Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (Part 1, the Church Fathers)

A good friend of mine has been dialoguing with some Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning Isaiah’s vision in Is. 6:1-5. The JWs insist it is Jehovah/God the Father that Isaiah saw in his vision, but my friend maintains that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, relying on what the apostle John said in John 12:41.

Over the last few days, I have been delving into what the Church Fathers had to say about Is. 6:1-5 and John 12:41, along with a number of modern scholars.

In this post, I will be focusing on the CFs. Note the following:

Eusebius of Caesarea - Commentary on Isaiah

The same prophet [Isaiah] saw with his own eyes the Lord of hosts over his temple, in which the prophet often preached. And he relates in detail what transpired quite literally right before his eyes when he states next: “O wretched man that I am! I am stunned; for being a man and having unclean lips, I live among a people having unclean lips, and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, with my eyes!” [Is. 6:5] There is no doubt that it was the man who is described above who made this statement. He said that he saw the Lord of hosts, and the text records that he saw him with his own eyes. And he records the time of the vision when he says: And it happened in the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, lofty and raised up. [Is. 6:1] I believe it is clearly stated who was revealed through the entire prophecy as the Lord of hosts (although the phrase is also translated Lord of armies or Lord of powers). He thus introduces God as he was seen. However, concerning the unbegotten divinity, it has been said: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” [Jn. 1:18] And the Savior himself taught: “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.” [Jn. 5:46] Surely then the Lord of hosts who appeared to the prophet was another than the unbegotten and invisible and incomprehensible divinity. And who could this be but “the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” [Jn. 1:18] who stepped down from his own exalted position, and, lowering himself from that position, made himself visible and comprehensible to humanity? (Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Texts, translated by Jonathan J. Armstrong, p.27)

Eusebius of Caesarea - Proof of the Gospel

As the great Evangelist St. John, teaching of our Lord and Saviour as the very Word of God full of supernatural power, begins his holy Gospel, by setting side by side His Divinity and His Humanity in His presence among men, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and All things were made by him," and adding after this, "and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us"; so in the same strain the inspired prophet, about to proclaim God born of a Virgin, tells first the vision of His Divine glory, when he thus describes the Being of God:

"1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and exalted. And the house was full of las glory. 2. And Seraphim stood round about him : each one had six wings : with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. 3. And they cried one to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, the li, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory."

And he adds also:

" 8. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying. Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said. Behold, Here am I. Send me. 9. And he said, Go and say to this people. Ye shall hear indeed, but shall not understand ; and ye shall see indeed, but not perceive. 10. For this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their  heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. And I said, How long, O Lord ? And He said, Until the cities be deserted, by reason of their being uninhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no man."

What Lord may we say the prophet saw but Him Abraham we have proved to have been seen and known by the fathers with Abraham in previous days? He, we have already learned, was both God and Lord, and Angel and Captain of the Lord's power as well. So then in approaching the account of  His Coming to men the prophecy before us tells first of His divine kingdom, in which it says that the prophet saw Him ps. xliv. sitting on a throne high and exalted. This is that throne which is mentioned in the Psalm of the Beloved, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," on which the Most High Creator of the Universe, His God and Father, bade his Only-begotten

sit, saying, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." John the Evangelist supports my interpretation of this passage, when he quotes the words of Isaiah, where it is said, "For this people's heart is become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed," referring them to Christ, Saying, "This said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and bare witness of him." [John 12:41] The prophet then seeing our Saviour sitting on His Father's throne in the divine and glorious kingdom, and moved by the Holy Spirit, and being about to describe next His coming among men and His Birth of a Virgin, foretells that His knowledge and praise would be over all the earth, by introducing the song of the Seraphim round His throne : Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory. (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. 2 (Edited and Translated by W. J. Ferrar, pp. 48-50)

Hilary of Poitiers

From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except Thee, and Thy works which Thou wilt do for them that await Thy mercy. [Is. 64:4] Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist:—These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him. [John 12:41] The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath declared Him, [John 1:18] it was God Whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the Divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honour vouchsafed to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book V.33: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 9.95)

Gregory of Nyssa

...through the prophet Isaiah it is attested, as to the manifestation of the Divine appearance vouchsafed to him, when he saw Him that sat "on the throne high and lifted up:" [Is. 6:1] the older tradition, it is true, says that it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying, touching those of the Jews who did not believe the words uttered by the prophet concerning the Lord, "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory and spake of Him." [John 12:41] But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech made to the Jews at Rome, when he says, "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand," [Acts 28: 25, 26] showing, in my opinion, by Holy Scripture itself, that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II.14: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 5.129)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

