SHALL THE BODY STRIVE AND NOT BE CROWNED PHD 1993 PDF

SHALL THE BODY STRIVE AND NOT BE CROWNED?
Unitary and instrumentalist anthropological models

as keys to interpreting the structure of
Patristic eschatology
Christopher John Gousmett
A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at the University of Otago, Dunedin,

New Zealand
14 April, 1993
ABSTRACT
It is possible to discern a structure underlying the myriad details of Patristic

eschatology through the use of two anthropological models, a unitary model, which
sees the person as a unity of body and soul, and an instrumentalist model, which
locates the person in the soul, which uses the body as its instrument. This latter view
makes possible a judgement and entry into the appropriate eschatological state
immediately after death, while the unitary view requires the resurrection to occur first.
Some who held a unitary view (notably but not exclusively the Syrians) thought that
the soul slept until the resurrection, while others held that the soul experienced
pleasure or pain in anticipation of their future rewards or punishments to be received
after the judgement.
The unitary anthropology is correlated with a positive assessment of bodily life,

including marriage and sexuality, and (particularly during the first few centuries)
expectation of life on a renewed earth in the eschaton following a millennium of
peace.
The decline in millennialism, rise of asceticism, and glorification of virginity and

denigration of marriage, as well as an eclipse of the centrality and significance of the
resurrection of the body, are correlated with an instrumentalist view. Bodily life was
often seen negatively, as the occasion, if not the source, of sin, and even innocent
bodily gratification was shunned as a hindrance to the communion of the soul with
God.
There is no direct correlation with the frequent contrast between the “resurrection of
the body” and the “immortality of the soul” and the structures of Patristic
eschatology. Many who held to a unitary anthropological model thought the soul
immortal (although earlier Patristic writers rejected this concept), but also stressed
that eschatological life also required the immortalisation of the body through its
resurrection.
Those who held to an instrumentalist anthropological model mostly thought the soul
was innately immortal, and provided sophisticated philosophical arguments for this
view. However, it was the idea that the person was located in the soul, with the body
as its instrument, that is the determining characteristic for the structure of their
eschatology.
These ideas provide the background to the interpretation of Psalm 1:5, which in
conjunction with John 3:18 was taken to mean that neither the saints nor the obdurate
wicked would face the judgement on the last day. Others took Psalm 1:5 to mean that
the wicked would not be judges, as they were wont to do during life. While there is no
direct correlation between these interpretations of Psalm 1:5 and the two
anthropological models discussed, it is not possible to understand the reasons for
these interpretations without considering the influence of these models on Patristic
eschatology.
Patristic anthropology and eschatology was shaped by the synthesis between pagan
thought and Christian thought. The negative assessment of bodily life can be traced to
ii
pagan influences, and the consequences are considerable even today. Only by
repudiating the method of synthesis can an authentically Christian anthropology and
eschatology be developed.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements x
Chapter One: Introduction
1.0 Anthropological models in Patristic thought 1
1.1 The focus of the study 3
1.2 The problem of synthesis 8
1.3 Methodology of the study 18
1.4 Outline of the chapters 20
PART ONE: UNITARY ANTHROPOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY
Chapter Two: The integration of Body and Soul
2.0 Introduction 22
2.1 The person as a unity of body and soul 22
2.1.1 The body included in the image of God

25
2.2 The goodness of bodily life 28
2.3 The positive evaluation of the “flesh” 30
2.3.1 The affirmation of sexuality and marriage 33
2.3.2 Rejection of Gnostic dualism 34
2.3.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50 37
2.3.4 Rejection of Docetism 38
2.4 Death as destruction of the unity of body and soul 40
2.4.1 Can the soul “feel” without the body? The unitary view 42
iv
2.4.2 Death as release of the body from sin 43
2.5 Immortality of the soul 45
2.5.1 Philosophical arguments against inherent immortality 45
2.5.2 Immortality a gift from God 49
2.5.3 Immortality lost by Adam and Eve 50
2.5.4 Adam and Eve neither mortal nor immortal 51
2.5.5 Proponents of the inherent immortality of the soul 52
2.6 Conclusion 57
Chapter Three: The intermediate state and the Resurrection
3.0 Introduction 59
3.1 Waiting for the resurrection in Hades 59
3.2.1 The story of Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31 62
3.2.2 Anticipation of the future state 66
3.2.3 The unconscious soul in Hades 68
3.3 The post-mortem status of the martyrs 75
3.4 Creation as basis for belief in the resurrection 82
3.5 The identity of the resurrection body 88
3.5.1 Reconstitution of the body in the resurrection 90
3.5.2 Transformation of the body in the resurrection 91
3.5.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:51 94
3.5.4 The wicked made immortal in order to suffer 98
3.6 The first resurrection a bodily resurrection 103
3.7 Conclusion 105
v
Chapter Four: The judgement, millennium and beyond
4.0 Introduction 107
4.1 The resurrection for judgement 107
4.2 The justice of God and the judgement 114
4.2.1 The judgement of “the living and the dead” 121
4.2.2 The rejection of Fate 123
4.3 The millennium 125
4.3.1 The vindication of the saints 128
4.3.2 The marriage supper of the Lamb 131
4.4 The new heavens and earth: Cosmic redemption 133
4.5 The millennium on earth and eternity in heaven 137
4.6 Eternity in heaven following the resurrection 140
4.7 Conclusion 142
PART TWO: INSTRUMENTALIST ANTHROPOLOGY AND

ESCHATOLOGY
Chapter Five: The dis-integration of Body and Soul
5.1 The body as instrument of the soul 144
5.1.1 The hierarchy of body and soul 147
5.1.2 The image of God restricted to the soul 149
5.2 Denigration of the flesh 150
5.2.1 The flesh as the cause of sin 152
5.2.2 Asceticism and the flight from bodily life 155
5.2.3 Asceticism and spiritual martyrdom 156
vi
5.2.4 The controversy with Jovinian 158
5.2.5 Rejection of sexuality 164
5.2.6 To be like the angels: Matthew 22:30 167
5.3. Death as liberation of the soul from the body 170
5.3.1 Can the soul “feel” without the body?

The instrumentalist view 172
5.3.2 Death as separation of the soul from God 174
5.4 The inherent immortality of the soul 175
5.4.1 Exegetical arguments for immortality of the soul 176
5.4.2 Philosophical arguments for immortality of the soul 179
5.5 Conclusion 188
Chapter Six: The immediate judgement, intermediate state and resurrection
6.1 Paradise and the intermediate state 190
6.2 The story of Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31 192
6.3 The sleep and death of the soul rejected 193
6.4 The individual judgement of the soul 197
6.5 Purgatory following the individual judgement 202
6.6 The resurrection in instrumentalist thought 208
6.6.1 The reconstitution of the body 209
6.6.2 The resurrection of the wicked as dust 213
6.6.3 “Materialist” and “spiritual” views of the resurrection body 216
6.6.4 The sexual characteristics of the resurrection body 222
6.7 Conclusion 225
vii
Chapter Seven: Heaven and the eternal state
7.1 The rejection of millennialism 228
7.1.1 The rejection of millennialism as Gnostic 232
7.1.2 The rejection of millennialism as Jewish 237
7.1.3 The influence of allegorical hermeneutics 248
7.2 The spiritual interpretation of the “first resurrection” 259
7.3 The eternal life of the soul in heaven 261
7.4 The redundancy of the resurrection body 264
7.5 Conclusion 266
Chapter Eight: Psalm 1:5 and the Judgement
8.1 Not to judge, but to be judged 267
8.2 Believers and unbelievers are not judged 270
8.2.1 Psalm 1:5 and the judgement of the ungodly 277
8.2.2 John 3:18 and the judgement 285
8.3 Who then is judged? 289
8.3.1 Who are the sinners? 292
8.4 The “orders” at the judgement 294
8.5 Conclusion 298
Chapter Nine: Conclusion
9.1 Summary of results 299
9.2 Contributions from this study 301
9.3 Suggestions for further study 305
viii
APPENDIX
Theosis and the transformation of the body 307
Selected Bibliography 313
Patristic Sources 313
Other ancient sources 323
Secondary sources 324
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of many people.
In spite of the difficulties of undertaking research in the field of Patristics in New

Zealand, where resources of personnel and libraries are extremely limited, Professor
Alan Torrance was prepared to supervise my attempts to make sense of what appeared
at times to be a confusing jumble of Patristic material. I am grateful to him for his
assistance during the initial research for this thesis. Dr John Broadbent took over
responsibility for supervision while Professor Torrance was on sabbatical, and has
been most encouraging and supportive, and it was due to his efforts that my studies
reached their completion.
My competence in Greek and Latin was nowhere near adequate and only with the
patient and unstinting assistance of Dr Elizabeth Duke and Dr John Garthwaite, of the
Classics Dept., University of Otago, and Mr Neil Copeland, could I have managed to
accomplish the task of translation of texts otherwise unavailable in English or other
modern languages.
The limited library resources in Dunedin were greatly supplemented through the
assistance of the reference staff of the University of Otago Central Library. Dr
Laurence MacIntosh of the Joint Theological Library, Ormond College, Melbourne,
Australia, was extremely helpful during a short visit to mine the extensive theological
resources available in that city. I owe a debt of gratitude to my mother-in-law, Mrs
Aileen Wilson, for making that visit possible.
I am extremely grateful to my wife Elaine for her support and encouragement, and
trust that the result is worth all the demands my studies have made on her. Emily will
also now have more time with her daddy.
Note for the electronic version of this thesis:
This electronic version of my thesis is unaltered from the original text completed in
1993, with the exception of several minor corrections. It has, however, been
reformatted in a current typeface, which has in turn resulted in significant
repagination, from the original 522 pages to only 342.
Chris Gousmett, January 2008
© 1993, 2008 Chris Gousmett.
Prepared for the Web in January 2008 by the author.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Anthropological models in Patristic thought
This thesis, a study of the development of Christian thought in the Patristic period,
examines the correlation of selected anthropological and eschatological themes,
namely, the way in which different views of the nature and relationship of body and
soul influence conceptions of resurrection, immortality and judgement. It is not
possible in the scope of this study to discuss these themes in every detail, nor examine
every shade and nuance of opinion and every passage bearing on the issues in the
works of every Patristic writer.1 Rather, the intention is to explore the specific
“models” of anthropology underlying the different approaches used by Patristic
writers in discussing these themes. This method makes it possible to discern
continuities and convergences in their thought otherwise obscured under variations in
detail, and to demonstrate correlations between writers who differ, sometimes
significantly, on other issues.
The Scriptures present the person as an integral whole created by God and standing in
covenantal relationship with Him. However, it is a fundamental presupposition, found
throughout the Patristic period, that the human person is a dichotomy of body and
soul.2 This dichotomy, introduced into the Christian thought-world from Greek
speculation,3 thereby created problems for Christian doctrine for which no solution
could be found, as they are in no way addressed in the Scriptures, and are in fact, in
terms of Christian thought, merely pseudo-problems.4
1
The Patristic authors who are cited are considered to be representative of the main streams of
thought. Additional references could be given for many of the ideas discussed, but these
would not add to the substance of the discussion.
2
There seem to be no known anthropologies which are not dichotomistic. Cf. J N D Kelly.
Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 166, 344. Some Patristic writers used a trichotomy of body,
soul and spirit [Cf. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.6.1. ANF 1, p. 531] but this is to be
considered a subdivision of dichotomistic conceptions. For instance, Augustine says that the
“three things of which man consists - namely spirit, soul and body” are nevertheless “spoken
of as two, because frequently the soul is named along with the spirit.” On faith and the creed
10.23. NPNF 1/3, p. 331], See Gordon Spykman. Reformational Theology, p. 233. Others
criticised trichotomist views. Theodoret. Eranistes, Dialogue 2. NPNF 2/3, p. 183. Letter 145,
to the monks of Constantinople. NPNF 2/3, p. 313. Jerome queried “...how there can be said to
be two substances and two inner selves in one and the same man, entirely apart from the body
and from the grace of the Holy Spirit.” Commentary on Daniel 3.39. G L Archer, pp. 41-42.
3
For details of the understanding of body and soul in Greek thought, see: Jan N Bremmer. The
early Greek concept of the soul. Princeton University Press, 1983. Simon Tugwell. Human
immortality and the redemption of death. Darton Longman and Todd, 1990. R A Norris.
Manhood and Christ. Chapter Three: The nature of the soul.
4
The controversy over the soul’s origin, concerning pre-existence, creationism or traducianism,
is rooted in this very pseudo-problem which leads only to contradictions and as such is
insoluble. See the comments by G C Berkouwer. Man: The image of God, pp. 292-293.
Augustine was always troubled by the problem of the origin of the soul and addressed this
issue in a number of places. Letter 143.7-10. NPNF 1/1, pp. 492-493. Letter 190.5. FC 30, pp.
279-288. Retractations 1.1. PL 32, 585-587. The literal meaning of Genesis 10.24.40-
10.26.45. ACW 42, pp. 128-132. Letter 166. NPNF 1/1, pp. 523-532. See Kari E Börresen.
1
Even those writers who assert the wholeness of human nature still thought of it in
terms of the unity of a body and a soul, dichotomistically conceived. Considering the
person in terms of a dichotomy of disparate substantial parts necessarily results in
speculation concerning the inter-relation of these parts, which then becomes a
dominant theme in theology.
I do not attempt in this thesis to develop an exhaustive analysis of the different ways
in which the Patristic writers explain the relationship of body and soul, but focus on
what can be considered the two dominant models which underlie the treatment of the
issues discussed in this thesis. These may be called for convenience the unitary model
and the instrumentalist model.
The unitary model presents the human person as an integrated whole of body and
soul, both of which are necessary for the normal functioning of the person, so that
when separated in death, the person is incomplete in significant ways. The
instrumentalist model, on the other hand, locates the human person in the soul, while
the body is the instrument by means of which the soul expresses its life in the world.5
In this model, the soul is assigned priority and superiority over against the body, in a
relationship often understood as antagonistic.6
While the complexities of Patristic thought mean that other models and correlations
could perhaps be found which would group various writers differently with respect to
other issues, these two anthropological models have been found useful in clarifying
the specific issue dealt with in this thesis, namely, how conceptions of the relationship
of body and soul, that is, the nature of the human person, shape and influence
conceptions of resurrection, immortality and judgement. Because these two models
persist underneath variations in detail throughout the Patristic period, it is possible to
provide an historical analysis of the development of Patristic thought, by tracing the
way in which ideas develop and unfold, and how later concerns and ideas are
“Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 145-146. See

also Nemesius. On the nature of man 2.17. LCC 4, pp. 280-285.
5
There are of course varying ideas as to how the body and soul are interrelated in each of these
two main categories, but for our purposes these can be ignored. The principal difference with
which we are concerned is whether or not the person is a composite of both soul and body, or
is located in the soul only. While a number of Patristic writers who held to a unitary
anthropological model speak of the soul using the body as an instrument [e.g. Irenaeus.
Against Heresies 2.33.4. ANF 1, p, 410. Cyril of Alexandria. Answers to Tiberius 9. Oxford
Early Christian Texts, p. 163], this should not be taken to mean they are using an
“instrumentalist” model, as this use of the term “instrument” refers to the relationship between
body and soul, which together form the person. This is not true of instrumentalist models in
which the soul is the person.
6
This distinction between a unitary and an instrumentalist model is noted but not discussed by
Ugo Bianchi. “Of course, in order to appreciate fully the difference between original sin and
previous sin or fault, it is necessary to refer to the position of the author under consideration:
whether man is for him (as in the Platonic, and already Orphic tradition) his own soul,
conceived as teleologically separable from, and incompatible with, its corporeal “vehicle”
(ochema), or instrument...or, alternatively, whether man, consisting essentially of body and
soul (animale rationale, an expression found also in Origen), is a teleologically irreducible
totality expressing itself in the notion of resurrection...” “Augustine on Concupiscence.”
Studia Patristica 22 (1989) 204-205.
2
integrated with earlier views, within the parameters provided by these two basic
anthropological models.
While detailed studies of the thought of individual writers are essential, it is also
necessary at times to evaluate the history of how these ideas unfold and develop
through time,7 a development which extends beyond individual lifetimes, and so
cannot be seen in the thought of any one writer.8 In addition, each writer presupposes
and builds on, either positively or negatively, the work of predecessors and
contemporaries, and leaves a legacy of thought for those who follow. Such a study
reveals commonalities not always apparent from studies of individuals, but which are
brought to light through tracing the way ideas and anthropological models are used by
different authors at different periods.
For instance, a seemingly trivial idea may not have sufficient significance for the
thought of any one individual for it to warrant comment. However, the recurrence of
such a “trivial” idea in many writers, whose work covers several centuries, has its
own significance. It is as important to examine the ways such ideas are taken up and
continued, consolidated and perpetuated as it is to examine the way they are used in
individual writers. These ideas thus may be worthy of attention they would not
otherwise warrant. A “cross-sectional” study such as this, encompassing the treatment
of a number of correlated themes by various writers, is the only way to reveal
developments, connections, diverging streams of thought, and otherwise unsuspected
relationships between writers in different times and places.
1.1 The focus of the study
There is a remarkable shift in beliefs concerning the judgement in the eschatology of

the Patristic era. The earliest Patristic writers held that at the return of Christ, all the
dead would be raised, and together with those still living, believers and unbelievers
alike would face the judgement and then be allocated rewards and punishments
according to their deserts.9 This is correlated with a unitary anthropology, in which
both body and soul had participated in the deeds for which the person was being
judged, and so would be held accountable together. For justice to be done, the whole
person had to be present at the judgement to share together in the subsequent
7
Most surveys of Patristic eschatology are only brief articles or sections of books. The only up
to date comprehensive study published in English (which was not available to me until this
thesis was in the final stages of preparation) is that by Brian E Daley. The hope of the early
Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991. Daley comments, “no single large-scale survey exists of the whole development of
ancient Christian eschatological hope.” (Idem, p. xi.) Daley’s work, while comprehensive, is
according to his own description, “a historically-ordered handbook... rather than a theological
encyclopaedia or a broad, interpretative historical synthesis.” (Idem, p. xii.) This thesis seeks
to contribute to the evaluation and critique of the historical development of aspects of Patristic
eschatology.
8
While it is possible to trace developments in the thought of individual authors, for instance
Tertullian or Augustine, this includes only limited changes, which may in fact be significant
turning points in the overall development, but still do not reveal the whole picture.
9
Many passages of the Bible teach a resurrection of all the dead to face the judgement on the
Last Day. They include: Matthew 10:15, 12:36, 25:31-46, John 5:21-30, Acts 24:15, Romans
2:5-11, 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-8, 1 Timothy 5:24, Hebrews 9:27,
10:27, 2 Peter 2:9, 3:7, 1 John 4:17, and Revelation 20:11-15.
3
punishments and rewards; thus nobody could or would be judged prior to the
resurrection of the body.
While this view persisted throughout the Patristic period, it was increasingly held that
each soul would face a judgement immediately after death, at which appropriate
rewards and punishments would be determined, which the soul then received, prior to
the resurrection and the “last judgement.”10 This view was based on the growing
prominence of an instrumentalist anthropological model in which the body was
considered merely the instrument for carrying out the desires of the soul, and thus the
soul could legitimately face the judgement alone, apart from the resurrection of the
body. While the idea of a general judgement on the Last Day was maintained, the
immediate individual judgement eventually assumed priority, and thus the former
became increasingly problematic as it appeared to serve no real purpose: the fate of
the soul was known from its judgement at death, and a general judgement at the end
of the age could only confirm the decision already passed. Thus the implications of
these two models in eschatology are significant, as the first focuses on the
resurrection as the true commencement of eschatological life, while the second makes
possible the entry of the soul into eschatological life immediately after death and
independently of the resurrection of the body. These models shape the interpretations
of Scripture adopted and the answers given to philosophical and theological
questions.
In this context, some Patristic writers developed the idea that neither the wicked nor
the saints would be judged, based on Psalm 1:5, Therefore the wicked will not rise up
in the judgement, nor sinners in the council of the righteous, in conjunction with John
3:18, which states that Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever
does not believe stands condemned already, because he has not believed in the name
of God’s one and only Son. The correlation of these two verses provided, in the
opinion of these Patristic authors, both the express statement and the causal
justification of the view that neither the wicked nor the saints would face the
judgement. This was also based on a particular understanding of what the term
“judgement” indicated.11 The various meanings ascribed to that term indicate the
problems created by asserting in particular that the saints would not face the
judgement, in spite of numerous passages in Scripture to the contrary, such as 2
Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10-12.
However, if neither the wicked nor the righteous would face the judgement, who then
will do so? It was proposed that the judgement would investigate the character, and
pronounce the fate, of those who were neither completely righteous nor completely
wicked, who thus did not obviously belong to either group.
10
The very use of the term last (or general) judgement is evidence of the problem, since it
became necessary to distinguish it from the first (particular) judgement of the soul at death,
and from God’s present judging in providence. Cf. the discussion of this in Augustine. The
City of God 20.1. NPNF 1/2, p. 421. The Scriptures do not use such terminology, and speak of
only one judgement, that at the Last Day.
11
There is some confusion evident in Patristic literature over the meaning of “judgement.” Some
interpreted this as the process of judging, while others understood it to mean the punishment
consequent on that process. Some later authors, for instance Augustine, distinguished the
various meanings and discussed their applicability in different contexts. See Chapter 6.4
below.
4
In contrast to this interpretation of Psalm 1:5, other Patristic writers took the view that
the wicked would indeed face judgement. They understood this text to mean that
when they were raised, the wicked would not participate in the process of judging.
That process was reserved for the apostles, who would sit on twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel [Matthew 19:28], together with the rest of the saints, who
would also have a share in the judgement, since the saints will judge the world [1
Corinthians 6:2]. It would be the wicked on whom the apostles and saints would
pronounce judgement, and so the wicked would definitely be judged.
These diverging interpretations of Psalm 1:5 in conjunction with John 3:18 reflect a
number of important developments in Patristic theology, in anthropology as much as
in eschatology. This study will examine the changing presuppositions which were
necessary for these developments to take place, and how they are evident in the
Patristic interpretation of Psalm 1:5, in order to ascertain how this text was
understood, and to explore the reasoning behind this interpretation.12 In this way we
can integrate the various themes studied in this thesis.
Many early writers rejected the immortality of the soul as a pagan philosophical
view,13 partly in the desire to protect belief in the resurrection, and held that
immortality is granted to those who believe as a gift of God through Christ at the time
of the resurrection, when both soul and body together will receive “life in
immortality.”14 However, by the end of the Patristic age, the inherent immortality of
the soul was accepted as orthodox Christian belief, as a consequence of the influence
of pagan philosophical speculation on Christian writers, often correlated with an
instrumentalist anthropology.15
It should be noted, however, that there is no direct correlation between the two
anthropological models discussed here, and what are often presented as two
alternatives in eschatology: immortality of the soul and resurrection of the dead.16
12
I have located only one paper, dealing with only a few authors, which specifically studies the
Patristic exegesis of Psalm 1:5. H de Lavalette. “L’interpretation du Psaume 1.5 chez les peres
“misericordieux” latins.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960) 544-563. He examines
Augustine, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, and Gregory the Great. As a
result, it is not surprising that inaccurate comments on this exegesis have been made, for
instance by J N D Kelly, who considers the characteristic Patristic view a peculiarly Western
tradition. Early Christian Doctrines, p. 481. However, it can also be found in a great number
of Greek and Syrian texts. These will be examined below in Chapter Eight.
13
The term “pagan” is used here not in a derogatory way, but as a technical term for a
polytheistic image-worshipping, magically inclined religious outlook, which deifies various
aspects of the creation and sees in them the source of meaning for the creation. See Roy A
Clouser. The myth of religious neutrality, pp. 36-37.
14
Berkouwer points out that a dualistic anthropology is evident from the use of the term
“immortality of the soul,” since the Scriptures speak only of the immortality of the person and
not of a part of the person. G C Berkouwer. Man: The image of God, p. 234.
15
Speculation is the attempt to go beyond the information Scripture provides on a given subject,
extrapolating from the known to the unknown (and unknowable), accepting no limits for
human knowledge. The opposite error is to refuse to acknowledge, in a sceptical manner, the
extent of the information which is given in Scripture on a particular subject.
16
This contrast has been made famous in recent times by Oscar Cullmann. Immortality of the
soul or resurrection of the dead? London: Epworth, 1958. See the comment by Ambrose,
5
While the contrast between resurrection of the dead and immortality of the soul is of
considerable importance, it does not in itself provide sufficient explanatory power to
elucidate the complexities of Patristic thought with respect to the judgement, and no
doubt this is also true of contemporary Christian writers. Only some Patristic authors
who hold to a unitary anthropology believe in the inherent immortality of the soul, but
they all agree that the resurrection of the body is essential in order to face the
judgement on the Last Day,17 a view not necessary for the instrumentalist model.
Views on the timing and nature of the judgement can be correlated with the
anthropological model used by an author, but cannot be correlated with his view on
the immortality of the soul.
These anthropological models also shaped other aspects of doctrine. In the

instrumentalist model, the soul was thought to aspire to spiritual and eternal things,
while the body craved gratification with earthly and transitory temporal things.18 The
result of positing a dualism between the “material” fleshly body and the “spiritual”
soul was the abandonment of the significance of the body and the denigration of
bodily life, which came to its fullest expression in asceticism, the rejection of
marriage and the glorification of virginity. The resulting “spiritual” and non-earthly
conceptions of eschatological life contrasted strongly with the early Patristic
conceptions of the millennium and the resurrection body, which came to be
considered “materialistic.” This false distinction is based on the idea that while God
and the soul are spiritual, the earth and all that is related to it is “material.”19 The
eschatological hope was then focused on a “spiritual” heaven, rather than a “material”
earth, even though this was to be the new earth promised in Isaiah and Revelation.
This dichotomy between the “spiritual” and the “material” misplaces the antithesis
found in Scripture, between God’s covenant love towards us, and human sin with its
effects, and results in a creation-negating mentality which seeks for salvation in
setting the soul free from its material (bodily) mode of existence. When such views,
originating in the Greek thought-world, are introduced into the Christian thought-
world rooted in divine revelation, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection is
compromised, and human bodily life is denigrated.
The increasing emphasis on an individualistic, immediate eschatology which centred

on the fate of each soul at death resulted in speculation about the “intermediate state”
between death and resurrection, and obscured the supra-individual aspects of the
that in contrast to the Christian hope of the resurrection, the pagans console themselves with
the thought of the immortality of the soul. On the belief in the resurrection 2.50. NPNF 2/10,
p. 181.
17
L Boliek comments that the fact that in the Patristic period resurrection rather than eternal life
was stressed, may indicate an awareness that “the expression eternal life by itself could be
distorted into a concept of the continuation of the soul separated from the body.” The
resurrection of the flesh, pp. 22-23.
18
The “eternal” and “temporal” should not be contrasted in this way, since eternity is the future
consummation of this present time. The difference lies between the limited time of this life
(cut off by death) and the infinite time of the eschaton, where there is no more death
[Revelation 21:4]. See Peter Steen. “The Problem of Time and Eternity in its Relation to the
Nature-Grace Ground-motive.” In: Hearing and Doing, pp. 135-148.
19
While it is valid to distinguish God from the creation, any conception which considers part of
the creation to be similar to God and dissimilar to the rest of the creation violates the Biblical
witness to the creatureliness of the whole of human nature.
6
parousia, so that the confession of the resurrection of the body was “reduced to a
formal dogma with no room for the real expectation concerning the future,”20 and the
locus of eschatological life was eventually considered to be in “heaven.” This
individualistic eschatology is one reason why the doctrine of the judgement on the
Last Day declined in importance.
During the Middle Ages the doctrine of the last things was mainly left
to popular piety and those outside the main stream of theology... The
fervent hope for the coming of the Lord was gradually replaced by the
sacrament of penance, through which one was assured of entrance into
heaven, and by an increasingly elaborated system of purgatory. Once
people passed through this vale of tears, they would enter eternal bliss,
since the church as the visible representative of the heavenly city
mediated their salvation. Salvation as the end of world history was
exchanged in favour of salvation at the end of individual history. The
cosmic dimension of eschatology receded and the existential
component gained.21
These developments in the Middle Ages arise largely from the legacy of thought left
by the Patristic period, and the difficulties created can be detected in that literature as
well as in the theology of subsequent generations. Quistorp has expressed the opinion
that the failure of the great Reformers to grapple with eschatology adequately led to
disastrous consequences for subsequent Protestant theology, which became
...subjected to a perverse spiritualization and individualization of

eschatology - a process whose beginnings are to be found with the
reformers themselves, who in this respect are not original but are
following mediaeval Catholic and humanist prototypes.22
The problems inherent in this eschatological conception arise from the tensions
inherent in Patristic thought because of their attempts to forge a synthesis, an artificial
merger, between two opposing and incompatible viewpoints: divine revelation and
pagan philosophical speculation.
20
G C Berkouwer. The return of Christ, pp. 34, 61-62. Cf. Donald E Gowan. Eschatology in
the Old Testament, p. 21.
21
H Schwarz. “Eschatology.” In: Christian Dogmatics. Vol. 2, pp. 504-505.
22
H Quistorp. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Last Things, p. 11.
7
1.2 The problem of synthesis
The inscripturated revelation of God confronts humankind in an antithesis which

stands over against our false conceptions of the way things are, including
philosophical speculation based on pagan myth.23 This is rooted in a repudiation of
our covenant relationship with God, and hypostatises the creatures he has made,
turning them into idols which purportedly provide the source of ultimate meaning.
Divine revelation is therefore incompatible with the pagan speculations which form
the basis of Greek philosophy,24 and any synthesis formed between them is inherently
unstable. As a result, it is necessary to continually seek a new synthesis in an effort to
resolve the problems of earlier synthetic viewpoints. Spykman comments that this is
because “methodologically dualist axioms refuse to yield unifying conclusions,” only
a “pseudo-unity which yields little more than a comprehensive yet precarious
synthesis of the very bipolar problematic with which it began, held together in a new
tension-laden dialectic.”25
In Patristic literature we find such a synthesis being formed through the attempt to
merge the theoretical speculations of the various schools of Greek philosophy with
the covenantal message of divine revelation, leading ultimately to the subordination
of revelation, to a greater or lesser extent, to the thought-forms and concepts of pagan
philosophy. The influence of Platonism, neo-Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism and
other pagan Greek philosophies on Patristic thought is well documented.26
A number of the disputes in the Patristic period can be traced to the influence of the
thought of the various competing schools of Greek philosophy.27 This can be seen, for
23
Myth is understood to be the formulation by the unbelieving imagination of a pseudo-
revelation, a humanly fabricated authority for faith, that stands in opposition to Scripture, and
provides the grounds on which pagan philosophy is based. See W V Rowe. “The character
and structure of myth.” Anakainosis 6 (1984) 4:1-9. A Christian philosophy takes divine
revelation in Scripture as its authority, and not the postulates of pagan myth or autonomous
reason. Thus Christian philosophy will always be in conflict with other philosophical systems,
and is incompatible with them. See Gordon Spykman. Reformational theology, pp. 98-105
for a discussion of the relationship between Christian philosophy and theology.
24
Cf. the comment by E L Fortin, that both Christianity and Greek philosophy make absolute
claims on the allegiance of their followers. “The viri novi of Arnobius and the conflict
between faith and reason in the early Christian centuries.” In: The Heritage of the Early
Church, p. 226.
25
Gordon Spykman. Reformational Theology, pp. 20-21. He further comments that the
answers produced are “not really solutions at all but reinforcements of the problem.” Ibid., p.
26.
26
See for instance A H Armstrong and R A Markus. Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy.
K A Bril. Westerse Denkstructuren. Een probleem-historisch onderzoek. Marcia L
Colish. The Stoic tradition from Antiquity to the early Middle ages. II. Stoicism in
Christian Latin thought through the 6th Century. Henry Chadwick. Early Christian
thought and the classical tradition. Studies in Justin, Clement and Origen.
27
Tertullian pointed to the confusion among the philosophers as to the truth concerning the soul,
since while some consider the soul to be “divine and eternal,” others say that it is
“dissoluble.” Apology 47. ANF 3, p. 52. Cf. The soul’s testimony 1. ANF 3, p. 175. Cf. the
views of Ephrem of Syria, who rejects philosophising about the soul, since “...those that
philosophize about it miss of it. For one confesses that it exists, another that it exists not. One
puts it in subjection to death, another above the power of death.” Rhythms upon the faith,
against the disputers 1. Rhythms of St Ephrem the Syrian, pp. 107-108. Regarding the way
8
instance, in the way in which some Patristic writers attempted to trace heretical
movements to Greek philosophers, while it was assumed that “orthodox” Christians
were instructed by revelation.28 Jerome stated that “Churchmen are truly rustic and
simple men, but all the heretics are Aristotelian and Platonic.”29 He makes this case
even more strongly by claiming that the heretics do not use one philosopher as their
authority, but resort to whatever system is convenient at the time.
They [the heretics] are well stocked for debate. If you refute them in
one proof, they turn to another. If you contradict them by Scripture,
they take refuge in Aristotle; if you rebut them in Aristotle, they by-
pass to Plato.30
On another occasion, Jerome made an even more polemical attack on the pagan
philosophers.
Just as a serpent that sees someone coming to strike it instinctively

makes a coil of its entire body and protects its head, even so these
heretics hide themselves in the winding utterances of Aristotle and the
other philosophers and so shield and defend themselves.31
The frequent attempt by Patristic writers to trace heretical beliefs back to pagan Greek
philosophy seems to be an unacknowledged, and possibly important recognition that
synthesis with alien thought-forms is in fact the source of many problems. For
instance, in the passage where Tertullian claims that heresy originates with Greek
philosophers, he rejects “all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic,
Platonic and dialectic composition!”32 However, according to Wolters, his very
in which Patristic writers inherited pre-existing debates about anthropology, Crouse

comments: “All those problems are present, and more or less explicit, in the history of Greek
and Roman religion and philosophy, from the earliest of the Greek poets to the latest of the
pagan Neoplatonic schools, and are not peculiar to Christianity.” “The meaning of creation in
Augustine and Eriugena.” Studia Patristica 22 (1989) 229.
28
Tertullian was perhaps the first to make the claim that all heresies are instigated by
philosophy. On prescription against heretics 7. ANF 3, p. 246. Tertullian’s contemporary
Hippolytus also uses the basic theme that all heresies are merely travesties and adaptations of
pagan philosophy. Refutation of all heresies: Proemium. ANF 5, pp. 10-11. Tugwell
comments that Hippolytus asserts that doctrines of heretics derive from ancient philosophical
sources to prove that they “antedate the coming of Christ and so cannot be ascribed to
Christian revelation.” Human immortality and the redemption of death, pp. 4-5.
29
Jerome. Homily 11, On Psalm 77 (78). FC 48, p. 86. W Telfer notes that Nemesius considers
the philosophy of Plotinus false because a heresy has been built upon it. Cyril of Jerusalem
and Nemesius of Emesa. LCC 4, p. 227.
30
Jerome. Homily 54, On Psalm 143 (144). FC 48, p. 386. This view Jerome condemns is very
similar to that of Karl Barth, who says that theologians should not be committed to any
particular philosophy, but should utilise whatever system seems appropriate in any given
circumstances. Church Dogmatics, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 731. This sceptical approach to
philosophy is inherently unstable and lies at the root of Barth’s “dialectical” method.
31
Jerome. Homily 50, On Psalm 139 (140). FC 48, pp. 363-364.
32
Tertullian. On prescription against heretics 7. ANF 3, p. 246. Here Tertullian (mis)uses
Colossians 2:8 as a warning against philosophy as such, and not against false philosophy. He
then makes his famous statement, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” This is
usually interpreted as an obscurantist repudiation of all philosophy, but even so he is still
9
rejection of these pagan thought-forms is “patterned after the best models of classical
rhetoric.” Wolters goes on to add:
Paradoxically, Tertullian in his violent opposition to the

representatives of classical culture interacted a great deal with them
and was profoundly shaped by them. In the process of trying to
demonstrate (in his De Anima) that every Christian heresy could be
traced back to a pagan philosopher, he defended an essentially Stoic
theory of the soul.33
Jerome’s famous dream in which he was accused by Christ of being a Ciceronian and
not a Christian indicates the depth to which he felt this situation.34 But he was also
able to say that he had read the works of the Pythagoreans, and maintained that
“Pythagoras was the first to discover the immortality of the soul and its transmigration
from one body to another.”35 It is surprising after making this comment that Jerome
was able to continue to assert the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, since it
clearly comes from a pagan religious source.
While it may be legitimate to make some use of the thought-forms of the day in
articulating Christian thought, the crucial problem with Patristic thought, and indeed
the Christian thought of any age, is the uncritical adoption and use of ideas
fundamentally incompatible with revelation, even though at times the Patristic
synthetic approach was selective about the ideas which were adopted.36 It is only as
acknowledging the fundamental incompatibility of Christianity with pagan speculation.

Tertullian states that the speculations of the philosophers “have perverted the older
Scriptures,” and “even adulterated our new-given Christian revelation, and corrupted it into a
system of philosophic doctrines.” The result, according to Tertullian, is the “variety of parties
among us,” which he fears will be considered the equivalent of the different schools of
philosophy and obscure the truth of the Gospel. Apology 47. ANF 3, p. 52. Cf. the views of
Ephrem of Syria, who said “Blessed is the one who has never tasted the poison of the wisdom
of the Greeks.” [Rhythms on Faith 2.3. Select works of S. Ephrem the Syrian, p. 112] S H
Griffith. “Ephraem the Syrian’s hymns Àgainst Julian.’” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 246.
33
[Tertullian. On the soul 3. ANF 3, pp. 183-184.] A M Wolters. “Christianity and the Classics:
A typology of attitudes.” In: Christianity and the Classics, p. 196. Tertullian concedes that
some things are known from nature, rather than from revelation, including the immortality of
the soul, and justifies using Plato’s ideas. “I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when
he declares, ‘Every soul is immortal’.” On the resurrection of the flesh 3. ANF 3, p. 547.
34
Jerome. Letter 22.30. NPNF 2/6, pp. 35-36.
35
Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus 3.39. NPNF 2/3, p. 538.
36
For instance, Macrina rejected some of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle concerning the soul,
but then says that the Scripture “lays it down as an axiom that there is no excellence in the
soul which is not a property as well of the Divine nature” [Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and
the Resurrection. NPNF 2/5, p. 439], an idea of pagan Greek origin. Runia says that such a
view “is diametrically opposed to the biblical perspective on man and the cosmos, which
always preserves a radical distinction between Creator and creature.” The result was,
according to Runia, “a ‘slow hellenization’ of the Christian message...” D T Runia.
“Dooyeweerd, Bos and the Grondmotief of Greek culture.” Philosophia Reformata 54 (1989)
162. V E F Harrison comments in this connection that for Gregory of Nyssa, “the divine and
human natures have the same attributes though the substrata in which these attributes occur
are radically different. Thus God and human persons are ontologically linked and their
authentic properties can be correlated with each other.” “Male and female in Cappadocian
theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 441. Harrison refers for this idea to
10
we become self-critically aware of the way in which we are influenced by alien views
that distort our understanding of Scripture that we can legitimately critique Patristic
thought. Otherwise, we will merely criticise the views of a past age from the
perspective of the views of the present, without engaging in a critical analysis of both
in the light of Scripture.
The synthetic approach was built on the use of pagan thought by the Alexandrian
Jews in the century before Christ, which Runner argues was an adaptation to the
Greco-Roman culture, and not a critique of it, resulting in the view “that Divine
Wisdom (Chokmah) had illumined both the Hebrew prophets and the Greek
philosophers,” which turned “a religious antithesis of direction (Light and Darkness)
into a mere difference of degree of clarity of insight.”37 Therefore, the Patristic writers
failed to penetrate to the deepest roots of Greek philosophical speculation, which was
founded on an idolatrous religious perspective, inseparable from that philosophy. As
Armstrong comments:
The Hellenic classics could not be purged of their Hellenism and

domesticated to the service of the Church... they transmitted a whole
complex of ways of thinking, feeling and imagining which are not
compatible with Biblicist and ecclesiastical Christianity. The Muses
and the Lady Philosophy are not to be recommended as priests’ house-
keepers.38
The Patristic writers used various justifications for adopting pagan thought-forms and
ideas,39 and sought to demonstrate the basic agreement between Greek philosophy and
divine revelation.40 These included the doctrine of preparatio evangelica, which
Gregory’s On the making of man 16.12. PG 44, 184D [NPNF 2/5, p. 405]. See also Karl
Barth. Church Dogmatics III/1, p. 360 for a critique of this approach.
37
H Evan Runner. “On being Christian-Historical and Anti-Revolutionary at the cutting-edge of
history,” p. 6.
38
A H Armstrong. “The way and the ways: Religious tolerance and intolerance in the fourth
century A.D.” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984) 8.
39
Apart from the intellectual attraction of pagan thought, another factor which stimulated
defence of Christian use of pagan writings was the decree of Julian the Apostate in 362 AD
which prohibited Christians from teaching the pagan classics on the grounds that it was
unethical to teach literature referring to gods the Christians do not believe in. G W
Bowerstock. Julian the Apostate, pp. 83-84. Robert Browning. The Emperor Julian, pp.
169-174. Christians responded by defending their use of such texts. Gregory of Nazianzus.
Oration 4.5. PG 35, 536A-B. Cf. Augustine’s comment: “Did he [Julian] not persecute the
church, who forbade the Christians to teach or learn liberal letters?” The City of God 18.52.
NPNF 1/2, p. 393. Socrates. Ecclesiastical History 3.12. NPNF 2/2, p. 85. Ibid., 3.16. NPNF
2/2, pp. 87-88.
40
It is curious to note that while Christian writers were trying to demonstrate the compatibility
of the Bible with Greek philosophy, several pagan writers (e.g. Galen and Celsus) were
writing refutations of Christian beliefs on the grounds that they were incompatible with Greek
philosophy. Cf. Albrecht Dihle. The theory of will in Classical Antiquity, pp. 4-8. Eusebius
reports the criticisms made by Porphyry of Origen’s “mingling Grecian teachings with foreign
fables.” Ecclesiastical History 6.19. NPNF 2/1, pp. 265-266. Ambrose wrote a refutation
(now lost) of Neoplatonists who saw Christianity as a counterfeit Platonism, and who insisted
on the incompatibility of Christianity with Platonism. Pierre Courcelle. “Anti-Christian
arguments and Christian Platonism: From Arnobius to St. Ambrose.” In: The conflict
between paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, p. 158.
11
posited that these ideas had been revealed to the pagans by God to prepare the pagan
world for the Gospel;41 the idea that the pagans had plagiarised their doctrines from
the Old Testament;42 that Christians had the right to “plunder” the pagans of their
riches (using the image of the “spoiling of the Egyptians” in Exodus 12:35-36);43 or
that pagan thinkers had access to the truth through logical thought, which was only
possible through the Logos which created all things and informed all things.44 The
pagan ideas which lay behind these various justifications were themselves seldom if
ever examined.45 For instance, Runner insists that through allegorising of history, the
spoliatio motif confuses the jewels created by God and hidden in the earth, found in
the possession of the Egyptians, with ideas that arise in the (rebellious) human heart.
The analogy thereby breaks down, and prevents insight into the corrupting influence
41
See for instance the treatise of Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, which was based on this
theme.
42
This view was to become a popular one in the Patristic period, and was used to justify many
diverse (and contradictory) opinions as Biblical. Origen stated that “It seems to me, then, that
all the sages of the Greeks borrowed these ideas from Solomon, who had learnt them by the
Spirit of God at an age and time long before their own; and that they put them forward as their
own inventions and, by including them in the books of their teachings, left them to be handed
down also to those that came after.” Prologue. Commentary on the Song of Songs. ACW 26,
p. 40. This idea also appeared in the Talmud, from where it may have been borrowed by
Patristic writers. Louis Ginzberg. The Legends of the Jews. Vol. 6, pp. 282-283. See also
Josephus. Against Apion 1.22. Loeb, pp. 229, 231. Early in his career, Augustine held that
Plato had met Jeremiah in Egypt and was “initiated” into the Hebrew Scriptures. On Christian
Doctrine 2.28.43. NPNF 1/2, p. 549. Later he corrected this view on the basis of chronology,
which showed that Plato was born about a century after the time of Jeremiah. However,
Augustine conceded that Plato could have learned the contents of the Scriptures through an
interpreter, as indicated by the similarities Augustine discerned between Plato’s Timaeus and
Genesis. The City of God 8.11. NPNF 1/2, pp. 151-152. Justin Martyr saw the same
similarities. First Apology 59. ANF 1, p. 182. This theme has been studied by J Moorhead.
“The Greeks, pupils of the Hebrews.” Prudentia 15 (1983) 3-12. See also the careful warnings
against the dangers of this approach to pagan philosophy in J Klapwijk. “Antithesis, synthesis
and the idea of transformational philosophy.” Philosophia Reformata 51 (1986) 138-154.
43
Found for instance in Augustine. On Christian Doctrine 2.40.60. NPNF 1/2, p. 554. An
interesting inversion of this is found in Jerome, who describes the true insights of the pagans
as symbolised by the sacred vessels of the temple at Jerusalem which were stolen by the
Babylonians. These insights were limited since they stole only some of the vessels, “and not
all of them in their completeness and perfection.” Thus he combines the spolatio motif with
the idea that the truths of philosophy were learnt from the Hebrews. Commentary on Daniel
1.2. G L Archer, p. 20.
44
Cf. Justin Martyr. Second Apology 13. ANF 1, p. 193. This rationalistic concept of the cosmos
presupposed that “...revelation was in harmony with philosophy at its best because
philosophers had in part been inspired by the Logos.” Robert M Grant. Augustus to
Constantine, p. 109. See also the discussion of this theme by Graham Keith. “Justin Martyr
and religious exclusivism.” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992) 1:60-63 and passim. Theodoret said
that the idea of a judgement after death was held by the Greek poets and philosophers because
of “natural reason,” by which such truths are also accessible to us. On Divine Providence
9.24. ACW 49, pp. 126-127.
45
For a detailed analysis of such approaches see A M Wolters. “Christianity and the Classics: A
typology of attitudes.” In: Christianity and the Classics, pp. 189-203. K J Popma. “Patristic
evaluation of culture.” In: The Idea of a Christian Philosophy, pp. 97-113. B J van der Walt.
“Eisegesis-exegesis, paradox and nature-grace: methods of synthesis in mediaeval
philosophy.” In: The Idea of a Christian Philosophy, pp. 191-211. The Patristic use of the
“spoliation of the Egyptians” is dealt with in detail in J Klapwijk. “Antithesis, synthesis and
the idea of transformational philosophy.” Philosophia Reformata 51 (1986) 138-154.
12
of alien ideas on the articulation of Christian thought.46 This can be seen, for instance,
in the commentary on the Psalms by Cassiodorus, which is intended to give proof that
all secular learning is derived from the Bible. This allowed Christians to study pagan
works without guilt, since it starts with the assumption that it is the pagans who have
stolen from the Bible.47
One way in which this synthesis resulted in distortion of Scripture was through seeing
Moses as a philosopher, who taught the Hebrews philosophical doctrines which were
copied by the Greeks (but in a somewhat distorted form),48 a view found in
Eusebius,49 who says these “philosophical doctrines” of Moses were then
disseminated to the other nations by Christ through his disciples.50 This
intellectualistic view forces Scripture into a theoretical mould, and thereby obscures
and negates its central covenantal character.
The continuing use of Greek philosophy by the Patristic writers was in part
necessitated by the fact that adoption of pagan anthropological theories, rooted in a
dichotomy between body and soul, posed insoluble problems for the interpretation of
the Scriptures. Because these problems in the relationship of body and soul were at
root philosophical in nature, imported into Scripture from outside, they could only be
tackled philosophically.51 Thus the Patristic writers increasingly resorted to
philosophy to develop theories that explained their anthropological concepts more
precisely. The Scriptures do not present theories of human nature,52 but present a non-
46
H Evan Runner. “On being Christian-Historical and Anti-Revolutionary at the cutting-edge of
history,” p. 6.
47
J L Halporn. “Methods of reference in Cassiodorus.” Journal of Library History 16 (1981) 73.
48
According to Lactantius, the poets corrupted the truth of the resurrection and the judgement,
interpreting these in terms of their idolatrous religion. They did, however, have some inkling
of the truth even though it was misunderstood. The Divine Institutes 7.22. ANF 7, pp. 217-
218. Jerome, using his interpretation of the spoliatio motif (see note 42 above) says that the
heretics misuse the testimony of Scripture according to their own inclination, citing the way
the sacred vessels from the Temple were used in a banquet by the Babylonians. Commentary
on Daniel 5.4. G L Archer, p. 56.
49
Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel 11.26-27. E H Gifford, Vol. 2, pp. 594-595. Clement of
Alexandria refers to the Scriptures as “barbarian philosophy” which was plundered by the
Greeks, whom he calls “thieves” since they did not acknowledge their sources. The Stromata
5.1. ANF 2, p. 446. See also Minucius Felix. Octavius 34. ANF 4, p. 194. Pseudo-Justin.
Exhortation to the Greeks 27-28. FC 6, pp. 407-409.
50
Eusebius. The proof of the Gospel 3.2. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p. 105.
John G Gager points out that there was at the time no general term for “religion” and that the
term “philosophy” was used instead, meaning not a theoretical system but a “cult of wisdom.”
The origins of Anti-Semitism, p. 85. While this is important to note, the term “philosophy”
in the sense of “theoretical system” was also applied to Christianity by writers such as
Eusebius. See also the discussion of this issue in A H Armstrong and R A Markus. Christian
Faith and Greek Philosophy, pp. 149-152.
51
Cf. the comments of John Cassian, who says he must “...put aside for a little Scriptural
proofs” in order to discuss “the nature of the soul itself.” Conferences 1.14. NPNF 2/11, p.
302.
52
Cf. Karl Barth. “We remember that we shall search the Old and New Testaments in vain for a
true anthropology and therefore for a theory of the relation between soul and body... The
biblical texts regard and describe man in the full exercise of his intercourse with God. Their
authors have neither the time nor the interest to occupy themselves with man as such, nor to
13
theoretical picture of human beings in covenantal relationship with God.53 While we
can formulate theoretical anthropologies through codifying our discerning of the
structure of created reality in the light of Scripture, that theory should not be in
conflict with the basic picture presented in Scripture, as was unfortunately the case
with Patristic anthropologies.
When the Scriptures use the terms commonly translated as “body” and “soul,” this
does not refer to the components of human nature, substantially conceived, but human
beings as a whole,54 looked at as from the outside or from the inside.55 This
terminology of “inward-outward” used in Scripture (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:16) provides
us with the basis of an anthropology which is neither dualistic nor monistic,56 but
considers human nature as a whole, although from different perspectives. An
alternative anthropology which seeks to be faithful to the Scriptures must avoid the
false problematics of both monism and dualism.57
A number of contemporary scholars see nothing amiss with this synthesising

approach, and seek to defend the Patristic writers from the charge of distorting the
Christian message through blending it with Greek philosophy. For instance, the
give to themselves or their readers a theoretical account of what is to be understood by the

being of man.” Church Dogmatics III, 2, p. 433. Note, however, that Barth is still working
with an anthropological dichotomy of body and soul, and consequently sees a problem in their
relationship.
53
A theory is the artifical construction in abstract thought of explanations of the nature and
relationships of aspects of concrete things. Non-theoretical thought uses concepts about
concrete things. It is fundamentally descriptive and does not seek to explain. Cf. M D Stafleu.
“Theories as logically qualified artifacts.” Philosophia Reformata 46 (1981) 2:164-166. It is
in this sense that Scripture is spoken of here as covenantal and non-theoretical. For a detailed
discussion of this approach to Scripture see Henry Vander Goot. Interpreting the Bible in
theology and the Church. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1984.
54
Cf. J Chryssavgis. “A philosophy of disembodiment is a philosophy of death. Genuine
philosophy reflects upon aspects of life in its entirety and the compartmentalisation of man
into “body” and “soul”; each self-contained, is a symptom of a loss of wholeness, resulting in
a variety of dualistic philosophies.” Ascent to Heaven, p. 37.
55
For detailed examination of this approach see H Ridderbos. Paul: An outline of his theology.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 (esp. pp. 115-117), and G C Berkouwer. Man: the image of
God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962 (esp. Chapter Six: The whole man). See also Lesslie
Newbigin. The other side of 1984. Questions for the churches, pp.38-39.
56
Dualism postulates the existence of two separate and distinct original substances from which
things are made, resulting in a tension between two dissimilar components, e.g. body and soul.
Monism postulates only one original substance, so that the dichotomy of body and soul is
between two different structures formed from the same substance. The problem of dualism is
how to account for the unity of things, while the problem of monism is how to account for the
diversity of things. These are pseudo-problems created by speculative thought, since the unity
of the diversity in creation is found in the subjection of the creation to the one law-order,
encompassing all of created reality, established by God for the creation. The Biblical idea of
creation is that God made whole things with their own individuality. See C J Gousmett. “The
miracle of nature and the nature of miracle,” p. 75. For an exposition of an alternative
Christian ontology, see Kent Zigterman. “Dooyeweerd’s theory of individuality structure as
an alternative to a substance position, especially that of Aristotle.”
57
The frequently made claim that while we must reject dualism, it is necessary to maintain a
duality in human nature, is an essentially monistic approach, and still unsatisfactory. See for
instance, Henri Blocher. In the beginning: The opening chapters of Genesis, pp. 87-89.
14
Platonic views of Clement of Alexandria mitigated against the possibility of him
developing a fully Biblical eschatology. But Wagner seeks to absolve Clement from
the charge of being a Platonising synthesiser whose theology was antithetical to
Pauline thought. He comments for instance, “While most Lutherans rejected Clement
as un-Pauline and a hellenizing Platonist to boot, some have a more balanced
attitude.” He comments further on: “Unfortunately, an occasional writer appears who
stubbornly pits Paul against Plato in order to denounce Clement.”58 While he
condemns unsympathetic criticism of Clement which fails to understand him in the
context of his world, he seeks to deny that the Platonising synthesis of Clement was a
problem.59
Some scholars go to great lengths to deny the influence of external sources on

Patristic thought. Fahey comments regarding Cyprian,
In his survey on Stoicism in the Church Fathers, Spanneut notes that

Koch has pointed out and often exaggerated Seneca’s influence upon
Cyprian. Despite Cyprian’s repudiation of Stoicism, Stoic influences
may underlie his ethical strictures against cosmetics, hair-dyeing, the
theatre, and property, and his distain for the body reflected in Dem 9.
Obviously, this philosophy had no influence on Cyprian’s exegesis.60
The latter comment is incorrect, as there were definitely various philosophical

influences on Cyprian’s exegesis as well as on his doctrine, and it is naive to imagine
that his cultural and intellectual heritage had no influence on him.
Prestige argues that rational method is neither particularly Greek nor pagan, but was
discovered and developed by the Greeks through God’s providence. He agrees that
ideas were adopted from pagan Greek sources to explain Christian doctrines, but
never without modification: ideas were adapted to the Christian faith, the faith was
not “trimmed to square with the imported conception.” Doctrines were reached by
“true rational development, and not by syncretism between Christianity and
paganism.” Prestige rejects Harnack’s theory of the “Hellenisation” of Christianity,
which posits the contamination of the faith by Platonism, and defends what he calls
“Christian rationalism.” He asserts that “No other rational method existed then, or
exists now, but what has been derived ultimately from the great Greek philosophical
schools.” He goes on to assert that “the world is a rational universe and that God is
intelligent Mind,” and states that his book is designed to support this view.61
This approach is the opposite of that taken in this thesis. Indeed, I would assert that
his confidence that the universe is rational and that God is intelligent Mind is a
thoroughly Greek conception, one which exaggerates the significance of theoretical
58
W H Wagner. “A Father’s fate: attitudes toward and interpretations of Clement of
Alexandria.” Journal of Religious History 6 (1971) 221-222.
59
See for instance Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 1.13. ANF 2, p. 235, where he uses
Stoic ethics to expound on the nature of Christian conduct.
60
M A Fahey. Cyprian and the Bible: a study in Third-Century Exegesis, p. 27 (emphasis
mine).
61
G L Prestige. God in Patristic thought, pp. xiii-xviii.
15
thought.62 In contrast, a distinctively Christian philosophical system, which seeks to
develop its ideas on the basis of God’s revelation in Scripture (including the
development of a characteristically Christian system of logic),63 enables the inner
critique of the synthesis formed between pagan Greek philosophising and the message
of Scripture.64 Such a critique is impossible when the basis of the problem, namely the
adoption of Greek categories of thought, is also taken as the basis of the critique,
since the existence of the problem cannot be perceived. It is only when the synthesis
between pagan philosophy and Scripture is recognised as a problem that the extent to
which this has shaped our thinking can be comprehended. Thus in this thesis, the
formation of a synthesis between pagan philosophical ideas and divine revelation in
Scripture is considered illegitimate and problematic, since they are founded on
incompatible religious roots.65 Through examining the consequences of this
synthesising approach, the resulting distortions and constrictions in Christian thought
can be revealed, and the validity of this approach will, I trust, become evident as the
study proceeds.
A central concern in this thesis is to ask whether in the thought of the Patristic writers
we are dealing with genuine problems, or with pseudo-problems generated by the
attempt to blend two incompatible thought-worlds: pagan Greek thought and divine
revelation. Only by addressing the problem of synthesis can we assess the validity of
Patristic theology and exegesis. In addition, study of the way in which enduring
theological problems first arose gives insight into the issues really at stake. If a
problem was generated by a false formulation of a genuine question, through being
expressed for instance in terms of an alien ontology or anthropology, or if we are
dealing in fact with a pseudo-problem imported from an external and incompatible
viewpoint, then we need to address the root from which that problem arose, and if
62
The universe can certainly be analysed theoretically, but it is not rational in nature. This latter
is a reductionistic approach that obscures and distorts the many-faceted character of God’s
creation. Similarly, God is not “intelligent Mind,” but a person of diverse characteristics that
cannot be reduced to thought.
63
See for instance D H Th Vollenhoven. De noodzakelijkheid eener Christelijke logica.
Amsterdam: H J Paris, 1932. idem, Hoofdlijnen der logica. Kampen: Kok, 1948. N T van der
Merwe wrote an M.A. thesis on Vollenhoven’s conception of a Christian logic. “Op weg na ‘n
Christelijke logica. ‘N studie van enkele vraagstukke in die logika met bezondere aandag aan
D H Th Vollenhoven se viesie van ‘n Christelijke logica.” Potchestroom University, 1958. For
further discussion of different types of logic see R G Tanner. “Stoic influence on the logic of
St. Gregory of Nyssa.” Studia Patristica 18/3 (1989) 557-584.
64
Such a Christian philosophical system is articulated by Herman Dooyeweerd in his
monumental work of scholarship, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. Dooyeweerd’s
views, and those of other members of the school of philosophy he founded together with
Vollenhoven (see previous note), provide the theoretical framework for this thesis.
65
For instance, Wolfhart Pannenberg states that Greek philosophical conceptions of God cannot
be used simply by adding revealed truths to the philosophical doctrine of God, which cannot
tolerate supplementation. It contradicts the idea of a philosophy if certain truths are reserved
for revelation to be added to that philosophy. Neither can Christianity tolerate the idea that the
content of revelation is non-essential supplement or mere illustration of the philosophical
concept of God. Panneberg states that “every mere combination here must remain superficial,”
and what is required is the transformation of philosophical ideas “in the critical light of the
biblical idea of God.” While the details of the approach taken by Pannenberg differ from that
used in this thesis, this underlying rejection of synthesis is basic to both. Basic Questions in
Theology. Vol. 2, p. 139.
16
necessary, reject the approach which generated the problem itself, so as to avoid
fruitless pursuits along dead-end pathways.
The significance of Patristic exegesis lies partly in the fact that there we first find
developed and disseminated many interpretations of Scripture which are still
influential. Some of our interpretations have a history longer than we may care to
acknowledge, and have roots in problematics and perspectives which we may not
wish to own. The failure to examine such exegesis carefully means that we may either
somewhat blindly perpetuate interpretations with roots which have been lost in the
distant past, or else reject these older interpretations in favour of new and “scientific”
exegesis which lacks the richness of thought of the Patristic legacy and overlooks
problems which may have been addressed and resolved in an earlier time. It also
obscures the catholicity of the church, which is not created anew in each generation,
but which must faithfully handle the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints
[Jude 3]. We live in continuity with the Patristic church; a church which has forgotten
its past has no certain future, in exegesis as in anything else. Kannengiesser has given
an incisive analysis of the way in which modern attitudes to Patristic exegesis shape
our appreciation for their thought.
[Patristic exegesis] assumes a faithful dedication to the church. Its

motivation is doctrinal and apologetic in shifting focuses between the
Ten Commandments and the Creed. Its discussion of biblical texts,
while bound to the grammar and rhetoric of late antiquity, always
serves the purposes of highly spiritual and religiously-minded
interpreters. At its best, patristic exegesis communicates more about
the church-experience undergone by the exegetes of the second
through the seventh century than about the data pertaining directly to
the sacred text. Modern exegesis, as a response to the Enlightenment,
focuses exclusively on such data. As a discipline, its motivation is no
longer theological, nor is its purpose to encounter in scripture the
living God. It is a professional exercise of text criticism and historical
enquiry, which dispenses the interpreters from being Christian
believers, and omits to address scripture as holy. In short, it is a form
of exegesis without scripture. Much needs to be clarified about the
status in the church of contemporary exegesis. Being by definition a
scholastic business, it leads contemporary exegetes, happily confined
in their professional specialties, to declare that patristic exegesis is
non-critical and therefore irrelevant for the modern reader of the
Bible.66
While we must give due attention to the contribution of Patristic writers as learned
and devout men to the life of the church, we must not be uncritical in our reception of
their work. They were not infallible, nor immune to the influences of the culture in
which they lived. All exegesis must be critiqued, to assess how it succeeded and
where it failed to faithfully expound the Scriptures as the Word of God. We must,
therefore, critique their work and allow their work to critique ours, which similarly
has its successes and failures. Patristic exegesis is not without value for us today, as
66
Charles Kannengiesser. “The Bible as read in the early church: Patristic exegesis and its
presuppositions.” Concilium 1991/1. London: S.C.M., 1991, pp. 35-36.
17
we are in continuity and fellowship with the Patristic writers in a common task of
grappling with Scripture.
1.3 Methodology of the study
This study will proceed from the contention, as discussed in the previous section, that
the synthesis of pagan Greek ideas with Scripture compromises the integrity and
distinctiveness of the message of Scripture, and only through uncovering the influence
of such ideas can we begin to recover that distinctive message. The worldviews of
both ancient and modern interpreters shape their exegesis. By examining how the
worldviews of Patristic authors were influencing their exegetical moves, we can
uncover something of the roots of the traditions which still influence our exegesis
today. T F Torrance has drawn attention to this phenomenon.
All exegesis, not least present-day exegesis, is caught up in, and

determined by, presuppositions that have their roots deep in the
centuries behind it. Presuppositions of this kind are all the more
powerful and damaging when we are unaware of them, and they
require to be exposed by the kind of self-criticism and repentant re-
thinking into which examination of the interconnections between
dogmatic constructions and exegetical elaborations of our forefathers
cannot but force us.67
This has been emphasised by Neill and Wright.
It is impossible for any of us to work without presuppositions. What is

important is that we should ourselves be aware of what our
presuppositions are, and that we should make allowance for the
distorting influence that they are likely to have on our work which
professes to be critical and unprejudiced.68
This study will pay attention to the way in which specific views of human nature
(anthropology) influenced Patristic exegesis, and thus uncover some of the roots of
exegetical traditions which still persist. These anthropological models shape and
restrict the possible options for eschatological doctrines in consistent theological
systems, with special reference to the judgement. That is not to say that Patristic
writers are always consistent; often they are not. But where consistency is sought,
then prior decisions concerning human nature often provide the direction in which
eschatology will develop. We will trace developments within Patristic eschatology,
showing how anthropological views, as well as other aspects of Patristic worldviews,
led to the variety of approaches which are evident in the literature.
In this thesis I am working with a paradigm for a typology of eschatological views

which seeks to avoid the problematic, and essentially unhelpful, classification of such
views in terms of their approach to the millennium. Using the traditional categories of
67
T F Torrance. Foreword. James P Martin. The Last Judgement in Protestant Theology
from Orthodoxy to Ritschl, p. vii.
68
Stephen Neill and Tom Wright. The interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986. 2nd
Edition, p. 29.
18
pre-, post- and a-millennialism fails to provide adequate distinctions between such
views, as sometimes there are more commonalities on other issues than differences
over the millennium. Also, it seems counter-productive to classify eschatological
views solely on the basis of the approach to the millennium, which is not necessarily
determinative for the rest of the interpretation of eschatology. A similar rejection of
these categories is found in Adrio König.69
As an alternative to using approaches to the millennium to classify eschatological

views, I will use the attitude adopted to the future of the creation as a whole, that is,
creation-affirming and creation-negating approaches. This then enables us to see
which thinkers saw the future of the creation in terms of renewal, and which in terms
of replacement with another reality. This has more connection with other aspects of
Christian theology than is found in millennial views, and thus helps classify different
approaches more accurately.
The sources of ideas utilised by Patristic writers have not been examined in detail.
Often the Jewish apocryphal literature, especially apocalyptic writings, and pagan
sources such as the Sibylline oracles, are drawn on for material.70 This literature
requires specialist treatment in its own right, a task outside the possible scope of this
thesis. It is the ideas presented by Patristic writers in the context of the problems
under study which is the focus, and not the origins of those ideas themselves.
The temporal extent of the Patristic period is treated according to convention, that is,
from the post-apostolic writers to Gregory the Great in the West and John of
Damascus in the East. While there have been arguments against this criteria for the
Patristic period,71 there would be little to gain from attempting to establish new ones
for the purposes of this study.
1.4 Outline of the chapters
This chapter (Chapter One) is an introduction to the thesis as a whole. The main part
of the thesis is divided into three sections. Part One deals with unitary anthropology,
and the ways in which Patristic writers who adopted this approach addressed the
relationship of body and soul, the nature of death, the intermediate state, resurrection
and judgement. Chapter Two discusses the nature of the person in unitary
anthropology, examining issues of the goodness of bodily life, the nature of the
69
Adrio König. The Eclipse of Christ in eschatology, p. vii, and pp. 128-137.
70
Part of this problem arises from the fluid nature of the canon of Scripture in the first three
centuries. Many different texts were treated in the same manner as those which now form part
of the canon of Scripture, and thus the Patristic writers often cite as authoritative sources
which have no such status today. See for instance the use made by Ambrose of 4 Esdras,
concerning the storehouses for souls between death and judgement. Death as a good 10.46.
FC 65, p. 103.
71
For instance, J P Smith suggests that we should characterise the Patristic period in terms of the
authority of a Father, i.e. a bishop, who upheld orthodoxy, as opposed to the authority of a
scholar. On this criteria John of Damascus would not be a “Father” as he was not a bishop, as
he defended orthodoxy as a theologian, nor would Isidore of Seville be a “Father,” even
though he was a bishop, because he wrote simply as a scholar. Smith would place the end of
the Patristic period in the fifth century. J P Smith. “The limits of the Patristic period.” Studia
Patristica 9 (1966) 600-601.
19
“flesh,” the conflict with Gnosticism and Docetism over the salvation of the fleshly
body, the state of the soul when separated from the body, and arguments for and
against the immortality of the soul. We also examine here the immortality possessed
or promised to Adam and Eve and the consequences of their sin in this connection.
Chapter Three discusses the intermediate state in more detail, contrasting Greek and
Latin approaches with those of Syrian Patristic writers; and the status of the martyrs
in comparison with other Christians. We then discuss arguments for the doctrine of
the resurrection on the basis of the doctrine of creation, and the nature of the
resurrection body, including a comparison of the resurrection bodies of the righteous
and the wicked. Chapter Four examines the judgement on the Last Day, especially the
argument from justice for a judgement of all humankind, the resurrection of the dead
to face judgement, and the nature of the judgement itself. We then discuss views of
the nature of the eschaton, including the millennium on earth, followed by either the
new earth or eternity in heaven. Some who adopted a unitary anthropology did not
hold to millennialism.
Part Two deals with the way these same basic issues are treated by those who used an
instrumentalist anthropology. Chapter Five commences with a discussion of that
anthropological model; considers the attitude towards the fleshly body found in that
approach, and examines the origin of asceticism, rejection of sexuality, longing for
death as the separation of the soul from the constrictions of the body, and the
arguments used to demonstrate the inherent immortality of the soul. Chapter Six
discusses the doctrine of the intermediate state, the story of Lazarus in Luke 16, a
classic passage on which many arguments for the intermediate state are based; the
idea of the individual judgement of the soul and its relationship to the judgement on
the Last Day; the idea of purgatory, and the nature of the resurrection body. Chapter
Seven examines the idea of heaven as the destination of the soul in instrumentalist
thought; reasons for the rejection of millennialism, and the problem of the purpose of
a resurrection body in heaven.
Part Three (Chapter Eight) is a discussion of the Patristic exegesis of Psalm 1:5,
which for some writers excludes both the righteous and the wicked from judgement,
in conflict with the clear teaching of other passages of Scripture. The basis of this
interpretation, and how it was supported by and harmonised with the rest of Scripture
is considered.
Chapter Nine concludes the study by summarising important findings, and points
towards areas still needing to be examined in detail in order to provide clarity on
problems discovered in the course of this study.
20
CHAPTER TWO
THE INTEGRATION OF BODY AND SOUL
2.0 Introduction
For the early Patristic writers, the person was an integral unity composed of body and
soul. Bodily life was seen positively for the most part, and the eschatological
expectation was that the unity of body and soul, destroyed by death, would be
restored through the resurrection. This unitary model of anthropology and
eschatology enabled the Patristic writers to defend the integrity of the creation as
God’s handiwork, in opposition to the dualistic view of the Gnostics, who denied that
we are redeemed by the same God who created us. Denial of the resurrection was
seen as arising from a defective view of the creation and a false concept of God.
2.1 The person as a unity of body and soul
The scandal of Christianity in the pagan world, and its genius, was not so much the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body as the insistence that the body was an
essential, integral part of the person, the idea on which resurrection was based.1 In
spite of the presupposition of a dichotomy between body and soul, the Patristic
writers who took a unitary view, stressing that both together comprised the person,
managed to retain many important Biblical insights, for instance, the integral nature
of the person who is created by God for earthly, bodily life. This led the Patristic
writers to insist on the indispensibility of the body for what it was to be human. To
deny the importance of the body was to deny that it was created by God, and that it
had been redeemed through the incarnation and bodily death and resurrection of
Christ; in fact, it was a denial of redemption as such. To postulate that redemption
was possible apart from the body made no sense to them. Irenaeus brings out the
unitary view quite explicitly. He says that
...the soul and spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not
the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the
union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture
of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God.2
Irenaeus holds that salvation is available for the body as well as the soul, since both
body and soul together form the person who has either faith or unbelief.3
Theodore of Mopsuestia holds that human nature consists of a body and a soul, which
he says are “two natures, but that one man is composed out of both.”4 Theodore insists
1
A H Armstrong and R A Markus. Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy, pp. 46-47. The
ability to contend against pagan ideas was compromised when the person was considered to
be the soul alone, as in later Patristic writing.
2
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.6.1. ANF 1, p. 531. Cf. Justin Martyr. Fragments from the book
on the resurrection 8. ANF 1, p. 297.
3
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 2.29.1-2. ANF 1, pp. 402-403. Tertullian speaks of “...man’s
actual component substances, body and soul...” Against Praxeas 16. ANF 3, p. 612.
22
that the person is not the soul alone, but soul and body together. “Yet the two are one
man, and one of the two (natures) is never absolutely and properly said to be ‘man’ in
itself - unless perhaps with some added qualification, such as ‘interior man’ and
‘exterior man’.”5 He thus rejects the Neoplatonic view that the soul is the person, and
insists that the body is a constitutive part of human nature.6 It was therefore asserted
that the whole person came from the hands of the one creator God,7 and that it
followed that all things, including the flesh, are also able to be saved by God, since it
was illogical to suppose that God could not save what he had created.8
Ephrem of Syria refers to the body as “a brother and a servant and a companion” to
the soul, and says that the soul is awaiting the resurrection of the body so that together
they can again share this close relationship.9 For Ephraim body and soul have an equal
partnership; they share together in everything.
Body and Soul have been invited to Paradise, and in Paradise they
were honoured and returned in disgrace, they were disgraced and have
returned in honour; Body and Soul entered together, Body and Soul
went out together, by death they were separated one from the other,
and in resurrection again they are joined.10
4
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Adversus Apollinarem. Translation cited from: R A Norris.
Manhood and Christ, p. 151. Cf. Theodoret. “And they refuse to perceive that every human
being has both an immortal soul and a mortal body; yet no-one hitherto has been found to call
Paul two Pauls because he has both soul and body, any more than Peter two Peters or
Abraham or Adam.” Letter 145, to the monks of Constantinople. NPNF 2/3, p. 313. Theodoret
comments elsewhere: “...the man - I mean man in general - reasonable and mortal being, has a
soul and has a body, and is reckoned to be one being...” Letter 21, to Eusebius. NPNF 2/3, p.
258.
5
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Adversus Apollinarem. Translation cited from: R A Norris.
Manhood and Christ, p. 152. Ironically, much the same formulation appears in Cyril of
Alexandria. For instance, he says: “The point is that man results from two natures - body and
soul, I mean - and intellectual perception recognizes the difference; but we unite them and
then get one nature of man.” Letter to Eulogius. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 63, 65. See
also First Letter to Succensus 7. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 77. Second Letter to
Succensus 3. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 89. Second Letter to Succensus 5. Oxford Early
Christian Texts, p. 93.
6
R A Norris. Manhood and Christ, p. 152.
7
It was also essential to assert that all humankind is God’s workmanship: every human being is
created by the same God. There is no spiritual “elite” which was created by a superior God.
See G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, p. 36, for the Gnostic classification of humankind
into different classes.
8
This same idea was utilised by Athanasius to refute the Arian heresy. “For it was more fitting
that they should not be created than that, having come into being, they should be neglected
and perish. For by their neglect the weakness of God rather than his goodness would be made
known, if after creating he had abandoned his work to corruption, rather than if he had not
created man in the beginning.” On the Incarnation 6. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 149.
9
Ephrem. Fifth Discourse to Hypatius Against False Teachings. S. Ephraim’s Prose
Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan, Vol. 1, p. cvi.
10
Ephrem. Discourse Against Bardaisan. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion
and Bardaisan, Vol. 2, p. lxix.
23
Augustine held to two different conceptions of human nature. In one of his earliest
treatises, The greatness of the soul, Augustine argued that the soul was “a special
substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body.”11 Colleran states that this
view reflects the Platonic idea of the soul as a complete and independent entity only
incidentally united to the body, as a rider to the horse,12 “a rational soul with a mortal
and earthly body in its service.”13 This Platonic conception did not permit an essential
union of body and soul. But in various places in Augustine’s later writings, he insisted
that the body was not merely an external instrument but part of the nature of
humankind, so that the complete person is found only in the union of body and soul.14
However, even then he still saw the body as inferior to the soul and used as its
instrument.15 Colleran says that the view of the unity of human nature as a composite
of body and soul is influenced by Christianity, while the idea that the soul is the
higher and dominant principle in human nature is of Platonic origin. In using both
views he cannot escape inconsistency.16 Colleran claims that Augustine never sought
to solve the problem of how the body and soul could form a unified nature, if the soul
also was a complete being that used the body as its instrument. He cites Augustine’s
comment that “the kind of union by which spirits are joined to bodies and become
animals, is utterly marvellous and beyond the comprehension of man, although such a
unit is what man himself is.”17 We thus find two different models used by Augustine,
which can be traced to the relative influence of either Platonism or Christianity,
combining ideas from both sources in his writings.18
2.1.1 The body included in the image of God
11
Augustine. The greatness of the soul 13.22. ACW 9, p. 40.
12
Joseph M Colleran. Augustine. The greatness of the soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, p. 201, n.
27.
13
[Augustine. The morals of the catholic church 27.52. NPNF 1/4, p. 55.] Joseph M Colleran.
Augustine. The greatness of the soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, p. 205, n. 58. However, Pegis
comments that here Augustine is seeking to define man while his comment that “The soul... is
a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body” [see note 11] defines the
soul. Augustine is not trying to exclude the body from membership in the human composite,
he is trying to find the central man in the composite. Anton C Pegis. “The mind of St.
Augustine.” Mediaeval Studies 6 (1944) 40.
14
[For example, Augustine. On the Trinity 15.7.11. NPNF 1/3, pp. 204-205. The City of God
1.13. NPNF 1/2, p. 10; 10.29. NPNF 1/2, p. 199. On the soul and its origin 4.2.3. NPNF 1/5,
p. 355. Sermon 150.4.5. PL 38, 810] Joseph M Colleran. Augustine. The greatness of the
soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, p. 219, n. 123.
15
[Augustine. The City of God 9.9. NPNF 1/2, p. 171; 10.6. NPNF 1/2, p. 184] Joseph M
Colleran. Augustine. The greatness of the soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, pp. 219-220, n. 123.
16
Joseph M Colleran. Augustine. The greatness of the soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, pp. 205-
206, n. 58. See also Kari E Börresen. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.”
Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 142-144.
17
[Augustine. The City of God 21.10. NPNF 1/2, p. 462.] Joseph M Colleran. Augustine. The
greatness of the soul. The Teacher. ACW 9, p. 220, n. 123.
18
We find the same contrast in Ambrose, who used a Biblical view in On belief in the
resurrection, but a Platonic view in On death as a good.
24
For some Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology, the “image of God”
[Genesis 1:26] was understood to include the body,19 while those who held an
instrumentalist anthropology never included the body in the “image.”20 For instance,
the anthropology of Melito of Sardis stresses the unity of body and soul while the
person is alive. The body and soul are separable only in death, which is a disaster, an
unnatural condition that destroys the unity of human nature; rending apart what God
created whole. In death the person is dissolved and scattered; our hope lies in
resurrection, in which the person is restored. For Melito human life was a unity which
reflected totally the image of God; thus the body was as much part of the image of
God as the soul.21 Melito says that because of death “in all the world your good image
was dispersed. Yet, had you but given the word, all bodies would have stood before
you.”22 So there is a direct connection between being in the body and showing the
image of God. Death, the destruction of the body, is the dispersal of the image.
Similarly, resurrection, the reconstitution of the body which was scattered in death,
enables the image of God to be manifest once more.23 The incarnation was for the
19
Even those who held a unitary view did not always include the body in the “image of God.”
For example, Tatian held that the image of God is the spirit which God gives, not the soul or
the body [Address to the Greeks 12.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 23] although he then
goes on to say that “man alone [as distinct from the animals] is the image and likeness of God;
and I mean by man, not one who performs actions similar to those of animals, but one who
has advanced far beyond mere humanity - to God Himself.” Address to the Greeks 15.2.
Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 31. Cf. the comment by G L Bray: “In theory the Christian
doctrine of the image and likeness of God embraced the whole man, but in practice this wider
sense was seldom maintained in the early period, and it would appear that the image was
increasingly identified with the soul (cf., e.g. [Tertullian] Against Marcion 2.5.6).” Holiness
and the will of God, p. 67.
20
Some who held that the soul alone was created in the image of God held that the body was
created in the image of the soul - the image of the image. For example, Gregory of Nyssa. On
the making of man 12.9. NPNF 2/5, p. 399. Daniel E Scuiry comments: “When the rational
principle is the ruling part of man, that is, when the soul is imaging God, then the body, too,
images God by participation.” “The anthropology of Gregory of Nyssa.” Diakonia 18 (1983)
31. Cyril of Alexandria rejects the idea that the soul is an “image of an image,” namely Christ,
who is the image of God, on the basis that the Son is God, and so to be created in the image of
the Son is to be created in the image of God. Doctrinal Questions and Answers 4. Oxford
Early Christian Texts, pp. 197-199.
21
Gennadius records the existence of a sect of Christians who followed Melito in believing that
the body is made in the image of God. Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 4. Cited by: David L
Paulsen. “Early Christian belief in a corporeal deity: Origen and Augustine as reluctant
witnesses.” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990) 112-113.
22
Melito. New Fragment II, 16. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 92. Melito thought that the
“image of God” is the the image of the Father rather than the Son. On Pascha, 56. Oxford
Early Christian Texts, p. 31.
23
Melito. On Soul and Body. Fragment 13. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 80. This view of
Melito’s is repeated in Alexander of Alexandria. “Why, O Lord, didst Thou come down to
earth, unless it was for man’s sake, who has been scattered everywhere: for in every place has
Thy fair image been disseminated?” On the soul and body and passions of the Lord 7. ANF 6,
p. 301. He also says: “Therefore God sent down from heaven His incorporeal Son... to save
lost man, and collect all his scattered members. For Christ, when He joined the manhood to
His person, united that which death by the separation of the body had dispersed.” On the soul
and body and passions of the Lord 5. ANF 6, p. 300.
25
purpose of restoring human bodily life. “He was born a man, and he raised up lost
man and gathered his scattered members.”24
Hall comments that “Some early Christians held that God is a corporeal being,
sharing the view of the Stoics that spirit is a very refined kind of matter.” This view is
held by Tertullian, and possibly also by Melito.25 Hall says concerning the nature of
the image of God in Melito, that “If it is true that Melito believed God to be
corporeal, the reference is to man as a psychosomatic unity, and the image would not
be merely the soul or reason.”26
Melito has a strong positive attitude towards bodiliness, and sees death not as an
escape from the body but the splitting apart of the “beautiful body” which God had
made, and then humans entered into captivity to death. The image of the prisoner
occurs several times in Melito’s Homily, first of humanity being cast out of Paradise
and “into this world as into a convicts’ prison,”27 and then through death the body
returns to the earth, thereby undoing God’s creative work, while the soul which had
been given by God to live in this beautiful body on the earth is instead confined to
Hades, being “dragged off a prisoner under the shadows of death.”28 As a result the
legacy left to each succeeding generation is “not imperishability but decay, not
honour but dishonour, but freedom but slavery, not royalty but tyranny, not life but
death, not salvation but destruction.”29
Irenaeus interprets the image and likeness of God not simply in terms of the soul, but
also of the body. Since humankind is created by God according to his own image, the
body shares in this image also, thus reaffirming that the whole person is created by
God. Since the whole person will be saved by the granting of a renewed image and
likeness of God, the body is included in this.
But man He fashioned with His own hands, taking of the purest and
finest of earth, in measured wise mingling with the earth His own
power; for He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the
visible appearance too should be godlike - for it was as an image of
God that man was fashioned and set on earth - and that he might come
24
Melito. New Fragment II, 4. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 87. Cf. On Soul and Body. “For
this reason the Father sent his incorporeal Son from heaven, so that, enfleshed in the virgin’s
womb and born as man, he might bring man to life and gather his parts, which death had
scattered when he divided man.” Fragment 13. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 80.
25
S G Hall. Melito of Sardis. On Pascha, and Fragments. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
xv.
26
S G Hall. Melito of Sardis. On Pascha, and Fragments. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
31, n. 20.
27
Melito. On Pascha, 48. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 25.
28
Melito. On Pascha, 55-56. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 31. However, he never says that
the soul is cast into the body as a prison (as in the soma-sema pun of Greek tradition). The
prison is either this world rather than Paradise, and thus the whole person is in prison, or else
it is hell, where the dead are confined until they are released by Christ at the resurrection.
29
Melito. On Pascha, 49. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 27.
26
to life, He breathed into his face the breath of life, so that the man
became like God in inspiration as well as in frame.30
Thus Irenaeus sees the denial that the whole person, body and soul, partakes of
salvation, is rooted in the denial that the whole person is created by God, that is, that
both body and soul share in the image and likeness of God. Denial of this implies
denial of the body’s salvation.
Now man is a mixed organisation of soul and flesh, who was formed
after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the
Son and Holy Spirit... For whatsoever all the heretics may have
advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come at last to this, that they
blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s
workmanship, which the flesh truly is...31
Theodore of Mopsuestia argues that the image of God is human nature as a composite
of body and soul, since it is the essence of an image to be seen, and the soul cannot be
seen.32 Others who considered the body as part of the “image of God,” and thus held a
unitary conception in which the person was the composite of body and soul, included
Tertullian,33 Cyprian,34 and Narsai.35
2.2 The goodness of bodily life
For Patristic writers who held a unitary view of human nature, bodily life was
something good and valuable, God’s creation which will be redeemed and not
destroyed. While they sometimes did express the desire to be free from this world,
this was not because of a negative evaluation of bodiliness, but because of the
30
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 11. ACW 16, p. 54. See also Against Heresies
4.20.1. ANF 1, pp. 487-488. Against Heresies 5.6.1. ANF 1, p. 531.
31
Irenaeus. Against Heresies Preface, 4. ANF 1, p. 463. V Grossi asserts that Irenaeus and
Antiochenes such as Diodore of Tarsus read Genesis 1:26 in the light of the incarnation, and
so the “image of God” included bodiliness, while the Alexandrian anthropology followed the
Middle Platonism of Philo, who emphasised the soul’s kinship with God and the capacity of
the human nous to become like God. The nous, the soul’s highest faculty, was therefore seen
as the image of God. [Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 3.11. ANF 2, p. 287. Origen.
Against Celsus 4.83. ANF 4, p. 534.] V Grossi. “Anthropology.” In: Encyclopaedia of the
Early Church. Vol. 1, p. 45.
32
R A Norris. Manhood and Christ, p. 140.
33
Tertullian correlates the image with the resurrection: “Shall that very flesh, which the Divine
Creator formed with his own hands in the image of God; which he animated with his own
afflatus, after the likeness of his own vital vigour... shall that flesh, I say, so often brought
near to God, not rise again? God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat) that he should abandon to
everlasting destruction the labour of his own hands, the care of his own thoughts, the
receptacle of his own Spirit...” On the resurrection of the flesh 9. ANF 3, pp. 551-552. Cf. G
L Bray. Holiness and the will of God, p. 67. See also Against Marcion 2.4. ANF 3, p. 300.
34
Cyprian. On the dress of virgins 15. ANF 5, p. 434.
35
See F G McLeod. “Man as the image of God: its meaning and theological significance in
Narsai.” Theological Studies 42 (1981) 459 and passim.
27
endemic influence of evil in the world.36 For instance, Cyprian, who was to die as a
martyr, sees escape from this world in terms of deliverance from pagan persecutions.
In persecutions, earth is shut up, but heaven is opened; Antichrist is

threatening, but Christ is protecting; death is brought in, but
immortality follows; the world is taken away from him that is slain,
but paradise is set forth to him restored; the life of time is
extinguished, but the life of eternity is realised.37
Cyprian speaks often of the “security” to be found in Christ, an understandable theme

when death by persecution always threatened, and when many Christians were dying
daily in a massive epidemic of the plague (252-254 AD).38 He compares the
uncertainty of life in the world with all its dangers with the certainty of the
resurrection.39 One of the most forthright passages on the theme of security is as
follows:
...when, withdrawn from these whirlwinds of the world, we attain the

harbour of our home and eternal security, when having accomplished
this death we come to immortality. For that is our peace, that our
faithful tranquillity, that our stedfast [sic], and abiding, and perpetual
security.40
It is noticeable that Cyprian wishes only to be delivered from the dangers and
tribulations of bodily life in the midst of plague and persecution, not to escape from
bodily life as such. This can be seen for instance in his flight from persecution, which
was criticised by the Roman clergy.41 Cyprian was in this respect simply following the
advice of Tertullian in his treatise To his wife, where he recommended fleeing from
persecution rather than risk denying the faith under torture.42 Cyprian justified his
36
McDannell and Lang comment in this connection: “Contrary to our assumption that those
who die for Christ despise this world, Christian martyrs accepted the goodness of their natural
lives. They expected that after martyrdom they would experience an improved earthly
existence. They wanted to enjoy this world, not some imaginary heavenly realm. This belief
was shared by their theologian, Irenaeus.” Heaven: A History, p. 50.
37
Cyprian. Exhortation to martyrdom, addressed to Fortunatus 13. ANF 5, p. 507. Cf. also
Letter 28.3.1. To Moyses, Maximus, and other Confessors. ACW 44, p. 50. Letter 80.2.1. To
Sergius, Rogatianus, and other confessors. ACW 43, p. 64.
38
Cyprian. On the mortality 21-22. ANF 5, p. 474. Cf. also On the mortality 6. ANF 5, p. 470.
39
This theme is found as a heading on one of his chapters of Testimonies: “That no one should
be made sad by death, since in living is labour and peril, in dying peace and the certainty of
the resurrection.” Cyprian. Three books of Testimonies against the Jews 3.58. ANF 5, p. 548.
Cf. Letter 1.14. To Donatus. ANF 5, p. 279. An address to Demetrianus 25. ANF 5, p. 465.
40
Cyprian. On the mortality 3. ANF 5, p. 470.
41
The Roman Clergy. Letter 8. ACW 43, pp. 67-70.
42
Tertullian. To his wife 1.3. ANF 4, p. 40. Cf. Of patience 13. ANF 3, pp. 715-716. However,
Tertullian also said persecution was the will of God to strengthen the faith of believers. On
flight in persecution 1. ANF 4, p. 116. See also Athanasius. Apologia pro fuga. NPNF 2/4, pp.
255-265. The church was also instructed to receive as martyrs those fleeing from persecution.
Apostolic Constitutions 5.3. ANF 7, p. 438. This is also found in the Didascalia Apostolorum
19. R H Connolly, p. 163. John Cassian, rather removed from the threat of persecution, said
28
flight as an attempt to avoid being put to death in order to be able to minister to the
needs of the church, although he was not afraid of death, which it is impossible to
escape. Nor should we fear being killed in the persecution, since that death gains us a
crown of martyrdom.43
Now, were it possible for us to escape from death, then dying would
sensibly be something we might fear. But as man, being mortal, has no
option but to die, then let us grasp the opportunity that now comes
thanks to God’s promise and providence; let us bring out lives to an
end, winning at the same time the reward of immortality; let us have no
fear of being put to death, since we know it is when we are put to death
that we win our crowns.44
Thus the escape from this world sought by Cyprian was rooted in weariness with
social upheaval and the constant danger of death, not a creation-negating perspective.
He also sees death as liberation from the suffering in this world resulting from the
curse of Genesis 3:17-19, and illustrates the frailty of life from Isaiah 40:6-7, the
greater desirability of being with God over life in this world from the story of Enoch
in Genesis 5:24, and the hope of the resurrection from Ezekiel 37:11-14, 1
Thessalonians 4:13-14, and 1 Corinthians 15:36, 41-44, 53-55.45
Tertullian speaks of martyrdom as based on “a contempt for the body,”46 but again
this is not contempt for bodiliness as such.47 Rather, it is the attitude which values
that the saints never tried to avoid it, and even sought it out. Conferences 6.3. NPNF 2/11, p.
353.
43
Cf. the view of Ambrose, who said that “not even martyrs are crowned if they are
catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated.” On the death of Valentinian
53. FC 22, p. 288. Compare this with the Apostolic Constitutions which stress that the
possibility of martyrdom is not to be refused, even if the catechumen has not been baptised,
since it is a union with Christ’s death in reality, whereas baptism is union with Christ’s death
only in imagery. Apostolic Constitutions 5.6. ANF 7, p. 439. Theodore of Mopsuestia
develops further the idea of baptism being only an image, the reality of which is received in
the resurrection. Before baptism we bear “no resemblance of any kind to the mark of an
immortal nature,” but after baptism we will undergo a change into an immortal, incorruptible
and immutable nature. Baptism is only the image of the reality is yet to come, which enables
us to participate in that reality, the “future benefits” of which we have received the
“firstfruits.” Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the
Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 53-56. Later Theodore says that “we receive these
benefits in baptism in symbol, while in the next world we shall all of us receive renewal of
our nature in reality.” Ibid., p. 58. Cf. ibid., pp. 68-69.
44
Cyprian. Letter 58.3.2. To the people of Thibaris. ACW 46, p. 62. In his Testimonies he says
that “what we suffer in this world is of less account than is the reward which is promised.”
Three books of Testimonies against the Jews 3.17. ANF 5, p. 539.
45
Cyprian. Three books of Testimonies against the Jews 3.58. ANF 5, p. 548. Elsewhere he
describes the consequences of the curse for Adam and Eve [On the advantage of patience 11-
12. ANF 5, p. 487] and speaks of the translation of Enoch as a removal “from this contagion
of the world.” On the mortality 23. ANF 5, p. 474.
46
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 43. ANF 3, p. 576.
47
Tertullian has been considered chauvinistic because of his condemnation of the use by women
of cosmetics and dying of the hair to conceal increasing age. Tertullian is not, however,
condemning the use of cosmetics as such, but only when it takes on the flavour of contempt
29
faithfulness to the Lord above the natural desire to preserve life.48 For the Patristic
authors, life was a gift of God, and thus was relativized to the highest good,
faithfulness to God. The desire to preserve one’s life was noble, except when that
came into conflict with a higher loyalty, and thus martyrdom was seen to be the
greatest form of witness to God, since it considered God himself of greater worth than
life [Cf. Matthew 10:32-33].49
2.3 The positive evaluation of the flesh
The Patristic writers battled against the disparagement of the flesh as something
inferior, which was in conflict with the soul. Ignatius of Antioch, who held a unitary
view of human nature, saw the “flesh” as the ethical distortion of human life through
the drive for unrestrained gratification of the desires of the body. The “flesh” is
thereby not the source of evil, but comes to symbolise sinful life.50 Ignatius held that
the flesh will share in redemption through the resurrection, when it is endowed with
immortality and freed from sin completely. Thus the resurrection is essential, so that
we can once again be whole persons fitted for eschatological life.51 Similarly,
Tertullian stressed that the flesh is not the source of our problems.
In the same way, when he adds, Therefore we are always confident,

and fully aware, that while we are at home in the body we are absent
from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight, it is manifest that in
this statement there is no design of disparaging the flesh, as if it
separated us from the Lord. For there is here pointedly addressed to us
an exhortation to disregard this present life, since we are absent from
for the body that God has created. On the apparel of women 2.7. ANF 4, pp. 21-22. John
Chrysostom repeats this idea when he suggests that women should not use cosmetics,
decrying “the habit of painting your faces and adding to them, as if the workmanship were
defective. By doing so you insult the Workman.” Baptismal Instructions 1.37. ACW 31, p.
38. Cf. also Cyprian. On the dress of virgins 15-17. ANF 5, p. 434. Clement of Alexandria.
The Instructor 3.11. ANF 2, pp. 286-287. Ambrose. Hexaemeron 6.8.47. FC 42, p. 260.
Paulinus of Nola. Poem 25. ACW 40, p. 247. This idea has been considered of Stoic origin. M
A Fahey. Cyprian and the Bible, p. 27. For a reassessment of Tertullian’s attitude to women
see Elizabeth Carnelley. “Tertullian and Feminism.” Theology 92 (1989) 31-35. F Forrrester
Church. “Sex and salvation in Tertullian.” Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975) 83-101.
48
Cf. Letter of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, 2. “Looking to
the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from
eternal punishment by [the suffering of] a single hour.” ANF 1, p. 39. Tertullian. “All our
obstinacy, however, is with you a foregone conclusion, based on our strong convictions; for
we take for granted a resurrection of the dead. Hope in this resurrection amounts to a
contempt for death.” Ad nationes 1.19. ANF 3, p. 127.
49
The Pastor of Hermas. Similitude 2.2. ANF 2, p. 11. Cyprian. On the exhortation to
martyrdom, addressed to Fortunatus 5. ANF 5, p. 499. Tertullian. On flight in persecution 7.
ANF 4, p. 120.
50
V Corwin. St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch, p. 161. Cf. the Pastor of Hermas,
which stresses the need to keep the flesh undefiled because the Spirit inhabits it; the flesh is
not to be thought corruptible, because it is indwelt by the Spirit, and to defile the flesh is to
defile the Spirit. Similitude 5.7. ANF 2, p. 36.
51
Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Trallians 9. ANF 1, p. 70. Cf. C C Richardson. The
Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, p. 28.
30
the Lord as long as we are passing through it - walking by faith, not by
sight; in other words, in hope, not in reality. Accordingly he adds, We
are indeed confident and deem it good rather to be absent from the
body, and present with the Lord, in order, that is, that we may walk by
sight rather than by faith, in realization rather than in hope.52
Thus for Tertullian it is not bodily life which separates us from God, but “this present
life,” namely a life dependent on faith and hope, rather than in full realization of
communion with God. It is a life subject to temptations and sin which hinders us, not
the fact of being in the body. It is better to be absent from the body and with the Lord,
because the communion thereby made possible is precluded in this present life.
It was common to assert in this way that the “flesh” which opposed the spirit [Romans
13:14] was not the fleshly body but the principle of sin. For instance, John
Chrysostom says that the ‘flesh’ is not “corruption” but that which is “corruptible,”
and it denotes “evil deeds” not an evil thing.53
However, Novatian erred when he asserted that anger is a vice which arises from “the
diversity in us of the materials of which we consist,” although he is undecided
whether this is “of nature or of defect.” He is arguing that God cannot be angry
because he is a simple nature and thus cannot change, while human beings are of a
compound nature and thus can change. He implies that sin is a consequence of the
way we have been made, although he does stress that the “flesh” is not condemned
but only its guilt.54
Augustine understood Paul’s reference to the opposition of flesh and spirit not as a
dualism of two incompatible substances, but a distinction between following the
inclination of the sinful nature or being transformed into the new nature by the Spirit
of God.
They have not been called ‘spiritual’ because they will be spirits, not
bodies.... so those bodies are called ‘spiritual’ without being spirits,
because they will be bodies. Why, then, is it called a spiritual body,
my dearly beloved, except because it will obey the direction of the
spirit.55
52
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 43. ANF 3, p. 576. He also says that “withdrawing
our members from unrighteousness and sin, and applying them to righteousness and holiness”
means that the flesh can inherit the promise of salvation. On the resurrection of the flesh 47.
ANF 3, p. 580.
53
John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Corinthians 42.2. NPNF 1/12, p. 256. Cf. the comment
by Clement of Alexandria on Ephesians 6:12. “...the contest, embracing all the varied
exercises, is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual powers of inordinate
passions that work through the flesh.” The Stromata 7.3. ANF 2, p. 528.
54
Novatian. On the Trinity 5. ANF 5, p. 615. On the Trinity 10. ANF 5, p. 620. See below,
Chapter 2.3.3.
55
Augustine. Sermon 242.8. FC 38, pp. 270-271. Cf. On faith and the creed 6.13. NPNF 1/3, p.
326. Against Fortunatus 22. NPNF 1/4, p. 121. The literal meaning of Genesis 6.19.30. ACW
41, p. 200; ibid., 6.24.35. ACW 41, p. 204. Niceta of Remesiana. “In the same way, from the
name of Christ they are called Christians. They are also called spiritual - because of the Holy
Spirit.” The Power of the Holy Spirit 22. FC 7, p. 41. The same view is found in Theodore of
31
Dewart comments:
No writer of the patristic age tried harder than Augustine to explain the
mediating pauline phrase, “spiritual body,” to describe what changes
the earthly body will undergo. The core of every explanation is that the
body will no longer be an impediment to the vision of God.56
The attitude towards the body can be discerned in the way in which Philippians 3:21
is interpreted. This text tells us that Christ will transform our lowly bodies so that they
will be like his glorious body. Tertullian interpreted this text positively, saying that
while the flesh is subjected to humiliations through its sin, nevertheless the body will
be saved by God.57 In another passage he uses this text to explain how the body is to
be raised from the dead, and transformed to remove its corruptions through sin to
purity and glory.58 Cyprian follows Tertullian in his positive interpretation of this
passage, comparing the eternal reward of the glorious resurrection body with the
humiliations of the present body in its “brief and transient suffering.”59 Theodore of
Mopsuestia similarly sees in this text a positive view of the transformation of the
body at the resurrection, a putting off of the sinfulness of this present life.60
2.3.1 The affirmation of sexuality and marriage
Although Patristic writers did assert that marriage and procreation was legitimate,
positive affirmations of sexuality and marriage are rare. Virginity came to be
considered a superior way of life, and marriage was often considered a necessity for
those who lacked self-control. Sexual intercourse was seen by many as the
gratification of bodily lusts, and should be engaged in solely for the purposes of
procreation.61 However, the few positive views come largely from those writers who
Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. “His treatment of the Pauline spirit-flesh dualism found in
Rom. vii.5 leads him to say: ‘Holy Scripture sometimes means by ‘flesh’ the nature itself, but
sometimes not simply the nature, but the nature in so far as it is mortal.’ The passage, read in
its entirety, suggests that by ‘nature’ Theodore means human nature. Biblical and Jewish
usage identified ‘flesh and blood’ with humanity and creaturehood. The traditional term
‘flesh’ is interpreted biblically rather than philosophically. And, I should argue, Diodore’s use
of ‘flesh’ must be read against a Biblical rather than a philosophical background.” R A Greer.
“The Antiochene Christology of Diodore of Tarsus.” Journal of Theological Studies 17
(1966) 337.
56
Joanne E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 174.
57
58
Tertullian. Against Marcion 5.20. ANF 3, p. 473.
59
Cyprian. Letter 76.2. To Nemesianus and other martyrs in the mines. ACW 47, p. 97.
60
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism
and the Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) pp. 65, 69. This view is also found in
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 602-603. R W Thomson, pp. 147-
148. John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 4.27. NPNF 2/9, pp. 100-101. Cf. R P Martin,
who says that this verse refers to “the state of humiliation caused through sin.” The Epistle to
the Philippians, p. 163.
61
See for instance Athenagoras. A plea for the Christians 33. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
81.
32
have positive evaluations of bodily life and the resurrection. That few of the Patristic
writers appear to have been married themselves probably contributed to the
dominance of negative views,62 while those who were married are not as negative. For
instance, Tertullian, who was married, stressed that lust is the cause of shame
associated with sexual intercourse, and not the nature of the act itself, which has been
blessed by God.63 John Chrysostom spoke well of marriage,64 while Theodoret
expresses a positive appreciation for the body which appears to be positively
correlated with approval of marriage.65
The discussion of the goodness or otherwise of sexuality is often correlated with

speculation as to the relationship between Adam and Eve, and how that relationship
would have developed had they not sinned. Ephrem of Syria insisted that Adam and
Eve would have had children in Paradise,66 while Basil of Ancyra states that virginity
cannot be considered a commandment of God since he gave his blessing on
childbearing (Genesis 1:28), nor can it be a sin to marry.67 Marriage is spoken of
positively by Irenaeus who repudiates Tatian’s encratism, which implicitly denied the
goodness of humankind being created as male and female, as well as the rejection of
various kinds of food which God had created,68 and by Tertullian in opposition to the
62
The “de facto” relationship of Augustine possibly stimulated his rather guilty attitude towards
sexuality. See Confessions 4.2.2. NPNF 1/1, p. 68.
63
Tertullian. On the soul 27. ANF 3, p. 208. Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 4.22.
NPNF 2/7, p. 24. There he says that intercourse was arranged by God for our benefit so the
human race would not die out.
64
See especially Catharine P Roth and David Anderson. St. John Chrysostom on Marriage
and Family Life. The Introduction to this collection of Chrysostom’s homilies gives a good
exposition of his views.
65
Theodoret. Letter 146, to John the Oeconomus. NPNF 2/3, p. 322. See for instance his
pastoral letters to newly bereaved widows, where a positive attitude to marriage is evident.
Letter 7, to Theonilla. NPNF 2/3, p. 252. Letter 8, to Eugraphia. NPNF 2/3, p. 252. Letter 14,
to Alexandra. NPNF 2/3, pp. 254-255. Letter 69, to Eugraphia. NPNF 2/3, pp. 269-270.
Theodoret also held that sin is passed on by heredity and not by procreation, and this also
helps him to a positive view of marriage. G W Ashby. “The hermeneutic approach of
Theodoret of Cyrrhus to the Old Testament.” Studia Patristica 15 (1984) 133. See idem,
“Theodoret of Cyrrhus on marriage.” Theology 72 (1969) 482-491. See also D S Bailey. The
man-woman relation in Christian thought, pp. 19-102 for a survey of Patristic views of
marriage and sexuality.
66
Ephrem. Commentary on Genesis 2.30. Hymns on Paradise, p. 220. Ephrem held that had
they not sinned, their children would have been immortal and death would not have affected
them.
67
[Basil of Ancyra. On virginity 55. PG 30.777C-780A.] T H C van Eijk. “Marriage and
Virginity, Death and Immortality.” In: Epektasis, p. 225.
68
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.28.1. ANF 1, p. 353. The comments of Irenaeus concerning
Tatian are the origin of the view that after the death of Justin, Tatian became heterodox, and
in addition to his encratism, rejected the salvation of Adam. Since Irenaeus interpreted Adam
as the representative of the human race as a whole, it was not the salvation of an individual
that was at stake for Irenaeus, but the salvation of all. [Against Heresies 3.23.7-8. ANF 1, pp.
457-458.] J Lawson. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, p. 77. R M Grant sees Tatian
as a Gnostic. “The heresy of Tatian.” Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954) 62-68. This has
been disputed by G F Hawthorne. “Tatian and his discourse to the Greeks.” Harvard
Theological Review 57 (1964) 161-188. The accuracy of Irenaeus’ report has been challenged
33
forbidding of marriage by Marcion and Apelles,69 while Clement of Alexandria
defends it against Basilides, Marcion and other heretics.70
2.3.2 Rejection of Gnostic dualism
The Gnostic heresies denied the central Christian doctrines, not only with respect to
the reality of the incarnation and the true humanity of Christ, the Eternal Word who
was made flesh,71 and the truth of the resurrection of Christ and thus our redemption
(1 Corinthians 15:12-19),72 but also with respect to the inherent goodness of
humankind in its earthly existence and our future bodily resurrection. These heresies
postulated two creators, one of whom had formed the soul and the other the body and
the material world, and thus denigrated the flesh and bodily existence.73
This dualism was decisively rejected by the Patristic authors, perhaps most forcefully
and most successfully by Irenaeus, who saw the threat it posed to the Christian
religion, which is built on faith in the one God who is both Creator and Redeemer.74
by L W Barnard, who disagrees with Grant. “The heresy of Tatian - once again.” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 19 (1968) 1-10.
69
Tertullian. Prescription against heretics 33. ANF 3, p. 259. In this same chapter Tertullian
defends the resurrection.
70
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 2.10. ANF 2, pp. 259-262. The Stromata 3.1-18. ANF
3, pp. 381-402. The refined sensibilities of the editors of the ANF Series made them consider
it necessary to print both these sections in Latin! A translation of the section of The Stromata
is found in LCC 2, pp. 40-92. A complete translation of The Instructor is found in FC 23.
71
O’Neill has argued that John 1:14 means not that the Word ‘became’ flesh but was ‘born’
flesh. “The Word did not turn into flesh, did not change its nature and become flesh, did not
masquerade as flesh, and did not come on the scene as flesh. We should always be careful to
say ‘the Word was born flesh’ or use the old Latin translation et verbum caro factum est,’ ‘the
Word was made flesh’.” J C O’Neill. “The Word did not “become” flesh.” Zeitschrift fur die
Neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1991) 125-127.
72
A number of the Patristic writers appeared to stress that the resurrection of Christ was more a
guarantee of our own bodily resurrection than a redemptive event which makes possible our
resurrection. See for instance Augustine. “By showing himself corporeally alive after his
resurrection he wished to teach us nothing more than that we should believe in the
resurrection of the dead.” Sermon 243.3. FC 38, p. 274. Peter Chrysologus. “...that by the
example of this one rising from the dead, we may be roused to faith in the resurrection of all
men...” Sermon 103. On the raising of the widow’s son and the resurrection of the dead.
Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 122. Rufinus. “Since then we have Christ
as the undoubted firstfruits of our resurrection, how can any question arise about the rest of
us?” Apology 1.6. NPNF 2/3, p. 437. A more redemptive understanding of Christ’s
resurrection can be seen in Irenaeus. “...to those who believed and loved the Lord, and in
return for holiness and justice and patience, the God of all would bring, through resurrection
from the dead, the life everlasting which He had promised, through Him who died and was
raised, Jesus Christ...” Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 41. ACW 16, p. 74.
73
Simone Pétrement. A Separate God, p. 29.
74
Cf. Irenaeus. “...it was one God the Father who spake with Abraham, who gave the law, who
sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and conferred salvation upon
His own handiwork - that is, the substance of flesh.” Against Heresies 4.41.4. ANF 1, p. 525.
Cf. also Against Heresies 4.10.2. ANF 1, p. 474. Against Heresies 4.40.1. ANF 1, p. 523.
Cyril of Jerusalem also argued against the idea of two creators. “For some have impiously
dared to divide the One God in their teaching: and some have said that one is the Creator and
Lord of the soul, and another of the body; a doctrine at once absurd and impious. For how can
34
The most characteristic refutation of Gnosticism in the thought of Irenaeus is his
affirmation of the goodness of creation, and of bodily life in particular. Irenaeus
repudiates the Gnostic idea of salvation as deliverance from the body and their
corresponding rejection of the possibility of the salvation of the flesh (since it was a
material substance, created by a deity other than the one who saves spirits by
releasing them from bodiliness). This view led to rejection of the possibility of the
resurrection of the body.75 For Irenaeus, such a conception not only denigrates the
body, it also leads to an incoherent conception of human nature and therefore results
in inconsistent doctrine.76 Irenaeus holds that if souls are saved, then bodies are saved
also, and will be raised from the dead. Those who do not believe in the resurrection
are in fact denying the power of God to create human beings, as well as denying that
the creator God is also the redeemer God, and that redemption applies to the whole
person, not just a part.77 Irenaeus constantly faults the Gnostics for their distinction
between the Redeemer and the Demiurge, which results in their divorce between
creation and redemption, as well as between creation and eschaton, in addition to
denigration of the body and bodily life. This emphasis comes through most strongly
in his insistence on a unitary anthropology, in which both body and soul are equal
partners. One cannot be saved without the other.
Since Irenaeus places a strong emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh in his
polemics against the Gnostics in his attempt to establish the life of the flesh, he has
little interest in the immortal life of the soul separate from the body. To accept such a
concept would in many ways result in acquiescence to one of the principle tenets of
the Gnostics: that the life of the spirit is somehow superior to and independent of the
flesh. Any attempt by Irenaeus to establish immortality as an attribute of the soul as
such, apart from the gift of God, would undermine his entire argument. As Wingren
says, for Irenaeus the resurrection demonstrates the power of God who saves from
death. “The idea of immortality, on the other hand, locates the life-force directly in
man as he is in himself - the man who is immortal is not subject to death.” The
ambiguous comments by Irenaeus about the immortality of the soul must be seen in
the light of his emphasis on life as receiving the power of God, and his correlated
emphasis on human nature as “in fellowship with God.” Thus he does not stress
immortality of the soul in itself.78
Tertullian also insists that because the resurrection is an essential doctrine of

