The Second-Century Apologists
After the so-called ‘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 came from mostly philosophical backgrounds, and were strongly influenced by the Platonist worldview of their day, especially in their concept of God. [1] These writers combated many views that they considered to be heresies (e.g., Gnosticism, Docetism, modalism) and in turn strongly influenced the developing ‘proto-orthodox’ Christianity.
‘Mathetes’
The anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus, conventionally known as ‘Mathetes’ due to his self-designation as a “student [mathētēs] of the apostles” (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 (Diog. 6.8). However, he also believed that the wicked would be punished by “the real death,” namely, “the aiōnios fire that will punish... until the telos” (10.7). Based on this, Mathetes may have been either an annihilationist or a universalist, depending on whether he believed the telos would involve final destruction or salvation. If he was a universalist, it’s no surprise that he didn’t emphasize this belief, given the pastoral context of the letter.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr was a former Platonist who converted to Christianity in the mid-2nd century, and was martyred for his beliefs in ca. AD 165. Justin believed that the soul isn’t inherently immortal, but 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 aiōnios and be punished for more than a thousand years (1 Apol. 8; 18; 28; 52; Dial. 45).
Therefore, Justin was an annihilationist who believed that unbelievers would be tortured for a time and then utterly destroyed. He appears to have been the first to hold this view, with the likely exception of 2 Clement (see the previous post); many before him believed that unbelievers would be annihilated, but that they wouldn’t even be resurrected first (i.e., conditionalism). Justin attributes this view, that the wicked would be tortured, to Plato as well as Christ, with the distinction that this torture would be aiōnios rather than one thousand years as Plato taught (1 Apol. 8).
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). Tatian appears to have been either an annihilationist or an infernalist, based on his sole surviving writing, the Oration to the Greeks. He states that those who don’t know the truth will be resurrected and “receive death by punishment in immortality” (Or. 13), and that people either “receive immortality with either enjoyment or pain” (Or. 14). The idea of eternal hopeless torture may have first arisen in Gnostic circles, as it also appears in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John (23.40).
On the other hand, Tatian also says that the soul is inherently mortal, and that it “is dissolved with the body,” but “it dies not” after being resurrected only if it knows the truth (Or. 13). Thus, it’s possible that Tatian was an annihilationist like his teacher Justin, believing that the wicked would be destroyed after painful torture. This is admittedly difficult to square with his statements that the ignorant would receive pain in immortality.
Theophilus of Antioch
Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch in the late 2nd century; his sole surviving work, the Apology to Autolycus, was written to convince a pagan friend about Christianity. Theophilus says that whether or not Autolycus believes now, he will see God in the resurrection and then believe (ad Autol. 1.7-8). He warns Autolycus about the aiōnios punishment “in proportion to [your] deeds” that was taught about even by the Greek philosophers (1.14; 2.34-38).
Yet Theophilus also says that humanity, after discipline for sin, is intended to be restored “after the resurrection and judgment.” Just like a vessel which is broken up and remade, every human is broken up in death “that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal” (ad Autol. 2.26). Immortality is a reward from God (2.27), yet as Theophilus said earlier, Autolycus will be raised immortal whether he believes now or not (1.7-8). He says that the beasts that were created on the sixth 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” (2.17).
Therefore, Theophilus was most likely a universalist. However, this isn’t very explicit in his Apology to Autolycus, because his purpose there is to convince Autolycus to believe now, so that he avoids the aiōnios punishment.
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 (7.4; 12.5). “At the last time,” everything including humanity will be burnt up by fire, “but the righteous will be preserved from wrath” (18.13-14). Based on these limited data, we can conclude that Melito was probably a conditionalist or annihilationist.
Irenaeus of Lyon
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon, France toward the end of the second century. Unfortunately, most of his book Against Heresies is preserved only in Latin, and fragments of the original Greek are sparse. 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 aiōnios fire, or aeternus ignis in the Latin (AH 1.10.1; 2.27.7; 3.4.2; 23.3; 4.27.4; 33.11; 40.1-41.3; 5.26.2-28.4; 35.2). This self-inflicted punishment is “death” and the destitution of all that is good, and it’s “eternal and never-ending” (5.27.2). The soul does continue 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” (2.34.3-4). Immortality and incorruptibility are a gift for those who are adopted as sons of God, and is not received by those who despise the Son of God (3.19.1). There will be a general resurrection (5.35.2), but the “resurrection of the just” to immortality is only for believers (2.29.2; 4.18.5; 5.35.1). Thus, it appears that Irenaeus was an annihilationist.
