Origen, many other ancient catholics, takes the Word (logos) of John 1 to be the pre-human Jesus.
For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.
In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.
Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)
Permit me to paraphrase: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.
Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.
Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article [Greek: ho theos], is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” [John 17:3] On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be “the God,” but “God” [i.e. not ho theos, but theos, also translatable as “a god”]. To be sure, his “firstborn of every creature” [Col. 1:15], inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him [i.e. Christians – see below] (of whom God is God as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth.” [Ps. 49:1] It was by his [i.e. the Son’s, the firstborn’s] ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.
The God [i.e. the Father], therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word with the God, who was “in the beginning.” By being “with the God” he continues always to be “God.” But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father. (pp. 98-9, original italics, bold type and material in brackets added)
Again, to paraphrase. The God is the Father. He is unique in that his deity isn’t derived from another. Jesus is divine because of him, and so is a god. So are Christians – they too are gods, ultimately because of the one God. Back to the problem mentioned before, then. Origen is assuming that it is wrong to identify Father and Son; they differ, and so can’t be the same God. There are two to whom “God” applies. But there is just one who is the God. It’s the one who is the source and explanation of all the other gods.
He goes on to argue that “God” is used in four senses, to refer to (1) “the God of the universe”, (2) “the Son of God, his anointed”, (3) angels (assumed to be heavenly bodies, servants of God administering the nations), and (4) idols. These last are not at all gods, properly speaking. (p. 101) He is clear that these exist in a descending hierarchy. Referring back to these four,
There was the God [the Father] and “God,” [the Son] then “gods” in two senses [angels and idols]. “God the Word” transcends the higher order of these gods [i.e. the angels], himself being transcended by “the God” of the universe. (p. 102, bold and brackets added, original italics)
Back to the verse in question – gallons of ink have been spilled over whether the second clause should be translated “and the Word was divine” or “and the Word was a god.” For what it’s worth, it seems that the greatest Christian scholar in antiquity would have no objection to either.
As in every post in this series, I ask what you see here:
- The unique, one God being “unipersonal” (unitarian), or
- The unique, one God consisting of or containing more than one ontologically equal person/self (trinitarian)
Pingback: A Simple Guide to the Differences between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism | Defunct Creakings of a Cog
Gk., ( HO ON PATER EPI PANTOV ) Literally “…the being Father over/above of-all…”
Or: “…The Father being over [or “above”] all…”
Possibly even: “…the Ever-Existing One, [the] Father above [or “over”] all…”
I agree Gk., ( TRIADOS ) simply means “…THREE…” or “…THREE…” enumerated together, but still “…THREE…” numerically, nonetheless!
There is no inter-unification or periocheris or three-within-oness to be found in the word in itself.
Those ideas were pinned to it in much later times.
The same goes for Theophilus of Antioch’s use of this word, wrongly translated “…TRINITY…” in the standard ANF version. He uses Gk., ( TETRAS ) in the next breath which the translator correctly translates “…FOURTH…”, showing his bias. Why not: “…QUATERNITY…”?
Heres my translation.
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…These things then, brothers, are being indicated by signs for us by the scriptures. That this, the administration, is given, even the blessed John is giving evidence of in his Gospel, and confessing this, a god, the Logos, saying thus: “…In a beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with He [that is] ( definitively ) God, and a god was the Logos…” But if in fact, then, the Logos [was] with He [that is] ( definitively ) God, being a god, what if some say: “…TWO GODS!…” But I will never say: “…TWO GOD(S)…”, but the One! But an administration of two persons, and also a third, the undeserved kindness of the holy spirit. For One is a Father, but two persons, because [of] the Son also. But the third the holy spirit. A Father, commands by issuing orders, a Logos effecting [His] [= reffering back to the Father grammatically] purpose, but a Son is manifested, [and] through his intermediate agency a Father is believed upon. An administration of hamonious agreement that gathers together into One God. For God is One! For the Father gives the commands, but the Son listens attentively [and so] obeys accordingly, but the holy spirit enables understanding. THE FATHER BEING THE ONE WHO IS ABOVE ALL, but the Son through all, the holys spirit with-in all. By no other way can we percieve the One God, no, it cannot be unless we really believe in a Father and a Son and a holy spirit. For [the] Jews glorified a Father, but did not show thankfulness. For they would not acknowledge with approval a Son. [The] Disciples acknowledged with approval a Son, but not ( in ) holy spirit, on account of such, even this was denied. The Logos, accordingly, belong’s to the Father, knowing the administration and what the Father desired, that in no other way was it the Father’s purpose of being glorified [except] in this way, delivering this [commission] to the Disciples when [he] had risen saying: “…Go therefore, make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing these into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit…” indicating that all those who may leave out one of these does not glorify God completely. FOR THROUGH THIS MEDIUM, OF THE THREE, THE FATHER IS BEING GLORIFIED. For a Father willed, a Son worked, a spirit manifested. Concerning all this, then, the scriptures declare…” – (Chapter 14, “Against Noetus,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 27/08/12. [REVISION 2/3/13.])
