new future with God. Instead of this law-oriented conception, other reasons can be introduced in order to emphasise the significance of the human act of Christ. For instance, this significance can be discerned in Christ's obedience with regard to God's salvific will, in the symmetry of God and human being. In this tradition, the one hypostasis of Chalcedon's Definitio fidei remains -to a certain extent - empty, even if the concept is received as self-evident and is equated with 'the one (common) person of God and human being'. However, the way in which believers are here affected religiously is not connected with the concept of the incarnate hypostasis of the Logos, but with the picture 'of the one person of God and human being'. They see this person when they read the Bible and when they encounter him in the liturgy of his word.

For this reason the advocates of the Leonine interpretation opposed the emperor Justinian's condemnation in his Three Chapters: Theodore of Mop-suestia, the works against Cyril by Theodoret of Cyrus, and a letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris: all Antiochenes who had opposed in some way or other the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. They agreedwiththe Christology ofTheodore of Mopsuestia, established in the context of anti-Arian exegesis. They did not see in it that Nestorianism which was defined as a construct of heresiology on the basis of Cyril's polemic. They did not understand how their symmetrical Christology could be suspected of advocating the confession of two sons. For them as well, the human being, Jesus, was not simply a prophet or inspired human being, but the redeemer sent by God and thus 'God and human being', the one Son of God. On this account, a theologian of the seventh century like Anastasius of Sinai could put into the mouth of Cyril the distinction of the three classes of biblical statements. Since they are present in the 433 formula of union, on the basis of this short formula he could with some justification call upon 'the whole Cyril' for his symmetrical picture of Christ. Obviously, this did not exclude for him callingJesus 'our God'.36

Just as little as the Leonine interpretation of Chalcedon could disregard Cyril, so the Cyrillian interpretation could not drop the Tome of Leo. In due time this had the consequence that the Cyrillian tradition, precisely in the light of the different soteriologies, corrected Cyril: it discovered 'the human being Jesus' and integrated it into the conception of the appropriation by the Logos. In this manner it tried to preserve the human individuality in its subsistence and to define it in contradistinction to the personal independent subsistence of the hypostasis of the incarnate Logos.

36 See further K.-H. Uthemann, 'Anastasius Sinaites'.

0 0

Post a comment