He [John] further adds, [John 12:41] Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. Indeed, when he saw the Lord of the armies sitting upon the high and lofty throne along with the Seraphim who were praising him and proclaiming him "Holy," the Lord then said to him, "Go and say to this people, 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'" [Is. 6:1-9] Here the blessed John says that the glory of Christ was seen by Isaiah. In Acts the blessed Paul said that he saw the Spirit, as he said to the Jews, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'You will indeed listen, but never understand.'" and so forth. [Acts 28:25-26] What did he see? In the spiritual vision, in the revelation of the divine nature, which is incomprehensible, Isaiah saw the glory that is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since Scripture cannot establish precisely whether it is the glory of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore neither the Evangelist nor the apostle is in contradiction in saying that it is the glory of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Ancient Christian Texts, translated with introduction and notes by Marco Conti, p. 114)

Before providing interpretations from two more CFs—Origen and Jerome—I thought it important to point out that certain remarks from Jerome’s comments indicate he had a negative view of Origen’s interpretation, even though he does not mention by name. Now the quotes:

Origen - Homilies on Isaiah

“And the Seraphim were standing around him, six wings belonging to the one and six wings belonging to the other.” [Is. 6:2] I see two Seraphim, each one of them in himself having six wings...

But yet these Seraphim, who surround God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!” [Is. 6:3] observe in this way the mystery of the Trinity, because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in all these things that exist, nothing is more holy. And they speak not softly to one another: “Holy, holy, holy!” but, by crying out, they announce the salvific confession to everyone. Who are these two Seraphim? My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You should not suppose the nature of the Trinity to be divided, if duty-bound observances of the names are to be kept. (Origen, Homilies on Isaiah: The Fathers of the Church, Volume 142, translated by Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, pp. 42, 43)

Origen - De Principiis

My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. (Origen. De Principiis, Book I.3.4: Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4.253)

For my Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spake of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other alternately, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of Thy glory.” (Origen. De Principiis, Book IV, 1.26: Ante-Nicene Fathers,  4.375, 376)

Jerome - Commentary on Isaiah

Sacred history relates that Uzziah was struck with leprosy, because he laid claim to an unlawful priesthood for himself [cf. 2 Chr 26:16–21]. When he died the Lord is seen in the temple that he had polluted. From this we observe that while a leprous king is reigning within us, we are not able to see the Lord reigning in his majesty, nor are we able to recognize the mysteries of the Holy Trinity. This is why even in Exodus, the people cried out to the Lord after Pharaoh died, who was oppressing Israel with mud, straw, and bricks [cf. Exod 1:14; 5:7]. For they were not able to cry out while he was alive [cf. Exod 2:23]. Moreover, it was after the terrible ruler Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died that Ezekiel falls on his face and cries out to the Lord with a loud voice [cf. Ezek 11:1–4, 13]. And it is nicely expressed by the Hebrew word that it was not the Lord himself who filled the temple, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool for his feet is the earth [cf. Isa 66:1]; and we read about him in another passage, “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord, his throne is in heaven” [Ps 11:4]; but the things that were under his feet filled the temple.

Now in John the Evangelist and in the Acts of the Apostles we learn more fully who is this Lord who is seen. John says of this, “Isaiah said this when he saw his glory and spoke about him” [John 12:41], doubtless signifying Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, on the other hand, in Rome Paul speaks to the Jews, and says,

The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: You will hear with hearing and you will not understand, and seeing you will see and you will not perceive. For the heart of the people is fat and with difficulty they have heard with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, lest perhaps they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert themselves and I would heal them.” [Acts 28:25–27; Isa 6:9–10]

But the Son is seen in the character of one reigning, and the Holy Spirit has spoken on account of the association of their majesty and the unity of their substance.

Someone may ask how the prophet can say now that he has seen the Lord, not the Lord without qualification, but the Lord Sabaoth [cf. Isa 6:5], as he himself testifies in what follows, although John the Evangelist has said, “No one has ever seen God” [John 1:18; 1 John 4:12], and God says to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no man will see my face and live” [Exod 33:20]. We will respond to this that fleshly eyes are not able to see not merely the divinity of the Father, but not even that of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the nature in the Trinity is one. But the eyes of the mind [can see him], of which the Savior himself says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” [Matt 5:8]. We read that the Lord of Abraham was seen under the figure of a man [cf. Gen 18:1–3], and a man, as it were, who was God, wrestled with Jacob. This is why the place itself was called Penuel, that is, face of God [cf. Gen 32:24–30]. He says: “For I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved” [Gen 32:30]. Ezekiel too saw the Lord in the form of a man sitting over the cherubim; from his loins and below he was like fire and the upper parts had the appearance of amber [cf. Ezek 1:26–27]. Therefore, the nature of God is not discerned, but he is seen by men as he wills. (Jerome, St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Writers #68, Translated and with an Introduction by Thomas P. Scheck, pp, 150, 151-print edition, pp. 138, 139-PDF edition)