Christianity, Marcion’s gnosticism is thereby refuted since only “half” of each person
is saved, as Marcion understood the body to have been created by the demiurge and
a man become the servant of two masters, when our Lord says in the Gospels, No man can
serve two masters? There is then One Only God, the Maker of both souls and bodies...”
Catechetical Lectures 4.4. NPNF 2/7, p. 20. See also the polemics of Leo the Great against
the Manicheans. Letter 15.6-11. NPNF 2/12, pp. 22-23.
75
For example, Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.21.4, 1.24.5, 1.25.4, 1.27.3. ANF 1, pp. 346, 350,
351, 352.
76
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 2.29.3. ANF 1, p. 403.
77
78
G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, p. 204.
35
not the good God.79 Tertullian argues from Luke 19:10, The Son of man came to seek
and to save that which was lost, that Christ came to save the whole man, and not just
the soul or the body. Neither the body nor the soul can be saved alone, since then the
person cannot be said to have been saved. The fact that the soul is “lost” means not its
destruction, as with the body, since it is immortal; but rather its punishment in hell.
But if the soul is immortal, then it does not need to be saved. Rather, it is the flesh
which is in need of being saved, because it is subject to death. But even if the soul is
not immortal, it will still be saved, since it shares with the flesh that condition which
causes it to need salvation. Tertullian then argues that it does not matter whether it is
the soul or the flesh that is the cause of perdition, provided that salvation applies to
both substances. That is, if the person perishes in one, he does not perish in the other.
Salvation therefore applies to the substance which perishes, whichever one that might
be. Thus the whole person is saved, since whether one or both need to be saved, that
which does need to be saved is saved, and that which does not need to be saved is safe
anyway. Thus nothing of the person is lost.80
Likewise, in a reference to gnostic ideas Theodore of Mopsuestia says concerning the

resurrection that we were created by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the
beginning, and expect to be renewed also by them. Further, “It is not possible that one
should be the cause of our first creation and another the cause of this second, which is
higher than the first.”81 The rejection of Gnostic dualism in the doctrine of creation
was seen as essential if the salvation of humankind was to be maintained. Any idea
that there were separate creators for body and soul would inevitably undermine the
doctrine of the resurrection, and without the resurrection, it was not possible for the
human being to be saved, since the human being was considered to be both body and
soul together, not the soul alone.
2.3.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50
The Gnostics often cited 1 Corinthians 15:50, flesh and blood cannot inherit the
Kingdom of God, in an attempt to refute the doctrine of the bodily resurrection.
Authors as temporally distant as Tertullian and John Chrysostom argued against this
view by insisting that the “flesh and blood” in this passage does not refer to the body,
79
Tertullian. Against Marcion 1.24. ANF 3, pp. 289-290. A similar problem is found in Patristic
writers who saw only “half” of human nature subject to death. Origen makes such a comment
in his allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Samaritan: “It is clear that the man being
left half-dead signifies that death has advanced into half of his nature - for the soul is
immortal.” Fragment in Luke 168. SC 87, 520. Cited in: L Hennessey. “Origen of Alexandria:
The fate of the soul and the body after death.” Second Century 8 (1991) 172. This is repeated
by Gregory of Nyssa: “And then the Word explained, in the form of a story, God’s entire
economy of salvation. He told of man’s descent from heaven, the robbers’ ambush, the
stripping of the garment of immortality, the wounds of sin, the progress of death over half of
man’s nature while his soul remained immortal.” An accurate exposition of the Song of Songs
14. From glory to glory, p. 280.
80
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 34. ANF 3, pp. 569-570.
81
and the Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 59. Cf. Jerome. “His right hand has won
victory for him. This means He redeemed mankind, His own workmanship, not the work of
another; or in other words, what He had made for Himself He ransomed for Himself.” Homily
25, on Psalm 97 [98]. FC 48, p. 198.
36
but to the lusts of the flesh: the sinful nature, weak corruptible humanity.82 Tertullian
argues that the promises of God are given not to the soul only, even though it had a
separate origin to the body in the creation of Adam, since both soul and body are
designated flesh.83 Similarly, Novatian asserts that the flesh we now have was created
by God so as not to perish. It is only its guilt which is condemned as a result of human
rebellion. But as a result of being cleared from guilt through baptism, the body can be
saved in the resurrection.84 Likewise, Irenaeus cited a number of passages from
Pauline letters where this usage of the “flesh” is found.85
Tertullian understood Paul to mean not that the human body cannot enter the kingdom
of heaven, but that “flesh and blood,” that is, weak and frail humanity as it now is,
cannot enter the kingdom: it must first be transformed and glorified. This phrase
refers to the whole human person, not to the body alone.86 Paul stresses that this
corruptible and mortal nature must inherit incorruptibility and immortality, and
therefore the body will not be abandoned or annihilated, but will share in the change
which is to come on all those who are redeemed.87 Peter Chrysologus states this well:
The Apostle confirms what we have said by his words: Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of
God. See how he preaches the resurrection of the body. There, the
spirit will possess the flesh, not the flesh the spirit, as the next words
82
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the dead 50-51. ANF 3, pp. 583-584. W J Sparrow-Simpson
states that Tertullian was contending against gnostic identification of evil with matter, and
thus he was stressing the possibility of the body of flesh being saved, while evil as “fleshly
behaviour” was condemned. The Resurrection and the Christian Faith, pp. 346-347. See
also John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Corinthians 42.2. NPNF 1/12, p. 256.
83
84
Novatian. On the Trinity 10. ANF 5, p. 620.
85
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.2.3-5.3.3. ANF 1, pp. 528-530. J Lawson argues that Irenaeus
had misunderstood Paul in this regard, and failed to see that the “ethical” use of the term
“flesh” as rebellion against God’s will is not present in 1 Corinthians 15:50, since there Paul
is referring to the present animal body, as distinct from the glorious resurrection body. The
Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, pp. 231-232. But this view cannot be sustained, as the
“ethical” use of the term is also in view in 1 Corinthians 15:50, emphasising the need for the
present body, subject to decay and death because of sin, to be transformed in order to be able
to enter the kingdom of God. Pheme Perkins. Resurrection: New Testament witness and
contemporary reflection, p. 365.
86
Tertullian. Against Marcion 5.10. ANF 3, pp. 451-452. According to Methodius, Justin
Martyr also held a similar interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50. The discourse on the
resurrection 2.6. ANF 6, p. 374. R A Norris sees this view also in Theodore of Mopsuestia,
who sees the primary meaning of ‘flesh’ as ‘mortality’ which cannot inherit the kingdom, and
not human nature as such. Manhood and Christ, pp. 154-155.
87
Rufinus says that the church at Aquileia stressed in its text of the Creed that the resurrection
was the raising of THIS flesh to prevent misunderstanding of what was meant, namely the
identity of the present body with the resurrection body. Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed
43. ACW 20, p. 81. Apology 1.5. NPNF 2/3, p. 437. This custom may be derived from
Origen’s comment that when Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians 15 of “this corruptible” and “this
mortal,” he indicated his body with a gesture. De Principiis 2.3.2. ANF 4, p. 271. This is
supported by Rufinus’ reference to 1 Corinthians 15 in conjunction with this idea in another
treatise. Preface to Pamphilus’ Defence of Origen. NPNF 2/3, p. 421. The idea appears also in
37
make clear: Neither shall corruption have any part in incorruption.
You see that not the flesh perishes, but the principle of corruption; not
the man, but his fault; not the person, but his sin; in order that the man
living in God and before Him alone may rejoice over arriving at the
end of his sins.88
In his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50, Augustine holds that the “flesh and
blood” refers to corruption, not to bodily existence. He distinguishes the body created
by God from the corruption of this body under the domination of sin. Thus the body
can have access to the kingdom of God, when it is transformed into a spiritual body.89
In his later life Augustine retracted his early view of the “celestial body” which had
not adequately expressed that the transformation was through elimination of
corruption of the flesh, rather than elimination of the substance of the flesh.90 The
flesh does not thereby cease to be “flesh,” it becomes flesh empowered and renewed
by the Spirit. Otherwise identity of the present body and resurrection body cannot be
maintained, since it must be this flesh that is glorified.
2.3.4 Rejection of Docetism
Belief in the reality of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, namely, that he was
a true human being with all that makes one human, also meant the rejection of the
errors of the Docetists, who asserted that Christ only appeared to be human. But this
meant that there could be no salvation, since only one who was human like us could
redeem us by dying in our place, and only if Christ was truly raised can we also be
raised. The Docetic error was attacked by Ignatius of Antioch.
And he suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as

certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they
themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall
it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and
be mere evil spirits.91
Those who deny the incarnation are only denying their own redemption, and the
consequence is that they will receive what they believe: their denial of the
resurrection of their flesh will leave them as mere disincarnate spirits, just like the
demons. Justin Martyr argued that the resurrection body of Christ was real and not
illusory, as can be seen from the ability of the disciples to handle him, which was
88
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 117. On 1 Corinthians 15:45-50. FC 17, p. 202.
89
[Augustine. Enchiridion 23. NPNF 1/3, p. 245. Sermon 362.15. PL 39, 1622] Kari E
Börresen. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969)
150.
90
[Augustine. On faith and the Creed 10.24. NPNF 1/3, p. 332. On Christian combat 32.34. FC
4, pp. 351-352. Retractations 1.16. PL 32, 612. Ibid., 2.29. PL 32, 642] Kari E Börresen.
“Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 150.
91
Ignatius. Letter to the Smyrnaens, 2. ANF 1, p. 87. This idea is also found in the Didascalia
Apostolorum 26. The heretics “believe not in the resurrection of the body; who moreover will
not eat and drink, but would fain rise up demons, unsubstantial spirits...” R H Connolly, p.
242.
38
done in order to prove it was a resurrection of the flesh.92 Similarly, Irenaeus stated
the case against Docetism this way:
So, if He was not born, neither did He die; and if He did not die,
neither was He raised from the dead; and if He was not raised from the
dead, He has not conquered death, nor is its reign abolished; and if
death is not conquered, how are we to mount up on high into life,
being subject from the beginning to death?93
Novatian says that the Docetic Christ is a fanciful idea “of those heretics who reject
the authority of the Old Testament, as to a Christ feigned and coloured up from old
wives’ fables,” and thus they rob us of the hope of the resurrection. There is no
salvation for the flesh in a saviour who has only the appearance of a body.94 But
because Christ himself was raised bodily from the dead, salvation will be complete.95
While Docetism undermined the reality of the incarnation and the resurrection from
another direction than that of Gnosticism, it was still only a variation on the same
error of separating creation from redemption.96 The Patristic writers thus insisted on
the intrinsic relation of creation and redemption, since to deny this was to deny the
Christian understanding of God.
2.4 Death as destruction of the unity of body and soul
Since it was considered that body and soul form an intrinsic unity, their separation in
death could only be temporary. Unlike the Gnostic view in which the soul is liberated
from the bondage of the body, death is seen as the destruction of the unity of the
person. The body and soul are wrenched apart, a disruption of their relationship which
will be restored in the eschaton, so that they can again act as one, the way God
created them to be. Death is considered unnatural, the negation of life. John of
Damascus speaks of this when he says:
For fear is natural when the soul is unwilling to be separated from the
body, on account of the natural sympathy and close relationship
implanted in it in the beginning by the Creator, which makes it fear
and struggle against death and pray for an escape from it.97
92
Justin Martyr. Fragments of the lost work on the resurrection 9. ANF 1, p. 298.
93
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 39. ACW 16, p. 72.
94
95
Cf. Second Clement 14. ANF 10, p. 255. Ignatius. Letter to the Smyrnaeans 12. ANF 1, p. 92.
Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says that the Son assumed both body and soul in order to
“raise the fallen man who is composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul.”
Commentary on the Nicene Creed 5. Woodbrooke Studies 5 (1932) 56.
96
This problem also appears in the Manichean heresy. Cf. the polemics of Leo the Great. “...we
can have nothing in common with men who... strive by any means in their power to persuade
men that the substance of the flesh is foreign to the hope of the resurrection, and so break
down the whole mystery of Christ’s incarnation: because it was wrong for Christ to take upon
Him complete manhood if it was wrong for Him to emancipate complete manhood.” Letter
13.12. NPNF 2/12, p. 24.
97
John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 3.23. NPNF 2/9, p. 70.
39
Tertullian stresses that even though death is simple, the separation of soul and body,
yet it is violent in its very nature, tearing apart “so close a companionship of soul and
body, so inseparable a growth together from their very conception of two sister
substances.” Death is thus not a natural event but brought on because of sin. It is not
because of our creatureliness that we die, as is proven from the fact that death was
threatened as a consequence of disobedience, so that, had Adam not sinned, he would
not have died.98 Thus death does violence to our nature.
A central pastoral concern in Cyprian’s works is to allay the fear concerning death.
“...let us be prepared for the whole will of God: laying aside the fear of death, let us
think on the immortality which follows.”99 He stresses that through dying we are
thereby liberated forever from the fear of death: it can no more assail those who have
died. He also stresses that death is for the Christian different from that of the
unbeliever: it is a disaster for the latter, but for the Christian it is departure to
salvation.
The fact that, without any difference made between one and another,
the righteous die as well as the unrighteous, is no reason for you to
suppose that it is a common death for the good and evil alike. The
righteous are called to their place of refreshing, the unrighteous are
snatched away to punishment...100
Believers die in the knowledge that Christ has defeated death and removed its sting.
They now die “in the Lord,” that is, it is Christ who controls the keys of death
(Revelation 1:18). A similar idea is found in Athanasius. “For now no longer as
condemned do we die, but as those who will rise again we await the general
resurrection of all...”101 Further on Athanasius says:
So, since the common Saviour of us all has died for us, no longer do we the faithful in
Christ now die as before according to the threat of the law, for such condemnation has
ceased. But as corruption has ceased and been destroyed by the grace of the
resurrection, now in the mortality of the body we are dissolved only for the time
which God has set for each man, in order that we may be able to obtain a better
resurrection.102
98
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 52. ANF 3, p. 229.
99
Cyprian. On the mortality 24. ANF 5, p. 475. Cf. On the mortality 26. ANF 5, p. 475. “What a
pleasure is there in the heavenly kingdom, without fear of death...”
100
Cyprian. On the mortality 15. ANF 5, p. 472.
101
Athanasius. On the Incarnation 10. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 159. Cf. the comments of
Oscar Cullmann. “Christ the firstborn from the dead! ...Death has already been overcome...
the resurrection age is already inaugurated... Granted that it is only inaugurated, but still it is
decisively inaugurated. Only inaugurated; for death is at work, and christians still die.”
Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? pp. 41-42.
102
Athanasius. On the Incarnation 21. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 185.
40
Similarly, Marius Victorinus said: “Therefore I do not fear death, because to die is
gain for me; death itself is not gain for me, but to die: but Christ is life, because he
who hopes in him, always lives, both now and forever.”103
Chryssavgis comments that in the ascetic theology of John Climacus, the separation
of body and soul in death is only temporary, since the unity will be restored in the
resurrection. This separation is possible only for God, and it is a mysterious event
which defies comprehension: “and it is amazing how [the soul] can come to exist
outside [the body] in which it received being.”104 John Climacus thus recognises the
unnatural character of death since it separates what was originally created as a unity.
He does not deprecate the body, as so many ascetics did. Ware says that the basic
dualism underlying John’s theology is
...not a dualism between God and matter, for God is the creator of matter; not a
dualism between soul and body, for The Ladder views the human person as an
integral unity; but a dualism between the unfallen and the fallen, between the natural
and the contranatural, between immortality and corruption, between life and death.105
John Climacus stresses that the body and soul are bound together for eternity. There is
no way that the soul can escape from the body and follow a separate fate.
By what rule or manner can I bind this body of mine? ...How can I
break away from him when I am bound to him forever? How can I
escape from him when he is going to rise with me? How can I make
him incorrupt when he has received a corruptible nature?106
Vincent of Lérins also held that while the body and soul are two distinct components
of human nature, they are eternally bound together. They form the one human being;
neither is sufficient on its own, both during this life and in the eschaton.107 In fact he
insists that because we need both body and soul to be human, the dualism is
permanent, and the distinction between the two substances is eternal. Neither body
nor soul will be changed into the substance of the other, but will exist forever as they
now are:
... for not only in the present life, but in the future also, each individual
man will consist of soul and body; nor will his body ever be converted
into soul, or his soul into body; but while each individual man will live
for ever, the distinction between the two substances will continue in
each individual man for ever.108
103
Marius Victorinus. In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. (On Philippians 1.21). PL 8, 1200B.
104
[John Climacus. The ladder of divine ascent 26. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 243] J
Chryssavgis. Ascent to Heaven, p. 43.
105
K Ware. Introduction. John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Classics of Western
Spirituality, pp. 21-22.
106
John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent 15. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 185.
107
Vincent of Lérins. Commonitory 13.37. NPNF 2/11, p. 141.
108
Vincent of Lérins, Commonitory 13.37. NPNF 2/11, p. 141.
41
From this we can deduce that Vincent saw the future life in terms of the resurrection,
since each person will have both body and soul.
2.4.1 Can the soul feel without the body? The unitary view
Those who held that the body and soul together formed the person thought that
neither functioned fully on its own, since all life was an experience of the unity of
body and soul.109 There was therefore no way judgement could take place and
punishments or rewards be allocated without the resurrection of the body.110 It was
considered by some that the soul was unable to suffer punishment on its own; it
needed a body to communicate suffering to it. This view is found in Tertullian’s early
works, although he subsequently changed his mind and accepted the opposing view.111
Assuredly, as the reason why restoration takes place at all is the

appointed judgement, every man must needs come forth the very same
who had once existed, that he may receive at God’s hands a
judgement, whether of good desert or the opposite. And therefore the
body too will appear; for the soul is not capable of suffering without
the solid substance (that is, the flesh; and for this reason, also) that it is
not right that souls should have all the wrath of God to bear: they did
not sin without the body, within which all was done by them.112
The assertion, or denial, of the possibility of a judgement after death, together with
the allocation of punishments and rewards, was anthropological in nature.113 Thus
Nestorius held that just as the body cannot live without the soul, so the soul cannot
perceive without the body.
Even as the body has need of the soul that it may live, for it lives not
of itself, and the soul has need of the body that it may perceive,
whereas otherwise it would see, even though it had not eyes and it
would hear, even though the hearing were injured, so too with the
other senses.114
This view precludes the possibility of both punishment and rewards in the
intermediate state, since the experience of the person required both body and soul
functioning together.
109
This idea was common in Syrian theology, and thus they held that after death the soul was
devoid of sensation although still living. F Gavin. “The sleep of the soul in the early Syrian
church.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 40 (1920) 107-108.
110
L W Barnard. “The father of Christian anthropology.” Zeitschrift fur die Neuetestamentliche
Wissenschaft 63 (1972) 258.
111
E Evans. Tertullian’s treatise on the resurrection, p. xii, n. 1. See Chapter 4, n. 9.
112
Tertullian. Apology 48. ANF 3, p. 53.
113
The discussion focused on whether the soul was “spiritual” or “corporeal” in nature. This was
connected with the debates as to whether the fire of punishment was also “spiritual” or
“corporeal.” Cf. Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 7. ANF 3, p. 187.
114
Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides 2.1. G R Driver and L Hodgson, p. 304.
42
2.4.2 Death as release of the body from sin
A common image in Patristic writings is that of the body being dissolved by death,
returning to the dust from which it was originally created, so that it can be set free
from the sin with which it is bound up, and re-created again without that sin. This is
one reason why death is essential for human beings. We cannot be granted
immortality without the body being set free from sin through death, otherwise we
would live as sinners forever.115 This, the Patristic writers argued, is the reason why
Adam and Eve were excluded from the garden of Eden after their sin, so they could
not eat of the fruit of the tree of life [Genesis 3:22] and remain forever immortal in
their condition of sin.116 An early expression of this view is found in Theophilus of
Antioch.
And in so doing, God conferred a great benefit upon man. He did not
let him remain for ever in a state of sin but, so to speak, with a kind of
banishment he cast him out of Paradise, so that through this
punishment he might expiate his sin in a fixed period of time and after
chastisement might later be recalled... Again, just as when some vessel
has been fashioned and has some fault, and is resmelted or refashioned
so that it becomes new and perfect, so it happens to man through
death; for he has virtually been shattered so that in the resurrection he
may be found sound, I mean spotless and righteous and immortal.117
This idea is also found in Irenaeus, possibly borrowed from Theophilus.
Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far
from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as
some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire]
that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which
surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and
irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of sin], by interposing
death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting and end to it by the
dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that
115
Ephrem. Against Marcion I. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and
Bardaisan, vol. 2, p. xxviii. Ambrose. The Sacraments 2.6.17. FC 44, p. 285. Ambrose said
that “death is not to be feared, since it is the end of sin.” Consolation on the death of
Valentinian 45. FC 22, p. 285. Gregory of Nyssa. The Great Catechism 8. NPNF 2/5, p. 482.
Theodoret. Quaestio 40 in Genesin. PG 69, 141-144. Cited in: G W Ashby. Theodoret of
Cyrrhus as Exegete of the Old Testament, p. 109.
116
Novatian. On the Trinity 1. ANF 5, p. 612. Hippolytus. Against Plato, On the Cause of the
Universe 2. ANF 5, p. 222. Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 45.8. NPNF 2/7, p. 425. Gregory
of Nyssa. The Great Catechism 8. NPNF 2/5, p. 483. Hilary of Poitiers. Commentary on the
Psalms 68.23. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 386. John of
Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 4.9. NPNF 2/9, p. 78. Methodius. The Symposium 9.2.
ACW 27, pp. 134-135. The Discourse on the Resurrection 1.4. ANF 6, p. 364; 1.6, p. 365;
1.13, pp. 367-368. Cf. E Buonaiuti. “The ethics and eschatology of Methodius of Olympus.”
Harvard Theological Review 14 (1921) 262. J P Burns. “The economy of salvation: Two
patristic traditions.” Theological Studies 37 (1976) 603.
117
Theophilus. To Autolycus 2.26. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 69.
43
man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to
live to God.118
The flesh would thus be saved through death and resurrection. For instance John of
Damascus said:
It was necessary that what was made of earth should return to earth,
and thus be assumed to heaven. It was fitting that the earthly tenement
should be cast off, as gold is purified, so that the flesh in death might
become pure and immortal, and rise in shining immortality from the
tomb.119
The resurrection is therefore essential for our salvation, since the soul can have no life
on its own, and the future life parallels the original state of Adam; humanity will once
again be set free from sin, participating in the life of God, and living in paradise.
Theodore of Mopsuestia cites the image of the potter from Jeremiah 18:1-6, to
demonstrate that through the dissolution of our bodies of clay in death, we can be
refashioned in the resurrection to be immortal and incorruptible, dwellers in “a world
higher than the present.”120 This idea appears to have no necessary connection with
either the unitary or the instrumentalist anthropological model, although it is treated
in somewhat different ways.
2.5 Immortality of the soul
In unitary models, we find arguments both for and against the idea that the soul is
inherently immortal. While many hold that immortality is a gift of God to both body
and soul, some did hold that the soul had immortal life by virtue of its nature.
However, in a unitary anthropological model, this did not diminish the fact that it was
not until the resurrection and subsequent judgement that we receive rewards and
punishments, since it is the person, the composite of body and soul, that is under
consideration. Thus it is the anthropological model, and not views concerning the
immortality of the soul, which determines the structure of thought in the Patristic
writers with respect to the judgement.
2.5.1 Philosophical arguments against inherent immortality
118
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 3.23.6. ANF 1, p. 457. Cf. A R Kerr. “Imago and Similitudo in the
thought of Irenaeus,” pp. 37-38. G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, pp. 49-50.
119
John of Damascus. Sermon on the Assumption 3. M H Allies, p. 206. This view can lead to
denigration of bodiliness, as in Gregory of Nyssa, who says that the flesh is justly dissolved
since it was through the senses of the flesh that the soul went astray, and in the resurrection
the body is reformed according to the original pattern. The Great Catechism 8. NPNF 2/5, p.
482.
120
and the Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 57. Cf. also ibid., 59. Commentary on the
Nicene Creed 5. Woodbrooke Studies 5 (1932) 56. Commentarius in Genesin. PG 66, 640c-
641a. Cited in: R A Norris. Manhood and Christ, p. 183. Methodius also makes use of
Jeremiah 18:1-6 in this connection. Discourse on the resurrection 1.6-7. ANF 6, p. 365.
44
While some Patristic authors argued from philosophical grounds for the immortality
of the soul, many of the early Patristic authors argued from philosophical grounds
against its immortality. This was possible partly because in the pagan philosophical
tradition, on which the Patristic authors drew for their arguments, the same
differences of opinion could be found.121 For instance, Nemesius notes the many and
conflicting opinions of the philosophers on the subject of the soul and indicates this as
the reason why his own discourse is so long, as there are many errors to refute.122
After his conversion from pagan philosophy to Christianity, Justin Martyr repudiated
the belief in the immortality of the soul, in favour of a belief in the resurrection of the
body and the millennial kingdom.123 Although some scholars have understood him to
retain the idea of the immortality of the soul, the structure of his thought makes it
improbable that he held this view after his conversion.124 When Justin speaks of
immortality (apart from his discussion of the philosophical view) he understands it to
mean the state of those raised from the dead following the return of Christ, in one case
referring to the wicked suffering torment in their resurrected bodies. According to
Young, Justin thought that the pagan views of immortality and punishment after death
were a distortion of the Christian doctrine.125
It is impossible to argue from his belief that the philosophers received the basis of
their doctrines from the prophets, to the conclusion that he believed in the immortality
of the soul in the way the philosophers taught it: that is, as an immortal substance,
possessing life in itself, and independent of God. Daniélou argues that Justin’s use of
the term “seeds of truth” indicates the imperfect character of the teaching borrowed
from the OT writers, and that the philosophers’ view of immortality was not an
accurate expression of Scriptural teaching.126
The direction taken by Justin was developed further by his disciple Tatian, whose
distinctive anthropology shapes his whole eschatology. For Tatian the soul is not in
itself immortal, but it is possible for it to become immortal through knowledge of
121
Margaret R Miles comments that “The problem of the relationship of body and soul had been
analyzed and discussed since Aristotle; the Christian dogma of the Incarnation fell heir to both
the tools and the difficulties with which philosophers had been dealing for centuries in the
attempt to explain the relationship of body and soul.” Augustine on the body, p. 79.
122
Nemesius. On the nature of man 2.11. LCC 4, pp. 257-260. Cf. also Pseudo-Justin. Hortatory
address to the Greeks 6-7. ANF 1, pp. 275-276, where he discusses the differences between
pagan philosophers on the immortality of the soul. Arnobius argues that the disagreements
among the philosophers mean that they cannot all be true, since their views are inconsistent.
However, again he admits that there are weighty arguments for each case. The case against
the Pagans 2.57. ACW 7, pp. 167-168.
123
E F Osborn. Justin Martyr, pp. 197-198.
124
Van Eijk says that Justin rejects the Platonic conception of the immortality of the soul
[Dialogue 5] and the gnostic idea of the ascent of the soul after death. T H C van Eijk. La
resurrection des morts chez les pères apostoliques, p. 155. Young says that Justin’s story
of his conversion revolves around disproving the immortality of the soul, and he also states in
the Dialogue that it undermines dependence on God. M O Young. “Justin Martyr and the
death of souls.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 210.
125
M O Young. “Justin Martyr and the death of souls.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 210-211.
126
J Daniélou. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 2, p. 47.
45
God. It is union with God which preserves the soul in death, for in death it is
dissolved, being a compound and not a simple substance, but if it is in union with the
Spirit, it is preserved in anticipation of the resurrection.127 The composite soul is not
concentrated in one part of the body but is “manifested” throughout it. Thus the flesh
and the body must be resurrected together,128 to face the judgement, those of the
wicked to face annihilation and those of the righteous to receive eternal life through
union with the indwelling Spirit.129 Tatian held that neither the body nor the soul can
be made immortal in its own right, but only the body joined to the soul, the whole
person, can become immortal through faith and repentance through union with the
Holy Spirit.130
Tatian was concerned to demonstrate the validity of the resurrection because he saw it
as the only future hope for humanity. If the soul is not immortal, able to live on after
death, then it is only through the resurrection that we will finally be saved. All will
face the judgement, when God will allot immortality to the righteous and punishment
to the wicked. The judgement can take place only if there is a resurrection: the dead
must be raised to life again to receive their rewards and punishments.131
Florovsky points out the difference between this Aristotelian view of Tatian’s and its
modification in the views of Athenagoras. Aristotle held that the mortality of the body
meant the mortality of the soul, which was its animating force. Athenagoras
concluded that the immortality of the soul made possible the resurrection of the body,
the reconstitution of the compositum.132 However, while Tatian sought to affirm the
unity of human nature, he still conceived of it in dichotomistic terms, and as an
alternative to the Platonic idea of the immortality of the soul, he defends instead a
more Aristotelian conception, that the soul was the “form” of the body,133 which
dissolves and dies along with the body.134
127
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 13.1-2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 27. Address to the
Greeks 15.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 29, 31. The close connection between the
Holy Spirit and the resurrection in Tatian’s thought is also continued in later Syriac theology,
a tradition which stressed the work of the Holy Spirit in eschatology.
128
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 15.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 29, 31. The idea that the
soul is immortal because it is a simple substance recurrs throughout Patristic theology. The
basis of this idea is that a simple substance cannot be further divided or changed, thus if it
exists it must continue to exist. For Tatian to assert that the soul is a compound substance is to
deny its immortality on philosophical grounds.
129
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 13.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 27.
130
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 15.3-4. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 31. While Tatian
insists that it is only through union with the Spirit that we will receive eternal life after the
resurrection, he never discusses the glorification of the body through its union with the Spirit.
The most he says is that in the resurrection the body will be restored “to its original state.”
Address to the Greeks 6.2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13.
131
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 6.2-7.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13.
132
G Florovsky. “Eschatology in the Patristic age: an introduction.” Studia Patristica 2 (1957)
249.
133
F Bottomley. Attitudes to the Body in Western Christendom, p. 53.
134
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 13.1-2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 27.
46
Tatian’s rejection of the immortality of the soul thus comes not from the recognition
that it is based on a false anthropology, dualistic in basis, but on the grounds of a
synthesis with a differing stream of pagan Greek thought.135 But to contend against
Platonism from the position of Aristotle is equally erroneous, since the root problem
of synthesis between Christian and pagan thought has not been addressed.136 The
attempt to refute a pagan conception by adopting another pagan alternative has
cogency only within a pagan framework.
It is interesting that even though he disagreed with the immortality of the soul,
Theophilus of Antioch says he can understand why some deduce it from Scripture.
The soul was apparently seen as the breath breathed into Adam by God, and was
therefore immortal. “...and God formed man, dust from the earth, and breathed the
breath of life into his face, and man became a living soul. This is why the soul is
called immortal by most people.”137 However, Theophilus does not think that the soul
was created immortal by God, since the breath of God is not immortality, but life
itself.138 The arguments used by Theophilus are based on the Biblical theme of the
Holy Spirit as the life-giver, which is not solely eschatological, but is a present
reality. Without the life given by the Holy Spirit we die. This alternative to pagan
philosophical speculations, although present in the early Patristic period, was not
sufficiently developed.139
Arnobius argued that if the soul is immortal, then there is little incentive to moral
living, since there is nothing which can harm us after death, as both the soul and God
are immortal and cannot harm each other. Thus we will live forever regardless of the
deeds we perform. He maintains instead that we will be resurrected for judgement,
and it is only virtue which will bring eternal life.140
135
Cf. R M Grant’s comment that Justin was converted from a Platonic belief in the immortality
of the soul through the Aristotelian arguments of the “Old Man” whom he met. “Aristotle and
the conversion of Justin.” Journal of Theological Studies 7 (1956) 246-248. Similarly,
Nemesius uses Plato and Aristotle to reject the trichotomistic views of Apollinarius, which
were based on the views of Plotinus. On the nature of man 1.1. LCC 4, pp. 224-225.
136
Florovsky explains why Aristotle’s views were so attractive to Patristic writers in a heavily
Platonic environment. He asserts that from the beginning, Patristic writers found assistance in
Aristotle. While Aristotle asserted that human beings did not survive death, this was because
he held that human nature was a unity, in which soul and body are two aspects of the same
reality, which only exist together in a concrete and indivisible correlation [De anima 413a].
Once this functional unity was broken in death, there is no “organism” any more, and thus
transmigration of souls was impossible. For Platonism death was a welcome release from
bondage to the body, while for Aristotle it was a sad end to earthly existence, similar to the
Christian idea of death as a catastrophe as a result of sin. While they were an attractive
alternative to Platonism, Aristotle’s views were still incompatible with Scripture and had their
own problematics. G Florovsky. “Eschatology in the Patristic age: an introduction.” Studia
Patristica 2 (1957) 246-249.
137
Theophilus. To Autolycus 2.19. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 57-59.
138
139
For a contemporary discussion of this issue see Neill Q Hamilton. The Holy Spirit and
eschatology in Paul.
140
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.29-30. ACW 7, pp. 142-144; 2.32, p. 145. Cyril of
Jerusalem is another who does not argue from immortality to the incentive for ethical living,
47
Arnobius argues from the works of Greek philosophy to demonstrate that where there
is any change, as for instance in emotional disturbance, then there is the possibility of
decay and death. This argument he applied to the pagan gods, showing that their all-
too-human emotions indicate that they cannot be immortal, and thus cannot be
considered divine.141 He further argues that if, as the pagans avow, the gods all had
their origin from the one Father, then they had a beginning, and thus are begotten and
not self-existent, and thus mortal.142 Arnobius then applies this logic to human beings,
and shows that if we had a beginning, and suffer change in our nature, then we have
received life from God, and we do not have that in ourselves.143 It is only through
Christ that we will receive immortality, since he alone has the right from God to grant
this gift. Instead of the immortality of the soul, Arnobius stresses the resurrection.144
arguing instead that it is the denial of the resurrection that leads to wickedness. Catechetical
Lectures 18.1. NPNF 2/7, p. 134. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:32-34.
141
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 1.18. ACW 7, pp. 71-72.
142
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 1.28. ACW 7, pp. 78-79. Elsewhere he argues that
whatever has an end cannot be immortal, since it must have had a beginning, and is therefore
not self-existent. The case against the Pagans 3.12. ACW 7, p. 201. He argues from the fact
that the gods are give immortality from the Father that they have a neutral character
(according to Plato’s Timaeus); what is so unusual then in saying that human beings are
similarly of a neutral character? The case against the Pagans 2.36. ACW 7, p. 148. This
neutral character is seen in the susceptibility of the soul to inducement to change and to suffer,
since this shows the “essentially passive” nature of the soul. The case against the Pagans
2.26. ACW 7, pp. 139-140.
143
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 1.29. ACW 7, p. 79. Cf. The case against the Pagans
2.36. ACW 7, pp. 148-149. Arnobius asserts that it is their “deep-seated arrogance” which
leads men to claim to be immortal, just like God. The case against the Pagans 2.16. ACW 7,
p. 129. He says that if they had the slightest knowledge of their own nature or that of God,
they would never have claimed to be immortal. The case against the Pagans 2.19. ACW 7, p.
132.
144
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.65-66. ACW 7, pp. 176-179.
48
2.5.2 Immortality a gift from God
The Patristic writers who held a unitary anthropology insisted that the person will
only receive immortality as a gift of God through being raised from the dead. Cyprian
believed that immortality comes only through Christ: it is not a natural possession of
the soul. Through the death of Christ the effects of the sin of Adam and Eve are
reversed, and we are able to return to the paradise they lost.145 Lactantius says that
immortality is produced only by virtue and wisdom, and is received from God, who
alone is able to confer immortality, since He alone possesses it, and grants it to the
pious who honour God.146 Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem says that the soul “is immortal
in as far as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creature not subject to
decay, because these qualities have been bestowed by God upon it.” However he also
stresses here that man has “a two-fold nature, consisting of soul and body,” and thus
maintains a unitary approach.147
The idea of immortality as a gift of God also appears in later Patristic writers such
Theodoret and John of Damascus, who hold that the angels are immortal by gift and
not by nature.148
As late as the seventh century, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, attacked the

doctrine of the immortality of the soul in a synodical epistle. He said: “Men’s souls
have not a natural immortality, it is by the gift of God that they receive the grant of
immortality and corruption.”149 He states that human souls as well as angels are
immortal not by nature but are made so by grace.150 According to Du Pin, Sophronius
was opposed to what he saw as the erroneous views which Origen had introduced into
the church,151 and the inherent immortality of the soul was for him such an error,
which quite possibly he saw as originating with Origen. However, by this time
Sophronius was an exception to the almost universal acceptance of the concept of the
inherent immortality of the soul.
145
Cyprian. An address to Demetrianus 25. ANF 5, p. 465. On the mortality 26. ANF 5, p. 475.
The idea that redemption enables us to return to paradise is found in many Patristic writers.
For example, Methodius. Oration concerning Simeon and Anna 8. ANF 6, p. 389. Jerome.
Homily 12, on Psalm 78 [79]. FC 48, p. 91. Ephrem of Syria. Hymn 8.9. Hymns on Paradise,
p. 134. Cf. the discussion of this theme in G B Ladner. The Idea of Reform, pp. 63-82. J
Daniélou comments in this regard that “The idea which the prophets had was not of a return to
the original Paradise of Adam... Rather it is a complete renewal of the universe involving a
new creation at the end of the world.” From Shadows to Reality, pp. 23-24.
146
Lactantius. Divine Institutes 7.5. ANF 7, p. 201.
147
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 4.18. NPNF 2/7, p. 23.
148
Theodoret. Eranistes, Dialogue 3. NPNF 2/3, p. 230. John of Damascus. On the Orthodox
Faith 2.3. NPNF 2/9, p. 19. The idea also appears in Ambrose, who usually uses an
instrumentalist model. Of the Christian faith 3.3.19. NPNF 2/10, p. 245.
149
[Sophronius. Epistola Synodica. PG 87/3, 3181.] Cited in: L E Froom. The Conditionalist
Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 2, p. 17.
150
[Sophronius. Epistola Synodica. PG 87/3, 3181.] C J Hefele. A History of the Councils of
the Church from the Original Documents. Vol 5, p. 48.
151
L E Du Pin. “Sophronius.” A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers. Vol. 4, p. 17. Cited in:
L E Froom. The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 2, p. 17.
49
2.5.3 Immortality lost by Adam and Eve
Some early Patristic writers held that Adam was created immortal, but lost this gift of
God through his sin.152 The goodness of all created things [Genesis 1:31] meant that
death had no place in human nature, since otherwise it would not have been very
good. Through sin, however, humankind became subject to death, and this fate was
passed on to all subsequent generations, who have likewise been deprived of
immortality.153 According to Tatian, “We were not born to die, but we die through our
own fault.”154
Augustine says that in the Garden of Eden, Adam was both mortal and immortal:
mortal because he was able to die, immortal because he was able not to die. This is in
distinction from other creatures such as the angels, which are immortal but unable to
die. Adam’s bodily immortality came from the tree of life, not from his nature. After
his sin he was separated from this tree so that he was then able to die. Augustine
concludes: “He was mortal, therefore, by the constitution of his natural body, and he
was immortal by the gift of his Creator.”155 Through his sin, Adam lost immortality in
the sense of not being able to attain it.156 Similarly, according to Vööbus, Theodore of
Mopsuestia held that Adam was created mortal, with the possibility of immortality.
He rejects the idea that God took back the gift of immortality as a punishment for
Adam’s sin.157 Theodore says that after Adam had broken the commandment he had
“become mortal.”158 As a result of sin we “assumed a thorough corruption through the
sentence of death.”159
152
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 124. ANF 1, p. 262. Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic
Preaching 15. ACW 16, p. 56. Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 53. ANF 3, p. 586.
Against Marcion 2.8. ANF 3, p. 303. An answer to the Jews 2. ANF 3, p. 152. Methodius. The
Symposium 3.5. ACW 27, p. 62. Gregory of Nyssa. An accurate exposition of the Song of
Songs 5. From glory to glory, p. 188. Cf. G Wingren. “Even if man has been unaffected by
sin and had lived forever in Paradise, his eternal life would have been a gift from God, since
man’s life is always the creation and the gift of God.” Man and the Incarnation, pp. 60-61.
This is found in Tertullian. An answer to the Jews 2. ANF 3, p. 152, and Maximus the
Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalasium 61. PG 90, 629A. Ambigua 10. PG 91, 1156D.
Ambigua 42. PG 91, 1321A. P Sherwood. St. Maximus the Confessor. The Ascetic Life.
Four centuries on charity. ACW 21, p. 64.
153
Methodius. The Symposium 3.6. ACW 27, p. 63.
154
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 11.1-2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 23.
155
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 6.25.36. ACW 41, p. 204. Cf. also Lactantius. The
Divine Institutes 2.13. ANF 7, p. 62. Epitome of the Divine Institutes 27. ANF 7, p. 231.
156
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 6.27.38. ACW 41, p. 206.
157
A Vööbus. “Regarding the theological anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.” Church
History 33 (1964) 116-117.
158
and the Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 54.
159
50
2.5.4 Adam and Eve neither mortal nor immortal
An alternative position to the view that Adam and Eve possessed immortality but lost
this through their sin, is the idea proposed by Theophilus of Antioch, that Adam and
Eve were originally created neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of either.160
Theophilus makes the important point that if we had been created immortal, we would
have been like God; alternatively, if we had been created mortal, we could blame God
for our death. But because death is earned through disobedience,161 we have nobody to
blame but ourselves, as the offer of eternal life was made for those who were
obedient.162 The same idea is found in Ephrem of Syria.
For when God created Adam, He did not make him mortal, nor did He
fashion him as immortal; this was so that Adam himself, either through
keeping the commandment, or by transgressing it, might acquire from
this one of the trees whichever outcome he wanted.163
Theophilus held that immortality applied as much to the body as it does to the soul,
stressing the resurrection as the form of eschatological life, when we shall “put off
what is mortal.”164 Immortality is the goal of humanity, not a natural possession of the
soul. In his unitary anthropology, neither the soul nor the body receives immortality
alone: both soul and body are either given immortality together in the resurrection or
else denied it.165 In the transformation of the resurrection, we are made no longer able
to die. This is summed up in the Latin terms posse non mori (it is possible not to die)
and non posse mori (it is not possible to die), used for instance by Augustine in The
City of God.
For as the first immortality which Adam lost by sinning consisted in

his being able not to die, while the last shall consist in his not being
160
Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus 2.27. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 71. This idea is
found also in Methodius. The Symposium 3.7. ACW 27, p. 64, and in Arnobius. The case
against the Pagans 2.53. ACW 7, p. 164. He asserts that the arguments among the
philosophers as to whether the soul is mortal or immortal proves its “neutral” character, and
each side is presenting one aspect of the truth. The case against the Pagans 2.31. ACW 7, p.
144. He argues that souls have a “neutral” character because God alone is immortal and
unchanging, and all other beings therefore have been brought into being by God. Thus souls
are liable to change and are “held on the line midway between life and death.” It is only by the
power of God that souls are made immortal. The case against the Pagans 2.34-35. ACW 7,
pp. 146-147.
161
Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus 2.25. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 69.
162
Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus 2.27. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 69, 71. Cf. To
Autolycus 2.24. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 67. Cf. the comments of Lactantius.
“Therefore, as I have already said, they who complain of the frailty of man, make this
complaint especially, that they were not born immortal and everlasting.” On the workmanship
of God 4. ANF 7, p. 285.
163
Ephrem of Syria. Commentary on Genesis 2.17. Hymns on Paradise, pp. 208-209.
164
Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus 1.7. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 11.
165
51
able to die; so the first free will consisted in his being able not to sin,
the last in his not being able to sin.166
Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that through his sin, Adam lost the chance to become
immortal. He was not created immortal and immutable in the beginning, since he
would not then have appreciated the gift of immutability, being ignorant of his
mutability.167 He says further that since humankind has sinned, it is an advantage to
die so as to put an end to disobedience. But Adam was not created mortal either, so
God could not be accused of with-holding immortality. Instead, God gave a
commandment and promised immortality as a reward for obedience, and death as a
penalty for disobedience. If they had been granted immortality from the beginning,
they would not have been led to trust the Creator to grant that gift.168
Nemesius of Emesa also sees human beings as neither mortal nor immortal, but
intermediate between the two with the potential for immortality, which is possible
only by eschewing bodily passions. He follows Theophilus in his discussion of this
subject. Through Adam’s sin, humankind lost immortality which we can now gain
only through God’s grace.169 However, Nemesius still considers the soul itself to be
immortal and the body to be its instrument: it is the person as a whole which lacks
immortality. Nemesius describes the body as mortal, but able to be immortalised, a
privilege it receives “for the soul’s sake.”170 He sees this immortalising of the body as
taking place at the resurrection, when it rejoins the immortal soul.171
2.5.5 Proponents of the inherent immortality of the soul
The strongest expression of the unity of human nature in the early Patristic writers
appears in the thought of Athenagoras, curiously enough also the first, in contrast to
the early apologists, to argue explicitly for the immortality of the soul, an idea he did
not see to be in opposition to the resurrection of the body, but complementary to it.
He does not, however, provide any exegesis of Scripture as the basis for his views; it
is his philosophy which lead him to the immortality of the soul. We are striking for
the first time a purely philosophical anthropology in Christian thought. As
166
Augustine. The City of God 22.30. NPNF 1/2, p. 510. The Latin reads: “Sicut enim prima
immortalitas fuit, quam peccando Adam perdidit, posse non mori, novissima erit non posse
mori: ita primum liberum arbitrium posse non peccare, novissimum non posse peccare.” PL
41, 802.
167
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Genesis. PG 66, 633ab. Cited in: R A Greer.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 16. This view is also found in Irenaeus. “For how could a man
have learned that he is himself an infirm being, and mortal by nature, but that God is immortal
and powerful, unless he had learned by experience what is in both?” Against Heresies 5.3.1.
ANF 1, p. 529. See A R Kerr. “Imago and Similitudo in the thought of Irenaeus,” p. 44.
168
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary in Genesis. PG 66, 640c-641a. Cited in: R A Norris.
Manhood and Christ, p. 183.
169
Nemesius. On the nature of man 1.5. LCC 4, pp. 238-240.
170
Nemesius. On the nature of man 1.7. LCC 4, p. 244. Cf. also Lactantius. The Divine Institutes
7.5. ANF 7, pp. 200-201.
171
Nemesius. On the nature of man 1.7. LCC 4, p. 246.
52
Athenagoras is the first Christian thinker to argue positively the immortality of the
soul, his thought on this subject is important.172
Athenagoras was the first Christian thinker to use the term sunamphoteron or
compositum,173 to express the idea that the person is a composite of body and soul,
two incomplete but supporting realities. The soul directs and controls the body, but
the actions of the soul are attributed to the whole person, not to the soul alone.174
While he was influenced by Middle Platonism, and generally follows the Platonic
tradition in an eclectic fashion,175 it is in his anthropology, with consequent
implications for eschatology, that Athenagoras diverges from the views of Plato,
especially concerning the transmigration of souls and the resurrection.
Athenagoras tries to defend the Christian doctrine of the resurrection with

philosophical arguments, using examples from the Greek philosophers to demonstrate
that their philosophy in fact demands a resurrection, and is compatible with belief in
a resurrection, although Athenagoras did not claim that these philosophers such as
Plato actually believed in the resurrection.176
Because he held that the body and soul formed a unity, the immortality of the soul
therefore meant that the resurrection of the body was necessary in order for the person
to be whole. And it is the wholeness of the person Athenagoras focuses on: he does
not believe in the ultimate independent existence of the immortal soul, although he
does consider that it exists independently after death and before the resurrection.177
Athenagoras speaks of the intermediate state as an “interruption” in human life that
will be restored at the resurrection.178
172
L W Barnard holds that Athenagoras gives the first Christian anthropology which is
developed philosophically as well as theologically, one which in Barnard’s words, “goes
beyond the biblical data.” “The father of Christian anthropology.” Zeitschrift fur
Neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1972) 3/4, 257. A J Visser claims that Tertullian was the
first in the west to defend the philosophical doctrine of a natural immortality of the soul, even
though he was strongly biased against philosophy. “Bird’s eye view of ancient Christian
eschatology.” Numen 14 (1967) 13. The Letter to Diognetus, dated to the end of the second
century (and thus approximately contemporary with Athenagoras) says that “The immortal
soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle.” The Letter to Diognetus 6. ANF 1, p. 27. There is
however no argument for the soul’s immortality in the Letter.
173
This term is found in the Middle Platonist Albinus. Epit. 23.3, which Athenagoras possibly
adapted from this source. L W Barnard. Athenagoras, p. 47.
174
L W Barnard. Athenagoras, pp. 122-123. H A Lucks. The philosophy of Athenagoras, p.
59.
175
L W Barnard. Athenagoras, p. 44.
176
Athenagoras. A Plea for Christians 36.3. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 87.
177
L W Barnard. “Athenagoras gives no explicit teaching about the qualities of the soul, its
simplicity, unity or distinction between its faculties. His main concern is to argue for the
resurrection of the body and he introduces his views of the soul only in so far as they assist
the establishment of his main thesis.” Athenagoras, p. 126.
178
Athenagoras. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead 16.4-6. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
pp. 127, 129.
53
Athenagoras has a teleological view of creation, which demands a resurrection so that
God’s purposes for the creation will be accomplished. There must be a resurrection so
the body can be rejoined to the immortal soul. The soul for its part must be immortal
so as to ensure the continuance of that which God has created.179 Unless the whole
person shared in eschatological life, the purpose of the creation would be lost.
Nor indeed is there happiness for the soul in a state of separation from
the body. For we were considering the life or end, not of one of the
parts which constitute man, but of the creature made up of both parts.
For such is the nature of every man allotted this life of ours, and there
must be some end which is proper to this form of existence. If the end
has to do with the composite, and if this cannot be discovered either
while men are still alive here below, for the reasons so often spoken of
already, nor yet when the soul is in a state of separation (for man as
such cannot be said to exist when the body has undergone dissolution
or been completely dispersed, even though the soul as such is
permanent), then the end of men must certainly be seen in some other
state of the same composite creature.180
Since God’s purposes for the creation continue, then the things which were created to
fulfill those purposes must also continue in being. This is for Athenagoras the
strongest argument that he uses in his discussion of the necessity of the resurrection.
Causality is the key to the teleological understanding of the creation. Everything was
brought into being by the First Cause, and from the cause established for each
creature follows the telos towards which it is directed. The telos of the human being is
communion with God, and for this to be possible death must be overcome by
resurrection. The accomplishment of God’s purposes therefore demanded the
resurrection, since the intentions of God in creating humanity would otherwise be
thwarted.181
Athenagoras discusses three arguments for the resurrection based on causality: 1) the
purpose of the Creator in making man, 2) the nature of men so created, 3) the reward
or punishment due to each.182 The argument from causality demands that that which
was created by the First Cause should accomplish the purpose for which it was
created, otherwise causality would be of no effect. Therefore death must be overcome
by resurrection. Those who have not believed will suffer punishment, since we are
moral beings and must give account of our lives. “Christian ethics is based on the
knowledge of God and is governed further by the expectation of the survival of the
179
pp. 125, 127. Other Patristic writers also have teleological aspects in their eschatologies.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.22.1. ANF 1, pp. 493-494. Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.8.
ANF 7, p. 204. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the Resurrection. NPNF 2/5, p. 465.
Jerome. Homily 10, on Psalm 76 [77]. FC 48, p. 71.
180
p. 147. Cf. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead 15.2-3. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
pp. 123, 125.
181
L W Barnard. Athenagoras, pp. 130-131.
182
Athenagoras. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead 14.4. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
123.
54
soul and of the Judgement.”183 The telos God has intended for us means that those
who reject him must be punished; it is not enough that they be annihilated, since that
would make us no better than animals who do not have to bear the consequences of
moral failure.
Martin has shown that eschatology came to function in the thought of the post-
reformation era as the conclusion of God’s acts, rather than their goal, through the
emphasis on the Aristotelian concept of causality as the heuristic method for
understanding God’s relationship to the created order.184 Eschatology was thus merely
the final “effect” of the causal chain. Athenagoras was perhaps aware of this kind of
consequence when he expressed dismay at the use some Christians made of the
judgement as a necessary cause of the resurrection.185 He insisted on the contrary that
the resurrection was essential in and of itself, since this was the means by which the
purposes of God would finally be accomplished: the resurrection was central to the
goal towards which the creation was moving, it was not a mere stepping-stone on the
way.186 However, eschatology therefore acquired a merely formal function, not
important in itself.187 Martin states that seeing the judgement as the finis of the chain
of causal action did not place this doctrine within the body of theology, but saw it
merely as the reason why there should be a resurrection and judgement.188 This
criticism applies also to some extent to Athenagoras, since, like many early Christian
writers, he argued for the necessity of the resurrection, because only through the
resurrection from the dead could judgement be carried out on those who had escaped
183
A J Malherbe. “Athenagoras on Christian Ethics.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20 (1969)
3.
184
James P Martin. The Last Judgement in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl,
pp. 5-6. God is not the First Cause or any other cause, and stands outside the causal chain
which is purely creational in nature. God is not included in the causality which he has
created. For a discussion of the nature of causality see Herman Dooyeweerd. A New Critique
of Theoretical Thought. Vol. 2, pp. 38-41. The idea of God as “first cause” is found as early
as Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.38.3. ANF 1, p. 521.
185
Grant argues that Athenagoras’ critique of the use of the necessity for the judgement as a
cause for the resurrection indicates knowledge of (and therefore the temporal priority of)
Tertullian’s De resurrectione 14 where this is used. R M Grant. “Athenagoras or Pseudo-
Athenagoras.” Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954) 128. However, Tertullian could easily
have used an argument which had earlier been criticised, or else ignored the criticism because
he still found the argument convincing (or useful). To adopt Grant’s view would be to assume
that no writer ever used an idea criticised or refuted by an earlier author because such
criticism or refutation is always accepted and deferred to. Ideas are often maintained in spite
of criticism from others (and sometimes rightly so).
186
123.
187
As Barth said in his Commentary on the epistle to the Romans, eschatology is often relegated
to a short and perfectly harmless chapter at the end of Christian dogmatics. Karl Barth. The
Epistle to the Romans, p. 500. Eschatology is not, however, merely the conclusion of
theological discourse. It is a thread which runs throughout the whole, binding it together and
pointing to its consummation in Christ. Without that perspective, the whole of Christian
theology lacks direction and purpose.
188
James P Martin. The Last Judgement in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl,
p. 6.
55
justice, or had not been rewarded for virtue, during their lifetimes.189 But Athenagoras
was prepared to use this as only one argument for the resurrection. He did not want to
give it too much weight. His teleological view was of much more significance for
him, and thus causality was crucial for his views, more crucial than the need for
justice per se.
But Athenagoras is still prepared to accept the validity of the argument from justice.
He holds that both body and soul will face punishment, since body and soul have
acted together. The body will not escape punishment, nor will there be an escape
through the annihilation of the soul at death. This he uses as an argument for the
resurrection and is based on his idea of human nature as a compositum of body and
soul which are separated by death: the immortal soul survives, and will be reunited
with the same body, transformed to be incorruptible, so together they can face
judgement. There is no judgement for the soul after death, as this would be unjust:
both body and soul will be held accountable.
If the body decays and each part which undergoes dissolution returns
to its appropriate element, whereas the soul as such remains
incorruptible, not even then will a judgement upon the soul take place,
since justice would be absent.190
Because of his belief that the person was both body and soul, Athenagoras attacked
the gnostic view that there was some advantage in the soul being released from the
body. Thus he insists that the resurrection, the restoring of the original union of body
and soul by our Creator, is not disadvantageous to the person; rather it is the
completion of the person in the fulfilling of God’s intention for the creation. He states
that if having a body disadvantages us, then the present life is also to be rejected: the
logic behind asceticism! Rather, in the resurrection, an incorruptible body will be
joined to the incorruptible soul.191
Other Patristic writers also held that the soul was immortal, but still insisted that the
person was comprised of both together. In death the soul is separated from the body,
and since it is the source of life for the body, the body dies. In the resurrection the
body is restored to life and the unity recreated.192 Novatian held that the body was
earthly, but the soul was heavenly.193 He states throughout his treatise on the Trinity
that the body is mortal and the soul immortal. In this strongly dualistic theology we
still find a unitary anthropology, even though there is considerable tension in his
thought. Novatian states that God is always
189
H A Lucks. The philosophy of Athenagoras, p. 32.
190
137. This is because the subject on which judgement is exercised is not present or aware of
the punishment. There is no justice if the one punished does not know of it.
191
Athenagoras. Concerning the Resurrection of the dead 10.6. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
111.
192
Isaac the Syrian. Homily 36. The ascetical homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian, p. 160. Cf.
Nestorius. From a Homily called Concerning the Faith. Fr. 280. G R Driver and L Hodgson,
pp. 393-394. Also: The Bazaar of Heracleides 2.1. G R Driver and L Hodgson, pp. 301-302.
193
56
...linking together discordant materials into the concord of all
elements, that out of these unlike principles one world is so established
by a conspiring union, that it can by no force be dissolved, save when
He alone who made it commands it to be dissolved, for the purpose of
bestowing other and greater things upon us.194
Thus the union of body and soul is held together by God, dissolved only by death, so
that through death the body can be released from bondage to sin,195 for the purpose of
resurrection. While Novatian stressed the immortality of the soul and argued for it
principally on the basis of simplicity of substance,196 this does not diminish for him
the importance of the resurrection. He attacks the Docetists because they take away
the hope of resurrection, and says that he gains nothing “if I do not receive myself
when I lose my body.” The Docetic resurrection is a phantom body and not a fleshly
one, and thus is not human. Since Christ shared in our death, we can expect to receive
a resurrection body like his, in which the flesh which died is restored to life, as is
proved by the wounds which remain in that body.197
2.6 Conclusion
Those Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology - that is, that the person is
a union of body and soul - defended the goodness of bodily life, the nature of death as
a punishment for sin which brought about an unnatural separation between body and
soul, and the resurrection of the body. This view was also often correlated with the
inclusion of the body in the “image of God.” They rejected the Gnostic view that
death liberated the soul from the bondage of the body. While most of these Patristic
writers held that immortality was a gift of God given at the resurrection, some held
that the soul was itself immortal, although unable to enjoy a fully independent
existence prior to the resurrection. They still insisted that the body also needed to be
made immortal, as it was the whole person, body and soul, which would enjoy
eternity with God. Immortality had been lost for the human race as a result of the sin
of Adam, and was made available again only through the redemption of Christ.
They defended the resurrection of the fleshly body as to acquiesce on this was to
compromise the doctrines of God’s unity (against the Gnostic dualism of two
creators), the goodness of creation, and the possibility of redemption, as if the creator
was unable to save us, then he was inadequate to preserve what he had created; but
salvation by another deity is alien to our nature. Resurrection is thus not only an
eschatological doctrine: it has ramifications for the whole of Christian thought.
The redemption of the body is its deliverance from the power of the flesh, namely our
sinful nature, not our creatureliness. Only by maintaining the original goodness and
194
195
See above, Chapter 2.4.2.
196
He also argued from Matthew 10:28 and Luke 20:38 for the immortality of the soul. Novatian.
On the Trinity 25. ANF 5, p. 636.
197
Novatian. On the Trinity 10. ANF 5, pp. 619-620. Cf. Ignatius. Letter to the Smyrnaens 3
(long version). ANF 1, p. 87.
57
unity of creaturely existence can sin, the corruption of our nature, be truly dealt with.
Sin is not the consequence of being creaturely or being trapped in a body which is in
conflict with the soul.
58
CHAPTER THREE
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE AND THE RESURRECTION
3.0 Introduction
Those Patristic writers who held a unitary anthropology considered the person to be
both body and soul together, and that these could not function separately in any
satisfactory way. Thus they did not expect the dead to receive their rewards and
punishments until the resurrection; and until then they were considered to be waiting
together in Hades for the resurrection and judgement, when they will receive the fate
due to them. An exception came to be made for the martyrs, who were considered by
many to enter their final reward immediately.
Because the soul and the body form the one person, just as they shared earthly life, so
they must also share eschatological life.1 For the early Patristic authors, the doctrine
of redemption demanded belief in a bodily existence also in the eschaton, since for
humankind to be saved, all which made one human had to be included: not just the
soul but the body as well. “One of the common themes of the second century writers
was the assertion that the flesh of man was a necessary component of his being.
Without the flesh he would cease to be a man.”2 This human flesh will share in
redemption through the resurrection, and when it is endowed with immortality we
shall be freed from sin completely. Thus the resurrection is an essential part of our
redemption, for not only must the flesh be redeemed if we are to be whole persons in
the eschaton, the work of redemption remains incomplete if our flesh is not delivered
from sin.
3.1 Waiting for the resurrection in Hades
Since the saints will not enter into their eschatological reward until after the
resurrection, they were considered to be waiting for this event in Hades. Thus
Clement of Rome holds that while the saints have been granted a glorious reward,
they will not receive this immediately after death, since it is laid up for them in
heaven [Colossians 1:5] until the resurrection, when those who are in the grave will
be “made manifest” in their glory.
All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away,
but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in
love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest
at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, Enter into
thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass
away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out
of your graves.3
1
2
L Boliek. The Resurrection of the Flesh, p. 25.
3
First Clement 50, citing Isaiah 26:20. ANF 1, p. 18. Compare Second Clement 19, which says
that the one who suffers for Christ in this world “shall gather the imperishable fruit of the
resurrection... rising up to life again with the fathers he shall rejoice for ever without a grief.”
59
Clement does not speculate as to the nature of their existence while waiting for their
“flesh” to be raised.
Justin condemns those who say that the soul enters heaven immediately on death,
thereby making the resurrection of little consequence, as well as condemning those
who deny that the flesh is of any significance and who consider the resurrection
irrelevant or undesirable.4 The future life is entered at the resurrection: then and only
then.5
For Irenaeus the intermediate state is not the same as paradise, but it is the “invisible
place” where the dead wait the resurrection. It is only after the resurrection that they
come into the presence of God. It has been suggested that Irenaeus had to develop a
doctrine of an intermediate state to accommodate those who had died during the
period prior to the resurrection.
Since Irenaeus, following Scripture, found no room in his doctrine for an immediate
entry into heaven for the Christian at the crisis of death, he was compelled to posit an
intermediate state to occupy the interval. Christ Himself observed the law of the dead
in that, after having expired on the Cross, He did not go straight to heaven. He
descended into Hades, and only on the third day did He rise again. Then for the space
of forty days He visited the apostles before finally ascending to the Father. In the
same manner, the souls of those who trust in Him go at death to an invisible place
determined by God and there sojourn whilst they await the resurrection [Against
Heresies 5.31.2]. At the Parousia they are reunited with their bodies and go into the
presence of God. The disciple is not greater than his Lord. The delay to which Christ
consented is imposed on us.6
Wood says that the attempt of Vernet to identify this location of the dead between
death and resurrection with purgatory is “hardly convincing,” since in Against
Heresies 5.5.1 Irenaeus referred to it as paradise prepared for the righteous.7 But nor
do we find a doctrine of an “intermediate state” taught in Against Heresies 5.5.1,
since Irenaeus says that “the elders who were disciples of the apostles” tell us that
Enoch and Elijah were taken to paradise when they were translated or taken up.
Irenaeus speaks only of “those who were translated,” not those who will be
ANF 10, p. 256. Also Agathangelos. “For just as the Son of God died and rose and by his
resurrection showed us the model of life, so we who die for his sake will come alive when the
kingdom of the creator will be revealed to his creatures, when he will seek vengeance for
impiety, demanding it with impartial and rigorous judgement from all alike.” History of the
Armenians 60. R W Thomson, p. 71. See also History of the Armenians 93. R W Thomson, p.
107.
4
Justin Martyr. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the Resurrection, 2. ANF 1, pp. 294-
295.
5
Justin Martyr. First Apology 18. ANF 1, pp. 168-169. Justin may here be attacking the
Platonic view of metempsychosis, the transmigration of souls.
6
A S Wood. “The eschatology of Irenaeus.” Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969) 34-35.
7
[François Vernet. “Irénée (Saint), évêque de Lyon.” In: Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique.
Vol. 7, 2507.] A S Wood. “The eschatology of Irenaeus.” Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969)
35, n. 32.
60
translated. It is apparent then that only the two Old Testament figures who did not
pass through death are in paradise. There is no indication that anyone else will be
placed in paradise before the eschaton. What Irenaeus says about the intermediate
state in Against Heresies 5.31.2 is as follows:
For as the Lord went away in the midst of the shadow of death, where
the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after
the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls
of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these
things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God,
and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then
receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as
the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God.8
Irenaeus does not place great importance on the intermediate state, and he certainly
does not indulge in speculation as to its nature.
The location where the dead were waiting is variously called Hades, Abraham's
bosom, and Paradise.9 This location is not heaven, but an intermediate waiting point.10
Justin says that Hades is the place where the soul waits after death until the day of
resurrection and judgement to find out its final fate. For instance he says that those
who killed Christ imagined “that He, like some common mortal, would remain in
Hades.”11
Tertullian rejects the idea that the souls of the faithful enter immediately into heaven
upon death, rather than waiting in Abraham's bosom, in Hades, for the resurrection to
take place. Those who deny that the faithful wait in Hades he describes as “proud”
and servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master [Matthew 10:24],
since Christ descended into Hades where they are unwilling to go.12 The martyrs are
the only group whom Tertullian admits to heaven before the general resurrection. He
explains his reasons in this way:
How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already
sitting at the Father's right hand, when as yet the archangel's trumpet
has not been heard by the command of God, when as yet those whom
8
9
Note the use of this imagery in liturgy, as in Sarapion. “God... who brings down to the gates
of Hades and brings up...give rest to his soul, his spirit, in green places, in chambers of rest
with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all your saints: and raise up his body in the day which
you have ordained, according to your promises which cannot lie, that you may render to it
also the heritage of which it is worthy in your holy pastures.” Commendation of the Dead 18,
Prayer for one who is dead and is to be carried forth. Bishop Sarapion's Prayer-Book, p. 79.
10
While most Patristic writers saw Hades as a place, Gregory of Nyssa is almost alone in seeing
it as a spiritual intermediate state. L Prestige. “Hades in the Greek Fathers.” Journal of
Theological Studies 24 (1923) 478.
11
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 99. ANF 1, p. 248. See also Dialogue with Trypho 5.
ANF 1, p. 197. Cf. L Prestige. “Hades in the Greek Fathers.” Journal of Theological Studies
24 (1923) 476-485.
12
Cf. also Irenaeus. Against Heresies 2.34.1. ANF 1, p. 411.
61
the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up
into the air to meet Him at His coming, in company with the dead in
Christ, who shall be the first to arise? To no one is heaven opened; the
earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When
the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be
opened. Shall we then have to sleep high up in the ether, with the boy-
loving worthies of Plato; or in the air with Arius; or around the moon
with the Endymions of the Stoics? No, but in Paradise, you tell me,
whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades
in the retinue of the Lord's resurrection. How is it, then, that the region
of Paradise, which as revealed to John in the Spirit lay under the altar,
displayed no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs?13
Tertullian says that the souls of the patriarchs await the resurrection in Hades,14 along
with all the souls of the dead, anticipating their final bliss or punishment.15
3.2.1 The story of Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31
Discussion of the intermediate state in Patristic writings frequently referred to the

story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31).16 Since both men were considered
to be conscious and had entered into either reward or punishment prior to the
resurrection, this was considered proof that the soul survived death and was therefore
immortal, and more to the point, conscious of both suffering and reward.
Irenaeus used the story of Lazarus to argue that it shows that souls keep the same
form after death as the body to which they had been adapted (which is why Abraham,
Lazarus and the rich man could recognise each other), and that each class of soul
“receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgement.”17 However,
while the wicked suffer, the righteous do not yet receive a reward, as this comes only
after the resurrection, when they are rewarded on the earth.18 Elsewhere Irenaeus says
13
14
15
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 58. ANF 3, pp. 234-235.
16
I am using the term “story” in a neutral sense as the passage is not understood unanimously by
the Patristic writers as either historical or merely a parable, although most seem to imply that
it was an historical account. For instance, Tertullian suggests it is historical since individuals
are named (Abraham and Lazarus) which is not the case in parables. A treatise on the soul 7.
ANF 3, p. 187. This position was followed by Jerome. Homily 86, On Luke 16:19-31. The
rich man and Lazarus. FC 57, p. 209. Jerome. Letter 23.3. NPNF 2/6, p. 42. Gregory the
Great applies this story allegorically to the Jews (the rich man) and the Gentiles (Lazarus). He
says that the “proud Jewish people... had already been in large part condemned.” Homily 40.
Forty Gospel Homilies of Gregory the Great, p. 374.
17
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 2.34.1. ANF 1, p. 411. Similarly Gregory of Nyssa holds in
reference to Luke 16:19-31 that there is “some bodily token” remaining in the soul by which
the person is able to be recognised. On the making of man 27.2. NPNF 2/5, p. 418. However,
Augustine rejects the idea that the souls can be recognised because of their outward
appearance, and claims that it is because of an inner sense which enables recognition, since
the rich man was able to recognise Abraham, whom he had never seen, but his soul was able
to comprehend the semblance of his body. On the soul and its origin 30. NPNF 1/5, p. 367.
18
62
that in this passage the Lord represents Abraham as speaking of “all those who were
still alive,” implying that the situation as described in the story was a real one.19
Tertullian asks why this story may not indicate that, even though the full rewards and
punishments will not come until the eschaton, there should not be some temporary
abode for the righteous in Abraham's bosom which although is “not in heaven, it is
yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the
righteous” until the resurrection enables them to receive their full reward. It is a
“temporary receptacle of faithful souls... wherein is even now delineated an image of
the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgements.”20 He
asks what it is that is in Hades after separation from the body, which is detained there
until the day of judgement, if not the soul?21
Cyril of Alexandria discusses the story not in connection with the intermediate state,
but as to whether each had already been allocated requital or whether it was an image
of the judgement to come. Cyril asserts the latter, since Scripture tells us that the
resurrection must come before the judgement, and the resurrection has not yet
occurred, therefore there has been no judgement. Hence the story of the rich man and
Lazarus must be a parable, as there has been no judgement on which their respective
rewards and punishments can be based.
Christ had not yet descended from heaven, the resurrection had not
happened and no requital of action had followed anyone, but the parable
picturesquely describes a rich man living in luxury without compassion
and a poor man in weakness, with the aim that the owners of wealth on
earth may learn that unless they intend to be good men, bountiful and
sharing, and choose to help out the necessities of the poor, they will fall
under a terrible and inexorable condemnation.22
In another place Cyril states this view again, and insists that the judgement takes
place only after the resurrection. The story of Lazarus and the rich man therefore
anticipates that time.23 Gregory of Nyssa also considers that the description of the
torments of the rich man in the parable of Lazarus are portents of the future. This
involves the resurrection, since we are composite beings of both body and soul, and
both must therefore be judged and punished.
19
20
21
22
Cyril of Alexandria. Doctrinal Questions and Answers 8. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
209. Cf. also Cyril of Alexandria. In Lucam 16.19. PG 72, 821.
23
Cyril of Alexandria. Against the Anthropomorphites 16. PG 76, 1104-1105. Translation cited
in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 3, p. 236. Kelly maintains that in
other places Cyril presupposes the immediate entry of the souls of the righteous into heaven
and the immediate chastisement of the wicked. J N D Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines, p.
482. However, in his Commentary on Psalm 48.16 [PG 69, 1072-1073], one of the places
cited by Kelly, Cyril stresses only that Christ and Stephen commended their spirits to God at
death, while Christ promised the thief on the cross that he would that day be in Paradise [Luke
23:43-46, Acts 7:58]. This Cyril says is the meaning of the text he is commenting on [Psalm
48:16. 49:15 English].
63
They will take place when the transformation revives the dead and
leads to trial everyone who has lived, a composite being as before
consisting of both soul and body... 'Resurrection,' 'resuscitation,'
'transformation' and all such nouns direct the mind of the hearer
towards the body which is subject to corruption; for the soul considered
in itself will never rise again, since it does not die, but is imperishable
and indestructible; but though it exists immortally it has a mortal
associate in its actions, and consequently will again inhabit its partner
before the just judge at the time of trial, so that with it it may receive
shared punishments or rewards.24
Augustine argues that those who are kept in confinement waiting to see the judge are
treated according to merits: some in dungeons and others in humane quarters treated
as citizens. The differences between the souls of the dead parallels the differences in
what people experience when asleep: pleasant dreams or nightmares.25 He comments
in another place that there are two hells, “in one of which the souls of the just have
gotten rest, in the other the souls of the ungodly are tormented.”26 He further
distinguishes between the two punishments: that of eternal fire, and that experienced
by the wicked after death, as for instance the rich man in Luke 16; and that of eternal
fire, into which the wicked will be sent following the judgement on the Last Day.
Augustine comments that “Those punishments shall be manifest at that time, when we
shall have departed out of this life, or when at the end of the world men shall have
come to the resurrection of the dead.”27 Augustine states in some of his writings that
after death the soul goes to “a realm that is spiritual in accordance with its merits.” He
expands:
This region, in one case, is a place of punishment, whose nature is

similar to that of bodies; such a place has often been shown to those
who have been carried out of the senses of the body and, while lying as
if in death, have seen the punishments of hell.28
Others are taken not to a place of punishment “but of peace and joy.29 He says that
“the wise men among the pagans had no doubt at all about the reality of the lower
world, where the souls of the dead are received after this life,”30 although he admits
24
Gregory of Nyssa. Discourse on the Holy Pascha. In: The Easter Sermons of Gregory of
Nyssa, p. 20.
25
Augustine. Homily On the Gospel of St. John 49.9. NPNF 1/7, p. 273. Cf. also On the
predestination of the saints 24. NPNF 1/5, pp. 509-510.
26
Augustine. On the Psalms 86.17. NPNF 1/8, p. 416.
27
Augustine. On the Psalms 58.12. NPNF 1/8, p. 234. Cf. Jerome, who argues that while the
judgement has not yet occurred, the rewards for Lazarus are real, while the punishments of the
rich man are merely the anticipation of what he shall receive at the judgement and not yet his
full deserts: “If the prelude to punishment is so painful, what will the punishment itself be
like?” Homily 86, On Luke 16:19-31. The rich man and Lazarus. FC 57, p. 209.
28
29
30
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 12.33.62. ACW 42, pp. 224-225.
64
that “I have not yet found the term 'lower world' [or 'hell'] applied to the place where
the souls of the just are at rest.”31 This is of relevance to his discussion of Luke 16:19-
31. He says that there is a great gulf between Abraham and Lazarus, on the one hand,
and the rich man in torment, on the other, “but they [Abraham and Lazarus] are not
said to be in hell” since the rich man is described as being punished in hell [Luke
16:23].32 This would mean that Augustine did not consider the souls of the just to be
in Paradise or heaven, since it would be meaningless to discuss whether they were in
“hell” otherwise.
Kelly asserts that John Chrysostom is the most consistent, since he “explicitly allows
for two moments of divine retribution, one at death and the other at the
resurrection.”33 Chrysostom says:
How is it then that God, “the righteous judge, strong and patient [Psalm
7:11 LXX]” bears thus with men, and does not exact punishment? Here
you have the cause, he is long-suffering, and thereby would lead you to
repentance. But if you continue in sin, you “after your hardness and
impenitent heart treasure up for yourself wrath” [Romans 2:5]. If then
he is just, he repays according to desert, and does not overlook those
who suffer wrongfully, but avenges them. For this is the part of one
who is just. If he is powerful, he requites after death, and at the
resurrection: for this belongs to him who is powerful.34
This reference to judgement “after death” is in the context of discussing the

judgements of God which can be seen in this life on the righteous and the wicked, as
well as discussing why so many go unpunished or unrewarded, but stressing the fact
that eventual judgement is certain.35 Here Chrysostom seeks to demonstrate that those
wicked who enjoy good things in this life will be punished forever, while those who
suffer will receive good things forever.36 He contrasts the purely temporary pleasures
purported to be found in sin with the eternity of punishment which must surely
follow.
3.2.2 Anticipation of the future state
31
32
33
J N D Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines, p. 482.
34
John Chrysostom. Homily on 2 Timothy 3.3. NPNF 1/13, p. 486.
35
John Chrysostom. Homily in 1 Corinthians 42.5. NPNF 1/12, p. 258. Homily on 2
Corinthians 9.3. NPNF 1/12, p. 324. Homily on 2 Corinthians 13.4. NPNF 1/12, p. 346. The
Epistle to the Hebrews 9:27 speaks of the judgement “after death” in a way which could
possibly be understood to refer to an immediate judgement, although I believe this is not the
best construal of the text. It should be taken to mean the judgement following the resurrection.
Philip E Hughes. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 387-388. According to
G C Berkouwer, this passage says nothing about the time of judgement. The return of
Christ, p. 51, n. 46.
36
Kelly cites De Lazaro Concio 1.11, 2.2f., 5.3, 6.6, 7.4, to demonstrate that Chrysostom
believes that recompense is made to both good and wicked immediately after death. J N D
Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines, p. 482.
65
The idea that the dead while awaiting the judgement have a foretaste of their
impending fates is found in Justin Martyr, who stresses that the resurrection must
happen before the judgement and subsequent punishments and rewards are allocated.
But while they are waiting, “the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation
even after death, are punished” while “those of the good being delivered from
punishment spend a blessed existence...”37 Justin does not elaborate on the
“intermediate state” anywhere or teach it as an explicit doctrine, and he stresses that
the future life consists of the reuniting of the soul with the resurrected body. Given his
comments that the souls of the righteous do not enter heaven before the resurrection,
and that eternal punishment is kept in store for the wicked, it would seem that the
dead are in some kind of conscious state, but have not yet received their reward either
good or bad.
For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died
the death common to all, which, if it issued in insensibility, would be a
godsend to all the wicked. But since sensation remains to all who have
ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see
that you do not neglect to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that
these things are true... even after death souls are in a state of sensation...
we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and
cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is
impossible.38
The souls of the dead remember their deeds in life and “retain the memory of things in
this world.”39 Irenaeus said this not to prove the consciousness of the dead; it was to
establish that when the dead are resurrected, they will be able to remember their
former lives for the purpose of judgement.40 Irenaeus is possibly attacking the Platonic
doctrine of the “waters of Lethe”41 which causes the dead to forget their previous life
before they enter a new body. In Plato's epistemology, education is a process of
reminding the soul of the knowledge it once possessed in a former existence.42 It is
therefore possible that it is this view of Plato's which is more to the fore than the
desire to posit any doctrine of the consciousness of the dead. This doctrine of
metempsychosis was abhorred by Irenaeus, who expected the dead to return to their
present bodies in the resurrection.43
37
Justin Martyr. First Apology 20. ANF 1, p. 170.
38
Justin Martyr. First Apology 18. ANF 1, p. 168-169.
39
40
This idea is also found in Tertullian. The soul's testimony 4. ANF 3, p. 177. On the
resurrection of the flesh 1. ANF 3, p. 545. Arnobius. The case against the pagans 2.28. ACW
7, pp. 140-141.
41
Plato. The Republic [10.621C]. The Republic and other works, p. 316.
42
Cf. Arnobius' comment on this doctrine. “And if in this regard the soul possessed the
knowledge which a race that is divine and immortal ought by all rights fittingly to have, all
men would have known all things from the beginning...” The case against the Pagans 2.18.
ACW 7, pp. 131-132.
43
Cassiodorus also had to reject the Neoplatonic idea of recollection, which was inseparable
from the doctrine of the soul's pre-existence, even though he was on the whole sympathetic to
66
In his later works, such as On the resurrection of the flesh, Tertullian says that the
soul will suffer alone the penalties of the sins it committed alone, because it is able to
suffer apart from the body, but it will suffer with the body the sins committed with the
body. In the intermediate state prior to the resurrection, the souls waiting in Hades for
the resurrection receive either rewards or punishments appropriate for the soul alone,
for instance punishment for lustful thoughts, and for the responsibility for conceiving
of sinful deeds, together with fear of the judgement to come, or else rewards for pious
and kindly thoughts which were not shared with the flesh. At the resurrection
everyone will receive the deserts of their deeds committed by body and soul together,
for instance, lustful acts, and therefore the body will not be deprived of its deserts.
Thus Tertullian concludes that the souls waiting in Hades for the resurrection enjoy
either some reward for their faithfulness, or suffering and fear of the judgement to
come because of their wickedness, and thereby the significance of the resurrection to
judgement is not diminished.44
Here Tertullian attempts to maintain the unity of the person but the dichotomy of
body and soul means that he can hold that the body and soul do not suffer together
because they always acted together, but because in some deeds they acted together,
and therefore must share the punishment for those deeds. Augustine also took this
approach, and held that in the intermediate state, the body and soul receive separate
fates.
So that the first death is a death of the whole man, since the soul
without God and without the body suffers punishment for a time; but
the second is when the soul, without God but with the body, suffers
punishment everlasting.45
Theodoret attacks this view, and asks how it is that souls can be considered to be
punished, while the body is exempt, or the soul rewarded, while the body is deprived
of its reward. He maintains that the person that acted was the body and soul together,
and thus they cannot be treated separately in the judgement. Theodoret also says that
the body was an accomplice with the soul in its deeds of vice, and should therefore be
punished for its complicity; indeed, it even enticed the soul to fulfill its desires, and
therefore is even more culpable.46
Novatian also denies that souls are judged after death, nor do they experience any
rewards or punishments, but instead anticipate what they shall receive. “For there is a
place whither the souls of the just and the unjust are taken, conscious of the
anticipated dooms of future judgement...”47 This view is shared by Lactantius.
the Neoplatonic doctrine of the soul, since this point was in conflict with the Christian faith. E
L Fortin. “The viri novi of Arnobius and the conflict between faith and reason in the early
Christian centuries.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church, p. 207.
44
45
Augustine. The City of God 13.12. NPNF 1/2, pp. 250-251.
46
Theodoret. On Divine Providence 9.25. ACW 49, p. 127.
47
Novatian. Treatise concerning the Trinity 1. ANF 7, p. 612. Cf. Hippolytus. Against Plato, on
the cause of the universe 1. ANF 5, p. 222.
67
Nor, however, let any one imagine that souls are immediately judged
after death. For all are detained in one and a common place of
confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great Judge shall
make an investigation of their deserts.48
A similar view can be found in the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus in his Oration on
the death of his brother Caesarius. He says that the soul of the dead saint “enjoys a
sense and perception of the blessings awaiting it.”49 Augustine also says that the state
of the soul after death and before the judgement on the Last Day the soul experiences
a foretaste of what it is to receive at the judgement according to its merits.
During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death

and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it
enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has
earned by the life which it led on earth.50
Kelly comments regarding Augustine: “His language indicates that he regards this as
the consequence of the divine judgement, while reserving the term 'day of judgement'
in the strict sense to the great assize at the end of the world.”51 Ambrose also held that
the souls of the dead await the fates to be pronounced on them at the judgement, and
experience a foretaste of their respective fates in the meantime.52
3.2.3 The unconscious soul in Hades
In contrast to most Greek and Latin Patristic writers,53 the Syrian Patristic tradition
held that the soul was “asleep” between death and resurrection.54 This is perhaps due
to the influence of Tatian, one of the first Patristic writers to explicitly assert that the
soul did not survive the death of the body.55 The Syrian tradition continued to place a
greater emphasis on the resurrection while elsewhere there was an increasing
emphasis on the blessedness of the soul. The Syrians thus did not have a doctrine of
immediate individual judgement. This can be seen in the eschatological thought of
Aphrahat [also spelled Aphraates].
48
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.21. ANF 7, p. 217.
49
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 7.21. Panegyric on his brother Caesarius. NPNF 2/7, p. 236.
50
Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love 109. NPNF 1/3, p. 272.
51
[Augustine. Sermon 109.4. PL 38, 638. The City of God 20.1-2. NPNF 1/2, pp. 421-422.] J N
D Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines, p. 483.
52
Ambrose. Death as a good 10.45-47. FC 65, pp. 102-104.
53
The image of death as a sleep appears in Ignatius. Letter to the Romans 4. ANF 1, p. 75.
Tertullian. On the soul 51. ANF 3, p. 228. On Monogamy 10. ANF 4, p. 67.
54
A C Rush argues that the Christian image of death as a “sleep” while waiting for the
resurrection is in stark contrast to the pessimistic pagan view of death as an eternal sleep from
which there is no waking. Death and burial in Christian antiquity, pp. 8-9, 12-13.
55
This view of Tatian's was to become an intrinsic part of Syrian theology. See F Gavin. “The
sleep of the soul in the early Syriac Church.” Journal of the Americal Oriental Society 40
(1920) 103-120.
68
But receive this explanation from me, that a sinner, while he is living is
dead unto God; and a righteous man, though dead, is alive unto God.
For such death is a sleep, as David said, I lay down and slept, and
awoke. Again Isaiah said, They that sleep in the dust shall awake. And
our Lord said concerning the daughter of the chief of the synagogue,
The damsel is not dead, but sleeping a slumber. And concerning
Lazarus, He said to His disciples, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep;
but I go to awaken him. And the Apostle said: We shall all sleep, but we
shall not all be changed. And again he said: Concerning those that
sleep, be ye not grieved.56
The state of the soul while asleep parallels that of the soul after death: they dream and
wait to be woken from that state.57 The “dreams” vary according to the conscience of
the dead: “...the good rest with a good conscience and sleep well, waking alert and
refreshed at the Resurrection, while those who have done evil in their lives are restive
and unquiet, for they are uneasy with the sense of foreboding and doom impending.”58
This use of the image of “sleep” with reference to death is considered to be the result
of a misunderstanding of the Scriptures.
[Aphrahat] simply siezed on the Biblical euphemism of sleep or falling

asleep to denote death, and allowed it to dominate his thought of the
intermediate life to the exclusion of all other scriptural hints regarding
the disembodied soul's experiences.59
Darragh's reference to the experiences of the “disembodied soul” arise from his
evolutionistic views in which he postulates continued progress after death, and thus
he minimises the significance of bodily resurrection, something Aphrahat would find
incomprehensible. He suggests that Aphrahat is simply avoiding the issue of the
“intermediate state,” a view which comes out even more clearly in his comment on
the debate between Christ and the Sadducees.
Our Lord's rebuke of the Saduccees that the so-called dead are really
the living should have given Aphraates pause, and should be pondered
by those who follow him in little else except his defective notion of the
soul's condition in the waiting time. Progress, not stagnation, is
characteristic of Life. The progress of souls that have departed in much
56
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.18. NPNF 2/13, p. 380-381.
57
J T Darragh. The Resurrection of the Flesh, p. 120.
58
F Gavin. “The sleep of the soul in the early Syriac church.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 40 (1920) 104.
59
J T Darragh. The Resurrection of the Flesh, p. 131. In contrast to Darragh, A C Rush insists
that the image of “sleep” used of death is “no mere metaphor, but it was the expression of a
teaching of Christian faith in the resurrection... Death to the pagans was a sleep, but an
eternal, never-ending sleep; death to the Christians was a sleep, but only a temporary sleep
that would be broken by the resurrection.” Death and burial in Christian antiquity, p. 15.
Leo the Great says with reference to Christ that “so speedy was the quickening of His
uncorrupted flesh that it bore a closer resemblance to slumber than to death...” Sermon 71.2.
NPNF 2/12, p. 182. Darragh's view of eschatological life biases him against this metaphor.
69
imperfection implies some cleansing process. Aphraates escaped from
all such problems by sending the soul as well as the body to sleep.60
Aphrahat is not simply avoiding problems by taking an easy option; rather, it made
sense to him to take this image from Scripture literally, as it comported well with his
anthropology. Brock gives a much more sympathetic interpretation of the use of this
image in the Syrian church.
Since this Resurrection was regarded as occurring not just outside time, but also at the
end of time, it was necessary to provide some accompanying concept to explain what
happened to the departed between physical death and the final Resurrection. Here,
once again, St. Ephrem and other early Syriac writers took over another idea of
Jewish origin, that of “the sleep of the dead in Sheol,” a period of unconscious
existence which bridges the gap between death and the Resurrection, between
historical and sacred time. According to this view, judgement is usually understood as
taking place only at the final Resurrection, when the “sheep” and the “goats” are
separated off, to the right and to the left (Matthew 25:33); it is only then that the just
may enter Paradise, while the wicked undergo “second death” as they are relegated to
Gehenna.61
The same idea is found in Isaac of Syria, who when speaking of the dead kings and
rulers, wise men and generals, whose fame and glory is now forgotten, says:
Lo, they have slept in Sheol for long years as though it were one night!
Nor is it known how long a time yet remains for them to sleep this
lengthy sleep, or when the daybreak of the resurrection will dawn for
them and awake them from their slumber.62
Ephrem of Syria also held to the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection.
Because the intermediate state was thus one of unconsciousness, the judgement took
place not after death, but after the resurrection of all the dead. Speaking of the events
surrounding the crucifixion of Christ, Ephraim asks: “And by whose command did the
dead that slept in their graves come forth?”63
The prevalence of this image in Eastern Patristic eschatology encouraged the use of
the idea that the dead will be woken from sleep by a trumpet blast [For the trumpet
will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1
Corinthians 15:52b. Cf. Matthew 24:31, 1 Thessalonians 4:16.] Ephrem makes use of
this image: “And there was no sound of trumpet, such as that future trumpet will
make, to awaken all who from the beginning have slept.”64 A treatise ascribed to
Hippolytus, but considered dubious, expresses a similar view.
60
J T Darragh. The Resurrection of the Flesh, p. 132.
61
S P Brock. Introduction. St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise, p. 56.
62
Isaac the Syrian. Homily 37. The ascetical homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian, pp. 165-166.
63
Ephrem. On the Transfiguration of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Sunday
Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. p. 50.
64
Ephrem. On Patience, the Second Coming and the Last Judgement. The Sunday Sermons of
the Great Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 12. Cf. also Peter Chrysologus. “And, at the last trumpet [1
70
For at that time the trumpet shall sound, and awake those that sleep
from the lowest parts of the earth, righteous and sinners alike. And
every kindred, and tongue, and nation, and tribe shall be raised in the
twinkling of an eye; and they shall stand upon the face of the earth,
waiting for the coming of the righteous and terrible Judge, in fear and
trembling unutterable.65
The view that the dead are asleep is also found in the Ethiopian church,66 while the
Armenian church, which drew its doctrine largely from Syrian sources, also held to
the sleep of the soul in death. For Gregory the Illuminator, those who sleep in the
graves will awake at the resurrection to be clothed with new bodies.
At the second coming of Christ will also occur the general resurrection.
Then men's minds and bodies, which had been lying in tombs, will
spring up; each one's spirit, which after his death had been separated
from his body, will return to him and he will receive his original
likeness, bones, flesh, sinews, and all other parts of his body being
clothed with skin and hair.67
Athenagoras does not seem to argue for the active life of the soul in the intermediate
state, as he implies that it is in a state of sleep. He is concerned to demonstrate its
continued existence until rejoined to the body at the resurrection to refute those who
argue the soul is annihilated at death, not to argue about its disembodied condition.
For Athenagoras this is mainly a pastoral concern: we should not despair of death,
even though the soul is separated for a time from the body, because we will in time be
released from death to live again.68
Corinthians 15:52]. The trumpet that at the beginning called the world from nothing, the same
on the last day shall recall the world from death; and that which in the beginning raised man
from the slime, the same at the end shall recall him from the dust.” Sermon 103. On the
raising of the widow's son and the resurrection of the dead. Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers 4, pp. 120-121. Cf. also Methodius. The Symposium 6.4. ACW 27, pp. 94-95.
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.10. NPNF 2/13, p. 378. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of
Saint Gregory 658. R W Thomson, p. 163.
65
Hippolytus (dubious). A discourse on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the
second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 37. ANF 5, p. 251.
66
“Abbâ Peter said: when I was living in the Jordan monastery one of the brothers died and
there was an elder who didn't know about it. And when the horn was sounded for them to
gather and they had come from the caves, the elder saw in the church the one who had died
and it grieved him that he had not visited him before he went forth from the world; and he
went up to him and said to him, 'Arise, O my brother, so that we might give each other the
kiss of peace.' And the dead one got up and embraced the elder. And the elder said to him,
'Peace to thee, O my son; and now do thou sleep in peace until Christ our Lord comes and
bids thee rise.'“ Wisdom of the Elders of Ethiopia 239. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of
the Early Fathers. Vol. 3, p. 260.
67
R W Thomson. The Teaching of Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism, p. 29.
68
pp. 127, 129.
71
Tertullian argues that sleep indicates to us the condition of humanity after death, after
the withdrawal of the soul: the body is motionless while the soul seems to be active
elsewhere in its dreams, since it cannot be idle at any time. During sleep the soul
prepares for death, “learning to bear future absence by a dissembling of its presence
for the moment.” Dreams thus show the immortality of the soul, for while the body is
motionless, whether in sleep or in death, the soul is active and in constant motion.
And when the body shakes off its slumber and awakes from sleep, it is showing
exactly what will happen in the resurrection of the dead, who will likewise resume
their former activity.69 Thus through his understanding of the nature of sleep,
Tertullian is able to maintain the parallel between sleep and death, without
compromising his belief in the immortality of the soul and its consciousness after
death. Whether a different theory of sleep would have prevented him from being able
to explain the Biblical image of death as sleep is an interesting question.70 A similar
theory of sleep is found in Augustine.
For what else is sleep but a daily death which does not completely
remove man hence or detain him too long? And what else is death but a
very long and very deep sleep from which God arouses man?
Therefore, where there is no death, there is likewise no sleep, the image
of death.71
John Chrysostom spoke of death as a sleep on a number of occasions. He understands

this image to mean that death is no longer, in the light of Christ's redemption, the
dreadful thing it once was. It can be considered no more than sleep. “After Christ
came and died for the life of the world, death is no longer called death but a sleep and
repose.”72 He repeats this idea elsewhere:
69
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 43. ANF 3, pp. 222-223. Cf. also A treatise on the soul 44,
where Tertullian attacks the view that the soul leaves the body during sleep, which he says
cannot happen until death, and A treatise on the soul 45, where he reiterates the relationship
between the perpetual movement of the soul and immortality. ANF 3, p. 223.
70
The influence of contemporary medicine on the views of the Patristic writers concerning sleep
would be worth examining. See for instance the views of Clement of Alexandria described by
D'Irsay. “The tired body needs sleep; the soul, however, does not. Why, then, let the more
important part of ourselves be condemned to inactivity when life is so very short?” Stephen
D'Irsay. “Patristic medicine.” Annals of Medical History 9 (1927) 365. See Clement of
Alexandria. The Instructor 2.9. ANF 2, pp. 258-259.
71
Augustine. Sermon 221.3. FC 38, p. 177.
72
John Chrysostom. De coemeterio et de cruce homilia. PG 49, 394B. Translation cited in: P E
Harkins. St. John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions. ACW 31, p. 237, n. 37. Here
Harkins also comments that ““Christ's death on the cross corresponds to Adam's sleep, and
from this Chrysostom draws an unexpected conclusion: henceforth death is no more than a
sleep. This is a common-place with Chrysostom.” Passages cited by Harkins include: Homily
on Ephesians 23. NPNF 1/13, p. 166. “Death is no longer death but sleep,” and Homily in
Matthew 54.7. NPNF 1/10, p. 336. “...neither is death, death, but a sleep...” The same idea that
death is now no more than sleep for the Christian appears in Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist 4.
Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 51-52. Ibid., 5. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 95. Irenaeus.
Against Heresies 4.5.2. ANF 1, p. 467. Theodoret. Letter 136, to Cyrus Magistrianus. NPNF
2/3, p. 306.
72
Whenever grace comes and drives the darkness from our mind, we
learn the exact nature of things; what frightened us before, now
becomes contemptible in our eyes. We no longer are afraid of death
after we have learned carefully from this holy initiation that death is not
death but a sleep and repose which lasts but for a time. Nor are we
afraid of poverty or disease or any such misfortune, because we know
that we are on our way to a better life, which is impervious to death and
destruction and is free from all such inequality.73
In his interpretation of this image, Chrysostom is able to maintain its significance

without either allegorising it as did writers such as Eusebius and Augustine, or
interpreting it literally, as did the Syrians. He suggests that the use of the image of
sleep when speaking of death means that death has been transformed for the
Christian.
Just as at that time God took the rib of Adam and formed a woman, so
Christ gave us blood and water from His side and formed the Church.
Just as then He took the rib from Adam when he was in a deep sleep, so
now He gave us blood and water after His death, first the water and
then the blood. But what was then a deep slumber is now a death, so
that you may know that this death is henceforth sleep.74
Ambrose also interprets the image of death as sleep to mean that since sleep only lasts
for a time, so too death will not be forever, having its end at the resurrection.75
Ambrose says that we are not to fear death since “it frees us from the miseries of this
life,” and that “in the likeness of sleep we are at rest from the toils of this world.”76
Walker suggests that in the early centuries the expectation of an imminent Parousia
meant that the fate of the dead was of no great moment, and they could easily be seen
as sleeping or waiting in consciousness for the resurrection. However, when the
expectation of the Parousia receded into the distant future, there was a desire not to
postpone indefinitely the rewards or punishments due to each; hence the immediate
judgement of each soul at death was postulated. The Last Judgement remained for
only those still alive at the Parousia.77 Similarly, Le Goff suggests that Augustine had
a “lack of interest in the fate of the soul between death and the last judgement.” This
is related in his view to the period in which he lived.
73
John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions 12.12. ACW 31, p. 176.
74
John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions 3.18. ACW 31, p. 62. The death of Christ is also
called a sleep by Ephrem of Syria, who suggests that the cock that crowed at the denial of
Peter was proclaiming the resurrection of Christ “whose death was but sleep.” P Yousif. “St
Ephrem on Symbols in Nature: Faith, the Trinity and the Cross (Hymns on Faith, No. 18.15).”
Eastern Churches Review 10 (1978) 1-2, p. 54. Cf. also Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic
Preaching 73. ACW 16, p. 95.
75
Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.66. NPNF 2/10, p. 184. A C Rush discusses the
exegetical basis for this view, pointing to the words of Christ: “Lazarus has fallen asleep...
Lazarus is dead” [John 11:11-14], and the raising of the daughter of Jairus [Matthew 9:18-26].
Death and burial in Christian antiquity, p. 13.
76
Ambrose. On the belief in the resurrection 2.3. NPNF 2/10, p. 174.
77
D P Walker. The decline of Hell, p. 35.
73
Roman society was in the throes of a profound crisis. There were
enormous problems connected not only with the barbarian challenge
but also with the establishment of a new dominant ideology, which, in
regard to the afterlife, revolved around belief in resurrection and the
choice to be made between damnation and eternal salvation.
Thoroughly imbued with millenarian thought and believing, more or
less confusedly, that the last judgement was imminent, late Roman
society was little inclined to refine its thinking about the interval
between death and eternity.78
That this is unlikely can be seen from alternative reasons given in this thesis, as well
as the general difficulty of discerning any real (as opposed to postulated) influence of
the delay of the Parousia on Patristic eschatology.79
The idea that the delay of the Lord's return leads to a lengthy wait for the dead before
their recompense at the judgement was refuted by Ambrose,80 but it seems not to have
had a determinative effect on Patristic eschatology. While the early Patristic writers
often expected the parousia in the near future, while later Patristic writers often
expected the parousia to be more distant, does not seem to influence the details of
their eschatology. Thus the early writers did not ignore the intermediate state because
it would be relatively short, nor was the immediate entrance of the soul to heaven
later adopted because otherwise this delay would deprive the just of their reward for a
long time. This can be seen in Gregory the Great, who was, according to Dudden,81
the first to assert dogmatically that the righteous entered heaven immediately, but also
expected the parousia imminently. Daley comments appositely in this connection:
78
J Le Goff. The Birth of Purgatory, p. 62.
79
The delay of the parousia appears to have made little impression on the Patristic writers. One
of the few who addressed this issue was Hippolytus. See D G Dunbar. “The delay of the
parousia in Hippolytus.” Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983) 4:313-327. Tertullian even prays for
“the delay of the final consummation.” Apology 39. ANF 3, p. 46, and he considered the
parousia to be not far off. V C De Clercq. “The expectation of the second coming of Christ in
Tertullian.” Studia Patristica 11 (1972) 146-151.
80
Ambrose. Death as a good 10.46. “Meeting the complaint of men that the just who have gone
before seem to be cheated of their due reward for a very long time, even to the day of
judgement, it admirably says that the day of judgement is like the day when the crown is
awarded, when “just as there is no slowness on the part of those who are last, there is no
swiftness on the part of those who are first [2 Esdras 5.42].” For all await the day when the
crown is given, so that during that day the defeated may manifest their shame and the victors
obtain the palm of victory.” FC 65, p. 103.
81
[Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.26. Morals on Job 4.56; 13.48; 24.11.34. LF 23, p. 76.
Homily in the Gospel 19.4.] F H Dudden. Gregory the Great, vol. 2, p. 427, n. 2. Francis
Clark demonstrates that while the Dialogues traditionally attributed to Gregory the Great are
in fact pseudepigraphal, there are numerous interpolated genuine Gregorian passages, with the
highest number in Book 4 of the Dialogues, where many of the non-genuine passages consist
merely of the questions posed by Peter his interlocuter. Only those passages considered
genuine by Clark have been used. This passage is considered genuine by Clark, The Pseudo-
Gregorian Dialogues, vol. 2, pp. 547-548.
74
To see the development of Christian doctrine in the first several
centuries, as Martin Werner tried to do several decades ago, as
essentially the by-product of a failed eschatological hope - a way of
coping intellectually with the non-fulfillment of first-century
apocalyptic fantasies - is surely to reverse the order of religious
priorities suggested in early Christian literature, and confirmed in our
own reflective faith.82
Even while those who took a unitary approach insisted that the dead saints were
waiting for the resurrection before entering into their eternal rewards, very early in the
Patristic period, the martyrs were considered to be an exception to this rule.
3.3 The post-mortem status of the martyrs
It was widely held that the martyrs, those who had been faithful even to the point of
death in their testimony to Jesus Christ, would immediately after death be given a
reward for their struggle.83 Pollard argues that the belief that the martyrs do not have
to wait for the resurrection but are given immediate admission to the presence of
Christ is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, although he claims it is implicit
in several passages (e.g. Philippians 1:23, Luke 23:43). He cites the studies of several
scholars who suggest that the theology of martyrdom has its roots in the Maccabean
period when the corporate eschatology of the nation of Israel was modified to the
eschatology of the individual, particularly among the Pharisees. This development is
traced through the Apocryphal literature where the idea of the immediate reward of
the martyr is explicitly expressed.84
However, it is impossible to form any firm conclusions as to the view of the after-life
in Patristic writings in the first few centuries on the basis of what is said about the
82
Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, p. 3. For criticisms of Werner's thesis Daley
cites O Cullmann, Christ and Time. D Flusser. “Salvation past and present.” Numen 16
(1969) 139-155. D E Aune. “The significance of the delay of the parousia for early
Christianity.” In: G F Hawthorne. Current issues in Biblical and Patristic interpretation,
pp. 87-109.
83
Miles reports an unpublished paper by Peter Brown in which he speaks of “the 'apparently
sudden crystallization of an ideology of the martyrs' in the late second and early third
centuries, the change from a passive 'lamb to the slaughter' image to an active imagery of
triumph over the devil through martyrdom. The amphitheater is seen as the location for a
victorious struggle with the powers of evil.” Margaret R Miles. Augustine on the body, p. 43.
Elsewhere, Peter Brown speaks of the temptation of the martyr to “helpless passivity” in the
humiliation of a martyr's death, in which a triumphant attitude was more fitting. The Body and
Society, p. 158.
84
T E Pollard. “Martyrdom and resurrection in the New Testament.” Bulletin of the John
Rylands University Library of Manchester 55 (1972) 242. See also E Stauffer. New Testament
Theology, pp. 185-188. 2 Maccabees 7 is one of the most important sources for the Patristic
doctrine of martyrdom. Daley says that the idea that Polycarp has already received a martyr's
reward shows “The apocalyptic imagery of the Jewish and Christian apocrypha is here being
applied directly to the faith and sufferings of the individual martyr.” Brian E Daley. The hope
of the early Church, p. 14. Cf. Origen. Exhortation to martyrdom 23-27. ACW 19, pp. 163-
167. Strengthening the idea that the martyrs entered heaven immediately were the visions
reported by others, including those about to be martyred, for instance, the vision of Perpetua
reported by Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 55. ANF 3, p. 231.
75
martyrs, as they are an exception and not the norm; there is no speculation about an
“intermediate state” with regard to other believers.85 For instance, while Clement of
Rome speaks of the martyrs as having entered into glory after their death,86 it is
difficult to tell whether he thinks this is also true for other Christians.
The account of the martyrdom of Polycarp asserts that the martyr enters heaven and
receives his reward immediately. “For, having through patience overcome the unjust
governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and
all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God...”87 Ignatius of Antioch
stresses the hope of the resurrection for the martyr who dies in faith, and seems to
hold to a communion with Christ after death and before the resurrection, especially
(or perhaps only) for the martyrs (including the Old Testament prophets who also
suffered as the servants of God).88 However, the future life cannot be enjoyed without
the resurrection, since human life involves both body and soul.89 Daley notes that
Polycarp says that
Ignatius and his fellow martyrs are already “in their deserved place
with the Lord” (9.2), but Polycarp offers no further speculations about
the state of their bodies, the character of their reward or the fate of
apostates. The hope of Christians for the future, its images and its
supposed conditions are not yet the object of reflection and explanation;
it is simply part of the Easter kerygma at the heart of the community's
life and worship.90
The difficulties in determining what the Patristic writers thought concerning the
intermediate state from their comments on the martyrs can be seen in the writings of
85
Cf. K Hanhart. The intermediate state in the New Testament, pp. 181-182.
86
First Clement 5-6. ANF 1, p. 6. Cf. Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians 9. ANF 1, p. 35.
87
Letter of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp 19. ANF 1, p. 43.
This reward for the martyr is contrasted with the certain punishment which will come upon
his persecutors, both in this life and in the eschaton. Letter of the Church at Smyrna,
concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp 2. ANF 1, p. 39. The brief pain of the martyr is also
contrasted with the eternal torment for those who do not believe or who deny Christ. Letter of
the Church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp 11. ANF 1, p. 41. Cf. also
Justin Martyr. First Apology 45. ANF 1, p. 178. Origen. Exhortation to Martyrdom 25. ACW
19, p. 166. Cyprian. Letter 58.10.1. To the people of Thibaris. ACW 46, p. 67. Three books of
Testimonies against the Jews 3.17. ANF 5, p. 539. Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 219.1. FC 66,
p. 129. The fate of the persecutors is dealt with at length by Lactantius. Of the manner in
which the persecutors died. ANF 7, pp. 301-322. Cf. also Eusebius. Life of Constantine 2.27.
NPNF 2/1, p. 507. Sulpitius Severus. Letter to Bassula. NPNF 2/11, p. 23.
88
Compare the view of Hippolytus, speaking of the martyrdom of the prophets: “These words I
address you as if alive, and with propriety. For you hold already the crown of life and
immortality which is laid up for you in heaven.” Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 31. ANF 5,
p. 210. Hill claims on the basis of various passages that Hippolytus says all the saints enter
heaven immediately after death, and that the De Universo, which limits this to the martyrs, is
not authentic. C E Hill. “Hippolytus and Hades: the authorship of the fragment De universo.”
Studia Patristica 21 (1989) 256. Idem., “Hades of Hippolytus or Tartarus of Tertullian? The
authorship of the fragment De universo.” Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989) 105-126.
89
C C Richardson. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, p. 28.
90
Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, p. 14.
76
Justin Martyr. He maintained on the one hand that those who believe that the soul
goes to God immediately after death are heretics,91 and thereby defeat the purpose of
the resurrection,92 while on the other hand he also says the martyrs go to their Father
on death.93 While the persecutors imagine they are depriving the Christians of life
(believing that death is extinction),94 they are in fact doing them no harm since death
cannot hurt them, and that is the limit of their powers (alluding to Matthew 10:28,
which is the locus classicus for this view),95 but the persecutors will surely be
punished for their misdeeds.96 The Christians, however, do not fear death, because
they anticipate the glorious resurrection of the righteous,97 and death is nothing
unusual since everyone must die; so what then is the point of persecuting Christians?98
Cyprian says clearly that the martyrs receive their reward when they die. While the
reward of others comes only in the resurrection, it is the same reward as that promised
to all; the difference being that the martyr receives his immediately after death.99
Cyprian says that the martyrs “depart in glory from this life and enter into
immortality.”100 For the martyr death is not feared but desired, “for death is
91
According to T Stylianopoulos, the Gnostics are at the forefront of this polemic. Justin
Martyr and the Mosiac Law, p. 21.
92
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 80. ANF 1, p. 239.
93
E F Osborn. Justin Martyr, pp. 197-198.
94
Cf. Ambrose. “Never did they confer on us a greater benefit than when they ordered
Christians to be beaten and proscribed and slain. Religion made a reward of that which
unbelief thought to be a punishment.” Letter 18.11a. NPNF 2/10, p. 418.
95
Cf. Augustine's application of this text to the powers of the devil. “For the limit of men's rage
is the destruction of the body; but the soul, after this visible death, they cannot keep in their
power: whereas whatever souls the devil shall have taken by his persecutions, he will keep.”
On the Psalms 7.4. NPNF 1/8, p. 21.
96
Justin Martyr. First Apology 45. ANF 1, p. 178. Cf. for contrast the words of Thecla, who
says to the Governor who released her from her trials and returned her clothes to her, “He that
clothed me naked among the wild beasts [Christ], will in the day of judgement clothe you
with salvation.” Acts of Paul and Thecla. ANF 8, p. 491.
97
Cf. the views of Eusebius, who holds that the martyrs did not fear death because they were
persuaded that their souls were immortal, citing also the examples of the pagans Anaxarchus
and Epictetus. On the Theophania 1.64. Samuel Lee, p. 49. See also On the Theophania 3.60.
Samuel Lee, p. 196; Preparation for the Gospel 1.4. E H Gifford. Vol. 1, p. 15. Novatian. On
the Trinity 25. ANF 5, p. 636. Lactantius also cites the example of pagan warriors who
voluntarily died for the safety of others, since they believed in immortality, although he
stresses they did not understand its true nature. The Divine Institutes 3.12. ANF 7, p. 80.
Athanasius on the other hand stresses that the martyrs “...really know that when they die they
do not perish but live and become incorruptible through the resurrection.” On the Incarnation
27. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 201.
98
Justin Martyr. First Apology 57. ANF 1, p. 182. John Cassian commented that death is a rest
and freedom from evils for the saint, and if put to death suffers “that which would have
happened to him in the course of nature” which is inevitable anyway, but nevertheless he
receives the reward of eternal life thereby. Conferences 6.6. NPNF 2/11, p. 354. We also find
the idea that evading death through martyrdom is of no use to the Christian because we must
all die sometime anyway. Those who do evade martyrdom through denial of Jesus and
nevertheless die are risking eternal punishment. Apostolic Constitutions 5.6. ANF 7, p. 439.
The Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon. ANF 8, p. 691. The Martyrdom of the Holy Confessors
Shamuna, Guria and Habib. ANF 8, p. 697.
99
Cyprian. Letter 58.4.2. To the people of Thibaris. ACW 46, p. 63.
100
Cyprian. Letter 12.2.1. To the presbyters and deacons. ACW 43, p. 82.
77
vanquished by the reward of deathlessness, so that the victor is honoured with an
eternity of life.”101 Cyprian thus held, following Tertullian,102 that the martyrs enter
heaven and receive their reward immediately following death, while the rest of the
believers must wait for the sentence of the Lord on the Day of Judgement.103
A somewhat different view is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a document from

the third century, purporting to be compiled by the Apostles at Jerusalem after the
council described in Acts 15.104 The Didascalia indicates that Daniel 12:2 refers to the
glory which the martyrs shall receive in the resurrection. It goes on to say that “not to
the martyrs alone has He promised the resurrection, but to all men”105 and then it
quotes Ezekiel 37:1-14.106 This could indicate that the reward of the martyrs does not
come prior to the resurrection, but rather is seen in the greater glory of their
resurrection bodies.107 Those who suffer martyrdom are assured they will receive
everlasting life, together with the other believers.108 Those who died in faith were
considered especially blessed because their salvation was guaranteed, while those still
labouring in the world could perhaps fall by the wayside and lose their faith.109
Cyprian said: “For none can be other than always glad and grateful, who, having been
once subject to death, has been made secure in the possession of immortality.”110
101
Cyprian. Letter 37.3.2. To Moyses and Maximus, and the rest of the Confessors. ACW 44, p.
51. Cf. also Letter 80.1.3. To Successus. ACW 47, p. 105; Letter 10. To the Martyrs and
Confessors. ACW 43, pp. 71-75.
102
Tertullian. “For no one, on becoming absent from the body, is at once a dweller in the
presence of the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom, he gains a lodging in Paradise,
not in the lower regions.” On the resurrection of the flesh 43. ANF 3, p. 576. Cf. also On the
Soul 55. ANF 3, p. 231.
103
Cyprian. Letter 58.10.3. To the people of Thibaris. ACW 46, p. 68.
104
R H Connolly. Didascalia Apostolorum, p. xxvi.
105
This is in contrast to some contemporary views which restrict the resurrection to the
Maccabean martyrs. See the discussion in Alexander A Di Lella. The Book of Daniel, pp.
306-309. John E Goldingay. Daniel, pp. 306-308. See also Jerome's comments on this view as
proposed by Porphyry. Commentary on Daniel 12.2. G L Archer, pp. 145-146.
106
Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R H Connolly, pp. 167-168. Cf. also pp. 172, 174.
107
Didascalia Apostolorum 20. “If then He raises up all men - as He said by Isaiah: All flesh
shall see the salvation of God - much more will He quicken and raise up the faithful; and yet
more again will He quicken and raise up the faithful of the faithful, who are the martyrs, and
establish them in great glory and make them His counsellors. For to mere disciples, those who
believe in Him, He has promised a glory as of the stars; but to the martyrs He has promised to
give an everlasting glory, as of the luminaries which fail not, with more abundant light, that
they may be shining for all time.” R H Connolly, p. 174. This idea of a “greater reward” for
the martyrs is possibly drawing on Hebrews 11:35b. “Others were tortured and refused to be
released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.” A different interpretation of this text is
that it stresses the superiority of the eschatological resurrection over being raised from the
dead in this present life. Philip E Hughes. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p.
512. F F Bruce. The Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 337-338. William Lane. Hebrews 9-13, pp.
388-389.
108
Didascalia Apostolorum 19. R H Connolly, p. 162. In this same passage the other believers
are encouraged to visit the martyrs in prison, since by doing so they will share in their
martyrdom and thus also inherit eternal life.
109
See K Hanhart. The intermediate state in the New Testament, pp. 228-229.
78
Caesarius says that the saint is at war with the devil, and “in this war man is always in
danger until he dies.”111 The certainty of salvation for the martyrs was applied to the
“spiritual martyrs,” the ascetics, by Athanasius.112
Likewise in the Apostolic Constitutions (dated after 400 AD)113 we find an emphasis
on the resurrection to incorruption in connection with martyrdom. This incorruption is
spoken of in terms of physical perfection and not as a merely spiritual glorification.
This aspect of incorruption is what those facing martyrdom would find comforting,
since the bodies which are torn and broken, burnt in fires or consumed by wild
animals, will be restored again whole and without blemish.114 This view can be found
in the works of Tatian, who said:
If fire consumes my bit of flesh, the vaporised matter is still contained

in the world. If I am annihilated in rivers and seas, or torn to pieces by
wild beasts, I am still stored in a rich lord's treasuries. The poor,
110
Cyprian. An Address to Demetrianus 25. ANF 5, p. 465. Similarly John Chrysostom says that
the martyrs have “escaped from the storms of temporal things and sailed into a calm harbour...
they have escaped henceforth the uncertainty of the future.” Discourse against Judaizing
Christians 6.1.6. FC 68, p. 149. Elsewhere he says: “The martyr no longer fears the devil, he
no longer dreads the demons, he no longer fears that ease with which sin overcomes us; he is
not eaten up by envy, nor devoured by desire, nor assailed by passionate love. He is subject to
none of the changes which weigh heavy on us. He looks incorporeal powers in the face. The
splendour which comes from his virtue matches the splendour of Gabriel. He stands before
the throne of the King, casting forth rays brighter than the rays of the sun, waiting only for the
immutable blessings which are free from every change... They are seated in peace like a ship
in port and they enjoy a happiness which no discourse, no thought can express. If such is their
glory at this moment, think what it will be when they will receive their own portion and will
enjoy that happiness.” From an unedited Homily on the martyrs. Translation cited in Paul W
Harkins. St. John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions. ACW 31, p. 271, n. 10. Theodoret
says that we should not mourn over a dead believer, but look on him as having gone on a long
journey from which he shall return, and although sorrowing over the parting, be glad that he is
“now free from a world of uncertainties, and fears no further change of soul or body or of
corporeal condition. The strife now ended, he waits for his reward.” Letter 14, to Alexandra.
NPNF 2/3, p. 254. Also Letter 7, to Theonilla. NPNF 2/3, p. 252. Letter 69, to Eugraphia.
NPNF 2/3, p. 270. This idea was also used by Tertullian. Of patience 9. ANF 3, p. 713.
111
Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 177.3. FC 47, p. 444.
112
Athanasius, concerning the Abbot Theodorus. “But if he is blessed that fears the Lord, we
may now confidently call him blessed, having the firm assurance that he has reached as it
were a haven, and has a life without care.” Letter 58, Second Letter to Orsisius. NPNF 2/4, p.
569.
113
W A Jurgens. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 2, p. 128.
114
Bottomley notes that Athenagoras “proves” the resurrection from his axiom about human
dignity and the purpose of God in creating humankind [Concerning the Resurrection of the
dead 12.5. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 117], in an age of persecution and torture when
the dignity and value of the human body was not prized. Thus “belief in a glorious
resurrection was obviously a great consolation.” F Bottomley. Attitudes to the Body in
Western Christendom, p. 52. Athenagoras was convinced that the destruction of the body by
fire or wild beasts will not prevent its resurrection, since God knows the whereabouts of each
particle that belongs to the body and thus can reform it again. H A Lucks. The philosophy of
Athenagoras: Its sources and value, p. 46. This idea is repeated by Rufinus. Commentary on
the Apostles Creed 42-43. ACW 20, pp. 80-81. Augustine. The City of God 22.20. NPNF 1/2,
p. 498.
79
impious man does not know what is stored up, but God the ruler, when
He wishes, will restore to its original state the substance that is visible
only to Him.115
The Apostolic Constitutions repeats this idea, stressing the restoration of the body
without blemish, no matter what has become of it; an idea which the martyrs would
find of comfort.
For the Almighty God Himself will raise us up through our Lord Jesus
Christ, according to His infallible promise, and grant us a resurrection
with all those that have slept from the beginning of the world; and we
shall then be such as we now are in our present form, without any
defect or corruption. For we shall rise incorruptible: whether we die at
sea, or are scattered on the earth, or are torn to pieces by wild beasts
and birds, He will raise us up by His own power; for the whole world is
held together by the hand of God.116
Others who held that the martyr enters heaven immediately include Dionysius of
Alexandria,117 Gregory the Illuminator,118 Augustine,119 and Leo the Great.120 Ambrose,
115
Tatian. Oration against the Greeks 6.2-7.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13. R M Grant
suggests that the statement about being “stored in a rich lord's treasuries” reflects the Stoic
notion of the conservation of matter, as was held by Marcus Aurelius, to whom Tatian
addressed his Apology. “Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius.” Vigiliae Christianae 42
(1988) 11. Dewart insists that it is Tatian's insistence that the physical body will be
reconstituted and raised distinguishes his view of the resurrection fromn the Gnostics, thus
refuting the suggestion that Tatian was influenced by Gnosticism. Death and Resurrection,
p. 85. The same idea appears in the Didascalia Apostolorum. “And we ought not to doubt; for
so He has promised us, that if we should be burned with coals of fire, while we believe in our
Lord Jesus Christ and in God His Father, the Lord God Almighty, and in His Holy Spirit, - to
whom be glory and honour for evermore, Amen - God Almighty will raise us up through God
our Saviour, as He has promised. And He will raise us up from the dead even as we are - in
this form in which we now are, but in the great glory of everlasting life, with nothing wanting
to us. For though we be cast into the depths of the sea, or be scattered by the winds like chaff,
we are still within the world; and the whole world itself is inclosed beneath the hand of God.
For within His hand therefore will He raise us up...” Didascalia Apostolorum 19-20. R H
Connolly, p. 167. See also Augustine. On care to be had for the dead 10. NPNF 1/3, p. 544.
116
Apostolic Constitutions 5.7. ANF 7, pp. 439-440. Similarly Tertullian. On the resurrection of
the flesh 57. ANF 3, pp. 589-590. Cf. the concept of Augustine, that in the resurrection all
will have glorified bodies except the martyrs, whose scars will remain as evidence of their
love for Christ, and will not be a deformity but a mark of honour and beauty. He argues that
there will be no blemishes in the resurrected body, but these scars are not to be considered
blemishes. The City of God 22.19. NPNF 1/2, p. 498. McDannell and Lang comment that
“Such a desire was hitherto unknown among the martyrs who wanted their bodies restored to
full health and perfection... For Augustine, the wounds of the martyrs had become as mythical
as martyrdom itself.” Heaven: A history, p. 62. M A Tilley comments that after the end of
persecutions in the Roman Empire, hagiography became more fantastic and romanticized.
“The ascetic body and the (un)making of the world of the martyr.” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 59 (1991) 467, n. 1. However, it is also possible that the death of the
martyr is being assimilated to that of Christ, who also retains his scars as signs of his
redemptive suffering. Thus in this way the martyrs are identified with Christ in a way ordinary
believers are not. See Augustine. Letter 102.7. NPNF 1/1, p. 416.
117
Dionysius of Alexandria. To the brethren in Alexandria. Translations of Christian Literature,
p. 71.
80
although using an instrumentalist anthropological model, also held that along with the
martyrs, patriarchs, prophets and pious emperors are already in heaven.121 John
Chrysostom, who says that while the martyrs are in “Paul's choral band,” they “still
await their crowns.”122
John Chrysostom considers that those who reject magic amulets and incantations
when sick, choosing instead to suffer fever and perhaps die, will stand with the
martyrs on the day of Judgement, since they chose death rather than accept the cure
offered by sorcerers.123 He says: “A martyr is made not only when someone is ordered
to offer a sacrifice but chooses to die rather than offer the sacrifice. If a man shuns
any practice, and to shun it can only bring on death, he is certainly a martyr.”124 He
says that even “If this fever does not carry you off, another one surely will; if we do
not die now, we are sure to die later. It is our lot to have a body doomed to die.”125
However, while some writers in the Syrian tradition share the view of many others,126
this is not universally the case. Ephrem sees the martyrs as receiving their reward at
the resurrection, not immediately. He says that God “will give to His wrestlers their
crowns, when they are risen again.”127 Similarly, while Severus of Antioch speaks of
the martyrs entering immediately into heavenly blessings, he “seems to assume that
the dead must normally wait for the resurrection and judgement before receiving their
final punishment or reward.”128 In a similar vein, Victorinus of Pettau stressed that the
souls of the saints who had been martyred, who are waiting for vengeance for their
blood (Revelation 6:9-11), will receive their reward in the eschaton, as it is a
perpetual reward. They wait under the bronze altar, which is Hades, a place of repose
for the saints under the earth, while the golden altar is heaven.129
Thus while the opinions on the fate of the martyrs are rather mixed, the idea that they
would receive their reward immediately after death, while the other believers must
118
Gregory the Illuminator. The teaching of Gregory 562-563. R W Thomson, pp. 134-135.
119
Augustine. The City of God 8.27. NPNF 1/2, p. 164.
120
Leo the Great. Sermon 85.4. NPNF 2/12, p. 198.
121
Ambrose. Letter 22.7. NPNF 2/10, p. 437. Of the Christian faith 3.12.99. NPNF 2/10, p. 256;
idem, 5.12.151. NPNF 2/10, p. 303.
122
John Chrysostom. Discourse against Judaizing Christians 6.1.6. FC 68, p. 149. Cf. Baptismal
Instructions 7.1. ACW 31, p. 104.
123
John Chrysostom. Discourse against Judaizing Christians 8.7.3. FC 68, pp. 230-231.
124
John Chrysostom. Discourse against Judaizing Christians 8.7.13. FC 68, p. 234.
125
John Chrysostom. Discourse against Judaizing Christians 8.7.4. FC 68, p. 231.
126
For instance, Shamuna says that after martyrdom God will give “rest in a place of safety,
where is the abode of all those who rejoice.” The Martyrdom of the Holy Confessors
Shamuna, Guria and Habib. ANF 8, p. 697. Shamuna also says that “That death, on the
contrary, with which you are threatening us will convey us to imperishable habitations and
give us a participation in the happiness which is yonder.” Ibid., p. 699.
127
Ephrem. A Rhythm concerning the Faith 1.3. Select works of S. Ephrem the Syrian, p. 365.
128
129
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 6.9. ANF 7, p. 351.
81
wait for the resurrection, continued throughout the Patristic period. This is one
possible source for the idea that there are different treatments for different groups of
people. The acceptance of a distinction between the martyrs and the rest of the
believers in terms of when the reward is received, could have inspired the distinction
between the righteous, who receive their reward without being judged, that is, prior to
the resurrection, and the rest of the believers whose lives are not so pure, whose
rewards (and punishments) need to be determined at the judgement and thus not until
after the resurrection.
The reason why the martyrs are considered to enter heaven immediately after death,
while the other believers must wait until the resurrection, is possibly found in the idea
that the martyr participates in the suffering and death of Christ. Just as Christ
triumphed over his persecutors and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, so
too his “witnesses” who suffer death for his sake, also ascend into heaven. The
application of sacrificial imagery to the sufferings of the martyrs strengthened the
identification with Christ.130
3.4 Creation as basis for belief in the resurrection
The earliest Patristic writers recognised that the dualistic anthropology of Gnosticism,
which posits a conflict between body and soul, originates in a defective understanding
of God and of his creative acts. As a result, it was suggested that God was either
unwilling or unable to raise the dead, and so the possibility and reality of the bodily
resurrection was denied by heretical groups, such as the Gnostics,131 and by those who
held to a pagan Greek ontology, which posited the eternity of matter. This idea was
attacked by the Patristic writers.132 Tatian asserted that
...matter is not without beginning like God, nor because of having

