Christ in Eastern Thought: Monophysitism (2)

Main idea:  Chalcedonian terminology created a problem.  Given the sharp distinction between person and nature, if we say that God truly suffered in the flesh, how does one maintain divine impassibility?  Simply saying the divine person suffered in his human nature only removes the problem a step.  It does not solve it, for the divine nature remains untouched.  But given the strong union language used by the East, it seems unlikely that the divine nature should remain so untouched.   This leads us to ask:  are they really that far from Nestorius?  In both cases there seems to be a “gap” between the divine nature and the human nature.

This is why earlier writers like Athanasius and Apollonarius saw the human nature of Christ as an instrument of the eternal Logos.

The rest of the chapter summarizes the debates centering around Severus of Antioch.  They are interesting for the specialist but not many else.