Tag: Logos-Christology

Posted on

What was the Real Main Issue in the Arian Controversy?

Overview

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, it was a struggle between Nicenes and Arians, and the main issue was whether Jesus is God, as the Nicenes claimed, or a created being, as the Arians claimed. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account is a complete travesty.

The issue was not whether the Son is divine or subordinate. The Arians agreed that He is divine and the Nicenes agreed that He is subordinate.

The Controversy was also not about Arius’ theology. Contrary to what is traditionally stated, He did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative. He was also not important. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples.

Lienhard proposed that the main issue was the number of divine hypostases (Persons). In other words, the issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or part of the Father, as the Nicenes believed.

To understand this, it is important to realize that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. Athanasius and his followers believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. The idea of God being both one and three followed from the theology of the Cappadocians, much later in that century.

Lienhard classifies the Sabellians with the Nicenes. For example, while Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea, Athanasius allied with the Sabellians in later decades. The primary identification of Sabellian theology is ‘one hypostasis’; that the Father and Son are a single Person. But that is also what Alexander and Athanasius believed.

One disadvantage of Lienhard’s classification is that it puts the Cappadocians with the Arians because both these groups taught three hypostases. To address this anomaly, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. This classification groups the Cappadocians with the other Nicenes but does not explain the severe conflict that existed between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

This article identifies the real main issue by providing an overview of the Controversy, showing who opposed who and who allied with who in each of its phases.

It concludes that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases, as Lienhard proposed, but that this also applies to the Cappadocians. It shows further that the two opposing groups were the Sabellians (not Nicenes) and the Eusebians (not Arians).

Furthermore, since it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy, it should rather be called the Sabellian Controversy because Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to threaten orthodoxy in the fourth century.

Purpose

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as “the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions), and formed the church that dominated the Middle Ages.

In the traditional account of that struggle between the Nicenes and the Arians, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. However, over the last 100 years, based on new information and research, scholars have described the Controversy very differently. The question arises, what was the fundamental issue that divided the Nicens and Arians?

This article begins by explaining what the Controversy was NOT about. For example, it shows that, when the Controversy began, even the Arians described Jesus as divine. On the other hand, even the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded Him as subordinate to the Father.

This article evaluates different proposals of what the real main issue was:

In the Nicene Creed, it seems as if the main issue was out of what the Son was begotten; out of nothing, or out of the substance of the Father.

In 1987, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. In other words, whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or whether He and the Father are a single Person, as the Nicenes believed.

In 2011, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father.

This article evaluates these alternatives by providing an overview of the main phases of the Arian Controversy, showing in each phase who allied with whom, and who opposed who, indicating what the core issue was.

Authors Quoted

The Traditional Account

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. In that century, scholars relied largely on Athanasius. [Show More]

During the 20th century, a store of additional ancient documents became available. Based on this and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. [Show More]

The Revised Account

Scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from 100 years ago. [Show More]

The following are a few examples of how the explanation changed:

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was already established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. In reality, the orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (Read Article)

In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. In reality, Arius was a conservative. The Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding century.

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he did not leave behind a school of disciples, had very few real followers, and nobody regarded his writings worth copying. (See Article)

In the traditional account, Athanasius defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. Like the Sabellians, he believed that the Son is an aspect or part of the Father. (See Article)

In the traditional account, Nicene theology ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In reality, already in the previous year (380), Emperor Theodosius had made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all opposition.

Unfortunately, many “elementary textbooks” (Lienhard) or “summary accounts” (Ayres, p. 13) still present the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy. Rejecting that older versions would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Authors Quoted

This article series is based on the books of the last 50 years written by world-class Trinitarian scholars.

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s 1988 book was perhaps the most comprehensive and influential. That was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius, and from Khaled Anatolios (2011). [Show More]

The author of the current article did not study the ancient documents; only the books published over the last 50 years. For that reason, those books serve as the ‘Bible’ as far as this topic is concerned and this article probably provides too many quotes. But most quotes are hidden in ‘show more’ blocks.

The False Main Issue

Whether Jesus is God

In the traditional account, the main issue was whether or not Jesus is divine. However, that is misleading. The Arians agreed that He is divine. They believed in a trinity of three divine Beings. [Show More]

The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary. Although the Arians did not regard the Son as equal to the Father, they did regard the Son as on the ‘God’ side of the God/creation boundary. [Show More]

Since the Arians believed Jesus to be divine, they described Him as theos (usually translated as ‘God’). However, since many different beings may be called theos, when there is the risk of ambiguity, the Bible and the ancients added words, such as “one” or “true” or “only” to identify the one true God (e.g., John 17:3). The Arians were careful to say that Jesus is not the ‘one true God’. [Show More]

The translation of the Greek term theos is difficult. The Greek word theos (Latin deus) had a much wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’: 

The modern term “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality, the One who exists without cause.

The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the term theos. Originally, theos was the word for the Greek gods; thought to be immortal beings with supernatural powers, but it was used for beings with different levels of divinity. [Show More]

When the Bible or fourth-century authors refer to Jesus as theos, it is typically translated as “God.” However, the Arians did not think of the Son as the Ultimate Reality but as subordinate to the Father. Therefore, when they refer to Jesus as theos, it should not be translated as “God.” Such instances should also not be translated as “god” for, in modern English, that term is typically reserved for false gods. That was not the Arian view. They regarded Him as truly divine. I would propose that theos be translated as ‘divine’ or left untranslated.

The same principle applies to the Bible. For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God,” he used the same flexible Greek word ‘theos’. What Thomas meant depends on the context. (See Article)

All the fourth-century theologians (Nicene and Arian) used theos for Beings with different levels of divinity. Only the late fourth-century Nicene theologians eliminated such degrees of divinity and made a “clear God/creation boundary.” [Show More]

For further discussion, see – Did the church fathers describe Jesus as God? and The meaning of the term theos.

Whether the Son is subordinate

The main issue was also not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was ‘orthodox’ when the Controversy began and the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine. That is false. Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate. [Show More]

Therefore, when the Controversy began and for most of the fourth century, even the Nicenes regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

Even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father (See Article) and, therefore, subordinate. Basil of Caesarea was the first to insist on full equality. [Show More]

Therefore, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue. (See Article) The traditional account claims that the pro-Nicenes always believed that the Son is equal to the Father because that is what Athanasius claimed and because, before the 20th century, scholars had accepted Athanasius’ account.

Not about Arius

In the traditional account, it was the ‘Arian’ Controversy, implying that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy that became the main issue in the Controversy. That is also not true. Arius did develop a new theology. He was a conservative. [Show More]

The traditional account further claims that Arius was able to win many converts due to his eloquence and persuasiveness. The reality is that Arius was not of any great significance. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. [Show More]

So, the Controversy was not about Arius. The anti-Nicenes are misleadingly called ‘Arians’ and it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy. [Show More]

Nevertheless, this article continues to refer to the anti-Nicenes as Arians because that is the term most people know.

Whether He is a Created Being

The issue was also not whether the Son is a created being. Arius described the Son as made out of nothing. In his view, perhaps, the Son was created. But Arius was an extremist. The mainstream ‘Arians’ believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, the theological leader of the ‘Arians’, said: “He alone was born of the Father himself” (LA, 58). The Arians consequently believed that the Son shares the Father’s being. [Show More]

Although the Eusebians agreed that the Son was begotten from God’s being and shares the Father’s very being, they did not agree that He has the same uncreated substance as the Father. Therefore, in their view, He is not eternal or immutable.

The Real Main Issue

Divine Hypostases

Joseph Lienhard (Marquette University) published an article in 1987 proposing that the real main issue, that divided the Nicenes and Arians, for most of the Controversy, was the number of divine hypostases.

“The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered).” (Lienhard) [Show More]

Hypostasis Defined

Fourth-century theologians used the Greek term hypostasis for a distinct individual existence. [Show More]

Therefore, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases implies “three distinct existences within the Godhead.” (Litfin) In other words, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct existence. In the opposing (one hypostasis) view, the Father and Son are a single existence. (Initially, the Holy Spirit was not part of the dispute.)

Other differences are consequences.

If this was the main issue, all other differences between Arian and Nicene theologies are consequences of this fundamental difference:

In the Nicene view, since the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), the Son is eternal, immutable, and invisible. 

In contrast, the Arians taught that the Father alone exists without a cause and caused the Son to exist. Consequently, the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father.

