Justin Martyr (100-165)

The great Justin Martyr (100-165) was an early apologist whose zeal and love for Christ motivated him to "remain faithful unto death" (Rev. 2:10.) when he was scourged then beheaded during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. One of the primary concerns of Justin and the later apologists is to explain the identity and origin of the Logos described in the writings of St. John. Moreso than any other Evangelist, St. John describes the pre-human existence of the Son as the Logos or Word, his involvement in creation and his incarnation. (St. Joh. 1:1-4, 10, 14; 1 St. Joh. 1:1-5; Rev. 19:13 et al.) In comparison, the Synoptic Gospels talk about this issue only in passing or implicitly. (St. Lk. 1:35; 11:49; St. Matt. 16:16, et al.) They make an important distinction between the immanent Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) which exists eternally in the mind of God prior to creation and the expressed Logos (λόγος προφορικός) who is the Son. In the writings of the early apologists we find the first detailed discussions of the begetting of the Son outside of the NT writings. Justin does not regard the Son to be the same God as the Father, rather, says the Logos is "another God and Lord, subject to the Creator of all things; who is also called an angel, for he announces to men whatever the Creator of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them." (Dial. 56.) Such language sounds as though it were borrowed directly from an Arian homily. This divine Word is not only subject  to the Creator but "different from" (έτερος παρὰ) him. The begetting of the Son takes place before the world is created, "God begat before all creatures a beginning, a certain rational power from himself," (Dial. 61.) and elsewhere "we know him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures." (Dial. 100.) And elsewhere he calls him, " the first-begotten of all creatures." (Dial. 125.) He is careful to oppose any notion that the Son's begetting involved a division, distribution, or separation within the essence of the Father, he likens his begetting to that of fire from fire. He operates under outdated physics, but his meaning is clear enough. 

"He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by excision, so as to lessen the word in us when we distribute it: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled another, but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled." (Dial. Trypho, 61.) 

These words of Justin are only compatible with Arian Christology, for it was only the Arians who maintained that the Logos was begotten "of the Father by an act of will." Athanasius vehemently denies any possibility that the Son was begotten by an act of will, as the Arians claimed, but that he must be begotten from the person of the Father by nature from eternity. (Cont. Arian. 3.64-66.) As Clark says,

"Creation was taken as a voluntary and unnecessary act, while generation was involuntary and necessary." (Gordon Clark, The Trinity, p. 140.)  

If the Son exists because of the will of God, then he might not have existed for the Father could have freely chosen not to beget a Son. To say that the Son was begotten as an act of the divine will is to entail Arianism, as Athanasius elsewhere says,

"He who says, 'The Son came to be at the Divine will,' has the same meaning as another who says, 'Once He was not,' and 'The Son came to be out of nothing,' and 'He is a creature.'" (Adv. Ar. 3.30.59.)

Justin even goes so far as to say the Logos is "numerically distinct" (αριθμώ έτερον) from God since his begetting. (Dial. Trypho, 56, 62, 129.) 

"Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists." (Harry Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, p. 110.)

It is of vital interest that he says the Son was begotten "by an act of will." Athanasius and the Cappadocians would insist the begetting of the Son is by nature (κατ' φύσιν) not by an act of will. Even in modern times Eastern Orthodox theologians are careful to distinguish the begetting of the Son as an act of nature rather than an act of will, Lossky wrote,

 "Even if the created order did not exist, God would still be Trinity— Father, Son and Holy Ghost— for creation is an act of will: the procession of the persons is an act 'according to nature' (κατ' φύσιν)." (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY, 1976), p. 45.) 

 It was the Arians who insisted that the Son was "begotten before all things by the will of his God," (Eunomius, Lib. Apol. 12.) and Justin says the same. If the begetting of the Son is by the will of God, then God might have chosen not to beget a Son, hence the Son does not exist necessarily but only by the will of God. Which side of the Nicene controversy would Justin have sided with? The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the theology of Justin is far from Nicene, 

"The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him." (The Catholic Encyclopedia – 1910, Vol. VIII., p. 585.) 

To Justin, then, the Logos is a subordinate deity, another God, who was begotten before all else. Justin does not hesitate to describe the Son as "offspring (γέννημα)," and "only-begotten (μονογενής)," who was "begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten." (Dial. Trypho, 105, 129; Apol. I. 16, 23, 33; II. 13.) The Arians would apply the LXX of Prov. 8:22 "the Lord created me," to the prehuman Son. (Eunomius, Lib. Apol. 12.) In response, Athanasius would apply this text to incarnation, to the human body of the Logos. (Expos. Fidei, 1, 3.) Carlton explains the significance of these two interpretations, 

"And it is written in the book of Wisdom: 'If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.' When I repeated these words, I added: You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit." (Dial. Trypho, 129.) 

Justin would not only have been opposed by Athanasius but he would have been thrown out of any modern day Roman Catholic Church for his Christology. The Nicenes did not try to play translation games with Col. 1:15 or Prov. 8:22 because they were native Greek speakers, they knew the texts plainly described Jesus as a creature, therefore, to avoid the implications of those passages they tried to apply them to his created human nature. However, the begetting described in Prov. 8:22-25 took place "before he formed the earth" and "before all hills," and hence could not apply to the incarnation but must refer to the pre-existent Logos. Boer summarized the theology of Justin this way,

 "Justin taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. Within God, however, there was Reason, or Mind (Logos). When God desired to create the world, he needed an agent to do this for him. This necessity arose out of the Greek view that God cannot concern himself with matter. Therefore, he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called the Logos or Son of God. He was called Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. However, the Father does not lose anything when he gives independent existence to the Logos. The Logos that is taken out of him to become the Son is like a flame taken from a fire to make a new fire. The new fire does not lessen the older fire." (Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, p. 110.)

The views of Justin regarding the Holy Spirit are much more vague. When quoting from the Scriptures he often uses the phrase "the Holy Spirit says." (Dial. Trypho, 56.) He does not clearly describe the Spirit as a third hypostasis but often mentions him when speaking of the virgin birth, and designates the Spirit as the inspirer of the Prophets. (Apol. 1.22, 33; Dial. Trypho, 49, 52.) 

Photinianism, Socinianism or Unitarianism

Photinianism is the lowest of the subordinationist christologies. Photinus of Sirmium was a fourth century bishop and disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra, famous for his denial of the pre-existence of Christ. (The "pre-existence of Christ" expresses generally the concept that Jesus existed as a spirit before his human life.) He was often ridiculed for teaching that the Son of God was a "mere man" (φιλός άνθρωπος). (Sozomen, Ecc. Hist. 4.6; Athanasius, De Synodis 4.) He viewed Christ as a sinless man, born of a virgin, who was appointed as the savior of mankind who became indwelled with the Spirit of holiness at his baptism and thus became the Son of God. 

The absolute origin of the Son was considered to be his miraculous conception in the womb of Mary. Photinus did not think that the Son had any real existence before his conception in Mary. How such a man could be "the only-begotten of the Father," upon such a view seems hazy. (St. Joh. 1:14, et al) Many other holy men are called sons of God in Scripture, "for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8:14) The uniqueness of the Sonship of Christ was lost. If the Son did not exist before his human life and only became a son of God at his baptism, then there is nothing exceptional about his sonship. Nor is the virgin birth sufficient to solve his problem, because the Scriptures record many instances of prophets and holy men who were miraculously begotten such as Isaac, (Gen. 17:19-21; 18:11-15; 21:3.) Samson, (Jdg. 13:3-7, 24.) and even St. John the Baptist. (St. Lk. 1:13-17, 60.) Such great prophets as these were conceived miraculously by barren women. Hence, a virgin birth alone does not seem sufficient to merit being designated the "only-begotten Son of God" in any true sense. Perhaps, Photinus might have said that Christ was uniquely the Son of God because had no human father. But Adam was also without a human father.

To Photinus, God, in the proper sense, is the Father alone, who exists from eternity and created all things. Therefore, the Son is not to be called "God" except in a figurative or honorific sense. We do not have a systematic exegesis of the prologue of St. John from the hands of Photinus himself, but he seems to have taught that the Logos of the prologue was not a conscious person, but rather the immanent intellect and wisdom of the Father. Photinus evidently understood θεός in the third clause of St. John 1:1 "and God was the Word," καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, to be definite. The Logos just was the Father's intellect and in this sense could be identified with God himself. Hence, when he arrived at the key incarnational passage of St. John 1:14 "the Logos became flesh," he took it to mean that the intellect and wisdom of the Father had become embodied in a human, Jesus Christ. (Sozomen, Ecc. Hist. 4.6.) Sozomen says that the bishops of the East and the West alike were filled with "indignation" at learning of the views taught by Photinus. 

