Tag: Origen

The History of Christmas: How Christendom Came to Celebrate Christ’s Birth

Brent Pollard

Consider for a moment how we came to stand where we are. The manger scene feels ancient—as though Christendom has always paused each December to marvel at the incarnation. Yet history reveals something startling: the first Christians never celebrated Christmas.

This is not a scandal but a testimony. The cherished celebration emerged slowly, like dawn breaking over centuries, as believers reflected deeply on what it means that God became man. What began as an unobserved event in Bethlehem became a worldwide moment of worship—not by apostolic command, but through man’s appreciation of glory made flesh.

The New Testament: A Conspicuous Silence on Annual Celebration

Matthew and Luke give us the nativity accounts with luminous detail: angelic announcements, shepherds startled in the night, magi following a star. These chapters overflow with wonder. Then the narrative rushes forward to Jesus’ ministry, His cross, His resurrection, His return.

What’s missing? Any instruction to celebrate His birth annually.

The apostles gathered on the first day of the week, remembering Christ’s death and resurrection through the Lord’s Supper. They proclaimed His gospel with urgency. But they left no pattern, no command, no practice for memorializing His birth each year. This was not oversight—it was simply not their focus.

Early Christianity: Avoiding Birthday Traditions

The earliest believers lived in a world where birthdays carried pagan associations. Jewish tradition paid little attention to such celebrations, and Roman birthday customs often intertwined with idolatrous practices. As a result, Christians in the first two centuries steered clear of birthday observances entirely—even Jesus’ birthday.

Origen, writing in the third century, expressed the prevailing sentiment: only the birthdays of sinners like Pharaoh and Herod were celebrated in Scripture. The righteous did not.

This wasn’t legalism. It was discernment. God’s people were learning to walk differently in a pagan world, careful not to blur the lines between sacred and profane.

The Growing Curiosity: When Was Christ Born?

By the late second and early third centuries, Christian scholars began asking a natural question:

When, exactly, was Jesus born?

Their calculations varied widely—March, May, November—but the question itself signaled something important. These believers were not merely theologians; they were people falling deeper in love with the incarnation. To wonder about the timing of His birth was to treasure it.

Yet even then, no feast day emerged. The curiosity was intellectual, not liturgical.

December 25: The First Christmas Celebration

The earliest solid evidence for celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 appears in a Roman calendar from around AD 336. Why this date?

Two theories dominate:

Theological Calculation: Some early Christians believed Jesus was conceived on the same date He died—March 25. Counting forward nine months places His birth on December 25.

Cultural Context: December 25 fell near Roman festivals like Sol Invictus (the ‘Unconquered Sun’) and Saturnalia. Choosing this date may have offered believers a Christian alternative to pagan revelry, declaring boldly that the true Light has come into the world.

Both explanations reflect the church’s dual task: theological precision and cultural engagement. The church was not absorbing paganism—it was confronting it with truth.

East Meets West: Different Dates, Same Savior

While the West settled on December 25, Eastern Christians initially observed Christ’s birth on January 6, called Theophany or Epiphany. By the fifth century, most Eastern congregations also adopted December 25 for the nativity, reserving January 6 for celebrating Christ’s baptism and the revelation of His divine identity.

This convergence is instructive. Though separated by geography and culture, believers across the empire felt the same pull—to set aside a day each year to contemplate the mystery Paul described:

‘Great indeed is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16).

The Medieval Church: Layering Tradition on Truth

As Christianity shaped Europe’s cultures through the Middle Ages, Christmas absorbed many traditions: nativity plays dramatizing the Bethlehem scene, carols sung in village streets, gift-giving recalling the magi’s offerings, and evergreen decorations symbolizing eternal life.

These additions were not corruptions. They were expressions—imperfect, human, sometimes misguided—of a truth too glorious to contain in words alone. The church has always been a community of storytellers, and Christmas became the story believers told again and again, in every creative form available.

The Reformation: Christmas Under Scrutiny

When the Reformation arrived, Christmas faced fresh examination. Lutherans and Anglicans embraced the celebration as a legitimate way to honor Christ’s incarnation. Puritans, however, rejected it, viewing Christmas as an invention unmoored from Scripture.

Both positions reflected sincere convictions about how to honor God. The Puritans feared idolatry and human tradition; the Lutherans treasured gospel proclamation wherever it appeared.

Modern Christmas: Sacred Truth Meets Cultural Expression

From the 1800s onward, Christmas continued to evolve. Charles Dickens’ writings awakened social conscience, Santa Claus captured children’s imaginations, and commercialization introduced both celebration and distraction.

Today’s Christmas is a complex blend: nativity scenes beside reindeer, worship services near shopping frenzies, profound theological truth intertwined with consumer excess.

Conclusion: Celebrating the Incarnation

Christmas is not commanded in Scripture. The apostles did not practice it. Its date may be symbolic rather than historical. Yet it endures because it points to something utterly real:

God became man.

In Bethlehem, divinity clothed itself in human flesh. The infinite became finite—the eternal entered time. The Creator took the form of a creature. This is the heartbeat of Christianity—not merely that God loves us, but that He came to us.

John wrote it plainly:

‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14).

So whether we observe Christmas or not, let us never stop marveling at what happened in Bethlehem. Let us preach it, sing it, tell it to our children and our neighbors. Let us declare with unshakable confidence that God has acted in history, that heaven has invaded earth, and that nothing will ever be the same.

This is the glory of the incarnation—and it deserves to be celebrated every single day.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 3.3-5)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Note: For this article, it is possible (if not likely) that Tyrannius Rufinus — the fourth century monk responsible for preserving the bulk of this writing by translating it from Greek to Latin — made changes to keep it compliant with the theology of the day. He admitted to “smoothing and correcting the stumbling blocks” in The Prologue of Rufinus, but did not specify where he made such changes. Since Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica (AD 380, almost 20 years before Rufinus likely translated On First Principles) made it illegal — with severe criminal and civil penalties — to practice anything other than Nicene/Catholic Christianity, Origen’s teachings had to be redacted where they conflicted with the Nicene Creed. Since it is impossible for me to determine where these changes were made, I will leave the text as-is and include footnotes where a statement seems to reflect more Nicene theology than is typical of Origen’s writing. Recreating the original theology of early Christians is made easier by the fact that one group of “Christians” severely persecuted believers who didn’t accept the dogmatism of Nicene Creed. “You will know a tree by the fruit it produces.” 

