In this essay I examine a rather quirky and possibly novel teaching of Faustus Socinus (1539—1604): what George H. Williams calls a “pre-Ascension ascension” (hereafter PAA) of Christ into heaven. Faustus claimed that this bodily ascent into heaven took place before Christ's final visible ascension to heaven some time between his baptism and the commencement of his earthly teaching ministry. The theory states in brief that Christ, “after he was born a human, and before he began to discharge the office entrusted to him by God, his own Father, … was in heaven, and abode there for some time.” Christ took this heavenly sojourn “that he might hear from God himself and … see in his very presence what he was soon to proclaim and reveal to the world in God's own name.”Footnote 1 In another place Socinus states that Jesus, “after his birth from the virgin, and before he announced the gospel, was raptured into heaven (in caelum raptus fuerit). There he learned from God himself what he was to reveal to the human race.”Footnote 2
Possible Sources of Influence
How did Socinus come by this unusual theory? The possible sources and influences on Socinus, beyond the biblical arguments that he sets forth, remain obscure. Williams speculates, without drawing any definitive conclusions, that Italian Neoplatonist thought, influenced by the Arab philosopher Avicenna, would have influenced Socinus. The idea of a mystical celestial ascent, applied to the Prophet Muhammad in Avicenna, came from Neoplatonist Christians, who adapted it to Enoch, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and Paul. For example, Williams cites Marsilio Ficino of Florence (d. 1499), who “opened his Commentarius in Epistolas D. Pauli with a proemium on Paul's ascent to the third heaven for ‘the arcane mysteries' in the tradition of Plotinus.”Footnote 3 Although we have no evidence of any direct influence of this on Socinus, Williams says that “the important fact is that this kind of thinking was abroad, whether in approval or disapproval, in Italian circles in which Socinus had once moved.”Footnote 4 Williams does note that the “ascent” in all of these other instances indicates a purely mystical and not a spatial one. Furthermore, the Neoplatonic literature does not apply any of these mystical ascents to Jesus. Williams concludes that “the originality of Socinus lay in reappropriating this tradition and centering it in Jesus and (in four passages in John) also in understanding the pre-Ascension ascension as no less spatial than the final Ascension and the ultimate descent at the Second Advent.”Footnote 5
Williams's interesting observations notwithstanding, it perhaps moves beyond the evidence to speak of Socinus as “reappropriating this tradition and centering it in Jesus” given the marked discontinuities between Socinus's version of the ascent and these earlier accounts, together with the lack of any direct evidence that Socinus made reference to these. The biblical texts that Socinus cites, coupled with his fecund mind, may adequately account for it, and at all events constitute the only sources of influence about which no one disputes. Beyond Socinus's use of texts that he believes teach a PAA directly, together with indirect biblical parallels that suggest it, Socinus himself does not betray enough information to settle the question of antecedents. While we cannot be certain, he might have derived it simply from his own reflection on the biblical text and in light of other systemic considerations.
Faustus did make certain statements that come close to claiming originality for the doctrine, although he expresses himself ambiguously. In what is perhaps his first work to mention the PAA, his Brevissima institutio, Footnote 6 Socinus grants that the PAA, although it provides an excellent accounting for some otherwise difficult texts, is nevertheless novel and “unheard of by most of us.”Footnote 7 This statement comports with the idea that Faustus originated the teaching but falls short of proving it. Likewise, the “Arian”Footnote 8 Erasmus Johannis attacks Socinus's interpretation on the grounds that it is “novel” (novam) and “departs from the simplicity of Scripture” (à simplicitate scripturae alienam).Footnote 9 Socinus grants the former while denying the latter. He replies, “scarcely surprised” (haud sane mirror), that Johannis considers this interpretation novel (Quod haec interpretatio tibi sit nova), although he does marvel that Johannis could charge this interpretation with departing from Scripture's simplicity; Faustus cannot imagine a more literal and straightforward reading of the text. Here again, Socinus acknowledges the teaching's novelty but falls short of claiming authorship for it.Footnote 10
The Prominence of the PAA in the Writings of Socinus
Whatever the doctrine's provenance, Williams notes that the PAA constitutes “a major topos” in the writings of Socinus.Footnote 11 The teaching appears not only in Socinus's own exegetical, catechetical, and polemical writings, but makes its way (through Valentin Schmalz) into the slightly later Racovian Catechism Footnote 12 and thence into the works of some important later Socinians, such as Christopher Ostorodt, Johann L. Wolzogen, and Jonas Schlichting. Other Socinians, such as the prominent theologian Johann Crell, however, did not find the teaching compelling and treated it either with ambivalence or outright rejection.Footnote 13
