honours theology dissertation

8/17/2019 Honours Theology Dissertation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/honours-theology-dissertation 1/43

University of Edinburgh

School of Divinity

Honours Dissertation

Affirming and Moving Beyond The

Chalcedonian Definition:The Chalcedonicity of Karl Barth

by

9639!

1st April 2011

9982

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor in Divinity (onours!



"o #arrie$ %tuart and #ameron &ho endured my absence &ith unusual cheer'

any than)s to my supervisor$ &ithout &hose guidance * &ould no doubt still be

slogging my &ay through volume * of Church Dogmatics.



Table of Contents

Cha"ter # $ntroduction%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#

+estorius the eretic versus #yril #hampion of ,rthodo-y.////////////////////////////////////2arl Barth A #halcedonian "heologian.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

#hapter %tructure////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////3

Cha"ter & The th Century Christological De'ate%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%(

*ntroduction/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////4

5esus #hrist both Divine and uman. 6 "he #hristological 7roblem////////////////////////4

+estorius "heological 7rotest////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8

#yrils #hristology////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////10

"he nion of +atures//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////12

#onclusions///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1:

Cha"ter 3 The Chalcedonian Definition%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#(

"he ;oad to #halcedon/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////14

#urrent se///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////18

arl Barth on #halcedon///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////18

Cha"ter ) The Christology of Karl Barth%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&!

<eneral #hristology//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////20

Divine +ature in #hrist////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////2=

uman +ature in #hrist///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////2

"he nion of +atures//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////2:

#onclusion////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////24

Cha"ter Critical Analysis%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&9

*ntroduction///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////29

+estorius and Barth///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////29

#yril and Barth//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////=0

Barth from Ale-andria or Antioch.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////=1

Cha"ter 6 The Chalcedonicity of Barth%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%33

Appendi- 1///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////=:

Bibliography/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////=3



7age 1

Cha"ter # $ntroduction

e)n a)rxh=| h)=n o( lo/goj, kai\ o( lo/goj h)=n pro\j to\n qeo/n, kai\ qeo\j h)=n o( lo/goj1

kai\ o( lo/goj sa\rc e)ge/neto kai\ e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n2

>rom the first verse of the <ospel according to 5ohn and throughout the &hole prologue

there is no doubt that 5ohn thought of #hrist as being fully divine yet enfleshed in the

sa\rc of human nature/ <rappling &ith the tension that this created touched upon

many of the debates &ithin the early church/ ?et it &as not until the conversion of

#onstantine and the freedom that this allo&ed for the &ider church to debate that

councils &ere needed to settle the disputes/ @ithin the early church questions of the

"rinity and the %ons place as part of the <odhead had been &restled &ith at the

councils of +icaea (=2: AD! and #onstantinople (=81 AD!/= nfortunately there

lingered yet more terminological arguments concerning #hristology/ ost of the

church fathers &ere no& agreed on the importance of )eeping in tension the full

humanity and the full divinity of #hrist$ due to the fact that 5esus had to be fully human

for humanity to be redeemed and he also had to be fully divine to be able to achieve the

saving &or)/: ?et ho& these t&o natures &ere lin)ed in the actual reality of the person

of 5esus #hrist &as still under heavy debate/ "he t&o schools of theology based in

1 5ohn 11/2 5ohn 11a/= enry #had&ic)$ The Early Church (Condon odder and %toughton$ 194=!$ 1=0$ 1:01/ #f/ the famous phrase of <regory of +aEianEus >or &hat e F#hristG has not assumed e has not

healed <regory +aEianEen$ Hpistle 101$ in St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological

Controversy: Its istory! Theology! and Texts$ trans/ 5ohn c<uc)in$ %upplements to Iigiliae#hristianae JJ*** (Ceiden Brill$ 199!$ =9=/

: #f/ Cord 5esus #hrist$ the %on of <od ///&ho because of us human beings and because of oursalvation$ came do&n and &as enfleshed K became a human being/ 7hilip %chaff$ "he

+iceno#onstantinopolitan #reed$ in The Creeds of Christendom: "ith a istory and Critical #otes$2nd ed/ (+e& ?or) arper L Brothers$ 1844!$ :49M 7hilip %chaff$ "he +icene #reed$ in The

Creeds of Christendom: "ith a istory and Critical #otes$ 2nd ed/ (+e& ?or) arper L Brothers$1844!$ 301M cf/ also elley ccarthy %poerl$ "he Citurgical Argument in Apollinarius elp andindrance on the @ay to ,rthodo-y$ arvard Theological $eive% 91$ no/ 2 (April 1998! 1248/



7age 2

Ale-andria and Antioch typified the t&o sides of this debate &ith the theologies of

#yril$ bishop of Ale-andria$ and +estorius$ bishop of #onstantinople$ being the point of

conflict in the early years of the :th #entury/

By the middle of the :th #entury the episcopal battle bet&een #yril and +estorius had

been concluded at the #ouncil of Hphesus (=1 AD!/ "hen at the #ouncil of #halcedon

(:1 AD! a ne& definition &as &ritten that clarified the churchs position regarding the

union of the t&o natures/ @hile any church historian &ould disagree &ith the

suggestion that the debate &as settled by the #ouncil of #halcedon$ the simple passage

of time has placed #halcedon at the centre of most mainline denominations of

#hristianity/3 ?et the #hristological debate concerning the interpretation of #halcedon

continues to the present day and as such forms the basis of the topic &ith &hich this

present study is concerned &ith/

As this study is interested in #halcedon and the : th #entury debate that led to the

#halcedonian Definition it &ill focus on regarding the theologies of the t&o opponents

from the :th #entury as e-emplars of their respective schools of theology/ "o )eep a

tight focus this study &ill concentrate on ho& each theologian understood the union of

the natures in 5esus #hrist &hile also thin)ing about ho& they regarded the natures

themselves/

*estorius the Heretic versus Cyril Cham"ion of +rthodo,y-

Both +estorius and +estorianism &ere condemned at the #ouncils of Hphesus and

#halcedon$ yet there is much evidence to prove that +estorius vie&s &ere not in line

3 #halcedon$ "he Definition of$ in The &xford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Condon ,-fordniversity 7ress$ 1933!$ 2:9/



7age =

&ith &hat came to be considered traditional +estorianism/ any early theologians

accused +estorius of splitting the humanity and divinity of #hrist along the lines of the

adoptionism of 7aul of %amosata/ #yril himself focused4 on the manner of the union of

the humanity and divinity in #hrist and accused +estorius of suggesting that the union

is one of persons (pro/swpon!/ #yril thus felt that +estorius &as sho&ing that his aim

is to say that there are t&o #hrists and t&o sons/ 8

@hile these t&o accusations are features of &hat came to be considered traditional

+estorianism$ some scholars suggest that +estorius in the most e-plicit terms

repudiated the heresy of &hich he &as accused/9 %upporting this scholarly opinion &as

evidence$ in the form of the coming to light of an ancient %yriac manuscript at the turn

of the 20th #entury$ a translation from a <ree) te-t purported to be an account of the

controversy having been &ritten by +estorius himself some time after his original

condemnation$ possibly around the time of the #ouncil of #halcedon (:1 AD!/10 "he

contents of this manuscript strongly supports the idea that +estorius &as indeed

orthodo- and his vie&s &ere being deliberately misrepresented by his opponents/11 "he

theology contained &ithin +estorius 'a(aar of eracleides!)* &hile being e-pressed in

more acceptable terms$ ho&ever sho&s no evidence of being different to his

fundamental vie& as seen in his &ritings from the debate$ before his condemnation/ 1=

4 5/ +/ D/ elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ :th ed/ (Condon A/ L #/ Blac)$ 198:!$ =11/8 #yril of Ale-andria$ Hpistle 10$ in +etters$ trans/ 5ohn * cHnerney$ vol/ 1 (@ashington$ D/#

#atholic niversity of America 7ress$ 1984!$ :3/9 </ C/ 7restige$ +estorius ,r ;edeemed umanity$ in ,athers and eretics: Six Studies in

Dogmatic ,aith! %ith -rologue and Eilogue$ ;epr/ (Condon %/7/#/$ 193=!$ 29M cf/ also he cannot be called a separate %on$ lest &e propound a dogma of t&o sons +estorius$ %ermon 10 Againstthose &ho on account of the conNunction either mortify the divinity of the ,nlyBegotten or deify thehumanity$ in The Sermons of #estorius$ trans/ >ord Ce&is Battles (7ittsburgh s/n/$ 194=!$ :1/

10 5/ >/ BethuneBa)er$ #estorius and is Teaching: A ,resh Examination of the Evidence (#harleston$

%# BilblioCife$ 2009!$ -iii-iv/11 BethuneBa)er$ #estorius and is Teaching $ 1948/12 +estorius$ The 'a(aar of eracleides$ trans/ <odfrey ;olles Driver and Ceonard odgson (,-ford

#larendon 7ress$ 192:!/1= elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ =112/



7age

As such for the purposes of this study +estorius &ritings &ill be used to form the

