The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.)-
Final Assignment
William C. King
CHHI510: Survey of the History of Christianity
August 10, 2025
Contents
Historical and Theological Context..................................................................................................1
Key Player and Theological Concerns..............................................................................................3
Nestorius.........................................................................................................................................3
Cyril of Alexandria...........................................................................................................................4
Pope Celestine I...............................................................................................................................4
Theodosius II...................................................................................................................................5
Context of Contemporary Ministry.................................................................................................6
Unity................................................................................................................................................7
Respect............................................................................................................................................8
Soteriological Clarity........................................................................................................................8
Ecclesiastical Authority....................................................................................................................9
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................11
ii
1
Throughout the history of the church, there have arisen divisions within the body of
Christ. Stemming from concepts of differing theologies, misinterpretations, to even malice,
there have been things which needed to be addressed. Fundamentally, this is what drove
correction in the church. The first council, the Jerusalem Council, met in 49A.D. to address
issues relating to Gentile conversion necessitating adherence to Jewish law as is seen in Acts 15.
As each council met, (ie: the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Constantinople (371),
Council of Chalcedon (451)), the factors spurring each council were paramount to preserve
theological soundness and ecclesial unity. It is against this backdrop the stage has been set for a
study into the understanding of nature of Christ and church unity through the scope of historical
context, key figures of the councils, and contextual insertion into contemporary ministry of
today.
Historical and Theological Context
From the early fourth century onward, ecumenical councils became the church’s
principal means of resolving theological disputes and codifying doctrine. Often the differences
and disputes of theology were resolved at a very local level by gatherings between bishops.
However, as expansion in the church happened, the church began to have political interactions
into the church. One such situation took place in 313A.D. where Constantine reached an
agreement with Licinius, the Eastern Roman emperor, to grant toleration for Christianity
throughout the empire. This accord brought an end to imperial persecution and secured the
freedom to practice one’s faith. Thus, the need arose for universal statements of faith in the
church.
Shortly following the edict’s release, the First Council of Nicaea met in 325A.D. This was
one of the first areas where the empowered also became involved in the religious debate scene.
2
However, as historian R.P.C. Hanson observes, “The emperor’s role was not merely that of a
neutral chairman; he was deeply concerned to ensure unity, which in turn supported imperial
cohesion.”1 Convened and heralded by Constantine, the council addressed the divinity of Christ
as its central issue, challenging the Arian position that the Son was a created being and was not
co-eternal with the Father. The response to this was the Nicene Creed which solidified the
formulation of homoousios (“of the same substance”), affirming the existence of the Trinity as
coequal and coeternal. In turn this further created debates within the church.
Out of the Council of Nicaea, the “Nicene Creed” was formulated dictating the necessity
of Jesus Christ being the Son of God yet coexistent and eternal with the Father. However, this
began to be challenged as well. The Council of Nicaea had condemned Arius and Arianism, yet
there were some in the eastern churches which held to and continued to promote the belief
systems of Arianism. Additionally, after the conclusion of the Council of Nicaea, the rise of
Pneumatomachians began to shape in which they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. One of
the preachings of reference is the claim: “If the Holy Spirit is God, either He is the Father or He is
the Son, otherwise He does not exist” 2 These two combined with the need to reaffirm the
Nicene beliefs, led to the First Council of Constantinople coming to fruition. After much debate,
the end result was the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This added to the existing Nicene
Creed with a concluding paragraph:
“And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who
proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.”3
1 R.P.C Hanson. Search for the Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1988. 129-178.
2 Giulio Maspero. "Different strategies of the Greek Fathers against the pneumatomachians." Vox Partum
(The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) 68 (December 2018).193-215.
3 The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Nicene Creed." Encyclopedia Britannica. June 18, 2025.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed (accessed August 9, 2025).
3
It is here the existence of the Trinity had been affirmed and the councils felt they had
successfully rendered heretical teachings incapable. However, the unity achieved at Nicaea and
Constantinople faced new challenges. The Trinity was no longer cause for debate. The challenge
now lay in the growing struggle over how Christ’s divinity and humanity coexisted. This became
the foothold that Nestorius needed to preach the heresies.
