Simpliciores, Eruditi, and the Noetic Form of God: Pre-Nicene Christology Revisited

HTR 108:2 (2015) 263–288

Simpliciores, Eruditi, and the Noetic Form of God: Pre-Nicene Christology RevisitedDragoş Andrei GiuleaConcordia University

Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen have shown that anthropomorphism, one of the most popular and equally biblical tenets of ancient Christianity, was spread out not only among the simpliciores (the simple) of the early ecclesia but also among its eruditi (its educated members), particularly such docti (learned) in Stoicism like Tertullian.1 Following previous researchers, Griffin and Paulsen have also argued

1 Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, “Augustine and the Corporeality of God,” HTR 95 (2002) 97–118, at 97. Previous scholars have already explored the doctrines of anthropomorphism and the “form of God” either in apocryphal documents from the Acts of John 89–93 to Acts of Peter 20 to Clementine Homilies 17, or in various Gnostic writings, or in early mystical-ascetical visions. See, for instance, Jarl Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995) and Carey C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Regarding the presence of the divine Form topic (morphe, eikon, and smot) in Gnostic materials, see, e.g., Marcus (Irenaeus Haer. 1.14.1); Tri. Trac. 53.22, 54.14, 55.1, 63.9, 66.13, 67.19, 72.35, 93.36; Ap. John 14.20–15.10; Gos. Phil. 71; Gos. Eg. III 67.8, 10; Soph. Jes. Chr. NHC III 91.11; Acts Pet. 12 Apos. 2.19; Great Pow. 36.9; Disc. 8–9 57.6; Paraph. Shem 1.35, 8.7; Treat. Seth 56.25, 68.6–7; Val. Exp. 35.25–30; Allogenes 51.6–35. For Christian anthropomorphism and the topic of the “Form of God,” see also Georges Florovsky, “The Anthropomorphites in the Egyptian Desert” and “Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje,” in Aspects of Church History (Collected Works of Georges Florovsky 4; Belmont, Mass: Norland, 1975) 89–129; Gilles Quispel, “The Discussion of Judaic Christianity,” in Gnostic Studies (2 vols.; Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1975) 2:146–58; idem, “Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis,” VC 34 (1980) 1–13; Jarl Fossum, “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism,” VC 37 (1983) 260–87; Grace M. Jantzen, God’s World, God’s Body (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984); Elizabeth A. Clark, “New Perspectives on the Origenist Controversy: Human Embodiment and Ascetic Strategies,” CH 59 (1990) 145–62; Graham E. Gould, “The Image of God and the Anthropomorphite Controversy in Fourth-Century Monasticism,” in Origeniana Quinta (ed. Robert

264 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that Christian Platonizing authors, starting with Origen in the East and Marius Victorinus in the West, developed a sturdy campaign of promoting the doctrine of an incorporeal God. At a time when the clergy itself was largely conceiving God as a corporeal entity, the Christian Platonists were heavily employing the rhetoric of erudition in order to uphold an anti-anthropomorphist agenda.2 Other scholars have noticed that Origen of Alexandria was the first (or among the first) to relate the anthropomorphist position to the uneducated members of the Christian community, the simpliciores.3 Later on, Cassian, Socrates, Sozomen, and Palladius will communicate the events of the Origenist debate by means of the same distinction between simpliciores and eruditi. As Elizabeth A. Clark observes:

According to several fifth-century Christian writers—Socrates, Sozomen, and Palladius, all of whom sided with the alleged Origenists—the simple desert Monks were outraged by Theophilus of Alexandria’s Festal Letter of 399 that championed God’s incorporeality, a position in accord with that of Alexandria’s most important theologian, Origen.4

Griffin and Paulsen equally find several Augustinian pages in which the bishop of Hippo asserts that the “Church’s educated men (docti)” cannot embrace

J. Daly; Leuven: University Press, 1992) 549–57; Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine;” Alexander A. Golitzin, “‘The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God’s Glory in a Form’: Controversy Over the Divine Body and Vision of Glory in Some Late Fourth, Early Fifth Century Monastic Literature,” StudMon 44 (2002) 13–42; idem, “The Vision of God in the Form of Glory: More Reflections on the Anthroporphite Controversy of AD 399,” in Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West (ed. John Behr and Andrew Louth; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003) 173–98; Lewis Ayres, “‘Shine, Jesus, Shine:’ On Locating Apollinarianism,” in Studia Patristica XL (ed. F. Young, M. Edwards, and P. Parvis; Louvain: Peeters, 2006) 143–57; Paul A. Patterson, Visions of Christ: The Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399 CE (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

2 For Origen, see Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 100–103. Henri Crouzel avows that anthropomorphism had many supporters in Origen’s time; see Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène (Théologie 34; Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1956) 257. For Victorinus, see Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 105. Cf. Augustine, ibid. 104–10. Griffin and Paulsen also assert that the doctrines of the incorporeality of God and the soul “were not fundamental doctrines before Augustine, although they became fundamental largely because of him” (ibid. 105). See also Roland J. Teske, “The Aim of Augustine’s Proof That God Truly Is,” International Philosophical Quarterly 26 (1986) 253–68; and Gérard Verbeke, L’évolution de la doctrine du Pneuma, du stoïcisme à s. Augustin (Greek and Roman Philosophy 43; Paris: Desclée, 1945) 387–544.

3 Gunnar af Hällström, Fides simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 76; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1984).

4 Clark, “New Perspectives,” 147. Clark mentions Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 6.7, Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 8.11–11.19, and Palladius, Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi 6.22–7.23. She adds on the next page that Cassian affirmed that the monks believed in God’s anthropomorphic form because of “their simplicity;” see John Cassian, Conlationes 10.2–3.

DRAGOŞ ANDREI GIULEA 265

anthropomorphism,5 and he prefers to portray the less educated Christians as “whimpering babies,” “children,” or possessing a “childishness of mind.”6

My study will continue and refine these investigations by emphasizing a special pre-Nicene doctrine, namely the theory of the noetic Form of God. I will argue in this paper that the doctrine of the noetic Form of God was a special theory designed by various authors of Jewish and Christian intelligentsia, from Philo to Origen, as a reaction to anthropomorphism. In point of fact, the theory about Jesus’s noetic divine Form was elaborated by some of the most erudite and classical pre-Nicene writers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen himself, and Methodius. While rejecting anthropomorphism, 7 they did not interpret the biblical concept of the Form of God as a sensible entity among the things of the universe, but they transferred its reference to the intelligible dimension of creation. Occasionally, some of them even maintained that the divine Form is beyond any human comprehension. In addition, all Christian writers associated the Form of God with the metaphysical or divine dimension of Jesus Christ, an element which confers a genuine christological spin to our investigation. Anticipating the conclusion, we may avow that this Christology deserves a special examination also because of its distinct nuances and differences from the post-Nicene Christology of oJmoouvsio~. After Nicaea, the anti-anthropomorphist supporters will disallow the doctrine of the noetic Form of God along with anthropomorphism.

However, the doctrine was sometimes defended even after Nicaea. Lewis Ayres has pinpointed the existence of certain post-Nicene “heretical” doctrines about a pre-existent Christ endowed with a glorious body or form of spiritual nature. Unfortunately all our information on this topic is collected exclusively from the opponents’ reports. Nonetheless, among the supporters of these doctrines we may count the erudite Apollinaris of Laodicaea, the Apollinarists, the Audians, some monks from Palestine, and the church of Corinth.8 As Ayres shows, the pro-Nicene Christology of oJmoouvsio~, with its emphasis on the equality of nature between the Logos and the Father, receives a widespread and strong acceptance in the 360s and 370s c.e. In this context, the theory of the noetic Form of Christ becomes exceedingly incongruous with the trend of the day, even to the point of exclusion.9 No eruditus will defend this theory after the 370s. The Origenist controversy erupting after 399 c.e. represents a strong local reaction against the

5 Conf. 6.11.18, as cited in Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 108.6 Mor. eccl. 10.17, as cited in Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 109.7 Irenaeus (Haer. 4.3.1), Clement (Strom. 5.11), and Origen (Sel. Gen. 25) criticized the

anthropomorphic position, while Justin asserted that God the Father cannot have a form (Dial. 1.4).8 Ayres, “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”9 Ibid., 157: “It was only as these theologies [i.e., of Alexander and Athanasius] gave way to

the emphases of pro-Nicene theology in the 360s and 370s—after the upheavals of the 350s—that we find the clear exclusion of some of this earlier variety. Apollinaris’ theology would have passed much more easily in the context of the 340s and 350s, but a couple of decades later it had become much more incongruous and Apollinaris probably found himself under much greater pressure.”


anti-anthropomorphist agenda at the moment when Theophilus, the erudite bishop of Alexandria, attempted to impose it against the anthropomorphist views defended by several monastic communities in Egypt.

In order to make clearer the goal of this paper, we should distinguish first between three positions: 1) The anthropomorphic vision of the Bible and Greco-Roman mythologies; 2) The anti-anthropomorphism of certain Jewish and Christian Hellenistic authors who equally assumed that God possesses a noetic Form which may be perceived by the intellect (in Christian context the theory was essentially Christological); and 3) The post-Nicene context in which the second theoretical position became problematic. The intention of this paper is to explore the second position in the pre-Nicene context.

