Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon) – an enigmatic passage from his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

Over this last weekend, I spent a number of hours comparing the four English translations I have of Irenaeus’ Demonstration/Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. One particular passage made an impression on me, that no previous reading had done. The following are the four English translations of that passage [the bold emphasis concerns the portion of passage that caught my eye]:

11. Now, by His hand He created man taking the purest and finest particles from the earth, mixing a determined portion of His power with the dust. Moreover He gave His image to the creature that even what is visible might have the divine form, because the created man was placed upon the earth as one having the divine image and that he might be living, he breathed in his face the breath of life that, both by this breathing and by this creation, man might be like God. (Bishop Karapet and S. G. Wilson, Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 12, 1907, p. 667 - link to pdf)

11. But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was, purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of divine form : for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life ; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God. (J. Armitage Robinson, St. Irenaeus -  The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 1920, p. 80 - link to pdf)

11. 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 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. (Joseph P. Smith, S.J., St. Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 1952, p. 54 - link to pdf)

11. But He fashioned (πλάσσω) man with His own Hands, taking the purest, the finest <and the most delicate> [elements] of the earth, mixing (συγκράννυμι) with the earth, in due measure, His own power (δύναμις); and because He <sketched upon> the handiwork (πλάσμα) His own form—in order that what would be seen should be godlike (θεοειδής), for man was placed on the earth fashioned <in> the image (εἰκών) of God—and that he might be alive, "He breathed into His face a breath of life": so that both according to the inspiration and according to the formation, man was like (ὃμοιος) God. (Fr. John Behr, St. Irenaeus - On the Apostolic Preaching, 1997 pp. 46, 47 - link to Google Books preview)

A question that immediately came to mind is, what did Irenaeus mean by “His [God] own form”?

An interesting answer to my question has been provided by Joseph P. Smith in his note on the passage:

"He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike": stelcuacin ziwrsn paragreac jews, zi ew or tesanic'inn Astuacajew ice, more literally "for the formation He outlined His own form, that also what would be seen should be deiform"; there can be no doubt that Irenaeus is here teaching man's bodily resemblance to God. (pp. 148, 149)

Man’s bodily resemblance to God? I would like to hear from folk who take the time to read is post—is Smith correct, or are there better interpretations?

Grace and peace,

David

Power in Unity, Diversity in Rank: Subordination and the Trinity in the Fathers of the Early Church - a valuable paper

Back on January 30, 2020 I reviewed a book by the Evangelical scholar, Michael J. Svigel (link). The book was the second contribution of his that I have read; the first being a paper that he delivered back in 2004 at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, with the title: Power in Unity Diversity in Rank - Subordination and the Trinity in the Fathers of the Early Church. [Full paper available in PDF format HERE.]

This paper is one of the better treatments concerning the doctrine of God in the Greek Church Fathers from the late 1^st century through the end of the 2^nd century.

As the introduction of the paper explicitly points out, Dr. Svigel’s analysis/survey is inextricably linked to the Trinitarian controversy concerning the issue of subordination that arose within Evangelicalism with the publication of John Dahms' article, “The Generation of the Son”, back in 1989 [link - see also his subsequent article].

With the above in mind, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the majority of the paper remained quite objection in its analyses—the section on Irenaeus being the most in depth survey. The quotations from the Greek Fathers concerning the doctrine of God that he surveys are exhaustive; I noticed only a few notably exclusions—e.g. citations of Proverbs 8:22 by Justin and Athenagoras with reference to the origin of the Son of God. [See this thread for the citations.]

