Tag: Clement of Alexandria

Posted on

Arius was an Alexandrian conservative, not a rebel.

Summary

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arius’ theology was an innovation opposing established orthodoxy. But this article shows that almost everything he said was said by somebody else before him.

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, Arius was not the founder of Arianism. The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer.

A very large number of names have been suggested as predecessors of Arius. The following discusses the possible predecessors chronologically:

Plato’s philosophy of the world’s origins, in which he distinguishes between that which exists without cause and the universe as we perceive it, which had a beginning, still dominated in the fourth-century intellectual world. He influenced many or all theologians in Arius’ day.

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. He was not the source of Arius’ idiosyncrasies. Philo contributed to the Alexandrian theological tradition, and Arius’s theology is firmly within that tradition. 

Gnosticism was also not the source of Arius’ theology. Arius repeatedly rejects the favourite Gnostic concept of the ‘issue’ of beings from God.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) shared a common ethos with Arius but differed in some key respects from Arius. For example, Clement taught the eternity of the Son.

Origen (185-253) was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. There were many similarities but also substantial differences between Origen and Arius. Both believed that the Son is a distinct Person, subordinate to the Father, but Origen emphasized the unity of the Father and Son much more than Arius.

Dionysius of Alexandria (bishop from 247 to 264), like Arius, described the Son as a creature, alien in ousia from the Father, and rejected homoousios. It is impossible to avoid seeing some influence from his work in the theology of Arius. If Arius formulated his theology from various authors before his time, Dionysius of Alexandria certainly contributed to it.

Paul of Samosata was bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268. He believed that Jesus did not exist before His birth. Arius strongly opposed this idea and said that the Son existed before time began. 

Theognostus of Alexandria (wrote 247-280) believed that the Son is part of the Father, namely, the Father’s Logos, that the Son is an issue of the Father, that the ousia of the Son was of the Father’s ousia, and explicitly rejected the theory that the Son was created out of nothing. 

Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311), like Arius, taught that the Father alone exists without cause, with the Son wholly dependent on the Father, and described the Son as the first of all created things, through whom He created all other things.

Lucian of Antioch died as a martyr in 312, the year before Christianity was legalized. Arius claimed to have followed Lucian, but we do not know what Lucian taught.  

Antioch or Alexandria? – Some modern scholars have asked whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as Arius’ spiritual and intellectual home. In a recent book on Arius, Williams concluded that Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian.

Conclusions

Arius did not cause the Controversy. The 4th-century controversy continued the Controversy of the preceding century.  

It seems as if Arius was particularly influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia. 

Arius did not say anything new but selected and reorganized traditional ideas.

Introduction

The 4th-century Arian Controversy began with a dispute between Arius, a presbyter, and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt. He confronted his bishop in 318 for ‘erroneous’ teachings concerning the nature of the Son of God. Their disagreement escalated to such an extent that Emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea in the year 325, where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and soon rejected.

Purpose

This article identifies Arius’ antecedents: From whom did Arius receive his theology? In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arius’ theology was an innovation opposing established orthodoxy. Show More

In contrast, this article shows that almost everything Arius said was said by somebody else before him.

Arius and Arianism

In the traditional account, Arius was the founder of Arianism. In reality, he was of no great significance. Show More

He is regarded as important today because Athanasius falsely claimed that the anti-Nicenes followed Arius, calling them ‘Arians.’ For that purpose, Athanasius quoted at length from Arius, pretending that he was showing the faults of his opponents. Show More

But Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius. In fact, they opposed some of Arius’ more extreme statements. Show More

Authors Quoted

Following Gwatkin’s book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the subject have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books, published over the past 50 years:

Hanson, R.P.C. – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

Williams, Rowan – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987)

Ayres, Lewis – Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea (2011)

Arius’ Predecessors

“A very large number of names have been suggested as predecessors of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 60)

“His enemies first associated him with Paul of Samosata and with Judaizing tendences in Christology; later on, after the reputation of Origen had been virtually ruined in the Church, Arius was regarded by some as an Origen redivivus. Some more modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home” (Williams, p. 116).

The next section discusses the possible predecessors chronologically:

Plato

All theologians in Arius’ time were influenced by Plato. 