The Noetic Form of God in its Hellenistic SettingThe origins of the pre-Nicene speculations on the intelligible (noetic) Form of God have to be explored in the larger Hellenistic context. In general, the roots of the anti-anthropomorphist standpoint may be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. Xenophanes of Colophon (ca. 570–480 b.c.e.) is the first philosopher attested for taking a stance against the portrayal of the divine in human features. Later, the paradigm knew such prominent Jewish Alexandrian representatives as Aristobulus and Philo, and several Christian and non-Christian authors of the first three centuries c.e.10 On the other side of the spectrum, the anthropomorphist standpoint has remained an appealing position to a considerable range of mystic writers until late in the Middle Ages.11 The modern reader might be surprised to

10 For Xenophanes of Colophon, see Fr. 11–16, 23 as well as Test. 28.1, 9 and 31.3–5. For Aristobulus, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.1–2; for Philo, see Opif. 69, Mut. 54; see Celsus as cited in Origen, Cels. 7.27, 34. See also Clement of Alexandria’s rejection of anthropomorphism in Strom. 5.11.68.13 as a “Hebrew” doctrine. A constant subject of debate among Greek philosophers (see Harold W. Attridge, “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” ANRW II/16:45–78), anthropomorphism was a key topic for such philosophers as Apuleius, Celsus, and Numenius. Assuming an anti-anthropomorphist stance, they articulated an apophatic discourse about God. See, e.g., Gedaliahu Stroumsa, “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen’s Position,” Rel 13 (1983) 345, and Karen J. Torjesen, “The Enscripturation of Philosophy: The Incorporeality of God in Origen’s Exegesis,” in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality (ed. Christine Helmer with assistance of Taylor G. Petrey; SBLSymS; Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 73–84.

11 For rabbinic anthropomorphism, one may consult Arthur Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism (vol. 2 of The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God; Jews’ College Publications 14; London: Oxford University Press, 1937); Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah (ed. Jonathan Chipman; trans. Joachim Neugroschel; New York: Schocken Books, 1991) 251–73; David Stern, “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Proof 12 (1992) 151–74; Alon G. Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87 (1994) 171–96; Michael Fishbane, “The ‘Measures’ of God’s Glory in the Ancient Midrash,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa; TSAJ 32; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 53–74. For Christian anthropomorphism, see n. 1.


learn that the founding fathers of anti-anthropomorphism actually assumed that the divine subsists in a special form. Thus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Plato believed that God was endowed with a spherical shape.12 Hence, according to these philosophers, the anti-anthropomorphist position was not necessarily a denial of the Form of God.

With Philo and the aforementioned pre-Nicene Christian authors, we reach a second stage in the history of the anthropomorphist debate, a stage in which this Greek philosophical dispute is transferred to a new culture and applied to a new collection of sacred writings, the Bible. These philosophically educated authors struggled indeed to reconcile their anti-anthropomorphist stance with the fact that the Bible itself includes several expressions referring to the Form of God, and the terms ei\do~ (Ezek 1:26 lxx) and morfhv (Phil 2:6) will become the classical vocabulary to denote the divine Form. However, their solution was not to develop a doctrine of a formless God but to reshape the traditional biblical theory about the Form of God into a doctrine about God’s intelligible (noetic) shape.

The assumption of this new theory entailed a significant linguistic and conceptual leap from biblical anthropomorphist terminologies. A noetic or intelligible reality is not a sheer mental entity but a real individual object, although ontologically more subtle and refined than material things. The nature of the intelligible world involves several ontological levels and, thus, a certain complexity. For these Jewish and Christian authors, reality implies several degrees of corporeality, from the more material, dense, and visible entities of the sensible cosmos to the more spiritual and invisible (also perceptible by a purified intellect) inhabitants of heaven, to the perfectly immaterial nature of God.

From an epistemological angle, the diverse ontological levels between the most material and the most immaterial involve distinct modalities of perception, namely from the most sensible capacity of the corporeal eye to the most intelligible (noetic) faculties of apprehension of the human, angelic, and divine mind. Jewish and Christian eruditi designed this new paradigm of thought essentially by means of a linguistic framework of obvious Platonic inspiration. According to the new perspective—encountered almost everywhere in Philo and the aforementioned pre-Nicene authors—God, his glory, form, angels, and resurrected humans inhabit a noetic universe, different from the sensible one, invisible to the ordinary eye, and accessible only through intelligible (noetic) perception, the noesis.

Several Hellenistic documents witness the distinction between sensible and intelligible worlds and between sensible and intelligible perceptions. One of the earliest epitomes of this paradigm may be encountered in Hellenistic Judaism, in Aristobulus of Alexandria, a second-century b.c.e. Jewish writer. Challenging anthropomorphism, Aristobulus upholds that the well-versed commentator of the Bible will not engage in a mythic and anthropomorphist understanding of the text

12 See Orphic Hymns 4.2; Xenophanes, Fr. 23 (Simplicius, In Ph. 23.18, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 9.19); Parmenides, Ph. 8; Plato, Tim. 37c.


(eij~ to; muqw`de~ kai; ajnqrwvpinon katavsthma).13 His position, a definite rejection of both anthropomorphism and literal interpretation of Scripture, is most likely aimed at certain anthropomorphists of his time, people who believed that God’s power (duvnami~) was shaped in a particular form, most probably anthropomorphic.

Nevertheless, in spite of his professed anti-anthropomorphism, Aristobulus envisions God as a gigantic intelligible man inhabiting the noetic universe. The author takes over a pseudo-Orphic hymn and even makes some editorial adjustments to it. The hymn states that God is unseen by mortal eyes, but a certain Chaldean wise man, skilled in astronomy, discerned God with his intellect (nou~). The Chaldean—possibly Musaeus, Moses, or Abraham—had the vision of either Yahweh or Zeus enthroned on a heavenly golden throne, with his feet touching the earth and his hands the limits of the ocean. In this poem of obvious Greek origin, Aristobulus preferred to identify Yahweh with Zeus and describe him in these terms: “He is one (Ei|~)—self-completing (aujtotelhv~), and all things completed by him,/ In them he himself circulates. But no one has seen (eijsorava/) him/ With the souls mortals have, he is seen [only] by Mind (nw/` d’ eijsoravatai).”14 The text continues with a noetic vision of God: “Yes, he after this is established in the great heaven/ On a golden throne. He stands with his feet on the earth./ He stretches out his right hand to the ends of the ocean.”15

However, Philo of Alexandria is the first to mention an intelligible Form of God. In De somniis 1.232, he refers to an archetypal Form of God (to; ajrcevtupon ei\do~), invisible to the souls in bodies (therefore to human beings) but accessible to the incorporeal souls serving in God’s proximity.16 We have to remember that ei\doß represents a Jewish and Christian theophanic technical term denoting God’s luminous countenance in heaven. Its origins may be found in Ezekiel’s visionary account portraying God as “a figure like that of a man” (1.26).17 A similar rejection of any description of God’s ei\do~ reoccurs in De specialibus legibus, in a passage where Philo reports Moses’s conversation with God and agrees that a human being cannot contemplate God’s ei\do~ but only his divine glory: “I bow before Thy admonitions, that I never could have received the vision of Thee clearly manifested (to; th`~ sh`~ fantasiva~ ejnarge;~ ei\do~), but I beseech Thee that I may at least see the glory that surrounds Thee (peri; se; dovxan qeavsasqai).”18 Of course, this

13 For Aristobulus’s text, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.1–2. Greek text from: Eusebius Werke VIII. Die Praeparatio Evangelica (ed. Karl Mras; 2 vols.; GCS 43; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1954-56) 1:451.

14 Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.5 (GCS 43/2:192). English translation from: “Aristobulus,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; trans. A. Yabro Collins; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 2:840.

15 Ibid.16 Philo, Somn. 1.232. Greek text and English translation from: Philo (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H.

Whitaker; 10 vols. and 2 suppl. vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949–1956) 5:420.17 mt µda harmk twmd; oJmoivwma wJ~ ei\do~ ajnqrwvpou lxx.18 Philo, Spec. 1.45 (LCL Philo 7:124–25).


radiance is not the visible and sensible light but the invisible and intelligible one (to; de; ajovraton kai; nohto;n fw`~), mentioned for instance in De opificio 31.19

A similar conception about the inaccessible Form of God (this time the word used is morfhv) appears in Josephus, who also concedes that the human mind cannot perceive this shape but only God’s works:

By His works and bounties He is plainly seen, indeed more manifest than ought else; but His form (morfh;n) and magnitude (mevgeqo~) surpass our pow-ers of description (hJmin a[fato~). No materials, however costly, are fit to make an image (eijkovna) of Him; no art has skill to conceive and represent it.20

Another Hellenistic witness, the Hermetic Corpus, includes a passage conceiving of God as endowed with an incorporeal form (ajswvmato~ ijdeva), invisible to the ordinary eye. The nature of God, in this case, has a similar condition with Plato’s ideas, which are incorporeal and invisible to the sensible eye. It is not clear in the text, however, whether the nou`~ of a human being may discern this enigmatic incorporeal form: “Thus, if he [i.e., God] possesses any form (ijdeva) in him, it is one form (mivan ijdevan), incorporeal (ajswvmato~), and not allowing visions (tai`~ o[yesin). . . . Do not be surprised at the thought of an incorporeal form (ajswvmato~ ijdeva), since it is like the form of a word (hJ tou` lovgou).”21

In the next pages I will investigate the topic of the noetic Form of God in Christian settings. It will be helpful to notice that Christian authors associated this idea particularly with the Son and not with the Father, and, in this way, the whole discussion became christological.

Justin Martyr on Jesus’s Form and the Shapeless Condition of the FatherAt the very beginning of his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr admits that the Deity “cannot be seen by the same eyes as other living beings are. He is to be perceived by the mind alone (movnw/ nw`/ katalhptovn), as Plato affirms.”22 While defining God the Father as devoid of any shape and measure (ouj sch`ma, ouj mevgeqo~),23 Justin opines that the Son possesses a form, namely the Form of God, and that human language is unable to offer an adequate description of it:

19 Philo, Opif. 31 (LCL Philo 1:24).20 Josephus, C. Ap. 2.190–91. Greek text and English translation from: Josephus (trans. H. S. J.

