I. Divinity of the Son
II. Begetting of the Son
A. Begotten of His Father
B. Before all worlds c. God of God
D. Light of Light
E. Begotten, not made
F. Being of one substance with the Father
G. By whom all things were made
III. Relationship of the Son to the Father
A. Equality of nature (substance)
B. Difference in personal attributes c. Difference in order
IV. The internal Logos and the external Son
V. Origen’s understanding of the Son
I. Divinity of the Son
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
I and My Father are one. John 10:30.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father”? John 14:9.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28.
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You.” Heb. 1:8, 9.
He is Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness.” Barnabas (c. 70–130, E), 1.139.
Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us. Clement of Rome (c. 96, W), 1.11.
God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.58.
Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.68.
I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.96.
The Christians trace the beginning of their religion to Jesus the Messiah. He is called the Son of the Most High God. It is said that God came down from heaven. He assumed flesh and clothed Himself with it from a Hebrew virgin. And the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. Aristides (c. 125, E), 9.265.
Truly God Himself, who is Almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, the One who is the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word. . . . God did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, or ruler. . . . Rather, He sent the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom He made the heavens. . . . As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so God sent Him. He sent Him as God. Letter to Diognetus (c. 125–200), 1.27.
Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God—as the Judge of the living and the dead. Second Clement (c. 150), 7.517.
We reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166.
The Word, . . . He is Divine. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166.
The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, is even God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.184.
Next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbeggoten and ineffable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.193.
For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and Man. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.211.
[TRYPHO, A JEW:] You utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.213.
Moses . . . declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God. He was sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by another One, who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal contact with no one. We believe this other One to be the Maker and Father of all things. . . . Yet, there is said to be another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. And He 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. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.223.
He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.229.
David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father’s will. He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.237.
The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.262.
If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegotten, Unutterable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263.
“Rejoice, O you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship Him” [Deut. 32:43]. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.
He is forever the first in power. For Christ, being the First-Born of every creature, became again the chief of another race regenerated by Himself through water, faith, and wood. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.268.
Then did the whole creation see clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the grave. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.756.
God was put to death, the King of Israel slain! Melito (c. 170, E), 8.758.
There is the one God and the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son. We understand that the Son is inseparable from Him. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.137.
God by His own Word and Wisdom made all things. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.91.
“Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a right scepter. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Therefore, God, Your God, has anointed You.” For the Spirit designates by the name of God—both Him who is anointed as Son, and He who anoints, that is, the Father. And again, “God stood in the congregation of the gods; He judges among the gods.” Here he refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.419.
For He fulfills the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things that have been formed, the Only-Begotten of the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.443.
I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord. But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word. . . . He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.449.
Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem. . . . God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.451.
He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.452.
Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.467.
Now the father of the human race is the Word of God. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.505.
How can they be saved unless it was God who worked out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has first passed into man? Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.507.
It is plain that He was Himself the Word of God, who was made the son of man. He received from the Father the power of remission of sins. He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.545.
He is God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand. And with the form of God, He is God. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.210.
There is a suggestion of the divinity of the Lord in [Isaac’s] not being slain. Jesus rose again after His burial, having suffered no harm—just like Isaac was released from being sacrificed. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.215.
O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. . . . God the Word, who became man for our sakes. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.215.
The Father of all is alone perfect, for the Son is in Him and the Father is in the Son. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.222.
Our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.223.
Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one—that is, God. For He has said, “In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.225.
He who has the Almighty God, the Word, is in want of nothing. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.281.
Pointing to the First-Begotten Son, Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” And He is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is He who is the Teacher of all created beings. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.493.
The best thing on earth is the most pious man. The best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, most holy, most potent, most princely, most kingly, and most beneficent. This is the highest excellence, who orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will and holds the helm of the universe in the best way. . . . The Son of God is never displaced . . . being always everywhere and being contained nowhere. He is complete mind, complete paternal light. He is all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things. . . . All the host of angels and gods are placed in subjection to Him. He, the paternal Word, exhibits the holy administration for Him who put [all things] in subjection to Him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.524.
The Son is the cause of all good things, by the will of the Almighty Father. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.525.
He is the true Only-Begotten, the express image of the glory of the universal King and Almighty Father, who impresses on the man of God the seal of the perfect contemplation, according to His own image. So that there is now a third divine image, made as far as possible like the Second Cause, the Essential Life. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.527.
Nor do we differ from the Jews concerning God. We must make, therefore, a remark or two as to Christ’s divinity. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.34.
Search, then, and see if the divinity of Christ is true. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.36.
To all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all God and Lord. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.158.
Christ’s name is extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshipped by all the above-enumerated nations, reigning everywhere. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.158.
This opens the ears of Christ our God. Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.715.
We who believe that God really lived on earth, and took upon Him the low estate of human form, for the purpose of man’s salvation, are very far from thinking as those do who refuse to believe that God cares for anything. . . . Fortunately, however, it is a part of the creed of Christians even to believe that God did die, and yet that He is alive forevermore. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.309.
Christ is received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.319.
He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel—as a Gabriel or a Michael. . . . Since He is the Spirit of God and the Power of the Highest, can He be regarded as lower than the angels? He who is truly God and the Son of God? Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.534.
For so did the Father previously say to the Son: “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.549.
If God had willed not to be born, He would not have presented Himself in the likeness of man. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.522
Christ never used that familiar phrase of all the prophets, “Thus saith the Lord.” For He was Himself the Lord, who openly spoke by His own authority, prefacing his words with the phrase, “Truly, truly, I say unto you.” Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.534.
“Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord,” that is to say, the Son in the Father’s name. And as for the Father’s names—God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, the One Who Is—the Scriptures teach us and we say that they belonged suitably to the Son also. We say that the Son came under these designations and has always acted in them and has thus manifested them in Himself to men. He says, “All things that the Father has are mine.” Then, why not His names also? Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
How is it that the Son suffered, yet the Father did not suffer with Him? [The answer is that] the Father is separate from the Son, though not separated from Him as God. For example, a river flows from a fountain identical in nature with it, and it is not separated from the fountain. Nevertheless, if the river is soiled with mire and mud, the injury that affects the stream does not reach to the fountain. To be sure, it is the water of the fountain that suffers downstream. Nevertheless, since it is not affected at the fountain (but only at the river) the fountain suffers nothing. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.626.
Although He endured the cross, yet as God He returned to life, having trampled upon death. For His God and Father addresses Him, and says, “Sit at my right hand.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.166, 167.
By the Ancient of Days, he means none other than the Lord, God, and Ruler of all—even of Christ Himself, who makes the days old and yet does not become old Himself by times and days. “His dominion is an everlasting dominion.” The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son—both things in heaven and things on earth—presented Him as the First-Begotten of God. He did this in order that, along with the Father, He might be approved before angels as the Son of God and be manifested as also the Lord of angels. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189.
Christ’s body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity. Rather, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father. Yet, He was also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father is not. And he comprehends all things in Himself. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.194.
Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate—who was sent to show that He was upon earth and was also in heaven? Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.225.
Having been made man, He is still God forever. For to this effect, John also has said, “Who is, and who was, and who is to come—the Almighty.” And he has appropriately called Christ “the Almighty.” For in this, he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony and said, “All things are delivered unto me by my Father.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.225.
Besides, there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the pagans in defense of the truth and against the heresies of their day. . . . For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of brethren—which have been written from the beginning by the faithful—celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to Him. Eusebius, quoting Caius (c. 215, W), 5.601.
No one should be offended that the Savior is also God, seeing God is the Father. Likewise, since the Father is called Omnipotent, no one should be offended that the Son of God is also called Omnipotent. For in this way, the words will be true that He says to the Father: “All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.” Now, if all things that are the Father’s are also Christ’s, certainly one of those things is the omnipotence of the Father. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.250.
“The works that the Father does, these the Son does likewise.” And again He says that the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but only what He sees the Father do. For the Son in no way differs from the Father in the power of His works. The work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father. Rather, it is one and the same movement. . . . He therefore called Him a stainless mirror, that by such an expression it might be understood that there is no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the Father. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.251.
Jesus Christ Himself is the Lord and Creator of the soul. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.271.
He Himself is everywhere and passes swiftly through all things. For we are no longer to understand Him as existing in those narrow limits in which He was once confined for our sakes. He is not in that circumscribed body that He occupied on earth, when dwelling among men—according to which He might be considered as enclosed in one particular place. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.299.
Every beginning of those families that have a relation to God as to the Father of all, took its beginning lower down with Christ, who is next to the God and Father of all, being thus the Father of every soul, as Adam is the father of all men. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.370, 371.
No one will logically think this Son of God, in respect of the Word being God, is to be contained in any place. . . . For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and in Paul, but not in Michael the archangel, nor in Gabriel. And from this, it is distinctly shown that the divinity of the Son of God was not shut up in some place. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.377.
We might say of Christ, that by nature His first principle [Gr. arche] is deity. However, in relation to us, who cannot comprehend the whole truth about Him because of its very greatness, His first principle is His manhood. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.307.
If it is permitted to say this, I consider that the beginning of real existence was the Son of God, who says, “I am the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” . . . Now, God is altogether one and simple. But, for many reasons, our Savior is made many things—since God set Him forth as a propitiation and a first fruits of the whole creation. . . . The whole creation, so far as it is capable of redemption, stands in need of Him. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.308.
Should anyone inquire whether all that the Father knows . . . is known to our Savior also, and should he—imagining that he will thereby glorify the Father—show that some things known to the Father are unknown to the Son . . . we must remind him that it is from His being the truth that He is Savior. Accordingly, if He is the complete truth, then there is nothing true that He does not know. Truth must not limp for the want of the things that—according to these persons—are known to the Father only. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.313.
One cannot be in the Father or with the Father except by ascending upwards from below and first coming to the divinity of the Son—through which one may be led by the hand and brought to the blessedness of the Father himself. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.313.
The arrangement of the sentences seem to indicate an order. First we have, “In the beginning was the Word.” Next, “And the Word was with God.” And thirdly, “And the Word was God.” It was arranged this way so that it might be seen that it is the Word’s being with God that makes Him God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
He is said to have a name written that no one knows but He Himself. For there are some things that are known to the Word alone. For the beings that come into existence after Him have a poorer nature than His. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.327.