Jerome - Letters of St. Jerome

Next: I SAW THE LORD SITTING UPON A THRONE HIGH AND ELEVATED: AND THE HOUSE WAS FILLED BY HIS GLORY, AND SERAPHIM STOOD ABOUT HIM. Certain ones who have interpreted this passage before me, Greeks as well as Romans, have declared that the Lord sitting upon a throne is God the Father, and the two seraphim which are said to be standing one at each side are our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

2 I do not agree with their opinion, though they are very learned men. Indeed, it is far better to set forth the truth in uncouth fashion than to declare falsehood in learned style. I dissent especially because John the Evangelist wrote that it was not God the Father but Christ who had been seen in this vision. For when he was speaking of the unbelief of the Jews, straightway he set forth the reasons for their unbelief: Therefore they could not believe in Him, because Isaias said: “Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand, and perceiving ye shall behold and shall not see” [Isaiah 6:9]. And he said these things when he saw the glory of the Only-begotten and bore witness concerning Him [John 12:39–41].

3 In the present roll of Isaias he is bidden by Him who sits on the throne to say: Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand. Now He who gives this command, as the Evangelist understands it, is Christ. Whence we comprehend that the seraphim cannot be interpreted as Christ, since Christ is He who is seated.

4 And although in the Acts of the Apostles Paul says to the Jews that agreed not among themselves: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut, lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them [Acts 28:25–7; Isaiah 6:9–10]—for me, however, the diversity of the person does not raise a question, since I know that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, and that the words of the Spirit are not other than those of the Son, and that the Son has not given a command other than the Spirit. (Jerome, The Letters of St. Jerome, Vol. 1, Letter 18A: Ancient Christian Writers #33, translated by Charles Christopher Mierow, pp. 82, 83)

Shall end here for now, saving the various interpretations of modern-day scholars for my next post.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Proverbs 8:22 – Wisdom interpreted as Jesus Christ in Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea (his post-Nicene Creed thought)

On December 30, 2015 I published a post that delved into the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers (link). Eight of those nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers applied the passage to the pre-existent Jesus Christ. Almost two years later (December 5, 2020) I provided germane quotes from another pre-Nicene Church Father who taught that the wisdom referenced in Proverbs 8:22 was the pre-existent Jesus Christ (link).

In this post, I advance forward from the pre-Nicene Fathers to the post-Nicene Fathers. The period between the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) was one of theological instability due to the Arian crisis. Representative of this instability was the emergence of two new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22 that deviated from the ten pre-Nicene Fathers previously cited--i.e the pro-Arians who affirmed the verse taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father; and a few pro-Nicenes who taught the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only. With that said, it should be kept in mind that apart from Irenaeus who believed that wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 was the Holy Spirit, representatives of the three other interpretations all maintained that this wisdom was Jesus Christ.

The rest of this post will focus on Athanasius' and Eusebius of Caesarea's post-Nicene understanding of wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-31.

The most extensive analysis of Proverbs 8:22-31 that is found in the extant writings of the Church Fathers is provided by Athanasius in his apologetic work, Against the Arians (Discourse II). This analysis is contained within pages 357-393 of John Henry Newman’s English translation—as revised by Archibald Robertson—in the fourth volume of The Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Series II). [This translation will be the source for all the following quotes from Athanasius - online PDF here.]

Two important observations should be kept in mind when reading Athanasius’ treatment of Proverbs 8:22-31. First, Athanasius does not challenge LXX translation of the Hebrew word qanah/kanah as ἔκτισέν (created). Second, Wisdom as portrayed in Proverbs 8:22-31 for Athanasius is first and foremost God’s Word and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Athanasius begins his examination of Proverbs 8:22-31 with the following from verse 22:

Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;’ although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. (Page 357)

And:

Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature ; (Page 359)

He then adds:

And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made ; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father’s works which He Himself worketh, to be ‘in the Father and the Father in Him,’ and ‘He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father,’ because the Son’s Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essences, and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? (Page 360)

Athansius' main focus in his overall apologia against Arianism is that God's Word/Son "is no work", but rather an offspring from His divine essence/nature. [See the following two posts here at AF for quotes that are germane to this view: first, second. 

In chapter XVIII of Discourse II (pp. 364-372), Athanasius provides even greater support for his view that God’s Son/Wisdom/Word cannot be a creature as the Arians teach.

