Footnote 250:[ (return) ]
Such conceptions are found side by side in the same writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the first.
Footnote 251:[ (return) ]
See § 6, p. 120. The idea of a θεοποιησις was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles, however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the λογος του θεου. But now there is no mistaking a new element everywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of θεοποιησις, it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was to be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world, equal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those Christologies which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being, it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles, as was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians, and the latter more than the former.
Footnote 252:[ (return) ]
This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the fact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the contrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own in the revealed truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is accounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different theories ran up into like formulæ, and could even frequently be directly carried over into one another, and on the other hand, by the fact that their representatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above all, remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic element, which also had a share in the formation of Christology, had been suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the struggle with Gnosticism, or even during that struggle.
Footnote 253:[ (return) ]
Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age.
Footnote 254:[ (return) ]
Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas (see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spirit—it is not certain whether he is identified with the chief Archangel—is regarded as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was God's counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the virtuous man σαρξ chosen by God, with whom that Spirit of God was united. As he did not defile the Spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and carried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more than he was commanded, he was in virtue of a Divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to μεγαλη εξουσια και κυριοτης. That this Christology is set forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and sprang from the Romish community, is of great significance. The representatives of this Christology, who in the third century were declared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time the ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles. (Anonym, in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the Artemonites: φασι τους μεν προτερους 'απαντας και αυτους τους αποστολους παρειληφεναι τε και δεδιδαχεναι ταυτα, 'α νυν 'ουτοι λεγουσι, και τετηρησθαι την αληθειαν του κηρυγματος μεχρι των χρονων του Βικτορος ... απο του διαδοχον αυτο Ζεφυρινου παρακεχαραχθαι την αληθειαν). This assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find in Hermas. It cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer investigation shews that the Adoptian Christology must at one time have been very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed up to the middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta Archelai. 49, 50), and that it continued to exercise great influence even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something similar is found even in some Gnostics, e.g., Valentinus himself (see Iren. I. 11. 1: και τον Χριστον δε ουκ απο των εν τωι πληρωματι αιωνων προβεβλησθαι, αλλα 'υπο της μητρος, εξω δε γενομενης, κατα την γνωμην των κρειττονων αποκεκυησθαι μετα σκιας τινος. Και τουτον μεν, 'ατε αρρενα 'υπαρχονταφ, αποκοψαντα 'υφ' 'εαυτου την σκιαν, αναδραμειν εις το πληρομα. The same in the Exc. ex Theodot §§ 22, 23, 32, 33), and the Christology of Basilides presupposes that of the Adoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the genealogy of Jesus to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialog. 48, 49, 87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against the objection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to be filled with the Spirit of God, is instructive. It is here evident that Justin deals with objections which were raised within the communities themselves to the pre-existence of Christ, on the ground of the account of the baptism. In point of fact, this account (it had, according to very old witnesses, see Resch, Agrapha Christi, p. 307, according to Justin, for example, Dial. 88. 103, the wording: 'αμα τωι αναβηναι αυτον απο του ποταμου του Ιορδανου, της φωνης αυτου λεχθεισης 'υιος μου ει σς, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε; see the Cod. D. of Luke. Clem. Alex, etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the Adoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how one compounds with it from the second to the fifth century, an investigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the edge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that the Adoptians in recognising this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is now instructive to see here how the history of the baptism, which originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus' history, is suppressed in the earliest formulæ, and therefore also in the Romish Symbol, while the birth from the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I; cf. ad Eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into account in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by which it has no longer any significance for Jesus himself (just as in the case of Justin, who concludes from the resting of the Spirit in his fulness upon Jesus, that there will be no more prophets among the Jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare also the way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in Joh. I.). Finally, we must point out that in the Adoptian Christology, the parallel between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are Sons of God, stands out very clearly (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Mand. III. V. 1; X. 2; most important is Sim. V. 6. 7). But this was the very thing that endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57, addressing Jesus, asks; "If thou sayest that every man whom Divine Providence allows to be born (this is of course a formulation for which Celsus alone is responsible), is a son of God, what advantage hast thou then over others?" We can see already in the Dialogue of Justin, the approach of the later great controversy, whether Christ is Son of God κατα γνωμην, or κατα φυσιν, that is, had a pre-existence: "και γαρ εισι τινες, he says, απο του 'υμετερου γενους 'ομολογουντες αυτον Χριστον ειναι, ανθρωπον δε εξ ανθρωπων γενομενον αποφαινομενοι, 'οις ου συντιθεμαι" (c. 48).
