Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [vii] Preface The subject of this study is the access to God provided through the divine Word, as seen in the theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria during the early years of the ‘Arian’ controversy. In the Introduction, we survey recent approaches to the period that are inadequate due to erroneous presuppositions or the imposition of later concepts. The term ‘Arianism’, for example, is often used without any clear theological content derived from the fourth-century movement. Another reason for much of the confusion in approaches to the post-Nicene debate stems from a predilection on the part of many to treat the occurrences of theological terminology divorced from their original context. Terms and phrases such as ‘essence’, ‘hypostasis’, ‘consubstantial’ and ‘godhead’ can only be fruitfully understood within their theological situ. Related to this is a third problem of the inadequate categorization of the various groups of the early controversy. Classifications built upon the mere occurrence of terms; based on geographical distinctions; or imposed by later decisions of orthodoxy conceal more than they reveal. In order to counter some of these weaknesses, we outline our method in this study of the theological theme of divine mediation as being contextual, systematic and one that transcends traditional functional and ontological categories. In addition, we hope to show that the logic of monotheism was a greater influence on the thinking of the theologians of the period than has sometimes been appreciated. In Chapter 1, we briefly analyse Origen's view of the mediation of God through the Word, which gives needed background for the study of the three fourth-century theologians, as well as providing a methodological framework for our study. We discover that, although obviously subordinationist in his view of the relationship between the Father and the Son, he had a clear view of the continuity of the divine nature shared by both. The nature of the ‘species of deity’ (deitatis specie) is such that it is in itself incorporeal and invisible and utterly simple (simplex). There is no manner in which the Father end p.vii Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:07 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [viii] precedes the Son, either temporally or conceptually. Throughout his discussion, he implies a view of divine ‘oneness’ within which some sort of plurality is found. This continuity of nature is then essential to his understanding of how the knowledge of God is mediated through the Son. Thus the Son is the ‘invisible image of the invisible God’. Origen consistently presents this account of divine mediation both in the pre-incarnate Word as well as in the Incarnation. His usage of the communicatio idiomatum indicates the immediate divine revelation that he envisions taking place through the incarnate Word. Chapter 2 analyses Eusebius of Caesarea's understanding of the radical transcendence of God the Father. This influenced his view of the Word as an intervening mediator between the Father and the created world. We argue that his concept of mediation is necessarily a ‘deictic’ one, i.e. one in which the mediator, while similar to that which it images, is not to be identified with it in any fundamental way. This is particularly evident in his presentation of ‘image’ theology. He favoured the illustration of image for the Father/Son relationship because he felt it pictured their similarity and non-identity, as well as described the eternal soteriological function of the Son in mediating knowledge of the Father. His comprehension of the Incarnation was that it reflected, at a new but not qualitatively different level, the on-going mediating function of the Word. In addition, this illuminates his role in the events leading up to, during and following the Council of Nicaea. His participation in that debate can be shown to come not simply from theological naivety or a desire for conciliation, but rather was motivated in particular by a real desire to defend this view of divine mediation. That this was at the forefront of his concerns can be shown through a careful reading of his congregational letter after the Council of Nicaea, in his other correspondence during this period and especially in his debate with Marcellus of Ancyra. In Chapter 3, we examine Marcellus of Ancyra's account of the ‘one God’ and how knowledge of that God comes to humanity. That the concept of mediation was central to this debate is shown from a brief overview of Eusebius of Caesarea's response to Marcellus. The Caesarean bishop's concern about the function and identity of the image in the Marcellan controversy was shared by Eusebius of Emesa and Acacius of Caesarea. The Ancyran bishop's account is strictly ‘monoprosopic’ in that he believed the divine unity to be made up of end p.viii Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:08 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [ix] one acting person, one prosopon. This in turn allowed for no concept of plurality within the divine unity. In this chapter, we also consider how this conception of monotheism influenced how he formulated the mediation of God through the man Jesus Christ. It is shown that Marcellus actually shared Eusebius' view of ‘deictic’ mediation of the image, but differed from him in that he identified the ‘deictic’ mediator with the flesh of Christ, while the Caesarean saw the eternal Word in that role. The ontological ‘gap’ that Eusebius had posited between God the Father and his Word is, in contrast, placed by Marcellus between the divine Word and the human flesh. Thus the Ancyran distinguished between the divine and human sayings of Christ in a way that foreshadowed later Christological controversy. Chapter 4, through an analysis of the works Contra Gentes and Contra Arianos I, II and III, considers Athanasius of Alexandria's view of the one Godhead ( ) as including the Father begetting the Son. This is in opposition to Eusebius, who