The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandria's Christology: A Relational Perspective

The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandrias Christology: A Relational Perspective
By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
A Term Paper Submitted to Ms. Eppie Y.M. WONG of Alliance Bible Seminary in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course of CH512-E: Church History I Summer 2005
Timothy Ching Lung LAM Student ID Number: D023111
September 23, 2005
Contents
I. II. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAS CHRISTOLOGY ......................................................2
A. DEFINITION OF HYPOSTATIC UNION...........................................................................2 B. THE OLD TESTAMENT IMAGES FOR HYPOSTATIC UNION ..............................................3 (1) The Ark of the Covenant............................................................................................4 (2) The Burning Bush......................................................................................................4 III. A. B. C. D. IV. A. B. V. CRITIQUES AGAINST CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAS CHRISTOLOGY............5 APOLLINARIANISM ........................................................................................................5 LOGOS-SARX CHRISTOLOGY .........................................................................................6 TERTIUM QUID ...............................................................................................................7 DEFICIENCIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IMAGES ........................................................8 THE REASSESSMENT OF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAS CHRISTOLOGY .....8 ADAM-CHRIST TYPOLOGY............................................................................................8 TRINITARIAN ADAM-CHRIST TYPOLOGY ...................................................................11 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... I
I. Introduction According to Gregory of Nazianzus, the unassumed is the unhealed, and therefore Jesus should have assumed our fallen, sinful and alienated humanity in order to be a truly man to heal us.1 However, it appears to be logically impossible for the unity of the fallen humanity and the Stressing on either sides or synthesizing the two would result divinity in the one Person of Jesus. Eutychianism, etc. Following Gregorys thinking of Christs assumption of our fallen humanity, Cyril of Alexandria developed his unique Christology, namely, hypostatic union in order to demonstrate the Word united hypostatically with true human nature.2 union suggests a type of humanity different from ours. However, many theologians in history Accordingly, it appears theoretically accused Cyrils Christology threatened its continuity with the whole human race for hypostatic incorrect for Cyrils hypostatic union (though declared orthodoxy by the Council of Ephesus), which would result in inefficacy of the redemption to the human race leading to the collapse of the entire Gospel. Despite the above critiques, Cyrils Christology still offers a useful way of understanding how the true humanity is hypostatically united by the Word while maintaining the relatedness of Jesus humanity to our humanity if we take a closer look at his Christology using a relational perspective. In this respect, this paper will reassess Cyrils classical theological concepts of hypostatic union supplemented with a relational understanding of his Adam-Christ Typology as well as his Trinitarian perspectives mainly based on his letters to Nestorius as well as his exegetical writings in order to affirm the full humanity of Jesus in relation to our humanity.
in a formation of heresy as witnessed throughout history such as Docetism, Apollinarianism,
R.S. Wallace and G. L Green, Christology, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990), 242. 2 G.D.D., Cyril of Alexandria, in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 185. Also, see C.A. Blaising, Hypostatic Union, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 540. Church History I Page 1 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
II. Cyril of Alexandrias Christology A. Definition of Hypostatic Union For Cyril, the one person (hypostasis) of Christs incarnate being has two natures (physeis), namely divinity and humanity, united in what he has referred to as a hypostatic union. 3 In his first two letters to Nestorius, Cyril clearly stated his definition of this hypostatic union as follows: First Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius4 Ontological the Word having Personally Union (hypostatically) united to Himself... True flesh ensouled with reasonable soul Humanity with Flesh Ensouled Ineffable unspeakably and incomprehensibly Union Humanity was made Man and was called son of not by man not in respect of favour only or good Gods will pleasure, nor yet by appendage of person alone nor only by assuming a person alone One Reality and that the natures which are gathered with Two together unto Very Union are diverse, yet Distinct One Christ and Son of Both, not as though Natures the diversity of natures were taken away after the because of the Union, but rather that the Union Godhead and Manhood make up One Lord and Son through their unspeakable and ineffable coming together into Unity. Second Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius5 the Wordunited to Himself hypostatically.. flesh enlivened by a rational soul
in an unspeakable, inconceivable manner and so became man and was called son of man, not by Gods will alone or good pleasure, nor by the assumption of a person alone.
