Author: answeringislamblog

THE EUCHARIST AS THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST PT. 1

The Old Testament prophet Malachi announced by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21) that a time would come when all throughout the world the Gentiles would offer to God a pure sacrifice:

“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, ‘How have we despised thy name?’By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, ‘How have we polluted it?’ By thinking that the Lord’s table may be despised.When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts.‘ And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us.’ With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the Lord of hosts. Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.‘ What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the Lord of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the Lord. Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.” Malachi 1:6-14 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY

An examination of the earliest non-canonical sources confirms that from its very inception the early church understood the eucharist and Christian worship to be the fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11. These Christians (some of whom were actual disciples of the Apostles themselves) all believed that “the Lord’s supper,” as it is typically referred to, was/is the pure sacrifice that the prophet foretold would be offered to God by the nations throughout the world.

The following references will show that the eucharist being the actual sacrifice of Christ, which he offered once and for all time for the redemption and salvation of his people, was a widespread belief held by the true followers of Christ throughout the then known world. The citations will also illustrate that Christians described the eucharist as a spiritual offering in which the Holy Spirit made the risen Jesus’ crucified body truly present in an unbloody manner.

The readers will further see that the church taught that the eucharistic sacrifice granted those who partook of it in a worthy manner healing and forgiveness from their sins. As one early bishop and disciple of the Apostles put, as he was on his way to being martyred in Rome:

Chapter 20. Promise of another letter

If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians; bold and italicized emphasis mine)

With the foregoing in view, I now present a list of citations dating from the latter of part of the 1st century AD up until the 8th AD. All emphasis mine will be mine.

The Didache

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

CONSTITUTION OF THE APOSTLES

HOW CHRIST BECAME A FULFILLER OF THE LAW, AND WHAT PARTS OF IT HE PUT A PERIOD TO, OR CHANGED, OR TRANSFERRED.

XXIII. For He did not take away the law of nature, but confirmed it. For He that said in the law, “The Lord thy God is one Lord;”3291 the same says in the Gospel, “That they might know Thee, the only true God.”3292 And He that said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,”3293 says in the Gospel, renewing the same precept, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.”3294 He who then forbade murder, does now forbid causeless anger.3295 He that forbade adultery, does now forbid all unlawful lust. He that forbade stealing, now pronounces him most happy who supplies those that are in want out of his own labours.3296 He that forbade hatred, now pronounces him blessed that loves his enemies.3297 He that forbade revenge, now commands long-suffering;3298 not as if just revenge were an unrighteous thing, but because long-suffering is more excellent. Nor did He make laws to root out our natural passions, but only to forbid the excess of them.3299461He who had commanded to honour our parents, was Himself subject to them.3300 He who had commanded to keep the Sabbath, by resting thereon for the sake of meditating on the laws, has now commanded us to consider of the law of creation, and of providence every day, and to return thanks to God. He abrogated circumcision when He had Himself fulfilled it. For He it was “to whom the inheritance was reserved, who was the expectation of the nations.”3301 He who made a law for swearing rightly, and forbade perjury, has now charged us not to swear at all.3302 He has in several ways changed baptism, sacrifice, the priesthood, and the divine service, which was confined to one place: for instead of daily baptisms, He has given only one, which is that into His death. Instead of one tribe, He has appointed that out of every nation the best should be ordained for the priesthood; and that not their bodies should be examined for blemishes, but their religion and their lives. Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols. Instead of the divine service confined to one place, He has commanded and appointed that He should be glorified from sunrising to sunsetting in every place of His dominion.3303 He did not therefore take away the law from us, but the bonds. For concerning the law Moses says: “Thou shalt meditate on the word which I command thee, sitting in thine house, and rising up, and walking in the way.”3304 And David says: “His delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law will he meditate day and night.”3305 For everywhere would he have us subject to His laws, but not transgressors of them. For says He: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that search out His testimonies; with their whole heart shall they seek Him.”3306 And again: “Blessed are we, O Israel, because those things that are pleasing to God are known to us.”3307 And the Lord says: “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”3308 (Book VI, Sec. IV.—Of the Law)

JUSTIN MARTYR

Chapter 41. The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist

Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapters 31-47)

Chapter 117. Malachi’s prophecy concerning the sacrifices of the Christians. It cannot be taken as referring to the prayers of Jews of the dispersion

Justin: Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place. (Ibid., Chapters 109-124)

IRENAEUS

Chapter 17 Proof that God did not appoint the Levitical dispensation for his own sake, or as requiring such service; for he does, in fact, need nothing from men.

5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things — not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful — He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehandI have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people the Jews shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies, Book IV)

37. Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrificeMalachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: The incense is the prayers of the saints. Then again, Paul exhorts us to present our bodies a living sacrificeholy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1 And again, Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips. Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God in spirit and in truthJohn 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus)

CYPRIAN

Here is an instance of a usage just becoming common to the East and West,—to give the name of priesthood to the chief ministry as distinguished from the presbyterate. So in Chrysostom passim, but notably in his treatise περὶ ἱερωσύνης.  The scriptural warrant for this usage is derived, dialectically, from the universal priesthood of Christians (1 Pet. ii. 5), from the Old-Testament prophecies of the Christian ministry (Isa. lxvi. 21), and from the culmination of the sacerdotium in the chief ministry of St. Paul. Over and against the Mosaic priesthood he is supposed to assert his own priestly charisma in the Epistle to the Romans,3054 where he says, “I have therefore my glorying in Christ Jesus” (i.e., the Great High Priest), “in things pertaining to God;” that is (according to the Heb. v. 1), “as a high priest taken from among men, in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” He asserts himself, therefore, as a better priest than those of the Law, “because of the grace that was given me of God, that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering in sacrifice3055 the Gospel of God.” He then (according to this theory) adopts the language and the idea of Malachi, and adds, “that the oblation of the Gentiles might be acceptable,” etc.; i.e., the pure ninchah, or oblation of bread and wine, commemorative of the one “and only propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary.” (Cyprian: Elucidations – Orthodox Church Fathers)

16. That the ancient sacrifice should be made void, and a new one should be celebrated

In Isaiah: For what purpose to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? Says the Lord: I am full; I will not have the burnt sacrifices of rams, and fat of lambs, and blood of bulls and goats. For who has required these things from your hands?  Isaiah 1:11-12 Also in the forty-ninth Psalm: I will not eat the flesh of bulls, nor drink the blood of goats. Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver you: and you shall glorify me. In the same Psalm, moreover: The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: therein is the way in which I will show him the salvation of God. In the fourth Psalm too: Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord. Likewise in MalachiI have no pleasure concerning you, says the Lord, and I will not have an accepted offering from your hands. Because from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place odours of incense are offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice, because great is my name among the nations, says the Lord. (Treatises, Treatise XII (Book 1))

JOHN OF DAMASCUS

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, This is My body, not, this is a figure of My body: and My blood, not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55.

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. Isaiah 6:6 But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.

With bread and wine Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God, received Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the GentilesGenesis 14:18 That table pre-imaged this mystical table, just as that priest was a type and image of Christ, the true high-priestLeviticus xiv For you are a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Of this bread the show-bread was an image. This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun Malachi 1:11 .

The body and blood of Christ are making for the support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the divine Apostle 1 Corinthians 11:31-32, For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. This too is what he says, So that he that partakes of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself. Being purified by this, we are united to the body of Christ and to His Spirit and become the body of Christ. (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, BOOK IV, Chapter 13. Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.)

EARLY LITURGIES

O Lord God, Sovereign and Almighty Father, truly it is meet and right, holy and becoming, and good for our souls, to praise, bless, and thank Thee; to make open confession to Thee by day and night with voice, lips, and heart without ceasing;  

To Thee who hast made the heaven, and all that is therein; the earth, and all that is therein; The sea, fountains, rivers, lakes, and all that is therein;  

To Thee who, after Thine own image and likeness, hast made man, upon whom Thou didst also bestow the joys of Paradise;  

And when he trespassed against Thee, Thou didst neither neglect nor forsake him, good Lord,  

But didst recall him by Thy law, instruct him by Thy prophets, restore and renew him by this awful, life-giving, and heavenly mystery.  

And all this Thou hast done by Thy Wisdom and the Light of truth, Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ, Through whom, thanking Thee with Him and the Holy Spirit,

We offer this reasonable and bloodless sacrifice, which all nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun, from the north and the south, present to Thee, O Lord; for great is Thy name among all peoples, and in all places are incense, sacrifice, and oblation offered to Thy holy name.4188 (The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, The Disciple of the Holy Peter.)

AUGUSTINE

Chapter 35.— Of the Prophecy of the Three Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

There remain three minor prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who prophesied at the close of the captivity. Of these Haggai more openly prophesies of Christ and the Church thus briefly: Thus says the Lord of hosts, Yet one little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will move all nations, and the desired of all nations shall come. Haggai 2:6 The fulfillment of this prophecy is in part already seen, and in part hoped for in the end. For He moved the heaven by the testimony of the angels and the stars, when Christ became incarnate. He moved the earth by the great miracle of His birth of the virgin. He moved the sea and the dry land, when Christ was proclaimed both in the isles and in the whole world. So we see all nations moved to the faith; and the fulfillment of what follows, And the desired of all nations shall come, is looked for at His last coming. For ere men can desire and and wait for Him, they must believe and love Him.

Zechariah says of Christ and the Church, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout joyfully, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King shall come unto you, just and the Saviour; Himself poor, and mounting an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass: and His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. Zechariah 9:9-10 How this was done, when the Lord Christ on His journey used a beast of burden of this kind, we read in the Gospel, where, also, as much of this prophecy is quoted as appears sufficient for the context. In another place, speaking in the Spirit of prophecy to Christ Himself of the remission of sins through His blood, he says, You also, by the blood of Your testament, have sent forth Your prisoners from the lake wherein is no water. Zechariah 9:11 Different opinions may be held, consistently with right belief, as to what he meant by this lake. Yet it seems to me that no meaning suits better than that of the depth of human misery, which is, as it were, dry and barren, where there are no streams of righteousness, but only the mire of iniquity.  For it is said of it in the Psalms, And He led me forth out of the lake of misery, and from the miry clay.