The Athanasians – One Hypostasis

Lienhard identifies the two opposing groups as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. The Athanasians included Athanasius, Alexander, the Sabellians, and most Western bishops. [Show More]

They believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three aspects or modes of a single Being. Consequently, the Son also exists without cause but it also means that He is not a distinct Being. He does not have a real distinct existence.

Athanasius’ Theology

Hanson refers to Athanasius as the “paragon” (norm) of the West. (RH, 304) That is presumably why Lienhard refers to the ‘one hypostasis’ group as the Athanasians. What he believed, therefore, is critically important for this article. Possibly following Tertullian, who said that the Father is the whole, and the Son is part of the whole, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom and Word. Therefore, He is in the Father and part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence). [Show More]

Sabellians

The Sabellians were part of the ‘Athanasians’. The leading Sabellians in the early fourth century were Eustathius and Marcellus. They believed in a single hypostasis. [Show More]

Eusebians – Three Hypostases

Following Origen in the third century, the Eusebians, traditionally called the Arians, but including Arius, believed that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct hypostasis. [Show More]

The Eusebians believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

The Father alone exists without cause and is the Source and Cause of all things, including the Son and Spirit. [Show More]

Not Three and One

It is critically important to understand that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons), did not yet exist when the controversy began and did not exist for most of the fourth century. For the first 40 years of the Controversy, the Arians said three and the Nicenes said one. Nobody said that God is both one and three. Only in the 360s did Athanasius begin to reluctantly accept the possibility of “three hypostases.” [Show More]

We see proof of this in how the terms ousia and hypostases were used. In the Trinity doctrine, God is one ousia (one Being) but three hypostases (Persons). Before the 360s, Athanasius and most others used these terms as synonyms. In other words, for Athanasius, God is one Being (ousia) and one Person (hypostasis). (Read Article)

Athanasius defended ‘one hypostasis’ to the end. The idea that God is one ousia (substance) but three hypostases (Persons) began with the Cappadocians in the 360-370s. It was mainly Basil of Caesarea who made the distinction between the two terms that we today have in the Trinity doctrine, where ousia means substance and hypostasis means Person. [Show More]

However, the Cappadocian view of three divine hypostases brought Basil of Caesarea into severe conflict with the Western pro-Nicenes (Athanasius and his supporters, including the bishop of Rome), who defended one hypostasis. This is known as the Meletian Schism because it was particularly manifested in the controversy over who the bishops of Antioch must be; Meletius or the Sabellian Paulinus. (Read Article)

Ayres

In his book, Ayres identified four ‘trajectories’ when the Controversy began:

      • The ‘Eusebians’, including Arius,
      • Alexander and Athanasius,
      • Marcellus (representing Sabellianism), and
      • The Western (Latin) theologists (See here)

However, this article will show the following:

Alexander and Athanasius allied with the Sabellians. For example, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians, and, later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus, the main fourth-century Sabellian. So, perhaps Marcellus must be grouped with Alexander and Athanasius.

Although both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea defended the Nicene Creed, as stated, Athanasius aggressively opposed Basil, the first Cappadocian. So, perhaps the Cappadocians must be a separate category.

Note that both Lienhard and Ayres included Arius under the Eusebians. As stated, Arius was not a leader or an important writer. He was an Eusebian with some extreme tendencies.

Ayres confirmed that a deeper issue existed behind the four categories he identified. Similar to Lienhard, he identified the main issue as whether the Son is a distinct Being or part of the Father:

“Behind the original controversy lie conflicting approaches to the Word’s generation’. To what extent can we think of it as the emergence of one distinct thing from another? How does one understand the distinction between God and Word, Father and Son: is this the distinction of two separate beings? Or is this distinction analogous to that of a person who speaks his or her word (the word being here only a dependent and temporary product of the speaker)?” (Ayres, p. 3)

A Distinct Person

In this quote, Ayres comes to the same conclusion as Lienhard, he replaces the Greek term hypostasis with the English terms ‘thing’, ‘being’, and ‘person’. Hanson also uses the term ‘Person’ for a hypostasis. [Show More]

Therefore, the core issue can also be stated as whether the Father and Son are a single Person, as the Athanasians claimed, or whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Eusebians proposed.

A Distinct Mind

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons or three hypostases, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (See Article)

In contrast, in the fourth century, the terms hypostasis and ‘Person’ were used in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. Therefore, in the ‘three hypostases’ view, the three divine Persons have distinct minds. [Show More]

In the Athanasian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Father and Son share a single mind. Both Alexander and Athanasius claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Logos (Word, Wisdom). Consequently, the Son is part of the Father, and Father and Son are a single hypostasis. [Show More]

Therefore, an alternative for Lienhard’s classification is the Athanasian ‘one mind’ vs the Eusebian ‘three minds’.

Anatolios

In his 2011-book, Anatolios opposed Lienhard’s classification and proposed that the main question was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. He calls it “unity of substance.” [Show More]

However, Anatolios qualifies this by saying that “unity of substance” (homoousios) can mean both that the Father and Son are one single substance (one hypostasis), as Athanasius claimed, or two distinct substances of the same type, as Basil of Caesarea claimed. [Show More]

Anatolios identifies Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Apollinaris of Laodicea as ‘unity of being’ theologians. (Anatolios, p. 82-3) [Show More]

While the Nicenes taught “unity of substance,” the Arians taught “unity of will.” In other words, the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of different types of substances that are united in will. [Show More]

Anatolios adds that “unity of will” includes teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Comparing the Classifications

The Lienhard and Anatolios systems are very similar. ‘One hypostasis’ always means homoousios and homoousios, before Nicaea, only meant one hypostasis because it was preferred only by Sabellians, who taught one hypostasis. (See Article)

The only type of theology that would be classified differently by the two systems is a theology that teaches three hypostases of the same type of substance. The only example is the Cappadocians. Lienhard stated that his system is valid only until 360. After that, it fails to distinguish between Nicenes and Arians because the Cappadocians, like the Arians, taught three hypostases. In other words, in Lienhard’s classification, the Cappadocians are classified with the Arians. [Show More]

Objections to Anatolios’ classification

1. The meaning of ‘unity of being’ is too flexible. – While the Cappadocians proposed two Beings of the same type of substance, Athanasius defended one Being. ‘One hypostasis’ theology is profoundly different from ‘three hypostases’ theologies, even if the three hypostases are equal, but Anatolios’ classification lumps them together. [Show More]

2. Anatolios’ classification, but putting the Western pro-Nicenes (‘one hypostasis’ theologians – Athanasians) and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (‘three hypostases’ theologians – Basil of Caesarea) together, fails to explain the severe conflict between them. (See Article)

3. ‘Unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’ are not mutually exclusive. The Cappadocian taught both ‘unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’.

4. The term homoousios (unity of substance) was not the core issue because it disappeared soon after Nicaea and was only revived in the 350s. (See Article) In that period, as shown below, the focus was on the more fundamental issue; the number of hypostases.

Proposal

This article proposes that Lienhard is correct that the real main issue was the number of hypostases. 

It further proposes that a classification system must make a distinction between Athanasius’ ‘one hypostasis’ and the Cappadocian ‘three hypostases’ theologies because of the profound differences between these two theologies, as evidenced by the war that erupted between these two groups. 

A possible objection might be that both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea were Trinitarians and must, therefore, be categorized similarly. However, Athanasius was in reality not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He did not defend any form of threeness in God.

This article proposes further that the opposing groups during the Controversy must not be described as the Nicenes and Arians, but as the Sabellians and the Eusebians. Firstly, ‘one hypostasis’ was not only an aspect of Sabellian theology, it was the main identification of Sabellian theology. Hanson describes ‘one hypostasis’ as the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. [Show More]

Secondly, while the Eusebians insisted on three hypostases, the Nicenes (Alexander, Athanasius, and most of the Western delegates) may be classified as Sabellians because they also taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person).

The next section will support these proposals with an overview of the Controversy, asking who opposed who and who allied with whom in each of its phases.

First Three Centuries

Not a new Controversy

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue, it is important to understand that the fourth-century controversy was not new but continued the third-century controversy. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was merely the spark that re-ignited an existing fire. For that reason, this discussion begins with the second century. [Show More]

The Main Phases

This article identifies the main phases of the Controversy according to the reigns of the various emperors, mostly due to the decisive influence the emperors had. The emperors were the final judges in doctrinal disputes. [Show More]

The following are the main phases:

      • Second century: Logos theologians vs Monarchains
      • Third century: Origenists vs Sabellians
      • Arius vs Alexander
      • Nicene Council
      • The remainder of Constantine’s reign
      • The Divided Empire (340s)
      • Constantius’ reign (350s)
      • Meletian Schism (360-370s)
      • Theodosius’ reign (380-)

Jewish Church

In the first century, most Christians were Jews and the church professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Hanson) In other words, the Church thought of the Father and Son as two distinct Beings with the Son subordinate to the Father. 

