Marian Library Studies
Volume 17 Volume 17/23 (1985-1991) Combined
Volume Article 16
Some Reflections on the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea
William P. Anderson
It is with great pleasure that I share in this tribute to the Rev. Theodore Koehler, S.M. It was Father Koehler who enabled this liberal Protestant to understand and appreciate the richness of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Christian tradition. Coming, as I did, from a rather austere Reformed tradition, I had little or no sense for this tradition so meaningful to so many Roman Catholics. While I may yet have theological reservations, a new openness was made possible for me by means of my listening to the insights of Father Koehler and by my participation in a number of mariological seminars sponsored by the International Marian Research Institute. My personal and theological lives have been enhanced by these and many other experiences which have been my privilege while being a professor at the University of Dayton. Father Koehler, the Marianist Order, and the University of Dayton have all made inestilable contributions to the lives of many human beings and in so doing have indeed fulfilled the commandment of our Lord to love and to serve.
非常喜悅能夠將這篇文章獻給Rev. Theodore Koehler, S.。Koehler神父使得這個自由主義派抗議宗能夠瞭解並珍賞在基督教傳統中的瑪利亞，耶穌的母親的豐富。我出身於一個相當嚴謹的改革宗傳統，我對這個傳統對於許多羅馬天主教徒的意義僅僅只有少許，或完全沒有任何認識。雖然我在神學方面仍然有一些保留，但是透過我聆聽Koehler神父的洞見，並我參與一些國際瑪利亞研究協會舉報的瑪利亞學會議，我對於這方面的認識已經得到一種新的開啟。我的個人和神學生活都透過那些並其他許多經驗變得更為豐富，特別是作為Dayton大學的教授。Koehler神父，瑪利亞修會，並Dayton大學為許多人的生活提供了無法估算的貢獻，並完成了我們主對於愛和服侍的誡命。
What I offer here in tribute is a modest preliminary reflection on the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea: Apollinaris, who was a substantial colleague of St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis and one who made substantial contributions toward the development of trinitarian theology, is also the person who issued in the most fundamental of all christological issues: the issue of the relationship of the divinity and humanity of Jesus the Christ. With rigorous logic and deep piety, Apollinaris pursued the necessity of a real, total union without which our redemption would have been imperiled. In a preliminary way, I have tried to show how these concerns are presented by the Laodicean. Unfortunately, Apollinaris' penchant for logical consistency erupts into a truncated humanity in the Christ which is totally unacceptable. The Church understood this and rejected his point of view. What is often overlooked, however, is that other so-called orthodox writers, e.g., Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, are equally guilty of Apollinaris' error. As the church historian Adolf von Harnack stated in his massive History of Dogma, a pious Apollinarian monk, and probably Apollinaris himself, reflecting on the revisions of his mia physis doctrine by Cyril of Alexandria and Leontius of Byzantium, would have said that they would totally agree with the positions offered by these two eminent theologians, except that the Apollinarians would have stated the position in somewhat more intelligible words. Apollinaris' conclusions were in error. However, he clearly demonstrated by his work what would essentially be the position of the Orthodox Fathers, i.e., that God, and God in Christ, can only be addressed and not expressed. The classical Orthodox position truly preserves the beauty and the mystery of God and the Godman.
我在此提供的是一種對於老底嘉的亞波理拿留的基督論的一個初步的映射：亞波理拿留在亞流危機時是亞他那修一位非常重要的同僚，他為三一論神學的發展也做出了非常重要的貢獻，他也介入了所有基督論最為基礎的問題：耶穌基督的神性與人性間的關係。亞波理拿留以嚴謹的邏輯並深刻的敬虔，追尋一個真實的、完全的聯合的必須性，而不會危及我們的救贖。我用一種比較初步的方式來表明老底嘉人的顧慮。很不幸的，亞波理拿留對於邏輯一致性的傾向爆發出一個被截割的基督的人性，這是完全不可接受的。教會瞭解這點，並拒絕了他的觀點。然而，往往被我們忽視的是，其他正統的作者，例如：亞他那修和亞歷山大的區利羅，都跟亞波理拿留一樣有罪。就如同教會歷史學家哈那克（Adolf von Harnack）在他的巨著教義歷史（History of Dogma）中所指出的，一位敬虔的亞波理拿留派修士，更可能是亞波理拿留本人，在他重編的mia physis中反映出亞歷山大的區利羅和拜占庭的李安迪的教義，哈納克說亞波理拿留派會完全同意那兩位突出的神學家們提出的立場，唯一的不同乃是亞波理拿留派會以一種更為理性的語言講述那個立場。亞波理拿留的結論是錯誤的。然而，祂明確在他的作品中體現出正統教父們的基本立場，例如：神，在基督裡的神，僅僅能夠被描述而不能被展示。經典的正統派立場真正的保存了神和神人的美麗與奧秘。
REFLECTIONS ON THE CHRISTOLOGY OF APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA
One may say that in contrast to the Orthodox Fathers who started with the belief that the flesh which the Logos became or the body which was prepared for it was a complete man, a flesh or body endowed with an irrational and a rational soul, Apollinaris started with the basic presupposition that this flesh or this body was not a complete man. In Jesus, the Logos took the place of the rational soul of the ordinary man. In consequence, Apollinaris could not say, as did the Orthodox Fathers, that Jesus had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature; for, to have a human nature by their understanding meant to possess a rational soul, inasmuch as man was, by definition, a rational animal. It is because of the denial of the rational soul in Jesus that Apollinaris rejected not only the existence of two persons, but also denied the existence of two natures,  maintaining that in Christ there was only one nature or one ousia. Apollinaris' view finds clear expression in his letter to Jovian in which he writes:
It will become clear that this phrase "one nature of God incarnate" is absolutely central to the position of Apollinaris of Laodicea.