Malachi, foretelling the Church which we now behold propagated through Christ, says most openly to the Jews, in the person of GodI have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept a gift at your hand. For from the rising even to the going down of the sun, my name is great among the nations; and in every place sacrifice shall be made, and a pure oblation shall be offered unto my name: for my name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord. Malachi 1:10-11 Since we can already see this sacrifice offered to God in every place, from the rising of the sun to his going down, through Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, while the Jews, to whom it was said, I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept a gift at your hand, cannot deny that their sacrifice has ceased, why do they still look for another Christ, when they read this in the prophecy, and see it fulfilled, which could not be fulfilled except through Him? And a little after he says of Him, in the person of God, My covenant was with Him of life and peace: and I gave to Him that He might fear me with fear, and be afraid before my name. The law of truth was in His mouth: directing in peace He has walked with me, and has turned many away from iniquity. For the Priest’s lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at His mouth: for He is the Angel of the Lord Almighty. Malachi 2:5-7 

Nor is it to be wondered at that Christ Jesus is called the Angel of the Almighty God. For just as He is called a servant on account of the form of a servant in which He came to men, so He is called an angel on account of the evangel which He proclaimed to men. For if we interpret these Greek words, evangel is good news, and angel is messenger. Again he says of Him, Behold I will send mine angel, and He will look out the way before my face: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come into His temple, even the Angel of the testament, whom you desire. Behold, He comes, says the Lord Almighty, and who shall abide the day of His entry, or who shall stand at His appearing? Malachi 3:1-2 

In this place he has foretold both the first and second advent of Christ: the first, to wit, of which he says, And He shall come suddenly into His temple; that is, into His flesh, of which He said in the Gospel, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. John 2:19 And of the second advent he says, Behold, He comes, says the Lord Almighty, and who shall abide the day of His entry, or who shall stand at His appearing? But what he says, The Lord whom you seek, and the Angel of the testament whom you desire, just means that even the Jews, according to the Scriptures which they read, shall seek and desire Christ. But many of them did not acknowledge that He whom they sought and desired had come, being blinded in their hearts, which were preoccupied with their own merits. Now what he here calls the testament, either above, where he says, My testament had been with Him, or here, where he has called Him the Angel of the testament, we ought, beyond a doubt, to take to be the new testament, in which the things promised are eternal, and not the old, in which they are only temporal. Yet many who are weak are troubled when they see the wicked abound in such temporal things, because they value them greatly, and serve the true God to be rewarded with them. On this account, to distinguish the eternal blessedness of the new testament, which shall be given only to the good, from the earthly felicity of the old, which for the most part is given to the bad as well, the same prophet says, You have made your words burdensome to me: yet you have said, In what have we spoken ill of You? You have said, Foolish is every one who serves God; and what profit is it that we have kept His observances, and that we have walked as suppliants before the face of the Lord Almighty? And now we call the aliens blessed; yea, all that do wicked things are built up again; yea, they are opposed to God and are saved. They that feared the Lord uttered these reproaches every one to his neighbor: and the Lord hearkened and heard; and He wrote a book of remembrance before Him, for them that fear the Lord and that revere His name. Malachi 3:13-16 

By that book is meant the New Testament. Finally, let us hear what follows: And they shall be an acquisition for me, says the Lord Almighty, in the day which I make; and I will choose them as a man chooses his son that serves him. And you shall return, and shall discern between the just and the unjust, and between him that serves God and him that serves Him not. For, behold, the day comes burning as an oven, and it shall burn them up; and all the aliens and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that shall come will set them on fire, says the Lord Almighty, and shall leave neither root nor branch. And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise, and health shall be in His wings; and you shall go forth, and exult as calves let loose from bonds. And you shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be ashes under your feet, in the day in which I shall do [this], says the Lord Almighty. This day is the day of judgment, of which, if God will, we shall speak more fully in its own place. (City of God, Book 18 Augustine traces the parallel courses of the earthly and heavenly cities from the time of Abraham to the end of the world; and alludes to the oracles regarding Christ, both those uttered by the Sibyls, and those of the sacred prophets who wrote after the foundation of Rome, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, and their successors.)

TERTULLIAN

Chapter 5. Of Sacrifices.

So, again, we show that sacrifices of earthly oblations and of spiritual sacrifices were predicted; and, moreover, that from the beginning the earthly were foreshown, in the person of Cain, to be those of the elder son, that is, of Israel; and the opposite sacrifices demonstrated to be those of the younger son, Abel, that is, of our people. For the elder, Cain, offered gifts to God from the fruit of the earth; but the younger son, Abel, from the fruit of his ewes. God had respect unto Abel, and unto his gifts; but unto Cain and unto his gifts He had not respect. And God said to Cain, Why is your countenance fallen? Have you not — if you offer indeed aright, but do not divide aright — sinned? Hold your peace. For unto you shall your conversion be and he shall lord it over you. And then Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field: and he went away with him there, and he slew him. And then God said to Cain, Where is Abel your brother? And he said, I know not: am I my brother’s keeper? To whom God said, The voice of the blood of your brother cries forth unto me from the earth. Wherefore cursed is the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive the blood of your brother. Groaning and trembling shall you be upon the earth, and every one who shall have found you shall slay you. From this proceeding we gather that the twofold sacrifices of the peoples were even from the very beginning foreshown. In short, when the sacerdotal law was being drawn up, through Moses, in Leviticus, we find it prescribed to the people of Israel that sacrifices should in no other place be offered to God than in the land of promise; which the Lord God was about to give to the people Israel and to their brethren, in order that, on Israel’s introduction there, there should there be celebrated sacrifices and holocausts, as well for sins as for souls; and nowhere else but in the holy land. Why, accordingly, does the Spirit afterwards predict, through the prophets, that it should come to pass that in every place and in every land there should be offered sacrifices to God? As He says through the angel Malachi, one of the twelve prophetsI will not receive sacrifice from your hands; for from the rising sun unto the setting my Name has been made famous among all the nations, says the Lord Almighty: and in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name. Again, in the Psalms, David says: Bring to God, you countries of the nations — undoubtedly because unto every land the preaching of the apostles had to go out — bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up victims and enter into His courts. For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God, we thus read, as it is written, An heart contribulate and humbled is a victim for God; and elsewhere, Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows. Thus, accordingly, the spiritual sacrifices of praise are pointed to, and an heart contribulate is demonstrated an acceptable sacrifice to God. And thus, as carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated — of which Isaiah withal speaks, saying, To what end is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? Says the Lord Isaiah 1:11 — so spiritual sacrifices are predicted as accepted, as the prophets announce. For, even if you shall have brought me, He says, the finest wheat flour, it is a vain supplicatory gift: a thing execrable to me; and again He says, Your holocausts and sacrifices, and the fat of goats, and blood of bulls, I will not, not even if you come to be seen by me: for who has required these things from your hands? for from the rising sun unto the setting, my Name has been made famous among all the nations, says the Lord. But of the spiritual sacrifices He adds, saying, And in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name, says the Lord. (An Answer to the Jews)

Chapter 22. The Success of the Apostles, and Their Sufferings in the Cause of the Gospel, Foretold.

You have the work of the apostles also predicted: How beautiful are the feet of them which preach the gospel of peace, which bring good tidings of good, not of war nor evil tidings. In response to which is the psalm, Their sound is gone through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world; that is, the words of them who carry round about the law that proceeded from Sion and the Lord’s word from Jerusalem, in order that that might come to pass which was written: They who were far from my righteousness, have come near to my righteousness and truth. When the apostles girded their loins for this business, they renounced the elders and rulers and priests of the Jews. Well, says he, but was it not above all things that they might preach the other god? Rather (that they might preach) that very self-same God, whose scripture they were with all their might fulfilling! Depart, depart, exclaims Isaiah; go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing, that is blasphemy against Christ; Go out of the midst of her, even of the synagogue. Be separate who bear the vessels of the Lord. Isaiah 52:11 For already had the Lord, according to the preceding words (of the prophet), revealed His Holy One with His arm, that is to say, Christ by His mighty power, in the eyes of the nations, so that all the nations and the utmost parts of the earth have seen the salvation, which was from God. By thus departing from Judaism itself, when they exchanged the obligations and burdens of the law for the liberty of the gospel, they were fulfilling the psalm, Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us; and this indeed (they did) after that the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain devices; after that the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took their counsel together against the Lord, and against His Christ. What did the apostles thereupon suffer? You answer: Every sort of iniquitous persecutions, from men that belonged indeed to that Creator who was the adversary of Him whom they were preaching. Then why does the Creator, if an adversary of Christ, not only predict that the apostles should incur this suffering, but even express His displeasure thereat? For He ought neither to predict the course of the other god, whom, as you contend, He knew not, nor to have expressed displeasure at that which He had taken care to bring about. See how the righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart; and how merciful men are taken away, and no man considers. For the righteous man has been removed from the evil person. Isaiah 57:1 Who is this but Christ? Come, say they, let us take away the righteous, because He is not for our turn, (and He is clean contrary to our doings). Wisdom 2:12 Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with Him — both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spoke: The Lord said to me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men. Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; I will declare Your name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise unto You. For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him. And a little afterwards He says: My praise shall be of You in the great congregation. In the sixty-seventh Psalm He says again: In the congregations bless the Lord God. So that with this agrees also the prophecy of MalachiI have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; neither will I accept your offerings: for from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering Malachi 1:10-11 — such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns. Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found among you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ. (Against Marcion, Book III)

Chapter 1. Examination of the Antitheses of Marcion, Bringing Them to the Test of Marcion’s Own Gospel. Certain True Antitheses in the Dispensations of the Old and the New Testaments. These Variations Quite Compatible with One and the Same God, Who Ordered Them.

Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods — one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in the Gospel according to the Antitheses. These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. And indeed I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator, and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. Long ago did Isaiah declare that out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isaiah 2:3 — some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; Isaiah 2:4 meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are among themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks; Isaiah 2:4 that is to say, minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions productive of good fruit. And again: Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people, and you kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and my judgment for a light to the nations; wherefore He had determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to David also) is unblameable, because perfect, converting the soul from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same Isaiah says, For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land. Because the New Testament is compendiously short, and freed from the minute and perplexing burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and clearly than the light itself? Remember not the former things, neither consider the things of old (the old things have passed away, and new things are arising). Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring forth. Isaiah 43:18-19 So by Jeremiah: Break up for yourselves new pastures, and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart. And in another passage: Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt. He thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: Hear me, and you shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, adding the sure mercies of David, Isaiah 55:3 in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary, He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse. Isaiah 11:1 Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that among all nations, by Malachi when he saysI have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering Malachi 1:10-11 — meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience — it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety. For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which is not contrary. Of that very thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise. Why, in your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator’s prejudice those examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and affections? I will wound, He says, and I will heal; I will kill, He says again, and I will make alive Deuteronomy 32:39 — even the same who creates evil and makes peace; Isaiah 45:7 from which you are used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact, that the world, at all events, even among your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another. It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans exist in the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion. (Ibid., Book IV)

ADDENDUM

Some Christian authors and/or apologists, particularly protestants that reject the real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, misinterpret the statements of certain early church writers as evidence that these individuals held to a merely symbolical view of the eucharistic elements. For instance, certain protestant apologists quote Tertullian’s statements that the bread and the cup are figures of Christ’s body and blood to show that this African apologist didn’t hold to the elements becoming the actual flesh and blood of the risen Lord.

This ignores the fact that these particular Christians were not using these expressions in the manner that modern folks do. By calling the eucharistic elements of bread and wine symbols, signs, figures etc., or in describing the eucharist as a spiritual sacrifice, they were not claiming that these were merely symbols or figures, or that the eucharist wasn’t an actual physical sacrifice. They meant by these terms that the figures or signs of the bread and cup signify their realities, what they actually are, namely, the flesh and blood of Christ. And by spiritual sacrifice, they meant that the eucharist is made to be the physical body and blood of Christ by a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, without whom the elements would remain merely bread and wine.

