Eusebius, Marcellus, Athanasius, and Didymus
Eusebius, a Cautious Supporter of Universal Salvation
The refining fire “will come to each soul [psuchē] judging each according to its deeds done while alive, and cleansing and refining it by fire, like gold, and purifying the minds [hēgemonika] of all.” (Ecl. Proph. 3.31 [133.20–25])
Eusebius († 339–40), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, court historian of the Emperor Constantine, and the first source concerning the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), was a devoted disciple of the Martyr Pamphilus, the apologist of Origen.168 He cooperated with Pamphilus in composing the apology for Origen and highly praised Origen in HE 6. However, he always endeavored to avoid eschatological issues, out of caution, to hide his own penchant for the doctrine of universal salvation. This becomes clear from a very close analysis. One preliminary element comes from his rigorous use of the terminology of eternity.169 He uses αἰώνιος/aiōnios in the sense of “pertaining to the world to come” and as meaning “eternal” only if it refers to God, mostly in quotations from Scripture. But he uses ἀΐδιος/aïdios in the full sense of “eternal,” in reference to God, to the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, and to intelligible entities (i.e., what transcends time or is immutable in time). Eusebius never characterizes future punishment or death or fire as ἀΐδιος/aïdios or “eternal,” but he does describe life and beatitude in the world to come as ἀΐδιος/aïdios. For Eusebius regards life and beatitude—but not punishment, fire, and death—as eternal.
In PE 7:18:9 Eusebius describes the final restoration as a “rectification,” a “setting right” of sin and the return of humanity to its original perfection as its end.170 Eusebius, like Origen, deems the eventual restoration a work of Christ: “the salvific Logos, who leads to the Father those who walk through It, taking them by hand, and restoring [apokathistas] them to the kingdom of heavens. . . . Nobody who walks this Way enters without having been purified.”171 Like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, Eusebius depicts the resurrection as a renovation (anakainizesthai) and restoration; he employs the very same definition of resurrection as restoration that Gregory will use: “resurrection is a restoration [apokatastasis] to our original condition.”172 Eusebius also inherited from Origen the concept of divine punishments as purifying, educative, and healing, which implies their limited duration: “after being instructed by punishment for a short time, they will be restored again to their previous condition” (DE 10:6:3).
Eusebius foresees “the gathering and restoration of all believers—those who have become worthy of the holy city of God—to one and the same choir.”173 Like Origen,174 Eusebius often interprets Acts 3:21 (“the times of universal restoration [apokatastasis], of which God spoke through his holy prophets from time immemorial”) in reference to universal restoration and salvation in the end.175 In C. Marc. 2:4:11 he interprets the words “the times of universal restoration” in Acts 3:21 as referring to the other world, in which all beings will have a perfect restoration: “For, what else does ‘until the times of universal restoration’ signify to us, if not the aeon to come, in which all beings must receive their perfect restoration? . . . Οn the occasion of the restoration [apokatastasis] of absolutely all beings, Paul said that creation itself will be transformed from slavery into freedom.”176 Also, commenting on the Transfiguration scene in Luke, Eusebius observes that in the end not only three disciples will fall upon their face, but all creatures, since all knees will bend in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld (a reference to Philippians 2:10–11, one of Origen’s favorite passages in support of universal salvation).177
Eusebius in his exegesis of Isaiah foresees that sinners will be punished; this is symbolized by the destruction of their cities (Isa 25:2), but the inhabitants will be saved and escape from ruin. Sins will be destroyed and sinners will be purified and saved. Christ is “helper and defender,” the “Savior of all together,” and frees all from error and spiritual death.178 Eusebius reads Isaiah 25:8 as a prophecy of the final destruction and vanishing of death179—not only physical, but also spiritual death. This will be eliminated thanks to Christ and faith. All “will not be subject to death any more, but participate in immortality and in the life of the world to come.” Death will return to its original state, which is non-being, because God did not create it.180 All will first need to be liberated from evil and made worthy of God’s promises.181 The rational creatures who are “worthy of the promises” are those whom Christ will have made worthy. They will dwell in Christ, who will be “all things” for all (1 Cor 15:28).