An interesting thing Hippolytus is represented as saying, (Against Noetus is of doubtful pedegree), is that THE DISCIPLES were wrong!
For they did not believe in the holy spirit as God, or part of his new theory:
LATIN TEXT: “…Etenim Judaei Patrem glorificaverunt, sed non egerunt gratias ; siquidem non agnoverunt Filium. Discipuli agnoverunt Filium, sed non in Spiritu sancto ; idcirco negaverunt…” – (Chapter 14, “CONTRA HAERESIN NOETI,” from the Turriano MSS, Page 430, Coloumn 892, MPG.)
GREEK TEXT: “…???????? ??? ??? ???????? ??????, ???’ ??? ????????????· ???? ??? ??? ?????????. ??????? ????????? ????, ???’ ??? ?? ???????? ????· ??? ??? ?????????…” – (Chapter 14, “Contra Haeresin Noeti,” or “??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????,” MPG.)
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…For [the] Jews glorified a Father, but [they] did not show [their] thankfulness. For they would not acknowledge with approval a Son. ((( [THE] DISCIPLES ))) RECOGNISED WITH APPROVAL A SON, BUT NOT IN HOLY SPIRIT, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH ALSO THEY DENIED IT…” – (Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 27/08/12.)
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…For the ( Jews ) glorified the Father, but were not thankful, for they acknowledged not the Son. ((( THE DISCIPLES ))) ACKNOWLEDGED THE SON, BUT NOT IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHEREFORE ALSO THEY DENIED HIM…” – (Page 269, Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” in “The Christian remembrancer; or, The Churchman’s Biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany,” Quarterly Review, Volume XXV, January-June, London, Published by J & C. Mozley, 6 Paternoster Row, and D. Appleton & Co. 200, Broadway, New York, 1853.)
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. ((( THE DISCIPLES ))) RECOGNISED THE SON, BUT NOT IN THE HOLY GHOST; WHEREFORE THEY ALSO DENIED HIM…” – (Chapter 14, “AGAINST NOETUS,” Translated by J.H. MacMahon. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
Gk., ( ????????? ) Ltn., ( negaverunt )
Gk., ( ??????? ) Ltn., ( Discipuli )
The homoousios, per se has obviously NOTHING to do with the Scripture. It was
proposedimposed to the reluctant Council Fathers at Nicea (325 AD) by the Emperor Constantine as the only way to formulate a Creed that Arius, who affirmed that the Son was totally unlike (anhomoios) the Father, could not possibly accept. It worked, but only for a short time, and it certainly did NOT settle the Arian Controversy, which was ONLY concluded, with a “mysterian compromise”, at Constantinople (381 AD), thanks to the verbal invention of the Cappadocian scoundrels: “one ousia in three hypostases“. (Until Nicea and beyond, the words ousia and hypostasis were used as virtually synonymous, as confirmed by the anathema appended to the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD)MdS
And this homoousios does have something to do with Scripture?!?
