The Land of Unlikeness

“The Preface on Apollinaris”
By Matthew J. Aragon-Bruce
Princeton Theological Seminary

Apollinaris is usually remembered for his misguided attempt to explain the union of the Christ’s two natures. The result was the heresy that bears his name: a Christology which denies that Christ had a human nous, but rather that the divine Logos took its place in the incarnation. His detractors, such as the Cappadocians, have understood this to result in a tertium quid, a God-man mixture who was neither human nor divine (ironically the very thing that Apollinaris was striving to avoid).

This portrait of Apollinaris found in the tomes of Dogmengeschichte has been challenged of late. One notable example is the work of Kelly McCarthy Spoerl, who since the early 1990s, has produced several publications which have called into question the received interpretation of Apollinaris and have brought fresh attention to his life and work particularly his influence in development of Trinitarian theology and pneumatology.¹ The main thrust of Spoerl’s work is that Apollinaris played a major role in the development of Trinitarian theology, even pre-empting the Cappadocian solution, pointing to the need of a more thorough reconsideration of the entire span of his thought. Brian Daley has summarized the results of this reassessment well: “The fragments and the whole treatises of Apollinarius that still exist… offer a portrait of Christ that is less bizarre, less classically docetic… more coherent and persuasive in strictly theological terms, than modern Dogmengeschichte may lead us to suppose.”²

This contemporary reassessment is bolstered by Bulgakov’s Christological treatise, The Lamb of God.  Bulgakov rather astonishingly begins his Christology with an appreciative analysis of Apollinaris. He does so, in part, because he describes the theme of his dogmatic trilogy, of which the Lamb of God is the first volume, as a theology of the “Divine-humanity.” Bulgakov’s Christology is rooted in the concept of “theandric energy,” a term first used by Pseudo-Dionysius and further developed by John Damascene, which he contends is well suited to address problems left unresolved after Chalcedon.³ Bulgakov sees the Dionysian idea of divine-human action as the key to the mystery of the incarnation and furthermore argues that this idea was already latent in the Christology of Apollinaris.  He argues that Apollinaris was the first to recognize the unresolved issues in Christology, namely the problem of the Divine-humanity, and that his doctrine is of “exclusive significance” for it defines “the entire path followed by the theological thought of the epoch of the four ecumenical councils.”⁴  Part of Bulgakov’s development of divine-human activity is the allegation that the Cappadocians misunderstood the “fundamental Christological idea” of Apollinaris and that a reconsideration of his thought is beneficial for the future development of Christology.⁵

Bulgakov is not concerned, primarily anyways (and nor is this all too short paper), with providing an accurate historical depiction of all of the details of the 4th Century Christological conflicts.   His concern is to find resources to mine for his constructive theological project - the development of a modern Orthodox dogmatics. For this purpose he reads Apollinaris through a post-Chalcedonian lens and gives to the supposed heresiarch new life and relevance.

One of the chief reasons Bulgakov began with a reexamination of Apollinaris is the heresiarch’s axiom: “For it is impossible for two principles with intelligence and will to be united into one principle.”⁶  Bulgakov sees this idea as containing the general premise of the understanding of the union that became the orthodox teaching at the Council of Chalcedon.  This axiom points the way to the proper understanding of the union of the divine and human natures and does so while avoiding the dualism latent in Antiochene theology.  Bulgakov contends that Apollinaris affirms the subjectivity of Christ as a complex unity, which is a “perfectly, orthodox, Chalcedonian idea. However, one must not forget that Apollinarius expresses his thought with a totally different terminology, or even without terminology.”⁷  “As a result Apollinarius was not understood by his contemporaries.  In his history his name is associated solely with a strange and obscure psychological theory of the human essence of Christ.”⁸

Bulkagov finds in Apollinaris’s reference to “the man from heaven,” a way of referring to Christ as a single subject referent, a synthesis of the divine and human, in a way which anticipates the fundamental idea of Chalcedon.  With Apollinaris he thinks it essential to affirm that Christ is different from us, that he is not a mere human being, but a human being assumed into the fullness of the of the hypostasis of the Word.⁹  He does so because he wants to be able to speak of Christ as a unio hypostatica, a single ontological reality, in which the divine hypostasis has united itself to human nature.  In Apollinaris he found the doctrine of the Divine-Humanity that is presupposed as the general foundation of all Christology:

The Union of the Divine and human essences in the God-man is not an external, ontological arbitrary act of the unification of two things that cannot be united, of two things that are totally different and alien to one another.  Rather it is the ontologically grounded and pre-established union of the Proto-image and the image, of the heavenly man and the earthly man.  On the subject of this union, patristic theology did not know any answer except a general reference to God’s omnipotence.  Apollianrius’ achievement is that he perceived here a special problem that he expressed in the doctrine of the interrelation of the heavenly man and the earthly man, that is, the doctrine of the Divine-humanity.  In this respect Apollinarius is a solitary and misunderstood figure in patristic theology; evidently he himself did not completely think through his highly significant idea.¹⁰

Thus, Bulkagov appeals to Apollinaris because he sees implicit in his thought the idea that the incarnation is not only part of the eternal will of God, but part of the eternal being of God.  The incarnation was not a rescue operation resulting from the unfortunate fall of man into sin, but part of God’s eternal and essential being-for-humanity.  This is indeed something of which patristic theology knew very little and it is not something that, for example, the Cappadocians or even Apollinaris, can be expected to have foreseen.

