The Philosophical Context and Theological Conundrum of Apollinarianism

The Christological threat that once was, and continues to be

---

Sometime in the fourth century, Apollinaris of Laodicea (died c. 382-390), proposed a philosophical explanation for the two natures of Christ, a doctrine that had been formalized and adopted by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) in their faithful confession of the Holy Trinity. Following the Council, debate intensified concerning the two natures of Christ and how these two natures could exist in one indivisible Person, both of which seemingly oppose one another: the divine nature and the human nature.

The belief that Christ has two natures, known as dyophysitism, was challenged by monophysitism, the belief that Christ has only one nature, which tended to be either a form of the divine nature, or the divine nature by itself. One of the most prominent and earliest monophysitic teachers, Eutyches of Constantinople (A.D. 380-456), taught that Christ exists in one nature and of two; the human nature of Jesus is subsumed by the divine. Apollinaris took great inspiration from the Eutychean heresy, teaching that Christ has a human body in which a divine mind and human sensitive soul exists, but the Divine Logos replaces the human rational mind. In other words, Christ has a human body, but his divine mind nullified his ability to possess a human mind—meaning Christ, in practice, only has one nature.

Both the Eutychean and Apollinarian heresies found their roots in Docetism, which first appeared around the turn of the third century. Docetism is the belief that Christ’s body was either absent or illusionary. This early form of monophysitism is rooted in the Gnostic heresy that all material things are inherently evil, and that it would be ontologically impossible for God to assume a human nature. The early Church dealt swiftly with Gnosticism and its several offshoots, but questions concerning the two natures of Christ and the relationship between them continued well into the second and third centuries and reopened the wounds left behind by Gnostic-driven heresies.

Apollinarianism was largely an overreaction to Arianism, the early heresy that sparked the First Council of Nicaea, which held that Jesus was begotten of the Father in the sense that He was the first created being. This means the Son is not coeternal with the Father. Thus, the Son does not exist out of necessity, but only by the will of the Father. The early promoter of Arianism, Arius (A.D. 256-336), attempted to philosophize the nature of the Trinity to such an extent that he denied the reality of the Holy Trinity and sparked one of the most crucial and defining moments in early Christendom.

Apollinaris, a staunch opponent of Arius, attempted to make sense of the Nicaean teaching concerning the Trinity by explaining the two nature of Christ in a humanly comprehensible way, and one in which Arius would be soundly rejected. In doing so, he fell victim to the early Gnostic heresies, such as Docetism, holding that Jesus could not have a human nature in its fullest sense, either due to the human nature’s essential incompatibility with the divine (as a result of the Fall), or due to the fact that the divine could not otherwise subsist in or with the human nature. Apollinaris’ attempt to protect the divine nature of Christ against the Trinitarian attacks of Arius, while admirable in themselves, ended up denying the truth of Christ’s Incarnation and the necessity of God assuming, in its fullest and realest sense, the fullness of the human nature into Himself. 

Apollinaris operated under two philosophical presuppositions. The first was ontological, while the second was psychological. In an ontological sense, Apollinaris believed that the union of the perfect divine nature, God, with the fullness of man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two complete beings with all their incongruent attributes cannot perfectly be made one. And, instead of mocking the confession of the Nicene faith, like Arius earlier had done, he defamed the humanity of Christ, thus defiling the perfect union of God and Man in the Person of Christ.

Psychologically, on the other hand, Apollinaris considered the rational soul essentially liable to sin and capable of no more than feeble efforts at keeping the Law. Thus, he believed that there could be no way of reconciling Christ's perfection and the price of Redemption as seen in the Incarnation, except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus' humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logos in its place.

These two arguments largely appealed to the Platonic thinkers of Apollinaris’ day. Christ assumed the human body and the human soul, insofar as it is understood to be the principle of animal life, but not the human spirit, that is the rational human soul that is inseparable from the body and is understood as being, along with the body, the necessary essence of mankind’s being. The divine Logos Himself is the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and spiritual center. But this is a confusion of the union between the divine nature and the human rational soul, both of which are distinct and inherently separate natures.

