Note 246 — Chapter III

Footnote 246:

(return)

Pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a "Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo" on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as God's Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, εις εξουσιαν μεγαλην και κυριοτητα, Sim. V. 6. 1. But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere and that one must think of him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might indeed appear from Justin's dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as θεος (not as ο θεος) was common in the communities, but not only are there some passages in Justin himself to be urged against this but also the testimony of other writers. Θεος, even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus. On the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a God or as God. In the first place there were Old Testament passages such as Ps. XLV. 8, CX. 1 f. etc. which as soon as they were interpreted in relation to Christ led to his getting the predicate θεος. These passages, with many others taken from the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well worth noting that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this expression in a passage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on Ps. CX. 4) The author of the Didache calls him "ο θεος δαβιδ" on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical formulæ of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3, επιτρεψατε μοι μιμητην ειναι του παθους του θεου μου (the μου here should be observed), ad Eph. 1. 1 αναζωπυρησαντες εν αιματι θεου, Tatian Orat. 13 διακονος του πεπονθοτος θεου. As to the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2. 10 τα παθηματα αυτου (the αυτου refers to θεος) we may perhaps observe that that ο θεος stands far apart. However, such a consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept "God"—and only this union—must have been in Christendom from a very early period, see Acts XX. 28 την εκκλησιαν του θεου 'ην περιεποιησατο δια του 'αιματος του ιδιου, and from a later period Melito, Fragm (in Routh Rel Sacra I. 122), 'ο θεος πεπονθεν 'υπο δεξιας Ισραηλιτιδος, Anonym ap Euseb H. E. V. 28 11, 'ο ευσπλαγχνος θεος και κυριος 'ημων Ιησους Χριστος ουκ εβουλετο απολεσθαι μαρτυρα των ιδιων παθηματων, Test XII. Patriarch. (Levi. 4) επι τω παθει του 'υψιστου; Tertull. de carne 5, "passiones dei," ad Uxor. II. 3: "sanguine dei." Tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (see Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400, sq.). These formulæ were first subjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. Apollin. II. 13, 14, Opp. I. p. 758) πως ουν γεγραφατε 'οτι θεος 'ο δια σαρκος παθων και αναστας, ... ουδαμου δε 'αιμα θεου διχα σαρκος παραδεδωκασιν 'αι γραφαι η θεον δια σαρκος παθοντα και ανασταντα. They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a theologia Christi in such passages as Tit. II. 13, 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally θεος and Christus were often interchanged in religious discourse (see above). In the so called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On the contrary Isaiah XXIX. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula λεγει ο θεος. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). Not only is there frequent mention of the εντολαι (ενταλματα) of Christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a ποιειν το θελημα του Χριστου. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1), the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as Sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). He will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of Christ's appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of God and Christ is not always an expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated θεος. It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up the proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages εν 'οις θεολογειται 'ο χριστος, because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see the Anonym. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4-6). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles "θεος" appears as a designation of Christ; he is called 'ο θεος 'ημων in Ephes. inscript.; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, 'αιμα θεου; Rom. 6. 3, το παθος του θεου μου; Eph. 7. 2, εν σαρκι γενομενος θεος, in another reading, εν ανθρωπω θεος, Smyrn. I. 1, I. Chr. 'ο θεος 'ο ουτως 'υμας σοφισας. The latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with "'ο θεος", seems to form the transition to the three passages (Trall. 7. 1; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called θεος without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious, see Lightfoot in loco. In the same way the "deus Jesus Christus" in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse. In the first, all Latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the Greek codd. of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called θεος. We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as θεος in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; 'ο Πετρος απεκριθη 'ο κυριος 'ημων ουτε θεους ειναι εφθεγξατο παρα τον κτισαντα τα παντα ουτε 'εαυτον θεον ειναι ανηγορευσεν, 'υιον δε θεου του τα παντα διακοσμησαντος τον ειποντα αυτον ευλογως εμακαρισεν, και ο Σιμων απεκρινατο; ου δοκει σοι ουν τον απο θεου θεον ειναι, και 'ο Πετρος εφη: πως τουτο ειναι δυναται, φρασον 'ημιν, τουτο γαρ 'ημεις ειπειν σοι ου δυναμεθα, 'οτι μη 'ηκουσαμεν παρ' αυτου.