ANTIOCHENE CHRISTOLOGY: 
ONE PROSOPON OF THE TWO IN THE  UNION OF NESTORIUS
 By Alexander Pak
 

 
Page BreakContents 
 
1 Contents 3 
2 Introduction 5 
3 Development of Episcopal Ministry in Apostolic Succession 13 
Against Heresies 15 
4 Question of Authorities in Forming Doctrines: Canons and Creeds 19 
Canonicity of Scripture 21 
On Apocrypha 22 
On Creeds 24 
On Apostolic Ministry 25 
5 Antioch Christians in the East 27 
Martyrdom 31 
Monasticism 33 
6 Antiochene Christology 41 
7 Terminologies: Logos, Christ, Jesus, Hypostasis and Prosopon 54 
Logos 54 
Christ 56 
Jesus 57 
Ousia 57 
57 
Hypostasis 58 
Prosopon 60 
8    Council of Ephesus I (431) 62 
9 Nestorius' Life and Theological Formation 66 
10 Challenged Theotokos 73 
11 One Prosopon of the Two in the Union 78 
12 Christology : Present and Future 98 
13 Conclusion 103 
14 Index 104 
15 104 
16 References 104 
17 Endnotes 104 
Page Break 
Introduction 
This short book is an introduction to Christians and theology of Antiochene tradition (Syrian branch) of Christendom.i The subject that is not familiar with most Christians and has been dealt mainly within circles of scholars and theologians. It's aim is to introduce Syrian Christianity and her involvement with the fifth century Christological controversy, which is one of the topic in this book.  The book will also deal with Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople on Christological controversy and theologies.  It will also survey a general Church history along the way.  Purpose of the book is to show the importance of adhering to the orthodox teachings of the church and abide by the teachings of the Ecumenical councils and to show how the existence of political authority also shape outcomes of deciding orthodoxy and heresy. Even though the book does not go into a political side of the debate, emperors and ecclesiastical rivalry and traditions played the important role in that regard.   And it will look at  present and future of Christology debate, and also invite dialogue and future of relationship with East and Western churches by starting a dialogue. Dialogue involves exchanges of words and speeches. And it is also well known fact that too often the words and speeches are many times misunderstood and misinterpreted. Nicholas Ostler quotes Goethe to make a point on an unattainability of translation: 
"For whatever one may say of the (ultimate) unattainability of Translation, it is and remains nonetheless one of the weightiest and worthiest occupation in the overall Being of the world (i.e. humanity)."ii Words and languages have shaped and cultivated human civilizations and religions. And in the first century A. D. arose religion called, Christianity. Believers began to worship the Son of God, Jesus Christ. 
According to McManners, "Christianity is a religion of the word-the `Word made Flesh,' the word preached the word written to record the story of God's intervention in history."iii And when one speaks about Christianity, one can not ignore Jews and Judaism, because early Christianity was a part of Judaism. "Owen notes that, "Christianity was one form of the faith of the Jew, and not only in its first years. Jesus was a Jew." iv  The birthplace of Christianity was a Palestine in the Middle East. Church of Christ had a humble beginning in the east or Near East place called Jerusalem. Jesus Christ found Christianity based on his life, ministry, death and resurrection and ascension into the heaven.  The disciples were known as the followers of the Way (Isa. 40: 3; Acts 9: 2) or the Way.  And its root was in the soils of Judaism.  At that time, politically dominant empire was Roman Empire. Once there was a peace of Rome or Pax Romana under the rule of emperor Augustus (Gaius Octavius, who was a nephew of Caesar Julius) ruled between 27 B. C. till A. D. 14. When Christianity came into existence, reception was mixed, due to its adherent to Judaism, which was a legal religion of the empire.  In order to rule vast territories and spheres within the empire, Roman empire ruled with an order and law. Its inhabitants had to either follow the order and the law or they faced consequences. This is how the empire was able to maintain its vast territories and different populations. Early Christians were well aware of such structured way of life and outlook. When Christians were viewed as an enemy of the emperor and the empire, Romans persecuted Christians and forced the law unto them, sucs law as an emperor worship and gods of the empire. In order to escape the persecution, early Christians met in their homes and dwelling and catacombs.  
After a persecutions ceased, soon after house churches became a structured buildings and cathedrals and basilicas and  churches began to settle down permanently. Churches gradually began to adopte a sort of civil-governmental structures or hierarchical government systems. Bureaucracy became a system within the churches. There were sense of order and hierarchy. As churches began to expand and more diversified, it needed sorts of supervisions and central managements.  Apostle Paul emphasized orderliness in the churches,"But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Cor. 14: 40, NIV). Thus early churches had hierarchical structures including deacons, presbyters (bishops or overseers), teachers and prophets. These church leaders and teachers were highly competant and powerful, and these church leaders would have been a generals or rulers within a society. Moreschini notes, "In the fourth century, then the church asserted itself as an organiation in competition withthe state and increasingly capable of drawing educated and influential persons to it...This new social reality might take the form, for example, of an ecclesiastical career; men who loved power soon discovered taht they could find better opportunities in the church than in serving the state...The most influential personalities in Christendom were those bishops who were able to combined Christian theology with pagan philsophy and political skill with a sure faith in Chrisian values; thinkm for example, of Ambrose and Augugstine, Athanasius and Basil."v  Churches and leaders were highly organized and structured.  
Williston Walker sees Christian organization with a mixed feeling, he noted that, "No question in church history has been more darkened by controversy than that of the origins of the church's official ministry...In all probability, the couse of institutional development was slightly different in different places... Yet by the middle of the second century, a substantially uniform pattern of local ministry was coming to prevail throughout the Christian world."vi  And there were various leaders and workers to serve different needs within the congregations.  Lössl describes the 2nd century church scene: 
Almost simultaneous with the first preaching of the Gospel was the appearance of the ecclesia, or church...Initially those teacher who were recognized as apostles (that is, emissaries of Christ) were the authorities in everything...By the end of the second century...the majority of congregations relied on a body of presbyers, or elders, to ward off heresy, while the power to exclude or reprimand the wicked was entrusted to the monarchical episkopos or bishop.  Dissent was not repressed by appeal to a rule of faith, the common patrimony of those churches which had been planted by the apostles or their deputies.  The guardians of this rule wer ancient bishoprics in the centres of population, and most venerable of all (says Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 3. 2) was `the see of Rome, which Peter and Paul had watered with their blood."vii 
 
Adolf Von Harnack points to the needs for hierarchical structure and a pastor in churches. He notes that, "the stress that sacerdotalists have in every age of Christianity placed upon it as containing the central place of their faith."viii The bishops and overseers were also called as pastors, who were the shepherds of congregants should and well being.  It is generally known that there is a principal leader or bishop (episcopos) in each city. There was a special need ministry called a ministry for widows. According to Harnack along with the presbyters, the reader, the deacons, there was a ministry specifically designated for the widows. He notes, "The division of work among the widows, the number of whom is to answer to the number of the deacon, is completely new to us."ix The widowers known for their prayers. They served as a guide to women and intercessory prayer warriors. Early churches were capable to serve and minister to the people of God under the leadership of pastor and offices within the churches.The paradigm is came from the Scripture (Acts 6).  When Constantine became the emperor, he soon moved his new capital to the Constantinople around A. D. 330x,  Christianity spread rapidly in different regions in and around Mediterranean Sea, north to Europe, south to North Africa and to the east of Asia Minor and beyond the Mesopotamia.  
According to the book of Acts of the Apostle, first Christians were being called in the city of Antioch, Syria. And the city was the first missionary center for the Gentile evangelizations, which apostle Paul and Barnabas and  embarked in around  A. D. 47 . It was in the East that brought many biblical and theological issues that ended in late period known as Ecumenical Councils. In other word, first seven ecumenical councils were held and met in the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire under the imperial edicts by the emperors. It is known fact that the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), the majority attendees were mostly came from regions such as Asia Minor, Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria and Arabia and Mesopotamia. All in all 318 bishops and leaders joined the council. Even though Pope did not attend the council personally, there were some Roman delegations also participated as well, one of the delegates was named Hosius of Cordova, Spain. Overall, Easteners dominated the council, along with a Roman representation. 
It is a remarkable feat that a persecuted church with much spilling blood of martyrs, confessors and  saints became a imperial religion of the Empire. From the fourth century on, beloved church began to direct its resources and focus on establishing doctrines and orthodox theology. The fourth century was the age of great saints and Church Fathers and beginning of monasticism. González succinctly summarize the event. He notes that, "Constantine turned the persecuted church into the tolerated church and later-especially after the foundation of Constantinople-into the favored church. One of the immediate results of these new circumstances was that the fourth century was the era of the great `Father' of the church, for the energy that was previously devoted ot training for martyrdom and to the refutation of pagan accusations could not be channeled toward other activities...Other Christians, now that martyrdom at the hands of the State was no longer possible, gave themselves to the substitute    of monasticism, and thus the fourth century saw thousands of hermit flock to the Egyptians desert."xi  
Fathers of the Church or Church Fathers were usually monks, ascetics, teachers, bishops who themselves were disciples of apostolic fathers. They wrote and defend the teachings of the church and developed theology and orthodox doctrine based on the teachings of the apostles. Most of the participants of the ecumenical councils and synods were the Church Fathers themselves, such as Athanasius, Cyril, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Jerome in the West. The period of the Church Fathers starts from 2nd century till 8th century (in the West, Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636); in the East, John of Damascus (675-749). There is Apostolic Fathers as well. Apostolic Fathers  lived during first and early second century. They were the followers or influenced by the Apostles, such as Clement of Rome, Shephard of Hermas and and Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch. 
Accordingly, many of the famous teachers and writers were influenced by the Antiochene theological influence, which later became to be known as Antiochene School that stood against or along with Alexandrian School in Egypt. It is generally known that Antiochene School represented both east and western Christianity, while Alexandrian school tended toward more to Far eastern Christianity. Of course there were many other Christian catechetical schools were represented in Christian learning centers in Christian antiquities, such as schools in Caesarea, Nisibis and Jerusalem and Edessa and so on.  After the decision of the Council of Chalcedon (451), schism occurred and produced the Church of the East (Nestorian Church) in East Syria and near Mesopotamia region.   
Edessa is located in the upper Mesopotamia region and once it was the capital city of Armenia.  It was elevated to represent Antiochene Christology.xii  It was also a stronghold of Nestorian center. According to tradition, "Edessa makes the claim to have been the first Christian principality in the world, on the presumption that their king Abgar VIII (177-212) was indeed a Christian. This is still an era of legend, but the first historic king to have been undeniably a Christian king Tiridates III (natively Trdat) of Armenia, who was converted some time in the first two decades of the fourth century (officially in 301)."xiii. It is an interesting fact that when one looks for causes and beginning of the Christian learning experience, the name Antioch always comes up and if one looks closely, here one will find some or all of influence has to do with the name of Antioch. The city and school produced many saints and martyrs and orthodox champions as well heresies and heretics as well. The deposed Patriarch of Constantinople named Nestorius, who began his career in the city of Antioch. 
The city of Antioch has many first's. It birth the name Christian; apostle among the apostle named Peter was her first bishop, who served for short period of years before heading to Rome to be martyred; apostle Paul, who was the first apostle to the Gentiles was here and ministered for a while along with Joesph the Levi called Barnabas of Cyprus (son of encouragement; it was here that believers sent out the first missionaries into the surrounding areas, which eventually became Christianized, which were Greek-speaking believers, except Rome, who spoke mainly Latin. The city of Antioch as a city of the east still retained and spoke Aramaic, the Semitic language once been called lingua franca that stretched from the time of Assyrian Empire at its height (7th century B. C.) till  the time of Jesus' ministry here on the earth. It is believed to be that Jesus and his followers were knowledgeable in Aramaic language. Some of the words that Jesus spoke were indeed Aramaic (Ephphata, which means open, Mark 7: 34; Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which means My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Matthew 27: 46) And some of the writings in the Old Testament were also written in Aramaic, such as portions of books of Ezra and Daniel. For the early Christians in the East, which were the majority in Christianity at that time, were felt home and comfortable in knowing and preserving Aramaic language.  
In Christian traditions, it can be divided into the Latin-sepaking West and the Greek-speaking East; sometime the East is divided into Greek-speaking and Aramic-speaking Christians. Thus along with  these two different and contrasting ecclesistical, political and social situations in an empire brough divisions of the East and the West.  And there are two main branches: Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church and Western Roman Catholic Church, which the Protestantism came out of during the Reformation in the sixteenth century in Europe, namely in Germany. Within the Eastern tradition or Middle East churches, there are three branches as well: the first is called Chalcedonian Church. They represent the majority of the believer and are those who adhered to the outcome of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Maronites Syrian Church has a full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and they have a strong ties with Lebanon as well. Their background has a monastic tradition. Second branch is called an Oriental Orthodox Churches that are comprised of Armenian Churches, Ethiopian Churches, and Coptic (Egyptian) Church and Syrian Orthodox Church. They are known as non-Chalcedon, who rejected the decree of the Council of Chalcedon (351). They are are usually called Miaphysite Christian to distinguish from dyophysites, who hold to the Chalcedon doctrine. Third branch is called the Church of the East (Assyrian Church of the East), Chaldeans or Persian Church or Nestorian Church, who follows the teaching of Nestorius. Their beginning goes back around after the Council of Ephesus I (431).  
This book will revisit some of the important figures, backgrounds,  and theology of Antiochene (Syrian) Christians, especially Christological controversy that surrounded in and around thoughts and teachings of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople. Purpose of the book is to reexamine and undersand to know how blessed Christians and its mission center can turned into a hot bed of a controversy and heterodoxy, which is a warning reminder throughout the church history. Many of the followers of Nestorius went as far as China, Tibet, Mongolia and India from the beginning of the 7th till 11th century. There is Nestorian Stele (Or Xi'an Stele) that was supposed to ereted in A. D. 781. It is believed to an artifact of presence of the Church of the East (Nestorian Church) in China.  Today there are followers of Nestorius existed today and they remain minor in the numbers. Christians in Antioch began as one of the important mision centers, throughout the history it has lost all of its former glory and first love. It is a clear reminder that despite of blessings and expansions in the beginning, if one does not abide in Christ, it will not be successful.  What Antiochene Christians taught us is that  despite the early success, one needs continually be in the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Antiochene Christians teach us the fulfillment of the prophecy.  And Lord Jesus Christ' prophesy is still relevant today:  "SO THE LAST WILL BE FIRST, AND THE FIRST WILL BE LAST." (Matthew 20: 17, NIV) 
 
Page Break 
Development of Episcopal Ministry in Apostolic Succession 
 
Structures of churches developed gradually. It includes a rise of apostolic succession, which points back to the apostles themselves. Christian communities always looked to and needed of  shepherds for caring of their souls and teaching of the Word of God. Rise of Gnosticism and  appearance of the false teachers were another pressing need for the overseers of bishops. There were also need for deciding of canon of Scripture, issue of apocrypha and problems of interpreting the Scripture, especially both the Old and New Testament. Christian churches always had faced with false teachings and teachers. How and What can refute and develop orthodox teachings or dogma? It was a duty and responsible for the overseers or bishops in the churches. Irenaeus was a bishop of Lyons, who understood and need for an episcopal ministry for the canon and creed. It is very important to know and understand how and why Irenaeus insisted on apostolic authority and it tradition. And it is also important to know his background in order to understand his insistence on tradition of church and its teaching based on apostolic teachings. Irenaeus is also known as a Church Father, who bridged between the West and the East. Schaff noted that "He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wisdom and moderation...and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches."xiv He is well versed not only in the Scripture tradition, but also "in Christian writers, as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Hermas, Justin M(artyr) and Tatian. .. also Hebrew and Syriac scholarship."xv He deserved to be the bridge of the West and Eastern churches. 
Irenaeus is considered the first catholic theologian, a teacher and a saint in the church. He was born around A. D. 135xvi in Smyrna near Turkey and died of martyrdom around A. D. 202 (there are still debate about his death). His name means “peaceful or peaceful one”, and a legend notes that while he was young, he listened a sermon of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. He moved and went to Rome to study and later became a presbyter of Lyons in France.  With his Eastern background and Western training, he became a bridge between West and East. In dealing with heresy, he was once sympathetic with Montanist movement, which was the Second century heretical movement that arose in the region of  Phrygia and Mysia . The movement began within the church by Montanus. It was called “the New Prophecy” by the follower of Montanus, who converted to Christianity. A legend notes that Irenaeus even asked Pope Eleutherius to allow Montanist to remain, yet his association with the sect is not evident.xvii  Here we can see Irenaeus’ tolerance and his sympathy for the sect.  He wanted to bring a bridge between East and West, for the former church was engulfed in Quartodeciman Controversy.  
On the other hand, his dealing with Gnostics is rather harsh. Because it was a direct threat to church. His exposure of Gnosticism is well known and documented. Irenaeus’ writing is different than of apologist, who wrote usually against heretics and gentiles. Instead his writing is addressed to Christians.  O'Donovan notes that, “The major work of Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) form A. D. 178, is a polemic against Gnostic heresies, elaborated with extensive treatment of orthodox Christian teaching… It is a work of different literary genre from that of the apologists, and expects different kind of readership, i. e. a Christian one.”xviii Unlike the other apologist who had much interaction with Gnostics and their writings, Irenaeus did not dealt directly with them. Instead he wrote to the Christians to do away with them. He was more of a pastor/bishop who protected and nurtured the flocks of Christ than deal head on with the heretics. Irenaeus’ main literary works are Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching,  and An Indictment and Overthrow of the Falsely named ‘Knowledge’.  The latter work is commonly called Against Heresies (Adersus omnes Haereses).  The work was probably completed around A. D. 185. The Against Heresites survives in fragments, but a Latin translation from about 380 is complete. It is stimulated but not determined by opposition to Gnosticism, a form of theosophy that today attracts interest and sympathy. Now I would like to focus more on contents of Against Heresies.  
 
 
Against Heresies 
 
In Irenaeus view, the first and most urgent threat was Marcion and the Gnostics that arose out their denial that the true God and the World-Creator are one and the same.  In his reply, Irenaeus insisted that the rule of faith and Scripture alike know only one God, the Creator, who ‘contains all things’ while being himself contained limited by nothing.”xix  Irenaeus saw God as not some remote being or distanced, but He himself is intimately present in His creation. Here we already see that his theology is very pastoral and relational. Unlike the teaching of Gnostics, which taught impersonal god, dualistic views of world as good and evil, and highly alienated understanding of knowledge (gnosis). For many Gnostics, knowledge is not for everyone, but for those few and enlightened ones.  In this kind of heretical teachings, Irenaeus had no room for discussion nor being apologetical with them.   
He was not interested in arguing with Gnostics. Rather, Irenaeus saw himself as above all a preserver and interpreter of tradition, and he was integrating themes from Pauline and Jeannine thought, and weaved into his anti-Gnostic synthesis theme. xx  Irenaeus saw the importance of emphasizing the traditional elements in the church, especially the Episcopate, Scripture and religious and theological tradition.xxi  He stressed that the continuity in the apostolic tradition was the continuity of the apostles with one another as the faithful messenger of Christ. Thus, it was important for him to acknowledge the apostolic succession. For Irenaeus, “Peter was an apostle of the very same God as Paul was.”xxii  They were the pillars of the church and stood the tradition of apostolic. Walker noted that “Peter and Paul both died at Rome, and the luster of their name was associated with the church there (Rome) from an early date, even though neither was actually its founder”.xxiii  Marcionism and Montanism brought worldliness and compromised church’s teaching.  
In order to combat these, Irenaeus stressed the apostolic continuity.  Pelikan notes that, “Apostolic foundation and the apostolic succession were another criterion of apostolic continuity”.xxiv Irenaeus notes that, “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position ot reckon up those who were by the apostle instituted bishops in the Churches and to demonstrate  the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.”xxv  Irenaeus clearly supports the perpetual succession of bishops. Sturar G. Hall argues that “By A. D. 180, Irenaeus argued that everywhere bishops were appointed by apostles, and that the pedigree of the bishops of his time could be traced back to the apostolic founders of churches."xxvi  The role of the Apostles as the teachers of the Church is now evident throughout Irenaeus’ teaching.  Now let us look at Irenaeus’ understanding of canonicity of Scripture and Creeds.  
Irenaeus also used a Rule of Faith (Regula Fidei) to measure and evaluate to test and examine bishops and overseers. Irenaeus set a high standard for churches and leaders to look back on the meaning of being a Christian and shepherd for flocks. The Rule of Faith provided necessary measuring standards to function within the boundaries of faith of apostles. It consisted of church rules, preaching and tradition.  "It was a declaration on the part of believers"xxvii. 
In dealing with Gnostics, he saw the importance of authority of Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament and Episcopal ministry based on apostolic tradition. He believed the apostolic teaching and tradition. Irenaeus emphasized on the canonicity of Scripture. He is the first Catholic theologian to limit to first four gospels in the New Testament: Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He is the first catholic theologian to incorporate into canon of Scripture as the divinely-inspired. Pelikan notes that “ For Irenaeus, Christ is the treasure which was hidden in the field, that is, in the Old Testament Scripture.”xxviii  He acknowledged all of the New Testament books except, the epistle of Hebrews and Jude.  Irenaeus notes that Heretics do not follow neither Scripture nor tradition. He notes that, “When however, they are confuted from the Scripture, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.”xxix  
 Here we see Irenaeus using of both tradition and Scripture as a norm of Christendom. He held up a high view of Scripture and tradition. Walker notes that, “The great weigh of argument, however, was borne by an appeal to the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, which, he was convinced, would themselves confute heretical teaching directly if attention were paid to their plain sense and if their obscure passage were understood in the light of those whose meaning was obvious.”xxx  
In dealing with creeds, Irenaeus saw the creed as the Law of Truth. The creed  was seen as just as important doctrine of Christian tradition as a development of the New Testament canon process. Pelikan saw that “the evolution of Christian creeds is an essential and unavoidable part of the history of early Christian doctrine; almost equally unavoidable is the temptation to document the inclusion and exclusion of the individual books from the cannon or of particular articles from the creeds.”xxxi During the development of the Christian creeds, it was a necessary parts of process in order to direct and guide the church and refute false teachings and doctrines. But when the canonicity of the Scripture was completed, the creeds and standard of faith were also set. The creeds were used as a part of teaching and confessional statements based on the Scripture and teachings of the church. This standard of faith is what Irenaeus called the Rule of Faith.  
 Irenaeus spoke of  the faith which the church had received from the apostles and from their disciples, and proceeded to quote a creed and explains as well. Irenaeus says: 
“the church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles’ and their disciples this faith: [she] believes in one God, the Father…and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that he should execute just  judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some form the beginning [of their Christian course], and others form [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”xxxii   
 
Irenaeus used earlier version of the Apostles’ Creed to encourage the righteous to steadfast, and urged the wicked to come repentance.  Later the Creed brought unity and a criterion of apostolic continuity. According to Kelly, “Christians have been accustomed to understand by the word creed a fixed formula summarizing the essential articles of their religion and enjoying the sanction of ecclesiastical authority.”xxxiii  Apart form his refutation of Gnosticism, and canonicity of the Scripture and Rule of Faith, Irenaeus also stands in a in defending and propagation of apostolic secession into a another level. His influence in the tradition of  apostolic tradition is based on the Jesus' teachings on the based on the Scripture and apostolic faith tradition. Next chapter will deal with more details about Canonicity of Scripture, Creeds and Ecumenical Councils.  
 
