探究迦克墩界说中基督论的出发点
INVESTIGATING THE STARTING POINT OF CHRISTOLOGY IN CHALCEDONIAN DEFINITION
湃恩
笔者在本文旨在从涅斯多留（Nestorius，AD386-451）的《驳生神者的第一讲章（First Sermon Against the Theotokos）》，以及亚历山大的区利罗（Cyril of Alexandra，AD376-444）的《论基督的合一（On the Unity of Christ）》，论证在第五世纪涅斯多留与区利罗之间的基督论争论中，区利罗凭着聚焦于救恩的经纶，以及运用「属性相通」的概念，他成功地达到三个目标：(1)批判了涅斯多留对基督道成肉身的理解；(2)为以「生神者」（God-bearer）称呼童贞女马里亚提供了辩护理由；并最后 (3)发展出基督论模型的表达方式，奠定迦克墩会议中基督论界说的公式。
In this essay, I argue according to Nestorius ‘s Arius’s First Sermon Against the Theotokos and Cyril of Alexandra’s On the Unity of Christ, that that in the fifth century Christological controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, by focusing on the economy of salvation and using the concept of “communication of attributes”, Cyril successfully achieved three goals: (1) criticized Nestorian’s understanding on Christ’s incarnation; (2) justified the use of the title ” ” (God-bearer) on Virgin Mary; and finally (3) developed the articulation of Christological model, which enables the formulation of the “Definition of Faith” in the Council of Chalcedon.
涅斯多留对「生神者」和基督成肉身的理解
Nestorians’ Understanding of “Theotokos” and Christ’s Incarnation
涅斯多留受训于安提阿学派，他采用「道-人」基督论（Word-human Christology）模型，相信神圣的道住在完全的人位—耶稣—里，因而强调基督的人性。他于428年上任为君士坦丁堡牧首后，认为用「生神者」来称呼马里亚极不恰当，这称呼暗示「神有一个母亲」，并认为马里亚不过是「生了一个人」，是「神的工具」而已。因此，他建议改以使用「生人者」（ anthropotokos）或「生基督者」（Christotokos）来称呼马里亚。并且，涅斯多留为着持守神的不变性和不能受苦性，他认为成肉身之基督有两种性情，经历受苦和复活的，乃是基督的人性，而基督的神性则一直没有受影响而改变，甚至连成肉身也没有让神性有所改变。
As trained in Antiochene School, Nestorius employs a Word-human Christology model, which believes that the divine Word lived within the fully human person, Jesus, thus emphasizing the humanity of Christ. After becoming Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, Nestorius argued that the title Theotokos was highly inappropriate for Mary, implying “God has a mother”, and that Mary only “gave birth to the human being, the instrument of the Godhead”. He thus suggested to call Mary anthropotokos(man-bearer) or Christotokos (Christ-bearer) instead.[1] Moreover, for upholding God’s immutability and impassibility[2], Nestorius maintains that the natures of the incarnate Christ are two in number, and it is Christ’s humanity that suffers and is raised up, whereas Christ’s divinity is always unaffected by change, even undergoing Incarnation.[3]
区利罗对涅斯多留的成肉身观的批判
Cyril’s critique of the Nestorian perception of the Incarnation
区利罗面对涅斯多留的挑战，他着眼于寻求一种论述方式能同时肯定神圣的不变性和不能受苦性，以及基督的神人二性的合一性。他跟随亚历山大学派的「道-肉」基督论（Word-Flesh Christology）模型，强调基督的神性。区利罗相信根据约翰的经文「道成了肉身」（约一14），在成肉身中神圣的道与人性的肉身有在本体上的联合。区利罗继承亚历山大的传统，强调在道成肉身中完全的人性与完全的神性有无法分割的合一。
Facing Nestorius’s challenges, Cyril is concerned to find an articulation to simultaneously affirm both the divine immutability and impassibility, as well as the divine-human unity of Christ. Following Alexandrian’s Word-flesh Christology model, which emphasizes the divinity of Christ, Cyril believes that based on the Johannine verse “ The Word became flesh” (John 1:14)[4], there is a substantial union of divine Word and human flesh in Incarnation. Cyril inherits Alexandrian tradition, emphasizing the indivisible unity of full humanity and full divinity when the Word became flesh.