Key Player and Theological Concerns
Nestorius
Nestorius was born in Germanicia (or Turkey)4 and was reputed to be a gifted speaker
and defender of theology. This led to Emperor Theodosius II appointing him as leader for the
region of Constantinople. The heresies mentioned above divided Christ into two distinct
persons, the humanity as one and the divinity as the other which were later united. “Nestorius,
recently appointed bishop of Constantinople, had reacted to a sermon in which Mary was
celebrated as Theotokos (i.e., the one who gave birth to God) by saying that such a designation
had to be balanced by the term Anthropotokos (i.e., the one who gave birth to man).”5 This
essentially diminished the deity of Jesus at conception, thus the rise of what became defined as
Nestorianism. “It was, in his [Nestorius’] view, the human being Jesus who was in the proper
sense born of Mary, just as it was the human being Jesus who suffered, died, and was raised.”6
His concern was to protect the humanity of Christ fearing there were some lines between the
deity and humanity of Christ. However his noble intentions led to great debate which ultimately
4 The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Nestorius." Encyclopedia Britannica. June 18, 2025.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius (accessed August 10, 2025).
5 Thomas Weinandy, and Daniel Keating. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria : A Critical Appreciation. New
York: T&T Clark Ltd, 2003.55.
6 Richard A. Norris. The Christological Controversy. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1980.20.
4
led to the need for the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and this was the start of the Christological
Controversy.
Cyril of Alexandria
The Christological Controversy, as it were, became a dispute which needed some dire
resolution. If one removes the deity of Christ, there remains no fundamental atonement for sin.
The opposition for this controversy was Cyril of Alexandria. He was the Patriarch of Alexandria
from 412 to 444 A.D. and is recognized as huge proponent for steadfastness in the Logos of
Christ. He was a primary defender of the teaching of Theotokos. One of his propositions
asserted:
“But they by affirming that not Himself, the Word from out of God, WAS MADE flesh, or
underwent generation after the flesh from out of woman, take away the Economy. For
unless He being Rich became poor, lowering Himself out of His Clemency to our estate,
neither have WE gained the riches that are His, but are yet in poverty and holden of
curse and death and sin: for the Word BEING MADE flesh is the undoing and overthrow
of the things which from curse and penalty befell the nature of man. Therefore, if they
undermine the root of our salvation and dig up the foundation of our hope, where will
be that which follows? For (as I said) if the Word have not been MADE flesh, neither is
the sway of death overthrown, sin is in no wise brought to nought, and we are yet
subject to the transgressions of the first man, (i.e. Adam), having no return unto what is
better, through (I mean) Christ the Saviour of us all.”7
Pope Celestine I
Pope Celestine I was selected to be pope in 422 A.D. He was initially the presiding council
overseer for the smaller council, or synod. At the initial outset, he received information from
Cyril of Alexandria. Based on these reports, he condemned Nestorius’ heretical teachings and
issued a decree for Nestorius to renounce his blasphemy teachings within ten days or pay the
consequences. He felt that:
“By denying the Theotokos (and the Logos as the personal subject of the Incarnation),
Nestorius had in effect, Celestine argued, subtracted from the Creed. Indeed, the true
confession of Nicaea now involved, for Celestine, affirming a wider set of (largely
7 Cyril of Alexandria. "That Christ is One." In Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, by Cyril of
Alexandria. Oxford, United Kingdom, 1881.
5
Cyrilline) Christological emphases—and to fail to confess such doctrines represented an
impious credal ‘excision’. In this way, Celestine could claim that Nestorius had fallen
under the scriptural condemnation of those who added to, or subtracted from, the
faith.”8When the demands were not met, he turned the fate of Nestorius to the hands of
Cyril. This led to Nestorius requesting Emperor Theodosius II to oversee a council to
resolve the issue. The pope did not end up attending the council approved and
summoned by the emperor although he did support Cyril.
Theodosius II
The issue then rested for Nestorius to concede that Mary was, in fact, the one who bore
the literal Son of God, and thus theotokos. However, because this did not happen, Nestorius
requested an ecumenical council with the current emperor. Emperor Theodosius II convened
and summoned bishops from across his empire to gather for the council in the city of Ephesus.
