incarnation. Insofar as it is 'a question of what characterises Jesus Christ in the real sense', he is not 'of the same nature as us' (homoousios). The salvation of humanity is only guaranteed when the incarnate One possesses an 'immutable intellect', which does not conflict with 'the flesh'. The incarnate One accomplishes 'pure virtue' - without any asceticism! - and achieves that freedom from every sin to which human beings owe their salvation. This intellect can only be the Logos himself as the intellect of God; no human intellect was assumed in the incarnation. This is why Apollinarius disputed that Christ -in 'God's incarnate intellect' - had a rational human soul. He excluded therefore a 'Christology from below' that understood Christ as an inspired human being. He found the biblical foundation for this, for example, in the events in Gethsemane (Matthew 26.36-39). Here the anti-Arian exegesis of Athanasius affirmed God's one will and understood the resistance, the fear of death and the obedience of Christ as a drama of divine pedagogy for the faithful (oikonomia). Apollinarius accepted this interpretation, but maintained as a consequence of this that there was no human intellect in Christ. The incarnate One suffered 'as God'. Only he can redeem mankind.

This confessional language, particularly its theopaschism, could sound provocative, especially if the qualifications arising from Athanasius' anti-Arian exegesis were ignored. It must be said, however, that Apollinarius constantly emphasised these qualifications. Moreover, had he confined himself to remaining silent about the soul of Christ instead of explicitly denying its existence, he would not have shocked so many of his contemporaries. Although Athanasius, adapting the language of the Bible, could talk of the soul of Christ, for him it was 'not a theological factor'.5 On this point he agreed on the one hand with Eusebius of Caesarea, who abandoned not only Origen's concept of the pre-existence of souls, but also his teaching on Christ's soul (unlike the so-called Origenists, such as Evagrius Ponticus (c. 345-99)).6 On the other hand, Athanasius even agreed with his Arian opponents on this point. For they ascribed all the mental experiences of Christ related in the Bible reports to the Logos 'become flesh', as Logos. As we see from statements by Asterius that Athanasius quotes, this conception is also presupposed by Arian soteriology,

5 In this way A. Grillmeier summarises the discussion triggered by M. Richard, 'Saint Athanase'. Still worth reading, however, are J. B. Liebaert, Christologie, 73 n. 68 and P. Galtier, 'Saint Athanase et l'ame du Christ'.

6 Evagrius saw in Christ that intellect (nous) which always remained united to the God Logos, in contradistinction to all other spiritual beings, and for that reason did not, like the latter in their revolt against God, enter as soul into a body. This Christ or nous, not the Logos, became incarnate in Jesus, in order to save the fallen souls. There are more details in A. Guillaumont, Les 'Kephalaia Gnostica', 117-18,151-6.

0 0

Post a comment