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; 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

A Dominican scholar's affirmation of the Son of God’s causality from the Father in the thought of Augustine

In an older thread here at AF, I posted a number of quotes from the corpus of Augustine that clearly identified his belief in the causality of the Son of God from God the Father—essence and person [Link].

In the same thread, I provided a selection from the Catholic scholar, Yves Congar, wherein he quoted the following from Augustine:

The Father is the principle of all-divinity or, to be more precise, of the deity, because he does not take his origin from anything else. He has no one from whom he has his being or from whom he proceeds, but it is by him that the Son is begotten and from him that the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Concerning Augustine’s acknowledgment that the, “Father is the principle of all-divinity”, Congar concluded that, “it expresses the idea of the first and absolute source.”

Over the weekend, I found another Catholic scholar who recognizes the causality of the Son of God from the Father in the writings of Augustine. Thomas Joseph White in his new book, The Trinity – On the Nature and Mystery of the One God (Google Preview), devoted a chapter to Augustine, wherein we read:

In De Trinitate books 6 and 7 Augustine developed what eventually would come to be know in the High Middle Ages as the doctrine of appropriations. The doctrine of appropriations has to do with biblical language that applies this or that divine attribute to one of the divine persons seemingly exclusively, the simplicity of the divine nature notwithstanding, or applies this or that divine action to one of the persons as if it were proper to him, despite the unit of God’s action ad extra…

What leads to Augustine’s discussion of appropriations in books 6 and 7, however, among others, are difficulties posed by the biblical verse, 1 Corinthians 1:24: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”…

The basic question is whether we can predicate attributes and actions to each of the persons in a distinctive way, without claiming that the attribute or action in question is something exclusively proper to him.

Augustine’s answer to this question is grounded in his idea of persons as relations. Yes, it is true that each of the persons possesses all the properties and actions of God equally and identically. But it is also true that each of them possesses such properties and actions in a particular personal mode, as Father, Son, or Holy. We might take the example of wisdom. On the one hand, wisdom must be understood as pertaining to the very substance and nature of God. Understood in this way, both the Father and the Son are perfectly wise, since both are God. And yet on the other hand, the Father and the Son each possesses wisdom in his own mode resulting from the relations. “So Father and Son are together one wisdom because they are one being [Latin:essentia], and one by one they are wisdom from wisdom as they as being from being.”* The Father has wisdom from all eternity in an unoriginated mode, as he who communicates divine being [i.e. essence] to the Son and the Spirit. The Son has wisdom from all eternity in an originated mode, as he is the generated Word of the Father… (White, Thomas Joseph, OP, The Trinity, pp. 165, 166 – bold emphasis mine.) [*Quote from Augustine is from his De Trinitate 7.1.3, as translated by Edmund Hill in, The Trinity – THE WORKS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE: A translation for the 21^st Century, I/5, p. 221.]

White, concludes from Augustine’s notion of “wisdom from wisdom” and “being from being”—concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son—that:

The Father has wisdom from all eternity in an unoriginated mode, as he who communicates divine being [i.e. essence] to the Son and the Spirit. The Son has wisdom from all eternity in an originated mode.

White’s understanding here is essentially the same as Congar’s affirmation that the Father is, “the first and absolute source.”

Shall end with the reposting of some quotes from Augustine that add crystal clear support to assessments of White and Congar:

...we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. (On the Trinity, II.2 - NPNF 3.38 - bold emphasis mine.)

For the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Father certainly is the Father of the Son; but the Son is called God of God, the Son is called Light of Light; the Father is called Light, but not, of Light, the Father is called God, but not, of God. (On the Gospel of John, XXXIX.1 - NPNF 3.38)

Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Father that which He is, thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem Patri æqualis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. (On Faith and the Creed, 9.18 -NPNF 3.328-329 - bold emphasis mine.)

Grace and peace,

David

Trinitarianism and causality: The begotten-not-made distinction in the eastern pro-Nicenes

One of the major topics that I have explored on this blog is the doctrine known as the Monarchy of God the Father (MGF). One of the key elements of this doctrine is the causality of the Son of God from God the Father. This aspect of MGF is found in the OT, NT, early Church Fathers, and is explicitly delineated in the Nicene Creed (325). Supporters of the Nicene Creed were faced with the difficult task of affirming the causality of the Son of God from the Father—along with His full divinity—whilst denying that He was created.

