The word homoousios
(consubstantial) was used by the First Council of Nicea (325) convened by the
Roman Emperor Constantine and is an important term in the Nicene Creed. In the
Creed, it denotes a simple dogmatic truth: “what is said of the Father is also
said of the Son, except that the Son is Son and not Father” (Davis 71). It is
essentially an ontological claim and a judgment of the Council aiming to
express a truth about God and the relationship between the Father and the Son
without any confusion. This word is crucial in defending against the Arian
heresy initiated by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, which stated that the Logos
was a creature of God the Creator and it was impossible for God to be divided and
to share his divine essence. Despite its seemingly straightforward meaning, the
term itself is not without dispute in its historical context. In fact, the
majority of the bishops who were present in the Council of Nicea initially
objected to the use of the term because at that time it was a “notoriously
slippery word” (Davis 61). Let’s examine the word more closely in its
historical context.
The term homoousios
was used by adoptionist bishop Paul of Samosata, the Bishop of Antioch from 260
to 268 AD. He applied the term to the relationship of the Logos to God the
Father. Using the word in the literal sense, it means they are of the same
substance (essence). For example, “two pennies are consubstantial because both
are of the same substance, copper.” According to Athanasius, Paul used the term
in a “reductio ad absurdum arguing
that the Logos and the Father could not be consubstantial.” It is because if
the Logos and the Father were of the same substance, he argued, they would be
identical and not distinct entities. In 268 AD, the bishops assembled in
Antioch and deposed Paul and condemned both his adoptionist teaching and his
use of the term homoousios (Davis
41). Therefore, the word homoousios,
despite its meaning twisted by Paul of Samosata, was problematic historically.
Besides, the word homoousios
had “strong materialist overtones which would connote that the Father and Son
are parts or separable portions of the same stuff.” It might also be taken to
mean that the Father and the Son were in fact identical which was Sabellianism
rejected by the Church. After all, the word was not scriptural and the more
conservative bishops had reservations on its proposed use in the Nicene Creed
(Davis 61-62). Despite the misgivings of the attending bishops to add the word
to the Creed, it seems apparent that the authority of Emperor Constantine was
the underlying driving force. Behind Constantine was his ecclesiastical
advisor, Ossius, Bishop of Cordoba who presided at the Council of Nicea. Being
a bishop of the Western Church, Ossius probably considered the term appropriate
as it was hitherto used to “describe the type of Trinitarian theology
fashionable in the West with its strong insistence on the divine monarchy.” It
is also likely that Ossius had gained prior support from Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria and the cooperation of Constantine to urge the participating bishops
to accept to add the term to the Creed (Davis 62).
Turning back to the meaning of the term homoousios in the context of the Council, it essentially provides,
together with other statements in the Creed for producing the same effect, a
“Yes” and “No” answer to the questions on whether (1) the Son is God (in the
same sense as the Father is God) and (2) the Son is the Father. The answers
provided by the Council through the word are “Yes” for the first question and
“No” for the second question, i.e., “the Son is God in the same sense of that
the Father is God, except that the Son is not the Father” (Lecture Notes of
Lesson 4). The term does not attempt to address other related questions, e.g.,
How can the Son who is God become human? How is the Son different from the
Father despite that they are of the same substance? What is the substance? What
is the difference? What is meant by the Son is begotten and not created by the
Father? The Council of Nicea “was an authoritative judgment, not an
explanation” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 4). Homoousios
is “not taken as identity of matter” (substance) “but identity of prediction” (Yes or No) (Lonergan 304). In effect, the bishops at Nicea affirmed the
monotheism belief they inherited from the God of Israel (who is the same God of
the New Testament) as well as the salvation effects brought about by Christ –
the God who becomes human. He is God in the flesh and not a lower ranking
(subordinate) God or a supreme creature of God. The Creed formulated by the
Council asserts, in the light of the Scripture and the tradition, what is
fundamentally true about the Son and his relationship with the Father in
response to the debates and questions which were raised over the centuries as
well as the heretical teachings that arose. It appeals to “the intellects of
Christians for their assent to this judgment as the foundation of further
religious belief and experience” (Davis 71).
Bibliography
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990.
Print.
Hammond, David. Lecture
Notes for TH 530 Lesson 4 – The Council of Nicea.
Lonergan, Bernard. “The
Origins of Christian Realism.” Theology
Digest 20 (1972): 292-305.
No comments:
Post a Comment