Last week, with our article, The Gospel According to Piper, we caused a stir here at the Semper Reformanda Radio in our assessment of Piper on final justification and final salvation. On September 25, 2017, Piper wrote an article Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?, answering in the negative: No, God does not save us by faith alone. Our article was in response to Piper's.

Piper's expressions affirm that while justification is by faith alone, "final salvation" is not. In his September 25 article, he expressed this in multiple ways. We provide here two examples of this:

In justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us. ... In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.

These works of faith [(1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11)], and this obedience of faith [(Romans 1:5; 16:26)], these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.

By such words, Piper expresses justification in terms of "faith alone" and final salvation by works that flow from faith, attempting to preserve sola fide without compromising the Scriptural emphasis on works "which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Our article, The Gospel According to Piper, was the work of two writers, but what may be the most controversial contribution to the article came from my hand: by "final salvation" Piper actually means "final justification," and therefore Piper was actually expressing—under a Reformed flag—the Roman Catholic view of initial justification by grace and final justification by works. In support of our position I offered the following citation from Piper which summarized one of the main points in his book, The Future of Justification:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Piper, John, and N.T. Wright. “The Justification Debate: A Primer.” Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

It seemed sufficient to us that if a) in final salvation at the last judgment "faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne," and b) in future justification at the last judgment the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives is brought forward as a "confirmation of true faith," then c) we may say that Piper equates final salvation with future justification, and his description of justification and final salvation is really a description of initial justification by faith alone and final justification by faith and works.

Several of our readers considered this representation uncharitable and unfair for three main reasons:

1. in other places Piper denies such a Roman Catholic formulation,
2. by "final salvation," Piper probably meant "final glorification" rather than "final justification," and
3. we should interpret Piper through the lens of forty years of his faithful preaching

Today I will address each of these three criticisms. The first objection is justifiable and compels me to apologize to Piper for overlooking his explicit denials of the Roman Catholic view of justification. I should have found them and included them in my contributions to the original article. I was wrong to omit them. The second objection requires that I provide compelling evidence that Piper means "final justification" by "final salvation."

After addressing these two objections, I will spend considerable time on the third to explain why I remain concerned about Piper's formulations on justification based on a survey of his shifting and contradictory expressions of the doctrine of justification over time. Piper's teaching on justification has been changing for years, and is still changing now. Therefore, it is laudable but nigh impossible to defer to an ostensible continuity and clarity in Piper's teachings.

Objection 1: Piper rejects the Roman Catholic view of justification

Because Piper's statement on justification in Christianity Today grounded present justification on "the substitutionary work of Christ alone," but said that future justification "accords with our works," making mention of Christ's righteousness only in reference to present justification, it appeared to us that Piper was summarizing his own position on justification in terms of an initial justification by grace through faith, and a future justification that is based on works. The Roman Catholic Tridentine formulation on justification is that the righteousness received in justification is "preserved and also increased before God through good works," and that those works are not "merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 24). If according to Piper's own formulation our initial justification is grounded on Christ's righteousness imputed to us by faith, and our final justification "accords with our works," we could not see how his expression of justification was substantially different from Rome's similar expressions of initial, ongoing, and final justification.

Here two clarifying data pertain. First, the Christianity Today article we cited was intended as a summary of Piper's The Future of Justification, which itself was a critique of N. T. Wright's views of justification. In The Future of Justification, Piper expresses concern that Wright's expressions explicitly affirm a future justification based on works. Piper finds this "startling":

Wright makes startling statements to the effect that our future justification will be on the basis of works. (Piper, The Future of Justification (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007) 22)

Here Piper finds "startling" Wright's final justification based on works, and what startled Piper so much is that Wright's position appears to conform to that of Roman Catholicism in which the justified are finally “judged righteous (and receive eternal life) because they are truly righteous" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183). As startling as Wright's statements are to Piper, Piper's are to us, for Piper's own formulation is just as unsettling:

Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works.  (Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

Why did Piper recoil at Wright's formulation, but when summarizing his own views, express a future justification that "accords with our works"? Part of the answer is how Piper differentiates between "based on works" and "according to works." He writes,

I take [Paul's] phrase 'according to' (kata;) in a sense different from 'based on.' I think the best way to bring together the various threads of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4–6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8) is to treat the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification (Piper, The Future of Justification, 110).

Whatever one may think of Piper's various formulations on justification, in fairness to him the critic must at least acknowledge Piper's attempt at differentiating between "based on" and "according to" when formulating an expression in which final justification is according to works. This writer failed to do so.

We will return to Piper's varied, diverse and problematic formulations on justification below, but for now, I will simply acknowledge that my critics were correct to point out that Piper elsewhere objects strenuously to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It was my duty to consider those statements in my examination of Piper.

Objection 2: by "final salvation" Piper means "final glorification" rather than "final justification"

Some of my critics have said it is wrong to make "final salvation" mean "final justification" in Piper. It seems to them, rather, that Piper is talking about "final glorification" instead. For example, the following citation from Piper is taken to refer to "glorification":

So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. Love, the fruit of faith, is the necessary confirmation that we have faith and are alive. We won’t enter heaven until we have it. There is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). (Piper, John, Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan, September 13, 2017)

One problem with claiming that Piper is speaking here of glorification is that Piper repeatedly states that final glorification is our inheritance after attaining heaven or getting to heaven. Piper is in this passage speaking not of glorification but of getting into heaven prior to glorification, and the way to get into heaven is to be saved from the wrath of God on the Last Day by the fruits of faith. In fact, that was his whole point in Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?: "In final salvation at the last judgment ... we are saved through that fruit and that faith." There is a critical step between judgment and glorification and that step is "attaining heaven."

Note well that Piper elsewhere speaks of glorification as a result of attaining heaven only after final salvation is secured at the Last Judgment: "Jesus transforms us so that we really begin to love like he does so that we move toward perfection that we finally obtain in heaven" (Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 160). When we obtain heaven, "we are going to receive a great inheritance, including our own glorification" (Piper, Children, Heirs and Fellow Sufferers, 2002). To Piper, the holiness without which no one will see the Lord is not "glorification" but "love, the fruit of faith." To attain heaven one must first be acquitted in judgment, and to be acquitted in judgment—justified—one must have works.

Piper thus speaks of personal holiness as a "validating transformation" that will serve as evidence of true faith at the last judgment so that we can attain heaven, and he speaks of final glorification as the inheritance we receive upon attaining heaven after surviving that final judgment. Piper is speaking of, and has been speaking of, a final acquittal in judgment as a prerequisite to attaining heaven, which itself is a prerequisite to final glorification.

Yes, by "final salvation," Piper means "final justification," and "final justification" to Piper means "final salvation from future judgment."

As evidence, simply read Piper's own words. He speaks again and again of faith and works being necessary to be acquitted in the final judgment:

Final salvation from future judgment is conditional. It will not happen apart from our persevering faith. ... "salvation" refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at the judgment and entrance into eternal life. (Piper, John, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Piper, John, Desiring God, Multnomah Publishers, 1996) 42) (emphasis added)

[Jesus] says that on the day of judgment he really will reject people because they are "workers of lawlessness." "Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). He says people will “go away into eternal punishment” because they really failed to love their fellow believers: “As you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:45-46). There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation. (John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, 160). (emphasis added)

It is not accidental that the title of this book has a double meaning. The Future of Justification draws attention not only to where the doctrine itself may be going, but also to the critical importance of God’s future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed. How will our obedience function in that Day? (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183-4). (emphasis added)

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Christianity Today, June 2009: 35-37) (emphasis added)

In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith. (Piper, Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone? (Desiring God, September 25, 2017) (emphasis added)

The fact is that in his own words, Piper sees "future justification" and "final salvation" as the same thing, and future justification is by faith and works.

The reader is invited to consider, as well, the fact that the summary on Piper provided from Christianity Today—in which future justification and future salvation are equated—was reviewed and confirmed by Piper himself as an accurate summary of what he was trying to say. Trevin Wax, who compiled the summary confirms this: "Please note that both John Piper and N.T. Wright looked over my work and made some slight revisions regarding their respective summaries" (Wax, Trevin, Piper vs. Wright on Justification: A Layman's Guide, June 26, 2009).

Piper's statements on final justification—final salvation from the wrath of God at the last judgment—were in response to Wright's teaching on final justification in a debate on the meaning of justification. To propose that Piper really was talking about "final glorification"—something not even mentioned in the entirety of Piper's The Future of Justification—is an unhelpful diversion that obscures the actual point Piper was making about "Wright’s view of justification  ... in the present and at the end" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 103). How are we justified at the very end? By faith and by works, according to Piper.

Objection 3: we should evaluate Piper based on decades of faithful gospel preaching

Several critics considered our criticism of Piper uncharitable because we were taking Piper's unclear teachings on justification and using them to interpret his clear teaching on justification. Instead we should consider the fact that Piper has taught clearly for decades on justification and salvation. This objection, however, assumes that Piper has taught consistently and clearly on justification until now. The fact is, Piper has wavered between several different and contradictory positions on justification, which makes it exceedingly difficult to determine which teachings of Piper are the "clear" ones, and which are the "unclear ones."

In order to understand just how unclear Piper has been over the span of his career, we provide below a survey of his thinking on justification from 1985 through 2017.

Piper through the Years

Piper received his Master of Divinity at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (1968-1971) where he studied under Daniel Fuller and discovered the teachings of Jonathan Edwards. Piper was called to become the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1980 in which capacity he served until 2013.

It is worth noting that in his formative years, Piper was greatly influenced by Daniel Fuller who came under the displeasure of O. Palmer Robertson because of his problematic formulations on justification:

In substitution for the biblically clear distinction between the legally imputed righteousness of justification and the vitally infused righteousness of sanctification, [Daniel] Fuller opts for the flexible meanings that may be introduced into the phrase, the “obedience of faith.” Unwittingly it seems, Fuller plays on an ambiguity inherent in the phrase. When he speaks of “salvation” by the “obedience of faith,” does he mean

(1) faith as attaching to Christ altogether? (2) the obedient actions arising from faith? (3) faith considered in itself as an act of obedience?

Because of the ambiguity inherent in the phrase, Fuller may slide between its various meanings … meaning sometimes the obedience which is faith and meaning at other times the obedient actions done in faith. In other words, man is saved by doing, by keeping the revelatory law of Moses, which is the law of faith. … Fuller … leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification.” (O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1981, vol. 8, issue 1, Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, A Review Article, 84-91)

Robertson's point is borne out by Fuller's work, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity (Zondervan, 1992). Fuller built his view of justification around Jonathan Edwards' rejection of Calvin. While Edwards insisted on justification by faith alone, he struggled to grasp how a sinner could be initially justified by faith alone when the verdict on his final justification was still pending, awaiting the outcome of his perseverance. Edwards (and Fuller following) concluded that we are not actually saved by faith alone, but rather are "saved by perseverance." Thus, in the initial verdict of justification, God "has respect to" the eventual perseverance of the sinner:

"But [contrary to Calvin] we are really saved by perseverance… For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith; yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being virtually [implied] in the first act." (Fuller, Daniel, The Unity of the Bible (Zondervan, 1992) 296-298 (citing Edwards))

This is problematic. Our view on justification is that the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification is Christ's righteousness alone, imputed to us by faith alone. The Westminster Confession insists that God justifies believers "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, ... nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness," not even their perseverance (Westminster Confession of Faith, 11.1). Edward's problematic formulation has God contemplating the sinner's perseverance in His verdict of justification, focusing on the "thing wrought in them."

W. Robert Godfrey correctly recognized that Fuller had indeed proposed a different view of justification, and therefore a different gospel:

The clearest implication of Fuller’s work has to do with the instrumental cause of justification. What is implicit in his book is made explicit in his interactions with Robertson’s work where he states that faith and works are the instrumental cause of justification. (Godfrey, W. Robert, O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1983, 9.1, Back to Basics, 80-81).

Godfrey's concern, too, had been borne out in Fuller's book. Let the reader keep in mind that Piper's view on justification blossomed in the same sun and soil as Fuller's. As Piper himself later acknowledged, "the plants of my pondering have grown" in Fuller's garden. As we shall see, starting with Fuller's ambiguous meaning of "obedience of faith," Piper has wavered throughout his ministry between multiple positions, and is still even now trying to find his voice on justification. Piper's apple did not fall far from Fuller's tree, and Robertson and Godfrey could write the same  today of Piper as they did of Fuller.

1985: Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism

We provide the following statement to show where Piper was early in his teaching ministry. This is five years after accepting the call to pastor Bethlehem Baptist. Piper is entrenched in the justification construct Robertson and Godfrey found so disconcerting in Fuller. Piper, puzzled over how God can provide an initial verdict of justification before the sinner has even shown that he will persevere, attempts in this statement to reconcile the difficulty:

God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. ... God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous.  ... Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. ...[W]e are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. (emphasis added)

That difficulty will continue to arise in Piper as he wrestles with the righteousness God contemplates in the initial and final justification of the believer.

1995: The Sinner is Justified by Faith in His Future Moral Improvement

It is now 1995 and Piper is still advancing Fuller's constructs on justification. While Piper does not completely agree with Fuller on everything, he nonetheless formulated his own view of justification based on the latent ambiguity in Fuller's "obedience of faith," the very construct Robertson found so reprehensible:

Daniel Fuller’s vision of the Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plants of my pondering have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in this book have left a deep imprint. … His major work, The Unity of the Bible, is the explanatory background to most of what I write. (Piper, Future Grace (1995) 7)

For Piper, “[f]aith is primarily future oriented” (Piper, Future Grace, 13), which necessarily causes the sinner to focus primarily on his future transformation rather than on the past work Christ has already accomplished for him. We see Fuller's influence as Piper explains his meaning: "future grace" is the Holy Spirit's moral transformation in the believer, and the believer is justified by faith in that moral transformation:

“…the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:16) is virtually the same as what I mean by future grace.” (Piper, Future Grace (Multnomah, 1995) 69).

“And this faith in future grace is the faith through which we are justified.” (Piper, Future Grace, 191).

Thus, to Piper, both God and the sinner have the sinner's future moral improvement in mind in justification. God contemplates the sinner's future improvement—the sinner believing, and God foreseeing—that the sinner will improve over time. Take Piper's own words from Future Grace, and we have exactly what Robertson feared in Fuller: the sinner is justified by God's knowledge of, and the sinners confidence in, his future moral improvement, "for the faith through which we are justified" is faith in "the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit."

1999: Does James Contradict Paul?

In his 1999 sermon on James and Paul, Piper struggled to reconcile the two apostles, and could only resolve the tension by having Paul speak of the initial moment of justification at the beginning of the Christian life, and having James speak of maintaining an ongoing and final right standing with God through faith and works:

So when Paul renounces "justification by works" he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. ... For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love. (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, August 8, 1999)

Piper repeats the construct multiple times, insisting that Paul is speaking only about justification by faith alone in initial justification: "That's how we get started in the Christian life - justified by faith alone."  James, on the other hand, is talking about how "one maintain[s] an ongoing and final right standing with God." (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, sermon audio, 28:26-34:26).

At the end of the sermon, Piper finally commends an entirely new construct to his listeners to resolve the difficulty: "justification by dependence alone on Christ alone." Piper defined "dependence" as faith at the beginning of the Christian walk, and defined "dependence" as faith and works during the middle and end of the Christian walk. Here, in an attempt to clarify, he simply muddied the water in order to preserve a Reformational sola, but in reality imported works into final justification (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul? ,sermon audio, 35:30-35:50).

Like his mentor Fuller, Piper thus repeatedly "leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification." In fact, this 1999 sermon was simply a recapitulation of Fuller's 19th chapter of The Unity of the Bible, Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity, "Abraham's Persevering Faith" (281-304). It is important to establish this in Piper's timeline to show that in 1999, Piper was still advocating a view on justification that the reformed community found reprehensible.

2002: Counted Righteous in Christ

Something apparently had happened between 1999 and 2002. During that time, Piper wrote Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." A laudable concern, indeed, since his own mentor had conflated them, and he had as well. Gone from his writing was the ambiguous language of justification by "dependence alone on Christ alone." Absent, too, was the talk about how justification at the "beginning of the Christian life is by faith alone" but "maintaining a right standing with God" is "by faith along with ... works of love."

Had Piper finally become Protestant? Perhaps even Reformed? While reformed teachers were cheering his new work, Piper's mentor, Daniel Fuller, was deeply disappointed that he had wandered so far from the fold. "[I]s not such talk dangerous?" Fuller asked. In Fuller's eyes, Piper had stumbled into the Galatian heresy (Fuller, Daniel, Reformation & Revival Journal (vol 12, no. 4, Fall 2003, "Another Reply to Counted Righteous in Christ" 115-120).

The plants of Piper's pondering had apparently left Fuller's garden at last. Let the reader note that until he published Counted Righteous in Christ, Piper's formulations on justification did not elicit Fuller's disapproval. From his seminary years until the turn of the millennium, Piper still agreed with Fuller's erroneous construct on justification, and that status quo remained until Piper finally decided to defend "the historic Protestant view" instead of what Fuller had taught him. But the plant of Piper's pondering would soon return to its roots.

2006: What Jesus Demands from the World

Piper's 2006 work was written to instruct Christians on the need to obey Jesus' commands (Piper, John, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books (2006) 17). We agree that Christians are to obey Jesus. One rather disconcerting observation, however, is found in Demand #21, in which Piper explains that Jesus will send some believers to hell "because they really failed to love their fellow believers." We cited this same example above to show that Piper means "final justification" when he speaks of "final salvation." We return to it now to demonstrate that Piper's wavering on justification is due partly to Fuller's tutelage, and partly to his own confusion.

To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, Piper combines Matthew 7:23 "depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and Matthew 25:41-46, "Depart from me, ye cursed ... Inasmuch as ye did it not...". Piper thus shows that Jesus will send some people "'away into eternal punishment' because they really failed to love their fellow believers" (Piper, Demands, 160). The two passages say nothing of the sort.

Piper's confusion is found in his assumption that the rejected persons in each passage—"Depart from me" (Matthew 7:23, 25:41)—are "fellowbelievers" with the children of God. Yet both passages actually portray them as unbelievers. In Matthew 7:23, those who are sent away from Him are "false prophets," "ravening wolves" dressed "in sheep’s clothing" (Matthew 7:15). In Mathew 25:41, those who are sent away from Him are goats, rather than sheep. As Christ explained in John 10:26, "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." Only sheep believe. The people Jesus sends away to damnation are unbelieving wolves and goats. To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, therefore, Piper had first to read "believers" into "wolves" and "goats," something completely foreign to the text.

Compounding his confusion, Piper then attempted to justify his reading of Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 by appealing to Matthew 12. In doing so, Piper interpreted Jesus' reference to faith as a reference to works, and on that basis concluded that Christians will be justified by works at the last day. Piper explained his rendering of Matthew 7 and 25, in this footnote:

Though it may cause confusion, it is possible to use the word “justify” to describe how the fruit of good behavior works in the day of judgment. The fruits can “justify” us in the sense of proving that we are believers and belong to Jesus and have a right standing with God in him. That is how I understand Matthew 12:37, “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Piper, Demands, 161n (emphasis added))

Here Piper has read "works" into "words," completely foreign to the text. As we showed in our previous article, Jesus' reference to people being justified or condemned by their "words" on the last day was a reference to being justified by faith or condemned for unbelief, not judged by their "works." He was referring to the words of faith expressed by the Gentiles of Galilee ("Is not this the son of David?" (Matthew 12:23)) in contrast with the unbelieving words of the Pharisees ("This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matthew 12:24)).

To illustrate His point that people will either be justified or condemned by their words, Jesus gave two examples of people being justified by their words on the Last Day: the Ninevites who believed the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12:41, Jonah 3:5), and the Queen of Sheba who believed the teaching of Solomon (Matthew 12:42, 1 Kings 10:9). Both would rise in judgment with this generation, and condemn it. The Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba had spoken words of faith upon the hearing of God's word, and this present generation had spoken words of unbelief, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). Jesus thus taught that we would be acquitted on the Last Day by the same righteousness we received when we first believed—just like the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba. Words here referred to "faith" or "unbelief." They do not refer to "works." To arrive at his conclusion that "the fruit of good behavior" justifies us "in the day of judgment" Piper erroneously substituted "the fruit of good behavior" for "words" and concluded that believers must be in some sense justified by their works of love on the Last Day.

Our concern with Piper's 2006 position is twofold. First, in his analysis of the role of works in justification on the Last Day, he distorted three separate passages from Jesus to get to his point. Second, it shows that the "plant of his pondering" never really left Fuller's "garden." He was still right where he was in 1999 when he explained repeatedly that initial justification is by faith alone, but it is our duty to maintain our right standing with God through works.