Over the weekend, I discovered an excellent article written by Dr. Nathan Jacobs* [link] that explores the pro-Nicene defense of the causality of the Son by ‘the Eastern fathers'—a defense that is a very important element of the ‘Eastern pro-Nicene metaphysics’. The following is the abstract from the article:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan profession that the Son of God is begotten, not made, presents the tension that the Son is caused by God but not created. This claim was a point of controversy in the semi-Arian and Eunomian/Anomean disputes of the fourth century. The latter argued that unoriginateness is central to divinity. Hence, the Son, being originate, cannot be of the same nature as the Father. Some philosophers of religion today echo this same conclusion. In this essay, I show, contrary to both ancient and modern critics of the begotten-not-made distinction, that the Eastern fathers offer clear differences between begetting and creating, which clarify why the distinction is cogent and necessary within their metaphysics.

Hope to hear from folk who take the time to read Jacobs robust contribution.

 

Grace and peace,

David

*NATHAN A. JACOBS, Ph.D. is Scholar in Residence of Philosophy and Religion in the Religion in the Arts in Contemporary Culture Program based in Vanderbilt University Divinity School. He was previously Visiting Scholar and Lecturer of Philosophy at University of Kentucky. He holds advanced degrees in Philosophy, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, Church History, and Fine Art.

Gregory Nazianzen (Nazianzus) and the monarchy of God

Towards the end of July, I received an email from a reader of this blog that precipitated an in depth investigation into the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (the external works of the Trinity are indivisible.)

This axiom/rule had never been a focus of my theological studies, but the very mention of if brought back to mind something Augustine wrote near the beginning of his book, De Trinitate  (On the Trinity); note the following:

…the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. (On the Trintiy, 1.7 – NPNF 3.20; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably. (The Trinity, 1.7 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur]

And:

…the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works (On the Trintiy, 1.8 – NPNF 3.21; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Trinity works inseparably in everything that God works The Trinity, 1.8 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operatur]

The connection between the above Augustine quotes and the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa is obvious. With that said, subsequent online research revealed something to me that I had been unaware of—this axiom/rule was quite influential in the formulation of the Latin/Western understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. During that research one particular book came to my attention, Adonis Vidu’s The Same God Who Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Google preview).

I finished reading the book a few days ago. It was not an easy read for me given the fact that my previous knowledge of the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa was limited. I can now say with confidence that this is no longer the case; Vidu’s book—along with the reading of a number of the works referenced therein—has greatly enhanced my knowledge of the axiom/rule.

Now, with that said, though I certainly appreciated Vidu’s in depth contribution, the book is not without flaws, and it is one of those flaws that will constitute the primary focus of this post—Gregory Nazianzen’s teachings on the monarchy of God.

From Vidu’s book we read:

Arguing against the personalistic trend epitomized by Zizioulas, Chrysostom Koutloumousianos demonstrates that neither the Cappadocians, nor John Damascene, Maximus the Confessor, nor any other Eastern Father, sets the person of the Father himself as primordial in relation to the divine essence. There is no monarchy of the Father, but rather a monarchy that is shared by all the persons in virtue of their sharing the one divine essence. (Page 98 – bold emphasis mine.)

Vidu, apparently relying on Koutloumousianos, makes an all too familiar mistake concerning Gregory’s thoughts on the monarchy of God—i.e. that Gregory has only ONE interpretation concerning what the monarchy of God means.

A number of patristic scholars have exposed this mistake, but for now, I shall limit this post to one—John Zizioulas. Note the following lengthy selection:

This brings us to the question of divine monarchia. What meaning did it have for the Fathers and for the Cappadocians, in particular? Did it relate to the Father or to all three persons? Let us try to answer this question with particular reference to the evidence of Gregory Nazianzen, who seems to be trusted more by the critics of the Cappadocians.

