Among all of the diversity that
existed in the early church, the broad parameters of the Christian proclamation
was not in serious doubt. For example, though Christians debated the identity of
Jesus, his humanity, and his relationship with God in the second century, there
was still a core of teachings that had long been received in the churches. Most
agreed by the end of the second century that Jesus was tempted, he tired, was
hungry, ate, slept, and experiences suffering when he died—that is, he was human,
but that he also was the Christ who died for sins and was raised from the dead
and ascended into heaven. On the other hand, some churches continued to debate
whether Jesus should be identified as a spirit, the Spirit, an angel, or as a divinely
empowered human being. The range of perspectives on this topic in the second
and third centuries appears to have been quite broad. The identity of Jesus,
however, continued to be debated much longer, even past the later Trinitarian
formulations in the fourth century. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of
the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:74)
Athenagoras, of course, is an exception, but his
conclusions are not representative of most Christologies in the second century.
His Trinitarian-type of formulation is, however, anticipatory of the fourth
century when the identity of Jesus and the relationship between God and Jesus the
Christ are described in Greek philosophical categories, especially Platonic
categories. Athenagoras comes close to the later position of the church when he
says: “We speak of God of his Son, his Word, and of the Holy Spirit; and we say
that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit was united in power. For the Son is in
the intelligence, reason, and wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit is an
effluence, as light from fire” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians,
23; Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 326). It is debatable whether Athenagoras’
view of the Spirit was representative of the majority of views among the
Ante-Nicene fathers. (Ibid., 74 n. 24)
