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 He operates under outdated physics, but his meaning is clear enough.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.