Monarchia means one arche. The idea was first employed to indicate that there is only one rule in God, amounting to one will, one power, and so on.[56] Soon, however, the concept had to be employed ontologically, as it applied not only to the Economy but to God in his eternal life. In such a case, it was inevitable for the question to arise as to its precise meaning for the being of God. The Cappadocian Fathers witness to this development by specifying what arche means with reference to God.

Basil clearly understands arche in the ontological sense of the beginning of being. As such, arche is attached exclusively to the Father. He writes: the names Father and Son 'spoken of in themselves indicate nothing but the relation (schesis) between the two'. 'For Father is the one who has given the beginning of being (arche ton einai) to the others... Son is the one who has had the beginning of his being (arche tou einai) by birth from the other'.[57]

Gregory Nazianzen seems to use the term monarchia in the early sense of one rule, will and power. As such, he refers it to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet he is not unaware of the ontological meaning which he expresses with the term monas. This he refers not to all three persons but to the Father. Let us consider carefully the following passage which is crucial for our subject.

There are three opinions (δόξαι) about God, anarchy, polyarchy and monarchy. The first two were played by the children of the Greeks, and let them continue to be so. For anarchy is something without order; and the rule of many is factions, and thus anarchical and thus disorderly. For both these things lead to the same thing, namely disorder; and thus to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution. But monarchia is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a monarchia that is not limited to one person, for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence (or concurrence) of its elements to one[58] ...so that though numerically distinct there is no division of ousia.[59]

So far, monarchia seems to refer to all Persons and not to any one of the Trinity. Yet we should note that Gregory uses monarchia in the sense of one will and concord of mind, that is, in the old moral or functional sense of the term, to which we referred earlier: monarchy is contrasted with anarchy and polyarchy, and the accent falls on order as opposed to disorder, and on common will, and so on. The ontological sense of monarchia comes with the text that immediately follows the one just quoted:

For this reason, the One (μονάς) having moved from the beginning (from all eternity) to a Dyad, stopped (or rested) in Triad. And this is for us the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The one as the Begetter and the Emitter (προβολεύς), without passion of course and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner, of whom the others are one of them the begotten and the other the emission.

In this passage, the subject is transferred to the ontological level; it is now a question not of a moral unity in which disorder and anarchy are excluded but of how the three Persons relate to one another in terms of ontological origination. The crucial point here is the word monas: to what does it refer? Does it refer to something common to the three Persons out of which the Trinity emerged? Or to the person of the Father?

If the monas referred to something other than the Father, that is to ousia or something common to the three persons, we would have to exegete the text in the following way: 'The one ousia (monas) moved to a Dyad and finally stopped at the Triad'. This would mean that from the one ousia came first the two persons together (a dyad) to which a third one was added finally to make the Trinity. Unless we are talking about the Filioque such an interpretation would look absurd. If we wish to have the Trinity simultaneously emerging from the ousia, which is what I suppose those who refer the monas to ousia would prefer, the text would forbid that, for it would have to read as follows: 'The one ousia (monas) moved (not to a dyad first but simultaneously) to a triad'.

The text clearly refers the One (μονὰς) to the Father, for it explains itself immediately by saying: 'the one (moved) as the Begetter (γεννήτωρ) and Emitter (προβολεύς), of whom the others are the one begotten and the other the emission (τῶν δέ, τό μέν γέννημα, τό δέ προβολεύς)'. Furthermore, in continuing his thought, Gregory explains all this by saying that the reason why he would insist on what he just said is that he wants to exclude any understanding of the Trinity as a derivation from an a-personal something, like an overflowing bowl (an explicit reference to Plato), lest the emergence of the Son and the Spirit be conceived of as 'involuntary', his intention being to 'speak of the unbegotten and the begotten and that which proceeds from the Father'.

In conclusion, when Gregory uses monarchia in the moral sense of unity of mind, will, and so on, he refers it to the three persons taken together (how could it be otherwise?). But when he refers to how the Trinity emerged ontologically, he identifies the monas with the Father. (Zizioulas, John D.,  Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 131-134 – Amazon link.)

Notes:

56. Thus in Justin, Dial. 1; Tatian, Or. ad Gr. 14; etc.; see above, n. 20.

57. Basil, C. Eun. 2.22. Note again the language employed by Basil: the Father gives the Son not ousia but einai, 'being'; there is a difference between these two terms: person is being, but does not denote ousia', ousia and being are not identical. See the implications of this above.

