Cont’d from the last post:
Similarly, the presbyter Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God: "He has constantly received on the faith of the heavenly Scriptures, which continually say that He is both Angel and God."
140 And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts:For, behold, Hosea the prophet says in the person of the Father: “I will not now save them by bow, nor by horses, nor by horsemen; but I will save them by the Lord [Yahweh] their God.” If God says that He saves by God, still God does not save except by Christ.
141
He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son: "But the Paraclete being less than Christ, moreover, by this very fact proves Christ to be God, from whom He has received what He declares . . . ."
142 Indeed, the unity of the Godhead is not some mysterious metaphysical “oneness,” but a unity of will:And since He said “one” thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say “one” person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity . . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection; and because He is of the Father, whatsoever He is, He is the Son; the distinction however remaining, that He is not the Father who is the Son, because He is not the Son who is the Father . . . . For when two persons have one judgment, one truth, one faith, one and the same religion, one fear of God also, they are one even although they are two persons: they are the same, in that they have the same mind.
143
Novatian didn’t hesitate to name other angels “gods” as well: "[If] even the angels themselves . . . as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."
144 And yet in another sense Novatian hesitated to say there is more than one God, because all gods are subject to the Father: "Thus making Himself obedient to His Father in all things, although He also is God, yet He shows the one God the Father by His obedience, from whom also He drew His beginning. And thus He could not make two Gods . . . ."
145
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en145
Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"
146, and another third-century text called
The Threefold Fruit of the Christian Life described Jesus as the angel, Yahweh of Hosts: "When the Lord created the angels from the fire he decided to make one of them his son, he whom Isaiah called the Lord [Yahweh] of Hosts."
147
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en147
In the fourth century, Methodius of Olympus could say that Christ was filled with the “pure and perfect Godhead,” but also designated Him as first among the Archangels:And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Aeons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and the first of men, even Adam.
148
Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a “secondary being” who is both angel and God:Remember how Moses calls the Being, Who appeared to the patriarchs, and often delivered to them the oracles afterwards written down in Scripture sometimes God and Lord, and sometimes the Angel of the Lord. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent God, but a secondary Being, rightly called the God and Lord of holy men, but the Angel of the Most High His Father.
149
Again, Eusebius equated Jesus with Yahweh, prince of the sons of El, spoken of in Deuteronomy 32:7-8:In these words [Deut. 32:8] surely he names first the Most High God, the Supreme God of the Universe, and then as Lord His Word, Whom we call Lord in the second degree after the God of the Universe. And their import is that all the nations and the sons of men, here called sons of Adam, were distributed among the invisible guardians of the nations, that is the angels, by the decision of the Most High God, and His secret counsel unknown to us. Whereas to One beyond comparison with them, the Head and King of the Universe, I mean to Christ Himself, as being the Only-begotten Son, was handed over that part of humanity denominated Jacob and Israel, that is to say, the whole division which has vision and piety.
150
In another interesting passage, Eusebius compared the hierarchy of being to the sun, moon, and stars spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:“For there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,” says the divine Apostle; “for one star differeth from another star in glory.” In this way, therefore, we must think of the order in incorporeal and intelligent Beings also, the unutterable and infinite power of the God of the universe embracing all of them together; and the second place, next to the Father, being held by the power of the Divine Word . . . . And next after this second Being there is set, as in place of a moon, a third Being, the Holy Spirit, whom also they enroll in the first and royal dignity and honour of the primal cause of the universe . . . . But this Spirit, holding a third rank, supplies those beneath out of the superior powers in Himself, notwithstanding that He also receives from another, that is from the higher and stronger, who, as we said, is second to the most high and unbegotten nature of God the King of all . . .
151
However, in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a “second God” was unheard of in the “orthodox” faith:For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,–nor yet first, second, and third. For “I,” God, “am the first, and I am the last.” And hitherto we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God.
152
At that time I’m pretty sure they were solidly monotheistic. Is my timeline off?
I am not Mormon, never have been, never will be, and I do not believe the Mormon position is supported by the Old Testament (or by history). I was simply correcting the assertion that the Jews were always monotheistic. As I said, God revealed Himself to the Jews, and they came to understand that other gods were false. God reveals Himself in appropriate ways when He knows we can understand.