Plato’s philosophy of time and the origin of the universe still dominated in the fourth-century intellectual world and shaped what most influential writers of that time said about creation:

“Plato’s Timaeus served as the central text upon which discussions of the world’s origins focused, not only in late antiquity, but right up to the revival of Christian Aristotelianism in the thirteenth century. …

There can be no doubt that for many of the most influential writers of the age, from Origen to Eusebius Pamphilus, the contemporary discussion of time and the universe shaped their conceptions of what could intelligibly be said of creation” (Williams, p. 181).

“Plato distinguishes between:

What exists without cause and, therefore, always exists and never comes into being, and

The universe as we perceive it, which had a beginning, is not eternal, and never exists stably” (Williams, p. 181).

Furthermore, Plato argues that, since the cosmos is beautiful, it must be modeled upon what is higher and better. The Creator made something like himself, reflecting order and beauty. To establish this order, God created time. The heavenly bodies are made in order to measure and regulate time. In other words, so to speak, time did not always exist. (Williams, p. 181-2)

Philo of Alexandria

All Alexandrian theologians were also influenced by Philo. He was not the source of Arius’ idiosyncrasies. 

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy, similar to how the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries interpreted the New Testament.

Wolfson claimed that Arius followed Philo. He wrote:

“Arius was responsible for ‘a reversion to the original view of Philo’ on the Logos, after the aberrations of a modalism which deprived the Logos of real subsistence” (Williams, p. 117). 

But Hanson rejects this claim:

“Wolfson … suggested that Philo may have been a former of Arius’ thought because he too taught two Logoi, and the creation of one of them ex nihilo, and the incomparability of God. But then, Wolfson was obsessed to an excessive degree with the influence of Philo on the fathers; Philo’s Logos-doctrine is confused and obscure; he does not make the same division between the Logos and God as did the Arians. We cannot claim Philo as an ancestor of Arius’ thought” (Hanson, p. 60). 

After discussing the evidence, Rowan Williams comes to a similar conclusion. He says:

The similarities between Philo and Arius “should not … mislead us into hastily concluding that Arius was an assiduous student of Philo. What all this shows is, rather, that Philo mapped out the ground for the Alexandrian theological tradition to build on, and that Arius’ theological problematic is firmly within that tradition” (Williams, p. 122-123). 

Gnosticism

Arius also did not receive his theology from the Gnostics. 

“There are some resemblances to Gnostic doctrines in Arius’ thought. … But these resemblances are either too general or refer to terms used for different things in the two authors. Furthermore, Arius several times rejects the favourite Gnostic concept of the ‘issue’ … of beings, from God” (Hanson, p. 60). 

Clement of Alexandria

Clement’s theology is significantly different from that of Arius. 

Clément (150-215) was the bishop of Alexandria (the same city where Arius and his bishop lived) in the early third century.

His theology included one of the peculiar aspects of Arius’ theology, namely, “two Logoi.” (See the explanation below.) However, Clement’s “two Logoi are quite different from those of Arius” (Hanson, p. 60).

Furthermore, while Arius taught ‘there was when He (the Son) was not, Clement taught “the eternity of the Son” (Hanson, p. 60).

After showing that Clement’s theology is significantly different from that of Arius, Williams concludes:

“However, this is not to deny that Clement also passes on a positive legacy to Arius and his generation. … There are the numerous parallels in vocabulary between Arius’ Thalia and the language of Clement” (Williams, p. 126). 

“It is less a question of a direct influence on Arius than of a common ethos … Arius begins from the apophatic tradition shared by Philo, Clement and heterodox Gnosticism … but his importance lies in his refusal to … (admit) into the divine substance … a second principle” (Williams, p. 131). 

Origen

There were many similarities but also substantial differences between Origen and Arius. 

Origen (185-253) was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. “From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy” (Williams, p. 131). The similarities and differences between Origen and Arius are discussed in a separate article. Both believed that:

      • Only the Father exists without cause.
      • The Son does not know the Father fully.
      • The Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. 
      • The Son was produced by the Father’s will.

Both denied the Nicene teaching that the Son is from the Father’s substance and that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father.

Although both described the Son as God, both also described the Son as a creature.  

There were also significant differences between them:

Both believed the Son to be subordinate to the Father. However, Origen had a much higher view of the Son than Arius. 

While Arius presented the Father and Son as two distinct and independent divine Beings, Origen regarded them as one, not literally or in terms of substance, but from our perspective. 