Williams notes that Socinus does not mention the PAA until after his disputations with the “nonadorant” Unitarian Francis Dαvid of Transylvania in 1578—1579.Footnote 14 This observation leads Williams to opine that this doctrine did not yet form a part of Faustus's Christological inventory, because Socinus could have used this doctrine to great effect against Dαvid.Footnote 15 In terms of the extant writings, Williams first finds the PAA teaching in Socinus's undated Christianiae religionis brevissima institutio, which, he believes, Socinus wrote early in his career. Socinus composed the work in Italian and then translated it into Latin, but it appeared published posthumously in Rakow in 1611.Footnote 16 As for works that we can date with some confidence, we find Socinus floating the theory somewhere around 1580 in his response to the Lithuanian Calvinist Andrew WolanFootnote 17 and also in his response to some lectures on the Trinity given at the College of Posnania in 1583-1584.Footnote 18
The specific documents of Socinus that establish the PAA, then, I list as follows: 1) Disputatio adversus Andream Volanum (written 1580);Footnote 19 2) Tractatus de Deo, Christo, & Spiritu Sancto (written 1583-1584);Footnote 20 3) De unigeniti Filii Dei existentia, inter Erasmum lohannis, & Faustum Socinum Senensem disputatio (conducted 1584);Footnote 21 4) Responsio ad libellum Vuieki … de divinitate Filii Dei, & Spiritus Sancti (written 1593);Footnote 22 5) Explicatio variorum locorum Scripturae Sacrae (date of composition uncertain);Footnote 23 and 6) Christianae religionis brevissima institutio (original date of composition uncertain and unfinished due to the author's death in 1604).Footnote 24
The Systemic Function of the PAA in Socinus's System
We must observe just what the doctrine of a PAA “buys” Socinus in terms of its function in his overall theological system.
Socinus espoused a humanitarian/dynamic monarchian Christology along the lines of Paul of Samosata. Indeed, the detractors of Socinus and of his followers sometimes called them “neo-Samosateans” (novi Samosatenici). Footnote 25 This appellation fit more accurately than the catchall epithet “Arian,” a capacious term often hurled without nuance at those who denied the deity of Christ. We need to distinguish the Christology of Faustus from that of the “Arians” of his day with whom he exchanged polemical blows.Footnote 26
Socinus affirmed the full humanity of Christ but denied that he possessed a divine nature in any sense of the word (Arian or orthodox) and accordingly rejected the notion that Christ existed before his birth through Mary. He did, however, grant Christ a virginal conception, wrought by God as a divine testimony and imprimatur of his messiahship from the beginning.Footnote 27 Compared to Socinus's humanitarian view, one could argue that the Arians had a “higher” Christology—in some sense a “Christology from above,” although not in an orthodox understanding of that term. Their Christology comes “from above” in the sense that they held to Christ's preexistence as a divine spirit being, albeit one subordinate to the Father, who then came down to earth, took flesh, and became human in the virgin birth. While the Trinitarians regarded the Arian Christology as no more orthodox than Socinus's, one could argue that it was “higher” in that the Arians, like the orthodox, admitted to a “divine” element in Jesus (although not full deity in the orthodox Nicene sense) and also to his preexistence.
A PAA would allow Socinus to account for (or to evade, as his orthodox critics would charge) certain biblical texts that might otherwise run afoul of his dynamic monarchian/humanitarian Christology—specifically, those cited both by the Arians and by the orthodox in proof of Christ's preexistence. One class of such passages speaks of the Son of Man “coming down from heaven” (e.g., John 3:13), “where he was before” (John 6:62) in his divine preincarnate existence. Both the orthodox and the Arians ascribed this “descent” to his coming to earth from his heavenly abode in order to become a human being. Socinus extricates himself from this difficulty by taking the “descent from heaven” as occurring during Christ's earthly sojourn. But if Christ descended from heaven, he first had to find his way up there somehow, and so Socinus postulates a literal, bodily rapture before the commencement of his earthly ministry.
In short, one could write off Socinus's theory of a PAA as simply an ad hoc concoction cobbled together to evade some pesky passages that stand in the way of his Samosatean Christology. While such an accounting for the theory may well have some truth—for Socinus's interpretation of these texts does circumvent the difficulties they otherwise might pose for his humanitarian Christology—it does not go far enough in giving due weight to the theory's critical role in light of Socinus's larger doctrinal concerns. One could make the case that the PAA of Christ spreads out much more extensive systemic tentacles beyond the mere convenience of allowing Socinus to escape from an exegetical jam. As we shall see, Socinus himself suggested a non-PAA option for interpreting these problem texts—an option on which he could have rested his case if he had so chosen. Yet, he bypasses this option in favor of a literal, spatial rapture. Socinus actually goes so far as to say that he regards the doctrine of a PAA as “necessary” (necessarium).Footnote 28
To see the significance of the PAA in Socinus's theological system, one must first identify the center of his system (if in fact one exists) and then examine several of the “spokes” (particular doctrines in his system) that connect to that center. After doing so we can see how the PAA fits into it.