Antiochene side of the debate/

*t is also important that this study )eeps a tight focus on the te-ts being studied and to

achieve this it &ill restrict itself to the %cholia on the *ncarnation by #yril/1 @hile it

is generally accepted that the %cholia &as &ritten Nust after the #ouncil of Hphesus$ it

contains a much less aggressive approach to #yrils #hristology than his other &or)s

during the +estorian #ontroversy/1: +estorius side of the argument &ill be restricted to

a counterpoint of #yrils theology and &ill come from the 'a(aar of eracleides! his

second letter to #yril13 and t&o sermons dealing &ith the title Theoto/os/14

Karl Barth: A Chalcedonian Theologian-

arl Barth stands out as a landmar) #hristological thin)er and therefore an e-amination

of his approach to the union of the t&o natures &ill help in a consideration of Barths

#hristology as #halcedonian/ *n Barth there is to be found$ according to 5ohn @ebster$

the most important 7rotestant theologian since %chleiermacher K FandG K Barths

contribution to #hristian theology is in many respects still only no& beginning to be

received/18 Barth had become &ell acquainted &ith the issues that had come up in the

:th

#entury debate as part of his study of the development of doctrine through the

7atristic$ edieval and ;eformation periods/19

1 #yril of Ale-andria$ %cholia on the *ncarnation$ in Saint Cyril! Archbisho of Alexandria$ trans/ 7/ H/7usey$ vol/ 4$ Cibrary of >athers of the oly #atholic #hurch (,-ford 7ar)er$ 1881!$ 18:2=3/

1: 5/ #/ Ian Coon and ans Ian Coon$ The Dyohysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria (Ceiden Brill$

2009!$ 2:89/13 +estorius$ +estoriusOs %econd Cetter to #yril$ in The Christological Controversy$ ed/ ;ichard A/

+orris$ trans/ ;ichard A/ +orris$ %ources of Harly #hristian "hought (7hiladelphia >ortress 7ress$1980!$ 1=:0/

14 +estorius$ +estoriusOs >irst %ermon Against the Theoto/os$ in The Christological Controversy$ ed/

;ichard A/ +orris$ trans/ ;ichard A/ +orris$ %ources of Harly #hristian "hought (7hiladelphia>ortress 7ress$ 1980!$ 12==1M +estorius$ %ermon 10/18 5ohn @ebster$ *ntroducing Barth$ in The Cambridge Comanion to 0arl 'arth$ ed/ 5/ B @ebster

(#ambridge #ambridge niversity 7ress$ 2000!$ 1/19 @ebster$ *ntroducing Barth$ 3/



7age :

Also as &ith both the :th #entury e-emplars$ a tight focus needs to be )ept on the te-t

that &ill be the basis of the study/ "he logical te-t to use &hen investigating Barths

theology &ould be his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics$ yet even this te-t presents

its o&n problems/ >irstly Barths Church Dogmatics is a staggeringly large &or) and to

)eep this study focused there needs to be a narro&ing of &hat part of the Church

Dogmatics to e-plore/ "his narro&ing thus brings us to the second problem &ith the

use of Church Dogmatics$ that there is no specific place &ithin the te-t that Barth

directly addresses #hristology$ for 7aul Dafydd 5ones suggests that no single

paragraph$ chapter or part volume conveys the essence of Barths #hristology/

#onversely$ every paragraph$ chapter and part volume of Dogmatics conveys some part

of Barths #hristology/20 Along &ith 5ones$ 5ohn "hompson suggests that &ithin

Barths &or) and his theology there is no #hristology as suchM on the other hand it is all

#hristology/21

>or the purpose of this study the subsections contained &ithin Iolume *I "he

Doctrine of ;econciliation regarding "he @ay of the %on of <od into the >ar

#ountry22 and "he omecoming of the %on of an2= &ill be the te-ts focused on/

o&ever as no one stage of the argument is definitiveM rather$ it is the &hole &hich

conveys the substance of &hat he has to say$2 reference to other parts of the te-t &ill

be unavoidable/

20 7aul Dafydd 5ones$ The umanity of Christ: Christology in 0arl 'arth1s Church Dogmatics (Condon"/ L "/ #lar)$ 2008!$ 13/

21 5ohn "hompson$ Christ in -ersective: Christological -ersectives in the Theology of 0arl 'arth

(Hdinburgh %t Andre& 7ress$ 1948!$ 1/22 arl Barth$ Church Dogmatics Fhereafter CDG$ vols in 1= pts$ ed/ </ @/ Bromiley and "/ >/"orrance$ trans/ </ @/ Bromiley (7eabody$ A endric)son$ 2010!$ *IP1$ Q:9/1$ 1:4210/

2= CD$ *IP2$ Q3/2$ 201:/2 @ebster$ *ntroducing Barth$ 9/



7age 3

Cha"ter .tructure

aving$ in #hapter 1$ introduced the topic of this study and the theologians and their

te-ts that &ill form the focus of it$ * plan to loo) in #hapter 2 at the : th #entury

#hristological debate that surrounded #yril and +estorius and that laid the foundations

of the #halcedonian Definition/ *n #hapter = * &ill give a summary of ho& the debate

moved to&ards a conclusion in the #halcedonian Definition and ho& it is vie&ed

currently$ along &ith presenting some of Barths thoughts on the Definition itself/ *n

#hapter * begin to loo) at Barths o&n &or)ing out of the #hristological problem and

the points that have relevance to this study/ >inally in #hapter : * &ill compare points

on &hich Barth agrees &ith +estorius and on &hich he agrees &ith #yril/ * conclude in

#hapter 3 that Barths #hristology attempts to marry the insights found in both the

Ale-andrian and Antiochene schools of theology$ but describing his #hristology as

#halcedonian ignores the innovations that Barth has achieved in his articulation of

#hristology/



7age 4

Cha"ter & The th Century Christological De'ate

$ntroduction

"his chapter &ill loo) first at ho& the tension bet&een humanity and divinity surfaced

in the #hristological debate and then some of the philosophical bac)ground &ithin

&hich both sides understood divine and human nature/ >ollo&ing this &ill be a

consideration of ho& the confrontation bet&een +estorius and #yril started and a loo)

at their use of philosophical terminology &ithin it/ aving loo)ed at the start of the

debate * plan then to summarise #yrils #hristology/ >inally * &ill consider #yrils

approach to the union in 5esus #hrist and counterpoint some of +estorius thoughts to

highlight ho& both sides clashed over this issue/ * conclude that due to the aggressive

nature of the debate$ both sides &ere unable to grasp each others )ey insights into the

understanding of the incarnation/

/esus Christ 'oth Divine and Human- 0 The Christological 1ro'lem

During the very early period of the church$ &ithin the epistles and then in the gospels$

both the divine transcendence of 5esus #hrist alongside his humanity and his central

role in salvation &ere e-pressed/1 "he tension contained &ithin the %criptures &as then

ta)en up by the early fathers$ as can be seen in Husebius Ecclesiastical istory &here

he lists those &ho defended both the divinity and humanity of #hrist

* refer to 5ustin and iltiades and "atian and #lement and many others$ in

all of &hose &or)s #hrist is spo)en of as <od/ >or &ho does not )no& the

&or)s of *renRus and of elito and of others &hich teach that #hrist is <od

and man. And ho& many psalms and hymns &ritten by the faithful brethren

1 Aloys <rillmeier$ Christ in Christian Tradition: ,rom the Aostolic Age to Chalcedon 234)5$ vol/ 1(Condon A/;/ o&bray$ 193:!$ =3/



7age 8

from the beginning$ celebrate #hrist the @ord of <od$ spea)ing of him as

Divine/2

nderlying ho& the patristic period &as to understand the divine nature &as the

characteristics ascribed to the Cogos by 5ohn$ in the prologue of his gospel/ = *n his

description of the Cogos being both pree-istent and incarnate there is a match &ith

those characteristics that are ascribed by the 5e&s to the Ca& and the #ovenant/

,rigen$ &hose vie&s on divinity are partly foundational for patristics$ &as accused by

7orphyry$ the disciple of 7lotinus$ of having opinions concerning <od inspired really by

<ree) thought rather than %cripture/: As such some might suggest that these attributes

&ere actually entirely fuelled by contemporary <ree) philosophical thought$ yet to

agree &holly &ith this &ould be to mista)e the distinctively #hristian flavour they &ere

given by the early church fathers/3

*estorius2 Theological 1rotest

oving onto the theological debate being dealt &ith here$ it &as first spar)ed by

+estorius challenging the title of Theoto/os (qeoto/koj 6 <od bearer! &hich &as

applied to ary the mother of 5esus/4 @hile it ma)es no appearance in %cripture or in

the #reeds$ the title had been in popular use and &as also heavily used in patristic

2 Husebius$ istoria Hcclesiastica$ in #icene and -ost6#icene ,athers Series *! 7olume )$ ed/ 7hilip%chaff and enry @ace$ trans/ Arthur #/ c<iffert$ 1st ed/ (Hdinburgh "L" #lar)$ 1890!$ I 28$ :/

= 5ohn 1118/ <rillmeier$ Christ in Christian Tradition$ 9:1/: ;/ I/ %ellers$ T%o Ancient Christologies: A Study in the Christological Thought of the Schools of