Although he initiated the council, he did not personally preside over the council. Rather, it was
Cyril that led the council.
Theodosius, however, tried to remain impartial during the proceedings. His concern lay
in the political stability of his empire. He felt this was further exacerbated by the theological
disunity which was sparked in his reign and just like his predecessor, Constantine, that disunity
in the church could cause upheaval in his empire. As the council proceeded, the conflict wore on
over the Christology of Jesus. Cyril emphasized “The natures, however, which combined into
this real union were different, but from the two together is one God the Son, without the
diversity of the natures being destroyed by the union. For a union of two natures was made,
and therefore we confess One Christ, One Son, One Lord ... two natures, by an inseparable
union, met together in him without confusion, and indivisibly.”9 The end came as the council
voted. “Despite the fact that the emperor effectively annulled all prior decisions of the Roman
8 Mark S. Smith. The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, A.D. 431-451, Oxford University Press,
Incorporated, 2019. 88.
9 E. Artemi. "Cyril Of Alexandria’s Critique of The Term Theotokos by Nestorius Constantinople." Acta
Theologica 32, no. 2 (2012): 1-16.
6
and Alexandrian synods regarding the person and opinions of Nestorius of Constantinople, Cyril
of Alexandria succeeded at the first session of the Council, which opened in Ephesus on 22 June
431, in obtaining a condemnation of Nestorius, even in the face of significant opposition from
many participants.”10 Theodosius, though he had tried to remain impartial, was ultimately
pressured into the governing decision of the council by both Cyril and Pope Celestine I, and he
was ultimately the final decision in the exile of Nestorius. “After Nestorius was deposed and sent
into exile, Theodosius II ordered that his theological works be destroyed.”11 After the council of
Ephesus had concluded, the escalation of verbal hostilities had subsided, the church was still in
disarray. John of Antioch made accusations against Cyril and the divide between the eastern and
western churches continued to be divided until the release of the Formula of Union in 433A.D.,
a simple compromise between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria driven by Emperor
Theodosius II.
Context of Contemporary Ministry
Some of the biggest lessons learned from these historical councils are still applicable
today. The mere start of all the debate arose from misunderstanding scripture, wrong
application, and ultimately the theological construct of the church beliefs. In some of the
reference points, the principles which were learned are found. One such is the conciliar unity.
Unity
The Council of Ephesus highlights the necessity for church unity, both at the local level as
well as the denominational and even global level. Although as long as humanity exists, there will
never be full unity among denominations, there can be denominational unity amongst
10 Mikhail Viacheslavovich Gratsianskiy. "Council of Ephesus of 431: Between “Apostatic Synedrion” and
“Universal Council”." Античная древность и средние века (Ural Federal University) 52 (2024).
11 Susan Wessel. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy : The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2004.236.
7
themselves and even local church unity. The imperial assembly of bishops to the Council of
Ephesus showcased that the need for preserving apostolic faith was fundamental to interpreting
scripture and that this was not something meant to be an individual responsibility but rather an
action carried out by the whole of the church as in a council. It also proved there could be unity
even when there resides cogitation and debate, spiritual and theological correction, and shared
institutional authority.
As an example, the Church of God houses a biennial conference where it meets to
discuss any changes to doctrine in the denomination. “All the changes in government and polity
have been duly authorized by the International General Assembly in its various sessions which
adopts measures by a majority vote of all Church of God members present and registered at the
International General Assembly.”12 This practical application is one which was derived from the
Council of Ephesus. The Council of Ephesus highlighted that unity requires denomination wide
(or institution wide) consensus to make changes to polity among believers. Furthermore, it
proved this can only be achieved through disciplined, well understood, theological discussion
and the willingness to allow the discernment of the wider body of believers to influence the
outcome.
12 Daniel L. Black, ed. Minutes 2024; Church of God Book of Discipline, Church Order, and Governance. Vol.
78. Cleveland, Tennessee: Church of God Publishing House, 2024.65.
Respect
Furthermore, when pastors from other denominations discuss theology from a differing
background, this council shows how leaders in the church should address disputes and divisions
both from a theological standpoint and the tact with which they address others. The plan is to
8
keep politics out of discussions and in between denominational differences or even local church
differences, operate and function in a way which brings glory to God rather than causing further
disunity in the body of Christ. There are ways to address theological differences without being
hostile toward others and this evidenced in the Council of Ephesus.