That all things were created by God—and that no creature exists apart from Him as its source—is clearly established by many statements in Scripture. This truth refutes and rejects the claims made by some, who wrongly suggest that there exists a kind of matter that is co-eternal with God, or that souls existed without beginning. According to them, God did not give these souls their being, but merely ordered and organized what was already there, granting them structure and balance rather than existence itself.

However, even in the brief work known as The Shepherd, or The Angel of Repentance, written by Hermas, we find this declaration: “Before all else, believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things; who, when nothing previously existed, brought all things into being; who contains all things, yet is Himself contained by none.” We find similar statements in the book of Enoch as well.

To this day, however, we have not found any passage in holy Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to have been made or created—not even in the way Solomon speaks of divine Wisdom, or in the expressions we discussed earlier that refer to the life, or the Word, or other titles of the Son of God. Therefore, the Spirit of God who is described as moving over the waters at the beginning of creation is, in my view, none other than the Holy Spirit—at least as far as I can discern. This, indeed, we have demonstrated in our interpretation of those passages, not by relying on a purely historical reading, but by following a spiritual understanding of the text.1

Some of our predecessors have noted that in the New Testament, whenever the word “Spirit” appears without any qualifying descriptor, it should be understood as referring to the Holy Spirit. For example: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace,” and, “Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” We believe that this distinction also applies in the Old Testament. Consider the passage, “He who gives His Spirit to the people on the earth, and Spirit to those who walk upon it.”2 Surely everyone who walks the earth—that is, all earthly and physical beings—also receives the Holy Spirit from God.3

My Hebrew teacher also used to say that the two seraphim in Isaiah, each with six wings, who call out to one another, saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts,” should be understood as representing the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit. We also believe that the line in Habakkuk’s hymn—“In the midst of the two living beings” (or “two lives”)—refers to Christ and the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father comes through revelation by the Son, and that revelation is made through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, both of these beings—whom the prophet calls “living beings” or “lives”—are the basis of the knowledge of God the Father.

Just as it is said of the Son, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him,” so it is also said of the Holy Spirit by the apostle: “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” And again in the Gospel, when Jesus speaks of the deeper truths He could not yet reveal to His disciples, He says: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, comes, He will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.”4

We must understand, then, that just as the Son—who alone knows the Father—reveals Him to whomever He chooses, so also the Holy Spirit—who alone searches the depths of God—reveals God to whomever He wills. “For the Spirit blows where He wills.”5

However, we must not imagine that the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge of the Father through revelation by the Son. If the Holy Spirit only comes to know the Father through the Son’s revelation, that would mean He was once ignorant and then came into knowledge. But to say the Holy Spirit is, or ever was, ignorant is both impious and irrational. Even if something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it is not by gradual development that He became the Holy Spirit—as if He had once been something else, lacking knowledge, and only later gained understanding and was thereby made the Holy Spirit. If that were the case, then He could not be considered part of the Trinity6—united with the unchanging Father and the Son—unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.

When we use words like “always” or “was” or other time-related terms, we must not take them in a strictly temporal sense. These terms are, by necessity, borrowed from our limited human perspective, since the realities we speak of ultimately transcend all concepts of time and all finite understanding.

Now, it is important to ask: why is it that someone who is regenerated by God for salvation must relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and cannot be saved without the cooperation of the whole Trinity?7 And why is it impossible to share in the life of the Father or the Son apart from the Holy Spirit? In exploring these questions, we will need to describe the distinct roles of the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son. I believe that the activity of the Father and the Son is present not only in saints but also in sinners, in rational beings and in animals without reason, even in lifeless objects—in short, in all created things. But the work of the Holy Spirit is not present in lifeless things, nor in living creatures that lack reason. It is also absent in rational beings who persist in evil and have not turned to a better way of life.

I believe the Holy Spirit is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness, who are walking the path that leads to Jesus Christ—that is, those who are doing good works and remaining in God.

 1This reading of Gen 1 is found in the LXX. The Hebrew text also includes the reading, “And a powerful wind was blowing over the face of the waters.” 

 2While this is certainly true, Is 42.5 is talking about the breath of life. 

 3If this is Origen speaking, he contradicts himself in the next-to-last paragraph of this article. “The Holy Spirit is absent in rational beings who persist in evil…” and, in the last paragraph, … “is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness.”  

4John further clarifies this statement about the Παρακλητος (Jn 14.26) in I Jn 2.1 where he explicitly identifies this Comforter as “Jesus Christ, the righteous.” 

5 Jn 3.8 says το πνευμα όπου θελει πνει (“the wind blows where it wants”), possibly a play on words given the context. 

 6 See footnote 7

 7While it is certainly possible that Origen used this word, it seems unlikely. Theophilus of Antioch (AD 170) used Τριας to describe God, the Word, and his Wisdom as a “set of three”. But the word “trinity” (from trinitas — a Latin word, and Origen wrote in Greek) is generally credited to Tertullian (c. AD 210). This would’ve been around the same time that Origen wrote On First Principles, but he was distinctly Greek in his thinking, not Latin. Perhaps Τριας is what Origen originally used, which fits his earlier section on God’s Wisdom more appropriately than the distinctly Latin trinitas.  

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 3.1-2)

Who isn’t amazed by the immense importance of the Holy Spirit when we hear that one who speaks against Christ may be forgiven, but one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven―not in this world nor in the world to come?

