Part I: Definition, Justin Martyr, & Origen
“Our topic today is what the early Christians believed about the Trinity. Actually I should be able to cover this whole topic in less than a minute simply by saying the early Christians believed the Nicene Creed. That’s what they believed about the Trinity and that should take care of the matter. However, it doesn’t because most professing Christians today actually don’t believe the Nicene Creed. Now, they will tell you that they do believe it, but the truth is they don’t.”1
Quite a way to start a lecture. Having originally grown up a Lutheran and subsequently finding fellowship in various other Protestant traditions, this bold statement by patristic scholar David Bercot grabbed my attention. An explanation will obviously be required, and at some length despite my having abridged his summations for the sake of relative brevity:
“The key to having an orthodox scriptural understanding of the Trinity is to grasp that there is a difference between three attributes or terms. They are nature, personal attributes, and order. Let me explain. These terms—again, nature, personal attributes and order—refer to three very different things, yet most western Christians do not grasp this distinction. . . .
“nature, or substance, refers to the essence or class to which a person or creature belongs. . . . The Nicene Creed affirms that the Father and the Son are of the same nature or substance. The Son isn’t something foreign to the Father; rather, He possesses the same nature as the Father. We could say it this way: both the Father and the Son are equally divine. They are both theos, just like you and I are humans, they are theos, or divinity, or God . . . .
“Personal attributes are something altogether different. Personal attributes refer to the individual characteristics and differences between members of the same class or nature. . . . Because the Father and the Son are equal in nature does not mean that They have the same personal attributes. 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 or 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, because being unbegotten is not an aspect of divinity, it is a personal attribute. . . .
“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 I’ve said, one of these characteristics is that the Father is the begetter, He is the origin of the Trinity. However, there is another sense in which the early church taught that the Father is greater than the Son and that is in the sense of order. Now, by order I mean chain of authority. Equality of nature doesn’t mean equal quality of order. . . .
“When Christians don’t understand the difference between nature, personal attributes, and order, they end up with a very confused understanding of the Trinity. They usually end up getting into heresy even though they are trying to have an orthodox view of the Trinity. They totally misconstrue what the Scriptures teach about the Trinity and if they read the early Christian writings they are baffled by what they read there.”2
Let us consider several primary sources from my own studies, as well as commentary on them by patristic scholars as collected between myself and my friend David Waltz in our independent studies. We shall begin with perhaps the earliest explanations regarding the relationship of the Father and the Son from a mid-2nd century witness, Justin Martyr:
“we know no ruler more kingly or just than He except God [the Father] who begot Him.”3
Thus we see Justin to have viewed the Son, in the present tense (not to be confused with the Incarnation), as subordinate to the Father in the personal attributes of being kingly and just. Note the comment from the Roman Catholic translator, Thomas Falls:
“This seems to imply the error of subordinationism which teaches that the Father is greater than the Son.”4
From the next chapter of Justin’s work:
“For we have learnt that he is the son of the true God, and we hold him in second place, with the prophetic Spirit in the third rank.”5
The commentary from the translators, Minns and Parvis:
“At D[ialogue with Trypho] 5.4 Justin says that ‘only God is unbegotten and incorruptible, and he is God for that very reason; everything else after him is begotten and corruptible’. This is one of the grounds of Justin’s subordinationism: an unbegotten, incorruptible, immortal God could not be crucified. But, equally, such a God could not reveal himself to his creatures. Hence the need for an ‘other God’ (ἕτερος θεὸς) besides the maker of the universe (cf. D[ialogue with Trypho] 55.1; 56.4; 56.2; 128.4; 129.4), who ‘has never done or said anything except what he who is the creator of the universe, above whom there is no other God, willed him both to do and to say’ (D[ialogue with Trypho] 56.11). Justin’s subordinationism succinctly encompasses both a courageous acknowledgement of the folly of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), and deliberately startling assertion of the real, though secondary, divinity of Jesus.”6