Although it was not always recognized, it is clear that in formulating his position, Apollinaris was directing his thoughts and energies against the Christology of the Antiochenes. This is easily seen in his numerous references to Paul of Samosata and his successors. In this particular matter, Apollinaris is a partner of Athanasius (and perhaps a more substantial partner than is generally acknowledged) and represents one side of the universal paradox, God and Man, just as surely as Diodore and the Antiochenes represent the other.
The criticisms hurled by Apollinaris at Diodore and the Antiochenes are everywhere the same. For example, the Laodicean writes :
Deeply influenced by soteriological motives, Apollinaris was convinced that if the divine is separated from the human in the Savior our redemption would be imperiled. For considered merely as man, Christ had no saving life to bestow. He could not save us from our sins; he could not revitalize us or raise us from the dead. The great fear that Apollinaris had with respect to this Antiochene duality may be seen in a few passages from the Anakephalaiosis appended to his book against Diodore.
And also from the Apodeixis :
The Antiochene School, in the eyes of Apollinaris, destroyed the fundamental tenet of Christianity, i.e., the union of God and man in Jesus Christ. No matter how close the juxtaposition of the two, no matter how complete their harmony, to him nothing short of perfect union is sufficient. If any vestige of separation remains, the value of Christ's redemptive work is either debased or destroyed. Again we may refer to the Apodeixis for support:
The claim of the Church can only be valid if her Lord is 'not a God-inspired man but God himself incarnate. At the very best then, the Antiochene position was merely ethical, with Christ viewed as an inspiration and example : the union in him being one of will and purpose rather than one of substance, and, as such, it had to be rejected by Apollinaris.
Some Christological Observations
Having given an indication of the direction of the thought of Apollinaris, let us now indicate, very briefly, some aspects of his own christological formulation by viewing the implications of his basic contention that Jesus was the "one nature of the Word of God incarnate," i.e., that the pre-existent Christ in his incarnation retained his divine ousia or nature and did not take on a complete body or humanity. And, furthermore, that while the body and the Logos form one nature by reason of the lack of a rational soul, the body with its irrational soul is still something quite distinct from the Logos.
- Apollinaris maintains that by their union neither the Logos nor the body with irrational soul is destroyed. He writes:
This reflects, to some extent, the influence of Stoic thinking on him, with its notion if mixture and its characteristic feature that the result of mixture is an imperceptible juxtaposition of its constituent parts none of which is destroyed. By employing this notion, Apollinaris tries to prove that in the union of the incarnation neither the Logos nor the body is destroyed. He attempts to bolster this further in a subsequent passage in which he states:
- While the body is not destroyed in its union with the Logos; neither is it completely changed into the Logos. For concerning the Logos and the body in Jesus, Apollinaris argues that:
Thus Apollinaris maintains that this becoming flesh has not been brought about by any change in the divine ousia of the Logos. Indeed, he expressly anathematizes any who would say that the Logos has been changed into flesh and quotes against them the text "I am the Lord, I change not." The Logos, he teaches, still maintains his cosmic relations even if he has become flesh, at once permeating all things and in particular being commingled with flesh. Clearly, it is Apollinaris' position that the Logos, while remaining what he was, has in addition become incarnate: remaining （Greek） and （Greek） in his eternal being, he has become（Greek）and （Greek） in the incarnation. We may note here the Apollinarian conception of unity and distinction in the Person of Jesus Christ. We already know that for Apollinaris the body and the Logos are one nature in Jesus. We may now see that what difference may be present as a result of his contention that the flesh has not been changed into that which is incorporeal may be possibly described as a property, although only in a special sense. 
