THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST IN THE EARLY CENTURIES

INTRODUCTION.

1. Two great doctrinal controversies in the early church centered on the nature of Jesus Christ.

a. The first had to do with Christ in his relation to God.

b. The second dealt with the relation of Christ to His earthly life.

2. It is important that we are aware of some of the underlying factors in the speculation about Christ.

a. Philosophical presuppositions

b. Desire to explain everything rationally

c. Efforts to deal with false teachers -- e.g., gnostics. Tendency to over-react

d. Emphasis on certain doctrines, depending on presuppositions -- e.g. oneness of God vs. distinctions; divinity of Jesus vs. humanity of Jesus

e. Statements in Scripture -- desire to harmonize

I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SON TO THE FATHER IN ETERNITY

A. The central question in the debate: “Is the divine that has appeared on earth and reunited man with God identical with the supreme divine, which rules heaven and earth, or is it a demigod?”

B. Amid the varieties of metaphors in which the early church conceived of the meaning of salvation, all Christians shared in the belief that Christ is God. This was clearly stated in the New Testament (1 Cor. 16:22). The earliest documents indicating Christian belief after the New Testament show that the church held to this belief (1 Clem. 1.1-2; M. Polyc. 17.2-3; Plin., Ep. 10.96.7).

C. One problem with this belief, however, was that this One they believed was God come in the flesh was also the One who suffered and died on the cross. The belief that God suffered called forth some of the earliest doctrinal controversies in the church.

1. The pagan critic Celsus made this claim the object of his attack on Christianity, stating that “the body of a god would not have been born...[nor] eat.”

2. Heretics such as Marcion and the gnostics argued that Christ could not have possessed a material, suffering body. Such views were described as Docetic because they claimed that Christ only “seemed” to come in the flesh and only “seemed” to suffer.

3. Others held docetic views as well.

D. In response to such docetic views of Christ, Ignatius insisted that Christ “was really born, and ate and drank, was really persecuted by Pontius Pilate, was really crucified and died...really rose from the dead” (Trall. 9). But the existence of these views testifies to the conviction that Christ had to be God, even at the cost of His true humanity.

E. The problem that the early church wrestled with first, however -- before Christ in His relation to His earthly life -- was Christ in His relation to the divine in the Father.

F. From the second century, Christian thought was propelled in various directions. There were two extremes or concerns they wanted to safeguard:

1. Biblical monotheism or oneness of God. Some thought God was at the same time both Father and Son, and that one could say that the Father had suffered as well as the Son.

2. Biblical profession of a trinitarian faith. Some insisted on making a distinction between the Father and the Son/Word. The Son was God, but not in the same way as the Father. The Son was subordinate to the Father. Jesus could have been a man made divine through adoption by the Father.

G. Jaroslav Pelikan outlined four sets of Old Testament passages which, which could be interpreted and combined with their New Testament counterparts, as to speak of Christ as divine. A consideration of these four sets of passages will illustrate how the tendency to emphasize certain passages over others could result in opposing views

H. Adoption. It was possible for some to say that Jesus was the man whom God has elected for His own, and after the Spirit of God dwelt in Him and He was tested, He was adopted by God. Some read Acts 2:32-36 as adoptionism. Furthermore, the word from the cloud at the baptism of Jesus (Lk. 3:22) was sometimes rendered as the decree in Psalm 2:7: “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.” The baptism of Jesus was frequently regarded as the decisive event in Christ’s divine sonship. Paul of Samosata is cited by Eusebius as an example. Adoptionism is more commonly called “Adoptionist Monarchianism” or “Dynamic Monarchianism.” The label “Monarchian” was apparently invented by Tertullian to designated those who, declaring that they “maintain the monarchy”, protect the monarchy of the Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without carefully specifying the distinction between them. They said there is only one God (“monarchy”) and Jesus is therefore only human, except for the fact that the power of Deity dwelt on him in His incarnation, so that He then became the Son of God.