The Center of Socinus's System
As I have argued in another place,Footnote 29 the “center” of Socinus's system is the attainment of eternal life (immortality), which one achieves through keeping the commandments of God as revealed by Christ.Footnote 30 The “spokes” that connect to this center—specific doctrines relevant to the PAA—include Christ's prophetic office, the absolute necessity of divine revelation, and his nature as human simpliciter.
This accounting stands in contrast to other proposed “centers” for his system, including the oft-repeated conventional wisdom that the system of Socinus represents a species of rationalism, whether pure or hybrid.Footnote 31 In my view Socinus's system has a moral center, and Socinus examines the necessity and importance of any given doctrine in terms of how it conduces to obedience to God's commandments. Such obedience in turn conduces toward the attainment of eternal life. Thus, the doctrine of the reward of immortality, attained through obeying the divine precepts, provides the center from which we may sweep the circle of his system.Footnote 32
Therefore a person must know about these precepts, since his or her eternal felicity hangs on their observance. Contrary to the rationalistic approach attributed to him, Socinus denied that one could even know the existence of God apart from divine revelation much less the specific precepts that one must observe to attain eternal life. As he makes plain in his De sacrae scripturae auctoritate, Footnote 33 Socinus eschews any natural knowledge of God whatever; human beings utterly depend upon a direct revelation from God.Footnote 34 This includes the rejection of a properly innate, inborn knowledge as well as a natural theology drawn discursively from observing the created order. Therefore reason, Socinus tells us, cannot be the principium on which a knowledge of the Christian faith rests, for reason “is much too fallible in a matter which depends upon divine revelation, such as the Christian faith.”Footnote 35 Thus, one needs a prophetic word from God to know what precepts to keep in order to attain eternal life.
Christ as prophet fulfills this critical role. Christ mediates to us the divine precepts and brings them down from heaven to us.Footnote 36 As Socinus stated in his famous De Jesu Christo Servatore, Christ is our Savior because he has announced to us the way of eternal salvation,Footnote 37 which we obtain by imitating him.Footnote 38 For Socinus, and also for the later Socinianism, the prophetic office of Christ comprises almost all of his salvific work. When one inspects the later Socinian Racovian Catechism—a document not written by Faustus but one on which his fingerprints appear at every turnFootnote 39—the amount of space devoted to the prophetic office of Christ, as opposed to the kingly and priestly, is eye-opening but hardly surprising. Although the catechism ostensibly employs the threefold office as an organizing principle when treating the work of Christ, it presents a massive discussion about the prophetic office, little about the kingly, and almost nothing of the priestly.Footnote 40 One would expect this, since the Socinian Jesus, preeminently a prophet, functions as the purveyor of the saving truths.
The Role of the PAA in Socinus's System
Now, if one connects the necessity of divine revelation with Socinus's humanitarian Christology, the propriety of a PAA becomes evident. Christ, fully but merely human, must have the divine truths that constitute the saving gospel revealed to him supernaturally. Since Jesus does not have a divine nature, he has only a human mode of knowledge open to him, and so God must reveal the divine arcana to him just he would to any other prophet.
But why would God reveal these truths to Christ through a spatial rapture into heaven and not in a more conventional way as with other prophets? Socinus argues for such an exotic mode of revelation to Christ as utterly appropriate if not necessary given Christ's preeminence over all the spokespersons from God, who came before and after. Socinus will argue from the lesser to the greater. If Moses under the old dispensation and the Apostle Paul under the new had revelation given to them in a direct audience with God, how much more ought Christ to have received the saving precepts in a similar but an even greater way?
Thus, considering the various systemic threads that the PAA draws together in Socinus's thought, the doctrine appears less contrived than at first blush. Consequently, I cannot agree with McGiffert, who places the doctrine of a PAA among those that lie “outside of Socinus's controlling principles.”Footnote 41 McGiffert includes the PAA in a collection of Socinian teachings that have either a supernatural cast (such as the virgin birth and his literal ascension after his resurrection) or stand in tension with what McGiffert sees as the logic of their humanitarian Christology (such as the teaching that Christ should receive worship). But none of these doctrines fall outside of Faustus's “controlling principles,” once we properly identify and understand these principles.Footnote 42 Whatever one may say about the move toward rationalism in the later Socinianism, Socinus himself was a confirmed supernaturalist, and the supernatural aspects of a PAA would not have fazed him.Footnote 43 The PAA comports well with Socinus's theology as a whole and with his Christology in particular.
Theological and Exegetical Arguments in Support of the Pre-Ascension Ascension of Christ
Socinus used exegetical arguments, which revolved around a few key biblical texts, to establish and to defend his theory of a PAA. The texts that Socinus draws upon for direct support for the PAA come from John's gospel, specifically 3:13, 31-32; 6:38, 62; and 8:28b.Footnote 44 He also cites other passages both from the Hebrew Bible, such as Moses' ascent on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19 and 24) as a type of Christ, and from the New Testament, such as Paul's rapture to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:1-5), to provide indirect support for the propriety of the PAA.