Alexandria and Antioch in the Early istory of Christian Doctrine (Condon %ociety for 7romoting#hristian no&ledge for the #hurch istorical %ociety$ 190!$ :/

3 ;/ 7/ # anson$ The Search for the Christian Doctrine of 8od: The Arian Controversy 9)69) (Hdinburgh " L " #lar)$ 1988!$ ----i/4 BethuneBa)er$ +estorius and is "eaching$ 2M *s ary Theoto/os K Does <od have a mother. K

ary$ my friend$ did not give birth to the <odhead +estorius$ +estoriusOs >irst %ermon Against the"heoto)os$ 12/



7age 9

&ritings$ &hich in some sense secured its orthodo-y$8 ho&ever +estorius sa& &ithin it

the danger of focusing overly much on the divinity of #hrist/ +estorius felt that this

&ould undermine the importance of #hrists humanity and unbalance the tension

bet&een the humanity and divinity in #hrist/ #yril leapt to the defence of the popular

term as he felt that +estorius &as undermining the orthodo-y of the term and thus the

orthodo-y of the church and the true doctrine of the *ncarnation/9

>rom here the debate engulfed +estorius teachings and much of the Antiochene

schools terminology/ "he Antiochene school$ as +estorius himself$ spo)e about #hrist

in terms of either his humanity or divinty &hile not d&elling too much on the union of

these t&o natures/ *t &as common for adherents to the school to be concerned more

&ith the duality of the natures &ith regards to the #hristological problem rather than

&ith the union/10 "ogether &ith his protest against the title of Theoto/os$ +estorius sa&

in #yril and his theology a tendency to thin) about the humanity of #hrist as nothing

more than a painted fresco$ and &ith &earisome regularity in his &or)s repudiated

#yril and the Ale-andrian school for &hat he simply sa& as a thinly disguised form of

Appolinarianism/11

@hile #yril responded to +estorius sermons concerning the Theoto/os &ith aggressive

attac)ing rhetoric$12 ho& each understood the )ey terms of the debate led to much

misunderstanding/ *n his &ritings #yril used three different terms interchangeably$

8 #f/ "he discussion of "radition and %cripture in elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ 29:1 but especially89/

9 BethuneBa)er$ #estorius and is Teaching $ 1:/10 7restige$ +estorius$ 242/

11 7restige$ +estorius$ 29=:M cf/ e F5esusG did not say$ SDestroy my divinity and in three days * &illraise it/O K Fbut did sayG S"his is$O not my deity$ but Smy body &hich is bro)en for youO +estorius$+estoriusOs %econd Cetter to #yril$ 1=48/

12 %usan @essel$ Cyril of Alexandria and the #estorian Controversy: The ;a/ing of a Saint and of a

eretic (,-ford$ Hngland ,-ford niversity 7ress$ 200!$ 2=3/



7age 10

nature (fu/sij!$ hyostasis (u(po/stasij! and ragmata (pra/gmata 6 things or

realities! &hen discussing the divinity and humanity of #hrist/1= +estorius on the other

hand &as far more consistentM for e-ample he consistently used the term hyostasis in

reference to substance as opposed to the characteristics of something$ for &hich he

used the term nature/ "his meant that as #yril &as far more vague not Nust in his usage$

but in ho& he understood the meanings of the terms he used$ &hen +estorius attempted

to understand #yrils hyostatic union he &as left &ith the only conclusion that #yrils

#hristology &as deficient/1

Cyril2s Christology

>or #yril$ #hristology &as not only the central driving force behind his o&n theological

understanding$ but also the point through &hich and to &hich all other doctrine in the

church referred/1: As such #yrils e-egesis had also moved to&ards a more

#hristological reading of %cripture and a&ay from the more allegorical tradition of his

predecessors$ &ho &ould see) spiritual meanings and symbols &ithin every detail of a

%criptural te-t/ "his move$ ho&ever$ also appears to have been partly fuelled by the

need to defend against the antiallegorical offensive of the Antiochenes$13 &hile the

centralisation of the teaching and administration of the #atechetical schools into the

bishopric also pushed #yril in this direction/14

#yril affirmed$ as the +icene #reed did$18 that the incarnation &as necessary due to the

1= e/g/ And that the +atures or ypostases have remained unconfused %cholia$ Q11/2M cf/ also

elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ =19 and the primary sources cited in note 3/1 BethuneBa)er$ #estorius and is Teaching $ 142/1: 5ohn c<uc)in$ St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its istory! Theology! and

Texts$ %upplements to Iigiliae #hristianae JJ*** (Ceiden Brill$ 199!$ 14:/13 anlio %imonetti$ 'iblical Interretation in the Early Church: An istorical Introduction to -atristic

Exegesis (Hdinburgh "/ L "/ #lar)$ 199=!$ 81/14 +orman ;ussell$ The Doctrine of Deification in the 8ree/ -atristic Tradition$ ,-ford early #hristianstudies (,-ford ,-ford niversity 7ress$ 200!$ 20/

18 @ho for us men$ and for our salvation$ came do&n and &as incarnate and &as made manM %chaff$"he +icene #reed/



7age 11

sinfulness of humanity

%ince on the account of the transgression in Adam K it Fhuman natureG

came therefore to be in all ill$ and it needed that by the ercy of <od$ it

mounting up to its pristine condition K the ,nlyBegotten @ord of <od

became man/19

*n considering the humanity and divinity that &as in 5esus #hrist$ #yril follo&ed the

contemporary attitude of thin)ing of the divine as unchangeable$ and thus also the

Cogos$ hence #yril states that the @ord of <od is nchangeable in +ature/20 Along

&ith this he also distinguished the human nature by comparing it &ith the divine$ for

incomparable is the difference bet&een <odhead and manhood/21 Alongside these

fairly normative understandings$ #yril interestingly enough also made the point that the

divine nature &as in is o&n +ature free/22

?et &hile +estorius might not have necessarily disagreed &ith any of these moves it

&as #yrils understanding of the union in 5esus #hrist and the questions that this

brought up that began to ta)e central stage in the debate o& &as #hrist$ being

singular$ both fully human and fully divine. @hat &as the nature of the union. @as the

distinction bet&een humanity and divinity removed so that the t&o fullnesses became

Nust one$ or &as the union to be found else&here$ )eeping the humanity and divinity

separate.2=

19 %cholia$ Q1/2/20 %cholia$ Q2/1/21 %cholia$ Q2/2/22 %cholia$ Q:/2= BethuneBa)er$ #estorius and is Teaching $ -ii/



7age 12

The nion of 2*atures2

*n #yrils &ritings during the debate he uses the phrase hyostatic union (e( /nwsij kaq

u(po/stasin! to describe the union of the t&o natures in #hrist$ a phrase that only

really came into use after the start of the controversy bet&een himself and +estorius/2

Both certainly clashed over the meaning of this phrase$ predominantly on the grounds of

their different interpretations and uses of the term hyostasis$ as mentioned above/ ?et

for +estorius there &as a definite feeling that #yril$ in his hyostatic union$ &as sailing

too close to an Apollinarian understanding of the incarnation$2:

and both +estorius and

the Antiochene school &ere )een to reNect any form of Apollinarianism/23

#yril ho&ever reNected any suggestion that he follo&ed Apollinarius$ yet &ithout close

attention to his &ritings and their conte-t certain phrases can sound distinctly

Appollinarian/ #yril$ for e-ample$ uses the phrase ,ne enfleshed nature of <od the

@ord (mi/a fu/sij tou= qeou= lo/gou sesarkwme/nh! &hich &as very close to the

Appollinarian scheme ,ne nature of the enfleshed <od the @ord (mi/a fu/sij tou=

qeou= lo/gou sesarkwme/nou!/ @hile both phrases sound and loo) nearly identical

in the <ree)$ the )ey difference is in the &ord enfleshed (sesarkwme/non!$ &hich

agrees in #yrils phrase &ith the term nature (fu/sij!$ and in the Apollinarist scheme

&ith the term @ord (lo/goj!/24 "hus &hile he reNects Apollinarianism$ his

phraseology could be easily mista)en for Apollinarianism and indeed &as regularly

mista)en for such by his Antiochene opponents/

2 enry #had&ic)$ Hucharist and #hristology in the +estorian #ontroversy$ <ournal of Theological

Studies n/s/2 (19:1! 13/

2: 7restige$ +estorius$ 23/23 %ellers$ T%o Ancient Christologies$ 1:1/24 c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 2048M #yrilOs first use of the formula in a letter can be found in #yril of Ale-andria$

Hpistle :$ in +etters$ trans/ 5ohn * cHnerney$ vol/ 1 (@ashington$ D/# #atholic niversity ofAmerica 7ress$ 1984!$ 19= but cf/ also Hpistle 0$ note 22/



7age 1=

,n the other hand +estorius understanding of the union &as )eyed to ma)e sure there

&as no sign of Apollinarianism and as such he describes the union of the t&o natures in