Piper's position in 2006 was not dissimilar to that of N. T. Wright, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews and proponent of the controversial New Perspective on Paul. The year after What Jesus Demands from the World, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) rejected Wright's formulations on the same grounds that Robertson and Godfrey had rejected Fuller's:

It would appear that Wright is inconsistent when it comes to his means for receiving present and future justification. In the present, Wright argues that the badge of justification is faith alone and that no works are involved in this (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 132). However, in reference to “final” justification, Wright argues that it is “on the basis of the whole life led.” But this is a contradiction: how can one be assured of “final justification,” if the final verdict is based on the whole life led (i.e. faith plus faithfulness/works)? Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not final justification?These inconsistencies seem to shift the means for receiving justification to works, since the only difference between one who receives present justification from one who receives final justification is that the latter works. (34th PCA General Assembly, Report of ad interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective and Auburn Avenue Theology (2007) 2228n)

We would ask Piper the same questions because of his own inconsistencies. Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not maintaining right standing with God through good works? Piper assures us that that could never happen: "None who is located by faith in God’s invincible favor will fail to have all that is necessary to demonstrate this in life" (Piper, Demands, 210). If so, then in what way does Jesus "really" send some of our "fellow believers" to hell on the Last Day?

2007: The Future of Justification

In his critique of N. T. Wright, Piper ironically criticized him for his ambiguous use of "the obedience of faith," the very thing for which Robertson had critiqued Fuller. Piper wrote,

Adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification is Wright’s apparent conflation of “faith,” on the one hand, and “faithfulness” (or faithful obedience), on the other hand. ... The issue is whether justification by faith really means justification by works of any kind, whether provided by God or man. That is the issue, and Wright again leaves us with the impression that human transformation and Spirit wrought acts of obedience are included in the term “faith” when he speaks of present justification being by faith alone. (Piper, The Future of Justification, 130-131).

We remind the reader that only eight years earlier, in his attempt to harmonize James and Paul, Piper was advocating for "justification by dependence alone," as noted above, explaining that our initial right standing with God is by faith alone, but our ongoing and final right standing with God is maintained by both faith and works. Both were collapsed into the single construct, "dependence alone." Like Wright, Piper was including "Spirit wrought acts of obedience" in the term "dependence," holding to justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith alone) at the beginning of the Christian life, and justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith and works of love) throughout the life of the believer. Piper too, had been "adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification" less than a decade earlier.

2009: Piper, meet Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson, meet John Piper

Back in 2003, Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, suddenly began "to suspect that what he has believed for many years may actually be a truncated form of the truth, particularly when the subject concerns the gospel and salvation" (Wilson, Douglas, “The Objectivity of the Covenant,” Credenda/Agenda, volume 15, issue 1, p. 4, 2003). Wilson had recently bought into the controversial Federal Vision theology and appeared to be expressing the gospel in terms of justification by faithfulness alone, instead of by faith alone, the very construct for which Piper had criticized Wright in The Future of Justification. The Federal Vision would eventually be judged erroneous at the 34th PCA General Assembly (2007) mentioned above. The PCA report on Federal Vision expressed concern that its adherents were creating confusion about the gospel by combining justification and sanctification together:

[T]he way Federal Vision proponents collapse the distinct benefits of this mediation (i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification) into “union with Christ” creates significant confusion. Similarly, Federal Vision’s appeal to “the biblical usage” of justification as a way to collapse forensic and transformative categories also confuses doctrines that our Standards rightly distinguish (i.e., justification and sanctification). (2225-2225)

In 2009, John Piper invited Douglas Wilson to speak at the annual Desiring God Conference because he was deeply "persuaded that Doug Wilson gets the gospel right" (John Piper, Why So Many Presbyterian Speakers This Year). Wilson's gospel is "very complicated," Piper conceded, but it is not "another gospel," and he just "gets a bad wrap from a lot of PCA guys who aren't careful about the way they think" (John Piper on Doug Wilson). [Disclosure: this writer is a member in a PCA church]. In the same discussion, Piper insisted that, for all of his criticism of him, "I don't think N. T. Wright preaches a false gospel, either. I think N. T. Wright preaches a very confusing gospel."

What is so remarkable and ironic about Piper's embrace of Wilson is that Wilson was drifting away from "the [ostensibly truncated] historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience" by conflating faith and obedience in the instrumentality of justification, at precisely the time that Piper felt compelled to distance himself from Fuller's gospel and write Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." And yet, in 2009, Piper returned to his Fullerian roots and concluded that Wilson had actually gotten the gospel right, even though he was expressing it in the same terms as Fuller and Wright—men from whom Piper had ostensibly been distancing himself since 2002.

2012: Still fine-tuning his understanding of justification

In 2012 Piper revised Future Grace, acknowledging exactly what we have been highlighting in this timeline: the inconsistent, wavering announcement of justification by [something] alone, and Future Grace's imperative of forward looking faith. Because of the latent ambiguities in his constructs on justification in the 1995 edition, and (we believe) because of the uncertain trumpet he had sounded over the years, Piper felt compelled to clarify his teaching once more:

In the never-ending question of how Christians, who are counted righteous in Christ by faith alone, should nevertheless pursue righteousness, this book is my answer. It is my fullest attempt to explain why the faith that justifies also sanctifies, without mingling or confusing those two glorious works of God.

Since publishing the first edition of Future Grace in 1995, I have walked through extended controversies surrounding the nature, ground, and instrument of justification. These controversies have sharpened my own grasp of what the Bible teaches. Some of that sharpening is captured in Counted Righteous in Christ (Crossway, 2002), The Future of Justification (Crossway, 2007), and Finally Alive (Christian Focus, 2007). Some people have felt tensions between the first edition of Future Grace and the message of those books. I hope that this revised edition will remove those tensions. (Piper, John, Future Grace, Preface to the 2012 edition (Multnomah, 2012)).

We are not convinced, however, that Future Grace can actually be corrected to fix the problem of "mingling or confusing" justification and sanctification. Just as Piper's 1999 sermon on James and Paul showed that he was still at that time in Fuller's garden, Future Grace, written four years prior, was based entirely on chapter 18 of The Unity of the Bible in which Fuller attempted to work out the implications of "faith’s futuristic orientation" and Edward's view that the sinner's perseverance is contemplated by God in His verdict of justification. We do not believe that Piper can truly extract himself from Fuller's garden while consuming the fruit that grows there. For all of his protestations, shifting positions and subsequent clarifications, Piper appears only briefly to have departed from his Fullerian roots circa 2001, and has long since returned to them.

2013: Bethlehem Baptist Church updates What we believe about the five points of Calvinism

In 2013, Piper updated his church's 1985 position on Calvinism. Correcting some of the tensions that had existed in previous expressions of justification, just as he did the previous year with Future Grace. He deleted "God justifies us [with] a view to all subsequent acts of faith," and simply stated,

God justifies us completely through the first genuine act of saving faith, but this is the sort of faith that perseveres and bears fruit in the “obedience of faith.”

Also, instead of God justifying us because He can see in our first act of faith "a life of faith with its inevitable obedience," the focus was shifted now to Christ's righteousness: "The first time we believe in Jesus we are united to Christ. In union with him, his righteousness is counted as ours, at that moment." Nevertheless, the statement on obedience being required for final salvation remained: "Obedience, evidencing inner renewal from God, is necessary for final salvation."

2017: Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone?

In 2017, Piper showed that although he was trying to resolve the tensions present in his previous formulations on justification, the ambiguous construct Robertson criticized in Fuller was still present in his thinking: "In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith." As Piper expressed back in 1995, "Final salvation" is salvation "from future judgment," and in 2009, "Future justification is ... This final judgment." He is still advancing a double justification doctrine—and initial justification by faith alone, and a final justification by faith plus works.

Conclusion

In The Future of Justification, Piper recalled that Richard Gaffin had spoken at the Pastors Conference in Monroe, Louisiana in 2005 (the namesake of the Monroe Doctrine and by some reckoning the origins of the Federal Vision). At the Pastors Conference, Gaffin had expressed what Piper believed, upon further study, to be "the true biblical understanding of the function of works in the final judgment" (Piper, The Future of Justification,115-16).

In the 1970s, throughout the Westminster Theological Seminary justification controversy surrounding the teachings of Norman Shepherd, Gaffin was Shepherd's ardent defender. At the heart of the controversy was Shepherd's view of the role of works in the justification of the believer, and Gaffin had sided with Shepherd. Shepherd's views were eventually  determined to be out of accord with the Westminster Confession and he was dismissed from the seminary in 1982. We provide here three of Shepherd's theses that were so offensive to the reformed community:

Thesis 21: The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

Thesis 22: The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Thesis 23: Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9). (from Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works, November 18, 1978.)

After an extensive review of Piper's teachings on justification, we cannot see how Piper's current views differ in any substantive way from Shepherd's offensive theses on justification. Thus, we stand by our original assessment of Piper's views on "final salvation" and "final justification."

We extend two closing comments for the consideration of our readers on this controversial issue. First, one of our critics agreed that even in a charitable reading of Piper, his language could still be understood to be problematic. We appreciate that even some who disagreed with us understood that it was possible that we were reading Piper charitably.

Second, some critics have suggested that we have engaged in controversy for the sake of controversy. Although, from our perspective, we are zealous to maintain the purity of the church, we nevertheless understand that we should as zealously strive to maintain its peace. We are happy for the reminder to pursue both, and concede that we are not immune to the temptation to pursue controversy for its own sake.

That said, we offer to our critics a matter for reflection: those who seek the peace of the church are just as susceptible to the opposite temptation to avoid controversy for the sake of avoiding controversy. As we examine the history of the justification controversy—it now spans two generations of theologians—we have seen the damage that is propagated when error is tolerated in order to maintain the peace of the church.

To that end, we remind our readers that this controversy did not start with Piper's 2017 article. It is by no means a new controversy. It started in 1970s when the faculty of Westminster failed to respond timely to Shepherd's errors and allowed them too long to fester within its walls. The controversy has long since metastasized and we are now dealing with the second generation of the fruit it has borne.

The history of this long standing controversy may be explored profitably starting with O. Palmer Robertson's essay, "The Current Justification Controversy." And while Piper has on occasion expressed his disagreement with the Roman Catholic view of justification, after examining his decades of attempts to express the doctrine, we are not entirely sure that Piper really understands the essence of the Roman Catholic view, much less the implications of the justification controversy itself.

To all of our readers—to those who disagree, and to those who do not—enjoy October 31, 2017 tomorrow, the 500th anniversary of the birth of the  Protestant Reformation.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 4.

Episode 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Roman Catholics call Mary by the title, ἀειπαρθένου, or Ever Virgin because she is alleged to have remained a virgin for her entire life—prior to Christ's birth (pre partum), during Christ's birth (in partu), and after Christ's birth (post partum). Her post partum virginity assumes that she and Joseph neither had any other children, nor ever consummated their marriage. Her in partu virginity assumes that Jesus' miraculously passed through Mary's womb into her arms, leaving her physical virginity completely uncompromised—no birth pangs, no tearing, no bleeding, nor any other discomfort associated with physical act of giving birth. The belief in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary is that she is the Ever Virgin—always, and in every stage, pre partum, in partu and post partum.

• That Mary was a virgin until Christ's birth the Scriptures plainly teach (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:27-34).
• The Roman Catholic support for her in partu and post partum virginity comes from the following argument:
  1. Typologically, as the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary's physical body was as inviolable by men as the Ark of the Old Covenant was inviolable.
  2. In Ezekiel 44, the "east gate" is shut, and remains shut, "because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2).
  3. The Protogospel of James taught that a midwife was present for Christ's delivery, and that she inspected Mary afterward and found her physical virginity to be intact.
  4. The Early Church Fathers are alleged to have taught that Mary physically remained a virgin in perpetuity.
• We list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary the Untouchable Ark

• Roman Catholics believe that Mary's identification as the Ark of the New Covenant supports their belief that she remained a virgin perpetually. Roman Catholic apologist, Tim Staples, makes the argument:
  • "According to multiple parallel texts in Scripture, Mary is depicted as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. ... According to the Old Testament, no one except the high priest could touch the ark or even look inside it. If anyone else touched or looked inside the ark, the punishment was death.... If this was the case for the Old Testament type, which, according to Hebrews 10:1, is no more than a shadow of the true New Testament fulfillment, then it would seem fitting that Mary would remain 'untouched' by Joseph as well." (Tim Staples, More Reasons for Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
  • Counterevidence:
  • As we showed in part 2, the Scriptures do not identify the Ark as a type of Mary, and further, it is not until the latter part of the 4th century that we begin to see such references from patristic sources. Any evidence alleged to be earlier than that has proven to be fraudulent. The Early Church thought the Old Testament Ark signified many different things—Christ, His ministry, His people—but what is conspicuous by its absence is any reference to the Ark signifying Mary.
  • Even after the 4th century there continued to be differing opinions on what it signified:
    • Cyril of Alexandria (412 – 444 A.D.) said the ark was "the image and symbol of Christ” (Cyril of Alexandria, de Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate, Book 9 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 68, col. 597-598), and that Christ "is presented in figure and image" by the ark (Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium, Book IV, (Migne, P.G. 73, col. 619-622))
    • Even as late as the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great asked, “What but the holy Church is figured by the ark?” (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book II, chapter 11).
    • In sum, the Roman Catholic claim that Mary's perpetual virginity has long been established by her identify as the Ark lacks even minimal evidence that the early church considered her to be the Ark at all—at least not until the latter part of the 4th century.

Mary, the East Gate

• Roman Catholics believe that Mary was in view when Ezekiel says the "east gate" is shut, and remains shut, "because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2). Roman Catholic apologist, Taylor Marshall, makes the argument:
  • "As the Catholic Church teaches, the Blessed Virgin Mary is perpetually a virgin – she did not have relations with Joseph after Christ’s birth in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel: 'and no man shall enter by [the east gate]; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.'" (Taylor Marshall, The Virgin Mary’s Womb as Ezekiel’s Closed Gate of the Messiah)
  • Counterevidence:
  • The context of this passage is that Israel had defiled the sanctuary by allowing gentiles and other unclean people to enter it (Ezekiel 44:7), so the Lord instructs Ezekiel on how Israel is to regulate "the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof" (Ezekiel 43:11, c.f. 44:5). Ezekiel is taken to a properly constructed temple (Ezekiel 40:1-3), and in the vision "the glory of the LORD came into the house" from the east, all the way "into the inner court" (Ezekiel 43:1-5). Ezekiel 44:1 refers to "the [eastern] gate of the outward sanctuary," and the angelic narrator explains to Ezekiel that the eastern gate of the outer sanctuary "shall be shut, it shall not be opened ... because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it" (Ezekiel 44:2). Roman Catholics end their analysis at this point and take the closed eastern gate of the outer court to refer to Mary. But the vision continues, and Ezekiel describes the eastern gate of the inner court, and that gate is opened every sabbath and every new moon, and was to remain so all day:
    • "The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened. ...the gate shall not be shut until the evening." (Ezekiel 46:1-2)
    • Roman Catholics only assign typological significance to the gate that remains shut, passing over the one that remains open, providing no explanation as to what the inner eastern gate signifies—even though the glory of the Lord entered by that gate, too. It is a highly selective interpretation that merely assumes, rather than proves, that the "shut gate" refers to Mary. In other words, the Roman Catholic must first assume that Mary's womb was closed in order to derive a typological connection; it is not something the text suggests to us. The Scriptures offer no connection between Mary and either of eastern gates—inner or outer—and nothing in the passage even hints that the outer gate signifies Mary's womb.
    • Second, when Roman Catholics attempt to find support for their interpretation of Ezekiel 44 in the early church, all they can come up with in the first three centuries is Origen (c. 185 - c. 234 A.D) who believed that the shut gate of Ezekiel 44:2 signified the Scriptures and their correct interpretation (Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel, Homily 14.1-3). Evidence of an early interpretation of  Ezekiel 44 as a prefiguration of Mary dates to the latter part of the 4th century. Taylor Marshall, cited above, only quotes Ambrose (340 - 397 A.D.) and Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.). As Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup show in their commentaries on Daniel and Ezekiel, there is simply no evidence for the Roman Catholic interpretation prior to the latter part of the 4th century:
      • "Overview [of Ezekiel 44:1-3]: The east gate is closed, which means the importance of the right interpretation of the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as revealed by Christ (Origen), but it also may mean the womb of the Virgin Mary (Jerome [347 - 430 A.D.], Theodoret [393 - 457 A.D.], Ambrose [340 - 397 A.D.], Rufinus [c. 340 - 410], Cyril of Alexandria [c. 376 – 444 A.D.], John of Damascus [c. 675 – 749 A.D.])." (Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 13, "Ezekiel, Daniel," (Intervarsity Press, 2008) p. 141)
      • In sum, the interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 referring to the shutting of Mary's womb and Mary's perpetual virginity is highly selective and inconsistent with the whole of Ezekiel's vision. It is a novelty dating to the latter part of the 4th century.

The Protoevangelium of James

• The "protogospel" of James is an apocryphal document of unknown origin, dated to the second century. The document attempts to establish Mary's in partu and post partum virginity. To establish the former, Christ's birth is said to have taken place in a flash of light as He simply appeared in Mary's arms and began to take her breast, with none of the painful labor of a normal delivery (Protoevangelium of James, 19). To establish the latter, the document claims that Jesus' brethren in the Scriptures were actually children of Joseph from a previous marriage (Protoevangelium of James, 9). The document is used by Roman Catholics to establish the antiquity and apostolicity of the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.
  • By way of example, Roman Catholic Apologist James Akin, in this 3-minute video, asserts that the antiquity of the doctrine can be proven both by the Protoevangelim of James and the testimony of Jerome (Catholic Answers, How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary?)
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, the Protoevangelium essentially supports the docetic heresy that originated in apostolic times. Docetism comes from the Greek word, δοκεῖν (dokein), which means "to seem" or "to appear." The heresy alleged that Jesus had not really taken on a physical body, but only "seemed" to do so, and thus was not really incarnated, did not really suffer or die or physically rise from the dead. The early heretics attempted to pass off Jesus' body—the birth, suffering, death and resurrection—as only a phantom. Tertullian, by way of example, argued against such thinking and understood that teachings like that of the Protoevangelium of James would play right into the hands of the heretics. He thus argued against such a miraculous delivery, and countered the heretics by emphasizing the completely natural birth of Christ:
    • "At all events, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off His nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin's conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course of her infant too, would have to be regarded as putative. These facts pertaining to the nativity of Christ would escape the notice of the same eyes and the same senses as failed to grasp the full idea of His flesh." (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 1).
    • Tertullian continued, describing Mary as "a woman in travail" at Christ's delivery (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 4), and defends the incarnation as so real and so natural that in Mary's labor pain, her physical virginity was lost: “Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin" (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 23)
    • Second, even Origen, who found the idea of Joseph's children from a previous marriage to be "in harmony with reason" (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 10, chapter 17), rejected the other claim of the Protoevangelium, denying Mary's in partu virginity, for her womb had in fact been opened in childbirth the way a bride's is opened on her wedding night:
      • “In the case of every other woman, it is not the birth of an infant but intercourse with a man that opens the womb. But the womb of the Lord’s mother was opened at the time when her offspring was brought forth …” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, Homily 14, paragraphs 7-8).
      • Third, Jerome (c. 383 A.D.) at first ridiculed the teachings of the Protoevangelium of James as "an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity." He claimed instead that Jesus' brethren in the Scriptures were not Joseph's children from a previous marriage, but were Jesus' cousins. In the process he insisted that Christ's delivery had been perfectly normal and that Mary had travailed in pain, which is a material rejection of her virginity in partu:
        • “If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. ... Add, if you like ... the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. … We do not blush, we are not put to silence.” (Jerome, Against Helvidius, paragraphs 19-20)
        • Fifth, between 383 A.D. and 393 A.D., Jerome changed his tune and concluded that Mary's virginity had in fact been preserved in partu, and adopted the view of the Protoevangelium of James, although he maintained his position that Jesus' "brethren" were in fact His "cousins." He insisted nonetheless that Jesus' body was no mere phantom—it had just miraculously translated through Mary the way Jesus' resurrected body walked through closed doors after the resurrection, essentially moving the beginning of Jesus' miracles that "manifested forth his glory" 27 years earlier than the Gospel of John informs us (John 2:11):
          • “Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son.” (Jerome (393 A.D.) to Pammachius (letter 48, paragraph 21)
          • Finally, even Roman Catholic apologists know that the Protoevangelium of James cannot possibly be construed to convey an apostolic doctrine. Esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, informs us:
            • “Whatever their origins, we have no grounds for concluding that the Apocrypha contained and transmitted an authentic apostolic tradition concerning the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity; in each instance such a tradition would have to be established—an impossible task with our present documentary sources. Moreover, in themselves, the apocryphal narratives scarcely measure up to the quality of sober objectivity characteristic of the transmission of a doctrine that is authentically apostolic in origin.” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 267)
            • In sum, the Early Church fathers who gave credence to the Protoevangelium of James regarding Joseph's children from a previous marriage nonetheless held that Mary had lost her virginity in partu, showing that the preservation of Mary's virginity in partu was not even imagined, much less defended, until the latter part of the 4th century. Even Jerome, who is invoked to prove early belief in Mary's perpetual virginity initially rejected the Protoevangelium as an audacious invention, and insisted that Mary's childbirth had been perfectly normal, complete with "the sickness, the delivery, the blood." Ten years later he changed his tune and began arguing for Mary's in partu virginity. Additionally, even esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, insisted that the Protoevangelium carried no apostolic weight at all. As evidenced by Tertullian's about a miraculous passing of Jesus through Mary's womb as a phantom, the Protoevangelim was more suited to the docetic heresies of the subaposotlic era, and was not part of the faith once delivered. There is no case made for Mary's "ever virginity" until the end of the 4th century, three centuries removed from the apostles.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in the Early Church