Biblical Texts Construed as Directly Teaching the PAA
Of the aforementioned Johannine texts, Socinus singles out for special consideration John 3:13 and 6:62, which express quite similar ideas but which contain some important differences as well. The texts read as follows:
John 3:13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.”Footnote 45
John 6:62: “What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?”
Socinus states that in order to untangle a proper understanding of these texts one must ascertain what in them to take literally versus what one should understand figuratively or as a “trope.” Socinus urges that either these texts contain a figure of speech (tropus) or they do not.Footnote 46 Now, if one wishes to take the passages as containing a trope, the question becomes where ought one to locate the figure. Profound implications for one's Christology depend upon which elements (if any) one takes as figurative. Socinus does not believe that the Christologies of his “adversaries,” whether Trinitarian or Arian, stand up to a careful exegesis of these texts because of their error in taking as figurative parts of the text that one must understand literally.
The Trinitarian Interpretation of These Texts
Faustus declares that the orthodox (Trinitarian) exegesis requires some kind of trope in these texts, even though it takes other parts of these same texts literally. In John 3:13 the orthodox take as literal the parts of the verse that refer to Christ's descent from heaven and also to his present tense dwelling there. They say that his literal descent (i.e., in becoming a human being through the virgin) proves his divine preexistence, while the force of the present tense in describing him as “in heaven” shows that Christ, subsisting in two natures, remained in heaven according to his divine nature even as he informed his disciples of this fact while on earth. As for John 6:62, the orthodox take as literal the Son of Man's future ascent to heaven as well as his heavenly preexistence, “where he was before.” Now, on an orthodox reckoning, Christ's preexistence in heaven, his descent from there, and his present tense heavenly dwelling, must refer to his divine and not to his human nature. Yet, in both texts Christ ascribes these activities to the Son of Man, a clear reference to his humanity. Consequently, Socinus observes, the orthodox take the expression “Son of Man” as figurative, not literal. In doing so the orthodox “take refuge” in what Socinus sarcastically calls “that holy anchor of the Trinitarians” (ad sacram illam Trinitariorum anchoram),Footnote 47 namely a christological doctrine known as the “communication of attributes” (communicatio idiomatum). According to this doctrine, one can, through a figure of speech, predicate a divine activity to Christ (such as being in heaven) under one of his human titles (e.g., “Son of Man”) as well as predicate a human activity to him (such as suffering crucifixion) under one of his divine titles (e.g., “the Lord of Glory,” 1 Cor 2:8). This communicatio idiomatum becomes possible because all of these activities and titles have reference to the same concrete individual (or suppositum), to whom the orthodox predicate these actions and names.Footnote 48
Socinus attacks the use of the communicatio idiomatum to explain these particular texts. For one thing, he believes that one cannot use these texts to prove Christ's preexistence and divinity, since such proof relies on the doctrine of the communication of attributes (denied by the Unitarians and others), while the doctrine of the communicatio, in turn, relies on these same texts to establish it. The orthodox assume his divine preexistence in these texts in order to prove that they incorporate a communicatio idiomatum and then seek to demonstrate his preexistence from these same texts by employing the communicatio idiomatum in their explanation. Thus, they argue in a circle.Footnote 49 Furthermore, Socinus states that, at most, his opponent could use a figure of speech (such as that which the communicatio idiomatum entails) for explaining his position and perhaps even for defecting certain criticisms of it. But this differs from proving one's position through the use of such a figure. As Socinus states, “the explanation of words through figures of speech certainly has the power to provide a response or to ward off [criticism], but it is useless for proving the point.”Footnote 50
Socinus believes that “the communicatio idiomatum is clearly a fiction” (commentitia plane est ista idiomatum communicatio). Socinus presents as an analogy the case of the soul and the body, entities characterized by different sets of attributes and activities. One cannot predicate concerning the body that which characterizes the soul alone, nor can one predicate of the soul the unique characteristics of the body. For instance, one does not say that the soul “stands” or “procreates” just because the body does, nor does one say that the body thinks or philosophizes just because the soul does.Footnote 51 Similarly, one cannot say that the human nature resided in heaven because the divine nature did so.
In the above argument Socinus has tacitly shifted his attack to the doctrine in abstracto, in which the characteristics of one nature literally apply to the other nature (and therefore do not involve any trope). He did this rather than attack the form of the doctrine in concreto, the figurative form, which his opponent had invoked in explaining these texts and which was the form on which Socinus had based his criticism to that point.Footnote 52 In his later work (1593) against the Jesuit Wujek (Vuiekus), Socinus nuanced his polemic and ruled out either form of the communicatio in relation to this passage. Socinus's argument there, although a bit sketchy, merits attention.