Chapter XIX is devoted to Athanasius’ understanding of verse 22, which is translated by Newman as: ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works’. Note the following:

For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own [i.e. the Arians] to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ as if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh?, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood) ; so, if it is said in the Proverbs ‘He created,’ we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. (Page 374 - bold emphasis mine)

It is the above interpretation of verse 22 where Athanasius departs from ten pre-Nicene Church Fathers that I cited in my previous posts. Those CFs maintained that ἔκτισέν (created) can also be understood as ‘begotten’, and rejected the notion that the Son/Word/Wisdom was created from nothing. As such, they saw no need to attribute verse 22 to the body Jesus Christ assumed via the incarnation.

Unlike Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea retained the pre-Nicene patristic interpretation of verse 22; rather than singling out verse 22 from the rest of Proverbs 8:22-31 and applying this sole verse to Jesus Christ's human body, Eusebius maintained that all of Proverbs 8:22-31 spoke to the pre-existent Jesus Christ as God's Only-begotten Son, His Word and Wisdom.

In his last major theological work—the post-Nicene On Ecclesiastical Theology—he clearly applies all of Proverbs 8:22-31 to the pre-existent, pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. After quoting Proverbs 8:12-31 in the first chapter of Book 3, he writes:

Chapter 2

(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of necessity, having shown that the one who says these is one person, since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the passage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says, “I live with prudence”; yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.” But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning was the Word” was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word was with God,” and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that no one might think that he is spoken of as something that exists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God, but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds, “and the Word was God,” and did not say, (2) “the Word was of God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God, the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason, she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previously cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this: “Happy are those who find Wisdom,” and, “God by Wisdom founded the earth,” and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,” and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend you,” (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,” and, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,” and all the other statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book. In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom without qualification, so that we might not think it is some accidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowledge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom, the very same as the (4) Son of God. (Eusebius, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 135 - Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, trans. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl and Markus Vinzent, Book 3, Chapter 2, pp. 276-277 –bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Eusebius distances himself the Arian interpretation of verse 22. Note the following:

...if you suppose that these remarks apply to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will read well, since no impious thought provides an impediment, given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wisdom of God.” [1 Cor. 1:24] (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works” has also been said by him.

If he says, however, that he himself was created, he did not say this as if he had come into being from what is not, nor as if he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come into being from nothing, as some have supposed incorrectly, but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and preexisted the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been appointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father. (Ibid. p. 278 – bold emphasis mine.)

In addition to clearly rejecting the defining Arian doctrine that God’s Son/Wisdom was created “from what was not”, Eusebius is now beginning to distance himself from the LXX translation of verse 22. He then writes:

Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” the verb he created was used for he established or he appointed me to rule...

And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex meaning, and still others that are predicated univocally of different things, concerning which it would be no small task to pursue at the present time.

Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason, [Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me,” but added, “as the beginning of his ways for his works.”

The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if someone should investigate the true meaning of the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason none of the remaining translators made use of this wording. For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his way,” and the translation seems reasonable. (Ibid. pp. 280-281)

Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were second century A.D. translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Their translations were included in Origen's Hexapla. Utilizing these non-LXX translations, Eusebius then writes the following:

“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” or, “The Lord acquired me,” according to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisition of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the Father’s more honored than the Son. (Ibid. p. 282 bold emphasis mine.)

He then adds:

Now kana [kanah or qanah] is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),” for which the Hebrew has kana, the same term used in the Hebrew and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” For given that the verb kana is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was rejected by the Hebrews, which is not found in the Scripture that lies before [us].

There would be a very great difference between “he created” and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being, while “acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that already pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].

Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” at one and the same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me,” through all of which statements his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos, and guided it in accordance with its needs. (Ibid. pp. 282-283 – bold emphasis mine.)

Shall end here for now…

 

Grace and peace,

David

Eusebius of Caesarea: his Doctrine of God, Christology, and Subordinationism

Last week, I started rereading Eusebius' Church History (volume one in the second series of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Schaff and Wace). It had been a number of years ago since I began reading this book from the beginning, and this reading is different than any previous one. In addition to Arthur Cushman McGiffert’s NPNF English translation, I am also using Kirsopp Lake's parallel Greek-English edition from the Loeb Classical Library—Volume 153, Eusebius Ecclesiastical History I (1926).

This new endeavor has become quite informative and revealing. I did not get very far—the third chapter of book one—before realizing that during my past readings of Eusebius' Church History I had failed to grasp the import of certain passages concerning the relationship between God the Father and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ that are contained in the second and third chapters of book one. By comparing the English translations of these passages with the Greek, I began to discern that my previous understanding of Eusebius’ doctrine of God and Christology was not as fully formed as I had thought.