使用「结合」（Conjunction）和「联合」（Union）产生不同含意
Different Implications in using “Conjunction” and “Union”
区利罗首先批判涅斯多留使用「结合」（Conjunction）而非从以前教父们所惯常使用的「联合」（Union）这辞。涅斯多留担心「联合」这辞会暗示「混淆所指涉的事物」，但区利罗证明涅斯多留的成肉身观明显地有违圣经经文。区利罗指出与道「结合」并不足以表明成肉身之道的神性，并因而将成肉身的子分裂成两个「子」—神子与人子。区利罗进而批判涅斯多留派将独生之道换作成他们所宣称与道结合的受造物，使道看似不过是「拯救和提升我们的人」。我们所敬拜的「不过是人造的偶像」而已。
To begin with, Cyril criticized Nestorius’s use of the term “conjunction” rather than “union”, which is the customary and conventional term that comes down from the fathers. Nestorians worried the term “union” implied “the confusion of things it refers to”,[5] however, Cyril shows how the Nestorian concept of the incarnation clearly goes against the Scripture. He pointed out that a “conjunction” with the Logos is not enough to grasp the divinity of the Incarnate Word, [6] and thus divides the Incarnate Son into two “sons” – Son of God and son of man.[7] Cyril goes further to criticize that the Nestorians are pushing the Only Begotten Word out and replacing Him with this creature that they claim had become conjoined to Him,[8] making Him seem merely “the Patron or Promoter of the man by whom we were saved,”[9] and our worship as “nothing more than the idolatry of a man.”[10]
救恩的关切
Concern to Salvation
就如其他亚历山大教父们，区利罗坚持使用「联合」是因他关切救恩的经纶。他认为基督为着要经历死、从死复活、胜过罪，以恢复我们犯罪的人性致神性，祂必须要按照肉体从一位女人而生。因此，区利罗指控涅斯多留对成肉身的解释，使救赎人性的救恩失效，令救恩的经纶彻底落空。
Like other Alexandrian fathers, the reason of Cyril’s insistence on keeping use of “union” is his concern about the economy of salvation. He argues, in order to die, to raise from death, to overcome sin, so as to restore our sinful humanity into divinity, Christ was required to be born from a woman according to the flesh.[11] Cyril therefore accused the Nestorian explanation of the incarnation of being invalid toward the redemptive salvation of humanity, bankrupting the economy of salvation.[12]
神的不改变性
Immutability of God
为了响应涅斯多留派的观点，以为神的不改变性会在祂与人性联合中改变，区利罗解释当神成为人时，祂并没有将自己改变成肉身，也没有与任何其他物质混合或调和，而是「倒空」自己来取得像我们样式的肉身（腓二4~8），以恢复我们人性到原初。区利罗肯定道在本质上是真神，当祂由一位女人而生时，祂在本质上仍保持不变，并从过去到永远一直没有改变。
In response to the Nestorian’s view that God’s impassibility would be changed or alternated in his union with humanity, Cyril explains that when God became man, he did not change himself into flesh, nor mix nor blend with anything else, but “emptied” himself to take flesh in a form like our own, (Phil 2:48) for the sake of restoring our flesh to its beginning. Cyril confirms that even when the Word was born of a woman, he as true God by nature keeps immutable by nature and remains that which he was and is forever.[13]
属性相通的概念
Concept of Communication of attributes
区利罗承继使徒保罗和亚他那修的「交换公式」（exchange formula），他认为成肉身的意义乃是「祂亲自取了我们的所是，为要使我们得到祂一切的所是。」照着这一思想，他发展出「属性相通」（Communicatio idiomatum）的概念，即在基督与肉身的联合中，神圣的属性能够「相通」至人性里（相反亦然）。区利罗运用这概念，来说明基督在肉身里如何取上神对人性的咒诅和判罚，以致人能够分享祂的丰富。
Succeeding Apostle Paul’s and Athanasius’s “exchange formula”, Cyril considers the significance of Incarnation is that ” he took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was his.”[14] In this thought, he developed the concept of “communication of attributes” (Communicatio idiomatum) that the divine attributes can be “communicated” to humanity (and vice versa) in the union of Christ with flesh.[15] With the help of this concept, Cyril illustrates how Christ in his flesh can take up the human curse and punishment so that man might share his riches.[16]
神的不受苦性
Impassibility of God
此外，区利罗更进一步以「属性相通」的概念，来解答「神的受苦」这问题。他认为在基督的位格里，「称神经历了苦难并没有将祂贬低，因祂并非在神格的本体内，而是在祂自己的肉身内受苦」，因为人的属性—死—在基督一个联合的位格内能「相通」至神性。因此，尽管区利罗认同神一直维持祂的不能受苦性，但由于受苦是发生「在肉身」里，我们仍能说「神自己在肉身里受苦（彼前三18）。