Logos Theology – Two Hypostases

The church became Gentile-dominated in the second century. The Gentile theologians did not replace Greek philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing system of beliefs. With respect to Christology, in what is known as Logos theology, they explained Jesus as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture) In that philosophy, the Logos always existed as an aspect of God but became a second hypostasis (a distinct Being alongside and subordinate to God) when God decided to create.

Monarchians – One Hypostasis

The second-century Monarchians (also called Modalists) opposed the Logos theology. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unscriptural division of God’s substance. Their view was that the Logos is not a distinct hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are simply two names for the same Person. [Show More]

Therefore, already in the second century, the dispute was whether the Son has a real distinct existence, as per Lienhard’s classification. While Logos theology taught two hypostases, the Monarchians believed one. This dispute does not fit Anatolios’ classification because both sides taught that the Son is homoousios with the Father:

    • In Logos theology, the Son always existed as an aspect of God that later became separated. Therefore, the Son is presumably of the same unoriginated substance (homoousios) as the Father.
    • In Monarchianism, Father and Son are one hypostasis.

Tertullian – One Hypostasis

The Latin theologian Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. He was also a Logos-theologian. As such, he believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father and that the Father existed before the Son. (Read Article)

However, to counter the Monarchian criticism that Logos theologians teach two Gods, he revised the standard Logos theology, saying that the Son did not separate from the Father’s substance but remained part of the Father. In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). [Show More]

Sabellius – One Hypostasis

Sabellius wrote more or less the same time as Tertullian but in the Greek East. He refined Monarchianism but still taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (a single hypostasis). While the Monarchians said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity, Sabellius proposed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one hypostasis. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person. (Read Article) He used the term homoousios in his theology. [Show More]

Origen – Three hypostases

Origen wrote a decade or two later. He was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. He was a Logos theologian but rejected the two-stage theory and taught the eternal existence of the Son. 

In opposition to the Monarchians, Sabellius, and Tertullian, he taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three Persons with three distinct minds. [Show More]

Third-Century Controversy

The controversy between the one- and three-hypostases views continued for the rest of the third century. For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) were in dispute about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected it and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view. [Show More]

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, probably the most important city in the early Eastern Gentile Church, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (Read Article) [Show More]

Fourth Century

During the first three centuries, Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many Christians lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century. 

Arius vs Alexander

The Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity in 313. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute arose between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. As stated, this was not a new dispute but continued the controversy of the third century. Like Origen, Arius taught three hypostases. He said that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. [Show More]

In opposition to Arius, but similar to the Sabellians, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are one single Person with a single Mind; a single hypostasis. [Show More]

The Eusebians, since they also believed in ‘three hypostases’, supported Arius against Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology. However, the Eusebians disagreed with Arius’ more extreme views, such as that the Son came into existence from nothing. Arius had only a few real followers. (Read Article)

Nicene Council

After Constantine had become emperor of the entire Empire in 324, he (not the church) called the Nicene Council to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in finding ‘the truth’. 

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church and the Eastern Church were Eusebians, who believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases. Consequently. most delegates believed that the Father and Son are three hypostases. [Show More]

Since Alexander’s view, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus. Although this ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor. This gave the Sabellians significant influence at the council. [Show More]

Before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred the term homoousios, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it. [Show More]

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ dominance at the Council is the anathema in the Nicene Creed which explicitly states that Father and Son are a single hypostasis and substance. [Show More]

Given these indications of a strong Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence at the Council, the Creed may be described as Sabellian. [Show More]

Post-Nicaea Correction

In the decade after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed Nicaea as a victory, namely, that the term homoousios means that the church had formally adopted a Sabellians one-hypostasis theology. This caused an intense struggle. The Sabbellians lost this battle and all leading Sabellians were deposed. (Read Article) [Show More]

After that, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. For that reason, the creeds of the 340s (Dedication, the Council of Serdica, and Macrostich Councils) do not mention the term. It simply was not an issue. [Show More]

The Divided Empire

While Constantine was still alive, he maintained unity in the church. But when he died in 337, his three sons divided the empire between them. One of the three brothers died in 340. This left the empire in the hands of Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Since the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes, the division of the empire created the potential for division in the church also. In this period, the church became divided. While the East continued a ‘three hypostasis’ view, the West taught one hypostasis.

Marcellus was the leading Sabelian at this time. He and Athanasius were both exiled by the Eastern church, more or less at the same time during Constantine’s reign. Both also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology. During the ‘divided empire’, they met in Rome and joined forces against their eastern opponents. [Show More]

The church originated in the East and, as stated, initially, the West was not part of the Arian Controversy. However, in the late 330s, Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the Western Church, represented by the bishop of Rome (Julius). This appeal brought the West into the Controversy. [Show More]

The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example, the Western Manifesto at Serdica in 343 explicitly declared a single hypostasis. Therefore, the Council of Rome in 340/1 accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodox. [Show More]

Since both were previously formally assessed and exiled by the Eastern Church, this caused friction and division between East and West. Julius, the bishop of Rome, then (in 341) made the situation worse by writing a letter to the Eastern church. Using Athanasius’ polemical strategy, Julius accused the Easterners of being ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius). In the letter, he identified the two opposing parties as the Eusebians (Arians) and the Athanasians, with the Sabellians part of the ‘Athanasians’. [Show More]

In response, the Eastern (Eusebian) Church formulated the Dedication Creed in the same year (341). It condemns some of Arius’ extreme statements but is mainly anti-Sabellian. It explicitly rejected ‘one hypostasis’ and explicitly insisted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ‘three in hypostasis, one in agreement’ (Ayres, p. 118), implying three distinct Persons with distinct minds. [Show More]

Two years later, the Council of Serdica in 343 was supposed to be a joint council of East and West but the two groups never met as one because they could not agree about the participation of Athanasius and Marcellus in the council. However, meeting by themselves, the Western delegation, including Athanasius and Marcellus, formulated a Manifesto that spells out the pro-Nicene view at this stage. It regarded the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and, therefore, as part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis:

“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301) [Show More]

As stated above, ‘one hypostasis’ is the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. Therefore, for the Western Church to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis means the Western Church was Sabellian in its theology. [Show More]

The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’.The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’. [Show More]

In conclusion, during the Divided Empire, the main dispute was whether the Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis’, as the Sabellian West claimed, or ‘three hypostases’, as the Eusebian East insisted. It is important to mention again that the West was not Trinitarian. It did not confess the Father and Son as distinct Persons or hypostases. They insisted that the Father and Son are a single Person and hypostasis.

Constantius

During the 350s the empire was united again under Constantius, Constantine’s son. Theology evolved considerably on both sides over the fourth century. As stated, soon after Nicaea, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate but Athanasius re-introduced it in the mid-350s, during Constantius’ reign. This caused the Eusebians to divide into a few factions. Constantius wavered somewhat between these views but eventually settled on Homoianism. This theology refused to use the new terms from Greek philosophy (hypostasis, ousia, homoousios). They declared the Son to be subordinate to and distinct from the Father. Constantius forced the church, both East and West, through a series of councils, which Constantius manipulated to reach his desired outcome, to accept a Homoian creed.

Constantius died in 361. No new creeds were issued after Constantius before Theodosius’ reign. The emperors between them mostly maintained the Homoian Creed. [Show More]

Cappadocians

In the 360s and 370s, the Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea was the first to accept both the term homoousios and ‘three hypostases’. While the Western pro-Nicenes, Athanasius, and the Sabellians believed that Father and Son are a single substance or hypostasis with one single mind, the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians), understood homoousios as saying that Father and Son are two distinct substances (two Beings with two distinct minds). However, while the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Eusebian ‘three hypostases’ view, the Cappadocians taught that the three hypostases are equal in all respects. [Show More]

The traditional Trinity doctrine makes a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis. It says that God is one ousia (Being) but three hypostases (Persons). In contrast, Athanasius and most other pro-Nicenes in that century used the terms ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. They believed that God is both one ousia and one hypostasis. Since the Cappadocians were the first pro-Nicenes to accept three hypostases, they proposed a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis. [Show More]

The Meletian Schism

However, Basil’s view of three hypostases, while the Athanasians (including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria) supported only one, caused severe friction between them. This is called the Meletian Schism after Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who was opposed by a Sabellian faction in Antioch, led by Paulinus, who was supported by the Western pro-Nicenes. (Read Article). [Show More]

So, does the Cappadocian phase of the Controversy fit the hypostasis or the homoousios classification?