Page Break 
Question of Authorities in Forming Doctrines: Canons and Creeds 
 
What is Christian doctrine? This question refers back to Jesus' question to his disciples in the book of Matthew 16: 13-20, "Who do you say I am?" Christian doctrine is one ways to attempt to explain the question. Where does the authority in forming doctrine come from?  To answer the first question, I would like to quote the late Church Historian Jaroslav Pelikan’s book called, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Pelikan notes that “What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine.”xxxiv  Christian doctrine has its foundation on the teaching of the church. A church would not be church without Christian doctrine, which is the teaching of Jesus Christ.  Why is it important to study the question of authorities in forming doctrine in Christianity?  
There are many ways and elements that can help answer that question. First, a study of this nature can help to confirm a origin and necessity of the Canon of Scripture (i.e. Marcion, who was a second-century theologian, rejected the Old Testament and his theology and canon (Marcion Canon) were rejected by the early church as heretical, but he forced the early church to consider which texts were canonical and why); apocryphal sources, pseudepigraphal writings, Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession; 3 ecumenical creeds (The Apostles’ Creed; The Nicene Creed; The Athanasian Creed), and 7 ecumenical councils (Council of Nicaea, 325: Divinity of Christ (vs. Arius); Council of Constantinople 381: Humanity of Christ (vs. Apollinarianism), and Divinity of the Holy Spirit (vs. Macedonians); Council of Ephesus 431: Unity of Christ (vs. Nestorianism); Council of Chalcedon 451: Distinction of Christ nature(s) (vs. Euthychianism); Council of Constantinople II, 553: Reaffirmed previous decisions (vs. New Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophyticism; Council of Constantinople III, 680-681: Affirmed Christ’s two wills (both divine and human will) (vs. Monothelitism); Council of Nicea II, 787: Restoration of veneration of Icons).  Second, a study of this nature can trace the development of false doctrines (commonly called heresies).  Church history can also help show us how false doctrines originated and spread within Christendom. Third, the benefit of studying is learning about the past in order to understand present-day teaching of doctrines in the church today.  We need to read more about the past by studying the origin of doctrine in order to understand present day Christianity. Without a grasp of the question of authorities in forming doctrine, there will be  a false teaching or might have a defective view of Christianity.  
I would like to survey numerous concepts of authorities in forming doctrine by looking into the canonicity of Scripture, apocryphal sources, 3 ecumenical creeds, church councils and a development of Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession.  
If Christianity is a fact and impresses a doctrine on believers mind, it must have some sources of origin. If that is true, then what gives doctrine authority and mandate?  Christian doctrine had already undergone a long period of development by the time that the latest books in the canon of the New Testament had been written, and most of the known work of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ had been written, such as Didache. According to Lampe, “Didache is very early indeed, perhaps dating from well within what is generally thought of as the New Testament period”xxxv 
 
 
 
Canonicity of Scripture 
 
The question, however it is addressed, should be raised as to why the Scripture should be made the primary source and criterion for forming Christian doctrine? It is because like anything else, there must be some sort of authority in any situation, in this case, its in forming doctrine.   
Henry Newman notes that, “If Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develop… Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not, develop the doctrine of Scripture.”xxxvi Christianity is about a movement or a belief, which to follows Jesus Christ. Thus, it is logical to turn and look into his teaching and what he has said and done. On the assumption that Gospels are a reliable source of historical information, what Jesus endorsed must also be regarded as a further source of authority in forming doctrine.  
In choosing which books (or writings) to be considered a canon in Christian tradition is much more complex.  
There were many books of the Bible (Old Testament called Jewish Writings, Septuagint, Apocrypha, Gnostic writings, pseudepigraphal, Didache, and other New Testament manuscripts) that were available in the early period of Christianity. The development of the canon is a fascinating and important area of importance in Christian doctrine and teaching of apostles. Thus studying the origin of canonicity of Scripture is actually studying the apostles’ teachings as well, for Jesus did not write anything.  Pelikan agrees with John Knox who believed that “Canonicity and apostolicity became almost synonymous terms.”xxxvii  The list of canonical or apostolic books continued to fluctuate for many centuries. But what did not fluctuate was the Christian doctrine, i.e. orthodox formulated doctrines that had originated from councils and later became known as ecumenical creeds. (There are three recognized ecumenical creeds, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.)   
Controversies surrounding the canonicity of Scripture range from the Jewish Bible, apocrypha, the pseudepigraphal writings and many New Testament fragments and manuscripts. And there were also believers who were not sure of them on determining the orthodox position in the church. Bernard David noted that, “Only a fraction of the writings from early times still exist, and it is difficult to say how representative the remnant is. If a writer was a well-known bishop, pastor, or other church leader, we have some reason to believe he represented a significant view in the church. If a writer is unknown or had no significant position in the church, it is quite possible that he was not truly representative of the church of his time.”xxxviii  This was one way to establish authority in canonicity of Scripture. Authority rested on the writer of the Bible’s position and influence. Apostolic Fathers viewed the Scripture and the baptism formula to be regarded as presenting norm of Christian faith.xxxix  According to Seeberg there were two sources of authority. He noted that, “Jesus Himself describes and employs the Old Testament as an infallible authority (i.e. Matt. 5: 17; Lk. 24: 44), and the apostles also use it as such (e. g. Rom. 1:1; Gal. 3:8, 22; 4:30, etc). But the Lord says of his own words also, that they shall outlast heaven and earth, and asserts the same of the principles to be proclaimed by his apostles (Matt. 10: 40; 16:19).”xl   
 
 
On Apocrypha 
 
Apocrypha is biblical books, which ha a meaning of `hidden,'and is attached to the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint, LXX), but in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).  The order of Apocrypha follows as : 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremy, the Son of the three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Date of Apocrypha ranges from  300 B. C. to the A. D. 70. By this time the canon of the Hebrew bible on the Law and Prophets has been closed, yet Writings were still being worked out. Cross notes that, "it was still possible for works which came ot be known technically as `Writings' to attain for the first time the status of Scripture, and some of the Canonical Books of the OT (e. g. Daniel) date from this period."xli There are however, debates among the conservative and liberal scholars concerning the date of the Book of Daniel.  
During the period of the Church Fathers, opinions were varied. In dealing with Apocrypha, many did question its authority. Yet, there were many who identified the writings to be regarded with equal status, writings such as Hermas, Barnabas, the Didache, 1 and 2 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Some writers in the early Christendom, notably Tertullian and Augustine, gave full or partial approval to some of the Apocrypha.  Cross noted that, "Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Father alike (i.e. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite the classes of Books without distinction.  In the 4th cent. , however, many Gk. Fathers (e. g. Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus) came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited a Scripture."xlii. Bernard notes that, “Under the influence of Augustine, regional councils in North Africa, in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, endorsed the Apocrypha. Other writers, such as Origen and Athanasius, did not regard them as Scripture. Some did not deem them canonical, but used them for studying and preaching. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate (Latin Bible), insisted that they were not the Word of God.”xliii  Thus the books were neither received as the Word of God or not as the Word of God as it is today.  
 Among the Protestants scholars, there are different positions in regarding the Septuagint (LXX). Martin Luther acknowledged  the book excepte 1 and 2 Esdras, and included in his German bible. During the English Reformation period, Septuagint was not considered the inspired books. Cross notes, "Under Puritan ascendancy, however, it was declared in the Westminster Confession (1646-7) that the Apocrypha were not to be otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."xliv Many Protestant denominations prefer not to include Apocrypha in the Bible.  
 
 
On Creeds 
 
In dealing with the Creeds (here we are dealing with three ecumenical creeds, which all branches of Christianity recognized as the creeds of the church.), they have played an important role in ancient doctrinal controversies, especially those on the Godhead. Bernard notes that, “The earliest ‘rule of faith’ (fundamental doctrines or statements that were accepted generally) focused on faith in the one God… It is the basis of the Apostles’ Creed used today.”xlv The Apostles’ Creed was not written by the apostles, but it contained their teachings and beliefs based on Jesus Christ. The creed was a response to new doctrinal challenges, yet, it did not contain some of the more important doctrinal issues that face the contemporary church.xlvi 
The Nicene Creed was the creed that was developed during the Council of Nicea in  A. D. 325.  The creed was a direct result of the council that reacted against the teaching of Arius, a deacon in an Alexandrian church, who held a view that the Son or the Logos was created and adopted by the Father to be divine. It taught that there was a time, which the Logos did not exist at first, but was later created to be a divine. The Arian doctrine of Christ as a creature collides with the tradition of describing him as God. Pelikan notes that, “But, the Arian use of the titles Logos and Son of God, which together had come to summarize the central meaning of that tradition…For while the tradition of describing Christ as God was indeed the basic doctrinal and liturgical issue at stake in the controversy from the beginning.”xlvii The Nicene Creed reaffirmed the basic belief in Christ as divine and Homoousios (same essence as the Father). The Athanasian Creed was a clear exposition after the Nicene Creed, of the Trinitarian controversy and the Incarnation of the Son. It stated and restated the twofold nature in the one divine person of Jesus Christ. Three ecumenical creeds were the authority of the councils and creeds that originated the formation of early Christian doctrine.  
Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox view the ancient creeds and councils as authoritative sources of doctrine. Protestantism affirms the sole authority of Scripture, but in practice most Protestant churches also appeal to the creeds as definitive and normative.xlviii  
 
On Apostolic Ministry 
 
In dealing with development of apostolic ministry, it is necessary to look at Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). He was a student of Tertullian and considered to be one who emphasized the importance of church. He even said that church is salvation and there is no salvation outside the church. His reason for such a belief was based on widespread persecution during his time (it was Decian persecution).  Williston Walker notes that, “As he (Cyprian) saw it, the church was founded ultimately upon the apostles whom Christ commissioned. It was therefore the apostles as a single college (collegium: a body of colleagues), severally exercising a single undivided authority, who were the foundation of the church and hence in Cyprian’s view (and not his alone), devolved upon the bishops, the successors of the apostles, who severally exercised the authority of a single collective ministry."xlix 
For Cyprian, authority of Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession was based on God and Christ. For him, there was one God, and Christ was one, and there was one chair (episcopate) founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. To deny the authority of the apostolic succession ministry is to deny church.  This view led to the system of a synodical government by bishops who had the authority of apostolic traditions. The question of authorities in forming doctrine was long and combative at times. The canonicity of Scripture, development of the Ecumenical Creeds, and numerous councils, and the rise of the Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession had to do with both church history and the development of Christian doctrine and dogma. Sole authority of Christian doctrine is based on the authority of Scripture; from the Scripture everything begins and ends. Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church do include apocrypha writings in their Bible along with both the Old Testament (commonly called the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament, whereas Protestantism recognize only the Old and New Testament. In dealing with the three creeds, all branches were recognized as a norm and authoritative.   
 
Page Break 
Antioch Christians in the East 
 
The name Antioch goes back in biblical time. Antioch was a part of Syria, which is lies between Lebanon, which is located to the southwestern border; Turnkey to the northern border; Iraq to the eastern border; Jordan to the southern border and Mediterranean Sea to the west. Syria had tumultuous past and constant changing of boders throughout the history.  In the biblical times, Syria was known as Aram (named after son of Noah, Shem, Gen. 10: 22) Sometimes bible use Syrian and Aram interchangeably, because Syrian is a Greek translation of Aram. Its history goes back around 3000 B. C. They also brought the language Aramaic as well. Their ancient capital is Damascus, which is the capital of Syria today.   
In dealing with Aramaic language, Syrian spoke Aramaic. It is believed to be spoken by Jesus.  And was used in the parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel in the Old Testament. And Babylonian Talmud was also written in Aramaic.. Hetzron notes, "Major parts of the biblical books of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Jesus' native tongue was Palestinian Aramaic. Nabatean was spoken by ethic Arab ethnic Arabs around the beginning of the Christian ear. The Babylonian Talmud was written in Eastern Aramaic, a language close to Syriac, the language of the Christian city of Edessa (till the thirteenth century AD), still the liturgical language of the Nestorian and Jacobite Christian Churches."l  Aramaic is a Semitic language that was spoken since the third millenium B. C. There are several branches of the  Semitic language families, which includes Hebrew, Arabic and Akkadian script. The areas that the language spoken extend the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea, Mesopotamia, North Africa, and southern Europe and parts of Africa.   
Throughout the history of Israel, Aram was both seen as an enemy and conqueror. Syrian general Naaman, whose leprosy was healed by Elisha, a prophet of Israel (9th century B. C.), was Syrian. In the New Testament, Luke 2: 22 tells that Syria was under the rule of Roman empire. "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (NIV) Bible sometimes refers Syria with Cilicia-Syria  or Cilicia and Syria. (Acts 15: 40)  Canaanite woman (Matt. 15: 21-28) or Syrophoenician woman (Mk. 7:24-30), whom Jesus healed her daughter's demonic possession is also called a woman bron in Syrian Phoenicia. Syria and the city of Antioch had a long ancient history that are still exists even today. Throughout the biblical times, Aram (Syria)-Damascus and  had a very similar history with the land of Israel. They were under powerful neighborhood and its kings. Erez Israel and Syria as "both territories were either subject other great powers of the east (e.g., Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia) or disputed by two or more prominent empires (Under subsequent Roman rule the two entities were often considered one entity, with jurisdiction over the area in te hands of the Syrian governor."li 
Early tradition of Antioch goes back to 300 B.C. during the time of Alexander the Great’s general named  Seleucus Nicator. He was one of four generals who accompanied the king in his land conquering expeditions.  The city lies somewhere around 10 miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea between lower side of the Orontes River and Lake of Antioch, with a mount Silpius on its backdrop. The general named the city after his father’s name Antiochus. Populations grew soon afterwards, and it became a vast territorial expansion as well. Cultural setting of the city was mixed with mostly with different ethnics groups, Romans, Greeks, people from North Africa and its native Syrians and jews. Its popularity and prosperity  brought fame and fortune and luxury to the city as well as numerous earthquakes that shook the city. In here, the newly formed followers of Christ called Christians began to make missionary impact throughout the known areas. The city became the capital of Seleucid Empire and later Syria, today it is called Antikya located in Turkey. Antioch Syrian, which was the third important imperial city in the late Roman antiquity after Rome and Alexandria. However it might be measured, Antioch was a one of the great cities of the Greek East as well as Armaic spekaing populations. Moreschini notes "As political history tells us, Antioch and the kingdom of Syria had formed a state that was able to vie with Alexandria in Egypt, an later with Rome, for soerignity over the Mediterranean East. Although the kingdom of Syria, like all the Hellenistic kingdoms, fell under Roman domination in the first century B. C., the commercial and cultural importance of Antioch was not thereby lessened. Its importance grew in the fourth century to such an extent that in the fourth an fifth centuries Antioch became one of the most important episcipal sees and was marked by a Christian culture that seems in some way to have been more open than that of other places to contact with pagans."lii 
Religious background of Christians in the city were pagans, Judaism and gnosticism. Evidently there were presented many different deities and gods were being worshiped throughout the region. According to Wallace-Hadrill, "the network of interconnected pagan cults in Syria had grown from the early Semitic conception of ba'al into more clearly-defined pantheons of local deities, who in turn had to a considerable extent been overlaid first by the Hellenistic pantheon introduced by Alexander the Great, and then by the Roman pantheon."liii  
Jewish presence in the city of Antioch is significant. Even though it was a developing religion as well, yet they had full rights by the political authority and enjoyed their religion without harassments. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, many Jewish peoples left Jerusalem and were settling in different regions of the empire. Gradually Jews were accepted into the society and favored by the rulers. According to a tradition the city was known for an important Jewish center. It had a beautifully ornate synagogue and the burial site of Hannah and her seven children, where both Jews and Christians were honored. The martyrdom of Hannah narrative is found in the book of Maccabees. Apostles and Jewish Christians were presented in the city and made an important missionary center to the gentile nations.liv  
Relationship between Judaism and Christianity had both ups and downs. Early in history, Judaism in Antioch had some impacts on early Christians. Many thought that Christianity was similar to Judaism and did not bother to distinguish them. There were constant tensions between Judaizers and Christians over whether the gentile Christians were required to observe the Mosaic Law or not (Galatians 2: 11-21). However, tie was not severed yet among them and many Christians worshiped in the Jewish temple and synagogues,  and it is true that many Christian exegetes were employing Rabbi's interpretations. Yet there were clear distinctions and warned of going back to Judaism root, such fathers as St. Ignatius and John Chrysostom and Lucian of whom all were related with Antioch.  
Even apostle Paul warned against such Judaistic practice in his epistle of Galatians, "As for those agitators, I wich they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves." (NIV, 4: 12) It is decided that for the Gentiles Christians, observing the law was not an eligibility to become believers. Even though there were no open uprisings between Judaizers and gentile believers, however tensions and fears were built up and presented. Christians were called by Jews as Messianists and originally comprised of Jewish people. All of twelve apostles were Jewish and from surrounding areas of Palestine. Pagans and Gentile people began to join Christianity and by the time of apostle Paul comes to scene, there were already numerous in numbers. 
Biblical account recalls apostle Peter were in Antioch and he ate with gentile Christians but when he saw James (brother of Lord Jesus) messengers, he withdrew from the gentile believers. This became a scandalous action in the eye of apostle Paul (Galatians 2: 11- 13)and soon after he became the apostle to the gentile Christians, while apostle Peter to the Jews (Galatians 2: 7).  
Levi called Barnabas came to the city and brought apostle Paul to there to work and minister together.  Also it was in the city of Antioch where they sent apostle Paul and Barnabas to a missionary journey into the Asia Minor and eventually into the land of Europe and apostle Peter became the first bishop for several years before he went to Rome to be martyred along with apostle Paul  (Book of Acts and Galatians mention about them visited Antioch) and the believers were called Christians (Acts 11: 26).  
St. Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch. He was one of the most important preacher, writer and man of conviction, which led him to his martyrdom. While enroute to Rome to be martyred he wrote his famous seven letters, Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna and Polycarp. It is also known that St. Ignatius lived during the lifetime of Jesus' earthly ministry; Lucian the Martyr (d. 312); Arius of Alexandria (d. 336), Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 342); Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 392) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428). There were Saints like Ignatius of Antioch (c. 30-107) and John Chrysostom of Constantinople (349-407); Aphrahat the Syrian (fl. 4 century). 
Gnosticism was a complex religious movement that affected not only Roman empire but Christians as well. Already within the churches apostles were concerned and warned against gnostic teachers and their teachings. One of the tenets of gnosticism that affected Christians were a docetic (docein; to seemed or to appear) teaching. It is believed to that many of the gnostic writings were began to appear. Wallace-Hadrill notes that, "the popularity of docetic view of Christ's humanity is further suggested by the proliferation of apocryphal gospels and other pseudo-canonical books in Syria during the first two centuries, but the greatest threat to the Church's understanding of Christ came in the third century."lv  
 