Furthermore, Cyril goes on resolving the question of “God’s suffering” with the concept of “communication of attributes”. He argues that in the person of Christ, “to say that God suffered do no disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in the nature of the godhead, but in his own flesh,”[17] because the human attribute – die ” communicates” to God in the one united person of Christ. Hence, as “in the flesh” is where the suffering occurs, we can say “God himself suffered in the flesh” (1 Pet 3:18), even though he retains his impassibility as he is understood as God.[18]
总结来说，区利罗凭着运用「属性相通」的概念，成功有力地批判了涅斯多留的基督论，并发展了他对基督论模型的论述，这模型是捍卫基督位格的合一，为着由成肉身所带来救恩。因此，他宣称这是合理且有确实必要去称呼马里亚为「生神者」。尽管区利罗运用「属性相通」来描述神在肉身受苦，但他仍不住强调神在肉身里受苦是一个奥秘，是完全不能言述得透，远超我们所想所说的。
In summary, with the concept of “communication of attributes”, Cyril persuasively criticized Nestorian’s Christology and developed arguments for his Christological model, which defends the necessity of unity of Christ’s person as a result of the incarnation for the sake of salvation. As a result, he claimed that it is justifiable and necessary for us to call Mary “theotokos”.[19] Yet, despite the method of “communication of attributes” in describing God’s suffering in flesh, Cyril reiterated that this is still a mystery, altogether ineffable, and transcends our thought and speech.[20]
回应
Responses
尼西亚-君士坦丁堡信经并未能彻底厘清基督的神性和人性之间的关系。在第五世纪涅斯多留与区利罗之间的基督论争论，可视为东方教会安提阿学派和亚历山大学派的分岐，以及第四世纪亚波里拿留主义和第一次君士坦丁堡争议的延续。虽然涅斯多留和区利罗二人，均旨在依据尼西亚正统来建立一套基督论论述公式，但涅斯多留乃是从基督的二重性情的角度来理解基督，而区利罗则是从基督的合一位格来理解。前者的理解容易倾向两个分裂的位格，而后者则容易变成一性论（Monophysitism）。按笔者认为，区利罗的基督论模型最终对迦克墩会议的决议产生最大的影响，最主要原因是区利罗在紧紧跟随尼西亚传统和圣经之下，成功地解决在关于理解基督的神学张力。更重要的是，他关切成肉身所带来之救恩，因而强调基督位格内不可分割的联合（indivisible hypostatic union ）。尽管区利罗在他与涅斯多留之间的竞争行为而饱受争议，但因着他的努力，他大大奠定了迦克墩界说，就是「基督以一个位格、两种性情存在」，以及「四道墙」（二性不能混合、不能改变、不能分割、不能分开），这保守了教会在正统内理解基督作救主，直至今天。笔者认为这点乃是区利罗对教会最大的贡献。整个争论的过程有助我们反思今天我们该如何做神学。
The Nicaea-Constantinople Creed did not clarify thoroughly the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures. The Christological controversy between Nestorius and Cyril in the fifth century can be seen as the dispersed views between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christology in Eastern Church in the continuation of Apollinarianism and the First Council of Constantinople in the fourth century. Though both Nestorius and Cyril have the intention of creating an Christological formula staying inside Nicene orthodoxy, Nestorius viewed Christ from the perspective of Christ’s duality (natures), while Cyril takes Christ’s unity (person). The former easily turns into two divisive persons while the latter Monophysitism (onenature). In my opinion, the primary reasons why Cyril’s Christological model had been greatly influential on the final conclusion in the Council of Chalcedon are that he successfully resolved the theological tension surrounding our understanding of Christ by closely following the Nicene tradition and Scripture, and most importantly, emphasizing the indivisible hypostatic union under the concern of salvation through the incarnation. Cyril is disputable in his rivalry with Nestorius. Nevertheless, with his effort, he enabled the formulation of the Chalcedonian Creed, which defined “Christ as existing in two natures, divine and human, in one person”, and whose “four boundaries” no confusion, no change, no division, no separation of the two natures have been preserving the Church in the Orthodox understanding of Christ as Savior from their current time till today. I think that this is Cyril’s greatest contribution to the Church, and the whole controversy is valuably worth us reflecting on our theological thinking in doing theology today.