The homoousios system classifies both Athanasius and Basil as ‘unity of substance’. In other words, it does not explain the severe friction between them or the large difference in doctrine. To teach three Beings with three divine minds is vastly different from one Being with one mind, even if the three Beings are equal.

The hypostasis schema classifies Athanasius as ‘one hypostasis’ and Basil as ‘three hypostases’, which does explain that conflict.

However, both Basil and Athanasius opposed the Arians, who regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. That conflict is better explained by homoousios schema.

I propose that the Cappadocians must not be classified with either the Arians or the Athanasians. It was a third category. 

Theodosius

In 380, Theodosius, the new emperor in the East, issued an edict in which he made Western pro-Nicene (one hypostasis) theology the official religion of the Roman Empire. In the subsequent year, he ruthlessly exterminated all other versions of Christianity. For example, he prohibited them from meeting or teaching, or from settling in the cities, and confiscated their church buildings. This was a time of crisis in the Empire, after a large part of its army had been wiped out, and drastic action was required.

He called the council of Constantinople the next year (381). However, since all other forms of Christianity had already been outlawed and their leaders exiled, only pro-Nicenes were allowed to attend. 

Conclusion

Enemies Defined

‘Who opposed who’ identifies the Real Main Issue.

“The choice of categories to designate the two opposing sides in the fourth-century theological controversy is crucially important, for the categories color the whole interpretation of the controversy.” (Lienhard)

Traditionally, the opposing parties are called the Nicenes and the Arians. In his 341-letter to the East, Julius of Rome identified the two opposing parties as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. But he was biased. For example, he described the Eusebians as ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, which we today know was false. The term ‘Arian’ was coined by Athanasius to insult. (Read Article)

The Eusebians had a different classification system. They described the Nicenes not as Athanasians but as Sabellians. [Show More]

Furthermore, throughout the Controversy, we see Sabellians opposing the Eusebians:

– Sabellianism evolved in the third century in opposition to Logos theology but was opposed by Origen and declared a heresy.

– At Nicaea, Sabellians dominated because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s part. 

– In the decade after Nicaea, Constantine allowed the Eusebians to dominate again, and they exiled the leading Sabellians.

– In 341, a council in Rome (the Western Church) accepted Marcellus, the main Sabellian at that time, as orthodox.

– In response, the Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed which was mainly anti-Sabellian.

– In 343, the Western Church, together with Athanasius, and Marcellus, formulated an explicit ‘one hypostasis’ manifesto.

– Eight years later, the purpose of the Council of Sirmium of 351 was specifically to stamp out Sabellianism.

– In the 350s, the Eusebians divided into several factions but formed a united front against Sabellianism.

Athanasius and the Western Church also opposed the Eusebians. However, like the Sabellians, they believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. (Article) In summary:

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95) [Show More]

Athanasius was not a great theologian but he was a very powerful and dangerous politician. [Show More]

Since the “hallmark” of Sabellianism was ‘one hypostasis’, as stated above, for the Eusebians, the main enemy was ‘one hypostasis’ theologies. For Nicenes, on the other hand, the main enemy was theologies with more than one hypostasis. [Show More]

This analysis confirms that the real main issue was whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person:

The Sabellians, including Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western pro-Nicenes, claimed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.

The Eusebians and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

These two views result in very different views of the Incarnation.

In the Nicene/Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Son cannot become incarnate, suffer, or die because He is one Being with the Father. Consequently, at the birth of Jesus, a new being, with a human body and mind, came into existence. He was inspired by God’s Word through the Holy Spirit. It was a mere human being who died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand. [Show More]

In the Eusebian ‘three hypostasis’ view, the Son is divine but with a reduced divinity that allowed Him to become a human being, suffer, and die. Consequently, the incarnation did not result in a new person or a new mind. Rather, the Son took on a human body without a human mind. The eternal Logos takes the place of the human mind. Therefore, Christ is the same Person as the pre-existent Son of God. Jesus is subordinate because the pre-incarnate Son is subordinate. To become incarnate was also not a new experience for Him. He was also temporarily incarnate when he wrestled with Jacob. All appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were really the Son. [Show More]

(Read Article)

The Sabellian Controversy

It is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy for most of the fourth century. However, Arius did not develop a new heresy. He was a lone Eusebian voice in North Africa. He had few followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’.

If the term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius’ theology was a threat to orthodoxy, then it should rather be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’ because Sabellianism was already rejected as heresy in the third century but, in the fourth century, remained the main threat to the traditional Eusebian theology.

Three Broad Phases

The entire Controversy can be divided into three broad phases:

1. In the second-century war between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians, both sides believed that the Son is homoousios.

2. The anti-Sabellians Controversy began in the third century and continued for most of the fourth. In this war, both the Lienhard and Anatolios classifications are able to explain the opposing parties. While the Eusebians taught that the Son is distinct Person, which also means that He is not of the same unoriginated substance as the Father, the Sabellians taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and, therefore, of the same substance.

3. The intra-Nicene conflict between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

The Truth is Carefully Guarded.

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire. (Read Article) His Edict explicitly mentioned Damasus and Peter, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria respectively.

With the protection of the Roman Military, that State Religion, with Sabellianism as its founding decree, became the Roman Church (the Church of the Roman Empire) that dominated the Middle Ages.

Sabellianism became what is known today as the Trinity doctrine. The nature of the Trinity doctrine is carefully hidden. It is camouflaged Sabellianism. Superficial accounts claim that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases or three Persons, implying three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading because it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. They are not real ‘persons’ as the term is used in modern English. The ‘Persons’ are mere ‘modes of existing as God’. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology. (Read Article)

In the same way, the true origin of the Trinity doctrine is a carefully guarded secret. The victorious party had control of the recorded history for many centuries and had corrupted history. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.
  • 2
    “When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)
Posted on

Did Philo influence the Bible’s description of the Son of God?

Purpose

The Old Testament (OT) presents only one God. But then Jesus Christ appeared and claimed to be the “only-begotten Son” of God (John 3:16; 10:36), to have received all authority in heaven and on earth (John 17:2; Matt 28:18), and even implied to be the “I am” of the OT (John 8:58). This “I am” may be understood as “the angel of the LORD” who appeared to Moses “in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush,” who is also called “God” and who said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exo 3:2, 4, 14).

So, the writers of the New Testament (NT) had to figure out who Jesus is relative to God. They wrote things of Jesus that Jesus never said of Himself, such as that:

    • He is the “Logos” (John 1:1), the image of God (Col 1:15), and the “mediator … between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5).
    • He was “in the beginning with God” (John 1:1).
    • God created and still maintains all things through Him (e.g., John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3; 1 Cor 8:6).
    • God gave Him all authority in heaven and on earth (John 17:2; Matt 28:18).

As Christians, we like to think that this message of the only begotten Son of God is unique to the New Testament. It is then a little disquieting to discover that, before the NT was written, Greek philosophy, as interpreted by Philo, also spoke about a Logos who always existed, through whom God created all things, who is the image of God and the mediator between the Uncreated and created.

Given these similarities, the Internet Encyclopaedia article on Philo (IE) claims that the NT descriptions of Jesus are derived from Greek philosophy via Philo and therefore that Christianity is based on Greek philosophy. The purpose of this article is to evaluate this claim. For this purpose, this article discusses the similarities and differences between Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ and attempts to explain why such concepts existed even before the New Testament was written.

Summary

Philo

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who wrote a few decades before the NT was written. “Philo was thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy. … He had a deep reverence for Plato and referred to him as ‘the most holy Plato’.” But Philo was also committed to the Jewish faith. By using “an allegorical technique for interpretation of the Hebrew (Bible),” he produced a synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy.

Foundations of Christianity

Philo is not important for Judaism. “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity.”

IE claims that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (the Apologists) used Philo’s synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy to formulate the Logos theology. To explain:

The church began as a Jewish-dominated movement. After the church became Gentile-dominated in the second century, Logos Theology became the standard explanation of who Jesus Christ is and of His relationship with God. We cannot deny that that theology was substantially influenced by Greek philosophy.

But IE goes much further and even claims that Philo may have influenced the New Testament itself, particularly the writings of Paul, the gospel of John, and the epistle to the Hebrews.