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

  1. Let us now briefly examine the subject of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who acknowledges the existence of Providence (however they think of it) agrees that God―the one who created and ordered all things―is no one’s creation, and recognizes Him as the Father of the universe. The claim that He has a Son is not something unique to believers; even though it may seem astonishing or unbelievable to the kinds of people that the Greeks and other foreigners call “philosophers”, some of them seem to at least partially get it. They admit that all things were created through the word or reason (logos) of God. Because we think this is a teaching that came from God Himself, we believe there is no better way to understand or explain this higher, divine Reason―we call Him the Son of God―than through the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit: that is, the Gospels, the Epistles, the Law, and the Prophets, as Christ Himself declared. It’s basically impossible to know about this Holy Spirit without reading the Law or believing in Christ. Even though no one can speak with perfect confidence about the nature of God the Father, some understanding of Him can be attained through creation itself and the natural insights of the human mind. This knowledge can be reinforced by reading the inspired texts. As for the Son of God, even though “no one knows the Son except the Father,” the Scriptures teach us how to think about Him. This is made known not only by explicit teachings but also through the lives of Christians, whose actions are understood as preparing the world for Christ’s return. Between these two things, we can start to understand both his transcendent nature and the human nature he voluntarily assumed. 
  2. As for what the Holy Spirit is, Scripture teaches us in many places. Somewhere in the first fifty Psalms, David says, “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Daniel speaks of “the Holy Spirit that is in You.” The New Testament has plenty on this, too: the Spirit is described as descending on Christ; after His resurrection, the Lord breathed on His apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”; an angel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”; and Paul says that no one can call Jesus “master” except through the Holy Spirit. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given when the apostles laid hands on people at baptism. From all of this, we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit is so important that baptism is not complete without naming all three: that is, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This joins the name of the Holy Spirit to the uncreated God the Father and His only Son. Who isn’t amazed by the immense importance of the Holy Spirit when we hear that one who speaks against Christ may be forgiven, but one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven―not in this world nor in the world to come?

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 2.10)

Here’s the key: some might think God was all-powerful before Wisdom (the Son of God) came into the picture, making God a Father. But Scripture is clear: “In wisdom, you made everything,” and the Gospel says, “Through Him all things were made, and nothing was made without him.” This means God’s title as all-powerful is tied to being a Father through Wisdom, who is the Son. The Son, Jesus, is the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Let’s consider the phrase, “Wisdom is the ultimate expression of God’s infinite power.” To understand this, we first need to examine what God’s “infinite power” means, and then we’ll see how Wisdom flows from it. Just like you can’t be a parent without a child or a leader without a team, God can’t be called all-powerful without something or someone to exercise that power over. For God to truly be all-powerful, everything must exist—otherwise, there’d be a time when God wasn’t fully in charge, which doesn’t add up.

Imagine someone saying there was a time when nothing existed, and God only later became all-powerful when everything came into being. That would imply God somehow leveled up, going from “less powerful” to “all-powerful”, which is a better state. But that’s a flawed and inaccurate way to think about God, right? It suggests God was incomplete and then gained something later. Instead, if God is always all-powerful, then the things that make God all-powerful—creation, beings to govern—must always have been there. God has always had authority over everything, ruling as a king or leader. We’ll dig deeper into creation later, but for now, let’s focus on the main point: Wisdom is described as the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

Here’s the key: some might think God was all-powerful before Wisdom (the Son of God) came into the picture, making God a Father. But Scripture is clear: “In wisdom, you made everything,” and the Gospel says, “Through Him all things were made, and nothing was made without him.” This means God’s title as all-powerful is tied to being a Father through Wisdom, who is the Son. The Son, Jesus, is the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

So what is the “glory of the Almighty” that Wisdom flows from? It’s the brilliance of God’s total authority, and Wisdom—Jesus—shares in that brilliance. Through Wisdom, God doesn’t just rule like a dictator; God’s power is expressed through the willing loyalty of creation. To make it perfectly clear, the Father and the Son share the same power. John in Revelation says, “This is what the Lord God says, the One who is, was, and is to come, the Almighty.” Who’s the “One to come”? That’s Jesus. So, just as we’re not shocked that Jesus is God alongside the Father, we shouldn’t be surprised that Jesus, the Son, is also all-powerful. Jesus Himself says to the Father, “Everything You have is Mine, and everything I have is Yours, and I’m glorified through them.” If everything the Father has belongs to Jesus, that includes God’s infinite power. The Son, being all-powerful too, shares everything the Father has.

Jesus says, “I’m glorified in them,” meaning His glory shines through creation. Scripture backs this up: “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow—in the heavens, on earth, and below—and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” So, Jesus is the ultimate expression of God’s power, the pure and radiant Wisdom, glorified as the embodiment of that power.

To break it down further: God the Father is all-powerful because He has authority over everything—sky, earth, sun, moon, stars, you name it. He exercises this power through His Word, Jesus, because “at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow.” If everything bows to Jesus, then Jesus is the one with authority over all things, channeling that power back to the Father. This happens through Wisdom—through reason and truth, not force or obligation. That’s why Jesus’ glory is so pure: He holds all things together through wisdom, not despotic control. This is the clearest, most authentic kind of glory because it’s not forced—it’s freely given.

Now, let’s contrast this. Anything that can change or shift—like human nature or created things—might have moments of glory through good deeds or wisdom, but that glory isn’t permanent because it’s not part of their core. It can fade. But God’s Wisdom, the Son, is unchanging. Every good quality in Him is permanent, not temporary. That’s why His glory is described as pure and authentic—because it’s part of who He is, forever. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Preface 7-8)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

  1. Another thing the churches teach is that the earth was created on specific days in a specific era. One day it will be destroyed because people do bad things. But when it comes to what existed before this earth (or what will exist after it), we don’t have any explicit information. No one has said anything about it. 
  2. Finally, we learned that the sacred writings were written by God’s spirit. They have two different meanings, too — one that is obvious as soon as you read it, and one that most people miss. The words that we read are a kind of transcendent mystery. They give us an idea of “divine” things. Here’s what every believer agrees on: Everything in the law is spiritual, that’s true. But the deeper meaning is only known to people who have been given special knowledge and intelligence from God’s holy spirit. The word “ασωματον” (asomaton, not having a body) doesn’t exist in our normal vocabulary. Besides, it doesn’t exist in the sacred writings either. If anyone says, “But it’s in The Doctrine of Peter,” we’ll just tell them, “No one thinks that work is inspired, and no one includes it in our collection of legitimate books.” Anyways, in The Doctrine of Peter Jesus is portrayed as saying, “I am not a non-physical daemon.” Whatever it says, we can prove that that book wasn’t even written by Peter, or anyone else guided by God for that matter. Even if The Doctrine of Peter was legitimate, though, we could prove that “ασωματον” doesn’t mean what they say it means. The way they use it, “incorporeal daemon” means something like “the kind of body that a demon has” (whatever that is). A demon-body is supposed to be totally different from our physical bodies (they say). But whoever wrote The Doctrine of Peter was clearly biased. They wanted to communicate that Jesus didn’t have the same kind of body daemons have, which they say is naturally invisible and kind of like the air around us. Their point was that Jesus had a solid, tangible body like ours. Unintelligent people say that anything beyond the material universe is “incorporeal”. They say this because the stuff outside of our material universe “can’t be touched or held or interact with the forces we understand.” 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Preface 5-6)

What did those believers in Christ close to the days of the apostles understand and teach concerning major theological topics. While these words are not inspired, they are very insightful. Two related topics are discussed by Origen in today’s blog post.