Martyrdom 
 
In the early Christian era, being Christians meant facing dangers and even death. And often times, it meant martyrdom.   Martyr (Greek martus, witness) is a someone who dies for Christ. It was a period of apologists (those who defended a faith of Christianity), such as Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) and martyrs. "Professing to be a Christian prior to the early fourth century was frequently fraught with danger. While Roman Empire of the early centuries of the church often showed great religious tolerance, there were occasionally intense prosecutions of Christians. These trials served as one of the crucibles in which early theological identity was defined."lvi Martyrs were lived and died for witness of Christ.  
The title was given to the apostles, who witnessed Christ's life and ministry and death and resurrection (Acts 1: 8) soon the martyr became to be used to those who suffered and died. By the 2nd century, there were circulation of a records of martyrdom or known as Acts of Martyrs.lvii Martyrs are generally venerated in the Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church. The martyrs were seen as those who followed the suffering of Jesus and entered into the glory. They are now in the before the throne of God worshiping God and intercedes for Christians on the earth. (Rev. 7: 13-17)  When it comes to Christian martyrdom, according to the New Testament accounts, there are John the Baptist (Matthew 14: 1-12); the first disciple was to be martyred was Stephen (Acts 7); James the Great, a brother of the Lord (Acts 12: 1-2).  
According to Christian tradition, St. Peter and Paul were martyred during the time of emperor Nero around A. D. 64-67; and all of the other apostles were also martyred during persecution, except apostle John, who wrote the book of John, epistles and the book of Revelation. He is said to died a natural old age. Many saw his death in natural cause refers to his caring of Mary, the mother of Christ.  Historically, there were at least ten notable persecutions in the early churches: 1) Nero (64); 2) Domitian (95); Trajan (112) St. Ignatius of Antioch; Marcus Aurelius (177), martyrdom of Polycarp; Septimius Severus (211), martyrdom of Perpetua; Maximinus Thrax (235); Decius (250), martyrdom of Pope, persecution in Jerusalem and Antioch; Valerian (258), martyrdom of Cyprian and Pope Sixtus II; Aurelian (274); Diocletian and Galerius (302-303).  
Edict of Milan in 313 tolerated Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman empire by Emperors Constantine and Licinius. One of the reasons for the persecution of Christians were being atheist. Christians failure to worship emperor made them atheists. But it was far from the truth. Christians worshiped not creatures but they worshiped the true God and the Creator of the heaven and earth. They lived as the light and the salt of the world, and in fact Christians were preservers of the decaying Roman society. Another accusation was that Christians were practiced a canninbalism. It was referring to the Sacramental meal among the Christians. By eating the body and the blood of Christ viewed as the cannibalism. Athenagoras explained, "Christians were not even allowed to kill."lviii González notes that many of the accusations were based on rumor and fabricated stories, "The popular accusations were based on rumors regarding the customs and beliefs of Christians. Thus some claimed that Christians committed incest, that they ate children, that they worshipped the sexual organs of their priest, that their god wsa a crucified ass, and many similar things."lix   
Some were accusing of incompetent Christian teachers and leaders. González continues, "The more sophisticated accusations-known to us mostly from the Octavius of Minucius Feliz and Origen's Contra Celsum-consisted mostly in showing the ignorance and incompetence of Christian teachers. Much was made of the fact that the so-called teachers of the Christians were really ignorant peple belonging to the lowest strate of society. This is why Christians approach only those who are ignorant- that is, women, children, and slaves-for they know that their  `science' would not resist a solid refutation."lx 
Along with martyrdom came the apologist. Apologists had to face these kinds of false accusations and rumors. Justo Gonzalez describes the rise of apologist. He notes that,"Toward the middle of the second century, a number of Christian writers took upon themselves the task of defending their faith in the face of the false accusations that were at the heart of persecution."lxi Martyrdom of Polycarp is a letter by St. Ignatius, who was himself was heading to Rome to be martyred, that showed how the mob accused and condemned the bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp. "In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, it is the mob that actually accuses, condemns and sentences the bishop of Smyrna...it is once again the mob that takes the leading role in their trials."lxii From these persecutions, both martyrs and apologists witness and faced the martyrdom for the faith in Christ.  
 
Monasticism 
 
It is a interesting fact that Church Fathers and heretics and writers, who involved in theological controversies, were either a monk or mostly came from a monastery or monastic background tradition. Prior to appearing into a scene, they were devout men of prayers, contemplations and ascetics in their own ranks of monastic traditions. Their devotions and discipline have earned respects and social standings around them. Simply put, there are deep and steeped in monastic tradition in Christian monasticism. Matsagouras notes, "the spiritual  experience embodied in the rich tradition of the early Church, represented by  such writers as the Cappadocian Fathers, Ephreaem the Syrian, Macarius the Egyptian, Dionysius the Areopagite, Isaac of Nineveh, and John Climacus, just ot mention a few may satisfy those who would otherwise look ot the religions of India or the Far East, to satisfy their spiritual thirst."lxiii  What is Christian monasticism?  It is a movement that directs its focus on asceticism, withdrawal, constant prayers and celibacy.  Asceticism refers to physical exercise, which applied it to a spiritual discipline.  Monastic is a person (from the Greek monachos, alone or solitary, in Syriac `abbiloutha', which means sorrow),lxiv who pursues a devoted spiritual life. It is began as a lay people's movement that focused on prayer and flight from the world's affairs and gradually adopted by clergies and leaders. The areas of initial development were Egypt and Syrian wilderness.  
According to tradition, "The spirituality of the Christina East has been shaped and guided by the monastic experience which has provided for both Eastern and Western churches centres of continuance, endurance and spiritual renewal, through fluctuating political conditions, giving the church innumerable monastic writers and teachers, and many of its great missionaries and leaders."lxv One of its characterics of asceticism is total focus on prayer called `hesychism.'  It is a form of total silent contemplation. "Even though monasticism soon acquired predominantly a communitarian aspect, at the heart of monastic experience has always been aggravation oto solitude, and the stillness `hesychia, or inner concentration can foster. This movement to a solitary standing before God lies behind the other fundamental characteristics that describe monasticism."lxvi   
Many times, Church Fathers were seen as educators. And monasteries were the place of not only spiritual learning centers, but education as well. Matsagouras notes "Classical education aimed at preparing man for the present life only. Christianity, however, saw man as he Son of God and the heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, its concept of education was broader than the pagan, in that it had a new dimension, that of the Spirit."lxvii Greek philosophy or Hellenism played important roles in Christianity. It goes back to the days of Apostle Paul. Matsagouras notes, "The intellectual struggle between Christianity and the classical world that started in Athens with Paul's speech to the Athenians, continued through the next three or more centuries in such cities as Alexandria, where these two great forces confronted each other at that crossroad of history."lxviii Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as the Cappadocian Fathers, were aware of dangers of Greek classical education, but they mastered in combining and developed it into Christian thoughts and theology. Matsagouras viewed the Cappadocian Fathers as the solution of Hellenism-Christianity. He continues, "These were the three Cappadocian whose contribution to theology and to the solution of the problem `Hellenism-Christianity,' to the restoration of peace and to the expansiono fo the monastic ideal was such that it has had a lasting influence on the entire church."lxix 
Methods of teaching and discipling were varied and subjected to individual monastery. Here is one of methods that was used commonly by monastic educators: 
I. Instruction by Verbal Means 
a) General Methods 
i) Lecture 
ii) Dialogue 
iii) Admonition 
iv) Counseling 
b) Specific Methods of Preserving Ideas 
i) Parable 
ii) Allegory and Symbolism 
iii) Apophthegms 
II. Instruction by Non-Verbal Means 
a) Symbolism of the Monastiv Habit 
b) Silent Methods 
c) Observation of Nature and the Empirical Method 
d) Personal Example 
III. A test of the Monastic Educational System 
a) Self-examination 
b) Confessionlxx 
 
Above method of education and discipling the novices was employed for many years in the monasteries. Eastern monasticism attempted to balance out between "letters" and inner "quies," so that it can preserve and transmit Christian intellectual tradition and spirituality.  Matsagouras summarizes Eastern monasticism,"Eastern monasticism, always a center of asceticism and mysticism, never intended that monasteries should become homes of study, but that they should remain as places of inner `quies.' Their aim was not to influence the world, but to escape from it.  However, at an early stage, monasticism ascertained the scholarly side of Christianity and developed a good relationship with `letters' as has already been shown."lxxi 
Historically speaking, Christian monasticism was not a Christian invention. There were other monasticism and monks before Christianity. Judaism had Essenes, who lived in  secluded places with few of their own for a purpose of separating themselves from the worldly affairs. It is understood that Essenes influenced early followers of Christ, including John the Baptist. Essenes was a religious community of Jewish sect that came out of Judaism in the Second Temple period. Some of Essenes lived in a near Dea Sea region and practiced and lived austere lifestyle. They withdrew from a society and practiced holy and pure life. They tried to emulate purified monastic center. Further, "the members of the brotherhood lived in monastic communities from which, with few exceptions, women were excluded. They lived austere lives, supporting themselves by manual labor, generally agricultural and holding everything in common ownership."lxxii  According to a Jewish tradition, John the Baptist was a member of a desert community. "It is possible that at one time John was a member of the Judean Desert sect."lxxiii Even though there is no direct reference in the New Testament, John the Baptist' way of life and practises represent  ascetically lifestyle of Essenes.   
For many Christians martyrdom was the highest form of a total dedication one's faith an commitment to Christ. It was based on Scriptures.  Church or believers must be holy and pure, further she must present herself to Christ, who is the bridegroom, without spot or wrinkle, as Ephesians 5: 27 commands, "that he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but the she should be holy and without blemish."(NKIV) And Christians must be train as an athlete for a prize. 1 Corinthians 9: 25 says, "And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown."(NKJV). A Christian monk and monastery represent an ideal model for a Christian perfection and training. The word asceticism came a Greek word, ascesis, which means training or discipline that was used to refers to an athletic training. Monastic writers and Church Fathers used the term to encourage and urged the believers to engage a spiritual battle or race. Apostle Paul used an imaginary of race to believers follow his examples.  He said, "I have fought the good fight, have finished the race, I have kept the faith."(2 Tim. 4: 7, NIV).  Christians are to train themselves to fight and resist temptations and trials of life. Christians are supposed to sober and watchful. Apostle Peter urges the believer to be alert and of sober mind. (1 Pet. 5: 8). 
After the Christianity became the Roman empire's state religion (Edict of Milan, 313), churches were receiving all sort of peoples due to civic religion status. Many faithfuls and those who seek more disciplined way of Christian life, they began to move and turned to mountains, caves, remote places and desert and wilderness for their complete contemplations. For those who seek a solitude and contemplations, it was better choice to move to more challenging places and environments than staying state sanctioned churches. They chose asceticism over feel-good religon; they even interpreted Jesus' saying to Martha as their reason for choosing contemplation over being busy-bodies. (Lk. 10: 41) Monks and monastery founders used Jesus' command to a man who was told to sell all and follow Him. Jesus said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."(NIV) They forsook everything and literally followed Jesus. 
Christian monasticism follows Christ's command and made themselves eunuchs for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven; and followed a life of poverty. Apostle Paul talks about living an austere life and total dedication to Christ. Monks reject the life style of materialism and worldly attachment. And they are totally obedient to their mentor or later abbot. There are three characterics in the monastic tradition: Celibacy, Poverty and Obedience. They are equally based on the Scripture teachings.  
Asceticism is a basic foundation of monasticism. It is a form of total sacrifice and strict way of life. Yet it is not being a special, but this is how Christians must live. When Christians took a baptism, they leave former life behind or death to old life and raise with a new life in Christ. So asceticism is a normal  and fulfillment of a way of life. Sometimes, monasticism is regarded as a second baptism. "Matsagouras notes that, "Monasticism was regarded as a second baptism and its rites were based on the pattern of the rite of baptism."lxxiv  
The first hermit in the Christian monastic tradition was St. Anthony (251-356), who lived in Egypt desert for ove hundred year. Life of St. Anthony (Vita Antonii) was introduced in the West by St. Athanasius around fourth century.  Western civilization and education has to do with monasticism. And it went out to influence Byzantine world as well as Czarist of Russia. And John Cassian (d. 433), who was a desert monk, who is from the East, found the Western monasticism.  Matsagouras regarded monasticism as, "a continuation of the Apostolic life."lxxv When it comes monasticism, there are two types of monasticism: hermit (eremite) and cenobite. The former is known as a monk who lives alone in a remote part of the places. They are most strictest monk. They are often called desert fathers. Matsagouras notes that, "The most celebrated figures of monasticism are known as the `Desert Fathers.' They form a distinct and important group among the Fathers of the Church."lxxvi   
And there is a cenobite type of monasticism. Unlike a hermit (eremite), cenobite monasticism involves a communal type of monastic life. Its founder is known to be Pachomius (c. 290-346). He established a Cenobite community in Upper (south) part of Egypt. Members of the Cenobite community lived a strict common life and followed a common schedules that included, prayers, work and meditation throughout the day 365 days a year. Walker notes that, "In time, the Pachomian koininia, as it was called, came to include a number of such monastic centers (including communities of women) and thus constituted the first monastic `order.' These communities supported themselve by their work (agriculture and waving, for example) and were dedicated to mutual assistance and encouragement in practicing the way of salvation."lxxvii 
Syrian monasticism is a part of Syrian Christianity. Syrian Christianity refers to "the various Middle Eastern and Indian churches in Syriac liturgical tradition; namely: the the Syrian Orthodox and its Eastern Rite Catholic counterparts, Syrian Catholic and, in India, Syro-Malabar churches. Up until about the sixteenth century the term also applied ot parts of the `Rum' Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Antioch."lxxviiiSyrian monasticism is considered one of the most severest forms of asceticism. Imitation of Christ's suffering and sacrificing are taken literally in Syrian ascetically tradition. They believe that life here on earth was not an easy one nor smooth sailing. It was a warfare and constant struggles that constituted what an ideal Christian should be. And faith on Christ took another level: take up your cross and follow me daily. It meant constant fasting, prayers and denying and mortify bodies' desires and thoughts. It is understood that Jerome once visiteda Syrian monastic center in Syria.  "Alos in 373 Jerome decided to go to Syria, which was one of the the centers for leading an ermitical life. On his wasy he stopped in Antioch, whre he learned Greek fom his friend Evarius, the translator of the Life of Athanisius into Latin."lxxix  Wallace-Hadrill describes this way,"Even if the Christian be spared persecution, following Christ demands constant struggle against proud self will...Participation in the suffering does not mean consist in a man's giving also and in showing kindness to the needy, but in his dying wholly to this world, There are no rewards in the spiritual life, for the life itself the reward."lxxx Syriac monasticism can be describes as a literal imitation of Christ's life and following his command. It is not a speculation or ideal but dying to the world and to self for Christ.  
In Syrian monastic tradition, there is Simon the Stylites (c. 390-459). He is called Stylites, because he remained thirty years at the top of a pilar. There he prayed and also gave advice to pilgrims. He was born in Sis, which was a border town between Cilicia and Syria.  Befor he became a hermit, he was ashepherd of his father's flock.,  but soon he felt he had a monastic vocation. Moreschini notes abot Simon as follows: "After a stay with the ascetics of his village, he entered a monastery in the not far distant  village of Teleda, where he remained for about a decade. His insatiable desire for asceticism, however, compelled him to pursue an increasingly auster life. Finally, he settled near the viallage of Telnescin, atop of rock about a meter high, which subsequently replaced by increasingly taller columns; it is said that the final one was eighten or twenty meters tall. and he remained on it for thirty years."lxxxi  When Simon Stylites was chained as a gesture of bondage to movement, Melitius of Antioch (d. 381) viewed it as an allegory, "Simeon Stylites, on the other hand, explained his leg chain by affirming hat it ket him form wandering nd his mind fixed undeviatingly on heaven True to the Greek tradition of allegorical interpretation, Meletius of Antioch considered that the iron was superfluous and might be taken symbolically."lxxxii   
Another Syrian monastic Bishop of Narcissus (c. 220) of Jerusalem lived secretly in the desert and other remote part of the region. And if there was Anthony in Alexandrian monastic tradition, in Syrian tradition there is Aones, who introduced anchoritism into Syria. There were hermits and ascetics who lived otherworldly lives.  Frend notes, "a certain Julian near Edessa, who was so rigid in his austerities that he was said to live as if he were incorporeal, for he seemed to be freed from the flesh and to possess nothing skin and bone."lxxxiii Syrian monasticism varied in its practices and experiences.  
There are different monastic traditions in Syrian spirituality. Even though there are different traditions, they both shun the Greek cultural settings. Frend notes, "Jerome probably correctly believed the origins of Syrian monasticism extended back to the mid-third century, and from then on Syrian and Egyptian monasticism were destined to run on parallel courses....For once the dominant Greek  cultural influences wer being bypassed, for the ascetic movement in the Syrian and Egyptian countrysides owes little or nothing to them."lxxxiv  Syrian monastic tradition also produced saints like Tatian the Syrian, St. Isaac the Syrian and St. Ephrem the Syrian. Their spritural writings, poems, and sermons are profound and influential. Out of these great monastic traditions, Church Fathers and heretics appeared into the scene.  As monks and educators the early Fathers were pioneers in many aspects and most of their theoretical thoughts and ideas including teachings were biblical and steeped in Greek thoughts.  
 
