The Syriac Sense of the Council of Nicaea
Grappling with the Council of Nicaea (325), its Creed and imperatives, is nothing new. Christians began the examination and definition of their common faith 1700 years ago and have not stopped. Every council, synod, ecclesiastical commentator and denomination – Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Free Church – has found it necessary to reconsider Nicaea’s witness, and then affirm, edit, rewrite, and in some instances, reject part or all of the Council’s proclamation. The renowned 318 bishops (the number depending on Genesis 14:14, the number of Abram’s trained men sent to rescue Lot from a consortium of northern armies) was assembled by the emperor Constantine I himself at Nicaea in northwestern Turkey to sort out the contentious debates that had developed regarding what Christians do/should believe concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ. The so-called Arians, followers of the ideas of the presbyter Arius, who had denied the divinity of Christ, provided the focal point of the debates. The delegates at Nicaea took very good notes, so that one can see the progression of their thinking and debates, which ensued for many days. Not everyone appreciated Nicaea, and/or believed that the task was complete, culminating for the West in the Council of Chalcedon (451). In the East, on the borders of the Persian Sasanian dynasty, for whom Zoroastrianism was the state religion, the East Syriac Church faced different challenges. There proceeded over the next two centuries a series of councils and synods which laboured to define more carefully the shape of the conciliar and evangelical faith. Beginning with the Synod of Mar Isaac (410), the reception of Nicaea in the Church of the East will be examined. Other synods following are those of Yahbalaha I (420), Dadisho‘ (424), Acacius (486), Aba I (544), Joseph (554), Ezekiel (576), Isho‘yahb I (585), Grigor (605), the Synod of 612, Gewargis I (676), Timothy 1 (782), and Timothy II (1318). The focus of the brief study of these synods and their use of Nicaea will be on three key terms and concepts. First, the nature of God, the Father who has no beginning, the characteristic emphatically noted as well for the Son. The domain of the Creator is the entire universe, which includes the visible and invisible, the world we know, and the greater world we do not know. Second, the Īḥīdāyā, Only Begotten Son, who is Jesus Christ, grows in Syriac exponentially to signify the “the solitary one(s).” These identify as monks, who become the foundation of the expansive monastic movement in the Syriac churches, the model for the way of life of all Christians. Third, the consortium of words referring primarily to Christ, that he “descended, came down,” “lowered, humbled himself,” “put on the body,” “became human, came to birth.” The process of “becoming” is a decision, a choice, and not a glorious one for the Anointed One; and for God who has “no beginning,” this is a paradox.