Continuation of Part 1
We’ve seen that the Law itself could be condensed to one commandement made up of two parts : a part relative to one’s relationship with God and one relative to men.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these. (Mark 12:30-31)
Yet many questions remain unresolved. This principle necessitates a significant rework of the theological framework of the old Law. Merely following tradition and the Law is now insufficient; the entire worldview and frame of reference require adjustments.
Theology must dig deeper to address these questions systematically.
The principles
The first question that must be answered is that of the theological underpinning.
There were several potential paths, the first being to remain within the framework of the old Jewish religion. This path, known as Judeo-Christianity, was adopted by some of the early apostles. They retained Jewish traditions and customs, incorporating Jesus as the final prophet.
Another interpretation came from St. Paul. Well-versed in philosophy and adept at debating (Acts 17:16-34), he diverged from the Judeo-Christians. Paul conceived of the Inner Law as representing a radical break from tradition. It was applicable to all of humanity, unlike the Old Law, which was specific to the Jewish community.Paul’s charisma and persuasive abilities led to the triumph of his interpretation, forming the foundation of Christian theology.
The subsequent question was which theological framework to adopt. Here lies an often under appreciated fusion: Greek philosophy became the interpretative paradigm for emerging Christian thought. Paul’s decisive influence, due to both his knowledge and leadership, ensured this interpretation prevailed.
This shift was helped by the deep connections between Greek and Jewish cultures during the time of Jesus, reinforced by Roman political dominance. By the time of Christ, debates between judaism and had already established significant common ground - notably through Philo of Alexandria.
Early Christian theologians naturally did not wholly embrace all of Plato’s ideas (Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation).
However, a key parallel was drawn. Plato’s theology focused on a principle, called the Good, or the One, as the source of all things. The concept of the Form of the Good in Plato's philosophy suggests that when one travels the hierarchy of being, one ultimately reaches the idea of simple existence, unity, or the One or the Good.
This provided the conceptual infrastructure for early Christian theology. If God is recognized and characterised by His complete Goodness, and Man can incorporate the Good in his own life, then Man and God are not entirely separate.
Such an idea is somewhat akin to the Platonic procession of souls towards the Good (Lloyd Gerson, From Plato to Platonism) In finding a universal principle, the bridge between religion and philosophy emerged. This development paved the way for a theological framework that could incorporate Greek philosophy rather than Jewish tradition as the guiding principle.
Incarnation
Yet unlike Platonic thought, the rules for the Good - loving God and your neighbor - were provided through Jesus. The Platonic framework provided an explanation for the relationship between Jesus and God through the concept of participation (methexis).
Briefly explained, participation is the link between a particular and an idea. A real table participates of the concept of the table, a just man of the concept of Justice.
Jesus embodied, in his own nature, the utmost desire for the good, as defined by the Great Commandement. The Bible is very explicit in saying Jesus has loved as much as could be:
There is no greater love than this: that a person would lay down his life for the sake of his friends. (John 15:13 )
As such, he partook of the divine essence of pure love. This participation link ties Jesus to God, in the sense that Jesus, through this love of God and His Neighbor, participates in the Goodness of God.
I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me (John 14:31)
Yet what should we make of this link ? The field of Christology, of the interpretation of Christ’s nature, has had various interpretation.
This idea is the key to the incarnation, to the idea of God made flesh. This shows that here is no dissociation. Goodness can be in the world of men, and is not siloed off.
This is what came to be know as the doctrine of the double nature of Christ (dyophusia). Jesus is both man (as per his birth) but also God (as per his participation in God’s nature, which is that of love and the pure desire for the Good). If an individual manages to reach full Goodness during his life as a man, then he has managed to embody the core principles of religion itself. Jesus embodied perfect love for God and others
Jesus’s embodiment is the possibility of man participating in God’s goodness
Through his embodiment, he showed that there was a possibility, in a world which is fraught with evils, to embody this desire for the Good. The issue of the material is not an obstacle to Goodness. The body is not - as Gnostics and early Platonist often thought - a prison (somâ séma) - but a vessel.
This idea comes under fire for its lack of plausibility, and its seemingly far fetched nature. The double nature of christ met with vehement opposition in the early days of the church, leading to rifts and outright wars. Suffise to mention Arianism, Nestorianism, Docetism and various other christologies which denied the double nature of Christ. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD took a firm theological stance for the dyophysite view.
A series of historical events, such as the defeat of Arian Visigothic tribes and the conversion of Clovis to dyophysite Christianity, further led to the dominance of this interpretation.
We see Plato’s theory serving as a part of the infrastructure - although two millennia of theoretical reflexion have considerably reworked this initial hypothesis. The convergence of this idea throughout the early centuries of the Church, is strongly reminiscent to the shift in the conception of the body, which culminates in Plotinus’ conception of the body as a necessary part of purification.
God and Mankind
Can all men partake of divine essence ? If Jesus was able to do it, was it possible for anyone ? Yet when we see most men, disappointments quickly set in. Nor could men perform miracle the like of which have been witnessed by Jesus’ contemporaries.
In such an approach, we could imagine all men taking in the same path as Jesus, and for Christians as a whole to become like God. This Platonic concept of theosis - becoming like God and purifying yourself of evil - became fundamental even at the time of the disciples.