Rather did two different natures come together to form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son. It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvelously and mysteriously combining to form a unity.
This was famously contended by Cyril of Alexandria and that he had used the term, physis almost in the same manner as hypostasis for the one being of Christ. See G.D.D., Cyril of Alexandria, in New Dictionary of Theology, 185. 4 Cyril of Alexandria, First Letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, edited and translated by Pusey, P.E.. The St. Pachomius Orthodox Library, http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr1.html; accessed 12 July 2005. 5 Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, ed. Norman P. Tanner, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. Church History I Page 2 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Based on the above, five aspects of Cyrils hypostatic union can be summarized as follows: 1. Hypostatic union affirms one hypostasis or person of Jesus Christ, which rules out Nestorius notion of conjunction union between the two natures for it suggested two persons of Christ.6 2. 3. 4. 5. Hypostatic union is beyond human comprehension (unspeakable). Hypostatic union affirms human natures dependent personal subsistence in the Word which guards against all forms of Adoptionism.7 Hypostatic union assures all the essentials attributes of humanity that Christ possesses as a truly and wholly man with flesh ensouled with a reasonable soul. Hypostatic union affirms the inseparable distinctness of the two natures united in One Christ while preserving their own characteristic properties without confusion, without change, without division, (and) without separation as set forth officially by the Council of Chalcedon.8 In short, Cyril asserted that Christ did have two distinct natures united ontologically to form one reality without destroying the distinctness of the two natures.9 B. The Old Testament Images for Hypostatic Union In order to demonstrate the very concept of his hypostatic union, Cyril employed images
H. Griffith, Nestorius, Nestorianism, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990), 759. Actually, Cyril condemned Nestorius in his famous Twelve Anathemas subjoined to his third letter to Nestorius that if anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema. See Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, ed. Norman P. Tanner, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. 7 Blaising, Hypostatic Union,540. 8 Ivor Davidson, Theologizing the Human Jesus: An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed, International Journal of Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 No. 2 (July 2001): 135. 9 In fact, Cyril repeatedly affirmed this assertion in his later epistles even after the schism arising from his conflicts with Nestorius. For example, in his letter to John of Antioch about peace, he said, the Word is now understood to be one with his own flesh, and he was therefore been designated the man from heaven, being both perfect in godhead and perfect in humanity and thought of as in one person. For there is one lord Jesus Christ, even though we do not ignore the difference of natures, out of which we saw that the ineffable union was effected. See Cyril of Alexandria, Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about Peace. ed. Norman P. Tanner, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. Similar assertion could also be found in the Formula of Reunion between Cyril and John of Antioch. Cyril said, He (God the Word) is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made. See Cyril of Alexandria, The Formula of Reunion between Cyril and John of Antioch: Epistle 39 of the Cyrilline Corpus, ed Norman P. Tanner, http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_johnantioch.shtml; accessed 20 July 2005. Church History I Page 3 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
from the Old Testament as illustrations for the Logos of God entering a hypostatic union with humanity as set out below: (1) The Ark of the Covenant For Cyril, the Ark of the Covenant served as a good analogy to describe the union of the two natures without confusion of the two. He noticed that the Ark was made out of imperishable wood, and covered with pure gold both inside and out.
10
Similarly, Jesus
has the incorruptible body covered with the pre-eminence of the divine nature.11 Although the Ark was composed of the two different natures, the attributes of the two remained unchanged and that wood and gold were not confused with each other. So did the two different natures of Jesus Christ, albeit united to form one Christ and one Son, had preserved their own characteristic properties without confusion. (2) The Burning Bush Another Old Testament image utilized by Cyril was the Burning Bush Narrative, which was used to demonstrate that the hypostatic union was an impossible act of God uniting the two natures without consuming the human nature by the divine nature.12 from within a bush while the bush did not burn up even on fire. The Burning Bush story was narrated in Exodus 3:2~3 and that God appeared to Moses in flames of fire For Cyril, the bush was On of wood nature, which should be consumed by the fire easily under the natural order. bush if the bush was not being consumed.
the other hand, the fire itself could not sustain burning without the fuel provided by the In this regard, the bush and the fire, by their respective natures, could not be united together without destroying the others attributes. However, the Burning Bush in Exodus narrative proved that God made the impossible possible. God.13 Same as the hypostatic union that the human nature could easily be consumed by the divine nature, but it turned out the two natures remaining unconsumed by the act of
Steven A McKinion, Cyril of Alexandria, The Old Testament, and Images of Christ For The Church, Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN): Conference Papers (2000): 11. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid, 11-12. 13 Ibid. Church History I Page 4 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
10
III. Critiques against Cyril of Alexandrias Christology Notwithstanding that the hypostatic union affirms the doctrine of the two natures possessed in the one Person of Jesus, there are indeed some problems with it.
