Nestorius is accused of proposing an early form of dualism and is labeled a heretic of the church. But this is really too strong of language for him and his position about Christ was simply widely misunderstood. Although rejected as orthodox today he openly wrestled and questioned traditional theology and tried to reconcile Christ as both God and man. Nestorius' theory is a laudable attempt to preserve intact and complete the two natures, Godhead and manhood of Christ.
Nestorius was fiercely opposed by Cyril of Alexandria who rebuttal his position with letters directed at Nestorius while at the same time presenting his own position. Nestorius was called to the council of ephesus to defend himself but instead it was a witch hunt meant only to depose him and label him a heretic. Nestorius is quoted saying "I was summoned by Cyril who assembled the Council, by Cyril who presided. Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril!!! Cyril was everything.". It's no surprise he didn't even bother showing up and it's no surprise he was called a heretic.
His position was that the incarnation was t̶w̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶s̶o̶p̶o̶n̶[two hypostases] (early development of "nature") conjoined together to form one prosopon, he preferred the term conjunction over a union because he felt a union suggested the divinity of Christ as a created being trying to refute Arianism. He refused the term Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary and said Christotokos (Mother of Christ) was a more theologically correct term for him which was a platform for his theory of who Christ was. This was looked at from the church as an attack on Christ by dividing Christ in two but in his defence Nestorius was trying to reconcile the person of Christ in his human understanding even if he did get it wrong.
He was the see of Constantinople so certainly not a small player, his demise was his obstinate position and pride. Cyril was no different but it turned into a west vs east thing and one had to loose which meant complete excommunication. Cyril's position later was thought of an expression of nicene Christianity but in an ironic twist Nestorius can be seen as an early advocate to the 2 natures of Christ better articulated in the council of Chalcedon (because of this we are Chalcedonian Christians). He wrestled with the logic and while commendable missed the mark but he certainly wasn't a heretic and was trying to defined nicene Christianity.
Nestorius was exiled and a place he found himself was in the Arabian desert where nestorianism later had a following (later he went to Egypt). In fact Muhammad's wife khadija is said to be a nestorian Christian. The implications are had both Nestorius and Cyril worked together on the early doctrine of Christ rather than head hunt each other the early church of the Arabian Peninsula may have been exposed to system in communion with orthodox Christianity rather in opposition to it which left it unchecked and open to heresies. Muhammad's view of Christianity certainly was nicene so I wonder where it fell apart but Nestorius no doubt continued to be obstinate and probably resented the church. Had Cyril and Nestorius been more eccumenical perhaps the early Christian exposure in the AP would have been better received and had better accountability. Perhaps Muhammad himself could have been an advocate for orthodox Christianity.
It's a shame Nestorius is demonized so much. He was stubborn and opinionated but so were most of the bishops. He should have never been treated as he was and should be posthumously restored in communion with the church; rather considered a heretic he should be considered an early Father of the the doctrine of nature of Christ.
Nestorius was fiercely opposed by Cyril of Alexandria who rebuttal his position with letters directed at Nestorius while at the same time presenting his own position. Nestorius was called to the council of ephesus to defend himself but instead it was a witch hunt meant only to depose him and label him a heretic. Nestorius is quoted saying "I was summoned by Cyril who assembled the Council, by Cyril who presided. Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril!!! Cyril was everything.". It's no surprise he didn't even bother showing up and it's no surprise he was called a heretic.
His position was that the incarnation was t̶w̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶s̶o̶p̶o̶n̶[two hypostases] (early development of "nature") conjoined together to form one prosopon, he preferred the term conjunction over a union because he felt a union suggested the divinity of Christ as a created being trying to refute Arianism. He refused the term Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary and said Christotokos (Mother of Christ) was a more theologically correct term for him which was a platform for his theory of who Christ was. This was looked at from the church as an attack on Christ by dividing Christ in two but in his defence Nestorius was trying to reconcile the person of Christ in his human understanding even if he did get it wrong.
He was the see of Constantinople so certainly not a small player, his demise was his obstinate position and pride. Cyril was no different but it turned into a west vs east thing and one had to loose which meant complete excommunication. Cyril's position later was thought of an expression of nicene Christianity but in an ironic twist Nestorius can be seen as an early advocate to the 2 natures of Christ better articulated in the council of Chalcedon (because of this we are Chalcedonian Christians). He wrestled with the logic and while commendable missed the mark but he certainly wasn't a heretic and was trying to defined nicene Christianity.
Nestorius was exiled and a place he found himself was in the Arabian desert where nestorianism later had a following (later he went to Egypt). In fact Muhammad's wife khadija is said to be a nestorian Christian. The implications are had both Nestorius and Cyril worked together on the early doctrine of Christ rather than head hunt each other the early church of the Arabian Peninsula may have been exposed to system in communion with orthodox Christianity rather in opposition to it which left it unchecked and open to heresies. Muhammad's view of Christianity certainly was nicene so I wonder where it fell apart but Nestorius no doubt continued to be obstinate and probably resented the church. Had Cyril and Nestorius been more eccumenical perhaps the early Christian exposure in the AP would have been better received and had better accountability. Perhaps Muhammad himself could have been an advocate for orthodox Christianity.
It's a shame Nestorius is demonized so much. He was stubborn and opinionated but so were most of the bishops. He should have never been treated as he was and should be posthumously restored in communion with the church; rather considered a heretic he should be considered an early Father of the the doctrine of nature of Christ.
Last edited:
