THE TWELVE CHAPTERS

When St. Cyril realized that Nestorius’ teachings had far reaching consequences as far as the
incarnational and soteriological theology is concerned, he started a campaign to expose these
heretical teaching. He wrote letters to the leading bishops supported by a folder of sayings of
the earlier fathers that condemn these teachings. St. Cyril was the first to use this collection
of the sayings of the fathers to support a theological argument, a practice that was followed
successfully by St. Dioscorus, St. Timothy and St. Severus.
St. Cyril wrote to St. Celestine of Rome and had the letter and the folder of the sayings
of the fathers translated into Latin. St. Celestine asked St. John Cassian to look into the matter
since he “did not understand the arguments of those eastern bishops”! Cassian, who spent
years in Egypt and Palestine, and understood the language of the eastern bishops told him that
St. Cyril was right and Nestorius was a heretic. At this time Leo was a deacon and secretary
of St. Celestine and was fully aware of the controversy.
St. Celestine held a local synod and condemned the teachings of Nestorius and sent a
letter to St. Cyril asking him to give Nestorius 10 days to recant and if he does not then he
should be excommunicated.
St. Cyril sent his third letter to Nestorius and appended to it 12 anathemas and told
Nestorius that unless he accepts the 12 anathemas he will be excommunicated. Nestorius
rejected the 12 anathemas and countered by 12 reversed anathemas! These 12 anathemas
became historically known as the “Twelve Chapters”.
St. Cyril then, sent a letter explaining the orthodox faith to the emperor Theodosius II,
who on November 19, 430 AD sends orders to convoke a council at Ephesus on 7th of June the
following year, on the feast of Pentecost. (431 AD)
Nestorius arrived first with 16 bishops. He was met with a hostile reception from
Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus, who with his forty Asian bishops was solidly pro-Cyril.
St. Cyril arrives next with fifty bishops and several monks, including St. Shenoute the
archimandarite. St. Cyril was also accompanied by his secretary, the deacon Dioscorus.
On 21st of June an advance party, consisting of Alexander of Apamea and Alexander
of Hierapolis arrived who brought a letter together with a verbal message from John of
Antioch (a supporter of Nestorius). The letter spoke of the hardships suffered on the journey
and said that the main party was “five or six stages” from Ephesus. The accompanying message
was: The Lord John the bishop told us to say to your Reverence, “If I am late, do what you
must do.”
Since it was already two weeks after the date specified by the emperor (June 7), the
council was convened on Monday June 22, 431 AD.
The bishops assembled in the cathedral of Ephesus, the Great Church of St Mary the
Theotokos. A delegation was sent to Nestorius to invite him to attend. The delegates waited
for several hours in the courtyard of his lodgings, but he refused to receive them.
Peter (secretary of the council) then announced that he had books to hand of the saying
of the Fathers with select passages marked in them which he would read if requested. This was
the first time that a patristic florilegium (folder) was put forward for the establishment of

1
doctrine. The practice seems to have been an innovation of St. Cyril’s.
The three letters of St. Cyril (including the 12 anathemas) were read, followed by
Nestorius answers. The secretary of the council then handed copies of the “florilegium” to the
bishops. After discussions, the council voted. All 197 bishops signed the deed of deposition of
Nestorius. Notice of deposition was delivered to him.
John of Antioch arrived after the conclusion of the council and was furious! He held
his own council and deposed St. Cyril and Memnon bishop of Ephesus! The Ephesians
responded by closing the churches to John and the 42 bishops who signed the deposition.
The Emperor accepted the decisions of both councils: St. Cyril, Nestorius and Memnon
bishop of Ephesus were deposed and imprisoned! The Emperor then formed a committee of
expert theologians: 7 from each party to find a solution. Nestorius losing hope asked to return
to his monastery. He is deposed and replaced with another bishop, and is sent to exile in Egypt.
St. Cyril and Memnon were released from prison. St. Cyril went home and was received as a
hero. St. Cyril came close to the fate of his successor St. Dioscorus.
John of Ephesus and his party refused to accept the decision and were deposed. St.
Cyril tried to reconcile with John of Ephesus. He finally succeeds. John accepted “Theotocos”
and condemned Nestorius. St. Cyril sent a letter to John of Ephesus beginning with this:

To my Lord, Beloved Brother and fellow-minister John, Cyril greeting in the

Lord. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad for the middle wall of
partition has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of
difference of opinion has been removed; Christ the Saviour of us all having
awarded peace to his churches.

Now let us look at the “twelve chapters” that will be discussed ever since even until today:

1. If anyone does not confess the Emmanuel to be truly God, and hence the holy virgin to be
Mother of God (for she gave birth in the flesh to the Word of God made flesh), let him be
anathema.

2. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was hypostatically united to the
flesh so as to be One Christ with his own flesh, that is the same one at once God and man, let
him be anathema.

3. If anyone divides the hypostases of the One Christ after the union, connecting them only by
a conjunction in terms of honour or dignity or sovereignty, and not rather by a combination
in terms of natural union, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone interprets the sayings in the Gospels and apostolic writings, or the things said
about Christ by the saints, or the things he says about himself, as referring to two prosopa or
hypostases, attributing some of them to a man conceived of as separate from the Word of God,
and attributing others (as divine) exclusively to the Word of God the Father, let him be

2
anathema.

5. If anyone should dare to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather that he is truly God as the one
natural Son, since the Word became flesh and ‘shared in flesh and blood just like us (.Heb.2.14), let him be
anathema.