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Roman Catholics are unable to cite any authentic or authoritative sources on the doctrine until the latter part of the 4th century. By way of example, Mark Shea writes:
  • "Patristic sources who affirm that Mary’s perpetual virginity was taught by the apostles include the author of the Protoevangelium of James, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius I, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo I, and the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. And they’re only the beginning. For the entirety of Christian history until roughly the 17th century, Christians agreed with them – except for two guys." (Mark Shea, Perpetual Virginity as Prophetic Sign)
  • Others argue that Irenæus of Lyons (died c. 202 A.D.) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 A.D.) also affirmed the doctrine (see, for example, Ask Father Mateo).
  • Counterevidence:
  • Regarding Irenæus of Lyons, esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, writes,
    • “…according to those authentic writings of his which have come down to us … there is nothing in these translated passages to show that Irenaeus held the permanence of Mary’s virginity” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 266)
    • Regarding Origen, as we have already shown above, he believed that Mary did not have other children, but he insisted that Jesus' birth was completely natural, and that Mary's physical virginity was lost in childbirth.
    • Clement of Alexandria, initially appears to support Mary's perpetual virginity (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, chapter 16), but as Juniper Carol acknowledges, we cannot completely trust the document because the Greek original is lost, and the Latin version dates to the 6th century and was written specifically to correct offending sentiments:
      • “We cannot rely absolutely on this text, since it is a [6th century] translated adaptation [by Cassiodorus], with the expressed intention of expurgating anything that might be offensive…” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume II, p. 271)
      • Once the unreliable and questionable early sources are removed, the only remaining early support is from the latter part of the 4th century and later:
        • Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367). Became bishop after 350 A.D., and his 1st work, Commentary on Saint Matthew, was from about 356 A.D..
        • Athanasius (c. 296 — 373 A.D.) called Mary ἀειπαρθένου, or Ever Virgin in his Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2, chapter 70, in 360 A.D..
        • Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 – 403 A.D.) makes an argument for her virginity in his Panarion (c. 374 A.D.).
        • Jerome (c. 347 – 420 A.D.)
        • Didymus the Blind (c. 313 – 398 A.D.)
        • Ambrose of Milan (c.340 – 397 A.D.)
        • Pope Siricius I (reigned 384 — 399 A.D.)
        • Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.)
        • Leporius (5th century monk)
        • Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444 A.D.)
        • Pope Leo I (reigned 440 — 461 A.D.)
        • 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• That the Early Church did not consider Mary to be "ever virgin" is shown not only by Roman Catholicism's inability to provide credible evidence in the first three centuries, but by the actual teachings of the early writers rejecting Mary's virginity in partu. If she lost her virginity in partu, then she ceased to be a virgin. We have already shown above that Origen and Tertullian rejected Mary's virginity in partu, and that Jerome initially rejected it, too. To these we add Eusebius and Chrysostom, both of whom believed that Jesus' birth was natural, and that Mary had suffered actual labor pains:
  • Eusebius (c. 260 – 340 A.D.) understood that Jesus' birth was almost as painful as His death because He was drawn out of His "travailing mother":
    • “[Jesus] knew that His original union with our flesh, and His birth of a woman that was a Virgin was no worse experience than the suffering of death, while He speaks of His death He also mentions His birth, saying to the Father: ‘… Thou, my God and Father, like a midwife didst draw the body that had been prepared for Me by the Holy Spirit from My travailing mother…” (Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book X, Chapter 8 (c. 311))
    • John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.), based on Matthew 12:50, understood that obedience makes one more a mother to Christ than Mary's actual labor pains did:
      • “For behold, He has marked out a spacious road for us; and it is granted not to women only, but to men also, to be of this rank, or rather of one yet far higher. For this makes one His mother much more, than those pangs did. So that if that were a subject for blessing, much more this, inasmuch as it is also more real.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.2).
      • We conclude this section by invoking David G. Hunter—previously Monsignor James Supple Chair of Catholic Studies at Iowa State University, currently Cottrill-Rolfes Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Kentucky—and his work on celibacy and virginity in the early church. He observed that in the latter part of the 4th century, there was an inordinate focus on female virgins:
        • “In the later years of the fourth century the ascetic and monastic movements led male Christian writers to devote an extraordinary degree of attention to the bodies of women, especially celibate women. In the hands of ascetic authors the traditional biblical image of the virgin bride acquired new life. The ‘bride of Christ’ became the celibate Christian woman. … In the ascetic controversies of the late fourth century, the identity of the virgin bride—and specifically the question of the relationship between the individual Christian as virgin and the church as virgin—was clearly a point of contention.” (David G. Hunter, The American Society of Church History, June 2000 (283-84))
        • Hunter also highlights a man by the name of Jovinianus who was condemned by Pope Siricius I, Ambrose and Jerome for supporting married clergy and suggesting that Christ's birth was entirely normal. Hunter concluded, correctly, that Jovinianus—rather than his critics—reflected more accurately the teachings of the early church, and that the in partu virginity of Mary was built upon an untenable foundation:
          • “If there is a single conclusion to be derived from my study, it is that Jovinian stood much closer to the centre of the Christian tradition than previous critics have recognized; … Ambrose’s attraction to the ideal of virginal integrity, …, caused him to adopt a Marian doctrine (virginitas in partu) that had only a fragile basis in earlier Christian tradition.” Hunter, David G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (Oxford University Press (2007) 285).
          • That "fragile basis" is comprised of the Protoevangelium of James and the other sources that even the expert Mariologist acknowledges are unreliable.

We will continue this series with part 5, on Mary’s alleged bodily assumption into heaven, and conclude the series.

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 3.

Episode 3: Mary, the Immaculate Conception

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, at the moment of her conception, in view of the merits of Christ's death on the cross, was preserved free of the stain of sin, and free of concupiscence —the inclination to sin—as well.

• The Roman Catholic support for this teaching stems from the following basic premises:
  1. Typologically, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and as such is holy and pure, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant was holy and pure (Exodus 26:33, 2 Chronicles 35:3).
  2. Typologically, Mary is the New Eve, just as Christ is the New Adam, and in that parallel, Mary's sinlessness is ostensibly revealed.
  3. Biologically, Mary is the source of Jesus' humanity, and because Jesus' flesh was sinless, He must have received it from someone sinless.
  4. The Early Church Fathers are alleged to have taught that Mary was sinless.
• We list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary as the New Ark of Holiness

• In the allegedly infallible proclamation of Pope Pius IX in 1854, Mary was declared to be sinless "in the first instance of her conception":
  • "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854))
  • In part, Pius IX based his claim on the belief that "The Fathers and writers of the Church ... celebrated the august Virgin ... as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built."
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, Scripture nowhere makes the Ark|Mary typological parallel.
  • Second, as we noted last week, all the evidence that the Early Church Fathers celebrated Mary as "the Ark of the New Covenant" has proven to be based on documents later found to be forgeries and frauds.
  • In sum, Mary did not become identified as the Ark of the New Covenant until the latter part of the 4th century, at the earliest, and therefore it follows that the Early Church could not have derived a belief in Mary's sinlessness based on this typology before the typology was even proposed.

Mary as the New Eve

• Roman Catholics believe that as Christ is to Adam, so Mary is to Eve, and if the Early Church acknowledged the Eve-Mary parallel, it is implicit evidence of early belief that Mary must have been sinless leading up to her obedience, just as Eve was sinless leading up to the fall. Esteemed Roman Catholic Mariologist, Juniper Carol, sought to find evidence of Mary's sinlessness in Irenæus' discussion of the "Eve-Mary" parallel:
  • "[T]he Eve-Mary analogy is relevant here. Our Lady's consent to the redemptive program implicit in the Incarnation was recognized by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as constituting an act not simply of singular significance but even of exceptional moral value; it was an act of obedience (Adv Haer, lib 3, cap 22, 1; PG 7:958-959)." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
  • Counterevidence:
  • Irenæus indeed found a typological connection between Mary and Eve (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 22) but did not believe that the parallel implied Mary's sinlessness. For example, when expounding on the incarnation, Irenæus saw a long line of sinners between Adam and Christ, Christ being the sole exception:
    • "For if the flesh were not in a position to be saved, the Word of God would in no wise have become flesh. ... He thus points out the recapitulation that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from the beginning, of all the righteous men and of the prophets, and that by means of Himself there should be a requisition of their blood. Now this [blood] could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the Lord have summed up these things in Himself, unless He had Himself been made flesh and blood after the way of the original formation [of man], saving in his own person at the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 14).
    • Needless to say, if "his own person at the end" is the sole exception in a line of descent from Adam, then Mary is not exceptional.
    • Even Juniper Carol, who very much desired to find evidence of Mary's sinlessness in Irenæus' Eve-Mary parallel, acknowledged that the Eve-Mary parallel in the Early Church did not prove that the Early Church believed Mary to be sinless:
      • "Regrettably, Irenaeus' insight into the Second or New Eve is not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the state of her soul prior to her fiat. Did the ante-Nicene Fathers glimpse a further consequence from the analogy, an indication of Mary's sanctity? Le Bachelet, for one, surrenders such investigation: 'Who could possibly give a certain answer, one way or the other?'"(Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
      • In sum, even Early Church Fathers who identified an Eve-Mary parallel spoke plainly of Mary being sinful and Christ being the only sinless person, thus showing that an Eve-Mary parallel does not imply that Mary was sinless.

Mary as the Source of Jesus' Sinless Flesh

• Roman Catholics teach that because Jesus' flesh was sinless, He must have received it from someone who was herself sinless. For example,
  • "Mary's sinlessness derives from the fact that she is the human vessel through which God himself became man. It was from her flesh that Christ received his human nature." (Catholic Answers, Mary had to be sinless to pass on a sinless human nature to Christ)
  • Counterevidence:
  • First, the Scriptures do not teach that Mary had to be sinless, and in fact when referring to Jesus' flesh, the Scriptures describe it as the same flesh as the flesh of sinners (Hebrews 2:14-15).
  • Second, even the Roman Catholic arguments for Mary's sinlessness acknowledge that "it wasn't strictly necessary that his mother be sinless for him to receive from her a sinless human nature. God could have done it another way" (See Catholic Answers).
  • Third, the early church did not believe Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be born a sinless man. Irenæus, for example, wrote that in order to save sinful flesh—in order to sum up "human nature in His own person"—He had to take his flesh from "the thing which had perished," and he took that flesh from Mary:
    • "But if the Lord became incarnate for any other order of things, and took flesh of any other substance, He has not then summed up human nature in His own person, nor in that case can He be termed flesh. For flesh has been truly made [to consist in] a transmission of that thing moulded originally from the dust. ... But the thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood. For the Lord, taking dust from the earth, moulded man; and it was upon his behalf that all the dispensation of the Lord's advent took place. He had Himself, therefore, flesh and blood, recapitulating in Himself not a certain other, but that original handiwork of the Father, seeking out that thing which had perished. And for this cause the apostle, in the Epistle to the Colossians, says, 'And though you were formerly alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now you have been reconciled in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present yourselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight.' [Colossians 1:21, etc.] He says, 'You have been reconciled in the body of His flesh,' because the righteous flesh has reconciled that flesh which was being kept under bondage in sin, and brought it into friendship with God." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 14).
    • Needless to say, if Jesus of necessity took His flesh from "that which had perished ... under bondage in sin," then He clearly did not take His flesh from "that which had not perished" and was not "kept under bondage in sin," which of course means that Mary was not exceptional in regard to sin in Irenæus' view, and he did not think Mary had to be sinless for Christ to become incarnate.
    • Notably, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367 A.D.) also considered Mary to be sinful and “destined to undergo the scrutiny of God’s judgment, of faults that are slight” (see Hilary of Portiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; Patrologia Latina Volume 9, c. 523). Because of this, Hilary believed that Jesus was "unique" in the sense that He "did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception" and was "not born under the defects of human conception." Such statements of necessity contrast Jesus' conception with Mary's, for Mary was certainly conceived "through the passions incident to human conception":
      • “For Christ had indeed a body, but unique, as befitted His origin. He did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception: He came into the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our collective humanity in the form of a servant, but He was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and yet our faults might not be in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man but not born under the defects of human conception. … though He was formed in fashion as a man, He knew not what sin was. For His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book X, chapter 25).
      • The statement is even more remarkable in its implicit denial of what Roman Catholicism teaches as an apostolic truth. Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is the source of Jesus' humanity, and therefore Mary must have been sinless. Hilary, by way of contrast, thought Mary was sinful, and therefore that Jesus must have been "the source of His own humanity" so that "our faults might not be in Him." Whatever illogic may have driven Hilary to this conclusion, he clearly believed that Mary had faults to pass on, necessitating the unique occasion of Christ's conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit, a material denial of her immaculacy.
      • In sum, the Roman Catholic belief in the necessity of Mary's sinlessness based on Christ having receiving sinless flesh from her is not taught in Scripture, and was not taught in the three centuries after the apostles.

Mary's Sinlessness in the Early Church

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness was taught in the Early Church. Three primary examples are Justin Martyr, Irenæus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome:
  • Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) identified the Eve-Mary parallel, as follows:
    • "...He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled [incorrupt], having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her..." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 100)
    • Counterevidence:
    • In context, Justin's parallel does not encompass Eve's sinlessness in the comparison between Eve and Mary but her sexual innocence. All that is observed in the parallel is their respective physical virginity. Even Mariologist Juniper Carol reluctantly acknowledges his own inability to derive Mary's sinlessness from Justin Martyr's Eve-Mary parallel, finding only the "seeds" of later Roman Catholic teachings, not the "full flower":
      • "It is argued that, in St. Justin the Martyr's description of Eve as 'virgin incorrupt' there is question of Eve exempt from all corruption, and so the parallelism demands a similar exemption for Mary. The seeds of future development with respect to Mary's sanctity may be contained in the patristic Eve-Mary analogy, but they are seeds and not the full flower." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Vol. I, p. 138n)
      • Irenæus of Lyons (early 2nd century - 202 A.D.), as noted above, is also invoked because of the Eve-Mary parallel in his writings.
      • Counterevidence:
      • As also noted above, the parallel does not require that Mary be sinless, something Juniper Carol also acknowledges reluctantly:
        • "Regrettably, Irenaeus' insight into the Second or New Eve is not paralleled by any conclusion in the texts with respect to the state of her soul prior to her fiat." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 138)
        • Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.), among others, is said to have used the word "holy" in regard to the Virgin Mary.
          • "...the adjective 'holy' is prefixed to 'Virgin.' Not often; still, it is used. St. Hippolytus of Rome, for example, states, without explanation, that 'God the Word descended into the holy Virgin Mary.' (Contra Noetum, cap 17; PG 10:825)" (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 139)
          • Counterevidence:
          • First, the Scriptures use the same term "holy" (ἅγιος, hagios) in 1 Peter 2:9 in the context of a "holy nation" comprised of sinful people redeemed from their personal sins, showing that the use of the term holy does not of necessity imply utter sinlessness.
          • Second, even esteemed Mariologist, Juniper Carol, reluctantly acknowledges that Hippolytus' use of the term cannot be taken as proof of belief in the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church:
            • "The difficulty is, such a usage is ill-defined. The word sanctus or hagios has not always been able to boast of a clearly delimited meaning in ecclesiastical use. Does Hippolytus use hagios as a rather vague laudatory epithet, or as a title of dignity, or to imply moral excellence, or to signify the respect reserved for one who is segregated from profane things and belongs to God by some sort of consecration? The answer must, in the state of the evidence, be a confession of ignorance." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, Volume I, p. 139)

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• Pope Pius IX claimed that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify [of] this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin" (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). In fact, the opposite is the case. The only sure evidence we have of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers reflects a belief in Mary's utter sinfulness:
  • Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.) has Jesus censuring Mary's faults, and finds in Mary a "figure of the synagogue" of unbelieving Jews, and has Jesus unwilling to acknowledge His mother because of her "offense":
    • “In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. … while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. … but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. … When denying one’s parents in indignation, one [Jesus] does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. … in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7)
    • “Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess. ” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 19).
    • Origen (185 – 254 A.D.), based on Romans 3:23, taught that the sword that would pierce Mary's heart (Luke 2:35) was unbelief:
      • “If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory but are justified by his grace and redeemed,’ (Romans 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)
      • As noted above, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367 A.D.) also considered Mary to be sinful and “destined to undergo the scrutiny of God’s judgment, of faults that are slight” (see Hilary of Portiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; Patrologia Latina Volume 9, c. 523).
      • Basil (329-379 A.D.) agreed that the "sword" of Luke 2:35 was doubt and that Mary was not healed of her sin until after Christ died for her:
        • “The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. ... after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him” (Basil, Letter 260.8-9)
        • John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.) had Jesus healing Mary of her sin of "vainglory," answering her "vehemently" for attempting to take credit for His miracles, and instructing her to correct this sinful behavior in the future—so "superfluous" was she her "vanity":
          • “He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3)..
          • “For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, ‘Show yourself to the world’ (John 17:4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently…” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.2)
          • “And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with you?’ instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.3)
          • “For in fact that which she [Mary] had [tried] to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.1).
          • [We note here for good measure that Chrysostom here has criticized Mary for wanting "to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son," the very thing a Queen Mother would be perfectly entitled to do, as we discussed in part 1 of this series. When Mary appears to act in such a manner toward Christ, Chrysostom not only rejects any inherent claim of Marian authority over Christ but also considers it a gross sin for Mary even to attempt to exercise such. Thus we find that even at the latter part of the 4th century, Mary was still not considered Queen Mother of Christ the King.]
          • In a remarkably candid analysis of why Gabriel announced the incarnation to Mary prior to Christ's conception, but to Joseph afterward, Chrysostom explained that Joseph was sufficiently level-headed to bee able to handle the situation, but Mary, in her "perfect delicacy," was neither so perfect nor so delicate that she could not have entertained killing herself and Jesus with her. So Gabriel gave her advance warning—which is not the kind of thing one writes about Mary if one thinks she was free even of the inclination to sin:
            • “Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin’s case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace.  … Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception.” (Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 4.9)
            • Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 A.D.) had Mary as ranking lower even than the doubting apostle, reasoning that Mary simply must have doubted. After all, even Thomas doubted:
              • “And Symeon further said to the holy Virgin, 'Yea, a sword shall go through thy own soul also,' meaning by the sword the pain which she suffered for Christ, in seeing Him Whom she brought forth crucified; and not knowing at all that He would be more mighty than death, and rise again from the grave. Nor mayest thou wonder that the Virgin knew this not, when we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves with little faith thereupon: for verily the blessed Thomas, had he not thrust his hands into His side after the resurrection, and felt also the prints of the nails …” (Cyril of Alexandria, Sermons on Luke, Sermon IV)
              • In sum, Pope Pius IX's claim that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity" testify "forcibly" of Mary's Immaculate Conception is easily refuted. Attempts by Roman Catholics to find Mary's sinlessness in Justin Martyr, Irenæus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome come up empty handed, and what the Early Church writers actually do say plainly is that Mary was sinful—sometimes embarrassingly so. The Roman Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges this early evidence for Mary's sinfulness, but conveniently relegates it to the category of "stray private opinions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception). As esteemed Mariologist Juniper Carol wryly acknowledges, the earlier writings touch on the matter of Mary's holiness "with a disinterest which is disconcerting and at times a familiarity which borders on discourtesy" (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. 2 (125)). In fact, Carol reports that hard evidence only surfaces three centuries after the apostolic era:
                • "A significant turning point in the Mariological consciousness of the West does not occur until 377 [A.D.], with the publication of St. Ambrose's three books On Virginity, addressed to his sister, Marcellina. ... … the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol 1 (140-2))
                • "...with respect to Our Lady's holiness, the year 431 [A.D.] marks a turning point for Eastern patristic thought. Before Ephesus, Oriental theology is apparently unaware of a problem in this regard." (Juniper Carol, Mariology, vol. 2, 125)
                • The novelty of Mary's sinlessness does not arrive on the scene until 377 A.D. in the West, and even later in the East. That is a far cry from Pius IX's pretentious claim that "illustrious documents of venerable antiquity ... very forcibly testify" of Mary's Immaculate Conception. To arrive at an allegedly apostolic doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, Roman Catholicism has to ignore the early evidence for a widespread belief in Mary's sinfulness, and must import later novelties into earlier Patristic statements that cannot possibly bear the weight of Roman Catholicism's late 4th century novelties.

