This now is my tenth and final April 18 anniversary post. The blog started on April 18, 2012, and with this post I will finish all the previous posts from April 18. This one, from 2021, is especially interesting for anyone intrigued by early Christian attempts to figure out who Christ was. God? Human? Half of each? Both at once? How’s *that* work???
******************************
In this long thread on the Trinity I have been trying to explain how Christians came to the view that Jesus was God but that he was separate from God the Father – that both were God, but they were two different persons, and yet there was only one God. I will have far less to say about the Spirit, since he/she/it got added to the mix more or less because Christ was already in it, as we will see.
So far I have taken us up to the early third century, where one view had come to be widely rejected even though earlier it had been prominent: that Jesus actually *was* God the Father, come in the flesh (often called “modalism”). Now I want to look at a more sophisticated way of understanding the relationship of Christ to the Father. This one comes in the writings of Origen, one of the truly important Christian thinkers of the first three Christian centuries.
Origen came from Alexandria and was exceptionally learned and unbelievably prolific. According to the church father Jerome, Origen published 2000 books, including commentaries on the Bible, treatises, and homilies. He was without a doubt the most influential theologian before St. Augustine. In part that was because he accepted the “orthodox” view of things but tried to figure out how they actually *worked*. No one had done that before, at least in anything like this depth.
Origen provided an overview of his thinking in his book “On First Principles” (sometimes it goes by its Latin name, De Principiis, even though he wrote it in Greek). You can still buy it today! It’s very interesting reading if you are intrigued by early Christian theology. Among other things, Origen tries to figure out how Christ could be equal with God, fully God himself, yet distinct from God, and human too.
How exactly could a pre-existing divine figure become human? How, in becoming human, did it not diminish its divinity? And how can the human be divine without ceasing to be human? Origen’s solution is one of the ideas that ended up making him susceptible to the charge of heresy – centuries after his death. He came to believe in the “pre-existence of souls.” In this view, not only did Christ pre-exist his appearance on earth as a human, so did everyone else.
Now here’s a view you don’t run across every day — or could even guess! To see how it works, join the blog! There’s a small membership fee, and every nickel of it goes to charity Click here for membership options
Did anybody ever reason that if the souls were designed to adore God and failed to do that sufficiently, that’s a failure of the Designer?
No one in antiquity, I don’t think. Certainly in modern times.
Jesus is half Jewish and half son of the deified king that had aegis over Northern Galilee until 20 BCE – Aretas. Both son of man, and son of god (common term for Near East royalty.)
So, the Herodian dynasty was founded by the usual boringest ways – Antipater I the Idumean’s marriage alliance with wife Cypros, a Nabataean royal.
Antipater,’s son, Herod the Great rises to King of the Jews by the usual boring marriage alliance with *Jewish* princess Mariamne the Hasmonean. (With the blessing of deified Julius Caesar, father of Ptolemy Something Something Son of God.)
But then Herod the um, Great exnayed her and his half-Jewish sons. Oops, no Jewish lineage.
How are they going to reboot the alliance, when all except Agrippa I are past conceiving?
A handmaid.
Genesis 16:1
Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar.
Luke 1:38
Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
The story of Hagar is the Nabataean’s *founding story.* Also, their Lord of Heaven, Duʻshara is born of a virgin. They were consciously leveraging *famous events* syncretically.
And, just like Charlemagne’s lineage diffused out to the ‘general population’, the tribal Davidic line provided that normie.
Excellent point!
Origen’s view has some interesting points in common with Mormon theology.
https://www.mormonwiki.com/Pre-Mortal_Life
Or, well, vice versa. 🙂
I have a question.
I have been reading Paul’s letters over again and I am intrigued about his view of Jesus, especially his idea that Jesus gives him commands and teachings.
Paul always differentiates between God and Jesus, calling Jesus Lord.
To Paul, what was the meaning of calling Jesus Lord? What does Lord mean to him?
Paul believed that God had exalted Jesus to become the Lord of the earth, equal in authority to himself (Phil. 2:8-10). The term “lord” can refer to various persons who have authority over someone else — God, master, employer, husband, king, ruler. Paul saw Jesus as the ultimate Lord because of his now-exalted position.
Thank you for your reply. It was very helpful.
Hi Bart,
I have a question.
I recently finished rereading Romans and I stumbled upon Romans 13:9, “….’Love your neighbor as yourself’…” It seems that Paul is quoting Torah and may have been influenced by Rabbi Hillel. He does not attribute this saying to Jesus.
