As for the Council of Nicaea, the Christological issue is more complicated. The Arian heresy did not exactly endorse the humanity of Jesus. in fact, Arians considered Jesus to be only the apparent incarnation of a Son, who was actually the first creature of God. One of the Nicene formulas says the Son was "begotten not made". This is the crux of the issue, and it has to do with the metaphysical relationship between the Father and the Son before anything else was created.
The participles "begotten" and "made" are very similar in Greek (genetos and gennetos - I don't remember which is which). The Arians said that, in the case of the Fatherhood of God, they mean the same, so the Son was the first creature and substantially different from the Father. the creation/begetting of the Son was the first act of creation and the first instant of time. Against this, Nicaea held that the Son was "begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made." [The "by whom..." clause refers to the Son.]
So, while it is accurate to say that Nicaea upheld the divinity of Christ, it is not so accurate to say that the Council denied the humanity of Christ. In fact, when the Son finally got around to being incarnated, the humanity (according to Arius and the anti-Nicenes) was merely APPARENTLY human. This is called the heresy of "docetism" from the Greek meaning "to seem": Arians believed that Jesus only seemed to be human. [BTW, for whatever it may be worth in terms of class analysis, Arius himself was bourgeois - a successful suburban Rector in Alexandria]. As one modern scholar but it, the Arian notion of the nature of Jesus was the worst possible christology: the incarnation of that which was not God in someone who was not human. But this had to be worked out over the next 130 years.
The phrase usually translated as "being of one substance with the Father" or "one in being with the Father." Was the only thing that was added at the Emperor's suggestion, as far as we know, and it caused big problems, because the only theologians who had used the term (homo-ousios) before had used it to mean that God was a simple Unity, Who relates to creation in three ways (modes), rather as an actor who puts on different masks. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three names for different activities of one divine Person. This heresy (called "modalism" or "Sabellianism") had been ruled out long before Constantine. "Consubstantial" (from the Latin translation) seemed to many to be a revival of it, and many Arians objected on those grounds.
On the other hand, the ultra-Nicene opponents of Arianism eventually DID err by de-emphasizing the humanity, but long after Constantine had died. In fact, his successors endorsed attempts to win back the Arians, such as the suggestion that the Son was "of like substance with the Father". [This was later called "semi-Arianism," ridiculed by Gibbon, who remarked that "the world was divided over an iota" because "like substance" was "homoi-ousios."]
Anyway, it seems to me that the imperial project was to encourage the unity of the Church for its own purposes. Although not yet the official religion, I think it is true that Constantine and his successors did hope that the movement would stay together, because like the Empire itself, it was universal in that it granted membership to anyone at all, just as the Empire had granted citizenship to everyone regardless of nationality, since the time of Caracalla (198-217CE). I think the emperors wanted to use Christianity for their own purpose, but not exactly in the way you suggest. In fact, in a few years, Emperors would persecute those who DENIED the full humanity of Jesus (Eutyches, mid-5th Century).
Another way of looking at the political significance of all this arrives at a different conclusion: the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity, which the Arian controversy precipitated, resulted in a new notion: a Society in which the Members were all entirely equal, without either separation or confusion. American Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemman has suggested that this is the root of the modern idea of human rights. (See also, Nikolai Berdyayev). The necessity of refining the notion of personhood, so that God could be glorified as three Persons without reverting to polytheism, produced the greatest intellectual achievement of the 4th Century in the work of the so-called "Cappadocean Fathers". The total and complete equality of the Son and Spirit with the Father, in an unbreakable - yet voluntary - union of love, without any confusion of the Three Persons, is, in this view, a vision of a perfect society, to which humans are also called.
At a national Council of Churches meeting, Schmemman once, famously, declared "the social teaching of the Orthodox Church is the Dogma of the Most Holy Trinity." I suppose the vision is a society in which the "rights" or "interests" of the whole are neither subservient not superior to those of the members. It can be argued that this is what Jesus meant by the "Kingdom" of God - the way of running things that is not like the (hierarchical) way of this world. So, getting back to Nicaea, the full divinity of the Son is essential to this vision, just as the full humanity of the incarnate Son is necessary to the possibility of achieving it "on earth as in Heaven."
As for Crucifixion and Resurrection, I have long been struck by the fact that the Resurrection was illegal - subversive and revolutionary: the narratives say that Pilate caused the Tomb to be sealed. That means a wax impression of the Emperors image. The latter had to be defaced and broken for the tomb to be evacuated. Therefore, the whole foundation of Christianity is anti-imperial at its base.
***********
Regarding the Cleansing of the Temple by
Jesus, I remember earning 50 years ago that this may hav been the legal
justification for His execution: interfering with a form of worship that
enjoyed the protection of the Empire was a capital offense. Just claiming to be
the messiah was not. The money-changers were essential to Temple worship
because "graven images" were not permitted within the Temple, and so
the coin of the realm, bearing Caesar's image, had to be changed before people
could buy the animals they wished to offer as sacrifices. All of this was
perfectly legitimate anda protected by the Roman authorities. Jesus's action
was a direct challenge to that authority.
