Part 2: Post-Apostolic Fathers
The Second-Century Apologists
After the ‘Apostolic Fathers,’ most of the surviving Christian writings of the second century come from a group of apologists, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, and others. These apologists used Scripture and philosophy to refute ‘pagan,’ Jewish, and ‘gnostic’ (e.g., Valentinian, Marcionite) views, along with other Christian views that they considered heretical (e.g., modalism). They strongly influenced the development of proto-orthodox Christianity as it defined itself in contrast to these other positions.
‘Mathetes’
The anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus, known as ‘Mathetes’ due to his self-designation as a “student [mathētēs] of the apostles” (Ep Diog 11.1), has been variously dated between ca. AD 130 and the end of the second century. Mathetes believed that the soul is inherently immortal, in line with the Greek philosophical speculations of his day (Ep Diog 6.8). However, he also believed that the wicked would be punished by “the real death,” namely, “the aeonian fire that will punish to the end [mechri telous]” (10.7). If mechri telous is an idiom referring to something unending, which is possible, then Mathetes may have been an infernalist. If, like later universalists and arguably Paul, he believed that the telos would involve the universal restoration – or the annihilation of unbelievers – he may have been a universalist or an annihilationist.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr was a Middle Platonist philosopher who converted to Christianity in the mid-2nd century, and was martyred for his beliefs in ca. AD 165. After his conversion, Justin rejected the Platonist view that the soul is immortal, but held that if a soul is pious, it will “never die” (Dialogue with Trypho 5–6). A person will only receive immortality if they petition God and are found worthy of him (1 Apology 10; 13; 21; 39; 42). Upon death, the soul of a person does not go directly to heaven (Dial 80), but it does go to an intermediate state where it’s either blessed or punished (1 Apol 18; 20; Dial 5). The devil and his angels, along with sinners, will “be destroyed... and be no more” (Dial 45). Yet before this destruction, the wicked will retain sensation and suffer aeonian punishment for more than a thousand years (1 Apol 8; 18; 28; 52; Dial 45). Justin’s idea of the ultimate fate of unbelievers is not entirely developed, but his view appears to be that the wicked will be tormented for long aeon(s) and then annihilated.
Tatian of Adiabene
Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr and an apologist, who formed his own church in Assyria after the death of Justin. According to Irenaeus, he was expelled from the ‘proto-orthodox’ church and converted to a type of ‘gnosticism’ influenced by Valentinus and Marcion (AH 1.28.1). In Tatian’s sole surviving writing, the Oration to the Greeks, he says that the soul “is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal,” and that it “is dissolved with the body” (Or ad Graec 13). He continues that if a soul does not know the truth, after being resurrected it will receive “death by punishment in immortality,” but if it knows the truth “it dies not” (13). Thus, after we die, humans will “receive [either] the immortal with enjoyment or the painful with immortality” (14). This appears to be a nascent infernalism, although it’s hard to see how this squares with Tatian’s criticism of the soul’s immortality.
Theophilus of Antioch
Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch in the late 2nd century. His sole surviving work, the Apology to Autolycus, is written as an appeal to a pagan friend about Christianity. Theophilus says that whether or not Autolycus believes now, he will see God in the resurrection and then believe (Apol ad Autol I.7–8). He warns about the aeonian punishment of the wicked “in proportion to their deeds” that was taught about even by the Greek poets and philosophers (I.14; II.34–38).
With regard to the curse of physical death and expulsion from paradise, Theophilus says that this was actually a “great kindness to humanity.” The human was “not allowed to remain in sin forever, but... cast out of paradise, so that having atoned for the sin by punishment within an appointed time, and having been disciplined, he should afterward be restored” (II.26). Humanity will therefore be restored to paradise “after the resurrection and judgment”; like a vessel that is broken and remade, the human is broken up in death “so that he may rise in the resurrection whole, I mean, spotless and righteous and immortal” (II.26). Theophilus claims that humanity was created by nature neither mortal nor immortal, but so that the human can attain immortality as a reward and “become God” or else “be the cause of death to himself” (II.27).
In Theophilus’ comments on the sixth day of creation, he says that the beasts that were created on that day are an allegory for wicked men, and “when man will make his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, these too will be restored to their original gentleness” (II.17). Although he may not have been a universalist, and he certainly doesn’t present a mature doctrine of the universal restoration, Theophilus develops several ideas – including the view that physical death is a restorative punishment, and the concept of a restoration of humanity to its original condition – that would be adopted and expanded upon by later Christian universalists.
Melito of Sardis
Melito was bishop of Sardis in the late second century. In his apology to Marcus Aurelius, he writes that immortality is a gift given by God to those who serve him and seek after goodness (Apol 7.4; 12.5). “At the last time,” everything including humanity will be burnt up by fire, “and the righteous will be preserved from wrath” (18.13–14). Once again, this is not a fully developed view, but Melito’s statements point toward conditionalism or annihilationism rather than universalism or infernalism.
