Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

NOTES 217
5 Possibly an echo of Isa. 9:5 and Eph. 1:11.
6 Composite quotation from Matt. 26:39 and Luke 22:42.
7 Gregory Nazianzen, Sermon 39.13: the subject of Amb. 41, above.
8 Dualist-gnostic teaching established by Mani: see Amb. 5, n. 7 (pp.214–
15, above).
9 Apollinaris (c. 310–c. 390) taught that Christ had no human soul, but
that its place was taken by the Word of God. Behind this teaching lies a
desire to emphasize the unity of Christ, and some of his writings
(circulating under the name of Athanasius) were influential among
Cyril of Alexandria and his followers. The Apollinarian ‘forgeries’ were
exposed in the sixth century in a work once ascribed to Leontius of
Byzantium.
10 Eutyches was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon for his insistence
that after the union there is only one nature in Christ.
11 Maximus probably spent some time in Crete on his way to Africa, where
he arrived 628–30. See the Introduction, chapter 1.
12 Zach. 2:10, 11 (LXX).
13 Quite why Maximus associates Severus with the north (and elsewhere
with the northern characteristics of freezing cold and darkness) is
unclear. It is tempting to think that he was aware of the Slavonic word
for the north, sever. See above, Opusc. 7, n. 5.
14 The contrast here between theology and economy is a traditional one in
Greek theology: theology means strictly the doctrine of God, especially
the Trinity; the economy refers to God’s dealings with humankind,
especially the Incarnation.
15 The heresy traditionally called Sabellianism, to which Maximus later
refers.
16 Because Arius (c. 260–336), condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325),
denied the consubstantiality of Father and Son, and yet maintained
that in some sense the Son is divine, he is often accused of ditheism (or,
as here, of polytheism).
17 Sabellius (third century) denied personal distinctions in the Godhead.
Maximus has already shown how Severus’ teaching could lead to
Sabellianism: see n. 15 above.
18 Matt. 15:13.
19 What Maximus means, I think, is that Nestorius affirms a union of
gnomic qualities, and Severus the difference of natural qualities: i.e.,
Nestorius sees a union in which the divine and the human make up
their own minds, so to speak, to come into agreement, whereas, after the
union, Severus only admits the difference of natural qualities, such as
thirst, speaking, the colour of the hair, but maintains that the divine
and human natures cannot be distinguished.