And finally the passage which Minns and Parvis referenced:
“I shall attempt to prove my assertion, namely, that there exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is also called an Angel, because He proclaims to man whatever the Creator of the world—above whom there is no other God—wishes to reveal to them.”7
And commentary on this passage from Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar, John Behr:
“As it is not God himself who thus appeared and spoke with man, the Word of God who did all of these things is, for Justin [Martyr], ‘another God and Lord besides (ἔτερος παρὰ) the Maker of all,’ who is also called his ‘Angel,’ as he brings messages from the Maker of all, ‘above whom there is no other God’ (Dial. 56.4). . . . The divinity of Jesus Christ, an ‘other God,’ is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity”8
Nor was this by any means unique to Justin Martyr. Observe as his teaching is linked by another scholarly source to the next writer we'll consider:
“Subordinationism
“Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen.”9
In part II we’ll further explore demonstrations of how this was, “characteristic . . . of the first three centuries.” For now, a primary source from Origen:
“But we are obedient to the Savior who says, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ [cf. John 14:28] and who, for this reason, did not permit himself to accept the title ‘good’ [cf. Mark 10:18] when it was offered to him, although it was perfectly legitimate and true. Instead, he graciously offered it up to the Father, and rebuked the one who wished to praise the Son excessively. This is why we say the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all created beings, not by caparison, but by their exceeding pre-eminence. The Father exceeds the Savior as much (or even more) as the Savior himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest. And by ‘the rest’ I do not mean ordinary beings, for how great is the praise ascribed to him who transcends thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come? [Cf. Ephesians 1:21] And in addition to these [what must we] say also of holy angels, spirits, and just souls?
“But although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity (for the Word is living), and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.”10
And the scholarly commentary from Ronald Heine:
“the Savior said, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ and ‘although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity . . . , and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.’ [13:151-152] . . .
“There is, moreover, a clear subordination of the Son to the Father in the Commentary [on John]. ‘The Father exceeds the Savior as much . . . as the Savior himself . . . exceeds the rest.’ [13:151-153] When ‘the Son of Man is glorified in God,’ it is a case of ‘the lesser’ being glorified ‘in the greater.’ [32:363-365] In spite of these subordinationist views, however, Origen rejects the view of those who, ‘in the delusion of glorifying the Father,’ declare ‘that something known by the Father is not known by the Son who refuses to be made equal to the perceptions of the unbegotten God.’ [1:187] It is perhaps in this same vein that one should understand Origen’s assertion that it is on the basis of the unity of the Son’s will with the Father’s that he says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ [13:228]”11
In another of his writings Origen variously considered potential points of subordination when he noted, “He [the Father] speak[s] who prearranges all things . . . . Perhaps this foreknowledge of all things was possessed also by the Son of God,” and likewise, “Jesus prays and does not pray in vain since He obtains His requests through prayer, and perhaps would not obtain them without prayer.” More explicitly, however, he goes on to state that, “we may never pray to anything generated—not even to Christ—but only to God and the Father of all.”12 The translator, John O’Meara, gave the following commentary while noting the consensus understanding as found among various other referenced patristic scholars:
