical characteristics pertaining to a corresponding essence. However, prior to the fourth century4, the word “physis” for the Alexandrians, and earlier Christians, had meant something similar to a concrete individual reality. This meaning was subsequently developed for the word “hypostasis” by the Cappadocian Fathers5 in their fight to express how the Trinity is three in one. They had successfully developed “hypostasis” to mean a concrete individual rather than its previous meaning of nature or essence. Finally, “prosopon” meant the observable manifestation of a “ physis,” in the modern sense of the word.6 It is through the various uses of individual words that alarmed both Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius believed that if there was a nature then it must be hypostatized, or have a prosopon, for it to be real. Hence his concern when Cyril says that Christ is one hypostasis, meaning one individual reality, while for Nestorius it means a composite nature. Similarly, Nestorius’ use of prosopon to

• Cyril of Alexandria, “The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 270 and passim; Cyril of Alexandria, “The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 352-353.

⁴ McGuckin, Cyril of Alexandria, 138-151.

⁵ i.e. Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa

⁶ See John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 138-151.

both speak of the two realized natures, or two prosopa, of God and man and the one prosopon of Christ which is the result of the union by grace, or honor, of the two, led Cyril to believe that Nestorius does not truly believe in a single subject center. This conclusion by Cyril was also supported by Nestorius’ heavy delineation between the Godhead and the humanity of the Christ along with his preferred terminology of “conjunction,” “indwelling,” and, perhaps most troubling for Cyril, “the man Jesus.” However, it is apparent that Nestorius did not in fact mean to say that Christ was two individuals, rather he stated that “God the Logos, and the man in whom he came to be, are not numerically two, for the prosopon of both was one in dignity and honor.”7 Though the mere fact that he said “the man” gave rise to heavy criticism from Cyril, as was said earlier, since the implication of the phrase is that the Word was united, as by God’s grace (kat’ eudokian) alone or through love, to a normal man, as when he says “I venerate the one who is borne on account of the one who bears him. I worship the one who is visible on account of the one who lies hidden.”8 This implication, coupled with his insistence that if Christ was to be thought of as human then this humanity must have hypostatized separately to that of the Word of God, leading Nestorius to claim the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for Saint Mary heretical instead opting for Mother of Christ (Christotokos), was enough for Cyril and the Council at Ephesus to condemn and depose him.

Therefore, having explained the cause of worry for Cyril, the focus will now turn to the underlying motivations for both Cyril and Nestorius, with more of an emphasis on Cyril. Starting with Nestorius, one can see that he was mainly focused on making sure that the theological terminology is consistent and, more or less, rigidly followed. This is shown

• Ibid., 164.
• Nestorius, “The Synodical Deposition of Nestorius,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 372.

by his insistence that the use of human nature (physis) must bring about a human prosopon or hypostasis, as previously mentioned, in an adherence to the logical succession of the terms. However, in his attempt to enforce his way of thinking he was willing to throw out the ancient phraseology by which believers understood the faith, mainly the role of the Theotokos and the fact that God the Word is said to have suffered in the flesh for humanity’s salvation. His emphasis on using specific terms for the Logos, the man Jesus, and the “prosopon of union” in Christ, who alone could have both human and Godly actions attributed to him, illustrated the rigid disparity he saw in Christ. In order to be orthodox, in his opinion, one must stay clear of ascribing things that pertain, strictly speaking, to one reality when speaking of the other, such as saying the Logos was involved in the suffering, or that the man Jesus walked on water, it is more precise, rather, to use the term Christ. Thus, to Nestorius, the two realities of God and man must be distinguished such that there can be no appearance of interchange between the two. The man Jesus was formed in the womb and then the Word indwelt in him, by this the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Christ, but not the Mother of God since he was not the one conceived in the womb, all the while, the two realities (prosopa) are manifested as one prosopon in the historical Christ. This required one to be rather theologically astute and able to follow the complexity of the distinction in the unity, a feat outside the capability of the common believer, leading to confusion instead of clarity.