笔者在本文旨在从涅斯多留（Nestorius，AD386-451）的《驳生神者的第一讲章（First Sermon Against the Theotokos）》，以及亚历山大的区利罗（Cyril of Alexandra，AD376-444）的《论基督的合一（On the Unity of Christ）》，论证在第五世纪涅斯多留与区利罗之间的基督论争论中，区利罗凭着聚焦于救恩的经纶，以及运用「属性相通」的概念，他成功地达到三个目标：(1)批判了涅斯多留对基督道成肉身的理解；(2)为以「生神者」（God-bearer）称呼童贞女马里亚提供了辩护理由；并最后 (3)发展出基督论模型的表达方式，奠定迦克墩会议中基督论界说的公式。
In this essay, I argue according to Nestorius ‘s Arius’s First Sermon Against the Theotokos and Cyril of Alexandra’s On the Unity of Christ, that that in the fifth century Christological controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, by focusing on the economy of salvation and using the concept of “communication of attributes”, Cyril successfully achieved three goals: (1) criticized Nestorian’s understanding on Christ’s incarnation; (2) justified the use of the title ” ” (God-bearer) on Virgin Mary; and finally (3) developed the articulation of Christological model, which enables the formulation of the “Definition of Faith” in the Council of Chalcedon.
涅斯多留对「生神者」和基督成肉身的理解
Nestorians’ Understanding of “Theotokos” and Christ’s Incarnation
涅斯多留受训于安提阿学派，他采用「道-人」基督论（Word-human Christology）模型，相信神圣的道住在完全的人位—耶稣—里，因而强调基督的人性。他于428年上任为君士坦丁堡牧首后，认为用「生神者」来称呼马里亚极不恰当，这称呼暗示「神有一个母亲」，并认为马里亚不过是「生了一个人」，是「神的工具」而已。因此，他建议改以使用「生人者」（ anthropotokos）或「生基督者」（Christotokos）来称呼马里亚。并且，涅斯多留为着持守神的不变性和不能受苦性，他认为成肉身之基督有两种性情，经历受苦和复活的，乃是基督的人性，而基督的神性则一直没有受影响而改变，甚至连成肉身也没有让神性有所改变。
As trained in Antiochene School, Nestorius employs a Word-human Christology model, which believes that the divine Word lived within the fully human person, Jesus, thus emphasizing the humanity of Christ. After becoming Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, Nestorius argued that the title Theotokos was highly inappropriate for Mary, implying “God has a mother”, and that Mary only “gave birth to the human being, the instrument of the Godhead”. He thus suggested to call Mary anthropotokos(man-bearer) or Christotokos (Christ-bearer) instead.[1] Moreover, for upholding God’s immutability and impassibility[2], Nestorius maintains that the natures of the incarnate Christ are two in number, and it is Christ’s humanity that suffers and is raised up, whereas Christ’s divinity is always unaffected by change, even undergoing Incarnation.[3]
区利罗对涅斯多留的成肉身观的批判
Cyril’s critique of the Nestorian perception of the Incarnation
区利罗面对涅斯多留的挑战，他着眼于寻求一种论述方式能同时肯定神圣的不变性和不能受苦性，以及基督的神人二性的合一性。他跟随亚历山大学派的「道-肉」基督论（Word-Flesh Christology）模型，强调基督的神性。区利罗相信根据约翰的经文「道成了肉身」（约一14），在成肉身中神圣的道与人性的肉身有在本体上的联合。区利罗继承亚历山大的传统，强调在道成肉身中完全的人性与完全的神性有无法分割的合一。
Facing Nestorius’s challenges, Cyril is concerned to find an articulation to simultaneously affirm both the divine immutability and impassibility, as well as the divine-human unity of Christ. Following Alexandrian’s Word-flesh Christology model, which emphasizes the divinity of Christ, Cyril believes that based on the Johannine verse “ The Word became flesh” (John 1:14)[4], there is a substantial union of divine Word and human flesh in Incarnation. Cyril inherits Alexandrian tradition, emphasizing the indivisible unity of full humanity and full divinity when the Word became flesh.