By reading the Greek philosophy of his day into the Old Testament, Philo gave Greek philosophy a Biblical appearance. Therefore, what IE effectively claims is that Christianity grew out of Greek philosophy via Philo.

God

First, consider some of Philo’s views concerning God, namely:

      • No other being, not even the Logos, is able to fully understand the One who exists without cause: Only God is able to fully understand God.
      • God also created time and, therefore, for Him, “nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only.”
      • “There never was a time when he did not create.”

The Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

When Philo lived, “the notion of the Logos was deeply ingrained in Greek philosophy” and Philo included the Logos in his interpretation of the Old Testament. Philo’s entire philosophical system hinges on his doctrine of the Logos. The Logos was his means of synthesizing the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. Furthermore, IE claims that it was also Philo’s doctrine of the Logos that created “the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century.”

The Logos in the Old Testament

Philo found the Logos in the Old Testament in:

      • “The Word of the LORD” that is often said to come to the prophets and by which “the heavens were made,”
      • The personified “Wisdom” (Proverbs), and in
      • The Angel of the Lord.

A Personal Being

“Logos” is the common Greek word for “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” But, in Greek philosophy, the word Logos had a very specialized meaning, namely, “a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe.”

IE claims that Philo, by introducing the concept of the Logos into Judaism, has transformed the Logos from a metaphysical theoretical entity into a humanlike being and mediator between God and men.

Other prominent scholars (Ronald Nash, RPC Hanson, Rowan Williams) disagree. They say that “Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.” The descriptions in Philo of “an individually subsistent Logos, distinct from the Father” are not literal but metaphorical.

My understanding is that Philo illogically describes the Logos as both a “metaphysical abstraction,” as in Greek philosophy, and as a Personal Being, as he interprets the Logos in the Old Testament to be. Rowan Williams adds, “To look for a clear definition or identification of the Logos in his writings would be … fruitless” (RW, 124)1Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001.

Has always existed.

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ have always existed:

Philo holds that “the Logos … constitutes the manifestation of God’s thinking, acting.” Consequently, the Logos has been brought into existence by God but always existed (because God has always existed and never began to think or do).

Similarly, in the NT, the Son was “begotten,” meaning that He has been brought into existence by God. At the same time, the Son “was” in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17), implying that He has always existed.

Literally first in time

Since, in both Philo and the NT, the Logos has always existed, the Logos has existed first in time. For that reason, Philo described the Logos as “the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father.” Jesus Christ, similarly, is “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), although this might also be interpreted symbolically

Uniquely Generated

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has been uniquely generated:

Philo used “begotten” and “created” as synonyms but he says that the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men. In other words, He was generated differently from created beings.

The NT, by saying that the Son is “the only begotten” and not only “the first begotten” as in Philo, makes a distinction between “begotten” and “created” and indicates that the Son was uniquely generated.

Direct Agent of Creation

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the direct Agent of creation:

In Philo, “the direct agent of creation is not God himself … but the Logos. … the Logos … was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation.”

In the NT also, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos maintains the universe:

In Philo, “the Logos is the bond holding together all the parts of the world” and “produces a harmony … between various parts of the universe.”

Similarly, in the NT, God maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17).

Subordinate

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ are subordinate to God:

In Philo, the Logos is “inferior to God” (Davis). “The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God” (IE).

In the NT, the Father sent the Son and Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). See – The subordination of the Son.

However, the orthodox teaching of the church accepts that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father. The real question is whether the Son is also ontologically subordinate to the Father:

In Philo, “the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Davis). Therefore, He is also ontologically subordinate to the High God.

The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches anything about the substance of God or ontological equality.

Mediator

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man:

Philo described the Logos as the “mediator between God and the world,” “continually a suppliant (pleading) to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race,” “to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings.”

Similarly, in the NT, “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15).

The Light of the World

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul. In Philo, “the Logos … in the mind of a wise man … allows preservation of virtues” (IE). Similarly, John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

The Logos in our God.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is our God:

In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos.” Due to “the utter transcendence of the First Principle [the One who exists without cause],” “man’s highest union with God is limited to God’s manifestation as the Logos.” For Philo, the Logos is the only experience of God that man will have. Effectively, therefore, the Logos is our God.

Similarly, in the NT, God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). As the direct Agent of our creation and our continued existence, and since we will never be able to “see” or directly experience God, the Son is effectively the God of all created things. 

Cannot become Flesh

Philo would never have accepted that the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14) because “Philo disdained the material world and physical body. The body was for Philo … ‘an evil and a dead thing’.”

Philo also taught that “a wise man … should be free of … pleasure, desire, sorrow, and fear.” But Jesus suffered sorrow and fear. Philo would never have tolerated such thinking.

Man’s Mind

For Philo, “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is” an indivisible part of the Logos. For this reason, the “Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts.” For that reason also, the human mind is imperishable and has the power of free will.

Did Philo influence the NT?

The following support the view that Philo influenced the NT:

1) The NT says things about Christ that Christ never said of Himself but which Philo did say about the Logos, for example, that God created and maintains all things through Him.

2) Since the word Logos had a very specialized meaning in Greek philosophy, and given the pervasive influence of Greek philosophy at the time, John’s description of Jesus Christ as “the Logos,” must mean that John identified the Son of God as the Logos of Greek Philosophy.

3) There are many other similarities between Philo’s Logos and the Biblical Son of God. For example, both have an origin, have always existed, are the direct Agent of creation, are subordinate to God, have been uniquely generated, and are the mediator between God and man.

The differences between them do not take away the astounding similarities or our duty to explain these similarities.

Possible Explanations

So, how do we explain the similarities?

The Bible is not inspired.

In the view of Critical Scholars (theologians who do not believe in the supernatural), the NT is simply the result of the evolution of human thought and the reliance on Philo is proof thereof.

A Different Logos

An alternative is to argue that the differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God are great and that Philo, consequently, did not influence the NT writers. However, the similarities between them are too substantial and too specific to deny the influence of Greek philosophy.

Teaching Mechanism

A fourth possibility is that the writers of the NT used concepts from Philo to explain Jesus Christ to Greek readers in their own language. However, the similarities are too extraordinary (out of the ordinary, e.g., eternal, creator) to be simply explaining truths in Greek thought forms.

To oppose pagan theology

Nash proposes that the significant number of similarities between Philo and the letter to the Hebrews can be explained as that the writer of Hebrews uses the language of philosophy to describe the Christian message as better than philosophy; not bring philosophy into Christianity.

This may be part of the answer but it is very far from explaining all the similarities. For example, the description of the Logos in both as the direct Agent of creation cannot simply be an argument that Christ is a better mediator than the mediators of pagan philosophy.

Therefore, I propose that:

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Observations:

1) The large number of significant conceptual similarities between Philo and the NT means that Philo was right in some respects about the Logos. Since Philo’s writings were based on Greek philosophy, it means that Greek philosophy was right in some respects.

2) God elected Israel to take His message to the nations of the world. So, God worked particularly and extraordinarily with the Jewish nation. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit was not working with and inspiring people from other nations as well.

3) In contrast to the multiplicity of gods in the Greek pantheon, Greek philosophy is monotheistic. Where did the Greek philosophers get this?

I propose as follows:

Firstly, to prepare the non-Jewish world to receive “the kingdom of God” from the Jews, God, through His Holy Spirit, inspired Greek philosophers, either through contact with Judaism or directly through the Holy Spirit, to move away from Greek polytheism to monotheism and with many truths concerning the nature of God.

Secondly, to make it easier for the writers of the NT to understand who Jesus is, God inspired Philo to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Old Testament.

Thirdly, through His Holy Spirit, God inspired the writers of the NT to selectively accept Philo’s teachings and to explain Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy, as harmonized with the Old Testament by Philo.

I would like to support this proposal as follows:

Firstly, nothing prevents the Holy Spirit from using Pagan philosophers for revealing truths to the people of the world.

Secondly, the Logos Theology that the second-century church fathers developed explicitly explains Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. See – The Apologists. That implies that they assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired.

Thirdly, the Nicene Creed is influenced by Greek philosophy. RPC Hanson described words substance (ousia), same substance (homoousios), and hypostasis as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH2RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 846). These concepts do not appear in the Bible.

Fourthly, since the Arian Controversy was caused by objection to these pagan concepts in the Nicene Creed, the “discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy” (RH, xxi)3RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381.

Fifthly, even today many philosophical concepts from ancient Greek philosophy, such as that God is immanent, transcendent, simple, immutable, impassable, and timeless, are generally accepted by church theologians even though NOT stated in the Bible. This is called Classical Theism.