In contrast to Nestorius, Cyril was primarily concerned with how the orthodox believer is to understand the unity, using many analogies and phrases in order to drive home his point. He was less concerned with the paradoxical nature of his word flow as he was with emphasizing the “ineffable mystery” of the union.9 He vehemently insisted that there was

• Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s

no “man Jesus” and no dual realities. Cyril instead made the case for one hypostasis (single subject), that of the Word of God made man in which God the Word appropriates for himself humanity, making it one with him, body and rational soul.10 This, for him and the Alexandrians before him, was the way in which humanity is able to achieve salvation and perfection, coherently tying Christology to soteriology and following both Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian before him who emphatically stated that “God was made man so that man might become god” and “what He (the Logos) has not assumed, He has not healed; but that which united to His Godhead is also saved,” respectively.11 Cyril would consistently follow this train of thought throughout his writings when he speaks of “the economy of salvation.”

The “Economy,” as used by Cyril, explains both the reason and method of the incarnation. Rev. Dr. John McGuckin summarized Cyril’s definition by describing it as the fact that “the incarnation was a restorative act entirely designed for the ontological reconstruction of a human nature that had fallen into existential decay as a result of its alienation from God.”12 From this definition one can see how much weight Cyril put on his understanding of the Economy. He states that the Word suffered economically, that is in the flesh, always clarifying to the reader that this suffering is not in the divinity of the Word but that he is said to suffer because of the condition of his humanity and because he truly made the body his own. He appropriated to Himself a humanity which was

Seminary Press, 2004), 300; Cyril of Alexandria, “The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 354 and passim.

10. Ibid. Cyril would consistently reassure his readers that he was not Apollinarian by stating that the humanity of Christ was endowed with a rational soul, as opposed to Apollinaris who said that the Logos replaced the soul.

11. Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), para. 54; and Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Leter to Cledonius,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 393.

12. McGuckin, Cyril of Alexandria, 184.

under the same limitations as appropriate to its nature, meaning he hungered, thirsted, became sad, suffered, prayed and experienced all things corresponding to the nature of humanity except for sin alone.13 It is with this understanding that Cyril says that “he (the Word) suffered impassibly” (Scholia, 35) as a result of his emptying out (cf. Phil. 2:6-8) in order to share in the nature of “his brethren” (Heb. 2:16).14 It is also in this construct that Cyril uses the phrase “one nature of the Incarnate Word of God” (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene), making sure that the reader understands that it is the reality, or nature, of the enfleshed Logos, after the union, which is one. This shows the intimate relationship with humanity to which Cyril sees the Word condescending (Gk. synkatabasis), in his infinite love for humanity and his desire to restore human nature to its intended status. As a result, this union did indeed cause a change in the nature of humanity, Cyril contending that it was the whole point of the Incarnation. The purpose and aim of the Economy, as previously stated, is that humanity may share in the divine just as the Divine Logos shared in the humanity, via his union with the human body and soul. To support his idea of a union resulting in one hypostasis, or physis, he makes heavy use of the Prologue in John 1, where Saint John says “the Word became flesh,” the self-emptying in Philippians 2, and the condescension and sharing the human condition language Hebrews 2, among other verses, throughout his writings. Cyril maintained that the “Word became flesh” and emptied himself in a way that would show

13. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 102; Cyril of Alexandria, “The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 360.

14. This emptying out, or kenosis, is a heavy theme throughout Cyril’s writing, see Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 321 and passim; Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyril’s Letter to the Monks of Egypt,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 252-255.

the world his glory, becoming “less than the angels” so that humanity might be made to share in that nature which is higher than the angels. In insisting on this hypostatic union of God and man, Cyril always clarifies that this union was “without confusion, without change, and without alteration” to the divinity and the humanity15, in so far as his humanity was consubstantial with other humans, even though it was glorified and perfected as stated above. Cyril explains this union by various material analogies, and one very prominent human analogy, which will now be discussed.