We will continue this series with part 4, on Mary’s alleged "perpetual virginity."

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced a series of five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this blog series is to provide the supporting data behind the podcasts. We hope this will be helpful to those who would like to become familiar with the Roman Catholic claims to apostolicity for their Marian position, and the historical and biblical data showing that the apostles and the Early Church knew nothing of it.

We continue this week with the supporting data for Episode 2.

Episode 2: Mary, Ark of the Covenant

Roman Catholics teach that the Ark of the Old Covenant is a prefiguration of Mary, and that Mary, having carried in her womb the Heavenly Manna, the incarnation of the Word, and the Rod of Aaron blossoming, is therefore the Ark of the New Covenant, imperishable, holy and pure.

It is important to be familiar with Roman Catholic arguments on the Ark because the belief undergirds other Marian doctrines: Mary's sinlessness (see episode 3), Mary's perpetual virginity (see episode 4), and Mary's bodily Assumption into Heaven (see episode 5).

• The Roman Catholic support for this comes from five basic premises.
  1. Mary was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), just as the Ark was ostensibly "covered" by a cloud in the Old Testament (Exodus 40:34).
  2. The Ark's stay in the hill country of Judæa for "three months" as depicted in 2 Samuel 6 is taken as a prefiguration of Mary’s journey to the hill country of Judæa to visit Elizabeth for "about three months" (Luke 1:39-56).
  3. The Contents of the Ark (Manna, Tablets of the Law, Rod of Aaron) are taken as prefigurations for the contents of Mary's womb, making her the new Ark.
  4. Revelation 11:19 depicts "the Ark of His testament" in heaven, followed immediately by Revelation 12:1 depicting a woman in heaven, crowned with twelve stars. The woman is taken to be Mary, making her "the ark of His testament."
  5. The Early Church ostensibly taught that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant
• Due to the amount of data to be provided under each premise, we list them first in summary form, and will now refute them in the same order, below.

Mary Overshadowed

• According to Roman Catholics, the language describing the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary at the moment of Christ's conception (Luke 1:35) is considered so similar to that used for the glory of God covering the tent of the congregation (Exodus 40:34) that it is assumed that the Holy Spirit intended to link the two. In fact, the word in Exodus 40:34 in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) is the same word used in Luke 1:35. By way of example, one Roman Catholic apologist attempts to make the connection for us:
  • "It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God's presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary. She is the new, living Ark chosen to bear the God-Messiah; just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Old Covenant Ark, the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in Mary." (emphasis added)
  • Counterevidence:
  • We note first of all that the Roman Catholic apologist has taken the liberty of filling in for us what is actually missing in the text. Exodus 40:34 says "a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filledthe tabernacle." It says nothing about the cloud covering or filling the ark, and yet the apologist writes, "just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Old Covenant Ark...". The text says nothing like this at all, and yet the Roman Catholic apologist informs us of the link on Gabriel's high authority, i.e., "It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God's presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary." But the parallel was not alleged by the apologist to be Sanctuary|Mary or Tent|Mary or Tabernacle|Mary, but rather Ark|Mary, and that specific parallel is precisely what is missing in the attempt to link Exodus 40:34 with Luke 1:35.
  • Second, we note that there was nothing particularly special about the word used in the Hebrew text. In the Hebrew, the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to use the word, ḵāsâ (כָּסָה), for "covered" in Exodus 40:34, the same word used to say that frogs covered Egypt (Exodus 8:8), locusts covered the earth (Exodus 10:5, 15), waters covered the chariots (Exodus 14:28) and quail covered the camp (Exodus 16:13). This shows that the Hebrew word has no intrinsic prophetic meaning apart from context.
  • Additionally, in the Greek the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word episkiazo (ἐπισκιάζω), for "overshadow" in Luke 1:35, the same word used to describe the cloud overshadowing Jesus and the apostles at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:34). But it is also used in Acts 5:15 to say that Peter's shadow "might overshadow" the sick—again showing that the Greek word has no intrinsic prophetic meaning apart from context.
  • In sum, the Roman Catholic attempt to make a link between Exodus 40:34 and Luke 1:35 to make Mary the Ark is exceedingly difficult because first, in Exodus 40:34 it is not the Ark that is "overshadowed," and second, the words used for "cover" or "overshadow" in the two verses are not used exclusively to describe the manifestation of the presence and glory of God, so the apologist is left trying to construct a link out of nothing by importing events and forcing parallels that are absent from the text.

Mary's Journey

• According to Roman Catholics, Mary's journey to the hill country of Judæa (Luke 1:39-56) is so similar to the Ark's temporary stay in the hill country of Judæa (2 Samuel 6), that it is assumed that the Holy Spirit intended to link the two. By way of example, one Roman Catholic apologist explains the relation:
  • "Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
    • When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, 'How can the ark of the Lord come to me?' Elizabeth uses almost the same words: 'Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?' ...
    • When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. ... When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb ... .
    • The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. ...
    • When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. ...
    • The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple.
    • It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history." (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
    • Counterevidence:
    • First, David refused to receive the Ark saying, “How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) and Elizabeth welcomed Mary saying, “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). “Refusing” is not a type of, and does not foreshadow, “welcoming.”
    • Second, the Scripture does not say David danced before the Ark, but rather "before the LORD" (2 Samuel 6:14), and John leapt at the sound of Mary's voice, not at the presence of Jesus (Luke 1:44); additionally, David danced after the Ark had stayed "three months" in the house of Obed-edom (2 Samuel 6:11), and John leapt in Elizabeth's womb before Mary stayed "about three months" with Elizabeth (Luke 1:44), showing that there is nothing but a forced parallel to be found here.
    • Third, we note that the Ark and Mary did not both remain in the hill country of Judæa for three months.
      • The “the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months” (2 Samuel 6:11) and Mary went to visit Elizabeth in the hill country of Judah for “about three months” (Luke 1:56). "Three months" and "about three months" are not the same thing.
      • If such rough equivalents are sufficient for finding a prophetic connection, we can easily use the same flawed Roman Catholic thinking in order to prove that John the Baptist is the Ark. For example:
        • The ark was in the country of the Philistines for “seven months” (1 Samuel 6:1), before it came to the field of Joshua where there was a great stone (1 Samuel 6:14). Elizabeth “hid herself for 5 months” (Luke 1:24), and then in the 6th month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy Mary found out about it (Luke 1:36), and then had to travel about 100 miles to visit her cousin. That would be "about seven months" that John waited in Elizabeth's womb before meeting Jesus, Yeshua, the Cornerstone, and "about seven months" is close enough for the Roman Catholic apologist.
        • The Ark remained in Kirjathjearim for “twenty years” (1 Samuel 7:2), and John the Baptist as a Levitical priest would have waited until he was 20 years old to begin his priestly ministration (1 Chronicles 23:24, 31:17).
        • Thus, the “seven months” the Ark was in the country of the Philistines signified "about seven months" that John waited in Elizabeth's womb to meet Jesus in Mary's womb. Also, the 20 years the Ark spent in Kirjathjearim signified John’s youth until he became a priest, making John the Baptist the Ark of the New Covenant.
        • That is foolishness. Yet the methodology used is the same used by Roman Catholics to conclude that Mary is the New Ark.
        • Fourth, it is true that the Ark was brought to Jerusalem with shouts of joy (2 Samuel 6:15), and Elizabeth greeted Mary in "a loud voice" (Luke 1:42). However, we note that the Roman Catholic argument is a very selective one. Notice that the apologist had drawn a parallel with regard to how David greeted the Ark before its three month stay with Obed-edom (“How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?”, 2 Samuel 6:9) and Elizabeth welcomed Mary before her three month visit ("And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?", Luke 1:43). In that case, David's greeting was of dread, and Elizabeth's of joy. Lacking a sufficient parallel with regard to that greeting, the Roman Catholic apologist instead shifts to the period after the three month stay with Obed-edom, and shows the Ark greeted "with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet" (2 Samuel 6:15), trying to connect it with Elizabeth greeting Mary before the three months. In 2 Samuel the ark is greeted with shouting and joy, including trumpets, but in the case of Elizabeth's greeting, there were no trumpets.
        • Finally, we notice again how selective the Roman Catholic apologist is in his analysis of Mary's journey. When the Ark is returned after its three months in the hill country of Judæa, it is taken directly to Jerusalem and placed in the Tabernacle (2 Samuel 6:17) "where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple," but here the Roman Catholic apologist refers to an event that took place nearly 40 years later (1 Kings 8:9-11). When Mary returns from her stay of "about three months" in the hill country of Judæa, she returns not to Jerusalem but to Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 56), and then does not go to the Temple for six more months to present Jesus there. When the Ark and Mary both are depicted going to the hill country of Judæa for roughly equal amounts of time, geography and time were extremely important to the Roman Catholic apologist. But here, lacking a geographic parallel (Jerusalem vs. Nazareth), and lacking a time parallel (40 years vs. six months), suddenly time and geography are of no consequence, and the Roman Catholic apologist settles for both the Ark and Mary returning "home," and the presence of God manifesting in the Temple "eventually." That is a very loose "parallel."
        • In sum, the Roman Catholic attempt to find a parallel between 2 Samuel 6 and Mary's journey in Luke 1 is so presumptuous and selective that one would first have to believe that Mary is the Ark before one could find a parallel in the passages, just as we demonstrated with John the Baptist. That ostensible parallel is only maintained by a highly selective use of the Scriptures, and ignoring the significant differences. Further, nothing is said in the Scriptures about Mary being the fulfillment of the Ark as a type.

The Contents of the Ark

• According to Roman Catholics, having carried in her womb the Heavenly Manna, the incarnation of the Word, and the fulfillment of the Rod of Aaron blossoming, Mary is therefore the Ark of the New Covenant. Roman Catholic apologist, Steve Ray, attempts to make the argument as follows:
  • "Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
  • Counterevidence:
  • We grant that the Heavenly Manna signifies Christ, for the Scriptures inform us of this (John 6:32). Likewise, we grant that the law signifies Christ, for the Scriptures inform us that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God (John 1:14). But we cannot grant that the Rod of Aaron signifies Christ, for the Scriptures explicitly rule out the signification. The Rod of Aaron actually signifies a genetic lineage from Aaron:
    • "Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. ... but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness. ... And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. ... unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever." (Numbers 18:1-8)
    • What is more, the Scriptures explicitly deny that Jesus is of the genetic lineage of Aaron:
      • “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar." (Hebrews 7:11-13)
      • In sum, while the Manna and the Law prefigure Christ (for the Scriptures say as much), the Rod of Aaron cannot possibly signify Christ's priesthood (for the Scriptures tell us this), and therefore, the Rod's presence in the Ark cannot possibly signify Christ's presence in Mary, and in fact the Scriptures never identify Christ with the Rod of Aaron. Thus, the attempt to find a parallel between the Ark and Mary based on the Ark's contents is shown to be untenable.

The Ark in Revelation 11

• Roman Catholics observe that the reference to the Ark in Revelation 11:19 immediately precedes the mention of the Woman of Revelation 12, whom Roman Catholics take to be Mary. The close proximity of the mentions of the Ark in heaven and the Woman in heaven is taken to mean that the Ark mentioned in Revelation 11:19 is Mary. Roman Catholic apologist, Steve Ray, makes the connection:
  • "What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child" (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John." (Steve Ray, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant)
  • Counterevidence:
  • The Woman of Revelation 12 is shown to be "travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered" (Revelation 12:2). Labor pains are evidence of sin (Genesis 3:16), showing that the Woman of Revelation 12 is sinful, something that Roman Catholics cannot countenance if she is Mary, for Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is sinless.
  • Additionally, the Woman of Revelation 12 is in pain, and thus her physical virginity is being compromised. This, too, is something that Roman Catholics cannot countenance if she is Mary, for Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary's physical virginity was not compromised in Christ's birth.
  • We will address both of these in episode 3, Mary's Sinlessness, and episode 4, Mary's Perpetual Virginity. For now, we simply note that Victorinus (270 – 310 A.D.), below, when commenting on Revelation 11:19, saw the Ark as a prefiguration of Christ and His ministry of evangelism, not Mary.

The Ark of the New Covenant in the Early Church

• According to Roman Catholics, the early church taught that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We will first review the evidence provided by Roman Catholics to show that all the  early evidence is based on forgeries, frauds, misrepresentations and anachronisms, and then we will show that the Early Church, until the latter part of the 4th century, was completely unaware of any typological link between the Ark and Mary.

Alleged Support from the Church Fathers

• Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.)
  • Roman Catholic Apologist, Scott Hahn, claims that the teaching that Mary is the Ark can be traced as far back as the 3rd century. He says, “This application of the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin is very ancient. We find that already at the beginning of the 3rd Century in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome.” (Answering Common Objections, A Closer Look at Christ’s Church, Mary, Ark of the Covenant, see “added notes”)
  • Counterevidence: Hippolytus actually taught that Jesus, not Mary, was the Ark:
    • “And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. ” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’)
    • “And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body…”(Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
    • Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213 – c. 270)
      • Roman Catholic Apologist, Steve Ray, compiled “evidence” from the early church fathers in his document, Ark of the New Covenant-Quotes from the Fathers. In that document he claims that Gregory Thaumaturgus taught that Mary is the Ark:
        • "Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, 'Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.' For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary." (Gregory Thaumaturgus, First Homily)
        • Counterevidence:
        • The Homilies attributed to Thaumaturgus are considered, even by Roman Catholics, to be spurious. Even Thomas Livius, (whom Ray cites) conceded that the Homilies were “of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, Thomas, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, p. 48n). Additionally, Philip Schaff, in his Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, lists them under doubtful or spurious works.
        • Dionysius of Alexandria (late 2nd century – 264 A.D.)
          • Steve Ray also cites Dionysius of Alexandria in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:
            • “...by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother” (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 81).
            • “Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Ib. ad Quoest. vii.) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 81).
            • Counterevidence:
            • The most obvious problem with these citations from Dionysius is that he has Mary as the Tabernacle, not the Ark. But the larger problem, a problem acknowledged by no less than Cardinal Newman, is that Dionysius’ alleged response to Paul of Samosota is a forgery (King, Benjamin J., Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford University Press, 2009) 139 – 140). As we noted last week, the forged letter dates to the latter part of the 4th century.
            • Hesychius of Jerusalem
              • Steve Ray also cites Hesychius of Jerusalem in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, saying that he lived about 300 A.D.:
                • “The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Græco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
                • “Arise, Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy sanctification, which is very evidently the Virgin Mother of God. For if thou are the pearl, with good reason is she the Ark” (Serm. V. De S. Maria Deip. Patr. Gr. Tom. 93, pp. 460-4) (Livius, Blessed Virgin, p. 227).
                • Counterevidence:
                • These are citations from Greek sources, and as we noted last week, there is no evidence that the term "Mother of God" was used in Greek sources prior to the latter part of the 4th century. Additionally, even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Hesychius was likely from the 5th century, not the 3rd or 4th as Ray places him:
                  • “Presbyter and exegete, probably of the fifth century. Nothing certain is known as to the dates of his birth and death (433?), or, indeed concerning the events of his life.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Heyschius of Jerusalem).
                  • Hesychius can hardly be used to show an "early" teaching that Mary is the Ark.
                  • The rest of Ray's sources are from the latter part of the 4th century, and beyond. He provided no authentic sources for earlier representations of Mary as the Ark.
                  • Methodius of Olympus
                    • Roman Catholic apologetics organization, Catholicism.org, cites the Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna by Methodius of Olympus in support of the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, saying that he lived about 311 A.D.:
                      • "To honor her, few words are more beautiful than those composed by St. Methodius of Olympus (+311): 'God paid such honor to the ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, that no one but the priests could approach it, open or enter to behold it. The veil separated it off, keeping the vestibule as that of a queen. Then what sort of veneration must we, who are the least of creatures, owe to you who are indeed a queen — to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver — to you, the heaven that contains Him Whom none can contain?' (Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna [chapter 5])"
                      • Counterevidence:
                      • The problem is that Methodius’ Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna is so hopelessly compromised that it cannot be trusted. Parts of it appear to have been added later, and possibly have been confused and conflated with the works of a 9th century monk of the same name. Chapter 1 of the Oration actually identifies Jesus as the Ark before attempting to make Mary the Ark later in chapter 5:
                        • "Let no Jew contradict the truth, looking at the type which went before the house of Obededom. [2 Samuel 6:10] The Lord has 'manifestly come to His own.' ... The publican, when he touches this ark, comes away just; the harlot, when she approaches this, is remoulded, as it were, and becomes chaste; the leper, when he touches this, is restored whole without pain." (Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, chapter 1)
                        • Phillip Schaff observed that the work of "Methodius the monkish artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into the works” of Methodius of Olympus (Schaff, General Note on Methodius, AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 6), and even Steve Ray, when citing the same passage as Catholicism.org, correctly places it in the 9th century, where it belongs (Steve Ray, Ark of the New Covenant -Quotes from the Fathers).

Actual Evidence from the Church Fathers

• What is remarkable about the actual evidence from the Early Church is that the Ark is said to signify many different things—Christ, His ministry, His people—but what is conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Mary being the Ark:
  • Irenæus (d. 202 A.D.) taught that the Ark signified "the body of Christ pure and resplendent” (Irenæus, Fragments, Fragment 8)
  • Tertullian (155 – 240 A.D.) taught that Christ was foreseen by the twelve stones “set up for the ark of the covenant” (see Joshua 4:1-10), the stones prefiguring the twelve apostles, the Ark therefore prefiguring Christ  (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 13).  Elsewhere, Tertullian writes that “the ark of the testament" is a figure for us, "for we are temples of God, and altars, and lights, and sacred vessels” (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 9).
  • Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D), as we noted above, taught that "the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’), "His own body" (Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
  • Victorinus (270 – 310 A.D.) taught that the Ark signified Christ and His ministry of preaching: “‘And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord’s testament.’ The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein.” (Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, from the eleventh chapter). Notably, Victorinus was commenting on the mention of the Ark in Revelation 11:19, immediately preceding the mention of the Woman of Revelation 12:1. And yet he does not identify the Ark with the Woman, much less, as Mary. Rather, the Ark represented "Christ" and "all the gifts whatever that came with Him."
  • Gregory Nazianzen (329 – 390 A.D.) taught that when Christ was conceived in Mary, the Ark had finally arrived, or come to rest, which makes the Ark signify Christ’s body, rather than Mary’s, connecting David's and John's leaping to our leaping before Christ, not Mary: “Now then I pray you accept His Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the womb, [Luke 1:41] yet like David, because of the resting of the Ark.” (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38, On the Theophany, paragraph 17).
  • In sum, it is not until the latter part of the 4th century that we begin to see references to Mary being the Ark. Any evidence alleged to be earlier than that has proven to be fraudulent.

We will continue this series with part 3, on Mary's alleged sinlessness.

Semper Reformanda Radio recently produced five podcasts on the Roman Catholic view of Mary under the title Roman Catholics and their Queen. The purpose of this series of blog entries is simply to provide the data supporting those five episodes for listeners who would like to study the matter further on their own. Under each topic, we provide the Roman Catholic position and supporting data, and then provide countervailing evidence showing that the Roman Catholic position is actually a novelty.

The summary is simple: Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary originate not with the apostles or the Scriptures, but with novelties than can be traced, for the most part, to the latter part of the 4th century and beyond. For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Church believed as Protestants do today about Christ's mother.

Episode 1: Queen Mary, Mother of God

Queen Mother

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, as mother of the King, enjoys powers, prerogatives, privileges and influence in that role, and is legitimately called the Queen Mother, with all the attendant royal honors.