The late protestant church historian Philip Schaff made this very point in respect to Tertullian’s use of the expression figure, even as he attempted to explain away or tone done the church’s view of the eucharist as Christ’s physical sacrifice:

1. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT.

The Didache of the Apostles contains eucharistic prayers, but no theory of the eucharist. Ignatius speaks of this sacrament in two passages, only by way of allusion, but in very strong, mystical terms, calling it the flesh of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, and the consecrated bread a medicine of immortality and an antidote of spiritual death.412  This view, closely connected with his high-churchly tendency in general, no doubt involves belief in the real presence, and ascribes to the holy Supper an effect on spirit and body at once, with reference to the future resurrection, but is still somewhat obscure, and rather an expression of elevated feeling than a logical definition.

The same may be said of Justin Martyr, when he compares the descent of Christ into the consecrated elements to his incarnation for our redemption413

Irenaeus says repeatedly, in combating the Gnostic Docetism,414 that bread and wine in the sacrament become, by the presence of the Word of God, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ and that the receiving of them strengthens soul and body (the germ of the resurrection body) unto eternal life. Yet this would hardly warrant our ascribing either transubstantiation or consubstantiation to Irenaeus. For in another place he calls the bread and wine, after consecration, “antitypes,” implying the continued distinction of their substance from the body and blood of Christ.415  This expression in itself, indeed, might be understood as merely contrasting here the upper, as the substance, with the Old Testament passover, its type; as Peter calls baptism the antitype of the saving water of the flood.416  But the connection, and the usus loquendi of the earlier Greek fathers, require us to take the term antitype, a the sense of type, or, more precisely, as the antithesis of archetype. The bread and wine represent and exhibit the body and blood of Christ as the archetype, and correspond to them, as a copy to the original. In exactly the same sense it is said in Heb. 9:24—comp. 8:5—that the earthly sanctuary is the antitype, that is the copy, of the heavenly archetype. Other Greek fathers also, down to the fifth century, and especially the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, call the consecrated elements “antitypes” (sometimes, like Theodoretus, “types”) of the body and blood of Christ.417

A different view, approaching nearer the Calvinistic or Reformed, we meet with among the African fathers. Tertullian makes the words of institution: Hoc est corpus meum, equivalent to: figura corporis mei, to prove, in opposition to Marcion’s docetism, the reality of the body of Jesus—a mere phantom being capable of no emblematic representation418  This involves, at all events, an essential distinction between the consecrated elements and the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Yet Tertullian MUST NOT be understood as teaching A MERELY symbolical presence of Christ; for in other places he speaks, according to his general realistic turn, in almost materialistic language of an eating of the body of Christ, and extends the participation even to the body of the receiver.419  Cyprian likewise appears to favor a symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, yet not so clearly. The idea of the real presence would have much better suited his sacerdotal conception of the ministry. In the customary mixing of the wine with water he sees a type of the union of Christ with his church,420 and, on the authority of John 6:53, holds the communion of the Supper indispensable to salvation. The idea of a sacrifice comes out very boldly in Cyprian.

The Alexandrians are here, as usual, decidedly spiritualistic. Clement twice expressly calls the wine a symbol or an allegory of the blood of Christ, and says, that the communicant receives not the physical, but the spiritual blood, the life, of Christ; as, indeed, the blood is the life of the body. Origen distinguishes still more definitely the earthly elements from the heavenly bread of life, and makes it the whole design of the supper to feed the soul with the divine word.421  Applying his unsound allegorical method here, he makes the bread represent the Old Testament, the wine the New, and the breaking of the bread the multiplication of the divine word!  But these were rather private views for the initiated, and can hardly be taken as presenting the doctrine of the Alexandrian church.

We have, therefore, among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views, an Oriental, a North-African, and an Alexandrian. The first view, that of Ignatius and Irenaeus, agrees most nearly with the mystical character of the celebration of the eucharist, and with the catholicizing features of the age.

2. THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE.

This point is very important in relation to the doctrine, and still more important in relation to the cultus and life, of the ancient church. The Lord’s Supper was UNIVERSALLY regarded not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice,422 the true and eternal sacrifice of the new covenant, superseding all the provisional and typical sacrifices of the old; taking the place particularly of the passover, or the feast of the typical redemption from Egypt. This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption. Hence the current name itself—eucharist; which denoted in the first place the prayer of thanksgiving, but afterwards the whole rite.423

The consecrated elements were regarded in a twofold light, as representing at once the natural and the spiritual gifts of God, which culminated in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Hence the eucharistic prayer, like that connected with the typical passover, related at the same time to creation and redemption, which were the more closely joined in the mind of the church for their dualistic separation by the Gnostics. The earthly gifts of bread and wine were taken as types and pledges of the heavenly gifts of the same God, who has both created and redeemed the world.

Upon this followed the idea of the self-sacrifice of the worshipper himself, the sacrifice of renewed self-consecration to Christ in return for his sacrifice on the cross, and also the sacrifice of charity to the poor. Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, “We offer,” and in the sentence: “All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord.”

This subjective offering of the whole congregation on the ground of the objective atoning sacrifice of Christ is the real centre of the ancient Christian worship, and particularly of the communion. It thus differed both from the later Catholic mass, which has changed the thank-offering into a sin-offering, the congregational offering into a priest offering; and from the common Protestant cultus, which, in opposition to the Roman mass, has almost entirely banished the idea of sacrifice from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except in the customary offerings for the poor.

The writers of the second century keep strictly within the limits of the notion of a congregational thank-offering. Thus Justin says expressly, prayers and thanksgivings alone are the true and acceptable sacrifices, which the Christians offer. Irenaeus has been brought as a witness for the Roman doctrine, only on the ground of a false reading.424 The African fathers, in the third century, who elsewhere incline to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, are the first to approach on this point the later Roman Catholic idea of a sin-offering; especially Cyprian, the steadfast advocate of priesthood and of episcopal authority.425  The ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar, are intimately connected, and a Judaizing or paganizing conception of one must extend to all. (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II, CHAPTER V: CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Note the contradiction in Schaff’s statements, as he attempts to explain away the eucharist as the physical sacrifice of Christ offered to God by believers in union with the Holy Spirit. He claims that the Catholic mass changed it from a thank-offering to a sin-offering but then states in the very next paragraph that this view of the eucharist being a sin-offering was already believed on and held by the African fathers including Cyprian in the third century!

Now contrast the foregoing with the statements made by this other renowned protestant scholar and church historian:

If such was the Church’s understanding of baptism, the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, IF NOT EARLIER. Malachi’s prediction (1, 10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was EARLY seized upon by Christians AS A PROPHECY OF THE EUCHARIST. The Didache indeed actually applies2 the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the eucharist, and the idea is presupposed by Clement in the parallel he discovers3 between the Church’s ministers and the Old Testament priests and levites, as in his description4 of the function of the former as the offering of gifts (cf. tous … prosenegkontas ta dora). Ignatius’s references to ‘one altar, just as there is one bishop’, reveals that he too thought in sacrificial terms. Justin speaks6 of ‘all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are celebrated in every place by Christians’. Not only here but elsewhere7 too, he identifies ‘the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist’, with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. For Irenaeus8 the eucharist is ‘the new oblation of the new covenant’, which the Church has received from the apostles and offers to God throughout the whole world.

It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poiete), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second century ears; Justin at any rate understood9 them to mean, ‘Offer this’. If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer. Justin, however, makes it plain10 that the bread and the wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds1 that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ (eucharistiai) are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses2 the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnesin) of the passion’, a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies MUCH MORE than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour’s passion. Irenaeus’s thought3 moves along rather different lines and does not link the eucharist so closely with Christ’s atoning death. When the bread and wine are offered to God, he thinks of them primarily as first-fruits of the earth which Christ has instructed us to offer, not because the Father needs them, but that we may not be found unfruitful or ungrateful. This is ‘the oblation of the Church’, and is well-pleasing to God as the expression of a sincere and faithful disposition. But the idea of the passion pervades this approach too, for Irenaeus identifies the gifts with Christ’s body and blood and describes them, in language reminiscent of the Lord’s words at the Last Supper, as ‘the oblation of the new covenant’.

This leads us to consider the significance attached to the elements themselves in this period. From the Didache4 we gather that the bread and wine are ‘holy’; they are spiritual food and drink communicating immortal life. Ignatius roundly declares5 that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood.6 Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes7 it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them;8 and since it mediates communion with Christ, it is a medicine which procures immortality (pharmakon athanasias), an antidote against death which enables us to live in the Lord forever.1 Justin actually refers to the change. ‘We do not receive these’, he writes,2 ‘as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him (that food which by process of assimilation nourishes our flesh and blood) is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.’ So Irenaeus teaches3 that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks:4 ‘Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity’. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Adam and Charles Black, London, Fourth Edition 1968], pp. 196-198; bold and capital emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

THE EUCHARIST AS THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST PT. 2

Al Wala’ wa’l Bara’: Islam’s Doctrine of Hate

Can Muslims take Jews and Christians as their friends?

Do the so-called authentic texts of Islam permit Muhammad’s followers to befriend and love individuals from another religion? Or are Muslims expressly forbidden by their god from taking non-believers as friends, comrades, protectors etc.?

Love and Hate for Allah’s Sake

There is a concept within Islam known as al-walaa wa’l-baraa. Al-walaa means loyalty or allegiance and al-baraa means disownment, disavowal, enmity or renunciation, and even appears in the Quran with this meaning:   

(This is a declaration of) immunity (Baraatun) by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. S. 9:1 Shakir

The word walaa further implies love, help and drawing close whereas baraa is its opposite. Another term that is frequently exchanged for baraa is adaa meaning enmity.  

What this doctrine basically teaches is that Muslims are to love Allah, his messenger, and one another, drawing close and remaining loyal to Islam, whereas they are to hate and disavow the disbelievers. Muslims are expressly prohibited from loving the unbelievers and are forbidden from making alliances with them, unless it is for a greater purpose such as deceiving the kufaar (infidels) from knowing the true agenda of Islam until Muslims gain the upper hand and subjugate them.

The following source, one we highly recommend, provides an excellent definition of this Islamic doctrine which helps to put this in perspective:

The following lengthy treatise, written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, portrays a world divided into two warring camps: Muslims and the rest. The Arabic words rendered here as “loyalty” and “enmity,” wala’ and bara’, can be variously translated, but always a dichotomy exists (“love and hate” or “friendship and animosity,” for instance). Wala’ essential means friendship, benevolence, fealty, and devotion, while bara’ means disavowal, repudiation–essentially being “clean” of something. While all these words are to varying degrees applicable (and are utilized within the translation according to context), as an Islamic doctrine what is being relayed is most appropriately captured by the words “loyalty” and “enmity.” “Enmity” towards infidels especially best translates bara’ since al-Qaeda insists that the basic relationship between the infidel and Muslim is described by this Koranic verse:

“You have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols that you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone’” [60:4].

(In fact, in “Moderate Islam Is a Prostration to the West,” bin Laden makes this verse the cornerstone of Islam’s relationship to the non- Muslim world.)