Thackeray et al.; 10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926) 1:369. 21 Hermes Trismegistus, Tract. 11.16–17. Greek text from: Corpus Hermeticum (ed. A. J.

Festugière ; 4 vols.; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1954–60) 1:153–54. My translation.22 Justin, Dial. 1.3.7. Greek text from: Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (ed. M.

Marcovitch; PTS 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997) 76. English translation from: St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (trans. T. B. Falls and T. P. Halton; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2003), 9. See also Philippe Bobichon, Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon. Édition critique, traduction et commentaire (Paradosis 47; Fribourg: Éditions Saint-Paul, 2003).

23 Justin, Dial. 1.4 (PTS 47:77).


But neither do we use a multitude of sacrifices and garlands of flowers to honour those whom human beings formed and set up in temples and called gods, since we know that such things are dead and do not possess the form of God (qeou morfh;n) . . . This we think is not only irrational but is also an insult to God, whose name, though his glory and form are beyond words (a[rrhton dovxan kai; morfh;n), is given to things that are corruptible and need to be looked after.24

Irenaeus on the Invisible Form and Measure of the LogosOne of the most fascinating Irenaean texts, Epideixis 34 assumes the existence of an “invisible Form” of the divine Logos: “He is Himself the Word of God Almighty, who in His invisible form (աներեւոյԹ տեսլեանն) pervades us universally in the whole world.”25 The term used for “form” (տեսիլ) means “aspect,” “appearance,” “look,” “sight,” “image,” or “spectacle;” even “vision,” “phantom,” in a religious sense; or “theory,” “idea,” in a more philosophical meaning. Consequently, the term denotes a visually or mentally perceptible reality, and its meaning is sensibly different from “manner,” “way,” as Rousseau rendered it in his Greek retroversion while translating the entire phrase աներեւոյԹ տեսլեանն as “according to the invisible” (kata; to; ajovraton) instead of “invisible Form.”26

Irenaeus offers his interpretation of Gen 1:26—the biblical verse reporting God’s intention to create Adam according to his own image and likeness—in a few distinct places, for example in Epid. 5, 11, 22, and 97. Epid. 11 deserves special attention since the author states in this chapter that Jesus made use of his Form (ձեւ) when he created Adam: “He gave his frame the outline of His own form (ստեղծուածին զիւրսն պարագրեաց ձեւս), that the visible appearance too should be godlike (Աստուածաձեւ).”27 In a literal translation, as Smith emphasizes, the sentence means: “For the formation [i.e., of the human being] He outlined His own form, that also what would be seen should be deiform.”28 The Armenian word ձեւ is different from the well-known biblical vocabulary of “image” (պատկեր) and “likeness” (նմանութիւն) used in Gen 1:26-27, Ezek 1:26, and Phil 2:6. The word

24 Justin, 1 Apol. 9.1–3. Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis (ed. M. Marcovitch; PTS 38; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994) 43–44. English translation from: Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (ed. D. Minns and P. Parvis; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 97.

25 Irenaeus, Epid. 34. Armenian text from: The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (ed. K. ter Mĕkĕrttschian; trans. S.G. Wilson; PO 12/5; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1919) 33 and Irénée de Lyon: Nouveaux fragments Arméniens de l’Adversus Haereses et de l’Epideixis (ed. Charles Renoux; PO 39/1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1978) 133. Latin text from: Irénée de Lyon: Démonstration de la prédication apostolique (ed. Adelin Rousseau; SC 406; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 130–32, 272–77. For a possible Greek retroversion, see Rousseau’s suggestion in SC 406:272. English translation from: St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (trans. J. P. Smith; London: Longman, Green, and Co, 1952) 69.

26 See Matthias Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English (Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy, 1875–79) 700.

27 Irenaeus, Epid. 11 (PO 12/5:15). English translation from: Smith, Irenaeus, 54.28 Smith, Irenaeus, 148–49.


ձեւ is a new term that simply means “form,” “shape,” “figure,” and “model,” being also used in geometry with the meaning of “geometric figure.”29

Starting from Antonio Orbe’s insights regarding the visibility of the Son, Juan Ochagavía has already pointed out that Irenaeus generally conceived of the notion of “image” as automatically implying a figure, a spatial shape.30 Ochagavía draws the following logical conclusion consonant with the Irenaean thought about image: “From this citation we can conclude that, since an image presupposes some shape and external form circumscribed in space, also the Word, as Image of man, possessed an external form even before the Incarnation.”31

Another remarkable Irenaean concept related to the divine Form of the Son is “measure” (mensura, mevtron). Most likely in the context of one of his polemics with the Gnostics, the author subscribed to the thought of an Elder who depicted the Son as the “measure of the Father”: “For God does all things by measure and in order; nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is out of order. Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was Himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him.”32 The logic of this position resides in a unique and reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son, most likely an eternal interpenetration between the two, where the Father is completely uncognoscible and invisible, but only from human perspective, since the Son can comprehend the Father. To the contrary, the Son may be known or contemplated by the appropriate human mind. The idea is present as well in the famous Irenaean expression “for that which is invisible of the Son is the Father, and what is visible of the Father is the Son” (invisibile etenim Filii Pater, visibile autem Patris Filius).33

29 See Bedrossian, New Dictionary, 430.30 Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.6: “In like manner, neither can those things which are corruptible and

earthly, and of a compound nature, and transitory, be the images of those which, according to these men, are spiritual; unless these very things themselves be allowed to be compound, limited in space, and of a definite shape, and thus no longer spiritual, and diffused, and spreading into vast extent, and incomprehensible. For they must of necessity be possessed of a definite figure, and confined within certain limits, that they may be true images (Necesse est enim ea in figuratione esse et circumscriptione, ut sint imagines uerae).” Latin text from: Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies, Livre II (ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau; SC 294; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 76. English translation from: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (ANF; 10 vols.; Repr. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994) 1:957. For Antonio Orbe, see Hacia la primera teologia de la procesión del Verbo (Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1958).

31 Juan Ochagavía, Visibile Patris Filius: A Study in Irenaeus’ Teaching on Revelation and Tradition (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 171; Rome: Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1964) 91.

32 Irenaeus, Haer. 4.4.2: ”Apanta mevtrw/ kai; tavxei oJ qeo;~ poiei`, kai; oujde;n a[metron par’ aujtw`/, o{ti mhde;n ajnarivqmhton. Kai; kalw`~ oJ eijpw;n aujto;n to;n ajmevtrhton Patevra ejn UiJw`/ memetrh`sqai. “Et bene qui dixit ipsum immensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum: mensura enim Patris Filius, quoniam et capit eum.” Latin and Greek texts from: Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies, Livre IV (ed. Adelin Rousseau et al.; SC 100; Paris: Cerf, 1965) 420–21. English translation from: ANF 1:466.

33 Irenaeus Haer. 4.6.6. (SC 100:450). For the Greek retroversion, see SC 100:451: to; me;n ga;r ajovraton tou` U iJou` oJ Pathvr, to; de; ojrato;n tou` Patro;~ oJ U iJov~. My translation.


The heavenly dimension of the Son is visible for the human being not by the means of ordinary eyes but by the means of noetic perception, with the intellect. In Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus asserts that the prophets contemplated God not directly but indirectly, in the pre-incarnate Christ, and this in an “invisible manner” (rationem invisibilem). They perceived the Logos in this way either as the Lord of hosts (therefore as the glorious humanlike figure which biblical theophanies portray surrounded by glory and angels),34 or, using a biblical anthropomorphic expression, “just as any one might speak to his friend,” but only the back parts (Haer. 4.20.9). Irenaeus usually calls these visions “economies” (dispensations) and the “similitudes” of God. We have to notice as well that his discourse on the divine economies and the similitudes of God, which the prophets contemplated, prevents only the direct vision of the Father but never the contemplation of the Son. Thus in Haer. 4.20.9 we are told that, on the Mountain of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah were finally allowed to see the Son face to face.35

Consequently, while Orbe’s and Ochagavía’s thesis regarding the presence of the two-stage Logos Christology remains debatable, their criticism of Houssiau’s position regarding the invisibility of the Son appears to be a sustainable view.36 Commenting on several Irenaean passages, for instance Haer. 5.16.2, Orbe and Ochagavía conclude that the Logos possesses a pre-incarnate noetic visibility. Indeed invisible to the ordinary sensible eye, the heavenly Son is visible to the Father and to the noetic eye of the prophets.37 Thus, the revelation of the pre-incarnate Son of God in his noetic nature does not undermine the centrality of the revelation in a human body, which remains a unique and central manifestation of God. In addition, according to Irenaeus and other pre-Nicene authors, incarnation is more than a revelatory moment. Described through a complex phenomenological vocabulary, it is the moment where the Son changes his glorious Form of God (or the garment of glory) for the form of the servant in order to defeat death and restore Adam’s

34 Irenaeus Haer. 4.20.8: “After this invisible manner (rationem invisibilem/kata; ... to;n lovgon to;n ajovraton), therefore, did they see God (videbant Deum/ejqewvroun Qeovn), as also Esaias says, “I have seen with mine eyes the King, the Lord of hosts,” pointing out that man should behold God with his eyes, and hear His voice. In this manner, therefore (Secundum hanc igitur rationem/kata; tou`ton ou\n to;n lovgon), did they also see the Son of God as a man conversant with men, while they prophesied what was to happen, saying that He who was not come as yet was present proclaiming also the impassible as subject to suffering, and declaring that He who was then in heaven (eum qui tunc in coelis) had descended into the dust of death” (ANF 1:490; SC 100:650–52, Gr:651–53).

35 E.g., Haer. 4.20.9.36 See Ochagavía, Visibile, 95–122, Orbe, Hacia, 346–47. For two-stage Logos Christology, see

H. A. Wolfson, Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (vol. 1 of The Philosophy of the Church Fathers; 2nd rev. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964) 200.