God’s Logos revivifies the dead and cures their sins, if these are sins of human scale (Comm. in Is. 1:88:53), thus bestowing on them, not only the resurrection, but also “salvation and life in the future world.”182 In Comm. in Is. 1.85 Eusebius describes the final restoration, “the culmination of the goods” foreseen by the prophets (Acts 3:20–21), identifying it with God’s “original intention” before the creation of the world: the submission of all enemies and the final annihilation of evil and death: “The facts that were pre-established before the foundation of the world, and will be fulfilled at the end of the aeons; . . . once all evilness has been eliminated and the last enemy, death, has been destroyed, God will be ‘all in all’” (1 Cor 15:28). This is simply a representation of Origen’s description of the eventual restoration, based on the Pauline passage so dear to Origen.
Eusebius comments on 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, especially in his polemic with Marcellus of Ancyra. In C. Marc. 2:4, both of them rely on Origen’s exegesis of this passage, in reference to universal salvation. The destruction of all the power of the devil will take place during Christ’s eschatological reign: “the end/aim of Christ’s reign is . . . that all be submitted to his feet, and when all, in the end, are finally subjected to Christ . . . he will submit to him who has subjected all to him” (C. Marc. 2:4:1). When Christ becomes the king of all, “the human being, who once was deceived by the devil, thanks to the power of the Logos will be king and . . . finally defeat the devil” (2:4:9–10). This will happen in “the times of universal restoration [apokatastasis]” announced in Acts 3:20–21. These times will come when humanity becomes united with the Logos, and in the future aeon all will receive a full restoration (apokatastasis). This will occur when Christ hands his kingdom to the Father, after the submission of all enemies and the annihilation of evil (2:4:12). “All that which concerns humans will receive its ultimate perfection thanks to God’s providence and action on the occasion of the Judgement.” Indeed, after the Judgement there will come the “rectification of all” and the vanishing of all adverse powers (2:4:13–4). Eusebius agrees with Origen and Marcellus about the universal “rectification” and “restoration” (apokatastasis), which he sees in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28.
After the Judgement, there will be the “rectification of absolutely all beings” and “the vanishing of absolutely every adverse power;” then Christ-Logos will submit to the Father and “after the accomplishment of his work,” will be one with God, who will be “all in all” (Eccl. theol. 2:8). In Eccl. theol. 2:14, Eusebius is discussing Psalm 109:1, quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:25 and Acts 3:21, which foretells the “times of universal apokatastasis.” Like Origen and then Gregory of Nyssa, who relied on Origen, Eusebius interprets 1 Corinthians 15:25–8 not in the sense of Christ’s subordination to the Father, but as the voluntary submission of all, meaning universal salvation:
The apostle, saying that all beings will submit to the Son, indicated the obedience given out of a free choice, and the glory . . . that all beings will render to him qua Savior and king of all together. In the same way, also his own submission to the Father probably does not indicate anything different from . . . the voluntary obedience which he himself [in his humanity] will render to God the Father, once he has rendered all worthy of the divinity of the Father. . . . Ιn case they are unworthy of it, Christ, qua common Savior of absolutely all, will take on
his reign, a rectifying and therapeutic reign, which will rectify those who will be still imperfect and heal those who will still need healing, and will reign, leading under his feet the enemies of his kingdom. (Eccl. theol. 3:15)
The eschatological reign of Christ will be a healing and purifying reign, which will make worthy of God those who are not yet so, and thus “all, once sanctified, will submit to the Son of God in a salvific submission. . . . He will subject all beings to himself, and this must be understood as a salvific submission. . . . Ηe will bring to God all those who have submitted to him, having put them around himself as a choir” (3:15–6). This will be “the perfect accomplishment of Paul’s teaching in the very end: that God may be all in all.” Indeed, “after the end and perfection of all, at the constitution of the new aeon, God will no longer inhabit few, but all, who by then have become worthy of the kingdom of heavens.” Then, “God will be ‘all in all’ . . . filling all, and the Son will exult and rejoice in the perfect act performed . . . and will continue to reign without end.” Eusebius reiterates that Christ will be able to give back “all” to the Father only after making them “perfect,” “saved,” and “completely healed,” having sanctified them all as a high priest: “Like a high priest he will sanctify all . . . that they may be filled with the unspeakable goods of the Father. For it is in this sense that God will be ‘all in all.’” Perfect unity will reign—in Eusebius’ view, just as in Origen’s view—in the final universal restoration:
Then God will be in all, who will have been made perfect meanwhile by the Son . . . And the Son will hand the kingdom to God, presenting him all those with whom he had been entrusted safe and ready for the adoration and the sanctity of the Father. So God will be all in all . . . representing all the goods for them.