Gary Pollard

5. The apostles also taught that our soul has a form and life force of its own. Once it’s free of this body it will get what it deserves. We’ll either gain immortality and happiness, or we’ll be punished forever with fire. This all depends on how we live our lives. The apostles also said that there will be a day when all people come back to life. When that happens this body “which was planted in the grave and will ruin and decay” will be “raised to a life that cannot be destroyed.” And the dead body that “has no honor” will be “great and glorious” when it is raised from death. Another thing that is clearly taught in every church is this: Every person has the power to choose what they do. Every person is involved in a struggle against the devil and his angels and anti-virtues. They try very hard to make every person do all kinds of bad things. But if we’re trying to live the right way, we should determine to fight off these things. We understand that no one’s forcing us to do anything against our will — right or wrong. Even if we have full control over ourselves, some influences may convince us to do something bad. Some may also help us do the right thing! Whatever it is, we’re not forced to do the right thing and we’re not forced to do the wrong thing. Some people think we are forced to do right or wrong based on the positions or movements of certain stars. They think we’re totally powerless to act against whatever these astrological positions determine. Getting back to the ‘soul’ topic: We don’t have enough information to be dogmatic about it. Does it come from our parents or genetics and is fundamentally part of our physical bodies? Or does it come from somewhere else? We don’t know if we get it at birth or if it’s given to us by an outside source. 

6. About the devil and his angels (and “anti-virtues”), we don’t have good information either. The churches have only told us this: They exist. Aside from this, we haven’t gotten any clarification about what kind of body they have or where they come from. Here’s what most people seem to believe, though: The devil used to be an angel and he rebelled against God. When he did this he convinced a lot of angels to fall with him. From the time he did that until today they are called “the devil’s angels”. 

Origin’s “On First Principles,” Preface 3-4

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

It’s important to understand that the holy apostles were very clear about what they believed every person ― even people who don’t have an ability or interest in seeking divine knowledge ― needed to know about Christ. On some things they left their rationale open to investigation by intellectually gifted people (especially those whose gifts were given to them by the spirit). On other subjects they gave very little detail about their origin or composition and simply said, “This is how it was.” They were obviously appealing to future readers, especially the ones with a thirst for knowledge. They gave us something to exercise our intellectual talents on, and this is particularly true for people who are willing to learn and worthy of receiving knowledge. 

Here are the different subjects they were explicitly clear about: 

  1. There is one God who created and arranged everything. He created everything from nothing. He has been God since the first created thing came into existence. He is the God of good men like Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. This is the same God who sent our master Jesus Christ in this last age. He used the prophets to tell everyone that this was his plan long before it happened. Jesus came to call Israel back first. When they didn’t accept him, he called non-Jewish people. This same good and kind God ― the father of our master Jesus Christ ― gave Moses’s Law and the prophets and the gospels. He is also the same God of the apostles and the Old and New Testaments. 
  2. Jesus Christ was born from the father before any other creature was made. He served the father by creating all things, “Everything was made through him, and nothing was made without him.” Then he became human and gave up his God-form (though he was still fully God and human at the same time). The only difference between his human body and ours is that his came from the holy spirit and a virgin. Jesus Christ was really born and actually suffered. He didn’t just appear to die ― he actually died the same way all humans do. He really did come back to life after he died, he talked to his followers, and then was taken up to the sky. 
  3. The apostles told us that the Holy Spirit has the same honor that the father and son have. But they weren’t clear about how we’re supposed to understand his origin ― was he created or eternal? Was he a son of God or not? We’ll have to carefully investigate this to the best of our ability by using the sacred writings. What is abundantly clear is this: the same spirit inspired both the prophets and the apostles. The prophets and apostles were not influenced by two different spirits from God, but by the same Spirit. This, at least, is clearly taught in all churches. 

Origen’s First Principles

Gary Pollard

Early Christian writers (before AD 325) left us a huge body of writings. These are not scripture and they don’t claim to be (that I’ve seen yet). However, they do give valuable insight into the culture, language, and beliefs that the early church had. There’s just one tiny problem: they’re very difficult to read. Lightfoot published his translations in the 19th century. Roberts et al. published theirs in the same century. We stand on the shoulders of giants and would be in a tough spot had they not put in the work translating these volumes of ancient text! Unfortunately, though, average reading comprehension isn’t quite what it used to be. Archaic British English tends to quickly fatigue the mind and divert mental resources away from digesting the meaning of the text. As long as that barrier exists the words of some of the earliest Christians reach very few people. 

So what’s the utility of reading the early church writers if their writings aren’t scripture? Peter admitted that some of Paul’s writings are “very difficult to understand” (II Pt 3.15-16), and Paul wrote in the common language of the day. Add a couple thousand years, a dead language, and translator interference and those difficult texts become even more complicated. Early Christians apparently asked many of the same questions we have about the meaning of difficult passages, what things are doctrine vs what has flexibility, the nature of God and how we should worship him, and many, many other things. Early church writers offer some of the best historical material in existence (outside of scripture) on the life, times, and beliefs of pre-denominational Christians. 

For the next several months (if God allows) I will be re-working some of the Ante-Nicene writings. This will not be a translation! I’m not qualified to do so and would probably mess it up if I tried. I’m reading an existing translation and doing my best to modernize the language while preserving meaning. Origen started my fascination with these writings so we’ll read some of his works first. My goal is to eventually modernize all known Ante-Nicene writings, and maybe tackle the Pseudepigrapha next (if I’m still alive). 