"As soon as this opinion was divulged, it excited the indignation of the Western and of the Eastern bishops, and they considered it in common as an innovation, of each one's particular belief, for it was equally opposed by those who maintained the doctrines of the Nicene council, and by those who favored the tenets of Arius. The emperor also regarded the heresy with aversion, and convened a council at Sirmium, where he was then residing." (Sozomen, Ecc. Hist. 4.1-3) 

By the fourth century, the pre-existence of Christ was not a controversial doctrine, Eusebius says, "it is confessed by all, that the Son of God existed before the generation according to the flesh." (Eusebius, Epistle on the Nicene Council, 9.) Ancient authors often mentioned Photinus alongside Paul of Samosata, Sabellius and Marcellus of Ancyra as those who denied the true Sonship of Christ. (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecc. Hist. 2.18-19; Athanasius, De Synodis 24; Eunomius, Exposit. Fidei.) Although Photinus was widely criticized for his views, he was likely not the originator of the Christological position he held. Besides the undoubted influence of Marcellus, it has been speculated that the Nazarenes and Judaizers mentioned by Epiphanius denied the pre-existence of Christ long before Photinus, for they did not accept the Gospel of St. John or the epistles of St. Paul. (Epiphanius, Panarion, 1.1.4.) Eusebius said that some of the Ebionites also denied the Virgin birth, and evidently removed any references of a virgin birth from their Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel. It will do us good to outline the key texts for the pre-existence of Christ. Of great importance are the many texts which teach that God created the universe through the agency of his son. (St. Joh. 1:3, 4, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12.) There is a very direct statement to this effect in Heb. 1:1-2,

"God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds."

In the law of Moses as well it is written that God created the universe with another besides himself. At the creation of man God said "let us make man in our image." (Gen. 1:26) In the earliest centuries of the Church this text was understood as a conversation between God and his Son. The epistle of Barnabas which dates to the second century says, "He speaks to the Son, let us make man." (6:12) Jesus makes claims of pre-existence throughout the fourth Gospel, "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me," (St. Joh. 6:38) "what then if you see the sound of man ascending where he was previously?" (St. Joh. 6:62) "Father, glorify me with the glory I had alongside you before the world was," (St. Joh. 17:5) "you loved me before the foundation of the world." (St. Joh. 17:24) To deny the pre-existence of Christ is to eliminate billions of years from his biography and to ignore the close relationship he had with the Father before creation. There are direct passages such as Colossians 1:15-17, Philippians 2:6-8 and St. John 1:1-14 which express the concept directly enough. We may add to this the famous statement of incarnation found at St. Joh. 3:13, which itself was borrowed, in part, from Genesis 28:12 which refers to the descent of angels.

 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." (St. Joh. 3:13)

The language of 'ascending and descending' associated with the Son of Man is found in an earlier saying at St. Joh. 1:51,

"Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

 Literal descent from heaven is in mind in these passages. The ascent and descent of the angels in St. Joh. 1:51 is meant to be understood literally, as is the descent of the Son of Man in St. John 3:13. The meaning is clear, Jesus had a prior conscious existence in heaven just like the angels and he has both ascended and descended. Both of these texts are alluding to the prophet Jacob's vision of the ladder,

 "He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." (Gen. 28:12)

 The heavenly beings depart from heaven to bring divine knowledge to mankind. This language is applied to Christ in his role as mediator, but not merely this, but the Son of Man himself also "descended from heaven." (St. Joh. 3:13) This is conscious and personal pre-existence, because the Son has both “seen and heard” things in heaven. (St. Joh. 3:11, 32) With such plain statements, what was the motivation for the Ebionites to deny the pre-existence of Christ? We may attribute it to the rejection of St. Paul and his doctrines but it may also be due to fleshly thinking. Some find it difficult to think of Christ as anything more than a man. As we have already seen, the concept of pre-existence and the incarnation of heavenly beings was present In contemporary Jewish writings. Therefore, we are not to be surprised when similar exalted language is used of Christ in the New Testament. At the same time, the apostles placed great emphasis on the fact that Jesus was truly a human being. He did not merely appear to be flesh and blood, rather, "the Logos became flesh." (St. Joh. 1:14) It has often been recognized by commentators that the repeated statements that Christ has "has come in the flesh" imply he had a real existence before his arrival in flesh. (1 St. Joh. 4:3; 2 St. Joh. 1:7) If someone has come to one place, then he must have been somewhere else before his arrival. If the Son has truly "come in the flesh," he was not previously existing in this state. Something similar may be said about the Pauline statements that God, "sent his son, born of a woman," "God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3) Also the confession that Christ "was manifest (ἐφανερώθη) in the flesh" or "revealed in the flesh," implies a prior existence before his manifestation. (1 Tim. 3:16) The Son existed prior to being seen, revealed or manifested in the flesh. This is best explained if he was originally an invisible spirit who later took on flesh and thereby became visible to men. This language was understood also by early Christian authors to signify the pre-existence of Christ. In the second century, Ignatius of Antioch recognized the Son as "both flesh and spirit," having a twofold existence since the incarnation.

"There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, namely, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ephesians 7:2)

Especially noteworthy is his distinction between the divine and human sonship of Christ, he is "from Mary and from God." Ignatius does not seek to deny that the Logos was the Son of God or that he is only a son due to taking on human flesh. Jesus is and has always been the Son of God, and he expresses this concept again in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans,

 "Firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with regard to human descent, Son of God, with respect to divine will and power, truly born of a virgin." (Smyrnaeans 1:1)

 To Ignatius, Christ is the son of David with regard to his human descent and at the same time Son of God by divine will and power. He has both a human and a divine sonship, he is flesh and spirit.

 "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary, in God's plan being sprung both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit." (Ephesians 18:2)

 This same sort of distinction between the human and divine sonship of Christ is also made in Romans 1:2-4 which Ignatius seems to have in mind when writing his epistles,

 "He promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1:2-4)

 The fleshly descent of Christ proves his lineage from David while his resurrection declares his divine status as the Son of God. His twofold sonship, human and divine, implies a twofold existence. Ignatius wrote, "Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and was manifest (εφάνη) at the end of time." (Magn. 6:1) Echoing the language of 1 Tim. 3:16 that "he was manifest in flesh." The pre-existence of Christ is taught in the second century epistle of Barnabas, which says that it was to him that God spoke when creating the world.

 "He is Lord of the entire world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness." How, therefore, could he submit to suffer at the hand of men?… For the scripture speaks concerning us when he says to the Son, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness."" (Barn. 5:5; 6:13)

Therefore, Barnabas certainly intends to communicate the incarnation when he says, "the Son of God came in flesh," "was manifested (φανερωθήναι) in the flesh," "has come (ήλθεν) in the flesh." (Barn. 5:6; 5:10, 11; 12:10; 7:37) Such expressions echoing the words of 1 St. John 4:2, "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," and 1 Tim. 3:16, "He was manifest in the flesh." Barnabas further describes the incarnation as a voluntary action on the part of the Son, "it behooved Him to appear in flesh, that He might abolish death." (Barn. 5:6) The Logos did not pretend to be a man but truly became flesh and dwelt among us. The metaphysics of the incarnation began to be hotly debated in the fourth and fifth centuries but was not of great concern to the Greek apologists who assert only that the incarnation happened without caring to explain the details at length.

Sabellianism and Marcellus

The doctrine of Sabellius (c. 215) was a form of Modalism or Patripassianism. (Athanasius, De Synodis 26.) It is difficult to reconstruct the views of Sabellius himself for we have none of his complete writings. What fragments of his writings we do have survive in the quotations of his critics, so I will concern myself with the views of those later labeled his followers. The Sabellians would proudly profess with the orthodox that Christ was "God from God," but they meant something entirely different. The Sabellian doctrine is that God himself is a single πρόσωπον, person, who reveals himself in these three modes of operation or activity. When God acts as Creator and Ruler of the cosmos he is called 'the Father'; when God acts as Redeemer and Forgiver he is called 'the Son'; and when God acts as Sanctifier and bringer of truth he is called 'Holy Spirit.' The Father, Son and Spirit are essentially three 'names' given to different kinds of Divine activities. Most difficult for the Sabellians were Biblical passages where the Father and Son converse with one another before the incarnation. (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; Psa. 2:7; 110:1 [109:1], et al.) On several occasions God speaks to another when making decisions, "Let us make man in our image," (Gen. 1:26) "he has become like us," (Gen. 3:22) "who shall go for us?" (Isa. 6:8) From the earliest centuries, Christians understood such passages to be conversations between God the Father and the pre-existent Son. In the second century epistle of Barnabas 5:5,

"The Lord endured to suffer for our souls, though he was Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world, "Let us make man after our image and likeness.""

In the second century epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, the ancient apologist describes the savior as the "holy and incomprehensible Logos," and says that it was 'by him that God made the heavens.' (7:2) Indeed, even in the New Testament, the Messiah is often said to have been the mediator of creation, the one 'through whom God created the worlds.' (Heb. 1:2, 10-12; Col. 1:16, et al) Or the notable Triadic passages where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned alongside one another. (St. Matt. 28:19; St. Lk. 11:13; St. Joh. 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2, et al.) Notably the exhortation of St. Paul at Rom. 15:30,

 "Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me."

