The Threatened Series - 3

The key word in the 'Creed of Nicæa' is 'homoousion', 'of one substance
[with the Father]'.  This contradicted the Arian assertion that God the
Son was of a different nature (substance, being - the Greek word is
'ousia') from God the Father.  'Homoousion' became the watchword of
those opposed to Arianism.

However, it was a word with a not entirely happy history.  It had been
previously used, in a very different sense, by the heretic Paul of
Samosata.  We had better say a few words about this gentleman.  He
lived in the third century;  in 260 AD he became Bishop of Antioch.  In
268 he was excommunicated for heresy.  He was accused of Unitarianism
(though we should treat the accusation with caution).  He was called a
'psilanthropist', that is one who claims that Christ is 'psilos
anthropos', a mere man.  It would perhaps be fairer to say that he was
concerned (as was the Antiochene tradition generally) to stress the
full humanity of Christ.

He exhibits what is called a christological dualism, making a clear
distinction between the 'Logos' or Word of God on the one hand, and
Jesus Christ on the other.  He writes, 

'allos gar estin Iesous Christos, kai allos o Logos' - 'Jesus Christ is
one [person], and the Logos another.'  He claims too 'The Messiah is
anointed, the Logos is not anointed'.  He says, 'Mary did not bear the
Word' - repudiating the title 'theotokos'.  He describes the union
between divinity and humanity in Christ in terms of 'indwelling' and
'inspiration'.  Manhood is a house, a temple in which the divinity
dwells;  Mary gave birth to a man like us, only better;  he was
inspired, filled with the Holy Spirit.

The orthodox fathers point out in reply that a house is a temporary
dwelling;  we all live in houses, but we are not part of them nor they
of us.  Likewise they find the language of 'inspiration' inadequate.

But if Paul believed that the Logos and Jesus were two separate things,
he believed that the Logos was very much one and the same thing as God
the Father.  He rejected the idea that they were two distinct
'hypostases' or persons - thus ruling out the idea of the Trinity.  And
the word he used to indicate the identity between God the Father and
God the Word was 'homoousios'.

Thus the word 'homoousios' had previously been used in a quite
heretical sense.  Consequently many people who had no sympathy at all
with Arianism found the word odious, and declined to use it.  Many
Origenists preferred the word  'homoiousion,' 'of like substance,'
feeling that it left more room for distinctions of person within the
Godhead.

Another unfortunate effect of Paul of Samosata's thought (and, for
other reasons, that of Origen) was the loss of interest, and belief, in
the human soul of Christ.  It falls out of sight in the middle of the
third century.  People did not warm to the idea of a soul of Christ
distinct from the divine Logos.  It seemed to them to smack of Paul's
dualism, providing Christ with, as it were, two souls, a human one and
a divine one.

So the Christology of this period is what we call a
'Logos-christology'.  Christ is a union between the Logos and a human
body.  Tertullian and Athanasius emphasise the Logos as the source of
all creation.  Oridinary people merely partake of, participate in, the
Logos.  Christ, being the Logos itself, has no need of a human soul to
participate in the Logos.  Such is the approach of the
Logos-theologians.  According to the Alexandrians, Christ is the
perfect man because the Logos is the archetype of humanity.

The one theologian who did insist on the need for a human soul in
Christ was Origen.  However, some of Origen's views became suspect, and
he was not therefore the best champion for the idea.

The early Arians therefore did not believe in a human soul for Christ; 
they believed that the function of the soul was performed by the Logos.
 In this they believed no differently from the 'orthodox' Christians of
their day;  both (to our way of thinking) had a blind spot for the
necessity of a human soul in Christ.  What the Arians denied was that
the Logos residing in Christ was divine.

Their opponent Eustathius (Bishop of Antioch, 324-327) wrote 'Why do
the Lucianists think it important to prove that Christ took a body
without a soul?'  His answer was, because they wanted to prove that the
Logos suffered, and therefore could not be God.  Lucian of Antioch (d.
312) had been the teacher of Arius;  indeed his 'subordinationist'
teaching seems to have been the immediate source of the Arian heresy. 
He was however a biblical scholar of some significance, and in a
different context we might have cause to praise his work.

But sufficient unto the day.

Oriens.


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%