The entire doctrine is dedicated to showing that true Muslims must always strive to be in a state of wala’ by being devoted to Allah and loyal to one another, while maintaining a state of bara’ by hating or at least being clean from everything–and everyone–outside of Islam. In fact, if every Muslim followed this doctrine, a clash between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world would inevitably occur–which is precisely what al-Qaeda seeks. The many Koranic verses alone that form the centerpiece of this doctrine seem straightforward enough…

Aside from these divine verses and more like them, hadiths and exegeses by the ulema regarding the legitimacy of this doctrine are plentiful. The comprehensive nature of this doctrine is such that once it is upheld, everything else that radicals such as al-Qaeda yearn to see falls into place. The entire world becomes black and white, good and evil. In such a setting other doctrines that al-Qaeda endorse become more obligatory and urgent. Upholding sharia (Islamic) law becomes more pressing, since that is the primary way for Muslims to differentiate themselves and be clean of the ways of the infidels. Waging Offensive Jihad against the infidels becomes even more logical and palatable, since Muslims can never love or befriend infidels anyway until the latter submit to Islam. All Muslims would be obliged to help, fund, and shelter the mujahidin, since they must at all times be loyal to fellow Muslims. And so forth.

In short: the Muslim must “know that he is obligated to befriend a believer–even if he is oppressive and violent toward you, while he must be hostile to the infidel–even if he is liberal and kind to you.” This treatise is further revealing in that it acknowledges another little-known doctrine– that of taqiyya. According to this doctrine, Muslims may under certain circumstances openly deceive infidels by feigning friendship or goodwill–even apostasy–provided that their heart remains true to Islam. A favorite verse justifying this sort of dissimulation while also supporting the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity, which Zawahiri quotes innumerable times, states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah–unless you guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” [3:28, italics added for clarity]. (The Al Qaeda Reader, edited and translated by Raymond Ibrahim, introduction by Victor Davis Hanson [Broadway Books, NY, 2007, First Paperback Edition], Part I: Theology, 2. “Loyalty and Enmity”, pp. 63-65)

The translator goes on to reproduce the letters of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri where the latter copiously quotes from the Quran, the Sunna and various Muslim scholars to justify his call for Muslims to hate and wage war against the infidels. What is so amazing about al-Zawahiri’s letter is that he actually quotes many of the same Quranic verses, hadiths and expositors that we will be sourcing all throughout our paper, substantiating the fact that this is not merely an “Islamophobic” understanding or spin of these Islamic texts in order to portray the Muslim faith in the worst possible manner. We will be quoting from al-Zawahiri’s letter all throughout this article. We will also have more to say concerning taqiyya a little later in our discussion. In this article we will examine key Quranic references which Muslims often source in support of this doctrine. We will analyze the Quran and Islamic reference works to document our claims and to see what relevance such a teaching has for the safety and security of all non-Muslims around the world, especially places where the non-Muslims form a large majority or run the government. We will then compare the Islamic teachings with what the Holy Bible says concerning befriending and/or loving those of another faith.

The Religion before Allah is Islam

The Quran expressly says in more than one place that the only true religion, the only faith, which Allah accepts is Islam:

… This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion… S. 5:3 Y. Ali

Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account. S. 3:19 Hilali-Khan

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. S. 3:85 Hilali-Khan

All other religions must be debased and subjected to the rule of Islam. Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religious systems and ideologies.

In fact, Allah commanded Muhammad to subjugate and kill the infidels since this is the way he has prescribed for his religion to eventually become the dominant belief system:

‘Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.’ A proclamation, from God and His Messenger, unto mankind on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage: ‘God is quit, and His Messenger, of the idolaters. So if you repent, that will be better for you; but if you turn your backs; know that you cannot frustrate the will of God. And give thou good tidings to the unbelievers of a painful chastisement; excepting those of the idolaters with whom you made covenant, then they failed. You naught neither lent support to any man against you. With them fulfil your covenant till their term; surely God loves the godfearing. Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security — that, because they are a people who do not know. How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger? — excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing. How? If they get the better of you, they will not observe towards you any bond or treaty, giving you satisfaction with their mouths but in their hearts refusing; and the most of them are ungodly. They have sold the signs of God for a small price, and have barred from His way; truly evil is that they have been doing, observing neither bond nor treaty towards a believer; they are the transgressors. Yet if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then they are your brothers in religion; and We distinguish the signs for a people who know. But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief; they have no sacred oaths; haply they will give over. Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and purposed to expel the Messenger, beginning the first time against you? Are you afraid of them? You would do better to be afraid of God, if you are believers. Fight them, and God will chastise them at your hands and degrade them, and He will help you against them, and bring healing to the breasts of a people who believe, and He will remove the rage within their hearts; and God turns towards whomsoever He will; God is All-knowing, All-wise… It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship, witnessing against themselves unbelief; those — their works have failed them, and in the Fire they shall dwell forever. Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone; it may be that those will be among the guided. S. 9:2-15, 17-18 Arberry

O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary’s son — and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate — desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse. It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. S. 9:28-33 Arberry

Friendships and Alliances with Unbelievers are strictly prohibited

The Quran repeatedly forbids Muslims from making alliances or building friendships with disbelievers, even if they are family members:

And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise. S. 9:71 Pickthall

O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur’an]. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe”. But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: “Perish in your rage. Certainly, Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets).” If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but if some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if you remain patient and become Al-Muttaqun (the pious – see V.2:2), not the least harm will their cunning do to you. Surely, Allah surrounds all that they do. S. 3:118-120 Hilali-Khan

Note how the Muslim commentary explains the foregoing texts\:

(O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk…) [3:118]. Ibn ‘Abbas and Mujahid said: “This was revealed about a group of believers who took some hypocrites as intimate friends and had ties with some Jewish men due to bonds of kinship, friendship, alliance, neighbourhood and milk relations which they had with them. Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse warning them against taking them as intimates for fear lest they turn them away from their religion”. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al- Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=86&tsorano=3&tayahno=118&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2; bold emphasis mine)

Here are several more verses:

Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’an), then you would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper. S. 2:120 Hilali-Khan

O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer God an open proof against yourselves? S. 4:144 Pickthall

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness vying with one another to come to them, saying, ‘We fear lest a turn of fortune should smite us.’ But it may be that God will bring the victory, or some commandment from Him, and then they will find themselves, for that they kept secret within them, remorseful, and the believers will say, ‘What, are these the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths that they were with you? Their works have failed now they are losers.’ O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God (yujahidoona fee sabeel Allah), not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God’s bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All- knowing. Your friend is only God, and His Messenger, and the believers who perform the prayer and pay the alms, and bow them down. Whoso makes God his friend, and His Messenger, and the believers — the party of God (hizba Allah), they are the victors. O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport — and fear God, if you are believers — S. 5:51-57 Arberry

O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye fear that there will no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 9:23-24 Pickthall

And, here, again is how the Muslim exegetes exposited the aforementioned passage:

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren) who are in Mecca from among the disbelievers (for friends) in religion (if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) if they choose disbelief instead of faith. (Whoso of you taketh them for friends) in religion, (such are wrong-doers) disbelievers like them; it is also said that this means: O ye who believe! take not your believing fathers and brothers who are in Mecca, who had prevented you from migrating to Medina, for allies, seeking their help and assistance, if they choose to remain in the abode of disbelief, i.e. Mecca, rather than migrate to the abode of Islam, i.e. Medina. Whosoever takes them for allies harms only himself. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=73&tsorano=9&tayahno=23&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) [9:23-24]. Said al-Kalbi: “When the Messenger of Allah was commanded to migrate to Medina, some men went to their fathers, brothers or wives and said: ‘We have been commanded to migrate to Medina’. Thus, some people liked the command and hastened to execute it, while the wives, dependents and children of others hang on to some others, saying: ‘We beseech you by Allah not to leave us to no one, causing our waste and peril’. The hearts of these softened for them and, as a result, they refrained from migrating. These words of Allah, exalted is He, were then revealed to rebuke them (O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith…)”. As for those who stayed back in Mecca and did not migrate, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass…) [9:24], meaning fighting and the conquest of Mecca. (Asbab al-Nuzul https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=86&tsorano=9&tayahno=23&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)

There’s more:

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those who resist God and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). God will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of God. Truly it is the Party of God that will achieve Felicity. S. 58:22 Y. Ali

O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors), – offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in God your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way (jihadan fee sabeelee) and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth. Of no profit to you will be your relatives and your children on the Day of Judgment: He will judge between you: for God sees well all that ye do. There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides God: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, – unless ye believe in God and Him alone“: But not when Abraham said to his father: “I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from God.” (They prayed): “Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal. Our Lord! Make us not a (test and) trial for the Unbelievers, but forgive us, our Lord! for Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow, – for those whose hope is in God and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly God is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise. It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just. God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong… O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of God, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves. S. 60:1-9, 13 Y. Ali

The following exposition of Q. 9:23-24 and 58:22 is taken from al-Zawahiri’s letter to the Muslims titled, “Loyalty and Enmity,” Part One: The Foundations of Loyalty and Enmity in Islam (December, 2002), which is reproduced in The Al Qaeda Reader:

Ibn Kathir said:

“The learned al-Bayhaqi narrated a hadith that was conveyed by Abdallah bin Shawdhab. He said: ‘The father of Abu Ubayda bin al-Jarrah was praising the idols to him on the day of [the battle] Badr. So Abu Ubayda began avoiding him. But when al-Jarrah’s persistence grew, his son, Abu Ubayda, attacked and slew him. Thus Allah revealed this verse in reference to him.’ And it has been firmly established in the authentic account [hadith of Bukhari] that he [Muhammad] said: ‘By him who holds my soul in his hand, none of you believes unless I am dearer to him than his father, his son, and all of mankind.’” (P. 72)

And:

Ibn Kathir:

“It was said that the phrase from the Most High–‘even if they be their fathers’–that it was revealed about Abu Ubayda when he slew his father at [the battle of] Badr; ‘their sons’ was about Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s successor and first caliph] when he intended to slay his son, Abd al-Rahman’ ‘their brothers’ was about Mus’ab bin Umayr, who slew his brother, Ubayd bin Umayr; ‘or their kin’ was about Omar, who slew one of his relatives. Also Hamza, Ali, and Ubayda bin al-Harith: They slew Utba, Sheeba, and al-Walid bin Uitba [their kin] at that battle. Allah knows [best].”

“Moreover, when the Messenger of Allah consulted with the Muslims regarding the captives of Badr, Abu Bakr advised that they should pay ransom, thereby enabling the Muslims to grow stronger. Also, since they [captives] were cousins and relatives, perhaps Allah Most High would have eventually guided them. But Omar said: ‘This goes against my thinking, O Messenger of Allah. Let me slay so-and-so (a relative of Omar), and let Ali [slay] Aquil [Ali’s brother], and so-and-so [slay] so-and-so–so that Allah may know that there is no love in our hearts for the idolaters…’ This is the whole story.

