Home Bible Study - Psalm 64

Click HERE to download a copy of this Bible Study on Psalm 64!!

Home Bible Study - Psalm 19

Click HERE to download a copy of this Bible Study of Psalm 19!

Tuesday Bible Study (4/21/20)

The Question of Images, Pt. I

The Second Council of Nicaea

+ 787 A.D. +

6th century icon of Mary and the Christ child
surrounded by saints, St Catherine's Monastery
Sinai

Scriptural Starting Places

Exodus 20:4-5 -  "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me." 

Exodus 35:30-35 - "Then Moses said to the people of Israel, 'See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah;  and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze,  in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, for work in every skilled craft.  And he has inspired him to teach, both him and Oholiab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan.  He has filled them with skill to do every sort of work done by an engraver or by a designer or by an embroiderer in blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, or by a weaver—by any sort of workman or skilled designer.'"

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." 

Acts 17:29 - "Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man."

Terms

Icon: a painted or carved image of Jesus, Mary, or a saint (from εἰκών (eikṓn), "figure, portrait, likeness, pattern"

Iconoclast (Iconomachist): an opponent of icons (from εἰκονοκλάστης , eikonoklástēs, "an image breaker"); from εἰκονομαχία ("fighting against icons")

Iconodule (Iconophile): a supporter or lover of icons, from icon + -dule (δοῦλος, doulos, "slave, servant"); from icon + -phile (φῐ́λος , philos, "beloved, dear")

Worship: in Greek, λατρεία (latreia), "service rendered to a god, worship" (slightly different than προσκυνέω (proskuneó) "to bow, to bend the knee in homage, to worship"

Veneration: in Greek, the verb for venerate is τῑμᾰ́ω (tīmáō), "to pay honor to, to venerate, to revere"

Background

Colorful images of Christ, his mother, and the saints adorned churches, monasteries, and shrines throughout the Christian world. Whether painted on wooden panels or plaster walls, images of holy people were part of the popular piety of virtually all Christians. Such images served more than just to decorate empty spaces; they lifted the mind of the worshiper from earthly things and directed his mind to heavenly realities. Icons served didactic purposes: teaching the faithful the stories of Bible heroes, saints, and martyrs; and they also served devotional purposes: providing focal points during worship or prayer for love, devotion, and veneration. 

Scholars are not sure when the first icons were created, but presumably they have been around since the earliest days of the Church. A handful of early Christian writers such as Eusebius voiced fears of idolatry connected to images, but for the most part, Christians in the West and East naturally took to decorating sacred spaces, vestments, and reliquaries with images of Christ and the saints. 

With the Arab Muslim invasions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor, the Christian world saw the unstoppable might of a foe which rejected all images. Was it Islam that affected Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (reigned 717 - 741)? It's unclear, but beginning in 726 Leo outlawed all images of Christ and the saints in his domain, which at this time included most of modern day Turkey, parts of modern day Greece, Crete, Ravenna, Rome, Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia. Leo's first act was to remove a large icon of Christ above the bronze doors of the imperial palace at Constantinople. This caused a riot and some palace officials were killed in the ensuing melee.  

During this time, icons were part of the popular religious imagination. While certain bishops joined Leo's iconoclasm (partly for political reasons), others, such as the patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus, strongly opposed him. Germanus famously wrote, "[S]ince the only Son... deigned to become man, we make the image of His human form and of His human aspect according to the flesh... thus showing that it is not in a purely imaginary way that He put on our nature." Germanus was forced to give up the patriarch and retreat to his family estate outside of the city.  

In the West, Leo III's iconoclasm also met with hostility. Pope Gregory III and many Latin bishops condemned iconoclasm in a synod in 731. While images were not as central to the Western religious imagination, they nevertheless adorned churches, shrines, and official buildings across Latin Christendom. 

Following St Gregory the Great, most Western theologians viewed icons as "books for the illiterate," that is, scenes illustrating Bible stories and scenes from Church history for those unable to read. In the East, images also served this didactic purpose, but they were seen less as teaching tools and more as windows or portals for the purpose of divine contemplation. In Eastern tradition, an icon was able to lift a worshiper's mind from earthly to heavenly realities.  And, as we shall see, an icon served a Christological purpose as well, being "theology in color." 

During Leo III's iconoclasm, John of Damascus wrote three key treatises defending icons. The battle against images would rage on and off for over a hundred years with iconoclast emperors and iconodule emperors, and, as we shall see, one very influential iconodule empress. 

In 754 there was an important iconoclast council, called the Council of Hieria, where 338 bishops signed decrees forbidding sacred images. The council's argument was that by depicting Christ in an icon, one was only depicting his human nature and not his divine nature. This amounted to Nestorianism and had to be denounced. They also argued that the only true image of Christ was his body and blood at the Eucharist. They noted that the usage of images at worship is redolent of pagan practices and idol worship and therefore must stop: "It is not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshipers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter." 

The Council of Hieria and all its decisions would be condemned by the Second Council of Nicaea, based on the careful theological arguments and spiritual reflections of John of Damascus, Germanus, and others. 