37 “From all this we may conclude that the preincarnate Word was in possession of a sort of visibility to the mind that was anterior to the visibility to the eyes of the flesh” (Ochagavía, Visibile, 91). See Orbe, Hacia, 407. See Albert Houssiau, La Christologie de Saint Irénée (Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae / Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis Ser. III t.1; Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1955) 18; and also Kunze, Bonwetsch, Chaine, and Lebreton referenced in Ochagavía, Visibile, 91.


vestment of glory which the forefather lost in Paradise. The divine Image which created Adam ab initio as his earthly image comes to defeat death and re-create Adam as his glorious eijkwvn.38

Another argument in favor of the thesis about the invisible form of the Logos is Irenaeus’s opinion that Christ’s incarnation in a human body implies a certain physical reflection or imitation of his divine Image. Thus, after asserting several times that the human being was molded by the hand of God according to God’s Image, which is the Logos (e.g., Haer. 5.6.1 and 5.16.1), Irenaeus states that this truth was only affirmed before incarnation, but it was manifested in Christ’s humanity.39

We may return now to our first Irenaean passage, Epid. 34, regarding the form of the Logos in the universe, because it continues with a description of this invisible form as the shape of the cross inscribed in the whole universe:

And because He is Himself the Word of God Almighty, who in His invisible form (աներեւոյԹ տեսլեանն) pervades us universally in the whole world, and encompasses both its length and breadth and height and depth—for by God’s Word everything is disposed and administered—the Son of God was also crucified in these (ejstaurwvqh eij~ tauta), imprinted in the form of a cross on the universe (keciasmevno~ ejn tw/ pantiv); for He had necessarily, in becoming visible, to bring to light the universality of His cross (civasma aujtou), in order to show openly through His visible form that activity of His (th;n ejnevrgeian aujtou).40

In this passage, Christ manifests an invisible cosmic extension embracing the entire universe. Adelin Rousseau has compared the text with Haer. 5.18.341 and disclosed

38 See, for instance, George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (WUNT 2.232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Dragoş A. Giulea, “Eikonic Soteriology from Paul to Augustine: A Forgotten Tradition?” Theof 42 (2011) 47–70.

39 I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer for this idea.40 Irenaeus, Epid. 34 (SC 406:131–2; 272–77; PO 12/5:33 and 39/1:133). For a possible Greek

retroversion, see Rousseau in SC 406:272. English translation from Smith, Irenaeus, 69-70.41 Irenaeus, Haer. 5.18.3: “For the Creator of the world (Kosmopoihth;~) is truly the Word of God

(Lovgo~ tou` qeou`): and this is our Lord (oJ K uvrio~), who in the last times was made man (a[nqrwpo~), existing in this world, and who in an invisible manner (kata; to; ajovraton) contains (sunevvvcwn) all things created, and is crucified in the entire creation (ejn pavsh/ th/` ktivsei keciasmevno~), since the Word of God governs and arranges all things; and therefore He came to His own in a visible manner (oJratw`~), and was made flesh, and hung upon the tree, that He might sum up (ajnakefalaiwvshtai) all things in Himself (ta; pavnta eij~ eJauto;n)” (ANF 1:546–47 [emended for clarity]; SC 153:245). See also Irenaeus, Haer. 5.17.4 (SC 153:233–34) for the cosmic extension of the Logos, an extension which is hidden to us (kekrummevnon ajf’ hJmw`n), therefore to the ordinary eye. We should mention here that Jean Daniélou also connects the text with the remarkable Jewish-Christian tradition which identifies the divine dynamis with a cosmic cross and the cosmic Christ; see, Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicea 1; Chicago: H. Regenery Co., 1964) 270–92; see also Justin, 1 Apol. 55.1–6; Valentinians (Irenaeus Haer. 1.2.2); Irenaeus, Epid. 56, Haer. 1.3.5; Tertullian, Marc. 3.19; Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 43.1; Acts John 99; Gregory of Nyssa, An. res. 1.


a key similarity, namely that, among all possible signs, the Logos chooses the cross for his passion particularly because he pre-existed in this special form before his incarnation, namely crucified in the universe in an invisible manner.42

For Irenaeus, therefore, the realm beyond the visible and sense-perceptible universe is not totally invisible, immaterial, and deprived of any kind of substance and form. To the contrary, he conceives—as we will see later in Tertullian, Clement, Origen, and Methodius—of various degrees of visibility and substantiality between visible and sense-perceptible substance and complete immateriality. The fact that Christ is invisible before incarnation does not necessarily imply that his invisibility is absolute and formless.43 The Son is visible from the Father’s perspective. Likewise the Son’s invisible presence in the universe in the form of the cross may presuppose a certain subtle substantiality distinct from the perfect immateriality of the Father.

Clement of Alexandria and Christ’s Inaccessible Intelligible FormThe doctrine of a noetic Form of God finds one of its clearest illustrations in Clement of Alexandria. Clement asserts in Protrepticus that God himself and his a[galma (image, representation, statue) are intelligible (noetic), not sensible (aisthetic): “But for us God’s image is intelligible, not sensible, made out of sensible matter. Indeed, the true and only God is intelligible, not sensible.”44 In a different text, his Excerpta ex Theodoto, Clement replies to Theodotus’s commentaries on the Johannine prologue concerning the titles of the Logos and formulates a general metaphysical principle: none of the existing realities (the Son included) are deprived of form and substance. He continues this statement and applies the principle to the Monogenes Son: “Whereas every existing thing is not bereft of substance, those bodies belonging to this universe do not have similar forms and bodies. . . . The Monogenes is peculiarly intelligible and possesses his proper form and substance, exceedingly pure and absolutely sovereign, and enjoys the power of the Father without mediation.”45

42 See Adelin Rousseau, “Le Verbe ‘imprimé’ en forme de croix dans l’univers’: A propos de deux passages de saint Irénée,” in Armeniaca: Mélanges d’études arméniennes (ed. Mesrop Djanachian; Venice: St. Lazare, 1969) 67–82.

43 In Haer. 4.20.5 and the following passages Irenaeus explains that what the prophets contemplated in similitudes will be contemplated face to face in the resurrected life.

44 Clement, Protr. 4.51.6: hJmi`n de; oujc u{ lh~ aijsqhth`~ aijsqhtovn, nohto;n de; to; a[galmav ejstin. Nohtovn, oujk aijsqhtovn ejsti [to; a[galma] oJ qeov~, oJ movno~ o[ntw~ qeov~. Greek text from: Clément d’Alexandrie: Le Protreptique (ed. Claude Mondésert and André Plassart; SC 2; Paris: Cerf, 1949) 114. My translation.

45 Clement, Exc. 10.2–3 (SC 23:78): ”Olw~ ga;r to; genhto;n oujk ajnouvsion mevn, oujc o{moion de; morfh;n kai; sw`ma e[cousi toi`~ ejn tw`/de tw`/ kovsmw/ swvmasin. . . . ]Ekei` de; oJ me;n Monogenh;~ kai; ijdivw~ noerov~, ijdeva/ ijdiva/ kai; oujsiva/ ijdiva/ kecrhmevno~, a[krw~ eijlikrinei` kai; hJgemonikwtavth/, kai; prosecw`~ th`~ tou` Patro;~ ajpolauvwn dunavmew~. Greek text from: Clément d’Alexandrie: Extraits de Théodote (ed. François Sagnard; SC 23; Paris: Cerf, 1948) 78. My translation.


Consequently, neither the pneumatic and intelligible beings (ta; pneumatika; kai; noerav), nor the Archangels, nor the Protoctists (the first created heavenly beings), nor even the Son himself can exist without form, shape, figure, and body (a[morfo~ kai; ajneivdo~ kai; ajschmavtisto~ kai; ajswvmato~).46 The Alexandrian conceives, as well, of various degrees of corporeality among all these kinds of celestial entities. He shows that stars, for instance, are incorporeal and without form (ajswvmata kai; ajneivdea) compared to the earthly things. Stars are, however, measured and sensible bodies (swvmata memetrhmevna kai; aijsqhtav) from the perspective of the Son, as the Son is also measured and corporeal from the perspective of the Father.47

The same theory about the universal hierarchy of beings is expressed in terms of materiality. It is not only human beings and all the creatures of the visible world that may be reckoned as material. Celestial realities, which enjoy a noetic nature, possess their own kind of material substance. The angels, for instance, as intelligible spirits (pneuvmata noerav), are not perfectly immaterial but enjoy a body consisting of a noetic fire (noero;n pu`r). Clement additionally admits the existence of two types of intelligible light. The first type of light, purer than angelic brilliance, is simply called noetic (fw`~ noero;n), and the author informs his reader that angelic beings themselves ardently long to partake in this realm. However, the second type of intelligible light is the substance of the Son of God himself, which is a sort of light purer even than the noetic one. The author equally qualifies it—by means of a Pauline expression from 1 Tim 6:16—as the “inaccessible light” (ajprovsiton fw`~), and further identifies it with the “Power of God” (Duvnami~ Qeou) from 1 Cor 1:24.48

The Alexandrian advances a final argument for the noetic Form of the Logos, this time from an epistemological perspective. Assuming the epistemic principle according to which both the seer and the seen cannot exist without form and body (To; toivnun oJrwn kai; oJrwvmenon ajschmavtiston ei\nai ouj duvnatai oujde; ajswvmaton), Clement observes that the seven Protoctists always contemplate the Face of the Father, which is the Son. The Monogenes, therefore, has to possess a form and a body in order to allow the Protoctists the possibility to contemplate him.49 The author concedes as well that the Protoctists do not perceive the Son by means of an ordinary epistemic capacity. They accomplish this extraordinary performance not by means of a sensible eye but by means of the noetic eye granted by the Father (ojfqalmw`/ oujk aijsqhtw/`, ajll’ oi{w/ parevscen oJ Pathvr, noerw`/).50