I was also pleased that Dr. Svigel touches on the issue of the monarchy of God the Father. Note the following selections:

In Ignatius’s thinking the Father is the ultimate authority, the monarchia of the Godhead, and this relationship seems to precede and transcend the limits of the incarnation. (Page 7)

…the fact that for Athenagoras (and, in fact, for all of the writers of the second century), the monarchia of the Godhead rests with the Father while the Son and Spirit operate in submission to the Father’s will. (Page 27)

There is an overwhelming tradition of what is today described as ontological equality and functional subordination within the Trinity that emphasizes the monarchia of the Father. While the Son and Spirit are not creatures, the Father is their head, meaning that all activities conform to his will. (Page 38)

In ending, though I personally do not fully agree with all of Dr. Svigel’s assessments, the paper as a whole is a valuable contribution for those folk interested in the teachings of the early Greek Fathers concerning the doctrine of God.

Grace and peace,

David

Unity and the Christian Church: Part 3b - the Catholic Tradition

In the combox of the previous thread here at AF, the Reformed Baptist, Ken Temple, raised some concerns about Irenaeus', Proof/Demostration of the Apostolic Preaching. Ken wrote:

the parts about baptism that you brought out from "the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" (found in recent years from an Armenian copy, right? - not found in the Philip Schaff collection of EFC) - could they not be interpreted in the way that we usually handle Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:5 ? (link)

Ken is correct that the Proof/Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is not found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series edited by Philip Schaff, and that the four English translations I am aware of are based on an Armenian manuscript discovered in 1904. Note the following from CCEL Staff Writer, Emmalon Davis:

Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is a second century guide for Christian converts. After disappearing for nearly two millennia, an Armenian copy of St. Irenaeus' guidebook was discovered in 1904. Current versions of this ancient text have been translated from the Armenian, a language which greatly resembles the Greek in which it was originally transcribed. St. Irenaeus wanted to set out the main points of the Apostolic message, which was handed down to the Church from Old Testament Scriptures. St. Irenaeus explains the doctrine of Christianity as it was understood by the educated believers of his day. He defends the grounds of belief and aims to demonstrate the truth of the ancient Biblical prophecy. As a result, his project is both theological and historical. Even today, St. Irenaeus' book of guidelines serves to help Christians find salvation and refute heretics. (LINK)

I am not aware of any published Patristic scholar—e.g. John Behr, Everett Ferguson, J. N.D. Kelly, John Lawson, Iain M. MacKenzie, J. Armitage Robinson, Joseph P. Smith—who references the Proof/Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, that has questioned the authenticity and/or reliability of the Armenian manuscript. I concur with Dr. Joseph P. Smith, who wrote:

AUTHENTICITY. That the work here presented to us is really, as the manuscript describes it, the "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" of Irenaeus, is certain on internal grounds. The title and the name (chapter 1) of the addressee agree with the information given us by Eusebius; the work reflects the conditions of the end of the second century, and its manner and many of its turns of expression agree with Irenaeus's known writings, and with his views and preoccupations; the parallels with Adversus haereses are many and striking... (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. by Joseph P. Smith, S.J., Newman Press, pp. 5, 6.)

Now, Ken seems to question the authenticity of the Proof/Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching because of its description concerning the nature of Christian baptism (Ken, please correct me on this if I have misunderstood you). Note the following:

THE RULE OF FAITH

3. So, lest the like befall us, we must keep strictly, without deviation, the rule of faith, and carry out the commands of God, believing in God, and fearing Him, because He is Lord, and loving Him, because He is Father. Action, then, is preserved by faith, because unless you believe, says Isaias, you shall not continue; and faith is given by truth, since faith rests upon reality: for we shall believe what really is, as it is, and, believing what really is, as it is for ever, keep a firm hold on our assent to it. Since, then, it is faith that maintains our salvation, one must take great care of this sustenance, to have a true perception of reality. Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God; and that the eternal and everlasting One is God, and is above all creatures, and that all things whatsoever are subject to Him; and that what is subject to Him was all made by Him; so that God is not ruler and Lord of what is another’s, but of His own, and all things are God’s; that God, therefore, is the Almighty, and all things whatsoever are from God. (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. by Joseph P. Smith, S.J., Newman Press, pp. 49, 50 - bold emphasis mine.)

