Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-2-apostolic.html
‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation, with this post focusing on the beliefs of the 2nd-century apologists.
During the 2nd century, a number of disciples of the apostolic fathers as well as pagan converts began to formulate a systematic theology for Christianity. At the same time, a number of proto-‘heresies’ began to arise in opposition to the proto-orthodoxy. These included gnosticism, docetism, Sabellianism (modalistic monarchianism), and several others. This post will examine the beliefs of several prominent second-century individuals, including both orthodox apologists and gnostics, regarding the eschatological fate of unbelievers.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165) was one of the first Christian apologists. Justin grew up with pagan beliefs and was converted to Platonism at a young age (Dialogue with Trypho 2), until he met an old man who converted him to Christianity. In his later life, Justin was a prolific writer, although unfortunately only three of his works survive: two Apologies and a book called Dialogue with Trypho which details Justin’s attempt to convert Trypho the Jew (who may or may not have actually existed). He was martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, from which he obtained the posthumous name Martyr.
Unfortunately, the beliefs of Justin Martyr on the fate of unbelievers are unclear, not because he failed to explain them but because he gave conflicting opinions throughout his writings. However, the old man who converted him was plainly an annihilationist, as he believed that the soul was not inherently immortal and that unbelievers would be annihilated after a set time of punishment:
“Nor ought [the soul] to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten... But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.” (Dialogue with Trypho 5)
Likewise, elsewhere in the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin seems to adhere to a conditionalist belief. He states in chapter 45 that he believes only the righteous will receive immortality, whereas the devil and his angels along with sinners “may be destroyed... and be no more, when some are sent to be punished unceasingly into judgment and condemnation of fire; but others shall exist... in immortality”. Because of the emphasis on destruction and annihilation, it is highly likely that Justin had conditional immortality in mind here rather than infernalism or universalism.
However, there are also many passages from Justin’s First Apology that seem, rather, to support infernalism instead of annihilationism:
And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo eonian punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. (First Apology 8)
For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if issued in insensibility, would be a godsend to all the wicked. But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eonian punishment is laid up, see that you neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. (First Apology 18)
First of all, we must note where Justin’s apparent belief in infernalism came from. It did not spring from the convictions of the old man who converted him, who was a conditionalist and not an infernalist. Instead, it apparently came from his former Platonism, since in the first quote, he clearly attributes the origin of his belief in this doctrine to Plato; however, instead of being at the hands of Rhadamanthus and Minos, it will be at the hand of Christ, and instead of being a thousand years, it will be eonian.
Second, note that however damning these passages may seem against Justin’s previous acceptance of conditionalism in Dialogue with Trypho, he never actually states that the punishment will be absolutely eternal — that is, in Greek, aidios — but instead says that it will be ‘eonian,’ aiōnios. The ‘thousand years’ likely refers to Christ’s Messianic kingdom, which Justin did believe would last for a literal millennium (Dialogue with Trypho 80-81), and so he could simply be refuting the belief that the punishment would last for the Millennium and no longer.
Moreover, these passages are in a pastoral context and not a pedagogical one; Justin is attempting to convert people from paganism to Christianity, and so of course he would make the condemnation of unbelievers seem worse than it actually will be, which is also a device used in the contemporaneous Apocalypse of Peter as described earlier. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether Justin believed in infernalism or annihilationism, although he almost certainly did not believe in universalism.
Tatian the Assyrian
Tatian (c. 120 - 180) was a Gnostic apologist who helped to form the first Syrian church. Although he was originally an orthodox Christian and a disciple of Justin Martyr, his contemporary Irenaeus says that after Justin’s martyrdom, Tatian left the Church and began to associate with Gnostic ideas like those of the early second-century heretic Valentinus, a conditionalist (Against Heresies 1.28.1). Several of his works survive today, most notably the Diatesseron (a harmony of the four Gospels) and his Address to the Greeks.
Tatian came up with his doctrine on the fate of unbelievers, a particularly undesirable form of infernalism, as a bastardization of the gnostic infernalism of Valentinus and the (possibly annihilationist) eschatology of his teacher Justin Martyr. He agreed with Valentinus’ division of humanity into three classes: the material class (unbelievers), the psychic class (Christians), and the spiritual class (gnostics). The material class, according to Tatian, would not have immortal souls; instead, their souls would die at the death of their body, only to be raised up again in immortality for punishment.
The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not, although for a time it be dissolved. (Address to the Greeks 13)
And as we, to whom it now easily happens to die, afterwards receive the immortal with enjoyment, or the painful with immortality, so the demons, who abuse the present life to purposes of wrong-doing, dying continually even while they live, will have hereafter the same immortality, like that which they had during the time they lived, but in its nature like that of men, who voluntarily performed what the demons prescribed to them during their lifetime. (Address to the Greeks 14)
However, for his particularly gnostic form of infernalism in which all ‘material’ men would be eternally punished, Tatian was condemned by the orthodox and universalist apologist Irenaeus of Lyons:
[Tatian] entangled himself with all the heretics... endeavoring from time to time to employ sayings of this kind often by Paul: “In Adam we all die,” ignorant, however, that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” (Against Heresies 3.23.8)
Tatian clearly believed in infernalism and followed his gnostic teacher Valentinus in this respect. However, this same infernalism put him outside the accepted orthodoxy of his day.
Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus (c. 130 - 202) was a bishop of Lyons in modern-day France, a prominent Christian apologist who helped to formulate the proto-orthodoxy of his day. His major work Against Heresies was monumental in combating the growing gnostic heresy as well as a number of other heterodox doctrines. Unfortunately, very few fragments of the original Greek text of this work are available, and most of it is only available in Latin or Armenian, which creates ambiguity as to whether, for example, Irenaeus used the word aiōnios (‘eonian’) or aidios (‘eternal’) to refer to punishment, both of which are translated into Latin as aeternum.
It is sometimes said that because Irenaeus used the terms ‘eonian punishment,’ ‘eonian fire,’ ‘furnace of fire,’ ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth,’ etc., that he must have been an infernalist. However, this ignores the fact that all three competing soteriologies — infernalism, conditionalism, and universalism — believe that these biblical terms are compatible with, or even better suited to, their own beliefs. Therefore, these terms cannot be used to show that Irenaeus believed in any one of these three views, since he was merely quoting these terms from the Bible, which all three views agree is inspired.
Apart from this, there are two main passages from Against Heresies that are often used to support the idea that Irenaeus was an infernalist or a conditionalist:
For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for the age of the age. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed, deprives himself of continuance for the age of the age. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?” indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for the age of the age. (Against Heresies 2.34.3)
Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eonian and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eonian and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. (Against Heresies 5.27.2)
The first passage is often interpreted by annihilationists as stating that unbelievers will be annihilated for “ever and ever.” This is a misunderstanding, however, of the Latin underlying the passage, which says “juste non percipient ab eo in saeculum saeculi longitudenum dierum”; the phrase “in saeculum saeculi” is a literal rendering of the Greek phrase eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos, ‘for the age of the age.’ This is interpreted by some as referring to the Messianic Age (cf. Hebrews 1:8), echoing the biblical truth that unbelievers will not be resurrected until after that Age (Revelation 20:4-6), which would be entirely compatible with the other passages from Irenaeus demonstrating universalism.
The second passage is more difficult to reconcile with the other universalist passages from Against Heresies. The underlying Greek text which is available for this fragment describes the punishment of unbelievers as aiōnios (‘eonian’) and ateleutētos (‘without end’). Although the word ‘eonian’ does not describe eternality and is often used in the LXX and New Testament to refer to temporal things, ateleutētos does carry with it a sense of eternality. What Irenaeus meant when writing this passage can’t be determined for sure, but it should be interpreted in light of the many universalist passages in Against Heresies cited below.
Apart from the two passages above, Irenaeus in Against Heresies is overwhelmingly universalist in his theology. A few of the passages that support this are quoted below.
There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements, and gathered together all things in Himself… so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time. (Against Heresies 3.16.6)
Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life; and the last enemy, death, is destroyed, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, “what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting?” This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death’s destruction. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed. (Against Heresies 3.23.7)
Note: this verse only refers to the salvation of Adam, but it is interpreting Adam as the federal head of all of humanity, by which therefore all will be saved at death’s destruction (1 Cor. 15:26, Rev. 20:14): “we are all from him; and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title” (Against Heresies 3.23.2).
...although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead, to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect. (Against Heresies 5.5.2)
And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God; and therefore the wisdom of God, by means of which she saves all men (Against Heresies 5.20.1)
He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam… in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death. (Against Heresies 5.21.1)
An even more clearly universalist passage written by Irenaeus can be found in the Fragments attributed to him. This passage not only describes universal reconciliation in no uncertain terms, but relates it to the consummation (telos) of the ages, just as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and as Origen later did.
Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end [telos] of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities. (Fragments 39)
Therefore, despite the handful of passages which are sometimes used to argue that Irenaeus was actually an infernalist, we can be almost certain that Irenaeus believed in a universal reconciliation at the consummation of the ages. This is highly significant, since he was the champion of orthodoxy in his day; if he believed in universalism, then it must have been an orthodox doctrine during the second century.
Theophilus of Antioch
Theophilus (d. 183) was a patriarch of the city of Antioch and an early Christian apologist, alongside Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Only one of his works survives to this day, his Apology to Autolycus, although he was said to have written numerous anti-heresy works and commentaries.
