The Antiochene-Alexandrian rift alone is so frustrating to study: As I was going through this module’s readings, and then the letters between Cyril and Nestorius, I lost count of how many times I yelled in my mind, arggghh, you guys keep overlapping each other on the same theology – but then you use some of that same overlap to argue whether Jesus’ fully human side had potential to sin while being attached to the Logos, or he was fully human but above sin because he is God and human in one Logos (Irvin and Sunquist 189).
When we look at this debate closely, there are three main factors at play: the theological difference itself, the history of what led up to the difference, and the combo of political and church authority roles in all of this.
Beginning with the theological difference itself, much of the Antiochene position stemmed from using a more literal approach to reading the Bible. From this, Antiochenes used Scripture passages to distinguish Jesus’s human nature from his divinity. Using Theodore’s perspective as a guide, the idea was that the human side of Jesus was capable of being corrupted; and at any time before his death, he could have backed out of his divine purpose (Irvin and Sunquist 188, 189). Therefore, for Antiochenes, it was impossible for the Logos to be embedded in two natures.
In sharp contrast, Alexandrians saw the Logos as one in the same in both natures (Irvin and Sunquist). This segues into the history of how each school built its respective theology: Tracing back to Origen and Clement’s works regarding the Logos becoming incarnate in the flesh, Alexandrians had a long history of developing this theology, with Athanasius expanding on this in the fourth century, followed by Cyril further reinforcing this view and eventually overthrowing the Antiochene position (Irvin and Sunquist 188, 191).
Yet the Alexandrian school’s theological roots were not the only ones traced back to the second century: Theophilus helped kick off the views about Jesus’ human nature, which Paul of Samosata then used to go gangbusters on this in the third century.
Then, heading into the late fourth / early fifth centuries, Nestorius took the reins and rode that theological horse like he stole it (Irvin and Sunquist (188, 190). This becomes even clear in his back-and-forth letter battle with Cyril. In Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, Cyril lambasts Nestorius for summarily dismissing the creed that the entire church agreed upon decades earlier (par. 3). And based on this creed, Cyril defines Jesus being “begotten” in this way: “because the Word hypostatically united human reality to himself, and came forth of a woman, this is why is said to have begotten in a fleshly matter. The Word did not subsequently descend upon an ordinary man previously born of the holy virgin, but is he made one from his mother’s womb.” (par. 4).
Cyril then gives numerous other examples of why Jesus is fully God and fully man as one Logos, including quoting John 1:14 (“And the Word became flesh” and Hebrews 2:14 “he shared his flesh and blood like us” (par. 6).
And this leads Nestorius to reply with a vengeance. He wastes no time tearing into many of Cyril’s comments and generally sees Cyril as basically a puppet to his authorities (par. 2). Amazingly, Nestorius mostly agrees with Cyril on what constitutes as heretical teaching (par. 6) – but that’s before he launches into a barrage of Scripture passages to give Cyril what looks like an intellectual smackdown.
To put the pedal to the metal on this view, Nestorius relies heavily on Matthew’s gospel, while threading in passages from various NT letters for good measure. Much of this diatribe points out that if Jesus had a clear genealogy back to David, and that the Scriptural references to Jesus’ flesh and bodily death are separate from his actual Godhead: “God by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and on sin’s account, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3).
Still, Cyril has no plans to quit the fight. In his third letter to Nestorius, Cyril uses their intellectual chess match to put Nestorius in a checkmate type position. Cyril does this by hitting Nestorius from three different angles: 1.) Cyril once again reinforces the agreed upon creed among Catholics (par. 3). 2.) Throughout the letter, he counters Nestorius’ scripture references with several other NT passages. 3.) Because Cyril was bishop of Alexandria and with authorities in Rome to back him up, he spends the first portion of the letter telling Nestorius to cease and desist from creating any more confusion among fellow Catholics, who were ironically divided into two camps of both claiming to be fully Catholic, yet having competing theological perspectives (Irvin and Sunquist 189).
As you pointed out your post, it was only a matter of time in the fifth century for councils to come together and deliberate the matter. This led to Emperor Theodosius II stepping into deal with the great division and spiraling violence between Alexandrians and Antiochenes (Irvin and Sunquist 192).
And as you also mentioned, the rift would still carry on until (thankfully) the Chalcedonian Compromise. Yet it shows that along with the mess of social, philosophical, and theological differences between Alexandrians and Antiochenes, political power also had a hand in getting the issues resolved. Moreover, when we factor the push-pull power struggle between Rome and Constantinople, early Christians certainly had their work cut out in uniting under the Catholic church.
Works Cited
Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.
Letters of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. Readings in World Christian History, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. New York: Orbis Books, 2004.