The Canaanite woman came and worshipped Jesus as God, saying, “Lord help me.” Origen (c. 245, E), 9.446.
He is perceived as being the Word, for He was God in the beginning with God. He reveals the Father. Origen (c. 245, E), 9.452.
We now believe Jesus Himself, when He speaks respecting his divinity: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.426.
The Gospels do not consider Him who in Jesus said these words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” to have been of so circumscribed a nature so as to have had an existence nowhere out of the soul and body of Jesus. . . . Jesus himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst of you.” . . . We quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of God and Jesus. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.434.
The divinity of Jesus is established by these things: the existence of the churches of the saved, the prophecies uttered concerning Him, the cures brought about in His name, and the wisdom and knowledge that are in Him. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.477.
The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.499.
Every prayer, supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest—the living Word and God, who is above all the angels. And to the Word himself will we also pray, make intercessions, and offer thanksgiving. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.544.
Although we may call him a second God, let men know that by the term, “second God,” we mean nothing else than a Virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a Reason capable of containing all reason. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.561.
These are not the words of Christians. Rather, they are of those who are altogether alienated from salvation and who neither acknowledge Jesus as Savior, nor God, nor Teacher, nor Son of God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.587.
The architect of this world is the Son of God. His Father is the first God and Sovereign Ruler over all things. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.595.
“The people who sat in darkness (the Gentiles) saw a great light”—the God Jesus. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.603.
If the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honored was given to Him by God “so that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” For the prophecies that preceded His birth were preparations for His worship. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.642.
[CELSUS SAYS:] “If these people worshipped one God alone and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men. And they think it is no offense against God if they worship His servant also.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, “As you and I are one,” he would not have thought that we worship any others besides Him who is the Supreme God. For he says, “My Father is in Me and I in Him.” . . . However, from these words, someone may be afraid of my joining those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons. If so, let him weigh the following passage: “And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and of one soul,” so he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We therefore worship one God—the Father and the Son—as I have explained. So our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before. For we believe Him when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.”. . . We worship, therefore, the Father of truth and the Son, who is the truth. And although they are two Persons or Beings, they are one in unity of thought, harmony, and identity of will. So entirely are they one that he who has seen the Son . . . has seen in Him (who is the image of God) God Himself. . . . Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God and His only Son—the Word and the image of God—by prayers and supplications. And we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through His Only-Begotten Son. To the Son, we first present them, and beseech Him, as “the propitiation for our sins,” and our High Priest, to offer our desires, sacrifices, and prayers to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is directed to God through His Son. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.643, 644.
To explain this fully, and to justify the conduct of the Christians in refusing homage to any object except the Most High God and the First-Born of all creation (who is His Word and is God), we must quote this from Scripture. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.639.
We sing hymns to the Most High alone and to his Only-Begotten, who is the Word and God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.665.
Why, then, should man hesitate to call Christ “God,” when he observes that He is declared to be God by the Father, according to the Scriptures? . . . Reasonably, then, whoever acknowledges Him to be God may find salvation in Christ as God. Whoever does not acknowledge Him to be God will lose salvation that he could not find elsewhere than in Christ as God. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.621.
In what way do they [the heretics] receive Christ as God? For now they cannot deny Him to be God. Do they receive Him as God the Father or God the Son? If as the Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God? If as the Father, why do they not follow those who appear to maintain blasphemies of that kind? Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.621.
This saying can be true of no man: “I and the Father are one.” Christ alone declared this utterance out of the consciousness of His divinity. Finally, the apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ’s divinity, says in reply to Christ, “My Lord and my God.” Besides, the Apostle Paul says, “ . . . of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.622.
Therefore, He is not only man, but God also, since all things are by Him. . . . If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon? For it is not the nature of man, but of God, to be present in every place. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.623.
If Christ was only man, how did he say, “Before Abraham was, I am?” For no man can be before someone from whom he himself has descended. Nor can it be that anyone could have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. Yet, Christ, although He was born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.624, 625.
How can it be said that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.625.
He strongly refuted his adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. He said, “If He called them gods, to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world ‘You blaspheme’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” By these words, He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather, He confirmed the assertion that He was God. . . . Nevertheless, He refuted the charge of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For He wished that He should be thus understood to be God, as the Son of God. He would not wish to be understood to be the Father Himself. . . . He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.625.
All heavenly things, earthly things, and things under the earth are subjected to Christ—even the angels themselves, with all other creatures. And since many who are subjected to Christ are called gods, rightly also Christ is God. And if any angel at all subjected to Christ can be called god, and this, if it be said, is also professed without blasphemy, certainly much more can this be fitting for Christ Himself, the Son of God, to be called God. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.631.
If Christ had been only man, He would have been spoken of as being in “the image of God,” not “in the form of God.” Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.633.
Jesus Christ, our Lord and God. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.359.
God the Father ordained His Son to be worshipped. The Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine command, lays it down and says, “God has exalted Him and given Him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow—of things heavenly, and things earthly, and things beneath.” And in the Apocalypse, the angel rebukes John . . . and says: “Worship Jesus the Lord.” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.491.
Christ is God. . . . In Isaiah: . . . “For God is in you and there is no other God beside you. For you are God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Savior.” . . . Moreover, in Jeremiah, “This is our God, and no other will be esteemed beside Him, who has found all the way of knowledge and has given it to Jacob His son and to Israel, his beloved. After this, He was seen upon earth, and he conversed with men” [Baruch 3:35–37]. . . . Also, in the forty-fourth Psalm: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . . Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. . . . Also, in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto his name. Make a way for Him who goes up into the west. God is his name.” . . .
Also, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, . . . Thomas answered and said unto Him, “My Lord and my God.” . . . Also, Paul said to the Romans: . . . “Christ came, who is God over all, blessed forever.” Also, in the Apocalypse: “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. . . . He that overcomes will possess these things and their inheritance. And I will be his God and he will be my son.” . . . Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “And you will call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, ‘God with us.’” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.517, 518.
Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is the Son of God the Father and Creator. Seventh Council of Carthage (c. 256, W), 5.567.
“He is” because He endures continually. “He was,” because with the Father, He made all things. Victorinus (c. 280, W), 7.344.
Since He truly was and is, being in the beginning with God, and being God, He is the chief Commander and Shepherd of the heavenly ones. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.318.
These testimonies of the prophets foretold that it would come to pass that the Jews would lay hands upon their God and put Him to death. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.121.
We believe Him to be God. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.139.
Do these [pagans], then, hear with offended ears that Christ is worshipped and that He is accepted by us and regarded as a Divine Person? Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.423.
You [pagans] say that we worship one who was born a human being. . . . Yet, in consideration of the many generous gifts He has bestowed on us, He should be called and be addressed as God. Since He is God in reality and without any shadow of doubt, do you think that we will deny that He is worshipped by us with all the fervor we are capable of. . . . “Is that Christ of yours a god, then?” some raving, angry, and excited man will say. “A God,” we will reply, “And God of the inner powers.” . . . He was sent to us by the King Supreme for a purpose of the very highest significance. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.424.
Christ performed all those miracles . . . by the inherent might of His authority. For this was the proper duty of true Divinity, as was consistent with His nature, as was worthy of Him. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.425.
Christ assisted both the good and the bad. . . . For this is the mark of true Divinity and of kingly power: to deny his bounty to none and not to consider who merits it or who does not. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.426.
He was God on high, God in His inmost nature, God from unknown realism, and He was sent by the Ruler of all as a Savior God. . . . When freed from the body—which He carried about as only a very small part of Himself—He allowed Himself to be seen. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.428.
If what we say is admitted to be true, He is proved to have been God by the confession of everyone. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.429.
We profess that Christ is not a mere man, but is God the Word and man, the Mediator between God and men. He is the High Priest of the Father. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.454; extended discussion: 3.597–3.627, 5.515–5.520, 5.611–5.644.
II. Begetting of the Son
One of the key tenets of Nicene orthodoxy is that the Son is begotten of the Father. The Nicene Creed states: “I believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten of His Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made.” As can be seen from the quotations that follow, each phrase of the Creed was taken verbatim from the writings of the pre-Nicene church.
A. Begotten of His Father
The Lord has said to Me, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” Ps. 2:7.
My heart has uttered a good matter. Ps. 45:1 (LXX).
The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. . . . Before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. . . . When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him. . . . I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight. Prov. 8:22, 23 (LXX).
The Word . . . after God, who begat Him. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166.
We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.170.
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word, His First-Begotten, and His Power. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.170.
[Christians] call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men. But they maintain that this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens. . . . They say that the Father, when He chooses, causes His Power to spring forth. And when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. . . . This power, which the prophetic word calls God . . . is indeed something numerically distinct [from the Father]. . . . This Power was begotten from the Father by His power and will, but not by division, as if the essence of the Father were divided. For all other things that are partitioned and divided are not the same after the partition as they were 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 the original fire. Yet, the fire from which many fires can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom before all things. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.98.
When God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word. He uttered the First-Born of all creation. However, He Himself was not emptied of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and always conversing with His Word. And hence the holy writings, and all the Spirit-bearing men, teach us this. One of these men, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word was in Him. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.103.
If anyone, therefore, says to us, “How then was the Son produced by the Father?” we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation—or by whatever other name one may describe His generation. For it is in fact altogether indescribable. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.401.
The Son reveals the Father, who begat the Son. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.469.
As He was born of Mary in the last days, so did He also proceed from God as the FirstBegotten of every creature. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.576.
The perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.215.
The Father, by loving, became “feminine.” The great proof of this is He whom He begot of Himself. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.601.
The Father begat the Word as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created. He uttered the first Voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent Him forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
You will say to me, “How is He begotten?” . . . You cannot explain with accuracy the economy in His case. For you do not have it in your power to acquaint yourself with the skilful and indescribable art of the Maker, but only to see, understand, and believe that man is God’s work. Moreover, you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father begat as He willed, in His good pleasure. . . . Is it not enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation (if you believe)—but do you also inquire curiously how He was begotten after the spirit [i.e., His heavenly birth]? . . . Are you then so bold as to seek the account after the spirit, which the Father keeps with Himself, intending to reveal it then to the holy ones and those worthy of seeing His face? . . . For He speaks in this manner: “From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.229.
This solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first. . . . Him alone did [the Father] produce from existing things. For the Father Himself constituted existence, and the Being born from him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in [the Father] Himself, bearing the will of His Begetter and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.150, 151.
Now, we believe that Christ did ever act in the name of God the Father. . . . We believe that He was the Son of the Creator and that He was His Word. God made Him His Son by emitting Him from Himself. He thereafter set the Son over every dispensation of His will. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.318.
I am therefore of the opinion that the will of the Father should be sufficient by itself for the existence of whatever He wishes to exist. . . . And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him. For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten—unborn—except God the Father only. And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248.
There is a meaning of “beginning” [Gr. arche] referring to a matter of origin, as might appear in the saying: “In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth.” . . . This meaning of the word “beginning” in the sense of “origin” will serve us also in the passage in which Wisdom speaks in the Proverbs. We read, “God created me the beginning of His ways, for His works.” Here the term could be interpreted as in the first application we spoke of—that of a way. It says, “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways.” One might assert with good reason that God Himself is the beginning of all things. And one could go on to say—as is plain—that the Father is the origin [arche] of the Son. The Creator is the beginning of the works of the Creator. In a word, God is the beginning of all that exists. This view is supported by “In the beginning, was the Word.” In the Word, one may see the Son. And because He is in the Father, He may be said to be in the beginning. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.306.
No one can worthily know the One without genealogy, the First-Born of all created nature, who is like the Father who begat Him. Nor can anyone know the Father as does the living Word, His Wisdom, and Truth. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.581.
The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God—Christ Jesus. He is the Lord our God, but He is the Son of God, out of that God who is both one and alone. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.618.
God the Father is the Founder and Creator of all things. He alone knows no origin [arche]. He is invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, and is one God. To his greatness, majesty, or power, not only can nothing be preferred, nothing can be compared. The Son, the Word, was born of Him, when He [the Father] willed it. The Word is not received in the sound of the stricken air, or in the tone of voice forced from the lungs. Rather, He is acknowledged in the substance of the power put forth by God. The mysteries of His sacred and divine nativity have not been learned by any apostle, nor discovered by any prophet, nor known by any angel, nor comprehended by any creature. They are known to the Son alone, who has known the secrets of the Father. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.
Thus, He could not make two Gods, because He did not make two beginnings. For from Him who has no beginning [arche], the Son received the source of His nativity before all time. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.644.
Christ is the First-Born. He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made. Solomon says in the Proverbs: “The Lord made me in the beginning of His ways, into His works. He founded me before the world. In the beginning, . . . the Lord begot me. . . . When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” . . . Also, in the same, in Ecclesiasticus: “I went forth out of the mouth of the Most High, First-Born before every creature.” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.515.
I said that the plant . . . is different from the [seed or root] from which it sprouted. Yet, it is absolutely of the same nature. Similarly, a river flowing from a spring takes another form and name. For neither is the spring called the river, nor the river the spring. . . . The spring is the father, so to speak, and the river is the water from the spring. . . . God is the spring of all good things, but the Son is called the river flowing from Him. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, 93, as quoted by Athanasius.
I do not think that the Word was a thing made. Therefore, I do not say that God was His Maker, but rather his Father. Nevertheless, if at any time, in speaking about the Son, I may have casually said that God was His Maker, even this manner of speaking would not be without defense. For the wise men among the Greeks call themselves the “makers” of their books, although the same are “fathers” of their books. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius.
God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning. . . . So before He commenced this business of the world, . . . He produced a Spirit like Himself, who could be endowed with the perfection of God the Father. God did this in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him and might flow forth afar. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.52.
In the thirty-second Psalm: “By the word of God were the heavens made firm. And all their power by the breath of His mouth.” And also again in the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has given utterance to a good word.” . . . Solomon also shows that it is the Word of God, and no other, by whose hands these works of the world were made. He says, “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High before all creatures. I caused the light that does not fail to arise in the heavens” [Sir. 24:3]. John also taught in this manner: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.107.
In the 109th Psalm, David teaches the same, saying, “Before the morning star, I begot you.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.113.
Not that the Word is unbegotten. For the Father alone is unbegotten. Rather, the unexplainable subsistence of the Only-Begotten Son is beyond the understanding of the evangelists and perhaps also of the angels. For that reason, I do not think that he is to be considered pious who presumes to inquire into anything beyond these things. . . . To the Father alone belonged the knowledge of this most divine mystery. He says, “For no man knows the Son, but the Father.” Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.292, 293.
Concerning Him we believe in this manner, even as the apostolic church believes: In one Father, unbegotten, who has the cause of His being from no one, who is unchangeable and immutable. . . . And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not, but of Him who is the Father. He is not begotten in a physical manner, nor by excision or division (as Sabellius and Valentinus thought), but in a certain unexplainable and unspeakable manner. In the words of the prophet cited above: “Who will declare His generation?” Because of His subsistence, no begotten nature can investigate Him—just as no one can investigate the Father. The nature of rational beings cannot comprehend the knowledge of His divine generation by the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father. Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), 7.524; extended discussion: 4.245–4.251.
B. Before all worlds
Out of you shall come forth to me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Mic. 5:2.
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58.
Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages, and in the end, He was revealed. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.61.
The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a Fellow-Counselor with the Father in His work of creation. Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.47.
His Son . . . also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190.
And Trypho [a Jew] said, “For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For example, you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.219.
This is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.247.
We know Him to be the First-Begotten of God, and to be before all creatures. . . . Since we call Him the Son, we have understood that, before all creatures, He proceeded from the Father by His power and will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.
“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth.” . . . You perceive . . . that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.
This Being is perfect Reason, the Word of God. He was begotten before the light. He is Creator, together with the Father. He is the Fashioner of man. . . . He is God who is from God. He is the Son who is from the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the King for evermore. . . . This was the First-Born of God, who was begotten before the sun. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.756, 757.
Moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is truly God the Word, existing before all time. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.759.
Being at once both God and perfect man, He gave us sure indications of His two natures. . . . He concealed the signs of His Deity, although he was the true God existing before all ages. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.760.
What is meant by the Son? I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father. I do not mean that He was brought into existence. For, from the beginning, God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in Himself. From eternity, He is instinct with Logos. However, [the Son is begotten] inasmuch as He came forth to be the Idea and energizing Power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes. . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me the beginning of His ways to His works.” Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.137.
But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word who always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.103.
But the Son has been eternally co-existing with the Father. From of old, yes, from the beginning, He always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.406.
For not only before Adam, but also before all creation, the Word glorified His Father, remaining in Him. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.478.
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” . . . I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.487, 488.
He was with the Father from the beginning. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.489.
He is prior to all creation. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.526.
Solomon also says that before heaven, earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.512.
The timeless and unoriginated First Principle and Beginning of existences—the Son—from whom we are to learn the remoter Cause of the universe, the Father, the most ancient and the most beneficent of all. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.523.
The presbyter explained what is meant by “from the beginning,” to this effect: That the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he refers to the generation of the Son, that is without beginning, for He is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word signifying an unbeginning eternity. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
He signifies by the title of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
He who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Divinity. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.167.
He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father, before all. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189.
They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is co-eternal with the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.220.
We have always held that God is the Father of His Only-Begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning—not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself. . . . And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can either be comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom . . . does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was “created the beginning of the ways of God.” For she contained within herself either the beginnings, forms, or species of all creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246.
Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God take care that he is not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father himself. For he denies that He had always been a Father, or had always generated the Word, or had possessed Wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246, 247.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
John also indicates that “God is Light.” . . . Since light could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father. For He is called the “express image of His person” and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be declared that there was once a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when he was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life. . . . Now, this expression that we use—“that there never was a time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words—“when” and “never”—have a meaning that relates to time. However, the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all times, all ages, and all eternity. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.377.
It is not only the Greeks who consider the word “beginning” [Gr. arche] to have many meanings. Let anyone collect the Scripture passages in which the word occurs and . . . note what it stands for in each passage. He will find that the word has many meanings in sacred discourse, as well. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.305.
“You are My Son. This day have I begotten You.” This is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is today. For there is no evening with God . . . and there is no morning. There is nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is today with Him in which the Son was begotten. Accordingly, the beginning of His birth is not found, nor is the day of it. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.314.
The Word was always with the Father. And so it is said, “And the Word was with God.” . . . He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God—neither being separated from the beginning, nor being bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it. Nor did He come to be with God after not having been with him. For before all time and the remotest age, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.322.
He was in the beginning with God. The term “beginning” may be taken as the beginning of the world, so that we may learn from what is said that the Word was older than the things that were made from the beginning. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.325.
The Word was not made in the beginning. There was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word. For that reason it is said, “In the beginning was the Word.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.334.
He is therefore God, because He was before the world, and held His glory before the world. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.626.
Since He was begotten of the Father, He is always in the Father. In saying “always,” I do not mean Him to be unborn, but born. Yet, He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father. For no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. He is always in the Father, unless the Father is not always the Father. Yet, the Father also precedes him in a certain sense. For it is necessary, in some degree, that He should be before He is Father. For it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning. Just as the Son is the less, as knowing that He is in the Father, having an origin because He is born. And He is of like nature with the Father in some measure because of His nativity. He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father. He who was in the Father came forth from the Father. And He who was in the Father because He was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father, because He came forth from the Father. I am speaking of the Divine substance whose name is the Word. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.
There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father. . . . Because the Son has existence from the Father, not from Himself, it does not mean that God afterwards begot the Son. . . . Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. If the light is always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists. . . . God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor will it ever fail. Therefore, the eternal brightness shines forth before Him and coexists with Him. Existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him. He is that Wisdom that says, “I was that in which He delighted, and I was daily his delight before his face at all times.” Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius.
Now, this word, “I am,” expresses His eternal subsistence. For if he is the reflection of the eternal light, he must also be eternal Himself. For if the light subsists forever, it is evident that the reflection also subsists forever. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.120.
Neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, determining that the Lord was made—just as one of those things that really were made. For the divine declarations testify that He was begotten (as is fitting and proper), but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling thing—but a very great impiety—to say that the Lord was in any way made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not. However, He always was, if (as He Himself declares) He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power (for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know), assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence. And thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.
