Tags
Of all the false notions put about, the one that the Bible is easily interpreted and needs only one’s own inner voice, is the one history proves the falsest. We see this as Christians began to grapple with the implications of Christ being the logos and the sarx – the Word and the flesh. If the words of Holy Scripture were that easy to understand, then the first few centuries of Christianity’s existence make no sense, as a very intelligent set of people, all of whom actually used Greek in everyday life, failed decisively to agree on what it meant to say that the Word became flesh. We are no cleverer, no more inspired, and we none of us speak koine Greek in everyday life – yet some amongst us seem to imagine we can do what the ancients could not; well, I lack the intellectual arrogance to make such a claim, and wish joy to those who do.
Eusebius tells us of the Ebionites. Some denied Jesus was anything save a very holy man, and they denied entirely the Virgin birth. Others did not go that far, but they all denied that he ‘pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom’. Sabellius of Rome thought that Father, Son and Holy Ghost, were but three aspects of the one God – which put Christ at the other end of the spectrum from the Ebionites – Christ was fully divine. This belief, often called after its founder, Sabellianism, was foundational to the thought of Paul of Samosata, who was bishop of Antioch from 260-272).
Antioch was one of the early centres of Christianity – indeed it was where we were first called Christians. Paul taught what has become knows as “monarchianism”. In denying, as is orthodox, the idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were three Gods, and in asserting they were one, Paul fell into error by insisting that the three members of what would become known as the Trinity were three faces of the One God. An understandable thought, but one which bore in it serious errors once men began to consider it.
Paul read Scripture as meaning that Jesus was just a man until he was adopted by God at His baptism in the Jordan – hence his line of thought was called ‘adoptionist monarchianism’. He taught that the logos was subordinate to God – which led to a line of thought called ‘subordinationism’, out of which Arianism (about which more later) came.
Antioch was one of the centres of early Christian thought, and it tended toward an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and whilst acknowledging that He was divine, it tended towards some form of adoptionism. There is no doubt one could read many of the verses of the Bible this way, but as Justin Martyr (second century) and Tertulian (third century) both argued, this failed to explain how the Word could have been in the beginning with God and have been God – neither dd it explain how the Word became flesh.
The best of the Antiochene theolgians was Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), and it is to his thought we shall turn next.
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I am enjoying this series greatly C. I shall be interested in your comments on Theodore. I’ll also be interested to see how you deal with Leo the Great. Thank you for taking the trouble to outline this so plainly. Knowing a little of the scholarship, I can testify that this is a great feat of explication.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My thanks Geoffrey. I have enjoyed your dialogue elsewhere :). You have the patience of Job. I shall call you a Philistine as long as you understand the reference.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That would a reference to Judges 15:16; if so, most appropriate and amusing.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I thought you would get it 🙂
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I have a piece coming up and thank you for the title 🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
“10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.”
Luke cp 10
Oh gosh, my inner voice is trying to tell me what this means, but it must be wrong, because i dont have to authority to interpret this. I read it over and over but i cant seem to get the meaning. I just realized, i need a catholic priest to tell me what this means.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But no one except you, Bosco, has said that. You seem to need to misrepresent the Catholic position, perhaps becaue you have no argument against the real one?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
“37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Acts cp 4
Is there a catholic priest in the house? Id like to know the real meaning of this passage. Thanks in advance
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Again, Bosco, if you could point to where anyone save yourself has advanced the position that the Bible can only be interpreted by a Catholic priest, you might have a point. As you can’t, you haven’t.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Well good brother, i know the CC insists that the man on the street cant interpret the bible correctly. OK, now i remember; the magisterium is the only one who can interpret correctly. When are they going to publish their findings so i can know the truth?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Do you work hard on getting it so wrong, Bosco, or does it come naturally?
Can you work out the doctrine of the Trinity by yourself? No, I suspect not. How do you know Jesus is not a just a good man in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt? How do you know He is fully God and fully man? You know it because a church you reject gave you those ideas and the Bible that comes with them.
LikeLike
struans said:
Church history really does seem to be something you excel at, so it would seem.
Thank you so much for sharing yet another fascinating article.
S.
LikeLike
struans said:
I also forgot to add that I am very sympathetic to your opening sentence. I follow the mantra that the Bible should never be read (as in ‘just read’ like a novel) unless it has before been studied. It should otherwise be left well alone, so the mantra goes. I can’t remember where I picked it up, but I’ve lived by it for some time and have encouraged many others to too.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A good mantra. I was always taught that the Bible message is easy, but it takes a lifetime to read it with understanding. I was never sure what my old head master meant by that, but think it true all the same.
LikeLike
Pingback: Who was Jesus ? (Part 1) | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: Logos & Son of God | All Along the Watchtower