5esus #hrist as a union according to good pleasure$ a voluntary union$ something

that &as &illed rather than made to happen/28 Because of these terms used to describe

the union as a mere conNunction of the &ill$ and the Antiochene habit of spea)ing about

the t&o natures and separating their acts$ #yril felt that +estorius and the Antiochene

school &ere not accepting that a true union had ta)en place and that 5esus &as Nust an

inspired man adopted by the Cogos29

As imself FHmmanuelG says &hen about to suffer for us the 7recious

#ross$ +o& is the son of man glorified=0$ &hy do they not blush$

attributing the glory of the 7assion to a man having connection only &ith

im in Hquality of dignity. for as they deem$ e connected &ith imself

according to the @ill and <oodpleasure of the >ather a man only and made

him equal to is o&n glory$ and permitted that by li)e name he should be

styled both #hrist and %on and <od and Cord hence neither is the @ord

truly *ncarnate nor &as e at all made man / =1

Alongside #yrils insistence on the union being more than Nust something voluntary$

#yril disagreed &ith the Antiochene$ and thus +estorius$ habit of splitting the actions of

5esus #hrist bet&een the human and divine natures$ and to reinforce the importance of

not doing this he used the phrase e Fthe CogosG suffered impassibly/=2 "his

28 "he union of <od the @ord &ith these Fthe body and the soulG is neither hypostatic nor natural$ butvoluntary$ as consisting in the property of the &ill and not of the nature +estorius$ The 'a(aar of

eracleides$ 149/29 c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 20:/=0 5ohn 1==1/=1 %cholia$ Q=4/:/=2 %cholia$ Q=3/8$ Q=4//



7age 1

e-pression became a slogan for #yrils understanding of #hristology and &hat may loo)

li)e a meaningless phrase to e-plain his understanding of the reality of the incarnation$

is actually #yril attempting to describe the parado- at the centre of the #hristological

problem/ @hile some may suggest that all that can be gleaned from this phrase is that

the Cogos &as impassible$ yet #yril understood this as a &ay to state both sides of the

parado- using equal force and &ithout trying to minimise or trivialise either part of the

problem/ #yril is )een to )eep the fullnesses of both the humanity and the divinity in

tension as the divinity of #hrist brings healing and salvation to the fallible humanity

and the humanity allo&s the revelation of the all po&erful divine to this fallible

humanity &hile also giving it a chance to approach the divine/ >or #yril there is no

doubt that both sides &ere not only required$ but contributed all that they are in the

incarnation and allo&ed through their union an opportunity for a revelation of the divine

eternity to be contained &ithin human history/==

c<uc)in thus describes #yrils understanding of the incarnation as a dynamic

soteriological event/= "o further reflect this dynamic understanding of the incarnation

#yril also replaces the language of deification=: &ith that of participation$ fitting &ith

the movement bet&een humanity and divinity$ basing his move on the %criptural

quotation that humanity can become parta)ers of the divine nature$=3

&hich he cites

more frequently than any other church father /=4

Alongside this participation and the dynamic movement that is allo&ed in #yrils

== c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 18:/= c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 19:/=: Deification &as a central part of Ale-andrian thin)ing having been brought in by Athanasius in his

concept of the divine e-change and summed up in his quote$ originally from *renaeus$ >or e Fthe

CogosG &as made man that &e might be made <od Athanasius$ De *ncarnatione$ in #icene and -ost6#icene ,athers Series *! 7olume 3$ ed/ 7hilip %chaff and enry @ace$ trans/ Archibald;obertson$ 1/0 ed/ (Hdinburgh "L" #lar)$ 1890!$ Q:/=M c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 18=/

=3 2 7eter 1/=4 ;ussell$ Doctrine of Deification$ 192/



7age 1:

scheme &as the communication of idioms$=8 &hich$ according to c<uc)in$ #yril felt$

preserved an insight basic to #hristianity$ &hile +estorius sa& it as simply a sloppy

&ay of doing theology/=9 +estorius felt that the natures &ere to be )ept separate and

&ere not synonymous &ith the rosoon of union and as such human actions$

e-periences and attributes and those that could be considered divine should be split

bet&een the natures/ +estorius ho&ever did allo& some form of communication of

attributes yet only as a rhetorical device not as reality/0 As mentioned above #yril &as

strongly opposed to the splitting of actions$ e-periences and attributes as he sa& this as

evidence of not accepting that a true union had happened in the incarnation/

Conclusions

@hile$ due to many historical and political factors as &ell as the theological disputes$

the controversy ended &ith the deposition of +estorius and the condemnation of his

doctrines at the #ouncil of Hphesus$ there is much that can be learnt from both sides in

this controversy/ ;/ I/ %ellers goes as far as to suggest that from the point of vie& of

its underlying principles the teaching of the Antiochene theologians is in no respects

different from that of the theologians of the school of Ale-andria/1 ?et &hile some of

the )ey terminology on +estorius side of the debate had been in orthodo- use by some

of the great fathers of the church$ and even #yril himself$ it seemed that #yril &as so

convinced of +estorius heresy that any term used by him became tinged &ith heresy/2

@hile the theology being espoused by the t&o schools may have fundamentally been

=8 Communicatio idiomatum (a)nti/!osij i)!iwma/twn! describes ho& in the vie& of the unity of

#hrists 7erson$ is human and divine attributes$ e-periences$ etc/ might properly be interchanged/ elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ 1=/

=9 c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 190/0 elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ =13/1 %ellers$ T%o Ancient Christologies$ 1=/2 </ C/ 7restige$ #yril ,r$ ,ne Cord$ ,ne >aith$ ,ne Baptism$ in ,athers and eretics: Six Studies

in Dogmatic ,aith! %ith -rologue and Eilogue$ ;epr/ (Condon %/7/#/$ 193=!$ =2=/



7age 13

similar$ a maNor difference in the theological methodology of +estorius and #yril can be

seen in the &ay #yril focuses on tradition and the mystery of #hrists presence in the

church$ &hile +estorius ta)es a more systematic approach requiring logical necessity

and semantic clarity in a truly academic manner /= </ C/ 7restige$ suggests that never

have t&o theologians more completely misunderstood one anothers meaning$ for

instead of attempting to grasp the underlying meanings that the other gave to the )ey

theological terms$ they both assumed that the other &as using the terms in the &ay that

they themselves &ould/ "hus both miss out on the )ey insights of the other $: and &hile

#yrils insistence on a natural hypostatic union allo&s him to gain the dynamic

soteriology &hich is lost on +estorius$ +estorius focus on the importance of #hrists

humanity and all that could be lost if it &as sidelined &as ignored in #yrils accusations

of Adoptionism/

= c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 188/ 7restige$ +estorius$ 23/: 7restige$ +estorius$ 29:/



7age 14

Cha"ter 3 The Chalcedonian Definition

*n this short chapter * &ill give a short account of the movement from the +estorian

#ontroversy to the #ouncil of #halcedon and thus the creation of the #halcedonian

Definition/ "hen * plan to loo) at the current usage of the Definition and its role in

contemporary #hristology/ >inally to lin) &ith arl Barths #hristology in the ne-t

chapter * &ill give some e-amples of ho& Barth treats the #halcedonian Definition/

The 4oad to Chalcedon

After the events of the #ouncil of Hphesus in =1$ namely the deposition of +estorius

and thus a condemnation of his Antiochene theology$ a large rift &as created bet&een

the bishoprics of Ale-andria and Antioch/ Hfforts to heal this rift &ere unsuccessful

until much later and then after much negotiation a %ymbol of nion &as sent by the

current bishop of Antioch to #yril in ==/ #yril responded &ith enthusiasm &ith regard

to the %ymbol/ o&ever after #yrils death in his successor$ Dioscorus$ vie&ed

#yrils response to the %ymbol as a mista)e and &ent about undermining the &or) of

reunion/1 *n :1 the ne& emperor arcian called another council to sort out the mess

created by Dioscorus and Hutyches$ a mon) &ho had proposed a much more radical

#yrillian theology &hich suggested that 5esus #hrist &as a one nature hybrid of the

t&o natures/ During the council in :1$ &hich too) place at #halcedon$ the bishops

&ere un&illing to &rite a ne& creed$ but did create a definition that &ould help to Nudge

orthodo-y &hen thin)ing about the #hristological problem/ "his definition came to be

)no&n as the #halcedonian Definition/2 #had&ic) describes the #halcedonian

1 elly$ Early Christian Doctrines$ =28=1/2 <rillmeier$ Christ in Christian Tradition$ 801/



7age 18

Definition as a mosaic of phrases from different sources$= containing &ithin it

e-cerpts from #yrils letters$ alongside phrases from Ceos "ome and the %ymbol of

nion/

Current se

erbert Bindley describes the Definition as the startingpoint for a large and fruitful

range of #hristological thought through the centuries$ &hich is by no means yet

e-hausted$: and in agreement &ith this is arl ;ahners suggestion that the

#halcedonian Definition preserves an incompleteness that &hile ending a debate begs

the need for further investigation/3 As mentioned above$ all mainline @estern

denominations strongly affirm #halcedon$ yet for these denominations it is only really

recently that debate has focused on it and its importance in matters of doctrine/ 4

Karl Barth on Chalcedon

As early as *P2 in Church Dogmatics Barth affirms the importance of the #halcedonian