“Ibn Abbas said: ‘He strengthened them with a spirit from Himself’ [from 58:28 (sic)]– that is, He empowered them. “Within the saying of the Most High–‘Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him’ [from 58:28 (sic)]– is a marvelous, hidden meaning: When they [Muslims] became enraged at their relatives and kin in the Most High’s [cause], He rewarded them, by being pleased with them and making them pleased with Him.” (Pp. 75-76)

Ibn Hajar wrote concerning the meaning of Q. 58:22:

“Piety (birr), family links (sila) and excellent behavior (ihsan) do not presuppose mutual love and affection (al-tahabub wal-tawadud), which are both forbidden by the verse {You will not find a people believing in Allah and the Last Day who at the same time love (yuwaddun) those who defy Allah and the Prophet}, which includes both those who fight [against Muslims] and those who do not.” (Fath al-Bari (5:233), cited in

YUSUF AL-QARADAWI – ahlus sunnah wal jamah

)

Do Not Greet the Infidels

Muslims are not to even return the greetings of the unbelievers. Note, for instance, how the two renowned Muslim exegetes Jalals explained Q. 4:86:

And when you are greeted with a greeting, as when it is said to you, ‘Peace be upon you’, greet, the one that greeted you, with better than it, by responding to him with, ‘Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy and blessings’, or return it, by saying back to him what he said; in other words, it is a duty to greet in one of these two ways, the former being the preferred one. Surely God keeps count of, He holds [you] accountable for, all things, and requites accordingly, including things such as returning a greeting. The Sunna specifies that one should not return the greeting of an disbeliever, an innovator, a wicked person, and of the one that greets a person who is in the act of relieving himself, or one in the bath, or one eating – indeed it is actually disapproved with the exception of the last. To the disbeliever [who says ‘peace be upon you’] one should simply say, ‘And upon you’. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=74&tsorano=4&tayahno=86&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)

If this doesn’t plainly demonstrate Muhammad’s utter disdain of Jews and Christians then the next set of statements surely will:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: Suhayl ibn Abu Salih said: I went out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: Do not give them salutation first, for Abu Hurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Do not salute them (Jews and Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, FORCE THEM TO GO TO THE NARROWEST PART OF IT. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 5186 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:5205)

And:

1102. Abu Basra l-Ghifari reported that the Prophet said, “I will ride to the Jews tomorrow. Do not give them the greeting first. If they greet you, then say, ‘and on you.'”

1103. Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet said, “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.” (Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari (Muslim Morals and Manners), XDIII. People of the Book)

Finally:

138. Chapter: On the prohibition against being the first to greet an unbeliever and how to return their greeting. The recommendation to greet the people of a mixed assembly of Muslims and unbelievers

866. Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Do not initiate the greeting to the Jews or the Christians. When you meet one of them in the road, force him to the narrowest part of it.” [Muslim] (Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous) https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:866)

The Salafi version has some rather interesting statements concerning the foregoing narration:

866: Commentary: This Hadith prohibits Muslims from greeting non-Muslims first. It also tells us that when the road is crowded, we should use the middle of the road and let the non-Muslims use its sides. This Hadith shows the dignity of Muslims and the disgrace and humiliation of the non-Muslims. (Riyad-us-Saliheen, compiled by Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, commentary by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, revised by M.R. Murad [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore, First Edition: June 1999], Five. The Book of Greetings, Chapter 138: Greeting the non-Muslims and Prohibition of taking an Initiative, Volume 2, p. 711; bold emphasis mine)

Muhammad hated Jews so much that he commanded that if any person called someone a Jew then that person had to be punished with twenty lashes!

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas

The Prophet said: “When a man calls another a Jew give him twenty lashes, when he calls someone a mukhannath give him twenty lashes; and kill anyone who has intercourse with a woman who is within the prohibited degrees.”

Tirmidhi transmitted it, saying this is a gharib tradition. (Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 1024 https://www.alim.org/hadith/tirmidi/1024/)

Muhammad further taught that in the last days that even the stones and trees will assist Muslims in killing all the Jews:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2925)  

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926)

Unbelievers Are the Worst of all Creatures

The Islamic scripture even goes so far as to say that disbelievers from among the polytheists, Jews and Christians are the worst creatures of them, even worse than dogs, swine, rats etc.!

Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (And) lo! those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings. S. 98:6-7 Pickthall

In fact, the only good polytheist, Jew or Christian is the one who believes in the Quran:

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the Apostle, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: “Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses. What cause can we have not to believe in God and the truth which has come to us, seeing that we long for our Lord to admit us to the company of the righteous?” And for this their prayer hath God rewarded them with gardens, with rivers flowing underneath, – their eternal home. Such is the recompense of those who do good. But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs, – they shall be companions of Hell-fire. S. 5:82-86 Y. Ali

Imitation of the Unbelievers is forbidden

Muhammad’s hatred for disbelievers, specifically the Jews and Christians, is further reinforced by the Quran’s expressly forbidding Muslims from imitating the laws, customs and practices of the infidels:

Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief)? S. 5:50 Pickthall

And here is what Muhammad is reported to have said:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “We (Muslims) are the last (to come) but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection though the former nations were given the Holy Scriptures before us. And this was their day (Friday) the celebration of which was made compulsory for them but they differed about it. So Allah gave us the guidance for it (Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect: the Jews’ (holy day is) tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) and the Christians’ (is) the day after tomorrow (i.e. Sunday).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 1 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:876; see also Number 21)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they do.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 786 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5899)

Migrating to Islamic lands

The foregoing helps us appreciate why the Quran and sunnah exhort Muslims to migrate to Islamic countries, as opposed to living in the lands of the kufaar. And the reason why residence among the unbelievers is discouraged and Muslims are prohibited from dwelling in places dominated by unbelievers, is because this will end up affecting their religious devotion:

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): “In what (condition) were you?” They reply: “We were weak and oppressed on earth.” They (angels) say: “Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?” Such men will find their abode in Hell – What an evil destination! Except the weak ones among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan, nor are they able to direct their way. For these there is hope that Allah will forgive them, and Allah is Ever Oft Pardoning, Oft-Forgiving. He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah (Wa man yuhajir fee sabeel Allah), will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. S. 4:97- 100 Hilali-Khan

XCIX: “The angels ask those they take while they are wronging themselves, ‘What were your circumstances?’ They reply, ‘We were oppressed on earth.’ They say, ‘Was Allah’s earth not wide enough for you to have emigrated elsewhere in it?”” (4:97)

4320. It is related that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdu’r-Rahman Abu’l-Aswad said, “Conscription* for an expedition was forced on the people of Madina [by Ibn az-Zubayr] and I was put in it. I met ‘Ikrima, the client of Ibn ‘Abbas and told him. He forbade him to do that in the strongest possible terms. Then he said, ‘Ibn ‘Abbas reported to me that some of the Muslims were with the idolaters to increase the size of the idolaters in the time of the Messenger of Allah. An arrow would be shot and hit one of them and kill him, or he would be struck a blow and killed. Then Allah revealed, ‘The angels ask those they take while they are wronging themselves….’ (4:97)” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari30.html)

The following was revealed regarding a group of people who submitted to Islam but did not emigrate and were then slain in the battle of Badr alongside the disbelievers: And those whom the angels take [in death], while they are wronging their souls, having remained among the disbelievers and neglected to emigrate, the angels will say, to them in rebuke: ‘What was your predicament?’, in other words, ‘in what circumstances were you with regard to your religion’. They will say, giving excuses, ‘We were oppressed, unable to establish religion, in the land’, the land of Mecca. The angels will say, to them in rebuke: ‘But was not God’s earth spacious that you might have emigrated therein?’, from the land of unbelief to another land, as others did? God, exalted be He, says: as for such, their abode shall be Hell — an evil journey’s end, it is! (Tafsir al-Jalalayn https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=74&tsorano=4&tayahno=97&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2; bold emphasis mine)

(Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves…) [4:97]. This verse was revealed about some people in Mecca who professed Islam but did not migrate; they showed faith outwardly but were hypocrites inwardly. At the battle of Badr, they joined the idolaters in their fight against the Muslims and were killed therein. The angels struck their faces and backs and said to them that which Allah, exalted is He, has mentioned in this verse. Abu Bakr al-Harithi informed us> Abu’l-Shaykh al-Hafiz> Abu Yahya> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> ‘Abd al-Rahim ibn Sulayman> Ash‘ath ibn Sawad> ‘Ikrimah> Ibn ‘Abbas who said with regard to the verse (Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves…) which he recited to the end: “They were Muslims who were in Mecca. They went out with the idolaters to fight and were killed with them, and so this verse was revealed”. (Asbab al-Nuzul https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=86&tsorano=4&tayahno=97&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2; bold emphasis mine)

(… and whoso forsaketh his home, a fugitive unto Allah and His messenger…) [4:100]. Said Ibn ‘Abbas, according to the report of ‘Ata’: “‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf was used to inform the [Muslims from among the] people of Mecca about anything that was revealed about them in the Qur’an. And so he wrote the verse, (Lo! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves…) [4:97]. When the Muslims read it, Habib ibn Damrah al-Laythi, who was an old man, said to his sons: ‘I am not one of the oppressed so take me, for I would not be able to find the way on my own’. His sons transported him on an elevated seat and headed toward Medina. When he got to al- Tan‘im, death descended on him. He clapped his right hand on his left and said: ‘O Allah, this is for you and this is for your Messenger. I pledge allegiance to you regarding that which I pledge allegiance to your Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace’, and he died an easy death. When his news reached the Companions of the Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, they said: ‘His reward would have been more complete had he reached Medina’, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Hassan al-Muzani informed us> Harun ibn Muhammad ibn Harun> Ishaq ibn Muhammad al-Khuza‘i> Abu’l-Walid al-Azraqi> his grandfather> Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah> ‘Amr ibn Dinar> ‘Ikrimah who said: “There were some people in Mecca who were convinced in Islam but could not migrate. When the battle of Badr happened, they were forced to take part in it and were killed fighting with the idolaters, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Lo! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves) up to His words (As for such, it may be that Allah will pardon them…) [4:99]. Those in Medina wrote to those Muslims in Mecca, informing them of this. A man from Banu Bakr, who was sick, said: ‘Take me to al-Rawha’’, and they took him there. He left with the intention of going to Medina. But when he reached al-Hashas he died, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (… and whoso forsaketh his home, a fugitive unto Allah and His messenger…)”. (Asbab al-Nuzul https://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=86&tsorano=4&tayahno=100&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2; bold emphasis mine)

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

To proceed, the Apostle of Allah said: Anyone who associates with a polytheist and lives with him is like him. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2781 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2787)

Deception and Concealment: Unmasking Islam’s real agenda

Now if Islam strictly forbids Muslims from migrating to the lands of the kufaar then why do we have Muslims living in the west? Before we address this issue we need to be careful not to paint all Muslims with the same brush. Many, if not most, Muslims come to the west seeking a better life for themselves and their families. A majority of them migrate here since they realize that there are greater opportunities for them to succeed and advance in life. Yet these same Muslims are, for the most part, not well educated on what the authentic Islamic source material teaches concerning associating and living with the disbelievers. Many of them may actually believe that Islam permits, if not commands, them to love and respect the unbelievers provided that the disbelievers do not attack the Muslims. There may even be among these Muslims certain individuals who do know what the Islamic references say concerning hating the disbelievers but are persuaded that these statements refer to antagonists who seek to destroy Islam and will therefore interpret these texts in light of this presupposition.

