II. Debates about Πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers

The value of studies in Wirkungsgeschichte is that it shows the relevance of post-apostolic materials for shedding light on exegetical debates about the NT. Unless one posits a sharp and absolute divide between implied readers and subsequent real readers in the early centuries of the common era, the views of post-apostolic authors for understanding biblical texts is naturally of value for modern interpreters since they are closer in language, time, and conceptual framework to the biblical authors than ourselves.Footnote ⁴ That is not to say that pre-critical patristic interpretation is necessarily superior to modern critical studies; however, to disregard the value of biblical interpretation in antiquity is to engage in a form of ‘exegetical amnesia’.Footnote ⁵ Before examining Hippolytus's comment in Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo it is necessary first to make some prefatory remarks about the state of scholarship with regards to evidence from the Church Fathers and its bearing upon the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate.

Two studies dealing with πίστις Χριστοῦ in the early church were released between 1994 and 1995, yet they drew diametrically opposed conclusions. The first to be published was a study by Roy A. Harrisville which dealt specifically with how the early Church Fathers understood the πίστις Χριστοῦ passages in the Pauline materials.Footnote ⁶ Harrisville combed the early Church Fathers, searching for evidence of how they understood and articulated the πίστις Χριστοῦ constructions from Paul. While he located some ambiguous references, he found none that unequivocally referred to Jesus' own faithfulness. Moreover, he found that the Church Fathers regularly understood πίστις Χριστοῦ as referring to ‘faith in Christ’.

One year later, Ian G. Wallis's monograph, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions, was published. Wallis canvassed the earliest strands of Christian tradition, including the Church Fathers, for portrayals of Jesus as a man of faith. Unlike Harrisville, Wallis was not so much concerned with actual πίστις Χριστοῦ constructions as he was with finding general references to Jesus' faith or faithfulness in the early church. In contrast to Harrisville's study, Wallis argued that the early Christian traditions, both the NT and Church Fathers, presented Jesus over and over again as a man of intense faith.Footnote ⁷

Though these studies are helpful, they are not without their problems. At times, Harrisville seems to overlook places where the πίστις Χριστοῦ construction may have taken on a more complex meaning in the eyes of the Church Fathers, especially in the case of Origen.Footnote ⁸ Conversely, Wallis's investigation lacks adequate attention on how the early Church Fathers actually understood the πίστις Χριστοῦ construction in the Pauline materials. In addition, though Wallis does treat the Apostolic Fathers to a limited extent, he does not discuss all the pertinent texts (e.g. Herm. Mand. 11.4) and merely notes others (e.g. Ign. Magn. 1.1; Rom. Inscr.; Herm. Sim. 6.3.6; 9.16.5), thus creating a significant lacuna in his study.

Harrisville and Wallis both neglect the evidence from the Apostolic Fathers,Footnote ⁹ which is unfortunate because we have in the Apostolic Fathers an array of data that have a significant bearing on early Christian understandings of the salvific dynamics of the Christ-event generally and explications of the πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases more specifically. The Apostolic Fathers also provide a crucial nexus between the NT authors and the later Church Fathers and thus matter immensely in mapping the effect, continuity, and reception of the NT materials in the immediate post-apostolic period.Footnote ¹⁰ In fact, there are at least eleven places in the Apostolic Fathers where πίστις is modified by a genitive that refers to Jesus Christ.Footnote ¹¹ While each of these references are ambiguous as to their precise meaning, a case can be made that they refer not to ‘faith in Christ,’ but to ‘the faithfulness of Christ’.Footnote ¹² That is not to say that the concept of ‘faith in Christ’ is absent from the Apostolic Fathers, indeed it is ubiquitous, yet no genitive is used to denote the object of faith.Footnote ¹³ Additionally, the faith of believers is also sourced in Jesus Christ. This is seen most clearly in Ign. Phld. 8.2, where Ignatius refers to Jesus' cross, death, and resurrection as well as the faith which comes through him (ὁ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ).Footnote ¹⁴

While there is nothing in the Apostolic Fathers that will end the debate over the meaning of πίστις Χριστοῦ, these writings do provide possible references to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ outside the NT; in addition, they portray faith as something that is enigmatically mediated through Jesus. There are also several texts that show that the subjective and objective senses for πίστις Χριστοῦ are not mutually exclusive.Footnote ¹⁵ This phenomenon is not restricted to the Apostolic Fathers as it shows up in the larger corpora of the later Church Fathers as well. The best example of this is Origen, who understood the πίστις Χριστοῦ formulation in this dual sense.

