specifically in the context of his polemic against the Arians in order to stress the fundamental unity of the Christological subject to which both the divine and human predicates are attributed. In this way, Theodore advocated the fundamental Antiochene formula of Christology: 'two natures and one person (prosopon)'. He affirms that scripture speaks about the natures of Christ and their distinction, 'by their being related to one single person'. What scripture says about the eternal Son and about the son born of Mary, it attributes to 'one single Son and thus the glory of the only-begotten Son of God in his preexistence and the dignity of the human being assumed in the incarnation and elevated in the resurrection.' According to Philippians 2.10, the latter is entitled to be worshipped. In this way the elevated human being has a share in the divine prerogative: it is worshipped in the one person. For Theodore the Bible's one prosopon of the two natures is 'one on account of worship', inseparable, because of the 'one single Son', and hence the one liturgical prosopon.15

This agrees with a fragment from Theodore's writing against Eunomius, which states: 'The prosopon of our Lord Christ signifies honour and greatness and worship.' Here Theodore intends to exclude a second concept of the prosopon, which 'characterises the hypostasis and that which each one of us is'. Thus the names 'Peter' and 'Paul' denote their 'prosopon and hypostasis', while the name 'Christ' denotes that prosopon, which the God Logos created through his revelation 'in the humanity': 'he combined the honour of his [divine] hypostasis with the visible'. Hence, in the commentary on John 5.23, the human being, the son of Mary, 'is honoured with the same honour, with which the Father together with the [eternal] Son is honoured'. This, Theodore says, occurs because he 'in the worship of the God Logos is united [with the latter]'. The indwelling of God in Christ takes place 'as it were16 in his Son'. Theodore justifies this with 'the work of the Godhead, which accomplished

15 L. Abramowski, 'Zur Theologie Theodors'.

16 This 'as it were' (Greek: hos) is the standard terminology of the Antiochenes in the Nestorian crisis. It has its origin in the exegesis that, with the customary hermeneutical technical 'prosopon', denotes the subject of a statement. If a predicate denotes 'the flesh', then this is the prosopon of the statement. The same applies to the predicates that denote the Logos as such. But if it is a matter of a predicate, which denotes 'God and human being', then it is possible, as the Antiochenes did, to retain the terminology, just referred to, of two prosopa ('God Logos' and 'assumed human being'), and to say that the combined statements denote 'as it were one prosopon". 'In this both natures are known.' If Gregory ofNyssa(see above), Augustine (see below) and the formula ofunion of 433 (see below) reserve the concept of prosopon for the one Christ, and for the two first-named prosopa use the concept of'nature', 'which are known in the one prosopon", then the term 'nature' acquires a twofold meaning. On the one hand, it denotes as the subject of the predication concrete individuals ('God Logos' and 'the flesh'), and, on the other hand, that which characterises God and human being according to their essence or concept, that is, all divine or human predicates.

0 0

Post a comment