湃 恩
筆者在本文旨在從涅斯多留（Nestorius，AD386-451）的《駁生神者的第一講章（First Sermon Against the Theotokos）》，以及亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril of Alexandra，AD376-444）的《論基督的合一（On the Unity of Christ）》，論證在第五世紀涅斯多留與區利羅之間的基督論爭論中，區利羅憑著聚焦於救恩的經綸，以及運用「屬性相通」的概念，他成功地達到三個目標：(1)批判了涅斯多留對基督道成肉身的理解；(2)為以「生神者」（God-bearer）稱呼童貞女馬利亞提供了辯護理由；並最後 (3)發展出基督論模型的表達方式，奠定迦克墩會議中基督論界說的公式。
In this essay, I argue according to Nestorius
's Arius’s First Sermon Against the Theotokos and Cyril of Alexandra’s On the Unity, that in the fifth century Christological controversy between Nestorius of
Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, by focusing on the economy of salvation
and using the concept of "communication of attributes", Cyril successfully
achieved three goals: (1) criticized Nestorian's understanding on Christ's
incarnation; (2) justified the use of the title "Theotokos"
(God-bearer) on Virgin Mary; and finally (3) developed the articulation of
Christological model, which enables the formulation of the "Definition of
Faith" in the Council of Chalcedon.
涅斯多留對「生神者」和基督成肉身的理解
Nestorians’ Understanding of "Theotokos"
and Christ's Incarnation
涅斯多留受訓於安提阿學派，他採用「道-人」基督論（Word-human Christology）模型，相信神聖的道住在完全的人位—耶穌—裡，因而強調基督的人性。他於428年上任為君士坦丁堡牧首後，認為用「生神者」來稱呼馬利亞極不恰當，這稱呼暗示「神有一個母親」，並認為馬利亞不過是「生了一個人」，是「神的工具」而已。因此，他建議改以使用「生人者」（anthropotokos）或「生基督者」（Christotokos）來稱呼馬利亞。並且，涅斯多留為著持守神的不變性和不能受苦性，他認為成肉身之基督有兩種性情，經歷受苦和復活的，乃是基督的人性，而基督的神性則一直沒有受影響而改變，甚至連成肉身也沒有讓神性有所改變。
As trained in Antiochene
School, Nestorius
employs a Word-human Christology model, which believes
that the divine Word lived within the fully human person, Jesus, thus emphasizing
the humanity of Christ. After becoming Patriarch of Constantinople in 428,
Nestorius argued that the title Theotokos was highly inappropriate for Mary, implying
"God has a mother", and that Mary only "gave birth to the human
being, the instrument of the Godhead". He thus suggested to call Mary anthropotokos
(man-bearer) or Christotokos (Christ-bearer) instead.[1]
Moreover, for upholding God's
immutability and impassibility[2],
Nestorius maintains that the natures of the incarnate Christ are two in number,
and it is Christ's humanity that suffers and is raised up, whereas Christ's
divinity is always unaffected by change, even undergoing Incarnation.[3]
區利羅對涅斯多留的成肉身觀的批判
Cyril’s critique of the Nestorian perception of the
Incarnation
區利羅面對涅斯多留的挑戰，他著眼於尋求一種論述方式能同時肯定神聖的不變性和不能受苦性，以及基督的神人二性的合一性。他跟隨亞歷山大學派的「道-肉」基督論（Word-Flesh
Christology）模型，強調基督的神性。區利羅相信根據約翰的經文「道成了肉身」（約一14），在成肉身中神聖的道與人性的肉身有在本體上的聯合。區利羅繼承亞歷山大的傳統，強調在道成肉身中完全的人性與完全的神性有無法分割的合一。
Facing Nestorius's challenges, Cyril is
concerned to find an articulation to simultaneously affirm both the divine immutability and impassibility, as well as the
divine-human unity of Christ. Following Alexandrian's Word-flesh Christology
model, which emphasizes the divinity of Christ, Cyril believes that based on
the Johannine verse - “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14)[4],
there is a substantial union of divine Word and human flesh in Incarnation. Cyril
inherits Alexandrian tradition, emphasizing the indivisible unity of full
humanity and full divinity when the Word became flesh.