Yet there are those Muslims who do know what Islam actually teaches concerning the treatment of disbelievers and associating with them. These individuals are aware that the Quran and the Sunna of their prophet expressly forbids them from imitating and living among the unbelievers. They know that they are commanded to hate the kufaar and to ring them under the control of Islam. Knowing all this why are these Muslims here? Why are they living in the midst of those whom Allah hates and wants to debase? The answer is rather simple.

These specific Muslims are here to work within the freedoms and rights afforded to them by the West in order to create the conditions that will empower the Muslims to gain the upperhand and eventually bring the entire western hemisphere to its knees. Their plan includes using lies and deceptions for the purpose of concealing their real agenda until they feel that they have amassed enough resources and manpower to strike at the west and subjugate it to the rule of Islam:

Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But God cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to God… Say: “If ye do love God, Follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Say: “Obey God and His Apostle”: But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject Faith. S. 3:28, 31-32 Y. Ali

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said…

<And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way> meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said…

<O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them>, until…

<And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.> [60:1]. Allah said…

 <O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves> [4:144], and…

<O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.> [5:51]. Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins…

<And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.> [8:73]. Allah said next…

<unless you indeed fear a danger from them> meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers OUTWARDLY, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people ALTHOUGH OUR HEARTS CURSE THEM.” Al-Bukhari said that Al- Hasan said, “The TUQYAH is allowed until the Day of Resurrection…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/3/28/; bold, capital emphasis mine)

Here, again, are some quotes from al-Zawahiri’s letter to the Muslims taken from The Al Qaeda Reader:

A. The Difference Between Befriending and Dissembling The sharia differentiates between befriending infidels, which is forbidden, and fearing their evil. Allah Most High said … [3:28] … “Kashr” [word rendered “grin” in al- Darda’s hadith] means to display one’s teeth while smiling. He [Ibn Kathir] also says regarding the Word of the Most High… [66:11] …

“Allah provided this instance to show the believers that no harm will come to them should they intermingle with the infidels whenever they have need of them. As the Most High said: ‘Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah–unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precaution’ [3:28].”

Al-Qurtubi said:

“Mua’dh bin Jabal and Mujahid say, ‘Taqiyya [self-preservation through dissembling] was a novelty of Islam before the Muslims grew strong. But today Allah has ennobled Islam to overcome its enemies.’ Ibn Abbas said: ‘He but speaks with his tongue, but his heart is secure in faith; he murders not nor does he commit any sin.’ Al-Hasan says: ‘Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment–but not if it causes the death [of fellow Muslims].’

“Thus it is said that if a believer resides with the infidels, and if he fears for himself, he should cajole with his tongue, while his heart remains secure in its faith. However, taqiyya is permitted only should one fear being killed, scarred, or severely harmed. But whoever is forced into apostasy, it is his right to resist and refuse to respond to any utterance of infidelity, if he can.” Al-Tabari said [regarding the verse] … [3:28].

Only when you are in their power, fearing for your selves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, whilst harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelity, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim.” (Pp. 73-74; bold emphasis mine)

And:

To conclude: Should a Muslim encounter circumstances that expose him to murder, scarring, or severe injury, he may utter some words [i.e., lie] to stay the infidels’ torments. But he must not undertake any initiative to support them, commit sin, or enable them through any deed or killing or fighting against the Muslims. Nobler for him that he should endure torments, even if they are the cause of his death. (P. 75)

Finally:

10. SUMMARY

A. Allah Exalted has forbidden us from taking infidels as friends and allies, and aiding them against the believers, by either word or deed. Whoever does this is an infidel like them. Sharia law allows [through the doctrine of taqiyya] whoever fears being killed, scarred, or severely harmed to say whatever will prevent the infidels from harming him–without making them intimates, and without helping them against Muslims, either by way of action, murder, or fighting. But the better way is be steadfast and endure. (Pp. 99-100)

The Holy Bible has Spoken!

Examining what the Word of God really teaches about loving unbelievers

Here’s what God’s true Word says about how believers are to treat unbelievers:

“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.” Exodus 23:4-5

“If I have rejoiced at the ruin of him who hated me, or exulted when evil overtook him I have not let my mouth sin by asking for his life with a curse),” Job 31:29-30

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:43-48

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:14-21

FURTHER READING

Is Islam a religion of Peace?

Islam Hates You

Is ISIS Islamic? Part 1: Jesus’ Kingdom versus Muhammad’s Kingdom

Part 2: Muhammad Did It, ISIS Does It

Part 3: Understanding Islam and ISIS Today

Muhammad and the Murder of Abu Afak

Muhammad and the Murder of Asma bint Marwan

The Deception and Murder of Kab al-Ashraf

Muhammad and the Death of Kinana

Muhammad and the Death of the Uraynians

Muhammad and the Killing of Apostates

Muhammad and the Meccan Ten

“Kill those who Associate Partners (Mushrikun) Wherever You Find Them!”

Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not?

Fighting All People Until They Do What?

Compel them or Not?

Can They Disbelieve in the Last Day and be Safe?

The Council of Antioch on Christ’s Divinity

In the year 268 AD, a provincial council was convened at Antioch, Syria where the Apostles of the risen Lord often frequented and where believers were first called Christians:

“Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Acts 11:25-26 Authorized King James Version (AV)

The council condemned the heretic Paul of Samosata and all those who, like him, denied the divine prehuman existence of Jesus. The synod argued that it was Christ himself whom the OT believers saw in visible form and whom they often identified as the Angel of God.

Here are some of their statements:

“The Son was not just a spectator nor was he merely present, but… came down and appeared to Abraham “at the oak of Mamre,” [as] one of the three, with whom the patriarch conversed as Lord and Judge… This is who, fulfilling the Father’s will, appears to and converses with the patriarchs… sometimes as an Angel, at other times as Lord, and at other times being testified to as God.

Truly it is impious to suppose that one can call the God of all an angel; however the Angel of the Father is the Son, he is Lord and God, for it is written: “His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel.” For… it is written: “God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ Then He said, ‘Take now your beloved Son’” etc. And again: “And the Angel of the Lord called to him and said, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’” etc. “‘For now I know that you fear God, since for My sake you have not spear your beloved son… and he called the name of the place ‘The-Lord-Has-Appeared’; as it is said to this day, ‘In the mountain the Lord was seen.’

And concerning Jacob: “the Angel of God,” [Jacob] says, “spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ Thus I said, ‘what is it.’ So he said, ‘lift up your eyes’” etc. “‘I am the God who appeared to you at the “Place-of-God,” where you anointed the pillar and made a vow to Me’… So Jacob called the name of that place ‘The Form of God’; ‘For I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved’”…

But truly the Law was also in a similar manner, we say, given to Moses through the ministry of the Son of God; as the Apostle, teaching [us], says: “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promised was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” Verily we do not know of another mediator between God and men apart from Him. But we are also taught these things by Moses: “Then the Angel appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush” etc…

This is who, speaking the truth, says: “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from the Father; He has seen the Father.” And in the same Gospel: “You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form,” and: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” The Apostle says of Him: “He is the image of the invisible God,” and in another place he says: “To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honour and glory to the ages of ages. Amen.”… The Son however, being with the Father, is indeed God and Lord of all things made, yet he was sent by the Father from the heavens, and was made flesh, becoming man”. (Translation by Rev. Michael S. Spanou)

The foregoing shows that it has always been the belief of the ancient apostolic churches that Jesus Christ is that very divine Angel whom the Father dispatched all throughout the OT period, being that very same Jehovah God who appeared to believers in visible form.  

POSTSCRIPT

According to scholars and historians of the early church, the believers that gathered at this council held to a view of Christ, which would later on be called Apollinarianism and subsequently condemned as heresy. This is a view which teaches that the soul that animated Christ’s physical body was identical to the Hypostasis/Person of the Word.

According to this belief, instead of taking on a human soul, the divine Logos basically replaced that aspect of Christ’s humanity by being the One who animated the physical body which the Logos took from the blessed virgin.     

As scholar of early Christianity J. N. D. Kelly notes:

Although we are largely in the dark about Christological development in the second half of the third century, such evidence as we possess suggests that, while Origen’s general framework of ideas exerted a powerful influence, there was a widespread reaction against its most distinctive thesis, viz. that Christ’s human soul was the point of union between the eternal Word and the humanity. We have already noticed that Novatian in the West, while usually a faithful disciple of Tertullian, refused to follow his master in including a rational soul in Christ’s human make-up. His refusal, coming at about the same time as a similar reluctance was showing itself in the East, may well have resulted from the exchange of ideas between the two great sections of the Church. In the East at any rate the chief motive at work, apart from hostility to Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, seems to have been the growing suspicion that the recognition of a real human mind in the Godman must logically entail the disruption of His unity.

An instructive illustration of this reaction can be seen in the views propounded by the bishops who excommunicated Paul of Samosata at Antioch in 268, and in particular by their able spokesman, the priest Malchion. These can be reconstructed from the surviving fragments of the acts of the synod. Being Origenists, the bishops naturally repudiate Paul’s denial of the personality or concrete subsistence of the Word; in their eyes He had existed from all eternity as a hypostasis or ousia. But they equally take umbrage at his radical separation of the Word from the man Jesus and his interpretation of the relation between them as merely one of inspiration.5 There is, they affirm, an absolute unity between the two, a unity which is not one of participation or grace, but of substance. They are, as it were, ontologically one, and ‘the substantial Word’, ‘the hypostasis of the Word’, is actually present in the make-up of Jesus Christ.1 Being Himself a substance (ousia), the Word has become ‘substantified’ (ousiomene) in the humanity,2 and the God-man is a composite being (syntheton zoon); the divinity and the flesh having been substantially (ousiodos) united, the former is a real element in the structure of the God-man.3

If we ask how this has been brought about, the answer is surprising and important. There is no suggestion of Origen’s theory of the intimate adhesion of Christ’s human soul to the Logos. On the contrary, the explanation put forward by Malchion and the bishops implies that Christ’s humanity did not include a human soul at all, all the functions of one in His constitution being performed by the Word incarnate. This comes out very clearly in their statement4 that the Saviour is a composite being in the same way as an ordinary man is composite; just as the oneness or unity of the latter results from the concourse (synodos) of flesh and ‘something else’ which inhabits the flesh (manifestly the higher soul or mind), so the unity of the Lord results from the coming together (ek tou syndedramekenai) of the divine Word and the flesh He assumed from the Virgin. Evidently they were dichotomists, believing in the Platonic manner that a human being is a mind inhabiting a body. So they can say,5 ‘We recognize only one difference, admittedly a very important one, between His constitution (autou ten systasin) and ours, viz. that the divine Logos is in Him what the interior man (ho heso anthropos) is in us‘. There can be no doubt that by ‘the interior man’ the fathers meant the higher soul or mind, or that by substituting the Word for it in the structure of the Incarnate they intended to safeguard His unity against Paul’s separation of the Word from ‘the man’.

