Scripture and God in Christianity

H. A. Wolfson, that "Apollinaris, in departure from the orthodox Fathers, denied the existence in
Jesus not only of two persons but also of two natures, maintaining that there was in him only one
nature or ousia and that Jesus was "one incarnate nature of God the Logos...." 664 But Kelly recognizes
that "The brilliance and thoroughgoing logic of Apollinarius' synthesis are undeniable."
665
The "Monophysitism" as it was later called, was another expression of Monarchianism. Pelikan
observes that "Apollinaris was expressing a common opinion when he spoke of "innumerable
teachings supplied everywhere throughout the divine Scripture, all of them together bearing witness
to the apostolic and ecclesiastical faith." 666 In Harnack's words, Apollinarius "merely completed
the work of Athanasius inasmuch he added to it the Chriostology which was demanded by
the Homousia of the Logos. They both made a supreme sacrifice to their faith in that they took
from the complicated and contradictory tradition regarding Christ those elements only which
were in harmony with the belief that He was the Redeemer from sin and death." 667 But it was
widely felt that Apollinarius had safeguarded the divinity of Jesus on account of his humanity.
The Cappadocian Fathers, the two Gregories and other churchmen opposed him by criticizing
that his Christology failed to meet the essential condition of salvation and atonement, i.e. the
unity of human rational soul, the seat of sin, with Logos. In his famous phrase Gregory Nazianzen
argued that "What has not been assumed cannot be restored; it is what is united with God
that is saved." 668 Apollinarius was condemned as heretical at the second council of Constantinople
in 381.
On the other hand, the representatives of the Antiochian school challenged 'Monophysitism' or
Apollinarianism with their scientific Christological dogma. 669 In general, the Antiochian's interest
in Jesus was more ethical than redemptive. They viewed in him a perfect ethical and moral
example. It could have not been possible had he not been a complete human being with free will
and genuine human personality. Antiochian school, argues Kelly, "deserves credit for bringing
back the historical Jesus." 670 Diodorus of Tarsus and then Theodore of Mopsuestia, like Paul of
Samosata, advocated a moral union 'unity of grace and will' rather than unity of substance and nature.
Their Christology conformed to the "Word-man" scheme rather than the Alexandrian
"Word-flesh" scheme.
Theodore emphasized the perfect humanity of Christ: "A complete man, in his nature, is Christ,
consisting of a rational soul and human flesh; complete is the human person; complete also the
person of the divinity in him. it is wrong to call one of them impersonal." 671 Opposing Monophysitism,
he argued: "One should not say that the Logos became flesh" but one should say " He
took on humanity." 672 To conform his views with the Logos Christology and Nicene doctrine of
Christ's proper divinity, he had no choice but to assert in the Christ two natures: one of a complete
human, the other complete divine, each with a full personality and all qualities and faculties
that go therewith. None of these persons or natures mixed with the other: "The Logos dwelt in
man but did not become man; the human was associated and united with the divine but was not
deified." 673 There association and closeness was essential for the salvation but not so closely to
render it irrelevant to man as man or to involve the unchangeable, immutable Logos in the suffering
of the cross. In Theodore's formula, "the Godhead was separated from the one who was suf-
83