A.
Apollinarianism As Cyril employed mia physis (one nature) formula to speak of Christ being one nature
of God the Word incarnate and one person of God the Word in (from) two natures,14 Nestorius considered Cyrils Christology as a sophisticated form of Apollinarianism, which contended the Logos assuming flesh without human soul.15 For Nestorius, Cyrils notion of In his mia physis formula would result in the destruction of the human nature and that the impassible divine nature would actually suffer what the passible human nature suffers. words, They confuse his divine and his human (qualities), saying that the union with flesh resulted in one natureeven as the soul and the body are bound (together) in one nature in the body, suffering of necessity, whether he will or not, the sufferings of the nature which he took upon himself, as though he was not of the nature of the Father impassible and without needs.He hungered and thirsted and grew weary and feared and fled and died; and in short they say that he naturally endured whatever appertained to the sensible nature which he assumed.16 Accordingly, Cyrils mia physis formula apparently did not rescue himself from being accused as an Apollinarianist, which jeopardized the true humanity of Jesus Christ in relation to our humanity.
G.D.D., Cyril of Alexandria, in New Dictionary of Theology, 185. Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 214. 16 C.R. Driver and L. Hodgson, eds., The Bazaar of Heracleides (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 8-9 quoted in Thomas Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating, eds., The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation (London & New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 34.
15
14
Church History I
Page 5
B.
Logos-sarx Christology As an Alexandrian, Cyrils Christology was often regarded as Logos-sarx Christology,
as Aloys Grillmeier contended, in which Christ possessed a passive human soul.17 considered as an unanimated body.
For
Grillmeier, Cyril attributed the psychological suffering to the sarx (flesh) of Christ, which is
Such designation was apparently misleading and that Lawrence Welch, in his lengthy paper, defended against Grillmeier that Cyril did not refer the word, sarx to an unanimated corporeality, but rather a completed humanity consisting of body and soul.18 For example, Welch, based on Cyrils Thesaurus, proved that Christ, who possessed a true humanity, was afflicted with the same passion as all humans were afflicted such as fear, sad, and troubled in order to free humans from psychic passions in and through his own human soul.19 Although Welch demonstrated Christ possessing a real human soul in Cyrils thought, Wolfhart Pannenberg disagreed and argued that Cyril did not overcome the problem of Logos-sarx Christology.20 In his words, human nature, even if a soul now belongs to it, was His argument was mainly based on Cyrils for Cyrilonly the garment of the Logos.21 hypostasis (anhypostatic humanity). 22
hypostatic union which led to a problem of Christ possessing a human nature without its own As a result, Christ, for Pannenberg, cannot be Roger Olsen also shared this view that conceived as a real, individual man. 23 consciousness and will or less it was inactive.24 In short, the anhypostatic and passive humanity of Christ, within Cyrils Christology framework, is apparently different from ours, and hence hinders its relatedness to the human race and threatens the efficacy of Christs salvation through His incarnation.
17
anhypostatic humanity suggested either Christ did not have a human personal center of
Lawrence J, Welch, Logos-Sarx? Sarx and the Soul of Christ In the Early Thought Of Cyril of Alexandria, St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38 no 3 (1994): 271-272. 18 Ibid, 278, 281. 19 Ibid, 280. 20 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, translated by Duane A.Priebe and Lewis L.Wilkins (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), 288. 21 Ibid, 289. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid, 291. 24 Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 218-219. Church History I Page 6 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
C.
Tertium Quid Besides the above challenges, Cyrils hypostatic union in terms of mia physis formula
has also been criticized for it, as Nestorius believed, would lead to the danger of destroying the distinctive character of the natures by absorbing them into one title of Son.25 but rather a tertium quid (a third nature).