So, by the way, was the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, according to one interesting interpretation. Over on that side of the Galilee (possibly somewhere near the Roman city now called Jerash) there weren't that many Jews, but there were plenty of Roman troops, who ate pork. in any case, such a large herd of swine was obviously intended for a large group of pork-eaters, who could only have been Roman soldiers. therefore, destroying that enormous herd by sending into it a "legion" (interesting reference to a Roman military unit) was also an act of sedition!
There are hints all over the place that Jesus had more sympathy with the Zealots than was comfortable for the later imperial authorities. Such as King James I, whose superb scholars translated the canonical scripture from the oldest original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to them. (They didn't just translate the Latin Vulgate.) But when it came to the "theives" crucified on either side of Jesus their translation was vague to the point of error. More recent translations render the word more accurately as "brigands" or "bandits." So what? Well, I always think of a "brigand" as a kind of cinematic swashbuckler or pirate, and a "bandit" as high-way robber or James-gang member. Well, again, that's partly right. Brigands were highway robbers - nads of outlwas who preyed upon travellers. But these "bands" were "bandits" as Pancho Villa was a bandit: not like Jesse James, but POLITICAL REVOLUTIONARIES. The two "theives" were not pickpockets or burglars, but guerrillas who harassed Roman troops and robbed other caravans to keep themselves going. Nowadays, they would be called terroristrs.
Furthermore, the so-called "penitent thief" NEVER said that he was sorry for what he had done! That iis an inference that the reader must make - one that imperial interpretation pretty-much requires - but it is not found in the text. What is said about him is only that he rebuked the other guerilla by observing that they were getting only what they deserved according to Roman law, while Jesus was treated unjustly, even by Roman law. (Maybe not, though, if His crime was the Temple ruckus.) Anyway, King James certainly would not wish to hear of an un-repentant revolutionary being personally escorted into paradise by Jesus!
Another interesting detail, the Russian liturgy refers to this figure not as the "penitent thief" or the "good thief" but as the "right-thinking brigand." Nothing about repentance of "terrorist" activity.
I wonder whether you have read "Zealot" by Reza Aslan. If so, you may be interested in criticism of it from a somewhat more mainstream - if Evangelical - point of view:http://www.christianitytoday.com/.../zealot-reza-aslan...
So, by the way, was the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, according to one interesting interpretation. Over on that side of the Galilee (possibly somewhere near the Roman city now called Jerash) there weren't that many Jews, but there were plenty of Roman troops, who ate pork. in any case, such a large herd of swine was obviously intended for a large group of pork-eaters, who could only have been Roman soldiers. therefore, destroying that enormous herd by sending into it a "legion" (interesting reference to a Roman military unit) was also an act of sedition!
There are hints all over the place that Jesus had more sympathy with the Zealots than was comfortable for the later imperial authorities. Such as King James I, whose superb scholars translated the canonical scripture from the oldest original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to them. (They didn't just translate the Latin Vulgate.) But when it came to the "theives" crucified on either side of Jesus their translation was vague to the point of error. More recent translations render the word more accurately as "brigands" or "bandits." So what? Well, I always think of a "brigand" as a kind of cinematic swashbuckler or pirate, and a "bandit" as high-way robber or James-gang member. Well, again, that's partly right. Brigands were highway robbers - nads of outlwas who preyed upon travellers. But these "bands" were "bandits" as Pancho Villa was a bandit: not like Jesse James, but POLITICAL REVOLUTIONARIES. The two "theives" were not pickpockets or burglars, but guerrillas who harassed Roman troops and robbed other caravans to keep themselves going. Nowadays, they would be called terroristrs.
Furthermore, the so-called "penitent thief" NEVER said that he was sorry for what he had done! That iis an inference that the reader must make - one that imperial interpretation pretty-much requires - but it is not found in the text. What is said about him is only that he rebuked the other guerilla by observing that they were getting only what they deserved according to Roman law, while Jesus was treated unjustly, even by Roman law. (Maybe not, though, if His crime was the Temple ruckus.) Anyway, King James certainly would not wish to hear of an un-repentant revolutionary being personally escorted into paradise by Jesus!
Another interesting detail, the Russian liturgy refers to this figure not as the "penitent thief" or the "good thief" but as the "right-thinking brigand." Nothing about repentance of "terrorist" activity.
I wonder whether you have read "Zealot" by Reza Aslan. If so, you may be interested in criticism of it from a somewhat more mainstream - if Evangelical - point of view:http://www.christianitytoday.com/.../zealot-reza-aslan...
No comments:
Post a Comment