The Lord Jesus, the Spirit and God himself are distinguished in this passage. Such distinctions make little sense if they are all names of the same person. This exhortation makes little sense if St. Paul thinks that they are the same person. Sabellianism was simply not tenable and was quickly condemned by numerous local councils. Therefore, it was revised. A more sophisticated modalism survived in the theological successor of Sabellius, a bishop named Marcellus. Marcellus of Ancyra (c. 285-374) was a fourth century bishop who opposed Arianism fiercely and was present at the first Nicene Council. Suprisingly, Hosius was a friend of Athanasius, though Hosius seems to have regarded God as an undivided unity, a single supreme individual who existed from eternity with the Logos immanent within him. The Logos of Marcellus was not a "Son" until it became incarnate in the man Jesus. The Logos "went forth" from God to create the Universe, but did not, in going forth, become a distinct person instead it is a sort of personal manifestation of the one God. (Fragment 121.) The Spirit likewise was sent forth or proceeded from God as another manifestation which was immanent in the lives of Christians in order to lead Christians into all truth. (Fragment 67.) But after the day of Judgment both Spirit and Logos will return that they 'may be in God just as they previously were before the worlds existed.' (Ibid.) This view differs from the views of the earlier Sabellians, in that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not merely names given to three sorts of Divine activities; rather, the Son is the incarnate Logos, and the Logos is a manifestation of the one God, and the Spirit is a manifestation of the sanctifying work of God. The Logos and the Spirit were not persons as such, but emanations or manifestations of a single God. 

The greatest obstacle faced by Marcellus, which Eusebius gleefully points out in Contra Marcellum, is that the Logos was already the Son of God before the incarnation. The Logos is called "the only-begotten from the Father," and the phrase "from the Father," designates departure from heaven. (St. Joh. 1:14, 18; 15:26; 16:28) Indeed, every single passage speaks of a personal and conscious preexistence of the son of God, stand as strong evidence against Marcellus. (St. Joh. 8:56-59; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 1:15-18, et al) A conscious person, the Son, was actively involved in the creation of the cosmos. Eusebius cited the opening of the epistle to the Hebrews, "his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he also created the worlds." The apostle states that God created the worlds through his Son, therefore the Logos was already a Son during the creation of the universe. The Son is not a mere manifestation or emanation of the Father but a person with his own will, feelings, and mental states. In other words, the Son was already a son before he left heaven and his leaving heaven was a deliberate and voluntary act, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” (St. Joh. 6:38) Christ says "My soul was deeply grieved." (St. Matt. 26:38) It does not say that the Father was grieved, but Christ himself in his own soul. His sufferings and passion would not be genuine if the doctrines of Marcellus are to be believed. To the Sabellian and the Marcellian, the highly exalted Son of God is nothing more than a human body without a distinct personality or experiences.

Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190)

Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190) was a very studious and careful philosopher. His famous treatise Legatio Pro Christianis is filled to the brim with allusions and quotations of philosophers, poets, historians and the Holy Scriptures. His wide breadth of knowledge permitted him to make a formidable and lasting defense of Christianity. He addressed this monumental treatise to the Emperors of his day, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and to all philosophers. To Athenagoras, God is neither material nor corporeal but a simple and supreme Spirit free of composition and imperfection. (Athenagoras, Legatio Pro Christianis, 15.) He begins with a simple exposition of Christian monotheism,

"We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, who cannot be limited, who is apprehended by understanding alone and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and ineffable power." (Ibid. 10.)

He emphasizes the point by denying the eternity of matter and explaining that the Universe was created from nothing by the will of God "through the Logos." (Ibid. 6) All Christians teach "that matter is one thing and God is another, and they are separated by a vast chasm." (Ibid 4, 15.) He identifies the "one God, the Maker" with the Father, who created "all things by the Logos which is from him." (Ibid. 4.) Now, keenly aware that his pagan audience may be unaware of what he means by "Logos" he explains the distinction between the immanent Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and the expressed Logos (λόγος προφορικός), a distinction which is found in all the Greek apologists.

"But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind (νοῦς), had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos (λογικός)); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord, it says, made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." (Ibid. 10.)

Notice again how another early Father applies Prov. 8:22 to the pre-existent Logos and not to the incarnation. In harmony with the other apologists, Athenagoras teaches that the immanent Logos was in the intellect of God from eternity, but was expressed and came forth as a Son who is the first-born of God's creative acts. He does not seem to regard the Holy Spirit as a person, but instead he refers to it as "an effluence, as light from fire." (Ibid. 24.) He write elsewhere, 

"The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun." (Ibid. 10.)

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is not ruled out in this passage, but without any other direct descriptions of the Holy Spirit in his writings this is by no means clear. 

Arianism and Eunomianism

The term Arian was coined by the Nicenes for those who agreed with the opinions of Arius of Alexandria (c. 256-336) from whom no complete theological works survive. Several epistles of Arius and his followers survive to our present day along with sections of his poem the Thalia which articulated the differences between the Father and the Son. He became famous in 318 when he began a dispute with his bishop, Alexander, over the generation of the Son of God. This was the start of the Arian controversy. 

“Arius, a presbyter in charge of the Church and district of Baucalis in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological doctrine of his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria.” (R. P. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 3.) 

What were the complaints which Arius had against his bishop? Arius did not consider himself a dissenter and schismatic but rather wrote to Alexander and described his teaching as "our faith from our forefathers, which we also learned from you." (De Synodis 16.2-5; Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses, 69.7-8, Hilary, De Trinitatae 4.12, 6.5.) On another occasion Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia (A prominent Arian presbyter who eventually baptized Emperor Constantine in the year 337. Both he and Arius, students of Lucian, were in fervent opposition to the Nicene Creed.) and referred to him as "faithful and orthodox," even as a "fellow student of Lucian." (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 1.5, Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 69.6.) In the third paragraph of this same epistle, Arius makes the extraordinary claim,

 "All those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning."

If all of the eastern clergy truly believed that God existed before the Son, then it was Athanasius who had the peculiar Christology, not Arius. At the Council of Antioch (341) the Arian bishops in attendance proclaimed, 

"We have not been followers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?—nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning… We believe, conformably to the evangelical and apostolic tradition." (De Synodis 2.22-25.)

The Arians did not claim to be inventing a new view of Christ, but claimed to be heirs of an ancient and apostolic tradition which was inherited from the great martyr Lucian of Antioch (c. 240-312). It should also be noted that the Arians freely used the term “Trinity” to designate the three divine persons, and as it was stated by Arius, “there is indeed a Trinity, through not of equal glories, ήγουν Τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις. (Thalia 16)

Eunomius of Cyzicus (died 393), another prominent Arian who "was heir to two distinct but related traditions: one was the 'expert' theology of the Eusebian school with its roots reaching through Lucian into a perceived apostolic past." (R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius, p. 74.) The Arian doctrine is that the Son is a secondary deity (δεύτερος θεός), or inferior God, a mediator between the true God and creatures. The Son is the first and greatest creature begotten by the Father, created but not created like other creatures. The Arians freely referred to Christ as "God" and "God the Word" but they meant this in an honorific sense, similar to how angelic beings are called "gods" in the Scriptures. The NIV Study Bible comments,

"In the language of the OT—and in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near East—rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' (see note on 45:6; see also NIV text notes on Ex 21:6; 22:8) or be called 'son of God.'" (The NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 866.)

In this extended sense they would call Jesus "God" but the Arians would emphasize that the the Father alone is given titles such as "only God," (St. Joh. 5:44; 1 Tim. 1:17; St. Jude 25.) "only wise God," (Rom. 16:27.) "only true God," (St. Joh. 17:3.) and "one God," (1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Mal. 2:10.) but never are such descriptions given to the Son or Spirit in the New Testament. 

Those who believed the Son to be eternal had to regard his generation as an act of nature, which God had performed from eternity past by his own nature. If there was a time when the Son was not, then the Father could decide whether or not to beget a Son. Hence, the Arians were fond of saying the phrase, “there was a time when he was not,” or “there was once when he was not.” 

"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning." (Arius, Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia, 5.)

The sufferings, ignorance, and temptations of the Son were attributed to the Logos himself.  (St. Mk. 13:32; St. Matt. 24:36; 26:38, et al) But if he were eternal and therefore of the same substance as the Father, then he would be omniscient, impassible, and he would not be subject to such temptations in his divine nature. Which calls to mind the saying of St. Ignatius, 

"Being incorporeal, He was in the body, being impassible, He was in a passible body, being immortal, He was in a mortal body, being life." (Eph. 7:2, Long version.)  

The favorite proof text of the Arians was Prov. 8:22, 23 where divine Wisdom, the pre-existent Logos says, "The Lord created me, the beginning of his ways, he established me before the ages in the beginning, before he made the earth." Prov. 8:25, "before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me." St. Paul says that Christ is "the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation," which the orthodox applied to the human nature of Christ. (Athanasius, Expos. Fid. 1) However the Arians applied it to the divinity of Christ. Besides these texts, the Arians gestured to the many passages which describe the Son as begotten, only-begotten or first-born. (St. Joh. 1:14, 18; Heb. 1:6, et al) 

The Arians described the Holy Spirit as a third person or υπόστασις who was created from nothing through the Son and often used the absolute language of St. John 1:3 to demonstrate that the Spirit was a creature. (The reasoning being that the Father and Son are mentioned in St. John 1:1-2 while the Spirit is not, therefore, the Spirit would have been included in the "things" created through the Father by the Son in the verses that follow. The argument is alluded to by the Arian bishop Ulfilas in his Expositio Fidei and St. John Chrysostom attempted to avoid the weight of this argument by appealing to an alternative punctuation of St. John 1:3-4 found in some Byzantine manuscripts. (Homily on St. John 1:3) 

The Spirit, then, was not co-equal with either the Father or the Son, but is the servant and minister of Christ. The Son is "only-begotten (μονογενής)" because he alone was directly created by the Father, the Spirit however was made through the Son, as were all other creatures. The Arians avoided any charge of polytheism by pointing out that the Son and Spirit were created and hence not "God" in the proper sense but were called "God" in a lesser or metaphorical sense, similar to how angels and exalted humans are called "gods" in the Scriptures. (Gen. 3:5; Exod. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; Psa. 8:5; 82 (81):1, 6; 97 (96):7; St. Joh. 10:34.) 