From the era of the Iconoclast Controversy, a 9th century illuminated Psalter.
Called the Chludov Psalter, it was probably created by Iconodules in secret.

Key People

Leo III the Isaurian (emperor 717 - 741): Byzantine emperor who put an end to political stability and successfully fended off the Umayyad Caliphate. In 726 he instigated a war against icons throughout his lands. He quarreled with Popes Gregory II and Gregory III over icon veneration and over the episcopal administration of Ravenna and Sicily, which he transferred over to the Constantinopolitan patriarchate. Then he sent a fleet to Italy to enforce his decree. The fleet was destroyed in a storm. 

Constantine V (emperor 741 - 775): the son of Leo, Constantine was a very successful general but continued the iconoclastic efforts of his father. He was also suspicious of monks and persecuted them during his reign. Later chroniclers called him Kopronymos - the "dung-named." 

Irene of Athens (c. 752 - 803): empress of Byzantium, the wife of Leo IV (son of Constantine V). She became regent when her husband died and the next in line, Constantine VI, was just 9 years old. An iconophile, Irene was a defender of sacred images and the monks. Advised by Paul of Constantinople to call a general council, Irene sent messengers to Pope Hadrian and secured the appointment of Tarasius to become the next patriarch. Irene and her son opened the seventh ecumenical council on August 1, 787 in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, but it was interrupted by iconoclast soldiers bursting inside. Adjourning, the council reconvened in Nicaea on September 24. 

John of Damascus (676 - 749): a theologian and monk of Jerusalem we keep running into. He wrote three treatises between 726 and 730 defending the tradition of icon veneration. John wrote, "If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error, but we do nothing of the sort, for we are not in error if we make the image of the incarnate God, who appeared on earth in the flesh, and who, in his ineffable goodness, lived with human beings and assumed the nature, quantity, shape and color of flesh." 

Nicephorus of Constantinople (c. 758 - 828): patriarch of Constantinople from 806 to 815, Nicephorus was an iconodule writer in the latter half of the century-long iconoclast struggle. He argued that if Christ has a human body, then he can be pictured. "Where in the world has an uncircumscribed body ever been heard of?" The fact that a body can be drawn, that it has limits (i.e. is "circumscribed") means that Christ, who is the Word enfleshed in our human body, can be drawn and has "limits" according to the human nature. 

Theodore the Studite (759 - 826): theologically, probably the most sophisticated iconodule, Theodore was a monk and abbot of Stoudios, a famous monastery outside of Constantinople. The nephew of another famous iconodule abbot, Plato, Theodore wrote important works defending icons. 

An icon of St John of Damascus

The Theology of Images

In our Western context, there has never been the importance attached to images as there is in the East. For Western Christians, art served its purpose in adorning churches and aiding the understanding, but it never served the sacred and theological function it had in the East. 

Early iconodule writers like Germanus and John of Damascus pointed out that the Bible neither forbade art nor outlawed craftsmanship. Rather, it forbade the worship of images and statues as if they had some kind of essential power in and of themselves. As the Old Testament examples of Bezalel and Oholiab prove, as well as the priestly garments and temple decorations, God commands men to create beautiful objects to honor and glorify their Creator. 

John also made the point that God works through images in the world, especially through His own image within each man and woman. The material world must be honored because it is good and beautiful, and because a devaluation or rejection of the material world is heresy. 

John also made the crucial distinction between adoration (reserved for God) and honor (due to the saints). Sacred images are windows through this physical world to a spiritual world. They are the means through which Christians can be instructed in the virtues and inspired to live a God-pleasing life. Holy images thus have a kind of sacramental, grace-giving power to them. 

Theodore the Studite would develop John's icon-theology even more and bring it to bear in the Christological debates of the last few centuries. 

This brilliant theologian demonstrated that the question of icons is really a question of Christ's incarnation, his two natures, and his two wills. Theodore asserted that Christ can be depicted in icons because he is a Person, a Hypostasis, real and historical. He also argues that if Christ, post-resurrection, suddenly became indescribable and unable to be depicted, then we, his body, would also be indescribable! 

Our human nature has been lifted up - deified - in Christ's Person. The Image of God within us has been repaired by the Image of the Father (see Col. 1:15). 

The remains of the basilica at the St John Studious Monastery in Constantinople

The Council Itself

After an aborted attempt at holding the council in Constantinople, Irene convened it at the Hagia Sophia basilica in Nicaea. Around 300 bishops were present. The patriarch Tarasius opened the proceedings on Sept. 24, 787.

On Oct. 1, a long series of scriptural verses and Patristic citations were discussed. There is a paucity of iconoclast arguments from the Fathers - just scattered references in Eusebius of Caesarea, and then certain iconoclast sentences in the Monophysites Philoxenus of Mabbug and Severus of Antioch. These positions were deemed heretical by the council fathers. After reading the scriptural citations and stories of important fathers witnessing to the miraculous power of icons, the fathers decided that images should be restored. 