Keeping in mind Dr. Smith's assessment that, "the parallels with Adversus haereses are many and striking", one should expect to find "baptism for the remission of sins" and baptism as, "rebirth unto God" (i.e. regeneration). One clearly finds such parallels in Irenaeus' Against Heresies (bold emphasis in the following quotes is mine):

1. It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of “redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.

2. They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins... (Against Heresies, 1.21.1, 2a - ANF 1.345)

But it is evident from Peter's words that he did indeed still retain the God who was already known to them ; but he also bare witness to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, into whom he did also command them to be baptized for the remission of sins; and not this alone, but he witnessed that Jesus was Himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ. (Against Heresies, 3.12.7 - ANF 1.443)

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, "Go to Siloam, and wash ;"  thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know] Him who has conferred upon him life. (Against Heresies, 5.15.3 - ANF 1.543)

Before ending, I would like to provide a selection from the esteemed Lutheran scholar, R. C. H. Lenski, who I believe does an excellent job in addressing how one is to interpret Acts 2:38, which is directly germane to Irenaeus' understanding of "baptism for the remission of sins":

Baptism is pure that conveys grace and salvation from God through Christ: it dare not be changed into a legal or legalistic requirement that is akin to the ceremonial requirement of Moses such as circumcision. God does something for us in baptism, we do we do nothing for him. Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God's gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: "for or unto remission of your sins." It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, as better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς this preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. (R. C. H. Lenski,  The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 107, 108.)

A few sentences later, Dr. Lenski then asked the following question:

And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, "Be baptized and wash away thy sins!" as though the water of baptism washed them away by their connection with the Name? (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 107, 108.)

Shall end here for now. Hope to have part 4 of this series ready for posting early next week.

Grace and peace,

David

Unity and the Christian Church: Part 3a - the Catholic Tradition

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was forged by the first Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. Towards the end of the creed, a declaration is made, consisting of four 'marks' or 'notes' by which the Christian Church  can be identified : μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν—one, holy, catholic [i.e. universal] and apostolic. The unity of the Christian Church is inextricably linked with all four, not just the first mark. The essence of all four marks can be found in the New Testament; and beginning in the second century, one can find descriptions of those marks in the writings of the Church Fathers. One of those Church Fathers is Irenaeus of Lyons—the following selections contain examples of those marks that would later be enshrined in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed [note: the 'marks' in bold in brackets are mine]:

 1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world [Catholic], even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles [Apostolic] and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,”and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment 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 [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.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart [One], and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth [One]. (Against Heresies, I.10.1, 2a - ANF pp. 330, 331.)

At the end of the same chapter, we read:

...the Catholic Church [Catholic] possesses one [One] and the same faith throughout the whole world [Catholic], as we have already said. (Against Heresies, I.10.3 - ANF pp. 331, 332.)

In book three of Against Heresies, Irenaeus mentions a number of heretics by name—Simon, Valentinus, Marcion, Cerinthus, Basilides—who have rejected "the only true life-giving faith", replacing it with a "diversity" of "doctrines and successions" which are "perverse teachings". He then adds:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Against Heresies, III.1.1.2a - ANF p. 415.)

Irenaeus then delineates how one can identify "the tradition of the apostles"; note the following:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles [Apostolic] manifested throughout the whole world [Catholic]; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things [Holy], whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition [Apostolic] has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [Catholic]. (Against Heresies, III.3.1.2 - ANF pp. 415, 416.)

Irenaeus then provides the complete list of bishops who held the episcopate of Rome from the time of Peter to the present—a total of twelve—following this succession of bishops with:

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles [Apostolic], and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith [One], which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Against Heresies, III.3.1.3 - ANF p. 416.)