Like the other Christological heresies that arose in the early centuries of the Christian Church, Apollinarianism perceives no reconcilable way in which the divine and human natures coexist within one undivided Person. Such a union is perceived by such theologians to be an ontological impossibility. Yet theologically, this philosophy undercuts the incarnational theology of the Scriptures, which necessitates Christ’s Incarnation as the only means by which salvation can be won for mankind.

These monophysitic heresies exalt reason above the testimony of God in the Scriptures. Man is not always content to know things as a matter of fact, but must also understand a thing’s ontological and philosophical mechanisms. For example, it is not enough that the Incarnation exists; it must be understood how it exists. In the same way, man is not content to know that the two natures of Christ exist in one Person, but it must be understood how these two natures coexist in the indivisible and unchanging Person of Christ; and not only this, but a rational explanation must be offered over a correct biblical understanding. 

Though Apollinarianism was largely extinguished a few decades after it was deemed heretical in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, questions regarding the relationship between the two natures of Christ persisted. The Council of Chalcedon, which convened in A.D. 451, is seen as the most Christological of the seven early ecumenical Councils for its reassertion of the Council of Ephesus’ declaration against the teachings of Eutyches and Nestorius—both of whom taught contrary to the Church’s doctrine concerning the natures of Christ—as well as its clear definition of the Godhead and manhood of Christ. Nevertheless, Trinitarian and Christological debate continued even after the Christologically-focused council held in Chalcedon, as theologians attempted to reconcile the difficult doctrine of Christ’s two natures and their relationship with one another.

Twenty years prior to the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) formalized and adopted the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which is the inseparable and unchangeable union between Christ’s divine and human natures in one undivided Person (or substance). Yet the early heresies like Apollinarianism that preceded it, and the heresies that came after it, remind the Church that while there are appropriate and theologically sound ways to explain the two natures of Christ in full accord with Holy Scripture, as the early Church Councils have proven, there are several more ways in which the Church may deviate from these orthodox teachings and deny the truth of Christ by an attempt to rationalize or philosophize the two natures. 

The Apollinarianistic heresy does not pose a substantial threat to the Church today, at least by name. It died out a few decades after its condemnation by the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. A modern form of Apollinarianism, known as Neo-Apollinarianism, which was proposed by William Lane Craig in around 2017, holds that the divine Logos of Christ completes His human nature. He claimed in a 2017 podcast:

What I argue in my Neo-Apollinarian proposal is that the Logos brought to the human body just those properties which would make it a complete human nature – things like rationality, self-consciousness, freedom of the will, and so forth. Christ already possessed those in his divine nature, and it is in virtue of those that we are created in the image of God. So when he brought those properties to the animal body – the human body – it completes it and makes it a human nature. 

—Does Dr. Craig Have an Orthodox Christology? published by Reasonable Faith, 2017.

Craig does condemn Apollinaris’ original assertion that Christ did not have a complete human nature. Apollinaris’ original teaching, as well as Craig’s modern formula, both cut against the fullness of human nature as it was established by God in Creation and the subsequent necessity for Christ to assume that human nature. As with most Gnostic derivatives, both forms of Apollinarianism and its monophysitic relatives hold the presupposition that the divine Logos, that is the divine nature of God, is incapable of assuming or otherwise subsisting in or with the human nature, because the human nature is liable to sin and essentially incompatible with the divine.

Every Christological heresy–or any heresy within the theological sphere–shares a common presupposition: the divine Logos, the divine substance of God, is confined by and subordinate to His own creation. For even as the very concept of God, the divine Logos, is by virtue of its own substance incomprehensible and unknowable, man persists in philosophizing and rationalizing God so that he might understand God. This, however, severely limits the substance of God to our own capabilities—and limitations—such that He is no longer God. We must avoid these dangerous ideologies as wherever they infect the Church and rob her of the truth that God reveals through Scripture and His Means of Grace.