Irenaeus of Lyon
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon in France toward the end of the second century. Unfortunately, most of his book Against Heresies is preserved mostly in Latin, and only portions of the original Greek text have survived. The Latin version may not perfectly reflect Irenaeus’ actual views, especially on the duration of punishment, as it translates aiōnios as aeternus (e.g., AH 1.10.1).
Irenaeus frequently speaks about the punishment of aeonian fire, or aeternus ignis in the Latin (e.g., AH I.10.1; II.27.7; III.4.2; 23.3; IV.27.4; 33.11; 40.1–41.3; V.26.2–28.4; 35.2). This self-inflicted punishment is “death,” which is the loss of all that is good; since good things are “aeonian and unending [ateleutēta],” the loss of them is also “aeonian and unending [ateleutētos]” (V.27.2). The soul continues to exist after death, but those who fail to recognize the God who bestows the gift of immortality deprive themselves of “continuance forever and ever” (II.34.3–4). Immortality and incorruptibility are a gift for those who are adopted as sons of God, and are not received by those who despise the Son of God (III.19.1). There will be a general resurrection (V.35.2), but the “resurrection of the just” to immortality is for believers alone (II.29.2; IV.18.5; V.35.1). This points toward annihilationism.
On the other hand, some of Irenaeus’ statements point toward universalism. [1] In fragment 39, he says that Christ, at the telos, will “do away with all evil and reconcile all beings, so that there may be an end to all impurities.” Irenaeus says that no creature can “go far astray,” since God wills that they exist and they maintain “existence and continuance” so long as he wills it (II.34.3). God allowed humanity to be swallowed by death, like Jonah was swallowed by the whale, but will reconcile humanity to himself through moral discipline (AH III.20). Irenaeus rebukes Tatian for denying that Adam, in whom all humanity is represented, must be saved, and quotes Romans 5:12–21 (III.23.2–8). Those who incline toward evil, and all who die in Adam as “soulish,” will “live in Christ as spiritual” when their fleshly desires are destroyed (V.1.3).
Just as Christ is the recapitulation of all humanity (III.18.7; V.20.2; 21.1), the Antichrist will be the recapitulation of all evil and ignorance (V.29.2; 30.1). He is given no name, only a number, “as one who has no existence... for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed” (V.30.4). The resurrection of the just will first take place, but after this will take place the general resurrection of people (V.35.2). In the restoration of creation, no created substance will be destroyed, only “that in which transgression has occurred”; humanity will not be such as to “vanish with non-existent things, but [will] progress with those things that have existence” (V.36.1). All will see God according to their worthiness (with gradations), and will continually ascend through the Spirit and the Son to the Father, in support of which Irenaeus cites 1 Corinthians 15:25–28 (V.36.1–2). This is why the Son became incarnate, that “the one human race” and “the creature” would ascend past the angels to be made in the image and likeness of God (V.36.3).
As with Theophilus of Antioch, the views of Irenaeus on the ultimate fate of unbelievers are not entirely clear. Notably, in his description of the final state, he refers to the “worthy” and “righteous” but makes no mention of the unworthy or unrighteous, which fits with either annihilationism or universalism. Whatever his own views were, Irenaeus develops several points in his polemics against the ‘gnostics’ that would be adopted and further developed by later Christian universalist – especially the ontological non-subsistence of evil, that God does not allow any of his created substances to pass out of existence, and that Christ assumed the whole of humanity in his incarnation.
Athenagoras of Athens
Athenagoras the Athenian was a philosopher-apologist of the late second century. In his apologetic Plea for the Christians, he refers to punishment from God, but says nothing about its duration (Legat 31, 36). In his treatise on the resurrection, his views are fleshed out more clearly. Athenagoras believed that the soul exists after death of body, but its situation during death is like sleep, with no sensation or awareness of existence (De Resurrectione 16–17, 20). The resurrection is a change for the better, for everyone who is in existence at that time (12). The natural end of humanity is to be reconciled to God, and this proves the necessity of a future resurrection (14–15).
Athenagoras held that both soul and body must be judged together for their deeds, so there will be punishments after the resurrection (20–23). Yet the ultimate telos of every human is the same, to “delight unceasingly in the contemplation of” God — “the great multitude of those who resist this appropriate end does not make void the common lot,” because rewards and punishments are proportioned to the deeds done by each individual (25). Neither of Athenagoras’ writings provide a clear view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. His argument in On the Resurrection could be read in a way that points to either infernalism or universalism, depending on how we read his concluding statements – whether he’s saying that the majority of people do not reach their natural end in this life, or that they never reach their natural end.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement was a teacher at the catechetical school of Alexandria, which according to the later historian Philip of Side was founded by Athenagoras, at the end of the second century. Clement is the first early church father who is widely (almost universally) agreed to have been a universalist, as this view is found explicitly across his writings. [2] This is especially the case for his Stromata, which is an intellectual work of systematic theology, as opposed to his apologetic Protrepticus and pastoral Paedagogus. Clement warns unbelievers about the aeonian punishment that awaits them in his apologetic work (Prot 9; cf. Quis Div Salv 33).