This identification of the unity of the Christian Church with the four 'marks' continues within the Catholic Tradition from the second century until our present day. I shall now provide two examples; first, from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons (19th century):

By unity is meant that the members of the true Church must be united in the belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and in the acknowledgment of the authority of the same pastors. Heresy and schism are opposed to Christian unity. By heresy, a man rejects one or more articles of the Christian faith. By schism, he spurns the authority of his spiritual superiors. That our Saviour requires this unity of faith and government in His members, is evident from various passages of Holy Writ. In His admirable prayer immediately before His passion. He says : " I pray for them also who through their word shall believe in Me ; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us ; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Here Jesus prayed that His followers may be united in the bond of a common faith, as He and His Father are united in essence, and certainly the prayer of Jesus is always heard. (The Faith of Our Fathers, 10th revised edition - 1879, pp. 21, 22 - PDF copy available online HERE)

And second, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Paragraph 3. THE CHURCH IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC

811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. the Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

812 Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvellous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission." (LINK)

Shall end here for now; hope to have part 4 up in a few days, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David

Proverbs 8:22 and the early Church Fathers

In the 4th century, one Old Testament text, Proverbs 8:22, became a heated point of contention during the Arian controversy. Interestingly enough, two of the factions involved in the debate—the pro-Arians and the pro-Nicene Church Fathers—introduced interpretations of the text that went against an almost universal understanding by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers who cited it. Though all three parties applied the passage to Jesus Christ, each did so differently. The pro-Arians believed the passage taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father. Some of the pro-Nicene Fathers believed that the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only, and had nothing to do with his pre-existence (for an early example of this interpretation see Athanasius', Expostio Fidei, circa 328 A.D. - NPNF - Second Series 4.85). Both of these interpretations ran contrary to the pre-Nicene Fathers who taught that the passage did in fact refer to Jesus' pre-existent causation by God the Father (to date, I have found only one explicit exception), while clearly rejecting the pro-Arian novelty that this causation was ex nihilo.

All three interpretations utilized the Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 which reads:

κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's English translation (1851), reads as follows:

The Lord made [i.e. created] me the beginning of his ways for his works. (Brenton, The Septuagint With Apocrypha - Greek and English, Hendrickson Publishers 1986 reprint of the 1851 edition, page 795.)

Because the pro-Arians maintained that everything which exists, apart from God the Father Himself, came into being 'out of non-existence' (ἐξ ούκ ὄντων) by God's creative will, this meant for them that God's pre-existent Son (His Wisdom/Word) came into being out of nothing. It was Arius himself who introduced this theological novum (scholars have not been able to identify any Christian writer prior to him who taught that the Son was created ex nihilo). Concerning this teaching of Arius, the modern patristic scholar, R.P.C. Hanson wrote:

The part of Arius' doctrine which most shocked and disturbed his contemporaries was his statement that the Father made the son 'out of non-existence' (ἐξ ούκ ὄντων). (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988, p. 24.)

And a bit later:

Scholars have usually been completely at a loss to account for its ancestry, and those few who suggest that Arius derived it from one or another of the Middle Platonist philosophies have not explained that any philosopher who appears to derive some ultimate reality from non-existence in fact assumes that the creation 'from nothing' took place from already existing formless matter. It is likely that Arius, with his usual ruthless logic, decided that as God had created everything out of nothing (a doctrine which was well established in his day), and as the Son was created, so the Son must have been created out of nothing. (Ibid.)

What Arius and his followers failed to grasp is that when the Church Fathers who wrote prior to the Arian controversy applied the term "created" [Gr. κτίζω] to the pre-existent Son of God, they did so with the understanding that it was a synonym of "beget" [Gr. γεννάω]. In other words, in a Christological context, "created" meant "procreated". This understanding seems to fit quite well with Biblical terminology and themes (e.g. God as Father and Jesus as the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, the only begotten Son, etc.), and is embedded in the broader context of the Proverbs 8.22 passage, for just three verses after Wisdom has been identified as being created/made [Gr. ἔκτισέν] by the Lord/Jehovah, we read that the same Lord/Jehovah "begets" [Gr. γεννᾷ] the same Wisdom.