In order to express his understanding of the natural, or true, union of God and man in Christ, Cyril employs a number of analogies, most effective among them are, the wood in fire, the typology in the Ark of the Covenant, the lily and its fragrance, and most importantly the body and soul of humans. In his Scholia, among other places, Cyril uses all of these analogies to illustrate how the union of two natures or realities does not cause a confusion between the natures. For example, using the composition of the Ark of Witness as a type of Christ, Cyril likens the gold for the divinity and the wood for the humanity of Christ. The two were used to make the Ark of Witness, the gold gilded the Ark from the inside and outside yet it was still wood. Cyril here sees that the outward gilding was the union of the divinity with the flesh, and the inner gilding was the Word uniting to a rational soul, such that both the body and soul of humanity is touched by the glory of God. In like manner he uses the analogy of wood in fire to follow on his discussion of the coal touching the lips of Isaiah (Is 6:6-7), the wood does not cease to be wood at the first instance it touches the fire but is rather united to the fire. This illustrates to the readers that the humanity was not consumed but preserved when united with the divinity, yet the fire does transform, or purify the wood, just like the

15. Cyril of Alexandria, “The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 354.

divinity purified and perfected humanity. The last of the material analogies was the lily and its fragrance. The lily, Cyril posits, is likened to the humanity, that which is corporeal, while the fragrance is likened to the divinity, which is incorporeal. However, you could not have one thing without the other in the lily, else the “essential rationale” is entirely ruined. In the same way, the incorporeal divine “nature becomes… embodied by means of an economic union” when the Word was made flesh.16 Here he again emphasizes the oneness of two distinct natures or elements in the resulting lily. The final, and perhaps most used17, analogy is that of the body and soul. Often times when Cyril wants to illustrate how the union out of two natures works, he uses this imagery. For Cyril this is a perfect example of the dynamic union of God and man in Christ. The soul, being inherently not physical, does not experience the pain that the body experiences within its own nature but rather it shares in the grief and is said to suffer when the body suffers because it is its body which is suffering. The soul is grieved when the body suffers, gratified when the body’s desires are fulfilled, and so on. The two, body and soul, describe one human being, one does not ascribe certain actions to the soul and certain others to the body when going about a normal day, but rather ascribes things to the complete human being. In the same way, the unity of the divinity and humanity is to be understood in the One Lord. The Word took for himself a real humanity, body and rational soul, in a mysterious way by which it can be said that he took part in the suffering and human condition since it was he, and he alone, who was experiencing these things. This is not to be confused with saying that the Word suffered in his divine nature but rather that he appropriated for himself, that is made his own, the suffering common to humanity. In this way the union is understood on a hypostatic level, not through

16. Scholia 10

Scholia 8 and passim; “First Letter to Succensus;” “Second Letter to Succensus;” “Letter to the Monks of Egypt,” para. 12; Explanation of the TwelveChapters, explanation 4 and passim

grace or honor or love but ontologically. Cyril argues that once the understanding of a hypostatic union is solidified, there is no problem with stating that God suffered or thirsted or wept, for it is not God in his divinity who is the referent but God made man and flesh. He would regularly utilize the Mia Physis phrase when describing his idea of how the union should be explained. This brings the discussion to whether Cyril truly compromised much after the Council of Ephesus or whether he stayed true to his core arguments and insinuations.

Insofar as Cyril allowed for the orthodoxy of a two-nature Christology after the Council, he can be said to have compromised. However, he highly qualifies this by not allowing for saying union “in two natures” but “out of” or from two natures. The only way he sees “in two natures” being accurate, and orthodox, is if the word “inseparably” is added to qualify the statement.18 The fact remains that, if it was up to Cyril, he would maintain the verbiage of “One Incarnate Nature of the Word,” as he sees this as a complete expression of the unity of the Word made man in the Incarnation.19 He was, however, willing to give way to the Antiochenes, or “Orientals,” in order for a resolution to the years-long controversy. Even after the Council he would still get attacked by Theodoret of Cyrus, representing Antiochene thought, due to the fact that Cyril does not say that the human nature of Christ is hypostatized, for them implying that he was not truly human.20 In response, Cyril would maintain that if the humanity was hypostatized in that way then there would indeed be another subject in the Incarnation, the man Jesus and this was the whole reason Cyril fought so vehemently for

18. Cyril of Alexandria, “The Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 363.

19. Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyril’s Letter to Eulogius,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 349.