Definition in any discussion concerning #hristology/8 Also &ithin his discussion of the

t&o natures of 5esus #hrist he refers to the #halcedonian Definition several times and

goes as far as to say of it

F"heG #halcedonian definition$ &hich has become normative for all

subsequent development in this dogma and dogmatics$ is one &hich in our

= #had&ic)$ The Early Church$ 20/

A treatise &ritten by Ceo$ the Bishop of ;ome$ &hich &as &ritten to condemn the radical #yrilliantheology being espoused by Hutyches and supported by Dioscorus/

: "/ erbert Bindley$ The &ecumenical Documents of the ,aith: The Creed of #icaea = Three Eistles

of Cyril = The Tome of +eo = The Chalcedonian Definition$ ed/ >/ @ <reen$ th ed/ (Condon ethuen$19:0!$ 184/

3 arl ;ahner$ #urrent 7roblems in #hristology$ in Theological Investigations$ vol/ 1 (Baltimoreelicon 7ress$ 1931!$ 1:01/4 5ones$ The umanity of Christ $ 23/8 ans rs von Balthasar$ The Theology of 0arl 'arth (+e& ?or) olt$ ;inehart and @inston$ 1941!$

11:M CD$ *P2$ 123=1/



7age 19

understanding has sho&n itself to be factually right and necessary/9

*n his essay <eorge unsinger 10 suggests that Barths #hristology is basically

#halcedonian/ ?et an analysis of &hether Barth could be thought of as #halcedonian

and ho& he uses the Definition &ill be discussed belo&/

9 CD$ I*P1$ 1==M CD$ I*P2$ 9$ 10:$ 104/10 <eorge unsinger$ arl BarthOs #hristology *ts Basic #halcedonian #haracter$ in The Cambridge

Comanion to 0arl 'arth$ ed/ 5/ B @ebster (#ambridge #ambridge niversity 7ress$ 2000!$ 12412/



7age 20

Cha"ter ) The Christology of Karl Barth

"his chapter &ill begin by attempting to give a summary of Barths general approach to

and understanding of #hristology$ follo&ed by ho& he deals individually &ith the t&o

natures found in 5esus #hrist/ aving loo)ed at the natures separately * &ill then

consider ho& Barth approaches the union of the natures as present in the person of

5esus #hrist/

5eneral Christology

>rom the introduction in Barths Doctrine of the ;econciliation$1 it is clear that Barth

considers the &or) of reconciliation$ the covenant fulfilled in the atonement$ as central$

and refers to it simply by the phrase <od &ith us/ e goes as far as to say that a

mista)en or deficient perception here &ould mean error or deficiency every&here/2

"hroughout the section he repeats ho& <od &ith us is central to the #hristian

message and clarifies &hat meanings are contained &ithin the phrase$ finally

concluding

"herefore the ,ne &ho sho&s and persuades and convinces and reveals

and communicates from man to man that it is so$ <od &ith us$ is the ,ne

&ho bears this name$ 5esus #hrist$ no other$ and nothing else K "he name

of 5esus #hrist covers the &hole po&er of the #hristian message because it

indicates the &hole of its content/=

>rom here in the final section of Barths survey of the Doctrine of ;econciliation $ he

1 CD$ *IP1$ Q:4/1$ =21/2 CD$ *IP1$ =/= CD$ *IP1$ 1418/ CD$ *IP1$ Q:8/$ 128:/



7age 21

investigates the being of 5esus #hrist and finds three #hristological aspects &hich also

lin) into three overarching understandings of the &hole event of the atonement/ >irstly$

in 5esus #hrist &e have to do &ith very <od$ and secondly in 5esus #hrist &e have

to do &ith a true man/: As Barth gives some depth to these t&o particular aspects he

sho&s ho& in 5esus #hrist <od has chosen humility by becoming human and ho& 5esus

#hrists humanity is e-alted by <od on our behalf/3 @ith these thoughts Barth then

moves to relate directly the t&o natures (humanity and divinity! and the t&o states

(humiliation and e-altation! of #hrist found in traditional #hristology and goes as far as

to say that$ &e cannot therefore ascribe to 5esus #hrist t&o natures and then quite

independently t&o states/4 "his is a )ey move in Barths #hristologyM as @ebster

comments$ Barth &eaves together #hristology$ soteriology$ anthropology$ and

ecclesiology in a &holly unprecedented fashion/8

>inally the third #hristological aspect Barth identifies is that 5esus #hrist imself is

one/9 ?et Barth is clear that this is no third thingM it is ho& the +e& "estament

&itnesses to the t&o previous aspects in the name 5esus #hrist/ "herefore Barth &rites

F"he +e& "estamentG statements concerning im al&ays move in either the

one direction or the other$ from above do&n&ards or from belo& up&ards/

"he only statement in the +e& "estament &hich brings together both in one

is properly the name of 5esus #hrist$ &hich forbids and ma)es quite

impossible any separation of the one from the other or any fusion of both in

a third/10

: CD$ *IP1$ 128$1=0/3 #f/ As <od e &as humbled to ta)e our place$ and as man e is e-alted on our behalf/ CD$ *IP1$

1=1/4 CD$ *IP1$ 1==/8 @ebster$ *ntroducing Barth$ 4M cf/ also unsinger$ arl BarthOs #hristology$ 1=:/9 CD$ *IP1$ 1=:/10 CD$ *IP1$ 1=3/



7age 22

*n this quote can be heard an echo of the debate that has already been discussed above

along &ith the #halcedonian definition itself$ &hich Barth describes as an innovation

FthatG &as not one of substance but only of theology$ and one &hich the substance itself

demanded/11 Also &ithin this third aspect Barth ma)es the move that &hile the t&o

previous aspects say all that there is to be said conceptually about 5esus #hrist being

very 8od and very man$ this third aspect brings it all together as a history$ a history that

not only unifies and completes the previous t&o aspects$ but gives a much more

dynamic sense to Barths #hristological understanding/12 Barth$ together &ith the use of

the terms aspects and history$ is emphasising his much more dynamic understanding

of the natures and the states$1= and as such he brings these aspects$ or directions$ out in

the subtitles of the first t&o sections of his Doctrine of ;econciliation$ 5esus #hrist$ the

Cord as %ervant$ the movement from above to belo& and 5esus #hrist the %ervant as

Cord$ the movement from belo& to above/1

Before moving to loo) at the first t&o aspects more specifically it is &orth noting that

Barth appears to prefer the term essence ("esen! above nature ( #atur ! in his

discussion around the first t&o aspects of 5esus #hrist/ 5ones suggests that for Barth

they seem to be basically interchangeable/1: ?et as Barth moves a&ay from the

original concepts of nature$ the term essence also encapsulates his more dynamic

understanding and includes not Nust the substance of a being$ but also the act of that

being/13

11 CD$ *IP1$ 1=3/12 CD$ *IP1$ 1=3/1= CD$ *IP1$ 38/

1 CD$ *IP1$ 1=:/1: 5ones$ The umanity of Christ $ 18$ note 9/13 Bruce c#ormac)$ 7articipation in <od$ ?esM Deification$ +o$ in &rthodox and ;odern: Studies in

the Theology of 0arl 'arth (<rand ;apids$ ich Ba)er Academic$ 2008!$ 2=9M cf/ also CD$ ***P2$1:49/



7age 2=

Divine 2*ature2 in Christ

nli)e his patristic predecessors$ Barth &as not bound by <ree) philosophical concepts

&ith regard to the divinity of 5esus #hrist and points out that any understanding of

divinity can only be found through &hat has been revealed through 5esus #hrist/14 e

also precludes the idea that the divine is only the @holly ,ther$ in contrast to

everything human$ by the suggestion that <od has done things that &ould normally be

associated &ith humanity through his choice to humiliate himself in 5esus #hrist/ 18

"hus the incarnation sho&s <od able to choose things because <od is the ,ne &ho

loves in freedom$ the ,ne &ho is free in is love$ and therefore not is o&n prisoner/ 19

>or Barth the allembracing fact of the freedom of F<odsG divine love transcends any

possibility of categorising and restraining <od &ithin a set of ideas and concepts/20

@ith this fact he thus sees the divine nature of <od revealed in <ods free choice of the

path of humiliation in becoming human/ "his is the lin) that connects the divine nature

&ith the state of humiliation/ >or <od chooses condescension/ e chooses

humiliation$ lo&liness and obedience K "he <od of the +e& "estament &itness is the

<od &ho ma)es this choice/21

?et it is not Nust the +e& "estament that &itnesses to this model of divinity$ but also

from &ithin the ,ld "estament Barth brings out the concept of sonship &hich is defined

by obedience and humility$ thus ma)ing it quite appropriate in this conte-t that 5esus

#hrist is called the %on of <od as the mode of being of <od &ho is obedient to the

>ather and submits to the humiliation of becoming human/22 As &ith his predecessors$

14 CD$ *IP1$ 144$ 183/18 CD$ *IP1$ 183M cf/ also the meaning of is deity 6 the only true deity in the +e& "estament sense 6

cannot be gathered from any notion of supreme$ absolute$ non&orldly being/ *t can be learned only

from &hat too) place in #hrist CD$ *IP1$ 144/19 CD$ *IP1$ 184/20 CD$ *IP1$ 1834/21 CD$ *IP1$ 199/22 CD$ *IP1$ 2049/