He had neither recently attained to the relationship of Son, nor again, having begun before, had an end after this. Rather, He had previously been begotten, and He was to be, and was the same. But the expression, “This day I have begotten you,” means that he willed that He who existed before the ages in heaven should be begotten on the earth. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.338.
Since the Son is always with Him, the Father is always complete, being destitute of nothing as regards good. He has begotten His OnlyBegotten Son—not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things that are not. How, then, is it not unholy to say that the Wisdom of God once was not. . . . Or that the Power of God once did not exist? . . . Therefore, one may see that the Sonship of our Savior has nothing at all in common with the sonship of the rest. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.293.
How can He be made of things that are not, when the Father says, “My heart belched forth a good Word”? And, “From the womb, before the morning, I have begotten you”? Or how can He be unlike the substance of the Father—He who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father and who says, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father”? Furthermore, if the Son is the Word, Wisdom, and Reason of God, how can there be a time when he was not? It is the same as if they said there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.297.
C. God of God
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18 (NAS).
I will give you another testimony . . . from Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational Power . . . who is called by the Holy Spirit, sometimes the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord, and Logos. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.227.
Those persons hold a far more appropriate [view of Christ] than do those others who equate the begetting of the eternal Word of God to the begetting of words to which men give utterance. For they assign to Him a beginning and course of production, just as they do their own words. If that were true, in what respect would the Word of God—yes, God Himself, since He is the Word—differ from the words of men? For He would follow the same order and process of generation. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.488.
As also the Lord said: “The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.491.
He is Prince of the angelic powers, God of God, and Son of the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.577.
We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated. So that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass. The sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun. There is no division of substance, but merely an extension of it. . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God—just as light is kindled from light. The material root remains entire and unimpaired, even though you derive from it any number of offshoots possessed of its qualities. So, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.34.
The Word was in the beginning “with God,” the Father. It was not the Father who was with the Word. For although the Word was God, he was with God, for He is God of God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.610.
It indicates the return to the glory that He had by nature. If we understand it correctly, actually His glory is merely restored to Him. For, as the Only-Begotten Word of God, being God of God, He emptied himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling himself of His own will to that which He was not before. And He took upon Himself this vile flesh and appeared in the “form of a servant.” And He “became obedient to God the Father, even unto death.” So hereafter He is said to be “highly exalted.” . . . He “receives the name that is above every name,” according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a “giving”—as if for the first time—of what He did not have by nature. It is far otherwise. We must understand it as a return and restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.167.
There is a great risk of saying that the Savior of the human race was only human. . . . For this contempt shown by the heretics also attacks God the Father—as if God the Father could not beget God the Son. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.620.
Nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be man who is of man. Likewise, he must be believed to be God who is of God. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.620.
God, then, proceeded from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son. But He does not deprive the Father of that characteristic that the Father is one God. For if the Son had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn—an equality would be manifested in both. So, then, the addition of the Son would make two unborn Beings. And this would make two Gods. If He had not been begotten—compared with Him who was not begotten—they would be found equal. If they were both not begotten, this would have reasonably given two Gods. If He had been formed without beginning, just as the Father, and if He Himself were the beginning of all things as is the Father—this would have made two beginnings. Consequently, this would have demonstrated two Gods to us, also. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.
The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.499.
How much more must we believe that the voice of God both remains forever and is accompanied with perception and power. It has derived this from God the Father like a stream from a fountain. Someone may be puzzled that God could be produced from God [the Father] by a putting forth of the voice and breath. However, if such a person is acquainted with the sacred utterances of the prophets, he will cease to wonder. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.106.
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not. Rather, He is begotten of Him who is the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
James, the brother of Christ according to the flesh, but His servant as to His being the OnlyBegotten God. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.496.
D. Light of Light
That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world. John 1:9.
[The Son is] the brightness of His glory. Heb. 1:3.
It is just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another fire]. Rather, it remains the same. And that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing the fire from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom . . . is Himself this God, begotten of the Father. . . . “The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting he established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.227.
God was in the beginning. But the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, was alone. For no creature was in existence yet. Nevertheless, inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things. The Logos Himself was in Him and subsists with Him by LogosPower. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth. So the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. We know the Logos to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission. For what is cut off is separated from the original substance. However, that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render the one deficient from whom he is taken. From one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches. It is the same with the Logos. His coming forth from the Logos-Power of the Father has not divested the Father who begat Him of the Logos-Power. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
God the Word, incarnate, is intellectual Light. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.578.
As the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created, God begat the Word. He uttered the first voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent Him forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
Thus there appeared another One beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one Power, which is from the All. And the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are emanations of the substances from which they proceed. I would not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river the offspring of the fountain, and the ray the offspring of the sun. For every original source is a parent, and everything that issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is this so of the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of “Son.” But still, the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. Nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.
According to John, “God is light.” The OnlyBegotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light. He proceeds inseparably from [God] Himself, as brightness proceeds from light, illuminating the whole of creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248.
A thing is properly termed everlasting or eternal that neither had a beginning of existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea conveyed by John when he says that “God is light.” Now, His Wisdom is the splendor of that light, . . . so that His Wisdom is eternal and everlasting splendor. If this is fully understood, it clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father—but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except (as we have said) from God himself. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.251.
The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes a proof that the Son is not different from the Father in substance. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336.
The substance of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously. Nor is it one introduced out of nothing. Rather, it was born of the substance of the Father, as the reflection of light or as the stream of water. For the reflection is not the same as the sun itself. Likewise, the stream is not the water itself; but neither is it anything alien to it. The Son is an emanation from the substance of the Father. Yet the substance of the Father did not suffer any partition. The sun remains the same and suffers no diminution from the rays that are poured out by it. So likewise, neither did the substance of the Father undergo any change in having the Son as an image of itself. Theognostus of Alexandria (c. 260, E), 6.155.
Since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, Light of Light. . . . Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness. . . . Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius.
Life is begotten from life in the same way as the river has flowed forth from the spring and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius.
E. Begotten, not made
When the student of the Nicene Creed comes to the phrase “Begotten, not made,” it often appears that here there is a divergence between the Creed and the pre-Nicene church. There is, however, actually no difference in belief. There is only a difference in phraseology. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son of God was begotten; he was not made or created out of nothing. The pre-Nicene church firmly believed this.
Orthodoxy in the pre-Nicene church, however, focused on right concepts—not on using this word instead of that word. As Origen expressed it: “Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty” (ANF 4.376). From the writings of the pre-Nicene Christians, it is quite apparent that many of them used “begotten” [Gr. gennetos] and “created” [Gr. genetos and ktizein] as interchangeable terms. This was partially based on usage in Scripture. In describing the generation of Wisdom (which the preNicene church universally understood to be referring to the generation of the Son), the eighth chapter of Proverbs in the Septuagint uses the term “create” [Gr. ektisen]. But in using the term ktizein, neither Scripture nor the preNicene writers meant that the Son was made or created out of nothing. Rather, they understood ktizein to have a broad meaning that encompasses both “beget” and “create.” This becomes quite clear when a person reads the totality of what each writer says.
God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: “Let us make man after our image and likeness.” . . . From this, we can indisputably learn that God conversed with someone who was numerically distinct from Himself, and was also a rational Being. . . . For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you Jews is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures. And the Father communed with Him. It is even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.228.
Not one of the created and subject things shall ever be compared to the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.421.
The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God, being of the substance of God. In contrast, the world was made from nothing. Therefore, it is not God. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.151.
It is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His OnlyBegotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing. . . . Wisdom has her existence nowhere else but in Him who is the beginning of all things—from whom is also derived everything that is wise, for He Himself is the only One who is by nature a Son; He is therefore called the Only-Begotten. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.247.
Seeing that God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by extension, as some suppose. For if the Son is an extension of the Father, then, of necessity, both He from whom [the Son was] extended and He who was extended are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son. Or that the Son was begotten by the Father out of things that were non-existent—i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there was once a time when He did not exist. However, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom were begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal sense. It is as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.376.
The Word of God, knowing the Father, reveals the Father whom He knows. For no created being can approach the Father without a guide. For no one knows the Father except the Son and he to whomever the Son reveals Him. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.320.
If Christ is only man, how could He say, “I proceeded forth and came from God”? For it is evident that man was made by God and did not proceed forth from Him. . . . Thus the Word of God proceeded, of whom it is said, “My heart has uttered forth a good Word.” This Word, because it is from God, is obviously also with God. . . . Therefore, God proceeded from God, in that the Word who proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.624.
Christ is called by the apostle “the First-Born of every creature.” Now, how could He be the First-Born of every creature, unless it is because the Word proceeded from the Father, according to His divinity, before every creature? . . . Therefore, He is before every creature in order that He may be the First-Born of every creature. He is not, then, only man, because man is after every creature. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.632.
“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways.” For, as you know, there is more than one meaning of the word “created.” In this place, “created” is the same as “set over” the works made by Himself—that is, made by the Son Himself. But this “created” is not to be understood in the same manner as “made.” . . . Oh, reckless and rash men! Was then “the first-born of every creature” something made? . . . Finally, anyone may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. For which considerations, those who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation are openly convicted of thinking that which is false. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 6.365, as quoted by Athanasius.
Before He commenced this excellent work of the world, God begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And He afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels. However, this First-Begotten was the only One whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father’s excellence and majesty. . . . Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, he appeared to Him beautiful and most full of all good things. And He hallowed Him and altogether loved him as His own Son.” . . . Assuredly, He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spoke these things that we have added: “God founded me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.105.
That the Son of God was not made from “things which are not” and that there was no “time when he was not,” the evangelist John sufficiently shows. For he writes in this manner concerning Him: “The Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” The divine teacher spoke of the Son as being in the bosom of the Father, intending to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable from each other. Furthermore, that the Word of God is not included in the number of things that were created out of nothing, the same John says, “All things were made by Him.” . . . Now, if all things were made by Him, how can it be that He who gave them their existence was at one time non-existent Himself? Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.292.
