An Investigation of Early Church Christology
“The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began,
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many path and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.”[1]
Just as a path begins the journey for Frodo onto the road toward Mordor and the destruction of evil so Christology begins as several paths as the early church struggled to understand and communicate Jesus’ relationship with the Father. Culminating with the doctrine of the Trinity in an effort to explain the person and work of Jesus, The Christ.
As this is a large and expansive topic this paper will focus on the paths that deal with the person of Jesus and his relationship to the Father. Attempting to show the different ideas in reconciling the monotheistic nature of Christianity with the seemingly plurality of Jesus being God as well.
Several major thinkers of the early church attempted to answer this question to varying degrees of success. This paper will deal with the following individuals and their contributions to the ideas of Christology in the early church: Justin Martyr, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, Arian, and Athanasius. These individuals contributions will each be discussed as paths on the road toward the Nicene Council which produced the orthodox position of the catholic[2] church on the issues of Christology.
Christology
First there needs to be a couple of words on the concept of Christology and what it means. This word describes the task of dealing with the person of Christ and his relationship with the Father as well as his humanity. Robert Norris states it this way, “to understand or evaluate Jesus christologically means, on the one hand, to ask about his relation to God, and on the other, to seek a way of expressing his representative characters a human being”[3]
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr was one of the great apologists of his era. He attempted to bring together Christianity and the philosophical ideas of the Greeks. This ultimately lead him down the wrong path but it helped to push forward ideas of Christology and attempted to interact with the culture of the day.[4]
Justin drew on the ideas of the Greek philosophers in order to help understand his Logos approach to Christology. He took the Logos to be the divine reason that ruled the earth. Justin saw the Logos as the reality that made God know to the people of the old covenant and subsequently came down to earth in human form. Justin’s language comes primarily from John 1:1-14[5] where Jesus is seen as the Logos that is begotten of the father for the creation of the world. This leads Justin down the path of having the Logos as subordinate in essence to God the Father.
“Logos was the divine reason uttered as divine Word for the sake of forming and governing the world. As such, of course, it was perfectly expressive of God’s being and purposes. It was like a fire lit from the fire that is God. Nevertheless, it was derivative, and for that reason inferior to the one God.”[6]
Thus Justin sees Jesus as one that is expressive of God but not on the same playing field. He is a perfect surrogate yet does not hold the same power and authority as God the Father does.
Through his Logos theology Justin attempted to reconcile the truths he saw in the philosophical traditions of the Greeks and the ideas of Judaism with the person of Jesus. Justin saw the Logos as being the rational principal that is available to everyone thus humankind can at times access the Logos in its understanding of things. But only the person of Jesus Christ had full access to the Logos as he embodied it.[7]
The major problem with this idea of the Logos being the divine reason that was begotten by the Father is that it sets Jesus up as a kind of bumper state between humanity and God seeing only the Father as the true God and the Logos as his middleman between himself and humanity. Thus Justin sets up the Logos as the reason that was in Jesus rather then God. For Justin it is this divine reason that is incarnate in Jesus. These issues are what make Justin’s Logos theology such a troubling thought, as he does not flesh this particular idea out any further.[8]
Tertullian of Carthage
Tertullian wrote on the issues of Christology in an effort to combat the ideas of the Gnostic and dualistic writers of the day. He spent time focusing on the flesh of Christ as to underline and drive home the point that Jesus as a divine being was also flesh.
Tertullian’s basic argument against the Gnostic ideas and Marcion in particular is the idea that the flesh for all its ugliness and sinfulness it is still an object of God’s love.[9] Tertullian took the ideas of God being one yet having different personas and expanded it in order to defend the idea of a monotheistic God against the Roman polytheistic concepts of God. This lead to his explanation that Jesus was both human and divine partaking in both of the natures—human and divine.
“Thus, early in the West, with Tertullian, we have an awareness of the two complete
natures in Christ, although Tertullian did not use the Greek language of physis but his own Latin concept of substantia. …so it was valuable in his Christology: In Christ there are two substances, duae substantiae.”[10]
This concept of Jesus having two natures is critical in understanding how Jesus is both God and human. Without both of these natures the atonement and resurrection would be pointless. Tertullian found the proper way to understand the mystery of Jesus having both human and divine qualities.
Tertullian was adamant about the fact that both the divinity and humanity of Jesus was found in his incarnate self. For without this there is no point in a human man dying for our sins as he would not be perfect and if he is fully divine then he is not a mediator rather there must be both with in the person of Christ and Tertullian stresses the fact that Jesus was both human and divine. “The two substances continue unaltered in the one person and provide the bases for two kinds of activity, human and divine.”[11]
Origen of Alexandria
Origen takes the stance that the Father begot the Son eternally. In essence there never has been a time when the Father and Son have not been together. Origen sees the Son as one who is below the Father. He holds to the hierarchical view that Justin Martyr introduced in his Logos theology and Origen continues this thought.