Is it possible that Mark used Paul’s summary of Torah and put it onto Jesus’ lips?
He also quotes it in Galatians 5:14 (see also James 2:8). This is a passage widely quoted in early Christianity (obvioously from Lev. 19:18), and there are no indications that the authors are picking it up from Hillel — it was also a widely quoted passage in Jewish circles. Jesus’ own recorded usage differs from Hillel, of course. So it seems likely that it was widely seen as a nice summartion of the intent of teh Jewish law.
Thank you for your insightful reply.
Do you think Paul is gaslighting us and speaking out of both sides of his mouth? As you said, he quotes Lev. 19:18 which part of Torah. He uses stories in Genesis ( part of Torah) to make his points. But then he describes the law as creating more sin and calling Jews blind.
It seems to me really Paul, for whatever reason, is ashamed of the outward or physical rituals of Torah, but wants everyone to follow the behavioral rules.
He calls the behavioral rules of Torah the “law of Christ”.
What do you think?
Paul’s view of the Law is extremely complicated, difficult to summarize, and open to much debate. But it’s clear that he certainly thought the Law was fully authoritative. The main problem with it though is that it provided instruction on what a person needed to do and not do to be pleasing to God, but not the power necessary to do (or not do) it. Only the Holy Spirit could make it possible for a person to obey the law fully, and so the law, even though “holy, righteous, and good,” brought a curse on people. That’s why people needed Christ. When there had faith and were baptized they were “united with Christ” and for that reason “died to sin” — meaning they were no longer subject to the power sin exerted on everyone since Adam. The Spirit came into the person and enabled them, then, to live as God wanted.
Wonderful material, Dr. B, I appreciate it. The Trinity and its development is something that really interests me. I wonder how far down the ladder this is understood and followed in the Xn population in general?
I hope you will follow up on this. I know you are a historian, not a theologian, but the two are intertwined. I find the Trinity concept far out, but that is just me.
I deal with it at length in my book How Jesus Became God. And no, I don’t think many (even devout) Christians have wrestled with the issues at any length these days. But in the fourth century, it was hot stuff apparently.
The theory or belief reminds me of Hinduism
Bart, I have recently became interested in biblical scholarship again and wanted to know what scholars besides yourself you recommend to get a “well rounded”
1. view of early Christianity
2. Jewish rejection of Jesus as their Messiah
3.Why Paul became accepted as foundational to Christian thought.
I asked this in the forum and got some gold responses but wanted your answer also.
Cheers.
Ah, there are hundreds of options. Some of the big names today would include Dale Allison, Amy-Jill Levine, Joel Marcus, Paula Fredriksen, E. P Sanders … and, well, lots of others!
You can probably find some of their books on the Internet Archive website.
Do they have blogs or youtube channels that you know off, Dr Bart ?
I don’t really know, but it would be easy to find out I should think.
To my eyes, Origen’s ideas read like an early example of Apologetics – an improbable belief, which then drives an improbable explanation. I would much rather the Church simply declared the Trinity a mystery, beyond all human comprehension, and believing in it is precisely why one requires faith.
One thing that struck me listening to the Molecule of More by Dan Lieberman
The chemical dopamine seems to be behind a tremendous amount of the world’s innovation and curiosity (in any and all things) and comes with its own huge pitfalls too.
One study showed the more migrated a group is the more alleles it has to being dopamine shifted (as opposed to more contented)
Anyways it strikes me that Paul is super mobile, often restless but also an extremely creative theological innovator. He doesn’t just have visions and extract elaborate new ideas from them, he makes up new answers on the spot like what happens to those expecting christ to return and having died or if we are free from the law and being enslaved to sin what are our rules now, etc
James and Co having been relatively stable most of their lives brought that to their Christianity. They weren’t able to out-mobilize and out-innovate Paul. And the people who would be most into Paul and developing novel understandings of Christianity would be the most mobile of them, most capable of spreading novel views and innovating them.
Unsurprising America is a hotbed of theological innovation!
1.) Did Origen think Jesus (or Jesus’ soul?) was uniquely appointed to his position or could anyone attain to that spiritual level in theory and Jesus was the one who did so?
2.) The implication is that one attains a spiritual level in the present life because of one’s actions in a previous life. Did Origen (or anyone) speculate about Jesus’ past lives?
1. I don’t think Origen thought Christ was predestined to be the one; he just happened to be the only one to pull it off. 2. Yes, his past life was spent in contemplating the reality of God for all the ages up to the time of his incarnation.