With the above in place, it is now time to examine how the pre-Nicene Fathers made use of Proverbs 8:22. Two important points will emerge: first, the passage, with only one clear exception, is used with reference to the pre-existent Jesus (contra Athanasius and some other post-Nicene Fathers); and second, the surrounding context does not allow for the Arian sense. I will start with the Greek Fathers, all of which make use of the Septuagint version, and then the Latin Fathers, who also used the LXX, but, of course, translated into Latin.

Justin Martyr -

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos ; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will ; just as we see happening among ourselves : for when we give out some word, we beget the word ; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word  [which remains] in us, when we give it out : and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another] , but remains the same ; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following : 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works [Prov. 8.22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.616]. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 6.616] (Dialogue with Trypho, 61 - ANF 1.227, 228.)

"And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number : One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom ; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God ; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, 'Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,' this phrase, 'like one of Us,' is also indicative of number ; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom : 'If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. [Prov. 8.22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.777].  From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 6.777] before all the hills.'" When I repeated these words, I added : "You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created ; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit." (Dialogue with Trypho, 129 - ANF 1.264.)

Irenaeus -

I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father ; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation. He declares by Solomon : "God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew." And again: "The Lord created [Lat. creavit - PG 7/1.1033.58] me the beginning of His ways in His work : He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth ; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth [Lat. genuit - PG 7/1.1033.58]. "And again : "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep ; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men." (Against Heresies, 4.20.3 - ANF 1.488.)

[NOTE: The above passage is the only exception I have found to the almost universal application of Prov. 8:22 to the pre-existent Jesus. Also, though Irenaeus originally wrote in Greek, the Greek for this section is not extant, and has been preserved in Latin.]

Athenagoras -

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being — I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father in idea and in operation ; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence [i.e. not ἐξ ούκ ὄντων] (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός] ; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος γὰρ, φησὶν, ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 6.909.70.] (A Plea for the Christians, 10.3 - ANF 2.133.)

Clement of Alexandria -

Why repeat to you the mysteries of wisdom, and sayings from the writings of the son of the Hebrews, the master of wisdom ? "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways, in order to His works." [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ -PG 8.192.54] And, "The LORD giveth wisdom, and from His face proceed knowledge and understanding."  "How long wilt thou lie in bed, O sluggard ; and when wilt thou be aroused from sleep?" "but if thou show thyself no sluggard, as a fountain thy harvest shall come," the "Word of the Father, the benign light, the Lord that bringeth light, faith to all, and salvation." For "the Lord who created the earth by His power," as Jeremiah says, "has raised up the world by His wisdom ; " for wisdom, which is His word, raises us up to the truth, who have fallen prostrate before idols, and is itself the first resurrection from our fall. (Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 8 - ANF 2.194, 195.)

Origen -

In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the dispensation (of grace) is another. And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon : " The Lord created me —the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; [Prov. 8:22: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum, et in opera sua antequam aliquid faceret, ante saecula fundavit me. - PG 11.130.8] He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills. He brought me forth." [Lat. generat - PG 11.130.8] He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared : " who is the first-born of every creature." The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. (De Principiis, 1.2.1 - ANF 4.245, 246.)

[NOTE: De Principiis was originally written in Greek, but the Greek for this section is not extant. However, the LXX version of Prov. 8:22 has been preserved in Greek in Origen's Hexpla, and reads: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 16/2.1337-1338.]

Now this Son was begotten of the Father's will, for he is the 'image of the invisible God' and the 'efflulgence of his glory and impress of his substance', 'the firstborn of all creation', a thing created, wisdom. For wisdom itself says: 'God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works'. [Prov. 8:22: ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - GCS 22.349.] If he is an 'image of the invisible God', he is an invisible image; and I would dare add that as he is a likeness of the Father there is no time he did not exist. (Origen on First Principles - Being Koetschau's Text of DePrincipiis Translated Into English, by G. W. Butterworth, 1973, 4.4.1, pp. 314, 315.)

