Who is Jesus - early discussions
|
So who was Jesus? Was he really God? Was he sort of like God? If he was God or like God was he also human in a way you or I would recognize? Do the answers to these questions actually matter? The answer to the last question is "far more than you or I could possibly imagine." The historic reality was that those questions mattered so much that people were excommunicated and even executed if they believed in the "wrong" answers. Why was that? Well, let's find out.
In the beginning (so to speak) of the Jesus movement (which was originally called "The Way" meaning it was a movement and not a religion) no one really cared about the "nature" of Jesus. What mattered was that Jesus had accomplished something on the cross. As we looked at over the past several weeks Jesus' followers believed that by his death and resurrection the power of sin and the powers of this world had been overcome. Death was defeated and resurrection awaited all who followed the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. Even those letters of Paul which appear to focus on the "nature" of Jesus (Romans and Philippians) do so only in a passing and cursory way. This functional view of Jesus proved to be sufficient for a considerable period of time. However as the church became more organized (in the third and fourth centuries) two very distinct groups began to not only wonder about the nature of Jesus but began to vehemently disagree about that nature as well. The first of these two groups were the monastics. These were the monks and hermits who had withdrawn from the Greco-Roman world in order to live lives of solitude and self-sacrifice. They began to wonder how it was that anyone other than God could save humanity. In other words, how could an ordinary Jew, even a really, really good Jew save humanity by dying on the cross? They concluded that a human being could not do so, and therefore (reading John's Gospel and inferring from some of Paul's letters) they argued that Jesus must somehow be fundamentally God. The monastics, because of their informal power in the early church began to push the church to clarify its position. |
The second group that began to discuss this issue consisted of the bishops of the early church. Long before there was any sense of a "Roman" church with Cardinals and a Pope, there were bishops. While initially the bishops (those priests who oversaw a number of congregations) were elected by and were accountable to the people, they slowly gained enough power to be able to do as they pleased and to set doctrinal beliefs for the congregations they oversaw. As discussions about the nature of Jesus increased in frequency and complexity, the bishops disagreed with each other and this led to divisions within the church.
Eventually these discussions led to the creation of two different schools of thought about Jesus. The first was the Antiochene (from the church of Antioch, in Syria) and the second was Alexandrian (from the church at Alexandria, Egypt). The difference between the two was significant. The Antiochene School emphasized Jesus' humanity. They saw salvation as coming from the perfect obedience of the perfect man. The incarnation in this sense was the power of God present in the perfect man that allowed Jesus to be faithful. The Alexandrian School emphasized the divinity of Jesus. Salvation was accomplished because the perfect God/man gave his life for the world. The incarnation here meant that God was fully and completely present in Jesus. Needless to say the subtleties of these two schools can be, and often are lost, on most of us today. What is fascinating however is that the issues at the heart of this discussion are still with us. While the majority of churches have ultimately agreed with the Alexandrian school (meaning they are considered to be theologically orthodox) many others have not. Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, United Pentecostals and others follow some form of the Antiochene School. As you can see 2,000 years after Christ there is still no firm agreement between Christians. |
WHO IS jesus - various alternatives
|
The titles which the early church used to describe Jesus (Lord, messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, Word, rabbi, savior) were all functional titles. They spoke to what Jesus did and what he accomplished. They did not speak to his inherent nature. As the church moved further away from its Hebraic roots and moved into the Greco-Roman world the desire to know about the metaphysical nature of Jesus began to grow. Over the centuries there were a number of contending belief systems about Jesus. Ultimately however the church decided that there could be only one Orthodox position. Today we will take a quick look at some of the contenders for the coveted prize of Orthodoxy.
Manichaeism was a tradition built upon the work of the prophet Mani (216-276 CE) who lived in Persia and was of Parthian descent. He believed that Jesus was merely one in a line of prophets (including Zoroaster and Buddha) and that he Mani, was the final prophet and the "Comforter" which Jesus had promised his disciples. Mani's view of the universe was that it was composed of two competing sources (good and evil) and that Jesus had been sent to enlighten humans to the good. The Manichean church had apostles, bishops and presbyters. It was finally extinguished in the Roman Empire around 390 CE though it survived in the east for more than 1,000 years. Augustine was originally a member of this church. Docetism was the belief that Jesus was never actually physically real. His body was an illusion as was his crucifixion. This belief developed out of a concern for and a rejection of the possibility that God could become flesh. Docetism believed that the body as inherently evil and that only the spirit was good. This belief was proven by the fact that bodies wither and die while the spirit remains. These movements began around 70 CE but mainly died out within a hundred years…though we can see remnants of them in movements such as Christian Science. |
Gnosticism was a movement that gained ground as Christianity spread out from mainly Jewish areas. The core belief of the Gnostics (derived from the Greek word gnosis…or knowledge) was that the physical was evil and the spiritual good. The goal of life was to discover the correct knowledge which would allow one to escape this physical world. Jesus was seen as the teacher who brought this knowledge. There are many Gnostic scriptures which present Jesus in this light. This school of thought became prevalent among the Germanic tribes which conquered the Roman Empire and still exists today.