Hanson concluded:

“Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, … he certainly did not adopt any large or significant part of Origen’s theology” (Hanson, p. 70).

Arius “was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist” (Hanson, p. 98).

Dionysius of Alexandria

Arius probably received his theology from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was the bishop when he was born. 

“Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 264” (Hanson, p. 72). “The Arians … were adducing (offering) Dionysius of Alexandria as a great authority in the past who supported their doctrine” (Hanson, p. 73). For example, Dionysius wrote:

“The Son of God is a creature and generate,
and he is not by nature belonging to but is alien in ousia from the Father, just as the planter of the vine is to the vine,
and the shipbuilder to the ship; Further, because he is a creature he did not exist before he came into existence” (Hanson, p. 73).“Dionysius … rejected homoousios because it did not occur in the Bible” (Hanson, p. 75).

He opposed Sabellianism:

“Athanasius defends Dionysius, though he admits that he wrote these words, on the grounds that the circumstances, since he was combating Sabellianism, justified such expressions” (Hanson, p. 73).

“Basil … says that Dionysius unwittingly sowed the first seeds of the Anhomoian error, by leaning too far in the opposite direction in his anxiety to correct wrong Sabellian views” (Hanson, p. 74).

Hanson concludes as follows:

“However Dionysius may have refined his later theology, it is impossible to avoid seeing some influence from his work in the theology of Arius. The later Arians and Basil were right. The damning passage quoted from his letter … is altogether too like the doctrine of Arius for us to regard it as insignificant” (Hanson, p. 75-76).

“If, as seems likely, Arius put together an eclectic pattern of theology … Dionysius of Alexandria certainly contributed to that pattern” (Hanson, p. 76).

In conclusion, of the writers discussed thus far, Dionysius is the first one who could have been the source of Arius’ theology.

Paul of Samosata

Paul believed that Jesus did not exist before His birth, but Arius said that the Son existed before time began. 

Paul was the bishop of Antioch (260-268). “Many scholars have conjectured that the views of Paul of Samosata, or at least of his school, must have influenced Arius” (Hanson, p. 70). However, Paul described Jesus as a mere man, though maximally inspired:

“Apparently for Paul the Son was Jesus Christ the historical figure without any preexistent history at all. And the stock accusation made against Paul by all ancient writers who mention him from the ivth century onward was that he declared Jesus to be no more than a mere man” (Hanson, p. 71).

“Apart from his superiority to us in all things because of his miraculous generation, he is ‘equal to us’. Wisdom dwells in Jesus ‘as in a temple’: the prophets and Moses and “many lords’ (kings?) were indwelt by Wisdom, but Jesus has the fullest degree of participation in it” (Williams, pp. 159-160). 

Arius strongly opposed this idea:

“This is an idea which all Arian writers after Arius (and, in my view, probably Arius himself) regularly rejected.” “Arius believed firmly in a pre-existent Son” (Hanson, p. 71).

“Arius … ranges himself with those who most strongly opposed Paul” (Williams, p. 161).

Theognostus of Alexandria

Arius believed the Son to be a distinct Person. Theognostus believed that the Son is part of the Father. 

“We cannot glean any satisfactory evidence that Theognostus was a predecessor of Arius” (Hanson, p. 79). Theognostus wrote between 247 and 280. In other words, he lived later than Dionysius. His view “echoes Arian concerns in insisting that the Father is not divided,” but he also had some quite un-Arian views, such as that:

The Son is an issue of the Father (Hanson, p. 78).

“The ousia of the Son … was (not) introduced from non-existence, but it was of the Father’s ousia” (Hanson, p. 77).

“Theognostus explicitly disowned the doctrine, which Arius certainly held, that the Son was created out of non-existence” (Hanson, p. 78).

While Arius taught “that there are two Logoi (one immanent in the Father and one a name given somewhat inaccurately to the Son), … Theognostus insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79). 

To say there is only one Logos means that the Son is the Father’s only Logos, which further means that the Son is part of or an aspect of the Father. This is similar to the traditional Logos theology, in which the Logos always existed as part of God, but later became a distinct Person.

Methodius of Olympia

Like Arius, Methodius taught that the Father alone exists without cause, with the Son subordinate to Him. 

Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311) was a bishop, ecclesiastical author, and martyr.

He was “the most vocal critic of Origen in the pre-Arian period” (Williams, p. 168). He “seems to assume that Origen’s doctrine of the eternity of creation implies the eternity of matter as a rival self-subsistent reality alongside God” (Williams, p. 168).