58. This is the rather inadequate rendition given of this sentence in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 301. A translation and commentary more adequate and more interesting for our subject is given by J. Mason, The Five Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, 1899, p. 75: 'This complete harmony of mind and will in the Godhead is itself based upon the concurrence of the other Blessed Persons with that One of their number from Whom they are derived, viz. the Father'. In this case, the monarchy is ultimately referred to the Father. Exegetically, the meaning depends on how we render the word 'one' (ἓν) and the 'from it' (τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ): do these refer to the One from whom the others derive, i.e., the Father, or to the elements that make up the unity of nature, motion, etc.? The sentence that immediately follows would support the first option. My argument, however, is unaffected in either case, as can immediately be seen.

59. Gregory Naz., Theol. Or. 3.2. [This is the 3^rd ‘theological oration’ and has the title ‘On the Son’; it is also numbered as #29 among the 45 extant orations of Gregory N.]

In ending this opening post, I would like to submit that an objective reading of Gregory Naziansen’s writings reveals he submitted TWO interpretations, not ONE, concerning the monarchy of God—the most important being the monarchy of God the Father.

Grace and peace,

David

Is Jesus Christ autotheos?

Is Jesus Christ autotheos (αὐτόθεος)? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. Like many other theological terms, autotheos can be—and has been—used in more than one sense. Personally speaking, I first became aware of the term via B. B. Warfield’s reflections on John Calvin’s controversial elucidations on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Back in the fall of 2015 I published a three-part series—part 1; part 2, part 3—that delved into John Calvin's novel concepts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, which included the denial of the communication/generation of the Son of God’s essence/substance from God the Father. To defend this view, Calvin placed a heavy emphasis on the aseity of the Son—i.e. that the Son is autotheos. An excellent introduction concerning this aspect of Calvin’s Trinitarian thought has been provided by Brannon Ellis, who wrote:

…the heart of Calvin’s approach [concerning the doctrine of the Trinity] was exactly what his traditionalist opponents also embraced. Calvin and his classical critics were in agreement against all forms of antitrinitarianism, regarding the principal role of the affirmation of both ways of speaking of God through careful distinction. They did not agree, however, on the extent to which this shared conviction should be pressed when it came to one of the central claims of Calvin’s position—one that drew explicit attention to the nexus between Unity and Trinity, between the divine processions and the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. A constant element in all Calvin’s controversies was his assertion of the aseity (or self-existence) of God the Son, and denial of the legitimacy of this language by all his opponents—both orthodox and heterdodox.

Against antitrinitarians who more or less conflated personal and essential language, making the Son other than the one true God the Father or else indistinguishable from the Father in God, Calvin argued along with classical tradition, that, though the Son is not who the Father is, he is all that which the Father is. But, against some Trinitarians uncomfortable with his strong claim that the Son exists in and of himself, Calvin asserted in a similar manner that we must be able to say everything of the only-begotten Son that we say of the Father with respect to essence. The Son is therefore rightly confessed to be essentially self-existent, possessing deity ‘of himself’ (a se) as the one true God together with the Father and the Spirit.

Calvin’s affirmations along these lines, explicitly employing what I call autothean language, arose in 1588 in response to Valentine Gentile’s exclusive attribution of underived deity to the Father. The adjective autothean was first applied to Calvin’s views by a Roman Catholic polemicist shortly after Calvin’s death. It derives from his appropriation of Gentile’s language in order to claim against Gentile that the Son together with the Father possesses αὐτοθεὸτης (divine aseity), and therefore is αὐτοθεὸς (‘God of himself’, self-existent God). Again, however, Calvin had employed synonymous language—drawing similar criticism—from the beginning of his career. (Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son, p. 2)

Calvin was not the first individual to apply autothean language to the Son. However, he was the first to use autothean language in a sense that eliminated the communication/generation of the Son’s essence from the Father; a sense that evoked the "denial of the legitimacy of this language by all his opponents—both orthodox and heterdodox." It is a sense that stands in contrast with the original Nicene Creed, which states:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen.  And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father…