The English translation(s) passages concerning the doctrine of God and Christology contained in chapters two and three of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, brought back to mind the germane passages I had read in two of Eusebius’ extensive apologetic works: Preparation for the Gospel and The Proof of the Gospel. I pulled both books off of the shelf and started comparing the relevant passages found in all three works with the Greek.

A number of very important themes have made an impression on me whilst engaged in these current readings: first, the unique titles Eusebius reserved exclusively for God the Father—e.g. “the one/only true God”, “the Supreme God”, “the Almighty God”, “the Most High”, “the God of the Universe”, “the First”, “the Unbegotten”. Second, the emphasis on the causality of the Son of God from God the Father as a distinct, separate person. Third, the repeated related references to the Son of God as being, in a very real sense, “second” to God the Father—e.g. “second God”, “second Lord”, “second  light”, “the Second”,  “secondary”. Fourth, two terms used to describe the causality of the Son from the Father—begotten and created (and their cognates)—are synonyms for Eusebius. Fifth, the concept that the Father “precedes” the Son.

[The following English excerpts are from Eusebius’ Church History (CH) [PDF], trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert’s; The Proof of the Gospel (Proof) [PDF], trans. W. J. Ferrer; Preparation for the Gospel (Prep) [PDF], trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford. [Supplemental Greek texts will be from J. P. Migne’s Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Volumes 20, 21, and 22.] Elements from the five above listed themes will be underlined for easier recognition. Bold emphasis has also been added to some quotes that particularly stood out to me.]

 

QUOTES FROM EUSEBIUS

No language is sufficient to express the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also the divine Spirit says in the prophecies, "Who shall declare his generation ?" For none knoweth the Father except the Son, neither can any one know the Son adequately except the Father alone who hath begotten him. For who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light which was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which was God, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father's unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God... (CH, P. 82)

"The Lord created me [κύριος ἔκτισέν με] in the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the world he established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he made the depths, before the mountains were settled, before all hills he begat me [γεννᾷ με]. When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he established the fountains of the region under heaven I was with him, disposing. I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I rejoiced before him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the world." That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed, and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us. (CH, P. 84)

Then, when the excess of wickedness had overwhelmed nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and darkening the minds of men, the first-born and first-created wisdom of God, the pre-existent Word himself [ἡ πρωτόγονος καὶ πρωτόκτιστος τοῦ θεοῦ σοφία καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ προὼν λόγος], induced by his exceeding love for man, appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his own person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way. (CH, P. 84)

Who would have believed common and uneducated men who told them they must despise their fathers gods, condemn the folly of all who lived in the ages past, and put their sole belief in them and the commands of the Crucified—because He was the only-beloved and only-begotten Son of the One Supreme God? (Proof, p. 159)

And as the Father is One, it follows that there must be one Son and not many sons, and that there can be only one perfect God begotten of God, and not several. For in multiplicity will arise otherness and difference and the introduction of the worse. And so it must be that the One God is the Father of one perfect and only-begotten Son, and not of more Gods or sons. (Proof, p. 166)

But the Father precedes the Son, and has preceded Him in existence, inasmuch as He alone is unbegotten. The One, perfect in Himself and first in order as Father, and the cause of the Son's existence, receives nothing towards the completeness of His Godhead from the Son: the Other, as a Son begotten of Him that caused His being, came second to Him. Whose Son He is, receiving from the Father both His Being, and the character of His Being. And, moreover, the ray does not shine forth from the light by its deliberate choice, but because of something which is an inseparable accident of its essence: but the Son is the image of the Father by intention and deliberate choice. For God willed to beget a Son, and established a second light, in all things made like unto Himself. (Proof, pp. 166-167)

Then surely the All-Good, the King of kings, the Supreme, God Almighty, that the men on earth might not be like brute beasts without rulers and guardians, set over them the holy angels to be their leaders and governors like herdsmen and shepherds, and set over all, and made the head of all His Only-begotten and Firstborn Word. (Proof, 175)

In these words surely he names first the Most High God, the Supreme God of the Universe, and then as Lord His Word, Whom we call Lord in the second degree after the God of the Universe. And their import is that all the nations and the sons of men, here called sons of Adam, were distributed among the invisible guardians of the nations, that is the angels, by the decision of the Most High God, and His secret counsel unknown to us. Whereas to One beyond comparison with them, the Head and King of the Universe, I mean to Christ Himself, as being the Only-begotten Son, was handed over that part of humanity denominated Jacob and Israel, that is to say, the whole division which has vision and piety. (Proof, 176)

It is now time to see how the teaching of the Hebrews shews that the true Christ of God possesses a divine nature higher than humanity. Hear, therefore, David again, where he says that he knows an Eternal Priest of God, and calls  Him his own Lord, and confesses that He shares the throne of God Most High in the 109th Psalm [LXX], in which he says as follows—

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 2. The Lord shall send the rod of power for thee out of Zion, I and thou shall rule in the midst of thine, enemies. 3. With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the brightness of thy saints. I begat thee from my womb before the Morning Star, 4. The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek."

