it should be noted that Apollinarius did not accept Diodore's critique on this point, because it is precisely his concept of 'mixing' that is meant to preserve the divine and human properties in Christ. Gregory ofNazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa claimed the same for their Christological concept of'mixing'.

In order to ward off Apollinarian theopaschitism, Diodore proceeded dialec-tically. He takes up the Apollinarians' arguments against a theology of the two sons, but, in contrast to them, he refuses to express the antitheses ofthe divine and the human predicates in terms of 'one and the same'. He refuses to do this, even when it is expressly added - as by both Athanasius and Apollinarius -that the divine predicates are ascribed to the one subject 'according to the divinity', and the human predicates to the same 'according to the humanity'. The decisive idea of Athanasius and - following him - of the Apollinarians, that in the incarnation the God Logos appropriated everything human, is totally foreign to Diodore. In this way he follows the tradition of Antiochene anti-Arian exegesis deriving from Eustathius.

Diodore distinguishes between 'the God Logos as the Son of God according to nature' and 'the son of David', who 'is the son from Mary' (Eustathius' 'man of Christ'). According to his nature [this human being] is son of David, yet according to grace Son of God.' Both, however, 'are one son'. The worship of God for 'the human being from Mary' is an honour bestowed upon him as the 'temple of the Logos', because of God's indwelling or presence in him. These phrases correspond to the picture that the Apollinarians had of the doctrine of'two sons' as held by the supporters of Nicene orthodoxy, who by contrast conceived of the incarnation as a real becoming human and as the receiving of a human soul. It is presumably in order to confirm their heresiological prejudice that the Apollinarians incorporated these phrases into their dossier of Diodore's teaching.

However, some phrases in Diodore's fragments occasionally indicate a more differentiated position. He accepts that, in biblical statements about Christ, God is called man and man is called God. This scriptural usage should not confuse anyone: 'know that the God-Logos is called man, because he indwells in the son of man'. This indwelling does not mean that God becomes man or man becomes God. It is a matter of statements about the two natures as such, or, as Apollinarius renders Diodore's position in his own reply, of clauses without a common meaning - koine eponymia. Diodore contests Apollinarius' view of the so-called communication of idiomata.14 Yet he did not claim that the two natures are two subjects that remain divided in a higher unity, 'in one

0 0

Post a comment