In his article defending the authenticity of Eusebius’ letter to Constantia, Stephen Gero wrote the following concerning Eusebius’ (d. 339) understanding of the second commandment and how the Eucharist is the only allowable “image of Christ”:
How do the theological arguments proper relate to
Eusebius' thought? The letter notes the binding force of the second
commandment, but, to my mind, does so in a peripheral fashion,' and almost as a
concession, it seems, to what may have been the standard response to the
problem at hand. Eusebius, as other Christian exegetes, took a nuanced view of
the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament, and in particular of the
Decalogue; but a simple allusion to the commandment, after his sophisticated
Christological argument, is not at all discordant with his usual attitude to
the lasting pedagogical and civilizing value of the Old Testament Law. The
appearance of the motif of the liberation of mankind from demonic error by the
incarnate Logos is characteristic for Eusebius’s the designations of Christ as
'God' and 'Logos' are consonant with Eusebius' customary terminology. The
description of the animate and divinized earthly body as the very image of
Christ (in implied contrast to lifeless idols) is authentically Eusebian. The
central point in the Christological argument is concordant with Eusebius'
position that, though the Incarnation was important and real, the humanity was
utterly transformed and absorbed by the divinity. The criticism which finds the
Christological emphasis 'curious' and, in some way inconsistent with Eusebius'
espousal of Arianism, shows a serious lack of acquaintance with what were some
very basic theological positions in fourth-century Christianity.
Having rejected what he regards as a misguided request,
does Eusebius offer any positive alternative to a pictorial representation? An
indirect clue can be found, I think, in Nicephorus' refutation of the letter.
After criticizing some features of Eusebius' Christology, Nicephorus abruptly
denies that Eusebius can even be called a priest since he holds heterodox views
of the eucharist. Nicephorus further argues against the legitimacy of some
specifically spiritualizing terminology being applied to the eucharistic
elements. He closes his attack with a blast against those disciples of Eusebius
who call the elements 'image of the body'. Now, the case for the general
Eusebian inspiration of the iconoclasts' eucharistic image doctrine has been
presented in detail elsewhere; it seems that one can in fact argue that at this
point in the missing portion of the letter to Constantia, Eusebius, appealing
to his sacerdotal status, told the empress that he could give her the true
image of Christ-the eucharist, the one licit material image. Eusebius'
subsequent polemical remarks against specifically anthropomorphic pagan
representations indicate that in this missing segment of the letter Eusebius
may already have emphasized (as did the eighth-century iconoclasts) the
appropriateness of the 'abstract' nature of this Christ image, as an antidote
to idolatry. (Stephen Gero, “The True Image of Christ: Eusebius’ Letter to
Constantia Reconsidered,” The Journal of Theological Studies 32, no. 2
[October 1981]: 466-47)
Further Reading:
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