beginning is it also of equal power with God; it was originated and
brought into being by none other, projected by the sole creator of all
that is. For this same reason we are convinced that there will be a
bodily resurrection after the universe has come to an end.133
130
For example the Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 speaks of him as a “burnt offering” and an
“acceptable sacrifice.” ANF 1, p. 42. Cf. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Hebrews 11.6. NPNF
1/14, p. 420.
131
The Gnostics did not deny the resurrection as such, but interpreted it in terms of their own
beliefs, and saw the resurrection as a rising from ignorance to knowledge, rather than as a
bodily renewal. See for instance Bentley Layton. The Gnostic Treatise on the Resurrection
from Nag Hammadi.
132
Cf. the thought of Augustine as described by R M Grant. “In Augustine's doctrine of
resurrection we see summed up the whole early Christian world-view, with its stress on
creation, miracle and resurrection. These three notes are bound together in a common theme,
the omnipotence of God.” Miracle and natural law in Graeco-Roman and early Christian
thought, p. 263.
133
Tatian. Oration against the Greeks 5.3-6.1 Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 11. Many
Patristic writers insisted, against the Greeks, that God had created substance: it was not self-
existent and eternal. See: J C M van Winden. “In the beginning: Some observations on the
Patristic interpretations of Genesis 1:1.” Vigiliae Christianae 17 (1963) 105-121; idem, “The
early Christian exegesis of 'Heaven and Earth' in Genesis 1:1.” In: Romanitas et
Christianitas, pp. 371-382. A H Armstrong argues the Cappadocians borrowed the theory of
82
In a society imbued with the ideas of Platonism, the idea of a bodily resurrection was
considered absurd or impossible.134 Since the resurrection is pivotal for the whole
Christian faith [1 Corinthians 15:13-19], it was essential for the Patristic writers to
defend this doctrine against both heretics and pagans.
However, the way in which the general resurrection was treated in the Apostolic
Fathers indicates that before the advent of the major heresies, and before the
development of systematic treatments of Christian doctrine, it was not perceived to be
problematic among the Christian community. According to Dewart,
Resurrection is not in itself often a focus of discussion and, where it

does occur, it is subordinated to other concerns: exhortations to the
Christian life, rejection of a docetic Christology or expectation of the
millenial reign of Christ... the characteristically pauline causal link
between [Christ's] resurrection and that hoped for by his followers
receives relatively little attention.135
Because the resurrection was denied on the basis of a competing cosmogony and
ontology, only by asserting an alternative ontology, rooted in the Christian doctrine of
creation, could belief in the resurrection be defended. In addition, consideration of
anthropological issues was necessary, as the origin and nature of both soul and body
were under dispute. The Christian doctrine of creation was foundational for Patristic
theology, which emphasised the integrity of the creation as coming from the hand of
the one Creator God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who thus also redeems that which he
has created.
Many Patristic writers argued that if it was possible for God to bring into being that
which had once not existed, then it is possible (and easier) for God to restore to being
that which once had existed.136 For instance, Minucius Felix argues that the best
the non-existence of matter from Plotinus, in order to stress the creative act of God. “The
theory of the non-existence of matter in Plotinus and the Cappadocians.” Studia Patristica 5
(1966) 427-429. Origen and Augustine accepted the existence of prime matter, although they
argued that this was also created by God. Cf. P M O'Cleirigh. “Prime matter in Origen's
world-picture.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 260-263.
134
L W Barnard. Athenagoras, p. 31. Anders Nygren says that the dogma of the resurrection of
the flesh “plays a far greater part in the Apologists than in primitive Christianity, and the
reason is undoubtedly their reaction against the Hellenistic doctrine of salvation.” Agape and
Eros, p. 283. This latter, as found in Porphyry, opposes the immortality of the soul to the
resurrection of the body. Margaret R Miles. Augustine on the body, p. 103.
135
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 36.
136
The idea that God can do anything can be found in the Stoics [Cicero. De Divinatione
2.41.86. “Nihil est, inquiunt, quod deus efficere non possit.” Arthur S Pease, p. 495] while
opponents of the Stoics, for instance Pliny, claimed that there were many things that God
cannot do, including “recalling the dead.” Pliny. Natural History 2.27. Loeb, Vol. 1, p. 187. R
J Sider points out that 1 Corinthians 15:35 could be translated: Is it possible that the dead are
raised? Paul replies by pointing to the sowing of seeds: a new plant never appears unless the
seed dies, and if it dies, it comes to life in a new way. “The Pauline conception of the
Resurrection body in 1 Corinthians xv.35-54.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975) 429. The
Patristic discussion of God's power in connection with the resurrection concluded that of
course it is possible! Cf. Matthew 19:26b. “...with God, all things are possible.”
83
evidence for the resurrection is found not in the ideas of the philosophers, but in the
belief that God created the world. And if God was able to create the world in the
beginning, he is certainly able to recreate human bodies again. His protagonist
Octavius does not simply state that re-creation is as simple as original creation: he
also sees a parallel between non-existence before birth and non-existence after death.
Just as the original creation came from nothing, so too we are re-created from the
nothingness into which we entered on death. This exactly answers the comments of
his opponent Caecilius that before we are born we do not exist, and when we die we
perish.137 Octavius, while agreeing with these statements, turns them to support his
own doctrine, arguing that therefore any future life must involve a resurrection, and
that God is both willing and able to raise us from the dead.138
What God had originally created from nothing, he could easily re-create again from
the dust.139 Since God had created humankind as bodily beings, it was only logical
that it would be as bodily beings that we would be re-created. This then entailed a
bodily resurrection of the dead. The creation of Adam from the dust is a frequently
used analogy, since Adam and all his descendants return to dust again as a result of
sin.140 The creative power of God guarantees the resurrection of the dead, just as
137
This view expressed by a pagan has a counterpart in the Christian Tatian. “Before I was born I
did not exist; I did not know who I was and was only latent in the substance of physical
matter; it was through my birth that I, previously non-existent, came to believe that I did exist.
In the same way, when I who was born, cease to exist through death and am no more seen, I
shall once more be as in my previous state of non-existence followed by birth.” Oration
against the Greeks 6.2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13.
138
Minucius Felix. Octavius 34. ANF 4, p. 194. Quispel suggests that the eschatology of
Minucius Felix is more primitive than that of Tertullian, since he defends the resurrection of
the body and does not mention the immortality of the soul. This does not necessarily mean
chronological priority, as Quispel argues that Minucius holds to an “archaic” view, in which
the flesh must be raised for the judgement, as the incorporeal soul cannot suffer, and no
rewards or punishments were handed out prior to the resurrection. G Quispel. “African
Christianity before Tertullian.” In: Romanitas et Christianitas, pp. 275-276. Quispel seems
to reject this “archaic” view, as he also refers to it as “naive.”
139
One of his arguments is that just as no one could deduce the possibility of the development of
a human being from a drop of semen, so neither should we discount the possibility of the
resurrection, simply because the bodies which must be raised have been reduced to dust.
Justin Martyr. First Apology 19. ANF 1, p. 169. This image of the semen as demonstration of
the resurrection is also found in Theophilus. To Autolycus 1.8. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
p. 13. Apostolic Constitutions 5.7. ANF 7, p. 441. Theodoret. On Divine Providence 9.43.
ACW 49, p. 133. Theodore of Mopsuestia develops this image in a somewhat different way,
saying that we are first born “in the form of semen through baptism, before we are born of the
resurrection.” Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the
Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 69.
140
Claudius Marius Victor expands and develops this Patristic theme and uses it to speak of the
ease with which the earth can give up what was placed in it, in comparison with the original
creation when it produced something which it did not have in it. “For because the earth,
through the shaping work of the supreme God, thus produced from the dust what it did not
have, being without a power of its own, it is easy for it, when commanded under that same
judge, to give back what it did have.” Aletheia 1, 216-219. Translation cited from: D J Nodes.
“The seventh day of creation in Aletheia of Claudius Marius Victor. Vigiliae Christianae 42
(1988) 61.
84
Adam was created from the dust in the beginning.141 The Apostolic Constitutions
express this analogy very concisely to illustrate the resurrection.
For He that made the body of Adam out of the earth will raise up the
bodies of the rest, and that of the first man, after their dissolution, to
pay what is owing to the rational nature of man; we mean the
continuance in being through all ages. He, therefore, who brings on the
dissolution, will Himself procure the resurrection. And He that said,
The Lord took dust from the ground, and formed man, and breathed
into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul, added
after the disobedience, you are earth, and unto earth you shall return,
the same promised us a resurrection afterwards.142
The argument that the possibility and certainty of the resurrection is ensured by God's
creative power was used in various forms by writers throughout the Patristic period.143
In defending their belief in the bodily resurrection on the basis of the creation, the
Patristic writers often used analogies taken from everyday experience, or images
found in the stories in Scripture (although Scripture does not often itself connect these
images with the resurrection144), rather than by exegeting the text of Scripture itself.145
Such analogies were used by the Apologists in order to demonstrate the resurrection
to pagans on a basis they would understand,146 and these analogies became
141
This analogy can be found in such diverse Patristic writers as Irenaeus. Against Heresies
5.3.2. ANF 1, p. 527. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.13. NPNF 2/7, p. 137.
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.6. NPNF 2/13, p. 376. Prudentius. Apotheosis 763-770. Loeb I,
p. 177. Gregory the Great. Homily in Ezekiel 2.8.7. PL 76, 1032.
142
Apostolic Constitutions 5.7. ANF 7, p. 440. Cf. the use of this idea by Peter Chrysologus. “O
man, you did not see it when your Creator made you from dust. For, if you had seen yourself
made, you would never have bewailed the fact that you were going to die... Wherefore, by
means of nature God reduced you to your pristine state. From nothing He has permitted you to
be recalled again to dust. Thus He wants you to see what you once were; and to give thanks
because you will rise again - you who once lived in such ingratitude despite the fact that you
had been produced and made.” Sermon 101. On Luke 12:4-6. FC 17, pp. 165-166.
143
For instance: Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus 1.8. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13.
Tatian. Oration against the Greeks 5.3-6.2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 11, 13; Cyril of
Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.6, 9. NPNF 2/7, pp. 135, 136. Tertullian. On the
resurrection of the flesh 11. ANF 3, p. 553. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint
Gregory 290. R W Thomson, p. 53. Macarius Magnes. Apocriticus 4.30. Translations of
Christian Literature, p. 155. Ephrem of Syria. Nisibene Hymns 37.10. NPNF 2/13, p. 199.
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.6. NPNF 2/13, p. 376. Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R H
Connolly, p. 174. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Nicene Creed 1. Woodbrooke
Studies 5 (1932) 24.
144
In the preceding quote, only the “wheat” and the “tree cut down” are used in connection with
the resurrection in Scripture [1 Corinthians 15:37-38 and Job 14:7-10], the latter only
implicitly.
145
Dewart comments that the resurrection can be shown from these analogies because they show
the divine faithfulness. J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 40. See First
Clement 20 for an exposition of the faithfulness of God in ordering the creation. ANF 1, p. 10.
146
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 70. Cyril of Jerusalem used such
analogies in discussing the objections of the Greeks to the resurrection, but in dealing with the
objections of the Samaritans, he uses arguments from Scripture. Catechetical Lectures 18.11-
85
commonplaces in Patristic texts.147 In the Apostolic Constitutions, many of these
analogies are gathered together in one passage.
And He that raised Himself from the dead, will also raise again all that
are laid down. He who raises wheat out of the ground with many stalks
from one grain, He who makes the tree that is cut down send forth fresh
branches, He that made Aaron's dry rod put forth buds, will raise us up
in glory; He that raised Him up that had the palsy whole, and healed
him that had the withered hand, He that supplied a defective part to him
that was born blind with clay and spittle, will raise us up; He that
satisfied five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and caused
a remainder of twelve baskets, and out of water made wine, and sent a
piece of money out of the fish's mouth by me Peter to those that
demanded tribute, will raise the dead.148
Another analogy frequently used is the the story of the phoenix, a bird which is
supposedly raised from the dead.149 If a mere bird is raised, surely human beings will
be raised!150 The first time we meet the example of the Phoenix is in Clement of
Rome, who says:
Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all
things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the
13. NPNF 2/7, pp. 136-137. Gregory the Great used analogies on the grounds that the the
resurrection cannot be comprehended by reason but can be believed by examples. Homilies in
Ezekiel 2.8.10. PL 76, 1034. John Chrysostom argued that it is impossible for reasoning to
describe the resurrection, and faith alone is all that is needed to believe in it. On the
incomprehensible nature of God 2.45. FC 72, p. 89.
147
Others who used such analogies include Theophilus. To Autolycus 1.13. Oxford Early
Christian Texts, p. 17. Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 12. ANF 3, p. 553. Gregory
of Nyssa. On the making of man 27.7. NPNF 2/5, p. 419. Gregory the Illuminator. The
Teaching of Saint Gregory 528-529. R W Thomson, pp. 123-124. Peter Chrysologus. Sermon
103. [PL 52, 487] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 4, pp. 120-122. Cyril of
Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 15.20. NPNF 2/7, p. 110. Catechetical Lectures 18.6-7.
NPNF 2/7, p. 135. According to his biographer, Gregory the Illuminator used “many similes
and examples from the transitory world, especially concerning the hope of the resurrection for
the future life...” Agathangelos. History of the Armenians 886. R W Thomson, p. 417. cf.
History of the Armenians 92. R W Thomson, p. 103.
148
Apostolic Constitutions 5.7. ANF 7, p. 442.
149
This story of the phoenix is supposedly mentioned in Psalm 92:12 [LXX 91:13], The
righteous shall flourish like the 'phoenix,' which was understood to mean that the saints will
return from death like the phoenix. It was an image (and exegetical connection) with wide
currency. However, the word “phoenix” in the Greek Old Testament actually means “palm
tree,” although Clement had not connected the phoenix with the Greek text of that Psalm. T P
O'Malley. Tertullian and the Bible, p. 84.
150
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 13. ANF 3, p. 554. Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R
H Connolly, pp. 172, 174. Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.59. NPNF 2/10, p. 183.
However compare the comments of Eusebius, for whom the image of the phoenix was
inadequate when speaking of the emperor Constantine. Rather, Eusebius compares him to
Christ himself. Life of Constantine 4.72. NPNF 2/1, pp. 558-559.
86
assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird [the Phoenix] He shows
us the mightiness of His power to fulfill His promise?151
The Patristic writers claim that because this story from pagan sources speaks of the
resurrection,152 therefore such a belief is not absurd, since the pagans have themselves
accepted the possibility in their own tradition.153 For instance, Cyril of Jerusalem uses
the example of the Phoenix as a proof that the Greeks believe in the resurrection of a
bird, which is no more incredible than the resurrection of human beings.154
There are several variations of the myth of the phoenix. In one, the old bird flies to
Egypt where it burns itself on a funeral pyre, from which the new bird arises.155 In
another, the bird dies elsewhere, and out of the decaying carcase the new bird
develops, which then flies to Egypt with the carcase and burns it on a funeral pyre.
Cyril adopted this latter version possibly for apologetic reasons, since it placed
emphasis on the identity of the old bird and the new phoenix.156
3.5 The identity of the resurrection body
151
First Clement 25-26. ANF 1, p. 12. Clement probably derives the story from Roman
historians. R M Grant. Miracle and natural law in Graeco-Roman and early Christian
thought, p. 239. See the study of this subject by R van den Broek. The myth of the Phoenix
according to Classical and early Christian traditions. J M Ford suggests that the legend of
the phoenix, used as an illustration of the resurrection, comes “from sources which wish to
illustrate the resurrection of the body rather than the immortality of the soul, that is, Jewish
philosophy.” “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian heresy?” Journal of Ecclesiastical History
17 (1966) 157. It also appears in Ambrose. On Hexaemeron 8.23.79. FC 42, pp. 219-220.
152
The earliest reference to this bird is apparently in Hesiod. It appears in Herodotus II.72, who
had, according to Porphyry, taken it from Hecataeus. It is also found in Pliny and Tacitus.
Clement is the first to mention the rebirth of the bird from the ashes. E Evans. Tertullian's
Treatise on the Resurrection. London: S.P.C.K., 1960, pp. 227-228.
153
Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R H Connolly, pp. 172, 174. Note the views of Arnobius, who
argues that it is not irrational to believe in the resurrection, since even Plato said in the
Statesman that one day the dead will rise again, and move in reverse from old age towards
youth. [The Statesman. Jowett, vol. 4, pp. 467-469] This according to Arnobius is no more
absurd to believe than the resurrection of the body. The case against the Pagans 2.13. ACW
7, pp. 126-127. The editor of the ANF translation suggests that Arnobius puts too much
weight on this myth, since it is addressed to Socrates when he was a boy, and it was told
merely to amuse him. ANF 6, p. 439, n. 8.
154
Cyril of Jerusalem uses this approach, pointing out that since there is a “resurrection” for
lesser creatures, the superiority of humans to the rest of the creation demands their
resurrection. For example: “Further, does a tree after it has been cut down blossom again, and
shall man after being cut down blossom no more?” Catechetical Lectures 18.6-7. NPNF 2/7,
p. 135.
155
This version is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R H Connolly, p. 172. Cf. Ambrose,
who makes similar comments regarding the eagle. “'Thy youth shall be renewed like the
eagle,' because the eagle after death is born again from its ashes, as we being dead in sin are
through the sacrament of Baptism born again to God, and created anew.” On repentance
2.2.8. NPNF 2/10, p. 346.
156
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.8. NPNF 2/7, pp. 135-136.
87
The most important issue for the Patristic writers with respect to the resurrection body
was its identity with the body in this life, as the soul will return to its own body at the
resurrection, and not to some other body.
Let our own people, moreover, bear this in mind, that souls are to
receive back at the resurrection the self-same bodies in which they died.
Therefore our bodies must be expected to resume the same conditions
and the same ages, for it is these particulars which impart to bodies
their especial modes.157
This view was frequently expressed by Patristic writers in their polemic against the
transmigration of souls (metempsychosis or reincarnation).158 They argued that it is no
more possible or logical for a soul to enter another body than to have its own body
restored to it. While the whole idea of transmigration is contrary to Christian belief,
the adoption of an anthropological dichotomy permits such a possibility to be
considered. An anthropological model in which human nature was conceived as a
whole, without any dichotomy, precludes the very possibility of a transmigration of
the soul.159
According to Tertullian, false religion is correlated with the denial that at the
resurrection each soul is clothed again “with the body it laid aside at death,”160 that is,
the resurrection body must be a body of flesh for identity to be maintained, which
refutes Gnostic and other heresies which deny that there is any possibility of salvation
for the flesh.161
In the credal formulation concerning the resurrection, the alternatives of “the

resurrection of the dead” or “the resurrection of the body” could equally well have
been used. Gregory the Illuminator speaks of “the resurrection of the flesh from the
dead,”162 while Cyril of Jerusalem says that “my present remarks concerning the
157
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 56. ANF 3, p. 232. Referring to the pagan belief that souls
return to bodies, Tertullian asserts “how much more worthy of acceptance is our belief which
maintains that they will return to the same bodies!” Ad nationes 1.19. ANF 3, p. 127. Cf. also
Hippolytus. “...He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other
bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves... And to every body its own proper soul will be
given again...” Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe 2. ANF 5, p. 222. Cf. Irenaeus.
Against Heresies 2.33.5. ANF 1, pp. 410-411. Fragments of lost writings 12. ANF 1, p. 570.
Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.65. NPNF 2/10, p. 184.
158
For instance Hippolytus criticises Pythagoras for saying “that the soul is immortal, and that it
subsists in successive bodies.” He also attacks Empedocles, who held that souls transmigrate
into animal bodies. Refutation of all Heresies 1.2-3. ANF 5, pp. 12-13. See the discussion of
the influence of this doctrine on Origen. Ugo Bianchi. “Origen's treatment of the soul and the
debate over metensomatosis.” In: Origeniana Quarta, pp. 270-281.
159
The same argument holds today with reference to the views of New Age thinkers who assert
reincarnation while denying resurrection. See Vishal Mangalwadi. “The reincarnation of the
soul.” Evangelical Review of Theology 15 (1991) 2:135-147.
160
161
As Lynn Boliek comments, “...the article the resurrection of the flesh was a confession of the
church to a 'whole' resurrection. It was a rejection of a pessimistic view of the world which
would eliminate some aspect of man from salvation.” The resurrection of the flesh, p. 24.
162
Agathangelos. History of the Armenians. Appendix, 20. R W Thomson, p. 433.
88
resurrection of the dead have been made with reference to the Article 'In the
resurrection of the flesh.'“163 However, there is apparently dogmatic significance in
what appears to have been a preference for the phrase “the resurrection of the flesh”
[carnis resurrectionem]. Holland argues that the phrase mortuorum resurrectionem
would have been more appropriate, as with the use of anastastis nekron in the Nicene-
Constantinopolitan Creed. But this peculiar phrase is obviously polemical, as Marcion
and the Gnostics would be unable to confess the resurrection of the “flesh” because of
their dualistic theologies, and so this phrase reflects the struggle against the
Gnostics.164 But as Waszink argues, one of the problems of this formulation was that it
does not reflect the terminology used in Scripture, and so writers such as Tertullian
resorted to allegorical interpretations which he maintained refer to the resurrection.
Waszink cites a passage from Tertullian's On the resurrection of the flesh where he
deals with this issue.
So if allegorical passages and significant actions and simple language

throw light on the resurrection of the flesh (even though the topic itself
is not mentioned), how much more determinative... are those which
actually mention it?165
Waszink states that Tertullian thought that the image of garments in Scripture [e.g.
Matthew 22:11 and Revelation 3:5] may be interpreted allegorically as indications of
the resurrection.166 While Tertullian was not opposed to allegory as such, he objected
to any hermeneutical approach which diminished the reality of the resurrection body,
and rejected any attempt to interpret the resurrection of the flesh allegorically.167
3.5.1 Reconstitution of the body in the resurrection
Since the resurrection body would retain its identity with the body in this life, the
reconstitution of the body which had disintegrated in death was a problem. Would the
very same particles of matter be used to form that new body? If not, wherein lay the
identity? In this connection, we find in a number of Patristic writers consideration of
163
164
D L Holland. “The Third Article of the Creed. A Study in Second and Third Century
Theology.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975) 196-197. Holland cites Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Cyprian in connection with the polemics against heresy.
165
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 29. Translation cited by: J H Waszink. “Tertullian's
principles and methods of exegesis.” In: Early Christian literature and the classical
intellectual tradition, p. 29.
166
J H Waszink. “Tertullian's principles and methods of exegesis.” In: Early Christian
literature and the classical intellectual tradition, p. 29. Passages in which Tertullian gives
such a interpretation of the body as a garment in the resurrection include: On the resurrection
of the flesh 41-42. ANF 3, pp. 575-576; ibid., 52. ANF 3, p. 585. He speaks also here if
immortality as a garment placed over the body at the resurrection. T P O'Malley comments
that “the resurrection is one of the main contexts in which clothing imagery is employed by
Tertullian.” Tertullian and the Bible, p. 89.
167
G M Newlands. Hilary of Poitiers: A Study in Theological Method, p. 37, n. 31.
89
the problem of “chain consumption.”168 Athenagoras is the first to discuss it in detail
and provide a theoretical solution.169
One stimulus to discussing this problem is the charge that Christians engaged in
cannabalism. However, Athenagoras argues from an ethical viewpoint, that someone
who believed in the resurrection of the body would never stoop to eating another
human body.
What man who believes in a resurrection would offer himself as a tomb

for bodies destined to rise? For it is impossible at the one and the same
time to believe that our bodies will arise and then eat them as though
they will not arise, or to think that the earth will yield up its dead and
then suppose that those whom a man had buried within himself will not
reclaim their bodies.170
Athenagoras also refers to the physiological view that only the natural food of an
animal can be digested by it, so therefore cannabalism does not result in that flesh
becoming part of the animal.171 For Athenagoras this is correlated with his ethical
views, since on both grounds human flesh is not the proper food of human beings.
The particles ingested will not form part of a second body, only part of its blood,
phlegm and bile, and so there will be no problem with the resurrection, as blood,
phlegm and bile will not belong to risen bodies.172 However, Grant comments
concerning this theory of digestion espoused by Athenagoras that “it was not regarded
as true even in antiquity.”173
168
This problem has been popularised in the song On Ilkla Moor baht 'at. “Where 'as tha been
sin' I saw thee? On Ilkla Moor baht 'at. / Tha's bin a-coortin' Mary Jane / Tha'll go and get thi
death o'cowld / Then we shall ha' to bury thee / Then t'worms'll come an' ate thee oop / Then
t'ducks'll come an' ate oop t'worms / Then we shall go an' ate oop t'ducks / Then we shall all
'ave etten thee / That's where we gets our oahn back.”
169
Grant has argued that the first treatment of this problem is found in Origen's Commentary on
Psalm 1, based on his thesis that the treatise On the resurrection of the dead is a refutation of
Origen by someone other than Athenagoras. R M Grant. “Athenagoras or Pseudo-
Athenagoras.” Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954) 124. Grant is supported in his view by
J Daniélou. A History of Early Christian Doctrine, Vol. 2, p. 26, n. 41, and W R Schoedel.
Athenagoras. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. xxvi-xxxii. H E Lona. “Bemerkungen zu
Athenagoras und Pseudo-Athenagoras.” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988) 352-363. I do not
accept their arguments, for reasons to be discussed below.
170
Athenagoras. A Plea for Christians 36.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 85. Cf. the
argument of Salvian, who says that the accusations of the Romans against the Christians
showed their falsity, since the crimes they were supposed to commit in the name of Christ
were in direct contrast with that which Christ desires of us. These crimes were “to win the
right to eternal life, as if indeed, even supposing it could be won by such actions, it were
worth while to attain it by such atrocious crimes!” On the government of God 4.17. E M
Sanford, p. 128.
171
Athenagoras. On the resurrection of the dead 6.1-5. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 101,
103. Cf. the views of Theophilus of Antioch on digestion as a work of God's power. To
Autolycus 1.13. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 19.
172
Athenagoras. Concerning the resurrection of the dead 7.1. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
105.
173
R M Grant. Miracle and natural law in Graeco-Roman and early Christian thought, p.
100.
90
The problem of the resurrection of bodies which had been eaten by other creatures
was an enduring one (even if the problem of cannabalism itself was only short-lived),
and it appears again in instrumentalist writers hundreds of years later.174
3.5.2 Transformation of the body in the resurrection
The Patristic writers held that the saints will be raised in glorious bodies, to receive
their rewards and share in the eternal kingdom with Christ. The resurrection is not
simply resuscitation, it is also transformation. Not only will the persons raised be
made immortal and incorruptible; they will also be made whole and healthy. Justin
Martyr says:
...even if any one be labouring under a defect of body, yet be an

observer of the doctrines delivered by Him, He shall raise him up at His
second advent perfectly sound, after He has made him immortal, and
incorruptible, and free from grief.175
Tertullian taught that the resurrection body of the saints is changed into glory. The
present body of humiliation will be transformed and rendered immortal, after which
we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air [1 Thessalonians 4:13-
17].176 It was an expression of confidence and faith in God to anticipate this
eschatological transformation, which for many was seen as the special work of the
Holy Spirit.177
Following the explicit teaching of Scripture [e.g. 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians

4], it is a commonplace in Patristic thought that the resurrection body of the righteous
will be immortal and incorruptible. However, the Scriptures do not deal explicitly
with the nature of the resurrection bodies of the wicked. So too the fate of the wicked
is not the first concern of the Patristic writers; rather they concentrate on the rewards
174
See Chapter 6.6.1. The reconstitution of the body.
175
176
177
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 42. ACW 16, p. 74. Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist 1.
Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 7; ibid. 4, p. 54. Theodore correlates eschatological life with the
present when he says that “It is the Spirit who is the source of the immortal life which awaits
us hereafter as well as of our spiritual life here.” Commentary on Romans 8.2. Cited in: H B
Swete. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 261. The Didascalia Apostolorum [20. R H
Connolly, p. 170] cites Isaiah 26:19 and associates the idea of the “dew” with the work of the
Holy Spirit in the resurrection, an idea found in a number of Patristic writers, for example:
Clement of Alexandria. “For the field is the world, and we who are bedewed by the grace of
God are the grass; and though cut down, we spring up again, as will be shown at greater
length in the book On the Resurrection.” The Instructor 2.11. ANF 2, p. 264 [unfortunately
this book On the Resurrection has not survived]. Ephrem of Syria. “The bones of the dead
who are in Sheol now drink the dew of life when they are named, being remembered before
God at this moment [the Eucharist].” Armenian Hymns 49.16. Harp of the Spirit, p. 82.
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 648. R W Thomson, p. 160. Niceta
of Remesiana. “What the rains do for the seed, the dew of the Spirit does for the body that is
to be raised to life.” An explanation of the Creed 12. FC 7, p. 52.
91
for the faithful believer.178 This can be seen from Chrysostom, who says that the
ungodly have a part in the common resurrection, but will not share the fate of the
righteous. The words of Jesus that all who believe in him will be saved [John 6:37]
Chrysostom interprets as said “for the sake of them that are saved.” He understands
John 6:40 to include the unbelievers in a “common resurrection,” even though here
Jesus speaks of it “as though it were the peculiar gift of those who believe on Him”
because Jesus is stressing here the reward of the righteous, namely the resurrection of
life [John 5:29].179 Ambrose also says, in a similar vein, that “...it is better to know
how the guiltless are saved than how sinners are tormented.”180
However, some Patristic writers do comment on the resurrection of the wicked. Many
considered that the resurrection body of the righteous was transformed while that of
the wicked was merely revivified without being changed, retaining the disfigurements
and disabilities of this life, reflecting their spiritual state.181 Hippolytus believes that at
the resurrection the unrighteous will have their present bodies returned to them, still
suffering from the effects of disease and with all the deformities which they had in
this life, while those of the saints will be free of these things.
But the unrighteous will receive their bodies unchanged, and

unransomed from suffering and disease, and unglorified, and still with
all the ills in which they died. And whatever manner of persons they
(were when they) lived without faith, as such shall they be faithfully
judged.182
178
Similarly both Jesus and Paul do not always mention the resurrection and judgement of the
wicked when they are discussing the future rewards of the righteous. For instance, when in
Luke 14:14 Jesus speaks of the rewards to be distributed at the “resurrection of the righteous”
this does not necessarily imply that only the righteous will be raised. Since the wicked will
not be rewarded it was not necessary to mention them in this passage. Cf. N Geldenhuys.
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, p. 391, citing Theodore Zahn. Das Evangelium des
Lucas. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, for instance, we find refererence only to the resurrection
of the believers. It is not to be concluded therefore that there is no resurrection for the wicked,
since the intention is to encourage the believers who are losing heart, and it would be
inappropriate in such passages to discuss the fate of the unbelievers. In passages such as 2
Corinthians 5:10 Paul is not denying the judgement of the unbelievers, but concentrating on
his pastoral concern to instruct the Christians as to the need to live righteously. Paul mentions
the judgement of the wicked elsewhere. Cf. Stephen H Travis. Christ and the judgement of
God, p. 31. Adrio König comments: “So if certain matters are not mentioned in each section
(if, e.g., the resurrection of unbelievers is not mentioned in 1 Cor. 15), it is illegitimate to
conclude that it will happen as a separate event. It is not mentioned at a particular point
simply because it is not at issue. The Bible is not a systematic handbook which deals fully
with each matter in turn.” The eclipse of Christ in eschatology, p. 205. Cf. Simon Tugwell.
Human immortality and the redemption of death, pp. 120-121.
179
John Chrysostom. Homilies on John 45.2. NPNF 1/14, p. 161.
180
Ambrose. Death as a good 10.48. FC 65, p. 106.
181
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.4-5. NPNF 2/13, p. 376. Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith,
Hope and Love 92. NPNF 1/3, p. 266.
182
Hippolytus. Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe 2. ANF 5, p. 222. Cf. Cyril of
Alexandria, who holds that sinners will rise unchanged, and “will remain in their
dishonourable form, simply in order to be punished.” [In 1 Corinthians 15.51]. Brian E Daley.
The hope of the early Church, p. 110.
92
In a work ascribed to Hippolytus (but considered dubious), influenced by Daniel 12:2,
we find an idea that will recur throughout the Patristic period: that the wicked will be
raised in dark bodies, in contrast to the shining bodies of the righteous.
Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun, while the wicked shall
be shown to be mute and gloomy. For both the righteous and the
wicked shall be raised incorruptible: the righteous, to be honoured
eternally, and to taste immortal joys; and the wicked, to be punished in
judgement eternally.183
The Didascalia testifies to an early Patristic interpretation in maintaining that the

wicked would be raised to see the glory of the righteous before themselves perishing.
It quotes from the Sibylline Oracles where it deals with the destruction of the world
by fire, and the resurrection, in which it is specified that the wicked would be raised
but then after the judgement they will be returned to the earth in punishment.184
3.5.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:51
One passage which played a part in determining that while all are resurrected, not all
are glorified and transformed, is 1 Corinthians 15:51, a passage which teaches the
transformation of the body, but it is not at all clear as to whom this applies. This
confusion is caused in part by the textual variants, which results in peculiar problems
in interpretation. The reading commonly adopted in the Western church can be found
in modern translations such as the NIV: Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all
sleep, but we will all be changed. This appears to mean that when Christ returns, the
bodies of believers who are still alive will be transformed without passing through
death, while those who have died will also be changed: they in no way miss out (cf. 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18).185 The variant readings of the text which provide the occasion
for different interpretations in Patristic writings,186 are as follows:
a) We will all sleep, but we will not all be changed. That is, everyone will die,
but while everyone will be raised, only believers will be transformed.
b) We will not all sleep, and we will not all be changed. That is, not everyone
will die, nor will everyone be transformed.
c) We will all be raised, but we will not all be changed. That is, only believers
will be transformed.
183
Hippolytus (dubious). A discourse on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the
second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 39. ANF 5, p. 252.
184
Sibylline Oracles 4.179-185, 187, 198-190. Cited in: Didascalia Apostolorum 20. R H
Connolly, p. 172. It is thought that this passage of the Oracles is alluded to by Justin Martyr
in his Apology 20. R H Connolly, p. lxxix.
185
Gordon Fee. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 796. Fee prefers the first textual
variation as original with the others being derivative, and interprets 1 Corinthians 15:51 to
refer solely to believers, and therefore he accepts that all bodies will be transformed at the
resurrection. Ibid., p. 801.
186
See The Greek New Testament. Ed. K Aland et al. Nouum Testamentum Domine Nostri
Iesu Christi Latine. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913-1941. Vol. 2, p. 272.
93
Thus the debate hinges around whether Paul is referring only to the resurrection of
believers in this verse, or discussing the contrasting fates of believers and non-
believers. The antiquity of the problem of the state of the text, and thus its
interpretation, can be seen in the discussion of the subject by various Patristic authors,
for instance Rufinus and Augustine. Rufinus quotes two of the variant readings, and
refers to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, as if this clears up the confusion.187 Augustine also
quotes two variants of 1 Corinthians 15:51 and proposes a harmonisation of the texts.
We shall all rise, or, as other manuscripts read, we shall all sleep.
Since, then, there can be no resurrection unless death has preceded, and
since we can in this passage understand by sleep nothing else than
death, how shall all either sleep or rise again if so many persons whom
Christ shall find in the body shall neither sleep nor rise again? If, then,
we believe that the saints who shall be found alive at Christ's coming,
and shall be caught up to meet him, shall in that same ascent pass from
mortal to immortal bodies, we shall find no difficulty in the words of
the apostle either when he says, That which you sow is not quickened,
unless it dies, or when he says, We shall all rise, or all sleep, for not
even the saints shall be quickened to immortality unless they first die,
however briefly; and consequently they shall not be exempt from
resurrection which is preceded by sleep, however brief.188
The solution propounded by Augustine, who like Rufinus refers to 1 Thessalonians

4:13-17 to clarify the issue, is that all shall die, even if only momentarily, before
being instantly raised immortal and taken up to meet the Lord in the air.189 This view
was earlier stated by Tertullian, who used the third variant, We will all be raised, but
we will not all be changed. He argues that we shall all rise, since those who are still
alive at the return of the Lord will undergo an instantaneous death,190 but not all who
rise will be changed, that is, only believers will be glorified and will “assume the
condition of angels.”191 The state of the text is also discussed by Jerome:
187
Rufinus. A Commentary on the Apostle's Creed 43. ACW 20, p. 82.
188
189
Elsewhere Augustine suggests that the reading “we shall all sleep” makes it easier to
understand the phrase “we shall all rise again” since there is no resurrection without there first
being a death. He cites 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 to demonstrate his view that “every other
similar passage found in holy Writ seems to force us to conclude that no man will attain
immortality without first passing through death.” He thinks that the fact that “the Lord will
come to judge the living and the dead” means that some may still be in the body, so that the
need to pass through death before being raised requires an interpretation “consistent with this
view which holds that some will enter into eternal life in their bodies without first tasting
death.” Letter 193. FC 30, pp. 298-300.
190
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 41. ANF 3, p. 575. Against Marcion 5.12. ANF 3,
p. 455. Whether this is an acceptable solution cannot be discussed here, although it can be
admitted that it is ingenious! This idea was still in use in Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica
I.II, q. 81, a. 3 ad. 1. Simon Tugwell. Human immortality and the redemption of death, p.
107.
191
94
Therefore we will all rise, but we will not all be changed. Everyone will
rise, but only those who are to reign in glory will be changed. Or
alternatively thus, we will all rise, who will be found dead at the advent
of Christ. We will not all be changed, who are [still] found in the body:
because only the saints will attain to the blessedness of glory. It is
preserved otherwise in some Greek books: For we will all sleep, but we
will not all be changed, which suits more the meaning of the Apostle:
because this word is not spoken of everyone generally, but only of the
saints.192
Hilary interprets the resurrection to mean a change for the righteous but not for the
wicked, since they have their original bodies returned to them for the purpose of
punishment. Because Hilary sees the present body as one of humiliation and shame, to
be raised again in that body is the reason for the contempt and shame which comes
upon the wicked, as they are “unworthy to be conformed to his glory and
resurrection.”193
This is very different from the interpretation given by Peter of Alexandria, who
understands 1 Corinthians 15:51 to mean that because we are all changed, the
resurrection of the wicked means a change for them as well: it is not enough for them
to rise again in their present bodies, they must be given bodies which are different
from those of the saints, and thereby they are given a shameful resurrection.
Therefore, by this phrase (we) shall all be changed [1 Cor. 15:51], we

mean this: when indeed we shall all arise together, we shall again wear
the appropriate aspects of the body, good or bad, according to the way
we lived. We shall be changed signifies one thing: that we are perfected
in glory and honor, and thus pass over strong and powerful so that the
body can sustain the splendour of the air since each person will be led
to immortality and incorruptibility.194
Thus he holds that the body will reflect the reward or punishment of which it is
worthy. A similar view is found in the works of John Chrysostom, who believes that
all not only rise, but are given incorruption; but this is not the same for all, since some
are given incorruption for honour, but others for punishment. Chrysostom cites 1
Corinthians 15:22 and says: “For the resurrection indeed is common to all, but the
192
Jerome. Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:51. PL 30, 770. Jerome also discussed this passage
in his Letter 119.2-7, to Minervius and Alexander. PL 22, 967-973. Cf. Eucherius, who says:
“That is, not everyone will be changed in glory, because while the resurrection and
incorruption are common for all, however the change to glory is proper only for the just.”
Instructiones. PL 50, 806.
193
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 52.17. PL 9, 334C. In another place he says that while all
will rise from the dead, “the glory and honour of rising is not, however, awaiting all
indifferently.” Commentary on Psalm 55.7. Translation cited from: Brian E Daley. The hope
of the early Church, p. 95. Cf. John of Damascus. “That is, wickedness [will not attain to] that
glory and the enjoyment of imperishable things.” On 1 Corinthians 15:51. PG 95, 700B.
194
Peter of Alexandria. On the resurrection [Fragment IV.5]. In: T Vivian. St. Peter of
Alexandria: Bishop and Martyr, p. 134. Vivian argues that there is no evidence from any of
the surviving undoubtedly authentic fragments that Peter was an anti-Origenist, as has
traditionally been held. Ibid., p. 133.
95
glory is not common; but some shall rise in honor and others in dishonor, and some to
a kingdom but others to punishment.”195 The transformation of the saints in the
resurrection he explains in connection with 1 Corinthians 15:51.
If by any means, he says, I may attain to the resurrection of the dead.

What do you say? All men will have a share in that. For we shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed [1 Corinthians 15:51], and shall all
share not only in the resurrection, but in incorruption. Some indeed to
honor, but others as a means of punishment. If therefore all have a share
in the resurrection, and not in the resurrection only, but also in
incorruption, how does he say, If by any means I may attain, as if about
to share in some especial thing? For this cause, said he, I endure these
things, if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead...
What resurrection does he mention here? That which leads to Christ
himself.196
Just as Chrysostom says that the change in the resurrection for the believers brings
them into conformity with Christ, so Augustine also says that the saints rise the same
way that Christ rose, so that we can follow him. The wicked rise also, but not in the
same way as Christ.
For all indeed shall rise, but not as His beloved [Christ]. There is a
resurrection of all the dead; but what says the apostle? We shall all rise,
but we shall not all be changed. They rise unto punishment: we rise as
our Lord rose, that we may follow our Head, if we are members of
Him.197
Fulgence of Ruspe believes that the transformation of the bodies of the righteous will
be denied the wicked who will be resurrected in the body, but in order to be tormented
in both body and soul for eternity. The wicked will be raised but not transformed,
citing the version We shall all indeed rise, but we shall not all be changed. But he
mentions that Paul goes on to say And we shall be changed. This the righteous will be
transformed but the wicked will not, but rather their bodies will be raised with “the
corruption, shame and weakness in which they were sown.” The resulting punishment
for the wicked will be a “never-ending torment to body and soul” that is “eternal
death.”198
Grant identifies a passage in Athenagoras' Apology (31) as an allusion to 1

Corinthians 15:51 on the basis of the use of the word “changed” (allagesometha), a
195
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians 10.2. NPNF 1/12, p. 327. Cf. Maximus
the Confessor, who says that through Christ we all have “the hope of resurrection, though
each individual makes himself fit either for glory or for punishment.” Four centuries on
charity 1.71. ACW 21, p. 147.
196
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Philippians 11. NPNF 1/13, p. 236.
197
198
Fulgence of Ruspe. The Rule of Faith 37. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the Early
Fathers. Vol. 3, p. 296. Cf. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 651. R
W Thomson, p. 162.
96
view repeated by Barnard.199 Grant translates the relevant passage thus: “We believe
that being 'changed' (1 Cor. 15:51) from this life we shall live another life better than
this one...”200 However Schoedel translates the passage differently. “...and since we
are persuaded that when we depart this present life we shall live another life better
than that here...”201 The Greek underlying his text is apallagentes [root apallassoo],
“to be free from or released from,” not allagesometha [root allassoo], “to be
changed,” which is the term used in reference to the resurrection in the NT only in 1
Corinthians 15:51-52.202 There is thus no necessary connection with 1 Corinthians
15:51 in this passage in Athenagoras.203
3.5.4 The wicked made immortal in order to suffer
It was held by a number of Patristic writers that the fire of punishment both consumes
and restores the bodies of the wicked, thereby making them immortal to continue to
suffer forever. This horrible idea seems to originate with pagan myths rather than any
necessary or implied Christian teaching, a view which is confirmed from the
correlation of the idea by Lactantius with the myth of Tityus, whose liver was daily
consumed by an eagle and yet grew again to be once more consumed.204
Justin is one of the first to make a clear distinction between the resurrection of the
just, who are transformed and glorified, and the resurrection of the wicked, who are
not endowed with glory but are made immortal with the ability to feel their
punishment.205 This idea is also found in Rufinus, who cites Daniel 12:2 in this
connection.
But sinners too, as I explained above, will have the state of incorruption
and immortality granted to them at the resurrection. As God bestows
this state on the just with a view to their everlasting glory, so He will
bestow it upon sinners so as to prolong their confusion and punishment.
That prophetic utterance to which I referred a few moments ago made
this perfectly clear in the words: And many shall rise again from the
dust of the earth: some to everlasting life, but others to confusion and
everlasting reproach.206
199
L W Barnard. “The authenticity of Athenagoras' De Resurrectione.” Studia Patristica 15
(1984) 40.
200
R M Grant. “Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras.” Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954)
122.
201
W R Schoedel. Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
p. 77.
202
This root is not listed in G W H Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, so it appears not to have
been used by Patristic writers.
203
See also the discussion in Chapter 8.2.1 concerning whether Athenagoras uses 1 Corinthians
15:51 in Concerning the resurrection of the dead.
204
205
Justin Martyr. First Apology 52. ANF 1, p. 180. Dialogue with Trypho 117. ANF 1, p. 257;
Dialogue with Trypho 130. ANF 1, pp. 264-265.
206
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostle's Creed 47. ACW 20, pp. 85-86. Cf. also Commentary
on the Apostle's Creed 45. ACW 20, p. 84, where he says that the bodies of the wicked will be
97
Cyril of Jerusalem emphasises the transformation of the bodies of believers in the
resurrection, while the bodies of the unbelieving will not be transformed but raised in
bodies fitted for punishment. He bases this idea on Daniel 12:2 which speaks of the
contrast between the two groups in the resurrection.
But though to rise again is common to all men, yet the resurrection is
not alike for all: for the bodies received by us all are eternal, but not
like bodies for all: for the just receive them, that through eternity they
may join the Choirs of angels; but the sinners, that they may endure for
ever the torment of their sins.207
The resurrection body for both righteous and wicked will be immortal, but that of the
righteous will be glorious, while the body of the wicked will be destined for
punishment and shame.
We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all
bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body,
that he may be able worthily to hold converse with Angels; but if a man
is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the
penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be
consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either
company; for we do nothing without the body... Since then the body has
been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future
the fruits of the past.208
Augustine insists that the wicked rise in the body, not to a glorious resurrection, but to
a resurrection for punishment. The righteous will on the other hand receive eternal
life.
made immortal to endure their eternal punishment. This idea is found in many others, for
instance Minucius Felix. Octavius 35. ANF 4, p. 195. Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.21.
ANF 7, p. 217. Agathangelos. History of the Armenians 65. R W Thomson, p. 75. In Justin's
Dialogue, the old man, who does not think the soul is immortal, comments that the souls of
the wicked “are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.” Dialogue
with Trypho 5. ANF 1, p. 197.
207
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 4.31. NPNF 2/7, p. 26. Cf. also Catechetical
Lectures 18.29-30. NPNF 2/7, p. 141. Cyril argues that the Scriptures speak of the “multitudes
that will be raised,” not to limit the number, but because it was so great it could not be
expressed exactly. Catechetical Lectures 15.24. NPNF 2/7, pp. 111-112. He thus sees this
passage to speak of a general resurrection of all the dead. The translation “multitudes” is
preferable to “many,” since it speaks not of the proportion of the dead who are raised (while
some are not raised), but rather of the great number of the dead, who are all raised, that is in
view. This interpretation is found in the way this passage is cited in John 5:28, which says that
“all” shall be raised, as well as in Patristic texts. “Neither is it to be supposed a difference,
though in place of the expression in the Gospel, 'All who are in their graves,' the prophet does
not say 'all,' but 'many of them that sleep in the mound of earth.' For many is sometimes used
in Scripture for all.” Augustine. The City of God 20.23. NPNF 1/2, p. 443. See also
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 95.13. ACW 52, pp. 422-423.
208
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.19. NPNF 2/7, p. 139. Cf. Tertullian. On the
resurrection of the flesh 35. ANF 3, p. 571. Ambrosiaster. Commentary on the First Epistle to
the Corinthians 15:51. PL 17, 285-286.
98
Now he whose soul does not die to this world and begin here to be
conformed to the truth, falls when the body dies into a more terrible
death, and shall revive, not to change his earthly for a heavenly
habitation, but to endure the penalty of his sin. And so faith clings to
the assurance, and we must believe that it is so in fact, that neither the
human soul nor the human body suffers complete extinction, but that
the wicked rise again to endure inconceiveable punishment, and the
good to receive eternal life.209
Augustine stressed that the wicked will wish to die but will be unable to do so, in
spite of their sufferings.
The former shall have no will, the latter no power, to sin, and neither
shall have any power to choose death; but the former shall live truly
and happily in eternal life, the latter shall drag a miserable existence in
eternal death without the power of dying; for both shall be without
end.210
We find these ideas in the earliest of John Chrysostom's works, a letter to Theodore
(later bishop of Mopsuestia), who had abandoned the ascetic life and was
contemplating marriage. Chrysostom says that the bodies of the wicked will be made
immortal and inconsumable so as to be able to be punished eternally.211 Chrysostom
repeats this idea in a later work, stressing that the wicked also have a part in the
resurrection, since some of those who are raised are cast out and some are destroyed
in hell [Matthew 10:28 and 22:13, John 5:29].212 Chrysostom stressed that while
everybody would be resurrected and therefore receive “life,” that life is not the same
for all, since the life that is important is life in immortality and incorruption, a life
which is not shared by the wicked, even though they live. He uses this to distinguish
the resurrection of the wicked from that of the saints, a resurrection which carried
with it a reward in the very nature of the resurrection body.
209
Augustine. On Christian doctrine 20-21. NPNF 1/2, p. 527.
210
Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love 111. NPNF 1/3, p. 273. Cf. The
Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love 92-93. NPNF 1/3, pp. 266-267. Cf. Paulinus of Nola
who says that the wicked rise again “in immortality not of glory but of punishment.” Letter
40.11-12. ACW 36, p. 216.
211
John Chrysostom. To the fallen Theodore 1.10. NPNF 1/9, pp. 98-99.
212
John Chrysostom. Homilies on St. John 45.2. NPNF 1/14, p. 161. While many authors spoke
of the bodies of the wicked being made immortal for enduring eternal punishment, Prudentius
transforms the whole theme on the basis of the immortality of the soul, and says that the
punishments of the soul also sustain it in order to enable it to endure these sufferings
eternally. The soul polluted with sin cannot return to heaven, but must be tormented in
punishment. God gave “deathless endurance” to the worms and the flames, so the punishment
of the immortal soul should never cease. The concept of hell in the works of Prudentius
appears to owe more to Greek myth than to Scripture, as he describes it as Tartarus, Avernus
and Phlegethon's gulf. He uses the idea of immortal worms and fire which appears to come
from Isaiah 66:24, but otherwise his imagery is of pagan origin. Prudentius thus changes the
content of this idea, while retaining its form. Prudentius. Hamartigenia 829-840. Loeb I, p.
263. Cf. also A reply to the address of Symmachus 2.184-221. Loeb II, pp. 21, 23.
99
And the “life” of which he speaks is not life merely, but the excellent
life, for that he spoke not simply of life, but of that glorious and
ineffable life, is clear from this. For all men “live,” even unbelievers,
and uninitiated, who do not eat of that flesh. Do you see that the words
do not relate to this life, but to that other? And what he said is of this
kind: He that eats my flesh, when he dies shall not perish or suffer
punishment. He did not speak of the general resurrection (for all alike
rise again), but concerning the special, the glorious resurrection, that
which has a reward.213
He thus makes a distinction, as do many other Patristic writers, between the wicked
and the righteous in terms of whether they receive glory or disgrace. This is the only
distinction it is valid to make in terms of the Scriptures, as there it is stated that all
will be raised, but not all will receive glory.
One of the problems which is presented by the idea that at the resurrection each
person's body is either transformed or left unchanged is that the fate of those who are
yet to be judged appears to have been pre-empted by this difference. The decision
which has apparently yet to be made can be discerned from the kind of body which is
given in the resurrection.214 In the Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle, the distinction of
the two groups as revealed in their differing resurrection states is clearly made.
For the purpose of the Lord's coming into the world assuredly was, that
He might teach us and show us that at the consummation of the creation
there will be a resuscitation of all men, and at that time their course of
conduct will be portrayed in their persons, and their bodies will be
volumes for the writings of justice; nor will anyone be there who is
unacquainted with books, because every one will read that which is
written in His own book.215
Similarly, the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes mentions the resurrection “suitable to

each” which seems to be a reference to the different rewards which each receives in
the judgement.216 This is confirmed by a further comment he makes on the nature of
the resurrection.
213
John Chrysostom. Homilies on John 47.1. NPNF 1/14, p. 168. He repeats this idea elsewhere:
“Since his discourse is not concerning the resurrection only, but both concerning the
resurrection and concerning the honour in glory; all then shall partake of a resurrection, he
says, but not all shall be in glory, only those in Christ.” Homilies on Thessalonians 7. NPNF
1/13, p. 353. Cf. John of Damascus. “...have the spirit, and you will be raised. What then? Do
those who do not have it not rise? Yes, he says; but not to life. For this reason he did not say,
he will raise, but he will give life, which is more than resurrection, and has been given only to
the righteous.” On the Epistle to the Romans 8:11. PG 95, 501C.
214
Bernhard Lang discusses this issue in connection with the Apocalypse of Baruch 50.2, which
states that the resurrection is a restoration of the body possessed in this life, which is
transformed into glory or disfigurement in accordance with the sentence passed at the
judgement. “No sex in heaven: the logic of procreation, death and eternal life in the Judaeo-
Christian tradition.” In: Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M Mathias
Delchor, p. 241.
215
The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle. ANF 8, p. 658.
216
Macarius Magnes. Apocriticus 4.30. Translations of Christian Literature, p. 158.
100
And even if it is as you say, and Priam or Nestor died a thousand years
ago, while some other man may die three days before the resurrection,
none of them when he rises again will feel either measureless grief or
abundance of joy therefrom, but each of them will receive what is
suitable to him in accordance to his own deeds, and he will not have
either praise or blame for the arrangement of the resurrection, neither
for its speediness nor again for its tardiness, but it will be his own
manner of life that he will either delight in or find fault with.217
Here Macarius states that in the resurrection what each one receives is entirely
consistent with their former manner of life. Another Macarius, of Egypt, states that in
this present life the soul conceals the state of the individual, but in the eschatological
life this state will be manifest to all through the nature of the body in which they are
resurrected: that of the saints will be as light, while that of the wicked will be
darkness. The providence of God is thus seen as the sinners and the saints are already
distinguished in this life, even though the distinction is not yet apparent to us.
For the world is divided into two parts. One flock of sheep is of
darkness and this group departs into inextinguishable and eternal fire.
But the other flock is full of light and this is led into the heavenly
inheritance. That which, therefore, we now possess in our souls, that
same then will shine in splendour and will be manifested and will
clothe our bodies with glory. Just as in the month of April the roots that
have been covered with soil now put forth their own fruits, their flowers
and beauties and they will bring forth fruit. The good roots become
manifest as well as those that have thorns. Likewise in that day of
judgement everyone shows openly what he has done in his body.218
According to Cyril of Jerusalem, the nature of the judgement is evident already in the
resurrection, as the heretics arise in bodies which parallel their rebellion. He is
perhaps implicitly attacking the idea of the heretics that the body is only a garment,219
when he says that they shall rise in the body, and this shall be a garment of sins which
will convict them of their misdeeds along with their conscience.220
The purpose of the judgement is therefore somewhat obscure, if the very resurrection
body reveals what fate is due to each. However, it was also stressed by many Patristic
writers that the judgement can only be passed on the body and the soul together. The
resurrection therefore must precede the judgement, and unless a further
transformation after the judgement is expected, it is hard to see how they could have
avoided the idea that the decision of the judgement can be discerned already in the
character of the resurrection body.
217
218
Macarius of Egypt. Homily 12.13-14. Intoxicated with God, p. 87. Cf. also Homily 2.5.
Intoxicated with God, p. 35.
219
220
101
Lactantius holds that the judgement takes place prior to the resurrection, so that the
problem of the nature of the resurrection body is dealt with by stating that after the
judgement the righteous are raised, while the wicked are not raised but sent into
punishment.221 This is perhaps a unique variation on the theme of this study, found in
no other Patristic writer.
Whether such a distinction makes the judgement a foregone conclusion is perhaps a

matter of opinion, since there is considerable debate in Patristic thought as to the
nature and purpose of the eschatological judgement. In some views at least a
distinction in state before the judgement indicates the limited nature of the judgement,
not that there is a pre-empting of the result of the judgement itself.
3.6 The first resurrection a bodily resurrection
For Irenaeus the allegorical approach to Scripture used by both the heretical Gnostics
(e.g. Valentinians) and the Christian Gnostics (e.g. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen) was tantamount to a denial of the resurrection of the flesh, since an
“allegorical” resurrection was no resurrection at all. He thus insists that the “first
resurrection” of Revelation 20:4 is a bodily resurrection.
For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise
from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly. And
as he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand
for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the
kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the
Father. Then, when all things are made new, he shall truly dwell in the
city of God.222
Irenaeus not only defended the doctrine of the resurrection as such, he also defended
it against those who would “spiritualise” it and make it into something other than the
resurrection of the flesh, which for him is intrinsically related to belief in the earthly
reign of Christ and the vindication of his saints before those at whose hands they had
suffered, and in the same place where they had suffered.223 Against the Gnostic
dualism of the sinful flesh and the pure spirit, Irenaeus posits the “pure flesh” of the
resurrection body, which will be raised incorruptible and sharing in the characteristics
of the spirit.224 Irenaeus clearly associates the “real” resurrection with the millennial
reign of Christ, while he rejects the “allegorical” or “spiritual” resurrection of the
heretics. A “spiritualised” resurrection is a denatured resurrection, since it denies the
connection between the Holy Spirit and the redemption of the flesh. For Irenaeus the
spirit and the flesh are not in opposition: the conflict is between sin and the creation
of God, including the flesh. Those who would deny the reality of the new earth and
the redemption of the cosmos have difficulty in accepting the reality of the
resurrection and the significance of the millennial reign of Christ on earth.
221
222
223
224
Irenaeus. Fragments of Lost Writings 12. ANF 1, p. 570.
102
Victorinus distinguishes the first resurrection, that of the just who were to enter into
glory, from the second, the resurrection of the wicked who were to be punished.225 He
interprets Revelation 2:28, And I will give to him the morning star, as a reference to
the first resurrection, since the morning star ends the night and announces the
beginning of day.226 Following the return of Christ, all the living and dead are
judged.227 Other Patristic writers to hold similar conceptions are Commodian,
Hilarianus and Lactantius.228 Irenaeus says that the righteous shall be raised first and
receive their glorified bodies, and then the wicked are raised unglorified in order to be
judged.229
Tertullian mentions the first resurrection only once, significantly in the context of
attacking the views of the heretics that there is a present “spiritual” resurrection. Any
doctrine of a “spiritual resurrection” proves there is a bodily resurrection, since the
spiritual resurrection is spoken of in terms of the resurrection of the body. The
resurrection in the eschaton is not a spiritual one, but it is definitely a resurrection,
and therefore must be a bodily resurrection.230
Tertullian attacks the hermeneutics of the heretics who interpret death and
resurrection in what they claim is a “spiritual” sense, but who in fact misinterpret the
clear teaching of Scripture. The Gnostic view that death is ignorance of God, and
resurrection the coming to knowledge of God, undermines the meaning of Scripture
which insists on the resurrection as the raising of the fleshly body.231 Worse than that,
they even “will go so far as to say that it actually means escaping out of the body
itself, since they imagine that the body detains the soul, when it is shut up in the death
of a worldly life, as in a grave.”232 Tertullian counters these arguments by challenging
the method used for the interpretation of Scripture, saying that not every passage of
Scripture must be interpreted figuratively, and that the passages speaking of the
225
J Daniélou. A History of Early Christian Doctrine, Vol. 3, p. 124.
226
227
228
Commodian. Instructions 33. ANF 4, p. 209. Instructions 44. ANF 4, p. 212. Instructions 80.
ANF 4, p. 218. Quintus Julius Hilarianus. The progress of time 18-19. [PL 13, 1105-1106]
Translation in: B McGinn. Visions of the End, p. 53. Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.24.
ANF 7, p. 219.
229
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.22.2. ANF 1, p. 494. While Lawson understands Irenaeus to
mean that both good and wicked rise together at the beginning of the millennium to face the
judgement [J Lawson. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, p. 282], Wood says that there
is no simultaneous resurrection in the views of Irenaeus, since the righteous are raised prior to
the millennium, the wicked after it. [Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.27.1. ANF 1, p. 556.] A S
Wood. “The eschatology of Irenaeus.” Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969) 34.
230
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 25. ANF 3, p. 563. Against Marcion 5.10. ANF 3,
p. 450.
231
It is significant that the greatest impetus towards “spiritualising” the resurrection body from
within Christianity came from the Alexandrians (principally Clement and Origen), who had
adopted the idea of “gnosis” as foundational to their thought.
232
103
resurrection will not sustain anything but a literal sense.233 Tertullian then argues that
the prophecies of the resurrection speak of the other great events of the end time
which must occur together with the resurrection, and since these have in no way
happened, the resurrection is also still to come. It cannot then be a past event, or one
which takes place immediately on coming to know the “truth” (of the heretical
teaching) or when we leave this life.234 He then demonstrates that while Paul writing
to the Colossians speaks of those who are spiritually dead, he also speaks of bodily
death. Thus a spiritual resurrection to new life now does not preclude, indeed
demands, a bodily resurrection which is yet to come.235
While the resurrection of the righteous was temporally distinct from the resurrection
of the wicked, this was not considered to deny or minimise belief in a general
resurrection of all the dead. This general resurrection simply took place at two
separate times. However, in his commentary on the book of Revelation, Hippolytus
rejects the idea that the reference to the “first resurrection” thereby implies that there
will be a second, later resurrection. The just will be raised in the first resurrection,
simultaneously with the wicked, but unlike the wicked they will be immune to the
power of the second death. Hippolytus stresses that the “first resurrection” refers to
the precedence the just have over the wicked: it is an order of honour, first the saints,
then the wicked, who are separated from the saints like the goats from the sheep. It is
not an order of time, with a distinction between those who are raised earlier and those
raised at a later point. All are raised “in the twinkling of an eye,” there is only one
resurrection followed by the day of judgement.236
3.7 Conclusion
The Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology held that the saints would not
enter into eschatological life until the resurrection, although an exception was made
with respect to the martyrs, who were considered to have entered heaven already.
However, some held that even then, although the rewards of the martyrs are certain,
while those of other believers are still uncertain, these rewards would not be received
until the resurrection.
233
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 21. ANF 3, p. 560. Tertullian insists that Ezekiel
37 is included in the passages speaking of a literal resurrection, since a metaphor of the
restoration of Israel would have no meaning if it was not based on a real event which
happened to the bones in the prophet's vision. On the resurrection of the flesh 30. ANF 3, pp.
566-567. Cf. also On the resurrection of the flesh 25. ANF 3, p. 563. Cf. in contrast,
Augustine who says: “...the prophet Ezekiel in the passage cited foresaw, in a revelation given
under figures, not the resurrection of the body as it will be one day, but the unexpected
restoration of a people without hope through the Spirit of the Lord who has filled the whole
world.” The literal meaning of Genesis 10.5.8. ACW 42, p. 103.
234
235
236
Hippolytus. Commentary on the Apocalypse 20:5-6. Cited in: P Prigent. “Hippolyte,
commentateur de l'Apocalypse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28 (1972) 404. The Pseudo-
Clementine Recognitions also speak of the “first resurrection” as a rank of honour and not a
precedence in time. Recognitions 1.52. ANF 8, p. 91.
104
The rest of the dead were considered to be waiting in Hades (or Paradise) until the
resurrection where they had a foretaste, or at least a presentiment of, the rewards or
punishments they would eventually receive. The Syrian tradition departed from this
approach and held that the dead were waiting in unconsciousness, asleep in the grave,
to be woken by the trumpet at the return of Christ.
The power of God to create was seen, against the objections of pagans and heretics, as
the basis on which God was able and willing to raise the dead. The body buried would
be identical with the body raised, with all that ensured the identity of the present and
future body. The resurrection was of a fleshly body, again in opposition to the views
of pagans and heretics as to the desirability of this. The resurrection body is immortal,
although not all are alike, a view which is influenced by the interpretation of 1
Corinthians 15:51. Those of the saints are glorified, and made fit for eternity with
God, while those of the wicked are made immortal so as to be fit for eternal
punishment. The wicked are not glorified, and in the view of many remain unchanged,
although some held that all will be changed, the bodies of the wicked being made
dark, in contrast to the bodies of the saints which are like the light and free from any
defect.
105
CHAPTER FOUR
THE JUDGEMENT, MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND
4.0 Introduction
The majority of ante-Nicene Patristic writers believed that after Christ returned at the
end of the age to destroy the enemies of God, he would establish his kingdom on earth
for a thousand years (the millennium). At the beginning of this period the dead saints
would be resurrected in glory, and the living saints transformed, so they may
participate in the millennial kingdom [the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:4]. At
the end of the millennium, the rest of the dead would be raised and judged, and then
punished for their misdeeds [Revelation 20:11-15]. The earth would then be renewed
and the saints would enter their eternal life on that new earth.1 The hope of a bodily
resurrection is central to this conception. The significance of millennialism for this
study is found in the fact that those who expected to be raised to participate in the
thousand year reign thus postponed the fulfillment of their eschatological hopes to the
return of Christ, while those who rejected the millennium (See Chapter 7) could
conceive of eschatological life commencing immediately after death.
While most of these writers anticipated eternal life on the renewed earth to follow the
millennium, some came to hold that the millennium was only an interim state, to be
followed by eternity in heaven after a second transformation of the body.
It was held that it was just of God to judge, indeed it was necessary for there to be a
judgement because God is just. Correlated with this was the rejection of “fate” as this
undermined individual responsibility, and was based on a pagan idea of inevitability.
4.1 The resurrection for judgement
A Patristic commonplace is that since we sin in the body, we must also be judged in
the body. It is quite clear that for Justin Martyr there is no judgement for the soul
independent of the body, and no reward for the soul separately from the body. The
whole person is judged and the whole person either enjoys reward or suffers
punishment. Justin stresses that while this idea may seem to be similar to the ideas of
the pagan writers, he implies that it is in fact rather different in its force. It is apparent
from the rest of his thought that the punishment or reward is not received directly
after death, but only after the resurrection and the judgement which follows. In this
latter point the pagan writers were in error.2 We see then very early in the Patristic
period that the idea of an immediate judgement after death is associated by Christians
with pagan views concerning the immortality of the soul and the rejection of the
resurrection. Justin Martyr decisively rejected this approach.3
1
Cf. the outline given by Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.35.1. ANF 1, p. 565. Tertullian. On the
resurrection of the flesh 25. ANF 3, p. 563.
2
Justin Martyr. First Apology 20. ANF 1, p. 170. Hippolytus. Against Plato, on the cause of
the universe 2. ANF 5, p. 222.
3
Cf. Justin Martyr. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the Resurrection, 2. ANF 1, pp.
294-295.
107
Tatian's view of the resurrection is that the whole person, body and soul, will be
raised from the dead to face the judgement. “When our age has been brought to an
end, the resurrection will take place once and for all, in reference to men alone, for
their judgement.”4 Only through the resurrection are human beings able to face the
judgement: after death they do not exist, because the soul dies with the body; so they
must be raised to life again to receive their reward, when the righteous will be allotted
immortality and the wicked punishment.
Irenaeus indicates that one of the main purposes of the resurrection is to bring people
to judgement. He says that if there is to be a resurrection, then there will surely be a
judgement, and therefore, since he has proved the resurrection to his satisfaction, he
assumes acceptance of the fact that there will be a judgement will follow. “If the
corpse of Elisha raised a dead man, how much more shall God, when he has
quickened men's dead bodies, bring them up for judgement?”5 He stresses that all who
love God shall be raised first, then the rest of the dead, who shall be judged.
For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of
Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His
providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men
together, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their
generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and
piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ,
and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first
rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise
them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place
in His kingdom.6
The doctrine of the resurrection is demanded by the judgement, as the body is the
agent of the person's actions. Immortality is conferred on the righteous at the
resurrection, it is not something which is possessed by the person by nature. Irenaeus
thus stresses an eschatological judgement, not an immediate judgement after death.
[Christ will return from heaven] to raise up anew all flesh of the whole
human race...that He should execute just judgement towards all; that He
may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed,
and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and
wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the
exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy,
and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in
His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and
others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with
everlasting glory.7
4
5
Irenaeus. Fragments of Lost Writings 35. ANF 1, p. 574.
6
7
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.10.1. ANF 1, p. 330-331. Cf. Against Heresies 5.27.2. “And to
as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But
108
Irenaeus sees the doctrine of the resurrection for judgement as a criticism of the
gnostic view, since it affirms the goodness of the creation and of this bodily life, a
view rejected by the gnostics he contends against. However much they may reject the
idea of a resurrection and a judgement to follow, still they shall be raised and judged
in the flesh.
Moreover, they despise the workmanship of God, speaking against their

own salvation, becoming their own bitterest accusers, and being false
witnesses [against themselves]. Yet, reluctant as they may be, these
men shall one day rise again in the flesh, to confess the power of Him
who raises them from the dead; but they shall not be numbered among
the righteous on account of their unbelief.8
According to Tertullian, the resurrection is necessary prior to the judgement, for two
reasons: the soul being incorporeal is incapable of experiencing suffering apart from
the flesh,9 and it would be unjust to punish one without the other as both were
involved in sin. There is also the need to stress the identity of the body buried and the
body raised, so that judgement is carried out on the responsible party.
Is it for you to distinguish the acts of the flesh and the spirit, whose
communion and conjunction in life, in death, and in resurrection, are so
intimate, that, “at that time,” they are equally raised up either for life or
else for judgement; because, to wit, they have equally either sinned or
lived innocently?10
Justice demands that as both body and soul acted together, both must be rewarded or
punished, as to judge only one of them was unjust. This theme is frequently cited in
Patristic discussions of the judgement, and often in connection with 2 Corinthians
5:10. Tertullian infers from this passage that the whole person will be judged, body as
well as soul, and the body as well as the soul will be either rewarded or punished.
This then implies the resurrection of the body.11 Because human beings are composed
communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in
store. But on as many as, according to their choice, depart from God, He inflicts that
separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from
God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the
loss of all the benefits which He has in store.” ANF 1, p. 556.
8
9
Evans comments that Tertullian was still of this opinion when he wrote The testimony of the
soul 4, but when he wrote On the resurrection of the flesh 17 he is seen to have changed his
mind. E Evans. Tertullian's treatise on the resurrection, p. xii, n. 1. Tertullian there
advances the view that the soul has its own kind of corporeality which enables it to perceive
and suffer, as is proved, he says, by the case of Lazarus. The soul still needs the flesh, not
because it cannot suffer without it, but because it should not suffer without it, as both were
responsible for the actions of the person. On the resurrection of the flesh 17. ANF 3, pp. 556-
557.
10
Tertullian. On repentance 3. ANF 3, pp. 658-659. Cf. also Apology 48. ANF 3, p. 53.
11
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 43. ANF 3, p. 577. Cf. Basil of Caesarea. “These
bones, which shared in the conflict with the blessed soul, are known to the Lord. These bones
He will crown, together with that soul, in the righteous day of His requital, as it is written, we
109
of two natures, soul and flesh, it is necessary for both to be present for the judgement.
That which is to be judged is also that which is to be raised; and since both will be
judged, the flesh must be raised so the person can appear with both, since his life is
spent in both. He must be judged in the condition in which he lived.12 Correlated with
his belief in the resurrection of all the dead, Tertullian clearly expects that the
judgement of God is to embrace everyone: nobody will be exempted from it.13
Tertullian asserts that since Christ is to pass sentence on both good and bad, all will
be raised, as it would be unjust if sentence were pronounced on those not present. And
they must be in the condition in which they had carried out the deeds on which
sentence is passed: hence they must be raised to be present with both body and soul.14
Tertullian argues that if the flesh has been used solely as an instrument by the soul,
and that it is the soul which will face the judgement, then, he argues, the flesh is
innocent and should be raised: it should be saved because of its innocence, its fate
should be independent of the fate of the soul.15 But because he sees both acting
together, Tertullian insists that the body must be raised to be rejoined with the soul in
order for them to face the judgement together.16
A similar interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:10 is found in the works of John

Chrysostom. Through asserting that all shall be judged, he maintains that by this
means the apostle Paul
...both revives those who have done virtuously and are persecuted with
those hopes, and makes those who have fallen back more earnest by
that fear. And he thus confirmed his words touching the resurrection of
the body. “For surely,” says he, “that which has ministered to the one
and to the other shall not stand excluded from the recompenses: but
along with the soul shall in the one case be punished, in the other
crowned.” But some of the heretics say, that it is another body that is
raised. How so? tell me. Did one sin, and is another punished? Did one
do virtuously, and is another crowned?17
must stand before the judgement seat of Christ, that each may give account of what he has
done in the body.” Letter 197, to Ambrose. NPNF 2/8, p. 235.
12
13
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 59. ANF 3, p. 591. Cf. Apology 18. ANF 3, p. 32.
Ad nationes 1.7. ANF 3, p. 116.
14
15
16
Tertullian. The soul's testimony 4. ANF 3, p. 177. Cf. Tertullian. On the resurrection of the
flesh 1. ANF 3, p. 545.
17
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians 10.5. NPNF 1/12, p. 329. Cf. also
Homilies on St. John 34.3. NPNF 1/14, pp. 120-121. A similar view appears in Ambrose. “For
since the whole course of our life consists in the union of body and soul, and the resurrection
brings with it either the reward of good works, or the punishment of wicked ones, it is
necessary that the body, whose actions are weighed, rise again. For how shall the soul be
summoned to judgement without the body, when account has to be rendered of the
companionship of itself and the body?” On belief in the resurrection 2.52. NPNF 2/10, pp.
181-182.
110
Since all will be raised, because Christ was raised, we will all therefore be judged,
since the judgement inexorably follows the resurrection. Chrysostom thus argues for
the necessity of the judgement from the logic of the necessity of the resurrection, and
since Christ was raised there will necessarily be a judgement.
Let us repent then: for we must assuredly be judged. If Christ rose not,
we shall not be judged: but if he rose, we shall without doubt be judged.
For to this end, it is said, did he also die, that he might be Lord both of
the dead and living [Romans 14:9]. For we shall all stand before the
judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to that
he has done [Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10]. Do not imagine that
these are but words. Lo! he introduced also the subject of the
resurrection of all men; for in no other way can the world be judged.
And that, In that he has raised him from the dead [Acts 17:31], relates
to the body, for that was dead, that had fallen.18
Chrysostom stresses that the resurrection is of the body, not the soul, since it is a
resurrection to incorruption, and the soul is not corrupted. Also that the resurrection is
of that which fell, that is, the body.19 It is only through the resurrection that justice can
be done.
But many sinners have had their departure without punishment, many
righteous men have had their departure after suffering ten thousand
grievous things. If then God be just, where will he reward their good to
the one, and their punishment to the other, if there be no hell, if there be
no resurrection?20
Augustine interpreted 2 Corinthians 5:10 in a rather different way. He queries why we

are to be judged according to the things which we have done “by means of the body”
when there are also “many things are done by the mind alone, and not by the body,”
such as thoughts of the kind mentioned in Psalm 14:1. The fool has said in his heart,
there is no God. Augustine decides that it must mean that to be judged according to
the things done by means of the body mean things done “during that time in which he
was in the body,” that is, during bodily life. We will therefore be judged in the body
solely for the sake of receiving rewards and punishments, but in the intermediate state
between death and resurrection, “souls are either tormented or they are in repose,
according to those things which they have done during the period of the bodily life.”21
This interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:10, based on an anthropological dichotomy,
separates the deeds of the mind from those of the body. While Augustine's
interpretation in some respects is correct, in that it refers to deeds done “while in the
body,” that is, in this life, he forces the distinction of body and soul into this text to
18
John Chrysostom. Homily on The Acts of the Apostles 38. NPNF 1/11, p. 237.
19
John Chrysostom. Homilies on John 66.3. NPNF 1/14, p. 246. Cf. the study of this theme: A
H C van Eijk. “Only that can rise which has previously fallen. The history of a formula.”
Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971) 517-529.
20
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Philippians 6. NPNF 1/13, p. 212. Cf. also Homilies on St.
John 66.3. NPNF 1/14, pp. 246-247.
21
Augustine. On the predestination of the saints 24. NPNF 1/5, p. 509.
111
explain why we are judged apart from the body for deeds apparently, according to this
text, done in the body. In the time between death and the resurrection, the soul suffers
punishment or reward for deeds done in the soul,22 while the punishment and reward
of the soul together with the body follows later at the resurrection. The view of
Augustine thus continues some of the earlier themes of Patristic theology, but is
unable to escape from the consequences of an instrumentalist anthropology.
Cyril of Jerusalem asks his hearers to reverence the body in which they will be raised
and judged: “Be tender, I beseech you, of this body, and understand that you will be
raised from the dead, to be judged with this body.”23 He stressed that the believers
would have to give account to the Lord of what they have done with the body.24 He
argues that God has power over both bodies and souls, and he will therefore subject
both to punishment.25
Gregory of Nyssa insists that since in both virtuous deeds and in vice, body and soul
act together, there is no basis for judging the soul alone, a view he says is neither just
nor reasonable. “If alone and naked the soul sinned, punish it alone, too; but if it has a
manifest accomplice, the judge being just will not acquit the accomplice.”26 In
burglary, adultery or murder, the soul cannot act without the body, nor can this be the
case likewise in acts of virtue, and so both must be judged together.27 Gregory refers
to human nature in the resurrection as “a composite being as before consisting of both
body and soul,” which will be led to judgement after the resurrection. The soul and
body form a partnership which must be judged as a whole.28
22
Cf. Augustine. “During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death and the
final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction
just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.” The Enchiridion
on Faith, Hope and Love 109. NPNF 1/3, p. 272.
23
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 4.30. NPNF 2/7, p. 26. Concern for the body is also
expressed by Prudentius. “Receive now, earth, this our brother into thy care, take him into thy
gentle bosom. It is a man's body I leave in thy keeping; nobly born the remains that I commit
to thy trust. This was once the home of a soul created from its Maker's mouth; in these
remains dwelt glowing Wisdom, whose head is Christ. Do thou cover the body entrusted to
thee; He who is its maker and author will not forget it, and will seek again that which He
gave, the image of His own countenance.” Cathemerinon 10.124-135. Loeb, I, p. 93.
Similarly Augustine says that care ought to be shown to the bodies of the deceased saints,
since they have been “used by the Holy Spirit as his organs and instruments for all good
works.” He says “the body is not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man's very
nature.” The City of God 1.13. NPNF 1/2, p. 10. See also On care to be had for the dead 5.
NPNF 1/3, p. 541.
24
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.20. NPNF 2/7, pp. 139. Here Cyril accuses the
heretics of despising the body as a garment that is not an instrinsic part of human nature, and
exhorts his hearers to treat it with respect, since they will give an account to the Lord for
everything they have done through the body.
25
26
Gregory of Nyssa. Discourse on the holy Pascha. In: The Easter Sermons of Gregory of
Nyssa, p. 22.
27
Nyssa, p. 21.
28
Nyssa, p. 20.
112
In his commentary on Psalm 1 Origen mentions the common Patristic approach to
anthropology, that both body and soul will suffer together for the deeds they have
done, saying that Matthew 10:28 [Fear him which is able to destroy both body and
soul in hell] possibly means that the soul will not receive punishment apart from the
body. However he sees the text in terms of the Greek doctrine of form and substance,
and cannot thereby but distort the meaning by introducing into the text alien dualistic
conceptions.29
Gregory the Great uses the traditional anthropological viewpoint when he comes to
discuss the significance and nature of the resurrection. He states that it is fitting that
both the body and soul together should share the rewards and punishments earned
together in life. Gregory held that the wicked will be raised in the same flesh in which
they now live, so that the flesh which was the instrument of sin should share in the
punishment for that sin.
Which people, though here they quit their dead flesh, yet that same in
the resurrection they receive again, that together with that flesh they
may burn, in which flesh they did their sin. For as their sin was in mind
and body, so the punishment shall be in spirit and flesh alike.30
Since the union of body and soul is the natural state for humankind, it is only natural
that the restoration of that union should occur at the resurrection, so that the soul and
body can share together in the punishments and rewards the person has deserved.31
The body which sinned, or did virtue, will be the body which is punished or rewarded,
and this therefore demands a resurrection. This will not take place without the soul,
since both body and soul were involved in every deed. This idea is found in many
Patristic writers.32
The concept of both body and soul deserving rewards and punishments together is
continued in Patristic thought, although it is divorced from the foundation on which it
was established: the unity of body and soul which formed the person.
4.2 The justice of God and the judgement
29
Origen. Selections in Psalms. Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen,
pp. 234-235.
30
Gregory the Great. Morals in Job 16.14.19. LF 21, p. 236.
31
J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 85.
32
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 83. FC 17, pp. 136-137. Basil of Caesarea. “The body is not
divided, part being delivered to chastisement, and part let off; for when a whole has sinned it
were like the old fables, and unworthy of a righteous judge, for only the half to suffer
chastisement. Nor is the soul cut in two, that soul the whole of which possesses the sinful
affection throughout, and works the wickedness in co-operation with the body.” On the Spirit
16.40. NPNF 2/8, p. 25. Peter of Alexandria. “...at the resurrection our mortal bodies put on
immortality in order that the body united with the soul might receive the reward which it
deserves.” Peter of Alexandria. On the resurrection [Fragment IV.1]. In: T Vivian. St. Peter
of Alexandria: Bishop and Martyr, p. 133.
113
The necessity for the resurrection was frequently argued on the basis of justice.
Because the Patristic authors recognised that people often do not receive their just
deserts in this life, they held that a judgement after death was essential, in order to
punish the wicked and reward the righteous. Without a judgement there would be no
setting to rights of the things that are wrong, nor an incentive to right living for those
able to escape punishment in this life.33 Only by such a judgement after death could
justice be done. This view is found in John Chrysostom, who says that “...if he were
to chasten all the evil men here, and were to honour all the good men, a day of
judgement were superfluous.”34
Irenaeus and many other Patristic writers asserted that those who sinned did so
deliberately, and cannot escape their punishment by claiming that God is not just.
Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes
them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not
upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic
spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both
given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and
they will not admit that the judgement of God is just. Wherefore also
they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor
exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of
all sins.35
Irenaeus insists then that it is essential that God judges all humankind, otherwise it
would demonstrate that he is either not just, or else does not care about human deeds.
Because Irenaeus believes that God is both just and the Creator of all, then to deny he
judges is to deny he is the Creator.36 And if human deeds are of no of concern to God,
then the incarnation and redemptive work of Christ has no object. The true God is not
like the God of the Gnostics, who has no interest in us and is indifferent to human
virtue and indulgent of human vice. The Son has come, however, for the ruin of
obdurate sinners and the salvation of those who believe. All will then be judged
according to their deeds, and accordingly punished or rewarded.37
Many Patristic writers argue that denial of the resurrection is motivated by rejection
of the idea of the judgement to follow. Thus John Chrysostom states:
33
Hippolytus states that Epicurus denies the possibility of judgement after death because the
soul is then dissolved, so if we can evade punishment in this life we have escaped it
altogether. Refutation of all Heresies 1.19. ANF 5, p. 21. Epicurus was frequently assailed by
the Patristic writers for this view. Cf. Arnobius. The case against the pagans 2.30. ANF 7, p.
144. Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 3.17. ANF 7, p. 86.
34
John Chrysostom. That demons do not govern the world 1.7. NPNF 1/9, p. 184.
35
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.27.1. ANF 1, pp. 555-556.
36
Cf. Theophilus of Antioch. “For he who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ear for
hearing and made eyes for vision, will examine everything and will judge justly, rewarding
each one in accordance with what he deserves.” To Autolycus 1.14. Oxford Early Christian
Texts, pp. 19, 21.
37
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.27.1-2. ANF 1, p. 556.
114
Be not therefore deceived by the heretics, beloved: for there is a
Resurrection and there is a Judgement, but they deny these things, who
would desire not to give account of their actions.38
Elsewhere he says that “death will be the beginning of punishment for persons who
believe not that there is a Judgement.”39 The Epistles of Polycarp stress that a denial
of the resurrection and the judgement is a heresy: “...whosoever... does not confess
that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is antichrist; ...and anyone who says that there is
neither a resurrection nor a judgement, he is the firstborn of Satan.”40 While not
explicitly stated, this is perhaps implying that denying the judgement results in
immoral behaviour, and such a person would merit the description of “the firstborn of
Satan.” The judgement to come is thus both an incentive to live an ethical life here
and now, and also an encouragement to those suffering injustice, since it holds the
promise that the wrongs in the world will be put to right.41
Minucius Felix asserts that the wicked wish to think that death is the end of all and
that there is therefore no resurrection for judgement, because they are aware that they
will have to give an account of their evil lives at the judgement. Minucius says that
they can assert this error simply because God delays his judgement in patience, and is
therefore even more just.42 Minucius argues that this doctrine of the punishment of the
wicked after death is well attested in the pagan writers, as well as in Christian
doctrine.43 Similarly, Arnobius claims that the Greek poets and philosophers
understood something of the truth when they spoke of punishments after death, but
they did not understand that the resurrection needed to occur first.44
38
John Chrysostom. Homilies on John 66.3. NPNF 1/14, pp. 246-247.
39
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 268.
40
Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians 7. ANF 1, p. 34. Cf. the comments of John Chrysostom,
who says that those who do not believe in the judgement after death have no right to call
themselves Christians. Homilies on Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 268.
41
John Chrysostom. Homily in Matthew 13.9. NPNF 1/10, p. 86.
42
Minucius Felix. Octavius 34. ANF 4, p. 194. G Quispel points out the parallel between this
idea and a passage in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 5.28 [ANF 8, p. 150], where the
desire of the wicked that death is the end also occurs. Quispel suggests that both could be
using a common source. “A Jewish source of Minucius Felix.” Vigiliae Christianae 3 (1949)
119. Commodian suggested that it was ungrateful for the wicked rich to suggest that there will
be no life after death, since they thereby despise God who gave them life and all their many
possessions. They are merely hoping to avoid any punishment. Instructions 29. ANF 4, p.
208. Cf. also Instructions 26-27. ANF 4, pp. 207-208. Eusebius. On the Theophania 3.61.
Samuel Lee, pp. 196-200. Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine 13.13. NPNF 2/1, p.
602.
43
Minucius Felix. Octavius 35. ANF 4, p. 195. Cf. also John Chrysostom, who says that the
Greeks have no right to disbelieve in the judgement, since so many of their poets and
philosophers have spoken of it, even though, he stresses, they erred in understanding it to be a
judgement of the soul alone and not of the soul together with the body. Homilies on
Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 269. Cf. Hippolytus, who points to Plato's doctrine of judgement
after death to show that the justice of God is not evaded by the doctrine of the immortality of
the soul. Refutation of all Heresies 1.16. ANF 5, pp. 18-19.
44
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.13. ACW 7, p. 127.
115
Cyril of Jerusalem stresses the importance of belief in the resurrection, since then the
Lord will reward us for our labours, as any king would do for his subjects.45 Cyril says
that the Greeks reject the resurrection, the Samaritans do not believe it,46 but heretics
on the other hand mutilate it, that is, they affirm the life of the soul but reject the
resurrection of the body,47 since according to Cyril the heretics consider the body as a
garment to be discarded.48 This emphasis on the resurrection is essential for Cyril's
theology, both to maintain the integrity of the Biblical eschatology, as he needs to
show that God is able to execute justice on both body and soul, and also to thereby
refute the heretics who deny the unity of human nature as the creation of God.
But they [the heretics] who say that one God is Lord of the soul, and
some other of the body, make neither of them perfect, because either is
wanting to the other. For how is he almighty, who has power over the
soul, but not over the body? And how is he almighty who has dominion
over bodies, but no power over spirits? But these men the Lord
confutes, saying on the contrary, Rather fear ye Him which is able to
destroy both body and soul in hell. For unless the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ has the power over both, how does He subject both to
punishment?49
The need for justice and belief in a resurrection were thus seen as reinforcing each
other: both were necessary, and each implied the other. The judgement was demanded
because God was just and would reward those who do good and punish those who do
evil, even if this did not occur in this life. This idea is expressed succinctly by John
Chrysostom.
If there is a God, as indeed there is, it follows that he is just, for if he is

not just neither is he God, and if he is just he recompenses to each
according to their desert. But we do not see all here receiving according
to their desert. Therefore it is necessary to hope for some other requital
awaiting us, in order that by each one receiving according to his desert,
the justice of God may be made manifest. For this consideration does
45
46
The Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch, like the Sadducees, and thus claim that because
there is no direct teaching of the resurrection and future judgement there, it is not essential for
the faith. Nor do they believe in the immortality of the soul, expecting a 'resurrection' only
through having offspring. Cf. Philastrius. De haeresibus 7. PL 12, 1120-1121.
47
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.1. NPNF 2/7, p. 134. Ambrose complains that
the philosophers allow only a “partial redemption” through rejecting the resurrection, even if
they do accept the immortality of the soul. On belief in the resurrection 2.126. NPNF 2/10, p.
195.
48
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.20. NPNF 2/7, p. 139. The heretical groups that
do not believe in the resurrection and future judgement include the 'Proclianitae,' the Floriani
or Carpocratians, the Manichaeans, and the Symmachians. Philastrius. De haeresibus 56-63.
PL 12, 1170-1177.
49
116
not only contribute to our wisdom about providence alone, but about
the Resurrection...50
Chrysostom expands on this idea elsewhere, and demonstrates how the judgement is
essential if justice is to be maintained. He bases this on the perception that the order
in creation demonstrates the existence of God. He then maintains that God must be
just, rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked, since even human beings feel
this way. Thus since justice is not done in this life, it can only happen in the next life,
that is, after we are raised from the dead.51 Thus the justice of God is correlated with
his providence; for unless God is concerned about what occurs in this life and cares
for this creation, what basis is there for him to judge us for our deeds?
So frequently was the resurrection “proven” on the grounds of justice that

Athenagoras expressed regret that this argument had been used, as it obscured what
was for him the more important basis of resurrection: the fulfillment of the intention
of God for humanity.52 Even though he used the same argument, Athenagoras wished
it to be subordinate to this teleological concern. However, he also argues from
“secondary arguments,” namely that the reward or punishment due to each requires
the resurrection.53 Athenagoras argues that since humans are rational, they require
justice.54 This is in contrast to the irrational animals, since they neither know about
nor demand justice.55 This justice applies to the whole person, the compositum of
body and soul, therefore
50
John Chrysostom. That demons do not govern the world 1.8. NPNF 1/9, p. 186. Cf. Homilies
on Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 268. “If there is no Judgement, God is not just: if God is not
just, then there is no God at all: if there is no God, all things go on at haphazard, virtue is
nothing, vice nothing.” This idea was found also in Clement of Alexandria, who says that God
cannot be good without being just. The Instructor 1.9. ANF 2, pp. 228-232. Justin Martyr
argues that God's nature implies a final judgement. First Apology 28. ANF 1, p. 172. This
approach to the just nature of God is considered by Pannenberg to be rooted in a philosophical
conception of God in which “The biblical connection between the righteousness of God and
his faithfulness to his promises and his covenant receded from sight.” He says this “gives the
concept of righteousness an ultimately cosmological instead of redemptive-historical
background.” Wolfhart Pannenberg. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 2, pp. 174-175, and
n. 197.
51
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians 9.3. NPNF 1/12, p. 323. Cf. his further
comment in this section: “Open the doors of your conscience, and behold the judge that sits in
your heart. Now if you condemn yourself, although a lover of yourself, and cannot refrain
from passing a righteous verdict, will not God much rather make great provision for that
which is just, and pass that impartial judgement upon all; or will he permit everything to go on
loosely and at random?” NPNF 1/12, p. 324.
52
Even after the time of Athenagoras, that idea continued. As his writings were relatively
unknown, his criticisms appear to have had little effect on subsequent writers such as
Tertullian, who said: “The entire cause, then, or rather necessity of the resurrection, will be
this, namely, that arrangement of the final judgement which shall be most suitable to God.”
On the resurrection of the flesh 14. ANF 3, p. 554.
53
131.
54
133.
55
Athenagoras. Concerning the Resurrection of the dead 10.2-4. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
p. 111.
117
...it is necessary that such a man should be held accountable for all his
deeds and receive reward and punishment because of them. Just
judgement requites the composite creature for his deeds. The soul alone
should not receive the wages for deeds done in conjunction with the
body (for the soul as soul is free from passions and untouched by the
faults which arise in connection with bodily pleasures or with food and
nurture), nor should the body alone be requited (for the body as body
cannot make assessment of law and justice); it is man, the combination
of both, who receives judgement for each of his deeds.56
Athenagoras is convinced that true justice is not meted out during our lifetimes, as
many wicked people escape punishment, while many righteous people are not
rewarded but frequently suffer distress. Neither can such justice be given after death,
since the composite creature no longer exists as long as the soul is separated from the
body which decomposes and is dispersed.57 The conclusion which must follow from
this logic is obvious, according to Athenagoras.
What follows is clear to everyone: that this corruptible and dispersible

body must, according to the apostle, put on incorruptibility, so that,
when the dead are revivified through the resurrection and what has been
separated or entirely dissolved is reunited, each may receive his just
recompense for what he did in the body, whether good or evil.58
Athenagoras argues that if there is no judgement then we are no better than animals
and moral living is not only not necessary, it is a disadvantage to us, since we cannot
thereby fulfill what would be perfectly natural desires without inhibition. The fitting
conclusion of that view is the motto, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, that
is, we are annihilated in death.59
Athenagoras insists that God will visit his justice on us, and because of his
anthropological views, the body and soul must both be present, since justice demands
that the subject of the punishment be present.
If the body decays and each part which undergoes dissolution returns to
its appropriate element, whereas the soul as such remains incorruptible,
not even then will a judgement upon the soul take place, since justice
would be absent; for it is not right to assume that any judgement will be
56
p. 133.
57
133.
58
135.
59
135. The same idea is found in other Patristic writers, for example, Arnobius. The case
against the Pagans 2.29. ACW 7, p. 142. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Colossians 2. NPNF
1/13, p. 269. Gregory of Nyssa. Discourse on the Holy Pascha. In: The Easter Sermons of
Gregory of Nyssa, pp. 9, 19.
118
exercised by God or issue from God if justice is absent; and justice is
absent if the doer of righteousness or unrighteousness does not perdure;
and the one who in his lifetime did each of the deeds that are judged
was man - not soul as such. In short, this doctrine is worth nothing for
the maintenance of justice.60
Athenagoras thus shows that on his grounds, the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul alone without the resurrection of the body cannot guarantee the justice of God in
exercising judgement on humankind, since human persons are to be judged, not the
souls alone. Thus the body must be raised to participate in the rewards and
punishments due to it together with the soul, if true justice is to be done and to be
seen to be done.
In the rewarding of virtuous acts the body will clearly be wronged if it

participates with the soul in the labours of its earnest striving but does
not participate in the reward for such acts; it will be wronged if the soul
has frequently gained forgiveness for some of its misdeeds in
consideration of the body's need and want, but the body itself is
deprived of participation in the reward for virtuous acts for the sake of
which it endured the labours of this life. Moreover, when misdeeds are
judged, justice is not upheld in the case of the soul if it alone pays the
penalty for the misdeeds it committed when the body afflicted it and
drew it into the orbit of its own desires and impulses, sometimes
carrying it off by force, and at other times finding it a compliant
attendant, indulging and pampering the body's frame.61
The belief that God created humankind in the beginning is used as an argument for
believing God will also judge them. God is able to judge, because he is able to raise
them from the dead to exercise his judgement. It is just of God to judge them, because
it is God who originally created them. Thus we must be raised bodily, and it is our
bodily existence that will be judged after we have been raised.62
Those Patristic writers who held that there would be only one judgement on the Last
Day saw this as inconsistent with an immediate individualistic judgement after death.
Cyril of Jerusalem draws on Matthew 25:32, the separation of the sheep from the
goats, as evidence that all will be judged, including the believers. He refers to the
good works commanded by Christ [Matthew 25:35] and says “These things if you do,
you shall reign together with Him; but if you do not do them, you shall be
condemned.”63
The distinction between the righteous and the wicked was made very early, with such
texts as Matthew 25, concerning the separation of the sheep and the goats, playing a
60
137, 139.
61
p. 139.
62
Second Letter of Clement 14. ANF 10, pp. 254-255.
63
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 15.25-26. NPNF 2/7, p. 112.
119
prominent role.64 An instance is the Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle, who speaks of a
separation “between the sheep and the goats, and between the faithful and those who
believe not.”65
Tertullian insisted that the separation made by God between the wicked and the
righteous would take place only at the judgement and not before. Until then, all
human beings are treated alike. This is a salutary reminder to any who would attempt
to usurp the prerogative of God and decide here and now who is righteous and who is
not.
For He who once for all appointed an eternal judgement at the world's
close, does not precipitate the separation, which is essential to
judgement, before the end. Meanwhile He deals with all sorts of men
alike, so that all together share His favours and reproofs.66
Those who do seek to separate out in this life the “wicked” from the “righteous” are
thus implicitly denying the resurrection of the wicked to face judgement, since they
seem to think there is no other opportunity to punish the wicked than in this life.67
This postponement of the separation on the part of God to the end of the age can be
understood in terms of “common grace,” that favour which God shows towards all his
creatures, regardless of their response to his appeal of love to them.68 Tertullian
returns to this theme in his Epistle to Scapula.
Accordingly the true God bestows His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own
elect; upon which account He has appointed an eternal judgement, when both thankful
and unthankful will have to stand before His bar.69
64
Caesarius of Arles emphasised charity to others, so as to appear before the Judge with a clear
conscience. This is demonstrated “by the frequency of his references to the Judgement scene
in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's gospel, with its dramatic insistence on helping the
unfortunate as the test for salvation... Sermons on, and references within other sermons to,
Matthew 25.31-46 outnumber those relating to any other text.” W M Daley. “Caesarius of
Arles, a precursor of Mediaeval Christendom.” Traditio 26 (1970) 22 and note 53.
65
The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle. ANF 8, p. 658. Further on the author speaks of “the
separation which is to be made between the faithful and the unbelieving” at the resurrection.
66
67
Cf. the comments of John Cassian. “This question [why the righteous are killed] often
exercises the minds of those who have not much faith or knowledge, and imagine that the
prizes and rewards of the saints (which are not given in this world, but laid up for the future),
are bestowed in the short space of this mortal life. But we whose hope in Christ is not only in
this life, for fear lest, as the Apostle says, we should be of all men most miserable (because as
we receive none of the promises in this world we should for our unbelief lose them also in
that to come) ought not wrongly to follow their ideas...” Conferences 6.2. NPNF 2/11, p. 352.
68
Cf. Herman Bavinck. “Calvin and Common Grace.” In: Calvin and the Reformation, pp.
99-130. R C van Leeuwen. “Herman Bavinck's `Common Grace.' A translation and
introduction.” Calvin Theological Journal 24 (1989) 35-65.
69
Tertullian. To Scapula 2. ANF 3, p. 105.
120
The “common grace” of God thus provides a further argument for the judgement of
all following the resurrection, since we will all have to give an account of our
response to God's continued graciousness to us in spite of our continued
rebelliousness. A similar idea shaped Augustine's doctrine of the “two cities,” which
Augustine says are commingled while in the world, so that the godly and the ungodly
live together. Some of the ungodly wish to identify with the church, thus
exemplifying the commingling. But those who live lives of ungodliness “shall not
eternally dwell in the lot of the saints” since the two cities, entangled now, will be
separated at the last judgement.70 “For some most flagrant and wicked desires are
allowed free play at present by the secret judgement of God, and are reserved to the
public and final judgement.”71 Augustine stresses that all shall rise for the judgement;
those who have done evil will be raised and judged and sent into punishment, so that
at that time there will be a separation between the good and the wicked. The
distinction is not made in the resurrection, but only after the dead have risen, when
they are sent to separate destinations: They that have done good into the resurrection
of life; they that have done evil into the resurrection of judgement. Here, Augustine
says, judgement means punishment, when we are separated. At the present time there
is no separation, as “we all live together with the unjust, though the life of all is not
the same: in secret we are distinguished, in secret we are separated.” At the judgement
this secret separation will be made public, when that which is hidden will be
revealed.72
4.2.1 The judgement of the living and the dead
The Apostle's Creed, echoing Biblical terminology,73 says that Christ will come to
judge “the living and the dead,” a phrase used without further explanation by a
number of early Patristic writers.74 The idea that Christ will judge both “the living and
the dead” implies a general judgement of all at his return, since the individualistic
view of an immediate judgement after death separates the “living,” who are not
judged, from the “dead,” who are.
There was considerable discussion later in the Patristic period as to what this phrase
meant. There were three views expressed: that “the living and the dead” are those who
are still alive at the parousia, and those who have died; that “the living” are the
immortal souls, while “the dead” are their bodies; or that “the living” are the saints
and “the dead” are the wicked who have no true life in them.
70
Augustine. The City of God 1.35. NPNF 1/2, p. 21. Cf. Gregory the Great. “For since this life
is passed in common by the good and the evil, the Church is now visibly made up of a number
of each of those. But it is distinguished in God's invisible judgement, and, at its end, is
separated from the society of the wicked.” Morals on Job 31.15.28. LF 31, p. 447.
71
72
Augustine. On the Gospel of John 19.17-18. NPNF 1/7, p. 130.
73
Cf. Romans 14:9, 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5.
74
For example, Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians 2. ANF 1, p. 33. The Epistle of Barnabas 7.
ANF 1, p. 141. Second Letter of Clement 1. ANF 10, p. 251.
121
The first view is found in Theodore of Mopsuestia, who insists that the phrase refers
simply to the two groups, those who have died, and those who are still alive, at the
time of the return of Christ.
They added after His coming the sentence: To judge the dead and the
living, so that with the mention of the good things done to us they
should also implant fear into us and make us ready for the gift of the
glory of all this Economy. They said, “of the dead and of the living,”
not that the dead shall be judged - what kind of judgement can there be
to the dead who do not feel? - but that at the time of His coming He will
raise all of us born of Adam, that is all the children of men who had
died, and will transform them into an immortal nature. Those men who
will be overtaken by the general resurrection while still alive He will
only transform, and from being mortal He will make immortal. This is
the reason why they said, “the living and the dead.” Those who will be
alive at that time they called “the living,” and those who had already
died and passed away they called “the dead,” in order to show us that
all the children of men shall be judged and none shall escape scrutiny,
and that when they have been judged they shall receive a judgement
commensurate with the nature of their actions in a way that some of
them will be rewarded and others punished.75
Theodore thus stresses that the judgement will not take place after death, since the
dead cannot be punished with justice, as they are unable to feel their punishment.
Rather, everyone will be raised from the dead in order to face the judgement: nobody
is exempt, and nobody escapes.
The second view is found in Methodius, who expresses the opinion that it refers to
“souls and bodies; the souls being the living, as being immortal, and the bodies being
dead.”76 This same idea is found in Rufinus, who emphasises the significance of the
eschatological judgement when all will receive the rewards due to them for their
deeds in the body.77 He says:
But the statement that He will judge living and dead does not imply that
some will come to the judgement alive and others dead. Rather it means
that He will judge men's souls and bodies simultaneously, their souls
being described as living and their bodies as dead.78
75
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Nicene Creed 7. Woodbrooke Studies 5 (1932)
78-79. Note the comment that the dead cannot feel (See Chapter 2.4.1).
76
From an account of Methodius' Discourse On the Resurrection as reported by Photius. ANF
6, p. 377. Cf. also The Symposium 6.4. ACW 27, p. 95. Origen suggests that the statement that
God is not the God of the dead but of the living [Mark 12:27] means that “He is not the God
of sinners but of saints... If, then, He is the God of the saints, and is said to be the God of the
living, then the saints are the living and the living are saints...” Commentary on John 2.11.
ANF 10, p. 333.
77
Rufinus. Apology to Anastasius 4-5. NPNF 2/3, p. 431. Cf. also Apology 1.4-9. NPNF 2/3, pp.
437-439.
78
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostle's Creed 33. ACW 20, p. 67. Peter Chrysologus says that
the reference to the judgement of both the dead and the living means those who have died are
122
The third view is found in Augustine's discussion of this article of the Apostle's
Creed, where he says that this phrase refers to the just (the “living”) and the wicked
(the “dead”). He also mentions the first interpretation discussed above as an
alternative, but stresses that Christ judges both groups, however they are understood.79
4.2.2 The rejection of Fate
The Patristic writers rejected the idea that human actions are governed by “fate,”
which determined our futures not according to justice but according to an arbitrary
decree.80 In opposition to this idea, they posited the providence of God, who cares for
his creation, and will judge all humankind justly, rewarding the just and punishing the
wicked. The Patristic writers also insisted on the freedom of human beings and their
responsibility for their actions.81 For instance, Eusebius attacks Apollonius for his
views of the Fates which prescribe for every man his character and actions, which he
still living in the eyes of God, even if we think of them as dead. The dead will certainly be
raised for the judgement, they have not perished. “Whence He will come to judge the living
and the dead. Let it be so with regard to the living. But how will He be able to judge the
dead? Why, those whom we regard as dead are living. Therefore, admit that those whom the
pagan world thinks have perished will rise again to be judged; that those who have died and
will be found to be living may give an account both of their deeds and their life.” Sermon 57.
On the Apostles' Creed. FC 17, p. 109. Cf. also Sermon 61. On the Apostles' Creed. FC 17, p.
114. Caesarius says that the dead are “those who are proven to have died in their sins” while
the living are “those who persevered in the good works of their lives.” Thus, those who are
cast into hell are the dead, and those received into the kingdom are the living. Sermon 110.3.
FC 47, pp. 146-147. Isidore of Pelusium says: “By the judgement of living and dead is meant
that both soul and body come to judgement together, and not separately. Just as they formed a
unity here, so they will undergo judgement in unison there.” Letter 1.222. PG 78, 321. Cited
in: J N D Kelly. Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostles' Creed. ACW 20, p. 132, n. 200.
79
Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love 55. NPNF 1/3, p. 255. On Faith and the
Creed 8.15. NPNF 1/3, p. 327. On the Creed 12. NPNF 1/3, pp. 373-374. Cf. The City of God
20.24. NPNF 1/2, p. 445, where Augustine says that Christ will come from heaven to judge
the living and the dead, namely, “the just and the unjust.” This interpretation may be derived
from Ambrose, who holds that the “living” and the “dead” are the just and the wicked, the
first enjoying eternal life in the bosom of Abraham, and the other in the tombs of the dead.
The prayer of Job and David 5.19. FC 65, p. 365.
80
See for instance Augustine's attack on the idea of fate, and its corrolary, astrology, in The City
of God 5.1-10. NPNF 1/2, pp. 84-93. Also Justin Martyr. First Apology 43. ANF 1, p. 177.
Second Apology 7. ANf 1, p. 190. Tatian. Address to the Greeks 7-8. Oxford Early Christian
Texts, pp. 13, 15. Minucius Felix. Octavius 11. ANF 4, p. 179. Octavius 36. ANF 4, p. 195.
Ambrosiaster. Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti 115. PL 35, 2347-2359.
81
The idea of “free will” was articulated perhaps most strongly in this context, although it is in
conflict with a Scriptural anthropology. Although it allowed the Patristic writers to maintain
human responsibility, it was to generate various pseudo-problems in the paradox of free will
and determinism, which are still debated today. These problems can be seen in Augustine's
attempt to maintain the foreknowledge of God of all human actions in conjunction with
human free will, while also insisting that the predetermining of our actions by fate destroys
free will. The City of God 5.9. NPNF 1/2, pp. 90-91. Cf. Origen. De Principiis 3.1.1. ANF 4,
p. 302.
123
cannot avoid. Eusebius defends the doctrine of free will in an effort to preserve
personal responsibility for evil and good.82
John Chrysostom recognised that the idea of fate was in conflict with the resurrection
and subsequent judgement, and he asserts that to believe the latter is to refute the
former. If God is just, then the accident of birth cannot be unjust. It is God and not
Fate or the powers of astrology that “holds all things together.” Belief in God
banishes the idea of necessity and defends free agency, and thus also human
responsibility.83
Because Chrysostom believes there is a judgement to follow the resurrection, the

seeming injustices of this life do not disturb him. It does not indicate that we are
subject to the powers of fate which do not operate according to justice, but that we are
awaiting a day of judgement when all things are put to rights. Chrysostom insists that
the true rewards and punishments come after the resurrection. If we see what appears
to be injustice here, as when the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer, then this is
not what they deserve, but a foretaste of the judgement to bring them to repentance.84
He appears to imply that this will bring a sense of the grace of God and appropriate
response.
Let us not then be troubled, let no man be troubled, when he sees the
wicked prospering. The recompense is not here, either of wickedness
or, of virtue; and if in any instance there be either of wickedness or of
virtue, yet it is not according to desert, but merely as it were a taste of
the judgement, that they who believe not the resurrection may yet even
by things that happen here be brought to their senses. When then we see
a wicked man rich, let us not be cast down; when we see a good man
suffering, let us not be troubled. For yonder are the crowns, yonder the
punishments.85
Even if the inequities of life are not resolved in this life, we need not despair since
they will be corrected at the judgement. He also suggests that the wicked receive good
things here, since they are not wholly bad, but after the resurrection they will receive
only punishments, having already had what rewards they deserve. The righteous are
not perfect either, and so they can receive recompense for their sins through
punishment here, that later they should receive only rewards.86 Chrysostom insists that
since God is just, therefore he will not allow injustice to stand uncorrected. Since God
does not correct it in this life, then there must be a judgement when it will be
corrected.
82
Eusebius. The Treatise of Eusebius against the life of Apollonius of Tyana 41. Loeb, Vol 2,
pp. 593-601. See G F Chesnut. “Fate, fortune, free will and nature in Eusebius of Caesarea.”
Church History 42 (1973) 165-182.
83
John Chrysostom. Homilies on 1 Timothy 1. NPNF 1/13, p. 411.
84
Cf. the views of Cyprian. “[The apostle Paul] says that God's judgement is just, because it is
tardy, because it is long and greatly deferred, so that by the long patience of God man may be
benefited for life eternal.” On the advantage of patience 4. ANF 5, p. 485.
85
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Hebrews 5.6. NPNF 1/14, p. 391.
86
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Hebrews 5.6. NPNF 1/14, p. 391.
124
So that when you see a just man straitened and afflicted; and in
sickness, and in poverty, as well as innumerable other woes, till he ends
this present life; say to yourself, that if there were no resurrection and
judgement, God would not have permitted one, who enjoyed such great
evils for his sake, to depart hence without enjoying any good thing;
from when it is evident, that for such he has prepared another life, and
one which is sweeter and much more endurable. For if it were not so,
then he would not suffer many of the wicked to luxuriate through the
present life; and many of the just to remain in ten thousand ills; but
since there is provided another life, in which he is about to recompense
every man according to his deserts; one for his wickedness, another for
his virtue; on that account he forbears, while he sees the former
enduring evil, and the latter living in luxury.87
Nemesius attacks the idea that fate (and astrology) governs human affairs.88 He argues
that God's providence will ensure that justice is done with respect to those who escape
punishment for crimes in this life. He bases this on the immortality of the soul, as
criminals cannot escape punishment through death, but instead will face judgement
after death. Those who argue that there is no justice for those who escape punishment
in this life restrict justice to this life only on the basis that the soul is mortal. As a
result they “grossly exaggerate the importance of bodily and external well-being” and
ignore virtue.89
The judgement to come thus stands in contrast to the doctrine of fate, which does not
accept that the injustices of this life will remain unaltered. Therefore, there is a
judgement after the resurrection, since God is just, and it is only in that way that he
can exercise his justice and be seen to be just.
4.3 The millennium
The doctrine of the millennium can be found in the earliest Patristic writers, as for
instance in the reports of Eusebius concerning the views of Papias, who held that
“there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and
that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.”90 This
correlation of the millennium with resurrection of the dead is typical, as Davies
comments:
A survey of the relevant passages indicates that wherever there is a belief in a