[The Arians] ignorantly declare that one of two things must necessarily be said: Either that He is from things that are not, or that there are two Unbegottens. These ignorant men do not know how great the difference is between the unbegotten Father and the things that he created out of nothing. Between these two—as holding the middle place—is the Only-Begotten nature of God the Word, by whom the Father formed all things out of nothing. He was begotten of the true Father Himself. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
F. Being of one substance with the Father
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us. John 17:21.
For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. Col. 2:9 [NAS].
The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, is one with the Father by equality of substance. He is eternal and uncreated. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
When you do not deny that the Creator’s Son and Spirit and substance is also His Christ, you necessarily allow that those who have not acknowledged the Father have failed likewise to acknowledge the Son, through the identity of their natural substance. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.326.
Surely I might venture to claim the very Word also as being of the Creator’s substance. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.356.
This heresy [Monarchianism] supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity of substance. Yet, they are of one substance, one condition, and one power—inasmuch as He is one God from whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number without division will be shown. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.598.
How does it come to pass that God is thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance? . . . Do you really suppose that those, who are naturally members of the Father’s own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might . . . are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in thinking so. . . . As for me, I derive the Son from no other source than from the substance of the Father. And I believe He does nothing without the Father’s will and that He received all power from the Father. So how can I possibly be destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? . . . Likewise with the third degree, for I believe the Spirit is from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.599.
The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ from each other in the manner of their being. For the Father is the entire substance. However, the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.604.
Now, if He too is God, for according to John, “The Word was God,” then you have two Beings—One who commands that the thing be made, and the other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained: on the ground of personality, not of substance. And in the way of distinction, not of division. I must everywhere hold only one substance, in three coherent and inseparable [persons]. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.607.
The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God, being of the substance of God. In contrast, the world was made from nothing. Therefore, it is not God. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.151.
Whatever is a property of physical bodies cannot be attributed to either the Father or the Son. What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.245.
It is an attribute of the divine nature alone—of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any way with an adjoining body. Someone else may say that in the end, every bodily substance will be so pure and refined as to be like ether—of celestial purity and clearness. However, how things will be is known with certainty only to God. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.262.
The Son is not different from the Father in substance. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336.
A discussion about “substance” would be protracted and difficult. This is especially so if it were a question whether that which is permanent and immaterial is even properly called “substance.” . . . It is also a question for investigation, whether the “Only-Begotten” and “First-Born of every creature” is to be called “substance of substances,” . . . while above all there is his Father and God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.602, 603.
The substance of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously. Nor is it one introduced out of nothing. Rather, it was born of the substance of the Father, as the reflection of light or as the stream of water. For the reflection is not the same as the sun itself. Likewise, the stream is not the water itself; but neither is it anything alien to it. He is an emanation from the substance of the Father. Yet the substance of the Father did not suffer any partition. Theognostus of Alexandria (c. 260, E), 6.155.
I have also proved the falsehood of the charge which they bring against me—that I do not maintain that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have never either found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, yet other reasonings . . . are in no way discrepant from this view. Moreover, I gave the illustration of human offspring, which is certainly of the same kind as the begetter. And I said that parents are essentially distinguished from their children only by the fact that they themselves are not their children. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius.
If, from the fact that there are three persons [Gr. hypostases], they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or not. Otherwise, let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.94, as quoted by Athanasius.
It would be just to dispute against those who destroy the monarchy by dividing and rending it . . . into three powers and distinct substances [Gr. hypostases] and deities. . . . In a certain manner, these men declare three Gods, in that they divide the Holy Unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.
With respect to the Father and the Son, [Pierius] sets forth his sentiments in a godly manner, except that he speaks of two substances and two natures. However, it is apparent from both what follows and what precedes this passage that he uses the terms “substance” and “nature” in the sense of person [Gr. hypostasis] and not in the sense put on it by the adherents of Arius. Pierius (c. 275, E), 6.157, as cited by Photius.
Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance. However, the Father is, as it were, an overflowing fountain. The Son is, as it were, a stream flowing forth from it. The Father is as the sun; the Son is, as it were, a ray extended from the sun. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.132, 133.
There is only one unchangeable substance—the divine substance, eternal and invisible, as is known to all, and as is also supported by this Scripture: “No man has seen God at any time, except the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (c. 320, E), 6.205.
Who can venture to speak of the substance of God, unless, it may be our Lord Jesus Christ alone? Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (c. 320, E), 6.212.
G. By whom all things were made
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3.
By Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Col. 1:16.
The Logos, too, before the creation of men, was the Framer of the angels. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
The universe has been created and set in order through His Logos. . . . For we acknowledge also a Son of God. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.
He had this Word as a Helper in the things that were created by Him. By Him God made all things. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.98.
“Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.” Now, to no one else than to His own Word and Wisdom did He say, “Let Us make.” Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.101.
For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God. And this is our Lord. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.546.
He is God and Creator. “For all things were made by Him, and without him nothing was made.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.234.
He is the Lord’s right hand, indeed His two hands, by which He worked and constructed the universe. Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.502.
All the rest of the created things He did in like manner make, who made the former ones. I am referring to the Word of God, “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.607.
Christ is, in a manner, the Creator, to whom the Father says, “Let there be light.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.307.
III. Relationship of the Son to the Father
When western Christians read what the early church believed about the relationship of the Father and the Son, they are often quite surprised. Some well-meaning Christians mistakenly accuse the early church of being Arian. In doing so, they obviously have not given deep thought to the matter. As we have already seen, the Nicene Creed is an encapsulation of what the pre-Nicene church believed about the Father and the Son. In accordance with the Nicene Creed, the early Christians taught that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and that the Son was not created out of nothing.
Of course, many Christians believe that the church grew into a better understanding of the Trinity in the centuries following the council of Nicaea. That position is a subject beyond the scope of this work. Before we can even discuss the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in a meaningful way, however, we must first thoroughly understand what the church originally taught about the Trinity, particularly concerning the relationship of the Father and the Son.
The key to understanding the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is comprehending the difference between “nature,” “personal attributes,” and “order.” These terms refer to three very different things, yet many western Christians do not grasp this distinction. Arius certainly did not grasp it, which is what led to his heresy. In theology, “nature” or “substance” refers to the essence or class to which a person or creature belongs. All humans are of one nature or one substance, regardless of differing personal characteristics. In a genetic sense, no man or woman is any less human than anybody else. But humans are not of the same nature or substance as the angels. Now, the Nicene Creed affirms that the Father and the Son are of the same nature or substance. The Son is not something foreign to the Father; rather, He possesses the same nature as the Father. Both the Father and the Son are equally divine. If the Son were not of equal nature or substance as the Father, He would not be fully divine; He would not possess true Godhood. The quotations above reveal that the pre-Nicene church explicitly taught that the Son is fully divine.
“Personal attributes” are something altogether different. Personal attributes refer to the individual characteristics and differences between members of the same class or nature. To grasp this distinction, let us go back in time to the creation of man. According to Genesis, at one time there were only two humans on the earth, Adam and Eve. These two humans shared the same nature or substance. Adam was not more human than Eve, nor was Eve more human than Adam. They were equal in nature or substance. Now, does that mean that the first two humans were equal or identical in personal attributes? No, it does not. Adam was no doubt taller and stronger than Eve. Furthermore, Eve had come out of Adam, being formed from his rib. On the other hand, Eve had the ability to give birth to children and to breast-feed infants. Adam could do neither of these things. In short, there were personal attributes that made Adam and Eve different from each other—even though they were both equal in nature.
Likewise, the church has taught from the beginning that there are personal attributes that distinguish the Father from the Son. For example, the Father begets the Son, and, therefore, the Son has His origin [arche] in the Father. Does this make the Son less divine than the Father? Does this reduce the Son to being a demigod? Not at all! Being unbegotten is not an aspect of divinity; it is a personal attribute. Again, the early church believed that the Father could never become incarnate nor could he ever make himself visible to human eyes. To the early church, this would have been a denial of the Father’s unique personhood. That is because the Father is the ultimate Source not only of the universe, but also of the Trinity. In saying this, the early church was not demoting the Son to being a demigod. Rather, it understood that such things are not attributes of divinity. Rather, those attributes are simply differing characteristics of the Father and the Son. So the early church affirmed that the Father is greater than the Son—as to personal attributes, but not as to nature. The Son (and the Holy Spirit) possess the full attributes of divinity, but the Father possesses unique personal attributes that make him greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. As has been said, one of these characteristics is that the Father is the Begetter.
There is another sense, however, in which the early church taught that the Father is greater than the Son: in the sense of order. Here, “order” means chain of authority. Equality of nature does not mean equality of order. Returning to our illustration of Adam and Eve, we find that not only did the first two humans differ in personal attributes; they also differed in order. Although Adam and Eve were equal in nature, Adam was created first, and he was the head of Eve. Paul explains that there is the exact same order within the Trinity, saying, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). So the Father has authority over the Son. The Son is sent by the Father; the Son does the will of the Father; and the Son sits at the Father’s right hand. This hierarchy of order cannot be reversed. Yet this hierarchy of order in no way diminishes the Son’s divinity.
When Christians do not understand the difference between nature, personal attributes, and order, they end up with a confused understanding of the Trinity. They also misconstrue what the early Christians taught about the Father and the Son. The following passages illustrate how the early church understood the Scriptures regarding the nature, personal attributes, and order of the Father and the Son.
A. Equality of nature (substance)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You. John 17:21.
In Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. Col. 2:9 [NAS].
The quotations above under II.F. “Being of one substance with the Father” clearly show that the pre-Nicene church believed that there was an equality of nature between the Father and the Son. A few of those quotations are repeated here:
The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, is one with the Father by equality of substance. He is eternal and uncreated. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature. He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.34.
Now, if He too is God, for according to John, “The Word was God,” then you have two Beings—One who commands that the thing be made, and the Other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained: on the ground of personality, not of substance. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.607.
The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God, being of the substance of God. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.151.
Besides, He is in [the Father] and is truly and entirely made one with Him. . . . The Father of all things has made Him one with Himself . . . and honors Him with a power in all respects equal to His own, just as He also is honored. First and alone of all creatures who exist, He has had assigned Him this position. This is the Only-Begotten of the Father, who is in Him and who is God the Word. . . . He is the altogether perfect, living, and truly animate Word of the First Mind Himself. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 255, E), 6.24.