He “produces some views which interestingly resemble those of Arius. For example:

“God alone … is ingenerate [meaning, exists without a cause]; nothing else in the universe is so, certainly not, he implies, the Son.” (Hanson, p. 83)

“God the Father is the ‘unoriginated origin’, God the Son the beginning after the beginning, the origin of everything else created” (Hanson, p. 83). 

The Son is “the first of all created things” (Hanson, p. 83).

“God the Father creates by his will alone. God the Son is the ‘hand’ of the Father, orders and adorns what the Father has created out of nothing” (Hanson, p. 83).

“The Son … is wholly dependent on the Father” (Hanson, p. 83).

Lucian of Antioch

Arius followed Lucian, but we do not know what Lucian taught.  

The authorities above are discussed in chronological sequence. Lucian was the last of them. He died as a martyr in 312, only 6 years before Arius and his bishop clashed.

“Jerome ... describes Lucian thus: ‘A very learned man, a presbyter of the church of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 81). 

Arius followed Lucian:

“Arius describes Eusebius of Nicomedia, to whom he is writing, as ‘a genuine fellow-disciple of Lucian’” (Hanson, p. 80), implying that Arius himself was a “disciple of Lucian.”

Philostorgius also described Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of Arius’ close friends, as “the _ disciple of Lucian the martyr” (Hanson, p. 81).

Epiphanius identifies “the Arians” with “the Lucianists” (Hanson, p. 80). 

Lucian, like the Arians, taught that the Logos, at the Incarnation, assumed a body without a soul. Therefore, the Logos directly experienced the pain and death of the cross.

“According to Sozomen, the second creed of the Dedication Council on Antioch in 341 was said to be a confession of faith stemming from Lucian” (Williams, pp. 163-4; cf. Hanson, pp. 80-81).

“There is one fact, and one fact only, which we can with any confidence accept as authentic about Lucian’s doctrine. … Lucian taught that the Saviour at the Incarnation assumed a body without a soul” (Hanson, p. 83).

“’Lucian and all the Lucianists’, he (Epiphanius) says, ‘deny that the Son of God took a soul [i.e., a human soul], ‘in order that, of course, they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos” (Hanson, p. 80). 

But Arius deviated from Lucian in at least one respect:

“Philostorgius knew of a tradition that Arius and the Lucianists disagreed about the Son’s knowledge of the Father, (Williams, p. 165).

While Arius maintained “that God was incomprehensible … also to the only-begotten Son of God” (Williams, p. 165), “the Lucianists … were remembered to have held that God was fully known by the Son” (Williams, p. 165). 

Arius might have been a follower of Lucian, but we cannot confirm that because we do not know what Lucian taught. 

“We can be sure that Arius drew on the teachings of Lucian, but … we do not know what Lucian taught” (Hanson, p. 82, cf. 83). “Our witnesses to Lucian’s theology are fragmentary and uncertain in the extreme” (Williams, p. 163).

“It is wholly unlikely that Arius was a vox clamantis in deserto [a lone voice calling in the desert]. He represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch, and the school was to some extent independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, p. 97).

Antioch or Alexandria?

Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian. We have no justification even for regarding him as an exegetical rebel.

“Some … modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home” (Williams, p. 116).

However, “the stark distinctions once drawn between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis or theology have come increasingly to look exaggerated (Williams, p. 158).

Nevertheless, “Arius is an unmistakable Alexandrian in his apophaticism [knowledge of God]. … We have no real justification even for regarding him as a rebel in the matter of exegesis” (Williams, p. 156). “Arius inherits a dual concern that is very typically Alexandrian” (Williams, p. 176).

Conclusions

Cause of the Controversy

Arius did not cause the Controversy. It continued the 3rd-century Controversy 

The analysis above shows that the authors preceding Arius had conflicting views about the nature of the Son. Sabellian and his supporters are not even mentioned above because Arius was on the opposite end of the spectrum. Consequently, Arius did not cause the Controversy. It continued to Controversy that raged in the preceding century:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background” (Ayres, p. 20).

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii). 

Authors who influenced Arius

Arius was particularly influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia. 

Arius opposed Gnosticism and Paul of Samosata.

Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian in his theology, and the general heritage of the church in Alexandria was shaped by Plato, Philo, Clement, Origen, and Lucian:

Arius’ theology was “clearly the result of a very large number of theological views” (Williams, p. 171).

The two authors whom Arius could rightly claim as his theological ancestors are Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympia:

It is likely that Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria contributed to Arius’ theology (Hanson, p. 76).

Bishop Methodius of Olympia regarded the Father alone as ingenerate; the ‘unoriginated origin’ and the Son as the first of all created things and wholly dependent on the Father (Hanson, p. 83).

While Hanson said that “Arius … represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 97), Williams proposed that “it is perhaps a mistake to look for one self-contained and exclusive ‘theological school’ to which to assign him” (Williams, p. 115).

Arius’ Theology

Arius did not say anything new but selected and reorganized traditional ideas.

Arius’ book (The Thalia) “is conservative in the sense that there is almost nothing in it that could not be found in earlier writers; it is radical and individual in the way it combines and reorganizes traditional ideas and presses them to their logical conclusions” (Williams, p. 177). 

“Arius … can no longer be regarded as the strange monster of heresy which Gwatkin, and even Harnack, depicted him to be” (Hanson, pp. 84-85). 

Specific Doctrines

This second section discusses specific doctrines that Arius might have received from his predecessors. This section relies on both the discussion above and the article – Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy?

Like Arius:

Origen, Dionysius, and Methodius described the Son as a ‘creature,’ and said that the Father alone exists without a cause. The term ‘creature’ describes any being that does not exist without cause. Show More

All theologians of the first three centuries believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Show More

Origen taught that the Son does not fully understand the Father.

Several authors taught that “the Son was produced by the Father’s will. Show More

Dionysius of Alexandria “rejected homoousios” (Hanson, p. 75) and Origen would not have accepted it (see here). Show More

Dionysius of Alexandria said that the Son did not always exist. Show More

Different from Arius:

However, nobody said, like Arius, that the Son was formed from nothing. However, that was simply the logical conclusion of saying that the Son did not exist before He was begotten. Show More

One or Two Logoi

Some, like Arius, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria, spoke about two Logoi. Others, like Theognostus of Alexandria, “insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79):

To say there is only one Logos means that the Son is the Father’s only Logos, which further means that the Son is part of or an aspect of the Father. This is similar to the traditional Logos theology, in which the Logos always existed as part of God, but later became a distinct Person. Nicene theology also proclaimed one Logos:

“There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431, quoting Athanasius).

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54).

“Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father” (Ayres, p. 16).

To say there are two Logoi means that the Son is not the Father’s only Logos, but that an additional Logos was created when the Son was begotten. This is what the Arians said:

“Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that was not distinct from the Father’s hypostasis, after whom the Son is designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55).

“There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13, cf. 16, Athanasius’ paraphrasing of Arius’ teaching). 

The Core Issue

None of the issues above was the core issue in the Controversy. The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being (a distinct Existence) or part of the Father. That difference explains all other differences between theologians:

If they are a single Existence (one hypostasis), as the Nicenes claimed, then the Son is eternal and of the same substance as the Father, and only one Logos exists.

But if they are two distinct Existences (two hypostases), then:

        • The Father alone exists without a cause.
        • The Son did not always exist but is a ‘creature, produced by the Father’s will.
        • The Son does not fully understand the Father.

See here for a discussion of the core issue in the Controversy. That article identifies the core issue by analysing the various phases of the Controversy and by showing who opposed whom.

Other Articles

Posted on

How did the early church fathers interpret Daniel 9?

ABSTRACT: This article discusses Jewish views and surveys the interpretations of 12 Christian writers of the first four centuries. The purpose is to determine how their views compared to those of modern interpreters. It shows that there was a strong consensus among the early church fathers that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.

Purpose

This is a summary of a scholarly article by Paul Tanner. For more detail and references, please see that article.

Most critical scholars do not see the Messiah in Daniel 9. They believe that the prophecy was fulfilled in the second century B.C., in the time of Antiochus IV.

Jewish exegetes tend to see the fulfillment of this passage with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

In contrast, although the church fathers of the first four centuries after Christ differed over the details of interpretation, this article shows that there was a strong consensus among them that Daniel’s seventy weeks were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Just a disclaimer not mentioned by Tanner: According to Daniel 12:4, the prophecies of Daniel will only be understood at “the end of time.”