 
 
Page Break 
Antiochene Christology 
The golden age of Antiochene theology was during Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390) till the death of Theodoret (c. 393-460), period that included Eustathius of Antioch (f. 325), John Chrysostom (349-407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) and Nestorius.lxxxv It was a period that the doctrine of Christ (Christology) were matured an well developed. According to Wallace-Hadrill, "The fourth century received the Antiochene formulation of the doctrine of Christ's nature rough-hewn from its predecessors and shaped it with greater precision. Before the full formulation of the tradition we find Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century already expressing with great force his opposition to gnostic docetism concerning the reality of Christ's human nature and of his human experience."lxxxvi Greek philosophy and Gnosticism influenced much of heretical thinkers as well as apologists.   
It is generally understood that Greek philosophy played significant roles in Christian leanings and teachings. However, it is also true that some Church Fathers opposed Greek philosophy altogether, such as Tertullian of North Africa, who stayed away from Greek philosophy and embraced only faith and tradition based on teachings of the apostles. But there were many Christian writers and teachers who embraced Greek philosophy in their thingking and writings, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria and whole host teachers from Antioch. Walker notes that Clement of Alexandria taught that "the divine Logos ahd always been the teacher of humankind everywhere,. Our instructor is the holy God, Jesus, the Logos who is the guide of all humanity. Hence, it is his inspiration which lies, in one way or another, behind the philosophical tradition of the Greek."lxxxvii Christian writers and thinkers were not able to escape influence of Hellenistic-Philosophy, so much so that they are willing to relate the books of Moses influenced philosophy. "the philosophers had originally gotten their best ideas from the writings of Moses...Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord shall call the Greek. For this wa. school-master to bring the Hellenic mind, as the Law the Hebrews, to Christ."lxxxviii 
Antiochene writers followed Aristotelian approach to their philosophic-theological outlook. They followed the frame of logic of Aristotle. His outlook is based on observation and historical, which also can be a representative view of Antiochene school. Wallace-Hadrill notes, "Aristotle's concentration of mind upon observable facts finds some analogy in the Antiochene emphasis upon historical events and upon the humanity of Christ, but this much hardly allow us to see Aristotle as a direct influence upon their thinking."lxxxix As a matter of fact earlier writers were not aware of their influence on Aristotle. He notes that, "Antiochene Christianity was sin its essence unphilosophical...The Antiochene appears to have been unaware of the possibility of such support or uninterested in making use of it."xc  Later generation of Antiochene ultimately adopted Aristotelian logical method wholeheartedly.  It is generally known facts that Arab world was influenced by Aristotelian works and eventually brought it to the West. It was Syrian churches and writers that made it possible.xci Unlike Alexandrian school, which emphasized heavily on Platonism and Neo-Platonism (2 century), Antiochene school is not known for a philosophical center, rather it is known for a literal biblical and historical critics and exegete. 
After the Nicen period, there were two Christological schools emerged: Alexandrian and Antiochene. "In this post-Nicene age a rivalry between two Christological `schools' developed, based on quite subtle yet important distinctions. To simplify, the Alexandrian school emphasized the divinity of Christ and the unity of his person, often to the detriment of his full humanity. By contrast, the Antiochene school emphasized of his full humanity of Christ and the difference between the `two natures' of Christ's being, often to the detriment of the unity of Christ."xcii  Along with Alexandrian School of Egypt, Antioch became a rival school of Alexandria. Its golden period was during 3rd and 6th century, it was a time of II Council of Constantinople (553), which condemned three of Antiochene writers; Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa. Soon afterward, Antiochene school declined rapidly.  Due to its antiquity and reputation, it drew many to the region, including many false teachers and heretics and cults.  According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, he concerned about presence of many heretics in the city and their teachings. Many of the early heresies were influenced by Greek thoughts known as Gnosticism.  Presence of gnosticism was prevalent both within and outside the churches. . The term Gnosticism is from the Greek for knowledge (gnosis). It is not a general understating of knowing, but rather it has a connotation of being enlightened or secret knowledge. Even though it was popular or been around prior to Christianity, it sliped into a Christian community and being taught regularly. Gnosticism soon evolved into syncretic patterns, that became a mixture of mysticism of Judaism, Babylon and Greek as well. Its teaching tends to shun away from any material things and physical instead it tends to value more on spiritual and immaterial powers, such as demiurge and eons and celestials hierarch system based on superiority down to lower physical beings. It is highly dualistic in nature; i.e. good vs. evil; spiritual vs. physical; knowlege vs. ignorant and light vs. darkness,  and eternal vs. temporal, etc.  Apostle John especially warned against such gnostic teaching in his epistle  1  John 2: 22, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the anti-Christ - he denies the Father and the Son." (NIV) And who also denies the Son came as a flesh and not come from God is the spirit of the antichrist. (4: 3) 
A key representative of Antiochene theology is Lucian of Antioch or Martyr (d. 312). He was a disciple of Paul of Samosata (d. c. 340). He was one of important sophists in his time. As a follower of Paul of Samosata, his Christology is a subordinationistm.xciii The teaching that came originally from Origen of Alexandria 3rd century), who taught subordinationistm of the Son to the Father of the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both the Father and the Son. Teaching arose in order to ensure the absoluteness and transcendence of God the Father. It was aslo to guard against any meddling of the monotheism; monarch. The concept of absolute monarchy or monotheism is prevalent in Judaism, Greek thought and Christian thought up-to that time. John 14: 28 even says, "If you love me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (NIV) During the Trinitarian controversy in the 3rd century, subordinationistm became a heretical teaching based on the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity. Arius, who denied the Son's divinity was condemned.  
Lucian's contribution to Christology  is very similar to a vein of Origen's adoptionisti tendency; however he does recognize three Persons in the Trinity. Yet he does not go where Arius went: he avoided that the Son was a creature nor there was a time before the generation of the Son. Lucian's teaching is far from orthodox, but he was careful not to fall into a trap of Arianism nor nor stand with Nicene's creed of homoousios. During the Great persecution, he was tortured and suffered maryr's death. The great persecution is named after a period of crisis during 303-312 in the East under Emperor Diocletian; while in the West it lasted from 303-305.  It was known fact that Emperor Diocletian persecution was not as severe until his junior Caesar Galerius came to step up the measure against Christinas.  
Eustathius was born in Side, Pamphylia and later became a bishop of Antioch around 324. He was active in the Council of Nicaea I (325) and was a defender of Nicene orthodoxy. Throughout the career, he began to shift into a basic form of Monarchianism. He taught one nature of God with different mode of Father and the Son. In his Christology, human Jesus was inhabited by the Logos, God. González notes that, "Like Paul of Samosata, Eustathius believed that the divinity to be found in Jesus Christ was not personal- a doctrine soon abandoned by his successors in the Antiochene school.  He was interested in safeguarding the reality of Christ's humanity, and he sought to attain this end by distinguishing clearly between the divine and the human in him, at the expense of the true union of the two natures. Thus the union of the divine and the human in Christ was due to the conjunction of the human will with the divine, in such a way that the former always wills the same as the latter."xciv His use of Conjunction (sunapheia) and separating two natures influenced Nestorius directly.  He also attempted to use  Logos-man Christology against Alexandrian Logos-sarx (flesh) position. This was mainly due to his desire to prevent from Arians' claim of Christ's creatureliness and attempted to bring out whole man in Christ. Quasten notes that, "Eustathius is the first to attempt a Logos-Man Christology against the predominant Logos-Sarx doctrine. It is in his refutation of the latter theory that he wins a position of importance in the history of dogma."xcv Nestorius would later carry his thought into Christological controversy. However, unlike Nestorius, he was known to acknowledged and used the term Theotokos. 
Diodore of Tarsus or Antioch (d. c. 390) is considered the founder of Antiochene school. He is a native from the city of Antioch. He studied abroad such place as Athens, Greece before he returned to the city to found a monastery. xcvi According to McGuckin Diodore influenced Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata. He says, "Nestorius waas also a close friend of Bishop Theodoret of Cyr, and together with Andrew of Samosata these three represented a scholarly triumvirate of Antiochene theologians rooted in the tradition of the earlier Syrian teachers such as Mar Diodore (of Tarsus) and Mar Theodore (of Mopsuestia) who were then regarded as the great teacher-saints of Syria, having the status and venerability there such as St. Athanasius had in Alexandria, though with less of an international following in the church at large."xcvii   
When Arian controversy broke out Lucian was siding with anti-Arian party, which caused him to head to an exile. When he returned  he became the bishop of Tarsus, Cilicia. He also participated in the Council of Constantinople I (381), which condemned the teaching and person of Apollinaris.  Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) accused him of Apollinarism based on teachings that in Christ, there were two Sons; the Son of God (the Logos) and the Son of Man (Jesus). Antiochenes were accusing him of having confused nature of Christ. "Apollinarism confuses the two nature [of Christ].xcviii  It was not clear how these two Sons came to be understood by Gregory. Two natures or Sons debate would ensue soon after. His teaching, which later became a hallmark of Antiochene school, was based on  moralistic, historical exegete and literal approach to the understanding of the Scripture. His teachings would carry out by two of his disciples: Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) and Nestorius of Constantinople (381-452). 
Theodore of Mopsuestia was a student of Diodore of Tarsus, whose monastery he went as a monk.  As an Antiochene, he was also friend with John of Chrysostom (Golden mouth).  And he is considered to be a finest Antiochene preacher and exegete.  As a biblical exegete, he wrote voluminous commentaries and books based on Antiochene hermeneutics; literal and historical approach and used heavily on typology style.xcix In typology, one has to see that there are correlation between typology and anti-typology in the Old and New Testament  and put more weigh on the New Testament teaching over the Old Testament, and find moral teachings that can be preached and taught. Theodore puts more emphasis in the New Testament over the Old Testament. He saw the new covenant in the New Testament better than the old.  Theodore saw in Christology new typology that was ushered into. There is a new God's work for a new people (Incarnation: God and man) into a new covenant. New Testamenet is a new light that illuminates the Old Testment but not by it. There are clearly two distinct ages and it is Christ incarnation that looks to future and not to the past. It is his way of understanding of Christ's incarnation as a typology. He wrote about fifteen books on Christology named On the Incarnation. In it, he criticized both Neo-Arianism and Apollinarists. His Christology, which was condemned in the Council of Constantinople II (553), was based on the teaching that God and man in Christ constituted one person (prosopon). The word, prosopon, will be heavily use by Nestorius in his dealing with Christology. 
Historically speaking, Christological debate began with a person and a nature of Christ. Already in the late fourth century there debates going on the nature of Christ.  Apollinaris of Laodicia also known as Younger ( c. 315-392), just like his farther, who is called Apollinaris as well. They were ethically both from Alexandria, Egypt, his father soon left the city for Berytus to Syrian coast city Laodicia a south-west of Antioch, where the Younger was born. He studied literature, philosophy and steeped in spirituality.  While growing up he had read and wrote commentaries and criticized Origen of Alexandria,  Marcellus of Ancyra and Eunomius of Cyzicus (c. 325-395) and received a complaining letter from Gregory of Nazianzus for being heretical yet he spent much of  his attention on Arian controversy as well as other topics, and received a request for advise from Basil the Caesarea (330-379). It was he who used `homoousios'(same substance) to ague against Arian at the Council of Nicaea I (325). He soon fell because of his insistant unity of Christ without human soul. Lössl notes that, "Apollinaris had argued that  since Christ was `of the same substance' (homoousios) as the Father, he was essentially God and therefore not human. It was only his material body that was human. His essence, i.e. his soul, was divine. This contradicted a principle which had been established by Nicene in the early 360s: No aspect of humanity can be redeemed by Christ (the Logos) that has not been `assumed' by him."c He was emphasizing one nature of Christ by combining Christ into one.   His thinking would later influence Cyril's position on Christology.  He was a man of complexity and renown for his preaching and teaching and soon he became a bishop in Laodicea. He was a friend of Athanasius of Alexandria and once defended a cause of Nicene party in the fourth century. Such teaching as the Jesus did not have flesh or humanity is found in teachings of Apollinaris of Laodicia. . Plantinga notes that "The Alexandrian theologian Apollinaris wanted to emphasize the full divinity of Christ and leave no doubt that Christ was only one person.  
He therefore interpreted the incarnation as a true `union' between human nature and the Logos (the eternal second person of the Trinity) in which the Logos overshadowed and glorified Jesus' humanity."ci For Apollinaris, the Logos replaced the soul (spirit) of human Jesus and united as a one person. Charles Raven notes that, "This denial to Christ is a human mind or sprit is the sum of Apollinaris' heresy, and his own statements leas us in no doubt that he realized and intended such a mutilation. "cii  But when he began to teach docetical doctrine of Christology, he moved away from orthodoxy. He taught that the Logos the divine replaced a mind of human Jesus. Incarnate Logos was dwelled in Christ, but human Jesus was also possessed by divinity of Christ. However, the body of Jesus as a form appeared to be a human. It was a like an icon, physical object is presented but real Christ as the incarnate Logos does not change and took control of human mind and soul. And this teaching is called Apollinarianism. He continued to insisted that despite the divine Logos possessed the human Jesus, this did not made less perfect man. Raven notes, "Church historians have represented him as introducing at this point the defense that Christ, in whom the divine Logos took the place of a human mind, was not made thereby less perfect man- indeed, that only by this substitution could His manhood attain perfect."ciii  
Ordinary person is comprised of spirit, soul, and body or Apollinaris would use as intellect, animal soul or body. Thus, Christ is made up as well, but since Christ is divine, his intellect or mind replaced human mind and soul. Now there is divinized human intellect or mind with a body. For Apollinaris of Laodicia, Christ as a human being is divine and came from heaven. The earthly Christ' body is enjoined with the Godhead. Raven continues, "If man consists of three elements and if, furthermore, the Lord is man, He also to be sure consists of three, spirit and should and body: none the less He is a heavenly man and. a life-giving spirit."civ  Apollinarius seemed to understood that Antiochene were making Christ as a compound or hybrid being.  There is a clear differences between Apollinaris's thought and Antiochene' understanding of one person of Christ.  Raven explains the different thoughts of two views about Christ, "He is a heavenly man and a life-giving spirit...he is using the words,`heavenly' and `life-giving-spirit' to emphasize the contrast between the Apollinaris or divine and the Antiochene or human Christ."cv. Kärkkäinen calls this phenomenon as Christology from Below and from Above. He notes, "There are two options for inquiry into the person and work of Christ. Conveniently, these have been labeled `from above' and `from below'. Christology from above begins with the confession of faith in the deity of Christ as expressed in the New Testament. Christology from below begins with an inquiry into the historical Jesus and the historical basis for belief in Christ."cvi Dominant preference was placed on the `from Above' in the early centuries. Nestorius and Antiochene school stood in the side of `from below' in Christ. 
Opponents of Apollinaris came from Antiochene school, such as Eustathius of Antioch (f. 325) and Paul of Samosata (d. c. 340), who later labeled as a adoptionist Monarchial himself.  According to McGuckin Nestorius influenced by Eustathius himself as well, "He [Nestorius] is largely in agreement with Theodore of Mopsuestia on all central points and following Theodore, he had advanced Antiochene theology to the point of regarding the more primitive formulations of Eustathius of Antioch and Diodore of Tarsus' Two-Son theory as crudely untenable."cvii  Opponents were against docetist teaching of Apollinaris, and found a major flaw in his Christology. There is no complete manhood, including mind and soul, in a person. It is not a perfect human, rather it is a divinized human, who seemed to be a human (dokeo, which means I...seemed or appear to be). Apollinaris did not have a typical understanding of incarnation, which taught that the divine Logos (Word) became flesh, however, Cyril of Alexandria was willing to embrace it.  Raven saw Apollinaris understanding was "that part of the substance of the Logos was converted into flesh. under cover of such a delusion Cyril who had reintroduced the genuine teaching of the heretic into Christian theology, could be pronounced rigidly correct and the work of Apollinarius could be incorporated in the Church's creed."cviii  
Nestorius was a severe critic of this view of Cyril, who espoused Apollinaris' heretical understanding of Christ. In dealing with a salvation of person, the human that Christ possessed must be a fully human and fully divine, otherwise Jesus Christ can not be the Savior nor forgive sins, because he can not heal what he has not been assumed, which is what Apollinarius teaching was. In a sense, he was denying Christ came as a flesh, which apostle John warned against in his epistle 1 John 4: 3. He represents one of the gnostic teachers in the early Christianity in the 3rd century.   
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) was another opponent of Apollinaris' teaching. He was born in Antioch.  According to  tradition, Theodore was was also known as "Doctor of the universal church" by Church historian Theodoret. And he was highly esteemed by East Syrian Church. His scholarship and theology were par excellent.cix He died before the Council of Ephesus I (431) and his works have been condemned at the Council of Ephesus I (431) and Chalcedon (451), especially in his theology of Incarnation.  His theology of incarnation is extreme form of the full humanity of Jesus as a man, Word-man. This was a sharp contrast with Alexandrian's Word-sarx (flesh) Christology, which espoused by Cyril of Alexandria. In his Christology, he clearly distinguishes Jesus Christ. Theodore notes:  
"In order to include in their sentence the human nature which was assumed for our salvation they said: In one Lord Jesus Christ. This name is that of the man whom God put on, as the agnel siad: `She shall bring forth a Son whose name  shall be called `Jesus.' They also added the word Christ in order to allude to the Holy Spirit, as it is written: `Jesus of Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power."And he is God because of the close union withthat Divine nature which is truly God."cx 
 
It is important to note how these names function differently in his thinkings. Further, Theodore, who influenced Nestorius directly, is known to have used the term `prosopon.' He limited to use of the term. For Theodore, prosopon was outward appearance of Christ.cxi  The term, which Nestorius used was later rejected at the Council of Ephesus I (431) and chose the term hypostasis, which Cyril adopted it.  Hypostasis once used simultaneously with ousia then later the terms changed, and ousia became Essence or Being and hypostasis became a person.  For Theodore, prosopon was what supposed to represents the full human. So much so that, it seemed that the Logos took over the full human Jesus. Davis notes that, "the Word took ot Himself not just a body but a complete man, body and soul,. The soul of Christ was a real principle of human life and activity. Theodore took seriously the Lord's earthly life in which He underwent growth in mind and body and struggled with temptation. But he seems at times to have spoken of the Word's adopting an already existing man: `He who assumed is God and only-begotten Son, he who is assumed is man.' Yet there were not for Theodore two sons."cxii  
Theodore's Word as a human as a single person is called prosopon. Davis continues, "The coming together of the Word and man resulted in a single person or prosopon, that is one individual object of perception, one subject who could be addressed now as God, now a man. When we distinguish the natures, he says, we assert the integrity of the nature of God the Word, and the integrity of its prosopon, for a real object (hypostasis) without  perceptible presentation (prosopon) is a contradiction in term; we also assert the integrity of the nature of the man, and its prosopon likewise. But when we regard their combination, then we assert a single prosopon."cxiii  His Christology was more like Chalcedon formular (451). He was ahead of his time. He left no room for any confusion or division issue on his Christology. Davis notes that, "Theodore could say things that sound close to the Christological formular proclaimed proclaimed at Chalcedon in 451. `Thus there results neither any confusion of the natures nor any untenable division of the person; for in our account the natures must remain unconfused, and the person must be recognized as indivisible'. And again, `We must display a distinction of natures, but unity of person.'"cxiv Even though it might be acceptable at the Council of Chalcedon, his Christology had a defect. David quotes Kelly, "His habitual contrast of Word and Man; God and His shrine; assumer and assumed seem to lay too great a stress on the distinct elements in Christ. Though he insisted on the unity of person, his favorite term for this was conjunction not union."cxv Theodore saw a conjunction (sunapheia) or link in a divine and a human nature in Christ. However, Theodore never goes to two Sons or persons side. "The close union between them was, as it were, not physical but moral and spiritual, manifesting itself in one visible individual, or rather personage, who formed the one prosopon or outward appearance of Christ. Nowhere, however do we find in Theodore the idea of two persons (hypostasis) in Christ. "cxvi Emphasis on a single person (prosopon) was a deliberate one, for he was aware of Nicene's teaching and assertion. Theodore said, "It is thus that they wished to teach mankind when they spoke of the Divine nature of the Son. His humanity, in which is Divine nature, is also made known and proclaimed in it, according to the saying of the blessed Paul: `God was manifested in the flesh,' and according to the saying of John the evangelist, `The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.'"cxvii  
There is a definite single person of Christ in Theodore's thought. Stevenson adds, "Thanks to his union with God the Word, which by foreknowledge he was deemed worthy to receive when God the Word from above united him to himself, he ahd an outstanding inclination to the good...In this he received the co-operative help of God the Word proportionate to his won native will and so remained thereafter unaffected by any change to the worse."cxviii Everything Word does the man as a single prosopon does as well. Stevenson notes that, "It is an indwelling in which he united the one who was being assumed wholly to himself and prepared him to share all the honor which he, the indweller, who is a son by nature, shares. Thereby he has constituted a single person (prosopon) by union with him and has made him a partner in all his authority. So everything he does he does in him, effecting even the ultimate testing and judgement through him and through his coming. The difference of course [i.e. between the Word and the man] is one that we can recognize by the distinguishing characteristic of each nature."cxix  In criticizing Apollinarianism, he argued that Apollinarius was not recognizing full humanity of Christ therefore compromising Christ's salvific work. Plantinga notes that, "For  the full obedience of a truly human being was necessary for the redemption of humanity. He portrayed the incarnation as the indwelling of the second person of the Trinity in a human being."cxx Thus Theodore sharply distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Logos. It is so much so that he was advocating two person or Lords.  According to Gozález, his theology was a direct link of Eustathius and Diodore of Antioch. He notes,  
"The system of Theodore is but he acceptance of the principles of Eustathius, which are now set out in accordance with the doctrinal thought of the age. This does not mean that Theodore's thought is lacking in value and originality; rather, quite he contrary, it is the culmination of the theological efforts of the Antiochene school...However, Theodore did not carry this to the extreme of affirming-as Diodore seems to have done before him-that in Christ there are two Sons or two Lords.  There is, to be sure, the indestructible difference between the one who assumes and the assumed; but there is also the union of the two, also indestructible and permanent."cxxi 
 
It is interesting to note that Theodore does not say that there are two Sons in Christ, instead he would speak of the union of two natures in one person, which is orthodox dogma that culminated in the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon (451). He writes in the third chapter, "From the fact also that they (the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea) referred both words to the noe person(=prosopon) of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures."cxxii  González succinctly summarizes: "This distinction and union between the humanity and the divinity is such that Theodore could speak of the union of `two natures' in `one person,' just as Tertullian had already done and as every orthodox Christian would do later. He understood this `person,' however, as that which resulted from the union of the two natures, and not as the Second Person of the Trinity, to which is joined the impersonal nature of the `assumed man.'"cxxiii For Theodore, the Second Person of the Trinity is found  in the assumed person of Christ, but God who dwells in Jesus Christ. González continues, "Theodore interpreted the presence of God in Jesus Christ in terms of the dwelling of the Son in him...This God who dwells in Jesus Christ is not an impersonal force, but rather, is the Second Person of the Trinity, who has assumed human nature in such a way that an absolute harmony exists between the two natures."cxxiv Clear distinction of the two natures are a characteristic of Antiochene school of thought.  And his use of prosopon to refers the unity of person, which does not mean person as we know today. Unlike Alexandrian school's communication idiomatum, which interacts with the two nature of Christ, Theodore's understanding of communication idiomatum is one way direction. The Word (Logos) would join the human Jesus but the human Jesus can not extend to the Word. It is based on Antiochene Christology.  González notes, "For Theodore, the `human assume' by the Word continues to eb the proper subject of human attributes, and these are not transferable to the Word except with the safeguard that this is possible only `by relationship' and not directly. The true communicatio idiomatum goes only in one direction: the attributes of the Word are extended to the human; but not vice versa."cxxv  
Theodore's position does push toward too much unity of person in Jesus Christ. González notes that, "Thus, Theodore's affirmation about the `unity of person' in Jesus Christ never quite erase the impression that he is saying that in Christ there are really two persons who act with such harmony that they seem to be one- and it is significant to recall here that the term prosopon, which Theodore applies to the `person' of Jesus Christ, has precisely, though not necessarily, the connotation of an external appearance."cxxvi His thought is carried through Nestorius in his debate with Cyril. 
Page Break 
Terminologies: Logos, Christ, Jesus, Hypostasis and Prosopon 
 
According to the book of John 1: 1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” (NIV)  and little further down in the verses 14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, whom ame from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (NIV) In Greek, the Word is used as “Logos.” Throughout the early centuries in the Christian  thinkers and theologians wrestled with a nature and relationship between the Word (Logos) and God the Father. And in the book of Matthew chapter 1: 21 tells that the son, who will be born in Mary, will be given the name Jesus, because He will save his people from their sin. “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”(NIV) The name Jesus is a Greek form of Hebrew Yeshua (means to rescues or to deliver that has a connotation of saving or salvation). Jesus Christ came to save his people from sin and death.  
 