On Oct. 6, the long writings and decisions from the false Council of Hieria were read and condemned. 

They concluded: "To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writings or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospels, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic." 

The council also established 22 canons, mostly related to simony and ecclesiastical appointments. The ninth canon is interesting because it calls for a confiscation of all iconoclast books: "All those childish baubles and bacchic rantings, the false writings composed against the venerable icons, should be given in at the episcopal building in Constantinople, so that they can be put away along with other heretical books. If someone is discovered to be hiding such books, if he is a bishop, priest or deacon, let him be suspended, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be excommunicated."

Icon depicting the Empress Irene and her son, Constantine,
presiding at the Seventh Ecumenical Council

Aftermath

At the same time as the iconoclastic controversy in the East, Charlemagne in the West was waging a limited war against images. The decrees of the council had passed to Frankish lands in a badly mistranslated text, and Latin theologians misunderstood the conclusions of the council. In the West, it was mistakenly thought that Eastern Christians "adored" icons as if they had special powers. In the Libri Carolini, Charlemagne and his chief theologian called for images to be protected but not adored or venerated. The West would continue to misunderstand the Eastern practice and theology of icons for centuries. Arguably, it still misunderstands. 

The relationship between Christians and images is a bit ambiguous in our American Lutheran context. On the one hand, we have paintings of Christ in our churches, but on the other hand, we do not "adorn" our churches, bless sacred artwork, or reverence the saints.  It would be safe to say that artwork is still primarily didactic in Lutheran churches, illustrating scenes from Holy Scripture to aid the pious imagination in its understanding and faith.  

Hagia Sophia church in Iznik, Turkey, as it appears today. Built by
Justinian I in the 7th century, it was the site of Nicaea II in 787. 

Home Bible Study - Psalm 16

Get a downloadable copy of this study HERE.

A HOME BIBLE STUDY ~ Psalm 16

A miktam of David. 

● The title “miktam” is thought by some to mean “golden”; others think it is related to a word meaning “to cover.” It is found as an inscription on only 6 Psalms (16, 56-60) ...and since they all are written from times of peril, some think the idea is of covering the lips in the sense of secrecy, as if this were a secret or silent Psalm given in a time of crisis. Ultimately, we have no idea what “miktam” means...
● This is a wonderful Psalm relating how David found the secret of contentment and great gladness even in pressing times; and also speaks powerfully of Jesus and His work for us.

1 Keep me safe, O God, for in you I take refuge. 

● “keep me safe” - preserve/sustain ... a desperate cry from David’s lips that God protect him in his time of need (whatever that may be)
● “in you I take refuge” - literally, “I put my trust in You”
● notice that David turns to God in his struggles ... understanding that no where/no one else can be the solid bedrock we need in this life.
● Have you ever cried out to God in desperation?
● What are the false things we sometimes find ourselves putting our trust in?

2 I said to the LORD, "You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing."
3 As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight. 
4 The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods.
I will not pour out their libations of blood or take up their names on my lips. 

● notice the difference in “LORD” and “Lord”... the first is the divine name of God (YHWH) ... and the second is the name “Adonai” ... The great and mighty God is his master...
● literally - “my goodness is nothing apart from you”
● All that David is and has is result of the merciful hand of God towards him ... apart from Him, David would have nothing good in his life.
● “saints” - the sacred ones / the set-apart ones... the holy people of God who surround David
● David delighted in the people of God, despite all their (and his own) failings, scandals, and embarrassments..
● On the other hand, those who willingly lived in idolatry – giving their fear, love and trust to ‘other gods’ only have lives filled with pain and sorrows.
● Following God and His will may not be easy, but to trust in false gods only brings more difficulties.
● Therefore, David acknowledges that he will not allow himself to practice their pagan beliefs of offering blood (their own or others) ... and won’t even utter the names of the pagan gods.
● When something good happens in your life, do you see the fingerprints of God on the gift?
● Someone once said, “Those who love the Lord will love the company of those who also love him." (Boice) Do you enjoy the company of the body of Christ?
● When we put our trust in things other than God (YHWH), do we usually see good or bad as a result?
● What sacrifices do people make today to their “other gods”?

5 LORD , you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure.
6 The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; surely I have a delightful inheritance.

● literally, “the portion of my inheritance”
● “made my lot secure” - David was confident that God would maintain what He had first given to him.
● “boundary lines” - reminiscent of the dividing of the land among the Israelites ... what David has received is a delightful and pleasant gift of being in the presence of God.
● David was the youngest son in a family with many sons. He could expect no inheritance from his family; yet he took joy and comfort in the fact that God was the portion of his inheritance, and he knew that he had a good inheritance.
● God said to the priests in the days of Moses: "I am your portion and your inheritance" (Numbers 18:20). David understood that this was a promise given not only to the priests, but also to all who would trust God and His merciful gifts.
● We see here the contentment of David in God’s gifts to him.
● Do you trust that God will keep us in the faith and so you will receive the inheritance won by Christ?
● How content are you with God’s gifts to you in your life?

