đ§”What did the Ante-Nicene church fathers believe about Jesus? đ§”
Was he âdivineâ or just a man? We he âGodâ or Godâs servant? We he âcoequalâ with the Father or âsecondâ to him? Some Trinitarians argue that the church has always preached the "orthodox" doctrine of the trinity.
Was he âdivineâ or just a man? We he âGodâ or Godâs servant? We he âcoequalâ with the Father or âsecondâ to him? Some Trinitarians argue that the church has always preached the "orthodox" doctrine of the trinity.
Starting with the disciples, Paul, & the church fathers, it is claimed that everyone was an orthodox trinitarian. But scholars would beg to differ.
In this thread, I will provide a summary of the beliefs of the early church as presented by the late Geza Vermes in his excellent book âChristian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea AD 30â325â, focusing specifically on the ante-Nicene church fathers up to Eusebius of Caesarea.
Clement (c. 95/96) â In an epistle to the Corinthians, Clement refers to Jesus as the âSon of Godâ, Vermes compares this to the âPauline and deutero-Pauline phraseologyâ. It doesnât mean that Jesus was âGodâ or âcoequalâ w/ Him.
Jesus is âinferiorâ. God is the âMasterâ who âspeaks about his âSonâ of not quite the same status". Clement goes âbeyond the Didacheâ (which regarded Jesus as a mere âservantâ of God), & is similar to Paul in seeing Jesus as the âson of God without any further specificationâ.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110) â Per Vermes, Ignatiusâ letters âwere the first to declare the divinity of JesusâŠin plain words as well as in images.â Also, while Ignatius mentioned the Father, son & HS, Vermes notes that âno theological reflection is attached to this imageryâ.
In other words, Ignatius did not develop the theology of the trinity. As Vermes puts it, it doesnât seem as if âthese changes were actually thought throughâ.
Interestingly, even Ignatius seemed to differentiate between God and Jesus, and made no attempt to reconcile referring to each as âGodâ (Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 7). Also, he failed to mention the holy spirit.
Polycarp (d. 155/156) â He does not offer anything âoriginalâ in âthe domain of Christologyâ. He refers to Jesus as âsaviorâ, âeternal priestâ, & âson of Godâ. However, in the âMartyrdom of Polycarpâ (written after his death), Jesus was the âservantâ (pais), like in the Didache.
Epistle to Diognetus (c. 150â200) â Without directly naming Jesus, the epistle to Diognetus identifies him as the âDemiurge/Craftsmanâ, through whom everything was created, echoing the Logos of the Gospel of John. The term was borrowed from Philo of Alexandria and Platonism.
The same being is referred to as âservantâ and âson of Godâ who was sent by God. However, God sent him as a âkingâ and âas Godâ.
Justin Martyr (d. 165 CE) â In his âDialogue with Tryphoâ, Justin attempted to show that Jesus was a divine being. However, as Vermes explains, Justin spoke of Jesus as âanother Godâ besides God the Father & saw him âas being not quite the same standing as the CreatorâŠâ (p. 184)
Also, while Justin would deny being a polytheist, he nevertheless put Jesus in âsecond placeâ to God, while the âprophetic spiritâ was in âthe thirdâ place. Vermes rightly notes that this is clearly a SUBORDATIONIST statement (i.e., the âpersonsâ were NOT âco-equalâ.
Melito of Sardis (d. late 2nd century) â The bishop of Sardis believed in the simultaneous divinity & humanity of Jesus, who was prophesied in the Old Testament. He also believed existed from eternity (Vermes, p. 199).
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130â200 CE) â Irenaeusâ Jesus was âson of Godâ and the âincarnate Word/Logosâ but also as a human. Vermes notes that Irenaeus seemed to have a âheretical idea, namely that in the incarnate Christ two persons, a divine and a human, were activeâ (p. 196).
Tertullian (c. 160â222 CE) â Tertullianâs Jesus was âcompletely divineâ and âcompletely humanâ. He also âprefiguredâ the councils of Nicea (divinity of Christ), Ephesus (son âsharedâ divine âsubstanceâ with the Father), and Chalcedon (2 natures of Christ).
However, he did NOT believe in a âco-equalâ trinity of persons. As Vermes puts it, âthere existed a difference of degree between the persons of the divine Triadâ (p. 207). Tertullian also did not believe that the son was co-eternal with the Father.
Like Justin Martyr, Tertullian regarded the son as âsecond to the Fatherâ (Against Praxeas 7.9), thereby admitting to a subordationist position.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150â215 CE) â Clement saw the son as the âFatherâs face, being the revealerâŠâ Similar to Justin, Clement also believed that the Logos was the cause of âhis own incarnationâ (Vermes, p. 213).
Origen (c. 185â254 CE) â Origen saw the Logos/son as âpreexistentâ. However, he insisted that only the Father âwas fully entitled to be called âthe Godâ (ho theos)â (Vermes, p. 220), whereas the son was the ârecipient of divinity from the Fatherâ.
Both were âalmightyâ & âgreatâ but the son essentially received these traits from the Father. In fact, the Father was âgreaterâ than the son. As Vermes states, Origen had a âsubordationist understandingâ, like âall his precursorsâ (p. 221).
In fact, Origen referred to the son as the âsecond Godâ (deuteros Theos). As for the holy spirit, Origen was unsure whether it was âbegotten and could be called Son of Godâ (p. 221). In fact, to Origen, âthe Father was the source of the son and holy spiritâ.
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260â339 CE) â Like his teacher Origen, Eusebius was also a subordationist. Per Vermes, he was âunwilling to place Father and Son on an equal footing in the divine hierarchyâ (p. 224).
He even avoided using the word âconsubstantialâ, even AFTER the Council of Nicea. The son was the âservantâ (pais) of the Father, though a âsecond Godâ who was âsubject to the dominating Lord, God the Fatherâ (Vermes, pp. 224â225).
To conclude:
Loading suggestions...