(3) In his insistence on the one nature, Apollinaris meant to deny not only a rationally animated bodily nature but also an irrationally animated bodily nature, but for different reasons. Professor Harry Wolfson put it this way : His [Apollinaris'] denial in Jesus of a rationally animated bodily nature is due to his denial in Jesus of a rational soul: his denial in him of an irrationally animated nature is due to his particular conception of what becomes of the weaker element in a union of "predominance."
For the Laodicean there are three basic elements always present in any particular body: (a) a nature, in the sense of its belonging to a particular species; (b) a person, in the sense of its being an individual thing; and (c) a property, in the sense of its being a body possessing accidents. When this body is connected to a body of greater power of activity, it is Apollinaris' contention that the weaker element ceases to be a nature and survives only as a property. Thus the union of the body with the Logos necessarily makes the body a property rather than a person or a nature. In the light of this analysis, we may now say that, as in Origen and Athanasius, there is a recognition, i.e., a definite realization, of the difference of natures according to their properties. In the commingling, the Laodicean says, there are uncreated and created:
Similarly, in his exegesis, Apollinaris distinguishes between what is proper to the Lord's Godhead and what is proper to his humanity. However, Apollinaris is careful to point out that everything which is recorded concerning Jesus Christ in Scripture is to be referred to the one Person, the Logos incarnate. In taking the text from the Gospel of John (17 : 19), '"For their sakes I sanctify myself," he states that therein is preserved the one prosopon and the indivisibility of the one living being, but, perceiving what is demanded by an accurate discernment of what goes to make up that one Person, he proceeds to make a distinction between that which sanctifies, which is divine, and that which is sanctified, which is human nature- for one is Creator and the other is creature. We also refer to his interpretation of Paul's passage in Philippians (2 :9). Here he maintains that the Apostle is speaking of the "whole" as having been exalted, but, he continues, properly speaking, it is only the flesh which is exalted, since Godhead ever remains in its immutability.
In this connection it may be seen that Apollinaris is maintaining a position already established and which will be continued in Cyril of Alexandria, in the traditional teaching of the Alexandrine School.
Some Soteriological Considerations
Like Athanasius, Apollinaris had a very strong sense of sin; and this appears not only from his insistence that redemption cannot be secured unless Christ is very God, but also supplies him with a reason for denying to Christ a human mind. Mind, according to Apollinaris, if it is truly a human mind, is sinful. To him the essence of mind is its power of self-determination or freedom of will: （Greek）
This conception made it impossible for Apollinaris to believe that two minds could co-exist in a single person.
And furthermore :
If, as Charles Raven has suggested, this is impossible in the abstract, it is still less possible to have happened in the case of Jesus Christ. "Those," says Apollinaris, "who speak of two minds in Christ," and according to him this was the fatal element in any duality, （Greek）
So he sees that his main principle, i.e., "the one incarnate nature of God the Logos," will be set beyond all question if he says that in Christ the heavenly takes the place of the human mind. Christ can still be called man, and there will be no doubt concerning the oneness of his person; for, under such a constitution, there can be in him but one will, one activity, one operative motion, the Logos himself being the "mover" 'and the flesh being the "moved." It is in this light that he states in his letter to the exiled bishops :
Here again Apollinaris appeals to one of his major concerns, i.e., soteriology, for justification:
It is his insistence on the sinlessness of the Savior and his belief that such sinlessness is incompatible with the possession of a human mind that drives Apollinaris to reject the belief in the perfect humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Lord exists:
He attempts to support his position further by appealing to Scripture in the De Fide et lncarnatione and asserting that,
他嘗試進一步支持他的立場，在De Fide et Incarnatione（論道成肉身的信仰）中訴諸聖經，並堅稱，
Again, as we have previously noted, he asserts that Jesus is "one incarnate nature of the Logos."
The way in which Apollinaris described the union, i.e., that the divine and bodily properties are united in Christ; that he is eternally Creator, object of worship, Wisdom and Power: these derive from his Godhead. Son of Mary, born in this last time, a worshiper of God, progressing in wisdom, growing stronger in power : these he derives from his body. Furthermore, Apollinaris maintains both of these- that the whole is from heaven because of the Godhead, and the whole is from a woman because of the flesh. He recognizes no distinction in the one Person; neither does he divide the earthly from the heavenly nor the heavenly from the earthly: such a division is, according to Apollinaris, "impious." This position very likely caused his opponents to declare that he was teaching either the consubstantiality of the Godhead with the flesh or that the body was from heaven. Perhaps the most striking accusation is to be found in the letter of Gregory of Nazianzus to Nectarius of Constantinople, in which Gregory declares that a pamphlet had fallen into his hands which declared that
... the flesh was not acquired by the only-begotten Son for the purpose of his sojourn on earth ·or assumed in order to change the rudiments of our nature, but from the beginning this flesh like nature existed in the Son .