Jewish Interpretations

While the modern translations say that the Messiah will be cut off after the 62 weeks (Daniel 9:26), the pre-Christian Old Greek translation stated that “the anointing will be taken away” after 139 (years). Then “the kingdom of the Gentiles will destroy the city and the temple with the anointed one.” This was then interpreted as 139 years after the beginning of the Seleucid era (311–310 B.C.), bringing us to 172–71 B.C., that is, the approximate year of the murder of the high priest Onias III during the troublesome times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It seems, therefore, as if, in the centuries after Antiochus IV, the Jews interpreted the passage to refer to Antiochus IV and the translators adapted the translation accordingly.

The Essenes were a mystic Jewish sect that flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE. For them:

    • The promised Messiah is the Messiah of Israel; the Son of David.
    • The 70 weeks began with the return from the Exile.
    • The 70 weeks (490 years) will expire between 3 B.C. and A.D. 2.
    • The Messiah will arrive in the preceding 7 years.

There is, therefore, evidence for both a messianic and nonmessianic interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy before the Christian era. However, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 decisively altered the Jewish interpretations of Daniel 9:24–27. Beckwith concludes:

“Up to A.D. 70, … the different reckonings of the seventy weeks … must have existed among the rabbis as three rival interpretations. After A.D. 70, however, when the Messiah had not come as expected, but the desolation also foretold in Daniel 9:26–27 had, it was natural to tie the end of the seventy weeks to A.D. 70 and also to adopt a non-messianic interpretation of the prophecy.” (Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming,” 536.)

For example:

Josephus, a historian and a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D., viewed the fulfillment of the prophecy in the events leading up to A.D. 70.

The Jewish chronological work, Seder Olam Rabbah, which was composed about A.D. 160, and which provides a chronological record that extends from Adam to the Bar Kokhba revolt of A.D. 132–135, claims that the seventy weeks were seventy years of exile in Babylon followed by another 420 years until the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70.

Christian writers

Justin Martyr

Early Christian writers often used the 70-weeks prophecy to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the promised Messiah. For that reason, it is strange that Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 153–165) never made a reference to Daniel 9 in his apologetic work Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, though he made fourteen other references to Daniel.

Irenaeus

The earliest clear Christian reference to Daniel 9:24–27 is by Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180). He did not explain the 490 years or the 7 years or the 434 years or the Messiah in Daniel 9:25-26. What he did was to interpret the little horn of Daniel 7 as the Antichrist and to associate the little horn’s period of dominance (“a time, times, and half a time” – Dan 7:25, 12:7) with the last half of the 70th week. On the basis of Matthew 24:15, he interpreted Daniel 9:27 as that “the abomination of desolation shall be brought into the temple” when the Antichrist literally goes into the Jewish temple for the purpose of presenting himself as Christ.

Clement

Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 200) was the first Christian writer to explain the time periods in Daniel 9, although he was a bit vague about the details. For him:

    • The “most holy” one (Dan 9:24) is Jesus Christ.
    • The 490 years began with Cyrus.
    • The first seven weeks (49 years) were the period of the construction of the temple.
    • The 62 weeks led up to the first advent of Christ.
    • The final week includes Nero’s erection of an “abomination” in Jerusalem as well as the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70.

Clement, therefore, included both Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in the 490 years. But this implies a gap between the first 69 weeks and the last week.

Tertullian

Tertullian (ca. A.D. 203) had a unique explanation of the time periods. Instead of three periods for the seventy “weeks” (7 + 62 + 1), he has only two: 62½ and another of 7½. For Tertullian:

    • The “anointing” of the “most holy” (Dan 9:24) refers to Christ.
    • The first period of 62½ weeks (i.e., 437 1/2 years) was the period from Darius (when Daniel received the vision) until the birth of Christ.
    • With His first coming, “vision and prophecy” were “sealed” (Dan 9:24 – i.e., there is no longer a vision or a prophet to announce His coming).
    • The final 7½ (i.e., 52½ years) refer to the time from the birth of Christ until the first year of Vespasian (Roman emperor from AD 69 to 79) when Herod’s temple was destroyed.

Tertullian therefore, by making certain calculation errors, was able to include both Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in the 490 years. Therefore, he did not need a gap as Clement did.