Wujek has attempted to establish the divine attribute of immensity (immensitas) as applying to Christ based on John 3:13. Wujek infers a divine (and therefore immense) nature in Christ from this text as follows. On the one hand, Christ states that he is in heaven (present tense). On the other hand, he makes it clear that his body was not in heaven at that time because he said that he will ascend to heaven (future tense). Now, if he had not yet ascended into heaven bodily but at the same time said that he was there, then, Wujek reasons, he must have been there according to some other nature, namely, his deity. Since deity entails immensity, “filling both heaven and earth simultaneously,” then one can predicate immensity of Christ.Footnote 53
In response, Socinus points out, as before, that Wujek relies on the trope of the communication of attributes in as much as Christ refers to himself as the “Son of Man” in this text. Socinus then, also as before, repels the possibility of a communicatio idiomatum in abstracto Footnote 54 by repeating unchanged his earlier argument that the characteristics of one nature cannot apply to the other. He cites the same example of the impossibility of applying the properties of the soul to the body and vice versa. But unlike before, Socinus now extends the argument to rule out as well the inference of a communicatio idiomatum in concreto through this passage.
Socinus does grant that one can predicate properties of either the body or of the soul to the person (suppositum), and so accepts the communicatio idiomatum in concreto as not absurd per se (as is a communicatio in abstracto). But Socinus argues that one cannot use John 3:13 to establish such a thing about Christ. Socinus seizes on Wujek's claim that in this text Christ indicated his future bodily ascension, at which point—but not before—his body would be in heaven. Socinus marvels at this inference and wonders what in this text Wujek used as evidence for a future ascension. One could derive this idea only from the phrase, “no one has ascended/ is ascending to heaven” (nemo ascendit in coelum). Such an interpretation could work if one took the verb ascendit (in the Vulgate) as present tense. In that case the present tense (“is ascending”) could and would refer figuratively (figurate) to a future event in this context. (It could not refer to something happening before Nicodemus's eyes.) But when comparing the Vulgate with the underlying Greek text, one must construe ascendit (anabebhken “has gone up”) as a perfect and not as a present indicative. Thus, these words do not indicate a future ascension for Christ but in fact demonstrate a past one.
What options, then, does Wujek have left? He could abandon a literal interpretation altogether and take the ascent, descent, and existence in heaven as metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise figurative. (The next section discusses how such a figurative interpretation might look.) Alternatively, he could throw in his lot with Socinus and admit “that Christ truly, after he was born a human but before he spoke these words, [literally] ascended into heaven.” Regardless of which alternative Wujek should choose, “Christ's words [in this passage] are altogether useless for proving his immensity.”
To summarize, then, Wujek could not prove his point by an appeal to the communicatio idiomatum in abstracto, even if he wanted to, because that doctrine turns out to be false per se. On the other hand, he cannot prove his point here by an appeal to the communicatio idiomatum in concreto because the grammar of the text will not allow it.Footnote 55
A Non-Trinitarian but Figurative Interpretation of these Texts
Although Socinus will cast his lot with a purely literal interpretation of these texts, he does offer a non-Trinitarian alternative for those who wish to see some aspect of these texts as figurative. The Trinitarians against whom he has argued chose to situate the trope in the words “Son of Man” and to take as literal the heavenly descent, ascent, and present-tense abiding. Socinus reverses the orthodox conclusion and suggests an interpretation that takes the expression “Son of Man” as literal and the parts that speak of a heavenly descent, ascent, and present-tense abiding in heaven as figurative.Footnote 56
Socinus says that one can make a case for taking these verses figuratively from the preceding verse in John 3:12, which speaks of the knowledge and understanding of heavenly things. On this reckoning, Socinus says that “to ascend into heaven” would mean nothing other than to investigate the truth of heavenly matters, while “to descend from heaven” would mean to go forth to teach those same heavenly truths to others. “To be in heaven,” stated in the present tense, would mean to apprehend rightly (probe tenere) these same heavenly truths with such clarity and immediacy that one could describe them as present in one's consciousness (tanquam praesentes inspicere atque intueri).Footnote 57 Thus, Socinus concludes that however much Christ may have abided on earth, one could nevertheless say that he had abided in heaven at the same time.
Against Wolan, Socinus suggests a similar interpretation for John 6:62. Why could not one understand Christ to have ascended already “in heaven” (i.e., before his postresurrection ascension took place) in the sense of constantly residing “in heaven” in thought and mind? He certainly did hold in his mind all the most divine and heavenly arcana (omnia coelestia, id est arcana quaeque divinissima) to such an extent that he saw them as if present to him.
