Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria

264 Pages·2007·1.3 MB·English

by  Jon M. Robertson

OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS
EditorialCommittee
M.McC.ADAMS M.J.EDWARDS
P.M.JOYCE D.N.J.MACCULLOCH
O.M.T.O’DONOVAN C.C.ROWLAND
OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS
FAITH, REASON, AND REVELATION IN THE THOUGHT OF
THEODORE BEZA
JeffreyMallinson(2003)
RICHARD HOOKER AND REFORMED THEOLOGY
AStudyofReason,Will,andGrace
NigelVoak(2003)
THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION
AlanHarding(2003)
THE APPROPRIATION OF DIVINE LIFE IN
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
DanielA.Keating(2004)
THEMACARIANLEGACY
ThePlaceofMacarius-SyrneonintheEasternChristianTradition
MarcusPlested(2004)
PSALMODY AND PRAYER IN THE WRITINGS OF
EVAGRIUS PONTICUS
LukeDysinger,OSB(2004)
ORIGEN ON THE SONG OF SONGS AS THE SPIRIT
OF SCRIPTURE
TheBridegroom’sPerfectMarriage-Song
J.ChristopherKing(2004)
AN INTERPRETATION OF HANS URS VON BALTHASAR
EschatologyasCommunion
NicholasJ.Healy(2005)
DURANDUS OF ST POURÇAIN
ADominicanTheologianintheShadowofAquinas
IsabelIribarren(2005)
THE TROUBLES OF TEMPLELESS JUDAH
JillMiddlemas(2005)
TIME AND ETERNITY IN MID-THIRTEENTH-CENTURY
THOUGHT
RoryFox(2006)
THE SPECIFICATION OF HUMAN ACTIONS IN
ST THOMAS AQUINAS
JosephPilsner(2006)
THEWORLDVIEWOFPERSONALISM
OriginsandEarlyDevelopment
JanOlofBengtsson(2006)
Christ as Mediator
A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius
of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and
Athanasius of Alexandria
JON M. ROBERTSON
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
©JonM.Robertson2007
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2007
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd.,King’sLynn,Norfolk
ISBN 978–0–19–921260–6
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Thisworkisdedicatedwithlove
tomywife,Erin.
Manywomenhavedonewell,
Butyouexcelthemall.
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
The subject of this study is the access to God provided through the
divineWord,asseeninthetheologiesofEusebiusofCaesarea,Mar-
cellusofAncyraandAthanasiusofAlexandriaduringtheearlyyears
ofthe‘Arian’controversy.
In the Introduction, we survey recent approaches to the period
that are inadequate due to erroneous presuppositions or the impo-
sition of later concepts. The term ‘Arianism’, for example, is often
usedwithoutanycleartheologicalcontentderivedfromthefourth-
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 terminol-
ogy 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
occurrenceofterms;basedongeographicaldistinctions;orimposed
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,systematicandonethattranscendstraditionalfunctional
and ontological categories. In addition, we hope to show that the
logic of monotheism was a greater influence on the thinking of the
theologiansoftheperiodthanhassometimesbeenappreciated.
In Chapter 1, we briefly analyse Origen’s view of the mediation
of God through the Word, which gives needed background for the
studyofthethreefourth-centurytheologians,aswellasprovidinga
methodologicalframeworkforourstudy.Wediscoverthat,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
andutterlysimple(simplex).ThereisnomannerinwhichtheFather
viii Preface
precedestheSon,eithertemporallyorconceptually.Throughouthis
discussion,he implies a view of divine ‘oneness’within which some
sortofpluralityisfound.Thiscontinuityofnatureisthenessentialto
hisunderstandingofhowtheknowledgeofGodismediatedthrough
the Son. Thus the Son is the ‘invisible image of the invisible God’.
Origenconsistentlypresentsthisaccountofdivinemediationbothin
thepre-incarnateWordaswellasintheIncarnation.Hisusageofthe