6. If anyone says that the Word of God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not
rather confess the same one is at once God and man, since according to the scriptures the
Word has become flesh, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone says that Jesus as a man was activated by the Word of God and invested with the
glory of the Only Begotten, as being someone different to him, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone should dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped along with God
the Word and co-glorified and called ‘God as if he were one alongside another (for the
continual addition of the phrase ‘along with demands this interpretation) and does not rather
worship the Emmanuel with a single veneration and render him a single doxology since the
Word became flesh, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone says that the One Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, using the power
that came through him as if it were foreign to himself, and receiving from him the power to
work against unclean spirits and to accomplish divine signs for men, and does not rather say
that the Spirit is his very own, through whom he also worked the divine signs, let him be
anathema.

10. The divine scripture says that Christ became ‘the high priest and apostle of our confession
(Heb.3.1) and ‘offered himself for our sake as a fragrant sacrifice to God the Father (Eph.5.2).
So if anyone says that it was not the very Word of God who became our high priest and apostle
when he became flesh and man as we are, but it was someone different to him, a separate man
born of a woman; or if anyone says that he made the offering also for himself and not rather
for us alone (for he who knew no sin had no need of offerings), let him be anathema.

11. If anyone does not confess that the Lord’s flesh is life-giving and the very-own flesh of the
Word of God the Father, but says that it is the flesh of someone else, different to him, and
joined to him in terms of dignity, or indeed only having a divine indwelling, rather than being
life-giving, as we have said, because it has become the personal flesh of the Word who has the
power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.

12. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the
flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, becoming the first-born from the dead, although as God

3
he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.1

The first anathema is about the term “mother of God”, understandably. The second deals with
the “Hypostatic union” Anathemas 3-10 contradict several of the teachings of Nestorius. The
eleventh anathema confirms the doctrine of “communication of properties” by which the Word
communicated his life-giving property (attribute) to His own Flesh, which He received from
the holy Virgin Mary, and which we receive in the Eucharist. The twelfth anathema is about
the all important doctrine of “theopaschism”, which was a matter of debate between the
Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians for a century after Chalcedon.
As anyone can see, it was all about Christology and not “mariology”. It was about the
hypostatic union, theopaschism and communication of properties, doctrines that Leo’s Tome
opposed. The council of Chalcedon accepted the letters of St. Cyril to Nostorius but dropped
the 12 chapters since the would have anathematized the Tome of Leo, which the council
accepted.
It was only in the 5th “ecumenical” council held mor than a century after Chalcedon that
the 12 chapters were accepted together with a clear statement that “One of the Trinity suffered
on the Cross”.
Fr. McGouken (Eastern Orthodox) tells us the importance of the 12 chapters:

By adding the Anathemas to specify the nature of Nestorius recantation, Cyril

had shown his determination not to leave the central issue of the Christology
open to such a breadth of interpretation. He was determined to press the point
of single-subject Christology in the most vigorous manner he could, and this is
why his Anathemas leave no room at all for manouevre. They are a bold and
strong statement of the Alexandrian position, in the graphic language of
paradox, especially the famous twelfth, or Theopaschite, anathema urging the
full implication of incarnational theology—that God died in the flesh.2

THE THREE CHAPTERS:

Although the council of Ephesus has ended the career of Nestrius, yet Nestorianism
was alive and well east of Alexandria, through the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas
of Edessa, and Theodoret, the teachers of Nestorius.

In several letters Cyril expressed his unhappiness at the way the Orientals
seemed to be ready to anathematise Nestorius yet carry on the substance of his
doctrine by propagating Theodore’s views as authoritative. He also complained

1
Fr. John McGoucken: St. Cyril of Alexandria And The Christological Controversy
p.273-275
2
Ibid p. 45

4
 about Theodoret’s very public dissidence wondering why John of Antioch did
nothing to bring him into line.3

St. Cyril wrote against Theodore of Mospuestia and described him as a heretic. This led to
resentment in the East, since Theodore was considered a “saint” among the former Nestorians
who had only been lukewarm supporters of the reconciliation between St. Cyril and John of
Ephesus.

St. Cyril decided that perhaps it would be better after all to proceed quietly and
condemn the propositions while allowing the memories of Diodore and
Theodore to remain venerable in their own churches, since his earlier policy
would serve to “rekindle the flame that has started to die down.” As Cyril knew,
it was a policy that deferred the problem rather than solved it, as events over the
next two centuries would more than bear out.4

There was an undisclosed pressure on Cyril from the imperial court to adopt
this change of attitude, ... but he continued to speak with evident scorn about
the intellectual integrity of those (among the Syrians) who agreed to
anathematise the teachings of Nestorius but would not anathematise the sources
of those teachings which themselves even more blatantly suggested the double
subjectivity of Christ.5

Theodoret and Ibas of Edessa were excommunicated by the second council of Ephesus (449
AD) but they were accepted by the council of Chalcedon (451 AD),which reversed the decision
of the second council of Ephesus. This was again reversed in the fifth “ecumenical” council
(553AD), which condemned them again! So the Three chapters as they came to be called
became a theological football, rejected in Ephesus II, accepted by Chalcedon, and rejected
again in the fifth council.
The acceptance of the Three Chapters at Chalcedon was a major reason for the
rejection of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox.
It is interesting that St. Dioscorus was condemned at the council of Chalcedon for
anathematizing the Three chapters. When the 5th council reversed the fourth council and
anathematized the Three chapters, there had to be another reason for condemning St.
Dioscorus; he was accused of being both Nestorian and Eutychian in the same time!?

3
Fr. John McGoucken: St. Cyril of Alexandria And The Christological Controversy
p. 119
4
Ibid p.120
5
Ibid p. 121