had located the divine unity required by monotheism within the Father's and carefully differentiated it from the of the Son. Athanasius' approach also differs significantly from Marcellus' view of the divine , since it not only left room for plurality within the Godhead, but demanded it. We then go on to document the Alexandrian's hesitation to use traditional mediation language. This came from his aversion to the use made of it by his opponents, who posited the Word as a necessary ontological barrier between God and the created order. Athanasius, in contrast, wished to emphasize the direct and immediate relationship that God has with his creation. This then informed his theology of the divine image, which presupposes a link of nature between the image and that of which it is an image. Something that is created or originate, and therefore only contingently existing, cannot act as an effective image of the unoriginate God. In this he seems to show a closer tie to Origen than does Eusebius. We then go on to survey Athanasius' critique of ‘deictic’ mediation. He accused it of being ineffectual, unnecessary and leading away from monotheism both in worship and in Christian life. All of this provides the background for how Athanasius believed that the Father is seen in the Son. He argued for the immediate presence of God, not only in creation, but also in the Incarnation when God himself became man and took on as his own all human pathos. end p.ix Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:08 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [x] In the Conclusion, after summarizing our study, we argue that the fourth-century ‘deictic’ views of mediation have much in common with the recent ‘symbolic’ theology of Roger Haight. This is evident especially in his view that the historical Jesus, as the ‘symbol’ of God, is not to be identified completely with God but rather indirectly shows us how God acts and relates to the world. Given this basic similarity, we then apply the criticisms of Athanasius to Haight's theology. Through this critique, we attempt to show that Haight's symbolic Christology does not effectively accomplish any mediation of the knowledge of God. To the contrary, it actually tends to make God less, rather than more, accessible; and posits an unnecessary mediatorial gap between God and his creation. By demonstrating some of the theological concerns of the early fourth-century controversy, this study hopefully provides a deeper understanding of the motivations of the period. In particular, it illustrates that many of the participants in the early ‘Arian’ controversy were not simply motivated by superficial concerns of terminology or by political machinations, but rather on a deeper level by theological concerns about how humanity can know God. Careful contextual study of the writings of the fourth-century theologians supplies a corrective to inadequate approaches, based on simplistic or anachronistic models. This study of the differences in approach to divine mediation between three men who were all in attendance and accord with the Council of Nicaea encourages us to avoid reducing the controversy to any ‘two-school’ theory. In addition, it helps us to resist imposing later models of orthodoxy on this early period and pushes us to read them on their own terms, with their own stated concerns. Finally, this study assists us in the contemporary theological task by highlighting and reintroducing perspectives on concerns that continue to be live issues today. This book would never have seen the light of day without the help and encouragement of many people. While of course the errors to be found here are the author's sole responsibility, there are many who share the credit for anything found to be of worth. Oxford University in general and Greyfriars Hall in particular provided a setting whose resources, scholarly ambience and community are surely unrivalled in the world. I would like to thank Fr. Thomas Weinandy for his encouragement, patience and many timely suggestions. By his tireless effort end p.x Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:09 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [xi] he was not only a good supervisor, but also a friend. My examiners, Dr Mark Edwards and Dr Morwenna Ludlow, were of incalculable help with their thoughtful questions and suggestions for improvement. The patient help of Dr Edwards in turning D.Phil. thesis into book has been especially invaluable. I would also like to thank the Revd Jim Gustafson, whose vision for excellence in theological training in Latin America was the original impetus for my going to Oxford. Finally, I must mention my family. Without their daily patience and encouragement for more than three years, not a word would have made it to paper. Erin, Elizabeth, Joshua and David, thank you! end p.xi Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:09 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [xiii] Contents Abbreviations xiv Introduction 1 1. Origen on Christ as Mediator 11 2. Mediation in Eusebius of Caesarea 37 3. Mediation in Marcellus of Ancyra 97 4. Mediation in Athanasius of Alexandria 137 5. Conclusion 217 Bibliography 232 Index 247 end p.xiii Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:09 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [xiv] Abbreviations Arian Controversy Opitz H. G. Opitz, ed., Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, 318–328, Athanasius Werke 3.1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934) Athanasius CA Contra Arianos CG Contra Gentes DI De Incarnatione Eusebius CM Contra Marcellum DE Demonstratio Evangelica ET De Ecclesiastica Theologia I and II LC Laudes Constantini Origen DP De Principiis end p.xiv Privacy Policy and Legal Notice © Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 1/14/2008 3:10 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved Robertson, Jon M. , Formerly Professor of Theology at the Seminario de las Iglesias del Pacto Evangélico del Ecuador in Quito, Ecuador Christ as