Without further rambling, here is the first part of the Preface in Origen’s On first principles1 (ca. AD 220): 

  1. Everyone who believes and is confident that grace and truth come from Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth (he even said, “I am the truth”), gain the kind of knowledge that pushes people to a good and happy life from his teaching and words. We aren’t just talking about the words he spoke when he became human and lived here in a physical body. Christ was the word of God before he was human. He was in Moses and the prophets. Without God’s word they couldn’t have prophesied about Christ! We could spend forever showing proof after proof that Moses and the prophets were filled with Christ’s spirit. That would take a long time, though, and we’d like to keep this as brief as we reasonably can. It should be enough to quote what Paul said in Hebrews2, “Moses grew up and became a man. He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose not to enjoy the pleasures of sin that last such a short time. Instead, he chose to suffer with God’s people. He did this because he had faith. He thought it was better to suffer for the Messiah than to have all the treasures of Egypt.” Paul also said, “You want proof that Christ is speaking through me,” to show that Jesus spoke through his apostles after he went up to the sky. 
  2. A lot of people who say they believe in Jesus have wide-ranging differences in opinion. These differences are over both insignificant and significant things, some of which are extremely important. These differences are over things like God, the master Jesus Christ, and the Spirit. They also disagree about other created entities like the “powers” and what are called “virtues”. Because of this we need to be very clear about each one of these things before we investigate anything else. When we came to believe that Christ was the son of God, we stopped our search for truth. Greeks and non-Greeks have all made public their incorrect opinions about what is true. But we were convinced that we could only find truth in its source: Jesus himself. Many people think they have the same opinions that Jesus had, even though they think differently from the people who came before them. The church’s teachings came straight from the apostles and are preserved to this day. We can only accept teachings that don’t differ in any way from established church and apostolic tradition. 

 1 Roberts D.D., A. & Donaldson LL.D., J. (1885). Ante-Nicene Fathers IV: Fathers of the third century: Tertullian, part fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, parts first and second. American Edition: The Christian Literature Company (Buffalo).  

2 Coxe’s footnote: “Here and frequently elsewhere (some 200 times in all), Origen ascribes the authorship of [Hebrews] to Paul. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) quotes Origen as saying, ‘My opinion is this: the thoughts are [Paul’s]; but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who has recorded what the apostle said… If, then, any church considers this Epistle as coming from Paul, let it be commended for this; for neither did those ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that committed the Epistle to writing is known only to God.’”

Meat

Gary Pollard

The apostle John was a genius and a philosopher. He wrote in simple, easy-to-understand language, which is a mark of intelligence. Einstein is (erroneously) credited with saying something like, “You don’t understand a subject until you can explain it to a child.” 

John liked to write about irreducible principles. They are deceptively simple, and we might be tempted to look at his writings and think, “There’s not really a whole lot to say about this, these principles speak for themselves.” At some level, this is true! The Bible was written — according to those (like Origen in Against Celsus) whose native language and culture these letters were addressed to — in a “dualistic” way: on one side, it’s very easy to understand its most important principles. We could think of these as the “milk” of the word. This would be teachings about what Jesus did, how we become his children, and the most important things he wants us to do. 

But on the other side — which is perhaps most evident in John and Paul and Peter’s writings — there is nearly unlimited, profoundly deep material in their sometimes deceptively simple wording. This is the “meat” of the word, something Paul expected the Corinthians to be able to understand after just a couple years of being Christians (I Cor 3.2ff). This would be things like teachings about the gray areas in Christian doctrine, the nature of God, the destination of a Christian, and the nature of the new creation promised by Jesus (identified in I Peter 1 as the object of our hope, and its hope in Romans 8 as the reason we were saved). Paul explicitly said, just five years or so after these people converted from paganism to Christianity, “You should be able to understand the deep principles of Christianity well enough to be teachers by now.” 

We do our spiritual health a disservice to get bogged down in the familiar stories of the Old Testament, in the plan of salvation, and in the thou-shalt-nots of scripture. This is milk. I Timothy 1.9 makes it clear that most of those things are already self-evident to most Christians! After conversion, God expects us to dive as deep into the word as each person’s intellect allows. Of course, Ephesians 4 does suggest that God doesn’t expect every Christian to be an expert in textual analysis, biblical languages, or philosophical exposition. However, each of us has a responsibility to be as familiar with the meat as we are able to be.

Origen Was Smart

Gary Pollard

I cannot recommend enough the books Origen wrote against an Epicurean named Celsus. He uses incredible (if wordy) arguments refuting the attacks Celsus levies against the church in his work entitled True Discourse. In his defense of Christianity and the gospels, we get this little gem (Cont. Cels. 3.39): 

And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished to employ such persons as teachers of his doctrines, namely that there might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian arts. 

The power of scripture lies in its simultaneously simple and profound nature. It’s simple enough to be understood by the least-educated among us, and profound enough to give intellectuals something to chew on. Another evidence of supernatural origin, attested to by Origen. 

Guardian Angels

Dale Pollard

 The concept of angels and angelic beings filling the role of guardian is found several times throughout scripture. A cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed in every direction to guard the the way to the tree of life (Genesis 3.24). Jesus tells us that each child is assigned an angel and that angel is of such high rank that it can see the face of God (Matthew 18.10). While certain angelic beings, like the Cherubs, are depicted as guardians— it’s possible that any rank of angel might serve in this way (Psalm 34.7).

Here are a few fascinating sections of scripture that shed light on the mysterious operation of God’s heavenly host.

                Daniel’s Angel 

The Old Testament provides several examples of angelic intervention, but what unfolds in Daniel 10-12 stands apart. A distressed Daniel had been praying for three weeks and it was starting to look as if God had forgotten about His prophet. After Daniel had spent twenty one days of fasting and prayer, we read, 

“I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of the multitude” (Daniel 10.5-6).

Daniel’s unnamed angel has finally arrived and he actually provides a reason for why it had taken him so long to respond to Daniel’s prayer. The angels explains, “Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince (patron angel) of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes (angels), came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia” (Daniel 10.12-13).

Daniel’s angel was locked in combat with an evil spiritual force he called “the prince of Persia” and things had become so heated that Michael the Archangel (see also, Jude 1.9) had to intervene. Paul would later confirm  the reality of spiritual warfare when he tells those first century Christians, “…we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6.11-12). 

Just as Daniel is about to receive information about the future sourced from the Book of Truth (see also, Revelation 20.12), the unnamed angel tells him, “No one supports me against them (the evil forces) except Michael, your prince. And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him” (Daniel 10.21,11.1). 