 
Logos 
 
The term means "word," or "reason." It has been used variously, and "is a multivalent term in Greek culture and philosophy In the Middle Platonism that was popular in the Hellenistic world, Logos referred philosophically to the (divine) rational structure of the cosmos, which the human rational soul, as microcosm, could discern."cxxvii In Greek philosophy tradition, logos is used to mean the order of universe or the organizing force that maintains the order of universe. It is also used to mean human understanding and reasoned process. It is a rational structure where everything  fits intelligently. Some even identified logos with divine governor that holds present and future. In Stoic tradition, logos is a responsible for making all things, and maintaining it, or the rational faculty that dwells in human. In Christian theology it is used with reference to the Second Person of the Trinity.cxxviii   
In writings of Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C. - A. D. 50) , Logos is a central theme in his writings. For Philo, it is the main force or power of God. Logos connects God to human and human to God. Yet Philo's logos is not a personal or God, but rather it is a copy of God or intermediatory one. He sees logos as the angel of the Lord, and connects it with Wisdom of God or the Torah or the Word of God.  In Hebrew, the term davar is mostly used. Davar have meaning of word and event. Throughout the entire bible, there are 330 times  the Logos appears with different meanings and definition.cxxix The Logos (Word) is Greek term for "word, account, reason and motive."  
In the Gospel of John or Johannes writings, the Logos meant to be Second God, not divine. The Logos was seen as pre-existence.  John emphasizes that during the creation, the Logos (Word) was already existed by side of the God the Father. John allurs that the Word was both presented in the Old and New Testament as God. When he said the Logos became incarnate (1: 14), incarnation manifests the sign that God has come to be with a human as the unique one of God (mongenēs theos).  The uniqueness one refers to one that there is no other and no one. In 1 John 1: 1, "The Word of life" refers to person of Christ, Who came to give the eternal life, to show relationship with the Father and to show his incarnation (God became a man). In the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos is God from eternity and pre-existed and creative activity of Christ.  
In Christological debate in the 3rd century, it is also called Logos theology. It is used opposed to Monarchianism. Monarchianism (patripassianism or Sabellianism) is the terminology that defends monotheism, or absolutness unity (or one) of God. It is opposed to the Trinitarian theology of One God in Three Persons. In Dynamic or adoptionistic monarchianism refers to a monotheism of God the Father, that Jesus was a mere man, who was endowed with the Holy Spirit during his baptism. God adopted Jesus as divine Son and since he was adopted, he was not God, but became divine through adoption or by receiving power (dunamis) to become Son of God. Sometimes, earlier Monarchians were also called "alogoi." It was referring to those who opposed the doctrine of the Logos, and they rejected the Fourth Gospel as well.cxxx 
 
 
Christ 
 
Christ is the Greek title, which means anointed. In Hebrew, Messiah. cxxxi. Early Christians used the title to the Lord to indicate fulfilling the prophesy of the Old Israel to New Israel. In the Old Testament it was used to denote a king, who was anointed and chosen to take special roles and duties. Gradually Christ replaced the proper title of Jesus, who is God and promised Messiah (Christ).  Apostle Paul used the term Christ in his epistle to the Galatians, "the grace of Christ." Here Paul is using the title as the proper noun as name to indicate risen Lord Jesus, who called his elects. Christ is thus the proper name of the Lord Jesus as the Anointed One. Plantinga explains further, "In the NT, Jesus is portrayed as the fulfillment of these messianic hopes, as translated into his Greek title of `Chris," which since Paul has for all practical purposes become a proper name. Jesus the Christ or Messiah indicates that the primary biblical identity of Jesus is that of a special agent anointed to do God's salvific bidding."cxxxii 
 
 
Jesus 
 
Jesus is a proper name of person. Jesus  of Nazareth is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke's accounts (Matt. 1:18-2: 12; Lk. 1: 27-27). In Hebrew, the name means Joshua, who is thus refereed in the book of Hebrew 4: 18 as Joshua.cxxxiii The name was given by God. According to accounts, Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary in the city of Bethlehem. In Pauline writings, he says the God's Son was sent  through born of a woman. It is also understood that a time of Jesus' birth there were many legends and myths about a divine son being born in a miraculously flourished in the Roman world. To Christians, Jesus of Nazareth was God's promised Savior of the world and redeemer. Christians began to use the expression Jesus Christ as the Jesus of Nazareth and the Messiah (Christ) to call upon the Savior and God.  
 
Ousia 
 
In Greek, ousia has a meaning of nature or Essence. It is used refer to a being, which makes what it is. In Christian theological context, the term referred to a God's Essence. It is indescribable and limitless Being. It refers to God's nature as well.  According to McGuckin, ousia means, "Essence, substance, being, genus, or nature."cxxxiv Christological debate context the term began to use to define and distinguish two natures of Christ. But the term did not used at all during the controversy, instead they adopted the term, physis instead to refer Christ's nature (person). 
 
Hypostasis 
 
In the New testament, the term appears in the book of Hebrews.  In the book of Hebrews 11: 1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV) Here the writer of Hebrews used the Greek hypostasis as "being sure" to indicate substance or things that are certain. It is a distinct reference to a reality or being certain.  And in Hebrews 1: 3, "The Son is the radiance of Gode's glory and the exact representation of his being..." The Greek hypostasis (with genitive case) is to indicate Son's being. This verse and hypostasis is clear indication of a person or concrete being. Hypostasis is thus a Greek term for "substance," "nature" or "essence of being." The term represents a real personal subsistence or person. It eventually developed and used variously during and after Christological disputes.  
Prior to Cappadocian Fathers, who developed the fourth century doctrine of the Trinitarian formular theologically, linguistically and orthodoxically, using the terms such as  "Hypostasis" as  "Ousia" did not raise an issue, as a matter of fact it was used interchangeably. Simply put, ousia (substance or essense)  and hypostasis (substance or essence) meant exactly the same thing. It was a statement and there is no mentioning of a relational between the Godhead of the Trinity, but just pointing to an ontological being (ousia or It is). But not soon after issues that arose demanded more precise use of each of the term. It was Cappadocian Fathers who began to distinguish the each term.cxxxv Instead of using ousia and hypostasis interchangeably to mean concrete individuality or person, hypostasis became disassociated with ousia.  
Trinitarian orthodox teaching or dogma as reflected in the Chalcedonian definition of Trinitarian formulas are: One God in Three Persons, there is an unique personality of God with three hypostasis is translated into One Essence (mia ousia) and Three hypostasis (trei hypostaseis). In Latin translation (Mostly came from Tertullian and Augustine) looks like this: one substance (una substantia) in three persons (tres personae). Latin translation of the word for person is  "face" or "mask." This sounded like Sabellian modalistic monarchianism in the eyes of the Greek Fathers. One God in three different modes of being. And furthermore Latin term for Essence was substantia, which Greek understood as hypostasis rather than seeing as ousia (Essence). So in Greek Fathers mind,  Latins were confessing three Essences or Gods.  Same was true for Latin, since substania menat hypostasis, they thought that Greeks were worshipping three Gods as well.  Thus prior to Cappadocian Father's intervention, Greek Fathers also used ousia and hypostasia interchangeably, which did not help Latin theologians for understanding Greek minds.  Clearly, there were confusions and language barriers that existed between Greek  and Latin camps in their approach to understanding of Trinitarian and Christological terminologies. Plantinga explains hypostasis as follows: "literally, that which `stands beneath.' Hypostasis was originally synonymous with ousia s a world for essence (as the orignal Nicene Creed), but came to be differentiated and used in trinitarian thought as the classic threeness term synonymous with prosopon (Gk.) and persona (Lat.).cxxxvi 
The term physis (nature; person) is also used interchangeably with hypostasis. According to McGuckin in earlier times, physis and hypostasis had a similar meaning. He notest that, "Physis as Nature, make-up of a thing. (In earlier christian thought  the concrete reality...hypostasis  actual concrete reality of a thing, the underlying essence, (in earlier christian thought the synonym of physis."cxxxvii  With Alexandrian and Antiochene's different usage of the terms with emphasis, it was not too far in meanings. Drobner also agrees with this explanation, "The Greek language offered two concepts to this end, namely prosopon and hypostasis, although the scope of their precise meanings still had to be determined...Alexandrian theology did not operate with a different vocabulary; for them, too the concept of hypostasis was associated with the level of nature and prosopon described the expression of nature."cxxxviii 
 
Prosopon 
 
The term has several meaning, physical appearance or reality. According to McGuckin Prosopon means,"the observable character, defining properties, manifestation of a reality."cxxxix When Cappadocian Fathers began to separate hypostasis and ousia, the term hypostasis now became identified with another Greek term prosopon (nature or person or face ). Prosopon is more relational in a sense when compare with ousia, which was more of state of being or predicate. By introducing prosopon and separating hypostasis and ousia, the Trinitarian theology entered into new phase. From being ontological in nature, now began to extended into a relational aspect in the Trinity. Soon after, prosopon has been discontinue to be used and adopted hypostasis instead as Trinitarian controversy moves to Christological controversy in the 5th century. Plantinga further explains, "Most literally, `face." As a synecdoche, prosopon took on the sense of `person.' and became one of the differentiating terms that emerged in the Greek-speaking patristic church to denote the three persons of the Trinity in their distinction from one another. Prosopon is a threeness term that parallels the Gk. hypostasis and the Lat. persona."cxl   
Since prosopon and hypostasis both mean the person, along with Latin term, persona, there were some confusion with the terms. Even McGuckin acknowledges the complicity, he notes, "Even at first sight it is cela that the words bear a range of meanings that overlap in some areas so as to be synonymous. This is particularly so with the terms Physis and Hypostasis which in the fifth century simultaneously bor e ancient christian meanings and more modern applications. In relation to Physis, Cyril tended to use the antique meaning. Nestorius the modern. In relation to Hypostasis, the opposite was the case."cxli It is interesting to note that they were saying same thing with different words. McGuckin contines, "What is more, in the full force of the argument over christological terminology both Nestorius and Cyril used the same term in different ways-this mutual inconsistency and variety of use adding greatly to their difficulties in understanding one another, and to our problems in understanding them both."cxlii 
 
 
 
Page Break 
    
Council of Ephesus I (431) 
 
 
By the time the council was held, it was an unsettling period of Roman empire(s), new capital, Constantinople, was ruled by son of Arcadius who ruled in the East. His name was Theodosius II, a grandson of Theodosius of Great (347-395), who convened the Council of Constantinople in 381. Old Rome was under seige, at that time there were two Roman empires: West and East. Western empire was situated in Rome, but it was threatened by several frontiers, especially from Vandals and Suees from west; while Northern Germanic tribe under the leadership of Alaric sacked Rome in A. D. 410. Rome was in a period of shock and recovery. However, churches in Rome held out and was spared.Yet it was very unstable. At the same time, in the west, the Germans were raising new kingdom with Arian faith, which was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325). Thus, Rome had to deal with Arian Goths, while trying to remain strong in Nicene faith. So Pope was very conscious of novelties and challenges to orthodox teachings and Nicene-Constantinople dogma. With these sets of mind Rome was pulled into another theological  controversy.  Pope at the time of the Council of Ephesus (431) was Celestine I (from 422-432).  
Due to the decree of the Council of Constantinople (381), Constantinople became a primacy of honor over the other eastern bishoprics, namely, Antioch and Alexandria. According to McGuckin in referring to the council, "Canon 2 restricted the rights of Alexandria (it had been making many resented intervensions in the process of the episcopal elections at Constantinople), and Canon 3 reassigned orders of precedence in the East (elevating Constantinople over Alexandria, and thus making it a strong rival to Rome's precedence as an ecclesisatical court of appeal. This especially caused Rome to refuse to acknowledge this councils for many years."cxliii  And especially  this decision did not sit well with Alexandrian party as well. A seed of bitterness and revenge were sown and it will play out in the next controversy. 
In 425, Atticus, the patriarch of Constantinople died and the see became vacant.  Emperor Theodosius II despite of oppositions elected a monk from Antioch named Nestorius to the see of Constantinople. This became a target of envy and attack. However, Nestorius worked hard to overthrew Arians from the churches in Constantinople.  However, he himself was about to be accused of heresy.  Even though he was popular and respected by others, he was not wise nor prudent man. Nestorius attacked the title “Theotokos” in every opportunity.   
People of Constantinople began to defend the title and accuse Nestorius that he denied Jesus is God.  He said, “Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was only a human being and it is impossible that God should be born of a human being.”cxliv  Theotokos had been used since Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and host other leaders of churches.  News spread all over and reached the ear of Pope Celestine I.  In the West Pope Celestine was rooting out heresy along with Augustine.  In oder to appease and seek support from Pope Celestine I, Nestorius sent his sermon to him and was not accepted. He dd not undersand how Pope was sensitive about preserving a tradition and the title Theotokos. West understood that Nestorius was saying that Mary could no be called Theotokos but Christotokos, because Jesus was not fully divine but only a man adopted by the Divine Word. West relied upon Latin translation of Nestorius Greek writings.  Cyril and Celestine I tried to convince Nestorius, but eventually Pope Celestine I convene the Synod of Rome in 430 and condemned Nestorius and his teaching. Davis notes: 
He (Cyril)  strengthened  his defenses by writing to Celestine at Rome gibing his view of the situation and enclosing a dossier of evidence against Nestorius. With the information he had, Celestine hel a synod at Rome in August, 430, which declared Nestorius' teaching unacceptable and ordered hm to rean and accept the teaching of Rome and Alexandria and the universal Church within ten days of the receipt of the pope's letter. To carry out this sentence Celestine appointed Cyril, informing him that he was to appropriate the authority of the Roman see and use the bishop fo ROme's position so that the papal judgment, or rather, the divine sentence of Christ might be enforced. Clearly, Celestine thought that the bishop of Rome ahd the authority to excommunicate the bishop of Constantinople, using bishop of Alexandria as his agent."cxlv  
 
In Alexandria, the patriarch Cyril was ready to do battle with Nestorius.  Cyril had a rich tradition of Alexandria, the wealth of Egypt and armies of monks who filled its deserts.  In 429, Cyril wrote letters to the monks of Egypt about errors of Nestorius.  Antiochene school was ben toward Aristotelian logic  that begins with Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain how this man is also God. (Word-man, From below). While  Alexandrian, basically was Platonist, beginning with the Word of John’s Prologues and attempting to understand implications of the Logos (Word) taking flesh (Word-flesh (sarx), From above).   
In 431, the Council of Ephesus was convened. However, Nestorius did not attend the council nor delegates from Antioch headed by John of Antioch, which had difficulty arriving at Ephesus on time. Cyril while presiding the council began with the delegate from Antioch. Pope Celestine sent his delegate to the council.  Bishop Memnon of Ephesus was present as well and he sided with Cyril.  The council condemned Nestorius and produced  González describes a mood of the council, he  notes, "On the day set for the great gathering, only a few of the supporters of Nestorius had arrived at Ephesus.  Cyril was already there with multitude of bishops and monks who were convinced that it was necessary to condemn and depose Nestorius."cxlvi   When John of Antioch arrived the council already condemned Nestorius with anathema. Soon John of Antioch convened another council and condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon . González notes, "Patriarch John of Antioch and his party arrived four days later.  When they learned of the Council's decision, they gathered separately, and declared that they were the true council.  They then condemned and deposed Cyril as well as Memon." (G 356) Seeing all the confusions and chaos, Emperor Theodosius II ordered both Cyril and Nestorius imprisoned and soon Cyril found a favor of the emperor and have Nestorius deposed and sent back to a monastery in Antioch.  The see of Constantinople was filled with  Maximianos.  John of Antioch withdrew from the rest of the churches and schism had begun. The council brought great bitterness and reactions for many years.  Succeeding councils were in part attempting to mend and remend in order to bring reconciliation.  
   