The substance of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously. Nor is it one introduced out of nothing. Rather, it was born of the substance of the Father. Theognostus of Alexandria (c. 260, E), 6.155.
B. Difference in personal attributes
But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him. John 1:18 [NAS].
Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does. John 5:19, 20.
If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, “I am going to the Father,” for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28.
I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. John 20:17.
For us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 1 Cor. 8:6.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 1:3.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col. 1:15.
He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.
[God] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You“? And again: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You.” Heb. 1:2–9.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God. Rev. 3:12.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Polycarp (c. 135, E), 1.35.
The Son foretells that He will be saved by the same God. He does not boast of accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth, He acted in the very same manner. He answered to man who addressed Him as “Good Master”: “Why do you call me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.
You must not imagine that the Unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of everything neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place. . . . He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with anyone, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth? . . . Therefore, neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man saw the Father, who is the inexpressible Lord of all, including Christ. Rather, they saw One who was the Father’s Son, according to the Father’s will. The Son is also God and the Angel, for He ministered to His [Father’s] will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263.
Even the Lord, the very Son of God, acknowledged that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment. For He plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour no man knows, neither the Son, but the Father only.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only (but declared what was true regarding the matter), neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions that may occur to us. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.401.
For if anyone asks about the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day, he will find at present no more suitable, becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master): that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For He says, “The Father is greater than I.” The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.402.
He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father. He founded and formed all things. . . . He has fitted and arranged all things by His Wisdom. He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one. . . . But there is one only God, the Creator. He is above every principality, power, dominion, and virtue. He is Father; He is God; He is Founder; He is Maker; He is Creator. He made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom. . . . He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through His Word, who is His Son, through Him, He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed. For [only] those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yes, from the beginning, always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.406.
Everyone saw the Father in the Son. For the Father is the invisible [archetype] of the Son. But the Son is the visible [image] of the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.469.
It is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, “No man has seen God at any time”. . . . As also the Lord said: “The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.491.
He has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.508.
John the apostle says: “No man has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Here he calls invisibility and inexpressible glory “the bosom of God.” . . . No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness, He is ranked as the All. He is the Father of the universe. . . . If we name Him, we cannot do so properly. For example, we can call Him the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord. . . . For each one by itself does not express God. However, all together, they are indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. . . . But there is nothing prior to the Unbegotten. It is sufficient, then, that we understand the Unknown by divine grace and by the Word alone who proceeds from Him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.463, 464.
The Unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God. One, too, is the First-Begotten. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.493.
All benefit pertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeds from the Sovereign God, the Father. He is over all. He is consummated by the Son, who also on this account “is the Savior of all men.” . . . This is in accordance with the command and injunction of the One who is nearest the First Cause, that is, the Lord. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.518.
From the Son, we are to learn the remoter Cause of the universe, the Father. He is the most ancient and the most beneficent of all. He is not capable of expression by the voice. Rather, He is to be worshipped with reverence, silence, and holy wonder, and to be supremely venerated. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.523.
The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding Word, His arranging Wisdom, His mighty Power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.31
For He who ever spoke to Moses was the Son of God Himself, who, too, was always seen. For no one ever saw God the Father and lived. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.163.
How can it be that anything—except the Father—could be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the OnlyBegotten and First-Begotten Word? Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.487.
He calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.” We, in like manner, say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.470.
The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ from each other in the manner of their being. For the Father is the entire substance. However, the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. He Himself acknowledges this: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm, His subordination is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus, the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.604.
You reply, “If He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created . . . two Gods are declared.” If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect awhile. . . . Listen to the Psalm in which two are described as God: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed You.” Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God. . . . “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” . . . That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. I will therefore not speak of Gods at all, nor of Lords, but I will follow the apostle. So that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I will call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” But when Christ alone [is spoken of], I will be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.” For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, when considered by itself. But if I were to mention the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I will reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance—just as God and His Word, the Father and the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.608.
It will therefore follow that by Him who is invisible we must understand the Father in the fullness of His majesty. At the same time, we recognize the Son as visible because of the dispensation of His derived existence. For example, it is not permitted us to contemplate the sun in the full amount of its substance which is in the heavens. Rather, we can only endure with our eyes a ray of the sun. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.609.
The Word was in the beginning “with God,” the Father. It was not the Father who was with the Word. For although the Word was God, he was with God, for He is God of God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.610.
Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: “Whom no one among men has seen, nor indeed can see.” And he adds to the description in still fuller terms: “Who alone has immortality and dwells in the light that no man can approach.” It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God.” So that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself. . . . It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men. This is the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the father. For “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.611.
[The Father] is named without the Son whenever He is defined as the Principle in the character of its First Person. In those situations, He had to be mentioned before the name of the Son. For it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first place. And after the Father, the Son is named. Therefore, “there is one God, the Father,” and without Him, there is no one else. And when He Himself makes this declaration, He does not deny the Son. . . . For as this Son in undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father (even when He is not named). . . . Suppose the sun were to say, “I am the sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray.” Would you not have remarked how useless such a statement was, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
The Father, however, has no origin. For He proceeds from no one. Nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.614.
Christ is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Him by the Father. He has power to ask, if He wishes, legions of angels from the Father for His help. He exclaims that God had forsaken Him. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.623.
“This is God, and no other can be considered in comparison to Him.” He said that rightly. For in comparison to the Father, who will be accounted of? . . . “He has found out all the way of knowledge and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved.” He spoke well. For who is Jacob His servant? Who is Israel His beloved? It is He of whom He cries, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him.” So having received all knowledge from the Father, the perfect Israel (the true Jacob) afterwards showed himself upon earth. . . . This, then, is He to whom the Father has given all knowledge. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.225.
“Then He Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, the Son is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him. Thereby, there is manifest in all one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father has made all things subject—with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For Christ speaks in this manner: “I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.226.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
By His spiritual healing aids, the Son disposes all things to receive at the end the goodness of the Father. It was from His sense of that goodness that He answered him who addressed the Only-Begotten with the words, “Good Master.” In reply, Jesus said, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but one, God the Father.” This we have discussed elsewhere, especially in dealing with the question of the One who is greater than the Creator. Christ we have taken to be the Creator, and the Father is the One who is greater than He. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.
The archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God—who was in the beginning and who by being with God is at all times Divine, not possessing divinity of Himself, but by His being with the Father. . . . The Father is the fountain of divinity; the Son is the fountain of reason [Gr. logos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
If all things were made (as in this passage also) through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos—but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen (c. 228, E), 9.328.
Life, in the full sense of the word, especially after what we have been saying on the subject, belongs perhaps to God and to no one but Him. . . . It says about God . . . “who alone has immortality.” No living being besides God has life free from change and variation. Why should we be in further doubt? Even Christ did not share the Father’s immortality. For He “tasted death for every man.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.333.
The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes a proof that the Son is not different from the Father in substance. Another student, however, looking into the matter more closely and with a sounder judgment, will say that the Light that shines in darkness and is not overtaken by it is not the same as the Light in which there is no darkness at all. The Light that shines in the darkness comes upon this darkness, as it were, and is pursued by it. Yet, in spite of attempts made upon it, it is not overtaken. But the Light in which there is no darkness at all neither shines on darkness, nor is at first pursued by it. . . . But in proportion as God, since He is the Father of truth, is more and greater than truth, and since He is the Father of wisdom, is greater and more excellent than wisdom. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336.
Let no one suppose that we say this from any lack of piety towards the Christ of God. For as the Father alone has immortality and our Lord took upon Himself the death He died for us (out of His love of men), so also to the Father alone the words apply, “In Him there is no darkness,” since Christ took upon Himself our darkness—out of His goodwill towards men. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.338.
“No one has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.343.
[John the Baptist] answers by exalting the superior nature of Christ—that He has such virtue as to be invisible in His deity, though present to every man and extending over the whole universe. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.365, 366.
The Father sent the One who is the God of the living. . . . The Father also alone is good, and He is greater than He who was sent by Him. . . . He who first of all was girded about with the whole creation, in addition to the Son’s being in Him, granted to the Savior to pervade the whole creation. For He [the Word] was second after him and was God the Word. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.370.
Pay careful attention to what follows, where He is called God: “For your throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” Observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, . . . says that this God had been anointed by a God who was His God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.421.
We charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets. Those passages testify to the effect that He was a mighty Power and a God next to the God and Father of all things. For we maintain that it was to Him that the Father gave the command . . . “Let there be light.” . . . We say that to Him were also addressed the words, “Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness.” The Logos, when commanded, obeyed all of the Father’s will. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.433.
Our Lord and Savior, hearing himself on one occasion addressed as “Good Master,” referred the person who used it to His own Father, saying, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one, that is, God the Father.” It was in accordance with sound reason that this was said by the Son of His Father’s love, for He was the image of the goodness of God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.548.
Our Savior, also, does not partake of righteousness. Rather, being “Righteousness” Himself, he is partaken of by the righteous. . . . It is also a question for investigation, whether the “Only-Begotten” and “First-Born of every creature” is to be called “substance of substances,” . . . while above all there is his Father and God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.602, 603.
But the God and Father of all things is not the only Being who is great in our judgment. For He has imparted Himself and His greatness to His Only-Begotten and First-Born of every creature, in order that He—being the image of the invisible God—might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could exist a well-proportioned, so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible God unless it also preserved the image of His greatness. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.605.
He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on those grounds honor that is second only to that which is given to the Most High God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.634.
Again Celsus [a pagan critic] proceeds: “If you were to tell the Christians that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone should be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of Him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call Him the Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ.” . . . [ORIGEN’S REPLY:] There is nothing extravagant or unbecoming to the character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son. And no one will persuade us that such a One is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. . . . He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Granted, there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us [i.e., the Monarchists]. They incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God. However, we do not concur with them. Rather, we believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” We would not, therefore, make him whom we call Father inferior to the Son of God—as Celsus accuses us of doing. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.644.