millennium, this is wedded to belief in the resurrection of the flesh. This combination
would appear to be logically necessary because the millennium is a period of
messianic sovereignty on earth; for the righteous dead to participate in this, they must
live again on earth, i.e. the resurrection must be one that involves the restoration of
87
John Chrysostom. Concerning the statues 20. NPNF 1/9, pp. 339-340.
88
Nemesius. On the nature of man 35.51. LCC 4, p,p. 397-398.
89
90
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 3.39. NPNF 2/1, p. 172.
125
their physical particles - the millennium therefore requires the resurrection of the
flesh.91
Dewart also points out this necessary correlation: “Justin believed in a resurrection of
the flesh as a corollary of millenarianism, which necessarily involves a resurrection.”92
While Justin's Apology does not mention the millennium, for perfectly valid reasons,93
it is found in the Dialogue with Trypho. Thus the eschatology of the Apology has been
described as “spiritual” over against the implied “materialism” of the Dialogue.94
Barnard points out (drawing on the views of C D F Moule)95 that the different
eschatological emphases in Justin's writings, such as we see in the Dialogue with
Trypho and the Apology, are the result of different circumstances which therefore
require different treatment and terminology.96
In Justin's eyes, those who reject Christ's millennial reign on earth and the restoration
of Jerusalem, and believe that their souls will be taken to heaven when they die, are
not orthodox Christians.
...I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are
assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand
years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as
the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.97
91
J G Davies. “Factors leading to the emergence of belief in the resurrection of the flesh.”
Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972) 450.
92
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 64. Cf. L W Barnard. “Justin Martyr's
eschatology.” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965) 95.
93
J E McWilliam Dewart. “While the Dialogue stresses the millennium (addressed to Jewish
ears) the Apology (addressed to the Emperor) avoids discussing the kingdom of God and
speaks of èternal and good life.'“ Death and Resurrection, p. 65. A defence of Christianity
intended for the Emperor would naturally avoid any expressions which might imply a political
threat to the State. For instance, Eusebius reports that the relatives of the Lord were brought to
Domitian for questioning about their political aspirations. On being asked about the nature of
the kingdom of Christ, they replied “that it was not a temporal or an earthly kingdom, but a
heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come
in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and give unto every one according to his works.
Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgement against them, but, despising them as of
no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.”
Ecclesiastical History 3.20. NPNF 2/1, p. 149. Cf. Irenaeus, who does not give the kingdom
this “spiritual” interpretation, but certainly stresses its peaceful character. “The Lord's advent
as a man was pointed out, that it should be subsequent to that law which was given by Moses,
mild and tranquil, in which He would neither break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking
flax. The mild and peaceful repose of His Kingdom was indicated likewise. For, after the
wind which rends the mountains, and after the earthquake, and after the fire, come the tranquil
and peaceful times of His kingdom, in which the Spirit of God does, in the most gentle
manner, vivify and increase mankind.” Against Heresies 4.20.10. ANF 1, p. 490.
94
G T Purves. The Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity, pp. 121-122.
95
L W Barnard. Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought, p. 157, referring to: C F D Moule.
“The influence of circumstances on eschatological terminology.” Journal of Theological
Studies 15 (1964) 1-15.
96
L W Barnard. Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought, p. 158.
97
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 80. ANF 1, p. 239. Lactantius also speaks of the
rebuilding of Jerusalem. Epitome of the Divine Institutes 72. ANF 7, p. 254.
126
Irenaeus also makes a very obscure reference to the opinions of otherwise orthodox
believers whose eschatological views are suspect.
Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are

derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God's
dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of
the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by
means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed
gradually to partake of the divine nature...98
It is frustrating that Irenaeus does not name these heretical discourses, or to whom he
refers. But it would appear that he means Gnostic documents, which have influenced
orthodox Christians, since Irenaeus identifies denial of the resurrection and the
millennial reign with heresy, and in the context of his writings, heresy principally
means Gnosticism.
Irenaeus interprets the prophecy of Daniel 2:44-45 concerning the coming of the
Messiah as a reference to the second coming and the resurrection, when temporal
kingdoms shall be brought to an end, and an eternal kingdom established. “Christ is
the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and
introduce an eternal one, which is the resurrection of the just...”99 The millennial
kingdom for Irenaeus is characterised by a return to the peaceful coexistence of the
animals typical of the garden of Eden, as prophesied in Isaiah 11:1-10. This Irenaeus
sees as both a “parable” of the present peaceful community of the church which
includes those of different nations, and a prophecy which will receive a literal
fulfillment in the eschaton. His description of the foretaste of the millennial peace
which presently exists in the church, according to Irenaeus, indicates something of
what he anticipates in the fulfillment. Justice is accomplished and character changed
to holiness, and there is no lack in what the Lord supplies.100
Irenaeus considered the eschaton as the completion and consummation of what was
intended at the beginning, renewing the creation and dispelling the effects of the fall,
while incorporating the development that has meanwhile taken place. The work of
redemption not only makes this consummation possible, it actualises it. The
restoration of creation is not simply a repristinated original, it is matured and
enhanced, brought to what it was intended to become, not simply to what it had once
been. Thus his conception leads from the garden of Eden to the millennial city, the
new Jerusalem. He interprets the process of redemption as movement from
immaturity to maturity.
4.3.1 The vindication of the saints
98
99
100
127
A theme first expressed most explicitly and most forcefully by Irenaeus was that since
the saints had suffered bodily in this world, it was only just that they be raised bodily
and given rewards in the same world in which they had suffered.
...it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance
which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise
again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the
judgement should take place afterwards. For it is just that in that very
creation in which they toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every
way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; and
that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to
God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in
which they endured servitude, they should reign. For God is rich in all
things, and all things are His. It is fitting, therefore, that the creation
itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint
be under the dominion of the righteous...101
This idea was repeated by many other Patristic writers,102 for example, Tertullian.
We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints
on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all
really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the world
we have either despised or lost; since it is both just and Godworthy that
his servants should have their joy in the place where they also suffered
affliction for His name's sake.103
We find this theme of the vindication of the saints repeated in other Patristic writers,
although not necessarily connected with expectation of a millennium. It is found in
Hippolytus,104 Prudentius,105 Gregory the Illuminator,106 and Augustine, who says that
101
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.32.1. ANF 1, p. 561. Justin Martyr had early commented that
“[Christ] has promised, as has already been proved, that there shall be a future possession for
all the saints in this same land. And hence all men everywhere, whether bond or free, who
believe in Christ, and recognise the truth in His own words and those of His prophets, know
that they shall be with Him in that land, and inherit everlasting and incorruptible good.”
Dialogue with Trypho 139. ANF 1, p. 269.
102
G W E Nickelsburg suggests that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 is a vindication of the
righteous whose lives were wrongly taken. Resurrection, immortality and eternal life in
inter-testamental Judaism, p. 18. The idea of a vindication on earth may be derived from
Matthew 5:5, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Cf. Irenaeus. “Now God
made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is,
those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in his; but they shall receive it
at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said,
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Against Heresies 5.32.2. ANF 1, pp.
561-562. Cf. Against Heresies 5.9.4. ANF 1, p. 535. Origen, as can be expected, interprets
Matthew 5:5 in a spiritualising sense. De principiis 2.4.7. ANF 4, p. 275.
103
104
Hippolytus. Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe, 2. ANF 5, p. 222.
105
Prudentius. Crowns of Martyrdom 5.569-576. Loeb II, p. 203.
106
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 529. R W Thomson, p. 124.
128
“the saints will, in the resurrection, inhabit those very bodies in which they toiled,”
but without any of the troubles the flesh had earlier experienced.107 Later on
Augustine says that it is most suitable that the saints rejoice in the same body in
which they had earlier groaned.108 The idea appears again in Gregory the Great.
The just will see an increase in their reward on the day of judgement,
inasmuch as up till then they enjoyed only the bliss of the soul. After
the judgement, however, they will also enjoy bodily bliss, for the body
in which they suffered griefs and torments will also share in their
happiness.109
In his treatise On the Resurrection Origen argues that it would be unjust for God to
give a reward to the soul when the body has also suffered and struggled for the sake
of the gospel, and thus is an appeal to God's justice as a guarantee of the resurrection
of the body.110 Origen wrote:
Would it be anything but absurd for this body which bore scars on
Christ's behalf, and endured the cruel pains of persecution equally with
the soul; which suffered the torture of imprisonment, bondage, and
beatings as well as the torture of fire; which was cut by the sword, has
suffered the bloodthirsty attacks of beasts, crucifixion, and all sorts of
punishments... would it not be unreasonable if the body should be
deprived of the reward of such struggles?111
Even in the works of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which are perhaps best
described as neo-Platonic re-interpretations of Christian doctrine,112 we find the idea
that the body must be given its appropriate rewards and punishments, this in spite of
the fact that the resurrection is almost totally obscured in his works by the speculative
doctrine of theosis.113 He objects to those who say that souls enter other bodies
(through metempsychosis) since through this they hold “an unfair view of the bodies
which have shared in the struggles of divine souls,” and thereby “wrongly deny them
107
108
109
Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.26. FC 39, p. 218.
110
L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, p. 42.
111
Origen. Fragment, On the Resurrection. Excerpt in the Apology of Pamphilius on behalf of
Origen. Translation cited from: L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, p. 41.
112
I P Sheldon-Williams. “From a philosophical point of view the four treatises written by the
pseudonymous Dionysius the Areopagite are of interest for two reasons: together they
compose the most systematic exposition of fifth century Neoplatonism that we possess; and
the exposition is a Christian one.” “The ecclesiastical hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, Part I.”
Downside Review 82 (1964) 293. Pseudo-Dionysius influenced many later Patristic writers
such as Maximus the Confessor, whose works are also Neo-Platonic in flavour. Cf. the views
of J Pelikan, who said that Maximus achieved “the restoration of the balance between Neo-
Platonism and Christian orthodoxy...” Introduction. Maximus Confessor. Selected Writings.
Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 6.
113
For a discussion of theosis see the Appendix.
129
the sacred rewards which they have earned at the end of the divine race.”114 This
theme is significantly transformed by Pseudo-Dionysius in the context of a theosis
doctrine and a neo-Platonic philosophy, so that resurrection did not mean principally
bodily renewal and transformation, but participation of both body and soul in the
contemplation of God.115 However, even though it is reinterpreted here in the light of
the doctrine of theosis, it can be seen that this Patristic commonplace had an enduring
influence on eschatological thought, and did much to sustain the idea that God's
justice requires the resurrection of the body. However it was significantly altered
when it was divorced from its roots in millennialism, as can be seen from the way it
was interpreted by Pseudo-Dionysius, and was to collapse under the increasing
influence of mystical asceticism, which did not ascribe any importance at all to this
world, but sought rather to escape from it. This significant insight of Irenaeus' seems
to have disappeared from contemporary eschatology, much to its detriment.116
McDannell and Lang describe both the significance and demise of this insight very
well.
The will to survive in a hostile civilization despite persecution and martyrdom led to
an understanding of heaven as the compensation for lost earthly privileges. One
Christian writer, Irenaeus of Lyons, looked to the next world for compensation for the
loss of productive life on earth. The church of the martyrs, which Irenaeus
represented, did not reject the world. It resented the fact that Roman persecution had
made it impossible for Christians to enjoy God's good gift to humanity fully. As a
glorified material world, Irenaeus' heaven would offset earthly limitations. Other early
Christians perceived the situation quite differently. Inspired partly by fashionable
Greek world-renouncing philosophies, ascetic Christians despised pagan life and
wanted to withdraw from it. The young Augustine not only looked upon Roman
society with suspicion; he extended this attitude to the entire material universe.
Alienated from everything pertaining to “this world,” ascetic Christians such as
Augustine espoused the dualistic philosophies of Gnosticism or Neoplatonism. They
rejected the compensational heaven of Irenaeus and predicted that life after death
would entail the continuation of their ascetic, spiritual lifestyle. As spirit was superior
to matter on earth, so it would be in heaven.117
This latter approach can be seen in the thought of Athanasius, who said: “And though
we fought on earth, we shall not receive our inheritance on earth, but we have the
promises in heaven...”118
The idea that those who have suffered in the world would reign in glory in that same
world in vindication, is perhaps reflected in Cyprian's view, in form if not in spirit,
114
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.1.2. Classics of Western Spirituality, p.
250.
115
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.9. Classics of Western Spirituality, p.
257.
116
In his recent book, J Webb Mealy interprets the millennium as a time of vindication for the
martyrs and other saints, and see this theme as central to the purpose of the millennium. After
the thousand years, p. 244. See also Herman Bavinck. Our Reasonable Faith, p. 567.
117
C McDannell & B Lang. Heaven: A History, p. 47.
118
Athanasius. The Life of Anthony 16. NPNF 2/4, p. 200.
130
that those who have been tormented by the wicked in this world will in turn watch
their persecutors being tormented in hell, when the limited torment which others can
inflict on us now will be replaced by an eternal torment inflicted on them, not just on
souls but on “souls with their bodies.”119 This is an indication that for Cyprian the
punishment of the wicked takes place after the resurrection and the judgement. The
idea that the saints will rejoice at the spectacle of the wicked being punished has some
scriptural warrant in Isaiah 66:22-24, Luke 16 (since the rich man can see Lazarus, it
appears likely that Lazarus could see the rich man in torment) and Revelation 14:9-
11.120 Elsewhere Cyprian expresses the idea of the vindication of the saints in terms
more consistent with earlier views. He says that at the judgement God will “examine
and weigh the deserts of each of us in His holy assessment” and then “render the
reward due for our faith and dedication.”121
4.3.2 The marriage supper of the Lamb
A number of millennialist writers spoke of a feast in the new earth when the saints
shall rejoice with their Saviour.122 Irenaeus spoke of it in this way:
He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus
indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the
new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in
the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also
received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as
drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with His [disciples]
above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink of it
devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains
to flesh, and not spirit.123
This idea was based on the Biblical theme of the marriage supper of the Lamb
[Revelation 19:9], and passages such as Matthew 26:29, I tell you, I will not drink of
119
Cyprian. An address to Demetrianus 24. ANF 5, p. 464. The theme of the saints watching the
torments of the wicked also appears in Tertullian. The shows 30. ANF 3, p. 91. On the
resurrection of the flesh 31. ANF 3, p. 567. Augustine. The City of God 20:21-22. NPNF 1/2,
pp. 440-443. Also, the Martyrdom of Perpetua 17 records that the martyrs exhorted the
pagans to remember their faces, since they will see them again when the situation is reversed
at the judgement. G W H Lampe. “Early Patristic Eschatology.” In: Eschatology. Scottish
Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 2 (1953) 27. Jerome suggests that the ascetics will
look down from heaven on those in hell who had fallen away from the ascetic life, as well as
those who had tried to hinder the resolution of the ascetics. Elizabeth A Clark. “The place of
Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist controversy: the apokatastasis and ascetic
ideals.” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 164.
120
D P Walker suggests that while this idea was still current in the 16th century, it was almost
obsolete by the late 17th century. The decline of Hell, pp. 29-30.
121
Cyprian. Letter 58.10. To the people of Thibaris. ACW 46, p. 67.
122
H Bietenhard cites the Christian additions to the Testament of Isaac [8.11, 8.19f, 10.11f] as
sources for the idea of a millennial banquet. “The millennial hope of the early church.”
Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953) 14. O Skarsaune suggests that it is a literal application
of Isaiah 65:20-23. The proof from prophecy, p. 404.
123
131
this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my
Father's kingdom.124 Also, Matthew 8:11 says that many will come from the east and
the west, and take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the
kingdom of heaven.125 Justin Martyr cites this text but only in demonstrating that those
who believe in Christ will supplant the Jews at the feast. He does not discuss the feast
as such.126
This idea is no doubt behind criticisms by Patristic writers who rejected the
millennium because of the feasting which they saw associated with it.127 But this
marriage supper was not the orgy of drinking and eating some suspected to be implicit
in the idea.128 The Biblical texts cited above seem to lie behind the views of Irenaeus,
who held that after receiving the glorification of the resurrection body, we would
partake of a feast in the millennium, sharing with the Lord at his table. Irenaeus said
that “They who believe in Him shall be incorruptible and not subject to suffering, and
shall receive the kingdom of heaven,”129 and “in which kingdom, the man who shall
have persevered in serving God shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table.”130
Daniélou suggests that Papias' opinion that the pleasures of food would be enjoyed at
the time of the resurrection indicates that there is “a first resurrection in which the just
will have a transfigured body, but it will still be earthly and will be followed by a
second more complete transformation.”131 This interpretation of Papias overlooks the
124
Cf. the views of Eusebius, who held that we do not fast at Easter because then “the
Bridegroom is with us” [De solemnitate paschali 5. PG 24, 700C], an apparent reference to
Matthew 9:15, which is understood in terms of Eusebius' “realised” eschatology, and he later
asserts that fasting originated with the Apostles “when the Lord was taken away from them
[De solemnitate paschali 10. PG 24, 705C]. Cited in: H Musurillo. “The problem of ascetical
fasting in the Greek Patristic writers.” Traditio 12 (1956) 24.
125
Other more indirect references could include Matthew 22:1-13, Matthew 25:1-13, Luke
12:37, Luke 14:15-24, Revelation 3:20. Louis A Vos. The synoptic traditions in the
Apocalypse, pp. 97, 166-172. See also Exodus 24:11. Modern commentaries have little to say
about the feast (as distinct from the marriage). An exception is Herman Hoeksema. Behold he
cometh. An exposition of the book of Revelation, pp. 620-621. Klaas Schilder has the most
extensive discussion, devoting an entire chapter to the feast. Heaven: What is it? pp. 73-99.
126
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 76, 120, 140. ANF 1, pp. 236, 259, 269. Similarly
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.8.1. ANF 1, p. 470. Cyprian. On the Lord's Prayer 13. ANF 5, p.
451. With reference to this text the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions stresses the “many” that
shall come to participate, and not the exclusion of the Jews. The Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions 4.4. ANF 8, p. 135. In another place Irenaeus draws attention to the banquet but
does not elaborate on it. Against Heresies 4.36.8. ANF 1, p. 518.
127
See below, Chapter 7.1 The rejection of millennialism.
128
Cf. the views of Hippolytus. “And Hippolytus does not himself hesitate to speak of the
righteous as 'eating and drinking' in that day with the Lord in His glory, without giving any
hint that the promise of a grosser 'eating and drinking' had been attributed by Caius to the
Apocalyptist.” J Gwynn. “Hippolytus and his 'Heads against Gaius.'“ Hermathena 6 (1888)
406.
129
130
131
J Daniélou. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 1, p. 382. He comments further:
“As for the belief in material nourishment during the millennium, since the intermediate state
was one of a risen, but not transfigured body, this question was bound to arise.” Ibid., p. 384.
132
more likely possibility: that he held that the resurrection body of the believer was a
transformed and immortal but still physical body, and able to partake of food (and
presumably enjoy doing so), just as Christ ate with his disciples after his
resurrection.132 The resurrected Christ had a physical body that could be handled, and
at times appeared no different to that of other human beings, even though it had been
transformed into a glorious resurrection body. The typical characterisation of such
views of the resurrection as “materialistic” obscures the belief of the Apostolic
Fathers that the resurrection was of this present body, which they affirmed in
opposition to those who thought that the body of Christ only appeared to be human
(the Docetists) and thereby undermined the reality of Christ's incarnation, death and
resurrection. This then meant that the possibility of the redemption of the human
person, an irrefrangible unity of body and soul, was destroyed. The authentic doctrine
of the millennial feast can be seen in writers such as Aphrahat, who said: “Whosoever
is expectant of the marriage-feast of the Bridegroom, let him not love the feast of this
present time.”133 Further on he states:
The marriage cry is at hand. The tombs will be opened and the treasures
laid bare. The dead shall rise and the living shall fly to meet the king.
The banquet is laid, and the cornet shall encourage and the trumpets
shall hasten (them).134
This then is one element of the millennialist vision, which draws on explicit Biblical
witness, and is consistent with their view of the resurrection body as an earthly,
physical body, though glorified and rendered immortal.
4.4 The new heavens and earth: Cosmic redemption
The correlation of creation and redemption led the Patristic writers to speak of the
renewal of the entire created order, and not just of human beings. The idea that the
body would partake of redemption because it was saved by the same God that created
it also provided a basis for the idea of cosmic redemption: the belief that the whole
world would be renewed in the eschaton by the Creator. This is of course an
impossible concept for Gnostic thought, and similarly, it was an absurdity for those
Patristic writers who saw salvation as escape from this earthly body into an ethereal
realm, with a correspondingly ethereal resurrection body. But the renewal of the
cosmos, resulting in the new heavens and new earth of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21
was correlated for many Patristic writers with the reality of the physical resurrection
body. Thus the resurrection life would be lived on the renewed earth, when God
redeems all that he has created.
Perhaps Daniélou had in mind the view found in Tertullian [see below, section 4.3] that the
resurrected saints would undergo a further change at the end of the millennium, “into the
substance of angels.” Against Marcion 3.25. ANF 3, p. 343. This idea does not appear in
Papias.
132
Cf. Augustine. The City of God 13.22. NPNF 1/2, pp. 256-257. Letter 102.6. NPNF 1/1, p.
415.
133
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 6.1. NPNF 2/13, p. 364.
134
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 6.6. NPNF 2/13, p. 367.
133
Irenaeus held that the creation will be “resurrected” so to speak, and that the righteous
will rise to reign with Christ in the same creation in which they were persecuted.
Since God created all things, it is appropriate that all things are renewed by Christ in
the eschaton.135 For Irenaeus, the resurrection is the prelude to the glorification of the
entire created order.136 The creation will also be liberated from bondage to evil, and in
its purified state is a suitable reward in itself. Since the creation has suffered from the
effects of human sin, it is only just that it should receive liberation along with those
who have been redeemed from sin and made righteous. The redemption of the whole
creation is at stake in the denial of the resurrection and the millennial kingdom in
creation-negating eschatologies, which see redemption not as the restoration of human
bodily life in the renewed earth, but as a non-bodily life in heaven.
Cyril of Jerusalem says that “...this world will accomplish its course, and the world
that once came into being is hereafter to be renewed... This world passes away that
the fairer world may be revealed...”137 Cyril refutes those who cite Job 7:9-10 to prove
that there is no resurrection by demonstrating that while the dead shall not return to
their former homes, that is because the earth will be renewed and their former homes
will be no more. There will instead be a new earth onto which they will be raised.
And respecting that passage, If a man go down to the grave, he shall

come up no more, observe what follows, for it is written, He shall come
up no more, neither shall he return to his own house [Job 7:9-10]. For
since the whole world shall pass away, and every house be destroyed,
how shall he return to his own house, there being henceforth a new and
different earth?138
Cyril says that the statement that the earth and the heavens shall perish [Psalm
102:25-26] should be interpreted in the light of Isaiah 57:1, which reads The righteous
perish, and no one ponders it in his heart. That is, even though he perishes, he will
still rise again. “And in like manner we look for a sort of resurrection of the heavens
also.”139
Methodius argued that since it was God who made the world, it is destined for a better
fate than destruction. If it was better for the world not to exist than to exist, why
135
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.32.1. ANF 1, p. 561. Cf. Against Heresies 5.36.3. ANF 1, p. 567.
136
137
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 15.3. NPNF 2/7, p. 105. This view of Cyril's was
directed to former Manicheans in his congregation: “Here let converts from the Manichees
gain instruction.”
138
139
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 15.3. NPNF 2/7, p. 105. There is a strong
correlation between the resurrection of the fleshly body and the renewal of the earth, with the
same outlook on continuity or discontinuity found in both concepts, so that the transformation
of the present body in glory is correlated with the cleansing and renewal of this present earth,
and the view that the resurrection body is “spiritual” and unlike the present body is correlated
with a destruction and recreation of the earth. See further Peter Steen. “The problem of time
and eternity in its relation to the nature-grace ground motive.” In: Hearing and doing, pp.
138-139.
134
would God have created it in the first place?140 Methodius cites the book of Wisdom
and Romans 8:19-21, as well as passages from Isaiah, to demonstrate that the world
will not be destroyed but redeemed. Then the redeemed creation shall rejoice over the
redemption of human beings when they are raised from the dead, and the redeemed
creation is where the resurrected saints shall live.141 Methodius argued against those
who held that the earth would be destroyed.
But if our opponents say, How is it then, if the universe be not

destroyed, that the Lord says that “heaven and earth shall pass away,”
and the prophet, that “the heaven shall perish as smoke, and the earth
shall grow old as a garment;” we answer, because it is usual for the
Scriptures to call the change (metabole) of the world from its present
condition to a better and more glorious one, destruction (apoleia); as its
earlier form is lost in the change of all things to a state of greater
splendour; for there is no contradiction nor absurdity in the Holy
Scriptures.142
Methodius rejected the Origenist tradition of the apokatastasis,143 which he saw as a

distortion of the scriptural hope of cosmic renewal.
Methodius... shared Origen's resistance to the idea of the destruction of

the material universe, but for a different reason. Whereas Origen had
looked for a change of its quality and outward form, Methodius' hope
was for its renewal and perfection.144
Methodius saw the renewal of heaven and earth as the purification of what already
exists, so that just as through the death of humankind sin will be destroyed, so the
earth will have its contamination removed.145 Methodius also saw the earth as created
140
Cf. however the argument of Tertullian, that the destruction of the world, when it returns to
nothing, proves that it was originally created from nothing. Tertullian is seeking to refute the
eternity of matter. Against Hermogenes 34. ANF 3, pp. 496-497.
141
Methodius. The Discourse on the Resurrection 1.8. ANF 1, pp. 365-366. The same idea is
found in John Chrysostom, who believes the whole material world will be transformed along
with us since it was made for human beings. Homily on Romans 14.5. NPNF 1/11, pp. 444-
445. F X Murphy. “Conflagration: the eschatological perspective from Origen to John
Chrysostom.” Studia Patristica 18 (1985) 184.
142
Methodius. The Discourse on the resurrection 1.9. ANF 6, p. 366.
143
An instance of this view is the concept of Macarius Magnes that it is the “logos” of the earth
which continues into the new creation. Apocriticus 4.16. Translations of Christian Literature,
p. 132.
144
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 138. While Irenaeus looks for the
redemption and glorification of this present world, Origen seeks its transformation into
something totally unlike what presently exists. Macarius Magnes suggests that since heaven
and earth were created for the sake of humankind, when humankind is changed, the heaven
and earth must also be changed to be able to continue to be of use. Apocriticus 4.30.
Translations of Christian Literature, p. 157. In another place Macarius suggests that “heaven
and earth” should be understood allegorically, since it means “man in his twofold nature,”
body and soul, which are redeemed by Christ. Apocriticus 4.16. Translations of Christian
Literature, p. 133.
145
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 138.
135
for the sake of humankind, and since the earth will be renewed, there must therefore
be inhabitants for it. This he sees as a reason to reject the Origenist view of an
ethereal existence somewhere other than on the new earth.146 Ambrose argued from
similar premises to the same conclusion: “If the earth and heaven are renewed, why
should we doubt that man, on account of whom heaven and earth were made, can be
renewed?”147
Rufinus wrote that Christ would not only release human beings from sin, but would
also release the earth from the curse which had come upon it because of human sin.
The thorns of the curse of Genesis 3 are used to crown the saviour who shall release
the earth from the curse.148 Peter Chrysologus also argued that the renewal of the earth
was its release from sin, and its end brings renewal, not destruction.149 He says
elsewhere that the world will be renewed, our body changed, and the reign of sin
destroyed.150 Niceta of Remesiana similarly says that following the return of Christ,
the world will be renewed, after which will be “the eternal kingdom of the just in the
glory of the Lord and the everlasting punishment of the wicked.”151 Gregory the
Illuminator speaks of “the renewal of the universe” at the time of the resurrection.152
In his record of the constitutions of the Council of Nicea,153 Gelasius of Cyzicus cites
a viewpoint which while not overtly millennialist, is quite compatible with that
approach.
Concerning the Providence of God and Concerning the World: The

lesser world was made through providence: for God foresaw that man
would sin. For this reason we hope for new heavens and a new earth
according to the sacred Scriptures, when the Appearing and Kingdom
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ shall have shone forth.
And then, as Daniel says, the saints of the Most High shall take the
Kingdom. And the earth shall be pure, a holy land of the living, and not
of the dead; which David, foreseeing with eyes of faith, exclaimed: I
believe I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, the
land of the meek and humble. For, Blessed, it says, are the meek, for
146
Methodius. The Discourse on the Resurrection 1.9. ANF 6, p. 366.
147
Ambrose. On the belief in the resurrection 2.87. NPNF 2/10, p. 188. Further on Ambrose says
concerning the resurrection of Christ: “The universe rose again in Him, the heaven rose again
in Him, the earth rose again in Him, for there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.” On the
belief in the resurrection 2.102. NPNF 2/10, p. 191.
148
Rufinus. Commentary on the Creed 22. ACW 20, p. 57.
149
Peter Chrysologus. “A creature is renewed by its end, not destroyed. It withdraws itself not
from its Creator, but from sin.” Sermon 47. On Matthew 13:45-50. FC 17, p. 102.
150
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 70. On the Lord's Prayer. FC 17, p. 121.
151
Niceta of Remesiana. Liturgical Singing 6. FC 7, p. 70.
152
Agathangelos. History of the Armenians 92. R W Thomson, p. 103.
153
Altaner notes that this Book of the Acts of the Council of Nicaea is of doubtful authenticity.
Patrology, p. 284. Whether or not this is correct, it still indicates the persistence of
millennialist ideas as late as 475 AD and thus is a relevant witness. Gelazius also includes a
section on the resurrection of the dead. Commentarius Actorum Concilii Nicaeni 2.30.7. PG
85, 1317-1320.
136
they shall occupy the earth. And the prophet says: The feet of the meek
and humble shall tread it. These things from the ecclesiastical
constitutions worked out by our holy fathers, a few from many, we have
described in this commentary.154
It is only in the Patristic eschatology that preserves the true significance of the bodily
resurrection which also retains the concept of cosmic redemption.155 The
eschatological renewal of the cosmos is thus an important theme in Patristic thought.
It is only the truly creation-affirming view that can sustain the doctrine of the
resurrection and the eschatological life, through maintaining the redemption of the
entire created order, and seeing it as a unity from the hand of the one Creator God.
4.5 The millennium on earth and eternity in heaven
Tertullian said that the restoration of Judaea spoken of by the prophetic writings is to
be understood in terms of a “figurative interpretation... spiritually applicable to Christ
and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof...” This he says “relates to what
is promised in heaven, not on earth.” He does say, however, that there is a literal
interpretation of those passages:
But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth,

although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as
it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built
city of Jerusalem...156
Tertullian expresses the unusual idea (found in no other Patristic writer as far as I am
aware) that the saints will be raised progressively throughout the millennium
according to their merits. Then comes the destruction of the world, at which time the
saints receive another transformation and enter heaven.
After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the
resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their
deserts, there will ensue the destruction of the world and the
conflagration of all things at the judgement: we shall then be changed
in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an
incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven of
which we have now been treating...157
154
Gelasius of Cyzicus. Commentarius Actorum Concilii Nicaeni 2.30.9. PG 85, 1320.
Translation cited in: L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, pp. 369, 372.
155
See the instructive discussion of cosmic redemption in Augustine by Thomas E Clarke. “St.
Augustine and Cosmic Redemption.” Theological Studies 19 (1958) 133-164. Clarke
demonstrates that Augustine was unable to accept the idea of the redemption of the cosmos
because of the similarity this held for him with Manicheism, which saw the cosmos as
trapping sparks of the divine which need to be liberated. However, he did see a place for
cosmic redemption in terms of the “new heavens and new earth” which have their counterpart
in human resurrection.
156
157
Tertullian. Against Marcion 3.25. ANF 3, p. 343. It may be this idea which reappears in
somewhat different form in the thought of Ambrose, who said concerning Valentinian (died
137
It is possible that Tertullian includes this idea of a further transformation to bring
some kind of consistency into his eschatology. He is thereby able to say that there is
both the resurrection of the saints through the millennium, and a general resurrection
of all the dead, including these same saints, at the end of the millennium, when they
are further transformed while the wicked are raised for the first time. This also
resolves his difficulty with the continuing purpose of the bodily organs in the
resurrection body, but at the expense of its identity with the present body. While he
appears to retain the significance and necessity of the resurrection (in order for both
body and soul, which had been involved in the deeds of this life, to come to the
judgement),158 the idea that the body is of use only in this life, and will be raised
solely for the purposes of judgement, that of the wicked to be punished, and that of
the saints to be rewarded, is actually an anti-bodily sentiment. Tertullian is unable to
escape from the inconsistency inherent in maintaining the resurrection as the
restoration of the whole person, while believing in the separate life of the soul.159 Thus
at the end of the millennium,
...then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues
meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and
thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of
eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated
resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still
unchanged - the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the
proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true
worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the
punishment of everlasting fire - that fire which, from its very nature
indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility.160
Tertullian says that in the transformation of the resurrection, the flesh will “assume
the condition of angels,” that is, it will attain immortality through being raised from
the dead.161 Methodius held that the millennium corresponds to the feast of tabernacles
celebrated by the Israelites before they entered the promised land. After this, at the
end of the millennium, the saints will undergo another change, to be like the angels:
“...my body not remaining as it was before, but, after the space of a thousand years,
changed from a human and corruptible form into angelic size and beauty...” after
aged 20) and Gratian (died aged 24) “I beseech Thee, O highest God, that Thou mayest raise
and revive these dearest youths by an early resurrection, that Thou mayest compensate for
their unduly short span of life in this world by an early restoration.” On the death of
Valentinian 81. FC 22, p. 299. Here he alludes to the theme of the “vindication of the saints”
in his own way.
158
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 60. ANF 3, p. 592. Cf. also Justin Martyr.
Fragments of the lost work on the resurrection 3. ANF 1, p. 295. Augustine. On faith and the
creed 10.23-24. NPNF 1/3, pp. 331-333. Enchiridion 89. NPNF 1/3, pp. 265-266. Jerome. To
Pammachius against John of Jerusalem. NPNF 2/6, pp. 425-447.
159
C Tresmontant. La métaphysique de christianisme et la naissance de la philosophie
chrétienne. Paris, 1961, p. 626. Cited in: G L Bray. Holiness and the will of God, pp. 36-37.
160
161
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 42. ANF 3, pp. 575-576. Cf. also Against Marcion
5.10. ANF 3, pp. 451-452. Methodius. The Discourse on the Resurrection 1.9. ANF 6, p. 366.
138
which we shall “pass from the wondrous place of the Tabernacle to the larger and
better one, going up to the very house of God above the heavens...”162 Bietenhard
comments that this view occupies the “middle ground between a Biblical realism and
Platonic spiritualising.”163
Commodian also implies that following the resurrection the saints will spend eternity
in heaven. He addresses the saints as “You who are to be inhabitants of the heavens
with God-Christ,” and then goes on to spell out his vision of the millennial
kingdom.164
Lactantius seems to hold that the earth will ultimately be destroyed and the future life
lived in heaven.
...we worship Him for this end, that we may receive immortality as the
reward for our labours; for this end we are rewarded with immortality,
that being made like to the angels, we may serve the Supreme Father
and Lord for ever, and may be to all eternity a kingdom to God.165
The millennialist approach taken by Lactantius is complicated and rather confusing, if

not confused. The scenario is as follows: After the return of Christ and the defeat of
the Antichrist and his followers, the living and the dead will be judged on the earth.
The righteous who are still alive will be given power over the nations of the earth, and
the righteous dead will be raised to share that power with them. The wicked are not
raised at this time, but are kept for the imposition of the punishment due them at a
later date.166 Christ will reign with the saints on the earth, in the “kingdom of the
righteous,” for a thousand years.167
162
163
H Bietenhard. “The millennial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6
(1953) 21.
164
Commodian. Instructions 80. ANF 4, p. 218. Daniélou sees millennialism as a primitive
doctrine, and therefore dates Commodian to the 2nd-3rd centuries. A History of Early
Christian Doctrine. Vol. 3, p. 100. However, Brisson held that Commodian was a Donatist
from the 5th century, based on the view that Donatists were in a situation of poverty and
persecution, the kind of context which fosters millennialism. [J-P Brisson, Autonomisme et
Christianisme dans l'Afrique romaine. Paris, 1958, p. 379 ff. Cited by: E A Isichei.
Political thinking and social experience, p. 24.] Daley suggests that the theories of Martin,
Thraede, and Gagé [J Martin. “Commodianus.” Traditio 13 (1957) 1-71. K Thraede.
“Beiträge zur Datierung Commodians.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 2 (1959) 90-
114. J Gagé. “Commodien et la crise millénariste du IIIe siècle.” Revue d'histoire et de
philosophie religieuse 41 (1961) 355-378.] all make questionable assumptions about the third
century, and none take into sufficient account the resemblances between Commodian's
eschatology and that of other fifth-century Patristic writers. Brian E Daley. The hope of the
early Church, pp. 253-254, n. 58. Daley notes that Gennadius includes Commodian among
fifth-century writers. De viris illustribus 15. Ibid., p. 254, n. 59. Daley also cites Brisson in
this regard. The hope of the early Church, p. 162.
165
166
167
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 4.12. ANF 7, p. 111. Epitome of the Divine Institutes 72.
ANF 7, p. 254.
139
Thus the views of Tertullian, Methodius and Lactantius form a transition point
between the full millennial resurrection eschatology and the spiritualised anti-
millennial eschatology which does away with the reality of the resurrection body.
4.6 Eternity in heaven following the resurrection
A number of patristic writers who held to unitary anthropologies did not hold to
millennialist views, locating the eternal life following the resurrection in heaven.
Novatian is one early writer who does not clearly state anywhere his views on the
nature of the eternal life, but does appear to lean away from millennialism. He states
in connection with the fate of the righteous and the wicked that God “has prepared
heaven, but He has also prepared hell.”168
Ephrem of Syria also held that following the resurrection, the righteous would enter
Paradise, which for him is identical with heaven.
...this is why Ephraem assumes that the soul of the good thief of Luke
23:43, whose body (as that of all other men) will not rise until the end
of times, cannot truly be in Paradise, but only in a pre-Paradise.169
Ladner states that “Ephraem... transferred the characteristics of the millennium

(extraordinary fertility, etc.) to his description of a 'pre-Paradise”.”170
Since primordial Paradise belongs outside time and space it also serves
as the eschatological Paradise, the home of the righteous and glorious
after the final Resurrection... Nevertheless, St. Ephrem is emphatic that
this eschatological Paradise can only be entered in the resurrected state
of the body... Nor can the soul alone enter Paradise; it must be
accompanied by the resurrected body (VIII.9). This explains why, in his
vision of Paradise, Ephrem expects the Garden to be empty (V.II),
seeing that the final Resurrection has not yet taken place.171
Theodore of Mopsuestia interprets 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to mean a transfer to heaven,

since it refers to those “who expect to dwell in heaven with Christ. Thus in this life
we should “strive as much as possible to imitate the life we shall live in heaven,”
which is Theodore's interpretation of “Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth.”172
Then we will “not cultivate a ground that will bring forth thorns and thistles” but
“will dwell in a heaven which is remote and immune from all sorrow and sighing.”173
168
Novatian. Letter of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian 7. ANF 5, p. 311.
169
G B Ladner. The Idea of Reform, p. 65, n. 6.
170
G B Ladner. The Idea of Reform, p. 66, n. 15.
171
S P Brock. Introduction. St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise, pp. 55-56.
172
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism
and the Eucharist 1. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 8-9. Theodore refers to 1 Thessalonians
4:17 frequently to demonstrate that after the resurrection we are transferred to heaven. Cf.
Woodbrooke Studies 5 (1932) pp. 77, 79; Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) pp. 24, 25, 101.
173
20.
140
Those who believe in Christ “are in expectation of making their abode in heaven after
the resurrection from the dead.”174 To demonstrate that after the resurrection we shall
be transferred to heaven he also refers to Philippians 3:21,175 as well as 2 Corinthians
5:1.176 He says further “When all earthly things have ceased to exist, we shall rise
from the dead and dwell in heaven in an immortal and immutable nature.”177
While Theodore says that the new Jerusalem is “full of an innumerable company of
angels and men who are all immortal and immutable,” this is not a present reality but
the description of its future state, since they are “worthy of the adoption of sons” and
are “children of God because they are the children of the resurrection [Luke 20:36]”
and are enrolled in heaven as its inhabitants. “These things will be seen so in reality in
the world to come, when, according to the words of the Apostle, 'we are caught up in
the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, so that we may be ever with Him [1
Thessalonians 4:17].” At that point we will ascend into heaven.178 This is possible for
us since Christ arose and ascended into heaven, “in order to raise us all up and cause
us to ascend into heaven.”179
We will have no need of food after the resurrection, when we have become immortal
and entered the heavenly abode, since the immortality given by the power of the Holy
Spirit will maintain us in existence by grace.180 In this life the sacrament of the
Eucharist is a symbol, using earthly food, of the immortal life which will sustain us in
the resurrection.181 Theodore argues that after his resurrection Christ had no need of
food and drink since he had an immortal nature, but did “violence to the natural laws”
in order to prove the resurrection of the body.182 The logic of this is obscure. Surely it
would be through not eating and drinking that Christ would prove that he had an
immortal nature through resurrection, as doing so could imply that his bodily nature
174
21.
175
77, 78, 103, 113. Cf. Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and
the Eucharist. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 25, 30, 65, 98.
176
20, 77. Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist
5. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 72.
177
and the Eucharist 1. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 9. See also Commentary on the Lord's
Prayer 2. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 30. Commentary on the Lord's Prayer 5.
Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 82.
178
and the Eucharist 2. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 23-24.
179
180
181
and the Eucharist 5. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 74-75.
182
141
had not been made immortal but had been merely resuscitated. However, Theodore
adopts some of the anti-millennial views when he says that the Jews had only a “base
conception” of the resurrection.183 “They did not think, as we do, that we shall be
changed into an immortal life, but they thought of it as a place in which we shall
continue to eat, drink and marry.” Theodore disproves this from Matthew 22:29-30
and Luke 20:36.184
4.7 Conclusion
The Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology appreciated the significance
of the resurrection. For them, the person could not be said to have been saved without
the bodily resurrection. It was in such a fleshly body that the saints would participate
in the millennium. This was often correlated with the renewal of the entire cosmic
order. They understood the resurrection to be of a real, physical body, able to eat and
drink and so enjoy a banquet with Christ during his reign on earth. They did not see
the need to spiritualise or allegorise this idea, rather they rejected all such approaches,
but accepted it as an expression of the goodness of God's creation and the bodily life
we have been given, as well as the continuity of God's purposes for the creation.
Following the millennium and resurrection and the judgement of the rest of the dead,
they expected to enjoy life for eternity on the new earth. Some, however, thought that
following the millennium the saints would be further transformed in order to be able
to enjoy eternity in heaven. Others, more distant from the early period when
millennialism was widely accepted, held simply that following the resurrection the
saints would enter heaven immediately.
The whole thrust of the unitary anthropology is in marked contrast to that of the
writers who held an instrumentalist model, and it is to this approach that we now turn.
183
See further Chapter 7.1.2. The rejection of millennialism as Jewish.
184
142
CHAPTER FIVE
THE DIS-INTEGRATION OF BODY AND SOUL
5.0 Introduction
As the synthesis between divine Revelation and Greek philosophical speculation

increasingly predominated in Christian thought, earlier anthropological conceptions
were gradually supplanted by an anthropology in which the body was merely the
instrument of the soul, which was seen as the person. The hope of the resurrection at
the parousia of Christ was eclipsed by the expectation that the immortal soul would
enter the eschatological life immediately after death. In its separated state the soul
continues to function independently of the body. This anti-bodily sentiment led to an
ever-increasing dis-integration of this earthly life and the life of the soul, both now
and after death, leading to growth in ascetic attitudes and the denigration of the body
as the source of fleshly lusts and desires which warred against the soul in its
aspirations for sanctity. The resurrection body of the righteous was considered by
some to be like that of the angels, a view based on Matthew 22:30, correlated for
many writers with the idea of virginity as the “angelic life.” Similarly, ascetic life
came to be seen as the equivalent of martyrdom, and warranted the same reward.
However, controversy arose over the views of Jovinian, who rejected the idea that
asceticism warranted a greater reward than ordinary Christian life, or that there were
distinctions of merits.
In this stream of thought the most powerful influence has undoubtedly been that of
Origen. After his time, eschatological positions can be broadly divided into two
camps: Origenism and its opponents. “In the first half of the fourth century two great
systems of doctrine, which we may for want of a better term call the Irenaean and the
Origenist, were in fierce contention with each other.”1 The influence of Origen
extends far beyond the discussion of the orthodoxy or otherwise of his views. As
Popma has said, the methodology he established is still influential, even though the
content of his thought may not have been accepted. Popma sees his method as perhaps
more destructive than his ideas.
Whether [Origen] was orthodox or not is still controversial. Even today

he is difficult to interpret. He receives less criticism for his extreme
theologism than for the doctrines which he developed by means of his
theoretic theology. It is very remarkable that his doctrines have been
condemned because of his indeed clearly unbiblical views, while at the
same time his method has remained untouched, and has instead been
maintained and adopted for use.2
1
Brooks Otis. “Cappadocian thought as a coherent system.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12
(1958) 99.
2
K J Popma. “Patristic evaluation of culture.” In: The idea of a Christian philosophy, pp.
102-103. Cf. the comments of Giovanni Filoramo, who said that in his polemics against the
gnostic Heracleon [In his Commentary on the Gospel of John], Origen “ends up adopting the
same allegorical principles as his opponent and shares with him, in addition to interpretative
143
Fairweather said that Origen’s speculative thinking was indissolubly bound up with
the faith itself, so that the faith has “gradually assumed a more philosophic aspect.”3
The influence of Origen’s method, as well as his ideas, will confront us as we
continue this study.
5.1 The body as instrument of the soul
The earliest Patristic anthropology which considered the person an integral unity of
body and soul came to be replaced by an instrumentalist approach, in which the
“spiritual” soul needed a “physical” body as its instrument for the purposes of this
earthly life.4 After this life was concluded, the body was no longer necessary, at least
not in that form. Instrumentalist anthropologies that retained any importance for the
resurrection considered that the future body would be “spiritual” like the soul, not
“material” as in the present life.5
The rationalistic approach to theology of Clement of Alexandria was characterised by

synthesis with Greek philosophy, resulting in an intellectualising of the faith, which
he expressed in terms of Christian “gnosis,”6 although according to Pelikan he always
accuracy and virtuosity, a taste for getting to the bottom of the mystery of the Scriptures, in
which he reads those events concerning the pre-existence of the soul and its fall, those
‘principles’ of the divine world that are to be found in the same atmosphere as the reflections
of those under his attack.” A History of Gnosticism, pp. 5-6.
3
W Fairweather. Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, p. 212.
4
The image of the soul making use of the body as an instrument is occasionally compared to
the use of a musical instrument by a musician. One of the most explicit expressions of this
idea appears in Ambrose: “The soul too, playing in moderation on the body as if on a musical
stringed instrument, strikes the passions of the flesh as if they were notes on the strings, but
with its fingertips, so to speak. Thus it produces music in euphonious accord with a virtuous
way of life, and in all its thoughts and works sees to it that its counsels harmonize with its
deeds. The soul, then, is the user, the body that which is being used, and thus the one is in
command, the other in service...” Death as a good 7.27. FC 65, p. 91. Even those who held to
a unitary anthropology occasionally used this image to describe the relationship between the
body and soul, but of course for them the body and soul together formed the person, and the
image thus has rather different force. For instance, for Gregory of Nyssa, the human body is
to the mind what a musician’s instrument is to the musician. On the making of man 9. NPNF
2/5, p. 395. See also Ephrem. Hymns on Paradise 8.2, 8. Hymns on Paradise, pp. 132, 134.
Nemesius gives the example of a workman’s tools lying still when not in use to explain the
nature of death: the body lies still just like these tools since the soul has abandoned it. On the
nature of man 1.1. LCC 4, pp. 225-226. He also refers to the soul as the “craftsman” while the
body is its “tool.” On the nature of man 5.26. LCC 4, p. 319.
5
See Chapter Six for a discussion of this issue.
6
Clement was not the first Platonising Christian in Alexandria, although he perhaps gave the
greatest impetus to the beginnings of the tradition. See R van den Broek. “The Authentikos
Logos: A new document of Christian Platonism.” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979) 260-286, for
an account of a Christian Platonism in Alexandria which preceded Clement. This tradition had
its roots in the thought of the Jewish philosopher Philo, with whose works Clement and
Origen were well acquainted. See A van den Hoek. Clement of Alexandria and his use of
Philo in the Stromateis. Philo rejected the idea of the resurrection, as “man’s flesh is too
corrupted to be renewed. The pure soul goes to heaven, according to Philo, while eternal
144
modified philosophical concepts on the basis of Scripture.7 But it must be
acknowledged that Clement did more than use Greek philosophical concepts; he also
used a Greek philosophising framework, which inevitably shaped and moulded the
Scriptural givens according to a radically different perspective.8 Clement held that the
body was an instrument of the soul,9 earthly in character, in contrast to the spiritual
nature of the soul.
Well, the body tills the ground, and hastes to it; but the soul is raised to
God: trained in the true philosophy, it speeds to its kindred above,
turning away from the lusts of the body, and besides these, from toil
and fear...10
One of the clearest approaches to the body as an instrument of the soul is the
anthropology of Origen, who believed that human souls committed sin before the
creation of the world, and were placed in bodies as punishment.11 The body was but a
testing-ground for the soul and not part of the original nature of human beings, and
therefore superfluous to the real person. Salvation was to be released from the body to
return to the former heavenly existence.12 God created the world in order to purify
these fallen spirits. Thus the creation is only for a stage in spiritual history. Life on
earth is the consequence of conduct while in a purely spiritual state, resulting in the
variety in the human condition which is a form of judgement, calculated so as to
ensure the eventual salvation of all.13
Origen’s anthropology is based on his view that God created matter as a shroud for
the soul. At the creation the soul was given a subtle, luminous material body (created
from the dust), which was the vehicle of the soul. After their sin, Adam and Eve
received a dense, heavy body of flesh and bones (the garments of skin) which
symbolises the transformation of the body of dust from incorruptibility to
destruction awaits the wicked.” A J Visser. “Bird’s eye view of ancient Christian
eschatology.” Numen 14 (1967) 5.
7
J Pelikan. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 55.
8
See Chapter 1 for further discussion of Clement’s synthesising approach to theology.
9
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 3.1. ANF 2, p. 271.
10
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 4.3. ANF 2, p. 410.
11
There is an intrinsic danger in thinking of Adam’s sin as a “fall” since it can easily be seen as
a change in ontological status (a fall from a higher order of being or position in the cosmos)
rather than the violation of a covenantal relationship. The latter implies no change in status
but simply a change in spiritual orientation, away from God to an idolatrous conception of
human religious obligation. See G C Berkouwer. Sin, p. 268.
12
Origen’s views continued to exercise influence, and can be found for instance in Eusebius,
who held to his view of a pre-creation cosmic fall, after which souls were trapped in bodies
from which they long to be free. Ecclesiastical History 1.2. NPNF 2/1, p. 84.
13
W Fairweather. Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, pp. 168-170.
145
corruptibility.14 The continuity between the earthly body and the resurrection body is
a return to the body of dust and not to the dense body of the “garments of skin.”15
Origen held that the real person is the soul, while the body is only incidental
importance, an instrument used by the soul in its earthly life. For instance, in the
Dialogue with Heraclides, Origen argues that humans are composed of one
immaterial person created in the image of God (the “inner man”) and one created of
matter (the “outward man”).16 The body only has influence over the soul if the soul
obeys the lusts of the flesh. The saints master the body and do not allow it to
dominate the soul. Origen cites Galatians 5:17 to illustrate the conflict between soul
and body.17 He also cites Wisdom 9:13-16, which reads: “For a perishable body
presses down the soul, and this tent of clay weighs down the teeming mind.”18 The
idea that the body is a burden to the soul, hindering its freedom, is a Hellenistic idea
incorporated into this text,19 and then transmitted to Patristic anthropology.20
14
The image of the body as the “garment” for the soul has a long lineage in Patristic thought (it
appears in John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 3.1. NPNF 2/9, p. 45), but Origen’s
approach was highly controversial. Dechow discusses the accuracy of the charge that Origen
taught that the body was the “garment of skin” of Genesis 3:21. J F Dechow. Dogma and
mysterium in early Christianity, pp. 315-333.
15
L R Hennessey. “Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of the resurrected body.” Studia Patristica 22
(1989) 28-31. Hennessey is drawing on Crouzel’s analysis of Origen’s doctrine of the
resurrection body, which influenced Gregory of Nyssa, who, according to Chryssavgis, it
would seem was the first to take the “garments of skin” of Genesis 3:21 to refer to the body.
Chryssavgis cites among other places: On virginity 12. NPNF 2/5, p. 359. On the soul and the
resurrection. NPNF 2/5, p. 465. Ascent to Heaven, p. 61, n. 28.
16
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides 154. LCC 2, p. 448.
17
Origen. Commentary on Matthew 14.3. ANF 10, p. 496.
18
Origen. Treatise on Prayer 1. ACW 19, p. 15. Text of Wisdom cited from the Jerusalem
Bible. Cf. also Exhortation to Martyrdom 47, where Origen speaks of “the impediment of the
corruptible body that is a load upon the soul, the earthly habitation pressing down the mind
that museth upon many things.” If we are freed from the bonds of the body “We would then
repose with Christ Jesus in the repose that comes with eternal bliss alone...” ACW 19, p. 191.
This idea is also found in Augustine. He says that “we are mortals and sinners, and our
corruptible bodies are a load upon our souls, and the earthly habitation presses down the mind
that muses upon many things.” The literal meaning of Genesis 4.6.13. ACW 41, p. 111. Leo
the Great also cites Wisdom 9:15 and says that this will no longer be the case after the
resurrection, when the body will be in perfect harmony with the soul. Sermon 95.5. NPNF
2/12, p. 204.
19
Reider discusses possible Hellenistic influence on this text, but suggests it is merely a
variation of a biblical theme such as is found in Psalm 103:14, He remembers that we are
dust, which avoids the error of Philo. Joseph Reider. The Book of Wisdom, pp. 130-131.
However, R H Charles acknowledges the influence on the author of “the Greek idea of the
inherent evil of matter, though he probably did not accept it.” Charles suggests the undeniable
influence of Plato’s Phaedo 81c. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English. Vol 1, pp. 550, 532.
20
Compare, however, the comment by Tatian with respect to the soul being liberated from the
flesh, that “...it is difficult to think that the immortal soul is hampered by the parts of the body
and becomes wiser when it moves out of it.” Oration against the Greeks 16.1. Oxford Early
Christian Texts, p. 33.
146
In some places, Augustine held that the body was an instrument of the soul and that
the soul receives rewards and punishments alone after death, and further rewards and
punishments together with the body at the resurrection.21 He raised the question of
whether “the soul itself is man, or soul and body both.” He answers this by saying that
the question is not whether the person is either soul or body alone, or both together,
but “what gives perfection to the soul.” This he sees as the highest good which the
person can aspire to, regardless of where we locate the person.22 The question
obviously has cogency for Augustine, even though he says that it is relatively
unimportant, since it naturally arises from an instrumentalist anthropology, as can be
seen from his comments that human nature “is a rational soul with a mortal and
earthly body in its service,”23 while “our souls are by nature not subject to bodies...”24
Augustine follows Ambrose in asking whether the person is soul, or body, or union of
both. Ambrose refers to Genesis 26:46 and Genesis 6:3 to demonstrate that the person
can be either soul or flesh. However, the term “soul” refers to the one “who cleaves to
God” and not the body, while “flesh” refers to a sinner, since the flesh is at war with
the soul [Romans 7:23]. Ambrose concludes: “Although Paul said that both men were
at war in him, the internal and the external, yet he preferred to establish himself in the
part that comprises the soul rather than the body.”25 He uses the idea of the body as a
garment, and understands this in terms of the “temporal” nature of the flesh, in
contrast to the “eternal” nature of the soul, which lays aside its garment at death.26
5.1.1 The hierarchy of body and soul
The instrumentalist approach to anthropology is hierarchical, with the soul considered

superior to the body, or even in conflict with it, leading to a denigration of the body
and of bodily life.
A common idea, found also in unitary anthropologies,27 is the view that the soul is of a
heavenly nature while the body is of an earthly nature. Prudentius often incorporates
21
Augustine. The City of God 13.12. NPNF 1/2, pp. 250-251.
22
Augustine. Of the morals of the Catholic Church 5.7-8. NPNF 1/4, p. 43.
23
Augustine. Of the morals of the Catholic Church 27.52. NPNF 1/4, p. 55. Miles cites R J
O’Connell’s view [St. Augustine’s early theory of man, 386-391, p. 184] that Augustine
uses Plotinus’ view of the body as an instrument used by the soul for a time [Enneads 4.7.1].
Margaret R Miles. Augustine on the body, p. 46.
24
25
Ambrose. Isaac, or the soul 2.3. FC 65, pp. 12-13.
26
Ambrose. On Hexaemeron 9.6.39. FC 42, p. 252. Cf. the comment of Ambrose that “...we
cannot comprehend such heavenly truth with hands or eyes or ears, because what is seen is
temporal, but what is not seen is eternal.” Death as a good 3.10. FC 65, p. 77.
27
For instance Cyprian. On the Lord’s prayer 16. ANF 5, p. 451. Novatian posits a strong
opposition between the “earthly” flesh and the “heavenly” spirit, and an emphasis on the
immortality of the soul. “...He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made in
the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight, that he might
imitate God; and though the first elements of his body were earthly, yet the substance was
147
comments of this kind. He says that God united “two elements, one living and one
dying” so as to create human beings. These two elements are incompatible, and in
inevitable death they are separated, and thus will “every fabric of contrary parts be
undone.” If the body is governed by the soul, it shall rise again and be drawn to
heaven, carrying with it to the stars “the flesh with which it has sojourned,” but if the
soul is governed by the body, the soul is drawn down towards “numbing contagion.”28
An even more dualistic approach is found in Caesarius of Arles, who also maintains
the instrumentalist view of the body, seeing it as a “handmaiden” as contrasted to the
soul, its “mistress.”29 He applies this theme in the following way:
What is it that you are doing, man? You exalt clay, and you despise
gold; you adorn and satiate with pleasures the body which worms are
going to devour in the grave, while you despise the soul which appears
before God and the angels in heaven. Now the soul is of incomparably
greater worth than the body; that is, the mistress deserves much greater
attention than the handmaid... Otherwise perhaps the body, which was
accustomed to be adorned, will be devoured by a multitude of worms
when it is lying in the grave, while the soul will appear before the eyes
of the divine majesty defiled with the stains of many sins.30
Here the body and the soul have different fates, exemplified in the fact that while the
body is still in the grave, the soul appears before God stained with many sins, alluding
perhaps to an immediate judgement after death.
inspired by a heavenly and divine breathing.” On the Trinity 1. ANF 5, p. 612. Lactantius
says: “Moreover, it is no slight proof of immortality that man alone makes use of the heavenly
element... man alone makes use of fire, which is an element light, rising upward, and
heavenly.” The Divine Institutes 7.9. ANF 7, p. 206. Cf. also The Divine Institutes 7.5. ANF
7, p. 200.
28
Prudentius. Cathemerinon 10.1-33. Loeb, I, pp. 85, 87. Cf. Cathemerinon 6.34. Loeb, I, p. 51.
Cf. also Peter Chrysologus. “Is not the soul from heaven and the body from earth?” Sermon
109. On Romans 12:1. FC 17, p. 171. Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 2.16-17. NPNF 2/7, p.
208. Oration 2.75. NPNF 2/7, p. 220.
29
Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 179.7. FC 47, p. 454. However, he stresses that both body and
soul together will receive the reward, and applies Matthew 25:21 to the resurrected saints.
30
Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 224.3. FC 66, pp. 150-151.
148
5.1.2 The image of God restricted to the soul
While the idea that the image of God is located in the soul came to predominate, some
of the earlier writers who held this view felt obligated to specifically deny that the
body was included. Clement of Alexandria says:
For conformity with the image and likeness is not meant of the body
(for it were wrong for what is mortal to be made like what is immortal),
but in mind and reason, on which fitly the Lord impresses the seal of
likeness, both in respect of doing good and of exercising rule. For
governments are directed not by corporeal qualities, but by judgements
of the mind.31
Origen insisted that it was the soul, not the body which is made in the image of God.
He says that the man who was made “according to the image of God” was not
corporeal, since “the form of the body does not contain the image of God” and the
body was “formed” not “made.” Origen rejects the idea that the body is included in
the “image of God” since this would mean that God was corporeal, an idea he sees as
“impious.”32
Basil held that the fact that both male and female, with distinctly different corporeal
forms, are created in the image of God means that the image is spiritual not
corporeal.33 Ambrose, followed by Augustine, also argued that the image of God was
the soul not the whole person as body and soul.34
31
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 2.19. ANF 2, p. 370. Cf. Exhortation to the Heathen 10.
ANF 2, p. 199. The identification of the “image of God” with the intellect enabled Clement to
distinguish humankind from the animals as the latter were “irrational.” Clement of
Alexandria. Protrepticus 120. Cited in: E F Osborn. The Philosophy of Clement of
Alexandria, p. 90.
32
Origen. Homilies on Genesis 1.13. FC 71, 63-64. Cited in: David L Paulsen. “Early Christian
belief in a corporeal deity: Origen and Augustine as reluctant witnesses.” Harvard
Theological Review 83 (1990) 110. The relationship between changing conceptions of God
and the understanding of the nature of the “image of God” is obviously important but cannot
be considered here because of limitations of space. Cf. also Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides
154. LCC 2, p. 448.
33
[Basil. On the origin of man 10-11. SC 160, 213-217] M C Horowitz. “The image of God in
man: is woman included?” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979) 196.
34
Ambrose. On Hexaemeron 9.8.45-46. FC 42, pp. 257-259. On hexaemeron 9.7.43. FC 42, p.
256. Cf. On the belief in the resurrection 2.130. NPNF 2/10, p. 196, where Ambrose says that
“it is not the form of the body but of the spirit which is made after the likeness of God.”
Augustine says that it was from On Hexaemeron 6 that he learned that the “image of God”
was a spiritual substance and not bodily form. Confessions 6.3.4. NPNF 1/1, p. 91. See G A
McCool. “The Ambrosian origin of St Augustine’s theology of the image of God in man.”
Theological Studies 20 (1959) 62-81. Cf. also Augustine. On the Trinity 12.7.12. NPNF 1/3,
p. 159. The literal meaning of Genesis 3.20.30. ACW 41, p. 96.
149
Others who restricted the image of God to the soul include Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyril
of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Athanasius and John of Damascus.35
5.2 Denigration of the flesh
One of the consequences of instrumentalist anthropology was the denigration of the

flesh, which for many writers bolstered the idea that redemption means escape in a
Platonic manner from entanglement with this world. The desire to escape from the
body became a significant aspect of eschatology, something to be desired as a good in
itself. The idea of the body as a prison comes from Plato, and is found in a number of
Patristic writers.36 Tertullian mentions this theme, but criticises it. “In Platonic phrase,
indeed, the body is a prison, but in the apostle’s it is ‘the temple of God,’ because it is
in Christ.”37
Gregory of Nyssa considers that our life here and now is in itself a burden which will
be put off at the time of the resurrection, a view with more in common with pagan
speculation and Gnosticism than Christianity.38 Gregory said that
...this heavy and corporeal existence of ours waits, extended to some

determinate time, for the term of the consummation of all things, that
then man’s life may be set free as it were from the reins, and revert
35
Tertullian. Against Marcion 2.5-6. ANF 3, pp. 301-302. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 10.4.
NPNF 2/1, p. 377. Preparation for the Gospel 7.10. E H Gifford, Vol. 1, pp. 340-341. Cyril
of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 4.18. NPNF 2/7, p. 23. See W R Jenkinson. “The image
and likeness of God in man in the eighteen lectures on Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-
387).” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 40 (1964) 50. John Chrysostom. Homily in
Genesis 8.3-4. PG 53, 72f. Athanasius. Contra Gentes 34. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
95. C Kannengeisser. “Athanasius of Alexandria and the foundation of traditional
Christology.” Theological Studies 34 (1973) 109. John of Damascus. On the orthodox faith
2.12. NPNF 2/9, pp. 30-31.
36
For instance, Ambrose repeatedly speaks of death as a release of the soul from the prison of
the body, and is to be welcomed as much as the body shrinks from being imprisoned behind
bars. On the belief in the resurrection 2.20-22. NPNF 2/10, p. 177. Death as a good 2.5. FC
65, pp. 72-73. Cain and Abel 2.9.36. FC 42, pp. 434-435. Paulinus of Nola. Poem 11. ACW
40, p. 72.
37
38
Cf. the comment by Margaret R Miles. “It is important to remember that late classical people,
pagan and Christian, had a great deal in common with each other; the experience of
discomfort with being in a body appears in Christian thought because patristic writers are
classical men; not because it is characteristically Christian... To the extent that a patristic
author has understood the significance of the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ, he
will insist on the meaning and value of the human body; insofar as these doctrines have not
permeated his consciousness and values, he will write as a late classical author, demonstrating
the negative evaluation of the body characteristic of the culture. Thus, we find Ambrose, for
example, using the classical model for the human composite: the soul, he writes in De bono
mortis 26, is our ‘true substance’ and the ‘superior element’ ought not to be mixed or
confounded with the inferior element, the body.” Augustine on the body, pp. 3-4.
150
once more, released and free, to the life of blessedness and
impassibility.39
Gregory the Great held that the body proves an obstacle on earth to the soul’s desire
to see and be with God.40 The burden of the flesh thwarts the soul’s longing to behold
God. But the resurrection and glorification of the body enables the soul to see God
and will share in the soul’s joy at that time.41 In another text Gregory calls the soul of
a saint “a pearl of God hidden in a dungheap,” by which he meant “the corruptible
body.”42 This anti-bodily sentiment distorts the Scriptural teaching on the goodness of
creation, as can be seen in the rejection of the idea that the soul longs for reunion with
its body.
In the writings of many of the Fathers one finds, either explicitly taught or clearly
implied, the notion that the separated soul cannot be completely happy in heaven,
because it does not have there its body. One can scarcely claim that this is the case in
the writings of St. Gregory. If this idea appears in his writings at all, the indications of
it are subtile [sic]. There is only one instance in which Gregory certainly refers to the
separated soul’s longing for the resurrection of the body. In this instance he is
speaking of the martyrs’ desire that retribution be demanded from their persecutors
for their blood. This desire is accompanied by the sure knowledge that such
retribution will be exacted from their persecutors at the judgement. Gregory expresses
God’s answer to this petition in the words of Apocalypse 6:11: They were told to rest
a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren
should be complete.43
McClain points out that Gregory the Great frequently speaks of our longing in this life
for the resurrection, in response to the problems of this life and the spiritual warfare
we are engaged in, and the desire for rest. It is not a longing for the eschatological
bodily renewal as such.
39
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 22.2. NPNF 2/5, p. 411. “The yearning for peace,
quiet and solitude which marked all of Gregory’s life was in fact a yearning for an earthly
approximation to that kind of life which he believed to characterise the heavenly state. But
this desire to escape the world was, however, less of a dissatisfaction with the world than it
was an eager anticipation for what lay ahead, namely, a joyful existence with Christ in the
Jerusalem above. Accordingly, when Gregory describes the heavenly state, it is often by
means of a comparison to the instability and transitoriness of earthly existence.” Donald F
Winslow. The dynamics of salvation, p. 171.
40
There is an implicit rationalism in the view that the soul can behold God separately from the
body, which is rooted in the idea that the soul is rational in nature, and thus is able to behold
God, who is also rational.
41
[Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 4.34.68, 10.8.13, 27.5.8. LF 23, p. 203; 31.51.101. LF 31,
p. 500. Homily on Ezekiel 2.1.17. PL 76, 917-918] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in
the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 79.
42
Gregory the Great. Homily 40. Forty Gospel Homilies of Gregory the Great, p. 385. Cf.
John of Damascus, who refers several times to the “grossness of flesh” [sarkos pachuteti]. On
the Orthodox Faith 3.1. NPNF 2/9, p. 45. On the Orthodox Faith 3.6. NPNF 2/9, p. 50.
43
[Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 2.7.11.] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the
writings of Saint Gregory the Great, pp. 79-80.
151
The soul, however, realizes the fulfillment of this desire, even in its
separated state. To regard the separated soul as pining for the
resurrection of the body, so that it might enjoy a fuller measure of the
heavenly delight, is to be deceived by the imagination. Such a notion is
foreign to Gregory’s teaching.44
The same denigration of the flesh is found in Maximus the Confessor, who held that
the soul is “immortal, divine, and in process of deification through the virtues,” while
the flesh on the contrary is “subject to corruption and death and able to soil the soul’s
dignity by its carelessness,”45 until such time as the body is made incorrupt, implying
a different nature, through deification. Thus “in the age to come ...the human body
now rendered immortal by the resurrection will no longer weigh down the soul by
corruption...”46
The negative evaluation of bodiliness was given exegetical support through

interpreting Philippians 3:21 from within a dualistic framework, for instance in the
thought of Hilary of Poitiers. He sees the glorification of the body in the resurrection
as “a transition from one nature to another, for our nature ceases, so far as its present
character is concerned, and is subjected to Him, into Whose form it passes.” He
explains that the “ceasing” of our nature is not its extinction, but “a promotion into
something higher” when it receives a new form.47 Hilary thus sees the transformation
of the resurrection as a transition to a totally different state, radically discontinuous
with this present life.
5.2.1 The flesh as the cause of sin
The idea that the body is dissolved in death so as to be remade in the resurrection
without the sin which is bound up with it, appears in instrumentalist models as well as
in unitary models.48 However, in instrumentalist models it is often correlated with the
idea that the flesh is the cause of sin, through seducing the soul to gratify its lusts. The
Christian life was understood in terms of a conflict between the will of God and the
desires of the flesh. Through death this characteristic of the flesh (understood as the
body and not the principle of sin) is destroyed, thus fortifying an anti-bodily
sentiment, unlike the positive body-affirming purpose given to this theme in unitary
conceptions.
44
45
Maximus the Confessor. The Church’s Mystagogy 7. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 197.
46
Maximus the Confessor. The Church’s Mystagogy 24. Classics of Western Spirituality, p.
210.
47
Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity 11.35. NPNF 2/9, p. 213. See also On the Trinity 11.43.
NPNF 2/9, p. 215.
48
See Chapter 2.4.1. Death as release of the body from sin. Ambrose states: “But so that the
end set by nature might not also be in death, there was granted a resurrection of the dead, that
the guilt might fail through death, but the nature be continued through resurrection.” Death as
a good 4.15. FC 65, p. 81.
152
Peter Chrysologus expresses an extreme view of the body as the cause of sin.
Sins master the body, crimes bind it fast, and transgressions depress it.
Vices corrupt it, and passions weigh it down. Therefore, the Apostle
desires to release the body. He is eager to set it free, he is striving to
elevate it, and he is hastening to purify it by expiation. He wants the
body to rise up to where the soul took its origin, rather than have the
soul descend to the nature of the body. He desires the body to
accompany the soul to heaven, rather than to have the soul follow the
body to earth.49
Similarly, Nemesius sees “carnal desires” arising from the animal body.50 Another
extreme expression of this view is found in Prudentius, who sees the soul as
something pure which is thrust into foul flesh that then leads it astray according to its
own impurity. Sin is the consequence of having a fleshly body, “because it arises
from the mingling of the clay and the pure spirit,” a view which owes more to the
heresy of Gnosticism than to orthodox Christian belief.51 This instrumentalist view of
the body is made explicit in Alexander of Alexandria.
The soul, therefore, governed man, as long as the body survived; even
as the king governs the city, the general the army, the helmsman the
ship. But it was powerless to rule it, from the time when it was
immoveably tied to it, and became immersed in error; therefore it was
that it declined from the straight path, and followed tempers, giving
heed to fornication, idolatry, and shedding of blood...52
Here an anti-bodily attitude is betrayed, when it is maintained that the soul is brought
into bondage to sin, through being unable to control the body. The soul should be
using the body as its instrument, but when the soul succumbed to error, the body
49
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 109. On Romans 12:1. FC 17, pp. 171-172.
50
Nemesius. On the nature of man 1.1. LCC 4, pp. 225-226.
51
Prudentius. Apotheosis 814-819. Loeb I, p. 181. Cf. Apotheosis 910-912. Loeb I, p. 187.
“Thus pure at creation, [the soul] fell into sin though unclean alliance with the flesh...” Again
he says: “Savage war rages hotly, rages within our bones, and man’s two-sided nature is in an
uproar of rebellion; for the flesh that was formed of clay bears down upon the spirit, but again
the spirit that issued from the pure breath of God is hot within the dark prison-house of the
heart, and even in its close bondage rejects the body’s filth.” Psychomachia 903-909. Loeb I,
p. 343. Tertullian had already expressed something of this idea when he said that the soul is
liberated by death from the veil of the flesh which obstructs and sullies the soul, and that in
death the soul is “by the very release cleansed and purified.” A treatise on the soul 53. ANF 3,
p. 230.
52
Alexander of Alexandria. On the soul and body and passions of the Lord 3. ANF 6, p. 300.
Cf. Leo the Great. “...that by controlling the struggles that go on between our two natures, the
spirit which, if it is under the guidance of God, should be the governor of the body, may
uphold the dignity of its rule...” Sermon 42.2. NPNF 2/12, p. 156.
153
broke away from its control and led the soul into sin.53 This tendency of the body
towards sin, unless it is kept in strict control by the soul, implies that there is
something defective in the creation, and betrays something of a Gnostic attitude.54
The idea of the dominion of the soul over the body is central in Gregory the Great’s
concept of what it means to be regenerate and sanctified. McClain says that Gregory
...appeals to his readers not to be mere men. As long as they possess

bodies of flesh the motions of carnal passion will be in these bodies, but
they must seek to be new creatures by excluding these motions of
carnal passion from their hearts.55
This dominion of soul over body is expressed in his view that while the soul has
immortality along with the angels, the body acquires immortality only in the
resurrection through being reunited with the glorified soul.56 The dichotomy of the
mortal body and the rational and immortal soul in Gregory’s anthropology leads to the
antagonism between them. The soul is the strength of the human person, while the
flesh is his weakness, hindering the soul and causing internal conflict.57 However, he
rejects the Manichean idea of two creators: both are made by the Creator God.58
Gregory insists that such antagonism is the result of sin.59 Why God should create
humans in such an incompatible way is difficult to explain, and is one of the major
flaws in such an anthropology, as can be seen from Gregory’s comment that “the
human creature by this alone, that it is a creature, has it inherent in itself to sink down
below itself...”60 It is only by contemplation that he is delivered from this.
As a result of this dualism, the judgement was considered to concern only the soul, so
as to determine the extent to which it was controlled or dominated by the lusts of the
53
John of Damascus held that the body could be subjected to the soul and thus led into holiness,
or the soul could be subjected to the body and thus led into sin. On the Orthodox Faith 2.30.
NPNF 2/9, p. 43.
54
Cf. the view of Leo the Great. “For human nature has this flaw in itself, not planted there by
the Creator but contracted by the transgressor, and transmitted to his posterity by the law of
generation, so that from the corruptible body springs that which may corrupt the soul also.
Hence although the inner man be now reborn in Christ and rescued from the bonds of
captivity, it has unceasing conflicts with the flesh, and has to endure resistance in seeking to
restrain vain desires.” Sermon 90.1. NPNF 2/12, p. 200. He avoids the Gnostic error of seeing
the creation as defective, but still has an anti-body attitude.
55
J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 96, n.
49.
56
57
Paulinus of Nola sees the weakness of the flesh as the female element in human nature, while
the spirit is the male and stronger element. Letter 23.11. ACW 36, p. 13.
58
F H Dudden. Gregory the Great, vol. 2, p. 375.
59
F H Dudden. Gregory the Great, vol. 2, p. 377.
60
Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 12.15.19. LF 21, p. 57.
154
flesh. The flesh itself is judged through its death: it need not then be present at this
judgement, which could then take place immediately after death.
5.2.2 Asceticism and the flight from bodily life
A common response to the anthropological view which saw the body as cause of sin
was to seek to deny the body the opportunity to lead the soul into sin through an
ascetic lifestyle, denying to the body the comforts and pleasures it craved.61 Thus
asceticism is rooted in an anthropology which did not perceive the goodness of the
bodily existence (which could be set free from sin).62 It unfavourably compares the
creation around us with a Platonised concept of heaven.63 This problematic view can
be found for instance in Athanasius in his Life of Anthony.
Nor let us think, as we look at the world, that we have renounced

anything of much consequence, for the whole earth is very small
compared with all the heaven. Wherefore if it even chanced that we
were lords of all the earth and gave it all up, it would be nought worthy
of comparison with the kingdom of heaven.64
If therefore the heavenly life is of such great value, there is no loss for the one who
abandons his worldly goods and comforts in order to gain eternal reward. The ascetic
life is thus not only a non-worldly life (in the sense of abandoning the tawdriness of
wealth), it is also a creation-negating life, as it is a desire to be released from this
earth to partake of a better form of life. John of Damascus said that death is of two
kinds: the separation of the soul from the body, which is natural death, and there is
also voluntary death, “by which we disdain this present life and aspire to that which is
to come.”65
61
Cf. Leo the Great. Sermon 19.1. NPNF 2/12, p. 127.
62
H Musurillo indicates that asceticism was not simply rooted in anti-bodily sentiment, but had
positive features such as mourning loss of immortality and the desire to conquer demons,
among others he documents. “The problem of ascetical fasting in the Greek Patristic writers.”
Traditio 12 (1956) 1-64. However, even his “positive” features still incorporate anti-bodily
concepts, and this can be seen in his admission that asceticism was oriented towards a “war on
the the flesh and the passions.” The idea of the passions of the body as the source of sin is
unbiblical.
63
Perkins makes the interesting comment that this ascetic attitude is in sharp contrast to pagan
views. “One may still wonder how appropriate this presentation of the body as the source of
evil impulses is, since it fits more comfortably into the anti-body ascetic traditions of
Christianity and Gnosticism than it does into the views of pagans in general. The ascetic
traditions intensified the stoicized Platonism of the period in which freedom from all the
body’s concerns was represented as passionlessness (apatheia) and turning the mind to its
eternal home. The general philosophic view was that the passions could be made allies of the
soul.” Pheme Perkins. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and contemporary
reflection, p. 385, n. 54.
64
Athanasius. The Life of Anthony 17. NPNF 2/4, p. 200. Cf. The Life of Anthony 16. NPNF 2/4,
p. 200, where Athanasius expresses the same sentiments.
65
John of Damascus. Philosophical Chapters 3. FC 37, p. 11.
155
John Cassian understood the attainment of perfection as the release of the soul from
bondage to bodily desires through asceticism and mediation on God. Thus the soul
“no longer feels that it is prisoned in this fragile flesh, and bodily form,” and through
ecstasy attains already to a state paralleling the future eschatological condition.66
Perkins comments that the apocryphal material from the second and third centuries
often emphasises the necessity of ascetic practices such as continence in order to
make the flesh a worthy vehicle for salvation through bodily resurrection.67 This,
however, assumes that somehow sexuality for instance is incompatible with salvation
in that it renders the body unworthy. Since sexuality is God’s good gift, proper
exercise of that gift cannot be in conflict with God’s purpose of redemption, although
sexual immorality is in conflict with the redemption of the whole person, and not
merely the body.68
Even views which had a more positive assessment of bodily life, as for instance that
of John Climacus, still see asceticism in terms of a conflict between body and soul.
He asks: “What is this mystery in me? What is the principle of this mixture of body
and soul? How can I be my own friend and my own enemy?”69 The answer from the
body is to practice self-denial, obedience and humility, and this will bring the reward
of victory over the body. “He who has earned it while still alive has died and been
resurrected. From now on he has a taste of the immortality to come.”70
5.2.3 Asceticism and spiritual martyrdom
The continuance of the ethos of martyrdom in the ascetic theology of the post-
Constantinian church enabled the transference of the reward for physical torment
perpetrated by persecutors to that of voluntary self-denial (in what were sometimes
extreme forms).71 There was strong opposition to the actions of some (including
Origen) who actively sought persecution in order to suffer martyrdom and attain the
66
John Cassian. Conferences 3.7. NPNF 2/11, p. 322.
67
Pheme Perkins. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and contemporary reflection, p.
343.
68
See the comments on sexuality by John W Cooper. Body, soul and life everlasting, p. 203.
69
70
71
See A C Rush. “Spiritual martyrdom in St. Gregory the Great.” Theological Studies 23 (1962)
569-589, for a discussion of the development of the concept of spiritual martyrdom. In a
recent article, Tilley asserts that asceticism did not replace martyrdom, since asceticism
flourished in Christianity from its inception. She claims that asceticism provided the practical
and theoretical basis for heroic martyrdom, and that the martyrs practiced asceticism (i.e.
deprivation of food and water) to prepare for torture [Tilley cites as an example Tertullian. On
fasting 12. ANF 4, pp. 110-111]. Tilley concludes that asceticism logically and practically
preceded martyrdom and made it possible; it was not a substitute for martyrdom when
Christianity was legalised. M A Tilley. “The ascetic body and the (un)making of the world of
the martyr.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59 (1991) 467-479.
156
promised reward, but voluntary asceticism was acceptable (although there was
criticism of some of the forms it took).72
Ferguson says that Origen, “who had been denied martyrdom, prepared the way for
the development of the concept of spiritual martyrdom based on a life of
asceticism,”73 although Frend claims that Clement of Alexandria first “placed the
ascetic ideal on the same level as that of the martyr.”74 Asceticism, a voluntary act,
was therefore differentiated from martyrdom, which was involuntarily imposed by
others,75 although it was considered to merit the same reward, as the basis of both
asceticism and martyrdom was the refusal to allow the instinct for physical self-
preservation to compromise loyalty to Christ. This can be seen for instance in the
Teaching of Gregory the Illuminator, who spoke of the characteristic of the martyr as
overcoming the (often legitimate) “desires of the flesh,” an attitude which is possible
for everyone, not just those persecuted for the faith.76
72
Musurillo comments citing Duchesne that “except in the case of the Encratites and of
Eustathius and his followers, the Church does not seem officially to have stepped in to
prevent what seem to us ascetical exaggerations.” H Musurillo. “The problem of ascetical
fasting in the Greek Patristic writers.” Traditio 12 (1956) 34. It is claimed for instance that
Origen castrated himself. R P C Hanson argues for the historicity of this. “A note on Origen’s
self-mutilation.” Vigiliae Christianae 20 (1966) 81-82. Jerome seems to comment on this in
his attack on Origen’s views when he asks “Do you suppose that what we feared was that we
might rise without noses and ears, that we should find that our genital organs would be cut off
or maimed and that a city of eunuchs was built up in the new Jerusalem?” Apology Against
Rufinus 2.5. NPNF 2/3, p. 503. However, Origen’s self-castration is doubted by Dechow, who
subjects the story to extensive analysis. J F Dechow. Dogma and mysterium in early
Christianity, pp. 128-135.
73
E Ferguson. “Martyr, martyrdom.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity, p. 577. See Origen.
Exhortation to Martyrdom 21. ACW 19, pp. 160-161. Ibid., 30, pp. 171-172. Ibid., 42, pp.
185-186.
74
W H Frend. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, p. 356. Cited in: Margaret
R Miles. Augustine on the body, p. 43.
75
John Chrysostom said: “Mortify your body, and crucify it, and you will yourself receive the
crown of martyrdom. For what in the other case the sword accomplishes, that in this case let a
willing mind effect.” Homily on Hebrews 11.6. NPNF 1/14, p. 420. Similarly Jerome says: “If
we become martyrs, straightway we are in Paradise; if we endure the pains of poverty,
instantly we are in Abraham’s bosom. Blood has its own abode and so has peace. Poverty,
too, has its martyrdom; need well borne is martyrdom - but need suffered for the sake of
Christ and not from necessity.” Jerome. Homily 86, On Luke 16:19-31. The rich man and
Lazarus. FC 57, p. 211. Margaret R Miles points out that both martyrdom and asceticism are
considered the gift of God, as they are beyond ordinary human achievement. Augustine on
the body, p. 43. Cf. J P Burns. “Fidelity to Christ qualifies him for a glory which no human
growth or effort could achieve.” “The economy of salvation: Two patristic traditions.”
Theological Studies 37 (1976) 600.
76
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 563. R W Thomson, p. 135. Cf. also
Basil. “Be martyrs in intention, and attain without persecution... the reward of which the
martyrs were judged worthy.” In sanctos quadraginta martyres. PG 31, 508B. Basil also said
to a grieving mother that she had “the opportunity of attaining the reward of the martyrs
through your perseverance.” Letter 6. Cited in: H Musurillo. “The problem of ascetical fasting
in the Greek Patristic writers.” Traditio 12 (1956) 59.
157
The concept of “spiritual martyrdom” opened the way for the concept that others
besides the martyrs receive “immortality” and enter into glory immediately after death
without waiting for the resurrection. The doctrine of immediate rewards for the
martyrs was soon extended to those who lived a “life of martyrdom” as ascetics, thus
reinforcing the development of an individualistic eschatology.
This can be seen in the ‘realised eschatology’ of many ascetic theologians, such as the
comment of Gregory of Tours concerning the body of Gregory of Langres:
His face was so filled with glory that it looked like a rose. It was a deep
rose red, and the rest of his body was glowing white like a lily. You
would have said that he was even now ready for the coming glory of
the resurrection.77
Anthony wrote that the ascetic who mortifies the flesh has “already received a portion
of that spiritual body which it is to assume in the resurrection of the just.”78 Sulpitius
also expressed the possibility of the glorified resurrection body being anticipated in
the life of the ascetic. When Martin died his body was seen to be white as snow, even
though he had spent his life in sackcloth and ashes. Sulpitius comments that he
appeared “as if he had been manifested in the glory of the future resurrection, and
with the nature of a body which had been changed.”79
5.2.4. The controversy with Jovinian
It was maintained by many Patristic writers that there were distinctions of rewards
and the corresponding glory of the resurrection body among the righteous.80 The
principal passages used in support of this idea were John 14:2, in my Father’s house
there are many mansions,81 and 1 Corinthians 15:41, The sun has one kind of
splendour, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in
splendour.82 Differences of punishment for the wicked are also asserted on such
77
Gregory of Tours. Liber Vitae Patrum 7.3. [PL 71, 1038B] Cited in: Peter Brown. The cult of
the saints, p. 77.
78
Anthony. Letter 1.6. PG 40, 981. Translation cited in: Peter Brown. The Body and Society,
p. 224.
79
Sulpitius Severus. Letter to Bassula. NPNF 2/11, p. 23.
80
Augustine also asserts, but without giving textual support, that there shall be degrees of
reward, apparently considering it evident enough, as he says simply “it cannot be doubted that
there shall be degrees [of honour and glory].” The City of God 22.30. NPNF 1/2, p. 510. See
also Ambrose. Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke 7.220. PL 15, 1848. Letter 42 to
Siricius. PL 16, 1172-1177.
81
For example, an early use of John 14:2 (in conjunction with Matthew 13:8) which leads to the
idea of the distinctions of rewards is found in Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.36.2. ANF 1, p.
567.
82
Cf. for instance Augustine, who cites 1 Corinthians 15:40-43 and says, “You see, glory was
promised to the bodies of the saints and different degrees of glory because the merits of
charity are different.” Sermon 241.8. FC 38, p. 263. Augustine discusses these two passages
in other places. Tractate in John 67.2. NPNF 1/7, p. 321. Tractate in John 68.3. NPNF 1/7,
158
grounds as that “it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of
judgement” than for those who rejected Christ.83 The most extensive discussion of this
subject is perhaps that found in the rebuttal by Jerome of the view held by Jovinian,84
namely that there were no differences in the rewards or punishments given to the dead
at the judgement: the same reward or punishment was given to all.85 Jovinian was
opposing the view that differences of reward and punishment were associated with
different earthly states: virgins, widows, wives, monks, priests, laymen. Jovinian also
taught the equality of marriage and virginity,86 the uselessness of fasting, and that the
baptised could not be induced to sin by the devil.87
pp. 323-324. On the spirit and the letter 41. NPNF 1/5, p. 100. On the spirit and the letter 48.
NPNF 1/5, p. 104. Of holy virginity 26. NPNF 1/3, p. 426. However, Jerome interprets Daniel
12:3 to mean that the “learned teachers” will shine brighter than the “righteous who are
without learning,” so that there are different degrees of glory depending on intellectual
attainment, an elitist idea at odds with the gospel. Commentary on Daniel 12.3. G L Archer,
pp. 146-147. This is also found in another of his writings: “In the close of his most solemn
vision Daniel declares that the righteous shall shine as the stars; and the wise, that is the
learned, as the firmament. You can see, therefore, how great is the difference between
righteous ignorance and instructed righteousness. Those who have the first are compared with
the stars, those who have the second with the heavens. Yet, according to the exact sense of the
Hebrew, both statements may be understood of the learned, for it is to be read in this way:
They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to
righteousness as the stars forever and ever.” Jerome. Letter 53.3. NPNF 2/6, pp. 97-98. Cf.
by way of contrast the words of Herman Bavinck on his deathbed: “My learning does not help
me now; neither does my Dogmatics; faith alone saves me.” Translator’s Preface. Herman
Bavinck. The Doctrine of God (n. p.).
83
Augustine. On baptism, against the Donatists 4.19. NPNF 1/4, p. 459.
84
Jerome. Against Jovinianus 2.18-38. NPNF 2/6, pp. 402-416. For an account of the
controversy concerning the views of Jovinian, see: F H Dudden. The life and times of Saint
Ambrose. Vol. 2, pp. 393-398. J N D Kelly. Jerome. His life, writings and controversies,
pp. 180-189.
85
For Jovinian the equality of all Christians based on their common baptism was the starting
point of his thought. David G Hunter. “Resistance to the virginal ideal in late fourth-century
Rome: the case of Jovinian.” Theological Studies 48 (1987) 47.
86
Augustine attacked this view in his tractate Of Holy Virginity 6, where for instance he asserted
that virgins give birth to spiritual children in Christ, while mothers give birth to fleshly
children in Adam. NPNF 1/3, p. 419. Jovinian was also condemned for his view in an
encyclical of pope Siricius. Letter 7. Against Jovinian the heretic. PL 13, 1168-1172. Siricius
also wrote the first papal document insisting on clerical celibacy. Decretal to Bishop
Himerius. PL 13, 1131-1147. See the discussion of these documents by Daniel Callam.
“Clerical continence in the fourth century: Three papal decretals.” Theological Studies 41
(1980) 3-50.
87
David G Hunter has shown that Jovinian was attacking the Manichean heresy, and that each
of his points has its opposite proposition in Manichean teaching as well as in Priscillianism.
The sensitivity of Jerome and Ambrose to the views of Jovinian is because their exegesis of
the Scriptural passages in dispute is identical to that of the Manicheans and the Priscillianists,
whom Jovinian was attacking. Hunter says that while Augustine tried to distinguish between
Manichean and orthodox Christian asceticism, Jovinian tried to undercut the appeal to
asceticism as such, since he saw it as a denigration of the goodness of marriage and bodily
life. As a result, Jovinian held to the equality of the rewards for the saints, with no advantage
given to ascetics. “Resistance to the virginal ideal in late fourth-century Rome: the case of
Jovinian.” Theological Studies 48 (1987) 45-64.
159
Jerome saw his rejection of the differences of rewards and punishments as an attack
on the value of the merits of the saints, and a denial of the seriousness of the depravity
of some sinners, since all were punished alike.88 While the details of the controversy
take us away from our theme, it is of interest in that here Jerome is specifically
defending the idea that while it is valid to distinguish between the just and the unjust,
as Jovinian did, it is also legitimate to make distinctions among those in each group.
To establish his position, Jovinian cited various passages of Scripture. In the parable
of the ten virgins, five remained outside and five went in to the marriage feast. With
Noah’s ark, and in Sodom and Gomorrah, the righteous were delivered and the
sinners perished. In Egypt the ten plagues fell with equal violence on all that sinned,
and at the Red Sea the righteous passed over while the sinners were destroyed. Thus,
at the judgement there will be two classes: the sheep and the goats, the just and the
unjust. With these and similar examples, Jovinian sought to show there were only two
classes: the sinners and the righteous.89
Jerome attempts to refute Jovinian by showing that in the parable of the sower
[Matthew 13], there were three degrees of fruitfulness and of sterility,90 while
Jovinian focused on the fact that there was a difference between good soil and bad
soil. Similarly he accepts that there is a distinction between the good and the bad, as
in the examples given by Jovinian, but he then asks:
But what are we to think of your assertion, that because there is a

division into good and bad, the good, or the bad it may be, are not
distinguished one from another, and that it makes no difference whether
one is a ram in the flock or a poor little sheep?91
Jovinian had argued that as one star differs from another in glory, so spiritual persons
differ from carnal. He argues that the one who calls his brother a fool, a murderer and
an adulterer, will all be sent to Gehenna, in spite of the differences in their sins.
Similarly some martyrs were burned, some were strangled, and some beheaded, but
88
However, although both Jerome and Jovinian agreed that all sins can be forgiven in baptism,
Jovinian opposed the idea of rank among Christians whether here or hereafter. Elizabeth
Clark. “The place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist controversy: the
apokatastasis and ascetic ideals.” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 165.
89
Cited by Jerome. Against Jovinian 2.18. NPNF 2/6, p. 402.
90
This idea appears also in Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.36.2. ANF 1, p. 567. Pseudo-Cyprian.
Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima. PLS 1, 53-67, identifies the “thirty-fold” fruit of
the seed as the reward of married people who practice chastity. Brian E Daley. The hope of
the early Church, p. 234, n. 13. Cf. for this idea also Jerome. Letter 22.15. NPNF 2/6, p. 27.
Athanasius. Letter 48. NPNF 2/4, p. 557. Augustine. On holy virginity 46. NPNF 1/3, p. 434.
91
Jerome. Against Jovinian 2.22. NPNF 2/6, p. 404. Jerome said elsewhere that if a human king
is not satisfied with a single order of servants, instead of a hierarchy of officers, why should
God, the King of kings, accept this? Commentary on Ephesians 1. PL 26, 491-492. Cited in:
Elizabeth Clark. “The place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist
controversy: the apokatastasis and ascetic ideals.” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 160.
160
all share the same victor’s crown. He cites especially the parable of the labourers in
the vineyard who all laboured for different periods, but were all nevertheless paid the
same wages.92 Jerome argues that this is twisting Scripture with perverse ingenuity,
and a Stoic outlook on rewards and punishments.93 He says that to say that all sins are
equal is to say that all deserve the same punishment, and a hungry man stealing food
is as guilty as a murderer. He wishes to maintain the distinction of merits and
punishments, correlated with the distinctions in the resurrection bodies among both
the wicked and the just, so that we do not all receive identical rewards and
punishments.94 Jerome argues from Ezekiel 34:17, I will judge between one sheep and
another, and between rams and goats, that God will indeed distinguish not only
between the sinners and the saints, but also between those in each group.95 Jerome
uses many other texts to establish his case, and he is convinced of the justice of
making distinctions among the righteous and among the wicked, seeing them as
deserving of different rewards and punishments.96 A similar argument is found in the
works of Ambrose, who also wrote against Jovinian.97 Again 1 Corinthians 15:40-44
is used to support this idea.
92
Cited by Jerome. Against Jovinian 2.20. NPNF 2/6, p. 403. Tertullian had earlier used this
text to demonstrate the equality of all but the difference in the reward given. “Consequently,
we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God - albeit the
wages be various, albeit there be “many mansions” in the house of the same Father - having
laboured for the “one penny” of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life...” On Monogamy
10. ANF 4, p. 67. Thus Tertullian provides a precedent for Jovinian’s interpretation, even
though he wishes to allow for different rewards as well.
93
Jerome also accused Jovinian of being an Epicurean (Against Jovinian 1.1, 1.4, 2.6, 2.21,
2.36. NPNF 2/6, pp. 346-416) as did Augustine (Letter 167.2.4. NPNF 1/1, p. 534). This
Patristic tendency to trace heretical ideas to pagan philosophers such as Epicurus is frequently
based on a gross oversimplification of the ideas of both Epicurus and the opponents of the
Fathers, but was used to impute hedonistic motives to anyone who cast aspersions on the
value placed on ascetic life. R Jungkuntz. “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans.” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966) 3-10. It is interesting to note that Jerome’s treatise against
Jovinian “marks the full revival of his unrestrained use of the pagan classics and of
‘rhetoric’.” J N D Kelly. Jerome. His life, writings and controversies, p. 182.
94
Elizabeth Clark argues that the desire to allow for a heavenly hierarchy with distinctions of
merits based on ascetic renunciation is one reason why Jerome rejected Origen’s doctrine of
apokatastasis, which did not allow for this because of the universal restitution to goodness.
This is found in his Commentary on Ephesians which he wrote before the controversy with
Jovinian, as well as in his Letter 84.7. NPNF 2/6, p. 179. “The place of Jerome’s Commentary
on Ephesians in the Origenist controversy: the apokatastasis and ascetic ideals.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 155.
95
Jerome. Against Jovinian 2.21-22. NPNF 2/6, p. 404.
96
Cf. Herman Bavinck, who also says there are distinctions of rewards and punishments, basing
his view on passages such as Romans 2:6, 12, Matthew 10:15, 11:22, 24, 16:27, Luke 12:47.
Our Reasonable Faith, p. 565.
97
Jovinian was condemned in a letter by Ambrose [Letter 42, to Siricius. PL 16, 1172-1177]
resulting from a synod in Milan. On another occasion Ambrose also condemned two monks
who taught much the same ideas, labelling them Epicureans. Letter 63.7-19. NPNF 2/10, pp.
457-459. Ambrose also condemned the Novatianists who considered all sins alike. On
repentance 1.5. NPNF 2/10, p. 330.
161
All men rise again, but let no one lose heart, and let not the just grieve
at the common lot of rising again, since he awaits the chief fruit of his
virtue. All indeed shall rise again, but, as says the Apostle, each in his
own order. The fruit of the divine mercy is common to all, but the order
of merit differs. The day gives light to all, the sun warms all, the rain
fertilises the possessions of all with genial showers. We are all born,
and we shall all rise again, but in each state, whether of living or of
living again, grace differs and the condition differs.98
The phrase, each in his own order, was thus understood by Ambrose to refer to the
differing merits of those raised,99 as can be seen from his view that the resurrection is
an “order of grace” in which “all are raised again in a moment, yet all are raised in the
order of their merits.”100
Chrysostom answers the problem of the differences of rewards not by the distinction
of the groups who shall face judgement, but by distinctions in the glory of the
resurrection which the righteous share, as well as the differences in the resurrection
bodies of the sinners. Some receive honour and others dishonour, fates which are
reflected in the character of the bodies they receive.
As he also said in the former epistle, We shall all be raised, but each in
his own order [1 Corinthians 15:22,23]. And, There are celestial
bodies, and bodies terrestrial [1 Corinthians 15:40]. For the
resurrection indeed is common to all, but the glory is not common; but
some shall rise in honour and others in dishonour, and some to a
kingdom but others to punishment.101
The resurrection is general, he says, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15 by the image of

the seed, and all will be raised; but the honour received by each differs, and only
those who are in Christ are raised in glory.102 The difference between the resurrection
bodies is described by Paul in the imagery of the differences between the sun, the
moon and the stars. Thus there are also distinctions between the different saints, as
98
Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.92-93. NPNF 2/10, p. 189.
99
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 753, understands this phrase to mean
“each event in its own order,” that is, first the resurrection of Christ, then the resurrection of
the believers.
100
Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.115-116. NPNF 2/10, p. 194.
101
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians 10.3. NPNF 1/12, p. 327. This idea
appears in one of Chrysostom’s earliest writings. “He shall reward every man according to
his works [Romans 2:6]. And not only in hell, but also in the kingdom one will find many
differences, for he said, in my Father’s house are many mansions, and, there is one glory of
the sun, and another glory of the moon. And what wonder, if in dealing with such great
matters he has spoken with such precision, seeing that He declares there is a difference in that
world even between one star and another?” To the fallen Theodore 1.19. NPNF 1/9, p. 111.
See also Basil. The Long Rules 267. Translation cited in: Richard Travers Smith. St. Basil the
Great, pp. 137-138.
102
John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Thessalonians 7. NPNF 1/13, p. 353.
162
well as a general distinction between the saints and the sinners. Chrysostom insists
that while disbelief in the resurrection results in carelessness about behaviour (on the
assumption there is no judgement to face), the idea that all receive the same reward
makes people lazy. Just as the sun, moon and stars are all in the heavens yet differ in
their glory, so too all the believers will be saved but will differ in their rewards. Nor
will all sinners receive the same punishment.103 He maintains then, as did many other
Patristic writers, that there are distinctions of merit in the resurrection, and different
degrees of glory for the saints. The consistent conclusion drawn from making
distinctions among those resurrected is the distinctions of rewards and punishments.
Emma Disley states that “The writings of the Fathers were weightily disposed
towards the concept of degrees of reward and punishment...”104 She argues that
Men’s ideas of a hierarchic heaven seem to have been constructed to

reflect social patterns on earth: the notion of an equality of heavenly
bliss, or of hellish torments, seems to have played no part in the
medieval picture of the hereafter. Jovinian’s ideas, that all sins are
equal and that there is but one grade of punishment and one of reward
in the future states, seem to have been effectively silenced after their
condemnation at the synods of Rome and Milan (c. 390). Jerome’s
refutation of Jovinian had been constructed upon the argument that all
sins are not equal, and that degrees of holiness (Jerome referred
specifically to chastity and martyrdom) attained in this life, are
intimately linked with our future position within the hierarchy of
heaven. It seemed self-evident that some sins were graver than others,
that a truly evil man would receive severer punishments in the depths of
hell than one who had committed sins of a more “trivial” nature. Hence
the Church’s division of sins into classes of “venial” and “mortal.”...
Once the notion of varying degrees of torment in hell had been
accepted, it seemed logical to extend the idea to heaven and to varying
degrees of reward, associated with the varying degrees of holiness
achieved in this life.105
The notion of a hierarchy is inconsistent with a coherent concept of the people of

God, with a diversity of offices, which does not elevate one office over others which
are subordinated to it.106
5.2.5 Rejection of sexuality
103
John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Corinthians 41.4. NPNF 1/12, p. 251.
104
E Disley. “Degrees of glory: Protestant doctrines and the concepts of rewards hereafter.”
Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 80.
105
E Disley. “Degrees of glory: Protestant doctrines and the concepts of rewards hereafter.”
106
The concept of sphere sovereignty in neo-Calvinist thought exposes the dualistic and
authoritarian roots of hierarchical approaches to both society, church and (it would seem) the
eschaton. See Gordon Spykman. “Sphere sovereignty in Calvin and the Calvinist Tradition.”
In: Exploring the heritage of John Calvin, pp. 164-169.
163
As a result of the denigration of the flesh, marriage and family life, and human
sexuality itself, were all repudiated by ascetics. The virginal life was not merely
presented as a choice for those who wished to give greater attention to evangelism or
pastoral care, as with the apostle Paul [1 Corinthians 7:32-35], but was considered
one of the highest virtues of the the ascetic life,107 although that by itself would not
earn an eternal reward, as this would be granted on the basis of obedience to the
commandments.108
The denigration of marriage and childbearing, which continued through the Patristic
period,109 was partly rooted in the idea that it became part of human life only with the
sin of Adam and Eve and the consequent loss of immortality, to prevent the human
race dying out.110 This correlation of sexuality with sin foisted a burden of guilt and
repression on the church which it still struggles to discard. In the resurrection there
will be no need of marriage and childbearing, since we will be immortal and the
human race therefore cannot diminish.111
All this implies that marriage, which in this present age is necessary, inter-alia with a
view to the preservation of the human race, whose numbers are constantly reduced by
death, can be abolished in the world to come, because there no one can ever die again
107
Some of the Patristics did not seem to distinguish (on an ethical level) between true virginity
and the chaste life of widows and widowers, or those who had left their spouses. Cf. Peter
Brown. The body and society, p. 71. See, however, Jerome’s comment: “I extol virginity to
the skies, not because I myself possess it, but because, not possessing it, I admire it all the
more.” Letter 48.20. NPNF 2/6, p. 78. Jerome seems to have led a rather liberated life in
Rome as a youth. See Letter 3.1. NPNF 2/6, p. 4; Letter 7.4. NPNF 2/6, p. 9; Letter 22.7.
NPNF 2/6, p. 25. Jerome also says that it is possible to be a virgin in the flesh, but not in the
spirit. Letter 22.5. NPNF 2/6, p. 24.
108
Sulpitius Severus (doubtful). Letter to Claudia concerning virginity 4. NPNF 2/11, p. 59.
Methodius. The Symposium 10.6. ACW 27, p. 148. Cf. John Cassian, who says that the
ascetic life will not help us if we still give way to anger and hatred. Institutes 8.22. NPNF
2/11, p. 264.
109
It is held by such writers as: Gregory of Nyssa. An accurate exposition of the Song of Songs 4.
From glory to glory, p. 183.
110
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 17.1-3. NPNF 2/5, pp. 406-407. Theodoret.
Therapy of Hellenic Maladies 3.89. SC 57/1, pp. 196-197. Basil of Ancyra. On virginity 55.
PG 30, 780A. T H C van Eijk. “Marriage and Virginity, Death and Immortality.” In:
Epektasis, p. 225.
111
There is something of this hinted at by Jesus in Luke 10:36, for he says that in the resurrection
there is no need for marriage, since “they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.” It is
in this respect that we become like the angels, and not in terms of the speculation about
sexuality and non-human angelic bodies. Peter Steen. “The Problem of Time and Eternity in
its Relation to the Nature-Grace Ground-motive.” In: Hearing and Doing, p. 144, n. 14. Cf.
also J A Schep. “Resurrection of the flesh-body in the light of 1 Corinthians 15:50a and
Matthew 22:30.” Vox Reformata Occasional Papers 2. August, 1964, p. 22. Robert H Smith.
Matthew, p. 263. Origen asserted the contrary, stressing that it is not merely the absence of
marriage that is in view, but transformation to angelic natures. Commentary on Matthew
17.30. Cited in: L Hennessey. “Origen of Alexandria: The fate of the soul and the body after
death.” Second Century 8 (1991) 177.
164
and no vacant places need to be filled any more. In that respect redeemed mankind
will resemble the realm of the angels, who do not know death and whose number
therefore never changes.112
Prior to their sin Adam and Eve lived an asexual life, and so eschatological life, which
is a return to the former Paradisaical state of humankind, will also be asexual, like
that of the angels.113 Some even held that the resurrection body will be a-sexual, on
the basis that Adam had been so in the beginning,114 and that sexuality will be absent
in the eschatological life.115 Ephrem of Syria and Zeno of Verona thought humankind
was originally hermaphrodite,116 while others thought that in the resurrection there
would be no distinctions of sex, based on such passages as Galatians 3:28.117
112
J A Schep. “Resurrection of the flesh-body in the light of 1 Corinthians 15:50a and Matthew
22:30.” Vox Reformata Occasional Papers 2. August, 1964, p. 22.
113
See the discussion by Gary Anderson of the Rabbinic acceptance of Adam and Eve’s
sexuality, which points out the distinction between Jewish and Christian ideas in this regard.
“Celibacy or consummation in the Garden? Reflections on early Jewish and Christian
interpretations of the Garden of Eden.” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989) 121-148. Cf.
the concept of the Qumran community in the Dead Sea Scrolls of being like the “holy angels,”
not as sexless beings but as warriors practising continence for the duration of a holy war [as in
1 Samuel 21:4-5, 2 Samuel 11:11]. Peter Brown. The body and society, p. 38.
114
Clement of Alexandria. “For in this world, he says, they marry, and are given in marriage, in
which alone the female is distinguished from the male; but in that world it is so no more.
There the rewards of this social and holy life, which is based on conjugal union, are laid up,
not for male and female, but for man [anthropos], the sexual desire which divides humanity
being removed.” The Instructor 1.4. ANF 2, p. 211.
115
Commodian would possibly be unique among the Patristics in suggesting that the resurrected
saints will marry and beget children during the millennium. Instructions 44. ANF 4, p. 212. C
Cooper claims that Justin mentioned marriage and childbearing in the millennium, on the
basis that he cites Isaiah 65:17-25, which states (v.23) No longer will they toil in vain or bear
children doomed to misfortune. “Chiliasm and the chiliasts.” Reformed Theological Review 29
(1970) 17. This view is repeated by J Webb Mealy, who adds that Irenaeus holds the same
view. After the thousand years, pp. 49-50, n. 2. Justin does not assert this, but on the
contrary goes on to quote Luke 20:35, to the effect that the saints will neither marry nor give
in marriage. Dialogue with Trypho 81. ANF 1, pp. 239-240. Irenaeus says that it is the saints
who are living at the return of the Lord who will bear children during the millennium, not the
resurrected saints, and Irenaeus cites a prophet (unnamed) who presents this idea. Against
Heresies 5.35.1. ANF 1, p. 565. Lactantius repeats this latter idea, saying that during the
millennium the living saints will “produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be
holy, and beloved by God.” However, the resurrected saints have no part in this. The Divine
Institutes 7.24. ANF 7, p. 219. Lactantius does not appear to hold that the living saints will be
transformed until after the millennium [The Divine Institutes 7.26]. Mealy suggests that since
Irenaeus knows of the passage in Matthew 22:30 which teaches that in the resurrection there
is no marriage, Irenaeus is proposing an interim situation between resurrection and the final
eschatological state. This is untenable because Irenaeus restricts this to the non-resurrected
saints, nor does he anywhere cite either Matthew 22:30 or its cognate passage in Luke 20:35.
Irenaeus does not appear to have a clear picture of how the living saints are finally included in
the number of those resurrected.
116
Ephrem of Syria. Commentary on Genesis 2.12-13. Hymns on Paradise, pp. 205-206. Cf. E
ten Napel. “Concepts of Paradise in the Seventh Memra of the Hexaemeron by Emmanuel bar
Shahhare.” Studia Patristica 17/3 (1982) 1387, n. 37. This idea appears also in Zeno of
Verona. Tractatus 1.16.9. PL 11. 381. “The bisexual phoenix is here a symbol of
eschatological man arisen from the dead, for whom male and female coincide, and who has
165
Augustine sees a problem in the creation of Adam and Eve as immortal, but given
food to eat and a command to procreate and fill the earth, activities which he sees as
incompatible with immortality. With respect to food he says: “If it was by sin that he
was made mortal, surely before sinning he did not need such food, since his body
could not corrupt for lack of it.”118 He states further, “But at least no one will go so far
as to say that there can be a need of food for nourishment except in the case of mortal
bodies.”119 With regard to procreation, Augustine suggests that sexual intercourse
indicates that the bodies of Adam and Eve were mortal, although it is possible that
immortal bodies could produce children without “the concupiscence associated with
our corrupt flesh” and these children would be immortal also. When the earth was full
of immortal people, there would be no more reproduction, “as we believe it will be
after the resurrection.”120
Macarius Magnes goes so far as to say that we have the misfortune to be born
“through the unclean growth of the flesh,” but can attain to a “rational existence in
heaven” which is free of such things. We can therefore imitate this life here and now
by eschewing marriage (which he calls “the symbols of corruption”) and living in
virginity.121 Lactantius even said that there is nothing more removed from the nature
of God than sexuality and reproduction, since it demands bodiliness for its
accomplishment.122
John Climacus wrote of a man who had such chastity that when he looked on a body
of great beauty he at once gave praise to its Creator and was stirred to love God. Such
had returned to him his original, perfect unity.” R van den Broek. The myth of the Phoenix,
pp. 374-375.
117
[Gregory of Nyssa. On the making of man 17.2-4. NPNF 2/5, p. 407. Cf. In ecclesiasten
Salomonis i (PG 44.633) and On the soul and resurrection. NPNF 2/5, pp. 464-467]. John
Bugge. Virginitas, p. 31. Jerome argued on the basis of Galatians 3:28 for the the sexless life
here and now through chastity in anticipation of the resurrection. [Jerome. Commentary on
Ephesians 3. PL 26, 567-568]. Elizabeth Clark. “The place of Jerome’s Commentary on
Ephesians in the Origenist controversy: the apokatastasis and ascetic ideals.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 160. In the Acts of Peter 2.275, sexual purity is the condition of
salvation, while in the Acts of John, Andrew and Thomas, 2.188-259, 390-425, 425-531,
sexlessness is the dominant feature of the last age and a requirement for redemption. John
Bugge. Virginitas, p. 31, n. 2.
118
119
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 3.21.33. ACW 41, p. 98. Cf. ibid., 6.21.32. ACW
41, p. 202.
120
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 3.21.33. ACW 41, p. 98. Cf. ibid., 9.3.6. ACW 42,
pp. 73-74.
121
Macarius Magnes. Apocriticus 4.27. The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, p. 147. Cf.
Augustine’s criticism of his early depreciation of bodily life in his opinion that but for the Fall
we would have escaped the ‘encumbrance’ of family relationships, which Burnaby says
receives the severest criticism in his entire Retractationes. J Burnaby. “The Retractationes of
Saint Augustine: self-criticism or apologia?” In: Augustinus Magister. Vol. 1, pp. 89-90.
122
166
a man, said John Climacus, “has already risen to immortality before the general
resurrection.”123 John holds that the chaste man who is not stirred by any sexual
thoughts “even when he himself is still in this life, is someone who has already risen
from the dead.”124 As a result of such views, human bodily existence and especially
sexuality was denigrated under the influence of ascetic theology.
5.2.6 To be like the angels: Matthew 22:30
The idea that the saints become angels after death is found in numerous Patristic
texts,125 based on the words of Jesus, who says that we shall be “like the angels” in the
resurrection, neither marrying nor giving in marriage [Matthew 22:30, Luke 20:34-
36].126 The practice of asceticism was commonly called the “angelic life,” since those
who are practising virginity are imitating the life of the angels,127 an idea deriving
from the Alexandrian tradition.
Clement of Alexandria is perhaps the first to stress the transformation of the soul into
an angelic nature, when it is no longer able to be “unrighteous or evil,” that is, it does
not “have the opportunity of again sinning by the assumption of flesh.” His anti-
fleshly view leads to the idea that the eschatological life is non-fleshly, that is, like
123
124
Peter Brown comments on this phenomenon: “Former objects of sexual desire might be
glimpsed, at last, in terms of the abstract beauty of their created form. Their beauty became
translucent to the eye. It would shake the soul to its depths, but gently now, much as the
impalpable beauty of the liturgy now swayed the heart of the monk...” The Body and
Society, p. 239. The reason this gives a foretaste of the resurrection is that the monk has
attained to the state which shall prevail after the resurrection. The concept of eternal life as
contemplation of beauty is apparent in this view, but it is rather more akin to Neo-platonism
than to a Biblical view.
125
Examples are: Letter of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, 2.
ANF 1, p. 39. Origen. Homily on Leviticus 9.11. PG 12, 524A. De principiis 1.8.4. ANF 4,
pp. 266-267. Hippolytus. Fragment of the Discourse on the Resurrection and Incorruption.
ANF 5, p. 238. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 364. R W Thomson,
p. 74. Cf. also The Teaching of Saint Gregory 414. R W Thomson, pp. 89-90. Eusebius
“Gallicanus,” Sermon 17.8 (On Pascha 6) attributed to Faustus of Lerins. Cited in: D J
Sheerin. The Eucharist, p. 115. Hilary of Poitiers. P T Wild. Man’s divinization according
to St. Hilary, p. 125.
126
Cf. David E Aune. The cultic setting of realized eschatology in the early church, pp. 202-
211, for a discussion of the view of Marcion that being “like the angels” precluded a
resurrection of the physical body, since the angels were bodiless beings, and implied the
necessity of celibacy in this life, assuming the characteristics of the future life here and now
as a result of baptism. Aune notes that in his polemics with Marcion, Tertullian, unlike other
Patristic writers, defended the idea that angels do have bodies. [Against Marcion 3.9. ANF 3,
p. 329] Ibid., p. 210.
127
T H C van Eijk. “Marriage and Virginity, Death and Immortality.” In: Epektasis, p. 225. This
idea is found for instance in Methodius. The Symposium 8.2. ACW 27, p. 107; ibid., 9.5.
ACW 27, p. 139. Gregory of Nyssa. On virginity 13. NPNF 2/5, p. 360. Ambrose.
Concerning virgins 1.9.48. NPNF 2/10, p. 370. Novatian. In Praise of Purity 7.2. FC 67, p.
170.
167
that of the angels.128 But he stresses that this life can be attained already through
knowledge. “The gnostic who has attained perfection on earth is already equal to an
angel.”129 This view of the transformation of the resurrection is evident in Origen’s
statement concerning the relative conditions of the saved and the damned.
The judgement of the just is the transformation from the active