Page Break 
Nestorius' Life and Theological Formation 
 
Nestorius was a product of long tradition of Syrian church and thought. He was a Persiancxlvii,  born and raised  in Germanic (present day Kahramanmasas, Turkey) in Syria during Roman Empire around (c. 381/6) and died in Thebald in 452 in exile.cxlviii  There are not much of his upbringing data available and some are in dispute; he came to Antioch and there he became a monk  at St. Euprepius before being appointed as a bishop of Constantinople in 428. He is known for his purity and holiness. He was also an excellent orator and preacher. His works and writings were neither destroyed or burned, not much of it are survived. Drobner notes that, "Gennadius (De viris illustribus 53) and Ebedjesus (Catalogue 20) attested to the extensive writings of Nestorius; in addition to seven sermons that have been handed down under the name of John Chrysostom, there are eleven letters and numerous fragments."cxlix  One of his surviving works or writings is called The Bazaar of Herecleides (Damascus), which was written in Syriac. A copy of the book, which was produced in around 16th century,  was discovered by American missionaries and began to circulate since then by German scholarship. The book is about his autobiography and defense of his position.  
The date of the Bazaar of Heracleidescl is around 451 and no earlier then 450, the year Emperor Theodosius II died, since it mentions about the death of the Emperor. The book of Heracleides has three parts: 1) dialogue format between Nestorius and Sophronius; 2) Longer part of a detailed commentary on the Acts of hte Council of Ephesus up to the Union of 433 and mentions aboutthe deadly consequences of attack on Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopseustia; 3) Comments on Monophysites and evaluation of the event. Out of three the second part of the book seems to be authetic. "According to  L. Abramowski, "the second part alone is authentic, The dialogue proper, which assigns but a sinlge hypostasis to Christ, whould have been composed at Constantinople at the beginning of the sixth century in a Chalcedonian setting, but one linked to the Antiocheen christiologival traditon."cli  He soon died after, his death is around 451/452. In regarding Nestorius' sources, McGuckin notes that, "The sources necessary for a Nestorian reconstruction had been painstakingly assembled by F. Loofs in the year just preceding the rediscovery of the Book of Heraclides and several works both by Nestorius and his supporters have been re-edited since a collection of texts and translations by Abramowski and Goodman."clii In it Nestorius defends of his accusation of Christ having two persons, and insisted that Christ's the same one is twofold, which became an orthodox formula at the Council of Chalcedon 451. Even though he was condemned in 431, there were numerous attempts and effort to restore him back in communion with other branches of Christianity, including Roman Catholic church (Pope Pius XII, 1957; Pope John Paul II, 1994). His teachings and thoughts still haunt many generations and is  being investigated and researched even today scholarship circles. 
It is believed to be that Nestorius was a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428),cliii who was a disciple of Diodore of Tarsus or sometimes refers him as Diodore of Antioch, where he was a native. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus represented Antiochene School contrasted to Alexandrian School, which emphasized Platonic philosophic tradition that is heavily rely on speculative and allegorical approach to a Scriptural interpretation and exegesis.  Theodore used the term person or prosopon. It is a single person perception (prosopon), who is God. And this God is also a man as a a real object (hypostasis). Theodore prefers to call prosopon over hypostasis when it comes to deal with a single person, which has both natures: human and divine. Davis notes that, "When we distinguish the natures, we assert the integrity of the nature of God the Word, and the integrity of its prosopon, for a real object (hypostasis) without perceptible presentation (prosopon) is a contradiction in terms; we also assert the integrity of the nature of the man, and its prosopon likewise. Bet when we regard their combinations, then we assert a single prosopon,"cliv Drobner notes that, "Eastern and Western theology sought to avoid Monophysite deviations, such as Sabellianism, Arianism, and Apollinarianism and to move beyond such double formulations as eis kai autos=unus atque idem, which had become traditional since Irenaeus, to an apt formulations of the unity of the two complete natures of Christ...In the Trinitarian theology hypostasis had become the distinctive term of a threefold nature, so that Antiochene theology, especially that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, tended to relate the concept of hypostasis to nature in terms of a concrete reality and to construct prosopon as the sum and subject of all expressions of nature. Hence, fror Theodore and Nestorius, both natures of Christ have their own prosopon; in other words, Christ has duo prosopon (two prosopon)."clv 
Here we see Nestorius is following his predecessors' insistance of diversity, and puts similar emphasis on distinctiveness of Christ: divine and human. With slight focus on humanity of Christ, he preferred to call Logos (Word)-man.  Nestorius adopted the concept of prosopon (a single person reality) from Theodore of Mopsuestia directly and used it defend Christ's unity.  
Nestorius was also influenced his two prosopons position from Diodore of Tarsus. Diodore was an anti-Arianism, who followed Arius teaching of Jesus was a creature rather than God, which led to his condemnation at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Diodore wanted to protect the Son being mere a human of Arius or Apollinaris’ docetical interpretation of the Son. These resulted “two Sons” interpretation. Diodore did not fully developed Two Sons theology; but a seed was sown that would carry onto Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-460), whom they attacked Cyril of Alexandria (381-452) of  “hypostatic union” of the Son. They saw an elimination of Son’s distinctiveness of the natures (divine and human).  Nestorius carried these Antiochene understandings of the Son into his theological outlook.  
Nestorius' use of conjunction (sunapheia) was a direct influence from Antiochene school's theology.  He used the term in  order to avoid perceived confusion and mingling, which Cyril on the other hand used the term hypostatic union (enosis kat upostasin) instead. Drobner notes that, "By the union of them into one subject, however, they become one prosopon-a formulation that is capable of signifying `one person' but is not identical to it. The Antiochene described this kind of unity by means of the term sunapheia (contact), but this is still capable of being misconstrued as a purely external kind of being side-by-side, while Nestorius also used the designation kat' eudoian (`according to favor,' `on account of the will'). He certainly accommodated the fundamental Antiochene concern not to blur the completeness and independence of the two natures of Christ."clvi  Where did Nestorius adopt the term eudokia (good pleasure) from?  It is also used by Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is used to mean a kind of activity or union of "Good Pleasure." God's good pleasure most highest act of God. McLeod notes that, "Good pleasure is said to be the hightest and most sublime act of God's will which He exhibits when pleased with those who have been and are still devoted in the dedication to Him. For this (saying) `being well and sublimely pleased with them' has been commonly received and found in Scripture."clviiChrist' union is a direct result of God's good pleasure. Even king David used the phrase to reflect God's goodness. Psalm 147: 10-11, "His pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, nor his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love." (NIV)  God works with those who love and fear Him. God's indwelling happens to those whom God takes pleasure in. But when it comes to Christ's indwelling of God, it is not the same kind. Stevenson notes that, "But we would never describe the indwelling in his -i.e. Christ's] case as of that kind-that would be sheer madness; in his case it is a sin a son; that is the form of good pleasure by which the indwelling took place. What is significance of this `as in a son'? It is an indwelling in which he united the one who was being assumed wholly to himself and prepared him to share all the honor which he, the indweller, who s a son by a nature, shares. Thereby he has constituted a single person (prosopon) by union with him and has mad ehim a partner in all his authority."clviii  
What is more intersting is that Christ is visible and all can see him without confusion or separation of each characters. 
McLedo says this as the perfect image of God, "indwelling of good pleasure is to relate it to his view of how Christ's common prosopon is the perfect image of God. The assumed man not only visibly manifests the existence and will of God but shares as the perfect image of God in the name, power, and glory due to the Word as God."clix Thus Nestorius adopted and was influenced by such functional and Christology `below' of Antiochene school of thought. 
When it comes to the debate it is Alexandrian verses Antiochene. In these contexts, Nestorius had to face Cyril's usage of hypostatic union, which he used to refer unity of Christ. George Prestige explains hypostasis union as follows: What Cyril plainly meant was the concurrence of the divine and human forms in one person, so tha whether as God or as man or as both Christ constituted a single objective reality (hypostasis); just as by his phrase `physical union' he indicated a personal unity in which the two elements severally expressed different embodiments of a single `physis' or personal existence."clx  
Outcome of the Council of Ephesus I (431) and the Council of Chalcedon (451) favored Cyril's usage of hypostatic union instead of Nestorius' prosopon was West's favor of one subject (mia hypostasis) or hypostatic union. Drobner notes that, "Since they were primarily concerned with expressing the true, inner unity of the natures of Christ, they deemed the definition en prosopon kata sunapheia to be far too weak and so externally oriented that what remained were two sons instead of one. For them, the unity had to be understood on the level of nature, hence as mia physis=mia hypostasis...actually preferred Cyril's formulation of mia hypostasis=una persona=`one subject' to the Nestorian en prosopon=una persona=`one external'."clxi One subject was chosen over one external, yet one subject was signifying withe one external. Why was Nestorius then condemned? Drobner answers "Has Nestorius therefore been unjustly condemned as a heretic? If one begins with the assumption of what he intended by his statements, he was orthodox. Yet the crucial point of a dogmatic-historical development...his solution was not accepted by the church... and because Nestorius did not adhere to the church's decision."clxii Historically speaking, Antiochene school and theology were in trials.  
Nestorius had to continued to face challenges.  In order to defend against Arianism, Nestorius saw Apollinarianism as a form of Arianism, denying the full humanity of Jesus and denying of his divinity.  Apollinarianism was what the Antiochene did not stand for; instead Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia wanted to make the divine and human in Christ so distinct that it almost seemed to create two person.  They were reacting against Apollinaris' denying the human nature of Christ. Walker notes, "Appolinarians, which sacrificed to the unity of the person of the integrity of the nature, at elas of the human nature, anticipate the Monophysite heresy, though in a peculiar way, and formed the precise counterpart to the Antiochian doctrine."clxiii  Appearance of Nestorius into the scene sparked the beginning of a Christological controversy. Kelly notes that "the decisive period for Christology, viz-the short span between the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy in 428 and the council of Chalcedon in 451."clxiv The council of Ephesus  (431) was all about Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople debating the nature of Christ. The Alexandrian school's tradition of Word-Sarx (flesh) type  and Word-man type of Antiochene school.   
These two schools both contributed to the development of Christology in the 5th century.  Chadwick links Christological controversy with a teaching of Theotokos (Mother of God), which Nestorius refused to subscribe to; instead he preferred to call Mary Christotokos (Mother of Christ). Chadwick notes that,"Christological controversy created a huge problems in ecumenism. Holdding together in one communion both the followers of Cyril of Alexandria and the disciple (Nestorius) of Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed massively difficult. For Cyril and the Alexandrian the power of Christ to redeem is grounded in the complete and real presence of God in the incarnation...Therefore the humanity born of Mary is a divine humanity constituted to be a single person, a single being, `one nature, one hypostasis', an Mary herself is Theotokos, `Mother of God.'"clxv For Alexandrian the title of Theotokos was not a subject to meddle with, and it was already used since the time of Origen of Alexandria.clxvi Pelikan sees the title of Theotokos have originated from Alexandria, "Of special interest in the liturgy was language being used about the Virgin Mary, who had come to be called `Theotokos.' Despite the effort to find evidence of it elsewhere, there is reason to believe that the title of originated in Alexandria, where it harmonized with and epitomized the general Alexandrian tradition."clxvii  Now, Nestorius challenged the title or more precisely he was dragged into the controversy, which already brew before he came to Constantinople. 
  
 
 
Page Break 
Challenged Theotokos 
Once became the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius wanted  continuously to be a defender of Orthodoxy of the early councils, Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381). As a newly recognized Patriarchate of ancient churches, after Rome, the seat of Constantinople was seen as a rivalry by the seats of Rome and Alexandria. On the other hand the Patriarch of Jerusalem became a more of a symbolic head of the ancient church. According to the Book of Acts, during the persecution, believers fled and found churches whenever they settled and visited (Acts 8).  Since then the seat of Jerusalem has been always seen as the mother church (symbolic role) of all the Christians. In dealing with Theotokos, Nestorius’ orthodoxy challenge came in when his chaplain named Anastasius was preaching against employing the term Theotokos (Mother of God in Greek), instead he preferred to use the term Christotokos (Mother of Christ).  
It is understood that  unlike Anastasis direct attack on the term, Nestorius, as a patriarch, restrained himself from preaching against Theotokos or directly challenged the title first As of matter of fact the title was an ancient one and goes back to the third century. Leo Davis notes that, "the title was, however, an ancient one, to be found in the oldest Greek prayer to Mary, dating form the third century. It had been used by Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, to mention only a few."clxviii  Aloys Grillmeier notes that, "As bishop of his church, he himself was more moderate than some of his followers, e.g. the Antiochene presbyter Anastasius whom he permitted ot preach agains the title `Theotokos.'"clxix But this gesture did not seat well with the most populations and in the eyes of Cyril of Alexandria, who felt his tradition was challenged and attacked. Theotokos was generally accepted by general populations in Constantinople. Nestorius however supported Anastasius’ using the term of Christotokos. Nestorius stood side with the title Christotokos, because he thought that by calling Mary the Mother of God, did not do justice to complexity of Son’s incarnation. Incarnation was a term that the Word (Logos) became flesh (John 1: 14).  
In Nestorius’ mind, if the Word (Logos) came to Jesus, there must be a term that should direct to it: Mary bore a man Jesus, so she must be called Mother of God or Christotokos (Mother of Christ) instead of calling her  “Theotokos.” Walker notes that, "The Antiochene theology, however, could not conceive a human nature without a human personality, and this it strictly separated from the divine Logos."clxx Nestorius wanted to stand in the middler ground from his presbyter Anastasius' position and Theotokos,  and come up with the title Christokos (Mother of Christ). Walker continues, "Nestorius claimed that he found the controversy already existing in Constantinople, because some were calling Mary mother of God (Theotokos) and others, mother of Man (Anthropotokos), because Christ was at the same time God and man.He prosed the middle expression, mother of Christ (Christokos)"clxxi  Pelikan notes that, "If he actually advocated Anthropotokos [mother of a human being] as substitute, he did not, as his opponents charged, mean this as a reversion to the long-repudiated heresy that Christ was a mere man. His own preferred term was Christokos, which beset against both Theotokos and Anthropotokos."clxxii  
According to Davis the whole issue with Theotokos was differing Christologies within Alexandrian an Antiochene emphasis.  He notes, "Theologically, what was the battle about? It began, as we have seen, over the title`Mother of God,' but support of the title or opposition to it involved differing Christologies.  Nestorius represented the Antiochene tradition; Cyril, the Alexandrian. Just as all philosophers are said to be basically either Aristotelian or Platonist, so, roughly speaking, all theologians are in Christology either Antiochene, beginning with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain how this nan is also God, or Alexandrian, beginning with the Word of John's Prologue and attempting to understand the implications of the Logos taking flesh."clxxiii.  
In the eyes of Alexandrian party, it was an attack on their high Christological position. Alexandrians were willing to go even further saying God in swaddling bands, or the sufferings of God in order to do justice to infuse dynamic view of salvation afforded in the divine incarnation. McGuckin notes that, "Egyptian-Alexandrian of high Christology, which was accustomed to using strong juxtaposed paradoxes... to express the dynamic of the salvation effected in the divine incarnation."clxxiv For Cyril and Alexandrian theology, the title was pointing to the divine Jesus, who came to save humankind.  
Whereas in the view of Antiochene side, it was more of human side of incarnation that should be addressed. González saw that, "Nestorius saw in the tile Bearer of God as applied to Mary a confusion of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ."clxxv There are clearly two extreme views of incarnation. One side puts emphasis on the”Word-flesh” incarnation and the other side puts emphasis on “Word-man” Christology. According to Davis the Word-Man Christology had  come from Antiochene tradition, such as Estathius of Antioch; while Word-flesh comes from Alexandrian tradition such as Athanasius of Alexandria."clxxvi The former sees Word-flesh puts the Word (Logos) as the important part in the God-man and human soul as not as important; the latter puts Jesus assumed human nature completely.  
And it was also used by Eustathius of Antioch (f. 325), who taught that the Logos dwelt in a true human being: Word-man. Another figure, who taught Word-man approach was Diodore of Tarsus (d. 394). He was a mentor to Theodore of Mopsuestia, who influenced Nestorius' thinking. In it, Diodore saw in Christ there were two separate realities existed: God the Word and the man who was born of Mary. The indwelling of the Logos (Word) in a man Jesus was permanent, and still be one person. One may worship man Jesus, because of the indwelling of the Logos (Word) as God dwelt in a man. But in reality, there are two separate distinct realities or subjects. Here Diodore does not say there are two Persons nor Sons, but one as the Son of God. And he is God, the Logos (Word).  Along the line, Diodore avoids Apollinaris' one divine nature of Christ, whose humanity is absorbed by divine Logos.  
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428), a student of Diodore sided with a line of his teacher. Theodore defended the full divinity and humanity of Christ.clxxvii By emphasizing the two natures of Christ, they were reacting against Apollinarians. Davis notes that, "Against the Apollinarians he had resolutely defended the full divinity and humanity of Christ."clxxviii The Logos (Word) in dwelt full humanity of Jesus, not just body and soul, but a complete man. For Theodore, it is Logos indwelling in a man. How does this Logos (Word)-man accomplished? ------- So as far as Mary was concerned, it was a man Jesus she bore, not God. He reasoned that God could not have been born in a womb; and no creature can birth a member of Godhead. Nestorius saw in the term Theotokos that the Son was a creature, which could not have been in the womb of Mother of God or there was an incompleteness of Jesus’ humanity by calling Mary “Theotokos.” 
By calling Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), he reminded of teachings of Arius and Apollinaris. The former taught that the Son was a mere creature, and it was God who was born of a woman. It did not make sense that God could be born in a human womb and other side of Christ is completely ignored. Furthermore he saw in Theotokos,  Apollinaris' teaching was advocated. the manhood of Christ is totally immersed into the Logos.  His insistance of calling Mary Christokos was based on the fact that Christ was born unto Mary. Christ was a man who was a mean of divine.  
Eventually his view did not seat well with his rival Cyril of Alexandria, who thought he advocated human side of Christ; he believed that Nestorius was creating the God-man into two distinct persons.  For Cyril, if Mary did not bear God, then one who was born in her was not God, and if there is no God came into the world, there would be no salvation or forgiveness of sins for humankind. Furthermore, Cyril thought that Nestorius was an adoptionistic monarchianism. For in it, the man Jesus became a divine at some period of his life, i.e. baptism and ministered as the Son of God and became a human again. Even though Nestorius attempted to distinguish between the Logos (Word) God and human Jesus, there is no way to go around to explain difference, because his view insisted only in division of Christ. Cyril saw in Nestorius attempt of dividing two natures of Christ as a mere trying artificially splitting the God-man into two distinct Persons. What Nestorius attempted to do began to crack and spill into artificial linking of one person Christ.  Nestorius’ Antiochene’s “Two Natures” appeared as artificial split of God-man into two persons of Christ. Even though Nestorius did not intend to be labeled as two persons in Christ, the Council of Ephesus judged him to be. However many scholars and his Bazaar of Heracleides does not seem to direct in that direction.  
 