Michael is called by the unnamed angel, “your prince.” The use of the term prince in Daniel 10 has only been used to describe spiritual beings that seemed to yield some kind of ruling power over a nation. Michael isn’t Daniel’s personal angel but instead Israel’s “patron angel.” If Michael wasn’t Daniel’s guardian angel, then perhaps the unnamed angel fulfilled that role. While the unnamed angel responded to Daniel’s prayer and revealed visions of the future— he then returns to continue fighting the prince of Persia. We’re also told that he took special interest in Darius the Mede, so it’s not likely that he was Daniel’s sole protector either. 

                            Peter’s Angel 

In Acts 12 we find King Herod on a rampage. He kills James the Brother of John with the sword and then throws Peter in prison. While Herod is persecuting the church, the church begins praying— and God answers with an angel. Peter’s trial is scheduled for the next day but he wouldn’t make it because, “Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. “Quick, get up!” he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists.

Then the angel said to him, “Put on your clothes and sandals.” And Peter did so. “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me,” the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. 

They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, “Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen.”

The way in which the angel strikes Peter to wake him, the chains falling off his wrists, the iron gate opening by itself, and then the angel’s sudden disappearance are all details we can appreciate. However, the following verses are also intriguing. Notice who Peter is mistaken for, “…. He (Peter) went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, “Peter is at the door!”

“You’re out of your mind,” they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, “It must be his angel.” But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished” (Acts 12.7-16). The early Christian’s make an interesting assumption and they must have had  reason to think that Peter’s angel either resembled or could resemble Peter himself. 

           Non-Canonical Coincidences 

The Early Church Fathers On Patron Angels 

Clement of Alexandria (Post 202 A.D.): “…for regiments of angels are distributed over nations and cities; and perhaps some even are assigned to particular individuals.” 

Origen, Homilies on Luke (Post 233 A.D.): “To every man there are two attending angels, the one of justice and the other of wickedness.If there be good thoughts in our heart, and if righteousness be welling up in our soul, it can scarcely be doubted that an angel of the Lord is speaking to us. If, however, the thoughts of our heart be turned to evil,an angel of the Devil is speaking to us.”

Rabbinic Commentaries & The Mistaken Identity of Angels 

An angel appears in the likeness of Moses (Devarim Rabbah 2.29).

In a Jewish commentary on Ecclesiastes; “At that time an angel descended in the form of Solomon and sat upon his throne” (Kohelet Rabbah 2.4). 

Another commentary on Genesis, possibly based on older sources, claimed that Jacob wrestled with Esau’s guardian angel (Bereshit Rabbah 77.3). 

The Humility Of Andrew

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent

Most historians agree that Andrew the Apostle was born between 5 and 10 AD in Bethsaida, Galilee. If correct, he would have been about the same age as Jesus. Andrew is a Greek name that means “manly” or “brave.” Among Jews, it appears to have been a popular choice as early as the second or third century BC. Interestingly, there is no proof that Andrew had a Hebrew or Aramaic name like his more well-known sibling. So, Andrew’s name is the very first thing that stands out. His family was willing to accept Hellenism, which is clear from the fact that his name is not Hebrew, as you might expect, but Greek. Andrew was born and raised in Galilee, a region in the first century that was historically and culturally as much Greek as Jewish.

Both Andrew and Simon (Peter) made their living as fishermen. This occupational choice seems to be why Jesus called them “fishers of men” in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. According to these narratives, Jesus was walking along the Sea of Galilee shore when he saw Simon and Andrew fishing and asked them to become his disciples. Jesus even stayed with these brothers in Capernaum after beginning his public ministry (Mark 1.29). It’s interesting that Luke, the physician, and the meticulous gospel author, doesn’t immediately mention Andrew’s presence or that he and Simon are brothers. According to Luke, Jesus used Simon’s boat twice: once to preach to the crowds on the shore and again to pull in a massive fish catch on a previously fruitless night. Even though Luke doesn’t name Andrew, he says that Simon (Peter) had help while trawling the waters when he caught the big fish Jesus told him to. Simon (Peter) called for backup and assistance from his friends in another boat after the massive fish trawl so that they could help him haul the fish ashore. Luke reveals that Andrew is Simon’s brother in the subsequent chapter. So, it’s safe to assume that Andrew was out fishing with Simon (Peter) at the time of the incident, which Luke records accurately. Luke shows that Andrew is often given less attention in the Bible than his better-known brother Simon (Peter). This is an interesting fact.

John devotes the most attention to Andrew. The Gospel of John states that Andrew followed the teachings of John the Baptist. Having been moved by the words of John the Baptist, Andrew and another of  John the Baptist’s disciples decided to follow Jesus. When Andrew saw Jesus, he knew he was the Messiah and told his brother. Thus, the Eastern Orthodox Church reveres him as Protokletos, meaning “the first called.” Andrew wasn’t one of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples and apostles (i.e., Peter, James, and John). Still, he probably had more access to Jesus than other disciples and apostles because Peter was his brother. Andrew was with the other disciples on the Mount of Olives when Jesus made one of his rare appearances with “the four.” Andrew asked Jesus to explain what he meant when he said the temple would be destroyed and the world would end.

Most people think that Andrew is the one who sets up meetings between other people and Jesus. For example, Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus (John 1.40–42). Andrew also brought the boy with the bread and fish to Jesus (John 6.8–9). Finally, when some Greeks wanted to see Jesus, they went to Philip, who went to Andrew, knowing that the latter could arrange their introduction (John 12.21–23). In Acts 1.13, Luke mentions that Andrew is in the upper room with the 120. Unfortunately, this verse is the last time we hear about him in the New Testament. As a result, tradition is our only source of information about Andrew’s evangelistic career.

Both Origen and Eusebius credit Andrew with preaching in Scythia. Nestor’s Chronicle says that he also went from the Black Sea to the Dnieper River and then to Kyiv to preach. Afterward, he went to Novgorod (Russia). Consequently, the countries of Russia, Romania, and Ukraine revere Andrew as a patron saint. According to Hippolytus of Rome, Andrew preached in Thrace. The apocryphal Acts of Andrew connect Andrew to Byzantium or Constantinople. Basil of Seleucia claims that Andrew traveled to Thrace, Scythia, and Achaea to spread the gospel. Tradition says that Andrew died a martyr’s death in Greece, in the city of Patras, in 60 AD.