[physical] body to angelic bodies, the judgement of the impious is a
change from the active [physical] body to dark and dismal bodies. For
the impious shall rise not in the first judgement but in the second.130
Eusebius said that after her death the soul of Helena, mother of Constantine, was
“remoulded... into an incorruptible and angelic essence.”131 Augustine suggested that
human beings become angels in the eschatological life to complete the angelic
hierarchy which has been fragmented because of the defection of Satan and the angels
who followed him,132 an idea which implicitly denigrates the goodness of human
creaturely being. Methodius had earlier rejected this idea, arguing that it destroys the
order and intention of God in the creation.
Moreover, man also having been appointed by the original order of

things to inhabit the world, and to rule over all that is in it, when he is
immortal, will never be changed from being a man into the form either
of angels or any other; for neither do angels undergo a change from
their original form to another. For Christ at His coming did not
proclaim that the human nature should, when it is immortal, be
remoulded or transformed into another nature, but into what it was
before the fall.133
128
Clement of Alexandria. Comments on the First Epistle of Peter 1.3. ANF 2, p. 571. The
Instructor 2.10. ANF 2, p. 263.
129
[Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 6.13. ANF 2, p. 504] E F Osborn. The Philosophy of
Clement of Alexandria, p. 81. Similarly in the eschatological life, human beings can become
angels and then archangels. E F Osborn, ibid., pp. 82-83, citing Prophetic Eclogues 57.
130
Origen. Selecta in Psalmos 1.5. PG 12, 1097-1100. Origen says that the saints will be so
much like the angels that they can be said to have become angels. [Commentary in Matthew
17.30, Homily in Leviticus 9.11.] Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, p. 52.
Paulinus of Nola says simply that “we are changed into the appearance of angels.” Poem 31.
ACW 40, p. 315. Augustine speaks of the resurrection of the body as an “angelic change.” On
faith and the creed 10.24. NPNF 1/3, p. 332.
131
Eusebius. Life of Constantine 3.46. NPNF 2/1, p. 531.
132
Augustine. The City of God 22.1. NPNF 1/2, p. 480. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and
Love 29. NPNF 1/3, p. 247. On faith and the creed 10.24. NPNF 1/3, p. 332.
133
Methodius. The Discourse on the Resurrection 1.10. ANF 6, p. 366. Methodius thinks that
after the millennium the saints will undergo another change, from human form to angelic
grandeur and beauty. The Symposium 9.5. ACW 27, p. 139. However, he denies that the saints
“become angels” in any literal sense. Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, p. 63.
Similarly, Lactantius says the righteous dead are made immortal like the angels in the
millenium. The Divine Institutes 7.6. ANF 7, p. 203. Cf. also The Divine Institutes 7.26. ANF
7, p. 221. Epitome of the Divine Institutes 72. ANF 7, p. 255. Tertullian says that we will not
engage in marriage in the eschaton, since we will be “translated... into the condition and
168
The suggestion that we shall be like the angels, who do not marry, was seen by some
as meaning that we will not be raised in the flesh, as it is the flesh that is involved in
marriage.134 Gregory of Nyssa held that in the eschaton we will be transformed into
something divine, no longer with a nature composed of flesh and blood. We will
instead be like the angels, free from the lusts of the body as the passions of the flesh
will not make war on the soul.135
Ambrose even says that virgins are like the angels, not after the resurrection but in
this life. He interprets Matthew 22:30 to mean that “they who marry not nor are given
in marriage are as the angels in heaven.” Ambrose says that this is “the practice of the
life of heaven” spread through the whole world, a “heavenly service which the host of
rejoicing angels spoke of for the earth.”136 That which is promised in the resurrection
for the rest of the believers is already given to the virgins, so that they are of this
world, yet not in this world.137
5.3. Death as liberation of the soul from the body
Patristic authors who did see the flesh as the source of sin saw in it only passions,
lusts, and desires. Salvation was then considered to involve deliverance from the
flesh, and implicitly, from bodily life with its passions.138 This association of sin with
bodiliness negates the Biblical view that humankind in its bodily existence was
originally created good.
What we find if we penetrate beneath the thought of this whole era is an almost
irreconcilable conflict between the biblical doctrine of creation and a Greek-Platonic
dualism. This is accompanied and paralleled by a similar conflict between the biblical
and Greek views of sin. In fact both conflicts are at bottom identical. Christians in the
second century had rejected the gnostic attack on creator and creation, and had in
rebuttal asserted both the goodness of the Creator and the Creation. But their
Platonism nonetheless persisted in their attempts to explain the material creation as
either a kind of immaturity (Irenaeus) or a penal and pedagogical necessity (Origen).
This was fundamentally because they equated sin (or in Origen the consequence of
sin) with bodily passion, and salvation or theosis with the unpassioned or impassible
sanctity of angels.” To his wife 1.1. ANF 4, p. 39. Cf. On the resurrection of the flesh 62.
ANF 3, 593.
134
Justin Martyr writes against this view. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the
Resurrection, 2. ANF 1, pp. 294-295.
135
Gregory of Nyssa. An accurate exposition of the Song of Songs 1. From glory to glory, pp.
154-155. Gregory held that in the resurrection we shall be returned to our former pristine
state, which was that of the angels, a view he deduces from Luke 20:35-36. On the making of
man 17.2. NPNF 2/5, p. 407.
136
Ambrose. Concerning virgins 1.3.11. NPNF 2/10, p. 365.
137
Ambrose. Concerning virgins 1.9.52. NPNF 2/10, p. 371.
138
See the discussion in Chapter 5.4.2 below concerning the unchanging nature of the immortal
soul, which is the basis for this idea.
169
life. Had they conceived of sin as a really spiritual phenomenon they would have
experienced much less difficulty either in explaining the angelic Fall or in
dissociating evil from the body and its normal passions.139
However, in the Origenist tradition, sin was associated with bodiliness,140 and
salvation with being freed from the body. Origen cites Philippians 3:21, “our soul has
been humbled down to the dust, and imprisoned in the body of our lowness.”141
Elsewhere he says that we are burdened with “the body of humiliation,” but in the
resurrection this body shall be “conformed to the body of the glory of Christ.”142
Following Origen death itself was seen differently, no more as the way in which the
flesh was delivered from sin, but the way in which the soul was delivered from the
flesh!
By the Origenist tradition, I mean not the authentic doctrine of Origen,

but its modified fourth-century form. In this tradition emphasis is not
on the flesh, but on the liberation of the immortal soul from the flesh.
Basically flesh is the locus of passion, change, evil, death: sin is very
closely equated with flesh; salvation with the unfleshed existence of the
soul. With this goes a theology in which Christ and the Holy Spirit are
subordinate, mediatory agents of the Father. The Father as passionless,
immortal, agenetic deity cannot make direct contact with sinful,
enfleshed man. The ascent of man from his genetic, mortal condition to
theosis or union with Deity is thus mediated by agents who are, so to
speak, at home in both worlds: as less than God they can meet man; as
more than man they can meet God.143
Ambrose stresses that the death of the body, “the departure from this life,” is not a
penalty but a remedy, “because it is the end of evils.”144 Ambrose stresses “how much
more is that rest to be sought for, which shall be followed by the eternal pleasure of
the resurrection to come, where there is no succession of faults, no enticement to
sin.”145 Ambrose states that in the body we are surrounded by snares, and the body is
an enemy in conflict with the soul. He urges distancing ourselves from the body, since
139
(1958) 114. See Appendix 1 for a discussion of theosis.
140
Note that Origen himself does not see bodiliness as the cause of sin, since it is the
consequence of sin in a pre-incarnate state. He sees evil as originating in the will and not in
corporeal nature.
141
Origen. Treatise on Prayer 2.3. ACW 19, p. 19. He further refers to “the body of lowness” in
Treatise on Prayer 23.4. ACW 19, p. 80.
142
Origen. Commentary on Matthew 13.21. ANF 10, p. 488.
143
(1958) 101. Otis shows that for the Cappadocians, sin was essentially ignorance based on the
fleshly passions. Ibid., pp. 111, 123.
144
Ambrose. On the belief in the resurrection 2.36-38. NPNF 2/10, p. 179.
145
Ambrose. On the belief in the resurrection 2.123. NPNF 2/10, p. 195.
170
the soul gives life to the body, but “the flesh pours death into the soul.”146 Any view of
salvation which denigrates the body, seeing it as the source of sin, thereby takes an
essentially gnostic view.
According to Daley, Ambrose’s conception is centred on the fate of the soul after
death rather than on the resurrection and subsequent judgement. He considers death a
release from the cares of this fleshly life, and thus urges his hearers not to be afraid of
death or to grieve over those who have died.147
Death brings rest for the body and freedom for the soul,148 a casting aside of the
trappings of the flesh and freedom from the prison of the body. “Then we are free to
fly to that place above, where our souls once groaned in the act of commingling with
the bodily passions of this flesh of ours.” The purpose of embodiment was the use of
reason by the soul to “bring under subjection the irrational emotions of our bodies.”149
Thus the body is denigrated as a source of sin, a hindrance to the soul, and ruled by
irrational emotions, passions and desires.
5.3.1 Can the soul feel without the body? The instrumentalist view
Those who maintained that the soul could feel directly, without the instrumentality of
the body, were able to assert that the soul could thereby endure punishment or enjoy
rewards. But those who held that the soul, being a simple substance, cannot suffer,
were forced to insist that it needs the body to experience the suffering which the soul
then feels, and so judgement requires the resurrection.
John Cassian argues that it is unreasonable to think that “the nobler part of man, in
which as the blessed Apostle shows, the image and likeness of God consists,” will be
without ability to sense after death and separation from the body, which he describes
as a burden with which the soul is oppressed in this world. The soul contains the
power of reason and it is this which enables the body to sense things, so that after the
soul has “put off the grossness of the flesh with which it is now weighed down,” its
intellectual powers will be be better able to function than ever. For this reason, the
apostle Paul “actually wished to depart from this flesh” so as to be “joined more
earnestly to the Lord.” Cassian cites Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:6, and says
that “continuance of the soul which is in the flesh is distance from the Lord, and
absence from Christ” whereas “separation and departure from this flesh involves
146
Ambrose. Death as a good 7.26. FC 65, p. 90. However, Peter Chrysologus rejects the idea of
death as a “good” as this is the result of death’s war on humanity using violence and
deception [Sermon 118.6]. Peter may be thinking of Ambrose here, or at least the tradition
which informed his treatise Death as a good. Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church,
p. 165, and n. 69, p. 254.
147
Brian E Daley. The hope of the early church, p. 100.
148
Ambrose. Isaac, or the soul 8.79. FC 65, pp. 64-65. Cf. Death as a good 1.1. FC 65, p. 70,
where Ambrose also says that death cannot harm the soul.
149
Ambrose. Cain and Abel 2.9.36. FC 42, pp. 434-435.
171
presence with Christ.”150 Cassian is quite convinced that the soul is able to suffer, and
understands the story of Luke 16 in that light.
For that they are not idle after the separation from this body, and are not
incapable of feeling, the parable in the gospel shows, which tells us of
the beggar Lazarus and Dives clothed in purple, one of whom obtained
a position of bliss, i.e., Abraham’s bosom, the other is consumed with
the dreadful heat of eternal fire. But if you care too to understand the
words spoken to the thief, “Today you shall be with me in Paradise,”
what do they clearly show but that not only does their former
intelligence continue with the souls, but also that in their changed
condition they partake of some state which corresponds to their actions
and deserts? For the Lord would certainly never have promised him
this, if he had known that his soul after being separated from the flesh
would either have been deprived of perception or have been resolved
into nothing.151
The idea that the soul was not without sensation after death did not lead automatically
to the idea of immediate judgement and punishments. The Teaching of Addaeus holds
that souls are still conscious and able to perceive, but will not receive punishment or
rewards until the resurrection, as both body and soul are responsible for the deeds of
the person and must receive their just deserts together.152
Lactantius held that the soul is not corporeal, but is the source of sensation and life, so
that when the soul is withdrawn at death, the body is left lifeless and without
sensation. The soul cannot suffer from corporeal punishments directly, but because
God is a spirit, just as the soul is, God is able to make the soul suffer.
It must not, however, be supposed that, because the perception of the

body fails, the sensibility of the soul is extinguished and perishes. For it
is not the soul that becomes senseless when the body fails, but it is the
body which becomes senseless when the soul takes its departure,
because it draws all sensibility with it. But since the soul by its
presence gives sensibility to the body, and causes it to live, it is
impossible that it should not live and perceive by itself, since it is in
itself both consciousness and life.153
Lactantius goes on to deal with an objection concerning the judgement, which may be
raised because of his anthropological views, namely, that the simple immortal soul
cannot suffer, as suffering involves change, impossible for a simple substance. He
gets out of this conundrum by suggesting that the souls of the wicked are no longer
purely simple substances. For this he is drawing on a Stoic idea expressed by Virgil
150
151
John Cassian. Conference 1.14. NPNF 2/11, p. 301.
152
153
172
[Aeneid 6.735] (which Lactantius says is “near to the truth”) of a “middle nature in
between that of an immortal and a mortal” because of the corruption of their sins,
which corruption of their immortal nature then makes it possible for them to
experience suffering.154
However, even in this speculative doctrine, Lactantius maintains the original Patristic
conception that the soul must suffer together with the body, because both were
involved in sin. Since the punishments for sin are corporeal in nature, they require the
body to be resurrected in order to be able to sense those punishments. Since the
purpose of these new bodies is to endure eternal suffering, they will not be like these
present bodies, but created especially to suffer eternally. But the contrast between
spirit and body, which postulates the inability of one to cause suffering to the other,
both violates the distinction between God and the creatures he has made, since the
spirit is considered to be of the same substance with God; and it generates unsolvable
pseudo-problems concerning the relationship of the soul to the body.
Pettersen says that the current neo-Platonic teaching was that the soul was apathes in
its own being, but was able to suffer the pathe of the body: “the soul was united to a
body which, in its own bodily being, suffered.”155 He says further “Nemesius reports
that most learned authors took the view that the body was the sole sufferer, and that,
even though the body derived its capacity to feel pain from the soul, the soul itself
remained impassible.”156
The debate as to whether or not the soul can “feel” without the body is relevant to the
discussion of post-mortem punishment. Can the soul be punished by material fire?
Origen circumvented this by proposing that the fire of hell was spiritual and thus
could act on the soul. Others saw the fire of hell as material, and held that the soul
could not “feel” without the medium of the body.
5.3.2 Death as separation of the soul from God
Origen distinguishes three kinds of death in Scripture: a) death to sin, b) death

because of sin, i.e. “The soul that sins, it shall die,” and c) bodily death, in the
separation of the soul from the body.157 It is interesting that Origen, as one of the first
154
155
Alvyn Pettersen. Athanasius and the human body, p. 7.
156
Alvyn Pettersen. Athanasius and the human body, p. 7. Nemesius. On the nature of man
3.22. LCC 4, pp. 300-304. This view is also found in Cyril of Alexandria. Scholion 2. Cited
in: Lionel R Wickham. Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
xxxiii, n. 70.
157
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides 168. LCC 2, p. 453. This three-fold distinction of the
meaning of sin can be found in the commentary on Luke by Ambrose, who drew on this
discourse of Origen with Heraclides, incorporating whole passages verbatim. H C Puech & P
Hadot. “L’Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et le commentaire de Saint Ambroise sur
l’Évangile de Saint Luc.” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959) 206-207. Ambrose says that death
because of sin is ignorance of Christ who is life. Idem, p. 209. Hennessey suggests that this
three-fold distinction in Origen is derived from the Stoic understanding of human acts as
173
to maintain the immortality of the soul, finds it necessary to define death so as to
exclude the soul from his meaning. He says: “There being, then, three kinds of death,
let us see whether the human soul is immortal in respect of the three kinds of death, or
if not in respect of the three, yet in respect to some of them.” Origen then says that all
suffer bodily death, which is “a matter of moral indifference,” but this does not affect
the soul, which is thus immortal in this sense. The soul can also die to sin, which is a
cause of blessedness and immortality, or it can die because of sin, and as a result is
punished after death, as it is immortal and remains in existence.158 Origen uses this
distinction to show that to say “the soul is immortal” lacks subtlety, in that the soul is
mortal in the sense of being dead because of sin. Origen argues that the soul is
immortal if it has been given eternal life by Christ.159
Augustine held that although the soul is considered immortal, it has in a sense its own
death. It is immortal because it continues to live and feel, but it “dies” when God
forsakes it, and it lives only in punishment. It does not die as the body dies, since it
could not thereby feel the punishments it deserves. But these punishments are not
those which precede the resurrection; rather, they are those which follow the
resurrection. The soul is necessary as only by means of the soul can the suffering of
the body be experienced. Thus the body must undergo punishment together with the
soul, since it could not otherwise suffer.160
Augustine defines death as the separation of the soul from the body, which then dies
since it is the soul which gives the body life. The death of the soul is its separation
from God as a result of the loss of communion because of sin. Since the soul is
indestructible, it cannot cease to exist, but its separation from God is justly called the
death of the soul. This is the first death.161 The second death for Augustine is the
damnation following the last judgement, where the soul together with the resurrected
body are given over to eternal death, which is also not cessation of existence, but
separation from God.162 Thus Augustine speaks of death in two respects, that of
human nature as creaturely, and that in terms of its relation to God. These two views
are found in his interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:16, where he says that the immortality
good, bad and indifferent. “Origen of Alexandria: The fate of the soul and the body after
death.” Second Century 8 (1991) 163.
158
159
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides 171-172. LCC 2, p. 454. See H C Puech & P Hadot.
“L’Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et le commentaire de Saint Ambroise sur l’Évangile de
Saint Luc.” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959) 206-207.
160
Augustine. The City of God 13.2. NPNF 1/2, p. 245. Cf. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and
Love 93. NPNF 1/3, p. 267, where Augustine says that the “first death” took place when the
soul was compelled to be separated from the body, while the “second death” is when the soul
is compelled to remain joined to the suffering body.
161
[Augustine. The City of God 13.2. NPNF 1/2, p. 245. The City of God 13.15. NPNF 1/2, pp.
251-252. On the Trinity 4.3.5. NPNF 1/3, pp. 71-72. On the Psalms 69.2-3. NPNF 1/8, p. 300.
Sermon 65.4. PL 38, 428-429] Kari E Börresen. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la
résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 147.
162
[Augustine. The City of God 13.8; 21.2. NPNF 1/2, pp. 248, 452-453] Kari E Börresen.
174
of God is absolute and immutable, whereas the immortality of the soul is its continual
existence although mutable, and thus able to experience either a better or a worse fate
depending on its deserts.163
5.4 The inherent immortality of the soul
While the Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology generally did not hold
that the soul was inherently immortal, there were exceptions such as Athenagoras.
Similarly, while the instrumentalist anthropology was generally correlated with belief
in the inherent immortality of the soul, there were exceptions, such as Clement of
Alexandria. Clement held that the body was merely an instrument of the soul, but the
soul for him was not naturally immortal, although he has often been understood to
teach the immortality of the soul, on the basis of a number of fragments ascribed to
him, which taught that all souls were naturally immortal.164 However, these fragments
are now considered spurious,165 and in authentic fragments from Clement’s Biblical
commentary, the Hypotyposes, he rejects the inherent immortality of the soul, stating
in commenting on 1 Peter 1:5, 9, that the soul is made immortal by the grace of
God.166 However, Clement was an exception, as most writers who used an
instrumentalist anthropology held to the inherent immortality of the soul.
5.4.1 Exegetical arguments for immortality of the soul
There are few instances when immortality is mentioned in the Scriptures, and of
these, two refer to the eternal life of God,167 and the instances where it is predicated of
human beings apply only to that immortality of the whole person received in the
resurrection as the gift of God.168 Any exegetical arguments in support of a doctrine of
the immortality of the soul are deductive and inferential, using implications of the
textual evidence, but always uncritically presupposing that the soul is an immortal
substance ontologically separate from the body.
163
[Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 7.28.43. ACW 42, p. 31. Tractate in John 23.9.
NPNF 1/7, pp. 154-155. Sermon 65.3. PL 38, 428. Letter 166.2.3. NPNF 1/1, pp. 523-524.]
Kari E Börresen. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23
(1969) 147-148.
164
Clement of Alexandria. From the book on the soul. ANF 2, p. 580.
165
According to Stählin, the fragments from Clement’s book On the Soul, preserved in Maximus
the Confessor, are spurious. Stählin. Clemens. III, p. lxxi. Cited by: E A Clark. “The
influence of Aristotelian thought on Clement of Alexandria: a study in philosophical
transmission,” p. 93. The fragments from the book On Providence [ANF 2, p. 580.], also
preserved in Maximus, have been rejected as spurious by E F Osborn. The Philosophy of
Clement of Alexandria, p. 190.
166
E A Clark. “The influence of Aristotelian thought on Clement of Alexandria: a study in
philosophical transmission,” p. 94.
167
1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16.
168
Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.
175
One such passage of Scripture, which when interpreted within the framework of a
dualistic anthropology, appeared to “demonstrate” the immortality of the soul, was
Matthew 10:28.169 This passage states that while human beings can only kill the body,
God can destroy both body and soul in hell. It was understood to mean that since the
soul survives death and is unable to be harmed by human beings, it has an inherent
immortality that only God can remove. This view is found in Eusebius,170
Hippolytus,171 Gregory the Illuminator,172 Salvian,173 and Theodore of Mopsuestia.174
Genesis 1:26, which states that humankind was created “in the image and likeness of
God,” was also used to demonstrate the immortality of the soul. This was interpreted
ontologically by some Patristic writers,175 even though there is no indication in the
Scriptures that the passage should be understood in that way, since they present the
whole person as created in the image of God, but increasingly this was restricted to
the soul alone.176
It was held that the nature of the soul is like the God who created it, and since God is
immortal and eternal, the soul is also immortal. This appears in the thought of
Lactantius. “For the soul cannot entirely perish, since it received its origin from the
169
The the immortality of the soul was pronounced an article of faith at the Lateran Council
under Leo X (1513). Kristeller notes that Matthew 10:28 and John 12:25 are the only
Scriptural references in the Lateran decree. P O Kristeller. Renaissance thought and its
sources, p. 309, n. 10. See further on the subsequent debate over this decree, ibid., pp. 194-
196.
170
Eusebius. On the Theophania 4.7. Samuel Lee, p. 223. Cf. Preparation for the Gospel 13.8. E
H Gifford, vol. 2, pp. 711-712.
171
Hippolytus. Fragments from the Commentary on Susannah 1.24. ANF 5, p. 193.
172
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory 600. R W Thomson, p. 146.
173
Salvian. “Of the two deadly evils, it is less, I think, for a Christian to endure captivity of the
body than of the soul, according to the teachings of the Saviour himself in the Gospel, that the
death of the soul is much more fatal than that of the body.” On the government of God 6.12. E
M Sanford, p. 179.
174
59. Those writers who held to a unitary anthropology who accepted the immortality of the
soul tended to see this text as an argument for the resurrection since both soul and body
were to be destroyed in hell. See for instance Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 35.
ANF 3, p. 570. Scorpiace 9. ANF 3, pp. 641-642. This passage in Matthew fits in well with
his views, since it explicitly refers to the punishment of both soul and body in hell: one does
not suffer without the other. Cf. also Peter of Alexandria. That the soul did not pre-exist (the
body) nor did it sin (before) [Fragment II.2]. St. Peter of Alexandria: Bishop and Martyr,
p. 131. Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 101. On Luke 12:4-6. FC 17, pp. 165-166.
175
Theodore of Mopsuestia correlated the immortality of the soul with an ontological similarity
with God, so that we should be like God not only in character but also in nature, with the soul
bound to God not by need alone, “but also by kinship of nature.” Devreese, “Anciens
commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque.” Revue Biblique 45 (1936) p. 368, n. 1. Cited in: R A
Norris. Manhood and Christ, p. 143.
176
For a survey of the Patristic interpretation of the “image of God” see Z C Xintaras. “Man the
image of God according to the Greek Fathers.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1 (1954)
48-62.
176
Spirit of God, which is eternal.”177 Prudentius argued that the nature of the Creator is
reflected in what he created, so that “...it is the eternal who gives the eternal, the
mortal who bestows mortal things; divine gifts are from God, transitory things from
one whose life is fleeting.” Thus God must have created souls immortal, as otherwise
they would decay and vanish, and if God creates only what “is decayed or doomed to
decay and possesses nothing that is more precious than these, then is He poor and
weak and undeserving of supreme honour, not all-powerful but a vain shadow of
godhead.”178 While the soul is not immortal in itself, it does endure since it originates
from the eternal Spirit of God, and therefore must also be eternal. Lactantius says that
souls are immortal because they naturally seek after God, who is immortal.
“Therefore we alone receive religion, that we may know from this source that the soul
of man is not mortal, since it longs for and acknowledges God, who is immortal.”179
This argument presupposes a dualistic anthropology that would be difficult to defend
against the charge of gnosticism, since the Spirit of God is also the originator of the
body and other creatures, which are nevertheless not considered eternal. The
ontologising of the relationship between God and the creation in this way is the
source of a number of errors concerning redemption and eschatology in Patristic
thought.
Another argument for the immortality of the soul derived from Scripture was based on
the statement that God is not the God of the dead but of the living [Matthew 22:32],
even though this saying is introduced by Jesus as an argument for the resurrection:
But about the resurrection of the dead - have you not read what God said to you, ‘I
am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’: He is not the God
of the dead but of the living.
Various Patristic writers understood this text to mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
were not dead, but alive, that is, their souls were immortal and living with God. The
resurrection means merely that they will once again receive their bodies, but even
now they are alive although without bodies. For instance, Novatian argues from the
view that because God is the God of the living, not of the dead, and because he is also
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that therefore the dead are immortal and alive
unto God, since otherwise he could not be the God of the living, as Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob had all died.180
177
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.12. ANF 7, p. 209. Cf. Methodius, who says that God
created souls in his image, and thus they are “endowed with reason and immortality.” The
Symposium 6.1. ACW 27, p. 91. Eusebius argues that human beings must be different from
animals, contrary to the assertions of the philosophers, since the immortal soul bears a
resemblance to God. The proof of the Gospel 3.3. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1,
p. 123.
178
Prudentius. A reply to the address of Symmachus 2.110-120. Loeb II, pp. 15, 17.
179
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 3.12. ANF 7, p. 80. Cf. The Divine Institutes 7.9. “Since
therefore wisdom, which is given to man alone, is nothing else but the knowledge of God, it is
evident that the soul does not perish, nor undergo dissolution, but that it remains forever,
because it seeks after and loves God, who is everlasting...” ANF 7, p. 206.
180
177
John of Damascus argues in a similar vein, and on the basis of this text (and others),
asserts that “it is clear that the souls do not lie in the graves, but the bodies.”181 This is
in contrast to the approach taken by Justin Martyr, who from this same text argues
against the idea that the dead are now in heaven.
For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but do
not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say that there is no
resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to
heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians...182
Justin goes on to assert that therefore “I and others, who are right-minded Christians
on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead” followed by the
millennium. Justin thus correctly interprets this text as speaking of the resurrection
and not of the immortality of the soul.
Exegetical arguments for the immortality of the soul are thus few and somewhat
strained. They all presuppose the idea, and are attempts to interpret the Scriptures in
terms of a presupposition that can not be derived from Scripture itself, but in fact has
its origins in pagan views of the afterlife.
5.4.2 Philosophical arguments for immortality of the soul
Since the idea of the immortality of the soul originated in pagan religion and
philosophical speculation, it is not surprising that throughout the Patristic period the
principal arguments for the immortality of the soul are philosophical in nature.
O’Daly comments on this phenomenon in connection with Augustine.
There are, however, topics on which Scripture is silent. One such topic is the nature of
the soul. Hence Augustine’s concept of the soul as an immaterial, immortal, rational
and dynamic entity is substantially a philosophical one. He will inevitably ask
questions that are less raised by the opacity of Scripture than by the self-generated
problems of a particular line of speculative inquiry.183
The problems which arise from this non-Scriptural approach to the nature of the
human person are in fact pseudo-problems, rooted in a perspective other than that
181
John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 4.27. NPNF 2/9, p. 100. See also John Cassian.
Conferences 1.14. NPNF 2/11, p. 301.
182
183
G J P O’Daly. “Augustine on the origin of souls.” In: Platonismus und Christentum, p. 184.
L Schopp says that “To Augustine of Hippo belongs the distinction of having been the first
philosopher in the Christian tradition of the West to compose a formal treatise on the
immortality of the soul.” Introduction. St. Augustine. On the Immortality of the Soul. FC 2,
p. 3. This was the fifth book written by Augustine, prior to his baptism (ca. 387 AD).
However R J O’Connell says that in his Soliloquies Augustine is attempting to evolve a
reasoned demonstration for the soul’s immortality. St Augustine’s Early Theory of Man,
AD 386-391, pp. 112-113.
178
which Scripture itself adopts. All attempts to resolve these problems simply
compound the difficulties, as they result in moving thought even further away from
the true basis of Christian faith, God’s revelation in Scripture.184 This can be seen in
the development of Augustine’s thought.
...Augustine himself began his career as a Christian priest and author

with an idea of immortality of the soul which excludes resurrection of
the body. Yet Augustine’s theology of the resurrection of the body
came to be what one of his biographers has called “a central
preoccupation” in his old age, tremendously enriched by a life-long
struggle to grasp its essential meaning.185
Miles argues that in his dialogue De quantitate animae 76, Augustine implies and
requires the assumption of the immortality of the soul, and demonstrate his eagerness
to interpret the dogma of the resurrection “in a way which is congruent with the
philosophers’ idea of the immortality of the soul.”186 The result is that Augustine
states:
Then death, which was an object of fear and an obstacle to the soul’s
fullest union with the full truth, death, namely, the sheer flight and
escape from this body, is now yearned for as the greatest boon.187
There are a number of different philosophical arguments used for the immortality of
the soul. One of the most common was the idea that if the soul was not immortal, then
there was no reason to live moral lives, since the implication was that after death there
would be no punishment.188 Rejecting the immortality of the soul, even though
184
See for instance the analysis given by Albrecht Dihle. “Immortality as a problem of
philosophical investigation - not as a hope implied in religious faith - can be dealt with only in
the context of the wider question of whether reality is to be found apart from the world as we
perceive it by our senses. Such a reality, however, which would transcend empirical
vicissitudes, has to be open to intellectual understanding. Immortality, a concept which clearly
contradicts our experience, can only be conceived if the true self or soul of man does, in fact,
belong to this intelligible reality, and it is only the intelligible which bestows structure, life,
and consciousness on our empirical world.” The theory of will in Classical Antiquity, p. 9.
This clearly shows the speculative philosophical character of the concept of immortality, an
approach foreign to the covenantal thrust of Scripture which is presented to us in ordinary
language for ordinary people, and thus accessible to all and not just to an intellectual elite.
185
Margaret R Miles. Augustine on the body, p. 99, citing: P Brown. Augustine of Hippo, p.
366. Cf. the survey of the development of Augustine’s views on the resurrection in Frederick
van Fleteren. “Augustine and the resurrection.” Studies in Medieval Culture 12, pp. 9-15.
186
Margaret R Miles. Augustine on the body, pp. 107-108.
187
[Augustine. The greatness of the soul 33.76. ACW 9, p. 106] Margaret R Miles. Augustine
on the body, p. 108.
188
Josephus sees this in the doctrines of the Essenes. “Their aim was first to establish the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and secondly to promote virtue and deter from vice;
for the good are made better in their lifetime by the hope of a reward after death, and the
passions of the wicked are restrained by the fear that, even though they escape detection while
alive, they will undergo never-ending punishment after their decease.” The Jewish War 2.156-
157. Loeb, Vol. 2, p. 383.
179
holding to the resurrection, implied there was no punishment for the wicked after
death.189 Many Patristic authors resorted to arguments from the immortality of the soul
and the judgement or rewards it would experience following death as the incentive for
moral behaviour.190 Without such an incentive, it was considered that there would be
no reason for people to restrain their brutal natures.191
Many Patristic writers use the idea of simplicity of the nature of the soul as an
argument for its immortality, since an entity of a single substance cannot be further
divided, nor can it change or alter from one state to another. Thus, those entities
which comprise one substance only, for instance, the soul and God,192 continue to
exist without change, and the soul was therefore immortal, as once brought into
existence it could never cease to exist since that involves a change.193 For those
189
The text, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, is frequently cited by Patristic writers as
the justification given by the wicked for denying the judgement and the resurrection which
precedes it. For instance, John Chrysostom says of this phrase: “Not tomorrow; but now you
are dead, when you speak thus. Shall we then be in nothing different from swine and asses?
tell me. For if there be neither a judgement, nor a retribution, nor a tribunal, wherefore have
we been honoured with such a gift as reason, and have all things put under us?” Homilies on
Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 268.
190
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 3.17. ANF 7, p. 88; Epitome of the Divine Institutes 35. ANF
7, p. 235. Eusebius. The Oration of Eusebius in praise of the Emperor Constantine 13.13.
NPNF 2/1, p. 602. On the Theophania 3.61. Samuel Lee, pp. 197-198. John Chrysostom.
Homilies on Colossians 2. NPNF 1/13, p. 269. Prudentius. A reply to the address of
Symmachus 2.161-171. Loeb II, p. 19. Basil. Rules Briefly Treated 276. Translation cited in:
W A Jurgens. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 2, p. 26. Athenagoras. A Plea for
Christians 36.2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 85. Writers who held a unitary anthropology
but did not accept the immortality of the soul also argued that if there was no threat of a future
punishment people would lead immoral lives. In this approach, the focus was on the
resurrection and the judgement to follow. Justin Martyr. First Apology 19. ANF 1, p. 169.
First Apology 8. ANF 1, p. 165. First Apology 57. ANF 1, p. 182.
191
This argument is predominant in the thought of Eusebius, where it has an intellectualistic and
elitist flavour. He considered that rationality (understood as theorising) is the highest attribute
of humanity. Those who were not engaged in theoretical thinking (philosophy or theology),
and who were lovers of physical pleasure, needed an impetus to keep them moral, namely,
fear of punishment. Ethical standards alone would not suffice to maintain their good
behaviour. On the Theophania 3.61. Samuel Lee, pp. 197-198. The Oration of Eusebius in
praise of the Emperor Constantine 13.13. NPNF 2/1, p. 602.
192
According to Pannenberg, the idea of the simplicity of God was first clearly stated by Plato in
the Republic and Timaeus. “Everything composite can also be divided again, and
consequently is mutable, as Plato in the Timaeus allows the Demiurge to say to the gods
brought forth by him. The meaning of the simplicity of God in Plato can be understood from
this standpoint. Everything composite necessarily has a ground of its composition outside
itself, and therefore cannot be the ultimate origin. This origin must therefore be simple.
Aristotle also shared this conviction.” [Plato. Republic B. 382e. Timaeus 41a-b. Aristotle.
Metaphysics 1074a33-38.] Wolfhart Pannenberg. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 2, p.
131. Cf. also Cicero. On the nature of the gods 3.14.34. H C P McGregor, p. 206. Pannenberg
rejected the synthesis inherent in adopting this view of God.
193
God is described by a number of Patristic writers as possessing immortality on the basis of
being a simple substance. Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 2.7. NPNF 2/7, pp. 290-291. John
of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 2.12. NPNF 2/9, p. 31. Eusebius. On the Theophania
1.27. Samuel Lee, pp. 17-18. Novatian. On the Trinity 6. ANF 5, p. 616. See also Richard R
180
entities composed of more than one substance, change is possible, since the
combination of substances itself can alter.194 This is understood to be a process of
corruption. Hence incorruptibility, or immortality, is considered to be a quality of
those entities which comprise a single substance only.195 This argument is found in a
treatise ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus,196 and was used by many writers
throughout the Patristic period.197 Tertullian even goes so far as to assert that anyone
who does not agree with Plato on this point is a heretic!
La Croix. “Augustine on the simplicity of God.” New Scholasticism 51 (1977) 453-469. Abp.
Basil Krivocheine. “Simplicity of the Divine nature and the distinctions in God according to
Gregory of Nyssa.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21 (1977) 2:76-1O4. This doctrine
created considerable difficulties for both Lactantius and Tertullian, as a simple substance
cannot change. How then can God become angry at sin? Novatian suggests that God does not
change in himself, but relates to us and reveals himself in terms we understand, namely as
being wrathful and merciful, in spite of the fact that God has not begun (or ceased) to be
wrathful or merciful; an “accommodation” of God to our limitations, a concept later to be
picked up by Calvin and the Reformed tradition but used in rather different way. Novatian
cannot ensure the truth of our knowledge of God. Novatian. On the Trinity 6. ANF 5, p. 616.
Cf. J M Hallman. “The mutability of God: Tertullian to Lactantius.” Theological Studies 42
(1981) 373-393. A study which I have been unable to examine is: E F Micka. The problem
of divine anger in Arnobius and Lactantius. Studies in Christian Antiquity 4. Washington:
Catholic University of America, 1943. The idea that God is immortal is also correlated with
changelessness, a characteristic of that which is “simple.” Theophilus. To Autolycus 1.4.
Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 7. Tertullian. Against Praxeas 27. ANF 3, pp. 623-624. God
is thus considered a static being, and not the source of life with whom we can have a dynamic
relationship. However, incorruptibility is not identical to changelessness, nor is change
identical to decay. J M Hallman has critiqued the Patristic dependence on the Middle Platonic
concept of God and the Stoic concept of apatheia for the doctrine of divine impassibility.
“Divine suffering and change in Origen and Ad Theopompum.” Second Century 7 (1989-
1990) 85-98. See also J Bayes. “Divine apatheia in Ignatius of Antioch.” Studia Patristica 21
(1989) 27-31.
194
Cf. Hippolytus. “And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded
from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance
were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be
dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, three or four substances,
are dissoluble; wherefore they also are named mortal. For this has been denominated death,
namely, the dissolution of substances connected.” The Refutation of all Heresies 10.28. ANF
5, p. 150.
195
Thus in the Letter to Diognetus we read that “Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible
[bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens.” The Letter to Diognetus 6.
ANF 1, p. 27. In this view incorruptibility is the reward of the soul in heaven, not of the
resurrected body on the new earth.
196
Gregory Thaumaturgus (dubious). To Tatian, on the Subject of the soul. ANF 6, pp. 54-56.
197
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.7.1. ANF 1, p. 533. Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 14. ANF 3,
p. 193. A treatise on the soul 22. ANF 3, p. 202. A treatise on the soul 51. ANF 3, p. 228.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the Resurrection. NPNF 2/5, pp. 431-432. Theodoret.
Letter 230, to Bishop Timotheus. NPNF 2/3, p. 302. Cassiodorus presents the opinions of
secular teachers “who say the soul is a simple substance, a natural shape, separate from the
matter of its body, a divisible whole, having the power of life.” De Anima 4.1-4. Cited in: J J
O’Donnell. Cassiodorus, p. 122. Julius Firmicus Maternus gives an extended argument
against seeing the functions of the soul as implying it has parts and therefore is not simple and
immortal. On the error of the pagan religions 5.4. ACW 37, p. 53.
181
It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple;
in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in
respect of its substance. Never mind men’s artificial views and theories,
and away with the fabrications of heresy!198
This idea was not universally accepted, however. Athenagoras argued against the idea
of the immortality of the soul based on its simplicity, since he believes that we receive
immortality in the resurrection, that is, through change, not from lack of change.199
Two other Patristic writers who denied that the soul is immortal, Arnobius and Tatian,
significantly assert that the soul is not simple but compound.200
Associated with simplicity is the doctrine of impassibility, the denial of the possibility
of suffering to God and to the soul. Suffering is an alteration in mental composure,
and alteration is change, which is impossible for those entities which are of one
substance only. Therefore, neither God nor the soul can truly suffer.201 The
impassibility of the soul as a proof of immortality is found in Gregory Thaumaturgus
and Athenagoras (who saw this as something acquired after death).202 This view is
attacked by Arnobius on the basis that the soul does suffer punishment from God.203
Theodore of Mopsuestia connected immortality with immutability, although he does

not see the soul as originally immortal and immutable, but granted this by God
through salvation. This immutability then means we will be “exempt from all
198
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 10. ANF 3, p. 189. Cf. A treatise on the soul 23, ANF 3, p.
203, where Tertullian says that various heretical views originated ultimately with Plato. He
comments regretfully “I am sorry from my heart that Plato has been the caterer to these
heretics... I shall sufficiently refute the heretics if I overthrow the argument of Plato.”
199
pp. 127, 129. Cf. also A Plea for Christians 31.4. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 77, 79,
where Athenagoras says that in the heavenly life “we may then abide with God and with his
help remain changeless and impassible in soul as though we were not body, even if we have
one, but heavenly spirit...”
200
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.14-15. ACW 7, pp. 127-128. The case against the
Pagans 2.27. ACW 7, p. 140. Fortin states that the ideas Arnobius attacks in this passage are
expressed in Plotinus, Anneads 4.7.12. E L Fortin. “The viri novi of Arnobius and the conflict
between faith and reason in the early Christian centuries.” In: The Heritage of the Early
Church, p. 215. Fortin argues that Arnobius is combatting the Neoplatonists, by depeciating
the human soul in response to the exorbitant claims made for it by the philosophers, including
the idea that the soul is simple and immortal. Ibid., p. 205. See further Chapter 3.7.1.
201
The basis of this idea is that suffering is associated with imperfection, since the being that
suffers is under the control of another. For details of the Greek philosophical origin of this
idea, and the use of it in Patristic thought, see: Joseph M Hallman. “Impassibility.”
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 458-459.
202
Gregory Thaumaturgus (dubious). To Tatian, On the subject of the soul 6. ANF 6, pp. 55-56.
Athenagoras. A Plea for Christians 31.4. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 77, 79.
203
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.27. ACW 7, p. 140. The case against the Pagans
2.14-15. ACW 7, pp. 127-128.
182
inclination, however slight, towards evil.”204 This idea is found also in Theodoret of
Cyrrhus and Diodore of Tarsus.205
Another argument for the doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul is that the
soul is rational.206 It is stated by some, and assumed by others, that what is rational is
immortal.207 For instance, Fulgence of Ruspe says that “Angels, therefore, and men,
because they were created rational, received from God the gift of eternity and
beatitude in the very creation of the spiritual nature...”208 The rationalist approach can
be seen in the way in which the eschatological relationship with God, and its present
anticipation, is seen in terms of contemplation.209 However, human nature is not
rational but multi-aspectual, and the “rational” or analytical function of human nature
is but one of a number of aspects. A reductionist approach, such as the argument for
immortality from a rational nature, is an unfortunate consequence of the influence of
Greek intellectualism, since all that which makes us human is distorted by seeing in
terms of only one aspect of the creation.210
A further proof used by the Patristic writers for the immortality of the soul was that of
motion. That which is always in motion is immortal; the soul is always in motion;
therefore, the soul is immortal.211 This proof seems to be derived from Plato’s
Phaedrus.212 Van Assendelft cites the comment of Dulaey that the notion that the
204
and the Eucharist 4. Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 68-69. See also ibid., pp. 56, 104;
Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist 3.
Woodbrooke Studies 6 (1933) 45. Commentary on Galatians 2.15f. Cited in: H B Swete. The
Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 261.
205
Theodoret. Letter 145, to the monks of Constantinople. NPNF 2/3, p. 314. R A Greer. “The
Antiochene Christology of Diodore of Tarsus.” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966) 332.
206
Cf. the comment of Cassiodorus who speaks of those “who sincerely long to enter heaven
through intellectual exertions.” Institutiones 2.Conclusion.3. An Introduction to Divine and
Human Readings, p. 205.
207
Eusebius. On the Theophania 1.64. Samuel Lee, p. 48. On the Theophania 5.6. Samuel Lee,
p. 289. Cassiodorus. De Anima 4.4-7. Cited in: J J O’Donnell. Cassiodorus, p. 122. John of
Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith 3.16. NPNF 2/9, pp. 64-65.
208
Fulgence of Ruspe. The Rule of Faith, 32. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the Early
Fathers. Vol. 3, p. 296.
209
John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions 7.11. ACW 31, p. 108. Gregory the Great, Homily
on the Mystical Church 13. The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 95. [PL
76, 1159-1170]
210
See Herman Dooyeweerd. In the twilight of Western thought, pp. 179-180, 185-186.
211
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul 43. ANF 3, p. 222. Lactantius. On the workmanship of God
17. ANF 7, p. 297. Origen. De Principiis 2.11.1. ANF 4, pp. 296-297. Eusebius. The Treatise
of Eusebius against the life of Apollonius of Tyana 41. Loeb Classical Library, Vol 2, pp.
593/595. John of Damascus. Philosophical Chapters 64. FC 37, p. 98. Philosophical Chapters
68. FC 37, p. 107. Pseudo-Dionysius argues on this basis for the immortality of both souls and
angels. The Divine Names 6.1-2. Classics of Western Spirituality, pp. 103-104. See the
analysis of this argument in E Evans. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection, p. 203.
212
Plato. Phaedrus 245. The Dialogues of Plato. Vol. 1, pp. 451-452.
183
soul’s immortality is due to its continuous mobility is Platonic, but also Stoic.213
While Lactantius used this argument, he qualified Plato’s approach since in
Lactantius’ opinion, Plato thereby gave eternal existence even to the animals.214
Athenagoras was perhaps the first to advance the view that the soul was immortal
since the design of God for humankind was not able to be accomplished in this life
because of sin, and therefore it was yet to be realised. This meant that the person must
be kept in being in order to take part in the accomplishment of that design.215 That
same idea is found in other Patristic writers such as Lactantius, Athanasius,
Prudentius and Gregory of Nyssa.216 While the Apostolic Constitutions refer to the
“rational nature of man,” this is used as an argument not for the immortality of the
soul, but of the resurrection, since what is rational should continue in existence. What
God has made will not be wasted, since he cares for his creatures, and will ensure that
they receive their due reward and the end for which they were made: namely,
continuance through all the ages.217
The Patristic arguments for the immortality of the soul were thus philosophical in
nature, and this intellectualistic cast to their doctrine does not comport well with the
Biblical call to faith addressed to everyone, since understanding the faith is possible
only for the educated who can understand arcane doctrines,218 although the
213
M M van Assendelft. Sol Ecce Surgit Igneus, p. 209, citing M Dulaey. “La rêve dans la vie et
la pensée de saint Augustin.” Études Augustiniens Paris, 1973, p. 57, n. 73. See also G
Verbeke. L’evolution de la doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme à St. Augustin. Paris, 1945,
pp. 20-27.
214
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.8. ANF 7, p. 205. Gregory of Nyssa departed from the
Platonic view as he held that perfection comes in movement towards God, opposing the Greek
idea that motion was instability and imperfection. Gregory associates change with created
nature and so does not see it as evil, so human nature is called to change perpetually. Br.
Casimir. “Saint Gregory of Nyssa: Peri Teleiotetos: On Perfection.” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 29 (1984) 350.
215
Athenagoras. On the resurrection of the dead 12.3-8. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 117,
119.
216
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 7.6. ANF 7, p. 203. The Divine Institutes 7.9. ANF 7, p. 206.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation 6. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 149. Prudentius. A reply to
the address of Symmachus 2.104-123. Loeb II, pp. 15, 17. Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity
1.12. NPNF 2/9, p. 43. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the Resurrection. NPNF 2/5, p.
465.
217
Apostolic Constitutions 5.7. ANF 7, pp. 440-441.
218
Synesius of Cyrene, a Neo-platonist philosopher who was elected bishop, agreed to serve only
if he was allowed to retain his philosophical views on the pre-existence of the soul, the
eternity of the world and the resurrection of the flesh, which he interpreted allegorically
[Letter 105]. B Altaner. Patrology, p. 326. He said: “Now you know that philosophy rejects
many of those convictions which are cherished by the common people. For my own part, I can
never persuade myself that the soul is of more recent origin than the body. Never would I
admit that the world and the parts which make it up must perish. This resurrection, which is
an object of common belief, is nothing for me but a sacred and mysterious allegory, and I am
far from sharing the views of the vulgar crowd thereon... What can there be in common
between the ordinary man and philosophy? Divine truth should remain hidden, but the vulgar
184
immortality of the soul is also considered something self-evident to the faithful but
not to the philosophers.219
Eusebius, however, affirmed the inherent immortality of the soul, and cited at length
from Plato concerning the nature of the soul in his book Preparation for the Gospel.220
He claims that this idea was taken from the Old Testament.
Also all the other passages expressed like these in the words of the
Hebrews anticipated the interpretation put forth at length by Plato. And
so you will find, by carefully examining each of them point by point,
that it agrees with the Hebrew writings. And by doctrines of the
Hebrews I mean not only the oracles of Moses, but also those of all the
other godly men after Moses, whether prophets or apostles of our
Saviour, whose consent in doctrines must fairly render them worthy of
one and the same title.221
But Eusebius has read Plato into the Old Testament, and then discovered the
harmonies between them, using the synthesis method of eisegesis-exegesis.222
Eusebius does sometimes critique Plato’s doctrine of the soul, not because it conflicts
with the Scriptural testimony concerning human nature, but because it conflicts with
other philosophical doctrines which are themselves in conflict with Scripture. For
instance, he suggests Plato is mistaken when he says the soul is not simple but
compound.
Plato, although he agreed with the Hebrews in supposing the soul

immortal, and saying that it was like unto God, no longer follows them
when he sometimes says that its essence is composite, as if involving a
need a different system.” Synesius of Cyrene. Letter 105. The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene,
pp. 200-201.
219
Cf. Augustine. “...is there even now an imbecile, however weak, or a silly woman, however
low, that does not believe the immortality of the soul and the reality of a life after death?”
Letter 137.3.12. NPNF 1/1, p. 478. John Chrysostom. “For when you ask the widow who sits
in the streets and begs - and often she is lame - about the immortality of the soul and the
resurrection of the body... she answers you accurately and with great assurance. But the
philosopher, arrogant because of his hair and staff, after many long laps of discussion, after all
his pointless prating, cannot even open his mouth nor can he speak on these matters.” De
mutatione nominum homilia 4. PG 51, 152D-153A. Cited in: P E Harkins. St. John
Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions. ACW 31, p. 283, n. 14. See also John of Damascus.
Philosophical Chapters 68. FC 37, p. 108.
220
The very title of the work indicates something of its contents. It takes the position that pagan
beliefs have elements of truth in them which can be seen as a preparation for the preaching of
the gospel. This praeparatio evangelica theme shaped much Patristic apologetic work and did
a great deal to “legitimise” synthesis between pagan and Christian thought.
221
Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel 12.52. E H Gifford, vol. 2, p. 691.
222
B J van der Walt. “Eisegesis-exegesis, paradox and nature-grace: methods of synthesis in
Mediaeval philosophy.” In: The idea of a Christian philosophy, pp. 191-211.
185
certain part of the indivisible and immutable Cause, and a part of the
divisible nature belonging to bodies.223
Eusebius also criticised Plato for following “vulgar” opinions when he says that the
souls of animals were also immortal.224 He states that some of his wrong opinions
come from sources other than the Old Testament: “In these discourses concerning the
soul it is evident that Plato is following the Egyptian doctrines: for his statement is
not that of the Hebrews, since it is not in accordance with truth.”225 Nevertheless he
cites other passages where he claims Plato followed the views of the Old Testament.
Nemesius claims that the soul can be proved immortal because it is not corporeal, and
thus not liable to decay and corruption, nor is it any other thing which can cease to
exist. It is therefore immortal, and considers that the Scriptures prove the immortality
of the soul to his satisfaction. He states further:
There are numerous proofs of the soul’s immortality offered by Plato

and others, but they are difficult and full of obscurities, and can
scarcely be understood by those who have been brought up to such
studies. But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s
immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-
authenticating because inspired by God.226
After stating this view, however, he asserts that for those who do not accept the
Scriptures, “it is enough to point out that the soul is not any of the things that are
subject to destruction. And if it is not one of these it is indestructible.”227
Perhaps partly because of continuing debates concerning the immortality of the soul,
this subject continued to feature in Christian thought throughout the Patristic period
and beyond. While the Patristic writers also continued to provide arguments for the
possibility of the resurrection of the body,228 this is not surprising since the
resurrection was always controverted by pagans and philosophers. However, it is
somewhat surprising that arguments for the immortality of the soul continued to be
advanced, as this was the prevailing opinion of the times. This indicates either that the
subject had become a traditional one for authors although there was no real debate
about the subject; or else, that in spite of the arguments advanced in previous
centuries for the immortality of the soul, it was still not universally accepted.
223
224
Eusebius. On the Theophania 2.44. Samuel Lee, p. 105.
225
226
227
228
For instance, Theodoret argued from the commonplaces current since the time of the
Apostolic fathers: the power of God is shown in the greater difficulty in creating from nothing
than recreating what once existed; illustrations in nature such as the seed that sprouts, the
twigs planted that grow into new plants. On Divine Providence 9.34-39. ACW 49, pp. 130-
132.
186
Cassiodorus, a statesman in the Gothic government of Italy who was later “converted”
to the religious life, wrote after this conversion a treatise On the Soul (ca. 535 AD), in
which “the soul is defined as a spiritual substance which in no way perishes” along
with the body.229 This work was influenced by Augustine and the De statu animae of
Claudianus Mamertus.230 The longest section of his book on the soul is dedicated to
proving its immortality.231 Similarly, John of Damascus, in the eighth century, felt
obliged to offer a defence of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.232
5.5 Conclusion
The instrumentalist anthropological model is correlated with an anti-bodily attitude,

expressed in terms of preference for asceticism, repudiation of sexuality and marriage,
and aspiring to be freed from the body in order to attain to heavenly life. The rewards
for martyrdom were transferred to asceticism, which was seen as spiritual martyrdom,
and this lifestyle was held up as the goal for all Christians to attain to.
The body was seen as a source, or at least the occasion for sin, irrational in nature and
teeming with untamed passions and desires, and thus had to be kept in check by the
rational soul. The body was considered to be in conflict with the soul, and only by
asceticism could it be controlled. Extreme views of the body differed little from
Gnostic heresies which considered the body as something disgusting, made by an
inferior creator.
The nature of the soul as an immortal substance was held to be authentic Christian
teaching, although little exegetical support for this view could be found in Scripture.
The main basis for holding the soul to be immortal was philosophical argument, based
to a considerable extent on pagan Greek ontology. As a result, Scriptural themes such
as the “image of God” were distorted through being understood in terms of such
ontologies which incorporated speculation as to the nature of God, which the soul was
compared to in terms of the “imaging.” All these views had significance for the
development of eschatological themes, with a focus on the independent life of the
soul after death, the intermediate state and the immediate judgement and recompense
for the soul. These will be examined in the next chapter.
The controversy over the views of Jovinian, who held that all the saints and all the
wicked share the same rewards and punishments, was combatted by those who held
that the virtues of asceticism warranted greater rewards than those given to ordinary
believers. The tendency to distinguish different grades of reward and punishment
provides one basis on which Psalm 1:5 would be used to distinguish different groups
at the judgement.
229
Cassiodorus. De Anima 3.34-36. Cited in: J J O’Donnell. Cassiodorus, pp. 121-122.
230
L W Jones. An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings, by Cassiodorus Senator, p.
19.
231
J J O’Donnell. Cassiodorus, p. 123.
232
John of Damascus. Philosophical Chapters 68. FC 37, p. 108.
187
Ascetic virginity was considered the equivalent of the life of the angels, who are not
married or given in marriage [Matthew 22:30] and thus asceticism was called the
“angelic life.”
188
CHAPTER SIX
THE IMMEDIATE JUDGEMENT, INTERMEDIATE STATE AND

RESURRECTION
6.0 Introduction
Scripture provides us with no information concerning the state of the saints in death,
other than that they are “with Christ.”1 But those Patristic writers who thought that the
soul was judged, and then received its due rewards and punishments immediately
after death (thus before the general resurrection), speculated about the nature of the
intermediate state and its relationship to the final state of the soul following the
resurrection.
[The Greek Fathers’] conceptions of the intermediate state are anything

but clear and precise. It was only the final goal of the deification of
humanity that they were really concerned with; all else was of minor
importance. Thus the great Christian truth, that a time will arrive when
at the judgement-seat of Christ every one shall receive according to his
deeds, was relegated to the background as a mere mode of redemption,
one of the “channels through which it works.”2
While some form of continuity with the present body was usually acknowledged,
often the relationship between the earthly body and the resurrection (heavenly) body
was not readily apparent, thus raising the problem of identity. The different views
came to be considered as either “materialistic” or “spiritual” conceptions of the
resurrection body, although this distinction was based on a false dichotomy. The
doctrine of the resurrection sometimes functioned merely as a formality, with no
integral relationship to the structure of the thought of some Patristic writers. Thus
anthropological concepts led to the obscuring of a central theme of Scripture.
Whether or not the resurrection body had sexual characteristics arose from the idea
that there would be no marriage in the eschaton, and thus no need for sexual organs.
This was also based on the view that the soul was without gender, and the resurrection
body would be like the soul, thus also lacking gender.
A curious interpretation of Psalm 1:4 led some to believe that the wicked would exist
in the resurrection as dust, while this image was interpreted only figuratively by
others, seeing the wicked as unstable as the dust, blown here and there by every wind
of temptation.
Belief in an immediate, individual judgement following death meant that the

judgement on the Last Day could be considered unnecessary, since it merely
confirmed the decisions already made regarding each soul. That which Scripture
teaches concerning the judgement was thus made problematic as a result of
1
See K Hanhart. The intermediate state in the New Testament, for a study of this theme.
2
W Fairweather. Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, p. 231.
189
interpreting it within a conceptual framework shaped by a synthesis between
incompatible thought-forms: divine Revelation and pagan philosophical speculation.3
Anthropological concepts which are fundamentally incompatible with Scripture lie at
the basis of many of the difficulties concerning the judgement on the Last Day.
6.1 Paradise and the intermediate state
Clement of Alexandria and Origen appear to have been the first to admit all the saints,
and not just the martyrs, to Paradise prior to the final resurrection.4 Through his
descent into Hades Christ destroyed the dominion of the devil over humanity, and led
the OT saints into Paradise, having opened its gates through his atoning death. Those
who subsequently die no longer need wait in Hades (which has been closed by
Christ’s victory and descent) but can go directly to Paradise.5
Ambrose, along with many others, followed Clement and Origen in admitting the
souls of the saints to Paradise on death, where they will await the Last Judgement
when they will receive the full reward of their merits.6 Included in these are the
martyrs, the patriarchs, prophets and apostles, as well as the devout Christian
emperor.7 However, Ambrose is not always consistent,8 and in other places draws on
the book of Esdras for the idea of “storehouses” for souls,9 in which there are seven
grades of joy for the just in their rest, where they wait for the resurrection to receive
their fate. Ambrose correlates the different chambers in these “storehouses” with the
“many mansions” of John 14:2.10 In these storehouses souls have a psychological
anticipation of what they shall receive at the judgement. Ambrose says that the just
souls experience rest, while those of the wicked are “tormented with the recollection
of their vices or tossed about, as it were, on tides of anxiety.” The just confidently
expect to be acquitted on the day of Judgement, and foresee their future glory which
is “a soothing consolation.”11 He also suggests that the soul is “in suspense after
death, unaware of the outcome of the judgement until the resurrection (De Cain et
3
It is a sound methodological principle to suspect any theological or philosophical formulation
that generates difficulties in what is otherwise a clear and unambiguous teaching in Scripture,
or alternatively, makes clear and unambiguous what Scripture presents as an unsolveable
problem (i.e. the origin of evil). By neglecting this principle, we create pseudo-problems for
ourselves which cannot be solved.
4
L Hennessey. “The place of saints and sinners after death.” In: Origen of Alexandria: His
world and his legacy, p. 298.
5
world and his legacy, pp. 299-300.
6
[Ambrose. Letter 71.8-9.] F H Dudden. The life and times of St. Ambrose. Vol. 2, p. 653.
7
Ambrose. On the death of Valentinian 44. FC 22, pp. 284-285; ibid., 46. FC 22, pp. 285-286.
On the death of Theodosius 30. FC 22, p. 321; ibid., 39. FC 22, p. 324.
8
9
[4 Esdras 7.32] Ambrose. Death as a good 10.46. FC 65, p. 103.
10
11
190
Abel 2.2.9)” or else that the punishment of the soul prior to the judgement is “simply
the lack of positive consolation (In Luc 8.18).”12
And so while we await the fullness of time, the souls await their due
reward. Some await punishment and others await glory. And yet in the
meantime the one group is not without harm nor the other without gain.
For the former will be dismayed upon seeing that the reward of glory
has been stored up for those who keep the Law of God, that the
chambers of those souls are being preserved by the angels, that shame
and ruin will be the punishments of their negligence and rebellion, so
that they may gaze on the glory of the Most High and blush to come
into His sight, for they have profaned His commandments.13
In another place Ambrose says that the tombs of the dead are places “in which for a
brief space we are hidden, that we may be better able to pass to the judgement of God,
which shall try us with the indignation due for our wickednesses.”14 For the saints, the
body is at rest, while the soul is free, and if devout, will be with Christ.15 The just are
considered to be “alive unto God,” in which they “enjoy a bodiless life and are
illuminated with the splendour of their merits and are basking in life eternal.”16 He
specifies that this rest is restricted to the saints.17
Paulinus of Nola writes of several young men who had died as living in eternal peace,
variously described as in Abraham’s bosom, at rest in Paradise, or in heaven.18
Paulinus seems unsure of the exact location of these souls, and sometimes mentions
several possibilities in the one place.19 Paulinus says of Felix that his death
“consigned his flesh to earth but his soul to heaven.”20 He “brought to an end his days
in the flesh, and departed to heaven into eternal life.”21 He does not neglect the
resurrection, and says that the saints will join together before the throne of “Christ the
Judge,” but meanwhile they lie in peace in Abraham’s bosom.22 In the intermediate
state, each soul “perceives the fruits which the body sought.” The soul is conscious
and “observes with joy the good fruit, and with pain the evil fruit” which it will
“harvest in the time to come, when it is recalled to its body” and together body and
12
13
Ambrose. Death as a good 10.47. FC 65, pp. 103-104.
14
15
16
Ambrose. Cain and Abel 2.9.31. FC 42, p. 431.
17
18
Paulinus of Nola. Letter 45.5. ACW 36, p. 249. Letter 23.1. ACW 36, p. 2.
19
Paulinus of Nola. Letter 32.6. ACW 36, p. 140. Poem 31. ACW 40, p. 328. Cf. Poem 11,
where Paulinus says that “whatever the heavenly region where our common Father sets me,
even there I shall have you in mind.” ACW 40, p. 72.
20
Paulinus of Nola. Poem 18. ACW 40, p. 117.
21
22
Paulinus of Nola. Epitaph. ACW 40, p. 345. Poem 21. ACW 40, p. 178.
191
soul will share in their just rewards.23 Thus while the saints enjoy rest after death,
they do not receive their full rewards until the resurrection, when these will be shared
with the body.
John Cassian critiques those who punctuate the verse from Luke 23:43 differently,
viz. “I say to you today, you shall be with me in Paradise.” This, he says, is the view
of the heretics, who imagine that this promise was not fulfilled after departing from
this life, but will be fulfilled only in the resurrection to come. The souls of the
departed are certainly experiencing feelings of both sorrow and joy, and are beginning
to “taste beforehand something of what is reserved for them at the last judgement.”24
The saints, he declares, are “already in the enjoyment of eternal bliss in the kingdom
of heaven...”25
6.2 The story of Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31
Ambrose argues on the basis of this story that “is it not plain from this that rewards
and punishments according to deserts await one after death?”26 Those who prosper in
this life have their reward already: there is nothing for them in the future life. They
have not struggled for a reward, and thus enjoy themselves now while the righteous
labours for a crown.27
Gregory of Nazianzus also holds that the ungodly dead are suffering now, like “the
rich man wasting away in the flame, and begging for repentance for his friends,”
while anxiously anticipating the last judgement, when those who have done evil will
enter the “resurrection of judgement, to which they who have not believed have been
condemned already by the word which judges them.”28
Tugwell indicates that Hilary of Poitiers cites
...the parable of dives and Lazarus as proof that there is an immediate

punishment of sinners as soon as they die, while the righteous go to
Abraham’s bosom; there both await the judgement, which will allot
them either eternal bliss or eternal pain.29
A similar position is found in the works of Gregory the Great, who says the rich man
23
Paulinus of Nola. Poem 18. ACW 40, pp. 116-117.
24
25
John Cassian. Institutes 12.15. NPNF 2/11, p. 284.
26
Ambrose. Duties of the clergy 1.15.57. NPNF 2/10, p. 11.
27
Ambrose. Duties of the clergy 1.16.59-61. NPNF 2/10, p. 11. Cf. Duties of the clergy 2.1.2-3.
NPNF 2/10, pp. 43-44.
28
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 16.9, On his father’s silence. NPNF 2/7, p. 250. Note the
reference to the wicked being judged already.
29
[Hilary of Poitiers. On the Psalms 2.49] Simon Tugwell. Human immortality and the
redemption of death, p. 116.
192
...lifts up his eyes from afar to see Lazarus, because when unbelievers
are in the depth through the punishment brought by their condemnation,
they gaze at the believers at rest above them before the day of the last
judgement.30
Further on he expresses this in more detail.
So that sinners may be punished more as they suffer, they see the glory
of those they despised; and the punishment of those they loved to no
avail also torments them. We must believe that before they receive their
recompense at the final judgement, the unrighteous behold some of the
righteous at rest. This is so that when they see them in their joy, they
may be tormented not only by their own suffering but also by the good
the others have received.31
The story of the rich man and Lazarus thus provides a basis for some writers on which
to hold that the souls of the dead suffer punishment or enjoy rewards immediately
after death and before the resurrection and judgement on the Last Day.
6.3 The sleep and death of the soul rejected
The idea that the soul was asleep, awaiting the resurrection before it experiences
rewards or punishments, was rejected by those who held to an instrumentalist view.
Various Patristic writers sought to demonstrate that the term “sleep” which is used of
death in Scripture does not mean the soul is unconscious.32 Concerning the raising of
the daughter of Jairus, one of the classical passages for the subject, Origen confesses
“I know not why He said, ‘She is not dead, but sleeping,’ stating regarding her
something which does not apply to all who die.”33 Peter Chrysologus also commented
on this passage:
And so when Christ had come to the house, and saw the girl wept for as
dead, that He might lead these unbelieving souls to faith, He says that
she is not dead, but sleeping: that they might come to believe that we
can more easily rise from the dead than from sleep. The girl, he says, is
not dead but sleeps. And with God death is indeed a sleep; for God can
more swiftly rouse the dead to life, than man can rouse a sleeper from
his sleep, and before a man can rouse to action bodies that are deep in
sleep, God will have poured the heat of life into bodies long cold in
death.34
30
Gregory the Great. Homily 40. Forty Gospel Homilies of Gregory the Great, p. 373.
31
Gregory the Great. Homily 40. Forty Gospel Homilies of Gregory the Great, p. 381.
32
Augustine discusses why sleep symbolises death. On the Psalms 3.5. NPNF 1/8, pp. 5-6.
33
Origen. Against Celcus 2.48. ANF 4, p. 449.
34
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 34. Mark 5:22-43. On the raising of Jairus’ daughter. Sunday
Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 327. The correlation of life with heat may reflect
simply the coldness of dead bodies, or perhaps an Orphic idea which saw heat as the source of
life. Prudentius used this image extensively. He called the soul a “spark of life” [Apotheosis
920. Loeb I, p. 189] and a “glowing spark” [Hamartigenia 850. Loeb I, p. 265], a “fire”
193
Chrysologus understood the sleep of death to be rest for the saints, but punishment for
the wicked. They are not considered to be living, therefore they are spoken of as
asleep. “For, the death of the saints is a sleep, but that of the sinners is truly a death,
in so far as in hell they live only for punishment. As far as life is concerned, the
sinners perish.”35 Similarly, Ambrose says that while waiting for the resurrection the
wicked will be watchful, implying that they are fearful of their coming fate, while the
righteous rest peacefully in expectation of the resurrection.36
Commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:30, Peter Chrysologus says: “He speaks again of the
dead as sleeping; whom he mourns as buried in their living bodies.”37 The idea of
death as a sleep appears mainly with reference to the bodies of the saints, not their
souls,38 an idea repeated by a number of Patristic writers, for instance Paulinus of
Nola, who says: “...those who expired in Christ are buried but not dead, for their
bodies are temporarily in tranquil sleep.”39 The dead will be woken from this sleep,
which is not permanent.40
The debate between Origen and the Arabian Christians, who are reported to have
believed that the soul dies with the body, and is reconstituted at the resurrection, is the
most extensive account of the doctrine of the death of the soul from Patristic times.
We have little direct evidence of their views which are known mainly from the
polemical writings of their theological opponents, such as Origen and Eusebius, to
whom these views were inimical. Eusebius recounts the disputation of Origen with
these Christians and gives his opinion of their theology.
About the same time others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine
foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human
soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the
resurrection they will be renewed together. And at that time also a
synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen, being again invited
which had its origin in the stars. Cathemerinon 10.30-33. Loeb, I, p. 87. The soul is described
as a “glowing substance” that is able to perceive “the flashing energy of the bright-glowing
godhead.” Crowns of Martyrdom 10, 439-442. Loeb II, p. 259. He describes the sense of the
presence of God as feeling the soul “aglow” while afterwards it grows “cool.” Psychomachia
900-903. Loeb I, p. 343. He often speaks of the coldness of death, and the warmth of the body
returning at the resurrection [for example, Cathemerinon 9, 101-105. Loeb, I, p. 83;
Cathemerinon 10, 37-40. Loeb, I, p. 87].
35
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 96. On Matthew 13:24-30. FC 17, p. 155.
36
37
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 34. Mark 5:22-43. On the raising of Jairus’ daughter. Sunday
Sermons of the Great Fathers 4, p. 326.
38
Gregory of Nyssa reports Macrina as saying: “...for a season you rest our bodies in sleep and
awake them again at the last trump.” Life of St. Macrina. Cited in: A C Rush. Death and
burial in Christian antiquity, p. 18. Rush cites many liturgical texts and cemetery
inscriptions which speak of the dead as “sleeping” but distinguishing the sleep of the soul
from the sleep of the body is not easy. Ibid., pp. 18-22. Prudentius uses a contemporary view
of sleep in which the soul is freed from the body and wanders through the air. Cathemerinon
6, 25-35. Loeb I, p. 51.
39
40
Paulinus of Nola. Letter 13.9. ACW 35, p. 125.
194
thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the
opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed.41
Another discussion of this issue is given in a recently rediscovered work of Origen,

the Dialogue with Heraclides, which provides independent verification for the
account given by Eusebius, as well as a considerable amount of detail not included in
his brief notice. Dionysius introduces into the discussion the question as to whether
the soul was material, and was corrupted with the body in the grave. This was based
on Leviticus 17:11, The soul of all flesh is blood, together with Deuteronomy 12:23,
Be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life. Origen argues in
response that Scripture often uses physical terms to describe spiritual realities.
Therefore, “blood” in the Leviticus text cannot possibly mean blood. This was taken
to mean that Origen was teaching the immortality of the soul.42 In his response to this
comment, Origen seeks to define the different meanings of the word “death.”
To this remark I will say that the soul is immortal and the soul is not
immortal. Let us first define the meaning of the word “death,” and to
determine all its possible senses. I will try to show all its meanings not
by appealing to the Greeks, but all its meanings as found in the divine
Scripture.43
Chadwick comments that it is “difficult to see that his involved discussion of the
various meanings of “death” is of any value in answering the point.”44 He appears to
be more of a Platonist than a Christian, especially since his ideas can be seen to be of
a spiritualising and anti-body sentiment. He sees life in the body as a problem for us
to be overcome by death.
I know that as soon as I die, I come forth from the body, I rest with
Christ. Therefore let us struggle, therefore let us wrestle, let us groan
being in the body, not as if we shall again be in the tombs in the body,
because we shall be set free from it, and shall change our body to one
which is more spiritual. Destined as we are to be with Christ, how we
groan while we are in the body!45
41
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 6.37. NPNF 2/1, p. 279. The idea that the soul dies and is
reconstituted at the resurrection is also condemned as heretical by Augustine. “Therefore
seeing that the author [Eusebius] cites none of them, we are able to announce these heretics as
Arabs, who say that souls die and are dissolved together with bodies, and at the end of the age
will rise again. But Origen was present at this disputation and said to them swiftly what was
correct.” De haeresibus 83. PL 42, 46. Also John of Damascus. De haeresibus 90. PG 94,
757. One of the earliest works of John Calvin was the Psychopannychia, a defence of the
immortality of the soul against the sleep of the soul in death. This idea, interestingly enough,
he ascribes to Arabs, especially Averroes.
42
H Chadwick. Introduction. Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides. LCC 2, pp. 435-436.
43
44
H Chadwick. Introduction. Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides. LCC 2, pp. 435-436.
45
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides 166. LCC 2, p. 453. It is possible that Origen here uses the
soma-sema [the body a tomb] pun of the Greeks, when he says that we are in the “tombs of
the body.” This is a pagan image which distorts Christian eschatology and anthropology.
195
Origen insisted that as soon as the believer dies he is with Christ. If that were not so,
it would not be better to die.
Before the resurrection the righteous man is with Christ and in his soul he lives with
Christ. But according to you who say that the soul remains in the tomb with the body,
it has not left the body, it does not rest, it does not dwell in the paradise of God, it
does not repose in the bosom of Abraham. According to you who maintain such
absurd doctrines it would not be better to depart and to be with Christ. For one is not
with Christ as soon as one departs if the soul is in the blood. If the soul remains in the
tombs, how can it be with Christ? But according to my view and that of the word of
God, the soul has departed from the troubles, the sweat, and the body, that which can
say, “Lord now lettest thy servant depart in peace,” is that which departs in peace and
rests with Christ.46
Quispel compares the views of the Arabian Christians (as revealed in Origen’s
Dialogue with Heraclides) concerning the resurrection of the body, which he sees as
“archaic,” with those of the African Christians such as Minucius Felix, described by
Quispel as “naive.” The Arabs held that
...the soul is blood, which implies that the soul after death dwells in the
tomb or the body and is not immediately united to Christ. When Origen
defends this Pauline position, he is said to teach the immortality of the
soul. It is quite clear that Minucius Felix’ faith is near to that of the
Arabs, whereas Tertullian holds very much the same position as
Origen.47
Quispel goes on to state that Christianity in Carthage was of Jewish origin, and that
their simple Christian belief in the resurrection is a pre-Catholic faith which existed in
Africa prior to Tertullian.48 This demonstrates the slow decline of the early Christian
eschatology, which expressed hope in the resurrection and life in the kingdom in
which all things would be made new, and the gradual ascendency of individualised
eschatology which emphasised the immediate judgement and fate of the soul on
death. In such a theology, the resurrection became increasingly irrelevant, even
though it was still defended as a doctrine of the faith, and it was submerged under a
growing emphasis on the doctrine of the immortal soul in line with an individualised
eschatology. Minucius Felix maintained an older approach against the trend of
increasing abstract speculation and priority of reason over revelation. The assumption
that the dead who are “with Christ” must therefore be in heaven is unwarranted, as
sleeping in the grave until the resurrection is no less to be with Christ, whose presence
is not limited to heaven.49 While the image of sleep when speaking of death in the
Scriptures is thus interpreted literally by many (although perhaps not the exact
meaning of that image), still this retains the emphasis on the resurrection which is
lacking in speculative views of the intermediate state.
46
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides 164-166. LCC 2, p. 452.
47
G Quispel. “African Christianity before Tertullian.” In: Romanitas et Christianitas, p. 278.
48
G Quispel. “African Christianity before Tertullian.” In: Romanitas et Christianitas, p. 278.
49
Cf. Psalm 139:8, Romans 8:38-39.
196
6.4 The individual judgement of the soul
Instrumentalist anthropology makes possible a judgement prior to the resurrection,

since it is the soul which is the person and is responsible for its actions. Thus the soul
sinned while the body remained innocent, and would face judgement prior to the
resurrection apart from the body. Thus both vices and virtues belonged to the soul, an
idea found for instance in Origen,50 and so a resurrection was not required, as the soul
could justly be punished or rewarded without reference to the body.51
Thus we have a shift in focus from the judgement of humanity as a whole, to an

individualistic conception in which each soul is judged separately immediately after
death. This concentrated on the relationship of the individual to God, in isolation from
the diverse range of relationships in which that individual stood during life. This
emphasis on the vertical dimension of life at the expense of the horizontal dimension
thus divides our relationship with God from our relationships with the rest of
humanity, and considers that we can be judged individually apart from our communal
relationships and responsibilities.
The earliest most explicit presentation of this view is found in Clement of Alexandria,
who taught that the righteous enter into their rewards, and the wicked receive their
punishments, immediately after death rather than after the resurrection, as was held by
the earlier Patristic writers. He says: “For God bestows life freely; but evil custom,
after our departure from this world, brings on the sinner unavailing remorse with
punishment.”52 This originates in Clement’s emphasis on the ethical life, which he
understands is the cause of salvation.
No doubt the keeping of God’s commandments belongs to a Christian

life. Clement realized this clearly. But by making it the condition of
grace he reverses the order of the Gospel. Against such conceptions St.
Paul wrote a.o. the Epistle to the Galatians. In Clement the moral effort
is a condition for salvation, in St. Paul moral effort proceeds from
salvation as a task. This is why Clement has no eschatological
expectation - though he expects heaven - but not the expectation that at
the end of time God will start an entirely new creation [sic]. The
believers’ penitential efforts are continued after their death. Thus the
souls of the believers make their way, each of them separately to
heaven.53
Clement cites the Greek philosophers Theano and Plato to support his view that there
are both punishments and rewards awaiting us immediately after death.54 From
50
Gregory Thaumaturgus. Panegyric 12. ANF 6, p. 33.
51
127.
52
Clement of Alexandria. Exhortation to the Heathen 10. ANF 2, p. 197.
53
J Wytzes. “The two-fold way. I. Platonic influences in the work of Clement of Alexandria.”
Vigiliae Christianae 11 (1957) 237-238.
54
197
similar comments Clement makes elsewhere, it is evident that he was strongly
influenced by the eschatology of Plato in particular.55 Butterworth claims that the root
difference between the New Testament and Clement’s eschatological ideas is that the
former “postulates a common judgement, equally necessary for all, because all have
sinned. This is followed, in those who believe on Christ, by exaltation to an eternal
life with God.”56 The combat with paganism was compromised by the Patristic idea
that the Greeks had acquired true insights, such as the idea of the judgement after
death, from the Old Testament. Although the Patristic writers claimed the Greeks had
misunderstood these ideas, for instance failing to grasp the resurrection of the body,
and misunderstanding the nature of punishments after death, the basic truth was
considered to be there. For instance, Tertullian concurs with Justin that the doctrine of
a judgment and subsequent punishments and rewards after death, found in the Greek
writers, is taken from the OT prophets.57
Origen held that after death there is a provisional separation between the good and the
wicked, and “to prepare them for their eternal destinies they pass to an intermediate
state of longer or shorter duration, which serves as a probationary school.” The
judgement itself at the end of the world will be a definitive separation of the good and
the wicked.58
In Origen’s writings there is no difference between the particular judgement and the
general judgement, nor is there any speculation about the intermediate period between
time and eternity, which would extend from the death of the individual until the
general resurrection. This will be the preoccupation of later theology. Rather, after
death, each person passes through the process of purification, the baptism of fire: the
saints and repentant sinners--the former unscathed and the latter painfully purified--
pass on afterwards to heaven, while the hardened, unrepentant sinners are sent to the
“eternal fire” of Gehenna.59
Salvian wishes to stress, while not denying a future judgement, that God is even now
actively judging, and so everything in human life can be seen as an expression of
God’s providence. While he does not deny the future judgement, or claim that
everything that happens to us in this life is just, he does stress that God is even now
active in judging, although it seems that the punishment of the wicked, and the
rewarding of the righteous, mostly takes place after death, even though the judgement
is made while they are alive.
But perhaps you claim this as an additional proof that God neglects
everything that happens in this life and reserves his whole care for the
55
56
G W Butterworth. “The deification of man in Clement of Alexandria.” Journal of Theological
Studies 17 (1916) 163.
57
Justin Martyr. First Apology 44. ANF 1, p. 177. Tertullian. Apology 47. ANF 3, p. 52. Cf. Ad
nationes 1.19. ANF 3, p. 127.
58
[Origen. De principiis 2.11.6; 2.9.8; Contra Celsum 4.9. ] J N D Kelly. Early Christian
Doctrines, p. 472.
59
world and his legacy, p. 303.
198
judgement to come, since the good have always suffered, as the wicked
have performed, all things evil. This idea does not seem to be that of an
unbeliever, especially as it admits the future judgement of God. But we
say that the human race is to be judged by Christ, while yet maintaining
that now also God rules and ordains all things in accordance with his
reason. While we declare that he will judge in the future, we also teach
that he always has judged us in this life. As God always governs, so too
he always judges, for his government is itself judgement.60
Salvian bases his eschatology on a continuation of God’s providence: the judgement

after death is a continuation of the judgement and government which God exercises in
life.61 We should live our lives in the light of the coming judgement, according to
Salvian’s theology, because of the danger of eternal fire. This may mean that we
forsake family life and take up the ascetical life. Thus Salvian gives an allegorical
interpretation of Matthew 18:8-9.
No man should deprive himself of his members, but in the case of

certain domestic relationships so necessary to us that we have come to
consider them as eyes or hands, it is right to deprive ourselves of their
present service in order to escape the torture of eternal fire.62
Salvian has a strongly developed sense of justice, which is interesting in the light of
his stress on the providence of God which governs all things, and that God is
exercising judgement on the wicked even now, although he seems to indicate that the
punishment they will experience will come only after death.
A similar view is found in the view of Ambrose that the judgement of God is seen in
the fact that the wicked are accused by their consciences and thus die in bitterness,
while the righteous die in peace. This is a recompense of divine judgement.63
Ambrose concludes: “Thus the wicked man is a punishment to himself, but the
upright man is a grace to himself - and to either, whether good or bad, the reward of
his deeds is paid in his own person,” that is, even in this life.64
In the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, the justice of God is used as an argument by

the apostle Peter for the immortality of the soul, since it must survive to be rewarded
or suffer punishment.65 Simon Magus, arguing against Peter, says that as soon as we
60
Salvian. On the government of God 1.4. E M Sanford, p. 47.
61
Salvian appears to hold that this judgement follows immediately after death, just as the
punishment God metes out in this life follows immediately on the crime. For instance, with
respect to the fall of Adam and Eve, Salvian says: “Man transgressed the sacred ordinance,
underwent judgement, lost paradise and suffered the penalty of damnation.” On the
government of God 1.6. E M Sanford, p. 50. Similarly concerning the punishment of Sodom,
Salvian said: “For they deserved so ill of God that they suffered in this world the Gehenna
that is to come in the later judgement.” On the government of God 4.8. E M Sanford, p. 113.
62
Salvian. On the government of God 3.8. E M Sanford, p. 91.
63
Ambrose. Duties of the clergy 1.12.40-45. NPNF 2/10, p. 8.
64
65
Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions 3.40. ANF 8, p. 124.
199
die, the soul is extinguished, and therefore moral restraint in the hope of future reward
is futile.66 Peter then says that if the soul is not immortal, then anarchy and immorality
will be the result, if there is no value in righteousness and hope of future reward.67
Thus a judgement proves the justice of God, since God has required us to live moral
lives, and will reward those who do. The emphasis placed in the Recognitions on the
reward of the virtuous rather than on the punishment of the wicked means the
judgement is an incitement to virtue, rather than an inducement to shun evil because
of the punishments it will bring.68
Sulpitius Severus constantly stressed that judgement was imminent, both the
immediate judgement after death for each individual, and the universal judgement for
all humankind. Sulpitius held to an individualistic eschatology in which the
judgement took place immediately after death, and thereby downplayed the
significance of the resurrection of the body.69 Sulpitius concentrates more on the
individual’s fate after death than the cosmic aspects of eschatology. The judgement is
central in this aspect of his thought. For instance, Martin of Tours; was reported by
Sulpitius to have raised a dead man who had not been baptised. “The same man was
wont to relate that, when he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the
Judge, and being assigned to gloomy regions and vulgar crowds, he received a severe
sentence.” Before he could be led away to his fate, he was restored to his body
through the prayers of Martin.70 Sulpitius expressed his views in a letter which
demonstrates a rather morbid outlook: “...there occurred to me, as often happens, that
hope of the future which I cherish, along with a weariness of the present world, a
terror of judgement, a fear of punishment...”71 One factor in Sulpitius’ morbid
theology and fear of the judgement and punishment after death is the ethical emphasis
in his thought: salvation comes through meeting the standards of the Commandments,
not through faith and trust in Christ. Thus he lacks confidence that he will receive the
heavenly reward because he is unsure of his own deserts. He again returns to his them
of enduring suffering, and stresses that this is one way in which to “earn” eternity.
But if you reflect upon eternity, and if you consider the kingdom of
heaven, which undoubtedly the Lord will condescend to bestow upon
us although we are sinners, what suffering, I ask, is sufficiently great,
by which we may merit such things?72
This is one consequence of instrumentalist anthropology and immediate

individualistic eschatology: an obscuring of the grace of God which alone brings
salvation, and a focusing on the merits and defects of the individual. The
66
67
68
69
G K van Andel. The Christian concept of history in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus, p.
135.
70
Sulpitius Severus. Life of St. Martin 7. NPNF 2/11, pp. 7-8.
71
Sulpitius Severus. Letter to the Deacon Aurelius. NPNF 2/11, p. 19.
72
Sulpitius Severus (doubtful). Letter to Claudia concerning the last judgement 2. NPNF 2/11,
p. 55.
200
eschatological judgement as vindication of the saints and punishment of the wicked is
thus also obscured in this perspective.
A judgement and allocation of rewards and punishments immediately after death

appears to pre-empt an eschatological judgement, which is then redundant and
irrelevant.
In one sense the theory of double judgement - an individual judgement at the time of
death and a universal judgement at the end of time - was a great success. It established
itself as the normal teaching of the western church. But as a way of actually making
sense of the unclear inheritance of christian eschatology it rather petered out, since all
competence was effectively transferred to the particular judgement, leaving nothing
except the resurrection of the body and the consequent rewarding or punishing of the
body to the general judgement.73
It would seem that the immediate judgement following death could be considered not
to pre-empt the judgement of the last day if it ratifies finally the fate of the soul which
it commences to experience prior to the last day. However, this is still a pre-empting,
since it considers each soul individualistically. The earlier Patristic conception of the
judgement was that all humankind would be confronted with their God, whom as a
race they have rebelled against. The immediate judgement is intrinsically
individualistic and moralistic, rather than in terms of the violation of our covenantal
relationship with God. There is little place here for the concept of the “judgement of
the nations” such as we find in Scripture [Genesis 18:25, 1 Samuel 2:10, Psalm 9:8,
Psalm 50, Psalm 96:10-13, Psalm 98:9, Matthew 25:32].
While the state of the soul is permanent after death, this does not mean that the
universal judgement is somehow redundant; simply that there is no possibility for
repentance or for further righteous or unrighteous deeds which might thereby alter the
outcome of that judgement.
The parable of dives and Lazarus appears to suggest that immediately upon their
death, the rich man goes to the place of torment, while Lazarus is taken to Abraham’s
bosom, and there is nothing in the story to imply they are still awaiting a further
judgement, or a more definitive punishment or reward [Luke 16:19-26]. On the other
hand the dramatic picture of the whole human race being assembled for judgement
and allocated the punishment or reward that each individual has merited is too vivid
to be disregarded [Matthew 25:31-46, 2 Corinthians 4:10]. Two ways of harmonising
these different considerations can be recognised in the literature of the early Christian
centuries. One possibility is to postulate a three-stage story: this life, an interim state,
and then the judgement leading to everyone’s final reward. This is the picture we
found in Justin, apparently representing the normal doctrine of the period: at death
people go to nice or nasty waiting-rooms, depending on their moral qualities. There
they await the judgement. It is difficult to see quite what the point is of sorting souls
out like this into good and bad, only to keep them hanging around until the
judgement, and later western doctrine abandoned the whole idea of waiting-rooms...74
73
Simon Tugwell. Human immortality and the redemption of death, p. 119.
74
201
Ambrose held that for the righteous the Judgement will be no more than a
“crowning,”75 when their innocence will be clearly manifested,76 and their reward
assigned.77 Hilary of Poitiers held that after death the righteous rest “in Abraham’s
bosom, while the wicked begin to pay the penalty which the Last Day will ratify.”78
Basil speaks of both the “last day” of the individual at death, after which comes an
immediate judgement, and the “conclusion of all human life” when Christ comes to
judge all.79 A similar idea is found in John Chrysostom,80 as well as in Augustine,
who said:
In whatever state his own last day finds each one, in that state the last
day of the world will overtake him; such as he is on the day of his
death, such each one will be judged on that last day.81
The “last day” is thus understood as the day of each person’s death, since it brings
him to the great Last Day in which he shall be judged, and the judgement after death
is ratified.
6.5 Purgatory following the individual judgement
The idea of purgatory is a logical development of the idea of an immediate individual

judgement after death. Those who were considered already purged of sin, for instance
through martyrdom (whether shedding of blood or asceticism) could enter heaven
immediately. Those who are judged and found to be believers, but still retaining some
sin, need to be purified before they can enter heaven.82 The doctrine of purgatory
therefore has a negative correlation with the doctrine of the general resurrection and
judgement at the end of the age, as in at least some respects, it involves pre-empting
that judgement, with punishment for sins commencing immediately after death.83 That
punishment is to purify the believers who will eventually be rewarded, and not to
exact retribution on the wicked, as their sins cannot be forgiven. This speculative
view of purgatorial suffering has no good Scriptural warrant,84 but is demanded by the
75
Ambrose. Enarratio in Psalmum 40.7. PL 14, 1122-1123.
76
Ambrose. Hexaemeron 2.10.37. FC 42, p. 43.
77
Ambrose. Expositio in Psalmum 118, 7.17. PL 15, 1354.
78
[Hilary of Poitiers. Tractate in Psalmos 51.22f, 57.5, 2.48.] J N D Kelly. Early Christian
Doctrines, p. 482.
79
Basil. Letter 46.5, “To a fallen virgin.” NPNF 2/8, p. 151.
80
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Thessalonians 9.1. NPNF 1/13, pp. 360-361.
81
Augustine. Letter 199.2. FC 30, pp. 358-359. Cf. also Letter 199.3. FC 30, p. 359.
82
According to the research of Jacques le Goff, purgatory was not seen as a location until the
twelfth century. The birth of Purgatory, p. 227.
83
Cf. for the opposite approach the comment by F H Dudden that “Gregory of Tours seems to
hold the old idea that purgatorial punishment for slight offences was reserved for the day of
judgement.” Gregory the Great: His place in history and thought, vol. 2, p. 429.
84
Passages cited as the basis for a doctrine of purgatory include 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Matthew
5:25-26, 12:31-32, and 2 Timothy 1:16f. Robert Ombres. “Images of healing: The making of
202
logic of anthropological, soteriological and eschatological doctrines. Ombres is of the
opinion that the Old Testament view of death was modified by apocalyptic views, to
incorporate the idea that “the division of good and wicked is not always postponed till
the Last Judgement but begins at death for each man.” In the apocalyptic writings, for
instance 1 Enoch 22, Sheol is divided up into different sections, with distinct rewards
or punishments.85 In 2 Maccabees 12 we find the idea that atonement for sin and
purgation is possible between death and the judgement.86 Ombres cites the Jerome
Biblical Commentary which states that this chapter “contains the essence of what
would become (with further precisions) the Christian theologian’s teaching on
purgatory.”87 Of course the significance of this passage for theology depends on one’s
view of the canon of Scripture, and for Protestants this passage does not hold any
canonical authority. The Hellenistic influence in the apocryphal and deuterocanonical
books is one source of the conflict between the eschatology they contain and the rest
of the Old Testament.
While the basis for the idea of purgatory, the cleansing of the soul by
suffering after death, is found in Patristic thought (although derived
from pagan ideas partly through the influence of Hellenism),88 the
precise development of this doctrine is obscure.89
It was mainly the belief in metempsychosis that made it possible to establish a scale
of punishments, a range of intermediate penalties. This was also characteristic of
Orphism, “which from the beginning seems to have accepted the belief that between
successive periods of earthly existence there comes a period of expiation in Hades.”
The influence of Orphism on Christianity has often been stressed. Since there is no
the traditions concerning Purgatory.” Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976) 130. See also K
Hanhart. The intermediate state in the New Testament, pp. 185-190.
85
Robert Ombres. “Images of healing: The making of the traditions concerning Purgatory.”
Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976) 129-130, citing: D S Russell. The method and message
of Jewish apocalyptic 200 BC - AD 100. London, 1964, p. 360.
86
Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976) 130.
87
Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976) 130. Citing: R E Brown, J A Fitzmeyer, R E Murphy, eds.
The Jerome Biblical Commentary. London, 1969, p. 485.
88
See Harald Hagendahl. The Latin Fathers and the Classics, pp. 392-395, where he
identifies a passage from Virgil’s Aeneid [6.745ff] as the source for the idea of purgatory in
Paulinus [Letter of Faustus of Riez 4] and Augustine [The City of God 21.13]. Hagendahl
points out that Faustus rebukes the idea suggested by Paulinus and identifies the source in
Virgil that has influenced him. Thus even in Patristic times the problem of synthesis was
recognised and resisted.
89
E F Osborn is of the opinion that the beginnings of the idea of purgatory are found in Clement
of Alexandria. The philosophy of Clement of Alexandria, p. 80. Other claimed sources
include Gregory of Nyssa. On the soul and resurrection. NPNF 2/5, pp. 451, 462. The
Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 2.3-4. ANF 3, pp. 701-702. Tertullian. On the soul 58.
ANF 3, pp. 234-235. Ambrose. Expositio in Psalmum 118, 3.14-17. PL 15, 1292-1294. Ibid.,
20.12-15. PL 15, 1564-1565. Enarrationes in Psalmum 36.26. PL 14, 1026-1027. F H
Dudden. The life and times of St. Ambrose, vol. 2, pp. 660-662. Augustine. The City of God
20.9, 21.13, 21.26. NPNF 1/2, pp. 430-431, 463-464, 473-475. Caesarius of Arles. Sermon
179, on 1 Cor 3:15. FC 47, pp. 449-456.
203
evidence of a belief in an intermediate state between celestial happiness and the
torments of Hell in ancient Judaism, and since the precursors of Purgatory first appear
among Christian Greeks, it has been suggested that the Christian idea of a “purgatory”
in which souls not sufficiently guilty to deserve eternal torment might be purified of
their sins derives from beliefs of the pagan Greeks and specifically from Orphic
doctrine. If such an influence did exist, it must, I think, have affected segments of the
Jewish community first. For it is in the apocalyptic writings of the Jews, particularly
rabbinical teaching dating from around the time of Christ’s birth, that one finds the
earliest forerunner of what was to become the Christian Purgatory.90
Le Goff mentions the influence of pagan Greek philosophical and religious ideas
directly on Clement of Alexandria and Origen, namely that “the chastisement inflicted
by the gods is not punishment but rather a means of education and salvation, part of a
process of purification.” This was found in the works of Plato, and from this Clement
and Origen deduce “the idea that ‘to punish’ is synonymous with ‘to educate’ and that
any chastisement by God contributes to man’s salvation.”91 Le Goff comments that
the idea of purifying or divine fire has a long prehistory in pagan religions, and that
the idea of purgatory succeeded in capturing the imagination of the Middle Ages not
simply because of a few biblical passages which were understood to speak of it, but
because of the ancient traditions that idea incorporated. Le Goff cautions that the
concept of divine fire changes its meaning when transferred from pagan religions to
Christianity, although certain fundamental elements persist.92 However, the roots of
the idea are in conflict with the perspective of Scripture, so no amount of modification
can make it acceptable. This can also be seen in the description given by Le Goff of
how judgement and purgation after death involves
...complex judicial proceedings concerning the possible mitigation of

penalties, the possible commutation of sentences, subject to the
influence of a variety of factors. Belief in Purgatory therefore requires
the projection into the afterlife of a highly sophisticated legal and penal
system.93
Some of the earliest comments claimed to be references to purgatory are not

unambiguous. For instance, the interpretation of a passage in Cyprian’s thought
claimed to be a reference to a doctrine of purgatory has been challenged. Cyprian
wrote:
And you must realised that it is one thing for a man to stand by,
awaiting the granting of pardon, and quite another thing for him to
achieve the heights of glory; it is one thing for him to be thrown into
prison and not to emerge from it until he pays the very last farthing, and
90
Jacques Le Goff. The birth of Purgatory, pp. 22-23.
91
[Plato. Gorgias 34.478; Phaedo 62.113d; Protagoras 13.324b; Laws 5.728c] Jacques Le
Goff. The birth of Purgatory, pp. 52-53. Le Goff cites Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata
5.14. ANF 2, pp. 465-466. Ibid., 7.2. ANF 2, p. 526. Origen. De principiis 2.10.6. ANF 4, p.
292. On prayer 29. ACW 19, pp. 113-126.
92
Jacques Le Goff. The birth of Purgatory, pp. 9-11.
93
Jacques Le Goff. The birth of Purgatory, p. 5.
204
quite another thing for him to receive all at once the rewards of faith
and valour; it is one thing for a man to be wracked by long grieving
over his sins and to be purged and purified over a lengthy period of
time by fire, and it is quite another thing for him to have purged away
all his sins by a martyr’s death. In a word, to hang in doubt on the day
of judgement awaiting the verdict of the Lord is far different from being
crowned by the Lord without a moment’s delay.94
Jay says that while many theologians have stated that Cyprian supported a doctrine of
purgatory, “de génération en génération les théologiens semblent se communiquer les
uns aux autres sans autre forme d’examen.”95 Jay says that Cyprian was perhaps the
first to use Matthew 5:26 in the sense of penitence, and this has its own interest for
the history of doctrine, but that Cyprian is not speaking of purgatory, a purification
after death, only the penitence of sinners in the church before death.96 Eno says that
this article by Jay has caused most scholars to abandon this comment in Cyprian as a
reference to purgatory.97
The verse ‘Non exibis inde (i.e. ex carcere), donec soluas nouissimum
quadrantem,’ presents especial interest in light of the fact that it has
been mistakenly cited to show Cyprian’s belief in purgatory. Jay’s
article explains how a misreading of Cyprian’s comments led to the
incorrect conclusion that Cyprian believed in purgatory.98
Fahey comments concerning the passage in which Cyprian is alleged to teach a

doctrine of purgatory:
It is important to bear in mind the context of the letter. Cyprian is

writing about the possibility of repentance for the sin of apostacy. The
reference to “aliud missum in carcere” does not necessarily refer to
purification in the afterlife. As Jay points out the “purgari diu igne” can
94
Cyprian. To Antonianus. Letter 55.20.3. ACW 46, p. 45.
95
P Jay. “Saint Cyprien et la doctrine du purgatoire.” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et
Médiévale 27 (1960) 133.
96
P Jay. “Saint Cyprien et la doctrine du purgatoire.” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et
Médiévale 27 (1960) 136.
97
R B Eno. “The Fathers and the cleansing fire.” Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987) 191.
Similarly, W M Daley states that “The often repeated view that Caesarius originated the
concept of Purgatory has been convincingly disputed by Pierre Jay.” [P Jay. “Le purgatoire
dans le prédication de saint Césare d’Arles.” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale
24 (1957) 5-14.] W M Daley. “Caesarius of Arles, a precursor of Mediaeval Christendom.”
Traditio 26 (1970) 6, n. 15. Brian E Daley comments: “In all three of these Sermons dealing
with purgative punishment, Caesarius emphasizes that it will affect both soul and body, and
he identifies it with the process of judgement; there is no trace in his writings of the idea that
such purgation will be accomplished in the “interim” between death and resurrection, nor does
he show any particular interest in the fate of souls before the final judgement.” The hope of
the early Church, p. 209. Daley notes that it is “ironic that Latin theologians at the Council
of Ferrara (1437) tried to support their arguments for the Western mediaeval doctrine of
Purgatory with excerpts from these sermons of Caesarius.” Ibid., p. 264, n. 5.
98
M A Fahey. Cyprian and the Bible, p. 275.
205
refer to penance performed on earth or it can refer to the suffering of
judgement, in which case the qualification “diu” is merely
metaphorical... The assertion that Cyprian in his use of Matthew 5:26
opted for the existence of purgatory is an over hasty conclusion from a
text which contains only a generic reference to penance.99
Another argument against interpreting Cyprian’s writings in terms of a doctrine of

purgatory is that he says that “in the case of those who had sacrificed, comfort should
be brought to them at death; our reasoning was that in the grave (apud inferos) there
is no confession.”100 Similarly in his Testimonies against the Jews, he includes a
chapter, “That one ought to make confession while he is in the flesh,” and cites Psalm
6:5, But in the grave who will confess unto Thee? and Psalm 30:9, Shall the dust make
confession unto Thee?101 A more explicit passage is in his letter to Demetrianus,
where Cyprian stresses the inability to repent after death.
Believe and live, and do ye who persecute us in time rejoice with us for
eternity. When you have once departed thither, there is no longer any
place for repentance, and no possibility of making satisfaction. Here
life is either lost or saved; here eternal safety is provide for by the
worship of God and the fruits of faith.102
Similarly there are problems with the interpretation of the views of Tertullian. He also
cites Matthew 5:25-26, and comments that the Judge will deliver the wicked man to
the angel who will execute the sentence, and he will commit him to the prison of hell,
“out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies
be paid off in the period before the resurrection.”103 Thus while these expressions of
Tertullian appear to speak of a doctrine of purgatory,104 Mason argues that they
actually refer only to the suffering of the soul prior to the judgement, not in an
expiatory sense, but as the beginnings of the punishment of the wicked.
But the sufferings of which it speaks [De anima 58] are the sufferings
of those who are awaiting the condemnation of the Judgement Day. The
classes that Tertullian names (except in the one sentence quoted) are
not the perfect and the imperfect among the saved: they are the saved
and the lost.105
A more explicit articulation of the doctrine of purgatory is found in Gregory the

Great, who distinguishes the perfectly righteous from those who are lacking
99
M A Fahey. Cyprian and the Bible, p. 276.
100
Cyprian. To Antonianus. Letter 55.17.3. ACW 46, p. 43.
101
Cyprian. Three books of Testimonies against the Jews 3.114. ANF 5, p. 556.
102
Cyprian. An address to Demetrianus 25. ANF 5, p. 465.
103
104
105
A J Mason. “Tertullian and purgatory.” Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902) 599.
206
somewhat in perfection. These he says must for a time be purified in purgatory.106
The views of Gregory are spelled out in the Dialogues.
Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before the judgement, because of

some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,
the Truth say that if any one blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he
shall not be forgiven, ‘either in this world or in the world to come.’
From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this
world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for
a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This
must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions...107
The idea of Irenaeus that the saints would be vindicated in the world where they had
suffered, was reversed in a spurious interpolation in the Dialogues which states that
the wicked could purge their sins through returning after death to the place where the
sins had been committed. Such was the attendant of the baths who had formerly been
in life the one in charge of the baths, sent back to do penance there.108 But a genuine
passage from Gregory concerning the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:12ff. says:
Although this may be taken to signify the fire of suffering we

experience in this life, it may also refer to the cleansing fire of the
world to come, and, if one accepts it in this sense, one must weigh St.
Paul’s words carefully. When he says that men are saved by passing
through fire, he is not referring to men who build on this foundation in
iron, bronze or lead, that is, in mortal sins which are indestructible in
fire. He specifies those who build on this foundation in wood, grass and
straw, that is, in venial or trivial sins which fire consumes easily. In this
connection we should also remember that in the world to come no one
will be cleansed even of the slightest faults, unless he has merited such
a cleansing through good works performed in this life.109
The correlation of lesser sins which are easily cleansed with the wood, hay and
stubble, while more serious sins are pictured as iron, brass and lead, comes from
Origen. According to Crouzel, Origen refers to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 thirty-eight
times in his extant works.110 The gold, silver and precious stones are interpreted as the
blessings of the saints,111 while the wood, hay and stubble are the faults of the
106
Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.41. FC 39, p. 248. This passage is declared genuine by Clark,
The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, vol. 2, pp. 559-561. This idea also appears in Dialogues
4.26. “...there are just souls who are delayed somewhere outside heaven. The delay imposed
on them seems to indicate that they are still lacking in perfect justice.” FC 39, p. 217.
107
108
[Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.57. FC 39, pp. 266-267.] Cf. the discussion by Jacques Le
Goff concerning the punishment of sinners in this world after their death. The birth of
Purgatory, pp. 93-94.
109
110
H Crouzel. Origen, p. 245. See for instance Origen. De principiis 2.10.4. ANF 4, p. 295.
Against Celsus 5.15. ANF 4, p. 549. Against Celsus 6.70. ANF 4, p. 605.
111
Origen. Against Celsus 4.13. ANF 4, p. 502.
207
sinners,112 and the crimes of the wicked which are like iron, brass and lead.113 While
other Patristic writers use only the distinction of sins and virtues,114 Gregory the
Great, following Origen, makes a further distinction of wickedness which exceeds
that of the sinners, thus producing another source for the categorisation of the saints,
the sinners and the wicked which influences the interpretation of Psalm 1:5.115 This
threefold distinction in the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 appears also in
Ambrosiaster, who follows Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose in distinguishing three
categories, which he interprets as the saints, who go straight to heaven at the time of
the resurrection; the wicked, who go straight to hell; and the sinners, who are purged
for a time before being admitted to Paradise.116 Concepts in theological anthropology
are thus relevant to the development of the doctrine of purgatory, although that latter
doctrine is more closely tied to developments in soteriology, as it is based on a
specific understanding of how sin is dealt with and how we are saved.
6.6 The resurrection in instrumentalist thought
While Patristic writers who adopted an instrumentalist approach to anthropology

often still maintained an interest in the doctrine of bodily resurrection, it did not
generally play as significant a part in their thought as it did with those who held to
unitary views. There were, however, some interesting ideas developed within this
framework which are profitable to explore.
6.6.1 The reconstitution of the body
The dispersal of the particles of the body is not a problem for Origen’s view of the
resurrection; his view of the identity of the present body with the resurrection body
focuses on the eidos or form of the body, which is the only remaining element of the
body which survives in the resurrection.117 He insists that the body has no part in the
eschatological life, and suggests instead that the form of the body is changed and it is
the seminal reason which is raised, giving form to the substance which comprises the
112
Origen. Exhortation to martyrdom 36. ACW 19, p. 179.
113
Origen. Against Celsus 5.15. ANf 4, p. 549. Homily in Numbers 25.5. PG 12, 769. Homily in
Ezekiel 1.13. PG 13, 679. See H Crouzel. “L’exegese origénienne de 1 Cor 3, 11-15 et la
purification eschatologique.” In: Epektasis, p. 277. Origen also refers to the “lead of
wickedness” [Against Celsus 4.13. ANF 4, p. 502] without making the three-fold distinction
used elsewhere, or referring to the iron, brass and lead as a separate category.
114
Cyril of Jerusalem. “Then if any man’s works are of gold, he shall be made brighter; if any
man’s course of life be like stubble, and unsubstantial, it shall be burnt up by the fire.”
Catechetical Lectures 15.21. NPNF 2/7, p. 110. Also Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 179.8-9. FC
47, p. 455.
115
See Chapter Eight.
116
[Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Corinthios primam 3.14-15. PL 17, 211]
Jacques le Goff. The Birth of Purgatory, p. 61.
117
Cf. the criticisms of Methodius. On the resurrection 12. ANF 6, p. 375. Dennis comments:
“For Gregory [of Nyssa], however, the eidos is what provides the means for the reassembly of
the body’s atoms. Thus he uses an argument of Origen’s to support and explain something
which Origen denied, the restoration of the exact substance of the body.” T J Dennis.
“Gregory on the resurrection of the body.” In: The Easter sermons of Gregory of Nyssa, p.
59.
208
eschatological spiritual body. It is certainly not the original substance of the body
which is involved, although its outward appearance will bear a resemblance to that of
the earthly body.118 It was not a problem for Origen, therefore, that in his view the
bodies of those eaten by wild beasts become part of the beasts; their bodies cannot be
resurrected in their former state.119 The original particles are so mingled with other
particles that they cannot be separated out again; but he believes that this was not
necessary.120
Origen based his arguments on contemporary scientific views concerning the

continuity of particles. He held that the form of the body endures, but the substance of
which the body is composed can change without loss to the body. There is therefore
no need for the resurrection body to have material identity with the body of this
present life, since the particles of the body had changed throughout life while still
retaining its identity. His use of the doctrine of permanent “flux” of the particles
which make up things comes from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who inspired the
search for something permanent in immortality, that which is outside of time and
transcends the flux of all things within time.121 Thus Origen held that it is not the
continuity of the body, but of the form which gives shape to the particles which make
up the body, that is the locus of the identity of the body buried and the body raised,
and it is this which enables us to recognise individuals in the resurrection.
Origen comments that only the simpliciores expect to see the parts of the body
restored in the resurrection. Since the particles of the body change throughout life,
and digested food does not become a permanent part of our beings, although it takes
on the nature of the one eating it for a time, changing particles can thus be part of
several bodies. “Whose body then shall it be in the resurrection?”122 This view is in
118
pp. 232-233. Origen addressed the question of the Gnostics concerning the interpretation of 1
Corinthians 15:50, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, by allegorising the
meaning of “flesh and blood.” He said: “If the will of God is done on earth as it is done in
heaven, we shall all be heaven. Flesh which profiteth nothing, and blood which is akin to
flesh, cannot possess the kingdom of God. But if they be changed from flesh and earth and
dust and blood to heavenly substance, it may perhaps be said that they will inherit it.” Treatise
on Prayer 26.6. ACW 19, p. 92. While he thus avoids the Gnostic problem, he can only do so
by using a hermeneutical method typical of Gnosticism. Cf. Trigg’s comment on Origen’s
interpretation of NT eschatology: “One of the more interesting features of the Commentary on
Matthew is its tendency to psychologize the Gospel’s apocalyptic eschatological imagery.
Thus, when the Gospel predicts that Christ will come “on the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory” (Matt 24:30), it refers to his appearance to the perfect in their reading of the
Bible.” J W Trigg. Origen: The Bible and philosophy in the Third Century church, p.
212.
119
H Chadwick. “Origen, Celsus and the resurrection of the body.” Harvard Theological Review
41 (1948) 89.
120
L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, pp. 44-45.
121
See the discussion of Heraclitus by Bertrand Russell. History of Western Philosophy, pp.
63-65.
122
pp. 231-232.
209
direct contrast to the views utilised by Athenagoras,123 which Origen sneers at. That
does not mean that Origen knew the De resurrectione,124 but the ideas he expressed
concerning the resurrection were not unique to that treatise. Grant acknowledges that
the argument used would not have convinced Origen,125 but this could also be seen as
an argument that did not convince him, which he sought to refute in his Commentary
on Psalm 1.
J C M van Winden says concerning Athenagoras’ view of the strict identity between
the resuscitated and the earthly body, there is “no trace of Origen’s view on this
problem.”126 Similarly, Boliek comments:
Whether or not Origen was acquainted with the refined theory of