The above interpretation does not require one to affirm anything or to take anything for granted (pro concesso sumitur) except the plain truth. By contrast, the orthodox opinion requires assumptions (such as the communicatio idiomatum) that not only raised doubt in their own day but have caused bitter contests historically.Footnote 58 The figurative interpretation suggested by Socinus appears compatible with the teaching office of Christ as the Son of Man qua man and does not require anyone to invoke such a contested and tendentious doctrine as the communicatio idiomatum.
In reading Socinus's praise for this interpretive option, one may think at first blush that he favors it. Williams apparently thought Socinus might have favored it originally, albeit tentatively, and said that in Socinus's treatment of the verse in the Explicatio (cited above), he regarded this option as “the literal [sic]Footnote 59 and proper sense of the verse.” Williams tries to reconcile Socinus's praise here for the figurative interpretation over against his ultimate advocacy of a literal PAA by describing Socinus as “still wavering between an ecstatic and experiential over against a spacial or physical transport.” Williams suggests that such wavering provides an argument for an early date for this particular entry in the Explicatio.Footnote 60
Socinus oscillates between a figurative and a literal interpretation in the Explicatio in an uncharacteristic and puzzling way. Consider what follows in the Explicatio on the heels of this effusive endorsement of the figurative model:
If nevertheless someone wishes to be so obstinate (ita pertinax) that he is unwilling to concede in these matters any figure of speech, however elegant and free of difficulty—and therefore most appropriate, if not necessary, to this passage (as this [figurative] sort of interpretation certainly is)—the only alternative is that we say that the Son of Man, or that man, truly and properly had already both descended from heaven and was in heaven.Footnote 61
Yet Socinus straightway places himself among the “obstinate” by professing his unbridled enthusiasm for just such a literalistic approach to the text. He declares that he “not only freely grants but even plainly contends” (non modo libenter concedimus, sed etiam plane contendimus) the truth of the purely literal interpretation “without a doubt” (nec ullo modo dubitandum esse).Footnote 62 But then, Socinus further muddies the matter when he doubles back to the figurative option and states that one can in no way take literally the early part of the verse, in which “no one has ascended to heaven,” granting that Elijah and most probably Enoch had already literally ascended there. On this basis Socinus concludes that the “entire passage should be taken figuratively” (totum locum figurate accipiendum esse).Footnote 63
While the flow of the discussion in the Explicatio admits to no easy explanation, Williams's interpretation—that Socinus wrote this entry early in the Explicatio when vacillating between the two options—seems to me not correct. The point here is not whether Socinus wrote this entry in the Explicatio early (he certainly could have) but whether the apparent “vascillating” that one sees in this passage can be construed as evidence for that. Upon examining Socinus's later writings that treat these texts, we see a striking similarity in the structure of his argument insofar as he also praises the figurative option only to reject it. Thus, one should not see this particular characteristic of the Explicatio as an anomaly, since we find it in nearly all of his other treatments of the topic including those written well after one could have any doubt but that he had made the PAA his definite, settled opinion.Footnote 64 Consider his dispute with Erasmus Johannis, written in 1584:
If you wish, I say, to understand the [true] sense, I think you ought to consider that the words of Christ must either be taken with some trope or without any trope. Now, if they are to be taken with some trope, who would not see how aptly Christ could say, speaking as a human being, that he was in heaven before he ascended to it bodily with his disciples looking on. For his mind was always dwelling in heaven, so that he harbored all heavenly thoughts, considering these as if always present to him. This is clearly so in a unique way, above and beyond the experience of all other godly persons. But if, as it indeed appears to me, the words of Christ are to be taken without any trope, then it is necessary to confess that he, as a human, or certainly after he was human, was in heaven before that ascension that was observed by the Apostles. I strongly [vehementer] commend that opinion, and freely follow and embrace this interpretation of Christ's words. Footnote 65
Now, why would Socinus offer a figurative interpretation and praise it so highly only to drop it in favor of something else?
Other antitrinitarians, such as Servetus, had already suggested something close to this figurative understanding of the text, and Socinus may have not wished to discredit this manner of handling the issue.Footnote 66 Further, many of his fellow antitrinitarians might not have agreed with this new interpretation of his, whether due to its novelty or for some other reason. If this was his worry, then his disquiet had foundation: some of the later Socinian theologians (e.g., Crell) did in fact abandon this teaching as untenable. Therefore, Socinus, in cogently stating and praising a figurative understanding of these texts, may have wished to leave his cobelligerents with an alternate refutation of the orthodox exegesis, even if they proved unwilling to embrace the one that he favored. Second, Socinus might have offered this figurative possibility for the sake of completeness (i.e., to canvas all the possible options) and for systemic (and, dare I say, scholastic) tidiness. Socinus might have thought that logically speaking, whether or not one wishes to see a trope in the text, one cannot sustain the orthodox view.