Tertullian on Christ’s Invisible Form and Heavenly Body46 Clement, Exc. 10.1 (SC 23:76). For scholarship on Clement’s doctrine of the Protoctists

in the larger context of early Christianity, see Bogdan G. Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 95; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

47 Clement, Exc. 11.3 (SC 23:82).48 Ibid., 12.2–3 (SC 23:83).49 Ibid., 10.6 (SC 23:80).50 Ibid.


Tertullian elaborates in his turn a doctrine of the Form of God in the context of his polemics against the Docetic and Gnostic visions of a purely spiritual Jesus.51 In order to defend the corporeal condition of the incarnate Christ, Tertullian assumes that even Christ’s pre-incarnate status inevitably involves body and form. Adversus Praxean 7, a passage speculating on the generation of the Son from the Father, is one of the most obvious defenses of Christ’s noetic corporeality. The author endorses the thought that the Word receives a glorious form (specia) while being generated by God the Father in a divine (and, most likely, everlasting) manner.52

Tertullian defends the idea of divine Form through an argument for God’s substance. Assuming the metaphysical principle that “nothing may come from nothing,” the author maintains that the Son possesses a substance because he comes from the Father, who is a substance, and also because he produces all things of the universe not from void but from his own substance.53 In the next step of his argument, Tertullian adopts another metaphysical principle, namely that a body, which requires a substance, always needs a form. Since God is Spirit and the Spirit presumes substance and body, God necessarily possesses a body and, consequently, a form (effigia). And Tertullian makes a direct reference to Phil 2:6 (ejn morfh/ qeou):

This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God (in effigie Dei consti-tutus), thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Phil 2.6). In what form (effigie) of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none (utique in aliqua, non tamen in nulla). For who will deny that God is a body (quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse), although “God is a Spirit (etsi Deus spiritus est)” (John 4.24)? For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form (spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie).54

In the last passage of the chapter, Tertullian tackles an epistemological facet of the topic by affirming that invisible things (which are invisible only from the limited perspective of the human sight) are actually visible and possess body and

51 E.g., De carne Christi.52 Tertullian, Prax. 7: “Then, therefore, does the Word (sermo) also Himself assume His own

form and glorious garb (speciem et ornatum), His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, ‘Let there be light’ (Gen 1.3). This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed (conditus) by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—‘The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways (condidit me initium uiarum)’ (Prov 8.22).” Latin text from: Tertulliani Adversus Praxean liber (ed. E. Dekkers and E. Evans; CCSL 2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) 1165–76. English translation from: Tertullian, Against Praxeas (ANF) 3:601–602. Here I preferred the ANF translation to the newer one by Ernest Evans, which misses the point by rendering sermo with “discourse” and ornatum with “equipment.” See Evans, Adversus Praxean liber: Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas (London: SPCK, 1948) 136.

53 Tertullian, Prax. 7.54 Tertullian, Prax. 7. There are pages where Tertullian uses the word forma instead of effigia in

connection with God, for instance in Marc. 1.3.2: “God is the great Supreme in form and in reason, and in might and in power (sit Deus summum magnum et forma et ratione et ui et potestate).” Latin text from: Tertullien: Contre Marcion, Tome I, Livre I (ed. René Braun; SC 365; Paris: Cerf, 1991) 112. English translation from: Tertullian, Against Marcion (ANF) 3:273.


form from God’s perspective.55 Proclaiming straightforwardly the corporeal nature of the metaphysical Christ and his spiritual body and form, Tertullian shares the same understanding of the concept of relative “invisibility” with Irenaeus and Clement. The author asserts that Christ’s spiritual form is invisible only to the ordinary eye but remains visible to the Father, the prophets, and the apostles. The apostles, for instance, were able to see the wonderful glory of the Son on the Mount of Transfiguration, and what they contemplated was the glory “of the visible Son, glorified by the invisible Father” (gloriam . . . Filii, scilicet uisibilis, glorificati a Patre inuisibili).56

His doctrine regarding spiritual bodies, as advanced for instance in Adversus Marcionem 5.10, is also Pauline theology quoted directly from 1 Cor 15:38 (corpora celestia) and 1 Cor 15:44 (corpus spiritale). This spiritual corporeality is one of an extraordinary nature, which cannot be apprehended by the earthly and sensible power of seeing. To the contrary, it pertains to the noetic and spiritual realm, and it is visible from the Father’s perspective, as one can see in Adversus Praxean 7. In an analysis regarding the corporeal natures of the soul and of the resurrected body, Tertullian states that spiritual corporeality implies a different quality (qualitas).57 He acknowledges therefore the reality of invisible bodies and describes the soul as such a substance. According to him, corporeality—whether visible or invisible—is a sine qua non condition of existence. Not having a body simply implies non-existence.58

Tertullian applies the concept of form even to his doctrine of the Trinity, which he describes as one substance and three forms. The mystery of economy (oikonomiae sacramentum) reveals the “Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however not in quality but in sequence (non statu sed gradu), not in substance but in aspect (nec substantia sed forma), not in power but in [its] manifestation (nec potestate sed specie).” He continues by assuming that God is “one substance and one quality and one power, seeing it is one God from whom those sequences and

55 Tertullian, Prax. 7: “Now, even if invisible things (invisibilia illa), whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God (habent apud Deum et suum corpus et suam formam), whereby they are visible to God alone (soli Deo uisibilia sunt), how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance (quod ex ipsius substantia emissum est sine substantia non erit)!” (ANF 3:601–602; CCSL 2:1165–76).

56 Tertullian, Prax. 15 (Evans, Adversus Praxean, 152; CCSL 2:1179). The Son’s visibility does not have to be understood in an absolute way but from the Father’s perspective. As seen above in Prax. 7, there are even other objects which are invisible. The distinction invisible Father-visible Son (cf. Novatian, On the Faith 18.1 and 31) is one viewed from a human perspective: while the Son manifests himself in theophanies, the Father remains unmanifested.

57 Tertullian, Marc. 5.10.3; 5.15.7. Latin text from: Tertullien: Contre Marcion, Tome V, Livre V (ed. Claudio Moreschini; SC 483; Paris: Cerf, 2004) 208, 298.

58 Tertullian, De carne Christi 11.3–4: “If it has this something, it must be its body (Si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit corpus eius). Everything which exists is a bodily existence sui generis (Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis). Nothing lacks bodily existence but that which is non-existent (nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est). If, then, the soul has an invisible body (inuisibile corpus).” Latin text from: Tertullien: La chair du Christ, I (ed. Jean-Pierre Mahé; SC 216; Paris: Cerf, 1975) 258. English translation from: Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ (ANF) 3:531. See also Carn. Chr. 3.9.


aspects (formae) and manifestations are reckoned out in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”59 In his incarnation—which should be described as coming to be in flesh (fit in carne) rather than being changed or transfigured (non capit transfigurari) into flesh—the Logos remains unchanged in his divine substance and form: “And the Word of God abideth for ever, evidently by continuing in his own form (perseuerando scilicet in sua forma).”60

Origen and the Noetic Form of the LogosOne of the most surprising occurrences of speculations on the theme of the Form of God may be found in Origen, the eminent archenemy of anthropomorphism. The term “form” (morfhv) plays a central role in Origen’s Christology, being frequently employed in the recurrent phrase the “Form of God.” The expression morfh; qeou, which appears several times in his writings, is never used in the post-Nicene sense we may find in Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, or Augustine, but with the traditional pre-Nicene meaning.61 Moreover, since Origen never qualifies it as a metaphor or allegory, the expression cannot be an empty stylistic parlance.

In the Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei, for example, Origen equates divine Image (eijkwvn), divine Form (morfhv), and the figure of the Son of Man in both his protological and eschatological glory. One of the chapters envisions the economy of salvation as the coming of the Son of Man to a status of dishonor, without form (ei\do~) and beauty, in order to restore human beings to the conformity with the divine Image (eijkwvn) and Form (morfhv):

But He also comes [i.e., at the end of time] in glory (ejn dovxh/), having prepared the disciples through that epiphany of His which has no form

59 Tertullian, Prax. 2 (Evans 132; CCSL 2:1161) [italics in the original]. Cf. Prax. 8 and 11–13 for his further discussions on the unity and distinction in the Trinity. It is worth mentioning that Tertullian affirms in Carn. Chr. 3.8 that the Spirit did not put an end to his substance (substantia) when he descended at the Baptism and took a different substance (SC 216:220).

60 Tertullian, Prax. 27 (Evans 173; CCSL 2:1199). Evans’s translation is preferable to the ANF here since ANF 3:623 renders informabilem with “incapable of form,” a solution coming in complete contradiction with the next lines which affirm that, in his Incarnation, the Logos does not lose his form, and generally with Tertullian’s doctrine according to which God has a form. Evans’s solution, “untransformable,” makes much more sense, because the idea is that the divine Form of the Word is not changed through incarnation.

61 My investigation of the way Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo—to mention fugitively some of the most illustrious names—use the Pauline expression morfh; qeou` (Phil 2.6) led me to the conclusion that, in the dozens of instances they employ the expression, its meaning is programmatically denoting the divine nature. The phrase was a sheer parlance commonly indicating Jesus’s divine essence. Among them, Gregory explicitly affirms in Eun 4.8 the identity between morfh; qeou` and the divine nature: “the ‘form of God’ is certainly the same thing as his essence” (hJ dej morfh; tou` qeou` taujto;n th`/ oujsiva/ pavntw~ ejstivn). Greek text from: Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. I-II: Contra Eunomium libri (ed. Werner Jaeger; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 2:100. My translation. Gregory reaffirms this identity in Eun. 8.5 as well as Basil of Caesarea in Eun. 1.18 and Hom. Hex. 9.6.