 
Page Break 
One Prosopon of the Two in the Union 
 
Prior to the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431),  Nestorius was known to be a follower of orthodox teachings of Nicene-Constantinople decrees. He was a monk and had been either influenced by or trained, like John Chrysostom, under the influence of Antiochene great teachers, such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Theologically, he wanted to carry the traditional Antiochene teaching of Christology from `below,' which emphasized full humanity of Jesus and to safeguard two nature of Christ at the expenses of the true union of the two.  Pastorally, while being a bishop, he was a good orator and preacher and spoke his mind freely.  He himself wanted to defend orthodox teaching and root out heretics and heretical teachings, especially of Arius and Apollinaris' errors on the Trinity and Christology debates.  
George Prestige says, "On the say of his consecration he publicly demanded from the Emperor a free hand in suppressing heresy, promising him in returen for a such service to the Kingdom of heaven the full aid of the spiritual arm in vanquishing the Emperor's temporal foe."clxxix One of attacks of Nestorius was on Apollinarius,  who emphasized the unity of Christ's Person. Prestige notes that, "It is the supreme merit of Apollinaris that he plotted the right course by insisting on the unity of Christ."clxxx However his unity of Christ's Person was not an orthodox teaching, he was condemned for his teaching at the Council of Constantinople, 381 because he was teaching Christ's humanity was replaced with a divine Logos.  Grillmeier notes that, "Nestorius directs his remarks principally against the Arians and Apollinarians.  Among the latter he includes even Cyril of Alexandria."clxxxi  It is to be understood that Nestorius knew fully well what was orthodoxy against heresy. As a matter of fact, he even accused Cyril of Alexandria for being too close to Apollinarism, for making Christ one sided (one nature; mia physis) by following a teaching of Apollinaris that teaches that Christ was incarnate Logos, who adopted a human body and the divine Logos absorbed a human mind (spirit) of Jesus as well. McGuckin notes that, "After realizing it could not convince the wier scholarly world, and actually gave ammunition to his Syrian foes that he `really was' an Apollinarism in intent, he moved to emphasis in his Christology to the formula of a single hypostasis."clxxxii  
Nestorius was against Logos infused Christ into one person (one nature; mia physis). For he thought that Arians also attempted to create one God as well by making Jesus as a creature, and that is why they preferred to call Mary Theotokos. Grillmeier notes that, "The Arians seek to spread the title Theotokos so as to have the opportunity of attacking the very divinity of Christ.clxxxiii"  These did not seat well with Nestorius.  As a typical Antiochene traditionalist, Nestorius starts with a diversity of Christ' two natures (divine and human) distinctively. McGuckin thinks that Nestorius was following teachings and tradition of Antiochene theology. He notes that, "Certainly Cyril regards both Nestorius an Theodore as teaching a double-subject Christology which is tantamount to `Two Sons,' and this forms the main point of his intellectual attack on Nestorius."clxxxiv  
Nestorius said, "The union then of the natures is not divided; the ousias of these, which are united, are divided. This [consists] not in the annulling of the union but in the understanding of the flesh and of the divinity. Hear the same clearly: Christ is indivisible in that [he is] Christ but double in that [he is] God and man; in the sonship simple, [but] double in that which he has put on and in that which is put on; sole in the prosopon of the Son, [but] as in [the case of] the two eyes, dissimilar in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity; for we know not two Christs or Sons or an original and a new only-begotten, nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the same who is visible in nature created and not created."clxxxv His view of Christ's two Sons are not recognized but his mentioning of double needs further explanations, which gets confused at times. 
 The Council of Ephesus I (431) decreed and accused him of making Christ into two persons, which cost his bishopric position and labeled as a heretic. Quasten summarizes Nestorius teaching as follows, "A student of the theological school of Antioch, Nestorius in his episcopal sermons asserted that there are two persons, the man Jesus, and that the Logos, dwelling in a human person, the man Jesus, and that the Blessed Virgin could not be called Theotokos, Mother of God."clxxxvi  On the other hand, Grillmeier goes deeper in explaining Nestorius semantic and theology. He notes that, "Nestorius  directs his remarks principally against Arians and Apollinarians. Among the latter he includes even Cyril of Alexandria...F. Loofs has a paraphrase of Nestorius' view in his discussion with Cyril: You start in your account with the creator of the natures an not with the prosopon of the union. It is not the Logos who has become twofold; it is the one Lord Jesus Christ who is twofold in his natures. In him are seen all the characteristic of the God-Logos, who has a nature eternal and unable to suffer and die, and also all those of manhood, that is a natural mortal, created and able to suffer, and lastly those of the union and the incarnation...This preference of Nestorius for `nature' instead of `subject' or `person' seems to be decisive."clxxxvii 
His avoidance of using term hypostasis (concrete reality) was intentional, and he chose the term prosopon (realm of individuality) instead.  However, McGuckin does not see both hypostasis and prosopon as what we mean person today. He notes, "many modern studies on the controversy insist on translating the two cardinal term prosopon and hypostasis (the preferred terms of Nestorius and Cyril respectively) by the same English word `person' in spite of the fact that in many instances the two terms were not synonyms for either protagonist, and that neither of the word meant what the modern notion of `person' evokes for the reader today."clxxxviii Clearly it seems Nestorius was not making Christ two persons. 
Prestige believed that the outcome of the council was a direct result of Antiochene's thought. He notes that, "So now we find Diodore and his successors protesting stoutly that they believe in one single Redeemer, but incapable of giving any satisfactory account of Him as a whole. Their efforts to do so only convinced their opponents that they really believed in two separate Sons of God, of whom one was a natural Son, God the Word, and the other was an adopted Son, Jesus."clxxxix The opponents of Nestorius accused of him as an adoptionist Monarchians. It is a weak point of Antiochene's position that appears to be a partnership with  in the sum of God and man. And this led Nestorius or Nestorianism are accused of.  In his defense, Nestorius does not seem to advocated Sabellianism nor Monarchianism.  
Christ as truly human and divine, anytime humanity or flesh of Christ vanishes. There is no mode of being mentioned.  He said, "A statue without bulk of water, which vanishes at once in the vastness of the sea." There is no mode of separation or disappearance. cxc He as a matter of fact accuses Sabellian position, he said, "Among them indeed are also those who deny that God the Word exists in ousia and who say only that the name `God the Word' is that command: He spoke and it became. But thus also they predicate the Father and the Holy Spirit in namie alone; so in short they agree rather with the Jews than Christians."cxci  
He was referring to Sabellianism. Nestorius consistently uphold two realities of Christ. McGuckin agrees, "Central to the coherence of Nestorius' thought was his belief that all christological thinking should always begin from this concrete experience the church has of Christ in his double reality."cxcii F. Loofs notes that, "Christ is the common name of the two natures."cxciii However, for Cyril one nature (person) was his position. There were definite confusions in term "reality" and position.  Grillmeier thought that the council did not have a theological method to really know what Nestorius message was.  He notes that, "It is the task of theological scholarship to take into consideration all factors which could serve to explain the case of Nestorius. These factors include not only the psychological, philosophical and theological presuppositions of Nestorius and of his opponents, but also the circumstances of civil and ecclesiastical politics...At the time of the Council of Ephesus, the church did not possess a theological method which would make possible a scientific judgement on the kerygmata of Nestorius."cxciv Nestorius' teachings and writings were consulted in future councils, both positively and negatively. McGuckin notes that, "the term physis is being used by Cyril in an archaic sense, as equivalent ot the term hypostasis at Chalcedon later; and so the Mis physis can coexist as an important (and common element of universal Christian Orthodoxy) along with the dyo physeis, without being logically contradictory. The implications of this will be  further argued to the effect that Cyrilline Miaphysites are not necessarily Monophysites (who gave largely existed between the covers of heresiology books) no more than Chalcedonian Dyophysites must be either Nestorians or deniers of the wondrous effects of the Christological Union (henosis)."cxcv 
  However, his interpretation "Two Natures" was revisited and reconsidered in the making of Formula of Reunion in 433, which was written by John of Antioch (d. 441) to Cyril in order to bring him some sort of reconciliation to both camps, and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which adopted two nature of Christ (duophysitism). This is clearly came from Nestorius' thinkings and writings.  It was only twenty years have passed since the time between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon was twenty years, perhaps Nestorius might be alive to see his teachings or thoughts vindicated, however it is of no certain. The date of his death is uncertain. In the Chalcedon creed or definition Christ is one Person (Cyrillian formular: one nature; mia physia, which was interpreted as a person) in two natures without confusion, without change, without division and without seperation.  The phrase  "without confusion and without change" was put in the creed in order to refute Euthychianism; while "without  division and without separation" was put in place to refute Nestorianism. Christ is consubstantiality with the Father  and consubstantiality with us.cxcvi   
The former was in place to refute Arianism, who denied Christ's homoousia with the Father; the latter was put in the creed to refute Apollinarianism, who denied Jesus' humanity. Further,  Chalcedon creed rejected the teachings on Christ that there were two natures existed before the union became one in the incarnation.  Nestorius would have agreed with portion of the decree of the Chalcedon. In dealing with Son's consubstantiality with the Father, Sophronius remarks, "What then? Did he give God the Word, consubstantial with him, who is immortal and impassible, unto death? And do not He who is consubstantial, impassible and immortal and He gave him unto death belie on another? Or is it perhaps so in schema?"cxcvii  Nestorius notes that, "Thou wilt confess aloud with us that there are not two Gods the Word or two Sons or two only begotten, but one, ane so on with all the rest of them. Investigation is made on both sides similarly and rightly how he became incarnate voluntarily, when was was by his nature immortal and impassible, and how it is said that the Son is dead in nature and in so far as he is not immortal by nature." Nestorius saw that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. He goes on to say that there was one Son by an union.  He said, "God the Word became incarnate and there were not two Sons but one by an union."cxcviii 
The Chalcedon creed severely limited both language and extension of much speculations. While preserving orthodoxy and  it limited the language for further expansion. Fallout was that it caused hard-lined Cyrilline party to move away from the Chalcedon creed and began to form their own group called Monophysite, which is also called Non-Chalcedonians or Oriental Orthodox Churches.cxcix  It is also distinct representative of Alexandrian school. Meanwhile those who follow Nestorius became to be known as Nestorian or the Church of the East, which can be representative of Antiochene school.  But majority, who adhered to the council,  are known as Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox or Chalcedonians. Prestige explains such diverse groups after the council reflects how unsettled the decision was. He notes that, "How negative and abstract the Chalcedonian settlement was , is shown by the subsequent history of Christological discussion. A vast schism of Monophysites immediately occurred in Egypt and Syria, comparable with the secession of Nestorians after the Council of Ephesus...The secession of this class illustrates the Council's initial failure to hold together those who entertained substantially the same theological convictions."cc 
Despite many major differences between both Cyril and Nestorius, Nestorius agreed or taught all along that there is a unity in one Christ, but he did not accept the term communicatio idiomatum (interchange of the properties or communication of attributes in Latin).Grillmeier as of matter of fact said he attacked it, he notes that, "He attacks the traditional doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, to which  the church gave particular expression in the title `Theotokos' and the phrase `deus passus.'"cci McGuckin notes that, "Attempts by christians to cross-exchange language categories (the so-called `exchange of properties,' or communicatio idiomatum) were fundamentally misguided in Nestorius' eyes: no more than basic category mistakes to be avoided by intelligent christians. It was his habit of regarding Cyril as being so fundamentally unintelligent about this that the language about bi-polarity was a thin veneer over a doctrine that quite openly spoke about `the man Jesus' and the God `Logos' in several contexts, which to him was nothing other than dual subjectivity, whatever the qualifications one might like to add. Moreover, the refusal to allow for cross-language references such as `God the Word died on the Cross' (provided always that one either understood, or added the proper context `as enfleshed in the incarnation) was for Cyril not an attack on misguided piety but on the essential heart of the Gospel. The two theological schemes were quite decidedly opposed on basic matters of the argument."ccii In communication idiomatum defintion, it even allows to say that God suffers (deus passus), based on the interpretation of communicatio idiomatum.  It is known and accepted by early Church Fathers including Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril. Communication idiomatum was to explain paradox of God and man's experience and existence. According to communicatio idiomatum interpretations, it is acceptable to say that Christ as God suffered or the blood of God or God was conceived in Mary's womb. It can be explained by that in Christ as God as well as man he any experience or his attribute might be properly interchanged or communicated without diminishing either attributes.  It is believe to be that Nestorius did not liked the term communicatio idiomatum, for in it, Christ is one person and that there is a predicated of the other as well. Nestorius saw that there is no clear distinctions between divine and human in Christ; while his opponents saw that Nestorius was denying the true unity of God and man in Christ.  In Cyril's understanding of communicatio idiomatum, when Mary bore the human baby Jesus, he thought that he could say that Mary bore actually God or divine person of Christ, Jesus. Cyril also acknowledges that Christ is fully God and fully man. And makes him vulnerable to Syrian Christology, which emphasizes to natures. McGunkin notes that, "The Mia Physis phrase does not deny that Christ is fully God and fully Man, it simply challenges the clashed concept that these natures were something static, like possessions....Cyril's phrase clashed with even more severely with Syrian Christology, because the Orientals had phobically reacted against Apollinaris so much in the previous generation that they believed they now saw him everywhere they looked, and that all Christian though ahd to be heavily inoculated against him.This was a major reason why Nestorius cold not understand what Cyril was talkning about."cciii  Cyril's physis as a nature (Lat. persona) might be the same meaning as ousia. 
Grillmeier notes that, "Cyril and those who advance the communication idiomatum in the strict sense, predicating both divine and human of the one subject (each  accordance with the difference of the natures)."ccivThat is why he was insisting in using Theotokos. While Nestorius did not want to rehash Arian's teaching about Son's creatureliness and Apollinaris' one  divine Logos- infused-human Jesus in Christ. So Nestorius insisted using Christokos or Andropotokos (Mother of Man). Nestorius remembers about Arianism, Apollinaris calling Mary Theotokos and Cyril's one divine Person of Christ. He was against Logos (Word)-sarx (flesh) approach to Christology, instead he was focusing more on Logos (Word)-man aspect. There is a clear difference in focusing on the nature of Christ; Cyril seemed to focus on divinity; while Nestorius on humanity of Christ. What makes them apart is that Cyril was clear in his thought about one distinct person of Christ, without confusing Christ's two natures (divine and human) by employing the terminology, communicatio idiomatum in order to explain presence of Christ's two natures. Nestorius, on the other hand, by refusing to accept communication idiomatum, he left with two distinctively separate natures or persons in Christ. His use of prosopic union made it more clear about his position.  
Controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria arose from a liturgical understanding of the Incarnated Jesus. Until the controversy, Nestorius did not denied Christ’s divinity in one person.  Yet he wanted to safeguard human side of Christ. In order to do that he had to distinguish between divine and human. He saw human Jesus, who was born suffered and died; while the Logos infused into Christ’s side, since Logos was God, he could not have suffered nor died. So there are two separate distinctions between divine and human side of Christ. However, Nestorius did not like to use the Logos as little as much and preferred instead of preferred  Christ or the  Son or the Lord. Grillmeier notes, " For him these titles depict an additiver subject which contains within itself both the divine and the human properties."ccv For Nestorius, the Logos was not the bearer of both the divinity and humanity. Rather Christ is the sum of the two natures and is the sum of Godhead and manhood.ccvi 
However there is no clear indication about his assertion about two natures of Christ.  Cyril suspected that Nestorius did not have a clear understanding of the two nature assertion. Was Nestorius' two natures really a reality or simply a moral union? Nestorius' accent to communicatio idiomatum was not making him what he claime was correct. Perhaps Cyril thought that Nestorius was saying there are two persons of Christ as well.  It is important to redefine some terminologies as the debate required more precise definiton: Hypostasis and Prosopon and Ousia. Hypostasis has been evolved into many different meanings and nuances or concrete reality. But for Cyril, he used the term to mean a concrete understanding of ousia (nature), which in later period, it came to mean a person (Lat. Persona). But for now, Cyril understood it means to mean ousia. It is true that he was influenced by Neo-Platonic understanding. 
Nestorius held that in Christ, there are distinct two natures, not two persons, as Cyril and the Council of Ephesus judged him to be. For him nature was closed to being that are real and concrete. Instead of using hypostasis or ousia, he chose the term prosopon (realm of individuality)ccvii; the term was already used by Theodore of Mopsuestia before and even earlier writers as well. Each of two natures had prosopon, a distinct aspect of an individual. Here Nestorius meant external aspect of individual. So in a sense it could also be interpreted as a person. With a usage of hypostasis, Christ became a concrete subsistent person.  In order to further prevent any confusion and union of the two, he preferred to use the term conjunction (sunapheia) in order to avoid perceived confusion and mingling. González notes that, "For him, this union is rather a `conduction,' so that each of the two natures retains its own predicates, which must be be confused, and at the same time shares actively in the union itself."ccviii  Cyril on the other hand used the term hypostatic union (enosis kat upostasin). Nestorius asked Cyril for explanation, "How then hast thou sought to establish the hypostatic union? What is this unintelligible hypostatic union?"ccix Nestorius even questioned about similar usage of the term with prosopon, "Say therefore [what] the hypostatic union [is]. Doest thou wish to regard a hypostatic as a prosopon, as we speak of one ousia of the divinity and three hypostasis and understand prosopa by hypostaes?"ccx  Yet, Nestorius preferred to call Prosopic Union.  Nestorius tried to explain his position by saying that, "Because I also say `union,' yet thou accepted not what I say, because I distinguish the union.  If I say concerning things which have been united that they are corporeal in ousia and incorporeal in ousia, then [I say that] they are divided from one another: the one idea as created, but the other as uncreated; the one indeed mortal and the other immortal; and the one eternal with the Father and and the other created in the las times, and the one consubstantial with the Father and the other consubstantial with us; for the union make not void the ousias which have been united in such wise that they are not to be known [apart]."ccxi  What it meant was that there is one single reality (Prosopic Union) in Christ out of two prosopons; human distinct prosopon and divine distinct prosopon.   
For Nestorius, the unity of Christ is realized in the prosopon.  He said, "The divinity has obtained a likeness by the ousia of the humanity and the humanity has obtained / a likeness by the ousia of the divinity, so that  there is one prosopon of the union, and so that the [properties] of the humanity belong unto  God the Word and those of the divinity unto the humanity wherein it was made man [and so that]  they were closely united unto one and the same with a view to the dispensation of on our behalf, since men were in in need of the divinity as for our renewal and for our formation anew and for [the renewal ] of the likeness of the image which had been obliterated by us: but  [men had need also ] of the humanity which was renewed and took its likes anew; for the humanity was congruous so as to preserve the order which had existed."ccxii Grillmeier notes that, "Nestorius gathers together all the characteristic properties (idiomata), the physical appearance and condition, the moral attitude, the spiritual actions and functions, and finally the reactions which they summon up in man, Each nature realized in concrete existence has its natural prosopon. Just as each concret ousia is a hyposasis, so too it has a prosopon of its own."ccxiii His effort to explain his way saying unity of Christ is to adopt the term prosopic union. 
Despite the repeated use of the term ousia (Essence), which can be translated as the Being or Essence, his use of prosopon invited many different possible interpretations. Many interpreted it as a person (hypostasis) not a nature (physis,  in a strict sense the council of Ephesus I used it to be mean person). He does not go there at all. Physis is not in his vocabulary, rather it became Cyril's mia physis (One Person, according to Ephesus' definition). Even though prosopon might mean actual reality, it does not meet such precise wordings as hypostasis (actual concrete reality) nor ousia (Essence) or even physis (nature later became to be mean person). Hypostasis  was introduced during the Trinitarian Controversy by the Cappadocian Fathers and was reintroduced was during the Council of Ephesus I (431). Nestorius was aware of it as well. In the Trinitarian doctrine, three Persons was used as Treis Hypostaseis. Nestorius did not want to go there or mingle the terminology hypostasis; instead he insisted on prosopon. 
Nestorius' bible verses for prosopon come from varius places in the New Testament passages. In the epistle of Philippians 2: 5-8  where it talks about very nature (morphe) of God and taking the very nature (morphe) of a servant to relate nature (morphe) with prosopon.ccxiv For Nestorius, prosopon was a nature that consists of the way of appearance that points to a real nature. González defines it as "the term `prosopon' is used by Nestorius-besides its common uses meaning `function' and `human individual'- the sense that it has within the context of trinitarian doctrine...Quite naturally, he also uses hypostasis in its Trinitarian context, although he prefers to use the term prosopon."ccxv As a nature or human individual of God and a servant, who took the nature (morphe; prosopon), Christ is real concretely visible. Prosopon seemed to Nestorius a perfect term for a countenance to make unity of Christ. He put all of human attributes and qualities into sum up a man Jesus and does same with a divine Logos into prosopic union. 
The word that Nestorius used for nature was interesting. He used prosopic union.  In it,  the union of Christ is an individual outward aspect. Christ is the prosopon of union. In God-man relation, Christ  was a historical figure that breathed and suffered and died. Nestorius saw that there is a prosopon union of the Word and the prosopon union of the humanity of Jesus or Anthropotokos ousia (physis or nature) and Logos ousia (physis or nature) into prosopic union that distinguish between human and divine.    In it, one is in the other; the other in one. It is a sense of communicatio idiomatum, which Nestorius did not savor much. In Christ there is the unity in person and divine attribute that interchanged.  González notes that, "When Nestorius speaks of two prosopa in Jesus Christ, he is using the term in the sense of `natural prosopon.' For him, the natural prosopon is the form of a nature, the totality of the properties and distinctions that make a nature complete, so that it may be called a hypostasis. Each complete nature is known and distinguished by its prosopon. Therefore, in the case of Christ, if humanity and divinity are to subsist as complete natures, without being dissolve into a third, each of them must have its own prosopon. Hence the claim that there are  two prosopa in Christ."ccxvi Yet each prosopon was not the same as the Prosopon Union. It is a combination of two natures coalesces into the union.  So it was not two prosopons but a single prosopon. González notes that, "There is another sense in which, according to Nestorius, one must affirm that there is in Christ only one prosopon. This prosopon is that which Nestorius calls `prosopon of union,' `prosopon of the dispensation,' `common prosopon', or `voluntary prosopon."  This prosopon is that of the Son; it is identical to the second person of the Trinity."ccxvii  There was no lose of Godhead nor human nature in Christ, each nature remained distinctively without separation or change. The incarnate Christ is indivisibly one as in a prosopic union while remained two natures.   
Nestorius would allow to say that the man as God and God the Word as a man assuming that it did not confuse the attribute of the word communicatio idiomatum and its activities without blurring each nature’s meaning. González would even go further to say that Nestorius' prosopic union might be interchangeably with hypostatic union, he notes, "In Jesus Christ, God has united the divine prosopon to a human nature- but this in no way destros the two natural prosopa, which correspond to each of the two `complete nature' or hypostases which are united in Christ."ccxviii  Nestorius also would allow to say Theotokos (Mother of God) as long as the Virgin Mary was not divine nor deity. In order to prevent such abuse, that is why Nestorius likes to call Christotokos (Mother of Christ)  or God receiving (Theotokos) instead of Theotokos. It was Christ’s humanity that was important for him, in order that Christ would replace the first Adam and pay the sins of the humankind. He simply wanted to do justice to Jesus’ humanity that brought ransom for many. In this Nestorius saw in Cyril’s Hypostatic union with some reservations.  
For Nestorius, hypostasis was not a concrete realization of nature but an immaterial one. In his Aristotelian understanding of hypostasis did not possess any material. He preferred to use the term prosopon instead. For him, prosopon represented a concrete person or substance, which actually in existence.  In later period, the term prosopon (Latin, Face or Mask) became a nature. So there is already misunderstand in words and terminologies and changed its meaning as well. 
But now, there are clear divergences in Nestorius and Cyril in their approach to Incarnate Jesus Christ. Thus in Cyril’s eye, Nestorius understanding of  Prosopic Union of two nature looked like dyophysitism, which in the Council of Chalcedon (451)  the terminology became an orthodox usage, but in his time, it was a heretical, which condemned Nestorius  as a heretic in the Council of Ephesus I, 431. In the eyes of Nestorius, Cyril’s hypostatic union seemed like a residue of Apollinarianism. Somehow Christ is dissolved into one nature without clear distinction or separation. It is a combination of the Logos-Flesh into one nature. Nestorius feared that Cyril was downplaying Christ’s humanity.   
Further Nestorius' eye, Cyril's hypostatic union was  a static and natural, instead of his dynamic and voluntary prosopic union. Nestorius thought that Cyril was making the third nature by hypostatic union. González notes that, "What is one to say, then, regarding the union of divinity and humanity? Nestorius believes that it is necessary to reject every interpretation that claims that the union is `natural' or `hypostatic.' As he understands these terms a natural or hypostatic union is that in which two natures come together to form a third."ccxix For he saw hypostatic union with natural and static union. For Nestorius' voluntary of union does not mean that there were some kinds of decision making involved; rather it means that there was no violence in terms of union.  
Opponents of Nestorius did not see that way, instead they saw the term prosopon as an external appearance or nature (morphe) of two persons (prosopons), and since it was not possible to divide such as divine and human. They thought that he was advocating not two natures but two persons. Cyril notes that, "But the wrong opinion of Nestorius is [something] entirely other than this; for he proves that he confesses that the Word which is God was found in body and was made man; but, knowing not the force of `was found in body he names two natures and distinguishes them from one another, setting God solely by himself and likewise the human by himself, who has been joined unto God in proximity and in equality of honour only, and in authority. For thus he says, `God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason I distinguish not the honour of him that is not distinguished; I distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration...`but these our brothers in Antioch, accepting simply, as though in imagination only...as I have said--- as well as one Son and Christ and Lord; and , as indeed he is truly one, they say that his proposon/ is one but distinguish not in any way at all the things which have been united."ccxx 
  It is true that Nestorius insisted that he did not advocating two Sons or Christs.  They saw it more like a person without division in prosopon itself, which makes two Persons. Nestorius' position was condemned at the Council of Ephesus I (431) for making Christ two Persons. Scholars and theologians still trying to figure out what Nestorius was really advocating: Two Person? Or Two Natures in Christ? According to the outcome of the Council of Ephesus I (431), it sided with Cyril's position of one nature (one person; mia physis) of Christ.  
In dealing with one nature (person) of Christ, Cyril himself was walking a path that had not been paved so he was cautious in his usage of the terminologies. He also knew there were opponents in other sides. In hindsight he stood between Apollinaris and Nestorius. He did not have a precise word or term to explain Christ's one Christ in his time. He had to borrow the word from Apollinaris' one nature (mia physia) to explain Christ unity. In dealing with two nature of Christ,  Cyril saw the incarnate nature of the Logos into hypostatic union of Christ. For him, there is no distinction or separate in one Person (nature) in Christ.  These are differences between Nestorius’ two natures of Christ verses one Person (nature) of Christ in Cyril of Alexandria.  
Cyril saw in Nestorius that he was denying God-flesh (sarx) Jesus Christ, and insistence of using the term prosopon precluded Christ as a single nature (mia physis). But Nestorius did not deny one person of Christ. In other word, there were no two Christs, but one Christ. McGuckin notes that, "Nestorius can only imagine this stress on unity in one way: a confusion of natural properties in the God-Man considered as hybrid being."ccxxi Nestorius’ insistence of distinction between humanity and divinity of Christ was to ensure that that human Jesus replaced the first Adam, who failed to obey God’s command. The Second Adam, who is Christ restored the first Adam’s image and original intention of God’s will: To enjoy Him forever. McGuckin notes that, "It means rather that the Christian mind will always confess in Christ, the difference between his humanity and his divinity-not lease in this confession it understands why the Church worships Jesus as God, and can also Him as his God...We confess the Union...as the a mystical experience of regaining immortality in Christ."ccxxii  
Nestorius, who was a descendant of Antiochene school, was not in total disagreement with orthodox dogma. He made his points in developing one prosopon in the two in the union,  but ultimately what made him vulnerable in his christology was his inability to fully explain unity of Christ, furthermore issue of Theotokos was more than theological one; it was about worship and piety.  It was about salvific significance on humankind. It had to be God, who was born on virgin Mary. González notes, "Where Nestorius made himself vulnerable was in his excessive distinction  between the human and the divine natures of Christ, and in his inability to speak of their unin in strong enough terms...Therefore, the Nestorian controversy did not have do do simply with whether or not Mary was the Mother of God, but also primarily with the person and work of Jesus Christ-Although it was unfortunate for Nestorius that his other theological concerns led him to attack a title given to Mary which by that time had developed frim roots in worship and piety."ccxxiii Furthermore, Cyril's communicatio idiomatum  was a basic for hypostatic union of the divine and the human in Christ, who was born on virgin Mary (Theotokos) in the Council of Ephesus I (431).  Even though Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus I, his legacy and followers continue to exist today. They are called Nestorian or the Church of the East or Assyrian church.  
After reading the Bazaar of Heracleides,  which was written some twenty years later of the Council of Ephesus, and letters and fragments, which were exchanged during the controversy, Nestorius did not want to teach Nestorianism, but rather he wanted to safeguard the Christ's humanity from a teaching of Apollinaris and Paul of Samosata.  
 According to Bazaar of Heracleides, Nestorius denied," that, 1) the unity of Christ is a natural composition in which two elements are combined by the will of some external creator. 
2) He denies that the Incarnation was effected by changing godhead into manhood or vice versa, or by forming a tertium quid from these two ousiai. 
3) He denies that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints. 
4) He denies that either the godhead of the manhood of Christ are fictitious or phantasmal, ande not real. 
5) He denies that the Incarnation involved any change in the godhead, or any suffering on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible.  
6) He denies that the union of two natures in one Christ involves any duality of sonship. 
7) He asserts that the union is a voluntary union of godhead and manhood. 
8) He asserts that this view alone provides for a real Incarnation, makes possible faith in a real atonement, and provides a rationale of the sacramentalism of the Church."ccxxiv 
It is true that Nestorius' use of the term `prosopon' did not help him clarify his position. "It is clear that the crux of the question is to be found in the of these points, and that the difficulty arises from the difficulty of determining the sense in which Nestorius used the word prosopon. His own theory can be  sated almost in dozen words, It is this: Christ is the union of the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being that the prosopon of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one prosopon of the twon in the union."ccxxv The first part of the Bazaar reads, "Concerting this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union."ccxxvi He also saw Cyril's inconsistance in his hypostatic union, he said, "the hypostasis union of Cyril is shown to be unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true religion, and unintelligible---unscriptural because it ignored the scriptural distinction between the use of the words, `Logos' and `Christ', unorthodox since it involved if not Arianism, then docetist or Apollinarianism; destructive of true religion in that it abolishes the work of Christ's as High Priest of the human race, undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist, and empties the Atonement of its meaning; and unintelligible to suc an extent that sometimes one is simply baffled by the contradictions in his teaching and sometimes forced ot conclude that he has confused the essential distinction between godhead and manhood, thus undermining the true humanity of Christ and dishonoring his divinity."ccxxvii But Nestorius has been labeled as a confused writer and was denounced in the Council of Ephesus I (431).  
Despite Cyril's inconstancy, his adherence to the teaching and defending Nicene position earned him a champion of the orthodoxy and Nestorius' teaching was not. What was his one prosopon out of two [natures]? We find an answers in his homily on Concerning the Faith, "For harm was not done to the uniqueness of the Son by the diversity of the natures, But in such wise as the corruptible body is one thing and further the immortal soul is another thing, yet one man is constituted of the both, so form the mortal and the immortal, from the corruptible and from the incorruptible, and from what is subject to beginning and from the nature which has no beginning, that is of God the Word, I confess one prosopon of the Son."ccxxviii 
In summary, what was Nestorius really meant one prosopic union in two in Christ?  Nestorius understood that in Trinity, there is One God (Ousia) in three Persons (hypostaseis). In his Christology, ousia of Christ is being God. Ousia according to Ostler is "the abstract noun derived from the present participle of the Greek verb `to be,' so literally being)."ccxxix Since Christ is being God, how does he suffer, died and rise again?  Can God suffer and die?  Nestorius thought it could not be so, thus he refused to call the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). Instead he preferred to call her Christokos (Mother of Christ). Because in Syriac Christians, it was not possible. Again Ostler,  
"Mary was given birth to the man Jesus, an Jesus Christ was God. But could she, as a woman in the world, have given birth to God himself, as the Holy Word? Was not God immune to the indignities of suffering in the world? Thinking this way, Syriac-Language Christians resisted this term `God-bearer' (or its Syriac equivalent), even though it reminded a favorite of the Greek-language church.  The term seemed to give a borrowed divinity by association to Mary, and do had enabled a smooth tradition to Christianity from the Greek-language cults of Isis-Horus, a similar mother-son relation popular especially in the east of the Roman Empire, which had made Isis accepte a `Queen of Heaven.'"ccxxx 
 