• The Roman Catholic support for this position comes from three basic premises:
  • Davidic Kings are identified along with their mothers in the historical record.
    • counterevidence:
    • Jehoram (2 Kings 8:16) and Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2) were both kings of the Davidic line, and yet were not identified with their mothers at their ascension
    • the term "Gebirah" is a term used of the Queen Mother of the Davidic line in the Old Testament, making Mary the permanent Gebirah.
      • counterevidence:
      • The term occurs only six times in the Old Testament, and four of those six refer to a woman who was not the the mother of a Davidic King:
      • one use refers to the wife of the King of Egypt (1 Kings 11:19); two uses refer to the grandmother of king Asa (1 Kings 15:13, 1 Chronicles 15:16); One use refers to Jezebel, the mother of a king of Israel (2 Kings 10:13, i.e., not a Davidic King)
      • Only two uses refer to the king’s mother in the Davidic line (Jeremiah 13:18, 29:2).
      • politically powerful women served in the royal court, and those women were the mothers of the presiding king. There are six such examples: Jezebel, Athaliah, Bathsheba, Maachah, Hamutal, Nehushta.
        • counterevidence:
        • Jezebel is dismissed from consideration because she was of the house of Israel not Judah (1 Kings 16:31, 2 Kings 10:13), and therefore was not the politically powerful mother of a Davidic King. Athaliah (2 Kings 8:26) is dismissed because her political power is manifested only after her son is dead, not during his reign (2 Kings 11:1-3). Neither would qualify as prefigurations of Mary.
        • The remaining four (Bathsheba, Maachah, Hamutal, Nehushta) are mothers of kings who were not the heirs apparent, but took the throne because of the influence of the mother
          1. Bathsheba’s son, Solomon, was not the next in line (1 Chronicles 3)
          2. Maacah’s son, Abijah, was not the next in line for the throne (2 Chr 11:18-23)
          3. Hamutal's son Jehoahaz was not the next in line for the throne (2 Kings 23:31,36)
          4. Nehushta’s son, Jehoiachin, was not next in line to the throne (2 Kings 24:8-18, 2 Chr 36:9-11)
        • Since Jesus is the legitimate heir to the throne, and did not need His mother's influence to secure the throne, none of these examples qualify as prefigurations of Mary.
        • In summary, we cite the conclusion of a Jewish scholar on the Gebirah in ancient Israel, based on the Old Testament record:
          • “These circumstances lead us to conclude that, as a rule, the gĕbîrâ or queen mother had no official political status in the kingdom, and the mere fact of her being a queen mother did not bestow upon her any official political status beyond the honor due to her by virtue of her position as mother. On the other hand, in those cases in which the gĕbîrâ did rise to a position of power in her son's domain, we confront a purely individual occurrence which is the direct consequence of the woman's character, ambition, and personal abilities. This highly circumscribed evidence can hardly be taken as testimony of the status and prerogatives of the gĕbîrâ. It points out the historical circumstances in which exceptional women were able to secure the royal succession for their sons, thereby themselves laying claim to a position of power in the realm.” (The Status and Right of the Gĕbîrâ: Zafrira Ben-Barak (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 23-34))
          • Notably, in passages of Scripture where Mary appears to exercise power or prerogative in her relationship to Jesus, the Early Church took it as evidence of her sin, vaingloriousness and pride rather than evidence of her ostensible queenship. (See Mary's Sinlessness, in episode 3). In any case, since the Assumption of Mary is considered the precursor to her coronation in heaven, and there is no evidence for the Assumption of Mary until after the 4th century (see The Assumption of Mary, in episode 5), we can safely place the origins of the queenship of Mary after the 4th century as well. The Early Church was completely unaware of it.

Mother of God

Roman Catholics teach that Mary, as mother of Jesus, is therefore to be addressed as Mother of God.

It should be stated first that there is an actual Greek term for Mother of God, "μήτηρα τοῦ Θεοῦ," and second that the Early Church did not use the term. The title "Theotokos" (θεοτοκος) was deliberately chosen by the Early Church precisely because it avoided identifying Mary's maternity with Christ's divinity. Rather, early writers went out of their way to declare that in Christ's divinity He was motherless. There is simply no logical means to get from the Early Church's point A ("In Christ's divinity He was motherless") to Roman Catholicism's point B ("Mary is the Mother of God") without significant leaps and theological innovation. As we will demonstrate, that innovation occurred in the latter part of the 4th century.

• The Roman Catholic support from the Early Church comes from the following five sources:
  • Papyrus 470 in the John Rylands Library, on which is found a prayer for the protection of the Theotokos. Based on the opinion of papyrologist Edgar Lobel, Roman Catholics place it in the 3rd century and consider it evidence for ante-Niceæn prayers to Mary (see The John Rylands Library (Manchester), Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri, Volume III, Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), ed., C. H. Roberts, M.A. (Manchester University Press (1938) 46-47).
    • counterevidence:
    • It is true that Lobel was "unwilling to place [papyrus] 470 later than the third century," but papyrologist C. H. Roberts, editor of the Catalogue, disagreed in the strongest terms: "...such individual hands are hard to date, and it is almost incredible that a prayer addressed directly to the Virgin in these terms could be written in the third century. The Virgin was spoken of as by Athanasius; but there is no evidence even for private prayer addressed to her (cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxiv. II) before the latter part of the fourth century, and I find it difficult to think that our text was written earlier than that" (John Rylands Library, Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri, Volume III, 46).
    • Other sources have it "mostly dated to after 450" A.D.. There is no compelling evidence placing it earlier than the latter part of the 4th century. Even esteemed Roman Catholic Mariologist, Juniper Carol, can only say that it "was written certainly before the close of the fourth century."
    • Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D) is said to have used the term Theotokos in his third century work, De Benedictionibus Patriarcharum.
      • counterevidence:
      • Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that "the title Theotokos was an interpolation" in de Benedictionibus, and was not found in the original text (O'Carroll, Michael, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (The Liturgical Press, 1982) 172)
      • Origen (185 – 254 A.D.). It is reported by historian Socrates (5th century) that Origen used the term in his Commentary on Romans (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, chapter 32).
        • counterevidence:
        • There are no extant copies of Origen's alleged Commentary on Romans. As the New World Encyclopedia states, Origen "is cited as the earliest author to use the title Theotokos for Mary but the text upon which this assertion is based is not genuine."
        • Dionysius of Alexandia (d. 264 A.D.) is alleged to have used the term "ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου" (the Mother of my God) in his epistle Against Paul of Samosata.
          • counterevidence:
          • Even Roman Catholic apologists agree that Dionysius' letter is a forgery from the late 4th century: "Subsequent criticism has proved that it [the epistle Against Paul of Samosata] is a forgery of the 4th century," specifically a forgery of the Apollonarian era (The Witness of Heretical Bodies of Mariology (Dublin Review, No. XX, (London: Burnes, Oates & Co.) April 1868) 320-361), which "flourished in the latter half of the fourth century" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Apollonarianism). John Cardinal Newman, erstwhile Anglican turned Roman Catholic, also acknowledged that the letter ostensibly from Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samosata is "certainly spurious" (Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Volume 2).
          • Roman Catholic Mariologist, Fr. Michael O'Carroll, acknowledges “the first certain literary use of the title [Theotokos] is attributed to Alexander of Alexandria” in about 324-325 A.D., just before the Council of Nicæa (Fr. Michael O'Caroll, The History of the Term Theotókos). We concur with this. The problem for Roman Catholics is that Alexander used the term in a way that Protestants find entirely unobjectionable and that is completely incompatible with the Roman Catholic Latinization, "Mother of God."
            • Alexander's use of Theotokos occurs in his Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius in which he juxtaposes two terms—theogonias and theotokos—in order to distinguish between Jesus' divine generation by His Father, and His reception of a body from Mary:
              • "...rational beings cannot receive the knowledge of His theogonias (θεογονιας, divine generation) by the Father. ... our Lord Jesus Christ, who in very deed, and not in appearance merely, carried a body, of Mary, theotokos (θεοτοκου, bearer of God)" (Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius, chapter 12).
              • Here Alexander uses Theogonias in contradistinction to Theotokos, separating the concept of Christ's divine generation by His Father (θεογονιας), and His body carried in Mary's womb (θεοτοκου).
              • By juxtaposing the two terms, Alexander effectively ruled out the later Latinization—"Dei Genitrix" or "Dei Mater" (Mother of God)—of the term "Theotokos." Note that the terms "γονιας (gonias)" and "genitrix" are the Greek and Latin roots for the organs of generation in English (gonads, genitals). In other words, in regard to His divine generation, Jesus did not have a mother, but in regards to His flesh, He did. In saying it this way, Alexander avoided linking Christ's divine generation to Mary's physical motherhood. This is consistent with other early writers' expressions:
                • Lactantius (250-325 A.D.): "For in His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was 'motherless,' because He was begotten by God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. But in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin's womb without the office of a father...” (Divine Institutes, Book IV, chapter 13,)
                • Eusebius (c. 333) used the term Θεοτοκου in his commentary on Psalm 110:3 (109:4), specifically, "..in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning... ." Commenting on this verse, Eusebius repeatedly emphasizes that the Psalm foresees the generation of Christ's flesh in the womb of Mary by the Spirit, i.e., “της ενσαρκου γεννησεως” and “την ενσαρκον γεννησιν” (Migne, Patrologia Græca (P.G.), vol. 23, cols 1341-1344). The eternal generation of Christ by the Father is not in view.
                • Athanasius (c. 356 A.D.) “[The Scripture] contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary, bearer of God (θεοτοκου), and was made man." (Against the Arians, Discourse III, paragraph 29)
                • Augustine (354 – 450 A.D.),  “... without a mother He was God ... . According as He was God, He had not a mother; ... She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity... .”(Lectures on the Gospel of John, Lecture 8, paragraphs 8-9), paragraph)
                • Such statements as in His divine generation "He was motherless" and "without a mother" and "He had not a mother" are wholly irreconcilable with "Dei Genitrix," "Mater Dei," (Mother of God), the errant Latinization of Theotokos. When the early church used the term Θεοτοκου, it was in view of the generation of His flesh, not His divinity. Lactantius, Eusebius, Alexander, Athanasius and Augustine are consistent on that point, showing just how inappropriate it was to render the term as "Dei Genitrix" later in Latin.
                • That inappropriate Latin rendering of Theotokos (Dei Genitrix, Dei matre, Matrem Dei, etc.) does not actually manifest until the latter part of the 4th century and the early 5th:
                  • Ambrose, de Virginibus (377 A.D.), Book II, paragraph 7: "Dei matre," (Migne, Patrologia Latina (P.L.), vol. 16, col. 209)
                  • John Cassian, de Incarnatione Christi (419 A.D.), Book II, chapter 2: "Matrem Dei," (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, cols. 32, 35); "Dei mater" (cols. 36-37); Book II, chapter 5: "genitrix Dei,""Dei matrem,"  (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 44); Book II, chapter 6 "Dei matrem" (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 46); Book VII, chapter 25: "Matrem Dei,"  (Migne, P.L., vol. 50, col. 254).
                  • In sum, we do not object to the Early Church's use of Theotokos, because the Early Church used it in order to avoid calling Mary the Mother of God. Roman Catholicism is ever eager to find early use of the Greek term θεοτοκος in order to justify the later incorrect Latinization, Dei Genitrix or Mater Dei. However, the earliest confirmed use of θεοτοκος is found in juxtaposition with θεογονιας, and is clearly used to distinguish between Jesus' divine generation by His Father, and His reception of a body from Mary (as in Eusebius), isolating Mary's maternity from Jesus' divine generation. This is consistent with the Early Church's belief and explicit statements that in His divinity, Jesus had no mother. The statement "in His divinity He was motherless" simply cannot be reconciled with the later Roman Catholic innovation, "Mother of God." In fact, that actual term does not arise in Latin until the latter part of the 4th century, and Roman Catholic claims to have found the actual title "Mother of God" in Greek sources are based on a document that was later found to be a late 4th century forgery (Dionysius' letter Against Paul of Samosata).

We hope this raw data will be of assistance to those evaluating and studying the unscriptural Roman Catholic view of Mary. We will continue this series with part 2, on Mary as "Ark of the New Covenant."

In part 1 we proposed first that the four-way division of Alexander's empire must have been established after 288 B.C., before which there were still five family lines in contention for his dominions, but prior to 281 B.C. at the Battle of Corupedium, after which only three family lines remained. We proposed, as well, that the four-way division of his empire "toward the four winds of heaven" (Daniel 8:8, 11:4)—would have been established at that time such that Thrace and Asia Minor (within the Taurus mountains) would constitute the northern kingdom, Egypt's territories the southern, Syria and beyond to Babylon the eastern, and Macedonia the western. Historically, biblical scholars in general and eschatologists in particular have struggled with the identification of the territories of Alexander's successors. The cause of the struggle is not difficult to understand. While Asia Minor with Thrace appears, at the outset, to be the Northern kingdom, and Egypt the Southern in accordance with Daniel 11:4, the detailed prophecy of a conflict between the kings of the North and South starting in 11:5 appears to have been fulfilled in the wars between the East and the South—that is, between the Seleucids in Syria and the Ptolemies in Egypt. Neither Daniel nor his angelic narrator pause to explain why.

The Inadequacy of the Shifting Frame

That apparent inconsistency has led to some rather creative cartography in the history of Danielic eschatology through the introduction of a Shifting Frame of Reference. In Daniel 11:4, Asia Minor with Thrace appears to be the northern kingdom in what we might call an Alexandrian Frame of Reference, centered as it is on Alexander's former domains. Then, between Daniel 11:4 and 11:5, the frame of reference suddenly and inexplicably changes, and from that point forward (so the theories go), Syria is the Northern kingdom. We call this the Judæan Frame of Reference, centered as it is on Judæa, with Syria to the North, and Egypt to the South.

Jerome's Use of the Shifting Frame

Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.) was the first patristic writer to attempt to solve the inconsistency between the prophecy and its fulfillment through the introduction of a Shifting Frame of Reference. After identifying "Asia Minor and Pontus and of the other provinces in that whole area" as "the north" in Daniel 11:4, Jerome reasoned that Daniel must have changed his frame of reference in the next verse “because Judaea lay in a midway position” between Syria and Egypt (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4-5). There is hardly a commentary on Daniel 11 that does not in some way invoke that Judæan Frame of Reference to solve the difficulty.

Calvin's Use of the Shifting Frame

Calvin appealed to that shifting frame of reference in similar fashion. In his commentary on Daniel 8:8, Calvin described the division of the empire in an Alexandrian Frame of Reference. Cassander was to the west in Macedonia, Ptolemy was to the south in Egypt, while "the kingdom of Persia, which was possessed by Seleucus, was towards the east and united with Syria; the kingdom of Asia [Minor] was to the north" (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 8:8; see Figure 1, below).

But when Calvin commented on Daniel 11, he shifted to a Judæan Frame of Reference. Macedonia was still West and Egypt was still South, but Asia Minor was now East, and Syria had become North, "[f]or Egypt was situated to the south of Judea, and Syria to the north"(Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4; see Figure 2, below).

The Underlying Invalid Assumption

From Jerome to Calvin, and for many centuries beyond, the Shifting Frame of Reference in chapter 11 has been a staple of Danielic eschatology. We have been told that the frame of reference simply must have changed mid-prophecy, for that is the only way to make sense of wars foreseen to occur between North and South, but apparently fulfilled between East and South.

In truth, however, the difficulty is of our own making. The underlying issue that has made the Shifting Frame of Reference an eschatological necessity is the invalid assumption that the appellation "king of the north" must be dynastic in nature, attached to a family line. If we assume that "king of the north" refers to a family line, then "the north" of necessity must refer only to the Seleucids—making Syria "north" regarding the wars, even though it is "east" regarding the division. However, as we argued in part 1, the appellation should rather be a geographic one, attached not to a family line but to a territory. Under that rubric, the title "king of the north" would only attach to whomever was the rightful king over the northern territory.

The "Northern Period" of the Seleucids

Such a situation as we have described compels us to reevaluate how Daniel 11 is interpreted, for the geographic data invalidate the Shifting Frame that has for almost two thousand years informed our understanding of Daniel 11. To illustrate the significance of such a change, we will walk through the verses that refer to the "king of the north." In doing so we will refer often to the commentary of Jerome because his geographic errors are of great consequence and have had an inordinate influence on the later commentaries. As we have affirmed and will here demonstrate, "king of the north" applies to the Seleucids only when they reign in Asia Minor, i.e., during periods when they hold the double crown, both East and North.

Daniel 11:6

"And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement ..."

It is 252 B.C.. The "king of the north" is Antiochus II, the third generation of Seleucid kings to claim the northern territory. The "king's daughter of the south" is Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, king of Egypt. Here Jerome committed one of his several geographic mistakes by assuming that Antiochus II must have been ruling in Syria at the time of the fulfillment (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:6). As we noted last week, Antiochus II was actually reigning in Ephesus with his wife, Laodice, when Ptolemy II approached him to offer his daughter in marriage. Antiochus II only relocated to Antioch after the agreement with Ptolemy, in order to set up a second household with Berenice. Antiochus was truly "king of the north," that is, Asia Minor and Thrace, when Berenice was offered to him, and as we noted last week, he maintained a household in Ephesus, and eventually abandoned Berenice in Antioch and returned to his first love in Asia Minor.

Daniel 11:7

"But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:"

It is 246 B.C.. The "branch of her roots" refers to Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III. Their father, Ptolemy II, had since died, and Berenice and her child by Antiochus II had been murdered at the instigation of Laodice (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65). Antiochus II, now dead, left his son, Seleucus II, reigning in Ephesus with his mother, Laodice. It is here again that Jerome, following Porphyry, makes significant geographic mistake, assuming under a Judæan Frame of Reference that Seleucus II must have been reigning in Antioch at the time:

"He [Ptolemy III] came up with a great army and advanced into the province of the king of the North, that is Seleucus [II] Callinicus, who together with his mother Laodice was ruling in Syria" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:7-9)

The truth is, the ascension of Seleucus II occurred not in Syria, but rather in Asia Minor where Antiochus II died, and where Seleucus II had been under the care of his mother, Laodice, since Antiochus' marriage to Berenice (Eusebius, Chronicle [p. 249-51]).

After the murder of his sister, Ptolemy III could not stand idly by, so he launched an all out offensive against the Seleucids. The commentaries typically focus only on Ptolemy III's eastern offensive, in which he "secured for himself the whole country from Taurus to India, without a single engagement” (Polyænus, Strategems, Book 8, Chapter 50.1). That campaign is typically taken to be the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy that the king of the south "shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail," but such an interpretation assumes a Judæan Frame of Reference in which Syria is north. In an Alexandrian Frame of Reference in which Asia Minor is north, Ptolemy would have invaded Asia Minor and Thrace where the Seleucids currently lived. The historical record shows that he did exactly that.

In this war, Ptolemy III launched an invasion not only in the east, but also in the north, subduing major parts of Thrace and Asia Minor. Ptolemy III's offensive is thus described in the historical record as a “campaign against the two lands of Asia” (Canopus Decree, 6), both Major and Minor, East and North. In this campaign against the house of Seleucus, Ptolemy III had "become master of ... Pamphylia and Ionia [in Asia Minor] and the Hellespont and Thrace..." (The Adoulis Inscription, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) 54). Truly, the king of the south had "enter[ed] into the fortress of the king of the north," capturing both Sardis and Ephesus in his northern campaign (Eusebius, Chronicle [p. 249-51]).

Daniel 11:8-9

"And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land."

It is about 241 B.C., and Ptolemy III the victor returns to Egypt with his accumulated treasures. The commentaries typically refer here to Ptolemy's conquest of the east and the return of eastern treasures to Egypt. We simply highlight here, from the Adoulis Inscription referenced above, that Ptolemy had conquered not only the whole east, but also major portions of the north, returning to Egypt with the treasures from both kingdoms:

“Having become master of all the land this side of the Euphrates and of Cilicia and Pamphylia and Ionia and the Hellespont and Thrace and of all the forces and Indian elephants in these lands, and having made subject all the princes in the (various) regions, he crossed the Euphrates river and after subjecting to himself Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Sousiana and Persis and Media and all the rest of the land up to Bactria and having sought out all the temple belongings that had been carried out of Egypt by the Persians and having brought them back with the rest of the treasure from the (various) regions he sent his forces to Egypt through the canals that had been dug.” (The Adoulis Inscription, OGIS 54).

It is only after invading both the East and the North that the southern king brought back the accumulated treasures to Egypt, and those treasures included the spoils of Asia Minor and Thrace, the northern kingdom.

A Brief Interlude

In Ptolemy III's incursion into Asia Minor and Thrace, the Seleucids had been pushed as far north as Smyrna, where we find Seleucus II in 242 B.C. making his preparations to cross into Syria to recover his Eastern kingdom from Ptolemy III (Bagnall, Roger S., Derow, Peter, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation, Smyrnaean Inscription (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, ©2004) 56-62). The war in Syria does not go well and Seleucus II “despatched a letter to his brother Antiochus" in Asia Minor requesting help. Instead, Antiochus simply usurps the throne from Seleucus II and claims Asia Minor as his own. Seleucus II was forced to secure a hasty truce from Ptolemy III and returned to Asia Minor to deal with his rebellious younger brother (Justinus’ Epitome of the Philippic History, Book XXVII.2). The rivalry ended in catastrophe for the Seleucid line. When all the dust had settled, the Seleucids had been overthrown from the north, and King Attalus of Pergamon "had appropriated all [the Seleucid] dominions on this side of the Taurus" in Asia Minor (Polybius, The Histories, Book 4.48.7). Both Seleucus II, and his younger brother died outside of Asia Minor as exiles (Justinus’ Epitome of the Philippic History, Book XXVII.4).