Athenagoras [on digestion and cannabalism], his own opinion was in
agreement with that of the pagan objectors and not with the Christian
apologists.127
On this issue we see one of the major differences between Athenagoras and Origen.
The former believed the body was made up of the same particles throughout life, and
that these particles, while being mingled again with other particles after death, are
able to be separated out and reconstituted as the original body.
123
Grant has argued that the treatise On the resurrection of the dead attributed to Athenagoras
should be dated and interpreted as a post-Origenist text, written in refutation of Origen’s
doctrine of the resurrection. For instance, he suggests that the comment “what is impossible
for men is possible for God” [De resurrectione 9] is a refutation of Origen’s view that the
simpliciores take refuge, when faced with difficulties, in the idea that “everything is possible
for God” [Selecta in Psalmos 1.5. Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of
Origen, p. 231]. Origen comments that he proves the possibility of the resurrection because of
the power of God, not by an affirmation but by an argument. Contra Celsus 5.22. ANF 4, p.
553. Similarly, Athenagoras believed that the resurrection is not unworthy of God (De
resurrectione 10), while Origen held that the idea of physical resurrection involved “unworthy
ideas” [Selecta in Psalmos 1. Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen,
p. 232]. R M Grant. “Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras.” Harvard Theological Review 47
(1954) 125-126. Vermander argues that the similarities between Athenagoras and Origen do
not demonstrate the existence of an attack by one on the other, but by their common debate
with a third party, the pagan Celsus. J M Vermander. “Celse et l’attribution à Athénagore d’un
ouvrage sur la résurrectione des morts.” Melanges de Science Religieuse 35 (1978) 125-134.
Others who reject Grant’s thesis are L W Barnard. Athenagoras. Bernard Pouderon.
“L’authenticité du traité sur la résurrection attribué à l’apologiste Athénagore.” Vigiliae
Christianae 40 (1986) 226-244. Idem, “‘La chair et le sang.’ Encore sur l’authenticité du
traité d’Athénagore.” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990) 1-5. I find their rebuttals persuasive, and
will consider the treatise authentic.
124
Cf. L W Barnard. “The father of Christian anthropology.” Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 63 (1972) 3/4: 270.
125
125. Cf. Origen. De principiis 2.1.4. ANF 4, pp. 269-270.
126
J C M van Winden. “In defence of the Resurrection.” In: The Easter Sermons of Gregory of
Nyssa, p. 104.
127
L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, p. 44.
210
In contrast to Origen, Ambrose held that the resurrection body would be formed out
of the dust of the former body,128 a view held also by Rufinus. However widely this
dust has been dispersed, it will be brought together again by the power of God. The
soul is the “principle of immortality” which will at the resurrection gather these
particles again and unite them with the soul, thus restoring the identical body to that
which had died. “The result is that each soul has restored to it, not a composite or
alien body, but the actual one it formerly possessed...”129
Paulinus of Nola stresses that God knows the whereabouts of each particle, and keeps
them intact so at the resurrection the identical bodies can and will rise again.
None of His natural creation dies, for everything everywhere is

enclosed in the Creator’s arms. Those whom water has devoured with
its rivers, seas, and fish, those whom birds and beasts have torn
asunder, all are owed to God by the earth.130
Paulinus also addresses the problem of bodies which have been consumed by animals.
He stresses that this human flesh is returned to the earth in the animal’s excretions,
and thus returns to the earth through the animal. This flesh cannot become part of the
bodies of these animals, since it has in it a “rational seed” which is intrinsically
human and remains alive in the flesh, and thus it cannot become animal flesh. Nor
will our bodies have animal flesh caught up with it in the resurrection, since “only
that flesh which was the vessel of the rational soul will experience the power of the
resurrection,” and thus it is that “when the trumpet sounds every region of earth will
restore our bodies from their hidden seeds.”131
Augustine’s view of this problem of the resurrection of human corpses which had
been consumed by animals is that while particles can be used in the bodies of others,
this is only as a loan and at the resurrection they must be returned to the one in whom
they first became human flesh.132 Augustine does not mention the problem of how
that which has been dispersed into dust and possibly become part of the flesh of
others will be separated out. Some may find that though the particles of their flesh
form the flesh which they had at the first, they were not the first who had these
particles and animated them as a human body. A different approach is taken by
128
[Ambrose. De Abraham 2.64. PL 14, 510] F H Dudden. The life and times of St. Ambrose,
Vol. 2, p. 650.
129
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed 43. ACW 20, pp. 80-81.
130
131
132
Augustine. Enchiridion 88. NPNF 1/3, p. 265. The City of God 22.20. NPNF 1/2, p. 498. Cf.
his comments elsewhere: “But it really makes little difference, so far as we are concerned,
what states our dead body passes through in nature’s mysterious transmutations. By the
awesome power of our Creator the body will be fashioned again and called forth from the
dead. And yet even in this there may be a lesson for the wise, teaching them to entrust
everything to the providence of their Maker, who governs all things great and small by His
hidden power, who knows the very numbers of the hairs on our head. Thus, no anxious care
for our lifeless bodies should make us dread any form of death, but with trust and courage we
should not hesitate to prepare ourselves for whatever may await us.” The literal meaning of
Genesis 3.17.26. ACW 41, p. 93.
211
Quodvultdeus who does not emphasise the identity of the particles in the present and
eschatological bodies. Each body, he says, returns to the earth from which it has been
made, and that God is able to re-create it again from there, using the argument that it
is easier to re-create something that has once existed than to create from nothing that
which does not exist.133 Gregory the Great also discussed this problem.
The flesh of a man is eaten by a wolf, the wolf is devoured by a lion,

the lion dies and is turned into dust. How, then, at the resurrection will
the flesh of the man be restored and distinguished from the flesh of the
wolf and the lion?134
Gregory’s answer is that just as it is possible for a body containing flesh, bones,
blood, nerves and so on to be formed from a father’s semen and a mother’s blood
which merge as a liquid mass, so that thus distinct things come from one substance, so
by the power of God in the resurrection human flesh can be distinguished from the
flesh of animals. Thus some dust, coming from the flesh of lions and wolves, will not
be raised, while the dust which comes from human flesh will be raised.135
Similarly Macarius Magnes answered this objection from his opponent that just as fire
can purify minerals while preserving them undestroyed, so God can preserve the
essence of human bodies and raise them. Macarius asserts that all “the things that
have been scattered” will be gathered together, so that nothing will perish, and the
body will be raised again entire.136
6.6.2 The resurrection of the wicked as dust
One possible consequence of the discussion about the reconstitution of the

resurrection body from the dispersed particles which originally comprised the body in
this life, is the idea that the bodies of the wicked in the resurrection would continue as
dust.
In the works of Clement of Alexandria we find the image of the dispersal of dust
being used of the punishment of the wicked.137 This idea is based on Psalm 1:4, where
the wicked are compared to the dust blown by the wind.138 This view is found in
Theodoret’s commentary on Psalm 1, where he says that “Those who are trampled on
by opposing spirits imitate the dust which is easily carried this way and that by
opposing winds.”139
133
Quodvultdeus. Dimidium Temporibus 18.29. SC 102, pp. 645, 647.
134
Gregory the Great. Homily in Ezekiel 2.8.8. PL 76, 1032D. Translation cited from: J P
McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 16.
135
Gregory the Great. Homily in Ezekiel 2.8.8. PL 76, 1033A-B.
136
Macarius Magnes. Apocriticus 4.30. Translations of Christian Literature, pp. 158-159.
137
138
Cf. Ambrose, who correlates this passage with Job 21:18. The prayer of Job and David 5.18.
FC 65, p. 364.
139
Theodoret. On Psalms 1.5. PG 80, 872C.
212
Curiously, Hilary of Poitiers took this image literally, and he thought that the wicked
will be raised for their punishment to exist as dust.
The ungodly have no possible hope of having the image of the happy
tree applied to them; the only lot that awaits them is one of wandering
and winnowing, crushing, dispersion and unrest; shaken out of the solid
framework of their bodily condition, they must be swept away to
punishment in dust, a plaything of the wind. They shall not be dissolved
into nothing, for punishment must find in them some stuff to work on,
but ground into particles, imponderable, insubstantial, dry, they shall be
tossed to and fro, and make sport for the punishment that gives them
never rest.140
This seems to imply that the wicked are not raised again in their bodies, but instead
are to be punished as dust, alluding to Genesis 3:19, By the sweat of your brow you
will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for
dust you are and to dust you will return.141 They are to be punished in this form,
remaining as the dust into which their bodies had disintegrated on death. They will
not cease to exist, but will exist as dust, being blown to and fro through the world
forever.
And the Prophet, seeing that the change of their solid substance into
dust will deprive them of all share in the boon of fruit to be bestowed
upon the happy man in season by the tree, has accordingly added:
Therefore the ungodly shall not rise again in the judgement. The fact
that they shall not rise again does not convey sentence of annihilation
upon these men, for indeed they will exist as dust; it is the resurrection
to judgement that is denied them. Non-existence will not enable them to
miss the pain of punishment; for while that which will be non-existent
would escape punishment, they, on the other hand, will exist to be
punished, for they will be dust. Now to become dust, whether by being
dried to dust or ground to dust, involves not loss of the state of
existence, but a change of state. But the fact that they will not rise again
to Judgement makes it clear that they have lost, not the power to rise,
but the privilege of rising to judgement. Now what we are to understand
by the privilege of rising again and being judged is declared by the
Lord in the Gospels where He says: He that believeth on Me shall not
be judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already. And this is
the judgement, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the
darkness rather than light.142
140
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1, 19. NPNF 2/9, p. 241.
141
The application of Genesis 3:19 to this situation appears in Jerome. “Just as it is said to the
sinner: Dust you are, and unto dust you shall return, so, likewise, to the saint: heaven you are,
and unto heaven you shall return.” Homily 46, On Psalm 133 (134). FC 48, p. 350. Cf. also
Augustine. On the Psalms 7.4. NPNF 1/8, p. 21. On the Psalms 102.15. NPNF 1/8, p. 499.
Pseudo-Rufinus. Commentary on Seventyfive Psalms of David 1.4. PL 21, 648D.
142
213
Hilary thus here stresses that existing as dust is not a denial of the resurrection, but a
specification of the state in which the wicked experience that resurrection. They will
not be judged, because they have already been judged, since they have not believed.
Augustine also comments on the punishment of the wicked who are reduced to dust.
And I will beat them as small as dust before the face of the wind. And I
will beat them small; for dry they are, receiving not the shower of
God’s mercy; that borne aloft and puffed up with pride they may be
hurried along from firm and unshaken hope, and as it were from the
earth’s solidity and stability.143
His comparison of the ungodly as dust are repeated in his comments on Psalm 29:10
[30:10].
For if I shall not rise immediately, and My body shall become corrupt,
shall dust confess unto thee? that is, the crowd of the ungodly, whom I
shall justify by My resurrection?144
The comparison of the ungodly with dust is seen in other passages in his commentary
on the Psalms, frequently citing Psalm 1:4 in that connection. He allegorises that
verse and interprets the wind as temptation, the dust as the ungodly, and the inability
of dust to resist the wind as the lack of resistance of the ungodly to temptation.145 He
interprets the phrase, “For our soul is bowed down to the dust,” to mean that the
righteous as persecuted by the ungodly, i.e., the dust.146 The ungodly lack
discernment and insight, because they have been blinded by the dust, that is, they are
totally absorbed with the things pertaining to this earth.147 While Augustine identifies
the dust with the ungodly and their way of life, he does not interpret their resurrection
state as one of being as the dust.
143
Augustine. On the Psalms 17.43. NPNF 1/8, p. 53. Cf. On the Psalms 7.4. NPNF 1/8, p. 22.
“This is that dust which the wind casteth forth from the face of the earth [Psalm 1:4], to wit,
vain and silly boasting of the proud, puffed up, not of solid weight, as a cloud of dust carried
away by the wind. Justly then has he here spoken of the glory, which he would not have
brought down to dust. For he would have it solidly established in conscience before God,
where there is no boasting. He that glories, saith the Apostle, let him glory in the Lord. This
solidity is brought down to the dust, if one through pride despising the secrecy of conscience,
where God only proves a man, desires to glory before men.” Cf. Gregory the Great. Morals
on Job 11.30.42. LF 21, p. 27.
144
145
Augustine. On the Psalms 35.6. NPNF 1/8, p. 80. Cf. Diodore of Tarsus. “Just as with relation
to the just he spoke of what is firm and lasting, so with relation to the impious, that which is
perishable and unstable. For dust follows the motion of the winds and does not have its own
place to stay.” In Psalmum 1.4-6. Corpus Christianorum Series Graecae 6, p. 11. Athanasius
describes the wicked as those who are not rooted in Christ. “And it is because of this, because
they have no root, but are of the same nature as the dust of the earth blown by the wind. By
the wind you will understand the threat of God which says, Depart from me, you cursed ones,
into eternal fire.” Expositions of the Psalms. PG 27, 61D-64A. John Chrysostom also
interprets Psalm 1:4 to refer to the winds of temptation that buffet the sinner and drive him
along. Homilies on the Statues 8.4. NPNF 1/9, p. 397.
146
Augustine. On the Psalms 44.20. NPNF 1/8, p. 145. Cf. On the Psalms 7.4. NPNF 1/8, pp.
21-22. On the Psalms 22.16. NPNF 1/8, p. 59.
147
214
Jerome compares the happy man of Psalm 1 with the wicked man, whom he therefore
sees as unhappy. Jerome does not follow the interpretation of Hilary, that the wicked
man will exist as dust to be blown around by the wind. His interpretation has a more
ethical emphasis, referring to the delusion brought on the wicked man by the devil,
which drives him around so he loses control over himself. There is a similarity with
Augustine’s view, as Jerome also says that the insubstantial character of the wicked is
as the dust.
He who is just is compared to the tree in the Garden of Eden; he who is

wicked is compared to dust which the wind drives away. Dust may
come from the soil but has ceased to be soil. The wicked are like dust
which the wind drives away. Holy Writ says the wicked man will be so
unhappy that he is not even dust from the earth. Dust does not seem to
have any substance, but it does, of course, have a kind of existence of
its own. There is no body to it, yet what substance it does have is really
by way of punishment. It is scattered here and there and is never in any
one place; wherever the wind sweeps it, there its whole force is spent.
The same is true of the wicked man. Once he has denied God, he is led
by delusion wherever the breath of the devil sends him.148
Jerome explicitly refers Psalm 1:4 to the present state of the wicked, not to the future
judgement. Jerome’s interpretation of both the just man and the wicked man is an
ethical one in connection with this life. It is only with vs. 5 that Jerome introduces the
future life. The wicked will not arise to the judgement because he has lived under the
influence of the devil in this life.
The resurrection of the wicked is thus distinguished from that of the saints through the
image of the dust being applied to the wicked, sometimes literally, sometimes
allegorically. Similarly, the saints are seen as belonging to heaven and not to the
earth. This approach to eschatology is thus inherently anti-creational, and is
ultimately rooted in a dualistic anthropology which presupposes a dichotomy between
body and soul; the soul being heavenly and the body earthly. This can be seen in the
comments of Jerome.
When his spirit departs he returns to his earth. When he has returned to
his earth, what happens? On that day his plans perish; all the self-
reliance of princes vanishes; all their plans perish... When his spirit
departs. Whose? Man’s. When his spirit departs. The psalmist used
“spirit” here for “soul.” Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
When his spirit departs he returns to the earth; not that the spirit returns
to earth, for the spirit is not of earth; the spirit takes flight, and man
returns to his dust. On that day, all his plans perish.149
148
Jerome. Homily 1, On Psalm 1. FC 48, pp. 10-11.
149
Jerome. Homily 55, On Psalm 145 (146). FC 48, p. 393.
215
The problems with which we are concerned thus lead to an unusual and somewhat
bizarre understanding of the nature of the resurrection of the wicked; a direct
consequence of a mistaken starting point.
6.6.3 “Materialist” and “spiritual” views of the resurrection body
The nature of the resurrection body was a subject of dispute among the Patristic
writers. The millennialists were often accused of holding to a “materialist” view of
the resurrection body, while the “spiritual” conception of Origen and his followers
appeared to many to deny the resurrection of the body completely.
Barnard claimed that there was a significant shift in the conception of the resurrection
body in the second century, specifically in Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus, who
replaced “the Pauline belief in the transformation of the body (‘sown a natural body
raised a spiritual body’)” with reanimation. He cites Justin’s comment that “we expect
to receive again our own bodies, though they may be dead and cast into the earth...”150
and Tatian’s view that even though the body is destroyed by fire or wild beasts, still
“God the ruler, when He wishes, will restore to its original state the substance that is
visible only to Him.”151 Similarly, he cites the view of Irenaeus that “salvation would
be incomplete without the physical frame.”152
Barnard also attacked Tertullian for asserting that in the resurrection we shall have
hair, eyes and teeth, which he sees as “extreme.”153 This interpretation seems to
reflect Barnard’s view of the nature of the resurrection body, rather than provide
evidence that the second century writers saw the resurrection body simply as the
reanimation of the present body, and not its glorification and transformation. They
were concerned to demonstrate the identity of the resurrection body with the present
body,154 as well as the power of God to raise the dead, and none of the citations
Barnard gives proves they did not hold to a transformation of this body in the
resurrection.155 It is this body that must be saved; if it is replaced with a totally
different (“spiritual”) body, that identity was absent, and opened the way to heretical
Gnostic or Docetic views. While all these authors did stress the transformation of the
body in the resurrection, it was left for later writers to expound that aspect more
explicitly in the face of attacks such as that by Celsus, who derided the resurrection of
150
Justin Martyr. First Apology 18. ANF 1, p. 169.
151
152
[Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.18.5. ANF 1, p. 486. Ibid., 5.1.1. ANF 1, p. 527. Ibid., 5.6.12.
[sic, 5.6.2] ANF 1, p. 532] L W Barnard. Athenagoras, pp. 127-128.
153
[Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 35. ANF 3, p. 571.] L W Barnard. Athenagoras,
p. 133.
154
For instance, Justin argues that because matter is indestructible, God can refashion bodies
from the same material. Fragments of the lost work on the resurrection 6. ANF 1, pp. 296-
297.
155
Each of these authors did hold to the transformation of the body in the resurrection. For
example, Justin. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the resurrection 4. ANF 1, p. 295.
Tatian. Address to the Greeks 6.2. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 13 [i.e. the restoration of
the flesh in “its original state.”] Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.13.3. ANF 1, p. 540. Tertullian.
On the resurrection of the flesh 52. ANF 3, p. 586.
216
...those who are long since dead, which latter will arise from the earth
clothed with the self-same flesh (as during life); for such a hope is
simply one which might be cherished by worms. For what sort of
human soul is that which would still long for a body that had been
subject to corruption?156
This anti-bodily sentiment is typical of the Greeks who rejected the resurrection as
distasteful as well as impossible. Celsus seems to think that the resurrection is only a
reanimation and not also a transformation, and it is probably in the light of such
attacks that the transformation was stressed more explicitly in later authors.
Barnard suggests that while Athenagoras was not as crassly materialistic as some
other Patristic writers, he was only marginally better, since “he believed in the re-
animation of the particles of this body,” although he quotes 1 Corinthians 15:53, that
this body must put on incorruption.157 Barnard also cites a passage in which
Athenagoras discusses the constant changes the body undergoes, which culminates in
the change at the resurrection. Barnard comments:
While this is not exactly Origen’s argument that the body is like a river which
preserves a certain form, although its matter is constantly changing, Athenagoras may
have been feeling his way towards a doctrine of bio-spiritual evolution such as Origen
held and which was to incur the wrath of Methodius. But he is too strongly under the
influence of the New Testament, and too conscious of the attacks of sceptics against
belief in the resurrection of the body, to carry his thoughts further.158
It is strange that Barnard says Athenagoras was unable to develop his thoughts in
what seems for Barnard to be the “right” direction because he was too strongly under
the influence of the New Testament. Surely that prevented Athenagoras from
Origen’s mistake of accepting a de-natured resurrection. Barnard says that Jerome
also is thoroughly materialistic in his views of the resurrection, but that in the thought
of Gregory of Nyssa the attempt is made to refine this materialism.159 Barnard’s
complaints are made against a conception of the resurrection as merely a reanimation
of the physical body rather than its transformation into a spiritual body, a view not
held by any of the Patristic authors he cites, and probably not by any others also,160
156
Celsus. The True Word. Cited in: Origen. Against Celcus 5.14. ANF 4, p. 549.
157
[Athenagoras. Concerning the resurrection of the dead 18.5. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
135.] L W Barnard. Athenagoras, p. 133.
158
[Athenagoras. Concerning the resurrection of the dead 12.5-8. Oxford Early Christian Texts,
pp. 117, 119] L W Barnard. Athenagoras, pp. 133-134. Although transformation is not
strongly emphasised by Athenagoras it is nevertheless present. He holds that in the
resurrection we will “then abode with God and with his help remain changeless and
impassible in soul as though we were not body, even if we have one, but heavenly spirit...” A
Plea for Christians 31.3. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 77. For Athenagoras
“incorruptibility” means eternal duration and cessation of change.
159
[Jerome. Against John of Jerusalem 3. Gregory of Nyssa. On the soul and the resurrection] L
W Barnard. Athenagoras, p. 133, note 73.
160
The appeal to the raising of the dead as proof of the resurrection, which we find in a number
of Patristic writers, does not mean that they thought of the eschatological body as merely
217
since it is this transformation which ensures that the doctrine of resurrection is truly
biblical.161
Grant also has problems with the Patristic doctrine of the resurrection body. He
esteems the resurrection of the flesh inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the
resurrection body, and his views influence his interpretation of the soundness or
otherwise of Patristic thought, as is obvious in his comments on Augustine.
Augustine gave fresh life to the philosophical defence of Christian faith

in the resurrection. But in his exegetical work we find a definite
retrogression. Two views are to be found in his writings. The earlier,
more biblical view, sets forth the resurrection of the body but not of the
flesh; the later, explicitly upheld in his Retractationes and De civitate
dei, contradicts Paul while claiming to interpret his thought. We must
hold that Augustine’s earlier judgement was more nearly right than his
later one.162
reanimated. Rather, this demonstration of the power of God to raise the dead applied also to
the resurrection, since it was irrelevant how long the person had been dead. Generally
speaking, however, they also stressed that the eschatological body was transformed and not
simply revived. For instance, Cyprian distinguishes between the raising of the dead and the
resurrection, when he tells the story of Tabitha. When Peter commanded Tabitha to rise,
Cyprian says that “death is suspended, and the spirit is restored, and, to the marvel and
astonishment of all, the revived body is quickened into this worldly light once more.” She was
not resurrected, according to Cyprian, but “recalled to life.” On works and alms 6. ANF 5, p.
477. The same insistence on the distinction between “raising the dead” and the eschatological
resurrection can be found in many Patristic writers. Augustine stresses this point in his
Enchiridion, where he says that the resurrection of the body is “not a resurrection such as
some have had, who came back to life for a time and died again, but a resurrection to eternal
life, as the body of Christ Himself rose again.” The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love 84.
NPNF 1/3, p. 264. Cf. the comment by Kelly that Augustine “admitted in so many words that
the clause TO THE LIFE EVERLASTING was added so as to exclude the assumption that the
resurrection of believers would follow the precedent of that of Lazarus rather than that of
Christ.” [Letter 102 to Deogratias 2-7. NPNF 1/1, pp. 414-415. Augustine refers to Romans
6:9 as the basis for his idea.] J N D Kelly. Early Christian Creeds, p. 387. The same
distinction is found for instance in Tertullian, On the resurrection of the flesh 38. ANF 3, pp.
572-573; Aphrahat. Demonstrations 8.14-15. NPNF 2/13, pp. 379-380; John Chrysostom. On
the incomprehensible nature of God 2.44. FC 72, p. 89. John of Damascus. On the Orthodox
Faith 4.27. NPNF 2/9, p. 100. In the Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle those raised from the
dead during the earthly ministry of Christ are said to be “restored to life again” thus indicating
a distinction between resurrection and raising the dead (who will die again). Teaching of
Addaeus the Apostle. ANF 8, pp. 657-659.
161
Cf. the use made by Gregory the Illuminator of Paul’s image of the body being planted as a
seed in 1 Corinthians 15, with the discussion there of its resurrection in glory. Gregory says:
“And as a simple ear falls upon the earth, grows, takes root, bears a stem, sends out branches,
forms knots, increases, becomes full of ears, bearing many from one ear, and prepares them
for the use of the sowers; just the same is to be seen here. The souls of the just rise up from
the tomb, the same bodies with the same spirit bearing works of the labour of righteousness
will rise from the tombs to the kingdom. Each little one, each single soul, will receive and
gain countless glorious compensation a myriad and a thousand fold. Then, as they rise, they
will put on glory, as the grain when it shows maturity in itself is placed and stored in the
granaries.” The Teaching of Saint Gregory 529. R W Thomson, p. 124.
162
R M Grant. Miracle and natural law in Graeco-Roman and early Christian thought, p.
261.
218
The problem of the resurrection being conceived as a “crude resuscitation” was one
which continued to cause problems not only for pagans but also for many Christians
as they were more and more influenced by pagan philosophical concepts of soul and
matter. It was not considered possible for the body, fleshly matter, to be made
“spiritual” as Paul the apostle asserts. This is because of an unbiblical dualism
between “spirit” and “flesh” which saw them as separate substances, rather than as
principles of life and of disobedience, the way in which Paul used them. Thus having
lost sight of the fact that the resurrection is not a mere resuscitation but is a
transformation of the body, the resurrection fell more and more into the background,
and the independent and immortal life of the soul became increasingly the focus of
Christian thought.
The resurrection involves the transformation of the body from corruption to

incorruption, which is the special work of the Holy Spirit in the eschaton. Those who
have difficulty with the idea of resurrection life on this earth correlate this with a
“materialistic” conception of the resurrection, since “flesh and blood” cannot inherit
the kingdom of God. But this difficulty is removed if the resurrection is seen in
Biblical terms as a transformation which does not destroy the creatureliness of human
life on this earth, and not simply a resuscitation.163
For Origen, resurrection bodies will be no longer fleshly but spiritual. He argues that
if we had to live in the sea, we would have bodies like those of fish; similarly, as we
are to live in heaven, we must have an appropriately “heavenly” body. The form
remains, but the substance changes. “But it will be flesh no more, though the features
which once existed in the flesh will remain the same features in the spiritual body.”
He uses 1 Corinthians 15:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:50 to support this view.164
Origen interpreted Paul’s phrase “the spiritual body” to mean that at the resurrection
we will be clothed a second time with our present bodies, which will be changed from
their present material substance to something else altogether in which there remains
nothing of the flesh. Origen uses the Stoic concept of the spermatikos logos (seminal
word or reason), the indestructible germ in the body, to explain the continuity and
characteristic form of the body, so that the body retains its outward form in this life,
and in the resurrection, even though the particles of which it is composed are
continually changing.165 This spermatikos logos has the power to attract the raw
elements (air, water, earth and fire) and impress upon them the new form of the
resurrection body. At the resurrection God will activate the latent germ which will in
an instant generate the new body from surrounding matter, but it will not have the
163
Cf. R F Capon’s comment on the story of Lazarus [Luke 16:19-31], that the rich man thinks
of resurrection only in terms of a return to the former life, and not as a transformation. The
parables of grace, p. 157.
164
p. 233.
165
p. 235. Cf. also Jerome. To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 26. NPNF 2/6, p. 436,
where he expounds Origen’s use of this concept.
219
former flesh or form.166 Origen does not deny the doctrine of the resurrection; he
simply reinterprets it in line with his speculative metaphysics.
The spiritualising interpretation of the resurrection, rooted in the allegorical

hermeneutics developed by Origen, can be seen in various disputes in the Patristic
era, for instance, in the controversy between Gregory the Great and Eutychius,
patriarch of Constantinople. The latter held that the resurrected and glorified body
will be “impalpable and more subtile than wind and air.” This view had been
previously espoused by John Philoponus, who held to an Aristotelian philosophy. In
his book on the resurrection, John
...distinguished between the matter and form of the body, and

maintained that, through death, the matter of the body fell into the
‘indeterminate,’ and therefore for a resurrection it would be necessary
that new matter should be formed. The resurrection would thus
resemble a new creation.167
Gregory responded to this idea by citing Luke 24:39, Handle me and see, for a spirit
does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. Gregory asserted, against the views
of Eutychius, that when it says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
this does not mean the flesh of the body, but flesh in the sense of sin and corruption.
The former, Gregory maintains, will be in the kingdom, but not the latter. The flesh
will reign in eternal incorruption, because death has been overcome.168
The same tension can be seen in the answer of Macarius to the charge that the idea
that the saints would be caught up in the clouds at the second coming of the Lord (1
Thess. 4:15-17) was “full of twaddle.” Macarius answers that this passage must be
interpreted allegorically.
We must act as reasoning beings, and look for a mystic meaning in the
words. He means that at Christ’s second coming the godly will be
caught up from the corruption of this life. Just as the water in the sea is
heavy, and yet is drawn up into the air in clouds, so shall man be drawn
up by angelic might. For the “cloud,” which is sometimes high and
sometimes near the earth, signifies the angels, who both rise to heaven
and descend to the earth in the course of their service.169
166
L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, p. 49. Cf. also p. 51. For further discussion of the
idea of the spermatikos logos, see C J Gousmett. “Creation order and miracle according to
Augustine.” Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988) 3:218-222. This may also be linked with the
Jewish idea of the “resurrection bone,” or sacrum, which was reputed to be the basis on which
the new body would be built. This idea is found in Tertullian, who says that “It is certain not
only that bones remain indurated, but also that teeth continue undecayed for ages - both of
them the lasting germs of that body which is to sprout to life again in the resurrection.” On the
resurrection of the flesh 42. ANF 3, p. 576. See the interpretation of the ‘seed’ imagery of
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 by Eusebius. On the Theophania 1.43. Samuel Lee, p. 35.
167
J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 87 and
n. 34.
168
Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 14.56.72-73. LF 21, pp. 166-167.
169
220
In his dialogue Eranistes, Theodoret says that after his resurrection, in order to
convince the disciples that he was not a ghost, Christ partook of food even though his
body was immortal and required no food. This was to prove that the flesh had been
raised. This does not mean that after the general resurrection everyone will partake of
food, since some things done by Christ are peculiar to his office and not a general
rule. He argues that the bodies of those that rise “become incorruptible and immortal,”
and that we will be raised perfect in body, although the Lord himself was raised still
bearing the scars of his sufferings. This does not mean, however, that the body of
Christ is not now incorruptible, impassible and immortal. This does not mean either
that the nature of the body has been changed, but the corruption of the body is
changed into incorruption, and its mortality into immortality. The same considerations
apply to the general resurrection.170
[The body of the Lord] was not changed into another nature, but
remained a body, full however of divine glory, and sending forth beams
of light. The bodies of the saints shall be fashioned like unto it.171
The change from the belief in the identity of the body buried with the body raised
(and also glorified) can be seen in this discussion which implies that the resurrection
body will have little in common with the present body, as it is transformed into an
“ethereal body,” and not a physical one.
Origen says that the condition of the wicked is not to be understood in physical terms,
as the outer darkness into which the wicked are cast is one which lacks intellectual
light, that is, a condition of error and ignorance, a view arising from his
intellectualistic view and from his allegorising hermeneutics. The resurrection bodies
of the wicked will be “dark and black” to reflect their inner condition.172 Macarius of
Egypt sees the distinctions between the resurrection bodies of the righteous and those
of the wicked as already present in this life, although hidden.
And just as the kingdom of darkness and sin are hidden in the soul until
the day of resurrection when the very body of sinners will be covered
over with the darkness that is now hidden in the soul, so also the
kingdom of light and the heavenly image, Jesus Christ, now mystically
illumines the soul and holds dominion in the souls of the saints. Indeed,
Christ is hidden from the eyes of men; and only with the eyes of the
soul is he truly seen, until the day of resurrection, when even the body
170
Theodoret. Eranistes, Dialogue 2. NPNF 2/3, pp. 198-199. See also Augustine. Letter 102, to
Deogratias 6-7. NPNF 1/1, pp. 415-416, where he also deals with Christ eating after the
resurrection, and the retention of his scars.
171
Theodoret. Eranistes, Dialogue 2. NPNF 2/3, p. 200. Clement of Alexandria says that through
spiritual illumination the believer becomes light. This could be a precursor of the idea that the
bodies of the believer become light in the resurrection, or even a “realised” form of that idea,
since Clement says that “having in anticipation grasped by faith that which is future, after the
resurrection we shall receive it as present...” The Instructor 1.6. ANF 2, p. 216.
172
Origen. De Principiis 2.10.8. ANF 4, p. 296.
221
itself will reign with the soul which now, having attained the kingdom
of Christ, rests and is illumined by the divine life.173
We can deduce from this that Macarius held that the resurrection bodies of the wicked
would reflect the fate which they were to receive.
6.6.4 The sexual characteristics of the resurrection body
The idea that the resurrection body would not have any gender appears in a number of
Patristic writers, with both unitary and instrumentalist anthropological models. This is
because they see the soul as lacking gender, while the male or female gender of the
body is a temporary phenomenon,174 which is no longer appropriate after the
resurrection. The body will then perfectly reflect the nature of the soul, that is, it will
be sexless, not having genitals or gender characteristics. Gender is then an “accident”
and not part of the “essence” of the person. Clement of Alexandria comments: “Souls
are neither male nor female, when they no longer marry nor are given in marriage.”175
Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem held that the soul is genderless, and that “all souls are
alike both of men and women: for only the members of the body are distinguished.”176
Augustine suggested that the soul was created prior to the body, and that the
differences of gender apply only to the body, not to the soul.177 But while Cyril and
Augustine held that the soul lacked gender, they denied that in the resurrection the
body would also lack gender.
However, Gregory of Nyssa says: “But when all shall become one in Christ we will
be divested of the signs of this distinction [gender] together with the whole of the old
man.”178 He gives as his reason that God is without gender, and therefore the “image
of God,” the interior person, is without gender.179 Gregory based the idea that gender
is transitory on Galatians 3:28. The “state of unity in Christ in which the distinction
between male and female no longer exists, is an eschatological reality that is fully
realized only after the resurrection.”180 This is perhaps correlated with the view that in
173
Macarius of Egypt. Homily 2.5. Intoxicated with God, p. 35.
174
This can be seen also in the pagan view that a female was a “misbegotten male.” Aristotle
says that the male is the most completely formed, best endowed with the powers of
procreation, and the hottest. If there is a lack of generative heat then creation is not perfected
and a female results. De generatione animalium 2.3. [737a]; 4.6 [775a]. The Works of
Aristotle. This view appears in Galen. On the usefulness of the parts of the body 14.6.
Margaret Tallmadge May, vol. 2, pp. 628-632. Cf. Peter Brown. The body and society, p. 10.
175
Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis 6.12. ANF 2, p. 503.
176
177
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis 6.7.12. ACW 41, p. 186. Cf. also ibid., 7.24.35.
ACW 42, p. 26; ibid., 10.2.3. ACW 42, p. 98. Ambrose. On Cain and Abel 1.47. FC 42, p.
400.
178
Gregory of Nyssa. In Cant. 7. Cited in V E F Harrison. “Male and female in Cappadocian
theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 441. This idea can be found in Aphrahat.
Demonstrations 22.12. NPNF 2/13, p. 406.
179
[Gregory of Nyssa. On the making of man 16.7-9. NPNF 2/5, p. 405.] V E F Harrison. “Male
and female in Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 441.
180
V E F Harrison. “Male and female in Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological Studies
41 (1990) 442.
222
the resurrection we shall be “like the angels,” who are considered to be without
gender.
Basil states in his homily on Psalm 114 that there will be no fleshly temptations in the
eschaton, since there will be no gender distinction, as “there is no male and female in
the resurrection.”181 Also, Gregory of Nazianzus says that the distinction of gender
belongs to the body but not to the soul. This distinction is only temporary, as it will
not exist in the resurrection body.182 The Cappadocians interpret Galatians 3:28 to
mean that in the resurrection there is no gender, and since the soul is created in the
image of God, who has no gender, the soul too lacks gender.183
This is in stark contrast to those who held that we shall be raised as males and
females. For instance, Justin Martyr rejected as sophistry the argument that the raising
of the body with sexual differentiation means that sexual activity must follow if
sexual organs of reproduction are not to be redundant. While the body will rise with
all its members, it is not necessary for those members to function as they do now. And
even now, he says, while all women have wombs, not all become pregnant, and both
men and women can retain their virginity without destroying their humanity. He says
that lust is not a necessary aspect of human life, and therefore there is no loss if sexual
activity is abolished.184 Justin considers that the flesh partakes of salvation, and that it
is the whole body which is raised; therefore, any argument which undermines
confidence in the resurrection is ipso facto false, since it denies the true faith.185
Augustine also held that the resurrected body has all organs, including genitals. He
explicitly based his views on Matthew 22:30, arguing that Jesus did not refute the
Saduccees by saying that in the resurrection there will be no women (as some argued
we will all be men in the resurrection, and thus conformed to Christ: a male). Rather
than denying there will be different genders, he denied that we will marry or give in
marriage. He notes that it would have been easier to solve the problem by stating
there would be no women, but he did not do this, but instead stated that “They will
not be given in marriage,” which applies to females, “nor will they marry,” which
refers to males. He affirms that the feminine gender has its place in creation, but the
subordination of women, resulting from their function in reproduction, will pass away
with the end of concupiscence. Thus there will be males and females in the
181
[Basil. Homily on Psalm 114. PG 29, 492C] V E F Harrison. “Male and female in
Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 451.
182
[Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 7.23. NPNF 2/7, p. 237. Oration 8.14. NPNF 2/7, p. 242.] V
E F Harrison. “Male and female in Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41
(1990) 459.
183
[Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 7.23. NPNF 2/7, p. 237.] V E F Harrison. “Male and female
in Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) passim.
184
Justin Martyr. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the Resurrection 3. ANF 1, p. 295.
185
Methodius speaks of virginity as an “angelic transformation of the body.” The Symposium 2.7.
ACW 27, p. 57. Methodius cites Wisdom 4:1-2 to the effect that it is better to have virtue than
children. The Symposium 1.3. ACW 27, p. 46. John Bugge comments that for the Patristic
writers the practice of virginity anticipates and even hastens the return to asexuality in the
eschaton. Virginitas, p. 31 and n. 6.
223
resurrection,186 although Augustine accepts that there is no gender in God, and that
the soul created in the image of God therefore has no gender [citing Galatians
3:28].187
In contrast to this, Hilary of Poitiers thinks that the bodies of women will not have
generative organs in the resurrection, an idea mentioned in connection with Matthew
22:30. He accepts the very point rejected by Augustine, in that he holds that Jesus
refutes the Sadducees by stating that there will be no “women” in the resurrection;
rather, they will be like the angels.188 A similar view is found in Paulinus of Nola,
who reports the deathbed vision recounted by a man called Baebianus.
“I see a flaming orb of light, a circle into which no woman enters. How
fortunate I am to have been granted while still in the flesh a vision of
the eternal world, in which there is no need for marriage since sex plays
no part in immortal bodies!”189
Jerome earlier held the Origenist view that the resurrection body would lack sexual
characteristics,190 but later insisted that the resurrection body would have all its
organs and members.191 Jerome came to admit that sexual organs are not necessarily
superfluous in the resurrection, since even in this life it is possible to live virginally
without making use of them.192
However, in Tertullian we can see confusion as to whether or not the resurrection

body will have genitals, and if so, what use they could possibly have.193 This problem
arises from the idea that gender is a purely external (bodily) matter, and not a
characteristic of the person as such. In Genesis 1 we read that God created human
beings as male and females, not as genderless souls which occupy bodies with gender
differences. Thus a person is a male or a female, we are not genderless souls which
merely have a gendered body that will have these characteristics discarded at the
resurrection. We are persons of gender, not persons with a (non-inherent) gender. Nor
are human beings androgynous, split into two genders that will be re-united at the
186
[Augustine. The City of God 22.17. NPNF 1/2, pp. 495-496.] Kari E Börresen. “Augustin,
interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 153.
187
[Augustine. On the Trinity 12.7.12. NPNF 1/3, p. 160.] Kari E Börresen. “Augustin, interprète
du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 144.
188
[Hilary of Poitiers. On Matthew 23.4. PL 9, 1045B-1046A.] P T Wild. Man’s divinization
according to St. Hilary, p. 125.
189
190
Jerome. In Ephesians 5.29. PL 30, 837. Against Jovinian 1.36. NPNF 2/6, p. 374. Letter 84.5.
NPNF 2/6, p. 178.
191
[Jerome. Letter 108.23-24. NPNF 2/6, p. 208. Against John of Jerusalem 29-35. NPNF 2/6,
pp. 438-443] Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, pp. 102-103. Jerome took
Ephesians 4:10-16 to mean that women would be given male bodies in the resurrection, but in
Apology 1.29 [NPNF 2/3, p. 497] he seems to retract this view. Frederick van Fleteren.
“Augustine and the resurrection.” In: Studies in Medieval Culture 12, pp. 13, 15 n. 30.
192
Jerome. Against John of Jerusalem 31. NPNF 2/6, p. 440.
193
224
resurrection.194 Gender is thus intrinsic to our humanity, and not merely an external,
non-essential characteristic.
6.7 Conclusion
The Patristic writers who used an instrumentalist anthropology held that everybody
would be judged immediately after death, and the saints then admitted to heaven
while the wicked were punished. The story of Lazarus in Luke 16 was one text used
to support this contention. This shifted the focus from the eschatological day of
Judgement to the end of each person’s life, and an individualistic approach came to
predominate. The idea that the soul was unconscious, waiting for the resurrection, was
rejected.
Because some Christians had not lived perfect lives, the concept of purgatory was
developed to explain how they were purifed to be made fit for heaven. This
development was possible only in the context of an instrumentalist anthropology in
which the soul alone was responsible for sin.
The idea of the resurrection caused problems, as earlier formulations seemed to be

materialistic, emphasising the restoration of the original particles of the body. For
thinkers such as Origen, using philosophical concepts, this was not strictly necessary,
and the identity of the resurrection body with the body buried was located in the form
and not the matter of the body. This enabled Origen and others to deal with the
persistent paradox of the resurrection of bodies whose particles had been incorporated
into the bodies of animals, and perhaps through them, other human beings.
The rejection of “materialistic” concepts of the resurrection body led some Patristic
writers to dispute the idea that the resurrection body would have a gender, based on
the idea that the sexual organs would be redundant and therefore not present. It was
argued that the body would be like the soul, which was created in the image of God,
who has no gender, and therefore the soul also lacks gender. Others argued for the
integrity of the resurrection body based on the view that human beings are created as
males and females, and not as genderless souls who use a body with gender as an
instrument for this life only. This raised further problems with respect to the identity
of the body buried and the body resurrected, problems which arise solely because of
an instrumentalist anthropology.
194
This view, which appears in Basil of Ancyra, originates with Plato and Jewish legend. Peter
Brown. The body and society, p. 268. Augustine refutes the idea that Adam was
androgynous. The literal meaning of Genesis 3.22.34. ACW 41, pp. 98-99.
225
CHAPTER SEVEN
HEAVEN AND THE ETERNAL STATE
7.0 Introduction
As anthropological and eschatological conceptions developed, the life of the soul in

heaven for all eternity became more prominent. The latter conception eventually
eclipsed the millennial view, and the bodily resurrection became problematic. There
was uncertainty as to the purpose of having a body in heaven, as the body was merely
an instrument for earthly life.1 Those Patristic writers who rejected an earthly
millennium, and the hope of a renewed earth, expected eschatological life to be purely
a heavenly existence.2 This latter view prevailed and has persisted as the predominant
eschatological doctrine ever since.
The causes of this shift include the increase in the use of allegorical interpretation of
Scripture,3 and a shift away from the this-earthly focus of the Old Testament to an
other-worldly focus. Correlated with the latter was an increase in polemics against
Judaism,4 as well as against purported Judaizers. The exegetical methods used by
proponents of millennial views came to be identified with the eschatological ideas of
“carnal Judaism” (the Patristic writers did not appear to consider the possibility of a
“spiritual Judaism”), and this strengthened their rejection of an earthly eschatological
hope and bolstered their adoption of speculative ideas drawn from pagan Greek
philosophy.
7.1 The rejection of millennialism
1
Cf. Augustine. The City of God 22.4. NPNF 1/2, p. 481.
2
In Jewish apocalyptic and eschatological hopes there are also two distinct traditions: “...the
natural expectation of a glorious restoration of Israel and the Davidic kingdom, and the
apocalyptic idea of the second aeon, which has a thoroughly otherworldly character and will
be inaugurated by a cosmic judgement executed by the Son of man.” Ragnar Leivestad.
Christ the Conquerer, p. 4.
3
It is noteworthy that allegory appears to have originated in the attempt by pagan intellectuals
to rescue the myths of the gods by removing the offence of a literal ascription of immorality
and violence to the gods. The adoption of allegorical method by Christians to interpret the Old
Testament shows a similar (unwarranted) reticence about the earthiness of the Biblical stories.
R P C Hanson. Studies in Christian Antiquity, pp. 158-162. Cf. Walter J Burghardt. “Some
could not resist the temptation to allegorize Scripture in the pagan sense, i.e., to deny the letter
so as to escape an embarrassing dogma.” “On early Christian exegesis.” Theological Studies
11 (1950) 83. See the survey of Patristic reticence about such stories in John L Thompson.
“The immoralities of the Patriarchs in the history of exegesis: a reappraisal of Calvin’s
position.” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991) 19-39.
4
D J Constantelos points out that the Greek fathers condemned all opposing religions - Judaism
was not specially singled out, but the Jews were of course condemned specifically for
rejecting the Messiah. “Jews and Judaism in the early Greek Fathers (100AD - 500AD).”
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 23 (1978) 147. See also G B Ladner. “Aspects of
patristic anti-Judaism.” Viator 2 (1971) 355-363. R P C Hanson comments that in the Patristic
era Christians always distinguished the Jews from the pagans, and their anti-Jewish polemic
had little in common with their anti-pagan polemic. Studies in Christian Antiquity, p. 144.
227
Throughout the Patristic period there is a steady decline in the significance of the
resurrection of the body and an increase in speculation about the soul and its qualities,
although millennialism did not completely disappear.5 This decline is correlated with
the diminishing of the immediate danger of Gnostic heresies (and to some extent
incorporation of aspects of these views into mainstream Christian thought), and a
trend towards asceticism and away from the significance and value of life in this
world.6 This view can be seen in Prudentius, who expected the destruction of the earth
and its abandonment by humankind. The spirit goes to heaven to enjoy the vision of
God, while the body belongs in the grave. When the heavens and earth are destroyed,
all that is left will be God with the saints and the angels.7
As a result, belief in a millennial reign of Christ on this earth lost its appeal as
spirituality and theology moved more and more in a metaphysical and mystical
direction. The characteristic elements of millennialist doctrine were either discarded
or spiritualised,8 so that the idea of an earthly eschaton was abandoned altogether by
later Patristic writers, under the influence of Platonist thought, and the eschatological
hope became other-worldly.
An important factor in the rejection of millennialism was the perception that this
doctrine limited the reign of Christ and the saints to only the thousand years.9 For
5
Quintus Julius Hilarianus composed a work called The progress of time in 397 AD, which
gave a millennialist eschatology. B McGinn. Visions of the End, p. 51. I have found no
evidence that millennialism was officially condemned by the church, in spite of a number of
authors asserting that this had occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. For instance,
Norman Cohn. The pursuit of the Millenium (1957), pp. 12, 24. This reference to the
Council of Ephesus has been removed from the 1970 edition of Cohn’s book.
6
This adoption of Gnostic thought-forms is made explicit by Eusebius. “And His disciples,
accommodating their teaching to the minds of the people, according to the Master’s will,
delivered on the one hand to those who were able to receive it, the teaching given by the
perfect master to those who rose above human nature. While on the other the side of the
teaching which they considered was suitable to men still in the world of passion and needing
treatment, they accommodated to the weakness of the majority, and handed over to them to
keep sometimes in writing, and sometimes in unwritten ordinances to be observed by them.
Two ways of life were thus given by the law of Christ to His Church. The one is above nature,
and beyond common human living; it admits not marriage, childbearing, property nor the
possession of wealth, but wholly and permanently separate from the common customary life
of mankind, it devotes itself to the service of God alone in its wealth of heavenly love. And
they who enter on this course, appear to die to the life of mortals, to bear with them nothing
earthly but their body, and in mind and spirit to have passed to heaven. Like some celestial
beings they gaze upon human life, performing the duty of a priesthood to Almighty God for
the whole race...” The proof of the Gospel 1.8. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p.
48.
7
Prudentius. Crowns of Martyrdom 10, 534-544. Loeb II, pp. 265, 267.
8
One feature of the rejection of millennialism was the omission from many manuscripts of the
chapters in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies where he propounded this doctrine. These chapters
were recovered only in 1575, and not without considerable debate as to their authenticity. See
G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, pp. 188-189.
9
Jerome, when commenting on Daniel 7:18, And they shall possess the kingdom unto eternity,
even forever and ever, says: “If this should be taken to refer to the Maccabees, the advocate of
this position should explain how the kingdom of the Maccabees is of a perpetual character.”
Commentary on Daniel 7.18. G L Archer, p. 81. This concern about limiting the reign of
Christ was also expressed by Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.25.5. Library of
228
instance, Jerome registered his objections in this regard: “I do not think the reign of a
thousand years is eternal; or if it is thus to be thought of, they cease to reign when the
thousand years are finished.”10 According to Jerome, the millennium is to be
understood as the number 1,000, the product of 10 and 100, which is interpreted as
the Decalogue and virginity, so those who keep the commandments and guard
themselves from impurity reign with Christ for in them the devil is bound.11
Suggestions that the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 were to be understood as a
temporal reference were rejected.12 Hilary of Poitiers gives an example of these ideas.
Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever more. He sets
no temporal limit to our hope, he bids our faithful expectation to stretch
out to infinity. We are to hope for ever and ever, winning the hope of
future life through the hope of our present life which we have in Christ
Jesus our Lord...13
This concern was implicit in the controversy over the views of Marcellus of Ancyra,
who was condemned for teaching that the kingdom of Christ would eventually come
to an end, basing this on his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.14 Both the content of
Christian Classics 21. Vol. 2, pp. 994-996. See the instructive study by Richard A Muller.
“Christ in the Eschaton: Calvin and Moltmann on the duration of the munus regium.” Harvard
Theological Review 74 (1981) 31-59. See also T F Glasson. “The temporary Messianic
kingdom and the kingdom of God.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 517-525.
10
Jerome’s editing of Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.6. ANF 7, p. 359. Cf.
Augustine. “Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they shall praise thee forever and ever.
On fire, so to speak, with this desire, and burning with this love, he longs to dwell all the days
of his life in the house of the Lord; to abide in the Lord’s house all his days, not days that
come to an end but days that last forever. For the word “days” is used in the same way as the
word “years” in the text: And thy years shall not fail. The day of life everlasting is a single
day which never closes.” On the Psalms. Second Discourse on Psalm 26.7. ACW 29, p. 266.
11
Jerome’s editing of Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.6. ANF 7, p. 359. His original
text taught the millennium. PLS 1, 167.
12
Cf. John of Damascus, who argues that there will be no days or nights after the resurrection,
but unending day for the just, and unending night for the wicked. He then asks, “In what way
then will the period of one thousand years be counted which, according to Origen, is required
for the complete restoration?” On the Orthodox Faith 2.1. NPNF 2/9, p. 18. However, cf.
Peter Steen’s insistence on the continuation of time in the eschatological age. “The Problem
of Time and Eternity in its Relation to the Nature-Grace Ground-motive.” In: Hearing and
Doing, pp. 141-142.
13
Hilary of Poitiers. Homilies on the Psalms. Psalm 131.6. NPNF 2/9, p. 248. However, this
objection had already been addressed by Justin Martyr, who in comparing Moses to Christ,
says “For the former gave them a temporary inheritance, seeing he was neither Christ who is
God, nor the Son of God; but the latter, after the holy resurrection shall give us the eternal
possession.” Dialogue with Trypho 113. ANF 1, p. 255. Cf. Hebrews 3:5-6, and passim the
contrast of the temporary dispensation under Moses with the eternal dispensation under
Christ. Justin thus deals with both the supposed “temporary” nature of the millennial
kingdom, and the “Jewish” character of that kingdom.
14
Origen was also accused of teaching that Christ’s kingdom comes to an end, based on his
exposition of the same passage in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. [Origen. De principiis 3.6.9. ANF
4, p. 348] J F Dechow. Dogma and mysterium in early Christianity, pp. 256, 260. Viviano
states that this passage more than any other dominates his eschatological thinking. Benedict T
Viviano. The Kingdom of God in history, p. 42. See also the discussion of Calvin’s
229
his views and his method of interpretation were denigrated as Jewish, as for instance
in the claim of Basil of Caesarea that he was trying to introduce “corrupt Judaism”
with his eschatology.15 The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople expressly attacked the
doctrine propounded by Marcellus by including the phrase “of his kingdom there shall
be no end.”16 However, Lienhard argues that in a later work (the De Incarnatione)
attributed to Marcellus, he
...devotes a chapter (20) to 1 Cor. 15:24-28, the passage which was the
basis of Marcellus’ theology. This chapter presents a refinement of
Marcellus’ teaching. He had earlier taught simply that the reign of
Christ would have an end and the Logos would return to God. In ch. 20
he explains that it is as the (human) head of his own members that
Christ will be subjected to the Father. The Lord “received the human
throne of David, his father according to the flesh, to rebuild and restore
it, so that, when it was restored, we might all reign in him; he will hand
over the restored kingdom to the Father, so that God might be all in all”
and reign through him as through God the Word after He reigned
through him as through a man, the Saviour. God’s kingdom exists
forever; the “human kingdom” - Marcellus’ peculiar term - passes
away.17
There are also other possible explanations for the antagonism of the Cappadocians
towards Marcellus and his millennial views. Zahn, author of a significant monograph
on Marcellus (published in 1867), claimed that “Marcellus deliberately broke with the
prevailing Origenism of the fourth century and returned to biblical norms for
Christology and the doctrine of the trinity.”18 He gives a sympathetic description of
the views of Marcellus.
In his total theological perspective he is a faithful disciple of Irenaeus. The

development which lay between Irenaeus and himself, especially the Alexandrian
theology, could only have seemed to him an aberration.19
interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 in J F Jansen. “1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and the future

of Jesus Christ.” In: Texts and Testaments, pp. 181-186.
15
Basil. Letter 263.5, To the Westerns. NPNF 2/8, p. 303. In one place Basil did speak of “the
life that follows on the resurrection,” and made it clear that an earthly life such as that
expected by the millenialists was not what he had in mind. It is a purely spiritual life he
describes. On the Spirit 15.35. NPNF 2/8, p. 22.
16
For details see Reinhart Staats. “The eternal kingdom of Christ: the apocalyptic tradition in
the ‘Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.’” Patristic and Byzantine Review 9 (1990) 19-30.
17
[Marcellus of Ancyra. On the Incarnation against the Arians 20. PG 26, 1020C-1021A.] J T
Lienhard. “Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research.” Theological Studies 43 (1982) 498-499.
See also the study of Marcellus by J F Jansen. “1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and the future of Jesus
Christ.” In: Texts and Testaments, pp. 176-181.
18
J T Lienhard. “Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research.” Theological Studies 43 (1982) 493.
19
T Zahn. Marcellus von Ancyra: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Theologie. Gotha:
Freidrich Andreas Perthes, 1867, p. 217. Translation cited in: J T Lienhard. “Marcellus of
Ancyra in modern research.” Theological Studies 43 (1982) 493.
230
In his significant re-assessment of Marcellus, Pollard suggests that the accusation of
“Judaizing” levelled at Marcellus by Eusebius of Caesarea was because his doctrine
of God, which Eusebius attacked, was influenced more by the OT concept of debhar
Yahweh than the Greek concept of Logos. His theology is indebted to the Hebraic
emphasis of Ignatius of Antioch, Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus, and thus
continues an ancient Christian tradition.20 To see him as “Judaizing” is then to
misinterpret his views, and this perhaps applies as much to his understanding of the
millennium as it does to his doctrine of the Word. One possible factor behind the
Patristic rejection of millennialism is that they saw Christ in terms of a Hellenised
Logos-figure, and not as the promised Jewish Messiah. Thus the millennium, the
reign of the Messiah, can be condemned as Jewish without denigrating the Logos-
Christ.
Theodoret gives a typical example of the shift in concepts of time in association with
millennialism and the eternal life in heaven.
The Munificent Giver promised that He would not give a perishable nor
a transitory enjoyment of good things but an eternal one. For, unlike
that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his, the
kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor
circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in
imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and
other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish solemnities.
As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing old.21
There is also a change from an historical context for eschatological fulfillment to a

non-historical (non-temporal) context in anti-millennialist thought.
The Jews believed the prophecies referred to something that would

happen in historical time; they point to the actual return of the Jews to
the land of Israel, the resettling of the land, and the building of a Jewish
kingdom. Against this idea, Christian writers such as Jerome and
Theodoret (and of course many others) offer a spiritual reading of the
texts, which in this context means either the texts refer to the spiritual
redemption in Christ through the church, or to a heavenly kingdom that
will be discontinuous with life on this earth.22
20
T Evan Pollard. “Marcellus of Ancyra: a neglected father.” In: Epektasis, p. 190. Pollard
suggests that Marcellus’ Christology was based on the completeness of Christ’s humanity,
and rather than a Logos-sarx or Logos-anthropos schema, he held to a Word-man schema, in
which the “Word” was understood in terms of the OT debhar Yahweh rather than the Greek
“Logos.” This was in stark contrast to the views of Eusebius, who held to a Christology based
on the union of a human body and the divine Logos which replaced the soul. For Eusebius to
say that Christ was both human body and soul would on his terms make him a “mere man.”
For this view in Eusebius, Pollard cites A Grillmeier. Christ in Christian tradition, pp.
180ff. T Evan Pollard. ibid., pp. 193-194.
21
Theodoret. Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 5.21. PG 83, 520C. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The
Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 3, p. 245.
22
R L Wilken. “The restoration of Israel in Biblical prophecy.” In: To See Ourselves as Others
See Us, p. 467.
231
The major factors at work in the repudiation of millennialism were accusations of
Gnosticism, anti-Jewish polemics, and the influence of allegorical hermeneutics.
7.1.1 The rejection of millennialism as Gnostic
In spite of the anti-Gnostic stance of noted millennialists such as Irenaeus, attempts

were made to discredit this doctrine by tracing its origin to gnostic heresies. The most
frequently named culprit was Cerinthus, a shadowy figure of the first century AD,
widely believed to have been a Judaising Christian who held to Gnostic teachings.
The evidence for the nature of his Judaising, his gnosticism and his millennialism is
all extremely tenuous, and on examination of the available material some recent
authors have asserted that we do in fact know almost nothing for certain about him.23
Sabbath observance could have been ascribed to Cerinthus solely on the grounds that
it was a standard Judaising tendency.24 Similarly Richardson suggests, citing
Epiphanius,25 that “If there were Judaic tendencies to be found in the doctrines of
Cerinthus, they included circumcision.”26 Certainly it would be unusual for a
Judaising heretic to adopt other aspects of Judaism and to neglect circumcision, the
central distinguishing mark of that faith. However, it must be admitted that it is only
assumed that Cerinthus adopted Judaistic beliefs; there is little proof one way or the
other.27 In spite of this, Cerinthus is still considered by some to be the originator of
millennialism, as well as being the author of the book of Revelation, which therefore
leads to the suspicion that this doctrine is tainted with Judaising and Gnosticism.28
It was considered by many that the Gnostics taught a millennium which was to be a
period of materialistic excess, with eating, drinking, marrying and all manner of such
“carnal” activities.29 This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be
typical of “Jewish” understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close
connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated.
23
Simone Pétrement. A separate God, pp. 303-314.
24
A T Lincoln. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church.” In: From Sabbath to
Lord’s Day, p. 259, and note 63, p. 290.
25
Epiphanius. Panarion Adversus LXXX Haereses 1.2.28.5. PG 41, 384.
26
C C Richardson. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, p. 83.
27
C C Richardson. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, p. 85. L Gaston comments after
describing the contradictions involved in the various accounts of the views of Cerinthus, “It is
my conviction that the gnosticizing Christian Jews of Asia ought to be removed from all our
history books and put back into the patristic polemical fantasy where they have their only real
home.” “Judaism of the uncircumcised in Ignatius and related writers.” In: Anti-Judaism in
Early Christianity. Vol. 2, p. 39. See also the discussion of Cerinthus in Simone Pétrement.
A separate God, pp. 298-314.
28
B G Wright suggests that attacks on the authenticity of the Apocalypse, ascribing it to
Cerinthus, could be part of an anti-Montanist sentiment. “Cerinthus and Hippolytus. An
inquiry into the traditions about Cerinthus’ provenance.” Second Century 4 (1984) 112-113.
29
Athenagoras may be arguing against millennialism when he asserts that physical pleasures
cannot be the end of human life, a common approach taken by later anti-millennialist Patristic
writers. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead 24.4-5. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p.
147. Michael Dulaey states that all comments against millennialism in antiquity attack those
who expect to eat and drink in the kingdom. L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius, p. 371.
232
It is curious to note, however, that while the Gnostics such as Cerinthus were blamed
by some for the materialistic conception of the millennium, others indicate that in fact
the Gnostics rejected such views.
The Gnostics were the first to reject such conceptions (Marcion referred
them to the prompting of the God of the Jews - the only resurrection
possible was spiritual, partial here in this world, and in perfection
hereafter). The Gnostics were followed by Caius and by Origen, who
condemns the views as most absurd.30
The only explanation I can offer is that the “materialistic” view of the millennium,
involving feasting and earthly pleasures, is associated with licentious Gnosticism
(which encouraged enjoyment of earthly pleasures since the true spirit is unaffected
by bodily sin),31 while repudiation of the millennium is associated with ascetic
Gnosticism (repression of the desires of the flesh so as to leave the spirit
unhindered).32 Whichever way we read the situation, Gnosticism is an important
factor in the acceptability, or otherwise, of millennialism.
It is also important to note, however, that it was not only the association with Gnostic
doctrines which brought belief in the millennium into disrepute. It is also evident that
Gnostic asceticism and the correlated understanding of eschatology infiltrated the
church through Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and that the polemics against
millennialism by Origen and his followers owe much to Gnostic thought. Their
Platonising eschatology is creation-negating rather than creation-affirming, and thus
reflects the chief characteristic of Gnostic thought.33 The suspicion on the part of
Irenaeus that rejection of millennialism has its roots in Gnosticism is given support
30
J F Bethune-Baker. An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine, p. 71. Note
again the connection between Origen and gnosticism.
31
Cf. the critique of Gnosticism by Cyril of Jerusalem. “Suffer none of those who say that this
body is no work of God: for they who believe that the body is independent of God, and that
the soul dwells in it as in a strange vessel, readily abuse it to fornication. And yet what fault
have they found in this wonderful body? For what is lacking in comeliness? And what in its
structure is not full of skill? Ought they not to have observed the luminous construction of the
eyes? [and so on through various parts of the body]. Who when man the human race must
have died out, rendered it by a simple intercourse perpetual?” Catechetical Lectures 4.22.
NPNF 2/7, p. 24.
32
F Bottomley comments regarding Gnosticism: “In practice, despising the flesh led to one of
two extremes: libertinism on the principle that the body is so contemptible that its behaviour
does not matter, or rigid asceticism because it must be utterly crushed.” Attitudes to the body
in Western Christendom, p. 45. Similarly, D S Bailey states that Basilides attributed not
only the material creation but also the moral law to the Demiurge. “Thus venereal
licentiousness became in effect a demonstration, either of the superiority of the spiritual over
the physical, or the freedom of the gnostic from the bondage of ordinances which had
emanated from the Evil One.” The man-woman relation in Christian thought, pp. 37-38.
33
Cf. the comments by Clement of Alexandria. “But sentiments erroneous, and deviating from
what is right, and certainly pernicious, have turned man, a creature of heavenly origin, away
from the heavenly life, and stretched him on the earth, by inducing him to cleave to earthly
objects.” Exhortation to the Heathen 2. ANF 2, p. 178. “For those that are absorbed in pots,
and exquisitely prepared niceties of condiments, are they not plainly abject, earth-born,
leading an ephemeral kind of life, as if they were not to life [hereafter]?” The Instructor 2.1.
ANF 2, p. 239.
233
from the fact that it was the Alexandrian theologians who first, and perhaps most
heatedly opposed millennialism from within Christian circles.
One method of assailing millennialism was to deny canonicity to the book of

Revelation, which clearly teaches a millennial reign of Christ. The early Patristic
authors were almost without exception all millennialists, and accepted the book of
Revelation as canonical. However, some later Patristic authors attacked the book and
denied it canonical status.34 While some anti-millennialists, like Origen, accepted the
Revelation as coming from the hands of John the son of Zebedee,35 others considered
the book to be the work of a Gnostic author. Cerinthus was most often accused of
forging the book, passing it off under the name of the apostle John to give authority to
his views.36
It has been pointed out that it is unlikely Cerinthus would seek acceptance for his
views by ascribing this work to his most bitter enemy. Irenaeus reports a curious (no
doubt legendary) episode when the apostle John saw Cerinthus in the bath-house he
had entered, and immediately rushed out saying “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house
fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”37 This legend
indicates that Irenaeus was unaware that it had been claimed that Cerinthus had
forged John’s Revelation,38 since surely this would have been an appropriate place for
Irenaeus to either accuse him of this deception, as both John and Cerinthus are spoken
of together, or else to affirm that John was indeed the author. It would have been
important to refute the idea that such a heretic, an opponent of John, could be
considered the author.39 While Irenaeus did see Cerinthus as a heretic,40 holding to
34
Sulpitius Severus said of the apostle John that “secret mysteries having been revealed to him,
wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or
impiously not accepted by many.” Sacred History 2.31. NPNF 2/11, p. 112. Apart from
attacks on the book by anti-millennialists, its path into the canon was not smooth. The book of
Revelation was not part of the Syriac canon until the late fifth or sixth century, and the Greek
church denied the canonicity of Revelation until the late middle ages. However, it was
accepted as canonical in the West by the end of the fourth century. For a detailed account see
N B Stonehouse. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. A study in the history of the
New Testament canon. Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929.
35
Origen. Commentary on John 1.14. ANF 10, p. 305. Origen cites the Apocalypse 18 times in
his commentary on John, once in his commentary on Matthew, twice in the De Principiis,
and 4 times in Against Celcus. In every instance, apart from in the rather indirect reference in
the Commentary on Matthew [14.13], and two references in the Commentary on John [1.42
and 6.35], Origen identifies John as the author. The preponderance of citations in his
commentary on John could indicate he saw the two books as coming from the hand of the one
and the same person.
36
Eusebius reports the comments of Dionysius of Alexandria, who states that some took this
approach in their attempt to refute millennialism. Ecclesiastical History 7.25. NPNF 2/1, p.
309.
37
38
The Roman presbyter Gaius (late second-early third century) appeared to be the first to argue
that Revelation was not written by the Apostle John but by Cerinthus. [Eusebius.
Ecclesiastical History 3.28. NPNF 2/1, p. 160.] D G Dunbar. “Hippolytus of Rome and the
eschatological exegesis of the early church.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983) 323.
39
O Skarsaune suggests that Cerinthus was proposed as the author of Revelation since Gaius
wished to dissociate John from the Revelation and thus from millennialism. The proof from
prophecy, p. 408.
234
many Gnostic doctrines, he does not comment on Cerinthus’ millennialism, since
Irenaeus would hardly have considered this either heretical or remarkable, unless
Cerinthus had held to a heretical form of millennialism, that is, one seriously at odds
with the views of Irenaeus himself. Even Daniélou, a fervent opponent of
millennialism, has remarked on this: “It is strange that in his account of Cerinthus
Irenaeus makes no mention of millenarianism, and one can only conclude that he did
not regard him as heretical on this point.”41
Dionysius of Alexandria denied that Revelation was written by the same author as the
Gospel of John, and ascribed it to Cerinthus.
But (they say that) Cerinthus... desiring reputable authority for his
fiction, prefixed the name (of John). For the doctrine which he taught
was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he
was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual
in his nature, he dreamed that the kingdom would consist in those
things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of
sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and
in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of
which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.42
Dionysius said that the Revelation was obscure and unintelligible, and beyond his
powers of comprehension,43 and sought to interpret it using allegorical exegesis.44
40
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.26.1-2. ANF 1, pp. 351-352.
41
J Daniélou. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 1, p. 384.
42
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 3.28. NPNF 2/1, pp. 160-161. O Skarsaune suggests that
Justin Martyr may be polemicising against Cerinthus in his Dialogue against Trypho 118
[ANF 1, p. 258] where he speaks of “spiritual sacrifices” being offered by Christ in the age to
come. This would mean that Justin wished to distinguish his millennialist views from those of
a heretic who superficially appeared to present the same doctrine. The proof from prophecy,
p. 406.
43
Dionysius of Alexandria. On the Promises. St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Letters and
treatises, pp. 85-86.
44
Cf. the comments of Origen on those who held a millennialist interpretation. “It happens in
consequence that certain people of the simpler sort, not knowing how to distinguish and
differentiate between the things ascribed in the Divine Scriptures to the inner and outer man
respectively, and being deceived by this identity of nomenclature, have applied themselves to
certain absurd fables and silly tales. Thus they even believe that after the resurrection bodily
food and drink will be used and taken - food, that is, not only from that True Vine who lives
for ever, but also from the vines and fruits of the trees about us.” Commentary on the Song of
Songs, Prologue. ACW 26, pp. 28-29. Origen makes similar comments on the trees in the
Garden of Eden. “And who is so silly as to imagine that God, like a husbandman, planted a
garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt, so that
whoever tasted of the fruit with his bodily teeth received the gift of life, and further that any
one as he masticated the fruit of this tree partook of good and evil?” Philocalia 1.17. The
Philocalia of Origen. G Lewis, p. 18. However, Lawson comments on this passage that “...in
such passages Origen, long under a cloud because of the Origenistic controversies, appears
more and more as a protagonist of orthodox interpretation of Scripture and a defender of the
Church against heterodoxy, e.g. millenarianism.” R P Lawson. Origen. Commentary on the
Song of Songs. ACW 26, p. 315, n. 27. To call Origen’s views orthodox and millenarianism
heterodox is scarcely accurate.
235
Eusebius comments Dionysius proves “that it is impossible to understand it
[Revelation] according to the literal sense.”45 Using his allegorical method of
interpretation, Dionysius attacked the chiliasm of Nepos, bishop of Arsinoe in Egypt,
who had written a book entitled Refutation of the Allegorists,46 and managed to
convince the disciples of Nepos that their method of interpretation was in error.
Dionysius said that those who accept this book rely on it “too much as showing
irrefutably that the Kingdom of Christ will be on earth,”47 parading the teaching of
Revelation “as if it were some great and hidden mystery,” rejecting any “high or noble
opinion” about the resurrection in favour of “mean and passing enjoyments like the
present in the kingdom of God.”48 In his book On the Promises, Dionysius sought to
disprove the millennial teaching of Nepos through accusations of Jewish content and
Jewish methods of literal exegesis. Eusebius says that Dionysius greatly honoured
Nepos, for the character of his life and his labours for the faith, but in spite of all that
he has done, “the truth should be loved and honoured most of all.” He goes on to say
that the true doctrine is “sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly
divine appearing of our Lord, and our resurrection from the dead, and our being
gathered together unto him,” contrasted with that of those who accept a millennium
which is in his opinion “small and mortal things in the kingdom of God, and for
things such as exist now.”49 Eusebius goes on to quote at length from the works of
Dionysius,50 who argues that the Revelation was not written by the apostle John, and
if this is so, then for Eusebius the main support for millennialism falls.51 As a result of
such attacks on Revelation, millennialism is considered of Gnostic origin.
45
46
It is worthy of note that Nepos called his book Refutation of the Allegorists (i.e. Clement of
Alexandria and Origen). Thus the debate was recognised by Nepos as one of hermeneutics
and not simply of doctrine. It was of course the allegorical hermeneutics of Tyconius which
triumphed. “Tyconius’ rejection of literalistic, millenarian interpretations is pivotal in the
Latin tradition of Apocalypse commentaries. His vigorous insistence on a ‘spiritual’
interpretation of the prophetic texts, rather than the millenarianism of Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Hippolytus and Victorinus of Pettau, turned the tide in the Latin West and made his
commentary the most influential of the Apocalypse commentaries in the Western Church.” P
Bright. The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Its purpose and inner logic, p. 25.
47
treatises, p. 82.
48
treatises, p. 83.
49
50
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 7.25. NPNF 2/1, pp. 309-311.
51
Eusebius claims it was probably the work of another John of Ephesus. Ecclesiastical History
3.39. NPNF 2/1, p. 171. See also Ecclesiastical History 3.24-25. NPNF 2/1, pp. 154-156. The
attitude of Eusebius to the Revelation of John is not unequivocal. Mazzuco says that while in
the Ecclesiastical History he criticises those millennialists who interpret it literally, and
suggests it was not canonical, in other works chronologically both prior and subsequent to the
Ecclesiastical History, he grants its authorship by John and suggests, in contrast to the literal
interpretation he criticises in the Ecclesiastical History, an allegorical approach to the text.
[Demonstration of the Gospel 8.2.31. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 2, p. 121.
Prophetic Eclogues 4.30. PG 22, 1254c.] However, in the Ecclesiastical History, he does also
give a literal interpretation to passages, such as when he uses it as a source concerning the
sect of the Nicolaitans, and concerning the banishment of John to Patmos, as well as citing the
application by Dionysius of Alexandria of the beast of Revelation 13:5 to the emperor
Valerian. [Ecclesiastical History 3.29.1; 3.18.1; 7.10.2.] Mazzuco interprets this ambivalence
236
7.1.2 The rejection of millennialism as Jewish
In his debate with Trypho, Justin Martyr states that Judaism is truly fulfilled in Christ,
and thereby holds the hope of the return to Israel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem in
the millennial kingdom. His dialogue was not a polemic against the Jews, but an
apologetic for Christ in the face of their rejection of him as the Messiah, and an
explanation of why those Jews who did not believe in Christ would not inherit the
Land.52
However, for later detractors of the millennialist doctrine, the reign of Christ on earth
appeared to differ little from Jewish messianic expectations, which did not expect the
Messiah to be a crucified saviour, but a human political figure who would bring
deliverance to Israel and inaugurate an age of material prosperity. This messianic
figure would be human; sent by God it is true, but human nonetheless, and like all
humans this messiah would eventually die and the messianic kingdom would then
come to an end.53 This hope of political sovereignty and material prosperity was based
on the prophecies of the Old Testament which spoke of the glory of the city of
Jerusalem in that age, and the wealth and prosperity of the Jews.
These prophecies were, to the later Patristic writers, interpreted in a materialistic,

carnal and literalistic “Jewish” manner which had then been introduced into the
church.54 Ferguson suggests one way in which this could have occurred.
The debate with Jews could have favoured an emphasis on the church
as a replacement of Judaism as the realm in which God’s kingship is
presently exercised. The references to the kingdom of Christ (or Christ
possessing the kingdom) occur primarily in an anti-Judaic context. On
as resulting from using Revelation as an historical source in the Ecclesiastical History, while
his interest elsewhere is theological. Another factor is that millennialist interpretations of
Revelation are anti-imperial and anti-Roman, an approach which is anathema to Eusebius. He
tries to defuse this tendency by citing passages from millennialists which are positive towards
the empire, for instance Melito’s view of the providential character of the empire. C Mazzuco.
“Eusebe de Cesaree et l’Apocalypse de Jean.” Studia Patristica 17 (1982) 318-320.
52
Justin Martyr. “And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting
kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the
flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God...” Dialogue with
Trypho 140. ANF 1, p. 269.
53
See Ragnar Leivestad. Christ the Conquerer, p. 4. Geerhardus Vos. “The eschatological
aspect of the Pauline conception of the Spirit.” In: Biblical and Theological Studies by
Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, pp. 211-222.
54
That anti-Judaism is not necessarily connected with rejection of the millennial hope can be
seen in Commodian, whose forceful polemics against the unbelief of the Jews (and not
against the Jews as a race), particularly their rejection of the Messiah, is found in the same
text where he develops his complicated millennialist expectations. Instructions 37-40. ANF 4,
p. 210. Clark M Williamson discerns anti-Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Aphrahat and Augustine, who use allegorical interpretations of the OT to
appropriate Jewish traditions. However, they did not (apart from Augustine) see the
millennium as “Jewish” in a negative sense as did later Patristic writers such as Jerome. “The
‘Adversus Judaeos’ tradition in Christian theology.” Encounter 39 (1978) 273-296.
237
the other hand, since the Jews no longer had a kingdom and Christians
were in a precarious political situation in the empire, the debate with
Judaism could also have shifted attention to the heavenly nature of the
kingdom.55
The idea that Christ would reign on earth in a rebuilt Jerusalem was seen as a
fulfillment of the earthly political hopes of Judaism, in contrast to the Christian hope
of a spiritual kingdom not of this earth. The fact that the book of Revelation seemed to
teach such a period of prosperity and peace did not deter them: that text, like Isaiah
and the other OT prophets, should be interpreted “spiritually” not literally. Thus both
the content of this belief, and the hermeneutical principles employed by its
proponents, were considered unacceptable because of the Judaising which they
implied.
Eusebius, who was influenced by Origen’s allegorical hermeneutics, condemned both

Papias and Irenaeus for holding that in the millennium there would be feasting.56
Eusebius suggested that the view of Nepos of Arsinoe was of a “millenium of sensual
luxury on this earth,” which was a product of Judaising exegesis.
[Nepos] taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine
Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that
there would be a certain millenium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As
he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled, Refutation of the
Allegorists.57
Bietenhard comments “Once more the shibboleth is Judaism,”58 and the Jewish
understanding of eschatological life is seen as one of sensual luxury. This appears
again in Rufinus. “...the Jews have such an opinion as this about the resurrection; they
believe that they will rise, but in such sort as that they will enjoy all carnal delights
and luxuries, and other pleasures of the body.” Rufinus says that this means they will
thus have their “appetites stimulated and lusts inflamed.”59 The accusation of
constantly seeking gratification of the carnal and sensual appetites is common in
Patristic polemics against the Jews. Ruether sees a general theme of attacking Jewish
“sensuality” in the Patristics combined with an ontological dualism which contrasts
the “letter” with the “spirit.” This is seen in terms of literalistic interpretation as
opposed to allegorical interpretation, and Jewish sensuality as opposed to Christian
55
E Ferguson. “The Kingdom of God in early patristic literature.” In: The interpretation of the
kingdom of God, p. 200.
56
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 3.39. NPNF 2/1, pp. 172. R M Grant comments that Eusebius
never criticised Justin for his millennialist views, reserving this for Papias and the influence
he had on Irenaeus. “Papias in Eusebius’ Church History.” In: Melanges d’histoire des
religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech., pp. 211-212.
57
58
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
22.
59
Rufinus. Apology 1.7. NPNF 2/3, p. 438.
238
asceticism.60 It should be seen rather as an appreciation for the good things God has
created for us to enjoy (Psalm 104:14-15), in contrast to the rejection of God’s gifts
which is sin (1 Timothy 4:3). The first is creation-affirming spirituality rooted in the
revelation of God; the latter is creation-negating spirituality, rooted in Gnostic heresy.
Another follower of Origen, Jerome, also saw the marriage supper as something
spiritual, and insisted that there would be no physical food in the eschaton.
Somebody may raise the question of whether we are going to eat after
the resurrection, for Scripture says of the happy man: You shall eat the
labours of your hands. My answer is quite simple. Man is composed of
two substances: one of the soul, the other of the body; the soul is
immortal, the body mortal. What is mortal necessarily requires food
that is mortal; what is immortal, the soul, requires immortal food.
Would you have proof that the soul has its own food? Our Lord and
Saviour says so when He was eating: My food is to do the will of him
who sent me. Would you know what foods the soul has? The prophet
tells us himself: Taste and see how good the Lord is. Just as the body
dies unless it is given its proper food, even so does the soul if it is not
given spiritual food.61
Here an instrumentalist anthropology is correlated with a repudiation of the eating and

drinking which millennialist writers expected after the resurrection. It is a view that
does not appreciate the full scope of cosmic renewal. The millennial kingdom is
rejected through falsely understanding it as a necessarily materialistic, sensuous,
earthly life with which God could never be associated.62 Conceptions of the
resurrection body which permitted eating and drinking were understood in terms of
revivified earthly bodies and not transformed, glorified bodies, because the
resurrection was conceived in Platonic terms in which earthly life itself is denigrated,
and God is removed to some wholly-other realm which is dissociated from the
creation.
We also find in Gregory of Nyssa repudiation of the idea of an earthly millennium, in

which the resurrected saints will enjoy eating and drinking, when he says: “But some
one perhaps will say that man will not be returning to the same form of life, if, as it
seems, we formerly existed by eating, and shall hereafter be free from that function.”63
60
R Ruether. Faith and fratricide, pp. 127-128.
61
Jerome. Homily 42, On Psalm 127 (128). FC 48, p. 319.
62
However, a commentary on Matthew from the third century (possibly by Hippolytus) which
while written by a millennialist, rejects the idea of a literal “feast” as superstition. C H Turner.
“The early Greek commentators on the Gospel according to St. Matthew.” Journal of
Theological Studies 12 (1911) 101. Turner comments that if the text is not by Hippolytus,
then it is probably by Victorinus of Pettau, depending on whether it was a translation or a
Latin original.
63
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.1. NPNF 2/5, p. 409. Cf. the view of Augustine,
that in the resurrection we will not have “the gratification of fleshly desires as the foolish
think” since the resurrection body will be spiritual, and no longer a “load upon the soul”
[Wisdom 9:15], “nor does it seek any refreshment because it will experience no need.”
Sermon 212.1. FC 38, p. 120.
239
Gregory says that while Moses was on Mount Sinai talking with God, “He
participated in that eternal life under the darkness for forty days and nights, and lived
in a state beyond nature, for his body had no need of food during that time,” during
which Moses was “participating in eternal life.”64 However, it appears that Gregory
was misunderstood in this regard, as he had cause to complain “What is the crime we
commit, and wherefore are we hated? ...Do we romance about three Resurrections?
Do we promise the gluttony of the Millenium?”65 Gregory insists that the food of
Paradise, to which we will return,66 was not “transitory and perishable nutriment,”
such as he would understand it from his anti-materialist approach to traditional
millennialism, but was something “worthy of God’s planting.”67 For Gregory the tree
of life in Paradise, both formerly and after the resurrection, is to be interpreted
symbolically, as meaning Wisdom, basing his argument on Psalm 37:4 and Proverbs
3:18.68 Thus the idea that the food of Paradise consists of eating and drinking such as
we now do, as was argued by Papias and Irenaeus, among others, is inconceivable for
Gregory. Origen had earlier asserted that the “heavenly banquet” is to be understood
as “the contemplation and understanding of God.”69
64
Gregory of Nyssa. The life of Moses 1.58. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 46.
65
Gregory of Nyssa. Letter to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa. NPNF 2/5, p. 544.
66
Many Patristic writers expected that the eschatological life will be a return to the Paradisaical
life lost by Adam. For example, Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.5.1. ANF 1, p. 531. Lactantius.
The Divine Institutes 2.13. ANF 7, p. 62. The Gospel of Nicodemus 9-10. ANF 8, pp. 437-
438. According to Young, for Gregory of Nyssa “man’s destiny is restoration to his original
state and status in Paradise.” F M Young. “Adam and Anthropos: A study of the inter-action
of science and the Bible in two anthropological treatises of the 4th century.” Vigiliae
Christianae 37 (1983) 113. However, Severus of Antioch rejects the millennialism of Papias,
Irenaeus and Apollinarius as foolishness, since while we may return to the primitive state in
the eschaton, our hope is not simply to regain a lost Paradise but to be transformed to a greater
likeness to God. Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, pp. 186-187. Cf. Tertullian.
“Even if anybody should venture strongly to contend that paradise is the holy land, which it
may be possible to designate as the land of our first parents Adam and Eve, it will even then
follow that the restoration of paradise will seem to be promised to the flesh, whose lot it was
to inhabit and keep it, in order that man may be recalled thereto just such as he was driven
from it.” On the resurrection of the flesh 26. ANF 3, p. 564. Cf. Against Marcion 2.10. ANF
3, p. 306.
67
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.2. NPNF 2/5, p. 409. Cf. Augustine’s view of
the millennial rewards: “And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that
the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of
God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise
again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of food
and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the
measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal.” The City of
God 20.7. NPNF 1/2, p. 426. Cooper comments that Augustine did not reject millennialism on
the grounds of its sensuality, as this was not intrinsic to the doctrine. He also cites Edwyn
Bevan [Christians in a world at war. London: S.C.M., 1940, pp. 104, 122], who says that
the idea of an earthly reign of Christ could hardly be unspiritual, unless the Incarnation itself
is to be considered unspiritual, that is, a Docetic Christology. C Cooper. “Chiliasm and the
Chiliasts.” Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970) 17.
68
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.4. NPNF 2/5, p. 409.
69
Origen. De principiis 2.11.7. ANF 4, p. 300.
240
Jerome several times gives stereotyped lists of the “Jewish” ideas which he saw as
implicit features of millennialism.
...the golden and bejeweled Jerusalem on earth, the establishment of the

temple, the blood of sacrificial victims, the rest of the Sabbath, the
injury of circumcision, weddings, births, the bringing up of children,
the delights of feasts, and the slavery of all the nations, and again wars,
armies and triumphs, and the slaughter of the conquered, and the death
of the sinner a hundred years old.70
However, in another place, while listing all the “Jewish” elements of millennialism
that he rejected (which are common to his other comments), he had to stress that
“Granted that we cannot accept this, neither, however, do we dare condemn it,
because so many men of the Church and martyrs said the same.”71 Dominant in the
rejection of the earthly millennium and restoration of Jerusalem is the idea that it
involved the rebuilding of the Temple and the reinstitution of the sacrificial system. It
is interesting to note that the emperor Julian the Apostate was behind the moves to
rebuild the Temple in the fourth century in a desperate attempt to counter the growth
of Christianity. He tried to foster the re-introduction of the Jewish sacrificial system,
and the attack on millennialism as a Jewish idea may also be a polemic against
Julian.72
Apollinaris of Laodicea, condemned as a heretic for other reasons, was also criticised
for his millennialism. For instance, Basil of Caesarea claimed that he taught a
millennial restoration of Judaism, based on what Basil saw as a defective “Jewish”
hermeneutical method.
70
Jerome. Commentary on Isaiah. Preface to Book 18. [PL 24, 627]. Translation cited from: L E
Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 448, n. 37. Jerome commented on
this theme several times. Commentary on Isaiah 8.25. PL 24, 290. Ibid., 10.35. PL 24, 377.
Ibid., 18.66. PL 24, 672. Commentary on Ezekiel 11.36. PL 25, 338-339. Commentary on
Joel. PL 25, 982, 986. Commentary on Matthew 3.20. PL 26, 145B. Cf. the comments of
Origen on this theme: “And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be
marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of
Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of
jasper, and its battlements of crystal... And to speak shortly, according to the manner of things
in this life in all similar matters, do they desire the fulfillment of all things looked for in the
promises, viz., that what now is should exist again.” De Principiis 2.11.2. ANF 4, p. 297.
71
Jerome. Commentary on Jeremiah 26.3. Translation cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the
Early Fathers. Vol. 2, p. 212. Daley comments that Jerome is careful [in his Commentary on
Ezekiel 11.36] “to report the millenarian interpretation of Tertullian and Victorinus, Irenaeus
and Apollinarius as a venerable tradition, not at all identical with ‘materialistic’ Jewish
hopes.” Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, p. 102.
72
See Ephrem of Syria. Hymn against Julian 4.19-22, where he condemns Julian for his
aspirations to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. Hymns. Classics of Western Spirituality, pp.
255-256. For a discussion of the influence of Julian and his attempts to rebuild the Temple on
Christian thought, see the instructive study by R L Wilken. “The Jews and Christian
Apologetics after Theodosius I Cunctos Populos.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980)
451-471, esp. pp. 454-458. Regarding Julian’s attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem see
Robert Browning. The Emperor Julian, p. 176. G W Bowerstock. Julian the Apostate, p.
164. Bowerstock gives a chronology of the events surrounding Julian’s attempt, pp. 120-122.
241
And the theological works of Apollinarius are founded on Scriptural
proof, but as based on a human origin. He has written about the
resurrection, from a mythical, or rather Jewish point of view, urging
that we shall return again to the worship of the Law, be circumcised,
keep the sabbath, abstain from meats, offer sacrifices to God, worship
in the temple at Jerusalem, and be altogether turned from Christians
into Jews. What could be more ridiculous? Or, rather, what could be
more contrary to the doctrines of the gospel?73
Gregory of Nazianzus attacked Apollinaris in a similar manner, using the same

accusations of Judaising in his hermeneutics as well as in the content of his doctrine,
the one leading to the other. Gregory says that he explains the Scriptures “in a gross
and carnal manner” and it is from this manner of interpretation that he and others
“have derived their second Judaism and their silly thousand years delight in paradise,
and almost the idea that we shall resume again the same conditions after these same
thousand years.”74 While Apollinaris was in error in his approach to the millennium,
Bietenhard at least tries to give some account of how and why Apollinaris went
wrong, and it is evident from his comments that Apollinaris was reacting against the
spiritualising exegesis of Origen and others like him.
From these accounts we may conclude that Apollinaris kept to the letter of Scripture,
that he did not try to evade the prophecies by spiritualising, and that he combined
them with Revelation 20. His weakness was that he did not see how much of the OT
law and promises had already been fulfilled by Christ (the Epistle to the Hebrews!).
At this point his opponents could easily tear his teaching to pieces and condemn it as
judaistic.75
However, “Epiphanius (Pan. 77.36.5), on the other hand, denies that Apollinarius was
a millenarian: and the few allusions in Apollinarius’ extant writings to the second
coming of Christ (Kata meros pistis 12) or to eternal life (De fide et incarnatione 1)
suggest nothing unusual about his eschatology.”76
So while some see any doctrine of the millennium, no matter how innocuous, as a
sign of Judaising tendencies, Apollinaris had apparently given ample cause for this
fear, even though the error in his views arose from an attempt to counter what he saw
as error on the part of the “orthodox,” namely denial of the true reality of the
doctrines of Scripture. It was unfortunate that, according to Bietenhard, “Apollinaris
fell into Judaism pure and simple” and that with his abuse the correct use of the
73
Basil. Letter 263.4, To the Westerns. NPNF 2/8, pp. 302-303. H A Wolfson stresses, against
criticisms from R M Grant, that it is the millennarianism of Apollinarius that is described by
Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus as “Jewish” and not his theology proper. He insists that
Apollinarianism was a Christological heresy that was not necessarily millennarian but
happened to be such. “Answers to criticisms of my discussion of Patristic philosophy.” In:
Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion. Vol. 2, p. 526.
74
Gregory of Nazianzus. Second Letter to Cledonius against Apollinarius (Letter 102). NPNF
2/7, p. 444.
75
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope in the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
23.
76
242
doctrine was also discredited.77 The disagreement concerning millennialist
eschatology was thus based not on the competence or otherwise of the interpreters,
and the adequacy of their hermeneutics, but involved a debate between two
completely different hermeneutical systems.
Another aspect of the debate over “Jewish traditions” in millennialism involved the
use of the Sabbath as a type of the “world-week.”78 This divided history into seven
periods of a thousand years, following the schema of the seven days of Genesis 1,
based on the text “a thousand years are as one day.”79 This tradition was present from
the very beginning of the Patristic period,80 but the correlation of the millennium with
the “Sabbath” of the “world-week” led to the charge by anti-millennialists that this
was a Jewish idea.81
The use of this image for the millennium was undermined by the allegorisation of the
sabbath, first seen in Eusebius.82 Those who rejected the millennium often referred
instead to the eighth day,83 as the day after the resurrection when the new age began,
77
23. A J Visser asserts that Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 310- ca. 390) was the last Eastern
theologian to hold millennialist ideas. “Bird’s eye view of ancient Christian eschatology.”
Numen 14 (1967) 18.
78
For a detailed study of this theme see J Daniélou. “La typologie millénariste de la semaine
dans le christianisme primitif.” Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 1-16. Cf. the comment by A T
Lincoln. “While Gnosticism eliminated the Christian hope of the resurrection, catholic writers
of the second century used the concept of eschatological Sabbath rest to refer exclusively to
the state of future salvation after the resurrection, thereby reverting the traditional Jewish
usage and abandoning the Christian tension of “already” and “not yet,” which the author to
the Hebrews had applied to the concept of eschatological rest. In part this is to be attributed to
these writers’ commitment to the typology of the worldweek, whereby the six millenia of
world history were to be succeeded by an eschatological Sabbath... Thus for the chiliasts
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, the millenium is the “rest” as well as the “kingdom”
of the saints because it is the Sabbath rest of God [Genesis 2:2] interpreted typologically.
Other writers, however, including pseudo-Barnabas, do not expect a millenium but picture the
state of the saints in the next world as ‘rest’.” “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic
Church.” In: From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 254.
79
Victorinus of Pettau. On the creation of the world. ANF 7, p. 342. Hippolytus. Fragments of
the Commentary on Daniel. ANF 5, p. 179. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint
Gregory 668, 670. R W Thomson, pp. 166-167. Didascalia Apostolorum 26. R H Connolly,
p. 234. Methodius. The Symposium 9.5. ACW 27, p. 139.
80
The Epistle of Barnabas 15. ANF 1, p. 146-147. Cf. Papias, who uses the imagery of the
“week” but does not specifically apply it to the millennium. Fragment 9. ANF 1, p. 155.
81
F F Bruce suggests the Christian use of the image is derived from the LXX chronology.
“Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church, p. 87. This
idea first appears in the Babylonian Talmud. Sanhedrin 97a. R van den Broek. The myth of
the Phoenix according to Classical and early Christian traditions, p. 124.
82
Eusebius. Commentary on Psalm 91. PG 26, 1168-1169. Translation cited in: A T Lincoln.
“Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church.” In: From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, pp.
282-283.
83
That is, the day after the Sabbath, which is also the first day of the new week. Cf. Jerome.
“...the eighth day after the sabbath is again the first day from the beginning... “ Homily 3, on
Psalm 7. FC 48, p. 26. Clement of Alexandria uses the idea of the “eighth day” as a symbol
for eternity [The Stromata 5.14. ANF 2, p. 469; 6.16. ANF 2, pp. 512-513.]. P Plass. “The
243
although this was also seen in the millennialist Epistle of Barnabas, which placed the
resurrection on the seventh day, followed by a millennium, and referred to the eighth
day as the commencement of the new age.84 Bruce suggests this is to modify the
Jewish symbolism of the Sabbath, which Barnabas holds was abrogated by Christ.85
But the anti-millennialists placed the resurrection itself on the eighth day, and by
doing so they thus avoided the millennial connotations of the world-week, as well as
its Jewish associations, while retaining something of the symbolism.86 However, in the
allegorisation of this imagery of the Sabbath rest, it is emptied of its OT connotations,
and is seen in terms of an ethereal spiritualised eschaton which is static, not dynamic.
For instance, Augustine says that the Sabbath rest is not to be observed in terms of the
times, but the “eternal kingdom that it signifies.”87 The Jews, says Augustine,
interpreted the Sabbath solely in terms of abstaining from physical activity. Christians
now observe it not on the carnal level, but in “its spiritual sense,” that is, as being
fulfilled in Christ according to his words in Matthew 11:28-30. The true rest comes in
the resurrection, of which the rest on the seventh day is only a shadow.88
concept of eternity in Patristic theology.” Studia Theologica 36 (1982) 16. Methodius. The
Symposium 7.6. ACW 27, p. 102. J Daniélou asserts that the Greek Fathers used the idea of
the “eighth day” since it was outside the cycle of the seven-day week and therefore
symbolised a new creation. The Bible and the Liturgy, pp. 278-279. Cf. Augustine. “For the
seventh day of rest is connected with the eighth of resurrection. For when the saints receive
again their bodies after the rest of the intermediate state, the rest will not cease; but rather the
whole man, body and soul united, renewed in the immortal health, will attain to the realization
of his hope in the enjoyment of eternal life.” Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 12.19. NPNF
1/4, p. 189.
84
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 55. Barnabas states that the reason the
Sabbath is a type of the millennial kingdom is because it can be kept only by the pure, which
is why Christians now keep Sunday (the “eighth day”) instead of the Sabbath. Epistle of
Barnabas 15. ANF 1, pp. 146-147.
85
F F Bruce. “Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church, p.
87.
86
Jerome. Homily 3, on Psalm 7. FC 48, p. 26. Cf. also Letter to Cyprian the Presbyter 8. [PL
22, 1172] L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 448. Augustine. On the
Psalms 6.1. NPNF 1/8, p. 15. Sermon 259.2. FC 38, pp. 368-371. Maximus the Confessor.
Chapters on Knowledge 1.60. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 138.
87
Augustine. Contra Adimantum 16.3. Translation cited in: Marcel Dubois. “Jews, Judaism and
Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine. How he links the Jewish people and the land of
Zion.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 191. Note however that the Latin text in Migne has “aeternam
quietem quae illo signo significatur” [PL 42, 157]. There is no mention of an eternal
kingdom. Cf. also Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 12.8. NPNF 1/4, p. 185, where
Augustine says that “the seventh day is the rest of the saints, not in this life, but in another,
where the rich man saw Lazarus at rest while he was tormented in hell.”
88
Augustine. Contra Adimantum 2.2. Translation cited in: Marcel Dubois. “Jews, Judaism and
Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine. How he links the Jewish people and the land of
Zion.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 190. Cf. also Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.2.
NPNF 2/10, p. 174. Dulaey suggests the reason Augustine rejects millennialism is the
typology of the sabbath, which led Augustine to reject the scheme of history in six periods of
a thousand years. While he does use the six periods of history, he does not in his later writings
consider them periods of a thousand years since this would enable calculation of the date of
the parousia, something not possible according to Scripture. Michael Dulaey. L’Apocalypse.
Augustin et Tyconius, p. 373.
244
We cannot deny the definite influence from Jewish sources on early Patristic thinking
about the millennium, as Bietenhard points out, for example the Apocalypse of
Baruch.89 However, this should not be seen as detrimental in itself (although some
features of Jewish apocalyptic adopted by the Patristic authors may be speculative and
incompatible with Scripture). Berkouwer has made some useful distinctions between
Jewish apocalyptic and Christian eschatology which allow us to appreciate the inter-
relationship without denigrating any elements in Christian thinking which may have
had a Jewish origin.
The Old Testament portrays the day of the Lord in terms of the
darkening of sun, moon and stars (Isa 13:10), the desolation of the earth
(vs. 13), and the disruption of life (24:1, 3f, 18f). These and prophecies
like these are repeated in the New Testament, where they serve as the
basis of urgent appeals to remain steadfast and watchful. This does not
mean to put Jewish apocalyptic on a par with the eschatological
proclamations of the New Testament. The two are profoundly different.
Late-Jewish apocalyptic exhibits definitely pessimistic strains that are
not to be found in the New Testament. Eschatology undergoes a
tremendous change in the New Testament when the “apocalypse” is
centered in Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.90
It is only the speculative and pessimistic character of Jewish apocalyptic literature

which is to be rejected, not its focus on redemption events which take place on this
earth. Thus the millennium does not need to be denigrated as “Jewish” since in itself
it can be a completely Christian doctrine; nor are we forced to spiritualise Christian
eschatology. One reason for the characterisation of millennialism as dependent on
“Jewish” hermeneutics is given by Loewe: the suspicion that interpretations which
were not Christological could not therefore be spiritual.
In spite of the growing awareness of the relevance of Jewish biblical

exegesis which began to manifest itself in some Christian schools from
the 12th century, Christian exegetes could rarely, if ever, exclude from
their minds a conviction that an exegesis that was not Christological
could not be spiritual; and this prejudice led them to the fallacy of
lumping together all Jewish interpretation of the Bible as “literal” -
89
12-30.
90
G C Berkouwer. The Return of Christ, p. 242. Visser also sees the place of Christ as the
distinguishing feature of Christian apocalyptic thought. “The Jewish apocalyptist believes the
Messiah has not yet come; the christian of the first generation expects the return of a
Redeemer, who has made himself manifest before in humility but whose second coming will
be in glory, according to the word of the prophets.” A J Visser. “Bird’s eye view of ancient
Christian eschatology.” Numen 14 (1967) 7. Similarly, Oscar Cullmann suggests that Jewish
apocalyptic places exclusive emphasis on the “When” of fulfillment. Cullmann sees Christian
apocalyptic as lacking this emphasis, illustrating it with his analogy of D-Day and V-Day.
“Where the certainty rules that the decisive battle has been fought through to victory, then
only in the circle of understandable human curiosity is it still of importance to know whether
the “Victory Day” comes tomorrow or later.” Oscar Cullmann. Christ and Time, p. 142.
245
generally in a pejorative sense - whatever aspect of the sense the Jewish
exegete might in any given case be concerned to expound.91
Granted that this analysis is made with specific reference to mediaeval exegesis, the
same can be said for Patristic exegesis, on which much of the mediaeval approach
depended heavily.92
Christian eschatology does have its roots in distinctively Hebraic origins, but the
importance of this is obscured through a false contrast between “spiritual” Greek
conceptions and “materialistic” Hebraic conceptions of the future life. The problem
can be seen in the comments of Lawson on the thought of Irenaeus.
The main interest in the Millenarianism of S. Irenaeus is that it

illustrates one of the leading obscurities of historic Christian theology.
The Gentile Church has never been very happy in its understanding of
Eschatology, this most distinctively Hebrew element which is so clearly
a part of Biblical religion, and which had at least some place in the
message of our Lord Himself. We may say that the trouble is that the
Greek or Greek-tutored mind has had to choose either to be much more
or else much less materialistic in conception than the Hebrew.93
The distinction should be made not between “spiritual” and “materialistic” views (a
false and unbiblical distinction), but between creation-affirming (resurrection-
oriented) and creation-negating (other-world oriented) approaches to eschatology.
The latter was introduced into Christianity through the influence of Hellenistic
thought, and where such a conception does dominate, for instance in the views of
Origen and his followers, then the millennial hope becomes difficult to accept.
Hanson comments that while some see Origen’s view as Platonism Christianised, he
considered it “not a Platonised form of Christian eschatology, but an alternative to
eschatology, indeed an evasion of it.”94 The Hellenistic origins of this difficulty,
foisted upon the Scriptures, are brought out clearly by Harnack.
In [the Western] Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of

the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But
his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of
the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and
extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (HE 7.24)
from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s
struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up
chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever
philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes
91
R Loewe. “The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic exegesis of the Bible.” Studia
Patristica 1 (1957) 501-502.
92
Robert L Wilken. Judaism and the early Christian mind, pp. 45-46.
93
J Lawson. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, pp. 285-286.
94
R P C Hanson. Allegory and Event, p. 354.
246
were not only cherished and defended against being explained away,
but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.95
This then enables us to recogise the true roots of anti-millennialism, and the
difficulties some Patristic writers had in accepting an earthly eschatological reign. It
was not that they had to resist a doctrine foisted on the church through the influence
of Judaisers; nor was it the result of simplistic and inadequate exegesis. It was the
Hellenisation of Christianity, which divorced eschatology from its creation-affirming
stance, that forced the use of the allegorical method to interpret away anything which
referred to a concrete this-earthly eschaton.96 Not only Revelation suffered this fate:
much of the Old Testament also came under the stultifying grip of allegorising and
spiritualising exegesis which denigrated earthly bodily life. As a result, the earthiness
of the Scriptures was seen as Jewish, and in order to be acceptable in an environment
of Greek speculation, the Scriptures had to be allegorised or otherwise “re-
interpreted” and thus divorced from the Hebraic world-view in which alone they
made sense.
Thus it is significant that this anti-millennialism appears to have developed in the

Alexandrian stream of theology, a stream which in a Platonising manner, denigrated
bodily and earthly life. The most important characteristic of “Jewish” thought was for
the Alexandrian Christians its earthiness, something which they saw (correctly) as
incompatible with the spiritualised eschatology focused on heaven,97 but which
earthiness they rejected. Anti-Judaistic views, in conjunction with allegorising,
Platonising exegesis, are the true origins of anti-millennialism. The Patristic writers
must take full responsibility for these views: they were primarily a product of their
exegetical methods.98
95
Adolph Harnack. History of Dogma. Vol. 2, p. 299.
96
There has been some criticism of the idea of the Hellenisation of Christianity, developed most
vigorously by Harnack. While aspects of his approach are open to question, the general
problem of the influence of Hellenism on the development of Christian thought cannot be
denied. See Chapter 9.3 for a discussion of Harnack’s concept of “Hellenization.”
97
It must be stressed, however, that “heaven” as conceived in this stream of theology was not
the Biblical heaven, but had more in common with the Platonic realm of the forms. This false
opposition of the “earthly kingdom” and the “heavenly kingdom” is based on a distorted
understanding of both. The one takes place in this world as we presently know it, the other
comes about through a total transformation of our present existence.
98
The Patristic doctrine of the millennium remained problematic throughout the middle ages for
many of the same reasons. Augustine’s “spiritualised” view of the millennium continued to
dominate eschatology, and it was not until the Reformation that expectation of the earthly
reign of Christ was again a vital idea in Christian circles, although mainly in fringe groups.
However, anti-Judaism was still influential at the time of the Reformation, and a number of
Reformation confessions explicitly condemned millennialism as Jewish. The Confession of
Edward VI (the Forty-Two Articles of 1553) calls it a “fable” and “Jewish delirium” [“Qui
millenariorum fabulam revocare conantur, sacris literis adversantur, et in Judaica deliramenta
sese praecipitant.”] The Forty-Two Articles 41. Corpus Confessionum, p. 401. Bicknell
comments that this was one of the articles withdrawn from the Thirtynine Articles of 1571,
“either because the errors attacked in them had now ceased to be formidable, or because it
was seen that a greater latitude of opinion might be allowed.” E J Bicknell. A Theological
Introduction to the Thirtynine Articles, p. 19. The Augsburg Confession [para. 17]
describes millennialism as “Jewish opinions.” The Patristic identification of millennialism
with Judaism was continued in the Reformation, and the polemics were as harsh then as they
247
7.1.3 The influence of allegorical hermeneutics
The debate about the millennium is therefore as much about hermeneutics as

theology. The very method used presupposes or else precludes the acceptance of a
millennial reign on earth, shared by the resurrected saints. For instance, Origen
describes millennialists as believers “who refuse the labour of thinking, and adopting
a superficial view of the letter of the law,” expect a millennial reign on earth.99 They
are “disciples of the letter alone” who expect the promises of the Old Testament
prophets to be fulfilled in a literal and not a “spiritual” sense. These, he says, “are the
views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a
sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.”100
Origen, by contrast, wished to understand the Scriptures allegorically.101 Bietenhard
comments appositely in this regard: “For Origen the Chiliasts were visionaries,
deluded fools, and what was worse, literalists.”102 Origen holds that the millennialists
use Jewish hermeneutics and thereby arrive at a Jewish doctrine. According to
Wilken, “Origen presents Christian Chiliasm and Jewish Messianism as a single
phenomenon. The arguments he uses to answer the one are precisely those that he
had been a millennium earlier. Anti-Judaism was still prominent in the anti-millennialist
views of nineteenth century scholars [e.g. Adolf Harnack, Philip Schaff and W G T Shedd],
who repeated all the derogatory epithets of the anti-millennialist Patristic writers, namely that
such a doctrine was carnal, pleasure-oriented and materialistic. Their enduring influence must
be taken into account when assessing the interpretation of Patristic eschatology by
contemporary scholars. Such characterisations of Jewish religion have decreased since the
Holocaust, and it would be difficult to maintain such anti-Judiasm today. This is one aspect of
the social embeddedness of theology, which is not immune to historical and cultural changes.
99
This intellectual elitism is also found in other authors who assert that those who hold to
millennial views are either intellectually deficient, uneducated, or both! The classic example is
the opinion of Eusebius concerning the millennial views of Papias. “I suppose he got these
ideas through a misunderstanding of the Apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things
said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited
understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the
Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their support the antiquity of the
man; as for instance Irenaeus and anyone that may have proclaimed similar views.”
Ecclesiastical History 3.39. NPNF 2/1, p. 172. Cf. Jerome’s comments on Papias’ influence
with respect to millennialism. Of Famous Men 18. NPNF 2/3, p. 367.
100
Origen. De Principiis 2.11.2. ANF 4, p. 297. Bietenhard says of this passage: “We note again
the customary charge of Judaism.” H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.”
Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953) 20.
101
It is ironic that the allegorical exegesis of Scripture, which was foundational to Patristic anti-
Judaistic polemics, was itself developed by the Alexandrian Jew Philo. The later Patristic
writers also used the allegorical method to demonstrate against the Jews that the promises of
the OT were not to be understood literally. This was the same allegorising method as their
Gnostic opponents, which must have compounded the difficulty of defending defend the
resurrection against an allegorical interpretation, as the Gnostics wished to do. A H C van
Eijk. “Resurrection-language: Its various meanings in early Christian literature.” Studia
Patristica 12 (1975) 276. See also James L Kugel. The idea of Biblical poetry, p. 139.
102
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
20 (my emphasis).
248
uses to answer the other.”103 It is interesting that both millennialists and anti-
millennialists attacked Jewish hermeneutics. For instance, Methodius said:
The Jews, who hover about the bare letter of the Scriptures like so-
called butterflies about the leaves of vegetables instead of the flowers
and fruit as the bee does, understand these words and ordinances to
refer to the sort of tabernacles which they build. It is as though God
took pleasure in such ephemeral structures as they erect from the
branches of trees and decorate, ignorant of the wealth of the good things
to come. Such structures are as air and ghostly shadows, which foretell
the resurrection and the building of our tabernacle once it has collapsed
in earth.104
The kind of anti-Jewish allegorical reinterpretation of the earthly kingdom which

came to dominate the later Patristic writers is seen as early as Tertullian, who attacks
a materialistic concept of rewards drawn from the Old Testament, and allegorises the
passages concerned.
In this way the Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes
to earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and of
the oil of God’s unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water of
life which has its vigour from the vine of Christ. On exactly the same
principle, they consider the special soil of Judaea to be that very holy
land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord’s flesh, which, in
all those who put on Christ, is thenceforth the holy land; holy indeed by
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, truly flowing with milk and honey by
the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judaean by reason of the
friendship of God.105
Augustine, who unlike Methodius and Tertullian came to reject millennialism,

expressed a similar view. “The cause for Jewish obstinacy according to Augustine is
their failure to understand the Old Testament spiritually rather than merely
103
R L Wilken. “Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism and the idea of the Holy Land.”
Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986) 302. Elsewhere Wilken comments: “Christian
chiliasm and Jewish Messianism, however, are two sides of a similar phenomenon. Each
envisions a future age in which the people of God will rule securely and will enjoy God’s
bounty. The time of peace and prosperity - the future kingdom - will be established in the
world as we know it, in this world. Against this view, either in its Jewish or Christian form,
Christian writers such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Tyconius and Augustine argued for a
spiritual kingdom, a heavenly Jerusalem which the saints would enjoy in a transformed
existence.” R L Wilken. “The restoration of Israel in Biblical prophecy.” In: To See
Ourselves as Others See Us, p. 450.
104
105
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 26. ANF 3, p. 564. Jerome understood the “Holy
Land” to mean heaven, and not Palestine. Letter 129. NPNF 2/6, p. 260. Augustine refers to
the “heavenly Jerusalem” as “the land of promise overflowing with milk and honey.” Sermon
259.3. FC 38, p. 371. For a discussion of this image in Jewish thought, see J Duncan M
Derrett. “Whatever happened to the land flowing with milk and honey?” Vigiliae Christianae
38 (1984) 178-184.
249
literally.”106 The fear of Judaising implicit in the use of a literal interpretation of
Scripture is seen in Jerome, who spells out this problem of hermeneutics exactly in his
works.
Jerome’s view of the millenium was somewhat of a figurative character, and not well
defined. He says more against the millenarian “dreams” of “the circumcision and our
Judaizers,” than of his own view on this point. Possibly his reticence is explained by
this significant remark: “If we accept [the Apocalypse] literally, [we] must Judaize; if
we treat it spiritually, as it is written, we shall seem to go against the opinions of
many of the ancients: of the Latins, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius; of the Greeks,
that I might pass by the rest, I shall make mention only of Irenaeus.”107
Jerome’s opposition to millennialism,108 which is rooted in the influence of Origen,

can be found in his commentary on Daniel, where he interpreted Rome as the last of
the four earthly kingdoms to come before the end of the world.109 There could not
therefore be any further earthly kingdoms, including a millennial reign of Christ on
earth.
The four kingdoms of which we have spoken above [Daniel 7:25], were
earthly in character. For everything which is of the earth shall return to
earth [Ecclesiastes 3:20]. But the saints shall never possess an earthly
kingdom, but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable about a
millennium!110
Jerome says that Papias was dependent on Jewish interpretations of Scripture (the
Mishnah) for his millennial views, and for Jerome Judaism and millennialism are
identical.111 The future to be hoped for was not a “Jewish” millennium, but a purely
106
[Augustine. In answer to the Jews 7.9. FC 27, pp. 402-405.]. G B Ladner. “Aspects of
Patristic anti-Judaism.” Viator 2 (1971) 360-361.
107
[Jerome. Commentary on Isaiah. Preface to Book 18. PL 24, 627]. L E Froom. The
Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 448.
108
See however Lerner’s ironic discussion of the influence of Jerome on mediaeval (Joachimist)
millennialism: “The originator of the tradition of expecting a period on earth between the
destruction of Antichrist and the Last Judgement was not Joachim but St. Jerome. One might
say, of all people St. Jerome, for Jerome was in fact a vitriolic opponent of chiliasm. He
equated the literal reading of the thousand-year kingdom in Revelation with fleshly Judaism
and went to the trouble of re-writing Victorinus of Pettau’s earlier commentary on Revelation
to purge it of its chiliastic passages.” R E Lerner. “Refreshment of the saints: the time after
Antichrist as a station for earthly progress in mediaeval thought.” Traditio 32 (1976) 101.
109
R E Lerner. “Refreshment of the saints: the time after Antichrist as a station for earthly
progress in mediaeval thought.” Traditio 32 (1976) 101. Jerome had also said that the Jews
had received their inheritance at the beginning, while Christians expect to receive theirs at the
end of the world. This seems to imply that while the Jews had had an earthly kingdom, the
Christians would have a non-earthly kingdom. Homily 2, on Psalm 5. FC 48, p. 15.
110
Jerome. Commentary on Daniel 7.17. G L Archer, p. 81. Compare the view of Augustine,
who unequivocally stated that he did not believe in the resurrection in which the Jews were
said to believe, namely a future material life in this world. Sermon 362.15.18. Cited in: J E
McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 173.
111
[Jerome. In Isaiam 18, proem. In Jeremiah 4 (19.10f)] H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope in
the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953) 26.
250
spiritualised eschaton not of this earth. Jerome’s anti-millennialism is illustrated by
his editorial changes in the commentary on Revelation by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau
(died 303), which is the earliest surviving commentary in Latin on that book. Earlier
comments on Revelation had been in Greek.112 Victorinus had no doubts about the
Johannine authorship of the Revelation, and he even states that it was in response to
requests from various bishops when he was released from Patmos on the death of
Domitian that John wrote his Gospel, in refutation of “Valentinus, and Cerinthus, and
Ebion, and others of the school of Satan,” and he also at that time passed on the
Revelation.113
In his editorial revisions of Victorinus’ commentary on the Apocalypse,114 Jerome

“removed passages in which the author had expressed chiliastic views, substituting
instead excerpts from other writers, who had interpreted the Millennium more in
accordance with his own views.”115 The excerpts were especially from Tyconius.116
Jerome said that his method was to consult earlier writers, “and what I found in their
commentaries concerning the millennial reign I added to the work of Victorinus,
removing from it what he understood literally.”117 Jerome interpreted the thousand
years as extending from the first advent of Christ to the end of the age; a statement
incompatible with the rest of the work.118 An indication of the kind of alterations made
can be seen in the following comparison.
By way of illustrating the two resurrections he quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1

Corinthians 15:52. The trump of God of the former passage - the signal for the first
resurrection - is contrasted with the last trump of the other: this, he says, is sounded
after the Millenium and heralds the second resurrection.119
112
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 352.
113
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 10.11-11.1. ANF 7, p. 353. The writings of
Victorinus were condemned by Gelasius because of their millennialism. M P McHugh.
“Victorinus of Pettau.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity, p. 927.
114
Victorinus. Commentary on the Apocalypse. PLS 1/1, 103-172. Original version in parallel
with edited version by Jerome.
115
(1938) 354.
116
(1938) 355.
117
Jerome. Letter to Anatolius. PLS 1/1, 103. Translation cited from: F F Bruce. “The earliest
Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938) 361.
118
L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 344. Cf. Jerome’s edited version
of Victorinus’ commentary, where he says: “Therefore they are not to be heard who assure
themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say,
with the heretic Cerinthus. [For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints, although
the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection].” On the Apocalypse 22. ANF
7, p. 360. [PLS 1/1, 172, Recensio Hieronymi. Words in brackets found in CSEL 49, p. 153,
but not included in PLS. “Nam regnum Christi quod nunc ait sempiternum erit in sanctis, cum
fuerit gloria post resurrectionem manifestats sanctorum.”]
119
(1938) 359-360.
251
The original text of Victorinus’ commentary was as follows:
We have heard a ‘trump’ mentioned; this is to be observed: in another

place the Apostle mentions another trump. He says to the Corinthians:
At the last trump the dead will rise - they will become immortal - and
we shall be changed. He said that the dead for their part will rise
immortal for the punishments which they must bear, but it is manifest
that we shall be changed and clothed with glory. When therefore we
have heard that there is a last trump, we must understand that there is a
first one also. Now these are the two resurrections. As many therefore
as have not risen beforehand in the first resurrection and reigned with
Christ over the earth - over all nations - will rise at the last trump after
a thousand years, that is, in the last resurrection, among the impious and
sinners and evildoers of all kinds. Rightly did he go on to say: Blessed
and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection: against him the
second death has not power. Now the second death is punishment in
hell.120
Victorinus clearly holds the view that the righteous will be raised before the
millennium in the first resurrection, and the rest of the dead raised to face the
judgement at the end of the millennium; which is a literal interpretation of Revelation
20:4-6. Bruce says that this passage disappears in later recensions to be replaced by
an explanation of the first resurrection in terms of Colossians 3:1, that is, it is
interpreted as a reference to spiritual renewal experienced in this life.121 The text as
amended by Jerome reads:
There are two resurrections. But the first resurrection is now of the
souls that are by the faith, which does not permit men to pass over to
the second death. Of this resurrection the apostle says, If ye have risen
with Christ, seek those things which are above.122
Jerome’s edition allegorises the millennium, in which the reign of the saints is
understood as heavenly, not earthly.
The most significant repudiation of millennialism was perhaps the change of mind on
the part of Augustine who had earlier maintained that position,123 but rejected it in
120
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20. Cited in: F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin
commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938) 360.
121
(1938) 360.
122
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.4-5. ANF 7, p. 359.
123
Augustine’s millennialist views can be found in Sermon 259. “The eighth day therefore
signifies the new life at the end of the age; the seventh day the future quiet of the saints upon
this earth. For the Lord will reign on earth with His saints as the Scriptures say [Revelation
20:4, 6], and will have His Church here, separated and cleansed from all infection of
wickedness, where no wicked person will enter...” PL 38, 1197. De diversis quaestionibus
LXXXVIII, 57.2. PL 40. “...separation takes place at the end of the age, just as it did on the
edge of the sea, that is, on the shore [Matthew 13:47, 48], when the righteous reign, at first in
time, as it is written in the Apocalypse [Revelation 20:4, 6], and then for ever in the city
which is there described [Revelation 21:10-27].” Translations cited from Gerald Bonner.
252
reaction against Tertullian and Lactantius.124 The Rules for investigating and
ascertaining the meaning of the Scriptures composed by Tyconius influenced
Augustine to reject the idea that the first resurrection was a bodily one at the eschaton,
and he adopted Tyconius’ view of the “first resurrection” as a spiritual resurrection in
this life.125 Thus the millennium was allegorised and understood principally as the
reign of Christ from heaven in the church.
...through the influence of Tyconius and Augustine it was pushed

completely into the background and replaced by another scheme of
eschatology, which, since the fifth century, has been regarded more or
less as the orthodox teaching.126
Another factor was the influence of Eusebius, who saw the kingdom of God fulfilled
in the reign of Constantine and the exaltation of the church, and his polemics against
millennialism arise from this identification. For him there was no literal future
millennium to hope for.127 Any expectation of a new order, even the direct reign of
Christ on earth, breaking in to shatter the “Christian” Empire was unthinkable to his
Caesaro-papist theology.128
“Augustine and millenarianism.” In: The making of orthodoxy, pp. 237-238. Augustine
refers to his change of mind in The City of God 20.7. NPNF 1/2, p. 426. Daniélou says that
Augustine first accepted the millennialist tradition, then when he had given thought to it, went
beyond it. However, this interpretation must be seen in the light of Daniélou’s view that
millennialism was an archaic tradition paralysing Christianity that needed to be abandoned.
The Bible and the Liturgy, p. 276.
124
Michael Dulaey. L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius, pp. 371-372. In his rejection of
millennialism, Augustine was not influenced by Tyconius, who does not give a polemic
against millennialism, either in the Rules or in his Commentary. Augustine does not refer to
Tyconius in his rejection of millennialism. Dulaey notes the influence of the commentary of
Victorinus of Pettau on Augustine but not that of Tyconius, except in one place, which does
not refer to the millennium. [Augustine. On Christian Doctrine 3.35.51. NPNF 1/2, pp. 571-
572] Michael Dulaey. L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius, pp. 371-375.
125
Augustine. The City of God 20.6-7. NPNF 1/2, pp. 425-428.
126
P Toon. Introduction. Puritans, the Millennium and the future of Israel, p. 13.
127
S N Gundry. “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the determining factor in the history of
eschatologies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977) 50-51.
Constantinople was seen as an eternal city, the New Rome, that would last to the end of the
world, matching the earlier Eternal Rome. A Vasilev. “Medieval ideas of the end of the world,
West and East.” Byzantion 16 (1942-1943) 464-465. There was no place for another city
within human history, even in an eschatological phase of that history, such as the New
Jerusalem.
128
It has been suggested that the decline of millennialism can be traced to sociological factors
such as the decline in persecution and the increasing prosperity of the church. For instance,
Isichei sees millennialism as something espoused by those undergoing persecution or
excluded from the mainstream of society, commenting: “It is broadly true to say that in the
early church chiliasm flourished in inverse proportion to the prosperity of the Christian
community... When the church found a new prosperity under Constantine and his successors,
and the simple passage of time changed the Lord’s coming to a remote theological hypothesis,
chiliasm became progressively discredited.” E A Isichei. Political thinking and social
experience, p. 23. But it is inaccurate to over-emphasise any external influences, such as
persecution, as intellectual factors are possibly even more important. Thus Clement of
Alexandria and especially Origen were hostile to millennialism, even though they still lived in
the period of persecution, and Origen died after suffering imprisonment and torture.
253
His theme is the fulfillment of the Promise that the chosen people shall
exercise territorial rule, and in the empire under Constantine he sees the
Promise fulfilled in what was an extension of the Kingdom of Heaven
upon earth, founded by Christ and ruled by Constantine under God. He
sees Constantine as chosen by God alone and owing his position in so
sense to the will of the people... Holding such a view of human history
and its culmination, Eusebius rejected the chiliastic conceptions which
were widely held during the two preceding centuries, pointing, as they
did, to a very different culmination. The view of many, and among
them considerable figures such as Justin and Tertullian, was that the
second coming would inaugurate an earthly reign of Christ for a
thousand years, a view which was incompatible with Eusebius’ own
conception of the end of man. For him, the last things had, up to a
point, already begun.129
The millennial hope was obscured partly because it did not accept that the reign of the
Christian Emperor was the fulfillment of human hopes, but looked for another, greater
King who was yet to come.
When Rome adopted Christianity, the destinies of Imperium and