使用「結合」（Conjunction）和「聯合」（Union）產生不同含意
Different Implications in using "Conjunction" and
"Union"
區利羅首先批判涅斯多留使用「結合」（Conjunction）而非從以前教父們所慣常使用的「聯合」（Union）這辭。涅斯多留擔心「聯合」這辭會暗示「混淆所指涉的事物」，但區利羅證明涅斯多留的成肉身觀明顯地有違聖經經文。區利羅指出與道「結合」並不足以表明成肉身之道的神性，並因而將成肉身的子分裂成兩個「子」—神子與人子。區利羅進而批判涅斯多留派將獨生之道換作成他們所宣稱與道結合的受造物，使道看似不過是「拯救和提升我們的人」。我們所敬拜的「不過是人造的偶像」而已。
To begin with, Cyril criticized Nestorius's
use of the term "conjunction" rather than "union", which is
the customary and conventional term that comes down from the fathers. Nestorians
worried the term "union" implied "the confusion of things it
refers to",[5] however, Cyril shows how
the Nestorian concept of the incarnation clearly goes against the Scripture. He
pointed out that a "conjunction" with the Logos is not enough to grasp
the divinity of the Incarnate Word,[6]
and thus divides the Incarnate Son into two "sons" – Son of God and
son of man.[7] Cyril goes further to
criticize that the Nestorians are pushing the Only Begotten Word out and
replacing Him with this creature that they claim had become conjoined to Him,[8]
making Him seem merely “the Patron or Promoter of the man by whom we were saved,”[9]
and our worship as "nothing more than the idolatry of a man."[10]
救恩的關切
Concern to Salvation
就如其他亞歷山大教父們，區利羅堅持使用「聯合」是因他關切救恩的經綸。他認為基督為著要經歷死、從死復活、勝過罪，以恢復我們犯罪的人性致神性，祂必須要按照肉體從一位女人而生。因此，區利羅指控涅斯多留對成肉身的解釋，使救贖人性的救恩失效，令救恩的經綸徹底落空。
Like other
Alexandrian fathers, the reason of Cyril's insistence on keeping use of
"union" is his concern about the economy of salvation. He argues, in
order to die, to raise from death, to overcome sin, so as to restore our sinful
humanity into divinity, Christ was required to be born from a woman according
to the flesh.[11] Cyril therefore accused
the Nestorian explanation of the incarnation of being invalid toward the redemptive
salvation of humanity, bankrupting the economy of salvation.[12]
神的不改變性
Immutability of God
為了回應涅斯多留派的觀點，以為神的不改變性會在祂與人性聯合中改變，區利羅解釋當神成為人時，祂並沒有將自己改變成肉身，也沒有與任何其他物質混合或調和，而是「倒空」自己來取得像我們樣式的肉身（腓二4~8），以恢復我們人性到原初。區利羅肯定道在本質上是真神，當祂由一位女人而生時，祂在本質上仍保持不變，並從過去到永遠一直沒有改變。
In response to the Nestorian's view that
God's impassibility would be changed or alternated in his union with humanity,
Cyril explains that when God became man, he did not change himself into flesh,
nor mix nor blend with anything else, but "emptied" himself to take
flesh in a form like our own, (Phil 2:4-8) for the sake of restoring our flesh
to its beginning. Cyril confirms that even when the Word was born of a woman,
he as true God by nature keeps immutable by nature and remains that which he
was and is forever.[13]
屬性相通的概念
Concept of Communication of attributes
區利羅承繼使徒保羅和亞他那修的「交換公式」（exchange formula），他認為成肉身的意義乃是「祂親自取了我們的所是，為要使我們得到祂一切的所是。」照著這一思想，他發展出「屬性相通」（Communicatio
idiomatum）的概念，即在基督與肉身的聯合中，神聖的屬性能夠「相通」至人性裡（相反亦然）。區利羅運用這概念，來說明基督在肉身裡如何取上神對人性的咒詛和判罰，以致人能夠分享祂的豐富。
Succeeding
Apostle Paul's and Athanasius's "exchange formula", Cyril considers the
significance of Incarnation is that "he took what was ours to be his
very own so that we might have all that was his."[14]
In this thought, he developed the concept of "communication of
attributes" (Communicatio idiomatum) that the divine attributes can
be "communicated" to humanity (and vice versa) in the union of Christ
with flesh.[15] With the help of this
concept, Cyril illustrates how Christ in his flesh can take up the human curse
and punishment so that man might share his riches.[16]
神的不受苦性
Impassibility of God
此外，區利羅更進一步以「屬性相通」的概念，來解答「神的受苦」這問題。他認為在基督的位格裡，「稱神經歷了苦難並沒有將祂貶低，因祂並非在神格的本體內，而是在祂自己的肉身內受苦」，因為人的屬性—死—在基督一個聯合的位格內能「相通」至神性。因此，儘管區利羅認同神一直維持祂的不能受苦性，但由於受苦是發生「在肉身」裡，我們仍能說「神自己在肉身裡受苦（彼前三18）。
Furthermore, Cyril goes on resolving the