As far as Greek philosophic terminology is concern, physis (nature), hypostasis and prosopon (person) has order of decreasing abstractness, and increasing referential exactness. Ostler gives examples of each: "Of what kind is X? What is X? and Who is X?"ccxxxi Clearly Nestorius' prosopon was more precise in defining one person. On the other hand Cyril's hypostatic union also represented a single person of Christ. Then what was different between Nestorius (prosopic union) and Cyril's single person (hypostasis union)?  In Cyril, single person union was God the Son. Whereas Nestorius it was a bit more subtle and complicated. In prosopic union, union occurred at a personal level, not God's and in it, there were two natures, divine and human, that was supported by two distinct hypostasis. Was Nestorius advocating two persons as Cyril claimed to be? According to Syrian Christology, it is more subtle than opponent of Nestorius. It is certain that linguistic terminologies played a role in interpreting and deciding the outcome of his teaching.. It claims, "The official  Christology of the Church of East was systematically presented by BABA the Great in the seventh century. It has sometimes been misunderstood as a simplistic assertion that in Christ there are two persons, the Sof of God and the Son of Man;: the Christology of the Church of the East is in fact more subtle, asserting that there is in Christ a duality of natures (qyānē or kyānā) and a duality of hypostasis (qnūmē or quōmā) but a single person (parsufã) and a duality of hypostases (qnūmē or quōmā) but a single person (parsufā or parsopā).ccxxxii  
According to Ostler Nestorius used two natures (qyānē) interchangeably with two hypostases.(qnūmē or quōmā), and further Cyril misunderstood Nestorius.  He notes that, "This was anathema to Cyril, who decried Nestorius as a believer in `Two Sons': For Cyril, two hypostases logically implied  two persons, whereas for Nestorius, conversely, two natures implied two hypostases- or at least two qnōmē, to express the term Aramaic."ccxxxiii If Nestorius really used prosopon to meant qnūmē, which was hypostasis, it was sheer misunderstanding of each other's terminology. On the other hand Nestorius thought that Cyril made two natures (qyānē) with sacrificing two selves (qnūmē or quōmā) .Ostler explains, "So in Aramaic, Cyril's analysis of Christ amounted to saying he had two natures (or substance), but a single self in a single person- a claim that the natures (human and divine), while different, were here made identical."ccxxxiv For Nestorius, nature (was a abstract concept  or quality (Syrian view) that needed a self (qnūmē, quōmā), which Cyril did not displayed. One of the Syriac theologian Narsai from the late fifth century explains the position of Cyril: 
Narsai commenting on John's gospel 1: 14, `the word became flesh, and camped in /among us...' Narsai writes: It is possible for one to [come to rest] in himself [i.e. in his qnõmā]. The idea was that the person of Christ had put on flesh, and taken up a temporary dwelling in humanity: i.e., he had taken on, temporarily, the quality of being a man. For this he needed to have a quōmā as a man; otherwise, he would be dwelling temporarily but still in his natural quōmā as God, which would achieve nothing out of the ordinary. The `camping' in human nature would be either quite vacuous, since his identify would remain divine; or worse still, a mixture of divine ahd human....Two (kyānē or qyānē) (natures) and two quõmē or or quōmā (selves) is our Lord, in one parsōpā (person) of the divinity and the humanity."ccxxxv 
 
There is a confused or mixture of unity in Cyril's Christ. On the other hand, Nestorius would confess as follows: "I confess in One Christ two natures without mixing. In his divinity he was brought forth by the Father, in his humanity by the Holy Virgin." This doctrine was not received after the Council of Ephesus in 431. But became a standard in Syriac Christians and churches. Before he could see his work reexamined for his direction in the Council of Chalcedon 451 he died.  
Most scholars agree that there were more subtleties and meaning in langues that was used in the councils.  It is now known what language  Nestorius spoke as a mother tongue, but it is well known that he spoke or understood at least two languages: Aramaic and Greek. Ostler notes, "It is not known what language was Nestorius's mother tongue, though he must certainly have been fully conversant with Aramaic and Greek. His known works (only two of which have survived, a Liturgy and the so-called Bazaar of Heracleides, which is an apologia for his life's work) were apparently written in Greek, but translated into Aramaic."ccxxxvi  
These misnomers are also carried into other controversies and factions as well.  Further, "in theological polemics the true positions of both the Syrian Orthodox and the Church of East have frequently been seriously misrepresented, and the misleading nicknames of MONOPHYSITE or JACOBITE have been applied ot the former and NESTORIAN to the latter. Since `monophysite' is also used to describe the position of Eutychus, whom the Syrian Orthodox have from the beginning condemned, and since the Church of East's connection with Nestorius are very tenuous, these terms invite confusion and should be avoided."ccxxxvii  For them safeguard the reality of salvation in the Savior  the nature and person of Christ. 
 
Page Break 
Christology : Present and Future 
 
In his book Christology: A Global Introduction, Kärkkäinen talks about the (im)possibility of Christianity in the Postmodern era. He sees the period of this postmodernism as a searching for wholeness and disdain for a determined meaning, i. e. namely doctrines, creeds or systems of theology. He notes that, "What about the possibility of theology in general and Christology in particular in such an intellectual environment?...the postmodern outlook eschews all kinds of systematic theology,  
including Christology. Postmodernism by definition is hostile to claims concerning a determine meaning...postmodernism involves striving for wholeness."ccxxxviii Postmodernism does more care about living and experiencing in Christ than analyzing and systematizing about Christ. So there are many different theologies and tendencies and outlooks, such as, Liberal theology, Evangelical theology, Social theology, Process theology, Feminist theology, Black theology, Liberation theology, Asian theology and so forth.  
As the world gets smaller and more connected to each other, choices will become more numerous and available, including various teachings about Christ. It is very important to know and believe about Christology and continue to study its moral, political and theological and social background based on the outcome of the ecumenical councils.  Many more will challenge and want to know more about who Jesus is? And it will be asked in different contexts and backgrounds. Kärkkäinen notes, "the challenges of both contextualization and other religions raise anew the question of the relationship between Chris't work and his person, in other words, the relationship between soteriology and Christology proper. Here, as in any other areas, the necessity of speaking to the various and changing needs of specific context is urgent."ccxxxix Furthermore,  there will be also more different interpretations and sayings about Christ.  It is important that the Christians spread the correct teachings (orthodoxy) to others and those who inquire about the Christianity. Once the Christians spoke the Word, it will not be returned in vain. It will accomplish God's plan. According to the book of Isaiah 55: 11, God's Word (Seed) will not returen to Him in vain, but will accomplish what He purposed to do.  "So is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not returen to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."(NIV).  
When God sent His Son Jesus, who is Christ, He had certain purpose: love and gather His elect to His kingdom Mark 13: 27; John 3: 16). In Christianity, one of main tenets of teaching and confessions deals with forgiveness of sins and a promise of eternal life hereafter. It is a good news to the world which has been affected by sufferings, diseases, and injustice and death. God sent his Son Jesus Christ to love and save the world from eternal damnation. Whoever believe in him shall have eternal life is the promise that God has given to believers. Main questions that need to be answer are what or who is  Word (Logos)?  And most importantly Who is Jesus and what is Jesus relationship with the Word (Logos) and Who is and What is Christ?  These names or attributes have been dealt with and debated over more than eighth centuries. They produced endless meetings, synods, councils  as well as saints,  heretics, and orthodoxy and heresies. Some of the results were based  political and cultural biases as well as language barriers. It is well known that the language of Greek is highly scientific and ample in nuances and details, while Latin is more towards to legal and justice oriented, while Syriac is ancient language that goes way back to Aramaic that both Jesus and his disciples have known to spoke and felt home.  
In Christian cultural tradition, there are two parts that co-exists: Latin West and Greek East. Thee are three languages that are important: Latin, Greek and Aramaic Syrian. During the rise and development of Christian doctrine, Greek dominated and often official language of the Imperial courts, which means people who did not spoke Greek as their  mother tongue, one has to translate or mercy of others’ understanding and sympathies. All or most of early doctrines and teachings were  in Greek language. It is also true that Greek terminologies and meanings have been evolved or changed completely in different direction throughout times and depended on political and theological situations. There were other important groups and cultures presented as well, Ethiopian, Armenians, whose languages were somewhat hard to acquire to be used in controversies. But they represent parts of whole Christendom and its experience.   
When it comes dealing with the first part of the 5th century Christological controversy surrounding two key figures are Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. Historically speaking  the Council of Ephesus I (381) pronounced Cyril a champion of Orthodoxy while Nestorius as a heretic based on not much on his theological positions but political intrigues as well as his background as a rivalry to the see of Alexandria. González explains reasons for the fall, he notes, "Even if Nestorius had been prudent man, the ancient tension between Alexandrine and Antiochene theology, and the determination of Alexandria that it was not to be supplanted by the new capital, wold have been enough to create serious difficulties. But Nestorius was not a prudent man, and what could have been limited to some difficulties ended in tragedy."ccxl As far as Nestorius being a heretic, the Council of Ephesus declared it to be so.  Once again González notes, "Wa Nestorius really a heretic? In other words, was his doctrine such that  it denied some of the fundmental principles of the Christian faith? Or was he condemned rather for his lack of tact and Cyril's ambition and political ability? These are questions on which  scholars not in agreement."ccxli It is an interesting fact that it is Protestants who are calling him as a beginner of Protestantism. González notes, "Thus, many Protestants have seen in Nestorius a forerunner of Protestantism, on no other ground than his rejection of the title of "Mother of God."ccxlii This comes to a closure to Nestorius' story and legacy, and Antiochene Christology of the fifth century. 
In church history, there are some important geographical contexts to be considered. There are five major patriarchates or bishoprics: Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople; and during controversies or because of it, there were constant rivalry existed among patriarchates. Walker notes that, "Above the provincial or regional level, two institutions cameo t be of especial significance: the patriarchal sees, and the imperial or ecumenical councils. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon the numne of of partical see have been fixed at five (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). Aside from Jerusalem, whose status as a patriarchate was late (451) and largely honorary, these were not only churches which could traditionally claim apostolic foundation (Constantinople excepted) but also  churches located in economic,  political, and cultural centers."ccxliii  And they often sought favor or recognition from emperors as well, in order to gain their ascendensary. It is generally understood that there are four Greek speaking east, while Rome was considered west. Even though Rome mainly spoke Latin, their presence (Pope or delegates sent by Pope) was essential in making any council ecumenical or valid.ccxliv Rome was also given a title of primacy of honor, but it was for the purpose of councils. Walker notes, "Despite the primacy of honor accorded the pope of Rome, and despite the claims of the Roman see to a universal authority, the only central authority for the churches in the period of the Roman Empire was the ecumenical council, and this institution rested in practice on the secular authority of the imperial office."ccxlv The council to be called ecumenical there must be a major consensus from these patriarchates.  
The see of Alexandria, which is located in Egypt, was considered important Christian learning center, which produced such as Pantaenus (d. c. 190), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- c. 215) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 186-255). Especially, Origen was a important biblical exegete as well as thinker and influenced much of early Christian thoughts and dispositions.  
The see of Antioch, even though it was also part of Roman Empire, represented a typical Eastern Christianity. Despite Roman empire’s influence and presence, people in Antioch were distinctively eastern and Semitic; they spoke Aramaic, the language of ancient near-Eastern  for many centuries, and steeped into a deep Levant culture. And in Antioch, one of the two distinct theological school was developed and flourished. Walker notes that, "Antioch and Alexandria belonged to, and focused the ecclesiastical life of, those sections of the Roman empire whose indigenous tongues were Syriac ane Coptic.ccxlvi  These languages are still spoken today in  Syria and Egypt. Jesus Christ is same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13: 8). Teachings about Christology continue on.  
There are continuing conversations and dialogues going on today in ecumenical level with other Christians traditions.  Syrian Orthodox Church is active member of the World Council of Churches (joined 1960). In 1971, there was a joint declaration statement between Patriarch Ignatius Jacob III and Pope Paul VI. It included, "The precise differences in theology that caused the Chalcedonian controversy is said to have arisen `only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter."ccxlvii Further, "since1998, the head of the Oriental Orthodox Church including Coptic Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church participated in Interfaith dialogues each year."ccxlviii Antiochene Christians are only few Christian branches that can claim to be the antiquity Christianity. Its roots goes back to the beginning of Christianity. After all, followers of Jesus were called Christian in the city of Antioch (Acts 11: 26). Jerusalem is the mother of Christianity but it was the churches that started in Antioch, which spread and sent the missionaries throughout the Asia Minor, Europe and as far as China (Nestorian Churches).  
 
 
Page Break 
Conclusion 
Christians in Antioch or also known as Syrian Christianity, even though third rank  (after Rome and Alexandria) in the Patriarchates in Christin antiquity, once stood as one of the two most learning centers along with Alexandrian school. Even though it claims to possess many first's achievements, somehow it began to slip and declined into the backdrop. One of the causes of the downfall was condemnations of Antiochene theology, or Christological positions or stances. Lesson to be learned from Antioch Christians are twofolds: Never lost sight of the orthodoxy of the Church Fathers and  
God uses not only church but also political authority to do reveal His will.  Christian Church history shows how the school and believers at Antioch brought both brightest and darkest moments, especially during the 4-5th century, including Christological controversy surrounding Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. 
Historically speaking, even though Nestorius is known as a deposed bishop while Cyril as a champion of Orthodoxy, many unanswered questions and intrigues theological issues needs to be looked at and revisited.  One cannot turn the history back, but one can learn and not to make same mistakes again, Christian world needs not judge or argue but try to bring more reconciliations and dialogue and learn from each others. Still, we must continue to seek Christ's guidance and be led by the Holy Spirit. Once again, lesson for us is that just like the Lord Jesus said, "SO THE LAST WILL BE FIRST, AND THE FIRST WILL BE LAST." (Matthew 20: 17, NIV) 
 
 
 ​