Quite notably, and very much to our point, the angel completely skips over this brief period of Seleucid exile from Asia Minor, making no mention of these events in chapter 11. When the angel takes up the narrative with the sons of Seleucus II, they are in exile as their father had been, and making plans to take back the northern kingdom from Attalus. As we shall see, the angel withholds from them the title "king of the north" until after Asia Minor is back in the hands of the House of Seleucus.

Daniel 11:10

"But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress."

It is now 226 B.C.. Fifteen years have elapsed since verse 9. Seleucus II has died, and his sons are still in exile. Upon taking the crown, the elder son Seleucus III "crossed the Taurus at the head of a great army" to recover his father's former dominions, but soon perished. His kinsman, Achæus, sent immediately for Antiochus III to come to Asia Minor from the East and take his fallen brother's crown and throne.

While he waited for Antiochus III to arrive in Asia Minor, Achæus continued the mission and "recovered the whole of the country on this side of Taurus." In an act of deference, Achæus initially refused to take the crown, "holding the throne for the younger brother Antiochus [III]" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 4.48.6-10). Upon his ascension, Antiochus III "began to reign, entrusting the government of Asia on this side of Taurus to Achaeus and that of the upper provinces to Molon and his brother Alexander, Molon being satrap of Media and Alexander of Persia" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.40.6). With his kingdom so arranged Antiochus III turns his attention to Ptolemy III and the task of taking Coele-Syria.

It is now 220 B.C., and Ptolemy III has died, succeeded by Ptolemy IV. Antiochus III has assembled his army and is "ready and eager to invade Coele-Syria" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.42.9). But there is a significant matter requiring the king's attention: Ptolemy IV still occupies "Seleucia which was the capital seat and, one might almost say, the sacred hearth of their empire." The Syrian city "had been garrisoned by the kings of Egypt ever since ... the murder of Berenice" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.58.1-9). Convinced by his generals of the importance of the city, Antiochus III sets aside his designs on Coele-Syria, and instead takes back Seleucia in 219 B.C. (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.60-61).

Thus were Seleucus II's sons both "stirred up" to assemble a multitude of forces, but only one actually returned, and was "stirred up, even to his fortress."

Daniel 11:11

"And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand"

The year is 217 B.C.. After some initial victories in Coele-Syria (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.70-71), Antiochus III presses on to Raphia where Ptolemy IV destroys his forces in a decisive battle:

"His losses in killed alone had amounted to nearly ten thousand footmen and more than three hundred horsemen, while more than four thousand had been taken prisoners." (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.86.5)

Antiochus III sues for peace, and turns his attention back to Asia Minor where Achæus has rebelled, but with only moderate success because the army refused to support him against "their original and natural king" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.57.6). Antiochus III pursues Achæus to Sardis, captures him, and executes him for his crime (Polybius, The Histories, Book 8.21). The year is 213 B.C..

Daniel 11:12

"And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it."

The outcome of Ptolemy IV's decisive victory against Antiochus III yields the opposite of what he expected back home in Egypt. His army, emboldened by its victory, turned on Ptolemy IV and seceded, taking Upper Egypt with them (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.107.1-3). What is more, his victory at Raphia did not secure his possession of Coele-Syria, for Antiochus III would eventually return and take it from him.

Daniel 11:13

"For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches."

In the years since his defeat at Raphia, Antiochus III has not been idle. He is still governing as king of Asia Minor, as evidenced by his letters to the people at Sardis in 213 B.C. (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum: 39.1283-12856). In 205 B.C. he is resettling "two thousand families of Jews" from Mesopotamia and Babylon to Phrygia and Lydia, in the interior of Asia Minor, being "persuaded that they will be well-disposed guardians of our possessions" there (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 147). In 204 B.C., he receives the adulation of the city of Teos on the western coast of Asia Minor "concerning the foundation of the cult in honor of King Antiochos III" and his wife, the queen ("Divine Honors for Antiochos and Laodike at Teos and Iasos," Franciszek Sokolowski, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 13, 171-6 (1972)). It is during this period also that Antiochus III receives the epithet, "Magnus" during his successful expeditions in the east (Appian, Syrian Wars, 1.1).

In his newfound strength and wealth, Antiochus III returns to fight the king of Egypt, still holding both crowns, East and North. This time he utterly destroys the army of the child king Ptolemy V, under the command of Scopas at Panium, and at last takes possession of Coele-Syria (Polybius, The Histories, Book 16.18-19). The year is 200 B.C..

Daniel 11:14

"And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall."

The angelic narrator pauses to describe the general state of affairs for the king of the south and the Jews during "those times." As noted under verse 12, Ptolemy IV's victory at Raphia, rather than solidifying his army's loyalty, instead emboldened them to seek independence from him. As Günther Hölbl, historian of the Ptolemaic Empire, describes, the period after Raphia was defined by instability, rebellion, insurrection and civil war in Egypt:

"In the years following 217, some men of the new military class led a revolt against the Ptolemaic regime in the northern part of the country. ... A papyrus dating to the end of the third century, probably sill during [Ptolemy IV's] reign, describes how Egyptian bandits attacked a military post and a temple precinct; ... From the Rosetta Stone we also know that, at the end of [Ptolemy IV's] reign, civil war raged in the Delta." (Hölbl, Günthner, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (London and New York: Routledge (2001) 154)

Under the reign of his son, Ptolemy V, who was just a child when he took the throne, Antiochus III and Phillip of Macedon immediately set upon his dominions, "tearing to shreds the boy's kingdom" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 15.20.6). Thus did "many stand up against the king of the south" ... "in those times."

During the same period, the tax-farming, phil-hellenic Jewish Tobiads arose to prominence in Judæa under Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V, gladly switching sides to Antiochus III after his victory at Panium (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, 154-185). The rise of these phil-hellenic Jews set the stage for a watershed conflict that would unfold between the Tobiads and the Maccabees later under Antiochus IV.

Daniel 11:15

"So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand."

Antiochus III is still king in Asia Minor within the Taurus mountains. After his victory at Panium, he quarters for winter and then proceeds to reduce Ptolemy V's fortified citadels along the southern coast of Asia Minor.

The commentaries typically relate that Antiochus III "besieged [Scopas] in Sidon together with ten thousand of his soldiers" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11:15-16). However, no evidence of this siege has ever been found, except the mentions made of it in Jerome's and Porphyry's commentaries on Daniel. No Greek or Roman historian ever made note of it.

The evidence we do have for the fulfillment of the prophecy is from Livius, who describes Antiochus III's naval campaign as it is in progress against Ptolemy V's fortified citadels that dotted the southern coast of Asia Minor, south of the Taurus mountains:

“His object was … to attempt the reduction of the cities along the whole coastline of Cilicia, Lycia and Caria which owed allegiance to Ptolemy... He had so far secured Zephyrium, Soli, Aphrodisias and Corycus, and after rounding Anemurium—another Cilician headland—had captured Selinus. All these towns and other fortified places on this coast had submitted to him either voluntarily or under the stress of fear, but Coracesium unexpectedly shut its gates against him.” (Livius, History of Rome, Book 33.19-20)

Facing resistance, Antiochus III had no option but to surround and besiege Coracesium, one of Ptolemy V's most prized strongholds. Unable to defend his own fortresses, the Romans attempted to intervene and demanded that Antiochus III "restore to Ptolemy [V] all the towns that he had taken from him after the death of Ptolemy [IV]" (Polybius, The Histories, Book 18.1.14)

Loss of the Northern Crown

This concludes the section of Daniel 11 that deals with the Northern Period of the House of Seleucus. As we noted in part 1, the next verses of Daniel 11 address the defeat of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., and the eviction of the Seleucid line from Asia Minor and Thrace under the terms of the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C.. From that point onward, the northern territory of Asia Minor and Thrace was forbidden to the Seleucids, and they were confined to the east as Kings of Syria. After Antiochus III dies, his sons rule after him in Syria, the younger of whom will "obtain the kingdom by flatteries" (Daniel 11:21) and become a significant figure through Daniel 11:39. Notably, the angel keeps talking about the Seleucids, but simply stops calling them "king of the north." That leads us to a conclusion about Daniel 11 that completely eliminates the need for the Shifting Frame introduced by Jerome at 11:5. The frame of reference appears to have remained static since verse 5.

The Shifting Frame was Unnecessary

As the historical record bears out, the Seleucids actually ruled in Asia Minor and Thrace in the early years depicted in Daniel 11, and whenever the angelic narrator foresees them as "king of the north," the prophecy is fulfilled by Seleucids who are in possession of the north. Then the Seleucids are evicted, ruling thenceforth only the east, and the angel simply stops calling them "king of the north." In other words, what was "north" in Daniel 8:8 and 11:4 remained "north" for the whole prophecy, and there was never a need to impose a Judæan Frame of Reference at all. The single Alexandrian Frame of Reference in which the chapter was apparently written was sufficient all along.

The Eschatological Implications

The implications of approaching Daniel 11 in a single frame of reference are far reaching, but we will address only one of them here. The "king of the north" is mentioned again in Daniel 11:40, and though Porphyry tried in vain to show that Antiochus IV made one last foray into Egypt, the historical record shows otherwise. The reality is that nothing about Daniel 11:40-45 even remotely resembles the career of any Seleucid kings, but the angel just kept on narrating as if foreseeing a continuous history of the Greek empire—start to finish.

Unable to find a clear fulfillment in the Seleucids at the end of the chapter, eschatologists typically resort again to a shifting frame. Some initiate a new frame of reference as early as verse 21, others as late as verse 40. The governing assumption of the new frame is that there must be yet another unannounced discontinuity in the prophecy, causing the latter part of the chapter to be centered on the location of a distant future antagonist. Jerome, for example, suggested that the prophecies after verse 24 "are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time" (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11:24).

We suggest, however, that if the Shifting Frame of Reference was unnecessary earlier in the chapter, then yet another frame is also unnecessary at the end. There is a simpler solution than to keep changing the frame of reference to make the prophecy fit historical events. In any case the text (we hasten to add) only mentions one reference frame in the first place.

The solution we offer is a very simple one: if chapter 11 is a continuous narrative written in a single frame of reference (as it appears to be), and the title "king of the north" is geographic rather than dynastic (as the evidence shows), then the answer to the mystery of Daniel 11:40-45 is not to be found in Syria or in the Seleucids or even in a distant future antagonist by importing yet another frame of reference. The answer is rather to be found in Asia Minor and Thrace, to the north. We should simply look there to find out who was "king of the north." It certainly was not the Syrian Seleucids, banned forever from the northern territory by the Romans.

But somebody eventually became "king of the north"—king over Asia Minor and Thrace—years after the eviction of the Seleucids, and that somebody did exactly what he was prophesied to do, fulfilling the entirety of Daniel 11:40-45 before Rome even had her first emperor. The fulfillment has been overlooked, at least in part, because our eyes have been drawn ever eastward—thanks to Jerome and his Shifting Frame of Reference—when we should have been looking north.

We will address the remaining verses of Daniel 11 in a later series.

"… Asia Minor rather than Syria or the East seems [to have been] the chief sphere of Seleucid activity..." — Edwyn Robert Bevan (1902)

When Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., his family, his generals and his closest friends spent the following decades trying to sort out the future and face of Hellenism in a post-Alexandrian world. It was not a simple undertaking. The process was riddled with murder, backstabbing, betrayal and geopolitical intrigue that spanned four decades and three continents. Alexander's potential successors, the Diadochi, as history would come to know them, were reduced from about 20 in 323 B.C. to just five viable family lines after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.. The Diodochi were subsequently reduced to four in 288 B.C. when one of the family lines was reduced to obscurity and no longer in contention. In 281 B.C. at the Battle of Corupedium, the Diodochi were reduced to just three. There is a great deal of history to sort through to understand the reduction of the Diadochi, how they related to each other, and how they understood the boundaries of their dominions. However, if we are to take seriously the prophetic implications of the visions of Daniel, the period between 288 and 281 B.C. is of paramount importance, and we should become familiar with it. No eschatology can be complete without understanding it. It is the only post-Alexandrian period during which Hellenism enjoyed exactly four successor kings in Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria and Macedonia—north, south, east and west—respectively. Their identities and territories matter.

Their identities and territories matter to us first because the Book of Daniel repeatedly describes—both explicitly and figuratively—four successor kingdoms after Alexander, "divided toward the four winds of heaven" (see Daniel 7:6, 8:8, 8:22, 11:4). Before 288 B.C., there were too many kings, and after 281 B.C. there appear to be too few. Something significant happened during those seven years in the early 3rd century B.C., and as we shall demonstrate, the contemporary Greek world took note of it. They knew very well that Alexander's dominions had been divided four ways, a status quo that endured even when only three families of the Diodochi remained.

Second, their identities and territories matter to us because the ensuing conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south occupies a significant portion of the narrative of Daniel 11. Each king is repeatedly invading the other's territory. Unless we can identify their territories, we can make no sense of the conflict. What makes the chapter especially challenging is that the nations and boundaries of the warring kings are never explicitly described. The angel refers repeatedly and explicitly to countries, regions, territories, cities and other locations with varying degrees of geographic specificity: Media (v. 1), Persia (v. 2), Greece (v. 2), Egypt (vv. 8, 42, 43), Israel (i.e., the glorious land, vv. 16, 41, 20, cf. Ezekiel 20:15), the Greek Isles (v. 18), Chittim (v. 30), Edom, Moab and Ammon (v. 41), Libya, (v. 43), Ethiopia (v. 43), and the temple mount (v. 45). Yet despite the extensive use of specific geographic designations, the angelic narrator nonetheless refrains from referring to the territories of the warring kings except by the cardinal directions, north and south. Their boundaries are unknown to us except in the fulfillment of prophecy.

Although the text does not actually specify it, the king of the north has traditionally been identified with the territory of Syria. We propose that upon examination of the Scriptural evidence and the historical record, the king of the north should instead be identified with Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and Thrace. We do not deny that the early prophecies of Daniel 11—from verses 5 to 39—deal exclusively with a Syrian king in conflict with an Egyptian king. In fact we insist that such is the case. What we shall demonstrate, however, is that the Syrian king is called "king of the north" only during the periods when he held both the eastern crown and the northern crown, reigning over both Syria and Asia Minor. Although the Syrian king fulfills the prophecies of Daniel 11:5-39, he is never called "king of the north" unless he is actually ruling over the northern territory of Asia Minor and Thrace.

This, of course, has significant implications for our understanding of Daniel 11:40-45, the last time the "king of the north" is mentioned in Scripture. But let us for now turn our attention to the Diadochi.

Reduction to Five (323 - 301 B.C.)

The most notorious reductions of the Diadochi were performed by Alexander’s own bereaved mother, Olympias, and his general Cassander. Olympias murdered Alexander’s half-brother Aridæus in 317 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History,Book 19.11.5), and Cassander then murdered Olympias in 316 B.C, to safeguard his claims to the Macedonian throne (Diodorus Siculus, Book 19.51.4-5). Cassander then put to death Alexander’s mistress, Barsine, and his son by her, Hercules, in 309 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Book 20.28.1-3; Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2; Justinus, Epitome 15.2) and eliminated Alexander’s wife, Roxanne, and her son Alexander IV in 310 B.C. (Justinus, Epitome 15.2, Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2).

With Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress, brother and sons removed from the picture, the remaining Diadochi each began to claim the right of succession. Alexander's general, Antigonus, was first to take the crown, claiming it also for his son Demetrius as co-regent (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.47-53; Justinus, Epitome 15.2). Alexander's other friends and generals—Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander—quickly followed suit and took crowns as well (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.53.2-4; Justinus, Epitome 15.2; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 18:1-2). Fearing the growing dominance and belligerence of the co-regents of the Antigonid line, “Ptolemy and Cassander, forming an alliance with Lysimachus and Seleucus, made vigorous preparations for war by land and sea” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Antigonus in turn summoned Demetrius to his side “since all the kings had united against him” (Diodorus, Book 20.109.5).

This was the prelude to the watershed Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C. where Antigonus and Demetrius together “made war against a coalition of four kings, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, Seleucus, king of Babylonia, Lysimachus, king of Thrace, and Cassander, son of Antipater, king of Macedonia” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b). At the conclusion of that battle, Antigonus was dead (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 29.5) and Demetrius was on the run with only 5,000 soldiers and 4,000 horses remaining (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1). The remainder of Alexander’s empire was thus left to the victors, Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus and Lysimachus (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1). Or so it would seem. But it would be a mistake to count out the Antigonid line so soon. Demetrius had been defeated but he was not dead. He had merely retreated to fight another day.

Defeated but not destroyed, Demetrius retired to Ephesus to regroup (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.2; Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 247)), “and gathered up … the remnants of his [father’s] imperium” (Justinus, Prologi, XV). He retained Cyprus and controlled the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 33.1-4). Within a few years he was a regional superpower again, fielding both an army and a navy almost as impressive as any that Alexander had ever deployed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). Ipsus had not reduced the Diadochi to four. It had only reduced them to five:

• The Antigonid Line: Demetrius, son of Antigonus; • The Seleucid Line: Seleucus I “Nicator”; • The Lagid Line: Ptolemy I “Soter,” son of Lagus; • The Lysimachæan Line: Lysimachus of Thrace; and • The Antipatrid Line: Cassander of Macedonia

Reduction to Four (301 - 288 B.C.)

Within four years of Ipsus, Cassander died, leaving his unstable Macedonian kingdom to his three sons, Philippus, Alexander and Antipater. Philippus “died soon after his father,” and the remaining two “were perpetually at variance” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36.1), and Demetrius was now threatening the unstable kingdom. Lysimachus, king of Thrace and with vast holdings in Asia Minor, failed to persuade the warring brothers to make peace with each other (Justinus, Epitome 16.1). Demetrius soon had Cassander's son, Alexander, killed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36:1-6), and then convinced the people of Macedonia that it would be unfitting for anyone in Cassander’s line—which was responsible for the murder of Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress and children—to occupy Alexander’s former throne. Accepting this rationale, the people made Demetrius king of Macedonia in 294 B.C. (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 37:2-3; Justinus, Epitome 16.1).

About this time Ptolemy had taken back Cyprus from Demetrius (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 35.3) and maintained control of his territories in “Egypt, with the greater part of Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Seleucus was firmly entrenched in the eastern provinces “from India to the Syrian Sea” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7) and Demetrius was king of Macedonia. With Cassander’s line no longer in contention for a crown, the Diadochi had been reduced to four.

With only four left, each of sufficient strength to engage but not dominate the others, new alliances formed. Seleucus married Demetrius’ daughter in an attempt to forge an east-west alliance with Macedonia. Lysimachus and his son each married a daughter of Ptolemy, in an attempt to forge a north-south alliance with Egypt (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.5). The alliances did not last long.

Demetrius seized Cilicia from his new brother-in-law, and refused Seleucus’ offer to purchase it back from him (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Nor would Demetrius cede to him control of Tyre and Sidon (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7). Demetrius, having now regained his strength (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.3) was also “master of Macedonia and Thessaly,” as well as a “great part of Peloponnesus too, and the cities of Megara and Athens” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 39.1). Attempting to restore the empire of his father (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.2), he now set his sights on Asia Minor. He raised an army of 98,000 men and 12,000 horses and was building 500 ships (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.3-4), preparing “such an armament for the invasion of Asia as no man ever had before him, except Alexander the Great” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1).

With Demetrius renewing his belligerence, the others—Seleucus in the east, Ptolemy in the south, and Lysimachus in the north—had no option but once again to form an alliance against him. They invited Pyrrhus, king of Epirus to join them (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). As Lysimachus invaded Macedonia from Thrace, and Ptolemy sent a fleet from Egypt, Pyrrhus was troubling Demetrius from the west, and in the end, Lysimachus and Pyrrhus divided Macedonia between themselves (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.2-3).

Despairing, but not defeated, Demetrius’ hope for a kingdom seemed to be entirely extinguished. "[A]nd yet," Plutarch informs us, "it broke out again, and shone with new splendour. Fresh forces came in, and gradually filled up the measure of his hopes.” Demetrius “collected all his ships, embarked his army, which consisted of 11,000 foot, besides cavalry, and sailed to Asia,” hoping to take some of Lysimachus’ territories in Asia Minor (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 45:4). He marched through Caria and Lydia, and on to Phrygia in Asia Minor “with an intention to seize Armenia, and then to try Media and the Upper Provinces” of Asia Major (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Lysimachus’ son, Agathocles, followed at a distance through Asia Minor, cutting off Demetrius’ supply lines, and when Demetrius crossed the Taurus Mountains into Cilicia, Agathocles sealed off the mountain passes, trapping him there (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7-47.2). Seeing Demetrius unable to retreat, Seleucus recognized the opportunity to recover a coveted territory. “Seleucus marched into Cilicia with a great army,” and engaged in multiple skirmishes and battles with Demetrius, and at some considerable cost finally gained the upper hand (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47.5-49).