And note that David in this passage, being king of the whole Hebrew race, and in addition to his kingdom adorned with the Holy Spirit, recognized that the Being of Whom he speaks Who was revealed to him in the spirit, was so great and surpassingly glorious, that he called Him his own Lord. For he said "The Lord said to my Lord." Yea: for he knows Him as eternal High Priest, and Priest of the Most High God, and throned beside Almighty God, and His Offspring. (Proof, 197)

"Thou, O God, hast loved righteousness and hated injustice; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed thee," and established Thee as Christ above all. The Hebrew shews it even more clearly, which Aquila most accurately translating has rendered thus "Thy throne, God, is for ever and still, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved justice and hated impiety : wherefore God, thy Ciod, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness apart from thy fellows." Instead therefore of " God, thy God" the actual Hebrew is, "O God, thy God." So that the whole verse runs : "Thou hast, O God, loved justice and hated impiety": therefore in return, O God, the highest and greater God, Who is also thy God"— so that the Anointer, being the Supreme God, is far above the Anointed, He being God in a different sense. (Proof, 202)

But yet as Holy Scripture first says that He is the Firstborn of every creature, speaking in His Person, "The Lord created me [κύριος ἔκτισέν με] as the beginning of his ways," and then says that He is the Begotten of the Father in the words: "Before all the hills he begets me [γεννᾷ με]"; here we, too, may reasonably follow and confess that He is before all ages the Creative Word of God, One with the Father, Only-begotten Son of the God of the Universe, and Minister and Fellow-worker with the Father, in the calling into being and constitution of the Universe. (Proof, 233)

Whereas the Word of God has Its own essence and existence in Itself and is not identical with the Father in being Unbegotten, but was begotten of the Father as His Only-begotten Son before all ages; while the fragrance being a kind of physical effluence of that from which it comes, and not filling the air around it by itself apart from its primary cause, is seen to be itself also a physical thing. We will not, then, conceive thus about the theory of our Saviour's coming-into-being. For neither was He brought into being from the Unbegotten Being by way of any event, or by division, nor was He eternally coexistent with the Father, since the One is Unbegotten and the other Begotten, and one is Father and the other Son. And all would agree that a father must exist before and precede his son. (Proof, 234)

The Lord upon thy right hand! The Psalmist here calls "Lord," our Lord and Saviour, the Word of God, " firstborn of every creature," the Wisdom before the ages, the Beginning of the Ways of God, the Firstborn and Only-begotten Offspring of the Father, Him Who is honoured with the Name of Christ, teaching that He both shares the seat and is the Son of the Almighty God and Universal Lord, and the Eternal High Priest of the Father. First, then, understand that here this Second Being, the Offspring of God, is addressed. And since prophecy is believed by us to be spoken by the Spirit of God, see if it is not the case that the Holy Spirit in the prophet names as His own Lord a Second Being after the Lord of the Universe, for he says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand." The Hebrews named the First Person Lord, as being universally the Lord of all, by the unspeakable Name expressed in the four letters. They did not call the Second Person Lord in a like sense, but only used the word as a special title. (Proof, 238)

According to this, then, the true and only God must be One, and alone owning the Name in full right. While the Second, by sharing in the being of the True God, is thought worthy to share His Name, not being God in Himself, nor existing apart from the Father Who gives Him Divinity, not called God apart from the Father, but altogether being, living and existing as God, through the presence of the Father in Him, and one in being with the Father, and constituted God from Him and through Him, and holding His being as well as His Divinity not from Himself but from the Father. (Proof, p. 245)

And yet though the Word of God is Himself proclaimed divine by the word "Lord," He still calls One Higher and Greater His Father and Lord, using with beautiful reverence the word Lord twice in speaking of Him, so as to differentiate His title. For He says here, "The Lord, the Lord has sent me," as if the Almighty God were in a special sense first and true Lord both of His Only- begotten Word and of all begotten things after Him, in relation to which the Lord of God has received dominion and power from the Father, as His true and Only-begotten Son, and therefore Himself holds the title of Lord in a secondary sense. (Proof, p. 251)

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 Lord. 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. (Proof, pp. 254-255)