I. Identity. Other passages were sometimes interpreted to make Christ the Son identical with the Father. Isaiah 63:9 in the LXX was understood to say that the salvation accomplished by Christ was the work of God; i.e., Christ as Lord was Jehovah. This tendency to identify the Son and Father in an undifferentiated sense resulted in “Modalistic Monarchianism.” By making use of passages that seemed to make no distinction between the Father and the Son, the Modalistic Monarchians contended that there exists one and the same Being, called both Father and Son according to the changing of the times. He manifests himself under various modes or in different operations. One version of this doctrine was called Sabellianism, named for Sabellius. Taking the words of Isa. 44:6 -- “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God” -- and applying them to Christ, Sabellius designated this one God as “Sonfather.” He used the image of the sun, conceived as one essence with three engergies (the light-giving, the warming, and the astrological) as an analogy for the trinity. They were also called “Patripassionists” because they seemed to imply that the father suffered on the cross. Tertullian attacked this view, accusing them of driving out the Paraclete and crucifying the Father. His objection was the suggestion that God the Father suffered and died.

J. Distinction. Other Christians recognized that indeed there were passages that identified Christ with God, but emphasized that these must be interpreted in the light of other passages that clearly distinguished between one Lord and another Lord, between Father and Son. Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all argued that passages like Psalm 110 made distinction between the Father and the Son. They insisted that the monarchian exegesis of their so-called proof-texts had failed to account for the use of second and third person permeating the language of Christ about the Father in the New Testament.

1. Tertullian tried to avoid the error of monarchianism as well as the error of the gnostics. Said the Son shares in the divine substance (thought of spirit as a substance, like Stoics). Used three illustrations to show that the Son is of the same substance of the Father, yet distinct:

a. source of a river, the river, and a tributary

b. root of a tree, a branch, and fruit

c. the sun, a ray of sunlight, and that which it strikes and is warmed

2. In other words, the FAther is divine substance. The Son is like a tributary, distinct but not different. The three are three in sequence, but not in quality; three in manifestation but not in substance.

3. Tertullian set the terminology in the Latin West for explaining the trinity.

a. substantiae -- that which the Father, Son, and HS have in common. The Son is unius substantiae (one substance) with the Father

b. persona -- a distinct individual; there are three persons

c. trinitas -- the trinity, or threefold Godhead

K. Derivation. Many of the apologists, including Origen and Tertullian, used Logos (Word) as a term for the divine in Christ. This was based on certain passages, the obvious one being John 1:1f. But also by Proverbs 8:22-31 (LXX). These two passages could be used to correlated Christ’s redemption with the creation -- both were works of the Logos. Logos also signified the message -- rationality, speech, and revelation. This very Logos had become incarnate in Christ. In addition, the Logos was to be identified as the Son of God. OT passages such as Psa. 2:7 and Psa. 110:1 clearly referred to Christ as the Son of God.

1. ORIGEN -- Origen developed a systematic theology in terms of Neo-Platonism. Wanted to avoid both monarchianism and the danger of denying Christ's divinity. God is one, is alone and ingenerate, is transcendent. A perfect being who created (generated) a world of spiritual beings (logikoi) , co-eternal with himself. The Son, the express image of God, mediates between God in his oneness and the logikoi in their plurality.

2. The Word is an eternal expression or generation of God. It cannot be said taht "there was once when he was not.." Like the emergence of will from mind. Continuous exercise of will, thus not economic. Illustrations: reflection of a mirror; union of husband and wife.

3. There was an element of subordinationism in Origen. Son is divine, but not as divine as the Father.

4. To indicate distinction from the Father, uses the term hypostasis, individual subsistence. There are three hypostases, or three distinct beings. As a mediator the Word reflects the Father to the rational or spiritual creatures who obtain their relation to God through the Word.

5. [NOTE: Greek hypostasis was equivalent in etymology to Latin substantia. Tertullian said one substance, three persons. Origen says three hypostases. Hence confusion in part due to difference in languages. This problem would have to be worked out.]