Hippolytus

Hippolytus (A.D. 202–230) wrote the first extant commentary on Daniel. For Him:

    • The “anointing of “the most holy” in Daniel 9:24 refers to the anointing of Christ in His first coming.
    • The first seven weeks were the 49 years before Joshua, the high priest. The Messiah in verse 25 is this Joshua.
    • This was followed by 62 weeks (434 years) from Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Ezra until Jesus Christ.
    • The Messiah in verse 26, who was cut off, is Jesus Christ.
    • The final week will be a future period of seven years in which the Antichrist will come to power. Then Elijah and Enoch will appear as the two witnesses (Rev 11:3-4).
    • This means that a “gap” of time will separate the first 69 weeks and the final “week.”

Hippolytus, therefore, interpreted the Messiah as Jesus Christ but, similar to modern Dispensationalism, interpreted the final week as a future period of seven years when the Antichrist will rule. This type of interpretation follows from the assumption that the crisis in Daniel 9:27 is the same as the crisis caused by the little horn of Daniel 7. One of the articles on this website has concluded that this is an incorrect assumption and that, while Daniel 9 deals with Israel and the 490 years allocated to her, the other prophecies in Daniel deal with all nations and all time (see, same crisis?).

Julius Africanus

For Julius (writing after A.D. 232):

    • The 490 years began with Artaxerxes’ second decree in the twentieth year of his reign (444 B.C.).
    • The seventy weeks came to an end when Christ was baptized and entered into His public ministry (A.D. 28–29). Therefore, the entire seventy weeks were fulfilled by the time of the first advent of Christ.
    • From 444 BC to 28 AD is only 472 years (475 in Julius’ calculation); not 490. To make it fit, Julius claimed that the Jews, on the basis of moon months, reckoned a year as 354 days. This reduces the 490 to 475 literal years.

Julius did not explain how the 70th week relates to his view.

Origen

For Origen (after A.D. 215):

    • Daniel’s seventy weeks-prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.
    • The seventy weeks began with Darius the Mede.
    • The Messiah in Daniel 9:25 is Jesus Christ.

In his commentary on Matthew, Origen had a different interpretation in which:

    • The “weeks” are “weeks of decades” rather than “weeks of years.”
    • There are 4,900 years from Adam to the end of the last week.

Origen also espoused extensive allegorical interpretations. For example, he said:

    • “The going forth of a word to restore” refers to God’s command at Creation.
    • “To restore and rebuild Jerusalem” refers to Christ’s coming.
    • The Messiah in verse 26, who was cut off, refers to the high priesthood, and the “cutting off” was the termination of the Hasmonean line by Herod the Great.
    • The final week is the seventy years extending from the Day of Pentecost.
    • The “middle of the week” was the destruction of the temple and the city.
    • The “prince who is to come” was the Jewish king of that time (apparently Agrippa II).

It is, therefore, a bit difficult to pin Origen down non this matter, but it is clear that he saw the prophecy as fulfilled in the first century A.D.

Eusebius

The church historian Eusebius Pamphili (ca. 260–ca. 340) gave an extended discussion of Daniel 9:20–27 in his Demonstratio evangelica (book 8, chap. 2):

First 69 weeks

    • The 490 years began with the completion of the temple in the second year of Darius (516-515 B.C.).
    • The 69 weeks concluded in the days of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus in 36–32 B.C.
    • The Messiah was cut off (v26) when the last of the “high priest-governors” was removed with the death of John Hyrcanus II, who was murdered by Herod in 30 B.C.
    • The destruction of the city and sanctuary was fulfilled in a metaphorical sense with Herod the Great and then literally by the Romans in A.D. 70.

Last Week

    • The covenant in the seventieth week is the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ.
    • The first half of the week was the 3½ years of His public ministry.
    • “He will put a stop to sacrifice” (Dan 9:27) was fulfilled at His death, when the veil in the temple was rent in two and the sacrifices were removed (i.e., from God’s point of view, they were no longer viewed as valid).
    • The second half of the week was fulfilled in Jesus’ post-resurrection period.
    • The “abomination” in Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled when Pilate brought the images of Caesar into the temple by night.

This interpretation seems to require a gap between the first 69 weeks and the last week.

Apollinaris

For Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea (ca. A.D. 360):

    • The seventy weeks was the time between the two advents of Christ.
    • The 70th week would occur at the end of the world. At that time, the Antichrist would be manifested, literally enter the temple (2 Thess. 2), and issue a decree outlawing the offering of sacrifices.

