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.
No comments:
Post a Comment