– END OF SUMMARY –

Who is Philo?

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC to 40 AD), also called Judaeus Philo, was a Jew who lived and wrote in Alexandria, Egypt at the same time as when Jesus lived in Judea. Philo, therefore, wrote a few decades before the New Testament was written. At the time, Alexandria had the largest Jewish community outside of Palestine.

Compared to Greek philosophy, Roman philosophy was relatively poorly developed. Consequently, the intellectual world in the Roman Empire generally, and the Jewish community in Alexandria specifically, held Greek philosophy in high regard. “Philo was thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy as can be seen from his superb knowledge of classical Greek literature. … He had a deep reverence for Plato and referred to him as ‘the most holy Plato’” (The Internet Encyclopaedia article on Philo). [The remainder of this article refers to this article as IE.]

But Philo was also a committed Jew. Consequently, through his writings, he attempted to justify Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. To do this, he interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Greek philosophy. “Philo uses an allegorical technique for interpretation of the Hebrew (Bible). … Using this allegorical method, Philo seeks out the hidden message beneath the surface of any particular text and tries to read back a new doctrine into the work of the past” (IE).

In this way, he produced “a synthesis of” the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. He “fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought” (IE).

He thought that this would be appropriate because he regarded Moses as a philosopher. In fact, in his view, “Moses … ‘had reached the very summit of philosophy’” (IE). He, therefore, presents Moses as “the teacher of … all Greek philosophers.” “For Philo, Greek philosophy [with its monotheistic view of God] was a natural development of the revelatory teachings of Moses” (IE). He describes “the philosophical Platonic or Stoic ideas (as) nothing but the deductions made from the biblical verses of Moses” (IE).

[In this article, I use square brackets when I insert an explanation in a quote.]

Foundations of Christianity

Philo is not important for Judaism. “Jewish tradition was uninterested in philosophical speculation and did not preserve Philo’s thought” (IE). “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity” (IE).

Logos Theology

IE claims that, by producing a synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy, Philo developed concepts that were used by Christian theologians (the Apologists) in the second century to formulate Logos Theology. The church began as a Jewish-dominated movement but after the church became Gentile-dominated in the second century, Logos Theology became the standard explanation of Jesus Christ relative to God. IE mentions “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts. In support of this, IE notes that “the church preserved the Philonic writings … Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church father.”

Adam Davis (The Logos of Philo and John – A Comparative Sketch) confirms that “one cannot deny that the Philonic Logos … influenced the early church. … Important figures such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr all incorporate threads of Philo into their work.”

RPC Hanson wrote: “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism” (RH, 22-23).

The Bible

But IE goes much further and claims that Philo may have also influenced the New Testament itself:

“He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews” (IE).

“By developing this doctrine (of the Logos), (Philo) … provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century” (IE).

Trinity Doctrine

Since IE claims that Philo “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today,” we can assume that IE implies that Philo also laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine that was developed in the fourth and fifth centuries. Regarding that period, RPC Hanson stated:

“All Greek-speaking writers in the fourth century were to a greater or lesser degree indebted to Greek philosophy. … If any writer had had a higher education … he … would have sucked in certain fundamental assumptions in the process.” (RH, 858-9)

“It would of course be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy” (RH, xxi).

“Until we reach the Cappadocians, acceptance of philosophy by the theologians is eclectic and opportunist” (RH, 860). “The Cappadocians, however, present us with a rather different picture. They had all probably had an intenser education in philosophy than other theologians of the fourth century. They were all in a sense Christian Platonists.” (RH, 863)

Based on Greek philosophy

By reading the Greek philosophy of his day into the Old Testament, Philo gave Greek philosophy a Biblical cloak. What IE effectively claims is that Christianity grew out of Greek philosophy. Many scholars hold the same view still today. For example:

“In his history of philosophy textbook that is still widely used, even in some evangelical colleges, W. T. Jones claims that the “mysticism of the Fourth Gospel was grounded in the Platonism of Hellenistic Alexandria.” (Ronald Nash – Professor of Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando)

Philo’s view of God

First, consider some of Philo’s views concerning God:

Only God knows Himself.

For Philo, “God’s essence is beyond any human … cognition” (IE). We cannot say what God is. We can only say “what God is not” (IE) [e.g., immortal, invisible, immaterial]. “Strictly speaking, we cannot make any positive or negative statements about God: ‘He alone can utter a positive assertion respecting himself, since he alone has an accurate knowledge of his own nature’” (IE). “It is not possible for God to be comprehended by any being but himself” (IE).

This is perhaps comparable to the NT’s description of “the invisible God” (Col 1:15), “who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16; cf. Rom 1:20).

God exists outside time.

Philo also argued that “God is the creator of time also … (for God) nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only” (IE).

Creator Eternally

Philo argued that the world was created but has no beginning: “According to Philo, (God) did not begin to create the world at a certain moment” (IE) but has always been creating: “God is continuously ordering matter by his thought … there never was a time when he did not create” (IE). “Philo contends that … any description of creation in temporal terms, e.g., by Moses, is not to be taken literally, but rather is an accommodation to the biblical language” (IE).

The ancients had no inkling of the universe as we understand it today. For them, this world was the universe. Therefore, whenever we read of “the world” in Philo’s writings, we must think of the universe.

Note that these philosophers could argue that things (such as the ‘world’ in the example above) can have an origin, meaning to be caused by something else, but, at the same time, have always existed. Origen, for example, argued this way about God’s unique Son. In contrast, Arius stated that “there was when He (the Son of God) was not.”

Philo’s view of the Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

When Philo lived, “the notion of the Logos was deeply ingrained in Greek philosophy” (Davis). Philo included the Logos in his interpretation of the Old Testament:

“The pivotal … doctrine in Philo’s writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. … (On this,) all other doctrines of Philo hinge” (IE).

As stated above, Philo’s purpose was to synthesize the Old Testament with Greek philosophy. He did that through his description of the Logos:

“By developing this doctrine (of the Logos), he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought” (IE).

Furthermore, IE claims that it was “by developing this doctrine (of the Logos) (that Philo) … provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century.”

The Logos in the Old Testament

Philo obtained the idea of the Logos from Greek philosophy. But where did he find the Logos in the OT?

Firstly, he found it in the often-used phrase, “the Word of the LORD.” For example, the Old Testament often says that “the Word of the LORD” came to a prophet (e.g. Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3; and Jonah 1:1), or that something was done by “the Word of the LORD.” For example: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made” (Psa 33:6; cf. Gen 1:3, 6,9; 3:9, 11; Psa 32:9; Psa 106:20; Psa 147:15; Zech 5:1-4; Jer 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek 1:3; Amos 3:1).

Secondly, “in the so-called Jewish wisdom literature, we find the concept of Wisdom … which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification … (hypostatization)” (IE).

We may agree that these were simply figures of speech and poetic language describing God’s words, actions, or wisdom, but Philo’s allegorical methods allowed him to identify these with the Logos of Greek philosophy.

Thirdly, Philo identified the Logos as the Old Testament Angel of the Lord (Gen 31:13; 16:8; etc.). Philo described “the Logos (as) the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels” and as the Father’s “archangel.”

Philo also saw the Logos as referred to as theos in the Old Testament. He says, “when the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos.” However, “Philo … explains that to call the Logos ‘God’ is not a correct appellation.”

Does the New Testament describe the Son as ‘the word of the Lord’, ‘the Wisdom of God’, or as the ‘Angel of the Lord’? Perhaps

Revelation, which John has also written, says of Jesus Christ, “His name is called The Word of God” (Rev 19:13).

The NT says that “we preach … Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23-24) but we should not necessarily interpret that literally.

I am not aware of any direct identification in the NT of Jesus Christ as the Old Testament Angel of the Lord.

A Personal Being

“Logos” is the common Greek word for “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” But, in Greek philosophy, the word Logos had a very specialized meaning. “Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature.” (IE)

But IE claims that Philo, by introducing the concept of the Logos into Judaism, has transformed “the Logos … from a metaphysical [theoretical] entity into … (a) anthropomorphic [humanlike] being and mediator between God and men:” For Philo, “the Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated” (IE).

In contrast, Ronald Nash states that “Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.” In this, Nash is supported by RPC Hanson4The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (RH) and Rowan Williams5Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001 (RW):

After a longish and involved discussion, RW states that the descriptions in Philo of “an individually subsistent Logos, distinct from the Father” are not literal but metaphorical (RW, 122).

Similarly, RH states that Philo “does not make the same division between the Logos and God as did the Arians” (RH, 60).