7 I will praise the LORD, who counsels me; even at night my heart instructs me.
8 I have set the LORD always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. 

● David offers blessings to God who – unlike the false gods of the nations – provides counsel and advice to guide him in the way of peace.
● “my heart” - literally “my kidneys” ... the seat of emotions and affection (thus our understanding of “heart”... The kidneys and their fat were always to be burnt in sacrifice, to indicate that the most secret purposes and affections of the soul are to be devoted to God.
● When David’s heart trusted in the LORD, then his emotions would not lead him astray.
● Thus David determines that God would always be first in his life.
● With God as David’s “right hand man” ... his Counselor and Guide ... there was stability and security that would not have otherwise existed. 
● How does God counsel you today? What tools does He use to instruct you?
● Obviously only Jesus has always set His heart on God, but in what ways can you make sure that the ways of the LORD are your ways?
● How does God provide security to your life?

9 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure,
10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
11 You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence,
with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

● The decision to put his total trust in God brought gladness to David’s heart.
● “my tongue” - literally “my glory” ... the Hebrews understood “glory” here as their tongue because God gave us our tongue to glorify Him and as it is the instrument of expressing our thoughts by words, it becomes our glory.
● David also understood the blessing of that relationship with God: he would be provided care and blessing in the life beyond... that he would not be abandoned in the grave, but his life would continue in the presence of God.
● But David also prophetically spoke beyond himself...In one sense David was indeed the Holy One of God, whose soul would not be left in the grave. Yet in a greater and more literal sense, only Jesus Christ fulfills this in His resurrection.
● Peter made this connection on the Day of Pentecost, when he said that these words went beyond David who was obviously dead, buried in a grave, and whose body had long ago decayed into dust (Acts 2:25-31).
● Peter understood that because Jesus bore our sin without becoming a sinner, He remained the Holy One, even in His death...and thus it was not possible that He should be held by death (Acts 2:24).
● “the path of life” - David seemed to understand that the benefits of this life commitment to God were received in both this life, and the life beyond. God gives us eternal life to enjoy as a present gift, extending into eternity.
● “fullness of joy” - that David could experience now, but also ultimately receive when in the more immediate presence of God.
● True pleasures forevermore are found at the right hand of God, not in separation from Him.
● One commentator notes: "We are also told that heaven is to be enjoyed at the right hand of God.

The right hand, even on earth, is the place of favor, and the place of honor, and the place of security. The right-hand place is always regarded as the place of dignity and nobility in all courts. God is not going to give his people any left-handed heaven, but they are to dwell at his right hand for evermore."
W  hen we go back to the first verse of this psalm, we remember that this life of gladness and rejoicing and fullness of joy is not a problem-free life. It is a life that may be challenged, and face attack on many levels. We probably feel that more right now than ever before.  There is such uncertainty about each day. We fear for our health, our livelihood, our family, our church, our economy, our society and our world.

Yet David understood that to put our trust in the things of this life...this world... is useless.  The gods of our hearts and our minds are useless.  Only in a life truly committed to God can there be enjoyment, security, happiness and blessing.  Ultimately, we find the hope of our lives and our eternity in the fulfillment of this Psalm - Jesus Christ.  He is the Holy One who did not see decay, but in the brilliance of Easter morning burst forth from the tomb to assure us that God is FOR us! Our sins are forgiven, the grave is defeated, His love is victorious! Those who trust in Him can have the peace, love and joy won by His resurrection – now, in this life... and in the life to come at the right hand of God!

Tuesday Bible Study (4/14/20)

The Question of Papal Authority

The Donation of Constantine 

c. 751 - 756 A.D.

13th century fresco from the Vatican depicting Constantine the emperor paying
homage to Sylvester I, pope, sitting in the seat of St Peter the Apostle

Scriptural Starting Places

Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Luke 22:38 - "And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.' And he said to them, 'It is enough.'"

John 19:23-24 - Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,' that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says, 'They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.' Therefore the soldiers did these things."

>> Here we have the proof texts for Petrine supremacy and the prerogative for papal power in the temporal realm.   By the middle ages, the single, spiritual authority of the Pope in Rome was virtually unchallenged in the West. Popes such as Boniface VIII used other texts to "prove" the ultimacy of the seat of St Peter, such as the story of Noah's Ark: "There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed" (from Unam Sanctum, 1302). 

Boniface also went on to offer the definite interpretations of John 19:23-24 and of Luke 22:38 for the Middle Ages. The "seamless tunic" of the Lord represents His Church, which is also whole, seamless, complete. It is not made of multiple fabrics or parts, but woven in a single piece. Since the Lord declared Peter to be the "rock" and chief disciple, this meant that he and his successors are overseers of this single Church. 

The pope then explains the text from Luke in this way: "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard.' Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God,' but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other."

This "blossoming" of biblical and Patristic "support" for papal supremacy in the Middle Ages was strongly accentuated by a forged document from the 8th century called "The Donation of Constantine." 