26
As a result,
the two natures united to espouse one nature meant that Jesus was neither human nor divine, As Nestorius accused,
You [Cyril] do not confess that he is God in ousia in that you have changed him into the ousia of the flesh, and he is no more a man naturally in that you have made him the ousia of God; and he is not God truly or God by nature, nor yet man truly or man by nature.27 Thomas Weinady disagreed with Nestorius and argued that Cyrils mia physis formula was used to illustrate the Son of God hypostatically united to the humanity to form one reality of Jesus instead of a quiddity.28 His argument was based on a parallelism used by Cyril to demonstrate the similarity of hypostatic union to human soul/body union. For Cyril, humanity and divinity form one ontological reality of Jesus in the same manner as the ontological reality of human being formed by soul and body.29 Having said that, one reality of Jesus out of two natures did not safeguard the threat of forming a tertium quid as hypostatic union implied anhypostatic humanity, a type of humanity different from ours, i.e. impersonality as challenged by J.A.T. Robinson and D. Bonhoeffer.30 Again, Cyrils hypostatic union appears not only risking the authenticity of Jesus humanity as a person, but it also threatens the continuity of His humanity with the rest of the human race.
Nestorius. Second Letter of Nestorius to Cyril. ed. Norman P. Tanner, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. 26 Weinandy and Keating, 32-33. 27 Liber Heraclidis. ET The Bazaar of Heracleides, ed. C.R. Driver and L. Hodgson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 16 quoted in ibid, 33. 28 Weinandy and Keating, 33. 29 Ibid. 30 Davidson, 136. Church History I Page 7 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
25
D.
Deficiencies of the Old Testament Images Although the Ark of the Covenant does give us a better understanding on how the two
natures were united without confusion of the two, it could not guard itself from Nestorian dualism error of the two persons adjoined in one reality. Logos. For Cyril, he rejected the However, this conjunction of the two persons for we do not worship a human being in conjunction with the The one Lord Jesus Christ must not be divided into two Sons.31 illustration suggested two realities, namely wood (humanity) and gold (divinity) conjunct in one reality of the Ark. Furthermore, the imperishable wood covered with pure gold suggested the divinity being only the garment of Jesus which denies a true union of the two. Like the Ark of the Covenant, the analogy of the Burning Bush narrative also has its deficiency. In fact, the latter is better than the former as it appears to avoid the conjunction of the fire and the bush for the fire has no subsistence in and of itself as it subsists only in the consumption of the bush. confusion. Therefore, the Burning Bush Narrative apparently affirms the hypostatic union of the two natures while maintaining the distinctiveness of the two without Nonetheless, the fire denoting the divinity should not be anhypostatic; otherwise, it suggests the divinity hypostatized in the humanity. Accordingly, what the notion of these two analogies is intended to illustrate is not so much as what it fails to say. IV. The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandrias Christology A. Adam-Christ Typology Recapitulating the above challenges, the major deficiency of Cyrillian hypostatic union is the relatedness of Christs anhypostatic humanity to all mankind. To respond to this problem, Cyrils Adam-Christ Typology provides us an insight to reassess His hypostatic union from a relational perspective. Robert Wilken noted from Cyrils exegetic writings that Cyril used his Adam-Christ Typology to affirm the relatedness of Jesus true humanity to us and that God sent Christ the second Adam standing in a similar position in relation to the whole human race
31
Stefanos Alexopoulos, An Example of Ecclesial Reconciliation in the Early Church: Three Homilies by Paul of Emesa and Cyril of Alexandria. St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 45 No 4 (2001): 343-344. Church History I Page 8 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
as did the first Adam.32
For Cyril, this typology expressed his soteriological concern and that As he said,
all mankind died in the first Adam, but were transformed into life in Christ.