The rule of truth requires that we should first of all believe on God the Father and Lord Almighty. He is the absolutely perfect Founder of all things. . . . Over all these things, He has left room for no superior God (such as some people conceive). For He contains all things, having nothing vacant beyond Himself. . . . He is always unbounded, for nothing is greater than He. He is always eternal, for nothing is more ancient than He. For He who is without beginning can be preceded by no one, in that He has no time. On that account, He is immortal . . . and He excludes the mode of time. . . . If He could be understood, he would be smaller than the human mind that could conceive Him. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.611, 612.
The Lord rightly declares Him alone to be good. . . . He is declared to be one, having no equal. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.614.
Although He was in the form of God, He did not think of robbery—that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father. He was mindful that He was from His Father and that He possessed that very thing that He is because the Father had given it to Him. . . . He yielded all obedience to the Father and still yields it as ever. From that it is shown that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery—to wit, that of equalling himself with God the Father. Rather, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His Father’s rule and will, He even was content to take on Himself the form of a servant. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.633.
If He were not the Son . . . and if He were designated to be as great as the Father, He would have caused two Fathers. Thereby, He would have proved the existence of two Gods. Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible and thereby declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles. Thus, once again, He would have proved there to be two Gods. . . . But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn. Rather, He is of the Father, because He is begotten. . . . He is not from any other source than the Father, as we have already said before. Owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods. For His beginning was in being born of Him who is one God. . . . Therefore, He declared that God is one, in that He proved God to be from no source or beginning. Rather, He is the beginning and source of all things. Moreover, the Son does nothing of His own will, nor does He do anything of His own determination. Likewise, He does not come from Himself, but obeys all His Father’s commands and precepts. So, although birth proves Him to be a Son, yet obedience even to death declares Him to be the Servant of the will of His Father, of whom He is. . . . He is indeed proved to be the Son of His Father. But He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. All things are put under Him and delivered to Him. For He is God, and all things are subjected to Him. Nevertheless, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father. He remits again to the Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth. . . . So reasonably, God the Father is God of all. And He is the source, also, of His Son Himself, whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put Him whom He begot over all. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.644.
There are two types of formative power. . . . The one works by itself whatever it chooses . . . by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it wills. This is the power of the Father. The other [type of power] adorns and embellishes the things that already exist, by imitation of the first. This is the power of the Son, who is the Almighty and Powerful hand of the Father. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
We must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom He was. And the words, “the same was in the beginning with God,” seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which He had with the Father before the world came into existence. “Beginning” signifies His power. And so, after the unique unbeginning Beginning, who is the Father, He is the Beginning of other things, by whom all things are made. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
Someone may perhaps ask how we say that we worship only one God. For we declare that there are two—God the Father and God the Son. This declaration has driven many into the greatest error. . . . When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them. Because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father. That is because the name of Father cannot be applied without the Son. Nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance. However, the Father is, as it were, an overflowing fountain. The Son is, as it were, a stream flowing forth from it. The Father is as the sun; the Son is, as it were, a ray extended from the sun. And since the Son is both faithful to the Most High Father and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him. Just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. For the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray. Similarly, the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. So, when He is also spoken of by the prophets as the Hand, the Strength, and Word of God, there is plainly no separation. . . .
We may use an example more closely connected with us. Suppose someone has a son whom he especially loves—who is still in the house and in the power of his father. Now although the father may give to him the name and power of a master, by civil law, the house is one. Only one person is called master. Likewise, this world is the one house of God. And the Son and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God. For the one is as two and the two are as one. Nor is that unbelievable, for the Son is in the Father, as the Father loves the Son. And the Father is in the Son, for the Son faithfully obeys the will of the Father. He has never done, nor will He do, anything other than what the Father either willed or commanded. So the Father and the Son are but one God. . . . For there is one God alone—free, Most High, without any origin. For He Himself is the origin of all things. And in Him both the Son and all things are contained. Therefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other—or rather, since there is one in both—both are justly called one God. For whatever is in the Father flows on to the Son. And whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Accordingly, that Highest and Matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He who thinks that he worships only the Father, and will not worship the Son—he does not even worship the Father. However, he who receives the Son and bears His name—he truly worships the Father together with the Son. For the Son is the Ambassador, Messenger, and Priest of the Most High Father. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.132, 133.
The following two quotations are from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was the primary opponent of Arius leading up to the Council of Nicaea.
He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, lacking in nothing. He is the perfect Son, and, as we have learned, He is like the Father. In this alone is He inferior to the Father: that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father and differs from Him in nothing. . . . But let no one take the word “always” in a manner that raises suspicion alone belongs the property of being unbegotten. For the Savior Himself said, “My Father is greater than I.” Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.294, 295.
Concerning Him, we believe in this manner, even as the apostolic church believes: In one Father, unbegotten, who has the cause of His being from no one, who is unchangeable and immutable. He is always the same and can have no increase or diminution. He gave the Law to us, the Prophets, and the Gospels. He is Lord of the patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints. And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the OnlyBegotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not, but of him who is the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
C. Difference in order
To sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father. Matt. 20:23.
When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. John 8:28, 29.
I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. John 12:49, 50.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus. Acts 3:13.
For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. Acts 4:27.
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11:3.
When all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:25–28.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants. Rev. 1:1.
The Lord did nothing without the Father, for He was united to Him. . . . [There is] one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father. He is with one Father, and He has gone to one Father. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.62.
Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.84.
He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father. Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.35.
They proclaim our madness to consist in this: that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all. For they do not discern the mystery that is herein. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.167.
He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from the One who made all things. I mean, he is numerically distinct; He is not distinct in will. For I assert that He has never at anytime done anything that the One who made the world (above whom there is no other God) has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.224.
I will repeat the whole Psalm, in order that you may hear His reverence for the Father. Listen to how He refers all things to Him, and prays to be delivered by Him from this death. . . . “O God, my God, attend to me: why have You forsaken me? . . . O my God, I will cry to you in the daytime.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.248.
The Son performs the good pleasure of the Father. For the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.468.
For His Offspring and His Image do minister to Him in every respect. That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom—whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.470.
The Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man in God. The Mediator executes the Father’s will. For the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both man and God. He is the Son of God, but the Savior of men. He is God’s Servant, but our Teacher. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.271.
We have heard it said, “The Head of Christ is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” . . . The Son sees the goodness of the Father. God the Savior works, for He is called the First Principle of all things. He first imaged forth from the invisible God, before the ages. He fashioned all things that came into being after Himself. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.453.
Xenocrates the Chalcedonian mentions the supreme Zeus and the subordinate Zeus. In doing so, he leaves an indication of the Father and the Son. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.471.
Jesus is the Lord of all and serves above all the will of the Good and Almighty Father. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.524.
He Himself proclaimed that He did not do His own will, but that of the Father. Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.682.
However, with regard to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ. . . . He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.319.
In addition to the title of Son, He was the Sent One. The authority, therefore, of the Sender must necessarily have first appeared in a testimony of the Sent. That is because no one who comes in the authority of another declares things for himself, that is, on his own assertion. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.321, 322.
He Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: “The Lord has given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season.” However, Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.415.
No directive about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father. And that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.533.
The Son of God has faith’s protection absolutely committed to Him. He beseeches it of the Father—from whom He receives all power in heaven and on earth. Tertullian (c. 212, W), 4.117.
No one, therefore, will impair [the monarchy of God] on account of admitting the Son. For it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father. Eventually, it has to be delivered up again by Him to the Father. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.600.
With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom. He has also heard and seen all things with the Father. And what He has been commanded by the Father, that also is what He speaks. And it is not His own will, but the Father’s that He has accomplished. He had known this fact most intimately, even from the beginning. . . . The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father (as He says, “I am in the Father”) and is always with God (according to what is written, “And the Word was with God”). He is never separated from the Father, or different from the Father, since “I and the Father are one.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.
Consider whether the Son also is not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God and has received power over all. He is the Most High, in that He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Peter declares in the Acts. He is the Lord of hosts, because all things are made subject to Him by the Father. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, and conjunction. It implies affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son. And it implies submission on the Son’s part, who obeys the Father’s will. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.618.
It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.
He is called the “image of the invisible God and the First-Born of every creature.” “In Him all things were created, visible and invisible, . . . and He is before all things and by Him all things were made.” So He is the head of all things, having God the Father alone as His head. For it is written, “The head of Christ is God.” Origen (c. 225, E), 4.281.
He became obedient to the Father—not only by the death of the cross—but also in the end of the world. For He embraces in Himself all whom He subjects to the Father, and who by Him come to salvation. For He Himself (along with them, and in them) is said to also be subject to the Father. . . . Consequently, this is what the apostle says of Him: “And when all things will be subjected to Him, then will the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Indeed, I do not know how the heretics—not understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words—consider the term “subjection” to be degrading when applied to the Son. . . . Now, according to their view, the language of the apostle means . . . that He who is not now in subjection to the Father will become subject to Him when the Father will have first subdued all things unto Him. However, I am astonished how it can be conceived that the meaning is that He who is not Himself in subjection at the present (when all things have not been subjected to Him) will later be made subject once all things have been subjected to Him. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.343.
Nor must we forget to mention the Word, who is God after the Father of all. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.303.
He will be at no loss to account for the Father’s saying to Him, “You are My Servant,” and a little further on, “It is a great thing that you should be called My Servant.” For we do not hesitate to say that the goodness of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light . . . because “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” than if He had judged it a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the salvation of the world. He desires to teach us that in accepting this state of servitude, He had received a great gift from His Father. Hence, He says, “And My God will be My strength.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.316.
Just as Christ is our head, so God is His head. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.
The Word of God, who is called Faithful, is also called True. In righteousness, He judges and makes war. For He has received from God the faculty of judging. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.326.
The Unbegotten God commanded the FirstBorn of all creation, and they were created. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.331.
First, then, stands the Father, being without any turning or change. And then stands also His Word, always carrying on His work of salvation. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.369.
We say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things. We do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father—but subordinate to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus himself, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to declare that the Son of man is Lord over God. But we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth. And we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things that have been subjected to Him in this capacity. But we do not say that His domain extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.645.
Who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father? Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.636.