The final restoration is described by Eusebius again and again, and is identified with “the culmination of the most blessed hope” at the end of this passage and in 3:18: “the most blessed end” is the final condition in which the Godhead “will give itself as a gift to those who constitute the kingdom of Christ, thus coming to be all in all.” All will have to be “perfected into unity,”183 which is a unity of will, not of metaphysical substance, for both Eusebius and Origen.184
I already noted the epithet that Eusebius attaches to Christ in his works preserved in Greek, such as his exegesis of Isaiah and Against Marcellus: “the common Savior of absolutely all” (ὁ κοινὸς ἁπάντων Σωτήρ/ho koinos hapantōn Sōtēr). This is also how Eusebius describes Christ-Logos in Praise of Constantine 6.9. The universalistic connotation is also clear, and extraordinarily emphasized, in his Theophany, a probably late work preserved in Syriac, where Christ is repeatedly called “the common Savior of all [d-kl]” (Theoph. 5.1; 5.8; 5.14; 5.16; 5.34; 5.46). He is the Cause of all and “the Savior of all rational creatures,” the Universal Savior who bestows logos, wisdom, and all goods upon all creation (1.26–27). This seems not to mean that Jesus merely offers salvation to all humans, those of all races and classes, but that he will eventually achieve salvation for all, as taught by Origen, Eusebius’ hero. In Theophany 1.72 and 5.27, Eusebius speaks of the darkness and fire that await those who do not follow the Logos, but not even here, in what may be his last work (at least according to Michael Simmons), does he state that this fire will be eternal. Exactly like Origen, who asserted that Christ with his cross provided the principle and advancement of the destruction of evil and the devil, who ruled over the whole world (CC 7.17), so does also Eusebius claim that Christ with his cross inaugurated the definitive liberation of the world from the demons (Theophany 3.59).
Hilary of Poitiers and His Corporate Soteriology
Hilary († 367ca), bishop of Poitiers in Gaul, a devoted anti-Arian,185 knew and admired Origen, and even translated nearly 40,000 lines from his Greek works into Latin, if we credit Jerome (Apology against Rufinus 1). It is therefore not surprising to find that he took over Origen’s interpretation of God’s actions of destruction as remedial. Commenting on Psalm 2:8–9, he observes that God will bruise and break the nations “in order to reform them.” Sinners are slain by God when they die to vices and sins, and are redeemed (Treatises on Psalms 139.19). This is typically Origenian exegesis. Moreover, for Hilary, Christ’s incarnation is salvific for all humanity, because Christ’s body—which is also the church—contains every human individual (“corporate soteriology” or “physicalist soteriology”).186 This is also what Origen maintained, and this model will be taken over by Gregory of Nyssa. As we shall see later, Eriugena in the ninth century—still a great admirer of Origen—went even further along this line, stating that Christ’s incarnation, or better inhumanation, effected the salvation of all creatures: “Thanks to the inhumanation of God’s Child, every creature in heaven and on earth has been saved” (per inhumanationem Filii Dei omnis creatura in caelo et in terra salva facta est).