Since our forefather Adam, who was turned aside by deceit to disobedience and sin did not preserve the grace of the Spirit, and thus in him the whole nature eventually lost the good given it by God, it was necessary that God the Word, who does not change, become man, in order that by receiving as man he might preserve the good permanently to our nature.33 But how are we linked up to Christ the second Adam? hypostatic union helps explain this relatedness as he said, For in him the community of human nature rises up to his person; for this reason he was named the last Adam giving richly to the common nature of all things that belong to joy, and glory, even as the first Adam (gave) what belongs to corruption and dejection.34 With the concept of hypostatic union in mind, Christ, as the second Adam, linked up our humanity to His fate, and we could say that, for Cyril, Christs humanity, albeit anhypostatic, was hypostatized (personalized) by the Word (or what Leontius of Byzantium referred to as enhypostasis), 35 and thus, we, as human being, were linked to his fate and also hypostatized (personalized) in Him . Here, Cyrils notion of
Robert L. Wilken, Exegesis and the History of Theology: Reflections on the Adam-Christ Typology in Cyril of Alexandria, Church History 35 (Je 1966): 145. 33 In Joannem ii.1 (John 1: 32, 33), Pusey I, 179 (20-23) quoted in Ibid, 150 34 In Joannem 1.9, Pusey, I, 141 quoted in Ibid, 144. 35 F. LeRon Shults, A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth, Theological Studies, Vol. 57, Issue 3 (Sep. 96): 431. Church History I Page 9 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
32
Although Cyrils employment of the Old Testament images failed to explain his profound concept of hypostatic union, the following diagram may help understand it: -
Divine Nature
The Incarnate Son of God as the Second Adam
The Hypostatic Union of the Two hypostatized Natures
Human Nature
= Anhypostasis
Figure 1
Assuming that the divine nature of Jesus is represented by a rectangle (without color) while the human nature is represented by a color of purple without any shape, the two together are united in a purple rectangle. What this diagram is driving at is that the color, purple, has no independent form or shape in and of itself apart from the unifying purple rectangle, which denotes the human nature that has no independent subsistence apart from the event of incarnation. In the purple rectangle, the two natures, purple and rectangle, are united without In suffering any loss or change of their respective attributes through relation to the other.
other words, the one purple rectangle (i.e. the one Person of Jesus) possesses both the two natures of purple and rectangle (i.e. humanity and divinity) without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Although one may challenge that the rectangle has been altered from the state of transparency to purple, it should be noted that the nature of a rectangle is merely a figure itself without mentioning of any color at all; otherwise, it would then possess two natures, i.e. figure and color. With the aid of this diagram, not only is Cyrils hypostatic union affirmed, but also is the relatedness of our human nature to Christs humanity. Nevertheless, one may argue how Christ, as the second Adam, did not fall subject to sin if He assumed the fallen humanity liked ours. As such, Jesus cannot be conceived as a real, individual man, but from the very beginning a superman, the God-man, as argued by
Church History I Page 10 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Pannenberg.36
To tackle this, Cyrils Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology offers a useful way
of understanding how Christ possessed a true humanity in relation to our humanity, which will be discussed in the next session.
B.
Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology In his third letter to Nestorius, Cyril demonstrated a matter of relationality in Trinitarian
language, i.e. how our humanity is restored through His self-sacrificial dedication to the Father through His own Spirit. Cyril contended that the one Lord Jesus Christ who works through His own Spiritbecame the high priest and apostle of our confession, offered Himself for an odor of sweetness to the God and Father and that the confession of faith we make to Him and through Him to the God and Father and also to the Holy Spirit.37 For Cyril, the Son of God became the mediator between God and humanity,38 and that, the only begotten Son became the partaker of flesh and blood so as to restore the humanity by rendering it through Himself a partaker of God the Father and consequently, human race could be reckoned as sons.39 In order to explain this very concept of reciprocal partaking, Cyril said that Christ, precisely in His earthly life, became our perfect representative who assumed our fallen place, and in return, give us His Sonship with God the Father by offering His perfect sacrificial dedication to God as a real man who experienced every characteristic except sin alone.40 As a result, our sonship in God the Father is constituted through the mediation of the Son of God. But how could Christ live His earthly life without committed a sin? Cyril would be the Holy Spirit. The answer for
Daniel Keating noticed from Cyrils exposition in the event Accordingly, Jesus lived out His entire earthly life
of Jesus Baptism that the Spirit did not merely descend upon Him, but importantly has remained (a perfect tenses) upon Him.41 with true human responses empowered by His own Spirit. It should be noted that this Spirit
Pannenberg, 291. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, ed. Norman P. Tanner, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. 38 Ibid. 39 Weinandy and Keating, 24-25. 40 Ibid, 27. 41 Ibid, 153.
