The Christological controversies during the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. resulted in a number a views regarding the precise way in which God became man in the Incarnation. The view eventually decided upon at the councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus was that God and man were indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ; that is to say, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human.
Many groups during this period tended to overemphasize one aspect of this formula over the other. The Arians emphasized the humanity of Christ at the expense of His deity. The Monophysites (lit., "one nature"), on the other hand, emphasized Christ's deity at the expense of His humanity by teaching that Jesus' humanity was subsumed into his divinity; that is to say, His humanity was divinized. The Apollinarians expressly denied a human personality within Jesus. It is these two latter groups that are the focal point of our discussion, because modern Roman Catholic e-pologists, in their arguments supporting the Marian title "Mother of God," have abandoned the orthodox distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ and have instead opted for a hybrid view that incorporates elements of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism.
The Roman Catholic e-pologist position goes something like this: Jesus is God; Mary is the Mother of Jesus; therefore, Mary is the Mother of God (see, e.g., http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm , premises 7 & 8, and conclusion; and http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/mary.htm). Aside from the logical fallacies inherent in this syllogism (see my book, Evangelical Answers), Evangelicals rightly reject this syllogism based on the distinction between Jesus' humanity (which was "mothered" by Mary) and Jesus' divinity (which had no mother). Roman Catholic e-pologists like to respond to this objection by insisting that Mary didn't give birth to a nature, but rather a person, and that Jesus was a "divine person" who took on a human nature. This is the Apollinarian heresy resurrected from the theological grave. According to Apollinaris, Jesus is "the God borne of a woman," the "enfleshed God," and the "flesh-bearing God (Apollinaris, Fragments). In other words, Jesus is God in His personhood, and He is divine and human in His natures. According to Apollinaris, human flesh needs a spirit and intellect to direct it. In Jesus, that spirit and intellect is not a human one, but rather that of the divine Logos; so that (according to this view) while it can be said that the Logos became flesh (i.e., a human nature), it cannot be said that He became a man (i.e., a human person): "Whoever calls Him who was born of Mary a man, and calls Him who was crucified a man, makes Him a man instead of God" (Apollinaris, On the Faith of the Incarnation, 9). In short, Apollinaris' view was that Christ was a body of flesh formed and animated by a nous (spirit and intellect), but that the nous was not human, but rather divine. What Apollinaris means by nous is "person."
This view of Apollinaris was directly opposed by Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Athanasius, was rejected by the Western church in 377 A.D., by the Eastern church a decade later, and was eventually condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. All of these reasoned that a person who lacks a human nous (spirit and intellect) cannot truly be a man. And if Jesus is not truly a man, but merely God with a "human" nature, then He does not qualify to atone for our sins. The substitutionary atonement requires that Jesus is fully man--flesh, intellect and spirit--not simply God in a "human flesh" suit (or the inadequate phrase, "God cloaked in human flesh"). It is not "human flesh" that mediates for us before God, but "the man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). Atonement is possible only if a man with a human soul and intellect, through perfect obedience to God, can reverse the sin brought into the world by the man who, using his human soul and spirit (i.e., Adam), rebelled against God. Otherwise, while Jesus may well have redeemed our fleshly bodies, He has done absolutely nothing to redeem our souls (i.e., our persons). It is not mere flesh that defines us as human beings. One day our human flesh will undergo a transformation since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50-54); yet we will not thereby cease to be human. True humanity is therefore much more than material human flesh; it also includes the immaterial (i.e., soul, intellect, spirit, etc.).
We know biblically that Jesus had a human nous. Luke tells us that "Jesus grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52); that Jesus did not know the precise day and hour of his return (Matt 24:36); that Jesus is a man (not simply human, 1 Tim 2:5); that Jesus was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15); and that Jesus was "made like His brethren in every way" in order to "make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17). We also know biblically that Jesus had a divine nous. He is the pre-incarnate Word, who is God (John 1:1); He "knows all things" (Jn 21:17); He is omnipresent (Matt 28:20); and "all the fullness of deity dwells in Him" (Col 2:9).
Both the human nous and the divine nous are bound together in Christ and comprise His person. It is not the case, as Apollinaris believed, that Christ is a divine person with a human nature. Many of the early fathers renounced Apollinarianism (as well as Monophysitism) by speaking in terms of the distinction between Jesus' humanity and His divinity, insisting time and again that what applies to His humanity does not apply to His divinity, and vice versa. The Council of Chalcedon says this:
"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son"
According to the framers of the council, Jesus is born of Mary "as regards His humanity," and born of God "as regards His divinity." These differing "births," the council insists, should not be "confused," since "at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union." Both natures comprise one person--not a divine person or a human person, but one person with a divine nature and a human nature.
After condemning the supposed teachings of Nestorius (albeit only a misunderstanding of them, for which see my book, Evangelical Answers), the council affirms its stance against the Monophysite heresy:
"[Monophysites pervert the faith] by introducing a confusion and mixture, and mindlessly imagining that there is a single nature of the flesh and the divinity, and fantastically supposing that in the confusion the divine nature of the Only-begotten is passible. . . . [The Church] opposes those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; and it expels from the assembly of the priests those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible, and it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ."
The council expressly condemns the view that the divine nature is passible (i.e., the Monophysite belief that "God can die, and in fact did die"). Yet this view is currently being defended by modern Roman Catholic Monophysites as a necessary consequence to the notion that God can be born, a premise implicit in the title "Mother of God" (see http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/david.htm for an example of this).