Very interestingly, Hilary’s interpretation of the Parable of the Lost Sheep—identifying the lost sheep with all of humanity, which is to be restored—coincides exactly with that offered by Adamantius (Origen’s byname) in the Dialogue of Adamantius. Hilary, referring to Luke 15:4, explains:
This one sheep is the human being, and by one human being the whole race is to be understood . . . the ninety-nine are the heavenly angels . . . and by us [humans], who are all one [sc. because we share the same human nature], the number of the heavenly church is to be filled up. This is why every creature awaits the revelation of the children of God. (Commentary on Matthew 18)
Excursus: The Dialogue of Adamantius
Rufinus’ version of the Dialogue of Adamantius reports exactly the same exegesis. Adamantius’ important treatment of apokatastasis in 848e constitutes one of the most outstanding points of contact with Origen’s thinking, including his dealing with all rational creatures, his insistence on the negation of an ultimate perdition or ruin (apōleia), and his use of the Parable of the Lost Sheep in reference to the apokatastasis. Adamantius, in fact, offers here a real abridgment of Origen’s philosophy of history and eschatology.187 This not only is significant in itself, but it is also all the more revealing in that this discussion is completely lacking in the extant Greek. It is only present in Rufinus’ version, which is likely to be much closer to the original than the Greek we have today. Whereas it is generally assumed that Rufinus added this passage, I think it is far more probable that the original text did include it, and Rufinus translated it, but it was subsequently expurgated in an act of censorship by the Greek by opponents of the apokatastasis theory. This extensive athetesis188 probably took place after the official condemnation of Origenism under Justinian in 553. I have argued that the extant Greek is quite late, as is indicated by its linguistic features, all the more in that soon after (849a) Adamantius is declared to have expressed the orthodox position. Rufinus, on the contrary, had no problem in leaving the passage in its place, given that, in his view, Origen’s position was indeed orthodox (for he identified Adamantius with Origen).189
That Rufinus’ Latin is a translation from an original Greek text is suggested by the presence of Greek loanwords such as stadium and agon, which means “battle, fighting,” which moreover represent extremely common metaphors in Origen, and by the expression regressum ad pristinum statum or “return to the original condition”, which is the translation of hē eis to archaion apokatastasis. This phrase and conception is typical of Origen, and of Nyssen, who took it over from Origen, in many places and especially in De anima, where he defines twice the anastasis as hē eis to archaion apokatastasis or “the restoration to the original condition” of our (i.e., human) nature. Origen’s use of the phrase eis to archaion apokathistēmi or “I restore to the original condition” well attested by Jerome, Ep. ad Avit. 3: per genus hominum reuertantur ad pristinum statum, which clearly translates the above-mentioned Greek phrase. What is more, in Princ. 2.1.1 Rufinus’ translation restituere in statum initii sui or “to restore into one’s original cond
ition” surely renders apokathistēmi eis to archaion. The whole sentence is, praecipue si intueamur illum finem per quem omnia restituenda in statum initii sui or “especially if we understand that ultimate end through which all beings are to be restored to their original condition.” Soon after, Origen explains how to archaion or “the original condition” is to be understood: illa initii unitate atque concordia in qua a deo primitus procreati sunt . . . illo bonitatis statum, or: “in that initial state of unity and concord, in wich the were orginally created by God . . . that condition of goodness.” The same concept returns in Princ. 3.6.6, and there is also an attestation directly in Origen’s Greek, in Co. Io. 13.3.13: eis homoion tō archēthen apokatastas, or “restoring to a state similar to the initial one,” which closely corresponds to the aforementioned expression in the Dialogue.
Furthermore, Adamantius’ phrase in statum initii sui or “into one’s original condition” suggests that the original condition, exempt from sin, belonged to the human being as its proper state: Origen characterizes the apokatastasis as a return to what is one’s own and familiar (eis ta oikeia) in Hom. in Jer. 14.18. A comparison can be drawn with Princ. 1.3.8, where the apokatastasis is described (in Rufinus’ translation) as a redire ad statum suum ac rursum statuere id quod per neglegentiam fuerat elapsum, or “return to one’s own condition and restore what had fallen out of negligence.” Now, rursum statuere translates a form of apokathistēmi, and ad statum suum renders eis to oikeion, which expresses the same concept as in Origen’s Homilies on Jeremiah: the apokatastasis will be a return to the state that was proper to the human being at the beginning, a return to one’s true nature, as it was in God’s plan. Likewise, the original state characterized by beatitude, to which at the apokatastasis all will be brought back, is described by Origen in Princ. 1.6.2 as “proper” and “properly belonging to” the human being: redire et restitui [sc. apokathistēmi] ad statum suae beatitudinis, or “to return and be restored to the state of beatitude that belongs to one.” Indeed, suae very probably renders a form of oikeios.
A Larger Hope 1 Page 12