Origen holds the idea that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father as a fundamental truth.
“So Origen tells us that the common rule of faith as he understood it included the confession the Jesus Christ was born of the Father before all creatures, ad served God in the making of the world before he himself came into the world that he made, becoming man while he yet remained divine.”[12]
This is what Origen was most concerned with. He wanted to stress the point that Jesus has existed eternally. While Origen saw Jesus as eternally existing he did not see him as one that was equal with God. Rather Origen saw Jesus as an image of God. Origen sees Jesus as the complete expression of God’s being and mediator between God and humanity.
This understanding of Jesus is one that leads down the path of having one God but yet still keeping Jesus from being wholly divine. What Origen does is similar to what Justin does in his Logos theology. Like Justin Origen’s world is very hierarchical and one that stresses the need for mediation between God and humanity. Thus the Christian is unable to come to God but rather all things must be passed through Jesus in order to have community with God.
Origen had some really good contributions to the road of orthodoxy in Christology but ultimately the totality of his view places Jesus as a second-class citizen of the trinity in relationship with God and this is just unacceptable. Yet he does add the very important contribution to the debate and understanding that Jesus was eternally with God and that The Father never existed without the Son.
Arian
Arian took the ideas of a transcend God from the teachings of Origen and Justin and expressed the implicit understanding explicitly. Basically he saw God as wholly transcendent and the mediator between God and humanity, the Logos, as a created being. This created being was created before the ages and therefore is a supreme being (i.e. the Fifth Element[13]). Thus the Logos is a created being and not divine.
Arius was attempting to provide an answer on how could there be two God’s, The Father and Jesus, while still maintaining the monotheistic nature of Christianity. This lead Arian down the road of having God being so transcendent that he was unable to mix with humanity so he created a mediator. Arian stresses the createdness of the mediator.
“Since, for Arius, the Son is truly on the side of creaturely divide, not truly God, he cannot fully know God. He is distinct from God’s very essence, not homoousios with God, only God by grace, God is name only. …God’s transcendence remains protected and ultimately unbridgeable.”[14]
Arius’ Christ was one that was for all intents and purposes a demigod that was able to bridge the gap between the immanent humanity and the transcendent God who lived in heaven and did not mix with his creation on earth.[15]
There are three key elements to the understanding of Arius’ Christology. The first has been touched on already and it deals with his understanding that the unbigoted Father begets Christ. This is key for Arius as it holds the rest of his theological ideas together. If Christ is not a created being then the rest of his arguments and discussion are meaningless.
Arius then build on to this by saying that created beings are unable to know God therefore Christ is unable to know God and his intentions as he is a created being. “ Arius holds that “’The one who has a beginning is in no position to comprehend or lay hold of the one who has not beginning.’”[16] Here Arius is lowering the understanding of Christ down to that of the human level. He believes and presses home that he Son is unable to do anything apart and unaided from God the Father. Everything the Son does on earth is done with the help and grace of God the Father.
Arius responds to the places that seem to have Jesus claiming divinity by stating that these places the term is being used honorifically. He argues that the language of son and sonship in John is just metaphorical language. This was a way in which the Supreme Being was honored and all of this must come back to the controlling thought that God was wholly different from created beings and therefore different from the Son.
Thus Arius can be summed up to have the understanding that Jesus was a created being who mediates the relationship between humanity and the transcendent God; yet who is unable to know the mind of God and is wholly different in essence then God.[17]
Athanasius
Athanasius responded to Arius’ incorrect thinking and helped to resolve the problems tha Arius’ Christology brought up. The major problem that Athanasius has with the idea that the Logos is a created being is that if he is a created being he is created. There is no division between created beings there is no such thing as the being having different powers because they are created. A created human is a created human.
Athanasius was just as concerned about the monotheistic nature of God and the potential issues revolving around the idea that Jesus was God. This raises pluralistic questions that have to be answered and Athanasius came at the issue in total opposition to Arius. “He granted that for the Creator to become human and submit to the power of creatures must seem humiliating. But that was the only way to save humankind from moral and physical extinction.”[18] From this a God that is relational is seen as opposed to Arius transcendent God who is unable to mix and communicate with his people. This picture of God is one that is concerned about his people and desires to have a relationship with him.
Athanasius focused much of his argument on the concept that Jesus was a divine being that was the same in essence as that of the Father. He used a simple syllogism to explain this:
“Only God can save us
Jesus Christ saves us
Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.”[19]
This argumentation is difficult to disprove for there are numerous verses and all of Paul practically gives us the answer that Jesus Christ saves us and therefore he must be God. Athanasius also made a clear connection about Jesus having to be divine in order to save us. With out the divine nature the cross and resurrection have little to no significance. “Unless the Son is son by nature, he cannot possess the attributes of the divine nature (immortality) which are necessary for our salvation.”[20]
While Athanasius got to the core of the issue and dealt with the fact that Jesus was divine he did not fully solve the issue of how Jesus was both divine and human. He still stuck to the principal that Jesus was mostly a divine being in habiting a human shell. “This theory is often referred to as the Logos and sarx (flesh) being such that Christ has no human soul.”[21] This presents a problem for if Jesus has no human soul he is not truly a human and thus the death of Christ has little significance for humanity. In the death of Christ it was not seen as a separation of soul and body but rather a separation of body and Logos.[22] This idea sticks with the understanding that Christ was not fully human but rather a kind of shell inhabited by a divine spirit.
