replaced by the immutability of the Word in Jesus Christ. At the same time, Apollinaris' Christology is directed against Marcellus' insistence on locating all differentiation between the incarnate Word and the Father strictly in the humanity of Jesus, so as to avoid imputing differentiation to the Godhead. This prompted Marcellus to emphasise the full humanity of Jesus in all the tension of its difference from divinity, a move that led his opponents to accuse him of teaching 'two sons'. Apollinaris' Christology is designed to counteract this 'dyoprosopic' Christology with a strongly unitive Christology in which the immutable Word is the single subject of the man Jesus. Thus, the immutability of divine transcendence is safeguarded while the soteriological principle of solidarity is asserted: God remains unchangeable and assumes human flesh, granting it his own immutability.

Of course, Apollinaris' opponents objected that such solidarity was phantasmal, since it was not the full structure of humanity that was united to the Word according to this model. IntheCappadocian polemic against Apollinaris' Christology, we find a soteriological model of solidarity that incorporates both Trinitarian and Christological claims. Human salvation is accomplished when the one who is fully God, enjoying unqualified possession of the divine nature, joins himself to our integral humanity: 'Let them not deny us our complete salvation... Keep the whole human being and mingle it with the divinity that you may benefit the whole of me.'46

The same dialectic of safeguarding both divine transcendence and God's saving solidarity with humanity was at the heart of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries. All the significant parties involved in these Christological debates accepted Nicene doctrine on the Trinity and therefore were in agreement that Jesus Christ is ultimately to be identified with the Son, Word and Wisdom who is equal to the Father. Differences arose over just how this identification was to be conceived, and it is significant that in the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius, which broke out in 428, both cast the issue as a matter of the correct interpretation of the creed of Nicaea. Nestorius' discomfort with the title of 'theotokos' and with Cyril's manner of identifying the divine Word as the subject of Jesus' humanity stemmed from a concern that this compromised divine immutability and transcendence. Referring back to the Nicene Creed, Nestorius chides Cyril: 'the divine chorus of the Fathers did not say that the coessential Godhead is passible or that the Godhead which is coeternal with the Father has only just been born'.47

46 Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 101.33-6.

47 Second Letter to Cyril; trans. Richard A. Norris, The Christological controversy, 136.

0 0

Post a comment