Further proof that the doctrine of Christ’s human soul was coming under heavy fire in the latter half of the century can be gleaned from the apology for Origen which Pamphilus and Eusebius prepared between 308 and 310. From this it emerges1 that Origen was charged with holding adoptionist views similar to those of Paul of Samosata and Artemas, and also of preaching two Christs. Evidently these errors were taken by his critics to be the logical outcome of the thesis that the God-man possessed a human soul, for in defending him Pamphilus and Eusebius make the point2 that this suggestion of his should not be the occasion of offence, seeing that, on the evidence of Scripture, Christ Himself more than once alluded to His soul. In his own theology Eusebius was quite explicit3 that the Word indwelt the flesh of the Incarnate, ‘moving it like a soul’; it was His ‘corporeal instrument’. If he is prepared to make use of the Scriptural language referring to His human soul, he interprets it as signifying, not an actual human soul, but that which takes the place of one, viz. the eternal Word. So he explains4 that, when the demons launched their attack ‘against our Saviour’s soul’, the mistake they made lay in supposing that the soul inhabiting His body was an ordinary human one. Again, he understands5 by Christ’s death the departure of the Word from His flesh, which for its part is consigned to the grave.

If ideas like these were to the fore in circles which were in other matters sympathetic to Origenism, it is not surprising that theologians less subservient to Origen’s spell were disposed to dissociate themselves from his solution of the Christological problem. Methodius of Olympus (+ 311) is a good example; indeed, he is the only theologian falling into this category whose works have come down to us. Speaking of the incarnation, he states6 that the Son of God ‘truly became man’, or even ‘assumed the man’; he describes7 the Incarnate as ‘a man filled with deity unmixed and perfect, and a God contained in a man’. Phrases like these have an Origenist ring, as does his designation1 of the Lord’s humanity as an ‘instrument’ (organon). We should notice, however, that when he defines his meaning more precisely he affirms2 that it was in virtue of His assumption of flesh that the heavenly Christ, not being man, became man. As a matter of fact, his major Christological passages3 imply that there were only two elements compounded in the Godman, viz. the Word and His flesh. The effect of the incarnation, he states,4 was that the body in a miraculous way became the receptacle of the Logos; and, identifying Christ’s immaculate flesh with the bride of Solomon’s Song, he represents5 the Word as abandoning the Father for sheer love of it, descending to earth and cleaving to it in closest union. When we bear in mind that Methodius is a dichotomist6 holding that human nature is composed of body and soul, and that on his view the soul is the immortal element in man and belongs to the order of intelligences of which the Word is the chief, the conclusion is inescapable that he was an exponent of what may be called the ‘Word-flesh’ type of Christology, teaching that the Word took the place of the human mind or soul in the structure of the God-man. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Adam and Charles Black, London, Fourth Edition 1968], pp. 158-161; bold emphasis mine)

As Kelly explains, these Christians were attempting to safeguard against the belief that Christ subsists of two Persons, namely, the divine Logos and the human Jesus. They feared that to posit a human soul to Christ would logically entail that he is two distinct Persons. Their way of solving this dilemma was to deny that the Logos took to himself a human soul when he became enfleshed. They argued that the inner element, which animates the human body and makes an individual a unique personality, was the divine Logos.

In other words, it was the divine Logos that constituted the soul of Christ’s humanity, even though the Logos isn’t human in nature.

As noted earlier, this view would later be condemned as heresy due to its undermining the essential humanity of Christ since, as later theologians and apologists reasoned, to be truly human one must possess a human soul, mind, will, body etc.

However, this doesn’t mean that these earlier Christians were heretics since anathemas, or condemnations, which come later do not extend to individuals that came earlier, whose views of the Trinity were basically sound. These believers were wrestling with heresies which compromised the uni-Personality of Christ and so did their best to refute such blasphemies. At times, the explanations which they came up with to combat these false teachings weren’t as consistent or accurate as they could be.  

FURTHER READING

63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord

HOLY SPIRIT WORSHIPED AS GOD

SECOND-THIRD CENTURY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP OF THE TRINITY

Were the Early Church Fathers Trinitarians?

Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Worship the Holy Spirit as God Almighty?

Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ

Justin Martyr’s Witness to Christ’s essential and eternal Deity

Revisiting Shabir Ally’s Distortion of Justin Martyr Pt. 1Pt. 2

Origen’s Christology

Origen – Dialog with Heracleides

63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord

This is a repost of the following article:

By: The Trinitarian Ode

CHURCH FATHER QUOTES ON THE MESSENGER/ANGEL OF YAHWEH

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.)

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 34 “..although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and man, and captain (Josh. 5:13-15), and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.”

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 58 “It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments.”

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 58 (Continued): “The word of God, therefore, [recorded] by Moses, when referring to Jacob the grandson of Abraham, speaks thus:… And the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, Jacob. And I said, What is it, Lord? And He said, Lift up thine eyes,… I have seen what Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared to thee in Bethel, where thou anointedst a pillar and vowedst a vow unto Me (Gen. 31:11-13).”

Ch. 58 Continued: But Jacob was left behind alone, and the Angel wrestled with him until morning. And He saw that He is not prevailing against him, and He touched the broad part of his thigh; and the broad part of Jacob’s thigh grew stiff while he wrestled with Him (Gen. 32; Hosea 12:2-5).…thou hast prevailed with God, and with men shalt be powerful. And Jacob asked Him, and said, Tell me Thy name. But he said, Why dost thou ask after My name (Gen. 32:29)? And He blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of that place Peniel, for I saw God face to face, and my soul rejoiced.’

Ch. 58 Continued: And when all had agreed on these grounds, I continued: “Moreover, I consider it necessary to repeat to you the words which narrate how He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham (Gen. 22 & 15), and who wrestled in human form with Jacob (Gen. 32), was seen by him when he fled from his brother Esau.

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 59 When I had spoken these words, I continued: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses (Exo. 3).”
(Can read Ch. 60)
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 61 “I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun)

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 76 Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX),…

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 86 ‘Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.’ For indeed all kings and anointed persons obtained from Him their share in the names of kings and anointed: just as He Himself received from the Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and such like other titles which He bears or did bear.

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 126 “who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX), and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn.

Ch. 126 Continued “Then I went on to say what I had not said before: “And so, when the people desired to eat flesh, and Moses had lost faith in Him, who also there is called the Angel, and who promised that God would give them to satiety, He who is both God and the Angel, sent by the Father, is described as saying and doing these things. For thus the Scripture says: ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Will the Lord’s hand not be sufficient? thou shalt know now whether my word shall conceal thee or not.’ And again, in other words, it thus says: ‘But the Lord spake unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan: the Lord thy God, who goeth before thy face, He shall cut off the nations.’

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 127 “Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush (Exo. 3). Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven (Gen. 19:24);’ and again, when it is thus said by David: ‘Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter;’ and again, when He says: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool (Psalm 110:1).’

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128 “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.”

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128 “..but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,..”

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128 And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun, but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Irenaeus of Lyons 102-220 A.D.
(A student of Polycarp of Smyrna who was the disciple of the Apostle John)

Against Heresies Book III, Ch. 6: “And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people.”

Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 23: And he mounted upon his ass. Numbers 22:22-23 The ass was the type of the body of Christ, upon whom all men, resting from their labours, are borne as in a chariot. For the Saviour has taken up the burden of our sins. Now the Angel who appeared to Balaam was the Word Himself; and in His hand He held a sword, to indicate the power which He had from above.

Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 53: “With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen.

Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 54: “He is the First-begotten, after a transcendent manner, the Creator of man; All in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the law; the Priest among priests; among kings Prime Leader; the Prophet among the prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity… the Leader of the angelic host; God of God; Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Melito of Sardis (120-185 A.D.)

Melito of Sardis’ Fragments Ch. 4 “..our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your love that this Being is perfect reason, the Word of God; He who was begotten before the light; He who is Creator together with the Father; He who is the Fashioner of man; He who is all in all; He who among the patriarchs is Patriarch; He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever. For this is He who was pilot to Noah; He who was guide to Abraham; He who was bound with Isaac; He who was in exile with Jacob; He who was sold with Joseph; He who was captain of the host with Moses;

Tertullian (145-220 A.D.)

Tertullian Against Praxeas Ch. 16 It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord (Gen. 19:24)..

Ch. 16 Continued: “..and at Abraham’s tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the burning bush (Exo. 3); and have appeared as the fourth in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch (Dan. 3:25) — unless all these events had happened as an image, as a mirror, as an enigma (of the future incarnation)?”

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)

Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 5 “The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child?”

Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 5 “For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him–God the Word–who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us–“the Lamb of God”–Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.”

Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 7 “Who, then, would train us more lovingly than He? Formerly the older people had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an Angel; but to the fresh and new people has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear is turned to love, and that Mystic Angel is born–Jesus… Now the law is ancient grace given through Moses by the Word. Wherefore also the Scripture says, “The law was given through Moses,” not by Moses, but by the Word, and through Moses His servant.”

Novation (200-258 A.D.)

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 18 “Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.”

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 18 “And since this cannot be applicable or fitting to the Father, who is God only, but may be applicable to Christ, who is declared to be not only God, but angel also, it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather Christ, since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the “angel of great counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX).”

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19 “That God Also Appeared to Jacob as an Angel; Namely, the Son of God… If the Angel of God speaks thus to Jacob, and the Angel himself mentions and says, “I am God, who appeared unto thee in the house of God (Gen. 31:11-13),” we see without any hesitation that this is declared to be not only an angel, but God also; because He speaks of the vow directed to Himself by Jacob in the place of God, and He does not say, in my place. It is then the place of God, and He also is God.”

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19 Continued “Moreover, if this is Christ, as it is, he is in terrible risk who says that Christ is either man or angel alone, withholding from Him the power of the divine name,—an authority which He has constantly received on the faith of the heavenly Scriptures, which continually say that He is both Angel and God.”

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19 Continued “And yet, even after this, the same divine Scripture justly does not cease to call the Angel God, and to pronounce God the Angel…”
“he said, “The God which fed me from my youth even unto this day, the Angel who delivered me from all evils, bless these lads (Gen. 48:15-16).”

Novation On the Trinity Ch. 31 “He therefore is God, but begotten for this special result, that He should be God. He is also the Lord, but born for this very purpose of the Father, that He might be Lord. He is also an Angel, but He was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the Great Counsel of God (Isaiah 9:6 LXX). And His divinity is thus declared, that it may not appear by any dissonance or inequality of divinity to have caused two Gods. For all things being subjected to Him as the Son by the Father, while He Himself, with those things which are subjected to Him, is subjected to His Father, He is indeed proved to be Son of His Father; but He is found to be both Lord and God of all else.”

Eusebius (265-339 A.D.)

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 1 IT seems now time to say what I consider to be desirable at present to draw from the prophetic writings for the proof of the Gospel. They said that Christ, (Whom they named) the Word of God, and Himself both God and Lord, and Angel of Great Counsel, would one day dwell among men, and would become for all the nations of the world, both Greek and Barbarian, a teacher of true knowledge of God, and of such duty to God the Maker of the Universe, as the preaching of the Gospel includes.