The Arians were variously called Aetians, Eunomians, Eusebians, Eudoxians, after the names of prominent clergymen who represented their views. They were also named after their own theological terms and phrases as Anomeans, Heteroousians, Ekoukontians, Pneumatomachi, and Semi-Arians. (The Council of Constantinople (381) Canon 1.) At the time of the Nicene Council, Athanasius was a younger man aged about twenty seven and Arius was in his late sixties. The stature and personality of Arius is described by Epiphanius; he was a tall, ascetic and gaunt figure with an intense personality and careful attention to formalities whose lively style of oratory likely contributed to his popularity. (Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 56.) Arius himself taught that the Father alone is God in the absolute sense, "he alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory." (Athanasius, Cont. Arian. 1.5-6.) The transcendent divine essence of God is ultimately "inexpressible," άρρητος, to all creatures. The existence of God can be deduced from the natural world but to comprehend his essence is a different thing altogether. No creature can comprehend the divine essence to any degree without an act of divine revelation, therefore not even the Son completely knows the divine essence,

 "What reasoning allows that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For manifestly, that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp of the existence of that which has no beginning." (Ibid.) 

In this way, he must have explained the passages where the Logos is said to have been "taught" by God, and to have "increased in wisdom and in grace with God." (St. Joh. 8:28; St. Lk. 2:40, 52) Arius had believed that while God is incomprehensible in his essence, the Logos makes him comprehensible to the saints in a partial way. The Son was created for the specific purpose of serving as a mediator between the incomprehensible God and mankind. God reveals himself to the Logos, who, in turn, reveals him to mankind. This process of revelation will never be complete. Arius explains in his Thalia,

 "God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom… He is invisible both to things which were made though the Son, and also to the Son himself. I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son, by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure, the Son can bear to see the Father as is determined."

To Arius, then, although one may deduce a generic monotheism from observing the general features of the universe, he can know nothing specific about the divine essence unless God by his "power" makes him "able to see... according to his own measure." If God alone is incomprehensible, unbegotten and eternal, the Son could not have existed without a beginning,

 "He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things."

If the generation of the Son was an eternal generation then the Father must beget the Son by his very nature and both persons must be co-eternal. But conversely if begetting were an act of will rather than an act of nature, then the Son must be a creature, who was begotten freely by the will of the Father. (Athanasius, De Synodis 16.)

Early Trinitarianism

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was the primary opposition to Arius during the Arian controversy. He is the first systematic Trinitarian theologian in my estimation, and thus occupies a unique position in Church history. Athanasius and Hosius of Cordoba (c. 256-359) were the de facto leaders of the Homoousion (ομοούσιον) party and argued that the Son shared the same essence as the Father—while the two remained individual hypostases. There were several analogies used by Athanasius to illustrate his Christology. Often he says that all humanity shares the same essence and yet remains distinct in personhood and individuality. Just as the human family shares the same humanity, God and his Son share the same deity. Later the same kind of language was used in the Chalcedonian Symbol (451), describing Christ as homoousios with us in humanity, but homoousios with the Father in deity. 

"Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from condemning those who have said that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term consubstantial, in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different nature. Accordingly while the former are of one nature and coessential, the latter are different in both." (De Synodis 53.)

Note carefully his statement that "in essence men are of one nature," which is to say that all men are consubstantial. St. Paul and Barnabas were consubstantial with respect to their humanity. It ought to be noted that there was no firm distinction between hypostasis and ousia in this period. The Nicenes occasionally spoke of the Father, the Son and the Spirit as three ousiai or three hypostases interchangeably. This is seen even in the 325 creed and the anathema which condemns those “who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance,” η εξ ετέρας υποστάσεως η ουσιάς φάσκοντας είναι, the converse assertion being, that the Son is from the same hypostasis or substance. Which is to say that there was some fluidity between the terms which has usually been lost in modern colloquial discussions. For Athanasius, then, the persons of the Trinity are three beings who share the same generic essence just as three humans might share humanity, Schaff explains,

"The term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings. It is clearly used thus in the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that Christ is "consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as touching the Godhead, and consubstantial with us (and yet individually, distinct from us) as touching the manhood." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, p. 130.)

It was not until the Cappadocians that the Trinitarian language becomes more precise. All humans are coessential (ομοούσιος) but they are still numerically distinct beings. This sharing of essence is generic, not necessarily numeric, consubstantialem and not unius substantiae as Hosius would later translate in his later Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Eusebius of Caesarea, who defended Arius and taught a form of Homoian Arianism, signed onto the Nicene Creed because of the vagueness of the term "coessential (ομοούσιος)." He understood the phrase to be "indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being a part of him." (Epistle on the Nicene Council, 5.) Athanasius attempted to avoid the charge of Tritheism by appealing to the Monarchy of the Father, hence in our day this position has come to be known as Monarchical Trinitarianism by modern scholars. This same defense was used by the later Cappadocians, who did not attempt to ground monotheism solely in the unity of the essence, but rather, in the monarchy of God the Father. Therefore, Gregory Nazienzen says,

"Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because Consubstantial; One God because of the Monarchia." (Oration. 40.41.) 

The Son was eternally begotten, and thereby, he participates in divinity because of this relation to the Father, similarly, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. The Father alone was unbegotten or asei, αυτόθεος or αυτοθεότης, and therefore, there was only one God in the strict sense, hence the Nicene Creed begins, "we believe in one God, the Father almighty." Monotheism was grounded primarily upon the monarchy of the Father and only secondarily upon the unity of the divine essence, Athanasius argued,

"Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and without beginning and Invisible God to be one only, the God and Father of the Only-begotten, who alone has being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully." (De Synodis 26.)

On the original Nicene model, the Father is not greater to the Son in nature, or in time, but he is greater inasmuch as Christ is generated from him. This was the standard interpretation of St. John 14:28 given by the ancient Fathers and apologists. Alexander of Alexandria wrote in his epistle on the Arian controversy, "We must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Savior Himself said, 'My Father is greater than I.'" (Epistles on Arianism, 1.12.)

Alexander says elsewhere, "we have learned; in this alone is He inferior to the Father, that He is not unbegotten." (Ibid.) It is noteworthy that the Nicene Creed of 325 does not even expound  the Holy Spirit as a third divine person. The Spirit is only mentioned in one terse statement, "in the Holy Spirit." It does not say whether the Holy Ghost is a person, whether it proceeds from the Father alone, or whether it is coessential and worthy of worship. The revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is careful to articulate the personhood and coessential deity of the Holy Spirit but still did not assert a numerical unity among the persons directly. This was done in the later Ecumenical councils.

Aristides of Athens (c. 125)

 Aristides of Athens (c. 125) was a prestigious early apologist who had the great privilege of presenting a defense of the faith to the emperor Hadrian. His Apology survives in a Greek version and in a Syriac translation. The original language was of course Greek. The Greek version survives in The History of Barlaam and Josaphat and differs somewhat from the Syriac. Hence, I will concern myself with the Greek text and only secondarily with the Syriac. Aristides describes his God this way.

"God who is without beginning and without end, immortal and self-sufficing, above all passions and infirmities, above anger and forgetfulness and ignorance and the rest." (Apol. 1) 

In the Syriac it adds, "God is not born." Elsewhere he says that Christians "know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit; and beside Him they worship no other God." (Apol. 15.) He calls him elsewhere "the invisible and all-seeing and all-creating God." (Apol. 13.) Aristides describes our Lord as in this way,

"Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven." (Apol. 15.)

Aristides goes on to explain that the Son took an active role in the incarnation "And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man." (Ibid.)

Ancient Messianic Expectations

 
There were a variety of opinions concerning the Messiah. The Jewish sects awaiting a Messianic savior seem to have generally agreed that he would be a descendant of David and a political ruler who would restore Israel to former glory. The King Messiah described in Isaiah 11:1-10, is a righteous political ruler and teacher of divine law who would gather the exiles back to the holy land and bring world peace. This expectation is implicit when the apostles imagined that Jesus would immediately bring his kingdom upon the earth. (St. Lk. 19:11; Acts 1:6) It is the Septuagint (LXX) which is the favored translation used by the NT authors. The LXX is not a strictly literal translation and often paraphrases in a way reminiscent of the Targums. Most ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible use the same sort of dynamic translation principles as the LXX. The Septuagint translators seem to have believed in a pre-existent angelic Messiah who would be revealed before the end of the world. This is evident from how the translators interpreted Messianic prophecies; their version of Isa. 9:6 describes the Messiah as "the angel of great counsel," which is not a phrase found in the Masoretic. One of the most often quoted Messianic prophecies in the NT is Psa. 110, (numbered 109 in the LXX), which compares the Messiah to the priestly king Melchizedek. The first verse, Psa. 110:1, is quoted twenty times in the NT from the LXX. (St. Matt. 22:44; 26:64; St. Mk. 10:37; 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; St. Lk. 20:42, 43; 22:69; Acts 2:34, 35; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 3:22; Heb. 1:13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; Rev. 5:1.) There is a clear statement of pre-existence in the LXX of Psa. 110:3 (109:3),

 Μετά σου η αρχή εν ημέρα της δυνάμεώς σου εν ταίς λαμπρότησιν των αγίων εκ γαστρός προ εωσφόρου εξεγέννησά σε.