“This is the first hint in the present treatise of subordination of the Son to the Father in Origen’s theology . . . . [Jean] Daniélou, op. cit. [Origène] 249-58, has an excellent discussion on the subject. He says: ‘Sa notion du Logos est très haute et très profonde. Bien des traits pourront en être repris. Mais elle reste affectée d’un subordinationisme évident.’ [His conception of the Logos is very high and very deep. Many characteristics can be extrapolated from it, but it remains affected by an obvious subordinationism.] Cf. also [Charles] Bigg, op. cit. [The Christian Platonists of Alexandria] 207 ff., 227 ff.; [Aloisius] Lieske, op. cit. [Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes] 164 f., passim; G[eorge] L[eonard] Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London 1936) 129 ff.; J[ean] Scherer, Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et les Evêques ses collègues (Cairo 1949) 63.”13
Last year I took a course through a program by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary wherein my professor, Bogdan Bucur, made the following statement regarding the Vision of Isaiah, Origen and his Jewish teachers:
“‘I saw,’ he says, ‘the Great Glory while the eyes of my spirit were open. I saw how my Lord (Christ) and the angel of the Holy Spirit worshiped and both together praised the Lord. And then all the righteous approached and worshiped,’ [The Ascension of Isaiah 9] and everyone praises according to that model—to that pattern. Now, we would say this is not satisfying because it is subordinating the Son and the Spirit, or seemingly subordinating the Son and the Spirit to the Father. Well, true, but remember this is a very early text, and it is an attempt to articulate somehow this doctrine. We have an echo of it multiple times in Origen. At some point [cf. On First Principles 1:3:4] he tells us, ‘My Hebrew master,’ that is a Christian of Jewish ethnicity who probably taught in Hebrew and also was the conduit by which Origen became acquainted with these Jewish-Christian traditions, ‘My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having six wings, and calling to one another, ‘Holy, holy, holy,’ were to be understood as the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit.’ So, yes, this is Subordinationist, but let’s appreciate the fact that apocalyptic literature gives us the building blocks for the earliest Christology.”14
And yet again, another primary source of Origen:
“[Origen said:] God the Father, since he embraces all things, touches each thing that exists, since he bestows on all existence from his own existence; for he is ‘He who is’. [Exodus 3:14] The Son is inferior in relation to the Father, since he touches only things endowed with reason; for he is subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit is still lower in degree, pertaining to the saints. So then the power of the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Son’s power is greater than the Holy Spirit; and again the power of the Holy Spirit excels all other holy things.”15
And yet again, commentary from the translator, Henry Bettenson:
“According to the quotation in Justinian, Origen gave here a bold statement of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. ‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”16
Once again we see the patristic scholarship attesting to this as the universal teaching of the pre-Nicene Church. This brings us to the next part of our article, regarding the rest of the early Church as attested by patristic scholars.
Part II: The Original & Universal Understanding of the Trinity
In part I we saw how patristic scholars defined Subordinationism. We considered examples of primary source material in how Justin Martyr and Origen expressed their beliefs on the matter in their own words, along with commentary on their statements by patristic scholars. We also began to see instances in which these patristic scholars noted Subordinationism to have been the universal teaching of the pre-Nicene Church in the instances of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which stated that Subordinationism was, “characteristic . . . of the first three centuries,” and Bettenson who admitted that, “‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” It shall further be demonstrated in this post that such is the consensus view among patristic scholars, but first we shall recapitulate Justin Martyr’s stance with another example from Bucur who, in part I, had attested to Origen’s teaching of Subordinationism, and who also noted elsewhere the same regarding Justin’s Subordinationism and furthermore how this is commonly acknowledged by his peers in the field:
“The fact that Justin Martyr articulated his trinitarian faith by means of a problematic trinitarian theology is a commonplace in scholarship. . . .
“The problem most often associated with Justin’s trinitarian theology is its subordinationism. . . .