All this is not to say that Bulgakov views Apollinarian Christology uncritically.  Indeed, he refers to it as a “failure” (along with the Christology of Theodore and Cyril), for although it begins with the correct principle (the unity of Christ), the Christology of all three fail to transcend the dialectical tension between the two natures.¹¹   Apollinaris fails in that he diminishes the humanity of Christ in order to protect divine immutability.  The protection of the Logos was bought at the price of Christ’s humanity: “the cost of doing violence to Christ’s humanity and thus destroying the divine-human work.  For Christ’s humanity it is necessary to assure human (i.e. creaturely) freedom and thus the possibility of his being tempted…”¹²  And again, “Apollinarius understood the [union] statically and mechanically, as the coercion of spirit over flesh, whereas it should be understood dynamically and kenotically, as authentic divine life, contained in the human essence in virtue of kenosis.”¹³

There is not space in a short Blog-Conference paper of this sort to deal with all the grand depth of Bulgakov’s constructive Christology, though I hope this short summary will push readers to read The Lamb of God and to engage it critically.  My own interest in Bulgakov, as a modern protestant, is that his Christology bears several similarities (at least formally, but I am inclined to argue materially also) with thinkers like the Hegel and Schelling (whom we know he read and was influenced by) but also Barth (see the forthcoming publication of Bruce McCormack’s Scottish Journal of Theology Lectures: The Humility of the Eternal Son: A Reformed Version of Kenotic Christology, Cambridge).  The focus not only on kenoticism, but also on the incarnation as part of the eternal being of God, is witness to a higher degree of camaraderie with contemporary Protestant theology than might have been expected (though there are of course debates here as well, especially among the Barthians).  While I have no naïve expectations that this will lead to any sort of ecumenical concord it does witness to the unity which we share in our common Lord, Jesus Christ.

Bulgakov, Sergius. The Lamb of God. Translated by Boris Jakim. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Daley, Brian E. “‘Heavenly Man’ and ‘Eternal Christ’: Apollinarius and Gregory of Nyssa on the Personal Identity of the Savior.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10, no. 4 (2002): 469-88.

Dorner, Issak. Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi. 4 vols. Stuttgart; Berlin: G. Schlawitz, 1846-56.

Gemeinhardt, Peter. “Apollinaris of Laodicea: A Neglected Link of Trinitarian Theology between East and West.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10, no. 2 (2007): 286-301.

Harnack, Adolf von. Dogmengeschichte. 6th ed. 4 vols. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1922.

Lienhard, Joseph T. “Two Friends of Athanasius: Marcellus of Ancyra and Apollinaris of Laodicea.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10, no. 1 (2006): 56-66.

Lietzmann, Hans. Apollinaris von Laodicea und Seine Schule: Texte und Untersuchungen. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1904.

Loofs, Friedrich. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte. 2nd ed. Halle-Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1890.

Pseudo-Dionysius. The Complete Works. Translated by Colm Luibheid. Edited by Paul Rorem, The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Raven, Charles E. Apollinarianism: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923.

Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series. 14 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Reprint, 1997.

Kelley McCarthy Spoerl, “A Study of the Kata Meros Pistis by Apollinarius of Laodicea” (University of Toronto, 1991).

__________. “Apollinarius and the Response to Early Arian Christology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993).

__________. “The Liturgical Argument in Apollinarius: Help and Hindrance on the Way to Orthodoxy,” The Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 2 (1998)

__________. “Apollinarius on the Holy Spirit.” Studia Patristicia 38 (2001): 571-592.

Voisin, Guillaume. L’apollinarisme: étude historique, littéraire et dogmatique sur le début des controverses christologiques au IVe siècle. Louvain; Paris: J. van Linthout; A. Fontemoing, 1901.

1. See e.g., Kelley McCarthy Spoerl, “A Study of the Kata Meros Pistis by Apollinarius of Laodicea” (University of Toronto, 1991); “Apollinarius and the Response to Early Arian Christology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993); “The Liturgical Argument in Apollinarius: Help and Hindrance on the Way to Orthodoxy,” The Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 2 (1998); “Apollinarius on the Holy Spirit.” Studia Patristicia 38 (2001): 571-592.  See also, Peter Gemeinhardt, “Apollinaris of Laodicea: A Neglected Link of Trinitarian Theology between East and West,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10, no. 2 (2007): p. 502, Joseph T. Lienhard, “Two Friends of Athanasius: Marcellus of Ancyra and Apollinaris of Laodicea,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10, no. 1 (2006).↩
2. Brian E. Daley, “‘Heavenly Man’ and ‘Eternal Christ’: Apollinarius and Gregory of Nyssa on the Personal Identity of the Savior,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10, no. 4 (2002): p. 469.↩
3. See, Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, ed. Paul Rorem, trans. Colm Luibheid, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), p. 265. See also, John Damascene, “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 14 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; reprint, 1997), vol. 3, pp. 67-68. ↩
4. Sergius Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 3. Concerning the centrality of Apollinaris for the path of conciliar Christology, Bulgakov is in agreement with the tradition of modern Dogmengeschichte, which he new incredibly well. See for example the relevant sections of: Issak Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 4 vols. (Stuttgart; Berlin: G. Schlawitz, 1846-56), Friedrich Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed. (Halle-Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1890), Guillaume Voisin, L’apollinarisme: étude historique, littéraire et dogmatique sur le début des controverses christologiques au IVe siècle (Louvain; Paris: J. van Linthout; A. Fontemoing, 1901), Adolf von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 6th ed., 4 vols. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1922), Charles E. Raven, Apollinarianism: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923). ↩
5. Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, pp. 13, 209.↩
6. Hans Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und Seine Schule: Texte und Untersuchungen (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1904), Frag. 2, p. 204. Cf. Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, p. 5.↩
7. Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, p. 7.↩
8. Ibid., p. 8.↩
9. Ibid., p. 11.↩
10. Ibid., p. 17 (emphasis original).↩
11. Ibid., p. 40.↩
12. Ibid., p. 296.↩
13. Ibid., p. 310.↩