Writing around 248 A.D. the famous early Christian scholar Origen of Alexandria mentions some Christians who confuse together Jesus and God:
If [the pagan critic] Celsus misunderstood certain people who do not confess that the Son of God is the Son of Him who created the universe, that is a matter between him and those who agree with this doctrine. …We affirm that this person is Son of God – yes, of God to whom, if we may follow Celsus’ words, we ‘pay very great reverence;’ and we know His Son who has been ‘greatly exalted’ by the Father.
But we grant that some among those among the multitude of believers take a divergent view, and because of their rashness suppose that the Saviour is the greatest and supreme God. But we at least do not take that view, since we believe him who said: ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I.’ [John 14:28] Consequently we would not make Him whom we now call Father subject to the Son of God, as Celsus falsely accuses us of doing.
Origen, Contra Celsum [Against Celsus] Book VIII, Section 15, trans Henry Chadwick, p. 462, emphases added.
For all his problems, Origen was not a confused “Jesus is God” apologist. He would endorse as sound my argument against them. He thinks that Jesus and his Father differ in various ways, and not only functionally. He would deny that they’re the same god, and he affirms that the Father is the only true God, the only one who is “God” in the highest sense. He would stoutly deny that Jesus was divine in that sense. (See also his Commentary on John Book II, where he is especially clear about this.)
Do you agree with Origen and me that this is a sound argument? Why or why not?
For more on Origen’s theology, check out my “podcast 24 – How to be a Monotheistic Trinitarian.“
I understand the interest to demonstrate that the so-called “church fathers” views were very different from 4th century and later Trinitarian ideas and formulations, and I think you guys do a great job at that.
But frankly, they were all mixing Greek philosophical musings with Scripture and thus their exegesis has already moved far from the Torah-following-apostles’ teaching and the collection of Hebrew writings they called Scripture. Their anti-Jewish stance is quite telling and their arrogance is nothing short of remarkable. They created “Christianity,” out of their imaginative readings of the Bible. My point being, those who rely on “church fathers'” teaching have already diverged so far from the Bible that using them as a basis for understanding the Bible is a fool’s errand.
Some people in the middle ages also thought that Torah in itself implies some connection with Aristotle.–like the Rambam [Maimonides] and the Obligations of the Heart. [But not all. Others like the Ramban were very much against Aristotle]
Yes, there are quite a few Jews who have tried to merge the two worlds. Of course, that was even Philo’s mission in the 1st century and one of the reasons Jews essentially rejected his work while Christians embraced and preserved it. But how do any of those help if we are trying to actually discern what the authors of the Bible wanted to communicate?
My own approach is that I think it does help to combine reason and faith. But I can also see your point. Your point is one that I need to think about. For you might be right that the Torah and Prophets were meant to be understood on their own terms.
I agree with you, thoughtful reasoning is critical – the biblical authors consistently use it and expect it to be used. So I don’t think that lack of reasoning per se is the issue, but rather what people are seeking to get from the Bible. For many people, that is a recipe for personal “salvation” which means they are open to being sold a theology that suits their fancy, rather than listening carefully and honestly to what the Bible is actually saying. they then use lots of “reason” to find what they want. Trinitarianism is but one glaring piece of evidence for that.
Dale,
I have had a question about Origen and Irenaeus and the early church fathers. Did they believe that the Logos was a pre-existent eternal divine being alongside of the Father? Or did they believe that the Logos was an eternal aspect of God?
did origen think that jesus is not pre-existed, but pre-ordained ?
Origen would probably have agreed with Justin Martyr that there is “another god and lord subject to the maker of all things; who is called an angel” (Dialogue with Trypho 56).
Comments are closed.