7age 2

Barth leaves no doubt that the divinity of 5esus #hrist is crucial to the atonement and

thus to the &hole Doctrine of ;econciliation/2=

Human 2*ature2 in Christ

oving onto Barths discussion of the humanity of 5esus #hrist$ it is not Nust 5esus

#hrists humanity that is central to the atonement$ but that this humanity lin)s the %on of

<od to all of the human race/ >or in 5esus #hrist <od becomes and is man$ the

fello&man of all men/2 @ithout this all important lin)$ 5esus #hrist cannot reconcile

us to <od$ for it is in the <odordained act of the incarnation that <od the Cord of the

#ovenant is able not only to )eep the divine side of the #ovenant$ but also to become

the one &ho )eeps it from our side too/2: Barth repeats throughout this section the

importance of remembering that the incarnation is a free act of <od and &hen tal)ing

about the union this is one of the )ey points to remember/

Barth also moves to suggest that the concept of human nature is a deadend for

investigation in this conte-t/ "o attempt to contrive an understanding of human nature

from the human race and then apply this to the humanity found in 5esus #hrist &ould be

a mista)e and$ as &ith the divine nature$ he disregards older understandings and settles

on the idea that the human nature can only be based on the particular )no&ledge of

the man 5esus #hrist/23 Barth affirms that 5esus #hrists humanity is in complete

li)eness to ours$ yet at the same time 5esus #hrists humanity is not quite the same as

ours/ "his unli)eness is based on the fact that 5esus #hrist is the %on of <od and thus

his humanity is e-alted to unity &ith <od

@hat else can the %on of <od &ho humbled himself as man become and be

2= CD$ *IP1$ 19=/2 CD$ *IP2$ :0/2: CD$ *IP2$ =/23 CD$ *IP2$ 24/



7age 2:

but the %on of an &ho is not divinised but e-alted to the side of <od. K

the e-altation of this servant to be the Cord$ of the man 5esus of +aEareth to

the side of <od the >atherM and this e-altation is itself based on the fact that

e is the humiliated %on of <od$ the Cord &ho became a servant/24

The nion of 2*atures2

Ceading on from this idea of the uniqueness of the humanity of 5esus #hrist is ho&

Barth deals &ith ho& the t&o natures &itnessed in 5esus #hrist are unified/ 28 *t is part

of a discussion that concludes in sho&ing ho& the human nature &ithin 5esus #hrist is

e-alted/29 As mentioned above Barth )eeps$ as part of this discussion$ the important fact

that the incarnation and thus the union is solely a <odordained act e is the ,ne &ho

founds and sustains this union$ &ho ma)es this different and alien thing$ is being as

man$ both possible and actual as is o&n/=0

During this discussion Barth begins to loo) specifically at the actual union &itnessed in

5esus #hrist and rather than thin)ing about ho& the t&o natures are Noined$ he

considers it more about ho& each nature participates in the other

5esus #hrist$ then$ does not e-ist as the %on of <od &ithout also

participating as such in human essence/ And e does not e-ist as the %on of

an &ithout participating as such in the essence of the %on of <od and

therefore in divine essence/ ,n both sides there is a true and genuine

participation K this t&osided participation$ and therefore the union of the

24 CD$ *IP2$ 28/

28 @hile Barth indeed deals &ith this more specifically &ithin the section &e are currently dealing &ithentitled "he omecoming of the %on of an$ it is present throughout both sections that are beingconsidered here/

29 CD$ *IP2$ /=0 CD$ *IP2$ 4M cf/ also CD$ *IP2$ :2/



7age 23

t&o natures in im arises and consists$ therefore$ from im/=1

"his idea of participation allo&s Barth to suggest that &hile the natures are in union$

they are not the same there has been no change of the individual natures or mashing

together of them/ "his genuineness of the individual natures &ithin 5esus #hrist )eeps

him in line &ith the first part of the #halcedonian definition/ ?et it also allo&s him to

be clear that the individual natures &ithin the union are$ in the t&osided participation$

not inseparable or divisible$ staying in line &ith the second part of the #halcedonian

definition/ Again Barth relies solely on the selfrevelation of <od as the grounding of

his thought the &hole doctrine of the t&o natures in the strict sense depends on K

the simple fact of the e-istence and reality of 5esus #hrist as it is attested in the +e&

"estament/=2

Another benefit of this t&osided participation &ithin the union is ho& it allo&s Barth

to understand the humiliation of the divinity and the e-altation of the humanity &ithin

5esus #hrist$ more specifically the e-altation is no divinisation of human nature$ for

"his does not mean K that the human essence K became and is divine essence/ ==

Barth is clear that deification is not &hat is required for humanity$ but e-altation$= and

this e-altation allo&s Barth to reform the Athanasian divine e-change thus$ <od

becomes man in order that man maynot become <od$ but come to <od/=:

Barth says

that in this movement of <od to humiliation and of humanity to e-altation &e have

retranslated that &hole phenomenology into the sphere of a history/=3 ?et this

retranslation of the union into a mutual participation and into history also allo&s Barth

=1 CD$ *IP2$ 32/

=2 CD$ *IP2$ 3:3/== CD$ *IP2$ 41/= CD$ *IP2$ 9=/=: CD$ *IP2$ 103/=3 CD$ *IP2$ 103/



7age 24

to give an order to the natures/=4 e thus brings everything bac) round to &here he

started &ith his understanding that the incarnation is not a state$ but an event$ =8 and

indeed that the atonement is history=9 &ithin &hich to say atonement is to say 5esus

#hrist/0

Conclusion

@hile the scope of this &hole study dictates that there is no space for a fuller or deeper

e-planation of Barths #hristology$ several )ey moves &ithin Barths #hristology have

been discussed/ "hough &hile some of the more subtle details of ho& Barth treats the

t&o natures of 5esus #hrist may be lost in this overvie& there are a fe& things that

stand out as being of particular interest to this study/

>irstly and most innovatively there is Barths lin)ing of the natures of #hrist &ith the

other #hristological ideas of the states and the offices of #hrist along &ith ho& each is

placed alongside his Doctrine of %in$ soteriology$ pneumatology and &ithin that

ecclesiology/ "hus each #hristological aspect fits in &ith not only the overarching idea

of the atonement$ but also &ith those other doctrines/1 5ones brings out the fact that

this ordering of Barths #hristology can be perceived through the overall structure of

volume *I of Church Dogmatics/)&

%econdly$ Barth is not slavishly attached to the old understandings of nature$ and &hile

holding onto )ey aspects of orthodo- #hristology$ such as the #halcedonian Definition$

=4 #f/ but even in their common &or)ing they are not interchangeable/ "he divine is still above and thehuman belo&/ CD$ *IP2$ 113/

=8 CD$ *IP1$ 3M cf/ also &e have left no place for anything static K of the traditional doctrine of the person of #hrist CD$ *IP2$ 103/

=9 CD$ *IP1$ 1:4/0 CD$ *IP1$ 1:8/1 CD$ *IP1$ 128:/2 %ee Appendi- 1 for a table lifted from 5ones$ The umanity of Christ illustrating the structure of

volume *I as &ell as the &ay each #hristological aspect fits in &ith the other doctrines/



7age 28

he manages to free himself from the strictures of its conte-t$ the <ree) philosophical

&orld/ ?et &hile freeing himself from the older concepts of nature he )eeps reminding

us of the importance of ho& in 5esus #hrist &e have the sole &itness and &ay of

understanding the natures$ as only <od can truly reveal to us the nature of the divine

and the true nature of our humanity/

>inally$ &hile freeing himself from the philosophical conte-t$ Barths is )een to hold

onto the simple fact of the hyostatic union$ as understood by the #halcedonian

Definition/ "he union &itnessed in 5esus #hrist is very real$ and at the same time the

individual natures are also genuine$ and this is all achieved by the t&osided

participation of the natures &ithin 5esus #hrist and based on the selfrevelation of 5esus

#hrist in his t&o natures/



7age 29

Cha"ter Critical Analysis

$ntroduction

*n this chapter * plan to bring together some of the #hristological aspects that have

featured in the previous chapters/ @hile fifteen centuries may have passed and thus

accounts for much that differentiates Barth from his : th #entury contemporaries$ there

are still some of his moves that are foreshado&ed in the : th #entury debate/ "hus * plan

first to loo) at &here Barth and +estorius have similar thoughts &ithin their individual

#hristologies and then do the same thing bet&een Barth and #yril/ * conclude &ith

some thoughts on &here Barths vie&s sit in reference to an Ale-andrian or Antiochene

#hristology/

*estorius and Barth

@hile #yril has no time for +estorius$ there is a sense in &hich Barth &ould have been

interested in his insights/ *ndeed Barth advocates the importance of investigating

possible theological deadends so that they be proved not to conform &ith orthodo-y1$

as &ell as addressing the original concerns of these deadends/2 As such$ &hile

ac)no&ledging the possibly heretical direction that +estorius &as ta)ing$ &hich #yril

then condemned for being ta)en too far$ Barth &ould have supported +estorius insights

regarding the importance of the humanity of #hrist for there is no doubt that either

nature can be disregarded in Barths #hristology/= ,ne of the places that #yril strongly

disagreed &ith +estorius$ as mentioned above$ &as in ho& he envisioned the union$ yet