使用「结合」（Conjunction）和「联合」（Union）产生不同含意
Different Implications in using “Conjunction” and “Union”
区利罗首先批判涅斯多留使用「结合」（Conjunction）而非从以前教父们所惯常使用的「联合」（Union）这辞。涅斯多留担心「联合」这辞会暗示「混淆所指涉的事物」，但区利罗证明涅斯多留的成肉身观明显地有违圣经经文。区利罗指出与道「结合」并不足以表明成肉身之道的神性，并因而将成肉身的子分裂成两个「子」—神子与人子。区利罗进而批判涅斯多留派将独生之道换作成他们所宣称与道结合的受造物，使道看似不过是「拯救和提升我们的人」。我们所敬拜的「不过是人造的偶像」而已。
To begin with, Cyril criticized Nestorius’s use of the term “conjunction” rather than “union”, which is the customary and conventional term that comes down from the fathers. Nestorians worried the term “union” implied “the confusion of things it refers to”,[5] however, Cyril shows how the Nestorian concept of the incarnation clearly goes against the Scripture. He pointed out that a “conjunction” with the Logos is not enough to grasp the divinity of the Incarnate Word, [6] and thus divides the Incarnate Son into two “sons” – Son of God and son of man.[7] Cyril goes further to criticize that the Nestorians are pushing the Only Begotten Word out and replacing Him with this creature that they claim had become conjoined to Him,[8] making Him seem merely “the Patron or Promoter of the man by whom we were saved,”[9] and our worship as “nothing more than the idolatry of a man.”[10]
救恩的关切
Concern to Salvation
就如其他亚历山大教父们，区利罗坚持使用「联合」是因他关切救恩的经纶。他认为基督为着要经历死、从死复活、胜过罪，以恢复我们犯罪的人性致神性，祂必须要按照肉体从一位女人而生。因此，区利罗指控涅斯多留对成肉身的解释，使救赎人性的救恩失效，令救恩的经纶彻底落空。
Like other Alexandrian fathers, the reason of Cyril’s insistence on keeping use of “union” is his concern about the economy of salvation. He argues, in order to die, to raise from death, to overcome sin, so as to restore our sinful humanity into divinity, Christ was required to be born from a woman according to the flesh.[11] Cyril therefore accused the Nestorian explanation of the incarnation of being invalid toward the redemptive salvation of humanity, bankrupting the economy of salvation.[12]
神的不改变性
Immutability of God
为了响应涅斯多留派的观点，以为神的不改变性会在祂与人性联合中改变，区利罗解释当神成为人时，祂并没有将自己改变成肉身，也没有与任何其他物质混合或调和，而是「倒空」自己来取得像我们样式的肉身（腓二4~8），以恢复我们人性到原初。区利罗肯定道在本质上是真神，当祂由一位女人而生时，祂在本质上仍保持不变，并从过去到永远一直没有改变。
In response to the Nestorian’s view that God’s impassibility would be changed or alternated in his union with humanity, Cyril explains that when God became man, he did not change himself into flesh, nor mix nor blend with anything else, but “emptied” himself to take flesh in a form like our own, (Phil 2:48) for the sake of restoring our flesh to its beginning. Cyril confirms that even when the Word was born of a woman, he as true God by nature keeps immutable by nature and remains that which he was and is forever.[13]
属性相通的概念
Concept of Communication of attributes
区利罗承继使徒保罗和亚他那修的「交换公式」（exchange formula），他认为成肉身的意义乃是「祂亲自取了我们的所是，为要使我们得到祂一切的所是。」照着这一思想，他发展出「属性相通」（Communicatio idiomatum）的概念，即在基督与肉身的联合中，神圣的属性能够「相通」至人性里（相反亦然）。区利罗运用这概念，来说明基督在肉身里如何取上神对人性的咒诅和判罚，以致人能够分享祂的丰富。
Succeeding Apostle Paul’s and Athanasius’s “exchange formula”, Cyril considers the significance of Incarnation is that ” he took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was his.”[14] In this thought, he developed the concept of “communication of attributes” (Communicatio idiomatum) that the divine attributes can be “communicated” to humanity (and vice versa) in the union of Christ with flesh.[15] With the help of this concept, Cyril illustrates how Christ in his flesh can take up the human curse and punishment so that man might share his riches.[16]
神的不受苦性
Impassibility of God
此外，区利罗更进一步以「属性相通」的概念，来解答「神的受苦」这问题。他认为在基督的位格里，「称神经历了苦难并没有将祂贬低，因祂并非在神格的本体内，而是在祂自己的肉身内受苦」，因为人的属性—死—在基督一个联合的位格内能「相通」至神性。因此，尽管区利罗认同神一直维持祂的不能受苦性，但由于受苦是发生「在肉身」里，我们仍能说「神自己在肉身里受苦（彼前三18）。