“In Apol. 1.13.3, Justin states that Christ holds the second place after ‘the true God,’ while ‘the prophetic Spirit’ holds the third place. A similar subordinationist scheme occurs in Apol. 1.60.6–7”17
And a recapitulation of Origen, as well, by yet another patristic scholar, Joseph Trigg:
“Interestingly, in light of later criticisms of Origen for having a ‘subordinationist’ understanding of Christ’s relationship to the Father, putatively inconsistent with equality of the persons of the Trinity proclaimed by post-Nicene orthodoxy, what Origen would consider impious (asebes) is not the belief that Christ is subordinate, but the prospect that he might not be subordinate to the Father.”18
And now an example from Manlio Simonetti that not only points to Justin and Origen as proponents of Subordinationism, but also extending this to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, and the 2nd and 3rd century Church in at large:
“Subordinationism
“Thus we call the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd cc., to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father. Behind this tendency were gospel statements in which Christ himself stressed this inferiority (Jn 14, 28; Mk 10, 18; 13, 32, etc.) and it was developed esp. by the Logos-Christology. This theology, partly under the influence of middle Platonism, considered Christ, logos and divine wisdom, as the means of liaison and mediation between the Father’s position to him. When the conception of the Trinity was enlarged to include the Holy Spirit, as in Origen, this in turn was considered inferior to the Son. Subordinationist tendencies are evident esp. in theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen and Novatian; but even in Irenaeus, to whom trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on Jn 14, 28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father.”19
And again, Kevin Giles, noting Irenaeus and Tertullian, while adding Hippolytus, and while directly noting this to be generally acknowledged by the consensus of patristic scholars:
“Ante-Nicene Subordinationism
“It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century ‘Apologists.’ . . . Irenaeus follows a similar path . . . . The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian . . . . The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity.”20
And here again, in an article by Basil Studer contributed to a massively peer-reviewed patristic source, substantiating Subordinationism as the view of Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian:
“it was necessary to defend the real distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Such writers as the author of the Contra Noetum, Tertullian and Novatian did so by basing their claims primarily on the traditional Testimonia of the Bible (see Uribarri, Trinidad). Though able to formulate well, even with technical terms (esp. persona), the distinction of the divine persons (distributio), they were less successful in expressing the substantial unity in the distinction, unable to overcome a certain subordinationist tendency (ontological gradation of the persons in the overly close connection of the origin of the Son and the Spirit with the creation).”21
And finally this sweeping statement from R.P.C. Hanson:
“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.”22
So how did, “a fixed part of catholic theology,” eventually come to be rejected by the organized Church at large? Hanson alluded to the answer when mentioning Athenasius who, overreacting to the Arian heresy, went to the opposite extreme, to what his own predecessors would have considered to be heterodox as well. His polemics against the Arians ultimately led him to throw out the baby with the bathwater, expelling Arianism at the expense of having to reject Subordinationism. We see this attested by another patristic scholar, John Davies, regarding the culmination of events in 381:
“[The Council of Constantinople] meant the end of subordinationism. The Son and the Spirit are equal to the Father as touching their divinity because each is a presentation of an identical divine being. The only priority of the Father is a logical, not a temporal, one since the Son and the Spirit derive from him as their source; but this priority involves no superiority.”23
This was even more thoroughly established early in the next century by Augustine from whom the author of the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed would pull, which Creed has proven to be most persuasive to modern, mainstream, Christian laity. And thus has the view of superiority (and consequently inferiority) within the Trinity largely been lost to Christendom. What was originally considered orthodoxy has been condemned as heresy, and vice versa.
Footnotes
1 David W. Bercot, 'What the Early Christians Believed About the Trinity'
2 Ibid.
3 Justin Martyr, ca. 153, First Apology 12, in Fathers of the Church 6:44, brackets in original
4 Thomas B. Falls, Fathers of the Church 6:44
5 Justin Martyr, ca. 153, Apology 13:3, in Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:111
6 Denis Minns & Paul Parvis, Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:111
7 Justin Martyr, ca. 160, Dialogue With Trypho 56, in Fathers of the Church 6:232
8 John Behr, Formation of Christian Theology 1:104
9 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., pg. 1319
10 Origen, ca. 239, Commentary on John 13:151-152, in Fathers of the Church 89:100
11 Ronald E. Heine, Fathers of the Church 89:28,34
12 Origen, ca. 233, On Prayer 6:5;13:1;15:1, in Ancient Christian Writers 19:34,48,57
13 John J. O’Meara, Ancient Christian Writers 19:206
14 Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘‘The Glory of Israel’: The Jewish Apocalyptic Inheritance,’ lecture from the ‘Preparing to Read the Fathers’ course at St. Vladimir’s Online School of Theology
15 Origen, cited by Justinian, Ad Menam, in The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239
16 Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239
17 Bogdan G. Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, pp. 139-140
18 Joseph W. Trigg, Fathers of the Church 141:91
19 Manlio Simonetti, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church 2:797
20 Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, pp. 60-62
21 Basil Studer, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:836
22 R.P.C. Hanson, ‘The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD,’ in The Making of Orthodoxy, pg. 153