Reality check: a “trinity” of hierarchically subordinated hypostases was bad enough, because it had nothing to do with the Scripture. When the homoousios (understood by the Church in a neutral, philosophical sense, NOT in its original heathen Egyptian Hermetic sense …) was added to the “cocktail” at Nicea (325) only two ways were open for Christian Doctrine of the Godhead:
1. The way of Irenaeus, viz. the Word and the Spirit as God’s two “hands” (or “arms”), co-essential with Him, BUT NOT personal, amply supported by the Scripture;
2. Full-fledged “trinitarianism” (“co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal”), without a spec of scriptural support.
Tragically, in spite of all the earnest efforts of Marcellus of Ancyra, way no.2 was eventually settled for, for the obvious reason that it was the only one that, allowing for a “political” compromise between the neo-Nicenes and the semi-Arians, it would settle for good the sixty years old Arian Controversy.
MdS
Reality: when subordinationism went bad, it degraded into trinitarianism.
Dale,
first of all, let me provide the link to the Google Books of the source from which your quotations come from, so that everybody here has a better chance of judging for oneself: Commentary on the Gospel of John, by Origen, (books I, II, IV, V, VI, X) transl. R. E. Heine. (for your quotations, see pp. 98 and ff.)
I find it odd that, while you (rightly) call “mysterian” the full-fledged, late 4th century doctrine of the “trinity”, you apparently fail to realize something obvious even at a superficial reading of Origen’s texts (at least so should be for a philosophy professional …): how thoroughly mysterian Origen is, an odd mix of “christianity”, Platonism, Aristotelianism and, even more, the synthesis of the two, neo-Platonism.
It is not a coincidence that Both Plotinus and Origen were the pupils of Ammonius Saccas.
Of course, following the lead of Eusebius of Caesarea (an evident epigone of Origen through and through, like most semi-Arians of the 4th century were – see his Church History, Book VI, ch. 19.), and of Christian pious apologists, so as to avoid the scandal of a “heathen Origen”, one may choose to believe the ever-so-convenient just-so story that there were “two Origens” (the Pagan and the Christian) and even “two Ammoniuses”, Ammonius Saccas, the one who taught Plotinus, and an “Ammonius the Christian” who wrote biblical texts. Bah …
As for the danger that “the God” and “the Word” may be considered two distinct “gods” (and, more in general, that there may plenty of “gods”), you obviously fail to realize that Origen’s s.c. “solution” has nothing to do with your (overblown concept of) “unitarianism” and ALL to do with a Greek heathen-philosophical fundamental idea: Emanationism, OIOW, with a colourful esoteric expression, the belief in the Great Chain of Being.
MdS
P.S. As evidence that there are radically different approaches to your article SEP > Trinity (and “appendix” on Unitarianism), you may want to consider this quotation:
“Although Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism fall within the scope of Nicene orthodoxy, it may be instructive to consider the difference in heterodox views that emerge in the East and West. When Social Trinitarianism goes bad it degrades into Subordinationism, a family of doctrines that assign an inferiority of being, status or role to the Son and Holy Spirit within the Trinity, which has its roots in the emanationist theologies that proliferated in the Hellenistic world. This view is classically represented in the theology of the heresiarch Arius, who held that the Son was a mere creature, albeit “the first-born of all creation.” Eastern theology tends towards a “loose,” descending Trinity, to tri-theism and subordinationism and so Arianism is the characteristic Eastern heresy.
Western theology, by contrast favors a “tight,” flat Trinity and in the first centuries of the Christian era tended toward ultra-high Christologies like Apollinarianism, the doctrine that, crudely, Jesus was a man in whom the Logos took the place normally occupied by a human rational soul, and Monophytism, according to which Christ had only one nature, and that divine. If the characteristic Trinitarian heresy in the East was Arianism, the characteristic Western heresies belong to a family of heterodox views generically known as Monarchianism, a term coined by Tertullian to designate tight-Trinity doctrines in virtue of their emphasis on the unity of God as the single and only ruler or source of Being, including most notably Modalism (a.k.a. Sabellianism), the doctrine that the Persons of the Trinity are merely “modes,” aspects or offices of the one God. ”
(IEP > Trinity, 1. History and Motivation, c. Trinity East and West: Loose and Descending or Tight and Flat?)
While I certainly do not agree with everything that the author H.E. Baber says at the IEP article, it is by far a less artificial account of the “trinity” that the one at SEP.
Comments are closed.