 "With you is principality on the day of your power, in the splendors of your saints. I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star."

 The Pharisees recognized this Psalm as a Messianic prophecy, as is evident from St. Matt. 22:41-45 and the Midrash. In Greek literature the "morning star" (εωσφόρος) refers specifically to the planet Venus, which is distinctly visible at the close of every day due to its brilliance. Hence, the concept is that before God created Venus and the other celestial bodies the Messiah was begotten. (Gen. 1:16; Psa. 8:3; 2 Kgs. 23:5.) In the MT of Micah 5:2 (5:1) the text says that the "origins" or "goings forth" מוֹצָאָה of the Messiah are "from long ago, from ancient times." The Hebrew text is somewhat vague and may be taken in a genealogical sense; as a reference to his ancient bloodline which can be traced to the house of David. The language may also signify that the Messiah himself has ancient origins and has existed from the beginning. The LXX translators evidently understood the passage in the latter sense by translating the passage, "his goings forth were from the beginning, even from the ages," αι έξοδοι αυτού απ' αρχής εξ ημερών αιώνος. The term έξοδοι is more specific and is often used to designate the "goings forth" and travels of kings, princes and armies. (Herod. Hist. 3.14; 7.223; 9.19.) The NT uses the same term to signify the travels of Jesus and his apostles. (St. Lk. 9:31; 2 Pet. 1:15.) It is also specifically used for the exodus of the Israelites from the land of Egypt and their subsequent wandering. (Heb. 11:22) Therefore, the sense of the LXX rendering of Micah 5:2 is that the travels, goings forth or Targum Jonathan which began to be composed sometime in the first century renders Micah 5:2 (5:1) this way,

 וְאַתְּ בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה כִּזְעֵיר הֲוֵיתָא לְאִתְמַנָאָה בְּאַלְפַיָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה מִנָךְ קֳדָמַי יִפּוֹק מְשִׁיחָא לְמֶהֱוֵי עֲבֵיד שׁוּלְטַן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל דִי שְׁמֵיהּ אָמִיר מִלְקָדְמִין מִיוֹמֵי עָלְמָא

 

"As for you, Bethlehem Ephrath, you were too little to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah. From you before me the Messiah will go out to be a servant, a servant of rulership over Israel, whose name has been spoken from the beginning, from days of antiquity."

 There are also various Jewish apocryphal works which depict a pre-existent Messiah, such as the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) composed sometime around 40 B.C. which depicts the Son of Man as a figure who literally existed before the creation of the world. (St. James C. Vanderkamp, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: 2004), p. 1-8.) It is said that the "Elect and the Concealed one existed in his presence before the world was created and forever." (1En. 48:5, 6) "For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen." (1En. 62:7) Long before the planets and stars were created he was "named in the presence of the Lord of spirits." (1En. 48:2-3) The Son of Man is properly a heavenly being with "his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord of the Spirits" where he was kept hidden. (1En. 39:6; 62:6-7; 46:1-3) This is not a mere notional or figurative pre-existence, for the Son of Man sits down upon the "throne of glory" which is beside God himself. (1En. 51:3; 45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 69:27) The Son of man judges and guides the saints, (1En. 48:4; 45:3; 49:4; 61:9; 69:27) and is given worship and honor by "all who dwell upon the earth." (1En. 48:5; 62:6, 9) This heavenly scene echoes the scene of the anointing of Solomon given in 1 Chronicles chapter 29 where the young king sits down upon the throne of David his Father and is given worship and honor by the royal court.

There is a similar pre-existence of the Messiah in 2 Esdras which was composed in the late first century sometime after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. and depicts him as a heavenly being who will later become incarnate as the offspring of David. Ezra is given a vision of a lion and is told "this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David and will come and speak with them." (2 Esd. 12:32) It is said that the Messiah has been "kept" and "hidden away" by God for "many ages" until his appointed time. (2 Esd. 13:26, 52) It is finally said that Ezra has been given the privilege of being assumed into heaven to live with the Messiah until his appointed time, God tells Ezra, "you shall be taken up from among humankind, and henceforth you shall live with my Son and with those who are like you, until the times are ended." (2 Esd. 14:9) The author of 2 Esdras believed the Messiah already existed in heaven during the time of Ezra, and other saints who lived with him in heaven. With the Messiah in his heavenly abode are Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, who, according to Jewish tradition, were assumed to heaven so as not to see death. (2 Esd. 6:26, 13:52) Another work written around the same time as 2 Esdras is the Apocalypse of Baruch, also called 2 Baruch, which has the tendency to speak of the Messiah as though he already exists in heaven and awaits God's decree "to be revealed." (29:3; cf. 72:2) It is possible to cite other works which express similar views and delve into the opinions of Philo of Alexandria but these suffice to prove that a pre-existent Messianic figure is well within the scope of Jewish expectations in the first century. We ought not to be shocked if the NT authors express such views, nor should we attribute them to pagan influence. The Jews would often exalt their prophets by depicting them as incarnate angels or spirit beings. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the priest Melchizedek is depicted as an angelic figure who presides over the heavenly council of spirits in Ps. 82:1, 6 as a sort of Messianic judge who will 'deliver the Jews from the power of Belial.' (Fragment 11Q13.) The Assumption of Moses which was composed sometime before the first century is quoted in St. Jude 1:9 and was a work also known to the Origen of Alexandria. (De Principiis 3.2.1.) The Assumption of Moses asserts the pre-existence of Moses when the prophet is made to say, "He designed me and prepared me before the foundation of the world that I should be the mediator of the Covenant." (Assumptio. Mos. 1:14.) The Prayer of Joseph, which is an early Christian or Jewish work composed sometime in the first century and depicts Jacob as an incarnate angel who says,
"I, Jacob, who is speaking to you, am also Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before any work. But, I, Jacob who men call Jacob but whose name is Israel am he who God called Israel which means, a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every living thing to whom God gives life…. Uriel, the angel of God, came forth and said that I had descended to earth and I had tabernacled among men and that I had been called by the name Jacob." (Fragment A, 1-7.)

This work was also known to Origen who claims it is Jewish in origin and cites it to suggest that St. John the Baptist may also have been an incarnate angel. (Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis 2.25.) In the first century the Jews remained absolute monotheists but there was some notion that the Messiah might be an incarnate divine being was not entirely foreign to them.

Novatian of Rome (200-258)

Novatian (200-258) is most known today for refusing to commune with apostates who wished to return to the Church and for this he was opposed by many bishops.

"God and Parent of all virtues, so that it may truly be said that God is that, which is such that nothing can be compared to Him. For He is above all that can be said." (De Trinitatae 2.) Novatian regards God the Father as a supreme mind or intellect which created the world from nothing, "a certain Mind generating and filling all things, which, without any beginning or end of time, controls, by the highest and most perfect reason, the naturally linked causes of things, so as to result in benefit to all." (Ibid.) He goes so far as to argue that it is a logical impossibility that there is another infinite mind besides the Father, "for whatever can be God, must as God be of necessity the Highest. But whatever is the Highest, must certainly be the Highest in such a sense as to be without any equal. And thus that must be alone and one on which nothing can be conferred, having no peer; because there cannot be two infinites." (De Trinitatae 4.) 

Although freely referring to the Son as "God," Novatian regarded the Son and Spirit as lesser, this is clear from his statement that "God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God." (De Trinitatae 31.) He states that the Son was "obedient to His Father in all things, although He also is God, yet He shows the one God the Father by His obedience, from whom also He drew His beginning."  

"He who is before all time must be said to have always been in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father is not always Father, only that the Father also precedes Him,—in a certain sense,—since it is necessary—in some degree—that He should be before He is Father. Because it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning; as He is the less as knowing that He is in Him, having an origin because He is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father... Assuredly God proceeds from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God." (De Trinitatae 31.)

The Son is said not only to be "born" but to have "a beginning" in contrast to the Father "who alone has no beginning." This begetting was not an eternal generation but took place because "the Father willed it." He was born as an act of will on the part of God. His confession that "the Father precedes the Son" is reminiscent of the saying of Arius, "the Father pre-exists the Son." He denies an equality between the Father and Son but says that the Son was "granted" his authority and offices, "before whom there is none but the Father." (De Trinitatae 11.)  

"The divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father" (De Trinitatae 36.)

His exegesis of the hymn found at Philippians 2:5-11 gives more insights into his Christology. Novatian understands the passage in a distinctly subordinationist manner,

 "Who, although He was in the form of God," he says. If Christ had been only man, He would have been spoken of as in "the image" of God, not "in the form" of God. For we know that man was made after the image or likeness, not after the form of God. Who then is that angel who, as we have said, was made in the form of God? But neither do we read of the form of God in angels, except because this one is chief and royal above all—the Son of God... He then, although He was in the form of God, "thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God." For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him… Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equalling Himself with God the Father; but, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His rule and will." (De Trinitatae 22.)

 Elsewhere Novatian denies that the Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, instead writing that,

 "Christ is greater than the Paraclete, because the Paraclete would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the Paraclete being less than Christ, moreover, by this very fact proves Christ to be God, from whom He has received what He declares: so that the testimony of Christ's divinity is immense, in the Paraclete being found to be in this economy less than Christ." (De Trinitatae 16.)