On the other hand, Ramelli notes that some of the surviving Greek fragments of Against Heresies point toward universalism. [2] In frag. 4, Irenaeus states, “Christ will come at the telos of the times in order to annul everything evil, and to reconcile again all beings, that there may be an end of all impurities.” God allowed humanity to be swallowed by Satan, like Jonah was swallowed by the whale, but will reconcile humanity to himself via discipline (AH 3.20.1-2). Adam, in whom all of humanity is represented, must be saved; Irenaeus rebukes Tatian for denying this, and quotes Romans 5.12-21 (3.23.2-8). Frag. 12 of book 5 says that those who incline toward evil, and all who die in Adam as “soulish” (i.e., all people) will “live in Christ as spiritual” when their fleshly desires are destroyed. The resurrection of the just will first take place, but after this will take place the general resurrection of people who have been “disciplined beforehand for incorruption” (AH 5.35.2). Irenaeus cites 1 Cor. 15.25-28 to show that at this time, death will be destroyed, all will be subjected to Christ, and God will be “all in all”; there will, however, be gradations of salvation (5.36.1-2).
In summary, there’s a tension in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies between annihilationism and universalism. It’s possible that some of this tension is due to the mistranslation of aiōnios as aeternus (i.e., “eternal”) in the Latin. If this is the case, Irenaeus was most likely a universalist.
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 less pastoral treatise on the resurrection, his views are more clear. 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 (chap. 16-17, 20). The resurrection is a change for the better, for everyone who is in existence at that time (chap. 12). The natural telos of humanity is to be reconciled to God, and this proves the necessity of a future resurrection (chaps. 14-15).
Both soul and body must be judged together for their deeds, so there will be punishments after the resurrection (chaps. 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 finite and proportioned to the deeds done (chap. 25). Therefore, Athenagoras was a universalist, as he believed that the natural telos of humanity (to be reconciled to God) must ultimately be received by everyone who has that human nature.
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. [3] 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 aiōnios punishment that awaits them (Prot. 9; Quis Div. Salv. 33). However, in his 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. 1.26; cf. 4.24; 6.6.45-47; 7.16.102; Paed. 1.8). The fire of hell purifies those who pass through it, so that God, “by the perfect judgment, compel[s] egregious sinners to repent” (Strom. 7.2.12; 6.34). The telos of each person’s journey is their apokatastasis, “restoration” (Strom. 2.22.134). Therefore, the Son is truly “the Lord and Savior of all,” because those who don’t now believe in him will eventually confess him (Strom. 7.2).
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 ‘proto-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 will is unstoppable, but he has allowed each nature to remain in error “for a short time” 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. [4] 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.
Tertullian of Carthage
Tertullian was an apologist based in Carthage at the beginning of the third century. He was certainly an infernalist who thought that unbelievers would be tortured eternally. In his view, God doesn’t punish in order to restore, but out of anger and vengeance toward sinners (Contra Marcion 1.26-27). According to him, every human will be resurrected (contra conditionalism), 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). Most disturbingly, he says that the greatest and most joyful spectacle will be watching one’s enemies tortured in flames forever (De Spec. 29-30).
The cause of Tertullian’s infernalism is unclear. He doesn’t seem to think that his view is an innovation, but he betrays a knowledge of annihilationist beliefs and arguments (De Res. Carn. 35). It’s possible that he was influenced by the translation of aiōnios into Latin as aeternus (the latter means “everlasting,” while the former is more ambiguous). However, this seems unlikely, given that he was well-learned in Koine Greek and wrote several books in that language.
Whatever the reason for his infernalism, Tertullian popularized this view in the Western, Latin-speaking church. Cyprian, a bishop of Carthage in the third century, certainly held to eternal hopeless torture (see Treatises 5.24), as did the fourth-century Latin father Hilary of Poitiers (De Trin. 11.22-29). Annihilationism also remained popular in the Western church, as I will show in the next post.
Conclusion
Among the second-century fathers, both annihilationism and universalism were popular. The former view was held by Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and possibly Tatian of Adiabene; the latter view was held by Theophilus of Antioch, probably Irenaeus of Lyon, Athenagoras the Athenian, Clement of Alexandria, and Bardaisan of Edessa. ‘Mathetes,’ the author of the mid-second century Epistle to Diognetus, may have been either an annihilationist or universalist, but either way, he believed that the torture of unbelievers would have an end at the telos. Infernalism, the belief that unbelievers will be tortured eternally and hopelessly, is first attested during this period, possibly in Tatian and certainly in Tertullian of Carthage.
______________________________
[1] Thomas E. Gaston, “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” The Heythrop Journal 50, no. 4 (2009), 573-580.
[2] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 89-107.
[3] See for example John R. Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 618-620.
[4] 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