My own understanding is that Philo illogically describes the Logos as both a “metaphysical abstraction,” as in Greek philosophy, and as a Personal Being, as he interprets the Logos in the Old Testament to be. This understanding is supported by the following:

Nash states: “It is impossible … to find any clear or consistent use of the word (Logos) in his many writings. For example, he used the word to refer to:

        • Plato’s ideal world of the forms, …
        • The mind of God, …
        • A principle that existed somewhere between the realms of God and creation, … (and to)
        • Any of several mediators between God and man, such as the angels, Moses, Abraham, and even the Jewish high priest.”

RPC Hanson confirms, “Philo’s Logos-doctrine is confused and obscure” (RH, 60).

Rowan Williams adds, “To look for a clear definition or identification of the Logos in his writings would be … fruitless” (RW, 124)

Does not exist without a cause.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has an origin:

In Greek philosophy, the Logos is God’s thinking, which is also His acting. Philo seems to say more or less the same thing:

“The Logos … constitutes the manifestation of God’s thinking, acting” (IE).

He similarly describes the Logos as “the Divine Mind.” But then he creates a little distance between God and the Logos by saying that the Logos is “the expression of this act of God (to create), which is at the same time his thinking” (IE).

Since Philo describes the Logos as the “manifestation of God’s thinking-acting,” “the Logos has an origin,” meaning that He does not exist without cause but exists because the Father has brought Him into existence.

Similarly, in the NT, the Son was “begotten,” meaning that He does not exist without a cause.

Has always existed.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has always existed:

In Philo, since God has always existed and has always thought and acted, the Logos has “eternal generation,” meaning that He has always existed.

Similarly, in the NT, the Son “was” in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). And the Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23).

Ontologically Subordinate

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ are subordinate to God:

In Philo, the Logos is “inferior to God” (Davis). “The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God” (IE).

Here I need to divert a little. Some regard any kind of order or hierarchy among the persons of the Trinity as heresy. But that is not the orthodox teaching. The NT also provides clear indications of the subordination of the Son. For example:

    • The Father created all things through the Son.
    • The Father sent the Son.
    • The miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22).
    • Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
    • After His ascension, God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21).
    • After sin and the consequences of sin have been vanquished, “the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

Therefore, the orthodox teaching of the church accepts functional subordination but prohibits that the Son be described as ontologically inferior to the Father. For that reason, several theological dictionaries define “subordinationism” with respect to ontology only. For example:

Subordinationism is “the doctrine that in essence and status the Son is inferior to the Father” (Millard Erickson, “Subordinationism,” in Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 161.)

Augustus Strong stated that “the subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father is perfectly consistent with equality” (See Glenn Peoples).

So, this section will only concern itself with the question of whether the Son is ontologically equal to the Father:

In Philo, “the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Davis), and “an extension of a divine being” (IE). Therefore, He is also ontologically subordinate to the High God.

The Bible nowhere teaches anything about the substance of God or ontological equality, except if we interpret “only-begotten” literally. That is what the Nicene Creed does. It interprets “begotten” as that He came from the substance of the Father and, therefore, that creed concludes, He is of the same substance as God. This idea, however, originates from “pagan philosophy” (RH, 846); not from the Bible. The anti-Nicenes of the fourth century warned that humans must not assume to understand what “begotten of God” means, that we should not interpret this literally as if God begat a Son like human beings begat children and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts.

So, in Philo, the Logos is ontologically inferior compared to the Trinity doctrine, in which He is ontologically equal. But that is a difference between Philo and the Trinity doctrine; not between Philo and the NT.

Literally first in time

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos literally existed first in time:

It was already shown above that Philo described the Logos as eternal. Therefore, He “exists … before everything else.” For that reason, Philo described the Logos as the ‘first-born’ and as “the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father.”

Jesus Christ, similarly, is “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), although this might also be interpreted symbolically. Revelation 3:14 refers to Jesus as “the Beginning of the creation of God,” which also implies that He was the first being that God brought forth.

Uniquely Generated

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has been uniquely generated:

Philo describes the Logos as both “eternally begat” and “eternally created.” In other words, Philo used “begotten” and “created” as synonyms. In another place, similarly, he describes the Logos as “neither unbegotten nor begotten as are sensible things.” In other words, all created things are “begotten.” Therefore, he described the Logos as “the first-begotten” and not as “the only begotten,” as we find in the New Testament.

However, Philo does describe the Son’s origin as unique but uses different words to do that. He says, namely, that the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men.

The NT, by saying that the Son is “the only begotten,” makes a distinction between “begotten” and “created” and indicates that the Son was uniquely generated.

Direct Agent of Creation

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the direct Agent of creation:

In Philo, “the direct agent of creation is not God himself … but the Logos. … the Logos … was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation.” “God … orders and shapes the formless matter through the agency of his Logos into the objects of the sensible world.” (The idea that the Logos is a “pattern of all creation” is a remnant from the Greek philosophy. At another place, Philo similarly states that “the sensible universe … is the image of the Logos.”)

The NT also describes Jesus Christ as God’s direct Agent of creation, namely, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos maintains the universe:

In Philo, “the Logos is the bond holding together all the parts of the world” and “produces a harmony … between various parts of the universe.” (This still relates to the idea that the Logos (the Word) is the thoughts of God through which all things are created and maintained.)

Similarly, in the NT, God maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17).

The Light of the World

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul:

In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia). “The Logos … in the mind of a wise man … allows preservation of virtues” (IE).

Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9).

Mediator

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man:

Philo described the Logos as “neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities.” His role is appropriate for that position, for “the Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Davis); “mediator between God and the world” (IE). As mediator:

When interacting with God, He is “a paraclete;” “continually a suppliant (pleading) to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race,” “to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings” (IE).

When interacting with the human race, He is “the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race” (IE), “a messenger” (IE), and the source of hope and wisdom for mankind. [For Philo, that the Logos was sent to the human race does not mean that He literally became a human being as in the New Testament, but that God sends a ‘stream of his own wisdom’ to men. “Through the Logos of God, men learn … everlasting wisdom.”]

Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. But this does not mean that the Son has to plead with the Father for us:

“I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you” (John 16:26-27).

The Logos in our God.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is our God:

In Philo, “though God is hidden, his reality is made manifest by the Logos that is God’s image and by the sensible universe” (IE). “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Davis).

“Philo believed that man’s final goal and ultimate bliss is in the ‘knowledge of the true and living God’” (IE). However, due to “the utter transcendence of the First Principle [the One who exists without cause],” “man’s highest union with God is limited to God’s manifestation as the Logos” (IE).

For the same reason – “the utter transcendence of the First Principle” – when the Bible says that man was made “in the image of God” (Gen 9:6), Philo argues that it is not possible that man is made after “the preeminent and transcendent Divinity.” Therefore, man was made after the image of “the second deity, the Divine Logos of the Supreme being”.

One could say that, for Philo, the Logos is the only experience of God that man will have. The Logos, therefore, is effectively our God.

Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). As the direct Agent of our creation and ur continued existence, and since we will never be able to “see” or directly experience God, the Son is effectively our God.

Cannot become Flesh

Philo does not have a concept of the incarnation as we find in the New Testament. On the contrary, “Philo disdained the material world and physical body. The body was for Philo as for Plato, ‘an evil and a dead thing’, wicked by nature and a plotter against the soul.” “He belittled the body as a tomb of the soul” (Nash). Philo, therefore, would never have accepted that the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14).

This is confirmed in that “Philo adopts the Stoic wise man as a model for human behavior. Such a wise man … should be free of irrational emotions (passions), pleasure, desire, sorrow, and fear, and should replace them by rational … emotions; joy, will, compunction, and caution.” But Jesus suffered both sorrow and fear. Jesus “not only becomes man but participates in a full range of all that is human, including that He suffered, was tempted to sin, and died. Philo would never have tolerated such thinking.” (Nash)

In support of this point, C.H. Dodd noted6The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, page 10 that Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), one of the most prominent theologians of the early church, wrote7The Confessions vii. 9 that he read John 1:1-5, 10 and 13 in “some books of the Platonists,” “not in so many words, but in substance” but that he found nothing in these books about the incarnation of the Logos (John 1:10-12, 14).

Man’s Mind

For Philo, “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the all-pervading Divine Logos.” It is “indivisible from the Divine Logos.” For this reason, “this Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts in humans.” Consequently, the human mind “has divine essence … (and) is imperishable. By receiving this, humans received … the power of spontaneous will free from necessity.”

I would say that this is an aspect where the NT deviates from Philo.