Mediator Print ISBN 9780199212606, 2007 pp. [1]-[5] Introduction Jon M. Robertson Abstract: Abstracts and keywords to be supplied. The controversy that embroiled the Christian world in the early fourth century over the status of the divinity of the Son of God caused such 1 confusion that it has been famously referred to as a ‘battle at night’, 1 The metaphor of the night-battle can be found at Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 2.492 and Socrates, Historia Eclesiastica 1.23. where those involved struck out at others without always fully comprehending with whom they were feuding. However, the chaos that ensued in the years just before and after the Council of Nicaea has been matched over time by similar bewilderment and difficulty in attempts to understand the nature of this conflict, especially in its earliest phase. There are several reasons for this continuing perplexity in scholarly approaches to the early Arian controversy. First, many interpretations of the conflict are based upon uncertain assumptions concerning ‘Arianism’. That this is not a felicitous term for the movement against which the followers of Nicaea reacted has been made abundantly clear in the past few years. To begin with, it is quite certain that those labelled ‘Arian’ did not accept the term. Those who were gathered in Antioch in 341 obviously chafed at the term, saying, ‘How, being bishops, 2 should we follow a presbyter?’ 2 Found in Athanasius, De Synodis 22. While this disavowal is generally recognized, it is not always noted that the grounds of this complaint are not theological, but rather ecclesiastical, based on the fact that Arius was a mere priest. That there was a theological affinity is made apparent a few lines later: ‘After examining and verifying his faith, we admitted him, rather than followed him.’ Thus, it seems problematic at best when Kelly asserts that ‘Arianism proper is excluded’ at the very synod that reviewed Arius' theology and accepted it and him (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (Harlow: Longman, 1972), 270). What would ‘Arianism proper’ be, if not even Arius held it? In addition, if by ‘Arianism’ we mean what was specifically believed end p.1 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved and taught by Arius, then we may find it a nearly impossible task to get a 1 of 5 1/14/2008 3:10 PM Oxford Scholarship Online: Christ as Mediator http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu:2048/oso/private... concrete understanding of it. Precious little survives of the heresiarch's 3 writings, and most of it comes through his adversaries. 3 Arius' extant writings are as follows: (1) letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (from Epiphanius, Panarion 69.6.1ff.); (2) letter to Alexander of Alexandria (from Athanasius, De Synodis 16, and Epiphanius, Panarion 69.7); (3) letter to Constantine (from Socrates, 1.26.2 and Sozomenus, II.27.6); (4) fragments of a previous letter embedded in a letter of Constantine to Arius (from Athanasius, De Decretis 40.1–24, and Gelasius, Historia Ecclesiastica III.19.1); (5) excerpts from the Thalia (from Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.5–6 and De Synodis 15). The first four conveniently appear together, along with other important documents of the Arian conflict, in Hans-Georg Opitz, ed., Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites 318–328, Athanasius Werke 3.1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934) as documents 1, 6, 30 and 34, respectively. Helpful summaries of Arius' theology can be found in R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 20ff.; R. P. C. Hanson, ‘The Arian Doctrine of the Incarnation’, in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, September 5–10, 1983, Oxford, England, ed. Robert C. Gregg (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985), 181–211; Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol. i: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), 2nd rev. edn., trans. John Bowden (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), 219–48; Rowan Williams, ‘The Logic of Arianism’, Journal of Theological Studies 34, 1 (1983), 56–81; and Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd edn. (London: SCM Press, 2001), 95–116. However, it would seem that even if one could arrive at the dubious goal of a full understanding of Arian theology in this sense, it would be largely beside the point, in terms of understanding the larger Christological controversy of the fourth century. As already noted, he was not considered a leader by those who were subsequently labelled ‘Arian’ and he and his writings had little part in the ensuing debates. Wiles has well said that any ‘Arius’-centred approach to the controversy has a ‘primary disadvantage’ in suggesting a view of fourth century theology, where the significant issue is seen as the various schools' relation to the one seminal thinker, Arius. And to approach them with that question in mind can be a dangerous disincentive to any serious study of their theologies in their own right. But the figure of Arius was not perhaps, in fact, very important to any of those known by one of the various expansions of 4 his name. 4 Maurice Wiles, ‘Attitudes to Arius in the Arian Controversy’, in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 43. end p.2 PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com) © Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003-2007. All Rights Reserved That ‘Arianism’ as the pervading label for a group of church leaders was a 5 polemical invention has been shown to be certain. 5 This should help us understand that, while Athanasius was quite active in the promulgation of the ‘Arian’ title, he was by no means alone, nor did it start with him. For the polemical invention of ‘Arianism’, besides the article by Wiles cited above, see also J. Rebecca Lyman, ‘A Topography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism’, in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams 2 of 5 1/14/2008 3:10 PM