Abstract
Studies on the Christological controversy between Nestorius and Cyril have largely centred around the interpretation of the union of the natures in Christ. Examinations of the debate have historically taken an ontological focus, answering the question of how the divine and human natures were understood to be united in the person of Christ. In this thesis, I have taken a different approach to the controversy. Rather than dwelling further on the how, I believe it is more fruitful to understand why Nestorius and Cyril held such divergent opinions on the union. I contend that the main driving factor behind their respective ontological conclusions can be found in their conflicting soteriological views. While Nestorius understands salvation as the restoration of humanity through Christ the second representative of humanity after Adam, Cyril believes that salvation comes through the deification of the human nature through Christ. Their different presuppositions regarding soteriology and the divine economy are most evident in their exegeses. An original aspect of this dissertation is the comparison of their approaches to scriptural interpretation, highlighting the distinct emphases they place on different aspects of Christology as a result of their soteriological concerns. I contend that their ontological explanations of the union (as either prosopic or hypostatic) are but a reflection of their overall understandings of the divine economy which can be best observed from their exegeses.