L. Still the designations of Christ as the Logos and as the Son of God left unclarified in the minds of many His oneness with God. The ambiguity is what called forth the Arian Controversy. Proverbs 8 was interpreted by many in terms of Christ’s subordination to God and even of His being created. Indeed, it would seem that it was the exegesis of Prov. 8:22-31 in the light of certain doctrinal presuppositions that helped lead to the Arian interpretation of the passage.

1. A special version of the absoluteness of God. No understanding of the Logos as divine could be permitted in any way to compromise the arithmetic oneness of God, who “alone” created his “only” son. Originally and fundamentally, then, God was alone.

2. An uncompromising view of divine transcendence. No action of God, neither the creation of the world nor the generation of the Logos, could be interpreted in such a way as to support the notion that the Father had deprived himself of what he possesses in an absolute way.

M. ARIUS -- About 319, Arius, a prestigious and popular presbyter in Alexandria, clashed with Alexander bishop of Alexandria and began preaching that only God the Father is eternal and unoriginated. Christ was created by the Father out of nothing. "There was when he was not." Thus he is not eternal. He is not divine. He becomes God in the way that every saint does. Thus not fully God, but a demigod, the first among creatures. Did not deny the preexistence of the Logos; but before anything else was made God created the Logos. Emphasized Origen's subordinationism and eliminated his idea of eternal generation. Was interested in preserving the unity of God, but ended up doing damage to the true deity of Christ. “The ultimate outcome of the Arian system was a Christ suspended between man and God, identical with neither but related to both: God was interpreted deistically, man moralistically, and Christ mythologically” (Pelikan).

N. ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA — Followed Origen in teaching that the Logos was eternally generate and divine. Regarded the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, the Father as another; but both of the same nature.

O. THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, 325 — When the controversy was not resolved and dissension was increasing, Constantine decided to call a great assembly of bishops from all parts of the empire.

1. Majority soon saw Arianism as a dangerous teaching, agreed that Arianism must be rejected. Council first tried Scriptural appeal. They decided this would not be able to solve the problem. Decided to make a creed that would clearly exclude Arianism.

2. Homoousios, "of the same substance", meant to convey that the Son was just as divine as the Father. But the problem it left was it seemed to imply there was no distinction between Father and Son, leaving door open for patripassionism.

P. ATHANASIAS (bp. 328-373) -- Defender of Nicene faith. Faced many difficulties, exiled from Alexandria five times. Saw the major issue to be the salvation of man (soteriology). In On the Incarnation of the Word he emphasizes the incarnation of God in Christ as the central fact of Christian faith and of history. How could salvation be possible unless God became man in Christ so that we could become God?

Q. Some thought "of same substance" meant no distinction. Some preferred homoiousios (of a similar substance) to homoousios (of the same substance). These moderates became known as the Homoiousians, or as semi-Arians. Such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, two Cappadocian fathers. At first Athanasias saw these as heretical as the Arians. Later in life he began to see their concern as legitimate. Worked to convince many of them that the Nicene formula could be interpreted as meaning "of similar substance".

R. THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 381

1. This Second Ecumenical Council met in 381clarified and ratified the Nicene Creed. Most of the church supported this decision and ended the trinitarian controversy.

2. Due to work of Athanasias and the two Gregories, the council said there are three hypostases which share the one nature (homoousion). Homoousia interpreted in the light of homoiousia. Thus, "one ousia, three hypostases."

II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY

A. ANTIOCHENES AND ALEXANDRINES -- The fundamental Christological question of how divinity and humanity are joined in Christ continued to cause shart disagreement in the East, even after Nicaea and Constantinople. Both sides agreed that the divine was immutable and eternal. ISSUE: how can the immutable, eternal God be joined to a mutable, historical man?

1. The Alexandrines (theologians associated with Alexandria) like Clement and Origen stressed the divinity of Jesus, since he was the teacher of divine truth. Often at the expense of his humanity.