Footnote 255:[ (return) ]
This Christology which may be traced back to the Pauline, but which can hardly have its point of departure in Paul alone, is found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John, including the Apocalypse, and is represented by Barnabas, 1 and 2 Clem., Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors of Praed. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, etc. The Classic formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5: Χριστος 'ο κυριος 'ο σωσας 'ημας ων μεν το πρωτον πνευμα εγενετο σαρξ και 'ουτως 'ημας εκαλεσεν. According to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is παντος του κοσμου κυριοσ: to him God said, απο καταβολης κοσμου, "Let us make man, etc." He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old Testament revelation. He is ουξι 'υιος ανθρωπου αλλ: 'υιος του θεου, τυπωι δε εν σαρκι φανερωθεις (12. 10); the flesh is merely the veil of the Godhead, without which man could not have endured the light (5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is το σκηπτρον της μελαγοσυνης του θεου (16. 2), who if he had wished could have appeared on earth εν κομπωι αλαζονειας, he is exalted far above the angels (32), as he is the Son of God (παθηματα του θεου, 2. 1); he hath spoken through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1). It is not certain whether Clement understood Christ under the λογος μεγαλοσυνης του θεου (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and the church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the last times. Gen. I. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on the passage: We learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon identified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the church with that of Eve). Similar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one must think about Christ as about God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7-2): Εις, ιατρος εστιν σαρκικος τε και πνευματικος, γεννητος και αγεννητος, εν σαρκι γενομενος θεος, εν θανατωι ζωη αληθινη, και εκ Μαριας και εκ θεου, πρωτον παθαετος και τοτε απαθης Ιησους Χριστος 'ο κυριος 'ημων. As the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus first became God ('ο θεος 'ημων, Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact, he regards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on the other hand, Jesus is αφ' 'ενος πατρος προελθων (Magn. 7. 2), is λογος θεου (Magn. 8. 2,) and when Ignatius so often emphasises the truth of Jesus' history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics that Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of notice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas and Clement, really gives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and his work. The like is found only in Irenæus. The pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep 7. 1); but, like Paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of Christ (2. 1). The author of Præd. Petri calls Christ the λογος (Clem. Strom. I. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is found in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a Christian adaptation of a Jewish writing), in the Act. Joh. (see Zahn, Acta Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally, "The Christians maintain that the Son of God is at the same time his incarnate Word", we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ was not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists, for example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog. fragm. in the Chron. pasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: Χριστος ων θεου λογος προ αιωνων. We do not find in the Johannine writings such a Logos speculation as in the Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew that it has its truth in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The ideas about the existence of a Divine Logos were very widely spread; they were driven out of philosophy into wide circles. The author of the Alterc. Jas. et Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen I. 1, εν αρχη, as equivalent to εν 'υιωι (Χριστωι) Jerome. Quæst. hebr. in Gen. p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: θεος ην εν αρχηι την δε αρχην λογου δυναμιν παρειληφαμεν. Ignatius (Eph. 3) also called Christ 'η γνομη του πατρος (Eph. 17: 'η γνωσις του θεου); that is a more fitting expression than λογος. The subordination of Christ as a heavenly being to the Godhead, is seldom or never carefully emphasised, though it frequently comes plainly into prominence. Yet the author of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate to place the pre-existent Christ and the pre-existent church on one level, and to declare of both that God created them (c. 14). The formulæ φανερουσθαι εν σαρκι, or, γιγγεσθαι σαρξ, are characteristic of this Christology. It is worthy of special notice that the latter is found in all those New Testament writers, who have put Christianity in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and proclaimed the conquest of that religion by the Christian, viz., Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Footnote 256:[ (return) ]
Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link; Christologie des Hermas, and Weizsäcker, Gott Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 830, declare his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then identified with this Holy Spirit (see Acta. Archel. 50), similarly Ignatius (ad. Magn. 15): κεκτημενοι αδιακριτον πνευμα, 'ος εστιν Ιησους Χριστος. This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on the one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But in Hermas the real substantial thing in Jesus Christ is the σαρξ.
Footnote 257:[ (return) ]
Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile Christian literature, in which Jesus is designated Son of God, independently of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against Zahn), but they are not numerous. Ignatius very clearly deduces the predicate "Son" from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216 ff.
Footnote 258:[ (return) ]
The distinct designation "θεοποιησις" is not found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite distinctly (See Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: νομιζοντες απο Μαριας και δευρο Χριστον αυτον καλεισθαι και 'υιον θεου, και ειναι μεν προτερον ψιλον ανθρωπον, κατα προκοπην δε ειληφεναι την του 'υιου του θεου προσηγοριαν). The stages of the προκοπη were undoubtedly the birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the adherents of the pneumatic Christology, could not at first help recognising that Jesus, through his exaltation, got more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case, this conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it really did so.
Footnote 259:[ (return) ]
The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always uncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from Barn. 5. 12, where it plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it which have not accidentally either perished or been concealed. In the communities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken at Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter. Clem. Alex., Adumbrat in Joh. Ep. I. c. 1, [Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III. p. 871]; "Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli." Also Acta Joh. p. 219, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his polemic against "δοκησις" proper, one can still perceive a "moderate docetism" in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives in the Canonical Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal literature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles), lying on the boundary between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only in scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears, throughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions attest that it was read in wide circles.