 And far from asserting that Jesus is identical to the God of the Old Testament, he says that the Son was given the divine name only after his resurrection, "he received a name which is above every name," which assuredly we understand to be none other than the name of God." (De Trinitatae 22.) Novatian was as heretical in his theology as he was in his ecclesiology. 

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220)

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220) was the first great Latin apologist and is at times called "The Father of the Latin Church."  Tertullian believed in divine corporeality, and held that the Son was begotten out of the Father's material essence. It is argued that Tertullian affirmed the Latin equivalent of ομοούσιος with his phrase unius substantiae, but this is simply incorrect. (Adv. Praxeas 2.) The Greek equivalent of unius substantiae would be μονοούσιος, which carries a numeric sense. The Gnostics already made use of the term ομοούσιος and Tertullian discusses it in his writings. He translated ομοούσιος with the Latin equivalent consubstantialem, (never as unius substantiae), hence he deliberately avoided applying ομοούσιος to the Son and the Spirit. (Adv. Valentin. 12, 18, 37.) Tertullian claims the Son is not eternal. 

"He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." (Adversus Hermogenes, 3.)

His argument might be summarized by saying that neither sin nor the Son are eternal for God was once alone. If God once existed alone then sin could not be eternal because God is perfectly holy and righteous. Hence, if there was no sin with him he could not be a judge for there were not yet any sins to judge. Equivalently he was not always a Father for he did not always have a Son. He argues that Prov. 8:22-31 proves that the Word and Wisdom of God was "born and created" by God before all else.

"The Lord," says the Scripture, "possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten." Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works — how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word?" (Adv. Herm. 18.)

 "When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son's interests, that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, "I am God and there is none other beside me," who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom "He stretcheth out the heavens alone… But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance—so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after the Son the Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 18, 31.) 

The "one God" of the Jews is the Father of Christ, who is the "only God." Tertullian never likewise describes the Son and the Spirit. Tertullian also affirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and describes him as subordinate to the Son, third in rank.

"(Christ) sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." (Adv. Prax. 2.)   

The generation or creation of the Holy Spirit is never directly described but since Tertullian did not regard the Son as co-eternal with God it is certain that he regarded the Spirit as a creature of some sort as well. re all else and this was not a past-eternal act of nature but an act borne of "the will of his progenitor." 

Sermon on Baptism: Life in Christ

 In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

At Galatians 2:20 Paul says, "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." He had an encounter, and experience with the risen and living Christ. This encounter was not a mere memory for the apostle. The meeting permeated his soul, it affected every part of his life, it changed who he was. That encounter with the risen Christ was not a mere memory, it was life itself to him, so he could say that Christ lived in him. To encounter the risen Christ, the living God, is a transformative experience. It is like being given a new life, a new birth, a new way of living and looking at the world. The ceremony of baptism is meant to symbolize our encounter with Christ and our new life in the Church, his body. For this reason St. Paul says that we are ‘buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him to a new life.’ (Romans 6:1-7) 

In the Law of Moses there are baptisms or washings (βαπτιζω) to cleanse the priests and the children of Israel of ceremonial impurity. (Lev. 14:5-7; Num. 8:6-7; 19:16-22; 31:21-23; Exod. 24:6-8) Therefore, when St. John the Baptist began baptizing in the Jordan River; the Pharisees did not ask him about the origin of the ceremony. They were already familiar with baptisms. They were curious about why St. John was baptizing rather than one of the priests. (St. John 1:19-23) These ceremonies for the Jewish people anticipated something greater. The prophets of the exile foretold that the Messiah will “sprinkle many nations,” not merely the Jewish nation. (Eze. 36:25-27; Isa. 52:15) When the apostles met the Risen Christ in Galilee, he gave them the commission to baptize the world in the very name of God himself. 

“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (St. Matthew 28:18-19) 

When we speak of baptism in water, the ideal form is immersion in living water, as symbolized in Colossians 2:12. Immersion signifies burial with Christ, and rising from the water mirrors His resurrection, a profound declaration of new life. The water itself represents the cleansing of sin, just as the believer is washed and renewed through Christ's sacrifice. However, the mode of baptism—whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling—carries the same symbolism. (Didache 7:1-2; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5-8; Hebrews 10:22) There is yet a deeper baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that all who believe that Christ is the Son of God are born again. (1 John 5:1, 18) 

If a man is not born again then he is not a Christian. "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3:5) It marks our adoption as children of God, heirs with Christ and it is by this Spirit that we are incorporated into the body of Christ. (Romans 8:15-17; 1 Corinthians 12:13) Sometimes baptism with the Holy Ghost precedes water baptism, as was seen with St. Cornelius and his family. (Acts of apostles 10:44-48). This reminds us that God’s work in a person’s heart cannot be contained even by the mysteries. Finally, we must consider the baptism by fire. When John the Baptist spoke of this baptism, he was not referring to physical water or even the Spirit, but to the fiery trials that come upon every believer. To follow Christ is to carry your cross and follow him, to suffer as he suffered, and to live as he lived. “All who wish to live godly lives will face persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12) 

Fire purifies, and in the same way, the trials of life refine our faith, proving its genuineness. For this reason our Lord said that his followers must be “salted with fire.” Baptism with fire signifies the faithful endurance of trials, temptations and persecutions for the sake of Christ. (St. Matthew 3:11; 1 Peter 1:7) St. Paul says that “all who wish to live godly lives will face persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12) It is a baptism with fire because fire signifies persecution and tribulation, all of the saints “will be salted with fire.” (Mk. 9:49) The visible manifestation of tongues of fire accompanied the baptisms at Pentecost and many of the saints who were baptized at this event were later martyred. 

In these three baptisms, water, Spirit, and fire, our life in Christ is defined. We become members of the Church, his body, when we are born of water and the Spirit, and our faith is refined by the baptism of fire when we endure trials for the sake of Christ. Christ lives, and he is with us, even to the end of the age. Amen and Amen.

x

Apostolic Fathers and the Trinity (Part 1)

 0. Introduction

The earliest Patristic writings are often called the "Apostolic Fathers," which are a collection of first and second century Christian writings. I shall discuss there views of the Father, Son and Spirit. Ignatius is a more difficult topic, therefore I have discussed him in more detail elsewhere. 

1. General Data

Only the Father is ever called "one God," and "only God" by the Apostolic Fathers. (1 Clem. 13:1; 35:3; 43:6; 44:1; 46:6; 59:3; 64:1; 2 Clem. 20:5; Poly. Phil. 1:1, 3; 3:3; 5:2; 3; Hermas, Mand. 1.1.1; Mand. 5.1.2; 10.3.3.) The epistle to Diognetus calls Christ "the Eternal One, who is accounted a Son," ούτοσ ο αεί, ο σήμερον υιό λογισθείς, and speaks of his pre-existence in language reminiscient of the prologue of John's Gospel. (Diog. 11:5) Ignatius calls Jesus "God," θεὸς at least eleven times. (I. Eph. Prol, 1:1; 7:2; 18:2; 19:3; I. Smyr. 1:1; I. Trall. 7:1; I. Rom. Prol. (2*); 3:2; 6:3; I. Poly. 8:3.) He is fond of calling Christ "our God," θεός ημών, and "God, come in the flesh," εν σαρκί γενομενος θεός. There may, or may not be an additional three instances of this, but at this time we cannot conclusively determine due to textual variants or ambiguity. (I. Eph. 8:1; I. Magn. 6:1) The pre-existence of Christ was also generally taught from the earliest centuries and was not a later development. (Ad Diog. 7:2, 4; Hermas Par 9:12:2; Barnabas 5:5; 6:12; 2 Clem. 9:4; Poly. Phil. 12:2.) And the personhood of the Holy Spirit is affirmed as subordinate to the Son. (1 Clem. 58:2; Mart. Pol. 14:1-3; Par. 5.6.5; 9.1.1.) The most plain is the statement of Clement, "as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and hope of the elect." (1 Clem. 58:2) However, in no instance is the Holy Ghost directly called "God." 

2. Papias and Barnabas

From Papias of Hierapolis (60-130) the student of the apostle St. John and companion of Polycarp, no complete works survive. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3.36.1-2.) His works are only known in fragmentary quotations from which we have nothing extant which would be valuable for this discussion. The Epistle of Barnabas, which many early Fathers attribute to the Biblical apostle Barnabas (died c. 60) does not present a systematic picture of Christ but it does speak of the atonement frequently. It attests to the pre-existence of Christ in several places. (Barn. 5:11; 6:12; cf. Gen. 1:26.) 

"There is yet this also, my brothers; if the Lord endured to suffer for our lives, though he was Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world, "Let us make man after our image and likeness," how then did He endure to suffer at the hand of men?" (Barn. 5:5)

 Barnabas claims that it was at the command of the Father that the Son became incarnate to die for sins and prepare a people for his glory. (Barn. 14:6) He refers to the Holy Spirit as the inspirer of the prophets and seems to confuse him with the Son in several places. (Barn. 6:14; 12:2; 14:3; 19:7.) His primary concern is a polemic against Judaism, hence does not talk in detail about the relations between the three persons. 