Hungry, and without options, his forces diminished by plague, famine, attrition and abandonment, Demetrius finally surrendered to Seleucus, and was held under arrest until his death (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47-50). In 288 B.C., while in Seleucus’ custody, Demetrius formally abandoned his ambitions, and released his claim to the crown by a letter to his son, Antigonus Gonatas, ceding to him his "cities and all his remaining estates” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 51.1). It is at this point that Antigonus Gonatas took the crown in his father’s stead, but was not to regain control of Macedonia for another ten years (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 237)). After Demetrius’ abdication, a period of chaos resulted as rulership of Macedonia changed hands repeatedly, but finally returned to Antigonus Gonatas, and remained in Antigonid hands for more than 100 years, until Macedonia finally capitulated to Rome in 168 B.C. (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 239)).

Thus, were the lines of the Diadochi finally reduced to four, and it is here at last that we can identify their respective territories. Lysimachus was in possession of Thrace and the territories within the Taurus Mountains of Asia Minor to the north; Ptolemy was secure in Egypt, Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia to the south, also having gained control of the southern coast of Asia Minor, just a sliver of land south of the Taurus Mountains; Seleucus had taken all the territory east of the Taurus range from Cilicia and Syria to Babylon; and Demetrius' son, Antigonus Gonatas, was claiming sovereign rights over Macedonia in the west.

Reduction to Three (288 - 281 B.C.)

Four kingdoms were thus established—north, south, east and west—forged over a 35-year period in the chaotic crucible of a post-Alexandrian world, resulting in what would turn out to be a brief, unsustainable equilibrium. Each king kept his covetous gaze warily focused on his neighbor's territory, and in 281 B.C., the equilibrium collapsed. Seleucus crossed the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor and engaged Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium. He defeated and killed Lysimachus, and shortly thereafter, Seleucus himself was murdered after his conquest of Thrace (Pausianas, Description of Greece, Book 1.16.2). His son, Antiochus I, thus took the crown and ruled over the territory.

The Seleucid Dynasty in Asia Minor (281 - 190 B.C.)

The outcome of the Battle of Corupedium is one of the most remarkable and most frequently overlooked facts of post-Alexandrian Hellenism. From this point forward, until the Battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., the Seleucids reigned in Asia Minor. They retained their territories in the east, but lived in, and reigned primarily from, the north, holding court in Sardis and living in Ephesus.

Esteemed historian of the Seleucid dynasty, Edwyn Robert Bevan, arrived at precisely this conclusion in his two-volume work, The House of Seleucus. Once Seleucus defeated Lysimachus at Corupedium, the descendants of the Seleucid line made their home quite comfortably in Asia Minor and Thrace, and in fact preferred it over their other dominions. It was the seat of the Seleucid empire until their catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Romans at Magnesia. It is only then that the Seleucids go back to being “Syrian” kings. Of this astonishing fact, Bevan writes,

“… Asia Minor rather than Syria or the East seems, till after Magnesia, the chief sphere of Seleucid activity. One may well believe that it was the part of their dominions to which the Seleucid kings attached the greatest value. It is never so inappropriate to speak of the dynasty as ‘Syrian’ as in these earlier reigns.” (Bevan, Edwyn Robert, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, London: Edward Arnold (1902) 150-51)

“Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the earlier Seleucids.” (Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, 151n)

It is from Asia Minor that the Seleucids administered their vast empire, from 281 B.C. onward, until Magnesia. Shortly after Corupedium, Seleucus was murdered in Thrace (Pausianas, Description of Greece, Book 1.16.2) and his son, Antiochus I stepped in and ruled over the territory. Antiochus I’s activities within the Taurus Mountains were extensive, and we have numismatic evidence that Antiochus I’s rule was recognized as far as Thrace, for coins have been found in Europe bearing his name and image (Ernest Babelon, Catalogue des monnaies grecques: Les rois de Syrie, d’Arménie, et de Commagène (Bibliothèque nationale (1890) XLVIII).

When Antiochus I died (261 B.C.), his son Antiochus II rose up in his place, earning the appellation Theos for rescuing the Bithynians from the tyrant Timarchus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65; OGIS 26). At times, Antiochus II is found pressing his affairs well into Europe, as when he “besieged Cypsela, a city in Thrace,” for “he had in his army many Thracians of good rank and family” (Polyaenus, Strategems, Book 4, Chapter 16.1). Antiochus II reigned in Asia Minor until his death in 246 B.C.. His son and grandsons after him would call Asia Minor home, and would continue claiming sovereign rights to the northern territory for another six decades.

The Two Wives, and Two Kingdoms, of Antiochus II

This obscure period during which the Seleucids lived, loved and reigned in Asia Minor and Thrace is significant to us because the 11th chapter of Daniel does not even make mention of the "king of the north" until the reign of Antiochus II (261 to 246 B.C.) by which time the Seleucids had been established in the north for generations. It is only when Ptolemy, "king of the south," arranges the marriage of his daughter, Berenice, to Antiochus II that the "king of the north" is mentioned in the narrative:

"...for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement..." (Daniel 11:6)

The year is 252 B.C., and Antiochus II is currently living in Ephesus with his wife, Laodice. But Ptolemy has made an offer that he cannot refuse. Lest his most precious properties in Asia Minor fall into the hands of Berenice by marriage, Antiochus II hastily deeds them to Laodice as part of the terms of divorce, recording the settlement in temples throughout Asia Minor and Thrace (Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (OGIS) 225).

His Northern kingdom thus arranged, Antiochus II crossed the Taurus Mountains to Antioch to be with Berenice in the East. The divorce, however, had been but a formality. Antiochus II in reality was maintaining “two wives, Laodice [in Ephesus] and Berenice [in Antioch], the former a love-match, the latter a daughter pledged to him by Ptolemy [II]” (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65). The arrangement in Syria would not last long. Political necessity had brought him to Antioch, but love brought him back to Ephesus. The Taurus Mountains could not keep Antiochus away from his first love, and before he dies, he is back in the arms of Laodice (Eusebius, Chronicle). But Laodice does not suffer bigamists well, and is believed to have poisoned him (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65), lest his affections drift eastward again to Syria, and her children lose their crown rights to the interloper queen from Egypt. It is in Ephesus that Antiochus dies.

The King of the North was King of the North

Lest we fail to state the obvious, Antiochus II was living in the north (Asia Minor) rather than the east (Syria) when Ptolemy, king of the south, approached him with the offer of marriage to Berenice. He was in possession of both the northern crown and the eastern crown at the time, but both his heart and his throne were in Asia Minor. He was not living in Antioch when the offer was made, and his marriage and living arrangements with Ptolemy's daughter in Syria were crafted in such a way as to maximize political gain, but minimize the risk of losing his northern kingdom. As Bevan noted above, “Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the earlier Seleucids” (Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, 151n). Asia Minor, with Thrace, was the northern territory of Daniel's narrative in chapter 11, not Syria.

The Eviction of the Seleucids

This matter of the northern king's territory becomes strikingly apparent when a later Seleucid king, Antiochus III, evokes the ire of the nascent Roman republic to the west. His activities in Thrace were interpreted as a threat, but Antiochus III insists that he is simply maintaining Seleucid territories that had been in his family since Corupedium (Polybius, The Histories, Book 18.49-51). Antiochus III underestimates the resolve of the new western republic and advances undaunted into the Greek Isles. It was a momentous miscalculation.

Rome had had enough, moved in to meet him on the field of battle, and "completely defeated Antiochus in the great battle of Magnesia” in 190 B.C. (Livius, History of Rome, Book 38.58). The Seleucid reign in the north was over. According to the terms dictated to them at the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., the Seleucids “must retire from Europe and from all Asia on this side [of the] Taurus” (Polybius, The Histories, Book 21.17.3). After being evicted from his Northern territory, Antiochus III returned to the East and died in Elam (Babylonian King List 6(r); Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 28.3, Book 29.15)). These events fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 11:18-19:

"After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found."

From the East the Seleucids had come. To the East they had returned. But from 281 - 190 B.C., they were truly, and emphatically, kings of Asia Minor and Thrace, the northern kingdom.

Remarkably, from this point forward in Daniel 11, no king of the Seleucid line is ever called "king of the north" again. The Seleucids six times had been styled by the narrator as “king of the north”  (Daniel 11:6, 7, 8, 11, 13 & 15), but when they were evicted from Asia Minor and Thrace, the title was no longer applied to them.

Undoubtedly, with only brief interruptions, the Seleucid kings were truly kings over the Syrian territory throughout the entire period depicted in Daniel 11:5-39. As we noted above, the wars between the king of the north and the king of the south were between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the kings of Syria and Egypt, respectively. We do not deny it. What is significant to us, however, is that the appellation "king of the north" is a geographic one, not a dynastic one—it follows the territory, not the family. Whoever reigned over Asia Minor and Thrace was "king of the north," and it is for this reason alone that the Seleucids were so designated from Daniel 11:5 to Daniel 11:17. During that period, they wore both crowns, East and North. Once evicted from Asia Minor and Thrace, they lost the northern crown and from that point forward in the prophetic record the Seleucids are no longer identified as "king of the north" (Daniel 11:18-39).

Our conclusion, upon examination of the Scriptural evidence and the historical record, is that "the king of the north" in Daniel 11 should be identified with Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and Thrace instead of Syria. The prophetic evidence and the historical record support that proposition.

We will examine more evidence in support of this proposition and its eschatological implications in part 2.

Most of us, from a very young age, have been familiar with the great statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

"This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay." (Daniel 2:32-33)

What Nebuchadnezzar had seen was a succession of four empires. A Stone arrives toward the end of his vision and breaks the statue to pieces, "and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth" (Daniel 2:34-35). The meaning of the dream was revealed to the prophet, and the Stone in particular has ever since been of great interest to the Church:

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)

The Stone strikes the statue, the Kingdom of God is established, and "all these kingdoms" crumbled to dust, and "no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:34). There is an emphatic finality in the phrase, "no place was found for them." They are gone, for they have become "like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away."

Daniel's Subtle Clue

The common interpretation is pretty straightforward: after a succession of four empires (Daniel 2:37-44), the Stone is clearly the Church growing up into a global earthly entity, covering the earth like a mountain, the fifth kingdom in a succession of kingdoms. The rise of the Church after the Roman empire is very clearly depicted in the historical record, and the prophetic record seems to indicate exactly that.

Or does it?

Had Daniel only recorded two chapters, there would not be much more to discuss. But in Daniel 7, the prophet records a very subtle observation that has great bearing on the meaning of Daniel 2.

In Daniel 7, the prophet's dream also depicts a series of four empires, after which the saints take possession of the kingdom, just as in Daniel 2:

"These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Daniel 7:17-18)

So far so good. Just like in Daniel 2, there are four empires in a row, and then the saints appear to get the fifth kingdom. And just as the impact of the Stone in Daniel 2 strikes the Fourth Empire, the "body" of the Fourth Empire of Daniel 7 is burned up and destroyed as well. A judgment against the fourth empire seems to be the harbinger of the rise of the Church to global prominence.

But in Chapter 7, Daniel adds an additional detail that gives us pause. He does not say that the Fourth Empire and all the preceding empires with it are utterly removed after the judgment against the fourth empire. Instead he says quite the opposite. Those preceding empires are not immediately destroyed at all, and in stark contrast with Daniel 2, they live on:

"I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." (Daniel 7:11-12)

Contrast the finality of the statement regarding the other kingdoms in Daniel 2 after the fourth empire is struck...

"... no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:34).

... with the extension of life for the other kingdoms described in Daniel 7 after the fourth empire is burned up ...

"... yet their lives were prolonged ..." (Daniel 7:11-12)

We suggest that if their lives were prolonged, then clearly a "place" was indeed found for them, and if "no place was found for them" then their lives were not prolonged. The two depictions seem to be at odds with each other, unless we have been looking at it the wrong way.

And there must be another way of looking at it. The Daniel of chapter 2 and the Daniel of chapter 7 received similar revelations from the same source (Daniel 2:28, 7:16). There would be Four Kingdoms on earth, and then "the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 2:37-44). There are Four Kingdoms to come on earth, but "the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom" (Daniel 7:17-18). These are very consistent statements.

Then why the subtle discrepancy? Why, after the impact of the Stone against the fourth empire in Daniel 2, are the preceding empires removed, but after the destruction of the fourth empire of Daniel 7, the preceding empires live on?

The Interim Kingdom

There is, of course, no real discrepancy at all. After the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, an antagonist arises, "a little horn" that comes up from among the remnants of the fourth empire (Daniel 7:8). That "little horn" has an earthly dominion (Daniel 7:21-26), speaks arrogantly against God (Daniel 7:8,11,25), and makes war against the saints and prevails (Daniel 7:21,25). That "little horn" shares the same attributes with the Sea Beast of Revelation 13, which also has an earthly dominion (Revelation 13:7), speaks arrogantly against God (Revelation 13:5), and makes war against the saints and prevails (Revelation 13:7). And most importantly, the Sea Beast of Revelation 13 is comprised of all the preceding empires of Daniel's vision of chapter 7 (Revelation 13:2).

Our point here is that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is a conglomeration of "all these kingdoms" of Daniel 2:44, the manifestation of "the rest of the beasts" in Daniel 7. It is through the "little horn"—the Sea Beast of Revelation 13—that the lives of "the rest of the beasts" were prolonged. And thus, we have a very subtle but meaningful clue from the hand of the prophet. If the lives of "the rest of the beasts" were prolonged after the judgment against the fourth empire (Daniel 7:12), then Daniel 7:12 must necessarily occur after the impact of the Stone against the fourth empire in Daniel 2:34. And if Daniel 2:35 says the preceding empires are completely and utterly destroyed, then Daniel 2:35 must necessarily occur after Daniel 7:12 which says they were allowed to live on. That places Daniel 7:12 squarely between Daniel 2:34 and Daniel 2:35.

To put it another way, the "little horn" of Daniel 7—which is none other than Sea Beast of Revelation 13—must arise between Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 as the fifth earthly empire in the succession of Daniel's visions, and thus, Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 must depict two separate strikes of the Stone. In fact, the verses are written that way. Daniel 2:34 says the Stone struck and broke only the iron and clay feet to pieces, and Daniel 2:35 and 2:45 say that the Stone broke all of them to pieces at once, grinding them to chaff. Those are two different impacts of the Stone against the statue.

The Earthly Kingdom of the Saints

Part of the reason the Stone has historically been interpreted as the fifth earthly empire in succession is because Daniel 2:34-35 is interpreted as a single strike during the Roman Empire, and the Stone is depicted as filling "the whole earth" immediately following that strike. But what is notable is that the Kingdom the saints inherit after four preceding kingdoms is not earthly, but heavenly. Notice the language used in both chapters to describe the kingdom received by the saints "in the days of these kings" of the feet of the statue:

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom..." (Daniel 2:44)

"These ... are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom ..." (Daniel 7:18)

There is no mention of an earthly kingdom for the saints, and we know that the kingdom Jesus came announcing during the fourth empire was "not of this world" (John 18:36). The kingdom the saints receive during the fourth empire is heavenly.

But at the end of the visions, there is a sudden and perceptible shift in the language used to describe the kingdom given to the saints. It is finally earthly, "under heaven," filling "the whole earth":

"... and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:35)

"...and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High..." (Daniel 7:27)

Notably, the kingdom of the saints does not fill "the whole earth" immediately after the Stone strikes the feet, but only after "all these kingdoms" are broken to pieces and consumed and "no place was found for them" (Daniel 2:35,44-45). The saints are not given a kingdom "under the whole heaven" immediately after the fourth beast is destroyed, but only after the dominion of the little horn is consumed and destroyed to the uttermost (Daniel 7:26). Then, and only then, does the Kingdom of Heaven come to earth. Only after the fifth empire's dominion is taken away. The Church will be the sixth earthly empire of Daniel's visions, not the fifth. The fifth earthly empire is the earthly dominion of the Little Horn, not the kingdom of the saints.

Two Strikes of the Stone

By evaluating Daniel 2 and 7 together, we find that chapter 2 depicts an initial strike of the Stone against the fourth empire, and the saints of God receiving a heavenly kingdom, and chapter 7 depicts an initial judgment against the fourth empire, and the Little Horn receiving an earthly kingdom. Revelation 13 depicts that Little Horn as the manifestation of all the preceding empires, which are given a prolongation of life after the judgment against the fourth empire (Daniel 7:12). Only much later, after all the empires are ground to dust by the second strike of the Stone (Daniel 2:35) at the destruction of the Little Horn (Daniel 7:26) do the saints actually receive an earthly kingdom.

In short, the saints of God do not receive the fifth earthly kingdom of Daniel's visions, but rather the sixth. It is not the Church but rather the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13:2, that receives the fifth earthly kingdom immediately following the Roman empire.

The significance of this to the Christian is that a cursory reading of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 without first harmonizing them may mislead one into expecting an earthly Christianized kingdom immediately following the Roman empire. Many a student of Scripture and history has stumbled at that very point, thinking that Daniel 2:34-35 depicted a single strike, and thus that the politically influential Roman Church State arising from the fragments of the Roman Empire was the manifestation of the Stone filling the whole earth.

However, when Daniel 2:34-35 are seen to depict two separate strikes of the Stone, it becomes clear that we should not expect or seek an earthy kingdom immediately after the Roman Empire. In fact, to the contrary, Daniel and Revelation warn sternly against that expectation, and admonish us not to seek an earthly kingdom until after the Little Horn is utterly and finally removed from the earth. Only then do the saints receive an earthly kingdom.

And thus, we offer this modest eschatological proposal: Daniel 2 depicts not one, but two, separate strikes of the Stone. The fifth empire of Daniel's visions, therefore, was not the Church but rather the very thing the Church was warned to avoid.

At the time of the Council of Nicæa, Alexandria and Antioch were located together in one diocese, just like Rome and Milan.

The decade from 373 to 383 A.D. is one of the most critical periods in the post-apostolic era, not because of what was happening in the Church, but because of what happened in the Roman Empire. Sometime during those ten years, the civil Diocese of Egypt was created by splitting the Diocese of Oriens in two. As we shall demonstrate, that late 4th century creation of the Diocese of Egypt is one of the most important developments in the history of ecclesiology, and it went almost completely unnoticed until the 16th century. By then, the damage was done, and even today church history, as an academic discipline, struggles to recover from the oversight.

The Formation of the Diocese of Egypt

In 293 A.D., Emperor Diocletian established the tetrarchy, dividing the empire into twelve dioceses, and assigning to each tetrarch capital the administration of three of the twelve dioceses as shown in Table 1, below:

Table 1: The Original Diocesan Division of the Empire

Each diocese was itself subdivided into numerous smaller units called provinces. Evidence for this specific twelve-way division dates to 314 A.D., and is attested by the Laterculus Veronensis.[1] Notably, there was no “Diocese of Egypt” at the time, which left Antioch and Alexandria together in the Diocese of Oriens, as shown in the map at the head of this article. Of similar relevance to our discussion, Milan became the chief metropolis of Italy, being located together with Rome in the Diocese of Italy, also depicted above.

The tetrarchy collapsed over the course of the next century, but the diocesan system endured. Several notable changes occurred in the arrangement and number of dioceses, yielding a final count of thirteen by the end of the 4th century. The Diocese of Moesia had been broken up into the two Dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia. The Dioceses of Gaul and Vienne had been combined into the single Diocese of Gaul. And finally, the Diocese of Oriens had been divided into the two Dioceses of Oriens and Egypt.[2] When the 4th century came to a close, the Roman Empire had been effectively divided into the following thirteen dioceses as shown in Table 2, below:

Table 2: Final Diocesan Division of the Empire

Evidence for this specific thirteen-way division late in the 4th century dates to 400 A.D. and is attested by the Notitia Dignitatum.

Of particular interest to us is the timing of the formation of the Diocese of Egypt. It was not part of Diocletian’s original diocesan division, and the evidence shows that it was a very late element of the reorganization. As late as 373 A.D., we have evidence that Alexandria was still located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, showing that even then the Diocese of Egypt still had not been formed.[3] It is not until 383 A.D. that we have an explicit reference in the civil records to Dioecesis Ægyptiaca, the Diocese of Egypt.[4] Sometime between 373 A.D. and 383 A.D., the Diocese of Egypt had been created.

The Significance of the Diocese of Egypt

The reason the late creation of the Diocese of Egypt is so important to the history of Christianity is because knowledge of the arrangement of the dioceses—and specifically knowledge of the timing of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt—is absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of Canon 6 of the Council of Nicæa (325 A.D.). In Diocletian’s original reorganization of the empire, Milan and Rome were located together in the Diocese of Italy. Milan was the chief of the diocese, but neither Milan nor Rome administered the whole. Likewise, the two cities of Antioch and Alexandria were located together in the Diocese of Oriens. By the time of the Council of Nicæa that status quo remained unchanged, and Canon 6 was written in that specific geographic context. Canon 6 cannot be understood without this information, yet much of it lay hidden in obscurity for over twelve hundred years. It was only in the 16th century that the history of the late formation of the Diocese of Egypt came to light, but by then more than a millennium of canonical interpretation had already transpired. The ostensible meaning of Canon 6 had long since been established in ignorance.