The divine Scripture (not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament) everywhere demonstrates Him to be born of the Father. By Him all things were made and without Him nothing was made. He always has obeyed and still obeys the Father. He always has power over all things—but these have been delivered, granted, or permitted to Him by the Father Himself. And what can be so evident proof that He is not the Father, but is the Son, than that He is shown as being obedient to God the Father. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.637.
He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. Therefore, in receiving sanctification from the Father, He is secondary to the Father. Obviously, then, He who is secondary to the Father is not the Father, but the Son. For had He been the Father, He would have given, and not received, sanctification. . . . Besides, He says that He is sent. So in being obedient as to His coming, being sent, He proved to be the Son—not the Father. If he had been the Father, He would have done the sending. But being sent, He was not the Father. Otherwise, in being sent, the Father would be proved to be subjected to another God. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.638.
He also is the image of God the Father. . . . And the Son is an imitator of all the Father’s works. Therefore, everyone may regard it just as if he saw the Father, when he sees Him who always imitates the invisible Father in all His works. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.639.
Christ received that very power by which we are baptized and sanctified from the same Father whom He called greater than Himself. This is the same Father by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even unto the obedience of drinking the cup and undergoing death. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.384.
He who is called a confessor of Christ should imitate Christ whom he confesses. . . . For He Himself has been exalted by the Father. For, as the Word, the Strength, and the Wisdom of God the Father, He humbled Himself upon earth. . . . And He Himself received the highest name from the Father as the reward for His humility. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.428.
“I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.” Now, if the Son was obedient to do His Father’s will, how much more should the servant be obedient to do his Master’s will. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.451.
Of this mercy and grace, the Word and Son of God is sent as the Dispenser and Master. . . . He is the Power of God. He is the Logos. He is His Wisdom and Glory. He enters into a virgin. Through the Holy Spirit, He is clothed with flesh. God is mingled with man. This is our God, this is Christ, who, as the Mediator of the two, puts on man that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be—so that man may also be what Christ is. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.468.
Assuredly, the will of the Son is not one thing, and the will of the Father another. For He who wills what the Father wills, is seen to have the Father’s will. So He is speaking figuratively when He says, “Not my will, but yours.” For it is not that He wishes the cup to be removed, but that He refers the correct issue of His passion to the Father’s will. He thereby honors the Father as the First [Gr. arche]. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.94, as quoted by Athanasius.
On the head, the whiteness is shown. “But the head of Christ is God.” Victorinus (c. 280, W), 7.344.
The prophets and apostles spoke more fully concerning the Son of God. They assigned to Him a divinity above other men. They did not refer their praises of Him to the teaching of angels, but to Him upon whom all authority and power depend. For it was fitting that He, who was greater than all things after the Father, should have the Father as His witness—who alone is greater than Himself. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.331.
When God began the fabric of the world, He set over the whole work that first and greatest Son. He used Him at the same time as a Counsellor and Artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing. For the Son is complete both in knowledge, judgment, and power. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.53.
Jesus displayed faith towards God. For He taught that there is but one God, and this one God alone should be worshipped. Nor did He at any time say that He Himself was [the] God. For He would not have maintained His faithfulness if He had introduced another God besides that One. For He was sent to abolish the false gods and to assert the existence of the one God. This would not have been to proclaim one God nor to do the work of Him who sent Him. . . . He was so faithful because He arrogated nothing at all to Himself. On account of this, in order to fulfill the commands of Him who sent Him, He received the dignity of everlasting Priest, the honor of supreme King, the authority of Judge, and the name of God. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.114.
We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme King and Head, under our Master, Christ. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.419.
It will be revealed from what realms He has come, of what God He is the Minister. Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.426.
He who does not receive Christ does not receive His God and Father. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.404.
Let the deacon minister to the bishop as Christ does to His Father. And let him serve him unblamably in all things. For Christ does nothing of Himself, but always does those things that please His Father. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.410.
Christ does nothing without his Father. . . . And as the Son is nothing without His Father, so is the deacon nothing without his bishop. And as the Son is subject to His Father, so is every deacon subject to his bishop. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.411.
He . . . blesses and glorifies the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the Only-Begotten God. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.477; see also 2.227, 3.438.
IV. The internal Logos and the external Son
The numerous quotations above make it clear that the early church believed the Logos of God to be eternal. The statements of some of the writers, however—when taken out of context or read carelessly—make it sound as though they thought the Son came into existence from nothing. They sometimes speak of God the Father having originally been alone. They sometimes also speak of the Father as begetting the Word or the Son at some time or interval. Yet those same writers state that the Father has always had his Logos or Wisdom with him. Upon more careful examination, one finds that those writers are distinguishing between the internal Logos and the external Word (who are one and the same person). They are saying that, technically speaking, the title of “Word” (and perhaps “Son”) do not apply to the Logos until he went forth from the Father to create the universe. They will sometimes speak of this going forth from the Father as the begetting of the Son, distinguishing it from the eternal generation of the Logos from the Father. For example, the following passage from Tatian sounds quite Arian at first glance:
God was in the beginning. . . . For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, was alone. For no creature was in existence yet. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
When a person reads the entire passage, however, he or she soon realizes that Tatian believed the Logos to be eternal. But he distinguishes between the eternal existence of the Logos and the point at the beginning of time when the Logos went forth to create the universe:
Nevertheless, inasmuch as the Father was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things. The Logos Himself was in Him and subsists with Him by Logos-Power. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth. So the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the firstbegotten work of the Father. We know the Logos to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission. For what is cut off is separated from the original substance. However, that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom he is taken. From one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches. It is the same with the Logos. His coming forth from the Logos-Power of the Father has not divested Him who begat Him of the Logos-Power. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
In the following quotation, Tertullian says that there was a time when the Son did not exist. At first glance, this sounds like an Arian statement:
He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son. Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.478.
Again, however, when a person reads all of what Tertullian says about the Father and the Son (as illustrated in the passage that follows), it becomes clear that Tertullian was not Arian. Rather, in his view, the title of “Son” did not apply to the eternal Logos until He went forth from the Father to create the universe.
I am led to other arguments derived from God’s own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone—being in Himself and for Himself universe, space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet, even then He was not [completely] alone. For He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself—that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him. And so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought, which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse. Therefore, it is now usual with our people—owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term—to say that the Word was in the beginning with God. Although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient. For God did not have “Word” from the beginning. But He did have Reason even before the beginning. . . . For although God had not yet sent out His “Word,” He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason—as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything that He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word. . . . I may therefore without rashness first lay this down that even then before the creation of the universe, God was not alone. For He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. . . .
Now, as soon as it pleased God to [begin creation], . . . He first put forth the Word himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things could be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed. . . . Then, therefore, does the Word also himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.” This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways,” then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect: “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” He thus makes His Son equal to Him. For, by proceeding from Himself, He became His First-Begotten Son. For He was begotten before all things. And He is His OnlyBegotten also, for He was alone begotten of God in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of [the Father’s own heart. This is just as the Father Himself testifies. He says, “My heart has emitted my most excellent Word.” The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a mutual gladness in the Father’s presence. “You are my Son. Today I have begotten you.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.600, 601.
We need not dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name of both Wisdom and Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God and was begotten, when He proceeded forth from Him. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.602.
The following passage from Hippolytus illustrates this same concept of distinguishing between the eternal Logos (Reason) and his going forth from the Father as the Word of God.
God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. . . . For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him, there was nothing. However, He—while existing alone—yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without Reason, nor Power, nor Counsel. And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His Word in the time determined by Him. And by Him He made all things. . . . And, as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created, He begat the Word. He uttered the first voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent Him forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
V. Origen’s understanding of the Son
It has become quite commonplace today for Origen to be singled out among the pre-Nicene writers as holding heterodox views of the Son. This is quite unjust, as Origen’s teachings on the Son are essentially the same as the rest of the early church. This can clearly be seen from the many preceding quotations from Origen, which show that he held to a Nicene understanding of the deity of the Son. Of course, like the rest of the early Christians, Origen can be selectively quoted to make him appear either Arian, Monarchian, or anything else that is desired. One of the quotations that has often been misunderstood and misquoted is the following passage:
We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect. Nor is he unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Greek language. In some cases, he uses the article; and in some cases, he omits it. He adds the article before the word “Logos.” But to the name, “God,” he adds it only sometimes. That is, he uses the article when the word, “God,” refers to the uncreated cause of all things [i.e., the Father]. But he omits it when the Logos is called “God.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
At first glance, the passage above may sound as though Origen held to an Arian view of the Son. But Origen goes on to explain what he means:
There are many persons who are sincerely concerned about religion and who here fall into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods. As a result, their fear drives them into doctrines that are false and wicked. They sometimes deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own, besides that of the Father. They thereby make Him whom they call the Son to be the God, all but in the name. Or else, they deny the divinity of the Son—giving Him a separate existence of His own and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons, we have to say that the God on the one hand is Autotheos [God of Himself]. For that reason, the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” But all other Persons beyond this Autotheos are made Divine [Gr. theos] by participation in His divinity. They are not to be simply called “the God” [Gr. ho theos], but rather, “God” [or “Divine” [Gr. theos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
Furthermore, preceding the first passage quoted above, Origen had already stated:
The Word was always with the Father. And so it is said, “And the Word was with God.” . . . He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God—neither being separated from the beginning, nor being bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it. Nor did He come to be with God after not having been with him. For before all time and remotest age, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.322.
So in no sense can Origen be accused of holding to an Arian understanding of the Son. The passage that follows is sometimes also misunderstood in an Arian sense:
The Son of God, “the First-Born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means recent on account of that. For the Holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation. For it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.560.
Again, we must remember (as discussed above under II.E. “Begotten, not made”) that most of the pre-Nicene writers used “begotten” [Gr. gennetos] and “created” [Gr. ktizein] interchangeably as synonyms. When Origen refers to the Son as a “work of creation,” he does not mean it in the sense of the Son’s being created out of nothing. He means it in the sense of begetting. As quoted above, Origen distinctly says that “the Word was always with the Father.” The following passage shows that Origen was not including the Son among those things that were created out of nothing:
The Word of God, knowing the Father, reveals the Father whom He knows. For no created being can approach the Father without a guide. For no one knows the Father except the Son and he to whomever the Son reveals Him. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.320.