3. The Didache

In the Didache a high Christology is not articulated, but there are several references to Christ as the "servant" of God the Father and the "vine" of David. (Did. 7:1, 3; 9:1, 3; 10:3.) It contains the earliest extant written quotation of the sacred baptismal formula found in St. Matthew 28:19, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Did. 7:1, 3; cf. St. Matt. 28:19.) 

4. Clement of Rome

With regard to Clement, the great bishop of Rome who was likely a companion of the apostle St. Paul, we have only one authentic epistle attributed to him which was written to the Corinthians. (He may very well be the same who is mentioned at Philippians 4:3 when he says, "help those women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.") He never once uses "God" θεός for the Son or the Holy Spirit, but reserves θεός for the Father, and several times calls him "the only God." (1 Clem. 43:6; 44:1) He distinguishes Christ from the "almighty God'' in several places and describes Christ as a "servant," παιδός of God. (1 Clem. 32:4; 49:6; 59:3; 62:2) When referring to the "King of eternity" mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:17, he applies the text to the Father and not to the Son. (1 Clem. 61:2) Clement gives exquisite titles to God, "the Creator and Father of the worlds, the Supremely Holy one," "the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh," "The Creator and Bishop of every spirit," "the all-seeing God and Ruler of spirits and Lord of All flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Clem. 35:3; 59:3; 64:1) Clement teaches the pre-existence of Christ when he says that it was Christ who spoke in the Psalms "through the Holy Spirit." (1 Clem. 22:1; cf. Psa. 34:11-19) And again when he says, "Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God'' borrowing language from St. John's Gospel. (1 Clem. 42:1, 2; cf. St. Joh. 6:38; 13:1-3; 16:30.) He quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate that Christ is superior to all angels. (1 Clem. 26:2-5; cf. Heb. 1:3-7, 13.) He teaches that God "elected" Christ and appointed him as high priest and savior. (1 Clem. 64:1) Although Clement writes a great deal about creation, he never directly implicates Christ in the creation of the universe in his epistle. (1 Clem. 20:1-10; 33:4; 35:3.) The subordination of Christ to the Father is emphasized in several places,

"You alone are the benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh… you have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved servant, through whom you instructed us. Let all the nations know that you are the only God, and that Jesus Christ is your servant." (1 Clem. 59:3, 4)

There are a few indications of belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit, most notably, "as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and hope of the elect." (1 Clem. 58:2) "Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us?" (1 Clem. 46:6; 13:1) But he says nothing of the relation of the Spirit to the other persons. In the spurious second epistle of Clement, we find an explicit statement of the pre-existence of Christ,

"If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward." (2 Clem. 9:5)

It was Christ who "called us when we did not exist and out of nothing willed us into existence." (2 Clem. 1:8) Yet in this epistle as well, θεός is reserved for the Father who is called,

"The only God, invisible, the Father of Truth, who sent forth unto us the Savior and Prince of immortality, through whom also He made manifest unto us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen." (2 Clem. 20:5)

 The Holy Spirit is mentioned only a few times in passing, and Clement seems to confuse him with the Son when he says, "the flesh is the Church and the Spirit is Christ." (2 Clem. 14:3-5) In general the Fathers have a habit of referring to Christ as "the Spirit" or "a Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit in St. Lk. 1:35 is often interpreted as the pre-existent Son by the Ante-Nicenes. (Justin Martyr, Apology 1.33; Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14; Adversus Judaeos, 13; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.1.3.) Hippolytus seems to be among the few exceptions to this. (Hippolytus, Sermo in sancta Theophania 9.) The definite article is lacking, πνεύμα άγιον, hence it may have been read as "a holy spirit," and on this basis was applied to the Logos. 

5. Polycarp of Smyrna

From Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) we have only one epistle which was written to the Philippians but it does not talk at great length about Christology, and mentions the atonement only in passing. (Pol. Phil. 1:2, 3; 2:2) He attacks the doctrines of the docetae and moves onto general hortatory. (Pol. Phil. 7:1) It survives in the original Greek and in a later Latin translation. There are noteworthy omissions in the Greek version, for example, in the Latin version of his epistle he refers to the Lord Jesus as the "the eternal high priest himself," ipse sempiternus pontifex. (Pol. Phil. 12:2.) It is found also in the quotation of Eusebius, "eternal high priest Jesus Christ," is αιωνίου αρχιερέως Ιησού χριστού. 

In the Greek versions of Polycarp's epistle, he never refers to Christ as θεός but often uses the phrases "God almighty and Jesus Christ," or "God and Christ." (Pol. Phil. 1:1, 3; 3:3; 5:2, 3.) But in the Latin version he refers to Christ once as "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum. (Pol. Phil. 12:2.) There is no direct statement as to whether Polycarp held adoptionist views, or any clear passage which states that Christ had a prehuman existence. His main concern is to address the local pastoral issues which the Church at Phillippi mentioned when they first wrote to him. (Pol. Phil. 3:1; 13:1.) We have an early anonymous account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp which is generally dated to the second century. The opening salutation wishes "mercy, peace, and love from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." He attributes to Polycarp the following words,

 "O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of you, the God of angels and powers and of all creation, and of the whole race of the righteous who live in your presence, I bless you for you have reckoned me worthy of this day and hour, that I may be given a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body…. I glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever. Amen." (Mart. Pol. 14:1-3.)

In this prayer we are given a direct attestation to belief in a triad of persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But in the end we are left with disappointingly inconclusive language from Polycarp, and a notable absence of developed Christological descriptions or concepts. 

Click here a discussion of the remaining Apostolic Fathers. 

Apostolic Fathers and the Trinity (Part 2)

Click here to read a previous discussion of the other Apostolic Fathers. 

6. Mathetes

An anonymous early apologist, who is often called Mathetes, wrote a single epistle to a certain Diognetus defending the Christian faith. Seven times Mathetes calls Christ "the Word" (λόγος) which is likely due to his familiarity with the Johannine corpus or a common tradition. (Diog. 11:2, 7, 8; 12:9) Towards the end of the epistle, Mathetes has a sublime section where he describes God and his Son,

 "The invisible God himself, established among humans the truth and the holy, incomprehensible word from heaven and fixated it firmly in their hearts, not, as one might imagine, by sending them some subordinate, or angel or one of those who manage earthly matters or one of those entrusted with the administration of things in heaven, but the Designer and Creator of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens." (Diog. 7:2)

He describes the pre-existent Christ as one "by whom" the Father created the universe, a co-creator of the universe, but not a mere "angel." Mathetes seems to be drawing implicitly upon such texts as Gen. 1:26 and 3:22 which mention another who was involved in creation beside God the Father. It is noteworthy that Christ is called "the Creator of the universe himself." Elsewhere he says that God,

"Sent (Christ) in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king; he sent him as a God (ως θεόν έπεμψεν) he sent him as a human to humans." (Diog. 7:4)

Mathetes does not say that Christ was a mere man upon the earth, rather he was sent "as a God" and "as a man" simultaneously. Rather reminiscent of later traditional language for the hypostatic union. Such language implies that the Logos did not give up his deity when he became human. He also teaches that God communicated his plan of salvation to the Logos before he sent him into the world. (Diog. 8:9-11; 9:1-3) Mathetes he describes the Son as"his Son, the only-begotten,"τον υιόν αυτού μονογενή (Diog. 10:2) and once calls the Son ο ἀεί which Holmes renders as "the eternal one." (Diog. 11:5) This implies to my mind an eternal begetting, putting the author quite in line with later Nicene (325) and Chalcedonian (451) definitions of Christ. The epistle is unfortunately devoid of any detailed discussions of the nature of the Holy Ghost.

7. The Shepherd of Hermas

The Shepherd (c. 95) is a very curious work written by a certain Hermas who describes himself as a Christian and former slave who was owned by a certain "Rhoda." (Vis. 1.1.1.) There is a certain Christian woman named Rhoda mentioned in Acts 12:13 and the apostle St. Paul mentions a certain "Hermas" in Romans 16:14, whom Eusebius suggests is the author of the Shepherd. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3.3.6.) It is a lengthy work containing parables, visions, and commandments which mostly relate to salvation and repentance. He says that the first or most important commandment is to "believe that God is one who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but Himself cannot be contained." (Mand. 1.1.1.)

 There is a similarity to St. Mark 12:29 where Christ says that the "first commandment is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one." He also speaks of his Son, the "Shepherd" and "angel of repentance" who was sent to dwell with Hermas 'the remaining days of his life.' (Vis. 5.5.7.) Hermas does not use the name "Jesus" for his savior, evidently out of reverence for the name, but instead uses the titles "Lord," and "Son of God" to refer to his Messianic Shepherd, who is not a mere man, but "the holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, whom God made to dwell in flesh." (Par. 5.6.6) He may have a reverential avoidance of using the name Jesus, but he does acknowledge that the Shepherd has a "name." (Par. 8.6.4; 9.12.4.) 