Did Philo influence the New Testament?

The question is: Does the New Testament say things about Christ that Christ never said of Himself but which Philo did say about his Logos? Considering the discussion of Philo’s theology above, the answer must be “Yes!”

For example, Jesus never said that He created all things or that He maintains all things, but Philo made these claims about the Logos and these claims eventually found a prominent place in the New Testament.

Since the word Logos had a very specialized meaning in Greek philosophy, and given the pervasive influence of Greek philosophy at the time, John’s description of Jesus Christ as “the Logos,” coupled with His description of the Logos as existing with God “in the beginning” and as the direct Agent of creation (John 1:1-3), all of which are consistent with Philo’s logos as discussed above, must mean that John identified the Son of God as the Logos of Greek Philosophy. Furthermore, since Philo has “numerous expressions implying that the Logos is a being in its own right” (RW, 117), John, in all likelihood, specifically had Philo’s Logos in mind. This conclusion is made undeniable by the many similarities between Philo’s Logos and the Biblical Son of God:

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has an origin, has always existed, is subordinate to God, has existed first in time, has been uniquely generated, is the direct Agent of creation, maintains the universe, illuminates the soul, and is the mediator between God and man.

It is also possible to argue, in both Philo and the NT, that the Logos is a personal Being, and is “our God.”

There are also many important differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God, such as that Philo’s theology does not allow for the incarnation of the Logos, that “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the … Logos,” and many others not discussed above, but these differences do not take away the astounding similarities or our duty to explain these similarities.

Possible Explanations

So, how do we explain the similarities? Why did such concepts exist before the New Testament was written?

The Bible is not inspired.

Critical Scholars (theologians who do not believe in the supernatural or miracles but who, unfortunately, dominate the academic world) believe that the NT is simply the result of the evolution of human thought. Consequently, they claim that the writers of the NT were not really inspired in this regard but simply found Philo’s speculations a good explanation of who Christ is. Nash states:

“Various writers have attempted to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day.”

A Different Logos

An alternative is to argue that the differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God are great and that Philo, consequently, did not influence the NT writers.

Ronald Nash adopts this approach. He proposes, for the following reasons, that “Philo’s Logos could not possibly function as a direct influence on the biblical concept of Logos:”

(1) “The Logos of the New Testament is a specific, individual, historical person. Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.”

(2) “It is impossible … to find any clear or consistent use of the word (Logos) in his many writings.”

(3) Philo could never have believed in anything like the Incarnation of the Logos.

(4) “Philo’s Logos could never be described as the Book of Hebrews pictures Jesus: suffering, being tempted to sin, and dying.”

(5) “The repeated stress in Hebrews of Jesus’ compassionate concern for His brethren (i.e., Christians) is incompatible with Philo’s view of the emotions.

Based on these differences, Nash sees “no need to postulate a conscious relationship between Philo (or Alexandrian Judaism) and the New Testament use of logos.”

I cannot support this argument: Yes, the Logos in the NT is very different from that described by Greek philosophy or by Philo, but, as discussed, the description of the Son as the Logos, who was with God in the beginning, through whom God created all things (John 1:1-3) is too specific and too similar to that of Philo to deny the influence of Greek philosophy.

Both are based on the Old Testament.

A third possible explanation is that Philo and the New Testament came to the same conclusions because they used the same source, namely, the Old Testament.

However, it is very unlikely that the NT could have derived these truths simply by interpreting the Old Testament. The NT is a quantum leap from the Old Testament. It cannot simply be an interpretation of it. And it was a quantum leap and a leap in the direction of the Logos of Greek philosophy.

And Philo did not derive these truths merely by interpreting the Old Testament. He derived his thoughts on the Logos explicitly from Greek philosophy.

Teaching Mechanism

A fourth possibility is that the writers of the NT used concepts from Philo to explain Jesus Christ to Greek readers in their own language. GotQuestions, following this approach, states that “John’s Gospel begins by using the Greek idea of a ‘divine reason’ or ‘the mind of God’ as a way to connect with the readers of his day.” However, the similarities between Philo and the NT, as discussed above, are too specific and of too extraordinary a nature to be simply explaining truths in Greek thought forms. These are major conceptual similarities.

To oppose pagan theology

Nash notes “a number of fascinating connections between the author of the Book of Hebrews (whom he takes to be Apollos) and Alexandrian Judaism.” He proposes that both the author and his audience were trained in Philo’s philosophy before their Christian conversion and that “the writer argues that … Christ is a better Logos (or mediator) than any of the mediators available to them in their former beliefs.” In other words, “the writer of Hebrews does not use this philosophical background to introduce Alexandrian philosophy into Christian thinking; rather he uses Christian thinking to reject his former views.”

Nash concludes that the Christian community’s “application of the concept of logos to Jesus Christ did not amount to an introduction of pagan thinking into Christianity. On the contrary, their Christian use of Logos was developed in conscious opposition to every relevant aspect of Philo’s philosophy.”

Nash implies that John refers to Jesus Christ as the logos for the same reason.

This may be part of the answer but it is very far from explaining all the similarities. For example, the description of the Logos in both as the direct Agent of creation cannot simply be an argument that Christ is a better mediator than the mediators of pagan philosophy.

Therefore, I propose that:

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Observations:

1) The large number of significant conceptual similarities between Philo and the NT means that Philo was right in some respects about the Logos. Philo did not develop new ideas. He largely read the ideas of Greek philosophy into the Old Testament. So, when we say that Philo was right in some respects, then we are really saying that Greek philosophy was right in some respects.

2) God elected Israel to take His message to the nations of the world. So, God worked particularly and extraordinarily with the Jewish nation. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit was not working with and inspiring people from other nations as well. God is always working with all peoples and all nations. He has prophets in other nations as well. For example, at the time of Christ, the wise men came from the east.

3) In contrast to the multiplicity of gods in the Greek pantheon, Greek philosophy is monotheistic. That was a quantum leap. Where did the Greek philosophers get this? It is not impossible that he learned this from contact with Judaism.

Proposal:

I propose as follows:

Firstly, to prepare the non-Jewish world to receive ‘the kingdom of God’ from the Jews, God, through His Holy Spirit, inspired Greek philosophers, either through contact with Judaism or directly through the Holy Spirit, to move away from Greek polytheism to monotheism and with many truths concerning the nature of God. Greek philosophy, therefore, was a combination of revealed truth and human wisdom.

Secondly, to make it easier for the writers of the NT to understand who Jesus is, God inspired Philo to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Old Testament.

Thirdly, through His Holy Spirit, God inspired the writers of the NT to selectively accept Philo’s teachings and to explain Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy, as harmonized with the Old Testament by Philo.

Justifications:

I would like to support this proposal as follows:

Firstly, many of the teachings of the NT, for example, that God created all things through His Son, did not come from the Old Testament or from anything that Jesus said. We would assume, therefore, that, after Christ’s ascension, God’s Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers to understand these things (John 16:12). The pagan philosophers were earnestly trying to understand the nature of reality. Nothing prevents the Holy Spirit from using them to reveal truths to the people of the world.

Secondly, the Logos Theology which the second-century church fathers developed went beyond what the Bible teaches and explicitly explains Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy:

For example, they taught that the Logos is the ‘mind’ or ‘wisdom’ of God that always was part of God. However, God is unable to interact directly with physical matter. Therefore, when God decided to create the physical universe, His Logos became a separate reality (hypostasis) through whom God could create and maintain all things. See – The Apologists.

RPC Hanson states: “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism” (RH, 22-23).

Their development of Logos Theology implies that these church fathers assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired. If these Gentile church fathers, who lived in the same Greek culture as the Jewish writers of the NT, assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired, then it is possible that the writers of the NT did the same.

Thirdly, the Nicene Creed is influenced by Greek philosophy. RPC Hanson described the words substance (ousia), same substance (homoousios), and hypostasis as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH, 846). These words and concepts do not appear in the Bible.

Fourthly, since the Arian Controversy was caused by objection to these pagan concepts in the Nicene Creed, the “discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy” (RH, xxi).

Fifthly, even today many philosophical concepts from ancient Greek philosophy, such as that God is immanent, transcendent, simple, immutable, impassable, and timeless, are generally accepted by church theologians even though NOT stated in the Bible. This is called Classical Theism.

Abbreviations

RH = RPC Hanson, RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381

RW = Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001
  • 2
    RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381
  • 3
    RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381
  • 4
    The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381
  • 5
    Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001
  • 6
    The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, page 10
  • 7
    The Confessions vii. 9
Proudly powered by WordPress