As Harrisville notes, Origen reads διὰ πίστɛως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3.22 as an objective genitive.Footnote ¹⁶ However, a careful reading of Origen reveals that he also leaves open the possibility of a subjective genitive reading.Footnote ¹⁷ In what survives from fragment four of Book V in the Tura Papyrus, Origen comments on Rom 3.21–24, ‘and those believing in Jesus or those making room for faith, which Jesus Christ created for them in the Father’ (καὶ πιστɛύοντάς γɛ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ἢ πίστιν χωροῦντας ἣν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς αὐτοῖς ἐνɛποίησɛν ɛἰς τὸν Πατέρα).Footnote ¹⁸ Here Origen seems to hold both options in tension. On the one hand, ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ is clearly in view; yet there remains a sense in which Jesus created room for that faith in the Father in the first place. Later, concluding his discussion on Rom 3.25–26, Origen explicates what he meant by faith ‘which Jesus Christ created for them in the Father’. Here we let Origen speak for himself:Footnote ¹⁹

As can be seen above, Origen seems to understand διὰ πίστɛως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3.22 primarily in terms of ‘faith in Jesus Christ’, but embedded in that understanding seems to be the notion that when the believer puts his or her faith in Jesus Christ, then he or she becomes a beneficiary of the faith that Jesus himself displayed toward God.Footnote ²⁰ Though the content of Jesus' faith is not made explicit, its presence is nonetheless felt in the twice repeated language of believing in God through Jesus. Unfortunately, in his examination of this text, Harrisville only focuses on the fact that the ‘believes in Jesus [ɛἰς Ἰησοῦν]' phraseology parallels the ‘faith of Jesus [Ἰησοῦ]’ construction.Footnote ²¹ However, as we have shown, Origen does not seem to stop with an objective construal of διὰ πίστɛως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Instead, he leaves open the connotation of Jesus' own faith in God.

What should we conclude with regard to this extant evidence for the use of πίστις Χριστοῦ in early Christian literature? First, though there is a paucity of evidence from the Apostolic Fathers, there are several passages that may well refer to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. These texts suggest that the categories of ‘subjective genitive’ and ‘objective genitive’ are not mutually exclusive. Second, this line is developed in the later Church Fathers such as Origen. While he and others typically see πίστις Χριστοῦ as referring to ‘faith in Christ’, in his Commentarii ad Romanos he also leaves room for ‘the faithfulness of Christ’ in his discussion on Rom 3.22–26. Third, despite the evidence for the subjective genitive in the Church Fathers, heretofore there has been no known text that correlates Jesus' faithfulness with his death on the cross. Herein lies the significance of Hippolytus.

III. Hippolytus and the Faithfulness of Christ

Hippolytus (ca. 170–236 CE) was a Greek-speaking Roman presbyter, a rival bishop in Rome, and martyr. He disagreed vehemently with the bishops Zephyrinus, Callistus, and Pontianus of Rome and was elected bishop of a schismatic community in Rome (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.20). He was eventually exiled to Sardinia by the emperor Maximinus Thrax where he died, but his body was brought back to Rome by Bishop Fabian where he was buried. As a schismatic and a Greek author in Rome, his works suffered unfortunate neglect. Hippolytus's major works included Apostolic Tradition, Commentary on Daniel, On Christ and Antichrist, Homily on the Heresy of Noetus, Benedictions of Isaac and Jacob, and Benedictions of Moses. Yet his most influential literary achievement was his Refutation of All Heresies which roots all doctrinal aberrations of the faith in the schools of Greek philosophy. Hippolytus's writings are also of relevance for studies on messianism and millenarianism in the early church.Footnote ²² Everett Ferguson says of him: ‘Hippolytus resembled Irenaeus in theology, Origen in scholarship, and Tertullian in attitudes but was inferior to all three in originality and achievement.’Footnote ²³

In Demonstratio de Christo et Antichristo, Hippolytus endeavours to present a synthesized account of the coming of the Antichrist from the Holy Scriptures, principally Daniel and the Apocalypse, and explains its effects upon the church prior to the second advent of Jesus Christ (De Chr. 20). This tract is written so that the designated reader, Theophilus, may maintain faith in what is written, anticipate the things to come, and so avoid offence to God and humanity alike (De Chr. 67). In the narration, the Antichrist is a Jewish ruler who mirrors the ministries of Jesus Christ in manifold ways and wages war against the church after subjugating northeast Africa and the Palestinian coastland (De Chr. 6, 52). When Hippolytus comes to the tribulation that is destined to fall upon the church by this adversary, he cites Rev 12.1–6 and interprets the image of the woman as signifying the church and the child as the ‘perfect man-child of God’ who is declared among the nations (De Chr. 60–61). The flight of the woman into the wilderness in Rev 12.6 is interpreted as designating the church that escapes persecution by fleeing from city to city and taking refuge in the wilderness and mountains. Hippolytus then relates the two wings of the great eagle given to the woman for the purpose of her escape in Rev 12.14 as signifying the arms of Jesus Christ stretched out upon the cross. Here Hippolytus needs to be quoted in full:Footnote ²⁴

