An essay prepared for the last section on Early Church History
In
his Third Epistle to Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria argues against
the writings and teachings of Nestorius concerning the nature of the
person of Christ. Nestorius has propagated a Christology which drew
a great distinction between the humanity of Christ and the divinity
of Christ, the Eternal Word. Nestorius had been concerned about
Apollonarianism and the claims that the humanity of Christ was
subsumed by his divinity. Attempting to realign that error, and to
protect the divinity of Christ which clearly could not change, suffer
or die, Nestorius ended up splitting the two natures of Christ
dividing Christ's words and acts between his humanity and divinity,
respectively. Cyril's approach to argue against Nestorian
Christology relies on a three-fold system of “rules” used in
early ecumenical counsels for reaching theological decisions: Do not
contradict Scripture; Do not threaten the means of salvation through
Christ; And do not interfere with the liturgy.
Cyril
regularly appeals to Scripture in order to disprove Nestorius showing
him how he has misused Scripture and departed from the correct
interpretation thereof. Cyril urges Nestorius to “abstain from
these mischievous and distorted dogmas, which you hold arid teach,
and to receive the right faith, handed down to the churches from the
beginning through the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who 'were
eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word'” (Third
Epistle to Nestorius,
1). It is evident that there is an essential connection between
Scripture and the faithful interpretation of Scripture as passed down
through tradition, or “right faith”. Cyril also quotes and
references Scripture in order to build up his case for the unity of
the two natures of Christ and the necessity that He be both fully God
and fully human in all his words and actions.
Cyril
appeals to the second of the unofficial “rules”, when he argues
that Nestorius is threatening salvation through Christ. It is
necessary for salvation that the Eternal Word died on the cross in
unity with Jesus' humanity, “in order that, having trodden down
death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh...and that he
might make a way for the nature of man to attain incorruption”
(Third
Ep, 3).
Lastly,
Cyril protects the liturgy, specifically the sacrament of the
Eucharist, from the Christology of Nestorius. Cyril argues that
Nestorius has divided Christ into two, separating the humanity and
divinity in such a way that he cannot be rightly worshiped in Unity,
but is rather two different objects of worship where believers must
somehow render praise to Jesus the man as well as Christ the God.
Cyril uses the practice of the Eucharist to uphold the indivisible
union of the two natures of Christ in one person. If the person of
Christ is divided, then he is not present in the Eucharist and those
who partake of it do not partake in the life-giving Word who died.
This argument asks the question, “was not the Eucharist a
re-enactment of the miracle of Bethlehem, at which the life-giving
Body and Blood of Christ were offered to be received by the
faithful?” (Chadwick,
198).
This
process carries validity to how we may do theology today, but the
diversity of Orthodox Christian practice may cause difficulties to
use this approach with consistency. To uphold Scripture as paramount
and to defend salvation through Christ are certainly necessary and
Christianity remains in agreement on these points. Arguing from
liturgy provides more difficulties, especially with perennial debates
concerning the nature of the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper and Baptism.
A more robust theology of liturgy across all Christian denominations
would enliven theological debate, especially since lex
orandi lex credendi
is alive and well in the 21st
century.