One of the most proficient defenders of the Nicene Creed was the Anglican priest/theologian George Bull. In volume 2 of his Defensio Fidei Nicænæ - A Defence of the Nicene Creed, he specifically addressed the application of αὐτόθεος to the Son. His introduction to chapter 1 of Book IV is reproduced below:

THE FIRST PROPOSITION TOUCHING THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER AS TO HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE, STATED. THIS IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE ANCIENTS. IT IS SHEWN, THAT THAT EXPRESSION OF CERTAIN MODERN WRITERS, BY WHICH THEY DESIGNATE THE SON, αὐτόθεος, THAT IS, OF HIMSELF GOD, IS QUITE REPUGNANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE NICENE COUNCIL ITSELF, AND ALSO TO THAT OF ALL THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS, BOTH THOSE WHO WROTE BEFORE, AND THOSE WHO WROTE AFTER, THAT COUNCIL  (1852 Oxford ed., p. 556 – link to PDF)

He then writes:

...the Son has indeed the same divine nature in common with the Father, but communicated by the Father; in such sense, that is, that the Father alone hath the divine nature from Himself, in other words, from no other, but the Son from  the Father; consequently that the Father is the fountain, origin, and principle, of the Divinity which is in the Son. (Ibid. p. 557)

Bull immediately follows the above with numerous quotations from the Church Fathers that clearly support his ‘FIRST PROPOSITION’. In paragraph #7 on page 565 he begins his examination “of certain moderns, who obstinately contend that the Son may properly be called αὐτόθεος, i.e God of Himself.” He then writes:

This view is inconsistent both with the hypotheses of those who maintain it, and with catholic consent. They say,  I mean, that the Son is from God the Father, as He is Son, and not as He is God; that He received His Person, not His essence, or Divine Nature, from the Father. But this is self contradictory; for, as Petavius rightly says, "The Son of God cannot be begotten by the Father, unless He receive from Him His nature and Godhead." For what else is it ' to be begotten,' than to be sprung from another, so as to have a like nature ? he who is begotten must necessarily have [his] nature in such wise communicated by him [who begets,] as in it to be like him who begets [him.] Unless indeed Christ, in that He is the Son of God, is not God; or receives a relation only from the Father without [receiving] Godhead. I add, that in this case Person cannot be conceived of without essence, unless you lay down Person in the Godhead to be nothing else than a mere mode of existence, which is simple Sabellianism. (Ibid. p. 565)

On the next page, he cogently sums up his argument against those who maintain that the Son is ‘God of Himself’:

...if essence is communicated to the Son by generation, He plainly has His essence from the Father, not from Himself; otherwise either He would not be begotten, or He would not be begotten by another. Hence Damascene, on the Orthodox Faith, i. 10, rightly observes, "All things which the Son and the Spirit severally have, They have of the Father, even being itself." And in what way this opinion of theirs is repugnant to catholic consent, I have shewn a little before. The council of Nice itself certainly decreed that the Son is God of God; He, however, who is God of God, cannot, without manifest contradiction, be said to be God of Himself. (Ibid. p. 566- bold emphasis mine.)

In the last paragraph of chapter 1 (#10), Bull acknowledges a sense in which αὐτόθεος can legitimately be applied to the Son; note the following:

...no Catholic would deny that the Son both may and ought to be called αὐτόθεος, that is to say, true and veriest God. Hence, even Eusebius, who (if any one) acknowledged the subordination of the Son to the Father, as to His origin and principle, yet still did not hesitate to declare, that the Saviour is "worshipped, and rightly worshipped, as the genuine Son of the supreme God, and αὐτόθεος (very God)." Where by the word αὐτόθεος, is clearly meant, not one who is God of Himself, but one who is truly God; as may be gathered both from the fact that it is the Son of God, who is here called αὐτόθεος, as well as from the fact that in the same breath the Father is designated the supreme God; (Ibid. p. 569)

It is now time to answer the opening question of this post: Is Jesus Christ autotheos (αὐτόθεος)? If one defines αὐτόθεος as ‘God of Himself’, then NO; but, if one defines αὐτόθεος as ‘very God’ (i.e. God of God/God from God), then YES.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. This post was prompted by this comment posted on March 13, 2021.