20. John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 214.

the One Incarnate Nature, or Hypostasis, of the Word.21 However, in his attempt to have a more ecumenically accepted term to get across his underlying points of single subjectivity and unity, Cyril accepts the use of single hypostasis, instead of physis, language, appeasing the moderate Antiochenes. This does not indicate a change of mind for Cyril, he was willing to use whichever words necessary, sometimes with varying meaning as was discussed previously, to make his audience understand. For example, when defending his approval of the “Formula of Reunion” by which he accepted John of Antioch back, he states that he acknowledges that there is a difference in the two natures which are united in Christ, drawing back on his body and soul analogy. This, however, does not divide Christ into two, he says that with the intellect this recognition occurs but in the same breath the unity is seen. It is rather surprising that in all of the analyzed texts written by Cyril after the Council, where he is compromising with the Orientals, he is doubling down, as it were, on the use of One Nature.22 This is not indicative of someone who is shying away from a “controversial” or wrong idea, he is professing it in an orthodox context while still allowing for variations, as long as single subjectivity and perfect union is held. The last thing Cyril wanted was for anyone to divide the natures in the “composition” to the extent that they are static within Christ and not interacting with each other economically. This would result, as stated before, in a dual reality or two-subject center in Christ, creating a bi-polarity in which the humanity is not fully

21. Cyril of Alexandria, “The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,” Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John McGuckin (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 269-271.

22. He uses the term emphatically in the following places: Saint Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 77-79; Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyril’s Letter to Eulogius,” in Cyril of Alexandria by John McGuckin, 351; Cyril of Alexandria, “The First Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” in Cyril of Alexandria by John McGuckin, 355; Cyril of Alexandria, “The Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” in Cyril of Alexandria by John McGuckin, 360 and assumed by the Word and the Economy, as understood, is not fulfilled because there is no glorification of the human nature. The result of this would have humankind incapable of attaining deification by grace and worship given to an “assumed man,” making Eucharistic Worship into an act of idolatry, or man-worshipping,23 a slippery slope in which Cyril wanted no part. Cyril instead argued that there was active personal appropriation of the human nature by the Word, resulting in the purification and glorification of the humanity. As stated numerous times before, this active participation of the Word with humanity, and consequently of humanity with divinity, is all understood in the context of the “ineffable mystery,” that is the Economy of Salvation.

Throughout the course of this paper, an attempt has been made to explain the context in which Saint Cyril of Alexandria was expressing his theology, both in the field of Christology and Soteriology, survey some of his favorite methods used to explain his point, and discuss his later application of two-nature language. There was also an underlying attempt to drive home the point that Saint Cyril was not supremely interested in making everyone conform to the Mia Physis formula, or any formula, as is the common conception. There is, in this Author’s opinion, a difference between preference and demanding conformity. If he had wanted Nestorius to conform to this formula he would have put it in his Third Letter to Nestorius, which he does not, but rather he says that one must accept that “the Word united hypostatically with the flesh” and opting for the word “hypostasis” in his Twelve Chapters when speaking of not dividing the hypostases after the Union.24 His main goal was to solidify what he believed was the Orthodox understanding of Christology, the unity of Christ and the salvific nature of this Union. This leads one to wonder what basis was there for the Chalcedonian controversy that happened shortly after Saint Cyril’s departure, as both sides maintain Cyril’s main points and conform to his Christology, but that is a topic for a future study. In the meantime, one is rather impressed with how long of an impact Saint Cyril has had in the field of Christology. He has, debatably, settled and definitively expressed the Christological understanding of Orthodox Christians for the past fifteen hundred years. That achievement leaves no room for wondering why he is designated Pillar of the Faith.

23. Cyril of Alexandria, “The Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus,” in Cyril of Alexandria by John McGuckin, 362.

24. Cyril of Alexandria, “The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,” in Cyril of Alexandria, 268 and Anathema 3.