“Origen published 2000 books, including commentaries on the Bible, treatises, and homilies.”
Can we infer that the Christian communities at Alexandria that Origen associated with were wealthy, being able to support the publication of so many writings?
Also, is it clear from his writings whether Origen believed that the unfallen soul was always wholly united with the Son/Logos of God, or was there a period of time when that soul was not yet identified with the eternal divine Son?
His *patron* (a man named Ambrose) was wealthy! Yes, he compares it to a piece of iron being put into a fire. After a long time the iron takes on all the attributes of the fire, so that if you tuoch it you would not be able to tell the difference. That’s what eventually ahppened to the soul of Christ.
When exactly was Origen’s view of pre-existing souls condemned as heresy?
The fifth ecumentical council, at Constantinople, in 553 CE.
They took a long time to think about it!
The issue didn’t arise until the end of the fourth century in what is called “The Origenist Controversy.” It was a complicated affair but it brought in the heavy-hitters among the theologians as they tried to determine teh orthodoxy of Origen’s theology. Eventually his side lost. And yup, the condemnatoin came about three centuries after his death.
I have no problem following Origin’s views, even his view of pre-existing soul existence, and I would have gone further to a less Aristotalian view that our individual substance is the primary substance. I would rather formulated it the other way around that the divintiy is the primary substance. as it can be reflected in the watery light in a water circle where the expansion is our own expansion into a currently perceived reality in space and time. Perhaps thats why I have no problem with the concept of the trinity. I have not even a problem concieving my own trinity as soul, mind and physical and embraze it in what I term “myself”
It seems to me that the “forces” that regarded Orion as heretics have lead us to understand the concept of Christ, God the father and the Holy spirit into technical terms. Most of the various definition of Trinity for about 4-5 centuries, and even up to the forumlation of the Tritheist” concept of trintiy in the 6th century. or so, is in my mind more of confusin nature and makes the concept just more difficult to understand
Bart,
2 questions:
1. I’ve been reading about Thomas Aquinas and was wondering if you could help me better understand his view of the afterlife – he seems to believe in eternal torture for the damned (and tries to justify it) but beyond that I’m a bit confused. Some material begins to talk about his belief in a few “layers” of hell and even a portal where those in heaven could observe those in hell. But there is so much material on him its hard to sort thru it all…if you could clear this up for me I would greatly appreciate it.
2. Over 1000 years after the “good news” came into the world it still hadn’t reached 1/2 the continents…unless your a Mormon! (N,S America and Australia, setting the 7th Antarctica aside) and I dont recall any explanation or even discussion about this in modern apologetics-Why such large geographic areas would be excluded by God for so long from hearing the news. Things like this were big meta reasons why I eventually left the church. Have you ever heard the church or an apologist try to address this issue?
TY have a good start to your week!
SC
1. I’m afraid I’m not an expert on Aquinas, at all. But I assume his views are reflecting and influenced by his understanding of Purgatory (a fairly recent doctrine in his day, discussed in his Summa); 2. Good question! I don’t know.
I know something about Aquinas.
1) he is explicit that hell is eternal
2) he is also explicit that the intensity of suffering in hell is not equal for all, but varies according to their personal guilt.
3) I don’t know about a “portal”, but he certainly thought those in heaven would be cognizant of the suffering of those in hell.
Finally, sincerely begging Dr. Ehrman’s pardon, I believe the general idea of purgatory–a temporary place of punishment after death–can be seen in Christian literature well before the 13th cent., as only one early example, the Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, 2:3-4.
In my book on Heaven and Hell I have a discussion of forerunners of the idea of purgatory in these and other early Christian texts. But the concepts found in these works are not the same as developed in the doctrine of Purgatory. (Read my discussion and you’ll see)
Origen’s views sound awfully similar to some of the Gnostic views about how souls ended up in the physical world.
At the time of Jesus, I believe there were factions in Judaism who believed King David was a son of God (Psalms 2:7, 2 Samuel 7:14). Do you know with regard to the different translations of Matthew 22:43-45, Mark 12:36-37, and Luke 20:42-44, is Jesus trying to question this claim and to what end? Do any of the early Christian theologians try to incorporate the concept of son of God as an existing Jewish theological point (if I’m interpreting that correctly) as support for the Christian concept? However, I am pretty sure that the Jewish factions didn’t carry David’s “lineage” to a level of divinity.