Furthermore, Cyril goes on resolving the question of “God’s suffering” with the concept of “communication of attributes”. He argues that in the person of Christ, “to say that God suffered do no disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in the nature of the godhead, but in his own flesh,”[17] because the human attribute – die ” communicates” to God in the one united person of Christ. Hence, as “in the flesh” is where the suffering occurs, we can say “God himself suffered in the flesh” (1 Pet 3:18), even though he retains his impassibility as he is understood as God.[18]
总结来说，区利罗凭着运用「属性相通」的概念，成功有力地批判了涅斯多留的基督论，并发展了他对基督论模型的论述，这模型是捍卫基督位格的合一，为着由成肉身所带来救恩。因此，他宣称这是合理且有确实必要去称呼马里亚为「生神者」。尽管区利罗运用「属性相通」来描述神在肉身受苦，但他仍不住强调神在肉身里受苦是一个奥秘，是完全不能言述得透，远超我们所想所说的。
In summary, with the concept of “communication of attributes”, Cyril persuasively criticized Nestorian’s Christology and developed arguments for his Christological model, which defends the necessity of unity of Christ’s person as a result of the incarnation for the sake of salvation. As a result, he claimed that it is justifiable and necessary for us to call Mary “theotokos”.[19] Yet, despite the method of “communication of attributes” in describing God’s suffering in flesh, Cyril reiterated that this is still a mystery, altogether ineffable, and transcends our thought and speech.[20]
回应
Responses
尼西亚-君士坦丁堡信经并未能彻底厘清基督的神性和人性之间的关系。在第五世纪涅斯多留与区利罗之间的基督论争论，可视为东方教会安提阿学派和亚历山大学派的分岐，以及第四世纪亚波里拿留主义和第一次君士坦丁堡争议的延续。虽然涅斯多留和区利罗二人，均旨在依据尼西亚正统来建立一套基督论论述公式，但涅斯多留乃是从基督的二重性情的角度来理解基督，而区利罗则是从基督的合一位格来理解。前者的理解容易倾向两个分裂的位格，而后者则容易变成一性论（Monophysitism）。按笔者认为，区利罗的基督论模型最终对迦克墩会议的决议产生最大的影响，最主要原因是区利罗在紧紧跟随尼西亚传统和圣经之下，成功地解决在关于理解基督的神学张力。更重要的是，他关切成肉身所带来之救恩，因而强调基督位格内不可分割的联合（indivisible hypostatic union ）。尽管区利罗在他与涅斯多留之间的竞争行为而饱受争议，但因着他的努力，他大大奠定了迦克墩界说，就是「基督以一个位格、两种性情存在」，以及「四道墙」（二性不能混合、不能改变、不能分割、不能分开），这保守了教会在正统内理解基督作救主，直至今天。笔者认为这点乃是区利罗对教会最大的贡献。整个争论的过程有助我们反思今天我们该如何做神学。
The Nicaea-Constantinople Creed did not clarify thoroughly the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures. The Christological controversy between Nestorius and Cyril in the fifth century can be seen as the dispersed views between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christology in Eastern Church in the continuation of Apollinarianism and the First Council of Constantinople in the fourth century. Though both Nestorius and Cyril have the intention of creating an Christological formula staying inside Nicene orthodoxy, Nestorius viewed Christ from the perspective of Christ’s duality (natures), while Cyril takes Christ’s unity (person). The former easily turns into two divisive persons while the latter Monophysitism (onenature). In my opinion, the primary reasons why Cyril’s Christological model had been greatly influential on the final conclusion in the Council of Chalcedon are that he successfully resolved the theological tension surrounding our understanding of Christ by closely following the Nicene tradition and Scripture, and most importantly, emphasizing the indivisible hypostatic union under the concern of salvation through the incarnation. Cyril is disputable in his rivalry with Nestorius. Nevertheless, with his effort, he enabled the formulation of the Chalcedonian Creed, which defined “Christ as existing in two natures, divine and human, in one person”, and whose “four boundaries” no confusion, no change, no division, no separation of the two natures have been preserving the Church in the Orthodox understanding of Christ as Savior from their current time till today. I think that this is Cyril’s greatest contribution to the Church, and the whole controversy is valuably worth us reflecting on our theological thinking in doing theology today.