question of "God's suffering" with the concept of "communication
of attributes". He argues that in the person of Christ, "to say that
God suffered do no disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in the nature of the
godhead, but in his own flesh,"[17]
because the human attribute – die - "communicates" to God in the one
united person of Christ. Hence, as "in the flesh" is where the
suffering occurs, we can say "God himself suffered in the flesh"
(1 Pet 3:18), even though he retains his impassibility as he is understood as
God.[18]
總結來說，區利羅憑著運用「屬性相通」的概念，成功有力地批判了涅斯多留的基督論，並發展了他對基督論模型的論述，這模型是捍衛基督位格的合一，為著由成肉身所帶來救恩。因此，他宣稱這是合理且有確實必要去稱呼馬利亞為「生神者」。儘管區利羅運用「屬性相通」來描述神在肉身受苦，但他仍不住強調神在肉身裡受苦是一個奧祕，是完全不能言述得透，遠超我們所想所說的。
In summary, with the concept of
"communication of attributes", Cyril persuasively criticized Nestorian's Christology and developed arguments for his Christological model, which
defends the necessity of unity of Christ's person as a result of the
incarnation for the sake of salvation. As a result, he claimed that it is
justifiable and necessary for us to call Mary "theotokos".[19]
Yet, despite the method of "communication of attributes" in
describing God's suffering in flesh, Cyril reiterated that this is still a
mystery, altogether ineffable, and transcends our thought and speech.[20]
回應
Responses
《尼西亞-君士坦丁堡信經》並未能徹底釐清基督的神性和人性之間的關係。在第五世紀涅斯多留與區利羅之間的基督論爭論，可視為東方教會安提阿學派和亞歷山大學派的分岐，以及第四世紀亞波里拿留主義和第一次君士坦丁堡爭議的延續。雖然涅斯多留和區利羅二人，均旨在依據尼西亞正統來建立一套基督論論述公式，但涅斯多留乃是從基督的二重性情的角度來理解基督，而區利羅則是從基督的合一位格來理解。前者的理解容易傾向兩個分裂的位格，而後者則容易變成一性論（Monophysitism）。按筆者認為，區利羅的基督論模型最終對迦克墩會議的決議產生最大的影響，最主要原因是區利羅在緊緊跟隨尼西亞傳統和聖經之下，成功地解決在關於理解基督的神學張力。更重要的是，他關切成肉身所帶來之救恩，因而強調基督位格內不可分割的聯合（indivisible
hypostatic union ）。儘管區利羅在他與涅斯多留之間的競爭行為而飽受爭議，但因著他的努力，他大大奠定了迦克墩界說，就是「基督以一個位格、兩種性情存在」，以及「四道牆」（二性不能混合、不能改變、不能分割、不能分開），這保守了教會在正統內理解基督作救主，直至今天。筆者認為這點乃是區利羅對教會最大的貢獻。整個爭論的過程有助我們反思今天我們該如何做神學。
The Nicaea-Constantinople Creed did not
clarify thoroughly the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures. The
Christological controversy between Nestorius and Cyril in the fifth century can
be seen as the dispersed views between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christology
in Eastern Church in the continuation of Apollinarianism and the First Council
of Constantinople in the fourth century. Though both Nestorius and Cyril have
the intention of creating an Christological formula staying inside Nicene
orthodoxy, Nestorius viewed Christ from the perspective of Christ's duality (natures),
while Cyril takes Christ's unity (person). The former easily turns into two
divisive persons while the latter Monophysitism (one-nature). In my opinion,
the primary reasons why Cyril's Christological model had been greatly
influential on the final conclusion in the Council of Chalcedon are that he
successfully resolved the theological tension surrounding our understanding of
Christ by closely following the Nicene tradition and Scripture, and most
importantly, emphasizing the indivisible hypostatic union under the concern of
salvation through the incarnation. Cyril is disputable in his rivalry with
Nestorius. Nevertheless, with his effort, he enabled the formulation of the Chalcedonian
Creed, which defined "Christ as existing in two natures, divine and human,
in one person", and whose "four boundaries" - no confusion, no change, no division, no
separation of the two natures - have
been preserving the Church in the Orthodox understanding of Christ as Savior from
their current time till today. I think that this is Cyril's greatest contribution
to the Church, and the whole controversy is valuably worth us reflecting on our
theological thinking in doing theology today.