Background

During the latter part of Saint Augustine's career, the city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths. Then, during the bishop's final days, Vandals invaded North Africa and surrounded his city of Hippo. The Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire) effectively met its end in the West. The glories of ancient Rome were destroyed, sacked, and carried away by invading armies from Gaul and Germania. During this time Augustine sought to formulate the relation between churchly and princely power. In The City of God Augustine explains how the "City of the World" is ruled by the devil and is always hostile to God's ends. With the crumbling of Rome, Augustine declared to Christians that only this devilish, temporary city was being extinguished; the true city, the "City of God" (i.e. the Church), would last forever. Yet, Augustine had forgotten (or rejected) the Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Here, for another 1,000 years, Church and state would work together to initiate mission activity, ecumenical councils, liturgical renewal, and theological development. To this day Eastern Orthodoxy has a different view of political authority than Roman Catholicism does. In the East, the emperor is still seen as God's representative, appointed to aid the Church in her work and fulfill the role as moderator in her doctrinal and disciplinary conflicts. 

Perhaps Augustine's views in The City of God are simply indicative of general differences between East and West. However, Augustine's theology did bolster theological developments in the era of the Carolingian Empire (800 - 888 A.D.).  Where the East was conceiving of temporal authority in a "Pauline" sense, such as we find in Romans 13 - "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" etc., The West inherited this Augustinianism which looked at temporal authority in a way more akin to Peter who calls his Christian readers "sojourners and exiles" in his first letter. 

In the 8th century, the Frankish noble Pepin the Short, the son of Charles Martel, wanted Church sanction in his conflicts against the Lombards, who ruled much of Italy. Pope Stephen II was willing to assist him, but wanted Pepin to aid the church. So, in 754 Stephen II crowned Pepin as King of the Franks, and Pepin in return gave lands to the pope. 

Pepin had captured some territory from the Lombards in Italy and then donated lands and cities to the papacy, in what is now called "The Donation of Pepin." This land eventually became the papal states.  For the next 1,000 years, these papal states gave the pope temporal powers in Europe until they were handed over to Mussolini in the 1920s. 

It was around the time of Pepin the Short that a learned forger, working from a monastery in France, created the "Donation of Constantine." It was to have an enormous influence over the Carolingians and subsequent European rulers, because it seemingly justified papal authority in the temporal realm, and thus, papal oversight of kings and princes. 


The Document

The document itself is short at around 1500 words (about three single spaced pages), and purports to be from the Emperor Constantine himself to Pope Sylvester I. According to legend, Constantine had leprosy that was cleansed by a miracle of Pope Sylvester. In response to this and to a vision, he received baptism by the hand of the pope. Days later, according to "The Donation of Constantine," the emperor decided to vacate Rome and leave for the East to allow the great city to lie in the hands of the pope himself. There the pope was to exercise the temporal and ecclesiastical authority that is rightfully his by the hand of Constantine through the will of God. 

In the opening, Constantine writes, "We-together with all our satraps, and the whole senate and my nobles, and also all the people subject to the government of glorious Rome-considered it advisable, that as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth, so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen to have conceded to it, choosing that same chief of the apostles and his vicars to be our constant intercessors with God." Therefore Pope Stephen II could declare that, in Constantine's ancient day, the pope had been recognized as the representative of Christ on earth and was owed the greatest respect, honor, and dignity from church and state alike. 

The document continues, "And to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman church shall be honored with veneration, and that more than our empire and earthly throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted, we giving to it power, and dignity of glory, and vigor, and honor imperial. And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at the time shall be at the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and according to his judgment everything which is provided for the service of God and for the stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered." Constantine thus declares that the seat of Peter is hereby given imperial honor, glory, and power, and that all the other patriarchs of the Christian world are to be subject to it. 

Later in the document, Constantine grants the priests of the Catholic Church the status of Roman senators and declares that they must receive due honors. He also insists that the pope wear the diadem of the emperor himself, the so-called "Papal Tiara." The Lateran Palace of Rome, formerly for Roman consuls and administrators, was also gifted to the pope! 

The Papal three-tiered Tiara, dating from the early
Middle Ages.

There is much that might surprise the modern reader in this document.  For example, in one section Constantine I says, "And in order that the pontifical glory may shine forth most fully, we decree this also; that the horses of the clergy of this same holy Roman church be decorated with saddle-cloths and linens, that is, of the whitest color, and that they are to so ride. And even as our senate uses shoes with felt socks, that is distinguished by white linen, so the clergy also should use them, so that, even as the celestial orders, so also the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God." 

Finally, the document ends with a warning: "If any one, moreover,... prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation, and shall feel the holy ones of God, the chief of the apostles, Peter and Paul, opposed to him in the present and in the future life, and he shall be burned in the lower hell and shall perish with the devil and all the impious. The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of the Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles."

Charlemagne famously ignored the decrees of the document and carried on his political and military affairs without fear of the pope's (newly established) temporal powers. 

Magnificent bust of Charlemagne in the Aachen
Cathedral treasury

A Forgery! 