+estorius is )een$ by his divine conNunction$ to do a&ay &ith$ as Barth does$ a

1 CD$ *IP1$ 200/2 #f/ also his attitude to&ards the Cutheran and ;eformed positions on the subNect of communio

naturarum c#ormac)$ 7articipation in <od$ ?esM Deification$ +o$ 21/= #f/ li)e is deity$ it Fis humanityG is integral to the &hole event CD$ *IP2$ =:$ cf/ also 2:3$ 113/



7age =0

deification of all humanity in the incarnation$ thus +estorius &rites

+or does it happen that <od the @ord does anything &ithout the humanityM

for he has been led to the highest conNunction$ not to deification$ as the sages

among the more recent dogmatists have asserted/

and Barth echoes

"hus &hatever may be the nature of this second element in the history $ it is

not found K in a divinisation of is human essence corresponding to is

becoming man/:

Cyril and Barth

"he areas covered in regards to Barth and #yrils #hristologies sho&s much that is

shared/ Both Barth and #yril place #hristology at the centre of their respective

theologies/ #yrils phrase e Fthe CogosG suffered impassibly3 attempts to state both

sides of the #hristological problem &ith similar force$ Nust as unsinger suggests$ Barth

does in his shifting bet&een an Ale-andrian and an Antiochene idiom4 to balance the

humanity and divinity in 5esus #hrist/ @ithin #yrils understanding of the incarnation is

also the idea that it &as a timebound act8 similar to Barths history &hich underpins

his #hristology/

Bet&een #yril and Barth the moves to&ards a more dynamic understanding can also be

seen to be shared/ #yril &ants to see a more dynamic understanding of soteriology in

his #hristology$ &hile Barth loo)s directly to gaining this for his #hristology/ #yril

brings in the idea of participation rather than the outright deification as seen in his

+estorius$ %ermon 10$ :2/: CD$ *IP2$ 42/3 %cholia$ Q=3/8$ Q=4//4 unsinger$ arl BarthOs #hristology$ 1=0/8 5ohn c<uc)in$ &n the Unity of Christ (#rest&ood$ +/? %t/ IladimirOs %eminary 7ress$ 199:!$ =4/



7age =1

predecessor Athanasius$ and this seems to be in line &ith ho& Barth sees the interaction

bet&een the natures in 5esus #hrist/ c<uc)in uses the term deification by grace9 to

e-plain ho& #yril allo&s for 5esus #hrists humanity to be deified through the union

&ith his divinity$ and ho& this deification of human nature is then transferred to all

humanity leading to a reunion &ith <od/10 @hile Barth sees the reunion &ith <od as

coming from the e-altation of human nature$ rather than its deification$ it comes to all

humanity through the gracious act of <od in the divine humiliation and human

e-altation in 5esus #hrist and as such could be termed e-altation by grace/ 11

Barth from Ale,andria or Antioch-

>or some scholars$ there is no doubt that Barth &or)s from &ithin the approach of the

Ale-andrian school of theology/ >or #harles @aldrop his entire boo) is posited on the

suggestion that &hile Barth can be understood as an Antiochene theologian$ to gain a

proper understanding of his #hristology$ you &ould need to interpret it as Ale-andrian

in nature/12 As mentioned above$ ho&ever$ unsinger suggests that because he moves

from an Ale-andrian idiom to an Antiochene one$ his #hristology is basically

#halcedonian$1= yet Bruce c#ormac) &ould caution the use of the term to encapsulate

Barths #hristology and 7aul +immo &arns against using the term to describe other

areas of Barths theology/1

9 c<uc)in$ Cyril $ 18:3/10 #yril of Ale-andria$ >irst Cetter of #yril to %uccensus$ in St. Cyril of Alexandria: The

Christological Controversy: Its istory! Theology! and Texts$ trans/ 5ohn c<uc)in$ %upplements toIigiliae #hristianae JJ*** (Ceiden Brill$ 199!$ =:34$ Q9/

11 CD$ *IP2$ 92:$ 1034/12 #harles " @aldrop$ 0arl 'arth1s Christology: Its 'asic Alexandrian Character $ ;eligion and ;eason

21 (Berlin outon 7ublishers$ 198!$ viiviii/

1= unsinger$ arl BarthOs #hristology/1 #f/ especially c#ormac)Os criticism of unsinger in Bruce c#ormac)$ arl BarthOs istoriciEed#hristology$ in &rthodox and ;odern: Studies in the Theology of 0arl 'arth (<rand ;apids$ ichBa)er Academic$ 2008!$ 222=M cf/ also 7aul +immo$ arl Barth and the concursus Dei 6 A#halcedonianism "oo >ar.$ International <ournal of Systematic Theology 9$ no/ 1 (2004! 3941/



7age =2

Both #yril and +estorius can be seen to be moving a&ay from the simplistic idea of

humanitys divinisation by the incarnation$ and this is also reflected in Barth/ 1: "hus

Barth does seem to follo& this common Ale-andrian and Antiochene vie&point$ and

this is no startling conclusion if %ellers suggestion is accepted$ that fundamentally there

is no actual difference bet&een the t&o schools/13 ?et Barth also allies himself to their

individual emphasises$ to the Antiochene insistence on the humanity of #hrist and the

Ale-andrian importance of the union and the divinity/

1: #f/ "he #hristian does not claim the fulness of the union of <od &ith man for his o&n e-perience K but professes that other$ the ediator$ in &hom it has ta)en place for him CD$ *IP2$ :4/13 from the point of vie& of its underlying principles the teaching of the Antiochene theologians is in no

respects different from that of the theologians of the school of Ale-andria/ %ellers$ T%o Ancient

Christologies$ 1=/



7age ==

Cha"ter 6 The Chalcedonicity of Barth

#halcedon is by no stretch of imagination the perfect marriage of Ale-andrian and

Antiochene theology/1 *t is ho&ever$ as both unsinger and 5ones2 state$ something that

indeed demarcates a region in &hich there is more than one place to ta)e up

residence= &ith regards to orthodo- #hristology/ "his demarcation &ould have

contained many Ale-andrian and Antiochene theologians and$ ironically$ appears to be

generally approved of by +estorius in the 'a(aar of eracleides/ @e can also assume

that it &ould have been approved of by #yril in that it contained much of &hat he had

&ritten and also &hat he had agreed to in the %ymbol of nion/:

As the Definition is understood as a demarcation$ Barths #hristology is &ell &ithin the

space allo&ed for by the Definition$ yet also in Church Dogmatics the #hristology

Barth presents shifts bet&een both the Antiochene and Ale-andrian vie& points/ As

seen above Barth holds much in common &ith both our e-emplars$ yet to identify a

#halcedonian vie&point as being a moderation of both Ale-andrian and Antiochene

theologies &ould be to mista)e the Definitions capacity for enabling a broad range of

#hristological positions/

%o Barth is indeed #halcedonian$ in as far as his #hristology sits in one of the places

available for a theologian &ithin the demarcation created by the Definition/ o&ever

Barths #hristology does not stop at the Definition$ he moves beyond it in his dynamic

1 #f/ c#ormac)$ arl BarthOs istoriciEed #hristology$ 20=/

2 5ones$ The umanity of Christ $ 24/= unsinger$ arl BarthOs #hristology$ 124/ +estorius$ The 'a(aar of eracleides$ -$ =4:/: "his assumption is based solely on #yrils theological approval$ as * thin) if #yril had )no&n that

+estorius approved of it the church may &ell have been flung bac) into a ne& +estorian #ontroversy'



7age =

understanding of #hristology &ith his move a&ay from the static concept of nature and

his emphasis on the mutual participation of the natures in the actual history of 5esus

#hrist/ Also Barths use of essence as opposed to nature points to ho& he attempts to

encompass not Nust the ontology but also the dynamics of a thing/3

Barth does seem$ in his appreciation for the individual stresses of both the schools of

theology and his bringing together of these strengths$ to produce a #hristology that &e

could rightly suggest marries together those differing emphasises of Ale-andrian and

Antiochene theology/ And &hile this Barthian vie& of #hristology falls &ithin an

orthodo- position as outlined at #halcedon$ the simple use of #halcedonian to describe

his #hristology ignores the importance of &hat Barth has achieved in his dynamic

out&or)ing of #hristology/

3 c#ormac)$ 7articipation in <od$ ?esM Deification$ +o$ 2=89$ 2:3/



7age =:

Appendix 1

+rganisation of Church Dogmatics $#

*IP1 *IP2 *IP=

Christology

7erson "he Cord as

%ervant 5esus

#hrist$ %on of <od

"he %ervant as

Cord

5esus #hrist$ %on of

an

"he "rue @itness

5esus #hrist$ the

ediator

,ffice munus sacerdotale munus regale munus roheticum

%tate status exinanitionis

(Q:9!

status exaltationis

(Q3!

5esus as the light of

lifeM unity of states

(Q39!

Doctrine of Sin 7ride and >all (Q30! %loth and

isery(Q3:!

>alsehood and

condemnation (Q40!

Soteriology 5ustification (Q31! %anctification(Q33! 7romise of <od

Iocation (Q41!