Christianitas seemed to have been providentially united; many
Christians felt that any expectation of the downfall of the empire was as
disloyal to God as it was to Rome. Even more, on an exegetical level
apocalypticism appeared to many to be a throwback to an outmoded,
“Jewish,” literal reading of the Scriptures. The Revelation of John was
not to be understood as prophecy of the last events of history, but rather
as an allegory of the conflict between good and evil in the present life
of the Church.130
This is not to say, however, that Eusebius did not anticipate the return of Christ;131
merely that this was not correlated by him with millennialist expectations concerning
129
D S Wallace-Hadrill. Eusebius of Caesarea, pp. 186-188. Cf. his comments further on: “It
was doubtless not difficult for him to effect a partial abandonment of traditional eschatology.
The impact of meta-physical theology upon Christian thought had done as much to discredit
the accepted New Testament formulation of the idea as had the mere postponement of the
event... Eusebius, nurtured in the tradition of Origen, paid respect to New Testament
eschatology while setting his heart on a conception of the end which was radically different...
For him, the culminating stage of human history had been reached, and it is this theme which
appears throughout his work, gaining conviction as Constantine went from strength to
strength.” Eusebius of Caesarea, p. 189. Cf. also Daniel Stringer. “The political theology of
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea.” Patristic and Byzantine Review 1 (1982) 140-142.
130
B McGinn. Visions of the End, p. 25. Fredriksen notes that in 397 AD Hilarianus expected
the descent of the New Jerusalem in less than a century, “despite the benefit of Imperial
patronage.” P Fredriksen. “Apocalypse and redemption in early Christianity.” Vigiliae
Christianae 45 (1991) 156.
131
Cf. Berkhof’s comment: “Over against this future of humankind commencing immediately
after death, the future of Christ is secondary... In this spiritualistic and essentially ahistorical
system the completion of history can be no more than a supplement.” [Dieser unmittelbar
nach dem Tode anfangenden Zukunft des Menschen gegenüber, ist die Zukunft Christi
sekundär... In diesem spiritualistischen und wesentlich unhistorischen System kann die
254
the end. According to Thielman, for Eusebius the return of Christ was “a refutation of
Jewish error. It would give the lie to those Jews who mocked the humility of the
Christian Messiah.”132
Consistent with rejecting the millennium as an earthly reality, allegorising Patristic

writers conceived of the “New Jerusalem” as an ideal, heavenly state. For instance,
Clement of Alexandria redefined the “New Jerusalem” with reference to the
“Jerusalem that is above” of Galatians 4:26. The new “Jerusalem above,” which Paul
refers to in terms of the present age, and the “New Jerusalem” of John’s Revelation,
which is to descend to earth in the age to come, are the same.133 But Clement
understood the “New Jerusalem” in Platonic terms.
We have heard, too, that the Jerusalem above is walled with sacred
stones; and we allow that the twelve gates of the celestial city, by being
made like precious stones, indicate the transcendent grace of the
apostolic voice. For the colours are laid on in precious stones, and these
colours are precious; while the other parts remain of earthy material.
With these symbolically, as is meet, the city of the saints, which is
spiritually built, is walled. By that brilliancy of stones, therefore, is
meant the inimitable brilliancy of the spirit, the immortality and
sanctity of being.134
Vollending der Geschichte nie mehr sein als ein Anhang.] H Berkhof. Die Theologie des
Eusebius von Caesarea, p. 158.
132
F S Thielman. “Another look at the eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 235. Eusebius held that Christianity was a return to the true religion of
the Patriarchs, and that Judaism was a decline from that as a result of the laws of God given to
Moses for the sake of the Jews. “The one wrote on lifeless tables, the Other wrote the perfect
commandments of the new covenant on living minds.” The proof of the Gospel 1.8.
Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p. 48. See H Berkhof. Die Theologie des
Eusebius von Caesarea, p. 109. Thus Eusebius thinks of these “last times” as the time of the
end of the Jewish people. Eusebius. Proof of the Gospel 8.1. Translations of Christian
Literature, Vol. 2, p. 109. M Werner. The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 37. His
“realised eschatology” means that Eusebius does not seek a geographical “new nation.”
133
Cf. Irenaeus. “Now all these things being such as they are, cannot be understood in reference
to super-celestial matters; “for God,” it is said, “will show to the whole earth that is under
heaven thy glory.” But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has been called again by Christ
[to its pristine condition], and Jerusalem rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above, of
which the prophet Isaiah says, Behold, I have depicted thy walls upon my hands, and thou art
always in my sight. And the apostle, too, writing to the Galatians, says in like manner, But the
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Against Heresies 5.35.2.
ANF 1, pp. 565-566.
134
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 2.13, p. 268. A number of Patristic writers thought that
the dead raised at the crucifixion [Matthew 27:52-53] entered the heavenly Jerusalem. Origen
stresses that those who came out of the tombs were to go into “the city which is truly holy -
not the Jerusalem which Jesus wept over - and there appear unto many.” Commentary on
Matthew 12.43. ANF 10, p. 473. Commentary on the Song of Songs 3.13. ACW 26, p. 238.
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 29. ACW 20, pp. 62-63. Eusebius. Proof of the
Gospel 4.12. Translations of Christian Literature, Vol, 1, p. 186. By contrast, Leo the Great
said that these “tokens of the coming resurrection” appeared in the “holy city, that is, in the
church of God.” Sermon 66.3. Select Sermons of St. Leo the Great on the Incarnation, p.
62. John Cassian speaks of entering “the holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem.” Institutes 5.18.
NPNF 2/11, p. 240.
255
But the consequences of the “allegorising” of the New Jerusalem can be seen in the
following comment by Pawlikowski.
Christian faith must always remain firmly implanted in the earth. Far
too often concentration on the “heavenly Jerusalem” as a supposed
replacement for the Jewish “earthly Jerusalem” has led to an
excessively ethereal spirituality in the churches.135
However, this view of Clement’s concerning the New Jerusalem is found again in
Origen,136 and it was this allegorical interpretation which eventually predominated.
The “realised eschatology” of Eusebius interpreted many of the events which earlier
generations had expected to be fulfilled in the future as fulfilled already. The kingdom
of Christ was understood to be the reign of Christ in the church, not an earthly
“political” reign in Jerusalem. Thus Eusebius understood the “New Jerusalem” in
realised terms. In the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, the church built by Helena,
Constantine’s mother, over the place of the crucifixion, was called the “New
Jerusalem, having built it facing that old and deserted city.”137 Eusebius in a fit of
excess suggested that the newly built church was “that second and new Jerusalem
spoken of in the predictions of the prophets.”138 One of the reasons for the rejection of
the New Jerusalem as an earthly city is perhaps the spectre of Montanism, which
purportedly expected the new Jerusalem to descend in Pepuza in Phrygia.139
135
John T Pawlikowski. “The Re-Judaization of Christianity: Its impact on the Church and its
implications for the Jewish people.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 65. This can be seen in the
thought of Eusebius, who said: “Moses, too, promised a holy land and a holy life therein
under a blessing to those who kept his laws: while Jesus Christ says likewise: ‘Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the earth,’ promising a far better land in truth, and a holy and
godly, not the land of Judæa, which in no way excels the rest (of the earth), but the heavenly
country which suits souls that love God, to those who follow out the life proclaimed by Him.”
The proof of the Gospel 3.2. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p. 105.
136
Origen. Commentary on Matthew 12.20. ANF 10, p. 462. Elsewhere Origen refers the “new
heaven and the new earth” to the resurrection. Commentary on John 10.20. ANF 10, pp. 400-
401.
137
Socrates. Ecclesiastical History 1.17. NPNF 2/2, p. 21. Cf. also 1.33. NPNF 2/2, p. 32.
138
139
This view has been critiqued by D Powell, who has shown that there is no evidence the
Montanists expected the New Jerusalem to descend at Pepuza. Rather, Pepuza and Tymion
were named “Jerusalem” as a “recreation of the highly organized but Spirit-directed primitive
church.” Powell also doubts whether Tertullian was ever a Montanist. “Tertullianists and
Cataphrygians.” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975) 44. Cf. the comments of G L Bray.
“Tertullian says nothing and quotes nothing which is distinctively Montanist; in particular, the
descent of the New Jerusalem at Pepuza is never mentioned. What he says about eschatology
may have affinities with Montanism, but it is also paralleled in other Christian writers of
undoubted orthodoxy, and Tertullian’s chiliasm is rather moderate when compared with that
of Irenaeus, for example.” Holiness and the will of God, p. 61. Similarly J F Jansen says that
Tertullian only uses Montanist prophetic sayings as illustrations of his view and supports for
biblical revelation, but which do not add to that revelation but clarifies it. “Tertullian and the
New Testament.” Second Century 2 (1982) 195. Even J Daniélou admits that “Tertullian
bases what he has to say exclusively on Ezekiel 48:30-35 and Revelation 21:12-13 (Adv.
Marc. 3.24.3-4).” His views are also related to his criticism of allegorical interpretations (De
res. 26.1). A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 3, p. 144. D I Rankin asserts that
256
Gregory of Nyssa said that the important pilgrimage is not out of Cappadocia to
Palestine, but out of the body towards God.140 Similarly Jerome wrote that seeing
Jerusalem did not confer any spiritual advantage over those who had not seen
Jerusalem - access to God was as possible in Britain as it was in Jerusalem, since “the
kingdom of God is within you.”141 Similarly, in his Conferences John Cassian quotes
the Abbot Moses who describes the new Jerusalem in allegorical terms. The
“kingdom of God” he says is joy and gladness, as well as peace and righteousness. He
qualifies his statement by saying that it is not just “joy” that is the kingdom of God,
but “joy in the Holy Spirit.”142 He goes on to specify more closely what he means by
the kingdom of God.
In fact the kingdom of heaven must be taken in a threefold sense, either

that the heavens shall reign, i.e. the saints over other things subdued,
according to this text, Be thou over five cities, and thou over ten; and
this which is said to the disciples: You shall sit upon twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel; or that the heavens themselves shall
begin to be reigned over by Christ, when all things are subdued unto
Him, and God begins to be all in all; or else that the saints shall reign in
heaven with the Lord.143
The allegorising of the New Jerusalem is rooted in the dualistic anthropology which
placed the emphasis increasingly on the blessedness of the immortal soul, and not on
the renewal of the earth and the resurrection life.144
Because the anti-millennial Patristic writers did not seem to appreciate the Old
Testament emphasis on the goodness of creaturely life on earth, with its promise of
cosmic redemption in association with the resurrection (the new heavens and new
earth),145 this was replaced in their theology with a Hellenistic yearning for release
from this earth to a completely “spiritual” plane free from fleshliness and matter.146
Tertullian always remained within the Catholic church. “Was Tertullian a schismatic?”
Prudentia 18 (1986) 73-79.
140
Gregory of Nyssa. On pilgrimages. NPNF 2/5, p. 383.
141
Jerome. Letter 58. NPNF 2/6, p. 120. Ferguson comments that the interiorization of the
“kingdom of God,” found first in Origen [On prayer 25. ACW 19, pp. 84-87], accompanies
the change from a general eschatology to an individual eschatology. E Ferguson. “The
Kingdom of God in early patristic literature.” In: The interpretation of the kingdom of God,
pp. 198-199.
142
John Cassian. Conferences 1.13. NPNF 2/11, pp. 300-301.
143
144
The allegorical interpretation of the New Jerusalem is also found in Hilary of Poitiers
[Tractate in Psalm 121.4. PL 9, 662c] and Ambrose [Expositionis in Lucam 10.19. PL 15,
1809a]. Ambrose says to the dead Valentinian: “Hasten with all speed to that great Jerusalem,
the city of the saints.” On the death of Valentinian 65. FC 22, p. 292. Similarly, he says that
“Theodosius hastened to enter upon this rest and to go into the city of Jerusalem...” On the
death of Theodosius 31. FC 22, p. 321.
145
See Donald E Gowan. Eschatology in the Old Testament, pp. 109-118.
146
McDannell and Lang describe the heaven of which Augustine and Monica had a foretaste in a
mystical experience [Confessions 9.10.23-24. NPNF 1/1, p. 137], as “the hereafter of
257
The latter view was seen to be in opposition to “Jewish” eschatology: the millennium
which included a resurrection life on this earth. This was seen as a materialistic,
carnal and unspiritual, rather repugnant doctrine. The resurrection life would surely
be one of heavenly reward, not earthly pleasure. Such views were associated with
fleshliness, as such a millennial life would necessarily involve, in the eyes of many,
eating and drinking and in particular, marriage.147
7.2 The spiritual interpretation of the “first resurrection”
The “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5-6 was understood by anti-millennialist

writers as an intellectual, sacramental or spiritual rising at baptism, an idea which
sometimes strangely parallels the Gnostic notions of resurrection through baptism or
knowledge of doctrine.148 This idea was found in Origen,149 and later developed by
Tyconius and Augustine. Tyconius rejects the idea of a resurrection of the righteous
prior to the millennium, and a separate resurrection of the rest of the dead for the
judgement. He maintains there will be but one resurrection in which all are raised, and
he interprets the “first resurrection” as
...the growth of the church where, justified by faith, they are raised
from the dead bodies of their sins through baptism to the service of
eternal life, but the second, the general resurrection of all men in the
flesh.150
Thus instead of two bodily resurrections, Tyconius sees the first resurrection as a
spiritual event, while the second resurrection is that of all the dead prior to the
judgement.151 Tyconius uses Daniel 12:2 and John 5:25-29 to prove that there will be
a general resurrection of all the dead, including the wicked, to face the judgement.
The influence of Tyconius through the writings of Augustine contributed significantly
to the complete eclipse of the millennialist understanding of the resurrection and
platonizing Greek philosophy.” Another consequence of this experience was that Monica no
longer cared to live, and within a fortnight she was dead [Confessions 9.10.26-9.11.27-28.
NPNF 1/1, p. 138]. Heaven: A history, p. 56.
147
For a curious and illuminating study of this latter theme see B Lang. “The sexual life of the
saints. Towards an anthropology of Christian heaven.” Religion 17 (1987) 149-171. Also B
Lang. “No sex in heaven: the logic of procreation, death and eternal life in the Judaeo-
Christian tradition.” In: Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M Mathias
Delchor, pp. 237-253.
148
L Boliek. The resurrection of the flesh, p. 23. Cf. Clement of Alexandria who speaks of the
Lord “raising up those who have wandered in error,” and cites in this connection Ephesians
5:4. Exhortation to the Heathen 9. ANF 2, p. 196.
149
world and his legacy, pp. 300-301. One reason Origen is able to accept a spiritual
interpretation of the resurrection is that he sees it already “interpreted” in such a way in the
Bible. Referring to the gospels, Origen says that “the resurrection is in a manner Jesus, for
Jesus says: ‘I am the resurrection’.” Commentary on John 1.10. ANF 10, p. 302. Cf.
Commentary on John 1.41. ANF 10, p. 319.
150
Gennadius. Lives of famous men, 18. NPNF 2/3, p. 389. While Gennadius comments at length
on the views of Tyconius concerning the resurrection, he says nothing about his Donatism.
151
Tyconius. The Book of Rules. W S Babcock, pp. 63, 65.
258
judgement, and it paved the way for the dominance of immediate individualistic
eschatology, by interpreting the “first resurrection” as spiritual regeneration, in which
we are justified, while the second resurrection is that of the body at the end of the
age.152 The first resurrection takes place in this life, and only those who are to be
“eternally blessed” have a part in it. All the dead have a part in the second
resurrection, which is a resurrection of judgement, in which everyone will be judged
in the flesh.153 Augustine understands the “first Resurrection” of Revelation 20 to be
the renewal of the image of God in baptism which corrects the death of the soul as a
result of sin, namely its separation from God, through the “resurrection of the soul.”154
Augustine changed to a “realised” eschatology which saw the reign of Christ as

taking place now in the church. This can be seen in Tyconius.
Instead of two literal resurrections, Tichonius makes the first

resurrection spiritual, that of the soul, as hinted by Origen, and the
second corporeal, that of the body. The first is of those awakened by
baptism from the deadness of sin to eternal life, and the second is the
general, literal resurrection of all flesh. Consequently, he denies the
reign of the literally resurrected saints for a thousand years after the
second advent. Thus Tichonius spiritualizes the resurrection and
secularises the millenium.155
This allegorical approach to the doctrine of the resurrection is followed later by

Augustine, as well as others, who sees the resurrection not as an eschatological event
of bodily renewal, but a present event of spiritual renewal and deliverance from sin.
The consequences of this non-historical approach to the millennium can be seen in
Augustine’s thought.
The theory of the spiritual, allegorical first resurrection lies at the

foundation of Augustine’s structure - the resurrection of dead souls
from the death of sin to the life of righteousness... So, according to
Augustine, there is a single, simultaneous physical resurrection of all
men at the last day, instead of a first and a second literal resurrection.
Once this thesis was accepted, the historical millenialism was, of
course, vanquished.156
152
Cf. the views of Gregory of Nyssa. “...without the laver of regeneration [baptism] it is
impossible for the man to be in the resurrection; but in saying this I do not regard the mere
remoulding and refashioning of our composite body; for towards this it is absolutely
necessary that our human nature should advance, being constrained thereto by its own laws
according to the dispensation of Him Who has so ordained, whether it have the grace of the
laver, or whether it remains without that initiation: but I am thinking of the restoration to a
blessed and divine condition, separated from all shame and sorrow.” The Great Catechism 35.
NPNF 2/5, p. 504.
153
154
[Augustine. The City of God 20.6. NPNF 1/2, pp. 425-426. Tractate in John 23.6, 13-15.
NPNF 1/7, pp. 152-153, 156-157] Kari E Börresen. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la
résurrection.” Studia Theologica 23 (1969) 148.
155
L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, p. 470.
156
L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. Vol. 1, pp. 479-480.
259
The millennium is intrinsically linked with belief in a physical, bodily resurrection,
and a truly redemptive-historical theology, and not a spiritualising approach which
renders creational life otiose. Denial of the millennium is therefore denial of the
resurrection, and vice versa. The espousal of a spiritualised resurrection by Augustine,
a doctrine which shaped the rest of the Patristic period and beyond, thus left no room
for an earthly millennial reign, and the millennium itself was reinterpreted to refer to
the reign of Christ in the Church. In this context, the spiritual resurrection made
sense; but at the expense of a cosmic eschatology which anticipated the renewal of all
things in Christ.
260
7.3 The eternal life of the soul in heaven
Those who rejected the millennium held that the saints would instead enjoy eternal
life in heaven.157 Eusebius emphasised the transition from earthly life to heavenly life,
with little awareness of the resurrection evident. He describes the death of Helena,
mother of Constantine, in the following way:
...to those who rightly discerned the truth, the thrice blessed one
seemed not to die, but to experience a real change and transition from
an earthly to a heavenly existence, since her soul, remoulded as it were
into an incorruptible and angelic essence, was received up into her
Saviour’s presence.158
Similarly, Constantine was said by Eusebius to have been translated “from a

transitory kingdom to that endless life which he has laid up in store for the souls of
his saints...”159
McClain apparently approves of Origen whom he says was influential in stamping out
millenialism in the East. As a result, the Cappadocian fathers held that the souls of the
righteous immediately enter heaven after death. He states that “the error was more
long-lived” in the West, and cites the view of Hilary of Poitiers, who held that the just
are gathered into Abraham’s bosom, until the day arrives for their entry to heaven.
Similarly Ambrose refused to admit souls to heaven until the resurrection, apart from
the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs.160 Jerome on the other hand “appears
quite orthodox” and did not seem to have taught there was any delay in the just soul’s
157
However, a curious view was expressed in a commentary on Revelation by Oecumenius, who
rejects the millennium as “a notion of ‘the godless Greeks’ that smacks of the Platonist theory
of the transmigration of souls.” But he expected a new heaven and new earth, when the saints
will be with Christ forever in heaven, the wicked will be punished, and baptised believers
“halfway between virtue and vice” who will remain on earth without further punishment.
Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church, pp. 180-181.
158
159
160
[Gregory of Nyssa. The Beatitudes 8. ACW 18, pp. 173-174. “Let us therefore not be
depressed, my brethren, if we are deprived of earthly things. For if a man is released from
these, he lives in the palaces of Heaven... when we depart from here, we shall be translated to
Heaven.” Cf. also The Lord’s Prayer 4. ACW 18, p. 61. “...in the restoration of all, this
earthly flesh will be translated into the heavenly places together with the soul. As the Apostle
says, We shall be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord, into the air, and so shall we be
always with the Lord.” Cf. also Hilary of Poitiers. In Psalms 120.16. PL 9, 660. Ambrose.
Death as a good 10.47. FC 65, p. 103] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings
of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 16.
261
entrance to heaven.161 Augustine is ambiguous on this point, and states both opinions
at different times.162 In his Retractationes he revisits the problem, and says:
But who those blessed ones are, who are already in possession of that to
which this life leads, is a great problem. That the holy angels are there
is indeed unquestionable. But whether holy men who are dead are in
possession of this happiness is rightly questioned. They have indeed
gone out of the corruptible flesh which weighs down the soul; but they
await, even they, the restoration of their body, and their flesh is at rest
in hope; it does not yet shine in the future incorruption.163
According to McClain, Gregory the Great is the first to treat the question at length
“and with unimpeachable orthodoxy.”164 The righteous dead prior to Christ could not
enter heaven, but now the Redeemer has come the righteous can enter heaven
immediately after death. He expresses this explicitly in his commentary on Job.
But mark, forasmuch as we have been redeemed by the grace of our

Maker, we henceforth have this boon of heavenly bestowal, that when
we are removed from dwelling in our flesh, we are at once carried off to
receive heavenly rewards; in that since our Creator and Redeemer,
penetrating the bars of hell, brought out from thence the souls of the
Elect, He does not permit us to go there, from whence He has already
by descending set others free. But they who were brought into this
world before His coming, whatsoever eminency of righteousness they
may have had, could not on being divested of the body at once be
admitted into the bosom of the heavenly country; seeing that He had
not as yet come, Who by His own descending should unloose the bars
of hell, and place the souls of the righteous henceforth in their
everlasting seat.165
In another part of this commentary, Gregory cites 2 Corinthians 5:1 as proof that
those who preach the gospel immediately enter heaven after death.166 Similarly in the
Dialogues Gregory uses Luke 17:37 to demonstrate that the righteous dead will be
161
[Jerome. Letter 23.3. Letter 39.3.] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of
Saint Gregory the Great, p. 17. Others who say that the saints enter heaven immediately
after death, and remain there for eternity include Julius Firmicus Maternus [The error of the
pagan religions 19.7. ACW 37, pp. 86-87] and Sulpitius Severus [Letter to the Deacon
Aurelius. NPNF 2/11, p. 20].
162
[The just enter heaven immediately: Augustine. The City of God 20.9. On the Psalms 119.6.
Confessions 9.3.6. The just enter heaven after the resurrection. The City of God 12.9.
Enchiridion 109-110. On the Psalms 37.10. On the Psalms 37.27] J P McClain. The doctrine
of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 17.
163
Augustine. Retractationes 1.13.3. Translation cited in: J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven
in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 18.
164
165
Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 13.43.48. LF 21, p. 113.
166
[Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 4.29.56.] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the
writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 21.
262
with Christ after death. McClain asserts that Gregory stated this opinion in his
Dialogues to refute the opinion still being maintained that the souls of the righteous
do not enter heaven until the resurrection.167 Gregory also asserts that the souls of the
wicked are already being punished. If the souls of the righteous are in heaven, then it
follows that the souls of the wicked are in hell, on the basis of God’s justice which
demands both conditions.168 This argument does not deal with how sinners can be
punished before the judgement, but asserts it is so on the basis of the logic of God’s
justice, who would not reward the righteous while leaving the wicked unpunished.
Peter: If the souls of the just are already in heaven, what is it that they
will receive on the day of judgement as a reward for their sanctity?
Gregory: In the judgement, this increase will be theirs: now only their
souls, but after-wards even their bodies will enjoy beatitude. They will
rejoice in the very flesh in which they suffered sorrows and torments
for the Lord. Of this two-fold joy, it is written: they shall possess
double in their land [Isaiah 61:7]. And it is written of the souls of the
just even before the day of the resurrection: and there was given to each
of them a white robe; and they were told to rest a little while longer;
until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be
complete [Apocalyse 6:11]. Those, therefore, who now receive one
robe, will have two robes in the judgement, because now they have
only the glory of their souls, but then they will be made happy by the
glory of their souls and bodies at the same time.169
McClain claims that the source for the confusion among early Patristic writers over
when the soul entered heaven was the doctrine of millenialism. He sees millenialism
as springing from Jewish eschatology combined with the temporal application of the
teaching of Christ on the kingdom of God, aspects of Pauline thought, and a too literal
interpretation of Revelation 19-22. McClain states that even after the decline of
millenialism as a significant influence, certain writers continued to hold that the soul
did not enter heaven immediately after death. His negative assessment of millenialism
is seen in his comment that even those writers who openly resisted millenialism
sometimes still “suffered from its influences.”170
167
[Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.26.] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of
Saint Gregory the Great, pp. 21-22. This passage is declared genuine by Clark, The
Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, vol. 2, pp. 547-548.
168
[Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.29.] J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of
Saint Gregory the Great, p. 16. This passage is declared genuine by Clark. The Pseudo-
Gregorian Dialogues. Vol. 2, p. 550.
169
Gregory the Great. Dialogues 4.26. Translation cited in: J P McClain. The doctrine of
heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 100. Clark states that while the reply
is a genuine Gregorian text, the question is spurious. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. Vol.
2, pp. 547-548. However, it is included here to clarify the logic of the discussion. McClain
notes that the same thought appears in almost identical words in Morals on Job Preface 10.20,
and 35.14.25 [LF 31, p. 678]. Ibid., p. 100, note 61.
170
J P McClain. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great, p. 13 and
n. 1.
263
Those who say that it is only after the resurrection that the saints are taken into
heaven include Leo the Great, who says that it is “the resurrection that is prepared for
the faithful” which will raise them “to participate in the heavenly Kingdom,”171 and
Paulinus of Nola, who says that Isaiah [40:6-8] “longs rather for the surroundings in
which the glory of the renewed body can remain eternal after the resurrection.”172 He
speaks for instance of the Queen of Sheba as “accounted worthy” of “the reward of
blessed resurrection in heaven.”173 He holds that this takes place after the resurrection
and the judgement of the living and the dead,174 when we will be granted immortality
by Christ.175 Similarly, Theodoret says that the saints will be “taken up to heaven at
the time of the resurrection.”176 Augustine held that the “spiritual body” is not one
changed into spirit but “one which has been made subject to spirit in such wise that it
is adapted to a heavenly habitation.”177
7.4 The redundancy of the resurrection body
A problem which arises for those who believe that the saints spend eternity in heaven
is the purpose of the resurrection of the body. Surely it is unnecessary for the saints to
have a physical body in heaven, a spiritual realm? But since Scripture clearly teaches
the resurrection of the physical body, an explanation of its purpose was required.
A question that will become acute in Augustine - the reason for the presence of the
risen body in heaven - is implicit in this treatise [Gregory of Nyssa, De Anima].
Macrina speaks in so disparaging a manner of the earthly body that the reader
wonders if anything other than the Church’s teaching impels her to find a place for it -
no matter how changed - in the afterlife. To put it plainly, what use and function will
the body serve there?178
In his commentary on Genesis, Augustine asks:
But why must the spirits of the departed be reunited with their bodies in
the resurrection, if they can be admitted to the supreme beatitude
without their bodies? This is a problem that may trouble some, but it is
too difficult to be answered with complete satisfaction in this essay.179
171
Leo the Great. Sermon 22.5. NPNF 2/12, p. 131. Leo says that the earth which the meek shall
inherit [Matthew 5:5] is in fact “the flesh of the saints... in a happy resurrection” which they
shall enjoy in “our heavenly dwelling.” Sermon 95.5. NPNF 2/12, p. 204. Matthew 5:5 is
interpreted in a similar way by Maximus the Confessor. Commentary on the Our Father 4.
Classics of Western Spirituality, pp. 107-108.
172
173
Paulinus of Nola. Letter 5.2. ACW 35, p. 54. In another place Paulinus says that “with body
entire we enter the realms of heaven, leaving empty the secret vault of the tomb covered by
the empty soil.” Poem 5. ACW 40, pp. 35-36.
174
175
Paulinus of Nola. Letter 38.1. ACW 36, p. 185. Cf. Letter 6.3. ACW 35, p. 71.
176
177
Augustine. On faith and the creed 6.13. NPNF 1/3, p. 326.
178
Joanne E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection, p. 156.
179
264
The problem is the beatitude of the soul does not seem to require the body, as it is
with the spiritual vision that we behold God, not the physical eyes. The problem arose
from prior acceptance of a Platonic anthropology, in which the intellectual soul
contemplates the eternal ideas. While the eyes of the spiritual body are glorified, can
they even then see the pure spiritual nature of God? Augustine’s ideas on this subject
changed over time. He held in 408 that God, as an incorporeal being, could not be
seen by the eyes of the body, but only by the spiritual soul. The “image of God” in the
soul is the basis of the capacity for this vision. Renewal of the image [Colossians
3:10] renders the soul capable of knowing God.180 In 413, Augustine said that we see
God as do the angels, by an interior vision of the spirit.181 According to the
Retractationes, it is in The City of God that we find the solution Augustine considered
the best; the indirect vision perceived by the corporeal eyes of the resurrected body.
We will see God active in the visible, renewed world, just as we now see with the
eyes, through the exterior manifestations of their life, the activities of another
person.182 But why does the soul long for the body?
He allows that it is the case that souls cannot enjoy the beatific vision
without the body, as angels can, but he is evidently perplexed as to why
this should be so. Maybe, he suggests, it is because souls retain a
natural desire to be reunited with their bodies, which prevents them
from giving themselves up totally to the delights of heaven. Earlier still,
without addressing the question directly, he had rather implied that it
was only the presence of the body which hindered the soul from giving
itself entirely to the enjoyment of truth, so that death was precisely
what it most desired. In the Retractationes he still seems willing to
leave it as a “big question” whether souls before the resurrection can
enjoy the face to face vision of God. Augustine’s difficulty is a real
one, as we have already noted: it is not easy to make sense of souls
being kept waiting in incomplete bliss or punishment.183
Augustine suggests that when the soul is again in perfect control of a body subjected
completely to it, the soul will be satisfied and will not be distracted from the
contemplation of God, as it would be if it was still yearning to manage the body,
180
[Augustine. Letter 147.15.37. PL 33, 612-613. Letter 92.3. NPNF 1/1, p. 380-381] Kari E
152.
181
[Augustine. Letter 148, to Fortunatianus. NPNF 1/1, pp. 498-503] Kari E Börresen.
182
[Augustine. Retractations 2.67. The City of God 22.29. NPNF 1/2, pp. 507-509] Kari E
152. In contrast to Augustine, Irenaeus holds that the visio Dei is granted to the resurrected
person, and thus affirms the goodness of creaturely bodily life, against the Gnostics who hold
that it is escape from bodiliness that we should aspire to. “For the glory of God is a living
man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is
made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that
revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.”
Against Heresies 4.20.7. ANF 1, p. 490.
183
Simon Tugwell. Human immortality and the redemption of death, pp. 116-117.
265
which is a normal task the soul seeks to satisfy.184 The body is not in itself essential
for eternal bliss, and thus the purpose of the resurrection is not for the sake of the
body, but to satisfy the soul. This can be seen in the question Augustine put to
Paulinus of Nola, asking his opinion as to “what the activity of the blessed will be in
the next world, after the resurrection of the body.” Paulinus perhaps wisely declines
to speculate on this subject, and instead stresses the importance of our spiritual walk
in this world, doing what God wills, and thereby we “anticipate the dissolution of the
flesh with a voluntary departure, retiring from the life of this world.”185
7.5 Conclusion
There was little chance for the earlier eschatological conception to survive the
onslaught of a predominant allegorising hermeneutic, a fear of Judaistic influences, a
theology which failed to take this earth seriously, and an introspective, ascetic
spirituality. The church was moving inexorably away from creation-affirming,
resurrection-centred eschatology, towards a mystical, other-worldly and spiritualised
eschatology. Eventually the influence of Augustine prevailed, and the millennium
came to be identified with the present rule of Christ, not with a future eschatological
state.
Anti-Judaism was bolstered by the misconception that an earthly focus for

eschatology was materialistic, carnal and pleasure-oriented. The Jews were falsely
seen as desiring such a future kingdom through characterising them as pleasure-
seeking, in contrast to the spiritual character of the ascetic Christian. The anti-Judaism
which lies at the root of the repudiation of millennialism in the early Church is by no
means extinct.
Through dismissing the expectation of the renewal of the heavens and the earth, as the
locus of the eschatological life, attention shifted to an ethereal conception of heaven,
and the blessed life of the soul. Much of the Patristic thought on this subject was
rooted in speculation, together with the influence of pagan mythological ideas.
184
185
266
CHAPTER EIGHT
PSALM 1:5 AND THE JUDGEMENT
8.0 Introduction
It was held by many Patristic writers that not everybody would be judged at the Last
Day, the incorrigible wicked and the confirmed saints being exempted from
examination, as their character and fates were clearly evident. It was those whose
character was ambiguous who needed to be examined so their fate could be
determined. The Patristic exegesis of Psalm 1:5 and John 3:18 was influential in
shaping this position. We can see here that theological systematics predisposed an
interpretation of Scripture, which in turn reinforced the systematic position.
8.1 Not to judge, but to be judged
The most common of the explanations of Psalm 1:5 was that the wicked would indeed
be raised from the dead, not to take part in the judging, but to be judged, instead of
pronouncing judgement on others, as they were wont to do during their lifetimes.
Augustine in his interpretation of Psalm 1:5 adopts the view that the desire of the
wicked to sit in judgement will be frustrated, when the just will be the judges, and the
wicked will be judged by them.
Therefore the wicked shall not rise again in judgement. Why? Because
they are swept away as dust from the face of the earth. The speaker is
right in declaring that the ambition of the proud to sit in judgement will
be frustrated; this he explains more clearly in the next sentence: Nor
sinners in the council of the just...they will certainly rise but not with
power to judge, because they are already doomed to inescapable
punishment. Sinners, on the other hand, will not rise in the council of
the just, to act as judges, but rather to be brought to judgement.1
This interpretation is based on the various New Testament passages which indicate
that the saints will judge the world and the angels. They will not themselves be
judged, but will sit in judgement on those who had persecuted them.2 This can be seen
in the comments of Cassiodorus.
1
Augustine. On the Psalms 1.4-5. ACW 29, 1960, p. 24.
2
The “wicked” were seen in later Patristic writers not as those who had persecuted the saints,
but as those who had committed great crimes of various sorts. The change in status of the
Christian community from a persecuted sect to the official religion of the Roman Empire was
one factor in this change, as the persecution of the saints had largely ceased, occurring only
outside the boundaries of the Empire where pagan rulers still held sway, for instance in the
persecution of Persian Christians after the establishment of the Christian religion by
Constantine, since they were seen by the Persian rulers as possible traitors to a foreign power.
See S A Harvey. “Persia.” In: Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity, p. 718. Cf. the
commentary on Psalm 1 by Cassiodorus, which betrays the concerns of a latter period when it
describes the wicked of Psalm 1:5 as those who reject the “holy Trinity,” perhaps referring to
Arians and other heretics, as well as those who drive a wedge between the Old and New
Testaments. Explanation of the Psalms 1.5. ACW 51, p. 54.
267
Until justice be turned into judgement: and who possess it? All that are
upright in heart. Men’s justice is turned into judgement when the
apostles or those who approximate to their merits will, as was promised
them in the gospel, sit on twelve seats to judge in the company of
Christ. This justice of the faithful, which in this world was subject to
the scrutiny of the wicked, will then judge all the wanton and the
arrogant.3
Elsewhere he discusses this in more detail.
The council of the just is, when the blessed will judge along with the
Lord at the time of the resurrection, just as it is said in the first psalm:
therefore the impious will not rise up in the judgement, neither sinners
in the council of the just. For this in the Gospel the Lord promised
especially to his apostles and saints [Matthew 19:28].4
Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, deals with the difficult passages in the OT and the NT in
question and answer form in his book Instructiones. In the section on the Psalms he
discusses the eschatological implications of Psalm 1.
Question. Since the first psalm with these first verses distinguished the
impious and heretical sinner, what does the conclusion mean at the very
end of the psalm, in which he says, Therefore the impious will not arise
in judgement?
Answer. The beginning of this psalm is about the distinction of merits,

and the end is about the distinction of judgements. In which it shows
that every one without doubt is to rise, that is, the just, that he may
judge, the sinner, that he may be judged, the impious, that he may be
punished. For at that time he will not be judged who has already been
judged, as it is written, Whoever does not believe, is already judged
[John 3:18].5
3
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 93.15. ACW 52, pp. 404-405. The Apostles are
frequently identified as the ones who will exercise judgement, based on the passage, you shall
sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel [Matthew 19:28]. Using this passage,
Augustine stresses that it is not only the apostles being spoken of here, since the number
twelve signifies “the completeness of the multitude of those who judge.” Augustine correlates
Matthew 19:28 with 1 Corinthians 6:3 [Do you not know that we shall judge angels?] to
demonstrate that it is not just the twelve apostles who will be the judges. The City of God
20.5. NPNF 1/2, p. 424. See the discussion in C A Evans. “How are the apostles judged? A
note on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984)
149-150.
4
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 110.1. PL 70, 800. Cf. also Epiphanius. “Not because
they will not rise, but because neither in the judgement nor in the council of the just do they
deserve to enter, but they do rise, in order to enter into punishment in punishments.”
Epiphanius. Interpretatio Evangeliorum 38: De secundo adventu Salvatoris. PLS 3, 902.
5
Eucherius. Instructiones 1.1. In Psalmorum libro. PL 50, 786.
268
Here Eucherius stresses that everyone will rise, but not everyone will be part of the
council of the just, for the wicked are to be judged by that council and have no part in
it themselves. Jerome sees the assembly of the just as the gathering of those who were
not to be judged because of their righteousness; they do not appear to serve also as
judges.
Therefore in judgement the wicked shall not stand. They shall not rise
to be judged because they have already been judged, for he who does
not believe in Me is already judged. Nor shall sinners in the assembly
of the just. It does not say that sinners shall not rise again; but that they
shall not stand in the assembly of the just; they do not deserve to stand
with those who are not to be judged. If they believed in Me, says the
Lord, they would rise up with those who do not have to be judged.6
John Chrysostom specifies this theme in connection with the unbelieving Jews, who
would not sit as judges but would be judged by the apostles [Matthew 19:28].
But what is, Judging the twelve tribes of Israel? This is, “condemning
them.” For they are not surely to sit as judges, but like as He said the
Queen of the South should condemn that generation, and the Ninevites
shall condemn them; so now these also. Therefore He said not, the
nations, and the world, but the tribes of Israel. For since both the Jews
alike and the apostles had been brought up under the same laws, and
customs, and polity; when the Jews said, that for this cause they could
not believe in Christ, because the law forbade to receive his
commandments, by bringing forward these men, who had received the
same law, and yet had believed, He condemns all those; like as even
already He had said, “therefore they shall be your judges.”7
The wicked, as well as the sinners, therefore do not have the privilege of judging, as
they were wont to do in this life, but instead are to be judged themselves, often, it is
stated, by those whom they judged (unjustly) in this present life. The tables are turned
on the unrighteous and the saints are thus vindicated. This is a credible and logical
alternative to the view that the wicked would not be judged, on the grounds that they
had been judged already. But even if they had already been judged, there was a reason
for which they would be present on the judgement day: to see the glory of God and
the vindication of the saints.
An alternative view found in Diodore of Tarsus was that the unrighteous would not
face the judge, rather than not face judgement, as other interpreters understood the
verse.
6
Jerome. Homily 1, On Psalm 1. FC 48, p. 12. Cf. also Quodvultdeus. Dimidium Temporibus
18.29. SC 102, pp. 645, 647; De accedentibus ad Gratiam 2.11.3-4. CCSL 60, 467.
7
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel according to Matthew 64.2. NPNF 1/10, p. 392.
Cf. Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 54.21. ACW 52, pp. 26-27. Paulinus of Nola is of
the opinion that the Queen of Sheba is worthy of the reward of the resurrection and heaven.
Letter 5.2. ACW 36, p. 185.
269
He made it clear that the impious are self-condemned nor are they able
to see the face of the Judge, where it is possible actually to obtain
mercy, through great forgiveness, from the one who judges. So, he says,
nor will the impious see the judge, nor do the sinners share in the
assembly of the just.8
The wicked thus were not able to come to judgement because they were not allowed
to see the judge, or take part in the assembly of the just gathered before the judge. A
somewhat similar view is expressed by Augustine, although not with reference to
Psalm 1:5. He says that “in the judgement man will be seen, but God will not be
seen,” but after the judgement, “God will be seen by those who have prevailed in the
judgement, but by the wicked He will not be seen.”9
8.2 Believers and unbelievers are not judged
An unusual characteristic of Patristic eschatology is the idea, frequently found, that

believers would not be judged at the eschaton,10 nor would unbelievers.11 The reason
why the wicked would not be judged is because they do not believe, and therefore
they have been condemned already; any further judgement is superfluous. This idea
was based on Psalm 1:5, Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgement, nor
sinners in the assembly of the righteous, which in isolation perhaps might not have
suggested the eschatological judgement to the Patristic authors. But in conjunction
with John 3:18, Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not
believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s
one and only Son, that interpretation was not for them unfeasible. In the
eschatological exegesis of Psalm 1 in patristic literature we find constant reference to
John 3:18;12 it is unusual to find such interpretations of Psalm 1 which do not cite it
directly.
8
Diodore of Tarsus. In Psalmum 1.5. Corpus Christianorum Series Graecae 6, p. 11.
9
Augustine. On the Gospel of John 22.11. NPNF 1/7, pp. 148-149.
10
This is not held by all Patristic writers. For instance, Maximus the Confessor thinks the saints
will face judgement and only then are they destined to eternal life. “Save us, O Lord, from the
difficulties of this world according to Thy kindness, that we may pass over the sea of life with
a pure conscience and take our stand untainted and incorrupt before Thy dreadful judgement
seat; and then may we be judged worthy of eternal life.” The Ascetic Life 39. ACW 21, p. 129.
Similarly, Athanasius stated that “Each of us will have to render an account of his deeds in
this life on the day of judgement.” Apology against the Arians 35. NPNF 2/4, p. 119. Sulpitius
Severus was also uncertain of his fate at the judgement. Letter to the Deacon Aurelius. NPNF
2/11, p. 19.
11
Various Patristic writers expressed the idea that the devil and his angels will not be judged but
are condemned already, as are all those human beings who are also in rebellion against God.
Justin Martyr. First Apology 28. ANF 1, p. 172. Fragments of the lost writings of Justin, 3.
ANF 1, p. 300. Tertullian. Apology 23. ANF 3, p. 38. Another theme is that the wicked are
sent into the hell prepared for the devil and his angels [Matthew 25:41] and are thus
condemned along with them. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 3.23.3. ANF 1, p. 456. Pseudo-
Clement. Recognitions 4.15. ANF 8, p. 138.
12
While similar ideas are also expressed in John 5:28-29, John 12:47-48 and 1 Corinthians
11:31-32, Ambrose is the only one to cite John 5:28-29 in conjunction with Psalm 1:5, while
John 12:47-48 and 1 Corinthians 11:31-32 are never cited in that connection. Enarratio in
Psalmum 1, 53. PL 14, 994. Cf. also John Chrysostom’s comments on John 5:28-29 for an
270
However, there are also other reasons why the Patristic writers held that the believers
would not be judged, while not exempting the wicked from the judgement. This is
related to the different meanings which the Patristic writers gave to the term
“judgement.” Some interpreted this as the process of judging, while others
understood it to mean the punishment consequent on that process. For instance,
Irenaeus used this view in his Proof of the Apostolic Teaching, while elsewhere he
spoke of judgement in the usual way. Here he says that the righteous will not face the
judgement; this is only for those who do not believe. The reason is that he interprets
the judgement as the punishment itself, not as a tribunal. Thus the wicked suffer
“judgement” in hell.
And judgement has been taken off those who believe in Him, and they
are no more subject to it; and the judgement, which is to come by fire,
will be the perdition of those who did not believe, towards the end of
this world.13
The wicked will be separated from the righteous at the resurrection, in order that the
wicked can be sent away to judgement,14 where they will be cut off from life.15 The
righteous will enter everlasting life, while the devil and his angels, and all the wicked,
will be sent into everlasting fire.
[Christ will return from heaven] to raise up anew all flesh of the whole
human race...that He should execute just judgement towards all; that He
may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed,
and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and
wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the
exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy,
and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in
His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and
others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with
everlasting glory.16
example of the independent treatment of this passage. Homilies on St. John 39.3. NPNF 1/14,
p. 140.
13
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 69. ACW 16, p. 93. Cf. also Augustine. “But
certainly not all will go to eternal life by rising and coming forth from the graves - only they
that have done well; and they that have done ill, to judgement. For here he has put judgement
for punishment.” On the Gospel of John 19.18. NPNF 1/7, p. 130. John Chrysostom. “And the
comes not into judgement means “is not punished,” for he speaks not of death “here,” but of
death eternal, as also of the other “life” which is deathless.” Homilies on St. John 39.2. NPNF
1/14, p. 139.
14
15
16
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.10.1. ANF 1, p. 330-331. Irenaeus does make the important
point that humankind was intended to live, not to suffer eternal punishment, and that hell was
originally prepared for the devil and his angels. Against Heresies 3.23.3. ANF 1, p. 456. Cf.
Augustine. “But as for those who, out of the mass of perdition caused by the first man’s sin,
are not redeemed through the one Mediator between God and man, they too shall rise again,
each with his own body, but only to be punished with the devil and his angels.” Enchiridion
92. NPNF 1/3, p. 266.
271
Just as those who do not believe are banished to the eternal fire prepared for the devil
and his angels, so too the righteous are welcomed into the eternal kingdom which had
been prepared for all eternity for them.17 Again Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics in his
doctrine of eternal punishment, when he says that it is the same God who prepares
good things for the righteous who also prepares hellfire for the wicked.18 Those who
are judged to be righteous are then rewarded with immortality and taken into the
eternal kingdom where they receive glory. It is thus after the resurrection, when they
are judged and then receive glorious bodies, that the saints are given their rewards,
and it is at the same time that the wicked are sent away into punishment.
Some Patristic writers held that the judgement included the allocation of rewards as
well as punishments, and thus the saints were included in the judgement in this
positive sense. This approach can be found in the commentary by Cassiodorus on
Psalm 75:10.
So that you would not think that the Judgement was to be held solely to condemn the
wicked, he added: To save all the meek of the earth. The meek of the earth are those
who are not carried away with flaming desire by any worldly vices, but deport
themselves with untroubled self-control, as has been said earlier, and are shown to
have placid peace of mind. They are saved when through the Lord’s gift they obtain
the promised rewards.19
Augustine has an extensive discussion of the apparent conflict between John 5:24,
which says those who believe will not come into judgement, and 2 Corinthians 5:10,
which says that we shall all come before the judgement-seat of Christ. Augustine asks
whether it means those who will not be judged still appear before the judgement seat,
but then decides that “judgement” in John 5:24 means punishment, while in 2
Corinthians 5:10 it means “discrimination.” Thus in the latter text, the good are to
receive good things, while the evil are to receive evil things. He also says that it
means vindication for the saints, as in the Psalm which says, Judge me, O God. This
should be understood to mean, “Judge me, O God, and discern my cause from an
unholy nation.” The judgement which is punishment, to be meted out to the
unbelieving together with the devil and his angels, is not something to which the
believers will be subject.20 Ambrose took a similar approach, and said that it is not the
wicked who have a part in the judgement, but only those who have the possibility of
pardon for their sins. The judgement is therefore something beneficial to the believer,
but terrible to the wicked, since they are manifestly unworthy of being pardoned
through the judgement.21
Some Patristic writers took judgement to mean “condemnation,” and thus on the basis
of John 3:18 stated that the unbelievers did not need to come to the judgement, since
they had already been condemned. There was no need for a second condemnation.
17
18
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.40.1. ANF 1, p. 523; Against Heresies 5.35.2. ANF 1, p. 566.
19
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 75.10. ACW 52, p. 236.
20
Augustine. On the Gospel of St. John 22.4-5. NPNF 1/7, pp. 145-146.
21
Ambrose. Exposition of Psalm 118 [119]. Homily 5.44. PL 15, 1334.
272
Jerome makes such comments regarding the judgement in his exposition of Psalm 108
(109).
When he is judged, let him go forth condemned. Do not let him come
into the court of judgement, but let him come into condemnation, for
where there is a judicial investigation, there is still uncertainty; but
where there is condemnation, the sentence has already been passed and
is published.22
This same approach can be seen in the treatise of Augustine on the Gospel of John,
but Augustine stresses that judgement does not always mean condemnation, as in
some places the saints request God to judge them, meaning they desire their situation
to be discerned and injustices put right.
You have penal judgement spoken of in the Gospel: He that believes

not is judged already: and in another place, The hour is coming, when
those who are in the graves shall come forth; they that have done good,
unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of judgement. You see how he has put judgement for
condemnation and punishment. And yet if judgement were always to be
taken for condemnation, should we ever have heard in the psalm, Judge
me, O God? In the former place, judgement is used in the sense of
inflicting pain; here, it is used in the sense of discernment. How so?
Just because so expounded by him who says, Judge me, O God. For
read, and see what follows. What is this Judge me, O God, but just what
he adds, and discern my cause against an unholy nation? Because then
it was said, Judge me, O God, and discern [the true merits of] my cause
against an unholy nation; similarly now said the Lord Christ, I seek not
my own glory: there is one that seeks and judges. How is there one who
seeks and judges? There is the Father, who discerns and distinguishes
between my glory and yours. For you glory in the spirit of this present
world. Not so do I, who say to the Father, Father, glorify me with that
glory which I had with you before the world was. What is that glory?
One altogether different from human inflation. Thus does the Father
judge. And so to “judge” is to “discern.”23
In another place Augustine indicates that the eschatological judgement is in terms of

condemnation; but he understands the distinguishing of the wicked from the righteous
as judgement through the condemnation of the one group and the exemption from
condemnation of the other. In this way, through some being condemned and others
not, judgement is exercised and the sheep are separated from the goats, that is, the
righteous are separated from the wicked.24 Theodoret repeats this idea, and sees the
judgement as the “council of the righteous,” and thus the wicked will not take part in
22
Jerome. Homily 35, on Psalm 108 (109). FC 48, p. 258.
23
Augustine. On the Gospel of St. John 43.9. NPNF 1/7, pp. 241-242. In this connection, Mealy
suggests that Revelation 20:4a means that “judgement was passed in their favour” and not just
delegation of authority to judge. J Webb Mealy. After the thousand years, pp. 108-109.
24
273
judgement, but will receive condemnation. There is no need to investigate them, since
their wickedness is apparent and all that is needed is their punishment.
For this reason the impious will not rise in the judgement, nor sinners
in the council of the righteous. With great accuracy the Holy Spirit has
expounded everything. For it did not say, the impious shall not rise, but
they shall not rise to judgement, meaning, not to judgement but to
condemnation. For they have no need of accusation, since their impiety
is clear, but they await punishment alone. For just as those who
exercise justice do not bring to court killers who are caught in the act to
convict them, but to pronounce against them the sentence decreed by
law. In the same way those who spend their lives in impiety undergo
resurrection, not being brought to judgement but receiving the sentence
of punishment. And yet also those who are free of impious beliefs but
have lived a lawless life, will end up somewhere far from the council of
the righteous. Aquila and Theodotion have translated council as
assembly, and Symmachus has gathering. For the Lord know the way of
the righteous, but the way of the impious shall perish. He says the just
judge knows everything even before the judgement, and does not need
proofs or conviction. Hence allotting what is deserved to each, he will
deem some worthy of commendation and crowns, and others he will
send to unending punishment. The words the way of the impious shall
perish harmonise with that saying of the apostle, If anyone’s work
burns up he will be punished, for the work of righteous men remains
brilliant. But the wickedness of impious and unholy men perishes with
them.25
The Patristic writers therefore sometimes understood “judgement” to mean

“condemnation,” using the comparison of the texts from Psalm 1:5 and John 3:18,
whereby the wicked are said to be condemned already when they come to the
judgement. Others see the judgement as the process of judging, which is the “council
of the just,” from which sinners and the wicked are excluded, but the latter come to be
judged, that is, to face interrogation.26
The judgement is also understood to mean the revelation of the state which people are
in, in this present life; the unveiling of what only God can see at the moment.27 The
basis for this interpretation is the doctrine of God’s providence, and it is commonly
tied in with the interpretation of John 3:18. This can be seen in the way Augustine ties
in providence and judgement. He suggests that if every good deed were to be
rewarded in this life, and every evil deed punished in this life, there would be no need
of a judgement. Conversely, if no evil deeds received a just recompense, it would be
difficult to maintain that God does presently exercise his providence over humankind.
For the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of time, nor
broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is corrupted by this
25
Theodoret. On Psalms 1.6-7. PG 80, 872-873.
26
Athanasius. Expositions of the Psalms 1.5. PG 27, 64.
27
This view has also been expressed by G C Berkouwer. The return of Christ, p. 313.
274
world’s happiness, feels himself punished by its unhappiness. Yet
often, even in the present distribution of temporal things, does God
plainly evince his own interference. For if every sin were now visited
with manifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved for the
final judgement; on the other hand, if no sin received now a plainly
divine punishment, it would be concluded that there is no divine
providence at all.28
Augustine concludes that there is indeed no escape from the justice of God, since
“men are punished by God for their sins often visibly, always secretly, either in this
life or after death...”29 By this means he can maintain both the purpose of the
eschatological judgement, and the present providential governing of God: while his
justice is not always evident in this life, that does not mitigate the fact that God will
ensure that his justice is ultimately satisfied. Augustine uses John 3:18 to demonstrate
that the wicked are already judged, and it is the providence of God which preserves
both the righteous and the wicked for the fates which are due to each of them. The
judgement has not been revealed, but it has already taken place, as both those who
believe and those who do not believe are already judged. The eschatological
judgement is to reveal that hidden judgement which God has already made.30
Already, saith He, has been judged. The judgement has not yet
appeared, but already it has taken place. For the Lord knows them that
are his: he knows who are persevering for the crown, and who for the
flame; knows the wheat on his threshing-floor, and knows the chaff;
knows the good corn, and knows the tares. He that believeth not is
already judged. Why judged? Because he has not believed in the name
of the only-begotten Son of God.31
At the time of the eschatological judgement we shall recognise the justice of God’s
judgements which have already been made, and will be revealed at that time. This
will include not only the justice of those judgements which shall be pronounced then
and followed by the appropriate recompense, but also the justice of all the judgements
God has made throughout time for which the recompense was made in this life.
But when we shall have come to that judgement, the date of which is
peculiarly called the day of judgement, and sometimes the day of the
Lord, we shall then recognize the justice of all God’s judgements, not
only of such as shall then be pronounced, but of all which take effect
28
Augustine. The City of God 1.8. NPNF 1/2, p. 5. Cf. Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms
91.12. ACW 52, p. 392.
29
30
It is interesting to note that in spite of the discussions about the revelation at the judgement of
that which is presently done in secret, there is little use made of texts such as Matthew 6:1-6,
18, Luke 8:17 [For there is nothing hidden that shall not be disclosed, and nothing concealed
that will not be known or brought into the open], Luke 12:2-3, and Romans 2:16 [This will
take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel
declares].
31
Augustine. On the Gospel of St. John 12.12. NPNF 1/7, p. 85.
275
from the beginning, or may take effect before that time. And in that day
we shall also recognize with what justice so many, or almost all, the
just judgements of God in the present life defy the scrutiny of human
sense or insight, though in this matter it is not concealed from pious
minds that what is concealed is just.32
Here Augustine asserts that the believer can have confidence in the providence of God
and rest assured that the judgements which God is presently making are just, because
God is just. We need not therefore be anxious about those who seem to escape
punishment or are denied their rewards, since God has taken note and will adjust the
balance accordingly, in the eschaton even if not in this present life.33
Theodoret follows much the same kind of approach as Augustine, and says that while
punishments and rewards do not appear to be justly allocated in this present life, the
fact that God is just and rules in providence over all things will ensure that there will
be a day of judgement when all things will be put right.
When we see both types of people ending their days - those in high
standing and those who are quite worthless, members of the common
herd - let us consider once more that He has prepared another life in
which to reward, according to their deserts, those who have lived the
good life. Indeed He has already unmistakably honored some of them
by making their crowns of virtue manifest. But the fact that not all men
appear illustrious and distinguished in the present life reveals the reality
of a future life.34
He stresses again that the fact that the righteous are not rewarded in this life proves
that there will be a judgement in the eschaton when this will occur. The rewards and
punishments allocated in this life do not complete the administration of God’s justice,
but act as encouragements and warnings to those still alive, and indicate that there is
indeed a just God who rules over all, since the recompense for each still waits to be
made.
The honor given to some is a sign of God’s justice. The fact that not all
virtuous people get equal returns is a proof of a future life, and
strengthens the expectation of the things to come. For this reason the
Ruler of the universe does not broadcast in this life the names of all the
virtuous, nor does He reprove all who live in sin. He singles out some
for vengeance, revealing the justice of the verdict, hoping thereby to
alarm the others, and He rouses them to repentance. In not destroying
all who do evil He gives us another proof of a future life.35
32
33
Cf. also Macarius of Egypt. Homily 12.13-14. Intoxicated with God, pp. 86-87. He says that
those who are God’s are presently marked with a sign that indicates their allegiance which
will be revealed at the judgement (cf. Revelation 7:3). Gregory the Great. Morals on Job
25.8.19. LF 23, pp. 108-109.
34
Theodoret. On Divine Providence 9.21. ACW 49, pp. 125-126.
35
276
Theodoret is concerned to demonstrate that there is a judgement in the eschaton when
justice will be done, since those who are punished in this life, while others are not, are
treated unjustly, being singled out in a way other equally sinful people are not.
If there is no life after our departure from here below, those who are
reproved in this life are done great injustice and those who are not
escape great punishment... For there does exist another life in which
those who here escape punishment will pay the due penalty, and those
who enjoyed no return for their efforts at virtue in the present life will
obtain the reward for their strivings.36
Theodoret then takes this doctrine of providence to be a guarantee of the justice of

God, since if God truly does govern, he will not allow some to go unrewarded or
unpunished, while others are given their deserts and thereby seem to be treated
differently from the rest.
8.2.1 Psalm 1:5 and the judgement of the ungodly
In his Homily on Psalm 1, A Psalm of the lot of the Just Man, Basil says that in the
psalms we learn of “a threat of judgement, a hope of resurrection, a fear of
punishment, promises of glory.”37 We find a similar idea in Hilary of Poitiers, who
says that “The Holy Spirit made choice of this magnificent and noble introduction to
the Psalter, in order to... declare the penalty of the Judgement, to proclaim the two-
fold resurrection, to shew forth the counsel of God as seen in His award.”38 Cyril of
Alexandria says in commenting on Psalm 1 that “David first taught the resurrection
and the judgement and the promise of the life to come clearly, while Moses handed
down nothing on these things.”39 Psalm 1:5, The wicked will not stand in the
judgement, is commonly understood to have an eschatological referent, although few
modern interpreters understand this verse in the same way as the Patristic writers.40
36
37
Basil. A Psalm of the lot of the Just Man 2. FC 46, p. 153. Athanasius said: “And if you wish
to instruct some people about the resurrection, sing the words in Psalm 65.” Letter to
Marcellinus on the interpretation of the Psalms 21. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 119.
38
39
Cyril of Alexandria. On the Psalms 1. PG 69, 720. This is a direct citation (with some words
omitted) from Eusebius. Commentaria in Psalmos 1.6. PG 23, 80. Clement of Rome interprets
Psalm 3:6 as referring to the resurrection. 1 Clement 26. ANF 1, p. 12. Clement of Alexandria
takes Psalm 150:3-4 to refer to the resurrection. The Instructor 2.4. ANF 2, p. 248. Augustine
says that “There are many allusions to the last judgement in the Psalms, but for the most part
only casual and slight.” He does not cite Psalm 1, and his references to such allusions in the
Psalms are to explicit statements of the destruction of the wicked and the cosmic
conflagration. He thus cites only Psalm 102:25-27 and Psalm 50:3-5; the latter he interprets as
a reference to the coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead. The City of God 20.24.
NPNF 1/2, pp. 443-445.
40
This interpretation is found in M Dahood [Psalms I, pp. 4-5], whose view is severely
criticised by Peter Craigie, who seems oblivious to the Patristic precedents, as indeed does
Dahood himself. Psalms 1-50, p. 61.
277
The first time we meet the eschatological interpretation of Psalm 1:5 is possibly in the
works of Athenagoras, who says that not all will face the judgement, although
everyone will rise from the dead.
For there have been many who, in treating the doctrine of the
resurrection, presented only the third argument to support their reason
for it, thinking that the resurrection must take place because of the
judgement. This is clearly shown to be false from the fact that all men
who die arise, whereas all who arise are not judged. For if only justice
exercised at the judgement were the cause of the resurrection, then even
those guilty of no error or incapable of virtue - that is, very young
children - would not arise. Since they admit, however, that all will
arise, including those who died in infancy as well as all others, the
resurrection does not take place primarily because of the judgement but
because of the will of the Creator and the nature of those created.41
Athenagoras does not develop his idea further, so it is difficult to determine who will
face the judgement; for instance, are “very young children” to be judged? It would
seem, however, that everyone will be present at the judgement, since all are raised,
while perhaps not everyone will be judged. Barnard sees in the statement that all the
dead will rise again but not all the risen will be judged, an allusion to the Western text
of 1 Corinthians 15:51,42 which reads: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed. According to Metzger, the Western text is characterised by paraphrase and
harmonisation. Words, clauses and whole sentences are changed, omitted and
inserted.43 However, the allusion is rather indirect, as Athenagoras does not directly
cite 1 Corinthians 15:51, which also does not refer to the judgement. It seems more
likely that Athenagoras is using Psalm 1:4-5 and that he understood it to mean “all
will rise, but not all will be judged,” the standard interpretation of that passage in later
Patristic authors.44
Clement of Alexandria appears to have been the first to explicitly give this
interpretation of Psalm 1:4-5, and there are indications that Clement had read the
works of Athenagoras.45 If Athenagoras is indeed alluding to this passage to support
his interpretation, then it may be an indication that the disputed association of
Athenagoras with Alexandria is perhaps correct. In The Instructor Clement says that
Psalm 1:1-3 is “an allusion to the resurrection,” while Psalm 1:4 speaks of “the
punishment of sinners, and their easy dispersion, and carrying off by the wind,”
thereby showing the punishment for wickedness and the justice of God.46 He
interprets the Psalm as a contrast between the righteous, who will prosper in the
41
123.
42
43
B M Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. xviii.
44
See also the discussion in Chapter 3.5.3 concerning whether Athenagoras uses 1 Corinthians
15:51 in his Apology.
45
46
278
resurrection like a tree planted by the water by which it is nourished and so does not
wither, and the wicked, who will be dispersed and carried off by the wind like dried
up dust. Elsewhere Clement gives the first explicit exegesis of Psalm 1 in conjunction
with John 3:18-19.
Justly, therefore, the prophet47 says, The ungodly are not so; but as the
chaff which the wind driveth away from the face of the earth.
Wherefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement (being already
condemned, for he that believeth not is condemned already), nor
sinners in the counsel of the righteous, inasmuch as they are already
condemned, so as not to be united to those that have lived without
stumbling. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; and the way
of the ungodly shall perish.48
John 3:18 is seen as an explanation of why the wicked do not need to be brought to
the Judgement: they have already been condemned because of their unbelief. The
judgement is to determine the fate of those being judged, but the fate of the wicked is
already known. Elsewhere Clement discusses the punishment of the wicked in
connection with Psalm 1:4.
But punishment does not avail to him who has sinned, to undo his sin,
but that he may sin no more, and that no one else falls into the like.
Therefore the good God corrects for these three causes: First, that he
who is corrected may become better than his former self; then that
those who are capable of being saved by examples may be driven back,
being admonished; and thirdly, that he who is injured may not be
readily despised, and be apt to receive injury. And there are two
methods of correction - the instructive and the punitive, which we have
called the disciplinary. It ought to be known, then, that those who fall
into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the
deeds done before are remitted, and those done after are purged. It is in
reference to the unbelieving that it is said, that they are reckoned as the
chaff which the wind drives from the face of the earth, and the drop
which falls from a vessel [Isaiah 40:15].49
47
Many of the Patristic authors refer to the Psalmist as the “prophet.” This is perhaps based on
Matthew 13:34, which cites Psalm 78:2 as that which was “spoken through the prophet,” and
Matthew 27:35 (in late manuscripts) in which Psalm 22:18 is similarly cited as “the word
spoken by the prophet.” Cf. G W Ashby. Theodoret of Cyrrhus as exegete of the Old
Testament, p.26.
48
49
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 4.24. ANF 2, p. 438. Clement uses these same two texts
together elsewhere [The Stromata 7.18. ANF 2, p. 556] when describing the fate of the
heretics, making an allegorical interpretation of the distinction between clean and unclean
animals in Leviticus. The Epistle of Barnabas 10 [ANF 1, p. 143], used this allegory in
conjunction with Psalm 1, and was cited by Clement [The Stromata 2.16. ANF 2, p. 362]. The
same interpretation appears in Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.8.4 [ANF 1, p. 534], the only
places in Patristic literature where it appears to have been used, although Novatian made a
similar allegorical application of the clean and unclean animals in the Levitical law. On the
Jewish meats 3. ANF 5, p. 647.
279
Here he seems to make a distinction between the righteous, those who have been
baptised, who are disciplined when they sin, and the wicked, who are punished not for
correction but punitively. One of the factors which enabled Clement to make this
interpretation of Psalm 1 was his instrumentalist anthropology, which made it
possible to assert a judgement after death prior to the resurrection. In this view it was
most important that the soul should be judged; the body being dead could be
considered to have been judged already. It is clear that Clement postulates the
immediate individual judgement of the dead after death, as a result of the synthesis
forged between Scripture and Platonism by Clement, which is thus influential in his
interpretation of Psalm 1 with reference to the resurrection and the judgement.
Clement does not deny the reality or importance of the resurrection, but it is apparent
that his doctrine of the resurrection is in tension with his belief, as expressed in the
interpretation of Psalm 1, concerning the immediate judgement after death.
Another factor in the origins of the eschatological interpretation of Psalm 1:5 is

discussed by Linton with reference to Clement.
Words with a traditional Christian content are interpreted according to

this tradition. When we read - in the first Psalm - “The ungodly shall
not stand in judgement, nor sinners in the congregation of the
righteous,” both anastesontai and krisis are interpreted as
eschatological terms (Strom. 2.15.69, which, however, also can be the
case for Jewish interpretation). Characteristic is, that Clemens, too, has
little sense for Hebrew parallelism. He apprehends “the ungodly” and
the “sinners” in the verse just quoted as two different categories of
sinners.50
It is unhelpful to suggest that Clement distinguished two classes of the unrighteous,

the “ungodly” and the “sinners,” because he failed to see the Hebrew parallelism, as
the distinction was not made on this basis alone. However Clement does not
distinguish two classes of the unrighteous: the “ungodly” and the “sinners” (a
distinction made only in later Patristic writers); all are condemned together. For
instance, Jerome distinguishes (as was common by his time) the wicked, the righteous
and the sinners, with only the latter facing judgement, drawing once again on John
3:18-19. Linton again states that because Jerome makes this distinction between the
“ungodly” and the “sinners,” he therefore had “but little discernment of the Hebrew
parallelism.”51 Linton has not taken account of the power of tradition in interpretation,
and the distinction between the “ungodly” and the “sinners” in Psalm 1 was firmly
established by the time of Jerome. It is also rather anachronistic to blame Jerome for
not noticing the parallelism, which even modern scholars have been aware of only
since Lowth’s work, and this feature of the Psalms was not widely recognised in the
Patristic period. But it was not completely unknown,52 as Augustine comments in his
commentary on Psalm 1 on the parallelism of verse 5. He suggests that the Psalmist
50
O Linton. “Interpretation of the Psalms in the early church.” Studia Patristica 4 (1961) 149-
150.
51
O Linton. “Interpretation of the Psalms in the early church.” Studia Patristica 4 (1961) 154.
52
See J L Kugel. The Idea of Hebrew Poetry, pp. 147-170.
280
“habitually repeats his first phrase with greater emphasis,” thus indicating some
sensitivity to the Hebrew parallelism.53
Following Clement of Alexandria, Origen also interpreted Psalm 1:5 as a reference to

the resurrection. While his commentary on the Psalms survives only in fragmentary
form, both Methodius of Olympus and Epiphanius of Salamis preserve Origen’s
commentary on Psalm 1 in their writings because here he explicitly expounds his
view of the resurrection, a view attacked by these two later writers who focus their
criticisms on that work. Dechow states that this is perfectly understandable, since the
commentary on Psalm 1 is “characteristic of Origen’s mature thought and, in the
portion quoted by way of Methodius, contains in compact form the Alexandrian’s
most significant (and controversial) eschatological terminology.”54
Origen interprets Psalm 1:5 in the context of his polemics against the “simple
believers” who expected a resurrection of the present (and glorified) body. Origen on
the other hand sees the resurrection body as a total transformation of this body so that
it is no longer material, but “spiritual.”55 Here Origen is grappling with the problem of
the nature of the resurrection body, a common theme in Patristic literature. Origen
adopts an anti-bodily perspective which ultimately denigrates this life.
Therefore the wicked shall not rise up in judgement, etc. Prompted by

this passage the simpler sort of believers hold that the wicked will have
no share in the resurrection, though they by no means make it clear
what they understand by the resurrection, or what sort of idea they have
of the judgement. For even if they appear to offer explanations on these
points, examination will prove them at fault, for they cannot maintain
consistency in further discussion. Thus if we ask them of what part of
them it is that a resurrection takes place, they answer that it is of the
bodies wherewith at present we are clothed. Then, on our further asking
whether it is of the whole of their substance or not, they say without
consideration, Yes, of the whole. But if, accommodating ourselves to
their simplicity, we put the further question, Whether blood that has
been lost through incision of the veins, or the flesh or hairs that
previously existed, shall rise again, or only those we had at the time of
death, being pressed in argument they take refuge in saying that we
53
Augustine. On the Psalms 1.4-5. ACW 29, 1960, pp. 23-24. Cf. Theodoret: “Not so the
impious, not so. By the doubling of the denial he makes the opposition more evident.” On
Psalms 1.5. PG 80, 872. Cf. Pseudo-Rufinus, who comments on Psalm 1:4, Therefore the
impious do not rise up in the judgement, Neither sinners in the council of the just. “This
sentence seems to be repeated, so that, as it is said above, the impious are understood as
sinners, and what preceded it, in the judgement, this is said of the council of the just. Or if the
impious are one thing, sinners are another (for every impious man is a sinner, however not
every sinner is impious [from Augustine, in so many words].” Commentary in Seventyfive
Psalms: Psalm 1.5. PL 21, 649A. The reference to Augustine is to his comments in On the
Psalms 1.5. ACW 29, p. 24. Augustine also discusses parallelism in On the Psalms 3.5. ACW
29, p. 34.
54
J F Dechow. Dogma and mysterium in early Christianity, p. 353.
55
By “spiritual” in this context is meant a body which is of a different substance to the present
fleshly body. A more authentically Biblical meaning of “spiritual” is that which is under the
control of the Holy Spirit, not something which is in contrast to the “material.”
281
must allow God to do as He wills. The better sort of them, to avoid
being driven by their theory to reassemble the very blood which has
happened on various occasions to be lost from our bodies, say it is our
body in its last state that will rise again.56
Origen thus does not see this passage as a denial that the wicked rise from the dead,
nor are judged. It is not that clear, however, what he did think the passage meant.
The exegetical pattern which associates Psalm 1:5 and John 3:18 appears also in
Cyprian. In his treatise addressed to Quirinus he provides citations of Biblical texts to
demonstrate certain doctrines. Chapter 31 of Book 3 is headed: That he who does not
believe is judged already. In this section he combines John 3:18-19 and Psalm 1:5,
and in his short catena of citations encapsulates the way in which these texts were
correlated and interpreted in Patristic literature, leading to the conclusion that neither
the believers nor the unbelievers would be judged.57 In another place Cyprian says:
“even here, before the day of judgement, the souls of the righteous and of the
unrighteous are already divided, and the chaff is separated from the wheat.”58 He is
referring here to people still alive, but the principle remains the same: a distinction
has already been made, implying that they are therefore judged already.
Cyril of Jerusalem challenges those who use Psalm 1:5 (as well as Job 7:9 and Psalm
115:17) as a proof that there is no resurrection, by arguing that it means not that the
wicked will not be raised, but that they will rise up not to face judgement but
condemnation, that is, God does not need to take long to judge them and their
punishment follows swiftly on their being raised.59 The commentary on Psalm 1 by
Pseudo-Rufinus cites 1 Corinthians 15:51 to prove that all the dead will be raised, and
the author asserts that Psalm 1:5 does not deny the resurrection of the wicked. While
everyone will rise, not everyone will rise to glory, since we shall not all be changed
[1 Corinthians 15:51].60 The author thus sees the distinctions between the sinners, the
saints and the wicked as also involving distinctions in the state of the bodies in which
they are resurrected. Those who believe will be changed into glorious bodies, while
the wicked will receive their bodies unchanged.
In his comments on Psalm 1:5, Hilary of Poitiers argues that the punishment of the
wicked involves the denial of access to judgement: they do not have the right or the
privilege to have their case heard, since they have consistently refused to believe, and
have thereby forfeited all right to further grace from God. They have no opportunity
to plead their case, no chance to be rescued from the fate that awaits them. They are
not annihilated, but instead raised for punishment, since annihilation is not a
punishment but escape from punishment. They do not deserve to be judged, nor
56
pp. 230-231.
57
Cyprian. Three books of Testimonies against the Jews 3.31. ANF 5, p. 543.
58
Cyprian. On the Unity of the Church 10. ANF 5, p. 424. His comment on separating the chaff
from the wheat is alluding to Psalm 1:4. Shortly after in this passage he refers to those who
illegitimately take office in the church as sitting in “the seat of pestilence” [Psalm 1:1].
59
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.14-15. NPNF 2/7, p. 137.
60
Pseudo-Rufinus. Commentary in Seventyfive Psalms: Psalm 1. PL 21, 649.
282
indeed do they need to be judged, nor their case be heard, since the judgement has
already been passed on the wicked [John 3:18].61 Another reason why the wicked will
not face the judgement when they are raised for punishment is that the phrase the way
of the wicked will perish [Psalm 1:6] was interpreted to mean that they would be cut
off without chance for returning to God.62
Similarly in a metrical paraphrase of Psalm 1, Paulinus of Nola interprets the psalm as

a description of the resurrection and last judgement.63 He says that the wicked do not
need to come into the judgement, because “Blatant guilt needs no investigation to
uncover it, because those who do not bear the sign of salvation on their heads will
flaunt before them the mark of impending death.”64 There was no need for the wicked
to be interrogated, as there was nothing to be learned from them: all that was needed
was to distinguish them from the rest of humankind in order to send them away into
hell, as their fate was already decided. This idea also appears in the commentary of
Theodoret on Psalm 1:5.
For they have no need of accusation, since their impiety is clear, but
they await punishment alone. For just as those who exercise justice do
not bring to court killers who are caught in the act to convict them, but
to pronounce against them the sentence decreed by law. In the same
way those who spend their lives in impiety undergo resurrection, not
being brought to judgement but receiving the sentence of punishment.65
The reason they do not need to be investigated, according to Jerome, is because the
Judge knows all about them already, as is evident from Psalm 1:6.
For the Lord know the way of the righteous, but the way of the impious
shall perish. He says the just judge knows everything even before the
judgement, and does not need proofs or conviction. Hence allotting
what is deserved to each, he will deem some worthy of commendation
and crowns, and others he will send to unending punishment.66
Ambrose added yet more nuances to the concept of the judgement of the wicked. The
wicked were to be raised, not to face the judgement, since they had been judged
already, but to undergo punishment. The sinners and the righteous were both raised
for the judgement, but in different positions: the sinners, those who believed but did
not live perfect lives, were raised in order to be judged; while the righteous were
raised in order to sit with Christ in judgement.67
61
62
63
Apollinaris of Laodicea. also made a poetical paraphrase of Psalm 1, but this is little more
than a poetic reworking of the text; there is little explanation incorporated into his poem.
Metaphrasis eis ton Psaltera: Psalm 1. PG 33, 1313.
64
Paulinus of Nola. Poem 7, based on Psalm 1. ACW 40, p. 51.
65
Theodoret. On Psalms 1.6. PG 80, 872-873.
66
Theodoret. On Psalms 1.7. PG 80, 873.
67
H de Lavalette. “L’interprétation du psaume 1,5 chez les pères ‘miséricordieux’ latins.”
Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960) 552. Cf. Cassiodorus, who says that “the just
283
However, Ambrose stresses, unlike many other Patristic writers, that the saints will
indeed be judged, since through judgement we are pardoned for our sins, which even
the righteous have committed. The wicked, however, are judged already, as they have
not believed. The judgement of their own unbelief is what condemns them to
punishment, and they do not have the advantage of being judged, which is reserved
only for those who believe.
On the contrary to speak more truly, the saint comes to the judgement,
the impious does not come: Therefore the impious will not rise in the
judgement. The one asks that he may be absolved, the other that he is
punished and sent away. But he who is not judged, has not believed, but
by the judgement of his own impiety he himself is punished.68
Ambrose comments elsewhere on this theme:
And finally, he who has believed that the dead shall rise again in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (for the trumpet
shall sound) shall be caught up amongst the first in the clouds to meet
the Lord in the air; he who has not believed shall be left, and subject
himself to the sentence by his own unbelief.69
He makes the same interpretation in another context. “Only those who have confessed
Christ will deserve to attain to the grace of the resurrection; because the impious do
not rise in the judgement, but they are punished as if a judgement has been held.”70
The benefits of the judgement, reserved for those who believe, is spelled out by
Ambrose in his exposition of Psalm 118 [119]. Through the terror of punishment, the
saints are confirmed in their walk; through the awareness of sin they seek
forgiveness.71
Ambrose was uncertain whether those who were judged already were the impious
only, or whether it included also the Christian sinners. For Ambrose it was not the
sinners who preferred light more than darkness who were not judged, but the impious
who loved darkness. The distinction was between faith and unbelief, not between
those works which conformed to the faith and those which did not.72 Ambrose rejected
the interpretation of Hilary, that “Not every man that is a sinner is also impious, but
the impious man cannot fail to be a sinner.”73
man rises to judge, the sinner to be judged, the wicked to be punished without trial.”
Explanation of the Psalms 1.5. ACW 51, p. 54.
68
69
70
Ambrose. Exposition of Luke 7.9. PL 15, 1789.
71
72
Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960) 553.
73
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1.6. NPNF 2/9, p. 237. Cf. also Augustine. “Nor sinners
in the council of the just. The Psalmist habitually repeats his first phrase with greater
emphasis. Here sinners denote the wicked, and the council of the just reiterates in judgement.
284
8.2.2 John 3:18 and the judgement
The idea that neither the ungodly nor the saints would face judgement was based
largely on Psalm 1:5, but it was only in correlation with John 3:18 that this
interpretation was developed. In the interpretation of John 3:18 in isolation from
Psalm 1:5, the idea expressed is not that the wicked would not be judged, but that they
will have already been condemned when they come to the judgement. Irenaeus is one
who cites John 3:18-19 to demonstrate this idea, without referring to Psalm 1:5.74
Irenaeus insists that it is because the wicked have already been condemned that they
must come to the judgement. “It is the very purpose of the judgement to separate the
righteous from the unrighteous, and that separation is final.”75
Clement of Alexandria understands John 3:18 to mean that the wicked will not be
judged, and gives this interpretation in his writings without always correlating it with
Psalm 1:5.
The Lord is he who judges the earth, since he that believes not, is,
according to the utterance of the Saviour, condemned already. And
there is written in the Kings the judgement and sentence of the Lord,
which stands thus: The Lord hears the righteous, but the wicked he does
not save, because they do not desire to know God.76
In his treatise On the forgiveness of sins and baptism, Augustine correlates John 3:18
with John 3:36 and Mark 16:16, and insists that it is baptism that separates the
believers from the non-believers.
Consequently, if they are not baptised, they will have to rank amongst
those who do not believe; and therefore they will not even have life, but
the wrath of God abides in them, inasmuch as he that does not believe
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him, and they
are under judgement, since he that does not believe is condemned
Possibly, however, the wicked are one thing, sinners another. Every wicked man is a sinner,
but not every sinner is a wicked man.” On the Psalms 1.5. ACW 29, p. 24. Gregory the Great.
“But holy scripture specially calls unbelievers ‘ungodly.’ For sinners are distinguished from
ungodly by this difference, that though every ungodly man is a sinner, yet every sinner is not
ungodly. For even a man who is godly in the faith can be called a sinner. Whence John says,
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But a man is properly called ‘ungodly’
who is estranged from the holiness of religion. For of such the Prophet says, The ungodly
shall not rise up in judgement.” Morals on Job 25.10.25. LF 23, p. 116.
74
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.27.1-2. ANF 1, p. 556.
75
A S Wood. “The eschatology of Irenaeus.” Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969) 40.
76
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 4.26. ANF 2, p. 440. Cf. his comments on John 5:24.
“We then alone, who first have touched the confines of life, are already perfect; and we
already live who are separated from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ:
For that which is in Him is life [John 1:4]. Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears my word
and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over
from death to life [John 5:24].” The Instructor 1.6. ANF 2, p. 216.
285
already, and they shall be condemned, since he that believes and is
baptised shall be saved, but he that does not believe shall be damned.77
Commenting on John 3:18, John Chrysostom says that the possible meanings are
either that there is no specific judgement on those that do not believe, since the failure
to believe is itself the warrant for punishment, or else it is a premonition of the future
judgement. He draws a parallel with the criminal who is condemned by the nature of
his deed, even if he has not yet been brought before the judge for formal, legal
condemnation. Similarly, Adam “died” on the day he ate of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, even though he lived for many years afterwards. But the sentence of
death was there since he had become liable to the penalty by the very act he had done.
Chrysostom thereby says that those who think that they can escape the penalty for
their sin, since Christ declared he had not come to judge the world, are mistaken: they
have condemned themselves and are judged already, and will receive the sentence of
punishment when Christ returns.78
An unusual use of John 3:18 is found in the commentary on 1 Corinthians by

Ambrosiaster. He cites this text to demonstrate that those who do not believe have
already been judged, but the comparison with the saints is not that they will not be
judged, but that they already have something of the resurrection glory about them.
The saints will rise up to glory, and be “heavenly” as Christ is, and so they are already
worthy of being called “celestial.”
And because he is heavenly, let them also be heavenly, that is, because
Christ has not sinned, conquering death, he is heavenly; and so let those
be who believe in him, and although also whoever does not believe are
going to be spiritual but as the spiritual things of wickedness, in order
that they will be dark. For he now speaks of the saints who will rise up
to glory: for just as those who do not believe have already been judged,
those who do believe are already called celestial [John 3:18].79
Zeno of Verona concludes from John 3:18 that the faithful will not need to be judged
on the last day, but this does not mean that the unfaithful will be judged. Zeno then
addresses the problem that if both the faithful and the unfaithful are not to be judged,
how then can they be allocated their rewards appropriate to their deeds?
Therefore since in this particular Psalm the prophet says: Of mercy and
justice I will sing to you, Lord [Psalm 101:1], how is it that the Lord
says in the Gospel, He who believes in me, will not be judged; but he
who does not believe, has been judged already [John 3:18]? In this he
exempts the faithful from the judgement, but he does not admit the
unfaithful to the judgement. But if each group is exempt from
judgement, how can the payment be made to each for what he has
77
Augustine. On the forgiveness of sins and baptism 3.3. NPNF 1/5, p. 70.
78
John Chrysostom. Homilies on St. John 28.1. NPNF 1/14, p. 97.
79
Ambrosiaster. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 15.48. PL 17, 285.
286
done? For the just man will seem to be labouring without cause, unless
the unjust man receives according to the deeds which he has done.80
Zeno solves his problem by asserting that this is an incorrect interpretation of John
3:18, one which is held by the “unwise.”81 The correct interpretation is rather
different. Who then is the judgement for? Zeno takes the position that judgement is
for assessing that which is doubtful; there is no doubt about the believers or the
unbelievers. Therefore it is the uncertain ones who face judgement.
However what the Lord says, with what weight and with what reason it
has been said, the very sense of the words explains: He who believes in
me, he says, will not be judged. With good reason: for why is it
necessary to judge the believer? For judgement arises from doubtful
things, doubt having been taken away, the weighing up of a judgement
is not needed. For which reason it is not necessary for the unbelieving
to be judged, because they have already been condemned by their
unbelief; for what will he carry with him out of this life, a crown, or
punishment?82
Since the unbelievers have been judged already, they carry their punishment with
them out of this life; that is, it is in this life that they are judged, and the punishment is
allocated to them before they die. There is no need for them to face judgement again
at the resurrection or to be allocated additional punishments. This he says is
confirmed in Psalm 1:5. “For this principle David expressed in the first Psalm with
these words: The wicked will not rise in the judgement, he says, neither the sinners in
the council of the just.”83 Thus the interpretation of John 3:18 is confirmed by the way
in which Psalm 1:5 was understood.
The use of John 3:18 to exclude both the wicked and the saints from the judgement is
found in other writers as well.84 Thus John 3:18 is also cited separately from Psalm
1:5 to demonstrate that neither the wicked nor the saints will face the judgement. It
would no doubt not have received this interpretation had this text not frequently been
read in conjunction with Psalm 1:5, so that they were used to interpret each other, and
thereby acquired this particular meaning which they were then understood to possess
independently. Other texts cited to demonstrate that the saints would not be judged
are more rare, and tend to be the views of individual interpreters, rather than a
tradition of interpretation which is found in a wide variety of writers. For instance,
Aphrahat asserts on the basis of Psalm 143:2 that the righteous will not be judged.
And for judgement shall all the children of Adam be gathered together,
and each shall go to the place prepared for him. The risen of the
80
Zeno of Verona. Tractatus 2.21.1. PL 11, 458.
81
Zeno of Verona. Tractatus 2.21.1. PL 11, 458-459.
82
83
84
[Caesarius of Arles. Sermon 157.4] Simon Tugwell. Human immortality and the
redemption of death, p. 131. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetical Homily 9. The Ascetical Homilies
of St. Isaac the Syrian, p. 73.
287
righteous shall go unto life, and the risen of the sinners shall be
delivered unto death. The righteous who kept the commandment shall
go, and shall not come nigh unto judgement in the day that they shall
rise; as David asked, And bring not thy servant into judgement; nor will
their Lord terrify them in that day.85
Jerome asserts that the saints will not be judged, but rather will judge, but without
giving explicit textual support in that context for the idea. “Those who have died in
Christ will rise first, and those saints who are found alive, will be caught up together
with them, who will not be judged, but rather will judge.”86 He used Psalm 1:5 and
John 3:18 elsewhere to support this view, and so this interpretation probably lies
behind his comments here, although he does not make it explicit.
Adrio König has discussed the problem of the judgement determined on unbelievers
in John 3:18 and shows how it is possible to understand that decision without thereby
rendering the eschatological judgement redundant.
The judgement must, in the case of unbelievers, again be seen as the

disclosure of a decision already taken. “The unbeliever has already
been judged, in that he has not given his allegiance to God’s Son” (John
3:18). “He who disobeys the Son shall not see that life; God’s wrath
rests on him” (v. 36). “He who does not possess the Son of God does
not have that life” (1 John 5:12). Similarly, in the parable of the sheep
and the goats, the ontic decision which has been made is only later
pronounced at the judgement noetically, “For when I was hungry, you
gave me no food...” So it is clear that for the lost, too, the decision is
taken during the interim and reflects their attitude towards Jesus, not
their works as such. This is clear from the fact that though on
judgement day people will claim that they prophesied and cast out
devils in his name, he will reject them, saying, “I never knew you; out
of my sight, you and your wicked ways!” [Matthew 7:22-23].
Therefore, works as such have no intrinsic value. What is at issue is that
which results from a relationship with God in Christ... This does not
mean that unbelievers must wait until the end before hearing, out of the
blue, that their works did not, after all, have the correct quality. They
are lost because, when they heard the gospel, they did not pay attention
and act accordingly...87
Such an approach has more to offer than the view of the Patristic writers that the
eschatological judgement did not apply to the wicked.
85
Aphrahat. Demonstrations 22.15. NPNF 2/13, p. 407. He goes on to stress that the righteous
shall judge angels, and the twelve tribes of Israel (citing 1 Corinthians 6:3 and Matthew
19:28), so since the righteous are to judge the wicked, they will not themselves be judged.
Demonstrations 22.16. NPNF 2/13, p. 407. Cf. also Demonstrations 6.1. NPNF 2/13, p. 363.
Demonstrations 8.20-21. NPNF 2/13, pp. 381-382.
86
Jerome. Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. PL 30, 868C.
87
Adrio König. The eclipse of Christ in eschatology, pp. 219-220.
288
8.3 Who then is judged?
Lactantius first introduces into the exegesis of Psalm 1 a consideration which became
an intrinsic part of the tradition. Since the wicked have no need to face the judgement,
being condemned already, he asks who it is who needs to face judgement. His answer
is that the judgement concerns those who know God, unlike the wicked who do not
know God. Their deeds need to be assessed to see whether they merit a life of
blessedness, or condemnation to punishment along with those who did not know God.
Although Lactantius never explicitly cites Psalm 1 with an eschatological
interpretation, there is probably an allusion to Psalm 1:5 in the following passage.
Not all men, however, shall then be judged by God, but those only who
have been exercised in the religion of God. For they who have not
known God, since sentence cannot be passed upon them for their
acquittal, are already judged and condemned, since the Holy Scriptures
testify that the wicked shall not arise to judgement. Therefore they who
have known God shall be judged, and their deeds, that is, their evil
works, shall be compared and weighed against their good ones: so that
if those which are good and just are more and weighty, they may be
given to a life of blessedness; but if the evil exceed, they may be
condemned to punishment.88
Lactantius assumes that all believers face the judgement, while later Patristic writers
distinguished the righteous, who did not need to face judgement, being already
approved; the wicked, who were condemned already (citing John 3:18-19); and the
ones who were neither fully righteous nor fully wicked. Their fate was uncertain and
needed to be determined by judgement. Lactantius does not separate off a class of the
righteous who do not need to face judgement. For him, all believers are judged by
God and rewarded according to their deeds. This takes place when they are raised
from the dead.
After these things the lower regions shall be opened, and the dead shall
rise again, on whom the same King and God shall pass judgement, to
whom the supreme Father shall give the great power both of judging
and of reigning...89
Those who are condemned are sent back to join the wicked who had not been raised.90
Lactantius rejects the judgement of each individual soul immediately following death,
88
89
90
Aphrahat said that the wicked would rise from the dead, but they would not be allowed to
enter the gathering of the righteous, and they would be sent back to Sheol. He based this
interpretation on Psalm 9:17, The wicked shall turn back to Sheol, and all the nations that
forget God. Demonstrations 22.17. NPNF 2/13, p. 408. He discusses this same idea of the
wicked being turned back to Sheol elsewhere. “Night has passed away; the light reigns. As to
death, its sting is broken and it is swallowed up in life. Those that return to Sheol shall weep
and gnash their teeth, and those that go to the Kingdom shall rejoice and exult and dance and
sing praises.” Demonstrations 6.6. NPNF 2/13, p. 367. Cf. Demonstrations 6.18. NPNF 2/13,
p. 374. This idea is found also in Ephrem. On patience, the second coming and the last
judgement. Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. vol. 1, p. 13, as well as Irenaeus. Against
289
even though he holds to perhaps the strongest form of dualism in the ante-Nicene
period.
Nor, however, let any one imagine that souls are immediately judged
after death. For all are detained in one and a common place of
confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great Judge shall
make an investigation of their deserts. Then they whose piety shall have
been approved of will receive the reward of immortality; but they
whose sins and crimes shall have been brought to light will not rise
again, but will be hidden in the same darkness with the wicked, being
destined to certain punishment.91
According to Hilary, the ones who will face the judgement are those in between, the
ones who believed, but whose lives were nevertheless not free from sin. The sinners
are not unbelievers but those who have professed faith although are not free from sin.
“For there are many whose confession concerning God, while it acquits them of
ungodliness, yet does not free them from sin.”92 The judgement of the sinners is
undertaken by the saints. The distinction between them and the ungodly is that the
ungodly are not judged at all and do not have the privilege of the sinners in having
their case heard, since they are judged already, while the sinners are not admitted to
the counsel of the righteous, and thus are distinguished also from them.
It is precisely the scheme and system thus laid down in the Gospel that
the Prophet has followed, when he says: Therefore the ungodly shall
not rise again in the judgement, nor sinners in the counsel of the
righteous. He leaves no judgement for the ungodly, because they have
been judged already; on the other hand, he has refused to sinners, who
as we shewed in our former discourse are to be distinguished from the
ungodly, the counsel of the righteous, because they are to be judged.
For ungodliness causes the former to be judged beforehand, but sin
keeps the latter to be judged hereafter. Thus ungodliness having already
been judged is not admitted to the judgement of sinners, while again
sinners, who are yet to be judged, are deemed unworthy of enjoying the
counsel of the righteous, who will not be judged.93
For Hilary judgement is to decide an ambiguous case, not to pass sentence on those
whose righteousness or wickedness is beyond doubt. The future judgement is not to
punish the wicked or reward the good but to exercise discernment on those who stand
midway between them. On the basis of John 3:18, he says the believers are exempt
Heresies 4.28.2. ANF 1, p. 501, and Commodian, who says that when the just rise from the
dead, the executioners of Jesus rise also to gaze at the spectacle, then they are plunged back
again into the abyss. [Commodian. Carmen Apologeticum vv. 993-1060.] P de Labriolle. The
History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius, p. 181. The
correlation of Psalm 1:5 with Isaiah 40:15 is also found in two places in Clement of
Alexandria (see footnote 48 above).
91
92
93
290
from judgement while the wicked are judged already. Hence it is the inconstant who
are to face judgement at the Last Day.
For by saying, He that believeth on Me shall not be judged, He exempts

believers, and by adding: But he that believeth not has been judged
already, He excludes unbelievers, from judgement. If, then, He has thus
exempted believers and debarred unbelievers, allowing the chance of
judgement neither to one class nor the other, how can He be considered
consistent when he adds thirdly: And this is the judgement, that the
light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the
light? For there can apparently be no place left for judgement, since
neither unbelievers nor believers are to be judged.94
Neither believers nor unbelievers need to be judged, because there is no doubt about
them: there is no ambiguity to be clarified. The judgement is for those who “stand
midway between the godly and the ungodly, having affinities to both, but strictly
belonging to neither class, because they have come to be what they are by a
combination of the two.” These have some belief, so they cannot be considered
unbelievers. But they also have some unbelief, so they cannot be considered believers.
The temptations of the world are stronger than their love of God. They are the ones
who shall be judged, since “judgement arises out of ambiguity, and where ambiguity
ceases, there is no call for trial and judgement.”95
Gregory the Great dealt with a question in his Concordia as to whether or not the
apostles would be judged. He suggests that the apostles have already been tested by
fire when the Holy Spirit descended on them at Pentecost, and thus do not need to be
tested further. Those believers who are tried in this life do not need to be tried at the
eschaton. Having already been tried by fire, they are then in a fit state to judge with
Christ when he comes to execute justice in all the earth. Gregory cites John 3:18 and
Psalm 1:5 to show that the judgement will apply neither to the believers nor to the
unbelievers, but (citing John 3:19) to those “who may know the light has come, but
yet are said to love darkness more.” The judgement then will show “whether they
ought to belong more to light or to darkness,” and they will then rise to be judged.
The righteous will rise to be judges, and the wicked will rise in order to be
condemned, having been judged already.96 Gregory thus specifies that the judgement
is for those who have heard the Gospel, but in spite of that have turned away and
loved their evil deeds of darkness more than the light. It is of interest that Gregory
sees the judgement as a testing by fire, whether in this life or in the life to come. This
is no doubt correlated with his doctrine of purgatory, which is more developed and
explicit than with many other Patristic writers.97
94
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1, 21. NPNF 2/9, p. 241. Cf. also Homily on Psalm 57.7.
PL 9, 373, where he repeats this idea.
95
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1, 22. NPNF 2/9, pp. 241-242.
96
Gregory the Great. Concordia Quorumdam Testimoniorum Sacrae Scripturae 12. PL 79, 666-
667.
97
Cf. Jacques le Goff. The birth of Purgatory, p. 88, where he calls Gregory “the last
‘Founder’ of Purgatory,” referring to his pivotal role in establishing the doctrine.
291
It could be thought that in the view of John of Damascus the saints will not be judged,
since at the resurrection their bodies will be transformed to incorruption, and they
shall then stand beside (not in front of) the judgement seat of Christ.
We shall therefore rise again, our souls being once more united with
our bodies, now made incorruptible and having put off corruption, and
we shall stand beside the awful judgement-seat of Christ... those who
have done good will shine forth as the sun with the angels unto life
eternal...98
However, it could be that standing “beside” the judgement seat does not mean the
saints will not be judged, but refers to Matthew 25:31-33, when the sheep and the
goats are separated before the throne. The saints may then be said to stand “beside the
throne” while the wicked are sent away.
8.3.1 Who are the sinners?
Taking this approach to the judgement, the Patristic writers needed to address the
question of the identity of the sinners, and how they are distinguished from the just
and the wicked. For instance, Zeno of Verona describes them as
...doubtful Christians, and inconstant, who are in the middle between

the pious and the impious, not fully holding to either part, while they do
not cease to hold to both sides. They are not believers, because they
have something of unbelief mingled. They are not unbelievers, because
they have a form of faith, professing to serve God, but in fact serving
the deeds of this world.99
He goes on to describe them further as the ones who are found in church through fear
of God, and yet still attracted to worldly pleasures. They honour God, and so are not
impious; but they are not pious because of their sins. He says: “They pray, because
they fear; they sin, because they desire to.” Zeno says that these are the ones spoken
of in Romans 1:21.100
Jerome uses the distinction between the believer, the unbeliever and the imperfect
believer in determining who is to be judged. The believers and the unbelievers will
not be judged, but the imperfect believer must be judged. The one who believes, he
says, does not sin. But those who waver in faith will sin, since he “performs good acts
at the time when he believes, but commits sin when his faith is weak.”101 Jerome also
cites Romans 2:12 in this connection. The sinner under the law will be judged and
will not perish, while those without the law are the unbelievers who will be punished
forever. Since we are none of us without sin, Jerome does not mean that any who
sinned will be lost. Otherwise salvation would be available only to mythical
98
99
100
101
Jerome. Homily 1, On Psalm 1. FC 48, p. 11.
292
individuals who never existed and never will exist.102 Jerome discusses the
disobedience of the believer who sins (and who therefore must face judgement) in the
light of 1 John 3. Now he who believes does not sin; he who believes according to
truth does not sin; he who has true faith does not sin.103 He thus explains what
distinguishes the righteous from the sinners in a positive sense rather than a negative
sense, although this is part of his interpretation as well.
He distinguishes the sinner from the impious, just as they are distinguished from the
saints. “Not so the wicked. The psalmist did not say, not so the sinners, for if he had
said ‘sinners’ we would all then be excluded from reward.” The wicked are those who
deny God, while the sinners are those who acknowledge God, but despite this still
commit sin.104 There is thus a need to judge the sinner, but there is no need to judge
the wicked: they are already condemned. But the sinner needs to be examined to see
what good deeds and evil deeds he has performed. But this then generates the problem
that some are judged even before the day of judgement. Jerome solves this by saying
that the day of judgement can mean either the eschatological judgement, or else the
judgement immediately after death, as is demonstrated by Tugwell, who draws out the
paradoxes inherent in this approach.
And if there is already a discrimination between good and bad souls, it

is clear that in some sense they must already be judged when they die,
and Jerome is explicit about this: in his commentary on Joel he says
that the “day of the Lord” is to be taken as the day of judgement or the
day of the individual’s departure from the body, “because what is to
come on the day of judgement for everyone is fulfilled in the case of
individuals on the day of their death.” But in that case we already have
the problem of what is left for the last judgement to judge.105
Thus there are still problems in Jerome’s view, as it still leaves the difficulty of what
is to be done at the eschatological day of judgement. He does however determine who
is to be judged, whether immediately after death or at the day of judgement: it is the
believer who sins. In another place Jerome says that while the wicked are not judged,
the heretics can be judged by God, so that they will be corrected as to the error of
102
Jerome. Against the Pelagians 1.28. NPNF 2/6, p. 463. Cf. also Paulinus of Nola, who also
uses Romans 2:12 in this way. Poem 7, based on Psalm 1. ACW 40, pp. 51-52. A
pseudonymous commentary on the Psalms, drawing on Jerome’s authentic works, states that
the sinners are the ones who persevere in their faults, not those who have any fault at all.
Breviarum in Psalmum 1. PL 26, 866. Cf. also Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 1.5.
ACW 51, pp. 54-55, who also cites 1 John 3.
103
Jerome. Homily 1, On Psalm 1. FC 48, p. 11.
104
Jerome. Homily 1, On Psalm 1. FC 48, p. 10. Elsewhere Jerome decribes the wicked as those
who are “perfected in evil.” Tractate on Psalm 14. PLS 2, 198. Cf. the comment of Aphrahat,
citing Psalm 1:5, that the righteous would not be judged, nor would the wicked “whose sins
are many, and the measure of whose offences is overflowing.” Demonstrations 22.17. NPNF
2/13, p. 408. The rest of the world, who are called sinners, will be judged. Demonstrations
22.18. NPNF 2/13, p. 408.
105
293
their ways.106 They would no doubt be included with the ranks of those who know
something of the truth, rather than with the wicked, who do not know God at all.107
John Chrysostom described the sinner who would be judged as the one who is driven
about by every temptation, life the wind driving the chaff (others: dust) of Psalm
1:4.108 This interpretation is found also in Ambrose, who says that the sinners are the
ones who believe in Christ but still sin because they cannot resist temptation.109
Gregory the Great says that sinners are the ones who believe but still sin, while the
impious are the ones who are wicked and do not believe. He distinguishes the sinners
into two groups: the ones who are judged and are saved, and the ones who are judged
and condemned.110 The judgement is for him a genuine inquiry into those brought
before the judge: their fate is not prejudged.
8.4 The orders at the judgement
The Patristic interpretation of Psalm 1:5 required the distinction of humankind into
groups at the time of the judgement, a distinction which became more refined and
precise with time. In the earliest texts, such as those of Clement of Alexandria, we
find simply the two groups, the wicked and the righteous. Later an “intermediate”
group is distinguished, those who are neither righteous nor wicked, who must be
allocated to one or other group,111 which is found in Arnobius.112 Finally there is the
four-fold distinction between the righteous who will not be judged and will be saved,
the wicked who will not be judged and will not be saved, the partially righteous who
will be judged and will be saved, and the partially wicked who will be judged and will
not be saved. This is correlated in later Patristic texts with the idea of purging after
death for those who were not wholly righteous who would enter heaven only after
cleansing, and the fully righteous who would enter heaven immediately.
106
Jerome. Commentarioli in Psalmos 5. PLS 2, 35.
107
The discussion of how heretics were distinguished from orthodox believers still forms a
problem for scholarship. Jerome seemed to consider them erring believers, rather than those
outside the church.
108
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Statues 8.4. NPNF 1/9, p. 397.
109
Ambrose. On Psalm 1.56. PL 14, 996. “And one could understand that those who practice evil
deeds nevertheless believing in Christ, wanting indeed to live uprightly; but overcome by the
allurements of sins, chose darkness more than light: that is: they chose both, but darkness
more so.” This view is also found in Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms 1.5. ACW 51,
pp. 54-55. Cf. also John Cassian. Conferences 1.14. NPNF 2/11, p. 301.
110
Gregory the Great. Morals on Job 26.27.50. LF 23, pp. 171-172.
111
This distinction of three groups at the judgement is also found in Jewish writers: “Rabbi
Sammai teaches this: that there will be three groups at the judgement: one of the truly holy,
another of the truly wicked, and a third in between.” Rosh Hashanah. Cited in : Jacques Le
Goff. The birth of Purgatory, p. 40. It appears even earlier in Plato’s Phaedo. The in-
between souls spend time in purificatory fire before being granted the rewards of their good
deeds. The wicked are plunged straight into Tartarus, while the righteous are elevated to a
pure home above. Phaedo 113-114. The Dialogues of Plato. Vol 2, pp. 261-262.
112
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans 2.14. ACW 7, pp. 127-128. Ephrem of Syria
distinguishes the just who are made perfect and are above judgement; those judged: the just
who are still imperfect and the penitents; and those outside the judgement: all the wicked.
Ephrem. Works. Vol. 1, 255B-C. Cited in: J Tixeront. History of Dogmas. Vol. 2, p. 218.
294
The idea that there must be distinctions between the wicked, the sinners and the
righteous is stressed by Hilary of Poitiers in his discussion of Psalm 1.
There must, therefore, be a distinction between the ungodly and the

sinner, between the sinner and the pestilent; chiefly because here the
ungodly has a counsel, the sinner a way, the pestilent a seat, and again,
because the question is of walking, not standing, in the counsel of the
ungodly; of standing, not walking, in the way of the sinner. Now, if we
would understand the reason of these facts, we must note the precise
difference between the sinner and the ungodly, that so it may become
clear why to the sinner is assigned a way, and to the ungodly a counsel;
next, why the question is of standing in the way, and of walking in the
counsel, whereas men are accustomed to connect standing with a
counsel and walking with a way. Not every man that is a sinner is
impious; but the impious man cannot fail to be a sinner.113
In a fragment of a Commentary on Matthew identified as that of Victorinus,114 we find

the three-fold distinction used.
Again humanity is divided into the three classes of “iusti,” “peccatores”

and “impii”, that is to say, good Christians, bad Christians and heathen,
a distinction being drawn between the “impii” who perish, and the
“peccatores” who are punished in proportion to their sins: and this
prominence of the heathen as a separate class in the eschatological
conception of the writer points us back to a time when heathenism was
still dominant.115
In his treatise on the early death of infants, Gregory of Nyssa tackles the question of
what will happen in the judgement to those who have not sinned. He divides humanity
into three classes: those who have led virtuous lives and have merited a reward, those
who have led evil lives and merit punishment, and children who had no opportunity
for good or evil. His answer is that children will partake of the knowledge of God in
the future life according to their limited capacity, but will not have the same degree of
reward as the virtuous, and are also exempt from the punishments reserved for the
wicked.116
According to Zeno of Verona, there is as much difference between the sinners and the
just as there is between the sinners and the impious: they cannot be treated together.
113
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1, 6. NPNF 2/9, 237.
114
C H Turner. “An exegetical fragment of the third Century.” Journal of Theological Studies 5
(1904) 227.
115
C H Turner. “An exegetical fragment of the third Century.” Journal of Theological Studies 5
(1904) 220.
116
E V McClear. “The fall of man and original sin in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa.”
Theological Studies 9 (1948) 207-209.
295
Progressively according to their deserts, as if with a certain statement of
charges, with the fewest of words he indicates the judgement of the
whole human race: for there is the same difference between the impious
and the sinners, as there is between the sinners and the just. Finally he
himself does not neglect the judgement for the impious, because by
their impiety they have already been judged beforehand: neither are the
sinners, who are to be judged, does he count worthy to be in the council
of the just, who will not be judged.117
Thus Zeno sees humanity distinguished into three groups which will be present in the
day of judgement. The righteous will be the judges in the council of the just, while the
sinners are excluded from this group. They have secrets in their lives which need to
be examined, so appropriate punishments or acquittal can be determined according to
their merits. The wicked have already been judged.118
Ambrose classified those who are raised as the wicked, who are already condemned;
the righteous, who are already destined for reward; and the “sinners,” whose position
was uncertain. They have believed but have not lived perfect lives, and are to be
judged, since there are questions about their future to be resolved. While Hilary made
the same distinction into three orders, there are, as de Lavalette says, differences
between Ambrose and Hilary.
But the differences are equally evident. The ascending order of the
impious, the sinners and the just, chosen by Ambrose permits him to
insist on the difference between the resurrection for punishment and the
resurrection for the judgement. The opposition is less between those
who are already judged (as to whether they are good or evil) and those
of whom their character is uncertain, the “midway souls,” who are
between judgement and punishment. “You have two orders, the third is
the impious left over.”119
In the works of Gregory the Great we find the final distinction, added to that which
has been developed by the earlier Patristic authors, making it even more complex. The
wicked are raised, but to punishment without facing judgement. Others, whom
Gregory does not identify, who failed to show mercy, are judged and punished. The
righteous are not judged, and reign with Christ. Others again, who are also not
identified, are judged and reign. These are presumably those whose status is in doubt
but who at the Judgement are seen to be worthy to placed in the ranks of the
righteous.
There are in truth two classes, namely, of the elect and the reprobate.
But two ranks are comprised in each of these classes. For some are
judged and perish; others are not judged and perish. Some are judged
and reign; others are not judged and reign. They are judged and perish,
117
118
119
Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960) 552. [My translation]
296
to whom it is said in our Lord’s declaration, I hungered, and ye gave
Me not to eat; I thirsted, and ye gave Me not to drink; I was a stranger,
and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye covered Me not; sick, and in
prison, and ye visited Me not. To whom it is before said, Depart from
Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels. But others are not judged in the last judgement, and yet perish.
Of whom the Prophet says, The ungodly do not rise again in the
judgement. And of whom the Lord declares, But he that believed not is
judged already. And of whom Paul says, They who have sinned without
the Law, shall perish without the Law. Therefore even all unbelievers
rise again, but to torment and not to judgement. For their case is not
then examined; because they come into the presence of their strict
Judge, with the condemnation already of their own unbelief. But those,
who retain their profession of faith, but have not works in accordance
with it, are convicted of sin, in order to their perishing. But they, who
have not enjoyed even the sacraments of the faith, do not hear the
reproof of the Judge at the last ordeal; for, condemned already by the
darkness of their own unbelief, they do not deserve to be condemned by
the open reproof of Him, Whom they had despised.120
The fragment of the Formulae Hispanicae, dating from perhaps the seventh century,
preserves the same Patristic exegesis of Psalm 1 in conjunction with the use of
Matthew 25. Here again we see humanity distinguished into four “orders” whose fate
and status at the judgement varies according to the standard form.
There will be four orders in the judgement: two of good and two of
wicked. One is the order of the elect, who will sit with the Lord in order
to judge others; of whom the Lord said: You who have followed me, will
sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel [Matthew 19:28].
There will be a second order of the elect, who will be judged, to whom
the Lord said, Come, blessed of my Father [Matthew 25:34]. And there
are two orders of the reprobate. There will be one order who will not be
judged and will perish; hence he says in the first Psalm: The wicked will
not rise up in the judgement; and elsewhere the Prophet said: Let the
wicked be taken away so that he may not see the majesty of the Lord.
There will be a second order of the reprobate; who will be judged and
will perish, since it is said: Depart from me you evildoers into eternal
fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels [Matthew 25:41].121
Thus we see in a text from approximately five hundred years after Clement of
Alexandra, still much the same basic interpretation, with the same texts cited in
conjunction with Psalm 1.122
120
Gregory the Great. Morals on the book of Job 26.27.50. LF 23, pp. 171-172.
121
Formulae Hispanicae. PLS 4, 2151.
122
This interpretation persisted into the late Mediaeval period, appearing for instance in Paulus
Winfridus [Homilia de tempore 73. PL 95, 1216] Peter Lombard [Gloss. PL 191, 65A. 4
Sentences 47.3] and Thomas Aquinas [Summa Theologica Q. 72.2; Summa Theologica Q.
89.5-7.]. Other Mediaeval authors, such as Walafridus Strabus (9th century) [Glossa
Ordinaria in liber Psalmorum, On Psalm 1. PL 113, 845], Remigius Antissiodorensis
297
8.5 Conclusion
The Patristic tradition of interpretation of Psalm 1:5 started with a simple distinction
between the righteous, who rose to face judgement, and the wicked, who did not rise
to face judgement, being already condemned. This became a three-fold distinction
between the righteous, who did not face judgement being already commended, the
wicked, who were already condemned, and the sinners, whose fate needed to be
determined by the judgement. In the views of Gregory the Great we find a further
distinction between these groups, resulting in four classes. Such a development is
possible only because of the influence of anthropological conceptions on speculation
about eschatology.
.
[Ennarationes in Psalmos. PL 131, 153] and Bruno Herbopolensis [Expositio Psalmorum. PL