2. The Antiochenes (theologians associated with Antioch) stressed his humanity, since for him to be the savior of man he had to be fully human; he was divine, but not in such a way as to diminish his humanity. Both sides agreed Jesus was both divine and human; question was how to understand that union.

B. APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA Defended the Nicene position on the trinity. Wanted to explain how the eternal Word could be incarnate in Christ. SAid that in Jesus the Word of God, the Second Person, took the place of the rational soul. Jesus had a physical body with life principle; but not a human intellect. Word of God played the role that the rational soul plays in others.

1. Alexandrines accepted this explanation since it accounted for Jesus speaking as God. But Antiochenes said this was inadequate because it denied his humanity. Must be truly human in all respects to save us.

2. These theories were rejected by the Council of Constantinople in 381.

C. NESTORIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE (428)

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople had come to occupy a position of preeminence in the East similar to Rome in the West. Led to both Antioch and Alexandria currying the favor of Constantinople. A prize to be captured by one's supporters. Antioch succeeded at this.

2. Nestorius declared the Mary should not be called theotokos, "bearer of God", but Christotokos, "bearer of Christ." Question was not what honors due Mary, but how to speak of the birth of Jesus. Nestorius meant one must distinguish between his humanity and his divinity; some things said of him are to be applied to humanity, others to the divinity. This position supported by the Antiochenes, as a way to preserve the full humanity of Jesus. Thought if the two natures were too closely joined, the divinity would overwhelm the humanity. Nestorius said in Jesus there were "two natures and two persons"--one divine and one human. Only the human parts born of Mary.

3. Nestorius opposed by Cyril of Alexandria. Had support of West, and of emperors. Emperor Theodosius II called Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, 431. When Nestorius' supporters (John of Antioch) delayed for two weeks, the council proceeded to condemned his doctrines and deposed him. When John and party arrived, they convened a rival council which declared Cyril a heretic and reinstated Nestorius. The other side retaliated. Theodosius II then intervened, arrested both Cyril and John, declared both councils void. A "formula of union" was made to which both men agreed in 433; the actions of the Council of Ephesus were upheld. Nestorius spent the rest of his life in exile.

D. EUTYCHES

1. In 444 Dioscorus succeed Cyril. Dioscorus was extreme in his defense of the Alexandrian position. Eutyches, a monk in Constantinople, held that while Christ was "of one substance with the Father" he was not "of one substance with us." Also, from two natures before the incarnation, but fused into one divine natrure after. Condemned as Docetic by Antiochenes. Grew into controversy so that Theodosius II called a council at Ephesus in 449.

2. Dioscorus controlled the council, presided, decided who could speak. Extreme Alexandrine position. Would not allow legate of Leo, Bishop of Rome, to present letter. Condemned any form of Antiochene position. Leo called it a "robbers' synod." But the emperor considered the matter closed.

E. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451

1. As result of Theodosius' untimely death, he was succeeded by sister Pulcheria. She agreed with western position, but not an extreme Alexandrine. At behest of Leo, she called new council, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, at Chalcedon in 451.

2. The council condemned Dioscorus and Eutyches. Leo's letter was read, restating what Tertullian had said: in Christ there are "two natures in one person." The council produced a "Definition of Faith" which clarified what the church held to be true. REjected extremes of both Alexandrines and Antiochenes; reaffirmed what three previous ecumenical councils had done. Idea was to set the limits beyond which error lies.

3. Became standard of Christological orthodoxy in all the Western church and most of East. Of those who continued to reject it, some came to be called "Nestorians" because they insisted on a clear distintion between the two natures. Others, called "monophysites" (monos, one, and physis, nature), rejected the doctrine of "two natures".

CONCLUSION. Lessons we can learn:

1. Divine truth does not always conform to worldly wisdom or human understanding.

2. We must avoid going to extremes in dealing with problems.

3. “Spend more time proclaiming Christ rather than dissecting Him.”