37
36
Church History I
Page 11
was not alienated to Christ for the Spirit is proper to the Son, not something given from outside42 However, the question is how Christ received the Spirit for us? In his Commentary on John, Cyril contended: For all of humanity was in Christ, in that he was human. might received the Spirit for ourselves. In this respect, the soteriological concern of anhypostatic union of Christ came into view and that the aim of the hypostatic union of the two natures in one reality of Christ was to make possible the preservation of the Spirit in humanity. not for Himself, but for us: in order to preserve for human nature the grace which was lost (in the first Adam), by receiving this grace as a man, and in order to make it take root in us againso that the Spirit might grow accustomed to dwell in us, without having the occasion to withdraw.43 Although the first Adam lost the gift of the Spirit breathed from God as described in Genesis 2:7, the second Adam gave back to the human race His Spirit so as to sanctify our whole nature as stated in John 20:2.
44
So, too, his own
Spirit is said to be given again to the Son who possess him, so that we, in him,
So when Christ received the Spirit, it was
In light of this, the presence of the Spirit in the As a result, our humanity is restored through the
incarnate Word helped refine Cyrils Adam-Christ Typology which constituted the condition for the possibility of human access to God. reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit for the Son is both the giver and recipient of the Spirit. Marie-Odile Boulnois concluded it well that the Spirit is the one who makes possible this union of mankind with mankind and of mankind with God, as well as being the one who perfects the Trinity.45 Most profoundly she stated was the divine plan, which was aimed to bring back the whole human race into participation in the very life of the
42 43 44 45
In Jo. 7:39 (Pusey Vol. I, 692-3), quoted in ibid, 137. Ibid, 106. Wilken, 151. Ibid, 110. Page 12 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Church History I
Trinity through the gift of the Spirit. 46
In this regard, Cyrillian hypostatic union and
Adam-Christ Typology should not be viewed as Christological matter only, but should also be extended to the doctrine of Trinity in relation to human reality as in the context of soteriology. To integrate the above concepts, a schematic presentation in respect of a relational model of Cyrillian hypostatic union and the Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology could be illustrated as follows:Father Figure 2
Spirit Breathing
Spirit 1st Adam (Fall)

Empowerment/Sanctification
Son 2nd Adam (Restoration)
Humanity
In this diagram, the three Persons of the Trinity are represented by three adjoined seven-shaped figures distinguished by their respective colors and that the blue one depicts for the Person of the Father, the purple for the Son, and the green for the Spirit.47 In regard to Figure 1, the same principle can be applied to this purple seven-shaped figure illustrating that the color of purple has no hypostasis in and of itself (anhypostasis) apart from the purple figure (enhypostasis). With the assistance of the Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology, the schematic model should illustrate the following:1. 2.
46 47
The three distinctive sevens are inseparably united in one entity of triangle, which depicts a dynamic interrelationship between the three Persons of the Trinity. The purple seven (the incarnate Son) in its color connects to the blue seven (the
Ibid. The number seven is used here because it apparently means perfection and completeness in the Bible which Page 13 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Church History I
Father) inasmuch as the incarnate Son in His human sacrificial dedication to the Father. 3. 4. 5. 6. The blue seven (the Father), in return, connects to the purple seven (the Son) denoting His constitution of the Sonship. The green seven (the Spirit), also in its connection to the purple seven, denotes the empowerment and sanctification of the Spirit in the incarnate Sons earthly life. The parabolic arrow denotes the movement of the saving activity of the Trinity in relation to the humanity. The green seven, also connects to the blue seven represents God the Father breathing the Spirit to the first Adam and the gap between the parabolic arrow and the triangle demonstrates the separation of the humanity to the Trinity due to the fall of the first Adam. 7. In the purple seven (as the second Adam), the color of purple becomes actualized fully and completely in relation to the interconnection of the three figures, which denotes the fullness and completeness of our human response personalized in the Son relating to the communion of the three Persons of the Trinity (i.e. the concept of Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology). 8. Although it appears that the three sevens have their distinctive characters, they are inseparably united together in one triangle and that the color of purple is also actualized in the one unifying triangle (i.e. our humanity fully and completely personalized in the second Adam who brings us into participation in the life of the Trinity). V. Conclusion The above discussion demonstrates that Cyrillian hypostatic union of the two natures in the one reality of Jesus is not merely a matter of Christology, but rather an important doctrine at the heart of the Gospel. Despite its deficiencies, Cyrillian hypostatic union is still useful upon As such, an thorough reassessment and reconstruction of his Trinitarian Adam-Christ Typology.