The matter being addressed in Canon 6 was that Meletius of Thebaid in Oriens had presumed to ordain bishops who were within the Diocese of Oriens, but were under Alexandrian jurisdiction. Peter of Alexandria accused Meletius of “entering our parish”[5] to perform the ordinations. Thus, the dispute involved the recognition and enforcement of episcopal boundaries within the Diocese of Oriens. The particular challenge facing the Council of Nicæa was how to define Alexandrian jurisdiction within a diocese that, in the civil realm, was administered from Antioch. Had the Diocese of Egypt already existed at the time, the solution would have been as simple as telling each bishop to stay in his own diocese. But that option was not available at the time. Alexandria and Antioch coexisted together in the same diocese, and a jurisdictional solution would have to be crafted with that in mind.

When we examine the canon in question, it becomes immediately apparent that the Council was compelled to define Alexandrian metropolitan jurisdiction in terms of several provinces of the Diocese of Oriens. Of equal significance, Antioch’s metropolitan jurisdiction was described in terms of the other provinces of the diocese:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.” (Nicæa, Canon 6).

It would have been simple enough had the council merely stated that Alexandria should administer a few specific provinces in Oriens and that Antioch should administer the rest, but the council went on and provided its rationale for the decision: “…since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.” What could this mean? Why was a custom of a bishop in a completely different diocese invoked in order to settle an internal boundary dispute between bishops in the Diocese of Oriens?

The answer to the question is remarkably simple when the contemporary topography is taken into account. Diocletian’s reorganization had placed both Milan and Rome within the civil Diocese of Italy, and had also placed both Antioch and Alexandria within the civil Diocese of Oriens. In Italy, Diocletian had avoided administrative conflicts by making Milan the chief metropolis while relegating to Rome a few suburbicarian provinces adjacent to the city. By the time of Nicæa the church had adapted to the new civil boundaries, so the structural congruency between Alexandria and Rome was obvious to anyone familiar with current events. When boundary disputes arose within Oriens between Antioch and Alexandria, a solution presented itself immediately: just as the Bishop of Rome administered a few provinces within the Diocese of Italy (the rest being administered from Milan), Alexandria could administer a few provinces within the Diocese of Oriens (the rest being administered from Antioch). The solution was as elegant as it was simple.

Evidence for this geographic arrangement in Italy is abundant in the historical record. In the mid-4th century Milan was still being called the “Metropolis of Italy,”[6] and its bishop the “Metropolitan of Italy.”[7] Also at that time writers were still distinguishing between “Italy” and “these parts [of Rome]”[8] or “the city of Rome and the parts of Italy,”[9] as if they were two different administrative regions, “the parts of Italy,” which were administered by Milan, and “these parts” administered by Rome, mirroring the civil order in that diocese. The church had clearly adapted to the civil boundaries established within Italy, and in Canon 6 that same arrangement was applied to Oriens. The earliest Latin translation of Canon 6 recites the limited jurisdiction of the Bishop of the City of Rome—the suburban provinces (in suburbicaria loca sollicitudinem gerat)[10]—showing that in the west, the church had understood exactly why the example of the Bishop of Rome was invoked: not because his jurisdiction was so great, but rather because his jurisdiction was defined in terms of a few provinces of another metropolitan’s diocese. That was exactly the situation Alexandria faced in the Diocese of Oriens, so the council simply recognized Alexandria’s position over several provinces within the diocese on the basis of a similar custom for the Bishop of Rome within the Diocese of Italy.

That solution, of course, left the Bishop of Jerusalem still within the boundaries of Antioch’s portion of the diocese. To prevent any further disputes, the Council simply extended titular honors to Jerusalem in the next canon, leaving the bishop of Antioch as the ranking metropolitan (Nicæa, Canon 7).

As the century wore on, this understanding of what Nicæa had done for Alexandria was retained in the corporate memory of the church. In 347 A.D., Athanasius’ defenders were still describing his jurisdiction in provincial terms (Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis) rather than diocesan terms.[11] In 351 A.D., Athanasius was still identifying his jurisdiction in those same provincial terms even when identifying other bishops by their respective civil dioceses.[12] Clearly, there was still no “Diocese of Egypt” even in the mid-4th century.

But by 381 A.D., something had changed. The Diocese of Egypt must have been formed during that critical decade from 373 to 383 A.D., and knowledge of the newly created diocese had reached the assembled bishops in the capital of the empire. The 2nd canon of Constantinople reflected the new status quo, and Alexandrian jurisdiction was no longer being described in provincial terms, but rather in explicitly diocesan terms. Likewise, Antioch’s jurisdiction was no longer being described in terms of “the rest of the provinces,” but rather in terms of the Diocese of Oriens:

“The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt [Ægypto tantum]; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone [Orientem solum], the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved.” (Council of Constantinople, canon 2)[13]

The bishops at Constantinople had essentially restated the substance of Canons 6 and 7 of Nicæa in contemporary terms, reflecting the creation of a new diocese. A new geographic reality was present to them that had not been available to the preceding council: the existence of the Diocese of Egypt created out of provinces formerly attached to the now smaller Diocese of Oriens.

When viewed through the lens of the contemporary boundary disputes taking place within the diocese of Oriens, the provincial language used by Nicæa to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction makes perfect sense. So does the provincial language used by Athanasius and his defenders even past the middle of the 4th century, because the Diocese of Egypt still did not exist yet at the time. Then, when the Diocese of Egypt was created sometime between 373 and 383 A.D., it made perfect sense to start describing the jurisdiction of Alexandria in terms of the new Diocese of Egypt, as well as to describe the jurisdiction of Antioch in terms of the now smaller Diocese of Oriens, which is exactly what Canon 2 of Constantinople did.

The Origin of the Myth

But what did not make sense was to attribute this to the Council of Nicæa. Nicæa could not have assigned Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction in diocesan terms that were five decades ahead of their time. The Council of Nicæa had not assigned Egypt to Alexandria or Oriens to Antioch. It just was not possible. The Diocese of Egypt had not yet been formed, and the Diocese of Oriens still included Alexandria and the several provinces over which its bishop presided.

Nevertheless, after Constantinople, the language of Nicæa was gradually modified in contemporary literature, and the elegant simplicity of Nicæa’s provincial solution was soon lost in the fog of history. It was as if the church had simply forgotten when the Diocese of Egypt had been created. A collective amnesia set in, and they forgot that Nicæa had only solved an episcopal boundary dispute by assigning to Alexandria several provinces of a diocese that, in the civil realm, was entirely under the jurisdiction of Antioch.

The rewriting of Nicæa first manifested in the last years of the 4th century in Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (398 A.D.). “Unless I am deceived,” he insisted, the Council of Nicæa had assigned to Antioch “the whole of the East (totius Orientis).”[14] But Jerome was deceived, for he had assumed that the Diocese of Egypt must have already been in existence at Nicæa and that the council had therefore assigned all of Oriens to Antioch, a historical impossibility.

In 403 A.D., Rufinus of Aquileia perpetuated the error by saying that the 6th of Nicæa had granted to Alexandria “the charge of Egypt (Ægypti),”[15] which was not true. The council had granted to Alexandria several provinces of Oriens—Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis—precisely because there was no Diocese of Egypt to assign.

By 411 A.D., the confusion was advanced by Pope Innocent I in his epistle to Alexander of Antioch. In that letter he explained that Nicæa had established Antioch “over a diocese” (super diœcesim),[16] which was not true. Nicæa did not, and could not, establish Antioch over a diocese for the very simple reason that Alexandria was still located within Oriens at the time, and was in fact presiding over several of its provinces.

By 451 A.D. at the council of Chalcedon, both the eastern and the western bishops were reciting Canon 6 as if Nicæa had done the impossible: assign the Diocese of Egypt to Alexandria. Notably, the West was already appropriating the inaccurate language to advance a case for Roman episcopal primacy:

Western Bishops’ version: “The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also. Likewise both the one appointed in Antioch, and in the other provinces the churches of the larger cities, are to enjoy primacy.”[17]

Eastern bishops’ version: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch also and in the other provinces let the privileges be preserved in the churches.”[18]

We emphasize the phrase, “authority over everything,” to showcase the remarkable historical gloss that occurred since the creation of Egypt as a diocese after 373 A.D.. The last thing the bishops at Nicæa would have ever said of either Alexandria or Rome is that either bishop “has authority over everything.” The council had been in no position to place either Alexandria “over everything” in Oriens, or Rome "over everything" in Italy, since each was located in a civil diocese with another metropolitan bishop—Alexandria with Antioch, and Rome with Milan. All Nicæa could do was say that Alexandria was to “have jurisdiction in all these” provinces of Oriens, just as Rome is over a several provinces in Italy, and assign to Antioch “the rest of the provinces" in Oriens, which obviously carries a much different meaning than “authority over everything.”

Thus, between Nicæa and Chalcedon the prevailing cultural knowledge that Nicæa had set Alexandria over only a few provinces of Oriens gradually became more and more obscure. Absent from the new wording of the Nicæan canons was the limited, provincial language that made sense in the early 4th century topography. Gone was any notion that at the time of the council Alexandria and Antioch had been located together in the same civil diocese, just like Rome and Milan were in Italy. Looking back from Chalcedon, it appeared that the Diocese of Egypt had existed all along, and that Oriens had never included Egypt and Libya, and that the Dioceses of Italy and Oriens had never been so similarly situated, each compelled by geography to share an entire diocese between two metropolitan bishops.

All these men—Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent and the assembled bishops at Chalcedon—assumed that Nicæa in 325 A.D. had granted to Alexandria a diocese that could not have even existed until at least 373 A.D.. Thus, in the dusk of the 4th century and the dawn of the 5th, the die was cast, and the myth was born that of the Diocese of Egypt had been in existence at the time of Nicæa. Nicæa’s simple and elegant solution to an administrative problem in Oriens was lost.

The Expansion of the Myth

The historical error grew larger and more expansive with time. Historians who by then should have known better continued to assume that the Diocese of Egypt had existed at the time of Nicæa and that it had been assigned to Alexandria by Canon 6. The myth manifested in two ways—either by an outright claim that the Council had assigned the Diocese of Egypt to Alexandria, or indirectly by claiming that the Council had assigned the whole Diocese of Oriens to Antioch.

In 1576 A.D., Roberti Bellarmini wrote that Nicæa had assigned all of Oriens (totum Orientem) to Antioch,[19] a historical impossibility.

In 1671, Henrici Justellus claimed that Nicæa had granted “the whole diocese of Egypt” to Alexandria,[20] a colossal anachronism.

In 1855, Carl Joseph von Hefele stated that Nicæa had granted “the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt” to Alexandria,[21] and further that Antioch’s jurisdiction must have been “the civil diocese of Oriens” at the time,[22] two geographic impossibilities.

In 1880, Fr. James Loughlin was still claiming that the Bishop of Antioch presided “throughout the great diocese of Oriens”[23] at the time of Nicæa, which of course, was impossible.

Not one of their claims was true.

Since the Diocese of Egypt did not yet exist at the time of Nicæa, and Alexandria was at the time located within the Diocese of Oriens, the Council simply did not have at its disposal the option of assigning to Alexandria “the whole diocese of Egypt” or to Antioch “all of Oriens.” It certainly did not place either of them “over everything.” It was geographically and historically impossible. That is precisely why the council had to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction in provincial rather than diocesan terms in the first place. Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent, Chalcedon, Bellarmini, Justellus, Hefele and Loughlin were all wrong. The existence of the Diocese of Egypt at the time of Nicæa was nothing but a myth forged in ignorance in the waning years of the 4th century. The true origins of the Diocese of Egypt had lain hidden in obscurity for centuries, while the myth lived on.

The Roman Catholic Implications of the Myth

And it was a myth with legs. It does not take much imagination to realize why the myth is so beloved of Roman Catholic apologists. Upon that myth was built an even larger, and much more insidious, claim. Grant for a moment that the core elements of the myth are true: at the time of Nicæa the Bishop of Alexandria was presiding over the Diocese of Egypt, and the Bishop of Antioch was presiding over the whole Diocese of Oriens. If those are true, Canon 6 of Nicæa says these two bishops were to continue presiding over their own dioceses based on a custom of the Bishop of Rome.

What else could this mean, but Roman episcopal primacy?

What was the canon if not an acknowledgment of the ancient practice of even eastern metropolitans being assigned to their dioceses by the Bishop of Rome?

Even to this day, that is precisely how the myth has been employed by Roman Catholics in their interpretation of Canon 6. We list here a few examples spanning the time from Chalcedon to the present:

Western Bishops at Chalcedon (431 A.D.): “The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also.”

Bellarmini (1576): “…because the Roman Bishop, before any definition of the Councils [i.e., from antiquity] used to allow the bishop of Alexandria to govern Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.”[24]

Loughlin (1880): “[T]he clause in question can bear no other interpretation than this: ‘Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.’”[25]

Unam Sanctam Catholicam (2016): “Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”[26]

These Roman Catholic interpretations of Canon 6 only make sense if the Diocese of Egypt already existed at Nicæa, and the boundaries of Oriens were already pared back to their late 4th century limits at the time of the Council. But it is just a myth. The diocese of Egypt was not even created until some time between 373 and 383 A.D., and the Diocese of Oriens at the time of Nicæa still included Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.

Place the Diocese of Egypt back in its native context in the late 4th century, and the original meaning of the 6th of Nicæa is restored as well:

Milan was the chief metropolis of the Diocese of Italy, but Rome had been allowed by custom to preside over a few of its provinces. Antioch was the chief metropolis of Oriens, but Alexandria would be allowed to preside over a few of its provinces, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.

What was similar between Alexandria and Rome was not that either had “authority over everything,” but rather that each had limited authority over a subset of provinces within another metropolitan’s diocese. That was the only reason the example of Rome had been invoked at all.

The Relentless Persistence of the Myth

As an example of just how persistent the myth and its implications have been even within academia, we offer the example of Dr. Sara Parvis from her 2007 book, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy. Dr. Parvis is Senior Lecturer in Patristics at the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, and in her book, she commented on the geographic diversity of the bishops who attended the 335 A.D. synod of Tyre. Notice in her assessment of the council that she places Egypt and Libya outside of the civil diocese of Oriens, an anachronism at least four decades removed from reality:

“[I]t is clear from the list of provinces that it was basically a synod of the civil diocese of Oriens (Cilicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Palestine) … supplemented by a handful of bishops from the Egyptian provinces (mainly Melitians) and Libya, and few others from further afield.”[27] (emphasis added)

As we have noted, as late as 373 A.D., and certainly at the time of the synod of Tyre, Egypt and Libya were located within the civil Diocese of Oriens. Parvis’ geographic anachronism was largely inconsequential in her analysis of Tyre, but in any analysis of the canons of Nicæa, an understanding of the contemporary topography of the empire is absolutely critical. The persistence of the myth even within academia has greatly hampered and distorted the historical attempts to understand the canons of Nicæa, and has only given license to Rome to claim Nicæan antiquity for Roman episcopal primacy.

Unraveling the Myth

Roman Catholicism’s claims of papal primacy based on Canon 6 of Nicæa are founded entirely upon the myth of the early existence of the Diocese of Egypt. By understanding the events that took place in that critical decade toward the end of the 4th century we can unravel that myth, and with it, the entirety of Roman Catholicism’s Nicæan argument for Roman episcopal primacy. In view of the geographic arrangement of the empire at the time, Nicæa’s reference to a similar custom regarding the Bishop of Rome was not an appeal to his ancient, limitless patriarchal sway after all, but rather to his very limited, provincial jurisdiction within the Diocese of Italy—an arrangement that perfectly mirrored Alexandria’s limited, provincial jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens, just as the Latins acknowledged in the earliest translation of the Nicæan canons. The Roman Bishop’s diminutive jurisdiction in a diocese that was otherwise administered from Milan provided just the precedent Nicæa needed to define Alexandria’s limited jurisdiction in a diocese that was otherwise administered by Antioch.

Without knowledge of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt, Roman Catholicism and her apologists run roughshod over the historical record and impose a late 4th century topography on an early 4th century council, and from that anachronism, extrapolate a revision of history that places the Bishop of Rome over all the churches of the world as early as 325 A.D.. However, equipped with the correct dating of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt in the late 4th century, we can completely deconstruct the Roman Catholic revisionism. That makes 373 to 383 A.D. one of the most important periods in the history of ecclesiology—not because of what was happening in the Church but because of what happened in the final arrangement of Diocletian’s diocesan reorganization of the empire.

(For more information on the origins of the myth, see the author's additional articles: False Teeth, "Unless I am Deceived...", Nicæa and the Roman Precedent.)

________________________

[1] Timothy David Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 201–208

[2] Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 2, Appendix 11 “Dioceses and Provinces”, (London: Methuen & Co., ©1901) 548

[3] Pharr, Clyde, The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions, (CTh hereafter) 12.1.63, (Princeton University Press, 1952), 351.

[4] Pharr, CTh 12.1.97, 356.

[5] So the Latin fragment indicates: “…sed insuper ingressam nostram parœciam…” (Peter of Alexandria, Fragments, Epistola ad Ecclesiam Alexandrinam, 1. Migne, PG, volume 18, 509).

[6] Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, Part IV, 28 & 33. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[7] Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia de Fuga, 4. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[8] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, 2, 26. NPNF-02, volume 4. See Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca (PG hereafter), volume 25 (Imprimerie Catholique, Paris, 1857), 292. “Attamen necessum est vobis significare, etiamsi solus scripserim, non ideo mei solius esse illam sententiam, sed et omnium qui in Italia sunt, et qui in his partibus degunt episcoporum.”

[9] Athanasius, Historia Acephala, 1, 2. See Migne, PG, volume 26, 1443, “Athanasius reversus est ex Urbe, et partibus Italiæ, et ingressos est Alexandriam….”

[10] Cuthbertus Hamilton Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis, vol 1, (1899) 120.

[11] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part II, 6, 71. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series NPNF-02 volume 4. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, M. Atkinson and Archibald Robertson, translators (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892); Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, 1, 19, “Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt.” NPNF-02, volume 4.

[12] Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part II, 6, 89. NPNF-02, volume 4.

[13] Henry R. Percival, editor, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, (Oxford: James Parker & Company, 1900), 176.

[14] Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem, 37. NPNF-02, vol 6. See Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina (P.L.), vol 23 (Imprimerie Catholique, Paris, 1854) 389

[15] Rufinus of Aquileia, Church History, Book 10.6, trans. Philip R. Amidon, S.J. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 14, 44n, “Et ut apud Alexandriam vel in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, quia vel ille Ægypti vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.”

[16] Innocent I, Epistle XXIV, 1. Migne, P.L. vol 20, 547

[17] Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol 3, in Gillian Clark, Mark Humphries & Mary Whitby, Translated Texts for Historians, vol 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005) 85

[18] Price & Gaddis,  86

[19] Roberti Bellarmini, Disputationes, Tomus I (1576 ad) (Coloniæ Agrippinæ: Sumptibus Antonij & Arnoldi Hieratorum Fratrum, 1613), Book II, Chapter XIII, 165. “Nam Antiochenus habuit totum Orientem….”

[20] Gulielmi Voelli & Henrici Justellus, Bibliotheca Iuris Canonici Veteris, Tome 1 (Lutetiæ Parisorum, 1671), 71, columns. 1-2. “Haec ἐξουσία est potestas Metropolitani, quam Nicaeni Patres decernunt deberi in tribus provinciis hoc Canone denominatis, Aegypto, Libya, & Pentapoli, quae totam Aegyptiacam diœcesim constituebant tam in civilibus quam Ecclesiasticus.”

[21] Carl Joseph von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd edition, (Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 1855), 390. “Die ersten Worte unseres Canons besagen sonach: ‘dem Bischof von Alexandrien soll sein altes Borrecht, wonach die ganze (bürgerliche) Diöcese Aegypten unter seiner (geistlichen) Oberleitung steht, bestätigt werden.’”

[22] Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, William R. Clark, translator, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871), 393, emphasis added.

[23] Loughlin, James F., “The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, volume 5, January to October 1880, (Philadelphia, PA: Hardy & Mahony, 1880), 237.

[24] Bellarmini,165, “…id est, quia Romanus Episc., ante omnem Conciliorum diffinitionem consueuit permittere Episcopo Alexandrino regimen Ægypti, Lybiæ & Pentapolis.”

[25] Loughlin, 230.

[26]Unam Sanctam Catholicam, “Papal Primacy in the First Councils”, January 31, 2016 http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html.

[27] Parvis, Sarah, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) 125.