Now the battle moves from the focus of Jesus’ full divinity to Jesus’ full humanity. What is the relationship between the person Jesus and His two natures. The Alexandrian School held to the Word-Flesh Christology, while the Antiochene School maintained the Word-Man Christology.

The Word-Flesh Christology held that in the incarnation the Eternal Word took a human body. The word incarnate is derived from two latin words meaning "in-flesh". Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) insisted that in the incarnation Christ did not merely enter into a man, but actually became a man.^75/3.26 Athanasius also saw the incarnation as not altering the transcendent status of the Word in any significant way. While encompassed in a human body, Jesus continued to govern the universe.^55/17

The Antiochene Christology, Word-Man, said the word only took on a man, but did not become man. This opened the door for Adoptionism, according to which the Word united with a preexisting individual human being.

Apollinarius (ca. 310-390), supporter of Athanasius, took the Alexandrian position to the extreme. He protested against the idea that a man joined with God. He said this results in two sons: the Son of God and the Son of Mary.^57/81 He believed the scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is a unity.^{57/2, 9} He was motivated by soteriological (salvation theology) considerations. He believed that if the human and divine are separated, then our redemption is jeopardized. Considered merely as man, Jesus has no saving power.^58/9

He used terms such as "God incarnate," "flesh bearing God," and "God born of woman." These terms meant that the human flesh of Christ was, from the moment of conception, joined with the Godhead in an absolute oneness of being, not wrapped in human flesh.^57/36

In Apollinarius’s understanding the flesh is not a separate complete living entity, unlike other humans who depend on the human soul for movement and action, Jesus body depended on the divine logos for movement and action. Thus, Jesus is not completely human because he does not have a human soul, spirit, or mind according to Apollinarius.^57/2 In the "God-Man", Jesus Christ, the Word is both the principle of Intelligence and the source or basis of life; and the flesh has no basis of life apart from the Word which takes the place of the human soul. The Apollinarius Jesus is a single compounded entity of the Word and Flesh, not two separate complete natures.^57/107 His scriptural basis: Phil 2:7-8 Likeness,⁸³ appearance.⁸⁴

Apollinarius was a Monophysite: he held that Jesus had just one nature. The implication of Apollinarius’s fushion of the Word and flesh are the following: first, he regarded Jesus’ flesh as being glorified. It is now "divine flesh" or "the flesh of God." Second, since, now, Jesus’ flesh cannot be separated from the Word, it is a proper object of worship. Finally, he held to the communicatio idomatum: the flesh shares the names and the properties of the Word, and vica versa.^57/155

The Church first rejected and condemned Apollinarius’s views at a Council held in Rome in 377. This was repeated at a Synod held at Alexandria in 378 and in Antioch in 379 and then again in the Council of Constantinople in 381. Emperor Theodosius I censured and outlawed Apollinarianism in a series of decrees issued in 383, 384 and 388.^60/295-296

What were the objections to the Apollinarius views? First it was a Docetic perspective: Jesus was not really a man but only appeared to be such.^61/2.4 Second, because the psychological aspect of the human nature was missing, Jesus was not human, but a monstrosity.^{62/23,29,33,45} Third, Jesus’ lack of inner psychology conflicted with the Gospel descriptions of Him which showed signs of ignorance and he experienced human emotions. Fourth, if Jesus did not assume full humanity, His redemptive work was undermined. How could a divine will’s resistance to sin achieve our salvation from sin. Jesus had to be fully human with a human will and human limitations to save us fully.

Cyril of Alexandria bitterly disagreed. He suggested that Nestorius was proposing that Jesus had two natures joined in a purely moral union.^64/10 Out of this came the concept that Nestorius was teaching that Jesus was not one person but two: human & divine. Nestorius repudiated this teaching but the name to the error has persisted.

This resulted in the Council of Ephesus June 7, 431. The Antiochene bishops where late, thus Cyril persuaded the present members to endorse his view and Nestorius was condemned.

When the Eastern bishops arrived on June 26, 431, they held their own council, deposing Cyril and the local bishop, Memnon, and rejected Cyril’s twelve anathemas. When the papal delegation arrived on July 10, they supported Cyril. It is this meeting that has gone down in history as the Third Ecumenical Council. This did not settle the issue. There were major obstacles to Cyril’s 12 anathemas and condemnation of Nestorius. Cyril spoke of one nature in Christ which smacked of Apollinarianism.

In 433 A.D. a statement was drafted to which all parties could agree. The Antiochenes abandoned Nestorius. This compromise which uses the term theotokos, specifies that Jesus has two natures that are united without confusion.^60/327-327

The settlement in 433 did not satisfy anyone. Extreme Antiochenes called Cyril a heretic. Right wing followers of Cyril felt he gave up too easily on Christ having only one nature. When Cyril died in 444, his successor, Dioscorus, reasserted the one nature doctrine.

The controversy finally broke around Eutyches (ca. 375-454). He had favor and influence at the court of Theodosius II, and was a rallying point for all the Alexandrians who disliked the accord of 433.

The standing Synod of Constantinople led by Flavian the local patriarch, met in November 448. Eutyches summoned, he stated that in the incarnation, the two natures become one. This resulted in Eutyches being deposed and excommunicated and the one nature doctrine rejected.

Eutyches, through political influence of the emperor, had another council convened in Ephesus in August 449. The assembly restored Eutyches, vindicated his orthodoxy and condemned and disposed Flavian & supporters for there two nature view. Physical force was used to coerce the signatures of bishops which gave this counsel the name Robber Synod.