Gregory of Tours, a theologian who lived in the sixth century, read old texts that said Andrew died on a Latin cross like the one used to kill Jesus. But later, it became a tradition that Andrew asked that he be crucified on an X-shaped cross, which is now called a “Saint Andrew’s Cross.” However, we cannot date this explanation for Andrew’s martyrdom before the late Middle Ages. Whether the X-shaped cross is correct, the symbol lives on in many flags worldwide. For example, Alabama and Florida use it in their standards in the United States. Also, The Disciples of Christ and the Episcopals, among other groups, use the St. Andrews Cross in their logos.

What do we have to gain from observing Andrew? First, Andrew emphasizes the significance of personal evangelism. We typically think of preachers, elders, and those who teach Bible classes as winning souls for Christ from the lectern or podium. However, people are often led to Jesus by people they already know, as we see with Andrew. Even better than a good sermon is bringing about change on the inside and strengthening relationships with others. And yet, that doesn’t mean preaching and sharing your faith in public aren’t necessary. They are. Andrew, on the other hand, is not shown in the Bible giving speeches to big crowds, writing letters, or doing anything else to draw attention to himself. That was irrelevant. Andrew was humble in his service to God’s kingdom. And it seems that Andrew had already figured this out before Jesus gave the Great Commission.

Similar to what we learned in the first lesson on evangelism, Andrews demonstrates that some things are too good to keep to yourself. As the first disciple to meet Jesus, Andrew couldn’t keep quiet about the Messiah’s arrival on Earth. Instead, he had to share the good news of Jesus with his family and friends, including his older brother. Andrew engaged in “word-of-mouth” advertising through his enthusiasm. As statistics show, word-of-mouth marketing is effective. The opinions of others who have made that purchase sway most consumers to buy something, not the commercial or sales pitch. According to Nielsen, word-of-mouth is more effective than advertising at getting people to try new products. It never ceases to amaze me that we can have a perfectly reasonable conversation about anything from pop culture to sports with a stranger, but we’ll never bring up the subject of Jesus Christ. Just think of everything we could achieve if we did! Like Andrew, we must conclude that the treasure we have found in Christ is too precious to squirrel away.

Finally, faithfulness is more valuable than fame. Put Andrew in context with the other two apostles, Peter and Paul. This second group would go on to have highly visible and influential ministries. They would address massive audiences, winning many souls for Christ. They encouraged Christians with their letters, which we still read and cherish today. Yet many more gospel ministers have done their work in relative obscurity and seen fruit for it. Andrew was a follower who participated in this latter group. His name may be less familiar to you. Not many people have heard of him. Still, Andrew showed humility, compassion, and faith in Christ that modern Christians would do well to imitate by serving without seeking praise, leading individuals (not crowds) to Christ, and letting God use his gifts as He saw fit. The Andrews of the world can save more lives than the Peters and Pauls.

Brent Pollard

The Identity Of Unclean Spirits

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent

Brent Pollard

The TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) version of this discussion is that when angels mated with human women, they produced abominable offspring whose spirits God refused to admit into the realm of the dead after He destroyed them in the Flood. The wandering spirits eventually possessed some people in the first century whom Jesus and the apostles were able to exorcise. These were the unclean spirits. Because of the power of Christ’s Gospel, they no longer have the ability to hijack our bodies today. If they are still present, they can only help to facilitate situations of temptation. But they cannot touch us or make us sin.  

For those willing to understand how I arrived at the above summary, please keep reading. 

Allow me to begin by indulging in a little inside baseball. In that case, I’ll start by highlighting one of the differences between my brother’s and my time at Faulkner University: two different godly men led the V.P. Black School of Biblical Studies. My brother had the opportunity to sit at the feet of the late Wendell Winkler, whose background was in preaching schools. Meanwhile, when I graduated, the late Kenneth Randolph was the dean. Brother Randolph decided he wanted students to build their libraries and encouraged instructors to assign textbooks to our classes whenever possible. 

I studied hermeneutics under the late Martel Pace. When is an Example Binding? by Thomas B. Warren was the actual text. However, brother Pace insisted on us purchasing Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart’s How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. When the class began, brother Pace directed us to a sentence in Fee and Stuart’s book. That sentence stated that novel interpretations are incorrect. It is erroneous if no one has ever interpreted Scripture in a given way in over two thousand years of church history. With that clarification, brother Pace told us we could throw the book away as he didn’t want us to learn how to interpret the Bible from Fee and Stuart’s liberal hermeneutic. 

Although I felt cheated at the time for wasting money on a book I wouldn’t use, brother Pace’s point has stuck with me. When I approach a Scripture or text and want to understand what it means, I first consult other Scriptures. Then, when I finally turn to human scholarship, I always look for the oldest interpretation of the Scripture. With this method, it is surprising how much of the doctrine taught in contemporary Christendom dates back less than 200 years. Other false doctrines may have origins in the 1500s, during the Protestant Reformation. Others emerged before 1000, eventually leading to the establishment of the first apostate church. 

Despite being accurate regarding salvation, we sometimes see deviations from original thought in issues of Christian judgment. For example, I’ve been thinking about angels and demons. I’ve often said that much of what people believe they know about the subject finds basis in Milton rather than Scripture (e.g., the war in heaven). The Bible is silent on angels, including their orders and responsibilities. When asked who the archangels are, you will hear names other than Gabriel and Michael (i.e., Raphael and Uriel). According to some, an archangel by the name of Lucifer fell. From whence does this extra information come? The accepted canon of Scripture does not include it. 

On the other hand, the apocryphal Book of Enoch is one source having a lot to say about angels. The Book of Watchers refers to the first thirty-six chapters of the Book of Enoch. The author of Watchers claims to explain things like how angels fell. Given that Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, this source is more interesting than you might think. Jude quotes the apocryphal book in verses 14-15. This inclusion by the Holy Spirit does not imply that the Book of Enoch is anything other than apocryphal, but rather that this widely read book from before the first century AD still got a few things correct, precisely what Jude quotes. Although it is not a direct quotation, Jude verse six parallels ideas found in the Book of Watchers, namely that the “angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode” (NASB1995) refers to angels who chose to leave heaven to intermarry with human women. 