Interpreting the Text Without a Trope: a Literal Rapture
His sometimes circuitous mode of presentation notwithstanding, Socinus embraced a literal PAA as the best explanation for these texts. But one sticky issue yet remains for Socinus and, on its face, appears to present a formidable if not fatal objection to the theory. What can Socinus do about the present tense in the expression “the Son of Man who is in heaven”? How can that comport with a literal approach to this text? To grant that Christ was in heaven when he made that statement—as the present tense would indicate—would grant him some kind of divine status, would it not? The significance of the present tense does not escape the orthodox, who forcefully press this point against him.
Socinus suggests an alternate translation for the verse. He claims that one can take the Greek participle ōn (wn), rendered in the Vulgate as “is” (est), as a “past imperfect” (praeteritum imperfectum), “was” (erat), “so that it reads not ‘who is' but ‘who was in heaven.' ”Footnote 67 Socinus cites Beza and Erasmus as authorities favoring this rendering of the text. Not only grammatically possible, this reading has the benefit of bringing John 3:13 into line with the statement in John 6:62, which says that the son “was in heaven before” (erat prius; hn to proteron), not that he “is now” (nunc est) in heaven.Footnote 68 Indeed, one should not overlook the fact that John 6:62 poses a significant challenge to the orthodox view, because the statement “where he was before” (ubi prius erat) most naturally suggests that he no longer remains there.Footnote 69 By rendering est as erat, Socinus is convinced that his view can reconcile both texts on solid grammatical grounds in a way that the orthodox interpretation cannot.
Socinus believes that the theory of a PAA provides an accounting of these verses strong both for defense and offense. Socinus says that whatever these texts say about the descent of Christ from heaven, his going forth from the Father, and his antecedent dwelling in the same place as his later visible ascent into heaven, has no force against his view, however much the orthodox urge these passages against him. Indeed, his opponents, who accuse him of departing far from the letter of Scripture, instead stand rightly accused by Socinus of doing that very thing in this case! They attribute to some imagined nature or essence what the Scriptures attribute either to the Son of Man or simply to the “suppositum” (in orthodox parlance) Jesus Christ.Footnote 70 In contrast, Socinus argues that one need not resort to such figurative interpretations here. Rather, one ought to accept Christ's words in this passage in their literal significance and at face value, since to do so is consistent with his humanity. Observe that Christ, in this context, stresses his humanity by his reference to himself as the “Son of Man.”Footnote 71 Aside from modifying the translation to read “who was in heaven,” based on the grammatical propriety cited earlier, one can take the rest of this text according to its plain sense.Footnote 72
If these passages teach a PAA, in which Christ receives instruction in the heavenly arcana, then this fact not only removes them from the orthodox arsenal of proof texts for Christ's deity but makes them proofs against it. If Christ always was true God and existed always from the substance of the Father, God would have no need to rapture him into heaven whether to contemplate the heavenly arcana or for any other reason.Footnote 73 Socinus argues that if the person of Christ has an indivisible conjunction of the divine nature with his human nature, this conjunction per se would prove sufficient to enrich his humanity with perfect knowledge of divine things.Footnote 74 In leveling this criticism, Socinus again shifts to the literal form of the communicatio in abstracto from the form of the doctrine in concreto, which involves a mere verbal predication.
Biblical Texts Construed as Indirectly Teaching the PAA
Besides the texts in John that he construes as speaking of a PAA, Socinus finds indirect parallels in support. He draws upon the case of Moses and his ascent up Mount Sinai (Exodus 19 and 24) and that of Paul the Apostle regarding his rapture into the third heaven (2 Cor 12:1—5).
Moses' Ascent as a Type of Christ's Rapture
In his Brevissima institutio, Socinus puts forth what he considers a telling argument in support of the PAA.Footnote 75 He argues for the PAA of Christ based on the well established notion of Moses as a type of Christ. But his application of it to the PAA appears unique.
Williams summarizes this line of argument as follows:
As Moses ascended into the clouds of Mount Sinai (“an antitype [sic] of heaven”) to receive the Law, so Jesus during the comparable forty days in the wilderness was lifted even higher to receive in the bosom of his Father the secret saving Gospel he was called to exemplify on his descent and to proclaim.Footnote 76
Socinus cites verses out of Exodus 19 and 24 to show that Moses (a type of Christ) went up into the presence of God on Mt. Sinai (a type of heaven) on multiple occasions. There Moses received instructions on all the procedures of the divine worship and the guidelines for manufactured artifacts (both as to their form and their material) related to that worship.Footnote 77 On two separate occasions, he ascended to receive the ten commandments written on stone tablets by the finger of God (i.e., once when originally given and subsequently to replace the tablets that Moses shattered when he cast them to the ground in the face of the Israelites' idolatry). Socinus states that just as Moses constitutes a type of Christ, even so Sinai provides a type of heaven.Footnote 78 Hence he concludes that Christ ascended into heaven “and that perhaps more than once” (idque fortasse non semel, ascenderit).Footnote 79
Paul's Rapture into Heaven as an Argument for Christ's PAA
Socinus cites the case of Paul's rapture into the third heaven (2 Cor 12:1—5) as support for Christ's own PAA. Likely the first place Socinus sets forth this argument is in his debate with Lithuanian Calvinist theologian Andrew Wolan.Footnote 80 Socinus then repeats this argument four years later in his dispute with the Arian Erasmus Johannis.