However, in Clement’s works written to other Christians, he says that this punishment is intended to restore; indeed, “punishment, by virtue of its being so, is the correction of the soul” (Strom I.26; cf. IV.24; VI.6.45–47; VII.16.102; Paed I.8). The fire of hell purifies those who pass through it, so that God, “by the perfect judgment, compel[s] egregious sinners to repent” (Strom VI. 34; VII.2.12). The conclusion (telos) of each person’s journey is their “restoration” (II.22.134). Therefore, the Son is truly “the Lord and Savior of all,” because those who don’t now believe in him will eventually confess him (VII.2). The restoration will be truly “eternal” (aidios) since then we will have been made perfect in love (VII.10). In this restoration, we will be gathered from “the concord of many” into “one church, one human being, one nature” (III.10). Once again, these ideas (punishment as restorative, and restoration as unification) would be further developed by later universalists.
Bardaisan of Edessa
Bardaisan was a prominent Christian theologian in the Middle East at the end of the second century and beginning of the third. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, he was a Valentinian ‘gnostic’ at first, but converted to orthodox Christianity and wrote polemics against the ‘gnostics,’ most notably his dialogue On Fate (EH 4.30.1-3). At the end of this dialogue, Bardaisan concludes that God’s providence will ultimately succeed in his plans to help creatures, but he has allowed each nature to remain in error “for a short time” according to their wills, while preventing them from completely harming each other.
The time will come when the harm that endures in them [i.e., each nature] will be dissipated because of the teaching that will be in another mixture. In the constitution of this new world all rebellions will cease and all strife come to an end. The foolish will be persuaded and defects will be repaired and there will be peace and quiet from the bounty of the Lord of all natures. (Liber 58)
Based on this passage, Ramelli concludes that Bardaisan is an example of universalism prior to Origen. [3] Since Liber Legum Regionem is the only surviving writing by Bardaisan, the most likely conclusion based on the existing data is that he was indeed a universalist, and his ideas of the importance of human freedom of choice (over against ‘fate’) and the restoration as the repairing of all imperfections would be further developed by later Christian universalists.
Tertullian of Carthage
Tertullian was an apologist based in Carthage at the beginning of the third century. He was the first to present a developed view of infernalism in which unbelievers will be tormented without end. In his view, God doesn’t punish in order to restore, but out of anger and vengeance toward sinners (Contra Marcion I.26-27). According to him, every human will be resurrected, and those who did evil will be tortured in fire “without ending and without break,” for “the immeasurable ages of eternity” (Apologeticus 18; 45; 48). Tertullian argued against the annihilationist interpretation of Matthew 10.28 and other passages, claiming that “destruction” is compatible with continual existence in torture (De Res Carn 35). Oddly, he says that the greatest and most joyful spectacle, over against the “spectacles” of contemporary Roman society, will be watching one’s enemies tortured in flames forever (De Spec 29–30).
Tertullian never indicates that his view is an innovation, which suggests that he inherited this view from his (yet unknown) predecessors. He knows about annihilationist beliefs and arguments, and refutes them in his treatise On the Resurrection of the Flesh (35). It’s possible that he was influenced by the translation of aiōnios into Latin as aeternus (the latter means “eternal,” while the former is polysemic and doesn’t necessarily refer to eternity). This seems less likely given that he was well-learned in Koine Greek and wrote several books in that language. Tertullian helped popularize infernalism in the Western, Latin-speaking church, and this view was also adopted by Minucius Felix and Cyprian of Carthage, two other third-century Christian writers from North Africa.
Conclusion
Among the second-century church fathers, there was for the most part still no clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. The ideas of some writers point toward annihilationism (Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons) while other writers held views that point toward universalism, or at least developed concepts that would be adopted and further developed by later Christian universalists (Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Bardaisan of Edessa). Other writers merely speak of future punishment for the wicked, but don’t provide a clear description of this punishment (‘Mathetes’, Athenagoras of Athens). The most developed views of the ultimate fate of unbelievers are found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, a universalist, and Tertullian of Carthage, an infernalist.
______________________________
[1] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 89-107.
[2] See for example John R. Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 618-620.
[3] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Origen, Bardaiṣan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation,” Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 2 (2009): 150-166.
No comments:
Post a Comment