communicatio idiomatum indicates the immediate divine revelation
thatheenvisionstakingplacethroughtheincarnateWord.
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
createdworld.Wearguethathisconceptofmediationisnecessarily
a ‘deictic’ one, i.e. one in which the mediator, while similar to that
whichitimages,isnottobeidentifiedwithitinanyfundamentalway.
This is particularly evident in his presentation of ‘image’ theology.
HefavouredtheillustrationofimagefortheFather/Sonrelationship
becausehefeltitpicturedtheirsimilarityandnon-identity,aswellas
describedtheeternalsoteriologicalfunctionoftheSoninmediating
knowledgeoftheFather.HiscomprehensionoftheIncarnationwas
thatitreflected,atanewbutnotqualitativelydifferentlevel,theon-
going mediating function of the Word. In addition, this illuminates
hisroleintheeventsleadingupto,duringandfollowingtheCouncil
ofNicaea.Hisparticipationinthatdebatecanbeshowntocomenot
simplyfromtheologicalnaivetyoradesireforconciliation,butrather
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
beshownthroughacarefulreadingofhiscongregationalletterafter
theCouncilofNicaea,inhisothercorrespondenceduringthisperiod
andespeciallyinhisdebatewithMarcellusofAncyra.
In Chapter 3, we examine Marcellus of Ancyra’s account of the
‘oneGod’andhowknowledgeofthatGodcomestohumanity.That
theconceptofmediationwascentraltothisdebateisshownfroma
brief overview of Eusebius of Caesarea’s response to Marcellus. The
Caesarean bishop’s concern about the function and identity of the
imageintheMarcellancontroversywassharedbyEusebiusofEmesa
and Acacius of Caesarea. The Ancyran bishop’s account is strictly
‘monoprosopic’inthathebelievedthedivineunitytobemadeupof
Preface ix
oneactingperson,oneprosopon.Thisinturnallowedfornoconcept
ofpluralitywithinthedivineunity.Inthischapter,wealsoconsider
how this conception of monotheism influenced how he formulated
themediationofGodthroughthemanJesusChrist.Itisshownthat
MarcellusactuallysharedEusebius’viewof‘deictic’mediationofthe
image,butdifferedfromhiminthatheidentifiedthe‘deictic’media-
torwiththefleshofChrist,whiletheCaesareansawtheeternalWord
inthatrole.Theontological‘gap’thatEusebiushadpositedbetween
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
waythatforeshadowedlaterChristologicalcontroversy.
Chapter 4, through an analysis of the works Contra Gentes and
Contra Arianos I, II and III, considers Athanasius of Alexandria’s
viewoftheoneGodhead(Ëε¸ÙÁÚ)asincludingtheFatherbegetting
the Son. This is in opposition to Eusebius, who had located the
divineunityrequiredbymonotheismwithintheFather’sËε¸ÙÁÚand
carefully differentiated it from the Ëε¸ÙÁÚ of the Son. Athanasius’
approachalsodifferssignificantlyfromMarcellus’viewofthedivine
Ëε¸ÙÁÚ,sinceitnotonlyleftroomforpluralitywithintheGodhead,
but demanded it. We then go on to document the Alexandrian’s
hesitationtousetraditionalmediationlanguage.Thiscamefromhis
aversiontotheusemadeofitbyhisopponents,whopositedtheWord
asanecessaryontologicalbarrierbetweenGodandthecreatedorder.
Athanasius,incontrast,wishedtoemphasizethedirectandimmedi-
ate relationship that God has with his creation. This then informed
histheologyofthedivineimage,whichpresupposesalinkofnature
betweentheimageandthatofwhichitisanimage.Somethingthatis
createdororiginate,andthereforeonlycontingentlyexisting,cannot
actasaneffectiveimageoftheunoriginateGod.Inthisheseemsto
showaclosertietoOrigenthandoesEusebius.Wethengoontosur-
veyAthanasius’critiqueof‘deictic’mediation.Heaccuseditofbeing
ineffectual,unnecessaryandleadingawayfrommonotheismbothin
worshipandinChristianlife.Allofthisprovidesthebackgroundfor
howAthanasiusbelievedthattheFatherisseenintheSon.Heargued
fortheimmediatepresenceofGod,notonlyincreation,butalsoin
the Incarnation when God himself became man and took on as his
ownallhumanpathos.