Justin Martyr – on the causality and numerical distinction of the Son of God from the Father

It has been well over a year since I have utilized Greek—in a comprehensive sense—during my studies. To rectify this hiatus, I have been examining a number of Christological passages found in the writings of Justin Martyr, comparing English translations with the Greek texts. I chose Justin because he “developed the first Christology" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2.549). An important theme that emerges from Justin’s Christological passages is the causality of the Son of God from the Father. From Justin’s Apologies and Dialogue With Trypho we read:

1^st Apology, ch. 21

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth[1] of God... (The First Apology, 21 - ANF 1.170)

And when we say also that the Word, who is the First-begotten[1] of God… (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 21 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.37)

[1] πρῶτον γέννημα (prōton gennēma)

Τῷ δὲ καὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅ ἐστι πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 34)

1^st Apology, ch. 23

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten[1] by God, being His Word and first-begotten[2], and power… (The First Apology, 23 - ANF 1.170)

Jesus Christ alone was really begotten[1] as Son of God, being His Word and First-begotten[2] and Power; (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 23 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.39)

[1] γεγέννηται (gegennētai)

[2] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 38)

1^st Apology, ch. 33

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born[1] of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; (The First Apology, 33 - ANF 1.174)

The Spirit and Power from God cannot therefore be understood as anything else than the Word, who is also the First-begotten[1] of God, as Moses the above-mentioned prophet testified; (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 33 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.46)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

τὸ πνεῦμα  οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι Μωυσῆς (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 53)

1^st Apology, ch. 46

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born[1] of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; (The First Apology, 46 - ANF 1.178)

We have been taught that Christ is the First-born[1] of God, and we have suggested above that He is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers. (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 46 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.55)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι ἐδι δάχθημεν καὶ προεμηνύσαμεν λόγον ὄντα, οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀν θρώπων μετέσχε. (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 70)

1^st Apology, ch. 53

…we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born[1] of the unbegotten[2] God… (The First Apology, 53 - ANF 1.180)

…we believe of a crucified man that He is the First-begotten[1] of the Unbegotten[2] God…(Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 53 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.60)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

[2] ἀγεννήτῳ (agennētō)

γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀν θρώπῳ σταυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ ἐστι (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 78)

1^st Apology, ch. 58

For they who are called devils attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten[1]; (The First Apology, 53 - ANF 1.182)

[1] πρωτογόνου (prōtogonou)

οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο τι ἀγωνίζονται οἱ λεγόμενοι δαίμονες, ἢ ἀπάγειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρωτογόνου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ· (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 86)

1^st Apology, ch. 63

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son ; who also, being the first-begotten[1] Word of God, is even God. (The First Apology, 63 - ANF 1.184)

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father are shown neither to have known the Father, nor to know that the Father of the Universe has a Son;  who being the logos and First-begotten[1] is also God. (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 63 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.69)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

οἱ γὰρ τὸν υἱὸν πατέρα φάσκοντες εἶναι ἐλέγχονται μήτε τὸν πατέρα ἐπιστάμενοι, μηθ' ὅτι ἐστὶν υἱὸς  τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων γινώσκοντες· ὃς καὶ λόγος πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, pp. 95, 96)

2^nd Apology, ch. 6

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten[1], there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words. Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten[2] before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; (The Second Apology, 6 - ANF 1.190)

[1]  ᾀγεννήτῳ (agennētō)

[2] γεννώμενος (gennōmenos)

Ὄνομα δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν· ᾧ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὄνομά τι προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύ τερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ καὶ θεὸς καὶ κτίστης καὶ κύριος καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκεί νου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιη μάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι' αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσ μῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται … (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, pp. 112, 113)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 61

 "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat[1] 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). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will ; just as we see happening among ourselves : for when we give out some word, we beget the word ; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word  [which remains] in us, when we give it out : and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another] , but remains the same ; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten[2] of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following : 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works[3]. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me[4]. (Dialogue with Trypho, 61 - ANF 1.227, 228.)