 (101) And in relation to this, we will be able to understand what is meant by the beginnning of creation, and what Wisdom says in Proverbs: "For God,'" she says. "created me the beginning of his ways for his works." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς  γὰρ, φησὶν, ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.53.75] It is possible, of course, for this also to be referred to our first meaning, i.e. that pertaining to a way, because it is said, "God created me the beginning of his ways." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.53.75]

(102) But someone will say with good reason that the God of all things is clearly a beginning too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the son, and the creator, is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is the beginning of the things which exist. And by understanding the Son to be the Word, he will justify his view by the statement, "In the beginning was the Word," because what is said to be in the Father is in the beginning. (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 54, 55.)

(111) But it is as the beginning that Christ is creator, according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, "God created me the beginning of his ways for his works," [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.56.80] that "the Word might be in the beginning," in wisdom. It is wisdom which is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of the contemplation and thoughts of all things, but it is the Word which is received, taken in to the communication of the things which have been contemplated to spiritual beings. (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 56. 57.)

(221) But if there are letters of God, as there are, which the saints read and say they have read what is written in the tablets of heaven, those letters are the thoughts about the Son of God wich are broken up into alpha and the letters that follow to omega, that heavenly matters might be read through them.

(222) And again the same one is beginning and end, but he is not the same insofar as the aspects are concerned. For he is the beginning insofar as he is wisdom, as we have learned in Proverbs. Therefore it has been written, "God created me the beginning of his ways for his works." [Prov. 8:22: Ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 14.84.36.] (Commentary on the Gospel According to John - Books 1-10, CUA Press, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine, p. 77.)

(289) Our proposal was to see clearly "In the beginning was the Word." As for "beginning," it has been demostrated according to the testimonies of Proverbs (see Prov. 8:22) that Wisdom is spoken of and that the notion of wisdom precedes the word that annouces it. So it must be understood that the Word always exists in the beginning, that is, in Wisdom. Since he is in Wisdom, which is called "beginning," he is not hindered from being "with God" and he is God, and he is not simply "with God," but, being "in the beginning" in Wisdom, he is "with God." ("Commentary on John, Book 1", in Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, 1998, p. 149.)

[NOTE: For a reason(s) unknown me, Origen, in all his Prov. 8:22 citations in his Commentary on John, and the De Principiis 4.4.1 passage, has substituted "Lord" (Κύριος) with "The God" (Ὁ Θεὸς).]

Eusebius of Caesarea -

Next to the Being of the God of the universe, which is without beginning and uncreate, incapable of mixture and beyond all conception, they introduce a second Being and divine power, which subsisted as the first beginning of all originated things and was originated from the first cause, calling it Word, and 'Wisdom, and Power of God.'

And the first to teach us this is Job, saying: 'But whence was wisdom found? And what is the place of understanding? Man knoweth not the way thereof, nor yet was it found among men, ... but we have heard the fame thereof. The Lord established the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.'

And David also somewhere in the Psalms, addressing Wisdom by another name, says: 'By the word of the LORD were the heavens established': for in this manner he celebrated the Word of God the Organizer of all things. Moreover, his son Solomon also speaks as follows in the person of Wisdom herself, saying: 'I Wisdom made counsel my dwelling, and knowledge and understanding I called unto me. By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice.'  And again:

'The LORD created me as the beginning of His ways unto His works [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 21.541.75.], from everlasting He founded me, in the beginning or ever He made the earth, and before the depths were made, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 21.541.75];  . . . when He was preparing the heaven I was beside Him; . . . and as He was making safe the fountains beneath the heaven, . . . I was with Him arranging. I it was in whom He daily delighted, and I was rejoicing before Him in every season when He was rejoicing in having completed the habitable world.' (Preparation of the Gospel - Part 1, 7.12, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Baker 1981 reprint, pp. 320, 321.)

IN regard then to the First Cause of all things let this be our admitted form of agreement. But now consider what is said concerning the Second Cause, whom the Hebrew oracles teach to be the Word of God, and God of God, even as we Christians also have ourselves been taught to speak of the Deity.