While various people had doubted the authenticity of the document in the MIddle Ages, it was the philosopher and bishop Nicholas of Cusa who outright declared it to be a forgery in the 15th century. 

At the same time as Nicholas of Cusa, the bishop of Chichester in England, Reginald Pecocke, also decried it as a fake. Yet it was not until the humanist priest and philologist Lorenzo Valla (c. 1407 - 1457) that someone proved it was a forgery. 

Valla examined the vocabulary and found anachronisms. He also determined the Latin did not match the style of Latin in the 4th century.  Valla argued that the Church knew the document to be a forgery all along, but had utilized it for her corrupt dealings. Valla also blamed the document for the terrible political wars in Italy and priestly overreach in temporal affairs best handled by worldly leaders. 

Luther and other reformers rejected the document on the grounds that putting temporal authority in the hands of Church leaders was found nowhere in the New Testament and represented a terrible corruption of Christ's teaching. 

In present scholarly work, some have attributed "The Donation" and a large collection of other 9th century ecclesiastical forgeries to Pseudo-Isidore, an author operating near Reims who had access to the monastic library at Corbie Monastery. 


Significance

The "Donation of Constantine" exerted considerable influence in the Middle Ages and beyond.  

In 1054 - the year of the "Great Schism" between the Eastern and Western churches - Pope Leo IX wrote a letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael I Cerularius, in which he quoted "The Donation" and its remarks about the pope's authority over Constantinople and the other three historic patriarchates.  The East, of course, rejected its validity. 

During the Investiture Controversy "The Donation" was utilized by several popes. We will return to this later.

In the late 16th century, the Roman Cardinal Cesare Baronio admitted that "The Donation" was a forgery. After this, it was generally assumed that all knew it to be so, although Valla's book was suppressed for some centuries after his death. 

"The Donation of Constantine" in the Vatican, School of Raphael (1483 - 1520) 

Tuesday Bible Study (4/7/20)

The Question of Christ's Wills and Energies

The Third Council of Constantinople - 680-681 A.D.

A painting by Piero della Francesca of the  battle between Emperor Heraclius
and the Persians in 628 A.D. Heraclius tried to compromise with non-
Chalcedonian peoples in his realm by propagating monoenergism.

Scriptural Starting Places

Luke 22:42 - "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

John 4:34 - "My food," said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'"

John 5:30 - "“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

John 6:38 - " For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

>> The Greek word for "will" is thelema (θέλημα), which also has the meaning of "desire, pleasure, choice, inclination." The New Testament records that Christ our Lord has a human body, exactly like ours, yet He is fully divine, being the Word of the Father. When the Lord's will is mentioned, it is mentioned in the singular and ascribed to the Person of Christ, not to either His divine nature or human nature.  Christ Himself is ever mentioning His Father's divine will and His desire to obey it perfectly. A debate will arise in the 7th century over the will(s) of Christ in the wake of the Miaphysitism that was now commonly held by Christians throughout Armenia, Syria, Persia, Palestine, and Egypt. The question is, does Christ have one will or two wills? 

Background

The Emperor of the Byzantine Empire had a problem. Finally he had defeated the Persians in several crushing battles between 622 and 627, and had regained vast swaths of territory. On top of that, he had regained the True Cross from the city of Ctesiphon and restored it to Jerusalem.  However, most of the Christians in these newly liberated (or conquered) areas were non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites, meaning they did not share the same Christological views of the Emperor himself and established Byzantine Orthodoxy. Heraclius thought that a commonly held religion would be a unifying force in his empire, but in the face of these conflicting views, what was he to do? 

Aided by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, Heraclius attempted to attain a Christological compromise position that would bring together the various religious attitudes of the diverse areas of his empire.  The attempt at unity was aided by a  teaching that Heraclius and Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, hoped to popularize called Monenergism. Simply put, it was a compromise position which posited Christ had two natures but only a single energy or activity. Later, this teaching evolved into a teaching on the single activity of his will (thelema).  Heraclius and Sergius thought that this teaching might serve a unifying function in the kingdom by bridging Byzantine Orthodox theology with Miaphysite theology.  Sergius won over the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch with this teaching. Yet, beginning in 633, the teaching was opposed by Sophronius of Jerusalem and Maximus. At this time, Sergius sent the Psephos to a theologian of Alexandria, Cyrus, disallowing him and any others from talking about one or two activities (energies) in Christ. The Psephos was then an attempt at ending the conversation, to avoid further controversy. 

In 638 the language about the one energy of Christ evolved into the one will of Christ. Heraclius then issued the Ecthesis (Ἔκθεσις) which attempted to settle the Christological controversy by positing Christ's dual natures always worked through a single will. Sophronius and others rejected this. A contemporary scholar sums up very well the consequences of the Echthesis: "For what Sergius and the emperor had decreed was that there is in Jesus Christ only one will and one truly free and spontaneous activity, the divine activity and will. Granting the existence of a human nature, its activity is completely subordinate to that of the divine; the humanity in the power of the Word is merely a docile instrument which He uses and which is devoid of any initiative of its own" (Leo Donald Davis, 268). 