注释：
[1] Nestorius, First Sermon Against the Theotokos, trans.and edited Richard A. Norris, JR. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 124-125.
[2] Ibid., 125: “Moreover, the incarnate God did not die; he raised up the one in whom he was incarnate…that the [divine] being has become incarnate and that the immutability of the incarnate deity is always maintained after the union.”
[3] Ibid., 126: “The description are different from each other by reason of the mysterious fact that the natures are two in number. Furthermore, it is not only this – that Christ as God is unaffected by change.”
[4] Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. John McGuckin (Chrestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 69: “Nonetheless I think that it is exactly this, nothing else, that the allwise Joh meat when he wrote:’The Word became flesh’.”
[5] Ibid., 73: “Then why do they abandon the term ‘union,’ even though it is the word in customary use among us, and indeed has come down to us from the holy Fathers, preferring to call it a conjunction? The term union in no way causes the confusions of the things it refers to.”
[6] Ibid., 73: “But is this mere conjunction with the Word enough to allow him to grasp the proper glory of God and rise above the bounds of the created order?”
[7] Ibid., 74: “How wicked they (Nestorians) are, then, when they divide in two the one true and natural Son incarnated and made man, and when they reject the union and call it a conjunction something that any other man could have with God.”
[8] Ibid., 73: “But this is mere conjunction with the Word enough to allow him to grasp the proper glory of God and rise above the bounds of the created order? Does this make him an object of worship even though he is not God?”
[9] Ibid., 70: “But if this were so, how could the Only Begotten be said to have been the Savior of the World? Would he not rather have been the Patron and Promoter of that man by whom we are saved?”
[10] Ibid., 71: “…they drag down the most wonderful part of the economy to a disgraceful level and make out our most holy worship as nothing more than the idolatry of a man.
[11] Ibid., 57: “For it this approach is taken as the truth then the whole sense of the mystery is lost to us; for Christ is not born, neither did he die, neither was he raised… How did God raise him from the dead if he did not die? And how could he die if he had not been born according to the flesh?”
[12] Ibid., 59: “When they (Nestorians) say that the Word of God did not became flesh, or rather did not undergo birth from a woman according to the flesh, they bankrupt the economy of salvation.”
[13] Ibid., 54-55: “Immutable by nature, he remains that which he was and is for ever,…He did not change himself into flesh; he did not endure any mixture or blending, or anything else of this kind. But he submitted himself to being emptied…but rather animated with a rational soul, and thus he restored flesh to what it was in the beginning… He was born of a woman according to the flesh in a wondrous manner, for he is God by nature, as such invisible and incorporeal, and only in this way, in a form like our own, could he be made manifest to earthly creatures.”
[14] Ibid., 59: “In short, he took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was his. ‘He was rich but he became poor for our sake, so that we might be enriched by his poverty (2 Cor 8:9)'”
[15] Ibid., 59: “The One Who Exists, is necessarily born of the flesh, taking all that is ours into himself so that all that is born of the flesh, that is us corruptible and perishing beings, might rest in him.”
[16] Ibid., 59-60: ” if he who is rich does not impoverish himself… then we have not gained his riches but are still in our poverty, still enslaved by sin and death because Word becoming flesh is the undoing and the abolition of all that fell upon human nature as our curse and punishment…a return which I would say has been gained by Christ the Savior of us all.”
[17] Ibid., 115: “To say that he suffered does no disgrace to him, for he did not disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in the nature of the godhead, but in his own flesh.”
[18] Ibid., 117: “So, even if he is said to suffer in the flesh, even so he retains his impassibility insofar as he is understood as God…he (scripture writer) know that he was speaking about God, and so he attributed impassibility to him insofar as he is understood as God, adding on, most skillfully, ‘in the flesh,’ which is, of course, where the suffering occurs.”
[19] Ibid., 55: “This is what we mean when we say that he became flesh, and for the same reasons we affirm that the holy virgin is the Mother of God ( Theotokos).”
[20] Ibid., 130-131: “He suffers in his own flesh, and not in the nature of the Godhead. The method of these is altogether ineffable, and there is no mind that can attain to such subtle and transcendent ideas… If the flesh that is united to him, ineffably and in a way that transcends thought or speech.”