In other words, Apollinaris was expecting the return of Christ within a hundred years of the time he wrote. As stated under Hippolytus, in the view of this website, this type of interpretation confuses Daniel 9:27 with the crisis of the little horn of Daniel 7.

Julius Hilarianus

Hilarianus (A.D. 397) was “the first patristic writer to adopt a non-Messianic interpretation of the Seventy Weeks.” (Knowles, “The Interpretations of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,” 155.) For Hilarianus:

    • The seventy weeks extended from the first year of Darius to the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C.
    • “The anointed one the prince” in verse 25 refers to Zerubbabel who was the leader of the first return of the Jews.
    • The event that marks the middle of the week is the pollution of the temple by Antiochus which introduced the abomination of desolation in the form of heathen images in the temple.

In advocating this Maccabean view, however, Hilarianus is essentially alone among early church fathers.

Jerome

Jerome (A.D. 407) wrote a significant commentary on the Book of Daniel. In his discussion of Daniel 9:24-27, he declined to offer an interpretation of his own and was content to quote from or summarize the positions of several earlier church fathers.

Augustine

Without interpreting the time periods, Augustine (A.D. 407-430) wrote:

“All of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks was fulfilled at Christ’s first advent; therefore, it is not to be expected that the events will occur again at the second advent.”

Summary

Justin Martyr (A.D. 153–165) did not mention Daniel 9.

Irenaeus (A.D. 180) mentioned it but did not interpret the time periods or the Messiahs.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) included both Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in the 490 years. His interpretation implies a gap between the first 69 weeks and the last week.

Tertullian (A.D. 203), by making certain calculation errors, was able to include both Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in the 490 years without a gap.

Hippolytus (A.D. 202–230) interpreted the Messiah as Jesus Christ but, similar to Dispensationalism, interpreted the final week as a future period of seven years when the Antichrist will rule.

Julius Africanus (A.D. 232) proposed that the full 490 years came to an end with Jesus’ baptism.

For Origen (A.D. 215), the Messiah in Daniel 9:25 is Jesus Christ and Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.

The church historian Eusebius (A.D. 314–318) interpreted the first half of the week as the 3½ years of Jesus’ public ministry and the second half as fulfilled after Jesus was resurrected. In the middle of the ‘week’, He “put a stop to sacrifice” (Dan 9:27) through His death.

Apollinaris of Laodicea (A.D. 360) regarded the seventy weeks as the time between the two advents of Christ. The 70th week would be a period at the end of the world when the Antichrist will literally enter the temple and issue a decree outlawing the offering of sacrifices.

Julius Hilarianus (A.D. 397) was the first patristic writer to adopt a non-Messianic interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. For him, the event that marks the middle of the week was the pollution of the temple by Antiochus which introduced heathen images in the temple.

Jerome (A.D. 407) simply summarized the positions of several earlier church fathers.

Augustine (A.D. 407-430) stated that the 70 weeks were fulfilled at Christ’s first advent.

Conclusions

From the literature that is available, some vital conclusions can be drawn:

(A) Weeks of Years

All the early church fathers, along with Jewish scholars, interpreted the “weeks” as weeks of seven years and applied this quite literally.

(B) Historic-Messianic

Of the 12 Christian writers surveyed above, 3 (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Jerome) did not offer interpretations. Of the remaining 9, all but one of them held to some form of messianic interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, meaning that the prophecy referred to Jesus Christ. The exception was Hilarianus who held to fulfillment in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C. Of the 8 messianic interpretations:

Two (Apollinaris and Hippolytus) opted for a messianic-eschatological position in which the Messiah is Jesus in His first advent but the last week is some future point beyond the first century, such as the reign of Antichrist.

The remaining six all favored a messianic-historical position, meaning that the entire seventy weeks were fulfilled at some point in the first century A.D.

In conclusion, although they varied greatly in their details, there was a strong consensus among the early church fathers that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.

(C) A Gap

Three of these early Christian writers required a gap between the first 69 weeks and the last week:

Clement proposed that the 62 weeks led up to the first advent of Christ and the final week includes the destruction in AD 70.

For Eusebius, the 69 weeks concluded in the days of King Herod in 36–32 B.C. and the last week was the years before and after Jesus died.

Hippolytus viewed the final week eschatologically – at the time when the Antichrist will reign.

Other Articles

Proudly powered by WordPress