It took a long time for me to accept this. I was of the school of thought that interpreted Genesis 6’s “sons of God” as the descendants of Seth, who began calling on the Lord’s name (Genesis 4.26). That was a more recent interpretation contradicting the phrase “sons of God,” which almost always referred to angels. Even so, I would never teach what I am about to discuss as doctrine because it may confuse some. However, if one considers the context of Jude, one will notice that the sin of verse six is akin to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1.7). In other words, it was a matter of immoral sexual behavior. It was never in God’s plan for angels to have companions. They are presumably “complete,” lacking nothing in their distinct being. In response to the Sadducees, this is why Jesus stated, “…in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (emphasis mine—Matthew 22.30 NASB1995). 

I’ve heard it preached that Jesus said angels can’t get married, but He said they don’t get married in heaven. It is not a giant leap to conclude that if angels took on a form with a digestive system (cf. Genesis 18.5ff), being able to eat, they could also take on a reproductive system commensurate with the masculine forms assumed in their interactions with humanity. Furthermore, Paul warns us that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11.14). So, it appears God endowed angels with such abilities implied by taking on an assumed form. 

But how does this relate to unclean spirits? What does this even have to do with Faulkner University and hermeneutics? Following the Scriptures, I will consult other scholarship sources; the earlier, the better. So, I went back and read what early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Origen had to say about the subject. Justin, in particular, confirmed Jude’s message that the angels’ transgression was sexual. According to Justin, angels fell in love with human women and decided to copulate with them, the latter giving birth to the “mighty men of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6.4). These deviations resulted in conditions that caused God to regret creating man. One of the things that the Book of Watchers says that Justin seems to accept is that these fallen angels taught men how to make weapons of war and fight one another. Have you ever thought about Genesis 6.13? God saw the earth filled with violence. That is an intriguing coincidence. 

As a result, God destroyed all except Noah, Noah’s family, and the animals aboard the ark with a Flood. But what became of those who died in the Flood? Would Ecclesiastes 12.7 not be applicable? Their “dust” was returned to the earth, while God received their spirits. But what if among the dead were spirits inhabiting bodies that God did not sanction, a cross between fallen angels and humans? Would He let those spirits into Sheol or Hades? Wouldn’t they be punished like the fallen angels for whom God created hell itself (2 Peter 2.4-10)? 

It appears unlikely that the “unclean spirits” mentioned in the Gospels and the book of Acts are the spirits of evil, departed men. A teacher once told me that Legion hung out in the cemetery (Mark 5.1ff) to linger near their former bodies. In other words, whoever the Legion demons were, they were all former humans doomed to spend eternity in hell. But why would God choose to isolate the miraculous period of the first century to allow some evil deceased spirits to remain and not send them immediately into the realm of the dead, as Ecclesiastes 12.7 suggests? Of course, God could direct every such person into the path of Jesus or the apostles for exorcism, but it seems strange to defy nature just to read about a few exorcisms in the Gospels and Acts. Indeed, the ability to raise the dead alone could serve as the ultimate form of confirmation of the Gospel. Moreover, since the power of sin is death, raising the dead would still prove our Lord’s power of the kingdom of darkness (1 Corinthians 15.51-57).  

Examine how Jesus interacts with these unclean spirits (aka demons). In Matthew’s account of Legion, another demon-possessed man accompanies Legion (Matthew 8.28). Both possessed men were violent and would not let anyone pass. The ones inside these men recognized Jesus as the Son of God and wondered if He had come to torment them ahead of time(Matthew 8.29). They asked Jesus to send them into an adjacent herd of swine if He was going to cast them out of those men (Matthew 8.31). When Jesus granted their request, the demons caused the herd of pigs to jump into the sea and drown (Matthew 8.32). Why not send them to Hades if these were the departed spirits of evil men? Why put them in pigs? 

These unclean spirits knew God would destroy them, but they thought the time was too soon. Of course, we know that those in Tartarus, the place of torment within Hades, like the rich man, immediately knew their eternal fate, but how else would these possessing living men in the first century know such things? They had probably never experienced Tartarus’ torment because they were free to roam (cf. Matthew 12.43-45; Luke 11.24-26). Again, it would appear to be inconsistent with what we know about our existence following death. It makes more sense, however, if there have been spirits of grotesque angel-human hybrids roaming the earth since the Flood. 

Let us look at some examples of demon exorcism in Acts to illustrate these fascinating phenomena further. First, Paul cast out an unclean spirit from a young woman who had been following him around Philippi, proclaiming him to be a servant of the Most High God and preaching the way of salvation (Acts 16.16-21). Paul became irritated with her and rebuked the spirit in Jesus’ name, causing the demon to flee. The event that led to Paul and Silas’ imprisonment in Philippi was this exorcism. When Paul expelled the evil spirit, he took away her divining ability that her owners exploited to make money. Then, in Ephesus, Paul exorcised demons without even being in their presence. People took handkerchiefs that Paul had touched, which were enough to heal and drive away the evil spirits (Acts 19.12).  

This display of Jesus’ power prompted some of Paul’s opponents to try to imitate him. Finally, Acts 19.13-16 contains a humorous account of a failed exorcism. Sceva’s seven sons took it upon themselves to exorcise an evil spirit in the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches. The demon said it recognized Jesus and Paul but wanted to know who these men were. The possessed man then leaped on them and thrashed them mercilessly. It caused quite a stir in Ephesus and inspired both Jews and Gentiles to exalt Jesus’ name (Acts 19.17). 

There are no further references to unclean spirits after Ephesus. We know Paul told the Corinthians that the miraculous age would end when the perfect (i.e., complete) arrived (1 Corinthians 13.8-12). By the end of the first century, God had completed His revelation to mankind. And then there was the New Testament. But what about the spirits? Origen, a Christian who lived near the end of the second century, observed that the demons vanished along with the ending of the spiritual gifts bestowed by the apostles through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 8.14-17).  

In other words, Jesus Christ’s power defeated the kingdom of darkness. Those spirits, if still present, could no longer possess people or cause mischief as they did during the brief period described in the New Testament. This statement does not imply that Origen did not have some ideas. He did. Since, as James stated, our lusts entice us, allow our desires to conceive, and give birth to sin (James 1.14-15), the remaining unclean spirits serve as “midwives,” facilitating our sin. This truth does not absolve us of our guilt, but it may point to perpetrators in the unseen realm who are more than willing to assist us.