It was said to Moses, No one shall see My face and live. But here Jacob saw God not indefinitely but face to face, And being preserved, not only in body but in soul, he was thought worthy of the name of Israel, which is a name borne by souls, if the name Israel is rightly interpreted "Seeing God." Yet he did not see the Almighty God. For He is invisible, and unalterable, and the Highest of all Being could not possibly change into man. But he saw Another, Whose name it was not yet the time to reveal to curious Jacob. (Proof, p. 255)

I have already shewn Who it was that appeared to the fathers, when I shewed that the angel of God was called God and Lord. It will naturally be asked how He that is beyond the universe, Himself the only Almighty God, appeared to the fathers. And the answer will be found if we realize the accuracy of Holy Scripture. For the Septuagint rendering, "I was seen of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being their God." Aquila says, "And I was seen by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a sufficient God," 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... (Proof, p. 258)

And I have already shewn that this was not the Almighty God, but another Being Whom we name, as the Word of God, the Christ Who was seen for the sake of the multitude of Moses and the people in a pillar of cloud, because it was not possible for them to see Him like their fathers in human shape. (Proof, p. 259)

Notice the way in which the Lord Himself addressing the Father in these words as "long-suffering and of tender mercy," calls Him also "true," agreeing with the words: "That they may know thee the only true God," spoken in the Gospels by the same Being, our Saviour. Yea, with exceeding reverence He calls the Father the only true God, given meet honour to the Unbegotten Nature, of which Holy Scripture teaches us He is Himself the Image and the Offspring. (Proof, p. 261)

The lord prays to another Lord, clearly His Father and the God of the Universe, and says in the opening of His prayer, "O Lord, thou art my strength," and that which follows. (Proof, p. 270)

But now that we have, by thirty prophetic quotations in all, learned that our Lord and Saviour the Word of God, a Second God [δεύτερον θεὸν]after the Most High and Supreme... (Proof, p. 271)

Next to the Being of the God of the universe, which is without beginning and uncreate, incapable of mixture and beyond all conception, they introduce a second Being and divine power, which subsisted as the first beginning of all originated things and was originated from the first cause, calling it Word, and 'Wisdom, and Power of God.'

And the first to teach us this is Job, saying: 'But whence was wisdom found? And what is the place of understanding? Man knoweth not the way thereof, nor yet was it found among men, ... but we have heard the fame thereof. The Lord established the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.'

And David also somewhere in the Psalms, addressing Wisdom by another name, says: 'By the word of the LORD were the heavens established': for in this manner he celebrated the Word of God the Organizer of all things. Moreover, his son Solomon also speaks as follows in the person of Wisdom herself, saying: 'I Wisdom made counsel my dwelling, and knowledge and understanding I called unto me. By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice.'  And again:

'The LORD created me as the beginning of His ways unto His works [Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ], from everlasting He founded me, in the beginning or ever He made the earth, and before the depths were made, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [γεννᾷ με];  . . . when He was preparing the heaven I was beside Him; . . . and as He was making safe the fountains beneath the heaven, . . . I was with Him arranging. I it was in whom He daily delighted, and I was rejoicing before Him in every season when He was rejoicing in having completed the habitable world.' (Prep, pp. 320, 321.)

IN regard then to the First Cause of all things let this be our admitted form of agreement. But now consider what is said concerning the Second Cause, whom the Hebrew oracles teach to be the Word of God, and God of God, even as we Christians also have ourselves been taught to speak of the Deity.

First then Moses expressly speaks of two divine Lords in the passage where he says, 'Then the LORD rained from the LORD fire and brimstone upon the city of the ungodly ': where he applied to both the like combination of Hebrew letters in the usual way; and this combination is the mention of God expressed in the four letters, which is with them unutterable.

In accordance with him David also, another Prophet as well as king of the Hebrews, says, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand,'  indicating the Most High God by the first LORD, and the second to Him by the second title. For to what other is it right to suppose that the right hand of the Unbegotten God is conceded, than to Him alone of whom we are speaking?

This is He whom the same prophet in other places more clearly distinguishes as the Word of the Father, supposing Him whose deity we are considering to be the Creator of the universe, in the passage where he says, 'By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made firm.'

He introduces the same Person also as a Saviour of those who need His care, saying, 'He sent His Word and healed them.'

And Solomon, David's son and successor, presenting the same thought by a different name, instead of the 'Word' called Him Wisdom, making the following statement as in her person:

'I Wisdom made prudence my dwelling, and called to my aid knowledge and understanding.'  Then afterwards he adds, 'The LORD formed [i.e. created] me as the beginning of His ways with a view to His works [Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ]: from everlasting He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, . . . before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me [γεννᾷ με]…When He was preparing the heaven, I was beside Him."(Prep, pp. 531, 532.)