Theophilus repeatedly refers to the righteous judgment of God which He will send upon the wicked and unbelieving (Apology to Autolycus 1.7, 1.14, 2.37), and that He uses the eonian fire to carry out this punishment. However, as stated previously, this is merely biblical terminology which is used and agreed upon by infernalism, conditionalism, and universalism alike. Moreover, he appears to suggest that it will be possible, though undesirable, for his readers to repent afterward:
Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eonian punishments (Apology to Autolycus 1.14)
Theophilus also believes that all those who do not repent in this life will eventually be saved in the next. In the second book of his Apology, he exegetes Genesis 1-3 using an allegorical hermeneutic by which he interprets each day of creation as a type of unbelievers and/or salvation. In his interpretation of the sixth day of creation, and the formation of wild beasts, Theophilus says that they are a type of unrepentant sinners who will nevertheless be restored in the end.
The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not… And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first — for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good — but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him… When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. (Apology to Autolycus 2.17)
Another interesting takeaway from this passage is that Theophilus seems to have a similar take on the problem of evil as the later Origen, who believed that evil was not something inherently created by God, but merely the absence of the goodness of God, and so would be annihilated when God became “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).
Later in book two of the Apology, Theophilus interprets Adam’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden as an act of mercy, by which humanity would later be restored to its original goodness — another important foundation of the doctrine of universal restoration which would later be completely expounded by Origen. He also states that man is in a way ‘remolded’ and ‘made whole’ through death and judgment, which is very clearly a description of restorative and corrective judgment and not the hopeless, retributive judgment of infernalism.
And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not allow him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. (Apology to Autolycus 2.26)
Therefore, Theophilus also believed in universalism and was in good company with his universalist contemporaries, the apologists Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement (c. 150 - 215) was a theologian and teacher of the Christian ‘school’ at Alexandria. He is widely regarded today as a universalist, and Origen of Alexandria, the first to officially formulate the doctrine of universal restoration, was his pupil. Three of his major works survive today, the Protrepticus, Paedagogus, and Stromata, as well as a short treatise called Who is the rich man that shall be saved?
Throughout Clement’s writings, especially his Stromata, there is a clear theme of universal salvation. In Clement’s view, because evil cannot be inherent to the creation lest God be evil, anyone who sins does so out of ignorance and bondage to sin; only those who have been freed from sin, i.e. Christians, can voluntarily sin, and yet their sins are not imputed to them because they have been pardoned (Strom. 2.15). Therefore, anything short of a universal restoration to goodness would be contrary to God’s just nature.
Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge, and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. Thence His providence is in private, in public, and everywhere… And how is He Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all? But He is the Savior of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess Him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by Him... Now everything that is virtuous changes for the better; having as the proper cause of change the free choice of knowledge, which the soul has in its own power. But necessary corrections, through the goodness of the great overseeing Judge, both by the attendant angels, and by various acts of anticipative judgment, and by the perfect judgment, compel egregious sinners to repent. (Stromata 7.2)
Elsewhere also, Clement interprets the eonian fire as a judgment meant to correct, not as a retributive or hopeless judgment:
But we say that the fire sanctifies not flesh, but sinful souls; meaning not the all-devouring vulgar fire but that of wisdom, which pervades the soul passing through the fire. (Stromata 7.6)
For there are partial corrections, which are called chastisements, which many of us who have been in transgression incur, by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised, collectively and individually. (Stromata 7.16)
Finally, just as Irenaeus of Lyons and later Origen did, Clement connects the eventual universal restoration to the consummation:
And the apostle [Paul], succinctly describing the consummation, writes in the Epistle to the Romans: “But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end eonian life.” And viewing the hope as twofold — that which is expected, and that which has been received — he now teaches the consummation [telos] to be the hoped-for restoration [apokatastasis]. (Stromata 2.22)
Therefore, we can be sure that Clement of Alexandria was a universalist. His pupil Origen seems to have derived much of his doctrine from Clement’s ideas, as well as possibly Irenaeus of Lyons and Theophilus of Antioch as well.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, space did not permit me to write about all of the Christian teachers and apologists of the second century. Otherwise, I might have talked about the apologist known as ‘Mathetes’, one of the last apostolic fathers, who wrote that he believed the eonian fire would afflict “until the consummation [telos],” or Bardaisan, the Syrian pseudo-gnostic who taught universal restoration and was a major influence on Origen of Alexandria. [1] However, this short rundown of prominent second-century Christian individuals should still give the reader a good idea of how prevalent the idea of universalism was in the early Church, and how it was considered orthodox.
In summary, although annihilation remained popular among some holdouts from the apostolic age, such as the old man and possibly his disciple Justin Martyr, who likely followed the apostolic fathers Polycarp and (possibly) Ignatius in their conditionalism, Christian universalism became far more prevalent in the second century. Irenaeus of Lyons, the bastion of orthodoxy in his day, was a prominent and outspoken universalist, as were his contemporaries Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. A nascent belief in infernalism and eternal torment remained confined to fringe gnostic sects, primarily those of Valentinus and Tatian. As we shall see in the next post, infernalism only spread to some orthodox communities in the third century, and even then remained a fringe belief.
Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-4-rise-of-proto.html
No comments:
Post a Comment