[1] γεγέννηκε - Migne PG, 6.616

[2] γεννηθείς -  Migne PG, 6.616

[3] Prov. 8.22 (LXX): Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - Migne PG, 6.616

[4] Prov. 8.25b (LXX): γεννᾷ με - Migne PG, 6.616

Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἔφην, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ  θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα  κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱός,  ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ θεός, ποτὲ δὲ κύριος  καὶ λόγος, ποτὲ δὲ ἀρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου  μορφῇ φανέντα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ· ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονο  μάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγεννῆσθαι.  ἀλλ' οὐ τοιοῦτον  ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν γινόμενον ὁρῶμεν; λόγον γάρ τινα προ  βάλλοντες, λόγον γεννῶμεν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἐλαττωθῆ  ναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον, προβαλλόμενοι. καὶ ὁποῖον  ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινόμενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου  ἐξ οὗ ἡ ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μένοντος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ  αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ  οὗ ἀνήφθη. μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι ὁ λόγος τῆς σοφίας, αὐτὸς  ὢν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννηθείς, καὶ λόγος  καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις καὶ δόξα τοῦ γεννήσαντος ὑπάρχων, καὶ  διὰ Σολομῶνος φήσαντος ταῦτα· Ἐὰν ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν τὰ καθ' ἡμέραν γινόμενα, μνημονεύσω τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀριθμῆσαι. κύριος  ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος  ἐθεμελίωσέ με ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ  τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι, πρὸ τοῦ τὰς πηγὰς προελθεῖν τῶν ὑδά  των, πρὸ τοῦ τὰ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων τῶν βουνῶν  γεννᾷ με. (Migne PG, vol. 6.616)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 62

But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him ; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He  whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God…(Dialogue with Trypho, 62 - ANF 1.228.)

ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν  γέννημα πρὸπάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ πατρί, καὶ τούτῳ  ὁ πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ, ὡς ὁ λόγος διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος ἐδήλωσεν,  ὅτι καὶ ἀρχὴ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων τοῦτ' αὐτὸ καὶ γέννημα  ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο … (Migne PG, vol. 6.617, 620)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 84

…the first-begotten[1] of all creation… (Dialogue with Trypho, 84 - ANF 1.241.)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokos)

τὸν πρωτότοκον τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.673)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 85

 ...this very Son of God—who is the Firstborn[1] of every creature… (Dialogue with Trypho, 85 - ANF 1.241.)

κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως  (Migne PG, vol. 6.676)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 100

…we know Him to be the first-begotten[1] of God, and to be before all creatures…(Dialogue with Trypho, 100 - ANF 1.249.)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

γνόντες αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.709)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 105

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten[1] of the Father of all things, being begotten[2] in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. (Dialogue with Trypho, 105 - ANF 1.251.)

[1] Μονογενὴς (Monogenēs)

[2] γεγεννημένος (gegennēmenos)

Μονογενὴς γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γεγεννημένος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνη μονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν, προεδήλωσα. (Migne PG, vol. 6.720, 721)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 125

 …yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten[1] of all creatures. (Dialogue with Trypho, 125 - ANF 1.262.)

 [1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

θεοῦ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.768)

Dialogue with 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[1], I have discussed briefly in what has gone before ; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father[2], 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. (Dialogue with Trypho, 128 - ANF 1.264.)

[1] ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν (arithmō eteron)

[2] γεγεννῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός (gegennēsthai apo tou Patros)

καὶ ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν καὶ θεὸν καλεῖ  ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, διὰ πολλῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ  ἄγγελον, οὐχ ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται,  ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί ἐστι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις διὰ  βραχέων τὸν λόγον ἐξήτασα, εἰπὼν τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην γεγεν  νῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός, δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐ κατὰ  ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, ὁποῖα τὰ ἄλλα πάντα μεριζόμενα καὶ τεμνόμενα οὐ τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ἃ καὶ πρὶν τμηθῆναι· καὶ παραδείγματος χάριν παρειλήφειν ὡς τὰ ἀπὸ πυρὸς ἀναπτόμενα πυρὰ ἕτερα ὁρῶμεν, οὐδὲν ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου, ἐξ οὗ ἀναφθῆναι πολλὰ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ ταὐτοῦ μένοντος. (Migne PG, vol. 6.776)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 129

The Lord created me[1] the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets[2] me before all the hills…that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring[3] was begotten[4] by the Father before all things created ; and that that which is begotten[5] is numerically distinct[6] from that which begets[7], any one will admit. (Dialogue with Trypho, 129 - ANF 1.264.)