Here the argument rests not on any typical likeness between Paul and Jesus, but rather Socinus argues from the lesser to the greater. If Paul “was raptured in the third heaven before his death” (ad tertium usque coelum raptus fuit), we should expect his teacher and Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, to have arrived there some time before his death. In particular, we would expect him to have abode there before the commencement of his earthly service/office (munus).Footnote 81 That something granted to Paul would not also have gone to Christ in no way rings true (nec ullo modo sit verisimile).Footnote 82
Socinus also uses the case of Paul to refute the inference that Christ possessed a quasi divine, created substance—a conclusion that some draw from the faulty notion that Christ was in heaven before his earthly birth. Here Socinus has in mind specifically the Arians, who asserted a heavenly existence before Christ became human. Such an inference could stand only if one reasons that Christ, as a human being, could not have existed as a human in heaven at some time before he uttered the statement. By invoking the case of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12, he shows this reasoning faulty. When Christ says that the Son of Man was in heaven, we have every reason to believe that he was in fact present there as a human being, just as Paul later would be.
Socinus says that even if one granted that Christ possessed some nonhuman, quasi divine, created substance (i.e., in an Arian sense), this would neither prove that he preexisted in heaven according to that substance (i.e., before the virgin birth), nor less would it disprove his PAA theory. Certainly, for the sake of argument, he could have possessed both a human and a nonhuman substance while on earth, i.e., after his birth, and then been raptured into heaven according to that nonhuman substance. One might argue that something analogous to this occurred with Paul, who remained unsure whether God raptured him into heaven with or without his body. Thus, Socinus sees no necessity to conclude that Christ's abiding in heaven could have occurred only before his earthly birth.Footnote 83
Conclusion
The doctrine of a pre-Ascension ascension of Christ constitutes an oddity in the history of doctrine. Yet the doctrine has significant cogency within the context of Socinus's own system. While the doctrine does provide Socinus with a way of removing potential obstacles to his dynamic monarchian Christology, its roots penetrate more deeply than that. Given that Socinus had another viable interpretive option at his disposal, he did not advocate a literal PAA out of desperation. Rather, he believed that this interpretation best explained the text and tied together a number of doctrines about which he had become certain: his humanitarian Christology, the absolute need for divine revelation for a knowledge of God and salvation, and Christ's prophetic office.
I find nothing ipso facto unorthodox about affirming a PAA for Christ. Socinus himself believed it incompatible per se and argued that the conjunction of Christ's divinity with his humanity would impart more to his store of knowledge than any pre-Ascension rapture would or could, which would render the latter superfluous.Footnote 84 The premise that underlies this conclusion, however, is that an orthodox Christology does not allow for Christ to acquire knowledge or to grow as a human being. Although orthodox Christologists have construed the matter variously,Footnote 85 one can speak of Christ's authentic growth in knowledge as a human, as Luke 2:52 and numerous other texts indicate. An orthodox Christology can and indeed ought to affirm that Christ related to his Father as a human being relates to God, and that includes receiving instruction from God in modalities possible and appropriate to a human person. That some or even the bulk of this instruction might have happened in a divine audience with the Father, situated in heaven, appears neither impossible nor contrary to an orthodox Christology. Even granting the position's theoretical compatibility with orthodoxy, I do not see any particular pressure on the orthodox to embrace such a quirky interpretation, which even the later Unitarians themselves abandoned as untenable.
For the student of Socinus, the doctrine of a PAA may have the greatest value as a test case that illustrates the exegetical differences between Socinus and the orthodox. A theme that runs throughout this particular debate concerns what aspects of the text one ought to take literally versus what one should take figuratively. In much of their anti-Socinian polemic, the orthodox accused him of seeking refuge in figures of speech and metaphorical language to evade orthodox credenda. This he did in his handling of the redemption, ransom, and propitiation language, denuding it of its ability to establish penal satisfaction.Footnote 86 Yet here Socinus turns the tables and does not lose the irony in this. Socinus now champions taking the words at their face value and in their most literal signification despite the oft-leveled charge that it is he who “departs far from the Letter” in his interpretations (tanquam interpretationibus nostris à Litera ipsa longe recedentes).Footnote 87 Perhaps this difference—the way in which he distinguishes the literal from the figurative—underlies not only the debate on this issue but is, in the exegetical sphere at least, the exact point at which the Socinian and the orthodox systems diverge.