Soteriological Clarity
One of the more important lessons learned comes in the context of salvation within
theology. Had the council not been held, there may never have been solidarity between the
churches of where salvation was provided. By affirming the theotokos of Mary and the unity of
the dual natures of Christ, the council was able to agree to the theological integrity of the
gospel. Christ had. to be human to bear the sin of the world, yet He had to be fully divine in
order to atone for the sins of the world. If Christ were two separate persons which were later
reunited as Nestorius proposed, then the atonement could not have been solidified through just
a mere mortal or even a deity which could not bear the sins because of His holiness. The
affirmation of the duality of Christ allows for salvation to be complete sin removed and not
merely covered as the yearly atonement provided.12 Salvation and total sin removal was possible
only through the duality of the natures of Christ.
Ecclesiastical Authority
Another implication resounding from the council was the authority of orthodoxy
creation and or correction. The council demonstrated that ecumenical decisions, even when
convened by the emperor, required theological legitimacy rooted in Scripture, tradition, and the
unified witness of the bishops across the body of Christ. The council affirmed that even
powerful patriarchs like Nestorius were subject to the collective judgment of the Church. No
12 For more information on the atonement, please visit https://cogconquer.com/2020/06/19/the-power-of-
tetelestai/.
9
single leader, regardless of office, could unilaterally redefine orthodoxy. This resounds in
ministry avenues today worldwide. The National Council of Churches, World Council of
Churches, National
Association of Evangelicals, Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and even into
Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam are all councils which govern overarching theology when it comes
to religion. The Christian councils involve no political intervention outside the church. Even into
the context of the 1802 letter to Danbury Baptist Association where Thomas Jefferson termed
“a wall of separation” in which the federal government should not establish an official religion
or interfere in religious matters. The context still remains applicable today that the government
should not infringe upon the church and allows for the free exercise of religion in the United
States.
Conclusion
Clearly the overwhelming evidence shows how there is much historical prominence
and theological profundity in the events of the Ephesian Council of 431 A.D.. Because of the
outfall of this council, there have many numerous impacts which impact even the
Christianity we are a part of today. It is because of the spiritual guidance of church
forefathers that one is able to understand who Christ is and encounter a deeper relationship
with Him. The Council of Ephesus’ decisions have continued to define Christian orthodoxy
for nearly sixteen centuries. Its doctrinal affirmations on the person of Christ remain
foundational to the theological identity of the majority of Christian traditions, Eastern and
Western alike, making it a landmark moment in the history of the Church’s teaching.
11
Bibliography
Alexandria, Cyril of. "That Christ is One." In Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, by
Cyril of Alexandria. Oxford, United Kingdom, 1881.
Artemi, E. "Cyril Of Alexandria’s Critique of The Term Theotokos by Nestorius Constantinople."
Acta Theologica 32, no. 2 (2012): 1-16.
Black, Daniel L, ed. Minutes 2024; Church of God Book of Discipline, Church Order, and
Governance. Vol. 78. Cleveland, Tennessee: Church of God Publishing House, 2024.
Gratsianskiy, Mikhail Viacheslavovich. "Council of Ephesus of 431: Between “Apostatic
Synedrion” and “Universal Council”." Античная древность и средние века (Ural
Federal University) 52 (2024).
Hanson, R.P.C. Search for the Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark Ltd, 1988.
Maspero, Giulio . "Different strategies of the Greek Fathers against the pneumatomachians." Vox
Partum (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) 68 (December 2018).
Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1980.
Smith, Mark S. The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, A.D. 431-451. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2019.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Nestorius." Encyclopedia Britannica. June 18, 2025.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius (accessed August 10, 2025).
—. "Nicene Creed." Encyclopedia Britannica. June 18, 2025.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed (accessed August 9, 2025).
Weinandy, Thomas, and Daniel Keating. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria : A Critical
Appreciation. New York: T&T Clark Ltd, 2003.
Wessel, Susan. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy : The Making of a Saint and of
a Heretic. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2004.