Yes, these OT references are refering to Davidic kings (his descendants, not him); and yes that was the standard expectation in Jesus’ day, that hte messiah would be the son of David and in that ssne the son of God. But only rarely was he expeted to be the Son of God in the sense that he would be a divinen being instead of human chosen by God. Those interesting disputes of Jesus about how David’s son could also be his Lord are read in various ways by NT scholars. Most historical scholars (I think) see it as a disclaimer that the the messiah was to be a descendant of David (allowing Jesus to be the messiah without being Davidic); I’ve never found that convincing. I think he’s posing a problem that his opponents can’t answer in order to show his superiority in understanding scripture, with the suggestion that the problem is that they can’t explain HOW it’s possible (but the Xns themselves know)
Would Origin’s view also be viewed suspiciously as it reads to me that the son is a creation according to this view? Did Origin also believe in universal reconciliation?
1. Yup, that was a problem 2. Yup, that was even a bigger problem (since he included the Devil among the “everyone” who would in the end be saved)
What a great topic… and interesting read.
I have thought about both how to analogise about both the Trinity and how Jesus could be both God/divine being and mortal man at the same time into layman’s terms… back when I was a little more devout.
I like the iron/fire analogy.
Re: Jesus’ divinity/humanity. Try separating one’s deliberate act of thought from one’s actual consciousness, or subconscious act of simply being alive; – with everything functioning correctly internally/behind the scenes. Ie; heart beat, breathing, swallowing mechanism etc.
Thought and consciousness are one, yet different (deliberate and non- deliberate) … yet not dissectible. – Analogy only, of course.
Re: Trinity; One GOD…embodied within as Father, Son, Holy Spirit… each separate to one another, yet all are one.
GOD; Consciousness… all encompassing.
Father; (Act of) THOUGHT… or… ‘I think that I would like to read the bible’
Son; Word; DECISION… or… ‘I am going to read the bible’
Holy Spirit; Enabler, Comforter… ACTION… or picked up the bible and reading it.
Again… the above is only meant as an analogy.
Bart on Origen: “… this soul which belongs to Christ so chose to love righteousness as to cling to it unchangeably and inseparably in accordance with the immensity of its love; the result being that by firmness of purpose, immensity of affection and an inextinguishable warmth of love, all susceptibility to change or alteration was destroyed, and what formerly depended upon the will was by influence of long custom changed into nature. (2.6.5)”
Would Origen say that Jesus (not his pre-existent soul, but the incarnate Jesus) did not have free will?
I think his point is that he did have free will, and was the only one who chose to use if properly.
Bart: “I think [Origen’s] point is that [Jesus] did have free will, and was the only one who chose to use if properly.”
That is certainly true with respect to the pre-incarnation soul of Christ, ever choosing to perfectly contemplate God’s Word and Wisdom, but once “all susceptibility to change or alteration was destroyed, and what formerly depended upon the will was by influence of long custom changed into nature,” would he still have the freedom of will to choose otherwise? Was the incarnate Jesus more of a robot, merely acting out its divine nature and programming, no longer able to choose anything less than divine perfection? Does Origen ever address freedom in this sense? Or is our modern notion of freedom irredeemably anachronistic?
I don’t think Origen thought in terms of robotics. Jesus’ will was fused to the will of the Father by his choice, so by doing his will he was doing the FAther’s will. At least that’s how I read him. Don’t know if you’ve seen John Behr’s two volume edition of On First Principles; it’s a superb sustained analysis. But, well, prohibitively expensive. I don’t recall offhand what he ssays about all this.
Dr. Ehrman,
I found an interesting argument presented in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, dated 11 April 1823:
“[Jesus’] doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st chapter of John, in these words, ‘εν αρχη ην ὁ λογος, και ὁ λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ὁ λογος. οὑτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον. παντα δε αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε ἑν ὁ γεγονεν.’ which truly translated means ‘in the beginning God existed, and reason [or mind] was with God, and that mind was God. this was in the beginning with God. all things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.’ ”
I am not versed in Greek. Do you think his translation is valid?
Yes, LOGOS, usually translated “Word,” is used to mean “thought” and “reason.” “Mind” is pretty close, in the modern way of thinking. Logos was widely discussed in ancient Hellenistic philosophy, and Jefferson was probably influence by Stoics, who thought Logos was a divine essence that permeated the entire natural order, and to live well meant living in accordance with Logos (“reason” personified in a sense)
Have you considered the possibility that Jesus was the product of Mary having been RAPED by a man?
Yup. It has been a theory around for a very long time; in antiquity it was suggested to have been a Roman soldier.