Hermas states the same concept more clearly when he says, "the Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a co-counsel with the Father in his work of creation that is why he is old." (Par. 9.12.2.) This latter statement seems to be a denial of adoptionism, as the Son was a son even before the creation of the cosmos. To Hermas, Son of God is a highly exalted figure, second to God himself. There is no way to approach God "than through his Son," and even the angels cannot approach God except by him. (Par. 9.12.6; 9.12.8.) The basis for this exalted status is never directly explained and there is a striking absence to any talk of the crucifixion or resurrection of the Lord. Hermes regards the Holy Spirit as a person who "speaks" and reveals divine truths. He abides in Christians and intercedes on their behalf with God the Father. (Mand. 5:1.2; 10.3.3.) Unrepentant sinners "grieve the Holy Spirit" and "sadden" him with their transgressions. (Mand. 10.2.1-5; 10:3.2.) He often confuses the Son to be with the Holy Spirit. He refers to the Son as the "Holy Spirit," who dwelt in flesh even saying at one point, "the Spirit is the Son of God." (Par. 5.6.5; 9.1.1.) He does elsewhere talk of "Holy Spirits." (Par. 9.13.2.) It is then possible that Hermas regarded the Son as a Holy Spirit, of sorts. He elsewhere distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct persons, "the Lord has put you to the test, and enrolled you among our number, and your whole seed will dwell with the Son of God for you received his Spirit." (Par. 9.24.4.) No word is said of the begetting or origin of the Son of God. Nor is any word said of the Procession or origin of the Holy Spirit. Despite the vague and seemingly confused theology of the Shepherd of Hermas, it was treasured by the ancient Church and treated as Scripture by Irenaeus and Tertullian. 

8. Ignatius of Antioch

It is a difficult thing to summarize the theology of the Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 140) because there are so many fraudulent epistles attributed to him and those which are genuine suffer from textual corruption. We know little of Ignatius with historical certainty, aside from the fact that he was bishop of Antioch, that he was known to Polycarp, and that he was martyred in the early second century. There are fifteen ancient epistles which claim to be written by Ignatius which offer contradictory theological views and historical details. The spurious epistle to the Tarsians even teaches a form of Arianism. There is also a purported epistle to the Virgin Mary and another to the blessed apostle St. John, both of which are forgeries. 

Nowadays, only seven epistles out of fifteen attributed to Ignatius are sometimes considered authentic works of the martyr. The seven which some consider authentic are the epistles to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans and the one to Polycarp. These seven epistles were known and used by fourth century writers but there is a great deal of corruption in their textual transmission. There are basically three different versions or recensions of the seven epistles which differ from one another greatly in terms of style and theology. Holmes gave the following opinion. 

"The letters (of Ignatius) exist in three basic forms. The long recension consists of an expanded (interpolated) version of the original letters created in the fourth century accompanied by six spurious letters (some of which came to be associated with the middle recension as well). The short recension is a Syriac abridgment of the letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and Polycarp. The middle recension, which was known to Eusebius, preserves the original form of the letters." (M. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 171.)

Now, I am of the opinion that all the short and long recensions are somewhat corrupted but give us a general picture of the theology of Ignatius. Athanasius quotes from the middle recension and from another lost recension, which shows that there were different versions of the Ignatian epistles circulating in the fourth century. (Athanasius, De Synodis 47.) The short and long recensions are not total forgeries, nor are they entirely genuine, both contain interpolations and corruptions. Cureton published short recension which survives in Syriac, an early translation of three of the epistles. It is admitted by everybody that the long recension is heavily interpolated. But what can we gather from the epistles of Ignatius as they have been transmitted to us? Ignatius taught that the pre-existent Logos voluntarily chose to reside "in" a human body. (I. Eph. 3:2; 6:1; 7:1.) No time is devoted to explaining the details of this incarnation. There is a somewhat difficult statement in the middle recension of the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.

"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both begotten and unbegotten (γεννητός καὶ αγέννητος); God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (I. Ep. 7:2)

This language appears far removed from the Nicene confession that Christ is "the only-begotten (μονογενής) Son of God, begotten (γεννηθέντα) of the Father before all worlds," Ignatius calls him as "unbegotten," αγέννητος, language which is reserved for the Father alone among patristic authors. (I. Eph. 7:1) This language, taken plainly, would be highly objectionable. Athanasius condemned all who said the Son was "unbegotten," αγέννητος, to deny eternal generation, and argues that this passage in Ignatius must be understood merely as a denial that the Logos came into existence in Mary or was created at the incarnation. (Athanasius, De Syn. 27, 47.) This is plausible. The longer recension has an entirely different reading in this place,

"But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."

The meaning is changed radically. Although the Son is still depicted as pre-existent, the title “one Physician” is applied to the Father rather than the Son and any confusing assertions of being “unbegotten” are omitted. The more difficult reading is the more plausible to be correct, hence, the middle recension likely preserves the original wording. The later editor of the long recension sought to remove anything which might be used by advocates of Sabellianism. Some versions of the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp describes Christ as "above time," and "eternal," but this language is omitted from the short recension. (I. Pol. 3:2) 

The Ignatian epistles in all their forms contain scathing attacks upon the docetae, any who deny that the Lord "was clothed in flesh" is figuratively "clothed in a corpse," because their demise is assured. (I. Smyr. 6:2) The descent of the Word to earth was a departure from the "divine silence" of heaven, "who before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of time … the Word, that came forth from silence, who in every respect pleased the one who sent him." (I. Magn. 6:1; 7:2; 8:2) The seven epistles refers to Jesus Christ as "God," θεὸς at least eleven times, which is far more than any single New Testament author. (I. Eph. Prol, 1:1; 7:2; 18:2; 19:3; I. Smyr. 1:1; I. Trall. 7:1; I. Rom. Prol. (2*); 3:2; 6:3; I. Poly. 8:3.) The middle recension often refers to Christ frequently as "our God," θεός ημών, and "God, come in the flesh," εν σαρκί γενομενος θεός. There may, or may not be an additional three instances of this, but at this time we cannot conclusively determine due to textual variants or ambiguity. (I. Eph. 8:1; I. Magn. 6:1) 

The short recension, which survives in Syriac, is devoid of much of the high Christology in the middle Recension. William Cureton translated the Syriac text of three epistles into English in 1845, and thought their content 'vindicated' Ignatius 'from the charge of heresy' brought upon him by the popular middle recension. (William Cureton, The Antient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius London: Rivingtons, 1845; Vindicæ Ignatianæ or the Genuine Writings of St. Ignatius as Exhibited in the Antient Syriac version London: Rivingtons, 1846). 

The short recension contains no language which might be considered Sabellian or adoptionist. The Syriac version of the epistle to Polycarp begins with salutations mentioning "by God the Father and by Jesus Christ our Lord." (The Antient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, p. 5.) The Son is not a mere man, but existed before the ages and became incarnate for our sakes. 

"Be discerning of the times. Expect Him who is above times, Him to whom there are no times, Him who is unseen, Him who for our sakes became seen, Him who is impalpable, Him who is without suffering, Him who for our sakes suffered, Him who for our sakes endured every thing in every form." (Ibid. p. 6, 7.) 

The reality of the incarnation is emphasized in these paradoxical descriptions, the Son did not merely appear to suffer or take a human form, but truly did. In the Syriac version of his epistle to the Ephesians, he twice speaks of "Jesus Christ our God." (Ibid. p. 11, 25.) We also find the curious phrase, "ye are fervent in the blood of God," (Ibid. 11.) which is likely taken from Acts 20:28. The ancients freely spoke of Christ as "God" and "Spirit" though never intending him to be literally identified with either the Father or the Holy Spirit as Sabellius later did. Although Christ is divine, God remains "the greatness of the Father Most High." (Ibid. p. 17.) The Syriac version also contains an illustration which distinguishes between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the economia,

"Ye are prepared for the building of God the Father, and ye are raised on high by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and ye are drawn by the rope, which is the Holy Ghost, and your pulley is your faith, and your Love the way that raiseth up on high to God." (Ibid. p. 13.)

The Syriac epistle of Ignatius to the Romans speaks little of Christology and includes sections of morbid excitement over the prospect of martyrdom; where he goes so far as to beg Roman Christians not to prevent his execution by the hands of wild beasts. Although, it should be noted that all three versions of the Ignatian epistles contain a morbid fascination with martyrdom, it is astounding that there are not many variants readings in this section,

"Ye will not give me anything which is better than this, that I should be sacrificed to God whilst the altar is prepared, that in love ye may be in one concord, that ye may praise God the Father in Jesus Christ our Lord because he deemed a Bishop worthy that he should be God's when he called him from the East to the West… I am the wheat of God, and by the teeth of the beasts am I ground, that I may be found the pure bread of God." (Ibid. p. 19.)

The translator of the Syriac text evidently did not know of any other epistles of Ignatius besides these three because the Syriac manuscript ends with the words, "here end the three epistles of Ignatius, bishop and martyr." (Ibid. p. 23.) These epistles were not intended to present a systematic theology and speak mostly of martyrdom and pastoral matters, however they do give valuable insights, such as the fact that Ignatius already had a belief in the pre-existence of Christ, although he is hazy in explaining the details.

9. Summary

In summary, the Apostolic Fathers tend to describe the Father alone as the "only God" and the "one God." They generally taught the pre-existence of Christ and described him as the creator. And in some of their writings the personhood of the Spirit seems to be taught although their view of the Holy Spirit is hazy, and occasionally authors such as Hermas and the writer of 2 Clement seem to confuse him with the Son. Those who speak on the matter tend to describe the Logos as "begotten," but the middle recension of the Ignatian epistles seems teach the doctrine of an unbegotten Logos who became a Son at his incarnation, which is more akin to that of Marcellus than anything apostolic.