(ei\do~) nor beauty; and, having become as they that they might become as He, “conformed to the image of His glory” (summovrfo~ th~ eijkovno~ th~ dovxh~ aujtou), since He formerly became conformed (suvmmorfo~) to “the body of our humiliation,” when He “emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant” (morfh;n douvlou), He is restored to the image of God (ajpokaqivstatai te ejpi; th;n tou qeou morfh;n) and also makes them con-formed unto it (poiei aujtou;~ summovrfou~ aujth/).62

If we try to understand this sentence in a post-Nicene way by equating morfhv and divine essence, this hermeneutical attempt will lead us to the absurd assertion that human beings will enjoy the divine essence in the eschaton. It is more reasonable, in conclusion, to interpret the Origenian morfhv in a rather Pauline and traditional pre-Nicene sense, namely denoting the protological condition of the Son of Man, which he re-assumed at the end of his earthly existence.

Rufinus usually translates morfhv as forma, as for instance De principiis 1.2.8 (erat in forma Dei) adequately confirms. It is worth noting that even the text of De principiis does not deny the existence of God’s forma, therefore of morfh; qeou. In all instances where Crombie’s Ante-Nicene Fathers translation, for example, asserts that God does not have “form, color, and magnitude,” the original Latin words are habitus, color, and magnitudo.63 I submit that forma and habitus actually belong to two distinct realms. While habitus (or schema, as in Princ. 2.10.2, which obviously renders the Greek sch`ma, “form,” “shape,” “figure”) denotes the visible realm of matter and corporeality, forma Dei, as a divine title, belongs to the heavenly sphere.64

62 Origen, Comm. in Mt. 12.29. Greek text from: Origenes Werke X. Commentarius in Matthaeum I (ed. Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz; GCS 40; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1935) 133. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on Matthew (ANF) 9:465. There are also other instances where the Alexandrian equates the terms eijkwvn and morfhv and refers with both of them not only to Jesus’s divine condition, but also to the eschatological shape of the human being, which is conformed to Jesus’s form of glory. The following text from Comm. Rom. 7.7.4 develops a remarkable vision of the eschatological destiny of the human being where humans will become images (copies/icons) of the same form of God which Christ enjoys: “Moreover, I would like to investigate what he has said, ‘conformed to the image of his own Son (conformes imaginis Filii sui [Rom 8:29: summovrfou~ th`~ eijkovno~ tou` uiJou` aujtou`]).’ Into which form (formae) may they be said to be conformed? For we read that the Son of God was at one time in the form of God (in forma Dei), and at another time in the form of a slave (in forma servi). . . . If these [virtues] are clearly formed in them [i.e., Christians] (in eis formentur) having become conformed into his image (conformes imaginis) they will be seen in that form (illam formam) in which [Christ] is in the form of God (in forma Dei).” Latin text from: Origenis opera omnia, t. 4 (ed. Jean-Paul Migne; PG 14; Paris, 1862) 1122A–C. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6–10 (trans. T. P. Scheck; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2002) 84–5. See also Comm. Rom. 7.11.2.

63 See Origen, Princ. 1.2.2, 4; 2.4.3; 4.1.27.64 See, for instance, Origen, Princ. 2.4.3: “For in no other way can anything be seen (uideri)

except by its shape (habitum) and size (magnitudinem) and colour (colorem), which are properties of bodies (specialia corporum).” Latin text from: Origène, Traité des Principes, I (ed. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti; SC 252; Paris: Cerf, 1978) 284. English translation from: Origen, On First Principles (trans. G.W. Butterworth; New York: Haper & Row, 1966) 98. See also Princ. 2.10.2.


Commentarii in evangelium Joannis includes a remarkable passage where the glorious Form represents the ontological status in which the Logos subsists in se, the way the Son exists within the Father:

When the Son is in the Father (ejn tw/ patriv ejstin), being in the form of God (ejn morfh/ qeou uJpavrcwn) before he empties himself, God is his place (tovpo~), as it were. And if indeed one considers him who, before he emptied himself, is in the essential form of God (ejn th/ prohgoumevnh/ uJpavrconta qeou morfh/), he will see the Son who has not yet proceeded (mhdevpw ejxelhluqovta ajpo; tou qeou) from God himself, and the Lord who has not yet proceeded from his place (mhdevpw ejkporeuovmenon ejk tou tovpou eJautou).65

As we will see in the following Origenian texts, it is this divine Form of the Logos in himself that the author considers as the visual reality which the apostles contemplated on the Mountain of Transfiguration. While speculating, for instance, on the episode of the Transfiguration in his Comm. Matt. 12.36–37, Origen assumes that all those who reached perfection are able to contemplate realities belonging to the invisible realm, which are eternal (ta; mh; blepovmena dia; to; ei\nai aujta; aijwvnia). The author continues his thought by presuming that the Logos reveals himself not in a unique modality but in a large variety of ways according to the receiver’s capacity of perception.66 It is at this very moment that Origen raises a question concerning Jesus’s form in the episode of the Transfiguration: “did he appear to them in the form of God in which he previously was (ejn morfh`/ qeou` h/| uJph`rce pavlai), so that for those below he had the form of a slave but for those who had followed him to the high mountain after the six days he did not have that form, but the form of God?”67 This rhetorical question will receive an obvious affirmative answer. The Logos indeed showed his human visible form (the form of a slave, or the form of his incarnation) to the beginners and the world, and he allowed exclusively the three advanced apostles to contemplate his invisible and eternal Form, his Form of God. On the Mountain of Transfiguration, “he is known in his divinity (qeologouvmenon) and seen in the form of God (ejn th/` tou` qeou` morfh`/ . . . qewrouvmenon) according to their knowledge. It is before such as these that Jesus is transfigured, not before

65 Origen, Comm. Jo. 20.153–155. Greek text from: Origène, Commentaire sur Jean, IV (ed. Cécile Blanc; SC 290; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 230–32. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 13–32 (trans. R. E. Heine; 2 vols.; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1993) 2:238. The interpreter here speculates on Micah 1:2–4 and John 8:42. Origen conceives of the Logos as glorious and in the form of God before the Incarnation. In his earthly existence, the Logos hides his glory in flesh and beneath his servant form; e.g., Princ. 1.2.5–7.

66 Origen, Comm. in Mt. 12.36–37: “The Word has different forms (diafovrou~ ga;r e[cei oJ lovgo~ morfav~) and he appears to each as is expedient for him to see (fainovmeno~ eJkavstw/ wJ~ sumfevrei tw`/ blevponti). He is never revealed to any man beyond his capacity to see (mhdeni; uJpe;r o} cwrei` oJ blevpwn).” English translation from: John McGuckin, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 9; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1986), 155–57. Greek text from: GCS 40:152.

67 Ibid.


any of those below.”68 The text plainly identifies, therefore, Jesus’s Form of God revealed in the Transfiguration with his pre-incarnate status. In addition, a few previous chapters (12.31–33) identify Jesus’s Form revealed in the Transfiguration with his eschatological and glorious condition, and even with the kingdom itself.

Several other passages illustrate the same doctrine about Jesus’s divine Form revealed on the Mountain of Transfiguration exclusively to his advanced disciples. Contra Celsum 4.16, for instance, shows that Christ “was transformed when he went up a high mountain and showed his other form (a[llhn e[deixe th;n eJautou` morfh;n).”69 Again, we are informed that the vision was accessible only to the advanced: “For the people down below had not eyes capable of seeing the transfiguration of the Word into something wonderful and more divine (th;n tou` lovgou ejpi; to; e[ndoxon kai; qeiovteron metamovrfwsin). They were hardly able to receive him as he was, so that it was said of him by those not able to see his higher nature (to; krei`tton aujtou` blevpein).”70

A different place in Contra Celsum similarly equates the Form which Christ revealed in the Transfiguration with the Form in which he existed before the incarnation. In addition, the text discloses Origen’s belief regarding the purpose of human existence and the goal of the divine economy of the Logos: that is to contemplate the Logos in his glorious pre-incarnate condition, in his Form of God, and eventually become like the Logos and be transformed according to this divine appearance.71 The Logos, therefore, pre-exists in a divine Form and assumes human form in order to lead humankind spiritually to access his glorious design: “But even while he tabernacled and lived among us he did not remain with his primary form (oujk e[meinen ejpi; th`~ prwvth~ morfh`~). After leading us up to the spiritual ‘high mountain,’ he showed us his glorious form (th;n e[ndoxon morfh;n eJautou) and

68 Ibid., GCS 40:153.69 Origen, Cels. 4.16. Greek text from: Origène, Contre Celse, II (ed. Marcel Borret; SC 136;

Paris: Cerf, 1968) 220. English translation from: Origen, Contra Celsum (trans. H. Chadwick; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 194.

70 Origen, Cels. 4.16 (Chadwick, Cels., 194; SC 136:222). In Comm. in Mt. 12.30 he directly affirms that the glory is accessible only to the perfect ones: “For indeed to the perfect appears the glory of the Word (dovxa tou` lovgou), and the only-begotten of God His Father, and the fullness of grace and likewise of truth, which that man cannot perceive who requires ‘foolishness of the preaching,’ in order to believe” (ANF 9:466; GCS 40:133).