First then Moses expressly speaks of two divine Lords in the passage where he says, 'Then the LORD rained from the LORD fire and brimstone upon the city of the ungodly ': where he applied to both the like combination of Hebrew letters in the usual way; and this combination is the mention of God expressed in the four letters, which is with them unutterable.

In accordance with him David also, another Prophet as well as king of the Hebrews, says, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand,'  indicating the Most High God by the first LORD, and the second to Him by the second title. For to what other is it right to suppose that the right hand of the Unbegotten God is conceded, than to Him alone of whom we are speaking?

This is He whom the same prophet in other places more clearly distinguishes as the Word of the Father, supposing Him whose deity we are considering to be the Creator of the universe, in the passage where he says, 'By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made firm.'

He introduces the same Person also as a Saviour of those who need His care, saying, 'He sent His Word and healed them.'

And Solomon, David's son and successor, presenting the same thought by a different name, instead of the 'Word' called Him Wisdom, making the following statement as in her person:

'I Wisdom made prudence my dwelling, and called to my aid knowledge and understanding.'  Then afterwards he adds, 'The LORD formed [i.e. created] me as the beginning of His ways with a view to His works [Prov. 8:22: Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - PG 21.884.76.]: from everlasting He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [Prov. 8.25b: γεννᾷ με - PG 21.884.76].  . . . When He was preparing the heaven, I was beside Him."(Preparation of the Gospel - Part 2, 11.14, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Baker 1981 reprint, pp. 531, 532.)

Tertullian -

Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. "The Lord," says the Scripture, "possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works [Prov. 8:22: Dominus, inquit, condidit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua - PL 2.213]. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten." Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works, — how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? (Against Hermogenes, ch. 18 – ANF 3.487.)

Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person: “At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways [Prov. 8:22: Primo, Dominus creavit me initium viarum in opera sua - PL 2.161], with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;” that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence. (Against Praxeas, ch. 6 – ANF 3.601.)

[NOTE: In the Against Hermogenes passage, Tertullian translates the LXX term, ἔκτισέ, as condidit; however, in the Against Praxeas passage, he uses creavit.]

Cyprian -

TESTIMONIES.

I. That Christ is the First-born, and that He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made.

In Solomon in the Proverbs : "The Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works [Prov. 8:22: Dominus candidit me in initio viarum suarum , in opera sua ante sæcula fundavit me. - PL 4.696]: before the world He founded me. In the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He appointed the abysses, before the fountains of waters gushed forth, before the mountains were settled, before all the hills, the Lord begot me. (The Treatises of Cyprian, 12.2 - ANF 5.515.)

Lactantius -

God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty...

Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have added : "God founded me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages. [Prov. 8:22: Deus candidit me in initio viarum suarum , in opera sua ante secula. - PL 7.462] He set me up in the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He established the depths, before the fountains of waters came forth : the Lord begat me before all the hills ; He made the regions, and the uninhabitable" boundaries under the heaven. When He prepared the heaven, I was by Him : and when He separated His own seat, when He made the strong clouds above the winds, and when He strengthened the mountains, and placed them under heaven ; when He laid the strong foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging all things. I was He in whom He delighted : I was daily delighted, when He rejoiced, the world being completed." (The Divine Institutes, 4.6 - ANF 7.105.)

So ends my survey of the early Church Fathers use of Proverbs 8:22. I am convinced the objective reader will discern that their interpretation of the passage is quite different than that of the pro-Arian and pro-Nicene parties. Whether or not their interpretation is the best understanding of the passage is another question I am leaving 'open' at this time...

Grace and peace,

David

Abbreviations:

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers (American Edition), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson

GCS = Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, edited by Christoph Markschies

NPNF =  A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace

PG = J. P. Migne's, Patrologia Graeca

PL = J. P. Migne's, Patrologia Latina