integration of a relational model of the two very concepts has been established here to affirm that Jesus has assumed our fallen humanity and lived out His earthly life in perfect obedience to the Father in the Spirit while we, in the Spirit, are united to Jesus sharing His humanity and through Him, we are united to the Father. Here the notion of the relational concept of person (i.e. God as
might well-describe the perfect nature of each Person of the Trinity. Church History I Page 14 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
personalizing Person, and human as personalized persons) has been adopted to unite all these profound concepts as follows:Firstly, we, in light of Cyrils hypostatic union, find the personalization of Gods relationship with humanity in Jesus Christ. Secondly, in Christs anhypostatic humanity, we find our humanity personalized in relation to God in view of Cyrils Adam-Christ Typology. Thirdly, we find the entire personalizing process of our humanity occurs not merely in Jesus saving activities, but also in the Trinitys coactivity that the three Persons are present and active in the realization of Jesus humanity (i.e. the Fathers constitution of sonship and the Spirits empowerment and sanctification) without undermining our real and truly human response so as to restore our human nature and bring us back into communion with the whole undivided Trinity. By integrating all these insightful relational concepts, Cyrils Christology is refined and that the full humanity of Jesus in relation to our humanity is undoubtedly affirmed.
Church History I
Page 15
Bibliography Primary Sources Cyril of Alexandria. First Letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius. Edited and Translated by Pusey, P.E.. The St. Pachomius Orthodox Library http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr1.html; accessed 12 July 2005. ________________. Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius. Edited by Tanner, Norman P. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. Nestorius. Second Letter of Nestorius to Cyril. Edited by Tanner, Norman P. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. Cyril of Alexandria. Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius. Edited by Tanner, Norman P. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. ________________. Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about Peace. Edited by Tanner, Norman P. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm; accessed 12 July 2005. ________________. The Formula of Reunion between Cyril and John of Antioch: Epistle 39 of the Cyrilline Corpus Edited by Tanner, Norman P. http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_johnantioch.shtml; accessed 20 July 2005. Secondary Sources Books: Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus-God and Man. Translated by Priebe, Duane A. and Wilkins, Lewis L. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1964. Weinandy, Thomas and Keating, Daniel A., eds. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation. London & New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003.
Dictionaries Blaising, C.A. Hypostatic Union, In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell, Walter
i
A. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990. G.D.D. Cyril of Alexandria. In New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Ferguson, Sinclair B. and Wright, David F. Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988. Griffith, H. Nestorius, Nestorianism, In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell, Walter A. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990. Wallace, R.S. and Green, G. L. Christology. In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell, Walter A. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990.
Article McKinion, Steven A. Cyril of Alexandria, The Old Testament, and Images of Christ For The Church, Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN): Conference Papers (2000): 1-17.
Journal Articles Alexopoulos, Stefanos. An Example of Ecclesial Reconciliation in the Early Church: Three Homilies by Paul of Emesa and Cyril of Alexandria. St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 45 No 4 (2001): 339-358. Davidson, Ivor. Theologizing the Human Jesus: An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed. International Journal of Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 No. 2 (July 2001): 123-153. Shults F. LeRon. A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth. Theological Studies. Vol. 57 Issue 3 (Sep. 96): 431-446. Welch, Lawrence J. Logos-Sarx? Sarx and the Soul of Christ In the Early Thought Of Cyril of Alexandria. St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38 no 3 (1994): 271-292. Wilken, Robert L. Exegesis and the History of Theology: Reflections on the Adam-Christ Typology in Cyril of Alexandria. Church History 35 (Je 1966): 139-156.
ii

The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandria's Christology: A Relational Perspective

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandria's Christology: A Relational Perspective

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Reassessment of Cyril of Alexandrias Christology: A Relational Perspective

By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Timothy Ching Lung LAM Student ID Number: D023111

September 23, 2005