71 Origen, Cels. 6.68 “He ‘was in the beginning with God’; but because of those who had cleaved to the flesh and become as flesh, he became flesh, that he might be received by those incapable of seeing him in his nature as the one who was the Logos (aujto;n blevpein kaqo; lovgo~), who was with God, who was God. And being spoken of under physical forms (swmatikw`~), and being proclaimed to be flesh, he calls to himself those who are flesh that he may make them first to be formed like the Logos (morfwqh`nai kata; lovgon) who became flesh, and after that lead them up to see him (ajnabibavsh/ ejpi; to; ijdei`n aujtovn) as he was before he became flesh (o{per h\n pri;n gevnhtai savrx)” (Chadwick, Cels., 382-3). Greek text from: Origène, Contre Celse, III (ed. Marcel Borret; SC 147; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 348.


the radiance (th;n lamprovthta) of his clothing.”72 It is also worth mentioning that Origen sometimes equates Jesus’s surrounding glory with his divinity (qeiovth~).73

The passage opens, however, the subject regarding the epistemic capacities a human being should acquire in order to contemplate Jesus’s divine shape. From an epistemological perspective, Origen acknowledges in various instances that ordinary cognitive capacities cannot perceive the Form of God. To the contrary, the visionary must enliven a special capacity—namely the nou`~/intellectus/mens, usually translated as mind, intellect, understanding—in order to transcend beyond the limits of the visible universe. Thus, Moses, the prophets, and the apostles actually did not see God in an ordinary way but rather perceived him in an intelligible manner, “noetically,” with a “perception of the mind” (sensu mentis).74

Nevertheless, at the other end of the spectrum, we are familiar with an Origen who is an anti-anthropomorphist and champion of God’s incorporeality, ineffability, and incomprehensibility.75 He clearly states that the Trinity is the only perfectly immaterial reality: “We believe that to exist without material substance (materiali substantia) apart from any association with a bodily element (corporeae adiectionis) is a thing that belongs only to the nature of God (dei natura), that is, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”76

72 Ibid. Compare with the following expression from Comm. in Mt. 12.37: “the form of God in which he previously was (ejn morfh`/ qeou` h/| uJph`rce pavlai)” (McGuckin, Transfiguration, 156; GCS 40:152).

73 See Origen, Cels. 1.60, 66; 2.8, 34, 64; 7.17; 8.42; Hom. 1–16 in Lev. 2.3. Fr. Eph. 3.16–17. See also Harl, Origène, 251: “La gloire du Christ est sa divinité.” However, some texts dissociate between form and divine light, as for instance in the episode of Transfiguration (e.g., Cels. 6.68).

74 Origen, Princ. 2.4.3: “For he who has understood (intellexerit) the Son has understood (intellexerit) the Father also. It is in this manner then that we must suppose Moses to have seen (uidisse) God, not by looking (intuens) at him with eyes of flesh (oculis carnalibus), but by understanding (intellegens) him with the vision of the heart (uisu cordis) and the perception of the mind (sensu mentis), and even this in part only” (Butterworth, Princ., 99; SC 252:286).

75 For Origen’s anti-anthropomorphism, see Hom. 1–16 in Gen. 1.13; Comm. Rom. 1.22(19).102–130; Dial. 12; Cels. 4.37; Sel. in Gen. 25. For apophatic discourse in Origen, see, for instance, Margueritte Harl, Origène et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe incarné (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1958) 88–91; Henri Crouzel, Origène et la connaissance mystique (Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1961) 85–154, at 89. See, e.g., Princ. 1.1.5 (SC 252:96; Butterworth, Princ., 9): “Having then refuted, to the best of our ability, every interpretation which suggests that we should attribute to God any material characteristics, we assert that in truth he is incomprehensible and immeasurable (inconprehensibilem esse atque inaestimabilem).” See also Comm. Jo. 13.123–152 and many other texts. For the radical incorporeality of God’s nature see for instance Princ. 1.1.6: “God therefore must not be thought to be in any kind of body, nor to exist in a body” (Butterworth, Princ., 10; SC 252:100).

76 Origen, Princ. 1.6.4 (Butterworth, Princ., 58; SC 252:206). See also Origen, Princ. 2.2.2: “But if it is impossible by any means to maintain this proposition, namely, that any being (natura), with the exception of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, can live apart from a body (corpus), then logical reasoning compels us to believe that, while the original creation was of rational beings (rationabiles naturas), it is only in idea and thought that a material substance (materialem substantiam) is separable from them, and that though this substance seems to have been produced for them or after them, yet never have they lived or do they live without it; for we shall be right in believing that life without a body (incorporea uita) is found in the Trinity alone” (Butterworth, Princ., 81;


From a modern expectation, if the metaphysical Christ is completely immaterial (because the Origenian discussion on the Form of God is again strictly christological), he cannot possess any type of form, since form implies materiality. But as we have seen in the above pages, in Origen’s Hellenistic context it was not a contradiction, and we have to mention first Philo and Clement. It is possible therefore that Origen did not contradict himself, but he conceived of Jesus’s exalted morfh; qeou as purely immaterial or in such an exalted domain where human mind cannot easily make the distinction between pure asomatic condition and noetic somatism.77

Methodius of Olympus and the Puzzling Nature of Jesus’s Divine FormMethodius deserves as well to be considered a special case alongside his enemy, Origen, since his writings give a similar puzzling status to Jesus’s divine Form. On the one hand, it is exclusively God’s nature (fuvsi~) which is incorporeal and, thus, invisible (ajswvmato~ w[n: dio; kai; ajovrato~, qeo;n ga;r oujdei;~ eJwvraken), and Jesus shares this nature with God.78 On the other hand, he shares with human beings a body of flesh and a body of glory, which are corporeal and, therefore, visible. There are several instances where Methodius considers that Jesus manifested his body of glory on the Mountain of Transfiguration, and this body of glory is his body of flesh transfigured for a few moments into a glorious pneumatic state. Nevertheless, this body of glory itself is a somatic and visible entity, although perceivable only with the help of noetic capacities.

Jesus shares, therefore, a certain corporeality with human beings and angels because he possesses a noetic body of glory visible by the advanced. According to Methodius, the human being was designed to become immortal, in a condition similar (although not identical) to such celestial powers as the angels, thrones, powers, and cherubim.79 The author specifies that all these heavenly beings are

SC 252:246–48). See also Princ. 4.3.15: “But the substance of the Trinity (substantia trinitatis) . . . must not be believed either to be a body or to exist in a body, but to be wholly incorporeal (ex toto incorporea)” (Butterworth, Princ., 312; SC 268:396–98); and Princ. 4.4.1; 4.4.5: natura trinitatis (SC 268:402, 412).

77 Frances M. Young makes the significant distinction between two traditions on religious languages. The first envisions theology as part of a science of the divine (e.g., Eunomius), in which human language possesses a certain objectivity while describing the divine. To the contrary, the second tradition—assumed by the majority of patristic authors, Origen included—considers that religious languages cannot describe the divine in a direct, unmediated way, but obliquely; this language, however, is not merely metaphorical, but it is a continuous approximation of the divine; it is a language “in need of constant correctives” (Young, “The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language,” in Early Christian Literature and the Greek Intellectual Tradition: Festschrift for R. M. Grant [ed. W. R. Shoedel and Robert Wilken; Théologie Historique 53; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979] 45-74, at 73).

78 Methodius, Res. 3.18.4. Greek text from: Methodius von Olympus (ed. Nathanael Bonwetsch; GCS 27; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917) 275.

79 E.g., Methodius, Res. 1.49.1–2 and 2.24.2–3.


endowed with noetic bodies (ta; noera; tw`n ajggevlwn swvmata).80 Compared to the human constitution, the angelic nature consists of a purer substance, which is spiritual or pneumatic (ajpo; th`~ pneumatikh`~ kaqarwtevra~ oujsiva~).81 Human resurrected bodies are also considered pneumatic or spiritual (swma pneumatikovn).82 Additionally, Methodius qualifies human souls as intelligible bodies (swvmata noera;), possessing a certain form (morfhv).83 According to Methodius, therefore, corporeality is extended to the noetic realm of souls, angels, and Jesus’s body of glory, while God’s nature remains an asomatic domain.

It is most likely that Methodius associates the concept of morfhv with corporeality, either sensible or noetic, and employs a distinct form-terminology for the asomatic realm of the divine. Thus, he equally assumes the existence of a godlike Shape (qeoeivkelon sch`ma), which is God’s Image (eijkwvn) and the image which the Logos communicates to the angels and the resurrected human beings because God fashioned all these creatures according to this exalted Shape. For this reason, Methodius also calls it the shape of the resurrection (sch`ma to; ajnistavmenon).84 The Logos possesses therefore this divine Image, or Shape, but the text does not clarify whether this Shape is identical with his body of glory, and, therefore, to what extent this Shape is asomatic or somatic; or, whether its condition is so exalted at the confines between the two realms that it is almost impossible to make clear assertions regarding its somatic status.