END OF EUSEBIUS QUOTES

Before ending, I would like to provide one more excerpt from Eusebius, which is actually a quote from Clement of Alexandria who Eusebius quotes:

Now they were misled by what is said in Wisdom: "Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by virtue of her purity": since they did not understand that this is said of that wisdom which was the first-created of God. (Preparation for the Gospel, trans. Gifford, 1903, pp. 722-23 – bold emphasis mine)

The following is William Wilson’s English translation from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe:

They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom : "He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;" since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God. (The Stromata, 5.14; ANF 2.465 – bold emphasis mine)

The phrase “the first-created of God” (Gifford)/ “the creation of God” (Wilson) is their respective translations of the following Greek: τῆς πρωτοκτίστου τῷ θεῷ.

Interestingly enough, just a few pages earlier, Wilson translates prōtoktistos (πρωτοκτίστος) as “First-born”:

The golden lamp conveys another enigma as a symbol of Christ, not in respect of form alone, but in his casting light, "at sundry times and divers manners," on those who believe on Him and hope, and who see by means of the ministry of the First-born [τῶν πρωτοκτίστων]. (The Stromata, ANF 2.452)

It seems that Wilson is cognizant of the fact that the terms beget/begotten and create/creation (and their cognates) in the pre-Nicene writers are in many instances used as synonyms.

Shall end here for now, hoping to hear what others have to say about Eusebius’ reflections on the doctrine of God and Christology.

Grace and peace,

David

Monoousios vs. Homoousios

Back on May 11th, a good friend of mine began posting again in the Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism... thread, after an extended hiatus. The conversation between the two us continued over the next few days; and then on the 22nd, Tom contributed three consecutive, interrelated posts that would have been a bit difficult to adequately address in the combox. As such, I have created this new thread in an attempt to do justice to the cogent concerns and questions that he raised in those posts.

Now, a bit of background information. For a number of years now, I have maintained that the Greek term homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition was used in a generic sense and not a strict numeric sense—in other words, homoousion is to be understood as 'same essence' rather than 'one essence'. And so, on my May 21st post to Tom, I wrote:

The Greek of the Chalcedonian Definition (451) strongly suggests a generic sense for both. My studies indicate that the numeric sense was not adopted until much later when homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia. [Note: I had quickly typed up the above response and posted it before realizing that I had misspelled both homoousia and monoousia—should read homoousios and monoousios—sorry Tom, I am getting old.]

Tom on the 22nd responded with:

I would agree that homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia, but what scholars usually say is “homoousia in the numeric sense.” I have not seen folks who suggest that traditional Christian Trinitarian teachings are true use the term monoousia to describe what they believe. Folks like Plantinga might be inclined to point to the developed equivalence of monoousia and homoousia in the numeric sense, but I don’t see things like this from Father Don Davis or Phillip Schaff.

I first encountered the distinction between monoousios and homoousios in Dr. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Dr. Hodge wrote:

The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιος has already been remarked upon. As ούσια may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis, so ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) may mean nothing more than sameness of species or kind. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint, 1.463.)

Dr. Hodge then provides two important quotes from the famous Christian historian, Philip Schaff:

It is therefore said, that “the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.” “The Nicene Creed,” Dr. Schaff adds, “does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: ‘we believe in one God’), and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. (Ibid.)

In the next paragraph, Hodge continues with:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity. “Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, ‘There is one God’ of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the Father and the Son. (Ibid.)

Though Hodge and Schaff acknowledge that homoousios can be understood in a generic sense, they maintain—contra Gieseler—that it's use in the Nicene Creed should be interpreted in the numeric sense.

Moving from 19th century writers to those of the 20th century, we find the following from the pen of J.N.D. Kelly:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word ούσια could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)

And from Ivor J. Davidson:

Homoousios was, however, a word with a difficult history. For a start, it was not biblical, which meant that the council [i.e. Nicaea 325] was proposing to talk about the nature of the Godhead in terms that were philosophical or conceptual rather than in language drawn directly from the Scriptures. 

…the outcome of the council was virtually unanimous. All but two of the bishops agreed to sign the creed. The dissenters, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, were both from Libya, where Arius had particularly loyal support. They suffered exile, as did Arius himself. The rest, it seemed, were at one, and Constantine had got his way; the church was united in its opposition to the teaching of Arius [i.e. that the Son was a created being, created ex nihilo, and that there was “a time he was not”].

The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God. (The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)

In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousios—Athanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν—Migne, PG 25, 204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.

More later, the Lord willing...

Grace and peace,

David