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Peter 1:4)
Some early Church Fathers whole heartedly supported this interpretation.
God became man so that man might become god (Athanasius, Treatise on Incarnation, 54:3)
Yet at what step did this stop ? Could mankind become fully God and also partake of this double nature ?
This debate was fundamental in early christianity, but came to a quick conclusion. Man is flawed and cannot bear the desire for the good. Jesus himself was of another nature, a divine one born without original sin. Jesus shows us a way, but we all fall short of it. This process of theosis never reaches a point of true communion with God.1
This stopped dead in its tracks an interpretation which would have even further blurred the distinction between God and man - a touchy subject from the start and which became one of the main points of contention between Christianity and early Islam.2
Trinity
The concept of embodiment and the double nature of Jesus led to further questions. What was the metaphysical nature of this interaction ?
Mainstream christianity formalized the idea of the Trinity and its inner unity, known as the “hypostatic union,” during the Council of Toledo in 675 AD.
This development highlights the Platonic influence on Christian theology. Two centuries before the council, Plotinus introduced the idea of the world divided into different hypostases—a hierarchy of being derived from the One, which is rooted in Plato’s concept of the Good. This Platonic framework significantly influenced early Christian theological thought.
Jesus embodies the Good as fully as a man can, thereby uniting with God. Jesus, as a man, connects with all of humanity, sharing this divine nature. In this sense, Jesus serves as a bridge showing a path of goodness which is not fully attainable but which we should try to mimic.
God's goodness is shown in His sending Jesus as a messenger.
But what is the nature of the link between Man and God? This is where the concept of the Holy Spirit comes into play. The Holy Spirit represents the process through which God, loving humanity and desiring their Good, connects with mankind. It is this common energy of the desire for the good, which comes from God to man. The relationship between God and humanity is one-to-many. The Holy Spirit also unites mankind in their relationship to God. As a consequence, humanity is united in their desire to do Good.
Church
The Holy Spirit expresses God’s love through the human community. Not only is the desire for Good flowing from god to Jesus and to Mankind, but it can also unify mankind amongst itself, in a community of individuals who are focused upon the good.
This came to be called the “universal community” (eklesia katholou) of mankind. The term Catholic Church is an etymological derivation of eklesia katholou.
Broadly the core idea is as follows : the true Church is a community of men who embody God’s love - which is equivalent to the desire to make the world a better place.
This idea suggests that through a collective desire to do good, there is a cumulative effect that strengthens the Christian community. In Christian soteriology, this accumulation of good acts can serve as a bulwark against the growing malice in the world and lead to
Of course, the community will face hardships, setbacks, but learn from them and progress. Through this constant striving by the community, the Good (in other words the manifestation of divine love), will arise.
This notion of a community united in their desire to do good aligns with core ethical principles, but gives it a divine justification far different from earlier religions, where randomness, fear and retribution played a large part. For the first time in history, there is a theological framework that bridges the divine and the human, uniting people in their pursuit of goodness for their community.
We then have an embodied, clear path for mankind. This break is itself considerable. Traditional societies have long been considered static. The Law of the Jews, or the were set as is, and life was a repetition.
This idea, that solving problems for others was a fundamental Christian duty, and an expression of the love (or desire for good).
If such was the case, then downstream work, action, taking care of the food, sheleter, the sick, danger, all became part of a broader movement towards improvement. Dynamism, and the role of working together towards one thing, came from this process;
The theosis process comes at a social level. The Good can best be done at a collective level.
The progressive role of the Church as the vessel through which the Holy Spirit manifested itself was already partly present in John Scot Erigena in the 9th century and saw its full systematisation in Hegel’s “process of the Spirit”. This relationship was clear enough to his contemporaries to earn him the famous nickname of the “Prostestant Aquinas”. A large part of modern philosophy, stemming from Hegel ( whether it be Marx or Derrida) takes its foundation in this conception of the Holy Spirit as the guiding principle of the Church
The relevance
More than abstract theological principles, it tells us that the way forward is simple. No need for sacrifices, fancy rituals, awkward pleasing of Gods. The way forward is to simply respond to God’s desire for our Good by an acceptation of what has been given.
The complexity of Christian theology does not work in its favor, as it can shroud sound conceptual principles in apparent mysticism. Upon reading early Islamic religions texts, one can only notice that subtle theological points like the Trinity are some of the main points of contention into the errors of the “People of the Book”.3 For instance, the Trinity is taken to be a return to polytheism instead of a theoretical point in unification.
All the above ideas can be refined and critized. But such is not the purpose - as I find the core, ground thesis to cohere well with most of the early christian writings and the sacred texts. It can then serve as a basis for a personal exploration and refinement.
This communion is naturally reminiscent of the Eucharist. Let it be mentioned that the Eucharist reaches communion by the person of Jesus, not directly to God.
Hence the theological debate regarding the nature of Mary. How could Mary be flawed if she was the human mother of God ? One of the interpretations of this debate led to the Catholic Church declaring her born without sin (the Immaculate Conception).
I would further add that the cultural distance of the largely tribal Arabian peninsula from the Greek philosophical underpinnings explains a large part of the theological criticism formulated by early Islam. An example would be the recurring criticism of the concept of Trinity in the Quran, as dividing God appeared blasphemy without the underlying platonic conceptual infrastructure.