[1] Nestorius, First Sermon Against the
Theotokos, trans.and edited Richard A. Norris, JR. (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1980), 124-125.
[2] Ibid., 125: "Moreover, the
incarnate God did not die; he raised up the one in whom he was incarnate…that
the [divine] being has become incarnate and that the immutability of the
incarnate deity is always maintained after the union."
[3] Ibid., 126: "The description are different
from each other by reason of the mysterious fact that the natures are two in
number. Furthermore, it is not only this – that Christ as God is
unaffected by change."
[4]
Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of
Christ, trans. John McGuckin (Chrestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1995), 69: "Nonetheless I think that it is exactly this, nothing else,
that the all-wise Joh meat when he wrote: 'The Word became flesh'."
[5] Ibid., 73: "Then why do they abandon the term 'union,'
even though it is the word in customary use among us, and indeed has come
down to us from the holy Fathers, preferring to call it a conjunction? The
term union in no way causes the confusions of the things it refers
to."
[6] Ibid., 73: "But is this mere conjunction with the
Word enough to allow him to grasp the proper glory of God and rise above the
bounds of the created order?"
[7] Ibid., 74: "How wicked they (Nestorians) are,
then, when they divide in two the one true and natural Son incarnated and
made man, and when they reject the union and call it a conjunction
something that any other man could have with God."
[8]
Ibid., 73: "But this is mere conjunction with the Word enough to allow him
to grasp the proper glory of God and rise above the bounds of the created
order? Does this make him an object of worship even though he is not God?"
[9] Ibid., 70: "But if this were so, how could
the Only Begotten be said to have been the Savior of the World? Would he not rather
have been the Patron and Promoter of that man by whom we are saved?"
[10] Ibid., 71: "…they drag down the most wonderful
part of the economy to a disgraceful level and make out our most holy
worship as nothing more than the idolatry of a man.
[11]
Ibid., 57: "For it this approach is taken as the truth then the whole
sense of the mystery is lost to us; for Christ is not born, neither did he
die, neither was he raised… How did God raise him from the dead if he did not
die? And how could he die if he had not been born according to the flesh?"
[12] Ibid., 59: "When they (Nestorians) say
that the Word of God did not became flesh, or rather did not undergo birth from
a woman according to the flesh, they bankrupt the economy of salvation."
[13] Ibid., 54-55: "Immutable by nature, he
remains that which he was and is for ever,…He did not change himself
into flesh; he did not endure any mixture or blending, or anything else of
this kind. But he submitted himself to being emptied…but rather animated
with a rational soul, and thus he restored flesh to what it was in the
beginning… He was born of a woman according to the flesh in a wondrous
manner, for he is God by nature, as such invisible and incorporeal, and only in
this way, in a form like our own, could he be made manifest to earthly
creatures."
[14] Ibid., 59: "In short, he took
what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was his.
'He was rich but he became poor for our sake, so that we might be
enriched by his poverty (2 Cor 8:9)'"
[15] Ibid., 59: "The One Who Exists, is
necessarily born of the flesh, taking all that is ours into himself so
that all that is born of the flesh, that is us corruptible and perishing
beings, might rest in him."
[16] Ibid., 59-60: " if he who is rich does not
impoverish himself… then we have not gained his riches but are still in our
poverty, still enslaved by sin and death because Word becoming flesh is the
undoing and the abolition of all that fell upon human nature as our curse and
punishment…a return which I would say has been gained by Christ the Savior
of us all."
[17] Ibid., 115: "To say that he suffered does
no disgrace to him, for he did not disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in
the nature of the godhead, but in his own flesh."
[18] Ibid., 117: "So, even if he is
said to suffer in the flesh, even so he retains his impassibility
insofar as he is understood as God…he (scripture writer) know that he was
speaking about God, and so he attributed impassibility to him insofar as he is
understood as God, adding on, most skillfully, 'in the flesh,' which is, of
course, where the suffering occurs."
[19]
Ibid., 55: "This is what we mean when we say that he became flesh, and for
the same reasons we affirm that the holy virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos)."
[20] Ibid., 130-131: "He suffers in
his own flesh, and not in the nature of the Godhead. The method of these is altogether
ineffable, and there is no mind that can attain to such subtle and
transcendent ideas… If the flesh that is united to him, ineffably and in
a way that transcends thought or speech."