Further, he puts forward a phrase in the gospel perverting it so as to make it testify to this folly : the words are "no one ascended into heaven except He Who came down from heaven, the Son of Man" (John 3 :13), and He d·escended bringing with Him the flesh which He always had in heaven pre-existent· and united with Him.
The possibility of a translation such as this can be seen in parallel passages in the Apodeixis, for example:
Taken by themselves, without consideration of Apollinaris' repeated denials of a belief in a "heavenly flesh, "  these arguments appear to be quite devastating. However, when his vehement denials are considered in connection with his attack upon the position of the Antiochene dualism, it is quite plausible to maintain that he was grossly misunderstood, that the union taking place in the womb of the Virgin Mother, was, in fact, "the fulfillment in history of an eternal yearning for men, a yearning characteristic of the divine essence." In no sense is Apollinaris to be construed as maintaining that the Logos brought his body with him from heaven as Gregory had assumed. The body rather may share in the properties of the Logos, so that it can be called a "divine body," and the Logos may share in the properties of the body, but they remain, according to nature, body and Logos. Furthermore, it should not be thought that Apollinaris' use of such expressions as "commingling" and "mixture" necessitates any different judgment. As R. V. Sellers has pointed out, Apollinaris uses them in order to enforce the thought of the inseparability of the divine and the human elements in their union in the person of the Logos. It may be said that to employ such terminology may be rather injudicious, but, certainly, we should not say that because Apollinaris does use them his doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ is a doctrine of "confusion."
Concerning the thought of the 19th-century philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Barth once remarked that if anyone was really interested in "doing theology" that person would have to "go through" the "brook of fire,'~ i.e., Feuer-Bach. I would suggest, along the same lines, that if anyone really wants to wrestle with the problem of Christology, then that person will have to "go through,'' or at least come to grips with, the issues and questions raised by Apollinaris of Laodicea !
 Hans Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schute (Tiibingen: Verlag von J. C. Mohr, 1904), pp. 5 f.
（Greek）a in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 257.
 Fragment 117, xa-rd Llwdweov ned, 'HeaxA.etov, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 235-236.
（Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 250-251.
（Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 256-257.
 Cf. De Fide el lncarnalione, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 202.
（Greek）, 1, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 242.
 Ibid., pp. 242 ff.
 Ibid., 21, p. 244.
 Fragment 92, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 228.
 Fragment 95, （Greek），in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 229.
 Fragment 127, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 238.
 Fragment 129, （Greek）, in Lietzmann,'Apollinaris, p. 239. We should note that here, too, the constituent elements remain and are unconfused which implies that the union is constructed on the analogy of the Stoic conception of mixture. Cf. Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 437.
 De Fide et Incarnalione, .in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 199.
（Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 252-253.
 R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1940), p. 58.
 For a full discussion, see Wolfson, Philosophy of Church Fathers I, pp. 441 ff.
 Ibid., p. 441. Useful as Wolfson's analysis is, he has basically misunderstood the fundamental motive of Apollinaris' employment of the concept of mixture.
 De Unione 5, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 187.
 Fragment 125, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 238.
 Cf. De Unione 17, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 192.
 Fragment 87, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 226.
（Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 204.
 Fragment 150, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 247.
 Charles E. Raven, Apollinarianism (Cambridge: The University Press, 1923), p. 183.
 Fragment 151, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 247 f.
 （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apolliharis, p. 256.
 Fragment 74, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 222.
 Fragment 158, （Greek）, in Lietzuiann, Apollinaris, p. 249.
 （Greek）,, 31, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 178-179.
 De Fide el Incarnalione 6, in Lietzinann, Apollinaris, pp. 198-199.
 Fragment 125, （Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 238.
（Greek） in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 259.
 Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle CCII, in Migne, Palrologia Graeca 37, cols. 329-334 (author's translation).
 （Greek）, Fragment 34, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 211.
 （Greek）, Fragment 34, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, p. 212.
 See the anathemas .appended to（Greek）, in Lietzmann, Apollinaris, pp. 253 ff.
 Raven, Apollinarianism, p. 216.
 Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, pp. 58-59.