Maximus Confessor was the key theologian during this time. Fleeing to Carthage and then to Rome in the wake of the Muslim Arab conquest, Maximus was a stout foe of Monothelitism. He put forward the idea that a nature without will and operation is impossible. Christ's two natures therefore imply two wills, though his human will is not our fallen, sinful one (which Maximus calls the gnomic will, from γνώμη, gnṓmē, "mind, reason, opinion, judgment"), but rather, our "natural" one which is free of sin, as in Adam and Eve before the Fall. Christ has no fallen will, only an un-fallen one, which always chooses the Good, which is always obeying the divine will. 

By the time of Constans II, emperor of the Byzantine empire, the controversy was still raging, and the emperor released an edict called the Typos in 648. In it he forbade any more discussion on the question of Christ's energies or wills. This was rejected in the West by the Lateran Synod of 649, a synod which Maximus participated in. 

Finally, under the new leadership of Emperor Constantine IV (668-685), a decision was reached to initiate a universal council to decide the issues that had been dividing East and West for some 50 years. 

A mosaic in the Italian city of Ravenna of Christ, saints, and angels.

Heresies

Monoenergism (μονοενεργητισμός): the teaching that preceded Monothelitism and posited Christ has two natures but only a single energy (ἐνέργειᾰ ). Though rather vague, monoenergism was essentially an attempt to reconciled Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Byzantine Empire. It was accepted by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Pope Honorius famously accepted it (or at least did not condemn it) in his 635 epistle. 

Monothelitism (μονοθελητισμός ): the teaching that Christ has two natures but only one will. This teaching emerged from Constantinople in 638 as a response to Sophronius' condemnation of Monoenergism as another form of Monophysitism. This view was propagated by the Ecthesis and won widespread approval in the East. Following the death of Honorius, all of the popes in Rome condemned the doctrine. 

Miaphysitism: the non-Chalcedonian position that Christ has a single physis, or nature. Miaphysitism was wide-spread throughout the East. Essentially it posits that the single nature of the Word became enfleshed, fully human, while remaining the Word. Monophysitism is a direct rejection of Chalcedon and implies that Christ has a solitary nature only: the divine. 

Tritheism: emerging in Alexandria in the 6th century, Tritheism posited that the Three Persons of the Trinity were consubstantial but distinct in their properties. A chief proponent of this view was John Philoponus (c. 490 - c. 570) who was an Aristotelian philosopher of Alexandria and a Monophysite. Essentially Tritheism is any theology which emphasizes or separates the distinctness of each Person at the expense of the unity. 

Pope Honorius I (pope from 625 - 638) initially
supported Monothelitism, though he did not know
what was at stake. He was careful to guard against
the teaching of two contrary wills in Christ.

Key Personages

Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610 - 641): a very successful military commander, Heraclius waged war against the Persian Sassanian Empire and won a series of major victories. Unfortunately, most of his gains were reversed a short time later during the Muslim Arab invasions. Famously, Heraclius re-captured the true cross from the Sassanians in Nineveh and restored it to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. During peace time, Heraclius was keen to unite the disparate Christian groups of his vast empire. The theological foundation for unity was the compromise doctrine of Monenergism (later, Monothelitism) formulated by Sergius I. Indeed, for around 40 years there was a rough reconciliation between Armenians, Jacobite (followers of Jacob bar Addai, the so-called "Syriac Christians"), and Egyptian Copts, but this did not last long. 

Sergius I of Constantinople (patriarch from 610 - 638): the architect of Monenergism and Monothelitism which were two attempts at preserving the Chalcedonian distinction of the two natures of Christ while also admitting the single activity of will of Christ. This was more acceptable to the various Monophysite groups in Armenia, Syria, Persia, and Egypt. It was hoped by Heraclius and Sergius that this formulation would unite the empire.


Pope Honorius I (pope from 625 - 638): a controversial figure, Honorius was embroiled into this Christological controversy which he did not fully understand. In a letter to Sergius he writes, "Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt, was assumed by the Godhead..." Honorius was careful to preserve the sinless aspect of Christ and was afraid that attributing a human will to him meant also attributing ignorance, sin, and imperfection. Honorius probably did not have the vocabulary to defend his position, as his successor to the papacy points out. Despite this, he was anathematized in the canons of Constantinople III. 

Pope Agatho (pope from 678 to 681):  the pope during the Third Council of Constantinople, Agatho's letter Considerante mihi as well as a synodal letter from the Synod of Rome were read and approved by the council fathers. Agatho wrote in his letter, "When we, however, confess two natures and two natural wills and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we affirm that they are not against or contrary to one another... nor are they as if separated in two persons or subsistencies.  Rather we affirm that just as there are two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, so does he have two natural wills and two operations, namely, divine and human; the divine will and operation he has in common from eternity with his co-essential Father; the human he has temporarily from us with our assumed nature." 


Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560 - 638): a monk and ascetic, friend of John Moschus the chronicler of the monks of Palestine. He was a staunch defender of Dyothelitism (the teaching of the two wills of Christ) and famously viewed the Muslim invaders of Palestine as "unwitting representatives of God's inevitable chastisement of weak and wavering Christians." All that survive of his writings is the so-called synodical letter, written to other bishops in the East and warning of the heresy of Monothelitism. It was read aloud at the council almost 50 years after Sophronius's death. 


Maximus Confessor (c. 580 - 662): erudite, well-travelled, and fearless, Maximus picked up the mantle of orthodoxy from Sophronius and defended Dyothelitism until his tragic death. He was born into a well-to-do family in Constantinople, and was a chief secretary to Emperor Heraclius before becoming a monk. In the face of Muslim conquest, he left the East for Carthage and then for Rome. Under Constans II, Maximus was called to Constantinople and punished for his views. His tongue was cut out of his mouth and his right hand was severed. He died later in exile on the Black Sea.  Many of his writings are still extant. Maximus argued that in the Incarnation Christ "accomplishes in all truth the true human destiny that he himself had predetermined as God, and from which man had turned: he unites man to God." 

Pope Agatho depicted in a Byzantine service book, c. 1000 A.D.

The Council Itself

It opened on Nov. 7, 680 with 43 bishops present. Eighteen separate sessions would meet over the next 10 months, with the final session ending Sept. 16, 681. 

Papal legates (representatives) demanded the clergy of Constantinople to explain the doctrines of Monenergism and Monothelitism. Macarius of Antioch (a Monothelite) did not aid his side's case when he produced volumes of extracts from Church Fathers which were corrupted and twisted out of context. In the eighth session, the patriarch of Constantinople, George, compared Patristic texts in Constantinople to the texts that the legates presented in favor of two wills. He was convinced, and confessed two wills. 

When it was discovered that Macarius and his assistant had falsified Patristic texts in an attempt to make their heresy sound orthodox, they were deposed. A new patriarch of Antioch was accepted in Macarius's place. 

At one point, a Monothelite priest named Polychronius attempted to prove the validity of his party's position by raising a dead man to life. It failed. Another priest named Constantine proposed a view that upon the cross Christ had abandoned his human will so that only the divine will remained. These two men were removed from the priesthood, their views condemned. 

Eventually all patriarchs of Constantinople from 610 to 666 were condemned for their heretical views, and Pope Honorius (d. 638) was condemned for his Monenergist views presented in his letter. 

The final Christological teaching espoused by the council fathers was this: "We likewise proclaim in [Christ], according to the teaching of the holy Fathers, two natural volitions or wills and two natural actions, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion. The two natural wills are not - by any means - opposed to each other as the impious heretics assert; but his human will is compliant; it does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. For, as the wise Athanasius says, it was necessary that the will of the flesh move itself, but also that it be submitted to the divine will; because, just as his flesh is said to be and is the flesh of God the Word, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to be and is God the Word's very own, as he himself declares: 'I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.' He calls the will of his flesh his own will because the flesh also has become his own."

The council also confessed two actions (energies) in Christ, "without division, without change, without separation, without confusion, namely, a divine action and a human action... For we do not in any way admit one natural action of God and the creature, so as neither to raise to the divine essence what is created nor to lower the sublime nature to the level proper to creatures. For we know that both the miracles and the sufferings belong to one and the same, according to the different natures of which he consists and in which he has his being..." 

Aftermath

This council would have far-reaching ramifications for the Vatican I doctrine of papal infallibility, given that Honorius I is specifically condemned for his heretical views. This was a condemnation the papal legates knew and accepted at the council, 680 - 681. 

Lutheran scholastics in the late 16th and early 17th centuries would further develop the Chalcedonian and Constantinopolitan definitions. The technical idea here is called the communicatio idiomatum - the "communication of attributes (properties)."  Lutheran theologians organized the attributes into three genera ("classes, kinds"): 

- genus idiomaticum (idioma = "attribute"): the properties of one nature, human or divine, is transferred or applied to the whole Person. There is not a "fleshly Christ" and a "heavenly Christ," for this would be Nestorianism.  An example of this genus in action would be something like Peter says in 4:1 of his letter: "Christ suffered in the flesh," etc. 

- genus apotelesmaticum (apotelesma = "work"): the actions of Christ belong to the whole Person of Christ. One or the other nature does not "shut off" during a particular action. The Apostles do not speak of the "divine nature" becoming a ransom, but of the Christ Himself.  An example could be what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5 - "[T]here is one man Jesus Christ who gave himself as a ransom for all..." 

- genus maiestaticum (māiestās = "dignity, prestige"): the human nature of Christ is clothed and magnified by the attributes of the divine nature. An example of this would be Paul's words in Philippians 2:10 - "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and earth..." Another example would be the Lord's Supper: by eating the flesh and blood of Christ we are also partaking of His very divinity. 

If you are interested in learning more about Orthodox Lutheran Christology (which is essentially Cyrillian, check out: https://concordiatheology.org/2011/01/christology-illustrated-from-the-ct-vault/ 

Mosaic of Christ at Sant'Apollinaire Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy (6th century)