What is striking is that in this text from Hippolytus we have a subjective genitive construction, viz., Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πίστιν, denoting Jesus' faithfulness, and this is directly related to Jesus' death on the cross. This seems certain given: (1) the relative pronoun ὅς relates back to Jesus Christ as the subject of what follows; (2) the wings are the hands of Jesus Christ spread out on the cross as the means by which this faithfulness is formally displayed; (3) in a christocentric interpretation of Mal 4.2 Jesus emerges as the one with ‘healing in his wings’;Footnote ²⁵ and (4) this ‘faith of Jesus Christ’ is distinguished from a subsequent act of faith by those called to believe in him (πάντας τοὺς ɛἰς αὐτὸν πιστɛύοντας). In fact, the faithfulness of Christ and faith in Christ are both necessary components in the redemptive story assumed by Hippolytus. It thus appears that we have here the clearest reference in the corpus of patristic writings to the saving significance of Jesus' faithfulness as displayed on the cross.

While Hippolytus derives his remarks about Jesus' faithfulness in death from Revelation, we can credibly correlate his thoughts with what Paul says about Jesus' death as an act of obedience. When Paul refers to the ἑνὸς δικαιώματος and ὑπακοὴ τοῦ ἑνὸς (Rom 5.18–19) it is most likely that he has in mind Jesus' voluntary death as the fulfillment of the law (Rom 3.21; 8.4) and the enactment of the role of the Isaianic Servant who is obedient and justifies many (Isa 53.11–12). That naturally contrasts with Adam's breach of the divine commandment and so establishes Jesus' position as the new Adam through his vicarious obedience.Footnote ²⁶ If we read Paul's remarks in Gal 2.20Footnote ²⁷ that Christ is τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός μɛ καὶ παραδόντος ἐαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ in light of Gal 1.4, 3.13 and 4.4–5, then, the participles can be coordinated with Christ's willingness to provide redemption by going to the cross as part of God's plan of apocalyptic deliverance. In which case, the self-giving love of Jesus Christ in Gal 2.20 expresses the fidelity and obedience of God's son to the task of redemptive suffering on the cross. In Phil 2.5–11, Jesus' obedience unto death, understood as his willingness to experience utter humiliation on the cross, is the focal point of the hymn as it marks the paradigmatic model for godly service and humility (Phil 2.8). It could be objected that ὑπακοή and πίστις are not strictly synonymous. Nonetheless, Paul can intimately associate the two together as per the ὑπακοὴ πίστɛως that brackets Romans (Rom 1.5; 16.26; cf. 1.8; 15.18; 16.19). Rudolf Bultmann could even speak of ‘faith primarily as obedience’ as the first point in his exposition of Paul and faith.Footnote ²⁸ Finally, we should note the comment of Richard Longenecker that ‘Christ's obedient, faithful sonship undergirds a great many of the crucial discussions of the NT writers, for it informs matters that are not only christological in nature but also soteriological, ecclesiological, eschatological, ethical, and sacramental’.Footnote ²⁹ In sum, Hippolytus's exposition of Jesus' faithfulness in death from Revelation is conceptually paralleled by Paul's articulation of Jesus' death as an act of obedience.

IV. Implications

What is the significance of this text from Hippolytus? Evidently Hippolytus was reading Revelation with an understanding of Jesus' ‘faithfulness’ as demonstrated definitively in his death on the cross as salvific (in line with Rev 1.5; 5.6–12; 14.12) and indelibly part of the eschatological scenario of tribulation and deliverance that was to fall upon the church prior to the parousia.Footnote ³⁰ Moreover, while the cross of Jesus Christ is clearly a saving event for Hippolytus, it is not in the sense of providing atonement for sins at this point.Footnote ³¹ Rather, the cross is part of an apocalyptic narrative whereby Jesus' death protects and preserves believers from the messianic woes that are to come upon the church and he is the source of healing for his followers (cf. Matt 23.27/Luke 13.34; Col 1.24; 1 Pet 2.24).Footnote ³² Jesus' faithfulness in death is portrayed as a shield that preserves believers from the diabolical designs of the Antichrist as opposed to a sacrifice that turns away divine disfavour. Finally, we also caution against an uncritical and too hasty importation of this instance of a subjective genitive of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πίστιν into interpretation of Pauline texts simply because Hippolytus's remark emerges from the framework of Revelation and not from an exegesis of Galatians and Romans; what is more, there still remains a tacit historical and theological distance between Hippolytus and the NT authors that must be countenanced. That qualification aside, we think that this text sheds new light on the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate from the vantage point of patristic literature as Hippolytus provides a clear instance of Jesus' faithfulness being related to his saving work on the cross. Further, this dramatic portrayal corroborates passages where Paul associates Jesus' death with his obedience and fidelity to his calling.