A Pseudo-Clementine Axiom: A Formless God Cannot Be SeenCommonly dated around 300–320 c.e., the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies are another pre-Nicene source including a Christology envisioning the Son endowed with a body of glory and a divine Form (morfhv). The Form most likely possesses anthropomorphic limbs, which are designed not for a certain divine activity but for

80 Methodius, Res. 3.15.1 (GCS 27:271).81 Methodius, Res. 2.24.3 (GCS 27:241).82 Methodius, Res. 3.16.9 (GCS 27:273). 83 Methodius, Res. 3.18.4 (GCS 27:275).84 Methodius, Res. 3.15.1–2 (GCS 27:271–72). In the Symposium 8.8 Methodius mentions

this form of the Logos imprinted in the human being in an internalized manner: “For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them (th`~ kaq’ oJmoivwsin morfh`~ ejn aujtoi`~ ejktupoumevnh~ tou` lovgou), and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually (nohtw`~) born” (Methodius, Symposium [ANF 6] 337). Greek text from PG 18:149.


the sake of beauty and contemplation.85 The text continues by evoking again the beauty of God’s Form and by asserting that only the pure in heart may perceive it: “But He has the most beautiful shape (th;n de; kallivsthn morfh;n) on account of man, that the pure in heart may be able to see Him (aujto;n ijdei`n), that they may rejoice because they suffered.”86 Furthermore, the author declares as well that this Form is invisible while compared to human visible form, which is an image or copy (eijkwvn) of God’s archetypal Form (morfhv).87

The writer then creates an interesting counterargument as raised by a possible contender of the divine Form who might sustain that a form implies a shape (schma) and, consequently, spatial existence. The author’s surprising reply is to agree that the Son indeed possesses a shape, but that shape is infinitely communicated: “What, then, is there to prevent God, as being the Framer and Lord of this and everything else, from possessing figure and shape and beauty (dhmiourgo;n kai; despovthn o[nta, aujto;n me;n ejn schvmati kai; morfh/ kai; kavllei o[nta), and having the communication of these qualities proceeding from Himself extended infinitely?” 88

Another passage of the homily presents a vision of God as the cruciform structure of the universe, present everywhere in the world, as in Irenaeus’s vision: “One, then, is the God who truly exists, who presides in a superior shape (ejn kreivttoni morfh/` prokaqevzetai), being the heart of that which is above and that which is below twice, which sends forth from Him as from a centre the life-giving and incorporeal power (ajswvmaton duvnamin).”89

The next chapter emphasizes an epistemological aspect. The author asserts that only the nou`~ may perceive God’s morfhv and ei\do~. God, who is beautiful, has to exist in a form since beauty cannot be manifest without a form. Moreover, if God

85 Hom. Clem. 17:7: “For He has shape (morfh;n ga;r e[cei), and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty’s sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body (ajparablhvtw~ lamprovtero~ w]n to; sw`ma) than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness.” Greek text from: Die Pseudoklementinen I. Homilien (ed. Berhard Rehm et al.; GCS 42; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1953-1992) 232. English translation from: The Clementine Homilies (ANF) 8:319. The passage continues by describing God’s atypical and paradoxical actions effected through his radiant body: “for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side.”

86 Ibid. 17:7 (ANF 8:319; GCS 42:232).87 Ibid. 17:7: “For He molded man in His own shape (th`/ ga;r aujtou` morfh/`) as in the grandest

seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him. Wherefore, judging that He is the universe, and that man is His image (eijkovna) (for He is Himself invisible [ajovrato~], but His image man is visible), the man who wishes to worship Him honours His visible image, which is man” (ANF 8:319–20; GCS 42:232).

88 Ibid. 17:8 (ANF 8:320 GCS 42:233–34).89 Ibid. 17:9 (ANF 8:320; GCS 42:234). The text further details the same idea: “And the extensions

taking their rise with Him, possess the nature of six infinites; of whom the one taking its rise with Him penetrates into the height above, another into the depth below, another to the right hand, another to the left, another in front, and another behind.”


did not have a form, human beings would not be able to see or contemplate him because the human mind is empty without apprehending a form:

What affection ought therefore to arise within us if we gaze with our mind on His beautiful shape (th;n eujmorf ivan aujtou tw/ nw/ katopteuvswmen)! But otherwise it is absurd to speak of beauty. For beauty cannot exist apart from shape (ajduvnaton ga;r kavllo~ a[neu morfh~ ei\nai); nor can one be attracted to the love of God, nor even deem that he can see Him, if God has no form (kai; dokein qeo;n oJran ei\do~ ouk e[conta).90

The passage continues with a criticism of those who assert that God’s existence does not imply a shape (ajschmavtiston) and concludes with the epistemological assertion that if God was formless and shapeless, he could not be visible to anyone (a[morfo~ kai; ajneivdeo~ w[n mhdeni; oJrato;~ h\/). In the end, the author re-asserts that “if the mind does not see the form of God, it is empty of Him” (nou`~ ga;r ei\do~ oujc oJrw`n qeou` kenov~ ejstin aujtou`).91

Arnobius of Sicca’s Epistemic Abstention We have to end our excursion with a remarkable passage from Arnobius of Sicca, a passage demonstrating that the idea of a divine Form was already problematic at the beginning of the fourth century. According to Arnobius, the human mind cannot answer the complicated questions regarding the existence and nature of such an exalted shape: “‘But if,’ they say, ‘you do not like our view, you point out, you tell us, with what form a god is endowed (qua sit deus praeditus forma).’ If you wish to hear an opinion which is the true one—God either has no form (formam), or if He is to be identified with some form, we certainly do not know what it is.”92 Thus, like the ancient wise Skeptics, Arnobius assumes and recommends an abstention from judgments in what concerns this topic.

Concluding RemarksThe above investigation leads us to conclude that early Christian intelligentsia—such classical pre-Nicene authors as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, and Methodius—sustained the existence of a noetic divine Form of Christ as a solution to the anthropomorphist dispute. While criticizing the anthropomorphist

90 Ibid. 17:10 (ANF 8:321; GCS 42:235).91 Ibid. 17:11 (ANF 8:321; GCS 42:235).92 Arnobius, Adversus nationes 3.17.1. Latin text from: Arnobius of Sicca, Contre les gentils

(6 vols.; vol. 3 ed. Jacqueline Champeaux; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007–2010), 3:14. English translation from: Arnobius of Sicca, The Case Against the Pagans (trans. G. E. McCracken; 2 vols.; ACW 7; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1949) 1:205. See also 7.34.2: “Men, unable to know what a god is, what he stands for—his nature, substance, character (natura, substantia, qualitas)—whether he has form or is delimited by no outline of body (utrumne habeat formam an nulla sit corporis circumscriptione finitus), whether or not he does anything” (ACW 7/2:517; Contre vol. 6 [ed. Bernard Fragu]: 56).


position, they transferred the divine Form (usually associated with Christ) to the intelligible and invisible dimension of reality. It is very likely that they took over and reshaped in their Christian context a philosophical response to anthropomorphism, a response already present in some Hellenistic settings, including as well Jewish intellectuals, for example, Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus. Thus, the speculations on God’s Form are no longer restricted to some apocryphal materials (and Tertullian is no longer a bizarre exception), but they are present in the writings of the aforementioned influential pre-Nicene authors.

Accordingly, our modern vision about the topic of the divine Form in pre-Nicene times, as well as certain aspects of the anthropomorphist debate, has to be, at least slightly, reconfigured. The anthropomorphist debate involves more complexity. It is no longer a debate between some eminent, philosophically-educated authors defending an abstract God and some mystics preserving a more primitive and literal hermeneutical tradition. To the contrary, while the authors educated in philosophy criticized the anthropomorphism of the simpliciores, their criticism did not imply a total rejection of the divine Form and a commitment to the doctrine of a perfectly formless divine Christ, as in post-Nicene times. Pre-Nicene authors, rather, elaborated a theory about a divine Christ endowed with a celestial Form, an exceedingly refined and spiritual shape. In calling it intelligible or invisible (to the ordinary eye), some of them even considered that only very special human epistemic capacities (such as the intellectual/noetic perception or the perception of reason) might be able to apprehend it. In essence, allowing for the existence of a divine Form, pre-Nicene Christology admits more flexibility in what regards the realm of the divine, which is not restricted exclusively to abstract and formless realities. Additionally, beauty and perfection require limits and bounds for the pre-Nicenes, and most likely infinity is not a divine attribute in their thought, but appeared in post-Nicene times.93 Moreover, from an epistemological point of view, the notions of “visibility” and “invisibility” are not absolute but always relative to the perceiving subject, either God, angelic beings, or the human mind. Thus, Clement argues that Christ’s divine Form may be invisible to the ordinary perception, but it is visible to the Father’s eye and those whom the Father granted the noetic eye.

In the third century, educated Christian authors were still conceiving of the divine Christ as possessing a Form of God. In fact, from its very inception in Jewish Alexandrian intelligentsia—with Philo and Josephus—to Origen and Methodius, the doctrine of the noetic Form of God includes a certain logical tension in what concerns its ontological condition: it is always placed on the vague and blurry confines between noetic corporeality and pure immateriality, and between divine Form and divine simplicity.

93 See Ekkehard Mühlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa: Gregors Kritik am Gottesbegriff der klassischen Metaphysik (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 16; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) and Young, “The God of the Greeks,” 59.


Already at the beginning of the fourth century, as we can see in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Arnobius, the doctrine has its contenders, and Arnobius asserts that the human mind is not able to answer the questions regarding the existence and nature of the divine Form. Later on, in 360s–370s, there is no eruditus to support the theory of the noetic Form of God. As seen before, Lewis Ayres has shown that the pro-Nicene Christology of oJmoouvsio~, emphasizing Christ’s equality with the Father, receives a large and strong acceptance in 360s and 370s. From now on, the divine dimension of Christ may no longer possess a Form and be accessed through noetic perception, but it belongs to the perfectly immaterial realm of the Father. The consciousness of an infinite God emerges as well in this period. As Lewis Ayres observes, the Nicene oJmoouvsio~ inherits and preserves several early Christian traditions, but it equally entails much theological innovation: “[I]n order to explore how the term oJmoouvsio~ came to serve as a marker of orthodoxy in the later fourth century we need to spend more time investigating ways in which the term could stand as a cipher for originally distinct theologies.”94 It was in this uncertain context that pro-Nicene writers, starting already with Athanasius, would advance the hermeneutical solution of identifying the morfh; qeou of biblical theophanies with the divine oujsiva, a solution not present even in Origen’s writings. The new meaning of this expression, nonetheless, was sensibly distinct from its pre-Nicene connotations.

94 Ayres, “Shine, Jesus, Shine,” 157.

Simpliciores, Eruditi, and the Noetic Form of God: Pre-Nicene Christology Revisited

Documents

Transcript of Simpliciores, Eruditi, and the Noetic Form of God: Pre-Nicene Christology Revisited