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 5 Remember how Moses calls the Being, Who appeared to the patriarchs, and often delivered to them the oracles afterwards written down in Scripture, sometimes God and Lord, and sometimes the Angel of the Lord. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent God, but a secondary Being, rightly called the God and Lord of holy men, but the Angel of the Most High His Father.

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 5 To which he adds: “16. And Jacob arose in the morning, and took the stone, which he had put under his head, and set it up as a pillar.” Then further on he calls this God and Lord Who appeared to him the Angel of God. For Jacob says: “11. For the Angel of God said to me in a dream, Jacob. And I said, What is it? ” And then: “12. I have seen, he says, all that Laban does to thee. I am the God that was seen by thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst for me there a pillar, and thou vowedst to me there a vow.”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 4 Ch. 10 He is called as well Eternal High Priest, and also the Anointed (Christ) of the Father, for so among the Hebrews they were called Christs, who long ago symbolically presented a copy of the first (Christ). And when as Captain of the Angels He heads them (Rev. 19:11-19), He is called: “The Angel of Great Counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX),” and as Leader of the Armies of Heaven: “Captain of the Host of the Lord (Joshua 5:13-15).”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 4 Ch. 17 From Exodus. How Jesus, the Successor of Moses, called the Angel, and about to be the Leader of the People, is said to bear the Name of Christ. “20. And behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Take heed to thyself and hearken unto him and disobey him not; for he will not give way to thee, for my name is upon him (Exodus 23:20-21).”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 10 That the same Prophet shews more clearly in the Matter of Jacob the said Person to be Lord, Whom also He calls God, and an Angel of God Most High, in addressing Him. THIS Being who here answers him at such length, you will find, if you read on, to be Lord and God, and the Angel of God, from the words Jacob himself says to his wives: “And the angel of the Lord said to me in sleep, Jacob. And I said, Here am I.” And also: “I have seen, he says, all that Laban doeth to thee. I am the God, that was seen of thee in the place where thou anointedst the pillar for me, and offeredst prayer to me.”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 10 Therefore He that said before, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, to whom godly Jacob raises the pillar, was indeed God and Lord: for we must believe that which He Himself says. Not of course the Almighty, but the Second to Him, Who ministers for His Father among men, and brings His Word. Wherefore Jacob here calls Him an Angel: “The Angel of God said to me, speaking in my sleep, ‘ I am the God who was seen by thee in this place.’ ” So the same Being is clearly called the Angel of the Lord, and God and Lord in this place. And by Isaiah the Prophet he is called “Angel of Great Counsel,” as well as God and Ruler and Potentate, where His Incarnation is prophesied in the words: “For unto us a child is born, and to us a son is given, on whose shoulder shall be the rule, and his name shall be called the Angel of Great Counsel, Prince of Peace, the Mighty God, the Potentate, the Father of the Age to Come.”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 13 ..clearly shewing that the Almighty God Himself, Who is One, was not seen in His own Person; and that He did not give answers to the fathers, as He did to Moses by an angel, or a fire, or a bush, but “as a sufficient God”: so that the Father was seen by the fathers through the Son, according to His saying in the Gospels, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” For the knowledge of the Father was revealed in Him and by Him. But in cases when He appeared to save men, He was seen in the human form of the Son,..

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 15 That it was not an Angel, who gave Answers to Moses, but Some One More Excellent than an Angel. IT will be plain to all that these could not be the words of a mere angel of God. But of what God could they be, but of the One seen by the forefathers, whom Jacob clearly called the Angel of God? And He we know was the Word of God, being called both the Servant of God, and God Himself and Lord.

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 19 So, then, the command that was given shews that the God Who answered on both occasions was one and the same. Though here He prophesies through the Chief and Captain of His power, and to Moses by the vision of the angel… …what other could be highest of all but the Word of God, His Firstborn Wisdom, His Divine Offspring? Rightly, then, He is here called Chief Captain of the Power of the Lord, as also elsewhere “Angel of Great Counsel,” “Throned with the Father,” “Eternal and Great High Priest.” And it has been proved that the same Being is both Lord and God, and Christ anointed by the Father with the oil of gladness.

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 28 THIS, too, is like the former prophecies. For the Lord God Himself, the Almighty, says that a Lord will come in His own temple, speaking of another: And He surely means God the Word. And after this also He names Him “the Angel of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1)” of Whom, too, Almighty God teaches that He will Him send forth before His face, saying, “Behold, I send forth my angel before my face.” And this same Being, Whom He has called “My angel,” He calls Lord directly after, and adds, “The Lord shall suddenly come, and the Angel of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1).”

Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 29 HE that has often been named Lord, and God, and Angel, and Chief Captain, Christ and Priest, and Word and Wisdom of God, and Image, this same Being is now called Sun of Righteousness. And we see that the Father that begat Him proclaims that He will rise not on all, but only on those that fear His Name, giving them the light of the Sun of Righteousness as a reward for their fear. He, then, must be God the Word, Who said, “I am the Light of the world”; for He was “the light that lighteth every man coming into the world.”

Eusebius’ “Preparation for the Gospel” Book 7 Ch. 15 “And this Beginning is before all originate things which followed, on which account also they are wont to call it the Image of God, and Power of God, and Wisdom of God, and Word of God, nay further the Great ‘Captain of the host of the Lord,’ and ‘Angel of the great Counsel.’”

Origen (184-253 A.D.)
(Was a student of Hippolytus of Rome, the student of Irenaeus of Lyons, the student of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself).

Contra Celsum Book 5 Ch. 53 And this was the work of one who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but the Angel of the great counsel: for He announced to men the great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them, (saying) of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion,

Contra Celsum Book 5 Ch. 58 I do not speak of the desire of those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to put Him to death, and to show to all men that He was dead and non-existent, that His tomb should not be opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive after their conspiracy; but the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful than the conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word to be dead might be convinced that He is not with the departed, but is alive, and precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to them those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them at the time of their first entrance (into the school of Christianity), when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper instruction.

Contra Celsum Book 8 Ch. 27 “He who by his piety possesses the favour of the Most High, who has accepted the guidance of Jesus, the Angel of the great counsel, being well contented with the favour of God through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has nothing to suffer from the whole host of demons.”

Contra Celsum Book 8 Ch. 34 “Jesus has taught us not to despise even the little ones in His Church, saying, Their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven. And the prophet says, The Angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them (Psalms 34:7).”

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270 A.D.)

Gregory Thaumaturgus’ “Symposium Book 3 Ch. 4 “Christ Himself became the very same thing, because the Eternal Word fell upon Him. For it was fitting that the first-born of God, the first shoot, the only-begotten, even the wisdom of God, should be joined to the first-formed man, and first and first-born of mankind, and should become incarnate. And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Æons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men,”

Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373 A.D.)

Against the Arians Discourse 3 Ch. 25 “yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, ‘Who delivered me from all evil (Gen. 48:15-16),’ he showed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God does deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father’s ‘Angel of great Counsel”

Against the Arians Discourse 3 Ch. 30 “He here has altered the terms and said, ‘Mine is understanding’ and ‘Mine strength,’ so while He says, ‘Mine is counsel,’ He must Himself be the Living Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes ‘the Angel of great Counsel Isaiah 9:6,’”

St. Hilary of Poitiers (315-368 A.D.)

To discriminate clearly between the Persons, He is called the Angel of God; He Who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but, that He may have the honour which is His due, He is entitled also Lord and God. -On the Trinity IV

Novations’ Apostolic Constitutions (Between 375 & 390 A.D.)

Apostolic Constitutions Ch. 16: the prophecies which were written concerning Him. For that He was to be born of a virgin, they read this prophecy:.. and His name is called the Angel of His Great Council (Isaiah 9:6 LXX), the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Potentate,..

Ch. 20: Ezekiel also, and the following prophets, affirm everywhere that He is the Christ, the Lord, the King, the Judge, the Lawgiver, the Angel of the Father, the only-begotten God. Him therefore do we also preach to you, and declare Him to be God the Word, who ministered to His God and Father for the creation of the universe. By believing in Him you shall live, but by disbelieving you shall be punished.

Gregory Nyssa (335-394 A.D.)

Gregory of Nyssa’s “Against Eunomius” Book 11 Ch. 3 “Who, by being called ‘Angel,’ clearly showed by Whom He published His words, and Who is the Existent, while by being addressed also as God, He showed His superiority over all things. For He Who is the God of all things that were made by Him, is the Angel of the God over all.”

Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3 “He Who sent Moses was the Existent Himself, but He by Whom He sent and spoke was the Angel of the Existent, and the God of all else.”

Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3 “For we too say plainly, that the prophet, wishing to make manifest to men the mystery concerning Christ, called the Self-Existent Angel,..”

Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3 “But just as our word is the revealer and messenger (or angel) of the movements of the mind, even so we affirm that the true Word that was in the beginning, when He announces the will of His own Father, is styled Angel (or Messenger), a title given to Him on account of the operation of conveying the message. And as the sublime John, having previously called Him Word, so introduces the further truth that the Word was God, that our thoughts might not at once turn to the Father, as they would have done if the title of God had been put first, so too does the mighty Moses, after first calling Him Angel, teach us in the words that follow that He is none other than the Self-Existent Himself, that the mystery concerning the Christ might be foreshown, by the Scripture assuring us by the name Angel, that the Word is the interpreter of the Father’s will, and, by the title of the Self-Existent, of the closeness of relation subsisting between the Son and the Father. And if he should bring forward Isaiah also as calling Him the Angel of mighty counsel”

Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3 “For as the Angel (or Messenger) gives information from some one, even so the Word reveals the thought within, the Seal shows by Its own stamp the original mould, and the Image by Itself interprets the beauty of that whereof It is the image, so that in their signification all these terms are equivalent to one another. For this reason the title Angel is placed before that of the Self-Existent, the Son being termed Angel as the exponent of His Father’s will, and the Existent as having no name that could possibly give a knowledge of His essence, but transcending all the power of names to express.”

Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.)

Ambrose’s Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 1 Ch. 13 “The heathen king saw in the fire, together with the three Hebrew children, the form of a fourth, like as of an angel, (Daniel 3:25) and because he thought that this angel excelled all angels, he judged Him to be the Son of God, Whom he had not read of, but in Whom he believed.

Ambrose’s Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 1 Ch. 13 “He, therefore, Who said, This is My Son, said not, This is a creature of time, nor This being is of My creation, My making, My servant, but This is My Son, Whom you see glorified. This is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, Who appeared to Moses in the bush, (Exodus 3:14) concerning Whom Moses says, He Who is has sent me. It was not the Father Who spoke to Moses in the bush or in the desert, but the Son. It was of this Moses that Stephen said, This is he who was in the church, in the wilderness, with the Angel (Acts 7:38). This, then, is He Who gave the Law, Who spoke with Moses, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. This, then, is the God of the patriarchs, this is the God of the prophets.”

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457 A.D.)

The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it was God who appeared to Moses. But Moses called Him an “angel” in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw — for whose angel could the Father be? — but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of Great Counsel.”