142, 51] took the view that the wicked were raised not to take part in the judgement, but to be
judged. Erasmus gave Psalm 1 a non-eschatological interpretation [Enchiridion 2. LCC 14, p.
304], while Luther gave several differing interpretations in his various treatises on the Psalms,
citing and sometimes following Patristic interpretations. First Lectures on the Psalms.
Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, pp. 24, 31-32. Psalms 1 and 2 from the Words on the First
Twenty-two Psalms, 1519 to 1521: A composite translation. Luther’s Works, Vol. 14, p.
288. Melanchton interpreted Psalm 1 with reference to the church, giving it a completely non-
eschatological interpretation. Argumentum ac dispositio primi Psalmi. Corpus
Reformatorum Melanchthonis Opera vol. 13, 1019. It would appear that apart from
isolated instances, such as the commentary of Dahood (see note 40 above) a non-
eschatological interpretation has prevailed since the reformation, although further study is
necessary to ascertain this.
298
CHAPTER NINE
CONCLUSION
9.1 Summary of results
The Patristic eschatological tradition is by no means a uniform and coherent body of

teaching. It incorporates a diversity of incompatible and conflicting ideas, which are
based on differing hermeneutical methods, leading to quite different results in the
exegesis of Scripture. The variety of opinions and mass of detail on a wide range of
topics means that it is impossible to produce a homogenised synthesis of Patristic
eschatology: the most we can arrive at is a spectrum of views. Even a brief survey
such as this study shows the complexity of the task. However, by making use of
anthropological models as keys to interpretation, it has been possible to develop a
typology which permits the correlation of diverse views around a common core. On
that basis we can provide a broad outline of the typical features of each approach,
which although developed with different emphases and nuances by various writers,
followed something of a pattern.
Two models, the unitary and instrumentalist, proved to be sufficient for the purposes
of this study to explain the basis on which Patristic writers understood the nature of
the judgement. Those who stressed that the person was a unity of body and soul
focussed on the resurrection, expecting that at that time everybody would be judged
and then receive their appropriate deserts. The stage between death and resurrection
was considered an interruption in normal, bodily life, and constituted a time of
waiting. For some this was in a condition of “sleep,” in which the soul is inactive
because it was deprived of its companion, the body. As it is only in and through the
body that life can be expressed, the soul must wait until the body is restored before it
can function properly again.
The Patristic writers who held to a unitary anthropology accepted the goodness of
bodily life, and while often downplaying the relative value of marriage, sexuality and
family life, they did not denigrate it as did many of those using an instrumentalist
anthropology. They did stress the need for ethical standards to regulate human sexual
behaviour, and as a result, they entered into conflict with Gnostic heresies, which
denigrated sexuality on the one hand, or advocated a libertine approach on the other.
The Patristic writers also defended the goodness of creaturely life and the unity of
God as against the dual creators of the Gnostics and their defective view of the
creation.
The millennialist views of many early Patristic writers continued these same themes.
The concept of a banquet of celebration with the Lamb after the Parousia was
accepted as a matter of course: eating and drinking were some of the pleasures of life
which would be included in the triumph of the saints over the enemies of God in the
millennial kingdom and in the renewed creation. The saints would be vindicated, their
stand for righteousness upheld and those who had persecuted, tortured and killed them
would be held to account for their actions. The saints would be recompensed in kind
for that which had been denied them by the wicked: this was only just and right. The
millennialist writers had no fears of a “materialist” view of eschatology, as many had
299
contended against the Gnostics for the very goodness of this material world. It was
only when something of the Gnostic mentality infiltrated the church that a
“materialist” eschatology was contrasted with a “spiritual” view, which was in no
way consistent with the views of the early writers.
The resurrection body would be a restored, physical body, transformed and glorified,
freed from corruption, disease and death. There was no sense of embarrassment over
bodiliness among those who held to a unitary anthropological model: rather they
keenly anticipated the resurrection as the demonstration of the power, justice and
goodness of God. While they did sometimes become entangled in speculative debates
about the precise details of the resurrection, this was partly because aspects of the
doctrine, assailed by pagans and heretics of various kinds, as well as some “creation-
negating” Patristic writers, needed to be clarified in order to present a coherent view
consistent with the witness of Scripture.
The Patristic writers were able to resort to the Scriptures for material to assist them in
developing a doctrine of the resurrection, although sometimes using dubious
interpretations of passages only remotely, if at all, relevant to the matter in hand.
Occasionally philosophical views came to their aid and provided arguments which
permitted their understanding of the resurrection, even if these views did not actually
support their doctrine, as did pagan myths such as the story of the phoenix.
However, it was predominantly philosophical arguments which provided the basis for
their views on the immortality of the soul, and for that matter, the nature of the soul as
such as a separable substantial entity, distinct from the body. Exegetical support for
this doctrine was slender indeed, and relied on inferences drawn from passages which
on the surface did not address the issue at all. The Patristic writers were predisposed
to interpret passages of Scripture in such a way because of their prior acceptance, on
external grounds, of the immortality of the soul. The philosophical arguments used to
support (or refute) this doctrine were drawn from existing pagan discussions of the
subject, and the Christian church inherited a debate which already had a long history
in Greek thought.
While some who held to a unitary anthropology accepted such philosophical

arguments in favour of the immortality and other characteristics of the soul, it was in
the instrumentalist anthropological model that these came into their full flower in
terms of Christian thought. Those who used this model were also in general more
kindly disposed towards the heritage of pagan Greek philosophy. Various stratagems
were employed to defend the use of pagan thought, and as a result, there was a failure
to recognise the extent to which such thought was incompatible with Christian
thought, not merely in detail, but in the deep underlying structure of that thought
which provides the framework of meaning for the details.
As a consequence of adopting the structure of pagan thought on many issues, the

content of Christian thought was reconfigured to fit into this new pattern. For
instance, the contempt for death in the face of martyrdom, esteeming loyalty to Christ
of greater worth than preserving bodily life, was transmuted into a contempt for
bodily life itself, on the mistaken assumption that this creaturely existence, given to
us by God, somehow in itself precluded close fellowship with God. Rather, it is
300
human sin and its consequences which cause alienation, guilt, sickness and death. But
through the influence of pagan thought structures, asceticism, including the rejection
of marriage and sexuality, became predominant in Christian faith and life.
The eschatological consequences include a loss of appreciation for the importance and
centrality of the bodily resurrection, the expectation of an immediate entry to heaven
(conceived on a pagan model as a spiritual, non-earthly realm) for the righteous soul
and immediate punishment for the wicked, together with the eventual development of
the concept of purgatory for those “in between” who did not fit into the other two
categories. The concept of cosmic redemption and the renewal of the heavens and the
earth were eclipsed as a result of the rejection of millennialism, on the grounds that
this idea was “Gnostic” or “Jewish,” and was considered to be materialistic, naive and
unworthy of the saints. That excessively sensuous conceptions of the millennium may
have stimulated such rejection cannot be denied, but the fact remains that it was a
philosophical, spiritualising concept of the eschaton which lay behind this rejection,
coupled with a loss of appreciation for the goodness of earthly, bodily life. The
consequences for Christian thought ever since have been unfortunate to say the least,
as the promises of the OT, even when given a Christ-centred interpretation in the NT,
were still abhorrent to their sensibilities.
9.2 Contributions from this study
The use of anthropological models, even a simple pair such as has been used in this
study, provides a means whereby the mass of data on Patristic thought can be clarified
as it relates to the answers to specific questions, as for instance: is the person the soul
alone, making use of a body, or is the person a bodily being, a combination of soul
and body? As a result of not recognising this distinction, the antithesis between
“resurrection of the dead” and “immortality of the soul” as proposed by Cullmann,1
appears to have been overstated.2 Certainly these two concepts derive from
incompatible sources: divine revelation and pagan speculation respectively; and are
also quite different in character, the one rooted in our covenantal relationship with the
Living God, and the other an ontological, metaphysical concept which can be readily
separated from our relationship with God. However, in one respect this antithesis is
misleading. As we have seen, there is no direct correlation between either concept and
wider anthropological and eschatological views. It is the concept of the nature of the
person which makes the difference. In order to make some headway in contemporary
debate over this issue,3 it is necessary to address more complex issues of
1
Oscar Cullmann. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? London: Epworth
Press, 1958. Cf. the comment by A Nygren. “Belief in the ‘Resurrection of the flesh’ is not
the complement of the Immortality of the soul, but the contradiction of it.” Agape and Eros,
p. 287.
2
Simon Tugwell comments in this regard: “...I came to the conclusion that any tendency to
insist heavily either on the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body is the
product of an essentially false problematic.” Human immortality and the redemption of
death, p. xi. Tugwell also comments: “Cullmann’s problematic seems to be quite absent from
the early church.” Ibid., p. 110.
3
As for example in the following works: R A Morey. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis:
Bethany, 1984. John W Cooper. Body, soul and life everlasting. Biblical anthropology and
the monism-dualism debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Murray J Harris. Raised
Immortal: Resurrection and immortality in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
301
anthropology. The antithesis between “resurrection of the dead” and “immortality of
the soul” cannot be treated in isolation as if that in itself provides the means to
establish an authentically Christian eschatology.4
The most significant aspect of Biblical eschatology is the hope of the resurrection of
the dead. The Patristic writers explored this hope in detail, and many of their insights
remain fruitful and relevant, especially with respect to combatting current religious
errors such as the fascination many people, both Christians and non-Christians, have
for the idea of reincarnation. However, the doctrine of the judgement on the Last Day
remains largely unexplored in contemporary theology,5 although it is an important
and unavoidable theme within the Scriptures. To ignore, or worse to conceal the
existence of such a belief at the very base of Christianity is to be untrue to its
character, however much we may feel the idea to be unpleasant.6
An essential element of a Christian doctrine of the judgement on the Last Day is the
issue of justice. Stöhr comments: “If I do not want to express the earthliness [of the
Bible] by doing justice, then I have to spiritualize justice.”7 Unless we are to negate
the Biblical call to do justice, and resort to an ethereal spirituality not earthed in
everyday life with its struggles and hardships, the doctrine of the judgement cannot be
discarded. It is often only the hope of vindication at the judgement that enables us to
endure the profound injustices in the world around us, since it is then that all things
will be put right and the innocent victims will be comforted and the guilty punished.
Without belief in a judgement, we can only assume that those who die without being
punished for their crimes have escaped justice, while those who die without
vindication are denied justice.8 The Patristic writers insisted that justice is done only
1983. Idem., From Grave to Glory. Resurrection in the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990. E W Fudge. The Fire that Consumes. A Biblical and Historical Study of
Final Punishment. Houston: Providential Press, 1982.
4
However, it should be noted that the way in which emphasis on the immortality of the soul
obscured the hope of the resurrection led to serious problems. As the philosophical doctrine of
the immortality of the soul collapsed under the increasing weight of criticism from the
humanist thought of the Enlightenment, Christian eschatology was left without any real
content and became problematic. It is only in this century that eschatology has been recovered
for theology.
5
A significant study of this theme is that by Stephen H Travis. Christ and the judgement of
God. Divine retribution in the New Testament. Also important is James P Martin. The
Last Judgement in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl.
6
James Martin seeks to demonstrate that the decline in the popularity of this doctrine is rooted
in the religious views of the Enlightenment, as a result of the conflict in Enlightenment
thought between traditional Christian teaching and rationalism. The Last Judgement in
Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl.
7
Martin Stöhr. “People and land.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 58.
8
This abdication of the Biblical call for justice is evident in the thought of Lloyd Geering, who
sees the Judgement on the Last Day as a “myth” which was developed to give assurance that
this was not a meaningless world, but one in which righteousness and justice are ultimately
victorious, and resurrection was considered to be the means whereby justice would be meted
out. However, Geering sees the judgement as our continuing influence on people, after our
death, for better or for worse. “That is how the judgement of God manifests itself in the
continuing life of the world.” The most we can hope for is that we have lived in terms of
God’s covenanting love towards us, and have been of some value to God and not have failed
to work for his purposes. This empty eschatology resulting from denial of the resurrection has
302
if those responsible for deeds in this life are appropriately rewarded or punished.
Otherwise there is no incentive to do justly, love mercy and to walk humbly before
God; nor will the saints be vindicated before those who deride them in this world for
their faith and obedience.
The contrast between creation-affirming and creation-negating views and the

consequences these have for eschatology have also been considered in this study. The
other-worldly eschatology arising from a creation-negating approach is correlated
with a neglect of the centrality of the hope of the resurrection, while only a creation-
affirming approach is able to maintain the full flavour of the biblical hope. These two
alternatives are compared by Galloway:
Once a community has accepted a redemptive faith, the impact of their

environment upon them forces them either to narrow their concept of
redemption by giving it an otherworldly interpretation, or to widen its
reference so as to include the whole of their environment.9
As a result, it is apparent that the doctrine of the millennial reign of Christ on earth
needs careful reassessment.10 It is not possible to continue to reject this doctrine if
that rejection is ultimately rooted in the Patristic aversion to it, an aversion based on
reasons which are unsupportable, namely, anti-Judaistic polemics, spiritualising and
allegorizing hermeneutics, and embarrassment over a bodily eschaton arising from a
creation-negating approach. The increasing awareness that the eschatological focus of
Scripture is on the renewal of the earth and the resurrection hope, provides some
important correctives for the traditional view, with the possibility of developing a
more Biblically-nuanced millennialism, which would do much to undercut
contemporary anti-creational dispensational pre-millennialism such as that
popularised by Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth.11 However,
eschatological traditions which do emphasise a cosmic renewal and the importance of
this earth in God’s purposes still tend to be paralysed by an a-millennialism rooted in
the same problematics as Patristic anti-millennialism,12 and as a result are unable to
adequately critique dispensational pre-millennialism. There are many features of
Patristic doctrine which have been lost through the abandonment of millennialism as a
whole, namely the emphasis on the vindication of the saints before those who
mistreated them, the anticipation of the marriage supper of the Lamb and its
no true place for justice since there are no rewards or punishments which personally affect us.
Lloyd Geering. Resurrection: A symbol of hope, pp. 214-215.
9
Allan D Galloway. The Cosmic Christ, p. 9.
10
The recent work by J Webb Mealy, After the thousand years: Resurrection and judgement
in Revelation 20, provides a good starting-point for a renewed consideration of
millennialism.
11
Note the important distinction between the dispensational pre-millennialism of Hal Lindsey
and the historic pre-millennialism of authors such as George Eldon Ladd, which is closer to
the Patristic millennialism (hence its label “historic.” See for instance George Eldon Ladd.
The presence of the future: the eschatology of Biblical realism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1985.
12
See the otherwise excellent treatment of the renewal of the earth, mitigated by maintaining an
a-millennialist view, in Gordon J Spykman. Reformational theology, pp. 531-543.
303
correlation with the Eucharist, and of course the focus on redemption as the renewal
of human life and cultural endeavour, as well as the eventual renewal of this earth
itself, in which all human history will reach its culmination. A recovery of these
themes would do much to reinvigorate eschatological reflection in the church today.
Many of the problems in Patristic thought are rooted in the influence of allegorising
hermeneutics, in which there are no controls on exegesis, since the meaning of the
text is not found within the text but brought to the text from elsewhere. As Bietenhard
says, the attempt to read Scripture allegorically “enables us to read into it the
philosophy of the moment or anything that we desire.”13 This method thus laid itself
open to the importation of pagan philosophical ideas into Christian thought, as can be
seen in the rejection of an earthly-oriented exegesis which gave due credit to the
Biblical promise of the millennial reign of Christ.14
The dichotomy between body and soul which is a structural factor in Patristic
anthropology leads inevitably to numerous problems in the articulation of the
Christian faith. These problems are not merely matters of detail that can be solved by
modification or supplementation, but are intrinsic to any anthropology which
presupposed a dichotomy between body and soul. Only a truly integral anthropology,
that is, one which commences from the presupposition that the human person is a
concrete whole, can adequately interpret the Biblical data and provide an alternative
to the stultifying problematics of the approach based on a dichotomy of body and
soul, and only on that basis can an adequate doctrine of the resurrection be articulated.
The importance of the doctrine of the resurrection body is that it encapsulates many
other doctrines. Bodiliness is essential to true Christian faith, both now and in the
eschaton. Denial of that bodiliness leads inevitably to denigration of life in this world
and all which that entails.
In his book on Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer has reminded us that God willed that there
should be human life on earth only in the form of bodily life. Therefore, bodiliness
and human life belong together. This is confirmed by our everyday experience. We
are born as a body, we express our personality and creativity through a body and so
take our place in the ranks of society and the pages of history.15
Human life is always bodily life, whether now or in the resurrection, since the
eschatological life is lived in the new earth in glorified, immortalised bodies.
9.3 Suggestions for further study
13
22.
14
Allegory is not to be confused with typology. While allegory is indifferent to the historical
and literal sense of the text, typology regards historicity and the literal sense as the foundation
on which the meaning of the text rests. Allegory sees the text as hiding a deeper meaning,
while typology sees the text as true though merely provisional. It attempts to explain the
meaning of the imagery than to find a hidden meaning behind the image. For a discussion of
typology see J H Stek. “Biblical Typology yesterday and today.” Calvin Theological Journal
5 (1970) 133-162. E Earl Ellis. Foreword. L Goppelt. Typos: The typological interpretation
of the Old Testament in the New. pp. 17-20. Goppelt, pp. 201-205.
15
John Wilkinson. “The Body in the Old Testament.” Evangelical Quarterly 63 (1991) 195.
304
During the course of this study various lacunae in our knowledge of Patristic thought
became apparent.16 There seem to be no good comprehensive historical treatments of
a number of central concepts in Patristic thought, although excellent studies exist
dealing with individual writers. These concepts include anthropology in general,17 as
well as specific anthropological concepts such as the “image of God” and its various
interpretations, and the arguments for the immortality of the soul,18 which may have
been analysed for their validity, but not it would seem in terms of their historical use.
The hope of renewal for the whole of creation needs to be further studied, as this
Biblical theme is important for our environmental ethics, discussions concerning the
land and resource rights of indigenous peoples, and animal rights, to mention but a
few areas.
The issue of the formation of a synthesis between pagan Greek philosophical thought
and divine revelation in Scripture is basic to the approach taken in this study. The
problems caused (which are sometimes merely pseudo-problems, but which consume
considerable energy amongst theologians) are as yet insufficiently analysed and
further work needs to be done in this area. A theoretical basis on which this can be
done is in some respects still lacking, as there is inadequate agreement on what
“synthesis” properly refers to. It hardly seems adequate to characterise it as the use of
any idea originating outside of the framework of Christian thought, since this is
almost inevitable and hardly improper. However, the way in which such ideas are
used in Christian thought is less frequently discussed, and yet this is an issue of vital
importance to the integrity and coherence of Christian thought. Harnack’s view that
Christianity has undergone a process of “Hellenization” seems justified; yet the way
in which this idea has been developed has not always been sound. The debate
occasioned by the book by Thorlief Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with
Greek, failed to get to grips adequately with the issue because of flaws in Boman’s
presentation that tended to render his whole approach suspect. The idea that the
Hebrew mentality was different to the Greek shifted the focus from the nature and
function of abstract reasoning and its place in everyday life, to the psychology of
different ethnic groups, in an indefensible manner. Rather, the issue is the comparison
between a covenantal document, addressed to every person in language they can
understand on an everyday level, and abstract ideas which can only be grasped
through education by those with sufficient intellectual ability. That the Hebrews were
able to engage in such theorising is evidenced by Philo, to mention but one example.
This flaw in the approach taken by Boman, together with inadequacies in Harnack’s
analysis, has somewhat discredited the notion of “Hellenization” as a problem. But
that it is a problem is undisputable. What is needed is more analysis of where and how
16
The limitations of local library resources available to me preclude certainty that no studies
exist in these areas, but there would still appear to be room for further research in these areas.
17
Anna-Stina Ellverson comments that there is “a lack of general works or surveys on patristic
teaching on man and creation or attempts to summarize what has so far been done in this
theological field.” The dual nature of man, p. 9.
18
The validity of the arguments used have been well worked over by philosophers, but not it
would seem the origins of such arguments, their significance for the Patristic writers in terms
of their faith, and the different contexts in which the great variety of arguments were used.
305
“Hellenization” has occurred, and what our response should be to that.19 I trust that
this study has been a small contribution to that on-going task in the life of the Church
as it reflects critically on its intellectual heritage.
19
See R D Crouse. “The Hellenization of Christianity. An historiographical study.” Canadian
Journal of Theology 8 (1962) 22-33.
306
Appendix
Theosis and the Transformation of the Body

The doctrine of theopoiesis or theosis was an influential interpretation of the
eschatological transformation of the body in Patristic thought.1 This doctrine was
based on the concept that human nature was “deified” when it was joined to the
Divine Word in the Incarnation.2 Through union with Christ in redemption, our
human nature is brought to participate in the divine life of the Trinity, and thereby
also deified, becoming like the human nature of the Incarnate Christ.3 This state is
seen as the final goal of humankind. The doctrine of theosis became a prominent part
of the theology of Greek Patristic writers, and it was also used by some Latin writers,
most extensively by Hilary of Poitiers, but also in a limited way by Hippolytus,4 and
even Augustine.5
Both Patristic and contemporary theology express the concept of theosis in the phrase:
“He became as we are that we might become as he is.”6 That is, the Divine Word
became human that the human might become divine. In this view, the relationship of
God to the creation is understood in terms of the relationship of the “being” of God
and the “being” of creation. Therefore, salvation through being “united with Christ” is
thought to mean an ontological union with him,7 in which his divine being is
1
Also translated as “divinisation,” although some see this as a misleading and pejorative term
which obscures the meaning of the Greek. Cf. T F Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p.
243.
2
For example, Athanasius. Against the Arians 1.42. NPNF 2/4, p. 330.
3
Many Patristic writers take the position that Christ, the divine Word, took on human nature, in
order that we humans can take on his divine nature. Athanasius. Defence of the Nicene
Definition 3.13. NPNF 2/4, p. 159. The life of Anthony 74. NPNF 2/4, p. 215. Prudentius.
Psychomachia 76-86. Loeb I, p. 285. Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 1.5. NPNF 2/7, p. 203.
Maximus the Confessor. Letter 24. PG 91, 609C. Translation cited in: P Sherwood. St
Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life. Four Centuries on Charity. ACW 21, p. 71.
John of Damascus. Treatise on Images 3. M H Allies, p. 105.
4
Cf. D Ritschl. “Hippolytus’ concept of deification. Remarks on the interpretation of
Refutation 10.34.” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959) 388-399. Note, however, Nautin’s
claim discussed by Dunbar that the Elenchos (or Refutation of all Heresies) which teaches
theosis, is not authentic. “For the Elenchos the concept of salvation is that of deification, but
this idea is absent not only from the Contra Noetum but from all the clearly authentic works
of Hippolytus.” D G Dunbar. “The problem of Hippolytus of Rome: A study in historical-
critical reconstruction.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982) 67.
5
Cf. G Bonner. “Augustine’s concept of deification.” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986)
369-386.
6
For example, Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5. Preface. ANF 1, p. 526. Athanasius. On the
Incarnation 54. Oxford Early Christian Texts, p. 269. Augustine. Sermon 192.1.1. PL 38,
1012. E F Osborn comments that the “exchange formula” (x became y, that y might become x)
has been commonly misinterpreted. In the first place, it denies an original identity or
community between God and man.” He comments further that if “x becomes y, then it was not
originally y. In the second place, identity is not asserted: x and y do not become coextensive.
Man does not acquire all the attributes of God, any more than God acquires all the attributes
of man.” The beginning of Christian philosophy, p. 115. Theosis undercuts the reality of the
Incarnation.
7
A frequent term for this union is “participation,” which it seems has overtones of Platonism.
Cf. G Bonner. “Augustine’s concept of deification.” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986)
379. He comments appositely: “Again, it has been argued that for Augustine deification is
equivalent to the New Testament idea of adoption. It is surely significant that Augustine
307
communicated ontologically with the creature.8 As a consequence, the distinction
between the Creator and the creation is compromised.9 This ontologising of
Christianity arose under the influence of Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophies,10
which are inherently anti-creational and therefore denigrate the goodness of bodily
life. It is worthy of note that those writers who advocate theosis are strongly under the
influence of Neo-Platonism. The most ardent advocate is perhaps Pseudo-Dionysius
the Areopagite, whose works exhibit Neo-Platonism “in almost every paragraph,”11
whose eschatological vision focuses almost exclusively on participation in God and
theosis. The doctrine of the resurrection occurs only in connection with his
description of the rites for the dead; but even this he describes as “an unshakeable
conformity to God,” and through union with Christ our bodies received “immortality
and blessedness in an indestructible conformity with God.”12 Thus we can see how
theosis distorts even the doctrine of the bodily resurrection.
The creature can never participate ontologically in the “being” of the Creator, nor is
there any necessity that it should do so. Salvation rescues the creature from the
consequences of sin, it does not transform the creature into something non-creaturely
(divine). Theosis leads to a repudiation of the creaturely character of the resurrection
state, through making a strong distinction between the present body and the
eschatological body, to the extent that their identity is obscured.
should have continued to speak of deification when he had an unambiguously scriptural

expression available, to use exclusively, if he had so chosen. Are we to see here evidence of
the continuing influence of Neoplatonism in his thought, even after he had come to see there
was no way to wisdom save by Christ?” Ibid., p. 384.
8
Cf. T F Torrance. “To be concerned with the Spirit, to know him, to be acted on by him, is
immediately to be concerned with the Being or ousia of God the Creator. That, as I
understand it, is the import of the patristic notion of theosis or ‘deification.’” Theology in
Reconstruction, p. 214. Drewery claims that the idea is based on perceiving God as a
substance instead of a person, so that union with God becomes ontological and not a
personal relationship. “Deification.” In: Christian Spirituality, p. 54. George M Schurr
comments that Latin theology since Leo I has interpreted salvation in moral rather than
ontological terms. “On the logic of ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘deification’ of the
Christian.” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969) 97. Torrance appeals to the Reformed
Church to reconsider this doctrine (ibid., p. 243), but it would be more advantageous to
reconsider the authentic Reformed (and Scriptural) doctrine of God’s covenantal relationship
with us, a relationship that is not ontological but personal and religious.
9
However, Winslow comments that Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the idea that in theosis we
cross the boundary that separates the Creator from the creature, and holds instead that we
thereby realise what God intends us to be, with potential for infinite growth towards fulfilled
creatureliness. Donald F Winslow. The dynamics of salvation, pp. 186-188.
10
Winslow reports in this regard the views of R Franks, who “traces the concept of theosis back
through neo-platonism to Plato, thence to Dionysius and primitive Orphism, concluding that,
because of such questionable ancestry, ‘deification’ cannot be considered a viable category of
Christian thought.” Winslow argues against this, however, stating that “Gregory was quite
aware of the ‘pagan’ parallels to theosis,” but rejected these in favour of a purely Christian
approach. [R Franks. The idea of salvation in the theology of the Eastern Church. Mansfield
College Essays. London, 1909, pp. 249-264.] Donald F Winslow. The dynamics of
salvation, p. 182.
11
C E Rolt. Dionysius the Areopagite, pp. 1-2. J Pelikan says that in Pseudo-Dionysius the
dogmas of the trinity and incarnation were “in danger of being engulfed by these Neo-
Platonic presuppositions.” Introduction. Maximus the Confessor. Selected Writings.
Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 7.
12
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.1.1. Classics of Western Spirituality, pp.
249-250.
308
While some stress that “deification” refers to communication of grace and not of
nature,13 as for instance, Tresmontant’s comment that this was the view of Gregory of
Nazianzus,14 does not mitigate the anti-creational feature of this doctrine, which
depends on a dualistic distinction rooted in an unbiblical anthropology, and ultimately
undermines an intrinsically Christian eschatology.
Nor did the Incarnation result in the “deification” of the human nature of Christ; it
always was and always will be truly human. The essence of the Incarnation is that the
eternal Word was united to true humanity, both remaining distinct and unchanged: the
Word was no more “humanised” than the human nature was “divinised.”15 Christ is
now distinctly both human and divine, but the doctrine of theosis diminishes the
reality of his human nature and absorbs it into the divine nature.16
The two passages from Scripture on which this doctrine is based are: Psalm 82:6-7, [I
said, “You are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High,” but you will die like
mere men; you will fall like every other ruler] and 2 Peter 1:4, [Through these he has
given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may
participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil
desires].17
The passage from Psalm 82 is considered to teach that we can be gods, although those
who sin are to suffer the fate of mere mortals. However, the Psalm probably refers to
the judges, whose unjust actions [Psalm 82:2] are contrasted with those of God, who
is the true Judge [Psalm 82:1: God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgement
among the “gods.” Cf. also Psalm 82:8].18 The second passage was understood in a
neo-Platonic sense to speak of participation in the divine nature, wherein we share
God’s being, so as to enable us to escape from this world with its attendant
13
For example, Clement of Alexandria stresses that we do not become equal in substance to
God, since that cannot happen (citing no disciple is above his master), since we are deified
through adoption and not by nature. Rather, we continue to remain creatures, but become as
much like God as possible. Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata 2.17. ANF 2, p. 364. Cf. J E
Davison. “Structural similarities and dissimilarities in the thought of Clement of Alexandria
and the Valentinians.” Second Century 3 (1983) 213. M F Wiles argues that this approach
fails to refute the Arians, indeed even supports them, since they argued that Christ was ‘god’
by grace, and so in becoming ‘gods’ by grace we become as Christ truly was. The making of
Christian doctrine, pp. 107-108. Strange argues, however, that Athanasius insisted [De
synodis 51. NPNF 2/4, p. 477] that a ‘god’ by grace could not communicate to others what he
had received, since only a ‘god’ by nature was able to grant what was his own. C R Strange.
“Athanasius on divinisation.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 345. B Drewery suggests that this
idea pushes a paradox into the realms of the nonsensical. “Deification.” In: Christian
Spirituality, p. 52.
14
G Tresmontant. La métaphysique du Christianisme et la naissance de la philosophie
chrétienne. Paris, 1961, p. 506. Cited in: Donald F Winslow. The dynamics of salvation, pp.
52-53.
15
Cf. the comments of B Drewery. “It seems to be of the essence of the New Testament – its
doctrines of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, of man – that in none of these cases is the distinction
between ‘divine’ and ‘human’ abolished, or even diminished or modified to any degree
whatsoever. Indeed, the closer the koinonia, the indwelling, the more vital becomes the
miracle of their disparity.” “Deification.” In: In: Christian Spirituality, pp. 51-52.
16
Cf. the strictures of G C Berkouwer on the absorption of the human nature by the divine
nature, which is the core of Apollinarian Docetism. The Person of Christ, p. 202.
17
Acts 17:28-29 and Philippians 3:20-21 are also important for some writers.
18
See the comments by F Delitzsch. Psalms, pp. 403-404.
309
corruption. This corruption was not understood as moral corruption, which 2 Peter 1:4
specifies as having been caused by evil desires, but a corruption inherent in
creatureliness because of its propensity to decay and disintegration.19 Wolters has
argued that the phrase in 2 Peter 1:4 should be translated as “partners of the Deity,”
rather than “partakers of the divine nature.”20 This covenantal understanding of
redemption has been cast in terms of an ontological theory in the doctrine of theosis:
a speculative doctrine not Biblical but philosophical in nature.21 The pagan roots of
this doctrine cannot be denied. Not only does it depend on a Neo-Platonic ontology, it
also expresses pagan religious ideas of a polytheistic nature, as can be seen from the
comments of Lawson, in relation to the thought of Irenaeus on the pagan background
and presuppositions of the doctrine of theosis:
…the mystical piety of divinization through the vision of God, which is

to be constructed from separate fragments in the Johannine literature, is
here met in a vigorous and convincing form. This clear expression of the
divinisation ideal is a piece of Hellenistic piety, and when Irenaeus
roundly says that men are to become gods one cannot deny the
connexion with piety rooted in polytheistic ground.22
The doctrine of theosis takes its inspiration from the statement made by Irenaeus
concerning the incarnation, that he became “what we are, that He might bring us to be
even what He is in Himself.”23 But this refers to our adoption as sons of God, not our
divinisation.24 Christ took on human flesh as the Second Adam, to render obedience
to God in contrast to the first Adam and his heirs. It is the Second Adam that we
19
Cf. the comments of Bray, who interprets Irenaeus as saying that human sin was ultimately
due to finitude, that is, a natural consequence of being creaturely, and thus redemption
overcomes this ontological disability. “As a result he placed much greater emphasis on the
incarnation as the prototype of the transcendent life in which the creaturely finitude of man
was transformed by grace into the perfection of the divine life. This was the vision of man’s
destiny which was later to be termed theosis (deification), by which man was able to
transcend the present limitations of his finitude and participate directly in the life of God.” G
L Bray. Holiness and the will of God, p. 89.
20
A M Wolters. “’Partners of the Deity’: A covenantal reading of 2 Peter 1:4.” Calvin
Theological Journal 25 (1990) 28-44. Idem., “Postscript to ‘Partners of the Deity.’” Calvin
Theological Journal 26 (1991) 418-420. The covenantal character of our relationship with
Christ is stressed by Drewery (citing David Cairns. The image of God in man. London:
SCM, 1953, p. 42) that life in Christ is always mediated by faith, which is always a relation of
persons. “Deification.” In: Christian Spirituality, p. 52.
21
Winslow comments concerning Gregory of Nazianzus, “But, given the importance obviously
assigned to this concept, we must point out that he never once sought to support it on
scriptural grounds. Like homoousion, theosis found its way into the Christian vocabulary from
extra-biblical sources. But, as we can deduce from his explanation of the ‘novel’ doctrine of
the deity of the Holy Spirit, this was no embarrassment to Gregory since the validity of a
specific doctrinal term was based on its faithfulness to biblical ideas, not to biblical words.”
Donald F Winslow. The dynamics of salvation, p. 181. Whether such an idea is ‘biblical’ is
the question in dispute. It can certainly be read into certain passages of Scripture such as those
cited, but its origin is in an ontology and soteriology that is incompatible with Scripture.
22
J Lawson. The Biblical theology of Saint Irenaeus, p. 160. Cf. also M Werner. The
formation of Christian dogma, p. 170.
23
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5, Preface. ANF 1, p. 526.
24
Irenaeus clearly sees this to refer to adoption as sons of God, not as partakers in his being.
Against Heresies 3.19.1. ANF 1, p. 448. That Irenaeus has been interpreted in the light of a
later speculative theology seems apparent. Bray for instance comments that Irenaeus had only
a latent doctrine of theosis. G L Bray. Holiness and the will of God, p. 90.
310
would become like, not the divine Word.25 It would seem that what Irenaeus meant
was not that “God became human so that humans can become gods” but that “Christ
became the human we should be, so that we can become what he now is, namely the
perfect human.”26 Wingren explains that for Irenaeus man was originally created in
the image and likeness of God. In salvation corrupted mankind again becomes like
Christ, in whom the image and likeness of God is renewed, that is, true humanity, not
divinity.27 Wingren has demonstrated through his study of Irenaeus that the purpose
of God’s act of redemption is to restore to humankind their true humanity through
destroying the effects of sin and death, not to make humankind divine. This “re-
humanisation” of humanity will not be complete until the resurrection when we are at
last truly free to be what God created us to be: fully human. This interpretation is seen
in Cyprian, who holds that if we are true disciples of Christ, we will become like him,
not in nature, but in character.
Therefore we accompany Him, we follow Him, we have Him as the

Guide of our way, the Source of our light, the Author of salvation,
promising as well the Father of heaven to those who seek and believe.
What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ.28
However, theosis became established in Christian thought, particularly in the stream

of theology originating from Alexandria, which should not be surprising, given the
explicitly Platonic and Neo-Platonic roots of this doctrine. Clement of Alexandria,
who used the doctrine of theosis, saw the gnosis given by Christ as giving this
deification and thus immortality to those who believe, through participation in the
divine nature of God, that is, his immortal being, through knowledge of God.29 The
intellectualistic focus in Clement’s works leads him to see the image of God to be the
intellect;30 hence renewal of the image (and deification)31 comes through education.
His concept of the image of God was understood as a Platonic archetype.
When the concept of the ideas as thoughts of God had been wedded to
that of the Logos, Clement could use this new combination to explain
the verse Genesis 1:26, that man was created in the image and likeness
of God. When the Hebrew of the Old Testament was translated into
Greek, the words chosen to express this passage were kat' eikona
hemeteran kai kat' homoiosin. The use of the term eikona to expresse
b'tzalmenu allowed the transfer of the meaning of the Platonic archetype
25
26
Much Christology neglects the importance of the continuing humanity of Christ, seeing him
solely in terms of his divine nature. Wingren comments regarding Irenaeus’ doctrine of
salvation, that what Christ has done “frees man from his inhumanity and lets him become
truly man.” G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, p. 24. The consequences of this neglect
become apparent in the doctrine of theosis.
27
G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation, p. 24.
28
Cyprian. On the vanity of idols 15. ANF 5, p. 469.
29
30
Clement of Alexandria. “For conformity with the image and likeness is not meant of the body
(for it were wrong for what is mortal to be made like what is immortal), but in mind and
reason, on which fitly the Lord impresses the seal of likeness, both in respect of doing good
and exercising rule.” The Stromata 2.19. ANF 2, p. 370.
31
Clement of Alexandria. Exhortation to the Heathen 11. ANF 2, pp. 203-204.
311
scheme into the Biblical picture of creation, and for Christians, the
Logos was the idea according to which man was created.32
It is therefore evident that this doctrine is rooted in a synthesis between Scripture and
alien thought-patterns. The fact that Patristic writers used this doctrine does not
justify it; rather, its roots in the influence of an external thought-world should lead us
to reject the Patristic use of this doctrine. Abandoning the neo-Platonic philosophy
which underlies this doctrine must lead to abandoning the doctrine itself, as it cannot
be supported on another basis.33 The doctrine of theosis is rooted in an anti-creational
perspective which mitigates much of the Scriptural eschatology and discards its focus
on the bodily resurrection life on the new earth.
32
E A Clark. The influence of Aristotelian thought on Clement of Alexandria: a study in
philosophical transmission. Ph.D., Columbia University, 1964, p. 85.
33
Bray notes that there is a Platonic concept of sin underlying the whole doctrine, which the
Eastern Orthodox theologians have never adequately critiqued. He comments that the doctrine
can hardly be maintained if its essential philosophical foundations are discarded. G L Bray.
Holiness and the will of God, p. 164, n. 27.
312
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Patristic texts are used in English translation where available. Standard series of
translations are indicated by the following abbreviations.
ACW Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster: Newman Press.

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
FC Fathers of the Church. New York: Fathers of the Church Inc.
LCC Library of Christian Classics. London: S.C.M.
LF Library of the Fathers. Oxford: John Henry Parker.
NPNF 1/1-14 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, vols. 1-14.
NPNF 2/1-14 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vols. 1-14.
SC Sources Chretiennes.
Translations of original Patristic texts are from the following:
PG Migne, Patrologia Graeca.

PL Migne, Patrologia Latina.
PLS Migne, Patrologia Latina Supplementa.
Patristic Sources
Acts of Paul and Thecla. ANF 8, pp. 487-492.

Agathangelos. History of the Armenians. History of the Armenians. Translation
and Commentary. Thomson, R W. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1976.
Alexander of Alexandria. On the soul and body and passions of the Lord. ANF 6, pp.
299-302.
Ambrose. Cain and Abel. FC 42, pp. 359-437.
Ambrose. Concerning virgins. NPNF 2/10, pp. 361-387.
Ambrose. Consolation On the death of Theodosius. FC 22, pp. 307-332.
Ambrose. Consolation On the death of Valentinian. FC 22, pp. 265-299.
Ambrose. Death as a good. FC 65, pp. 70-113.
Ambrose. Duties of the clergy. NPNF 2/10, pp. 1-89.
Ambrose. Enarratio in Psalmum 1. PL 14, 963-998.
Ambrose. Enarratio in Psalmum 40. PL 14, 1122-1123.
Ambrose. Epistle 42 ad Siricium. PL 16, 1172-1177.
Ambrose. Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam. PL 15, 1607-1944.
Ambrose. Expositio in Psalmum 118 [119]. PL 15, 1264-1604.
Ambrose. Hexaemeron. FC 42, pp. 3-283.
Ambrose. Isaac, or the soul. FC 65.
Ambrose. Letters. NPNF 2/10, pp. 411-473.
Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection. NPNF 2/10, pp. 174-197.
Ambrose. On repentance. NPNF 2/10, pp. 327-359.
Ambrose. On the Christian faith. NPNF 2/10, pp. 199-314.
Ambrose. The prayer of Job and David. FC 65.
Ambrose. The Sacraments. FC 44, pp. 269-328.
Ambrosiaster. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. PL 17, 193-290.
Ambrosiaster. Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti. PL 35, 2213-2416.
313
Aphrahat. Demonstrations. NPNF 2/13, pp. 345-412.
Apollinaris of Laodicea. Metaphrasis eis ton Psaltera: Psalm 1. PG 33, 1313.
Apostolic Constitutions. ANF 7, pp. 391-505.
Arnobius. The case against the Pagans. ACW 7-8.
Athanasius. Against the Arians. NPNF 2/4, pp. 303-447.
Athanasius. Apologia pro fuga. NPNF 2/4, pp. 254-265.
Athanasius. Apology against the Arians. NPNF 2/4, pp. 100-147.
Athanasius. Contra Gentes. Athanasius. Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione.
Robert W Thomson, trans. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1971.
Athanasius. De synodis. NPNF 2/4, pp. 451-480.
Athanasius. Defence of the Nicene Definition. NPNF 2/4, pp. 150-172.
Athanasius. Expositions of the Psalms. PG 27, 60-590.
Athanasius. Letter to Marcellinus on the interpretation of the Psalms. The Life of
Anthony and the Letter to Marcellinus. Classics of Western Spirituality. pp.
101-129.
Athanasius. Letters. NPNF 2/4, pp. 506-580.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Athanasius. Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione.
Robert W Thomson, trans. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1971.
Athanasius. The Life of Anthony. NPNF 2/4, pp. 188-221.
Athenagoras. A Plea for Christians. Athenagoras. Legatio and De Resurrectione.
Schoedel, W R. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1972.
Athenagoras. Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead. Athenagoras. Legatio and
De Resurrectione. Schoedel, W R. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford;
Clarendon Press, 1972.
Augustine. Against Fortunatus. NPNF 1/4, pp. 113-124.
Augustine. Confessions. NPNF 1/1, pp. 45-207.
Augustine. De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus. PL 40, 11-100.
Augustine. De haeresibus. PL 42, 21-50.
Augustine. Expositions of the Book of Psalms. NPNF 1/8, pp. 1-683.
Augustine. In answer to the Jews. FC 27, pp. 391-414.
Augustine. Letter 199. FC 30, pp. 365-401.
Augustine. Letters. NPNF 1/1, pp. 219-593.
Augustine. Of Holy Virginity. NPNF 1/3, pp. 417-438.
Augustine. Of the morals of the Catholic Church. NPNF 1/4, pp. 41-63.
Augustine. On baptism, against the Donatists. NPNF 1/4, pp. 411-514.
Augustine. On care to be had for the dead. NPNF 1/3, pp. 539-551.
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. NPNF 1/2, pp. 5-19-597.
Augustine. On faith and the creed. NPNF 1/3, pp. 321-333.
Augustine. On the Creed. NPNF 1/3, pp. 369-375.
Augustine. On the forgiveness of sins and baptism. NPNF 1/5, pp. 15-78.
Augustine. On the predestination of the saints. NPNF 1/5, pp. 497-519.
Augustine. On the Psalms. Vol. 1. ACW 29.
Augustine. On the soul and its origin. NPNF 1/5, pp. 315-371.
Augustine. On the spirit and the letter. NPNF 1/5, pp. 83-114.
Augustine. On the Trinity. NPNF 1/3, 17-228.
Augustine. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. NPNF 1/4, pp. 155-345.
Augustine. Retractations. PL 32, 583-656.
314
Augustine. Sermon 110. PL 38, 808-814.
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons. NPNF 1/6, pp. 245-545.
Augustine. Sermons. FC 38.
Augustine. The Christian combat. FC 4, pp. 315-353.
Augustine. The City of God. NPNF 1/2, pp. 1-511.
Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love. NPNF 1/3, 237-276.
Augustine. The greatness of the soul. ACW 9, pp. 13-112.
Augustine. The literal meaning of Genesis. ACW 41-42.
Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John. NPNF 1/7, pp. 7-452.
Basil of Caesarea. A Psalm of the lot of the Just Man. FC 46, pp. 151-164.
Basil of Caesarea. Homilia 19, In sanctos quadraginta martyres. PG 31, 507-526.
Basil of Caesarea. Letters. NPNF 2/8, pp. 109-327.
Basil of Caesarea. On the Spirit. NPNF 2/8, pp. 1-50.
Bruno Herbopolensis. Expositio Psalmorum. PL 142, 49-530.
Caesarius of Arles. Sermons. Sermons 1-80. FC 31. Sermons 81-186. FC 47.
Sermons 187-238. FC 66.
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms. ACW 51-52.
Cassiodorus. Explanation of the Psalms. PL 70, 25-1056.
Cassiodorus. Institutiones. Cassiodorus. An Introduction to Divine and Human
Readings, by Cassiodorus Senator. Jones, L W. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1946.
Clement of Alexandria. Comments on the First Epistle of Peter. ANF 2, pp. 571-573.
Clement of Alexandria. Exhortation to the Heathen. ANF 2, pp. 171-206.
Clement of Alexandria. From the book on the soul. ANF 2, p. 580.
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor. ANF 2, pp. 209-296.
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor. FC 23.
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata. LCC 2, pp. 40-165.
Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata. ANF 2, pp. 299-567.
Commodian. Instructions. ANF 4, pp. 203-218.
Cyprian. An address to Demetrianus. ANF 5, pp. 457-465.
Cyprian. Letters. Letters 1-27. ACW 43. Letters 28-54. ACW 44. Letters 55-66.
ACW 46. Letters 67-82. ACW 47.
Cyprian. On the advantage of patience. ANF 5, pp. 484-491.
Cyprian. On the dress of virgins. ANF 5, pp. 430-436.
Cyprian. On the exhortation to martyrdom, addressed to Fortunatus. ANF 5, pp. 496-
507.
Cyprian. On the Lord’s Prayer. ANF 5, pp. 447-457.
Cyprian. On the mortality. ANF 5, pp. 469-475.
Cyprian. On the Unity of the Church. ANF 5, pp. 421-429.
Cyprian. On the vanity of idols. ANF 5, pp. 465-469.
Cyprian. On works and alms. ANF 5, pp. 476-484.
Cyprian. Three books of Testimonies against the Jews. ANF 5, pp. 507-557.
Cyril of Alexandria. Answers to Tiberius. Lionel R Wickham. Cyril of Alexandria:
Select Letters. Select Letters. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 132-179.
Cyril of Alexandria. Doctrinal Questions and Answers. Lionel R Wickham. Cyril of
Alexandria: Select Letters. Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 181-213.
Cyril of Alexandria. In Lucam. PG 72, 475-950.
Cyril of Alexandria. Letters. Lionel R Wickham. Cyril of Alexandria: Select
Letters. Oxford Early Christian Texts.
315
Cyril of Alexandria. On the Psalms. PG 69, 717-1274.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. NPNF 2/7, pp. 1-157.
Didascalia Apostolorum. Didascalia Apostolorum. The Syriac version translated
and accompanied by the Verona Latin fragments. R H Connolly. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969.
Diodore of Tarsus. In Psalmum 1. Corpus Christianorum Series Graecae 6, pp. 8-11.
treatises. C L Feltoe, trans. Translations of Christian Literature, Series 1.
Greek Texts. London: S.P.C.K., 1918, pp. 82-91.
Dionysius of Alexandria. To the brethren in Alexandria. St. Dionysius of
Alexandria. Letters and treatises. C L Feltoe, trans. Translations of
Christian Literature, Series 1. Greek Texts. London: S.P.C.K., 1918, pp. 70-
72.
Ephrem of Syria. Against Marcion. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani,
Marcion and Bardaisan. Mitchell, C W. London: Williams and Norgate,
1912-1921, vol. 2, pp. xxiii-lxv.
Ephrem of Syria. Armenian Hymns. Sebastian P Brock. Harp of the Spirit. Studies
supplementary to Sobornost 4. Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1983.
Ephrem of Syria. Commentary on Genesis. St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on
Paradise. Sebastian P Brock. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1990, pp. 197-224.
Ephrem of Syria. Discourse Against Bardaisan. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of
Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Mitchell, C W. London: Williams and
Norgate, 1912-1921, Vol. 2, pp. lxvi-lxxix.
Ephrem of Syria. Fifth Discourse to Hypatius Against False Teachings. S. Ephraim’s
Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Mitchell, C W.
London: Williams and Norgate, 1912-1921, Vol. 1, pp. xcii-cxix.
Ephrem of Syria. Hymns against Julian. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns. McVey, K E,
trans. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, pp.
221-257.
Ephrem of Syria. Hymns on Paradise. St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise,
S P Brock. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.
Ephrem of Syria. Nisibene Hymns. NPNF 2/13, pp. 167-219.
Ephrem of Syria. On Patience, the Second Coming and the Last Judgement. The
Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Patristic Homilies on the Gospels.
Toal, M F. London: Longmans, Green, 1957. Vol. 1, pp. 10-14.
Ephrem of Syria. On the Transfiguration of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus
Christ. The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Patristic Homilies on
the Gospels. Toal, M F. London: Longmans, Green, 1957. Vol. 2, pp. 44-51.
Ephrem of Syria. Rhythms upon the faith, against the disputers. Rhythms of St
Ephrem the Syrian. Morris, J B. Select works of S. Ephrem the Syrian,
translated out of the original Syriac, with notes and indices. Oxford: John
Henry Parker, 1847. pp. 106-361.
Epiphanius. Interpretatio Evangeliorum. PLS 3, 834-964.
Epiphanius. Panarion Adversus LXXX Haereses. PG 41, 173-1200.
Epistle of Barnabas. ANF 1, pp. 137-149.
Eucherius. Instructiones. PL 50, 773-822.
Eusebius. Commentaria in Psalmos. PG 23, 71-1396.
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. NPNF 2/1, pp. 81-387.
316
Eusebius. Life of Constantine. NPNF 2/1, pp. 481-559.
Eusebius. On the Theophania. Eusebius. On the Theophania. Trans. Samuel Lee.
Cambridge: University Press, 1843.
Eusebius. Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine. NPNF 2/1, pp. 581-610.
Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel. Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel. E H
Gifford, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. 2 vols.
Eusebius. The proof of the Gospel. The Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of
Caesarea. Translations of Christian Literature. Series 1, Greek Texts. 2 vols.
London: S.P.C.K., 1920.
Eusebius. The Treatise of Eusebius against the life of Apollonius of Tyana.
Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, The Epistles of Apollonius
and the Treatise of Eusebius. Conybeare, F C. Loeb Classical Library. 2
Vols. London: William Heinemann, 1912.
First Letter of Clement. ANF 1, pp. 5-21.
Formulae Hispanicae. PLS 4, 2148-2155.
Gelazius of Cyzicus. Commentarius Actorum Concilii Nicaeni. PG 85, 1185-1360.
Gennadius. Lives of famous men. NPNF 2/3, pp. 386-402.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 1. NPNF 2/7, pp. 203-204.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 16. On his father’s silence. NPNF 2/7, pp. 247-254.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 4. Contra Julianum 1. PG 35, 534-664.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 7. Panegyric on his brother Caesarius. NPNF 2/7, pp.
229-238.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Second Letter to Cledonius against Apollinarius (Ep. 102).
NPNF 2/7, pp. 443-444.
Gregory of Nyssa. An accurate exposition of the Song of Songs. From glory to glory.
Texts from Gregory of Nyssa. Selected and introduced by Jean Daniélou.
Translated and edited by H Musurillo. London: John Murray, 1962, pp. 152-
288.
Gregory of Nyssa. Discourse on the Holy Pascha. Translated by S G Hall. In: The
Easter Sermons of Gregory of Nyssa. Translation and Commentary. A
Spira & C Klock, Eds. Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation,
1981, pp. 5-23.
Gregory of Nyssa. Letter to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa. NPNF 2/5, pp. 542-
545.
Gregory of Nyssa. On pilgrimages. NPNF 2/5, pp. 382-383.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the making of man. NPNF 2/5, pp. 387-427.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the making of man. PG 44, 123-256.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the Resurrection. NPNF 2/5, pp. 428-468.
Gregory of Nyssa. On virginity. NPNF 2/5, pp. 343-371.
Gregory of Nyssa. The Beatitudes. ACW 18, pp. 85-175.
Gregory of Nyssa. The Great Catechism. NPNF 2/5, pp. 471-509.
Gregory of Nyssa. The life of Moses. Gregory of Nyssa. The life of Moses. A J
Malherbe & E Ferguson, trans. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York:
Paulist Press, 1978.
Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer. ACW 18, pp. 21-84.
317
Gregory Thaumaturgus (dubious). To Tatian, on the Subject of the soul. ANF 6, pp.
54-56.
Gregory Thaumaturgus. Panegyric. ANF 6, pp. 21-39.
Gregory the Great. Concordia Quorumdam Testimoniorum Sacrae Scripturae. PL 79,
659-678.
Gregory the Great. Dialogues. FC 39.
Gregory the Great. Homilies in Ezekiel. PL 76, 758-1072.
Gregory the Great. Homilies. Forty Gospel Homilies of Gregory the Great. Trans.
Dom D Hurst. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990.
Gregory the Great. Homily on the Mystical Church. The Sunday Sermons of the
Great Fathers. Patristic Homilies on the Gospels. Toal, M F. London:
Longmans, Green, 1957. Vol. 1, pp. 88-97.
Gregory the Great. Morals on the book of Job. LF 21. Books III & IV. LF 23. Book
V, 28-29. LF 31. Book V, 30-35.
Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint Gregory. The Teaching of Saint
Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism. Translation and Commentary.
Thomson, R W. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Hilary of Poitiers. Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaeum. PL 9, 917-1078.
Hilary of Poitiers. Homily on Psalm 1. NPNF 2/9, pp. 236-243.
Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity. NPNF 2/9, pp. 40-233.
Hilary of Poitiers. Tractatus super Psalmos. PL 9, 221-908.
Hippolytus (dubious). A discourse on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on
the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. ANF 5, pp. 242-254.
Hippolytus. Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe. ANF 5, pp. 221-223.
Hippolytus. Fragment of the Discourse on the Resurrection and Incorruption. ANF 5,
p. 238.
Hippolytus. Fragments from the Commentary on Susannah. ANF 5, pp. 191-194.
Hippolytus. Fragments of the Commentary on Daniel. ANF 5, pp. 177-185.
Hippolytus. Refutation of all heresies. ANF 5, pp. 9-153.
Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Trallians. ANF 1, pp. 66-72.
Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Romans. ANF 1, pp. 73-78.
Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Smyrnaens. ANF 1, pp. 88-92.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. ANF 1, pp. 315-567.
Irenaeus. Fragments of Lost Writings. ANF 1, pp. 568-578.
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. ACW 16.
Isaac the Syrian. Homilies. The ascetical homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian. Boston:
Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1984.
Jerome. Against Jovinian. NPNF 2/6, pp. 346-416.
Jerome. Against the Pelagians. NPNF 2/6, pp. 447-483.
Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus. NPNF 2/3, pp. 482-541.
Jerome. Commentary on 1 Corinthians. PL 30, 717-772.
Jerome. Commentary on 1 Thessalonians. PL 30, 861-870.
Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Archer, Gleason
L, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958.
Jerome. Commentary on Ezekiel. PL 25, 15-490.
Jerome. Commentary on Isaiah. PL 24, 17-678.
Jerome. Commentary on Joel. PL 25, 947-988.
Jerome. Commentary on Matthew. PL 26, 15-228.
Jerome. Commentarioli in Psalmos. PLS 2, 29-75.
318
Jerome. Edition of Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse. ANF 7, pp. 341-343. PLS
1, 103-172.
Jerome. Homilies on the Psalms. (Homilies 1-59). FC 48.
Jerome. Homily 86, On Luke 16:19-31. The rich man and Lazarus. FC 57, pp. 200-
211.
Jerome. Letter 119, to Minervius and Alexander. PL 22, 966-980.
Jerome. Letters. NPNF 2/6, 1-295.
Jerome. Of Famous Men. NPNF 2/3, pp. 361-384.
Jerome. To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem. NPNF 2/6, 424-447.
Jerome. Tractate on Psalms 14. PLS 2, 193-262.
John Cassian. Conferences. NPNF 2/11, pp. 295-545.
John Cassian. Institutes. NPNF 2/11, pp. 201-290.
John Chrysostom. Baptismal Instructions. ACW 31,
John Chrysostom. Concerning the statues. NPNF 1/9, pp. 331-489.
John Chrysostom. Eight Discourses against Judaizing Christians. FC 68.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on 1 Timothy. NPNF 1/13, pp. 407-473.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on 2 Timothy. NPNF 1/13, pp. 475-518.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Colossians. NPNF 1/13, pp. 257-321.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Ephesians. NPNF 1/13, pp. 49-172.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Corinthians. NPNF 1/12, pp. 1-269.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on First Thessalonians. NPNF 1/13, pp. 323-375.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis. PG 53, 21-386.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Hebrews. NPNF 1/14, pp. 363-522.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Philippians. NPNF 1/13, pp. 184-255.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans. NPNF 1/11, pp. 335-564.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Second Corinthians. NPNF 1/12, pp. 271-420.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on The Acts of the Apostles. NPNF 1/11, pp. 1-328.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel according to Matthew. NPNF 1/10, pp. 1-
534.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John. NPNF 1/14, pp. 1-
334.
John Chrysostom. On the incomprehensible nature of God. FC 72.
John Chrysostom. That demons do not govern the world. NPNF 1/9, pp. 178-186.
John Chrysostom. To the fallen Theodore. NPNF 1/9, pp. 91-116.
John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent. John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine
Ascent. Luibheid, C and N Russell. Classics of Western Spirituality. New
York: Paulist Press, 1982.
John of Damascus. De haeresibus. PG 94, 677-780.
John of Damascus. On 1 Corinthians. PG 95, 569-706.
John of Damascus. On the Epistle to the Romans. PG 95, 441-570.
John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith. NPNF 2/9, pp. 1-101.
John of Damascus. Philosophical Chapters. FC 37, pp. 7-110.
John of Damascus. Sermon on the Assumption. St. John Damascene on Holy
Images, and Three Sermons on the Assumption. Allies, Mary H. London:
Thomas Baker, 1898, pp. 147-170.
John of Damascus. Treatise on Images. St. John Damascene on Holy Images, and
Three Sermons on the Assumption. Allies, Mary H. London: Thomas Baker,
1898, pp. 1-145.
Julius Firmicus Maternus. The error of the pagan religions. ACW 37.
319
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. ANF 1, pp. 194-270.
Justin Martyr. First Apology. ANF 1, pp. 163-187.
Justin Martyr. Fragments of the lost work of Justin on the Resurrection. ANF 1, pp.
294-299.
Justin Martyr. Second Apology. ANF 1, pp. 188-193.
Lactantius. Epitome of the Divine Institutes. ANF 7, pp. 224-255.
Lactantius. Of the manner in which the persecutors died. ANF 7, pp. 301-322.
Lactantius. On the workmanship of God. ANF 7, pp. 281-300.
Lactantius. The Divine Institutes. ANF 7, pp. 9-223.
Leo the Great. Letters. NPNF 2/12, pp. 1-114.
Leo the Great. Sermons. NPNF 2/12, pp. 115-205.
Leo the Great. Sermons. Select Sermons of St. Leo the Great on the Incarnation.
Bright, W. London: Masters, 1886.
Letter of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp. ANF 1, pp.
39-44,
Letter to Diognetus. ANF 1, pp. 25-30.
Macarius Magnes. Apocriticus. The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes. Crafer, T W.
Translations of Christian Literature. London: S.P.C.K., 1919.
Macarius of Egypt. Homilies. Macarius of Egypt. Intoxicated with God: The Fifty
spiritual homilies of Macarius. G A Moloney, trans. Denville, N.J.:
Dimension Books, 1978.
Marcellus of Ancyra. On the Incarnation against the Arians. PG 26, 983-1028.
Marius Victorinus. In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. PL 8, 1197-1236.
Maximus the Confessor. Chapters on Knowledge. Maximus Confessor. Selected
Writings. Berthold, G C. Classics of Western Spirituality. London: S.P.C.K.,
1985, pp. 129-170.
Maximus the Confessor. Commentary on the Our Father. Maximus Confessor.
Selected Writings. Berthold, G C. Classics of Western Spirituality. London:
S.P.C.K., 1985, pp. 101-119.
Maximus the Confessor. Four centuries on charity. ACW 21, pp. 136-208.
Maximus the Confessor. The Ascetic Life. ACW 21, pp. 103-135.
Maximus the Confessor. The Church’s Mystagogy. Maximus Confessor. Selected
Writings. Berthold, G C. Classics of Western Spirituality. London: S.P.C.K.,
1985, pp. 183-214.
Melito. On Pascha, and Fragments. Melito of Sardis. On Pascha, and Fragments.
Hall, S G. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Methodius. Oration concerning Simeon and Anna. ANF 6, pp. 383-393.
Methodius. The Discourse on the Resurrection. ANF 6, pp. 364-377.
Methodius. The Symposium. ACW 27.
Minucius Felix. Octavius. ANF 4, 173-198.
Nemesius. On the nature of man. LCC 4, pp. 224-453.
Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Fragments. Nestorius. The Bazaar of
Heracleides. Trans. by G R Driver and L Hodgson. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1925.
Niceta of Remesiana. An explanation of the Creed. FC 7, pp. 43-53.
Niceta of Remesiana. Liturgical Singing. FC 7, pp. 65-76.
Niceta of Remesiana. The Power of the Holy Spirit. FC 7, pp. 23-41.
Novatian. In Praise of Purity. FC 67, pp. 165-176.
Novatian. Letter of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian. ANF 5, pp. 280-281.
320
Novatian. On the Jewish meats. ANF 5, pp. 645-650.
Novatian. On the Trinity. ANF 5, pp. 611-644.
Origen. Against Celsus. ANF 4, pp. 395-669.
Origen. Commentary on John. ANF 10, pp. 297-408.
Origen. Commentary on Matthew. ANF 10, pp. 412-512.
Origen. Commentary on the Song of Songs. ACW 26.
Origen. De Principiis. ANF 4, 239-382.
Origen. Dialogue with Heraclides. LCC 2, pp. 437-455.
Origen. Exhortation to martyrdom. ACW 19, pp. 141-196.
Origen. Homilies in Ezekiel. PG 13, 665-768.
Origen. Homilies in Numbers. PG 12, 583-806.
Origen. On Prayer. ACW 19, pp. 15-140.
Origen. Philocalia. The Philocalia of Origen. Trans. by G Lewis. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1911.
Origen. Selections in Psalms. Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of
Origen. Tollinton, R B. Translations of Christian Literature. Series I. Greek
Texts. London: S.P.C.K., 1929, pp. 230-235.
Papias. Fragments. ANF 1, pp. 153-155.
Pastor of Hermas. ANF 2, pp. 9-55.
Paulinus of Nola. Letters. Letters 1-51. ACW 35-36.
Paulinus of Nola. Poems. ACW 40.
Paulus Winfridus. Homilia de tempore. PL 95, 1159-1458.
Peter Chrysologus. Sermons. FC 17.
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 103. On the raising of the widow’s son and the
resurrection of the dead. Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Patristic
Homilies on the Gospels. Toal, M F. London: Longmans, Green, 1957. Vol.
4, pp. 120-122.
Peter Chrysologus. Sermon 34. Mark 5:22-43. On the raising of Jairus’ daughter.
Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Patristic Homilies on the Gospels.
Toal, M F. London: Longmans, Green, 1957. Vol. 4, pp. 325-327.
Peter Lombard. Commentarius in Psalmos Davidicos. PL 191, 61-1296.
Peter Lombard. Sentences. PL 192, 519-962.
Peter of Alexandria. Theological Fragments. In: T Vivian. St. Peter of Alexandria:
Bishop and Martyr. Vivian, T. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988, pp. 126-138.
Philastrius. De haeresibus. PL 12, 1111-1302.
Polycarp. Epistle to the Philippians. ANF 1, pp. 33-36.
Prudentius. A reply to the address of Symmachus. Thompson, H J. Prudentius.
London: William Heinemann. Loeb Classical Library. 1949-1953. Vol. 1, pp.
345-401; Vol. 2, pp. 3-97.
Prudentius. Apotheosis. Thompson, H J. Prudentius. London: William Heinemann.
Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 1, 1949, pp. 117-199.
Prudentius. Cathemerinon. Thompson, H J. Prudentius. London: William
Heinemann. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 1, 1949, pp. 7-115.
Prudentius. Crowns of Martyrdom. Thompson, H J. Prudentius. London: William
Prudentius. Hamartigenia. Thompson, H J. Prudentius. London: William
321
Prudentius. Psychomachia. Thompson, H J. Prudentius. London: William
Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. ANF 8, pp. 75-211.
Pseudo-Cyprian. Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima. PLS 1, 53-67.
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Divine Names. Pseudo-Dionysius. The Complete Works.
Colin Luibheid, trans. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist
Press, 1987, pp. 49-131.
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Pseudo-Dionysius. The Complete
Works. Colin Luibheid, trans. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York:
Paulist Press, 1987, pp. 195-259.
Pseudo-Jerome. Breviarum in Psalmos. PL 26, 29-75.
Pseudo-Justin. Hortatory address to the Greeks. ANF 1, pp. 273-289.
Pseudo-Rufinus. Commentary in Seventyfive Psalms. PL 21, 645-960.
Quodvultdeus. De accedentibus ad Gratiam. CCSL 60.
Quodvultdeus. Dimidium Temporibus. SC 102, pp. 591-653.
Remigius Antissiodorensis. Ennarationes in Psalmos. PL 131, 133-844.
Rufinus. Apology to Anastasius. NPNF 2/3, pp. 430-482.
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed. ACW 20.
Rufinus. Preface to Pamphilus’ Defence of Origen. NPNF 2/3, pp. 420-421.
Salvian. On the government of God. Salvian. On the government of God. E M
Sanford, trans. New York: Columbia University Press, 1930.
Sarapion. Commendation of the Dead. Prayer for one who is dead and is to be carried
forth. Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book. An Egyptian sacramentary dated
probably about AD 350-356. Wordsworth, J. Early Church Classics. London:
S.P.C.K., 1915.
Second Epistle of Clement. ANF 10, pp. 251-256.
Socrates. Ecclesiastical History. NPNF 2/2, pp. 1-178.
Sophronius. Epistola Synodica. PG 87/3, 3147-3200.
Sulpitius Severus. Letters (doubtful). NPNF 2/11, pp. 55-70.
Sulpitius Severus. Letters. NPNF 2/11, pp. 18-23.
Sulpitius Severus. Life of St. Martin. NPNF 2/11, pp. 3-17.
Sulpitius Severus. Sacred History. NPNF 2/11, pp. 71-122.
Synesius of Cyrene. Letter 105. The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene. Augustine
Fitzgerald, trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926, pp. 196-202.
Tatian. Address to the Greeks. Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments.
Whittaker, M. Ed. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982.
Tertullian. A treatise on the soul. ANF 3, pp. 181-235.
Tertullian. Ad nationes. ANF 3, pp. 109-147.
Tertullian. Against Hermogenes. ANF 3, pp. 477-502.
Tertullian. Against Marcion. ANF 3, pp. 269-474.
Tertullian. Against Praxeas. ANF 3, pp. 597-627.
Tertullian. An answer to the Jews. ANF 3, pp. 151-173.
Tertullian. Apology. ANF 3, pp. 17-55.
Tertullian. Of patience. ANF 3, pp. 707-717.
Tertullian. On flight in persecution. ANF 4, pp. 116-125.
Tertullian. On Monogamy. ANF 4, pp. 59-72.
Tertullian. On prescription against heretics. ANF 3, pp. 243-265.
Tertullian. On repentance. ANF 3, pp. 657-666.
322
Tertullian. On the apparel of women. ANF 4, pp. 14-25.
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh. ANF 3, pp. 545-594.
Tertullian. Scorpiace. ANF 3, pp. 633-648.
Tertullian. The shows. ANF 3, pp. 79-91.
Tertullian. The soul’s testimony. ANF 3, pp. 175-179.
Tertullian. To his wife. ANF 4, pp. 39-49.
Tertullian. To Scapula. ANF 3, pp. 105-108.
The Gospel of Nicodemus. ANF 8, pp. 416-458.
The Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon. ANF 8, pp. 696-701.
The Martyrdom of the Holy Confessors Shamuna, Guria and Habib. ANF 8, pp. 696-
701.
The Roman Clergy. Letter 2. ANF 5, pp. 280-281.
The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle. ANF 8, pp. 657-665.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments of
Baptism and the Eucharist. Woodbrooke Studies 6. Cambridge: Cambridge
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Nicene Creed. Woodbrooke Studies 5.
Cambridge University Press, 1932.
Theodoret. Eranistes. NPNF 2/3, pp. 160-244.
Theodoret. Interpretatio in Psalmos. PG 80, 857-1998.
Theodoret. Letters. NPNF 2/3, pp. 250-348.
Theodoret. On Divine Providence. ACW 49.
Theodoret. Therapy of Hellenic Maladies. SC 57/1.
Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus. Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Text
and translation by Robert M Grant. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 197O.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. London: Burns, Oates and Wshbourne. 22
Vols, 1920.
Tyconius. The Book of Rules. Tyconius. The Book of Rules. W S Babcock, trans.
SBL Texts and Translations 31. Early Christian Literature Series 7. Atlanta:
Scholar’s Press, 1989.
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse. ANF 7, pp. 344-360.
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse. PLS 1/1, 103-172.
Victorinus of Pettau. On the creation of the world. ANF 7, pp. 341-343.
Vincent of Lérins. Commonitory. NPNF 2/11, pp. 131-156.
Walafridus Strabus. Glossa Ordinaria in liber Psalmorum. PL 113, 841-1080.
Zeno of Verona. Tractatus. PL 11, 253-528.
Other ancient sources
Aristotle. De generatione animalium. The Works of Aristotle. Vol. 5. J A Smith, W

D Ross, transs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912.
Cicero. De Divinatione. M. Tulli. Ciceronis. De Divinatione. Arthur S Pease, ed.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Cicero. The nature of the gods. Horace C P McGregor, trans. Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1972.
Galen. On the usefulness of the parts of the body. Trans. by Margaret Tallmadge
May. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968. 2 Vols.
323
Josephus. The Jewish War. Loeb. London: Heinemann, 1951.
Plato. The Dialogues of Plato translated into English. Benjamin Jowett, trans.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5 Vols. 3rd edition, 1924.
Plato. The Republic and other works. Benjamin Jowett, trans. New York: Anchor,
1973.
Pliny. Natural History. Loeb. London: Heinemann, 1944, Vol. 1.
Secondary sources
Altaner, B. Patrology. Trans. H C Graeff. Edinburgh: Nelson, 1960.

Anderson, Gary. “Celibacy or consummation in the Garden? Reflections on early
Jewish and Christian interpret-ations of the Garden of Eden.” Harvard
Theological Review 82 (1989) 121-148.
Armstrong, A H; Markus, R A. Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy. London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1960.
Armstrong, A H. “The theory of the non-existence of matter in Plotinus and the
Cappadocians.” Studia Patristica 5 (1966) 427-429.
Armstrong, A H. “The way and the ways: Religious tolerance and intolerance in the
fourth century A.D.” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984) 1-17.
Ashby, G. “The hermeneutic approach of Theodoret of Cyrrhus to the Old
Testament.” Studia Patristica 15 (1984) 131-135.
Ashby, G W. Theodoret of Cyrrhus as Exegete of the Old Testament. A Modern
Fifth Century Commentary on Scripture. Grahamstown: Publications
Department, Rhodes University, 1972.
Ashby, G W. “Theodoret of Cyrrhus on marriage.” Theology 72 (1969) 482-491.
Aune, David E. The cultic setting of realised eschatology in Early Christianity.
Leiden: E J Brill, 1972.
Aune, David E. “The significance of the delay of the parousia for early Christianity.”
In: G F Hawthorne. Current issues in Biblical and Patristic interpretation,
pp. 87-109.
Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. The man-woman relation in Christian thought. London:
Longmans, 1959.
Bailey, J W. “The temporary messianic reign in the literature of early Judaism.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934) 170-187.
Barnard, L W. Athenagoras, a study in second century apologetic. Theologie
Historique 18. Paris: Beauchesne, 1972.
Barnard, L W. Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
Barnard, L W. “Justin Martyr’s eschatology.” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965) 86-98.
Barnard, L W. “The authenticity of Athenagoras’ De Resurrectione.” Studia
Patristica 15 (1984) 39-49.
Barnard, L W. “The father of Christian anthropology.” Zeitschrift fur
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1972) 3/4: 254-270.
Barnard, L W. “The heresy of Tatian - once again.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History
19 (1968) 1-10.
Barnes, T D. “Methodius, Maximus and Valentinus.” Journal of Theological Studies
3O (1979) 47-55.
324
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. I, 2. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1956. III, 1-2. The doctrine of creation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1958, 1960.
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Bavinck, Herman. “Calvin and Common Grace.” In: Calvin and the Reformation.
W P Armstrong, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, pp. 99-130.
Bavinck, Herman. Our Reasonable Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956.
Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977.
Bayes, J. “Divine apatheia in Ignatius of Antioch.” Studia Patristica 21 (1989) 27-31.
Berkhof, H. Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Amsterdam:
Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1939.
Berkouwer, G C. Man: The image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Berkouwer, G C. Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Berkouwer, G C. The Person of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Berkouwer, G C. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
Bethune-Baker, J F. An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine.
Methuen: London, 1903.
Bianchi, Ugo. “Augustine on Concupiscence.” Studia Patristica 22 (1989) 202-212.
Bianchi, Ugo. “Origen’s treatment of the soul and the debate over metensomatosis.”
In: Origeniana Quarta, pp. 270-281.
Bicknell, E J. A Theological Introduction to the Thirtynine Articles. London:
Longmans, Green & Co., 1919.
Bietenhard, H. “The millenial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology
6 (1953) 12-30.
Blocher, Henri. In the beginning: The opening chapters of Genesis. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1984.
Boas, G. Essays on primitivism and related ideas in the middle ages. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1948.
Boliek, L. The Resurrection of the Flesh. A study of a confessional phrase.
Amsterdam: Jacob van Campen, 1962.
Bonner, Gerald. “Augustine and millenarianism.” In: The making of orthodoxy.
Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick. Rowan Williams, editor. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 235-254.
Bonner, Gerald. “Augustine’s concept of deification.” Journal of Theological Studies
37 (1986) 2:369-386.
Börresen, Kari E. “Augustin, interprète du dogme de la résurrection.” Studia
Theologica 23 (1969) 141-155.
Bottomley, F. Attitudes to the Body in Western Christendom. London: Lepus
Books, 1979.
Bowerstock, G W. Julian the Apostate. London: Duckworth, 1978.
Boyle, M O. “Irenaeus’ millenial hope: a polemical weapon.” Recherches de
theologie ancienne et mediaevale 36 (1969) 5-16.
Bray, G L. Holiness and the will of God. Perspectives on the theology of
Tertullian. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979.
Bremmer, Jan N. The early Greek concept of the soul. Princeton University Press,
1983.
Bright, P. The Book of Rules of Tyconius. Its purpose and inner logic. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988.
325
Bril, K A. Westerse Denkstructuren. Een probleem-historisch onderzoek.
Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 1986.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society. Men, women and sexual renunciation in
Early Christianity. London: Faber and Faber, 1988.
Brown, Peter. The cult of the saints: Its rise and function in Latin Christianity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975.
Bruce, F F. “Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers.” In: The Heritage of the Early
Church: Essays in honour of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich
Florovsky. D Neiman & M Schatkin, eds. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195.
Pontifical Institutum Studiorum Orientalum, Rome, 1973, pp. 77-89.
Bruce, F F. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical
Quarterly 10 (1938) 352-366.
Bruce, F F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Bugge, John. Virginitas. An essay in the history of a Mediaeval ideal. International
Archives of the History of Ideas, Series Minor, 17. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1975.
Buonaiuti, E. “The ethics and eschatology of Methodius of Olympus.” Harvard
Theological Review 14 (1921) 255-266.
Burghardt, Walter J. “Early Christian exegesis.” Theological Studies 11 (1950) 78-
116.
Burghardt, Walter J. The image of God in man according to Cyril of Alexandria.
Studies in Christian Antiquity 14. Washington: Catholic University of
America Press, 1957.
Burnaby, J. “The Retractationes of Saint Augustine: self-criticism or apologia?” In:
Augustinus Magister. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1954. Vol. 1, pp. 83-92.
Burns, P. “The economy of salvation: Two patristic traditions.” Theological Studies
37 (1976) 598-619.
Butterworth, G W. “The deification of man in Clement of Alexandria.” Journal of
Callam, Daniel. “Clerical continence in the fourth century: Three papal decretals.”
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Library of Christian Classics. 2
Vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Calvin, John. Psychopannychia. Calvin’s Tracts, Vol. 3. Edinburgh: Calvin
Translation Society, 1851, pp. 419-490.
Capon, R F. The parables of grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Carnelley, Elizabeth. “Tertullian and Feminism.” Theology 92 (1989) 31-35.
Casimir, Br. “Saint Gregory of Nyssa: Peri Teleiotetos: On Perfection.” Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 29 (1984) 349-380.
Cavarnos, John P. “The relation of body and soul in the thought of Gregory of
Nyssa.” In: Gregor von Nyssa und die Philosophia. Zeites Internationales
Kolloqium uber Gregor von Nyssa. Ed. H Dorrie, M Altenburger, U Schramm.
Leiden: E J Brill, 1976, pp. 61-78.
Chadwick, Henry. Early Christian thought and the classical tradition. Studies in
Justin, Clement and Origen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
Chadwick, Henry. “Origen, Celsus and the resurrection of the body.” Harvard
Theological Review 41 (1948) 83-1O2.
326
Charles, R H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in
English. Vol 1. Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
Chesnut, G F. “Fate, Fortune, Free Will and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea.” Church
History 42 (1973) 165-182.
Chryssavgis, J. Ascent to Heaven: The theology of the human person according to
Saint John of the Ladder. Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press,
1989.
Church, F Forrrester. “Sex and salvation in Tertullian.” Harvard Theological Review
68 (1975) 83-101.
Clark, Elizabeth A. “The influence of Aristotelian thought on Clement of Alexandria:
a study in philosophical transmission.” Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University,
1964.
Clark, Elizabeth A. “The place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the
Origenist controversy: the apokatastasis and ascetic ideals.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 154-171.
Clark, Francis. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. Studies in the History of Christian
Thought 37. Leiden: E J Brill. 2 vols., 1987.
Clarke, Thomas E. “St. Augustine and Cosmic Redemption.” Theological Studies 19
(1958) 133-164.
Clouser, Roy A. The myth of religious neutrality. Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1991.
Cohn, Norman. The pursuit of the millenium. London: Paladin, 1970.
Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic tradition from Antiquity to the early Middle ages. II.
Stoicism in Christian Latin thought through the 6th Century. Leiden: E J
Brill, 1985.
Constantelos, D J. “Jews and Judaism in the early Greek Fathers (100AD - 500AD).”
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 23 (1978) 145-56.
Cooper, C. “Chiliasm and the chiliasts.” Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970) 11-
21.
Cooper, John W. Body, soul and life everlasting. Biblical anthropology and the
monism-dualism debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Corwin, V. St Ignatius and Christianity at Antioch. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1960.
Courcelle, Pierre. “Anti-Christian arguments and Christian Platonism: From Arnobius
to St. Ambrose.” In: The conflict between paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century. Momigliano, A D, ed. Oxford: University Press, 1963, pp.
151-192.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Word Books: Waco,
1983.
Crouse, R D. “The Hellenization of Christianity. An historio-graphical study..”
Canadian Journal of Theology 8 (1962) 22-33.
Crouse, R D. “The meaning of creation in Augustine and Eriugena.” Studia Patristica
22 (1989) 229-234.
Crouzel, H. “L’exegese origénienne de 1 Cor 3, 11-15 et la purification
eschatologique.” In: Epektasis. Mélanges Patristiques offerts au Cardinal
Jean Daniélou. Paris: Beauchesne, 1972, pp. 273-283.
Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time. London: S.C.M., 1962.
Cullmann, Oscar. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, London:
Epworth Press, 1958.
327
D’Irsay, Stephen. “Patristic medicine.” Annals of Medical History 9 (1927) 364-378.
Dahood, M. Psalms I. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966.
Daley, Brian E. The hope of the early Church. A Handbook of Patristic
eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Daley, W M. “Caesarius of Arles, a precursor of Mediaeval Christendom.” Traditio
26 (1970) 1-28.
Daniélou, J. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 1. The Theology of Jewish
Christianity. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964.
Daniélou, J. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 2. Gospel Message and
Hellenistic Culture. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973.
Daniélou, J. A History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 3. The Origins of Latin
Christianity. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1977.
Daniélou, J. From glory to glory. Texts from Gregory of Nyssa selected and
introduced by J Danielou. Translated and edited by H Musurillo. London:
John Murray, 1962.
Daniélou, J. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Typology of the Fathers.
London: Burns and Oates, 1960.
Daniélou, J. “La typologie millénariste de la semaine dans le christianisme primitif.”
Daniélou, J. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1956.
Darragh, J T. The Resurrection of the Flesh. London: S.P.C.K., 1921.
Davies, J G. “Factors leading to the emergence of belief in the resurrection of the
flesh.” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972) 448-455.
Davison, J E. “Structural similarities and dissimilarities in the thought of Clement of
Alexandria and the Valentinians.” Second Century 3(1983) 201-217.
De Clercq, V C. “The expectation of the second coming of Christ in Tertullian.”
de Labriolle, Pierre. The History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to
Boethius. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968.
de Lavalette, H. “L’interprétation du psaume 1,5 chez les pères ‘miséricordieux’
latins.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 48 (1960) 544-563.
Dechow, J F. Dogma and mysterium in early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus
and the legacy of Origen. North American Patristic Society. Patristic
Monograph Series 13. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Delitzsch, F. Psalms. Commentary on the Old Testament. Volume 5. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Dennis, T J. “Gregory on the resurrection of the body.” In: The Easter sermons of
Gregory of Nyssa: Translation and Commentary. A Spira & C Klock, Eds.
Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1981, pp. 55-80.
Derrett, J Duncan M. “Whatever happened to the land flowing with milk and honey?”
Dewart, J E McWilliam. Death and Resurrection. Message of the Fathers of the
Church, Vol. 22. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1986.
Dihle, Albrecht. The theory of will in Classical Antiquity. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1982.
Disley, E. “Degrees of glory: Protestant doctrines and the concepts of rewards
hereafter.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 77-105.
328
Donfried, K P. “The Theology of Second Clement.” Harvard Theological Review 66
(1973) 497-498.
Dooyeweerd, Herman. A new critique of theoretical thought. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed. 4 Vols., 1954.
Dooyeweerd, Herman. In the twilight of Western thought. Nutley: Craig Press,
1975.
Drewery, B. “Deification.” In: Christian Spirituality. Essays in honour of Gordon
Rupp. P Brooks, ed. London: S.C.M., 1975, pp. 33-62.
Dubois, Marcel. “Jews, Judaism and Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine. How
he links the Jewish people and the land of Zion.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 162-
214.
Dudden, F H. Gregory the Great: His place in history and thought. London:
Longmans, 2 vols., 1905.
Dudden, F H. The life and times of St. Ambrose. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935. 2
Vols.
Dulaey, Michael. “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius.” In: Saint Augustin et la
Bible. Ed. A-M La Bonnardire. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986, pp. 369-386.
Dunbar, D G. “Hippolytus of Rome and the eschatological exegesis of the early
church.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983) 322-339.
Dunbar, D G. “The delay of the parousia in Hippolytus.” Vigiliae Christianae 37
(1983) 4:313-327.
Dunbar, D G. “The problem of Hippolytus of Rome: A study in historical-critical
reconstruction.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982) 63-
74.
Ellverson, A-S. The dual nature of man. A study in the theological anthropology
of Gregory of Nazianzus. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Doctrinae
Christianae Upsaliensis 21. Uppsala, 1981.
Eno, R B. “The Fathers and the cleansing fire.” Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987)
184-202.
Erasmus. Enchiridion. Advocates of Reform from Wyclif to Erasmus. Matthew
Spinka, ed. Library of Christian Classics 14. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1963, pp. 295-379.
Evans, C A. “How are the apostles judged? A note on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984) 149-150.
Evans, E. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection. London: S.P.C.K., 1960.
Fahey, M A. Cyprian and the Bible: a study in Third-Century Exegesis. Beiträge
zur Geschichte der Biblischen Hermeneutik 9. Tübingen: J C B Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1971.
Fairweather, W. Origen and Greek Patristic Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
19O1.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987.
Ferguson, E. “Martyr, martyrdom.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity. London &
New York: Garland, 1990, p. 577.
Ferguson, E. “Siricius.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity. London & New York:
Garland, 1990, pp. 853-854.
Ferguson, E. “The Kingdom of God in early patristic literature.” In: The kingdom of
God in 20th century interpretation. Boston: Hendrikson, 1987, pp. 191-208.
Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
329
Florovsky, G. “Eschatology in the Patristic age: an introduction.” Studia Patristica 2
(1957) 235-250.
Flusser, D. “Salvation past and present.” Numen 16 (1969) 139-155.
Ford, J Massyngberde. “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian heresy?” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966) 145-158.
Fortin, E L. “The viri novi of Arnobius and the conflict between faith and reason in
the early Christian centuries.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays
in honour of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 195. Pontifical Institutum Studiorum Orientalum, Rome,
1973, pp. 197-226.
Fredriksen, P. “Apocalypse and redemption in early Christianity.” Vigiliae
Christianae 45 (1991) 151-183.
Froom, L E. The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers. Washington: Review and
Herald. 2 vols., 1965.
Froom, L E. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The historical development of
prophetic interpretation. 4 Vols. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950.
Gagé, J. “Commodien et la crise millénariste du IIIe siècle.” Revue d’histoire et de
philosophie religieuse 41 (1961) 355-378.
Gager, John G. The origins of Anti-Semitism. Attitudes towards Judaism in
Pagan and Christian antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Galloway, Allan D. The Cosmic Christ. London: Nisbet & Co., 1951.
Gaston, L. “Judaism of the uncircumcised in Ignatius and related writers.” In: Stephen
G WIlson, ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Studies in Christianity
and Judaism 2. Vol. 2. Separation and Polemic. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier
Press, 1986, pp. 18-33.
Gavin, F. The sleep of the soul in the early Syriac Church. Journal of the Americal
Oriental Society 40 (1920) 103-120.
Geering, Lloyd. Resurrection: A symbol of hope.
Geldenhuys, N. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Gilson, E. The Christian philosophy of St. Augustine. New York: Random House,
1960.
Glasson, T F. “The temporary Messianic kingdom and the kingdom of God.” Journal
of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 517-525.
Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Goppelt, L. Typos: The typological interpretation of the Old Testament in the
New. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Gousmett, C J. “Creation order and miracle according to Augustine.” Evangelical
Quarterly 60 (1988) 217-240.
Gousmett, C J. “The miracle of nature and the nature of miracle.” M.Phil.F. thesis,
Institute for Christian Studies, 1985.
Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1986.
Grant, Robert M. “Aristotle and the conversion of Justin.” Journal of Theological
Studies 7 (1956) 246-248.
Grant, Robert M. “Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras.” Harvard Theological
Review 47 (1954) 121-129.
Grant, Robert M. Augustus to Constantine: The thrust of the Christian movement
into the Roman world. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
330
Grant, Robert M. “Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius.” Vigiliae Christianae 42
(1988) 1-17.
Grant, Robert M. Miracle and natural law in Graeco-Roman and early Christian
thought. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1952.
Grant, Robert M. “Papias in Eusebius’ Church History.” In: Melanges d’histoire des
religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1974, pp. 209-213.
Grant, Robert M. “The heresy of Tatian.” Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954) 62-
68.
Greer, R A. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Exegete and Theologian. London: The Faith
Press, 1961.
Greer, Rowan. “The Antiochene Christology of Diodore of Tarsus.” Journal of
Griffith, S H. “Ephraem the Syrian’s hymns Àgainst Julian.’” Vigiliae Christianae
41 (1987) 238-266.
Grossi, V. “Anthropology.” In: Encyclopaedia of the Early Church. Cambridge:
James Clark, 1992. Vol. 1, pp. 44-46.
Gundry, S N. “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the determining factor in the history of
eschatologies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977) 45-
56.
Gwynn, J. “Hippolytus and his ‘Heads against Gaius.’” Hermathena 6 (1888) 397-
418.
Hagendahl, Harald. Latin Fathers and the Classics. A study on the Apologists,
Jerome and other Christian writers. Göteborg: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1958.
Hallman, J M. “Divine suffering and change in Origen and Ad Theopompum.” Second
Century 7 (1989-1990) 85-98.
Hallman, J M. “Impassibility.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. London & New
York: Garland, 1990, pp. 458-459.
Hallman, J M. “The mutability of God: Tertullian to Lactantius.” Theological Studies
42 (1981) 373-393.
Halporn, J L. “Methods of reference in Cassiodorus.” Journal of Library History 16
(1981) 71-91.
Hamilton, Neill Q. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul. Scottish Journal of
Theology Occasional Papers 6. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957.
Hanhart, K. The intermediate state in the New Testament. Franeker: T Wever,
1966.
Hanson, R P C. “A note on Origen’s self-mutilation.” Vigiliae Christianae 20 (1966)
81-82.
Hanson, R P C. Allegory and Event. A study of the sources and significance of
Origen’s interpretation of Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1959.
Hanson, R P C. Studies in Christian Antiquity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985.
Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. 7 Vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1894.
Harrison, V E F. “Male and female in Cappadocian theology.” Journal of Theological
Studies 41 (1990) 441-471.
Hartman, Louis F, Di Lella, Alexander A. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible, vol.
23. Garden City: Doubleday, 1978.
Harvey, S A. “Persia.” In: Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity. London & New
York: Garland, 1990, pp. 717-718.
331
Hawthorne, G F. “Tatian and his discourse to the Greeks.” Harvard Theological
Review 57 (1964) 161-188.
Hefele, C J. A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original
Documents. Vol 5. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883.
Hennessey, L R. “Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of the resurrected body.” Studia
Patristica 22 (1989) 28-34.
Hennessey, L. “Origen of Alexandria: The fate of the soul and the body after death.”
Second Century 8 (1991) 163-178.
Hennessey, L. “The place of saints and sinners after death.” In: Origen of
Alexandria: His world and his legacy. Kannengeisser, C & Petersen, W L,
eds. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988, pp. 293-312.
Hill, C E. “Hades of Hippolytus or Tartarus of Tertullian? The authorship of the
fragment De universo.” Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989) 105-126.
Hill, C E. “Hippolytus and Hades: the authorship of the fragment De universo.”
Hitchcock, F R M. Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A study of his teaching. Cambridge:
1914.
Hoeksema, Herman. Behold he cometh. An exposition of the book of Revelation.
Grand Rapids: reformed Free Publishing Association, 1969.
Holland, D L. “The Third Article of the Creed. A Study in Second and Third Century
Theology.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975) 189-197.
Horowitz, M C. “The image of God in man: is woman included?” Harvard
Theological Review 75 (1979) 175-2O6.
Hughes, P E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977.
Hunter, David G. “Resistance to the virginal ideal in late fourth-century Rome: the
case of Jovinian.” Theological Studies 48 (1987) 45-64.
Isichei, E A. Political thinking and social experience. Some Christian
interpretations of the Roman Empire from Tertullian to Salvian.
Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 1964.
Jalland, T. The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London: S.P.C.K., 1941.
Jansen, J F. “1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and the future of Jesus Christ.” In: Texts and
Testaments. Critical essays on the Bible and early church Fathers. W E
March, ed. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980, pp. 173-197.
Jansen, J F. “Tertullian and the New Testament.” Second Century 2 (1982) 191-207.
Jay, Pierre. “Saint Cyprien et la doctrine du purgatoire.” Recherches de Théologie
Ancienne et Médiévale 27 (1960) 133-136.
Jenkinson, W R. “The image and likeness of God in man in the eighteen lectures on
Credo of Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-387).” Ephemerides theologicae
Lovanienses 40 (1964) 48-72.
Jungkuntz, R. “Fathers, Heretics and Epicureans.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History
17 (1966) 3-10.
Jurgens, W A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. 3 Vols. Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1979.
Kannengeisser, Charles. “Athanasius of Alexandria and the foundation of traditional
Christology.” Theological Studies 34 (1973) 103-113.
Kannengiesser, Charles. “The Bible as read in the early church: Patristic exegesis and
its presuppositions.” In: The Bible and its Readers. Concilium 1991/1.
London: S.C.M., 1991, 29-36.
332
Keith, Graham. “Justin Martyr and religious exclusivism.” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992)
1: 57-80.
Kelly, J N D. Early Christian Doctrines. London: Adam and Charles Black. 2nd
edition, 1960.
Kelly, J N D. Jerome. His life, writings and controversies. London: Duckworth,
1975.
Kerr, A R. “Imago and Similitudo in the thought of Irenaeus.” M.Th. Thesis,
University of Otago, 1982.
Klapwijk, J. “Antithesis, synthesis and the idea of transformational philosophy.”
Philosophia Reformata 51 (1986) 138-154.
König, Adrio. The eclipse of Christ in eschatology: Towards a Christ-centred
approach. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Kristeller, Paul O. Renaissance thought and its sources. New York: Columbia
Krivocheine, Abp. Basil. “Simplicity of the Divine nature and the distinctions in God
according to Gregory of Nyssa.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21
(1977) 2:76-1O4.
Kugel, J L. The Idea of Hebrew Poetry. Parallelism and its History. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1981.
La Croix, R R. “Augustine on the simplicity of God.” New Scholasticism 51 (1977)
453-469.
Ladner, G B. “Aspects of patristic anti-Judaism.” Viator 2 (1971) 355-363.
Ladner, G B. The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in
the Age of the Fathers. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.
Lampe, G W H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
Lampe, G W H. “Early Patristic Eschatology.” In: Eschatology. Scottish Journal of
Theology Occasional Papers 2 (1953) 17-35.
Lane, William L. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47b. Dallas: Word
Books, 1991.
Lang, Bernhard. “No sex in heaven: the logic of procreation, death and eternal life in
the Judaeo-Christian tradition.” In: Melanges bibliques et orientaux en
l’honneur de M Mathias Delchor. Caquot, A, Légasse, S & Tardieu, M, eds.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1985, pp. 237-253.
Lang, Bernhard. “The sexual life of the saints. Towards an anthropology of Christian
heaven.” Religion 17 (1987) 149-171.
Lawson, J. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. London: Epworth Press, 1948.
Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Treatise on the Resurrection from Nag Hammadi.
Harvard Dissertations in Religion 12. Missoula: Scholar’s Press, 1979.
Le Goff, J. The Birth of Purgatory. Trans. A Goldhammer. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981.
Leivestad, Ragnar. Christ the Conquerer. Ideas of conflict and victory in the New
Testament. London: S.P.C.K., 1954.
Lerner, R. “Refreshment of the saints. The time after antichrist as a station for earthly
progress in mediaeval thought.” Traditio 32 (1976) 97-144.
Lienhard, J T. “Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and ‘Sabellius.’” Church
History 58 (1980) 157-167.
Lienhard, J T. “Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research.” Theological Studies 43
(1982) 486-503.
333
Lienhard, J T. “The exegesis of 1 Cor 15:24-28 from Marcellus of Ancyra to
Theodoret of Cyrus.” Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983) 340-359.
Lincoln, A T. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church.” In: D A Carson,
ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological
Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, pp. 251-298.
Linton, O. “Interpretation of the Psalms in the early church.” Studia Patristica 4
(1961) 143-156.
Loewe, R. “The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic exegesis of the Bible.”
Lona, H E. “Bemerkungen zu Athenagoras und Pseudo-Athenagoras.” Vigiliae
Christianae 42 (1988) 352-363.
Lucks, H A. The philosophy of Athenagoras: Its sources and value. Washington:
Catholic University of America, 1936.
Malherbe, A J. “Athenagoras on Christian Ethics.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History
20 (1969) 1-5.
Mangalwadi, Vishal. “The reincarnation of the soul.” Evangelical Review of Theology
15 (1991) 2:135-147.
Martin Luther. First Lectures on the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, pp. 24, 31-
32. Psalms 1 and 2 from the Words on the First Twenty-two Psalms, 1519
to 1521: A composite translation. Luther’s Works, Vol. 14,
Martin, J. “Commodianus.” Traditio 13 (1957) 1-71.
Martin, James P. The Last Judgement in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to
Ritschl. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1963.
Martin, R P. The Epistle to the Philippians. Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1983.
Mason, A J. “Tertullian and purgatory.” Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902) 598-
601.
Mazzuco, C. “Eusebe de Cesaree et l’Apocalypse de Jean.” Studia Patristica 17
(1982) 317-324.
McClain, J P. The doctrine of heaven in the writings of Saint Gregory the Great.
Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology 95. Washington:
Catholic University of America Press, 1956.
McClear, E V. “The fall of man and original sin in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa.”
McCool, G A. “The Ambrosian origins of St. Augustine’s theology of the image of
God in man.” Theological Studies 20 (1959) 62-81.
McDannell, C & B Lang. Heaven: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1988.
McGinn, B. Visions of the End. Apocalyptic traditions in the middle ages. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1979.
McHugh, M P. “Victorinus of Pettau.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity.
London & New York: Garland, 1990, p. 927.
McLeod, F G. “Man as the image of God: its meaning and theological significance in
Narsai.” Theological Studies 42 (1981) 458-468.
Mealy, J Webb. After the thousand years: Resurrection and judgement in
Revelation 20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
no. 70. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Melanchton. Argumentum ac dispositio primi Psalmi. Corpus Reformatorum
Melanchthonis Opera. 1846. New York: Johnson, 1963 reprint. Vol. 13.
334
Metzger, B M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and
New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.
Miles, Margaret R. Augustine on the Body. AAR Dissertation Series 31. Scholars
Press, 1979.
Moorhead, J. “The Greeks, pupils of the Hebrews.” Prudentia 15 (1983) 3-12.
Morey, R A. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1984.
Moule, C F D. “The influence of circumstances on eschatological terminology.”
Muller, Richard A. “Christ in the Eschaton: Calvin and Moltmann on the duration of
the munus regium.” Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981) 31-59.
Murphy, F X. “Conflagration: the eschatological perspective from Origen to John
Chrysostom.” Studia Patristica 18 (1985) 179-186.
Murray, R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A study in early Syriac tradition.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Musurillo, H. “The problem of ascetical fasting in the Greek Patristic writers.”
Traditio 12 (1956) 1-64.
Napel, E ten. “Concepts of Paradise in the Seventh Memra of the Hexaemeron by
Emmanuel bar Shahhare.” Studia Patristica 17/3 (1982) 1381-1387.
Neill, Stephen and N Thomas Wright. The interpretation of the New Testament
1861-1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1988.
Neusner, J. Aphrahat and Judaism. Studia Post-Biblica 19. Leiden: E J Brill, 1971.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The other side of 1984. Questions for the churches. Geneva:
World Council of Churches, 1983.
Newlands, G M. Hilary of Poitiers: A Study in Theological Method. Bern: Peter
Lang, 1978.
Nickelsburg, G W E. Resurrection, immortality and eternal life in inter-
testamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Nodes, D J. “The seventh day of creation in Aletheia of Claudius Marius Victor.
Norris, R A. Manhood and Christ: A study in the Christology of Theodore of
Mopsuestia. Oxford and New York: 1963.
Nouum Testamentum Domine Nostri Iesu Christi Latine. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1913-1941. Vol. 2.
Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. Trans. S P Watson. London: S.P.C.K., 1982.
O’Cleirigh, P M. “Prime matter in Origen’s world-picture.” Studia Patristica 16
(1985) 260-263.
O’Connell, R J. St Augustine’s Early Theory of Man, AD 386-391. Cambridge,
Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968.
O’Daly, G J P. “Augustine on the origin of souls.” In: Platonismus und
Christentum. Festschrift für Heinrich Dorrie. Jahrbuch für Antike und
Christentum 10 (1983) pp. 184-191.
O’Donnell, J J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
O’Malley, T P. Tertullian and the Bible: Language, Imagery, Exegesis. Nijmegen:
Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1967.
O’Neill, J C. “The Word did not ‘become’ flesh.” Zeitschrift fur die
Neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1991) 125-127.
Ombres, Robert. “Images of healing: The making of the traditions concerning
Purgatory.” Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976) 128-138.
335
Osborn, E F. Justin Martyr. Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 47. Tübingen: J C
B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1973.
Osborn, E F. The beginning of Christian philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
Osborn, E F. The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria. Cambridge University
Press, 1957.
Otis, Brooks. “Cappadocian thought as a coherent system.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
12 (1958) 95-124.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology. London: S.C.M., 1971. Vol. 2.
Paulsen, David L. “Early Christian belief in a corporeal deity: Origen and Augustine
as reluctant witnesses.” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990) 105-116.
Pawlikowski, John T. “The Re-Judaization of Christianity: Its impact on the Church
and its implications for the Jewish people.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 60-74.
Pegis, Anton C. “The mind of St. Augustine.” Mediaeval Studies 6 (1944) 1-61.
Pelikan, J. The Christian Tradition: A History of the development of doctrine.
Vol. 1. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament witness and contemporary
reflection. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1985.
Pétrement, Simone. A Separate God. The Christian origins of Gnosticism.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1991.
Pettersen, Alvyn. Athanasius and the human body. Bristol: The Bristol Press, 1990.
Plass, P. “The concept of eternity in Patristic theology.” Studia Theologica 36 (1982)
11-25.
Pollard, T Evan. “Marcellus of Ancyra: a neglected father.” In: Epektasis. Mélanges
Patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou. Paris: Beauchesne, 1972,
pp. 187-196.
Pollard, T Evan. “Martyrdom and resurrection in the New Testament.” Bulletin of the
John Rylands University Library of Manchester 55 (1972) 240-251.
Popma, K J. “Patristic evaluation of culture.” In: The idea of a Christian
philosophy. Essays in honour of D H Th. Vollenhoven. H Dooyeweerd, ed.
Toronto: Wedge, 1973, pp. 97-113.
Pouderon, Bernard. “‘La chair et le sang.’ Encore sur l’authenticité du traité
d’Athénagore.” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990) 1-5.
Pouderon, Bernard. “L’authenticité du traité sur la résurrection attribué à l’apologiste
Athénagore.” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986) 226-244.
Powell, D. “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians.” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975) 33-54.
Prestige, G L. God in Patristic thought. London: S.P.C.K.. 2nd Edition, 1952.
Prestige, L. “Hades in the Greek Fathers.” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1923)
476-485.
Prigent, P. “Hippolyte, commentateur de l’Apocalypse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28
(1972) 391-412.
Puech, H C & P Hadot. “L’Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et le commentaire de
Saint Ambroise sur l’Évangile de Saint Luc.” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959)
204-228.
Purves, G T. The testimony of Justin Martyr to early christianity. Stone Lectures,
Princeton Theological Seminary. London: James Nisbet, 1888, New York,
1889.
Quasten, J. Patrology. 3 Vols. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1950.
336
Quispel, G. “A Jewish source of Minucius Felix.” Vigiliae Christianae 3 (1949) 113-
122.
Quispel, G. “African Christianity before Tertullian.” In: Romanitas et Christianitas.
Studia J H Waszink oblata. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1973,
pp. 275-279.
Quistorp, H. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Last Things. London: Lutterworth Press,
1955.
Rankin, D I. “Was Tertullian a schismatic?” Prudentia 18 (1986) 73-79.
Reider, Joseph. The Book of Wisdom. New York: Harper and Bros., 1957.
Richardson, C C. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch. New York: AMS Press,
1967.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An outline of his theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1975.
Riley, Hugh M. Christian Initiation. A comparative study of the Interpretation of
the Baptismal Liturgy in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of
Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of
Milan. Studies in Christian Antiquity 17. Washington: Catholic University of
America Press, 1974.
Ritschl, D. “Hippolytus’ conception of deification. Remarks on the interpretation of
Refutation 10.34.” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959) 388-399.
Rolt, C E. Dionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical
Theology. London: S.P.C.K., 1920.
Rowe, W V. “The character and structure of myth.” Anakainosis 6 (1984) 4:1-9.
Ruether, R. Faith and fratricide. The theological roots of anti-semitism. New
York: Seabury Press, 1974.
Ruether, R. Gregory of Nazianzus, Rhetor and philosopher. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1969.
Runia, D T. “Dooyeweerd, Bos and the Grondmotief of Greek culture.” Philosophia
Reformata 54 (1989) 160-175.
Runner, H Evan. “On being Christian-Historical and Anti-Revolutionary at the
cutting-edge of history.” Unpublished Address to the Centenial Celebration of
the Anti-Revolutionary Party, Amsterdam, 1979.
Rush, A C. Death and burial in Christian antiquity. Washington Catholic
University of America Press, 1941.
Rush, A C. “Spiritual martyrdom in St. Gregory the Great.” Theological Studies 23
(1962) 569-589.
Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1961.
Schep, J A. “Resurrection of the flesh-body in the light of 1 Corinthians 15:50a and
Matthew 22:30.” Vox Reformata Occasional Papers 2. August, 1964, pp. 17-
23.
Schep, J A. The Nature of the Resurrection-Body. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Schilder, Klaas. Heaven: What is it? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.
Schurr, George M. “On the logic of ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘deification’ of
the Christian.” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969) 97-105.
Schwarz, H. “Eschatology.” In: Christian Dogmatics. C E Braaten, R W Jensen, eds.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Vol. 2, pp. 504-505.
Scuiry, Daniel E. “The anthropology of Gregory of Nyssa.” Diakonia 18 (1983) 31-
42.
337
Sheerin, D J. The Eucharist. Message of the Fathers of the Church 7. Wilmington:
Michael Glazier, 1986
Sheldon-Williams, I P. “The ecclesiastical hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, Part I.”
Downside Review 82 (1964) 293-302.
Sider, R J. “The Pauline conception of the Resurrection body in 1 Corinthians xv.35-
54.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975) 428-439.
Skarsaune, O. The proof from prophecy: a study of Justin Martyr’s proof-text
tradition. Text-type, provenance, theological profile. Supplement to Novum
Testamentum 56. Leiden: E J Brill, 1987.
Smith, J P. “The limits of the Patristic period.” Studia Patristica 9 (1966) 600-601.
Smith, Richard Travers. St. Basil the Great. The Fathers for English Readers.
London: S.P.C.K., 1879.
Smith, Robert H. Matthew. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.
Sparrow-Simpson, W J. The Resurrection and the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1968.
Spykman, Gordon. Reformational Theology. A new paradigm for doing
dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Spykman, Gordon. “Sphere sovereignty in Calvin and the Calvinist Tradition.” In:
Exploring the heritage of John Calvin. Ed. David E Holwera. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1976, pp. 163-208.
Staats, Reinhart. “The eternal kingdom of Christ: the apocalyptic tradition in the
‘Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.’” Patristic and Byzantine Review 9 (1990)
19-30.
Stafleu, M D. “Theories as logically qualified artifacts (Part 1).” Philosophia
Reformata 46 (1981) 2:164-189.
Stauffer, E. New Testament Theology. London: S.C.M., 1955.
Steen, Peter. “The Problem of Time and Eternity in its Relation to the Nature-Grace
Ground-motive.” In: Hearing and Doing: Philosophical Essays presented to
H Evan Runner. J Kraay and A Tol, eds. Toronto: Wedge, 1979, pp. 135-
148.
Stek, J H. “Biblical Typology yesterday and today.” Calvin Theological Journal 5
(1970) 133-162.
Stöhr, Martin. “People and land.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 50-59.
Stonehouse, N B. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. A study in the history
of the New Testament canon. Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929.
Strange, C R. “Athanasius on Divinisation.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 342-346.
Stringer, Daniel. “The political theology of Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea.”
Patristic and Byzantine Review 1 (1982) 137-151.
Stylianopoulos, T. Justin Martyr and the Mosiac Law. SBL Dissertation Series 20.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
Swete, H B. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church. London: Macmillan & Co.,
1912.
Tanner, R G. “Stoic influence on the logic of St. Gregory of Nyssa.” Studia Patristica
18/3 (1989) 557-584.
Telfer, W. “The birth of christian anthropology.” Journal of Theological Studies 13
(1962) 347-354.
The Augsburg Confession. Anniversary Edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
338
The Forty-Two Articles. In: Cajus Fabricius. Corpus Confessionum. Die
Bekenntnisse der Christenheit. 17. Abteilung. Anglikanismus. 1 Band: Die
Kirche von England. Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter, 1937.
The Greek New Testament. Ed. K Aland et al. London and New York: United Bible
Societies, 1966.
Thielman, F S. “Another look at the eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 226-237.
Thompson, John L. “The immoralities of the Patriarchs in the history of exegesis: a
reappraisal of Calvin’s position.” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991) 19-
39.
Thraede, K. “Beiträge zur Datierung Commodians.” Jahrbuch für Antike und
Christentum 2 (1959) 90-114.
Tilley, M A. “The ascetic body and the (un)making of the world of the martyr.”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59 (1991) 467-479.
Tixeront, J. History of Dogmas. St. Louis: B Herder, 1914. Vol. 2.
Toon, Peter, ed. Puritans, the Millennium and the future of Israel. Puritan
Eschatology 1600 to 1660. London: James Clarke, 1970.
Torrance, T F. The Mediation of Christ. Exeter: Paternoster, 1983.
Torrance, T F. Theology in Reconstruction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Travis, Stephen H. Christ and the judgement of God. Divine retribution in the
New Testament. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1986.
Trigg, J W. Origen: The Bible and philosophy in the Third Century church.
London: S.C.M., 1985.
Tugwell, Simon. Human immortality and the redemption of death. Darton
Longman and Todd, 1990.
Turner, C H. “An exegetical fragment of the third Century.” Journal of Theological
Studies 5 (1904) 218-227.
Turner, C H. “The early Greek commentators on the Gospel according to St.
Matthew.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1911) 99-112.
van Andel, G K. The Christian concept of history in the Chronicle of Sulpicius
Severus. Amsterdam: Adolf M Hakkert, 1976.
van Assendelft, M M. Sol Ecce Surgit Igneus: a commentary on the morning and
evening hymns of Prudentius. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis, 1976.
van den Broek, R. “The Authentikos Logos: A new document of Christian
Platonism.” Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979) 260-286.
van den Broek, R. The myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and early
Christian traditions. Leiden: E J Brill, 1972.
van den Hoek, A. Clement of Alexandria and his use of Philo in the Stromateis.
Supplement to Vigiliae Christianae 3. Leiden: E J Brill, 1988.
van der Walt, B J. “Eisegesis-exegesis, paradox and nature-grace: methods of
synthesis in Mediaeval philosophy.” In: The idea of a Christian philosophy.
Essays in honour of D H Th. Vollenhoven. H Dooyeweerd, ed. Toronto:
Wedge, 1973, pp. 191-211.
van Eijk, A H C. “Only that can rise which has previously fallen. The history of a
formula.” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971) 517-529.
van Eijk, A H C. “Resurrection-language: Its various meanings in early Christian
literature.” Studia Patristica 12 (1975) 271-276.
van Eijk, T H C. La resurrection des morts chez les pères apostoliques. Theologie
historique 25. Paris: Beauchesne, 1974.
339
van Eijk, T H C. “Marriage and Virginity, Death and Immortality.” In: Epektasis.
Mélanges Patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1972, pp. 209-235.
van Fleteren, Frederick. “Augustine and the resurrection.” In: Studies in Mediaeval
Culture 12. Ed. J R Sommerfeldt. Mediaeval Institute of Western Michigan
University, 1978, pp. 9-15.
van Leeuwen, R C. “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common Grace.’ A translation and
introduction.” Calvin Theological Journal 24 (1989) 35-65.
van Winden, J C M. “In defence of the resurrection.” In: The Easter Sermons of
Gregory of Nyssa: Translation and Commentary. A Spira & C Klock, Eds.
Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1981, pp. 101-121.
van Winden, J C M. “In the beginning. Some observations on the Patristic
interpretation of Genesis 1:1.” Vigiliae Christianae 17 (1963) 105-121.
van Winden, J C M. “The early Christian exegesis of ‘heaven and earth’ in Genesis
1.1.” In: Romanitas et Christianitas. Studia J H Waszinck oblata.
Amsterdam: North Holland, 1973, pp. 371-382.
Vander Goot, Henry. Interpreting the Bible in theology and the Church. New
York: Edwin Mellen, 1984.
Vasilev, A. “Medieval ideas of the end of the world, West and East.” Byzantion 16
(1942-1943) 462-5O2.
Verbeke, G. L’evolution de la doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme à St. Augustin.
Paris, 1945.
Verbeke, G. The presence of Stoicism in Mediaeval Thought. Washington:
Catholic University of America Press, 1983.
Vermander, J M. “Celse et l’attribution a Athenagore d’un ouvrage sur la
resurrectione des morts.” Melanges de Science Religieuse 35 (1978) 125-134.
Visser, A J. “Bird’s eye view of ancient Christian eschatology.” Numen 14 (1967) 4-
22.
Vivian, T. St. Peter of Alexandria: Bishop and Martyr. Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Viviano, Benedict T. The Kingdom of God in history. Wilmington: Michael
Glazier, 1988.
Vollenhoven, D H Th. De noodzakelijkheid eener Christelijke logica. Amsterdam:
H J Paris, 1932.
Vollenhoven, D H Th. Hoofdlijnen der logica. Kampen: Kok, 1948.
Vööbus, A. “Regarding the theological anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.”
Church History 33 (1964) 115-124.
Vos, Geerhardus. “The eschatological aspect of the Pauline conception of the Spirit.”
In: Biblical and Theological Studies by Members of the Faculty of
Princeton Theological Seminary. New York: Charles Scribers, 1912, pp.
211-259.
Vos, Louis A. The synoptic traditions in the Apocalypse. Kampen: J H Kok, 1965.
Wagner, W H. “A Father’s fate: attitudes toward and interpretations of Clement of
Alexandria.” Journal of Religious History 6 (1971) 209-231.
Wainwright, G. Eucharist and Eschatology. London: Epworth Press, 1971.
Walker, D P. The decline of Hell. Seventeenth-century discussions of eternal
torment. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.
Wallace-Hadrill, D S. Eusebius of Caesarea. London: Mowbray, 1960.
340
Waszink, J H. “Tertullian’s principles and methods of exegesis.” In: Early Christian
literature and the classical intellectual tradition. Essays in honour of R M
Grant. W R Schoedel & R L Wilken, eds. Théologie Historique 54. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1979, pp. 9-31.
Werner, M. The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of its
Problem. Trans. by S F G Brandon. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.
Wild, P T. The divinization of man according to Saint Hilary of Poitiers.
Mundelein: St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1950.
Wiles. M F. The making of Christian doctrine. A study in the principles of early
doctrinal development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Wilken, R L. “Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism and the idea of the Holy
Land.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986) 298-307.
Wilken, R L. Judaism and the early Christian mind. A study of Cyril of
Alexandria’s exegesis and theology. Yale Publications in Religion 15. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
Wilken, R L. “The Jews and Christian Apologetics after Theodosius I Cunctos
Populos.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980) 451-471.
Wilken, R L. “The restoration of Israel in Biblical prophecy.” In: To See Ourselves
as Others See Us. Christians, Jews, “Others” in late Antiquity. Ed. by J
Neusner and S Frerichs. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985, pp. 443-471.
Wilkinson, John. “The Body in the Old Testament.” Evangelical Quarterly 63 (1991)
195-210.
Williamson, Clark M. “The ‘Adversus Judaeos’ tradition in Christian theology.”
Encounter 39 (1978) 273-296.
Wingren, G. Man and the Incarnation: A study in the Biblical theology of
Irenaeus. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959.
Winslow, Donald F. The dynamics of salvation, A study of Gregory of Nazianzus.
Patristic Monograph Series, 7. Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1979.
Wolfson, Harry Austryn. “Answers to criticisms of my discussion of Patristic
philosophy.” In: Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Vol. 2, pp. 525-537. [Reprint
from: Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964) 119-131].
Wolters, A M. “‘Partners of the Deity’: A covenantal reading of 2 Peter 1:4.” Calvin
Theological Journal 25 (1990) 28-44.
Wolters, A M. “Christianity and the Classics: A typology of attitudes.” In:
Christianity and the Classics: The acceptance of a heritage. W E
Helleman, ed. Christian Studies Today Series. Lanham: University Press of
America, 1990, pp. 189-203.
Wolters, A M. “Postscript to ‘Partners of the Deity.’” Calvin Theological Journal 26
(1991) 418-420.
Wood, A S. “The eschatology of Irenaeus.” Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969) 3O-41.
Wright, B G. “Cerinthus and Hippolytus. An inquiry into the traditions about
Cerinthus’ provenance.” Second Century 4 (1984) 103-115.
Wytzes, J. “The two-fold way. I. Platonic influences in the work of Clement of
Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 11 (1957) 226-245.
Xintaras, Z C. “Man the image of God according to the Greek Fathers.” Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 1 (1954) 48-62.
341
Young, F M. “Adam and Anthropos: A study of the inter-action of science and the
Bible in two anthropological treatises of the 4th century.” Vigiliae Christianae
37 (1983) 110-140.
Young, M O. “Justin Martyr and the death of souls.” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 209-
215.
Yousif, P. “St Ephrem on symbols in nature: Faith, the Trinity and the Cross. (Hymns
on Faith 18).” Eastern Churches Review 10 (1978) 52-60.
Zigterman, Kent. “Dooyeweerd’s theory of individuality structure as an alternative to
a substance position, especially that of Aristotle.” M.Phil. thesis, Institute for
Christian Studies, 1977.
342

SHALL THE BODY STRIVE AND NOT BE CROWNED PHD 1993 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SHALL THE BODY STRIVE AND NOT BE CROWNED PHD 1993 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SHALL THE BODY STRIVE AND NOT BE CROWNED?

Unitary and instrumentalist anthropological models

Christopher John Gousmett

A thesis submitted for the degree of

at the University of Otago, Dunedin,

It is possible to discern a structure underlying the myriad details of Patristic

The unitary anthropology is correlated with a positive assessment of bodily life,

The decline in millennialism, rise of asceticism, and glorification of virginity and

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0 Anthropological models in Patristic thought 1

1.1 The focus of the study 3

1.2 The problem of synthesis 8

1.3 Methodology of the study 18

1.4 Outline of the chapters 20

PART ONE: UNITARY ANTHROPOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY

Chapter Two: The integration of Body and Soul

2.1 The person as a unity of body and soul 22

2.1.1 The body included in the image of God

2.2 The goodness of bodily life 28

2.3 The positive evaluation of the “flesh” 30

2.3.1 The affirmation of sexuality and marriage 33

2.3.2 Rejection of Gnostic dualism 34

2.3.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50 37

2.3.4 Rejection of Docetism 38

2.4 Death as destruction of the unity of body and soul 40

2.5 Immortality of the soul 45

2.5.1 Philosophical arguments against inherent immortality 45

2.5.2 Immortality a gift from God 49

2.5.3 Immortality lost by Adam and Eve 50

2.5.4 Adam and Eve neither mortal nor immortal 51

2.5.5 Proponents of the inherent immortality of the soul 52

Chapter Three: The intermediate state and the Resurrection

3.1 Waiting for the resurrection in Hades 59

3.2.1 The story of Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31 62

3.2.2 Anticipation of the future state 66

3.2.3 The unconscious soul in Hades 68

3.3 The post-mortem status of the martyrs 75

3.4 Creation as basis for belief in the resurrection 82

3.5 The identity of the resurrection body 88

3.5.1 Reconstitution of the body in the resurrection 90

3.5.2 Transformation of the body in the resurrection 91

3.5.3 The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:51 94

3.5.4 The wicked made immortal in order to suffer 98

3.6 The first resurrection a bodily resurrection 103

3.7 Conclusion 105

4.0 Introduction 107

4.1 The resurrection for judgement 107

4.2 The justice of God and the judgement 114

4.2.1 The judgement of “the living and the dead” 121

4.2.2 The rejection of Fate 123

4.3 The millennium 125

4.3.1 The vindication of the saints 128

4.3.2 The marriage supper of the Lamb 131

4.4 The new heavens and earth: Cosmic redemption 133

4.5 The millennium on earth and eternity in heaven 137

4.6 Eternity in heaven following the resurrection 140

4.7 Conclusion 142

PART TWO: INSTRUMENTALIST ANTHROPOLOGY AND

Chapter Five: The dis-integration of Body and Soul

5.0 Introduction 143

5.1 The body as instrument of the soul 144

5.1.1 The hierarchy of body and soul 147

5.1.2 The image of God restricted to the soul 149