Nicene Creed
The council of Nicaea met from May till the end of June in 325 CE. The council was the catholic church’s attempt to codify and lay out exactly what they believe concerning the Trinity, in function and personhood. The council was predicated by the clash between Arian and Athanasius. This council was the place at which all the ideas were to be put to the test of the bible and a conclusion was to be obtained. The product of the council was the Nicene Creed, which lays out what is considered as orthodox belief concerning the trinity. As this was a very important issue great care was taken to insure that all the bishops were in attendance and that they came to a statement that matched scripture.
The Nicene Creed gives us a clear understanding of the relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is one of the first documents to do so and clears up a lot of the issues surrounding the Christological debates of the early church. The following sections are the part that deals with Christology in the creed:
“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God begotten as only begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens is coming to judge the living and the dead:… But those who say, ‘there was a time when he did not exist’, and ‘before being begotten he did not exist’, and that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is alterable or changeable these the Catholic and Apostolic church condemns.”[23]
This statement contains the anathema that addresses Arianism specifically and speaks to the reason for the statement in the first place.
As the statement emphatically states Jesus, the Son, is seen as equal to God the Father. There are several statements made over and over again in an effort to drive home this point. The language used is very close to the language that John uses in his gospel and all of these statements speak to the person and work of Jesus in an effort to clarify and state in no uncertain terms that Jesus is God.
This statement is the final form of Christology and the beginning place for any discussion on the issue of Christology from this point onward. This statement sets out what orthodox Christology is and sets the stage for the rest of the conversations on Christology from this time forward.
Concluding Thoughts
As the paths have been followed it has been demonstrated in a very limited and small scope that as the church grew and learned these paths of Christology all lead into one road that goes for ever onward in the Nicene Creed as the orthodoxy to keep Christianity on the straight and narrow road.
While most of the early church theologians struggled individually to understand and explain this idea of Jesus and how he relates to the rest of the Godhead they all contributed to the ideas and eventually they got it right in the Nicene Creed. As all of the biblical contributions came together into the cohesive whole bringing the clarity that doing theology in community produces.
Bibliology
Carrington, Philip. The Early Christian Church Volume 2 The Second Christian Century. Cambridge: University Press, 1957. Print.
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967. Print.
Christology of the Later Fathers. Ed. Edward R. Hardy. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1954. Print.
George, Samuel. "The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church - a Methodological Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons." Asia Journal of Theology 24.2 (2010): 219-253. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
Goergen, Donald J. The Jesus of Christian History. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Print.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Print.
Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1988. Print.
Harper, Brad Ph.d. Senior Theology Class Notes. Multnomah University 2011
Inbody, Tyron L. The Many Faces of Christology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002. Print.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print
Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Print
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company, 2002. Print.
Wand, J.W.C. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 1955. Print.
[1] Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company, 2002. Print. p.35
[2] catholic church in this paper will refer to the universal church body. Not jus the Catholic Church.
[3] Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Print. pp. 1-32
[4] McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print. pp.17-38
[5] 1In the beginning was he Word, and the Word was with God, and he Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[6] Norris pp.6-7
[7] Goergen, Donald J. The Jesus of Christian History. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Print. pp. 44-55
[8] Norris p.7
[9] Norris p. 13
[10] Goergen p. 117
[11] Norris p. 14
[12] Christology of the Later Fathers. Ed. Edward R. Hardy. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1954. Print.
[13] The Fifth Element is the weapon sent by the Mondoshawan to protect humanity from the great evil that comes every 5000 years.
[14] Goergen p.72
[15] Hardy p. 19
[16] McGrath p. 48
[17] An interesting syllogism attributed to Arius:
“Christ is the Logos incarnate,
Christ is capable of change and suffering,
Therefore the Logos is capable of change and not equal to God,”
Wand, J.W.C. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 1955. Print. p.41
This syllogism does not take into account the times when God is seen to “change his mind” in the OT and therefore does not deal with the paradox of a unchanging God who changes his mind. It allows no room for a paradox period.
[18] Inbody, Tyron L. The Many Faces of Christology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002. Print. p.53
[19] Harper, Brad Ph.d. Senior Theology Class Notes. Multnomah University 2011
[20] Inbody, p. 54
[21] Goergen p.72
[22] Goergen p.76
[23] Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1988. Print. p.163
No comments:
Post a Comment