Arianism was based on the works of Bishop Arius who lived from 250-336 CE. Arius believed that Jesus was neither God nor man. Jesus was instead a semi-divine being. By being a semi-divine being Jesus was able to be obedient to God and not fall prey to the temptations of the world. The battle over Arius' beliefs lasted for more than 200 years and was the greatest threat to Trinitarian beliefs. You can see remnants of this belief in the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses. Apollinarianism was the belief that while Jesus had a fully human body his reasoning was taken over by the Spirit of God. This school was founded by Apollinaris of Laodicea who argued that Arius was wrong in that Jesus had divinity within him (he was after all "The Word") while at the same time arguing that the Trinitarians had to be wrong because you couldn't have two natures (human and divine) integrated in one person. While being declared a heresy in 381 this view continues to be expressed by Christians around the world. As you can see the church spent hundreds of years wrestling with the nature of Jesus. Next week we will take a look at the victor (at least in terms of the Western Church) and what it means for us. |
WHO IS JESUS - critical issues
|
One Sunday during Advent, between church and From Classics to Christmas, I watched a video lecture on Christology (yes I know I lead such an exciting life…however when it was over I did watch the Lions). Cindy was in the basement with me (on the computer and not watching the video) and as she overheard some of the discussion on a few of the seemingly more esoteric portions of the topic (monophysitism as an example) she asked, "Why does it matter?" And that is a very good question. For those of you who have read the previous two articles you might wonder why people spent so much time fussing over the nature of Jesus. Surely the church should just put pull together and follow in the way of Jesus; which is in fact what most Christians do. We strive to be faithful to the Jesus of scripture and spend little time worry about whether some early Christian theology was better than another.
So why does it matter? It matters because what we believe about Jesus ultimately shapes how we exercise our lives of faith. This is what the early church understood and so they laid out the three critical issues with which they had to deal if Christians were to be faithful to Jesus and to God. The first critical issue was that Jesus had to be fully God. They argued it this way. If Jesus is not actually God then when we look at the teachings of Jesus we are not looking at the teachings of God but of either a really holy man (the view of many of those in today's Jesus Seminar) or a demi-god (the view of Arius). Either way, it means there can be others (Mohammed for example) who could be closer to God and thus offer us a more reliable way to live (which is by the way what Islam teaches). Thus we ought to be looking for better teachings and direction. In addition if Jesus were not God then he would not have been able to deal with our sins any better than any of the rest of us could have dealt with them. Thus salvation has not been accomplished. |
The second critical issue was that Jesus had to be fully human. They argued it this way. If Jesus is just a physical body with the Spirit of God in complete control (view of Apollinaris) or partial control (Nestorius) then we would have little if anything in common with Jesus because he was not essentially human. And if Jesus were not essentially human in the ways we think of being human (rational mind and soul that struggles with doing the will of God) then why ought we to try and follow his example. It would be impossible to do so because we are not infused with God in the same way Jesus was infused with God. In other words when we look at Jesus we are not seeing true humanity, only a body inhabited by God. Thus, in the end, we have no clear view of how we as fully human people ought to live.
The third critical issue was that God was one. They argued it this way. God, as we understand God from the scriptures is one, a "monad." This belief is at the heart of Judaism and is made explicit in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."). This was also the belief of Jesus that there was one God (not many) and that this one God alone ought to be worshipped and obeyed. If we began to argue for multiple gods (Jesus is one God, God the Father is another God, and the Spirit is another God) then we would no longer be in anyway in line with the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. Thus we would be creating an entirely new faith (one perhaps much closer to pagan religions than to Judaism). Thus if the church wanted people to believe that in Jesus we are saved (our sins are forgiven and new life is a real possibility); that in Jesus we see the way real human beings ought to and are capable of living; and that the God we worship is the one true living God, (all of which the Bible claims to be true) then they would have to figure out a way to speak of Jesus such that all three critical issues were addressed. This is why all of these arguments matter; because if we stumble with any of them, our faith and our way of living change dramatically. |
who is jesus - fundamental orthodox beliefs
|
We are finally at a place where we can gain a clearer picture of the nature of Jesus as we in the orthodox churches have come to perceive it. The place I would like to begin is with a quote from Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 CE) as he wrote about The Word (or Logos). "Remaining what he (the Word) was, he assumed what he was not." I realize that his may seem very esoteric but it is actually a rather simple way of speaking about the Incarnation (which we will celebrate on Christmas day). So let's unpack it.
"Remaining what he (the Word) was" – the Word according to the Gospel of John was in the beginning with God and was in fact God. Thus the Word remained what he was (unchangeable and enteral) when he became incarnate. Thus the Word continued to be God in every way. "He (the Word) assumed what he was not" – the Word then "assumed", or took upon himself, what he was originally not…true humanity. This means the Word took on our vulnerability, suffering and death. Thus the Word became human in every way. These understandings (along with the understanding that God is one) helped to form the basis of the first great creed (creed is a statement of belief…from the Latin word "credo" which means "I believe") of the church, Nicaea. Soon after the church was legalized in 313CE by Emperor Constantine the disputes about the nature of Jesus came into the open. While this might not seem like such a big deal it became one when bishops on either side of the controversy tried to stop their church members from trading with church members on the other side of the controversy. Constantine would have none of this and so called the bishops together at Nicaea in 325 in order that they find common ground. Nicaea was the first creed of the church to use non-Biblical language. While this was a cause of concern to some, most of the bishops believed such language was needed in order to clarify what the church ought to believe (and not believe) about the nature of Jesus. |
The central theme of Nicaea was that in Jesus of Nazareth God had fully come into human history as a human being. This was made clear with statements such as:
This creed was slowly but surely refined over the next 300 or so years. In fact the creed that we call the Nicene Creed is actually the creed edited in Constantinople in 381. Ultimately this creed was augmented by something called the Definition of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon insured that the church understood that Jesus:
|