[1] Prov. 8.22 (LXX): Κύριος ἔκτισέ με (Kurios ektise me)

[2] Prov. 8.25b (LXX): γεννᾷ (genna)

[3] γεγεννῆσθαι (gegennēsthai)

[4] γέννημα (gennēma)

[5] γεννώμενον (gennōmenon)

[6] ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν (arithmō eteron)

[7] γεννῶντος (gennōntos)

Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με, ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ προελθεῖν τὰς πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆ ναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με…καὶ ὅτι γεγεννῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο τὸ γέννημα πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ λόγος ἐδήλου, καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν ἐστι, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσειε. (Migne PG, vol. 6.777)

As already mentioned, there is an emphasis on the causality of the Son of God from the Father in the above referenced passages. In the last two, Justin also makes mention of a ‘numerical’ distinction between the Father and the Son. Those two passages are not the only instances he does so—note the following:

1^st Apology, ch. 13

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second Place[1], and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. (First Apology, 13 – ANF 1.166, 167.)

[1] δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ (deutera chōra) - Migne, PG vol. 6.348

1^st Apology, ch. 6o

For he gives the second place[1] to the Logos which is with God… (First Apology, 60 – ANF 1.183.)

[1] Δευτέραν μὲν γὰρ χώραν (Deuteran men gar chōran) - (Migne, PG vol. 6.420)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 56

I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord[1] subject to the Maker of all things ; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them. (Dialogue With Trypho, 56 – ANF 1.223.)

[1] Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος ἔτερος (theos kai kurios eteros) - (Migne, PG vol. 6.597)

It is now time to bring up a question that I suspect is on the minds of some of folk who have taken the time to read the above selections from the writings of Justin: was Justin a Trinitarian?

Ultimately, the answer depends on how one defines the doctrine of the Trinity. One ‘popular’ definition of the Trinity is provided by the Reformed Baptist apologist James R. White in his book The Forgotten Trinity:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Page 26)

Mr. White in his above book makes no mention of Justin at all. However, another Reformed Baptist (and former frequent poster here at AF), Ken Temple, published a post back on March 7, 2017 that directly answers our question: Justin Martyr was Trinitarian. 

Unfortunately for Ken, Justin did not adhere to at least one key component of White’s definition: the coequality of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Justin held to what patristic scholars have termed ‘subordinationism’—i.e. the Son is not coequal to the Father.

Note the following from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, "Justinsdes Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus", Freiburg imBr., 1906, 103-19). (The Catholic Encyclopedia – 1910, VIII.585 – bold emphasis mine.)

And from John Behr’s, Formation of Christian Theology-Volume One: The Way to Nicaea, we read:

Although Justin speaks in the traditional manner of Jesus Christ, as the Word, revealing God, he shares the common philosophical presupposition of his day that as God is so totally transcendent to created reality he needs an intermediary, his Word, to act for him and to mediate between himself and creation. (p. 103)

As it is not God himself who thus appeared and spoke with man, the Word of God who did all of these things is, for Justin, “another God and Lord besides (ἔτερος παρὰ) the Maker of all," who is also called his "Angel," as he brings messages from the Maker of all, "above whom there is no other God" (Dial. 56.4)….The divinity of Jesus Christ, an “other God,” is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity… (p.104 – bold emphasis mine.)

But then, if one begins their definition of the Trinity with the Monarchy of God the Father—which includes a strong emphasis on the causality of the Son from the Father and the teaching that the Father alone is autotheos—I would argue that the term ‘Trinitarian’ could legitimately be applied to Justin’s theology.

[Migne PG = Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Graeca – vol. 6 PDF HERE; ANF = The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson – vol. 1 PDF HERE; PDF of Blunt’s, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, HERE; for an excellent bibliography of works on and/or by Justin see the Early Church.org.uk entry HERE.]

 

Grace and peace,

David