Augustine states the following about the relationship of Jesus' humanity to His divinity:
"Since, then, Christ is God and man . . . we must take account of both these natures in Him when He speaks or when Scripture speaks of Him, and we must mark in what sense anything is said. When we say that Christ is the Son of God we do not separate His humanity from Him, nor when we say that the same Christ is the Son of man do we lose sight of His divinity. For, as man He was on earth, not in heaven where He now is . . . although in His nature as Son of God He was in heaven, but as Son of man He was still on earth and had not yet ascended into heaven. . . . and He will so come, on the testimony of the angel's voice, as He was seen going into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of flesh to which, it is true, He gave immortality, but He did not take away its nature. According to this form, we are not to think that He is everywhere present. We must beware of so building up the divinity of the man that we destroy the reality of His body. It does not follow that what is in God is in Him so as to be everywhere as God is. . . . God and man in Him are one Person, and both are the one Jesus Christ who is everywhere as God, but in heaven as man" (Augustine, Letter 118.8-10).
Augustine here denies that the attributes that belong to Christ's humanity can legitimately be applied to His divinity, and vice versa. Specifically in regard to Jesus' relationship to His mother (which is right on topic), Augustine tells us:
"At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity" (Tract. in Ioannem CXIX, 1).
Augustine shares the same sentiment elsewhere as well:
"It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give birth to my power of working miracles, it was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that is weak in me" (Tract. in Ioannem VII, 9.)
Clearly, Augustine made a distinction between the relation Mary enjoyed with Jesus’ humanity, and that which she enjoyed with Jesus’ divinity. Augustine goes on to explain what he means in the very next chapter of his work:
Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (Tract. in Ioannem VIII, 9).
According to Augustine, Mary could not have been the "Mother of God," since Jesus in His divinity had no mother. He insists over and over again in this passage that Mary was the mother of Jesus humanity only. Similarly, Gregory the Great, commenting on John 2 and 19 states:
"As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not from my mother. For he who from the nature of his Father did miracles, had it from his mother that he could die" (Epist. 41).
Both Gregory and Augustine share the view we have posited above for the distinction between Mary’s relationship to Jesus in his humanity and the same to Jesus in his divinity. There can be no objection, then, from the Roman Catholic who dismisses this view as ahistorical. It is based not only on better logic than the "mother of God" formula, but also has support from some of the early church’s best minds.
Now, where are we headed with all this? Simply put, the view espoused partly by Apollinaris and partly by the Monophysites, and condemned by the fifth-century church, is identical to the view of modern Roman Catholic e-pologists who argue that Jesus was a divine person with a human nature (Apollinarianism), and that what may be said of the human nature may also be said of the divine nature (e.g., God was born of Mary; Monophysitism). The Internet quite literally is littered with Roman Catholic e-pologists who have raised the heresies of Apollinaris and the Monophysites from the dead, and have adopted their arguments to defend the theologically aberrant notion that Mary is the Mother of God (see http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm, http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/mary.htm, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/2495/articles/mother_of_god.html, and http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num27.htm for a few examples of this). The first web link above has issued what the author calls "The Nestorius Challenge," an obvious reference to my "Roman Catholic Challenge." This so-called Challenge is decidedly Apollinarimonophysite in flavor. I have submitted a response to this challenge, and a rebuttal of my response from the author is now posted there (see Challenge # 4 at http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm). In my response I provided the excepts from Augustine's writings above (as well as those from Gregory the Great) without identifying the sources. The reason I did this was because I suspected the e-pologist would simply assume the quotations were from Protestant sources. I was correct. The author of the "challenge" (John Pacheco of Robert Sungenis' Catholic Apologetics International) goes to great lengths to refute and chastise Augustine and Gregory the Great (classifying Augustine and Gregory the great among "those who wish to arbitrarily dissolve the hypostatic union at the birth of Christ," and using "tactics" that "separate the divinity of Christ from His person"; of being "Un-Trinitarian," and of "contradicting Scripture") without being aware of just who he is chastising--He even goes so far as to refer to Augustine (though he doesn't know it is Augustine) as "our Protestant brother"! Indeed : ). Our challenger then hits Augustine with a barrage of questions to point out his "error."
In another web article, the Roman Catholic e-pologist makes no attempt whatever to disguise his allegiance to the Apollinarian heresy:
"[T]he second reason this is wrong is that if that were true, we'd have to conclude Jesus was a human person. But that is heretical. Jesus was a divine person only, but had a divine and a human nature. He was man, but not a human person. This is Catholicism 102, folks" (http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/david.htm).
What is instead "heretical" (biblically and historically) is the e-pologist's notion that Jesus was not a human person. This same e-pologist, in the very next paragraph and in complete contradiction of Chalcedon, answers the question of whether or not Jesus' divine nature is passible:
"The perhaps astounding but solidly Catholic answer to [the question of whether or not it can be said that "God died"] is YES! And I am quite surprised that throughout his sincere study of Roman Catholic theology, it it a little hothead like me who has to point out to him that this is what the Church teaches."
Perhaps this is what the Roman church teaches today, but it is certainly not what the fifth-century church taught in its condemnation of the Monophysite heresy. The e-pologist, like his colleagues, has simply resurrected the Monophysite heresy and called it "[Roman] Catholicism 102." In doing so, he has placed his entire denomination under the condemnation of Augustine, Gregory the Great, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, the Western church in 377 A.D., the Eastern church in 388 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., and, of course, the Scriptures themselves which insist that Jesus in His humanity was the "Son of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3) and had a mother, but in His divinity was the "Son of God" (Rom 1:4) and was "without [human] father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life" (Heb 7:3).
Eric Svendsen