-neumatology

oly %pirit in the

community

<athering of the

community

pbuilding of the

community

%ending the

community

oly %pirit in the

individual

>aith (QQ32$3=! Cove (QQ34$38! ope (QQ42$4=!

ETICS! I7>3

The Christian +ife Baptism 7rayer Hucharist

1 #opied from a table found in 5ones$ The umanity of Christ $ 233/



7age =3

Bibliography

Athanasius/ De *ncarnatione/ *n #icene and -ost6#icene ,athers Series *! 7olume 3$

edited by 7hilip %chaff and enry @ace$ translated by Archibald ;obertson/

Hdinburgh "L" #lar)$ 1890/

Balthasar$ ans rs von/ The Theology of 0arl 'arth/ +e& ?or) olt$ ;inehart and

@inston$ 1941/

Barth$ arl/ Church Dogmatics/ Hdited by </ @/ Bromiley and "/ >/ "orrance/

"ranslated by </ @/ Bromiley/ 7eabody$ A endric)son$ 2010/

BethuneBa)er$ 5/ >/ #estorius and is Teaching: A ,resh Examination of the Evidence/

#harleston$ %# BilblioCife$ 2009/

Bindley$ "/ erbert/ The &ecumenical Documents of the ,aith: The Creed of #icaea =

Three Eistles of Cyril = The Tome of +eo = The Chalcedonian Definition/ Hdited

by >/ @ <reen/ th ed/ Condon ethuen$ 19:0/

#had&ic)$ enry/ Hucharist and #hristology in the +estorian #ontroversy/ <ournal of

Theological Studies n/s/2 (19:1! 1:3/

TTT/ The Early Church/ Condon odder and %toughton$ 194=/

#ross$ >/ C/$ ed/ #halcedon$ "he Definition of/ *n The &xford Dictionary of the

Christian Church$ 2:9/ Condon ,-ford niversity 7ress$ 1933/

#yril of Ale-andria/ Hpistle 10/ *n +etters$ translated by 5ohn * cHnerney$ 1::9/

@ashington$ D/# #atholic niversity of America 7ress$ 1984/

TTT/ Hpistle :/ *n +etters$ translated by 5ohn * cHnerney$ 11904/ @ashington$



7age =4

D/# #atholic niversity of America 7ress$ 1984/

TTT/ >irst Cetter of #yril to %uccensus/ *n St. Cyril of Alexandria: The

Christological Controversy: Its istory! Theology! and Texts$ translated by 5ohn

c<uc)in$ =:28/ %upplements to Iigiliae #hristianae JJ***/ Ceiden Brill$

199/

TTT/ %cholia on the *ncarnation/ *n Saint Cyril! Archbisho of Alexandria$

translated by 7/ H/ 7usey$ 418:2=3/ Cibrary of >athers of the oly #atholic

#hurch/ ,-ford 7ar)er$ 1881/

Husebius/ istoria Hcclesiastica/ *n #icene and -ost6#icene ,athers Series *! 7olume

)$ edited by 7hilip %chaff and enry @ace$ translated by Arthur #/ c<iffert/

Hdinburgh "L" #lar)$ 1890/

<regory +aEianEen/ Hpistle 101/ *n St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological

Controversy: Its istory! Theology! and Texts$ translated by 5ohn c<uc)in$

=909/ %upplements to Iigiliae #hristianae JJ***/ Ceiden Brill$ 199/

<rillmeier$ Aloys/ Christ in Christian Tradition: ,rom the Aostolic Age to Chalcedon

234)5/ Iol/ 1/ Condon A/;/ o&bray$ 193:/

anson$ ;/ 7/ #/ The Search for the Christian Doctrine of 8od: The Arian Controversy

9)69)/ Hdinburgh " L " #lar)$ 1988/

unsinger$ <eorge/ arl BarthOs #hristology *ts Basic #halcedonian #haracter/ *n

The Cambridge Comanion to 0arl 'arth$ edited by 5/ B @ebster$ 12412/

#ambridge #ambridge niversity 7ress$ 2000/

5ones$ 7aul Dafydd/ The umanity of Christ: Christology in 0arl 'arth1s Church



7age =8

Dogmatics/ Condon "/ L "/ #lar)$ 2008/

elly$ 5/ +/ D/ Early Christian Doctrines/ :th ed/ Condon A/ L #/ Blac)$ 198:/

Coon$ 5/ #/ Ian$ and ans Ian Coon/ The Dyohysite Christology of Cyril of

Alexandria/ Ceiden Brill$ 2009/

c#ormac)$ Bruce/ arl BarthOs istoriciEed #hristology/ *n &rthodox and ;odern:

Studies in the Theology of 0arl 'arth$ 2012==/ <rand ;apids$ ich Ba)er

Academic$ 2008/

TTT/ 7articipation in <od$ ?esM Deification$ +o/ *n &rthodox and ;odern: Studies

in the Theology of 0arl 'arth$ 2=:230/ <rand ;apids$ ich Ba)er Academic$

2008/

c<uc)in$ 5ohn/ &n the Unity of Christ / #rest&ood$ +/? %t/ IladimirOs %eminary

7ress$ 199:/

TTT/ St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its istory! Theology!

and Texts/ %upplements to Iigiliae #hristianae JJ***/ Ceiden Brill$ 199/

+estorius/ +estoriusOs >irst %ermon Against the "heoto)os/ *n The Christological

Controversy$ edited by ;ichard A/ +orris$ translated by ;ichard A/ +orris$

12==1/ %ources of Harly #hristian "hought/ 7hiladelphia >ortress 7ress$ 1980/

TTT/ +estoriusOs %econd Cetter to #yril/ *n The Christological Controversy$ edited

by ;ichard A/ +orris$ translated by ;ichard A/ +orris$ 1=:0/ %ources of Harly

#hristian "hought/ 7hiladelphia >ortress 7ress$ 1980/

TTT/ %ermon 10 Against those &ho on account of the conNunction either mortify

the divinity of the ,nlyBegotten or deify the humanity/ *n The Sermons of



7age =9

#estorius$ translated by >ord Ce&is Battles$ 1:=/ 7ittsburgh s/n/$ 194=/

TTT/ The 'a(aar of eracleides/ "ranslated by <odfrey ;olles Driver and Ceonard

odgson/ ,-ford #larendon 7ress$ 192:/

+immo$ 7aul/ arl Barth and the concursus Dei 6 A #halcedonianism "oo >ar.

International <ournal of Systematic Theology 9$ no/ 1 (2004! :842/

7restige$ </ C/ #yril ,r$ ,ne Cord$ ,ne >aith$ ,ne Baptism/ *n ,athers and

eretics: Six Studies in Dogmatic ,aith! %ith -rologue and Eilogue$ =0940/

Condon %/7/#/$ 193=/

TTT/ +estorius ,r ;edeemed umanity/ *n ,athers and eretics: Six Studies in

Dogmatic ,aith! %ith -rologue and Eilogue$ 24=08/ Condon %/7/#/$ 193=/

;ahner$ arl/ #urrent 7roblems in #hristology/ *n Theological Investigations$

119200/ Baltimore elicon 7ress$ 1931/

;ussell$ +orman/ The Doctrine of Deification in the 8ree/ -atristic Tradition/ ,-ford

early #hristian studies/ ,-ford ,-ford niversity 7ress$ 200/

%chaff$ 7hilip/ "he +icene #reed/ *n The Creeds of Christendom: "ith a istory and

Critical #otes$ 301/ +e& ?or) arper L Brothers$ 1844/

TTT/ "he +iceno#onstantinopolitan #reed/ *n The Creeds of Christendom: "ith

a istory and Critical #otes$ :49/ +e& ?or) arper L Brothers$ 1844/

%ellers$ ;/ I/ T%o Ancient Christologies: A Study in the Christological Thought of the

Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early istory of Christian Doctrine/

Condon %ociety for 7romoting #hristian no&ledge for the #hurch istorical

%ociety$ 190/



7age 0

%imonetti$ anlio/ 'iblical Interretation in the Early Church: An istorical

Introduction to -atristic Exegesis/ Hdinburgh "/ L "/ #lar)$ 199=/

%poerl$ elley ccarthy/ "he Citurgical Argument in Apollinarius elp and

indrance on the @ay to ,rthodo-y/ arvard Theological $eive% 91$ no/ 2

(April 1998! 1241:2/

"hompson$ 5ohn/ Christ in -ersective: Christological -ersectives in the Theology of

0arl 'arth/ Hdinburgh %t Andre& 7ress$ 1948/

@aldrop$ #harles "/ 0arl 'arth1s Christology: Its 'asic Alexandrian Character /

;eligion and ;eason 21/ Berlin outon 7ublishers$ 198/

@ebster$ 5ohn/ *ntroducing Barth/ *n The Cambridge Comanion to 0arl 'arth$

edited by 5/ B @ebster$ 113/ #ambridge #ambridge niversity 7ress$ 2000/

@essel$ %usan/ Cyril of Alexandria and the #estorian Controversy: The ;a/ing of a

Saint and of a eretic/ ,-ford$ Hngland ,-ford niversity 7ress$ 200/