Or did the delegates at Nicaea understand the Creed to describe the Son as subordinate to the Father? To answer this question, this article first discusses what the delegates to Nicaea in 325 believed and then what the Creed says.
AUTHORS QUOTED
| Scholars explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago. |
A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years.
“The fundamental problem in understanding the course of these controversies stems from the nature of our sources. … The documentary evidence from this period is, in many cases, fragmentary.” (Ayres, p. 2) “In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents.” (Williams, p. 11-12) “Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see. … so important for our estimation of Athanasius’ character. … The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. … A store of Arian literature hitherto unknown or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others.” (Hanson, p. xx)
Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history. (Read More)
Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2). “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 11) R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. (Read More) “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95)
| Older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century version. |
For example, in the traditional but flawed account, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Unfortunately, many still accept the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.
“ELEMENTARY TEXTBOOKS often paint a clear and dramatic picture of the “Arian” controversy, more or less as follows. Shortly before 318, in Alexandria, Arius began to preach that the Son of God is a creature. In 318 a synod convoked by the bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, condemned Arius’ teaching. Arius then withdrew to Asia Minor, where he won many converts to his doctrines, especially from among the Sylloukianistai, his fellow pupils of the martyr Lucian of Antioch. In 325 the Council of Nicaea decisively rejected Arianism and proclaimed the orthodox doctrine in its creed and particularly in the renowned word homoousion. But the majority of Eastern bishops continued to adhere to the Arian heresy in subtler and subtler forms; and Arianizing emperors, especially Constantius, conspired with these bishops to force Arius’ heresy on the whole Church. At first, resistance to Arianism came almost singlehandedly from Athanasius of Alexandria, who, despite persecution and exile, indefatigably defended Nicene orthodoxy. The year 360 marked the nadir: “The whole world groaned and marveled that it was Arian,” wrote Jerome. Constantius’ death in 361 was a turning point. The three Cappadocian Fathers received the baton of orthodoxy from Athanasius and continued the defense of the Nicene doctrine. The ascendancy of Arianism was definitively ended by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and orthodoxy triumphed.” (Lienhard)
“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine, initially provoked by a priest called Arius whose teaching angered his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Eventually, this traditional account tells us, the controversy extended throughout the century—even after the decisive statements of the Council of Nicaea—because a conspiracy of Arians against the Nicene tradition (represented particularly by Athanasius) perpetuated Arius’ views.” (Ayres, p. 13)
| This article series is based on books by world-class Trinitarian scholars of the last 100 years. |
Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book published in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius.
Hanson wrote around 1988: “Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy …” (Hanson Lecture) Ayres confirmed the importance of the books by Simonetti and Hanson: “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) (Simonetti’s book is only available in Italian.) Ayres’ book is based on the books by Hanson and Simonetti and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) This article series relies mainly on the following authors: Hanson, Bishop RPC Williams, Archbishop Rowan Ayres, Lewis Anatolios, Khaled Specific articles: Lienhard Joseph T – The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article Pier Franco Beatrice – The word “homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity.)
These articles were not developed by studying the primary sources (ancient documents) but by studying the writings of world-renowned specialists (all Trinitarians) and, therefore, quote extensively from such authors.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, (1988)
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
SUMMARY
All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described the Son as subordinate to the Father. During the fourth-century Controversy, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father. Almost all delegates to the Council of Nicaea came from the East and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate.
The Creed itself also presents the Son as subordinate:
-
- It calls the Father Father and the Son Son.
- While the Father is Almighty God, the Son is ‘Lord’.
- While the Father is the Creator, the Son is His means of Creation.
- While the Son is ‘begotten’ the Father exists without cause.
The term homoousios implies equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination.
The Creed refers to the Son as ‘God’ but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. For example, the Arians, who regarded the Son as subordinate, also described Jesus as ‘God’. The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning.
The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.
THE DELEGATES
| All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described the Son as subordinate to the Father. |
“It is evident in Origin’s writings that he considered the Son’s divinity lesser than the Father’s, since he even calls the Son a creature.” 1Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1971, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.
“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”2Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.
The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture).
| During the fourth century, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father. |
“With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix)
“Until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” 3RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.
| Almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the East and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. |
Almost all delegates at the Council of Nicaea came from the East:
The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).
“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way.” (Hanson, p. 156)
The Eastern church believed the Son is subordinate:
“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation,” (Hanson, p. xix)
”Almost everybody in the East at that period would have agreed that there was a subordination of some sort within the Trinity.” (Hanson, p. 287)
The creeds formulated by the Eastern church in the decades after Nicaea, such as the Dedication and the Long-Lined (Macrostich) creeds formulated respectively 16 and 19 years after Nicaea, confirm that they regarded the Son as subordinate.
| Sixteen years after Nicaea, the same delegates formulated a creed that clearly describes the Son as subordinate. |
As stated, almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire. Sixteen years later, in 341, the same Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed. Similar to the Nicene Creed, it describes the Father alone as “Almighty” and the “one God,” in contrast to the Son as who is the “one Lord” and the Father’s agent in creation. But, more explicitly, it says that “the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287) (Read more)
| Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate. |
Since they accepted the Nicene Creed but also regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, the Easterners, who were the vast majority at Nicaea, must have read the Creed as saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
THE CREED
This section discusses indications of subordination and equality in the Creed.
Indications of Subordination
| While the Creed identifies the Father as the ‘one God’, the only Almighty Creator, the Son is Lord and Means of Creation. |
It is often claimed that the Nicene Creed describes the Son as equal to the Father. However, the creed begins as follows:
“We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten of the Father …
through Whom all things came into being …
very God of very God …” (Earlychurchtexts)
In several ways, this identifies the Son as subordinate to the Father:
God vs Lord – The Creed describes the Son as “one Lord” but the Father with a higher title, namely, “one God.” It excludes the Son from being the “one God.”
Almighty – It identifies the Father alone as “Almighty.” Consequently, the Son is not the “Almighty.” Two ‘Almighty’ Beings are impossible, for each would limit the might of the other.
Creator – While the Father is the “Maker of all things visible and invisible,” all things were made “by” the Son. This means that the Father is the primary Creator and the Son is the secondary Cause: It is the Father who makes all things ‘through’ or ‘by’ the Son. (Cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).
Father vs Son – The titles “Father” and “Son” also identify the Son as subordinate to the Father.
Begotten – The creed describes the Lord Jesus as the “Son” of as “begotten” by the Father, implying that the Father is the source of the Son’s existence, meaning that the Son is not the original Source of all things; the Father alone exists without cause and is the Cause of all things.
Homoousios
| The term homoousios implies equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination. |
The Creed says the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance and that He is homoousios (same substance) with the Father.
In the Trinity doctrine as later developed, Father and Son are one Being with a single will and mind. (Read more) Therefore, it interprets homoousios as ‘one substance’, meaning a single substance. But homoousios (same substance) can also mean two substances of the same type. (Read more)
In both cases, the term implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, nature, or being (ontological equality).
However, since the Creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father in other respects, other options must be considered:
Tertullian described the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. That would mean that they are homoousios (of the same substance). But, since the Son is part of the Father’s substance, Tertullian described Him as subordinate to the Father. (Read more)
At the Nicene Council, the emperor, who proposed and insisted on the term, also explained it and said it must be understood figuratively as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father. (Read more) With that explanation, the Eusebians were able to accept the creed. However, if it only means that the Son is truly from the Father, the Son can still be subordinate to the Father:
“In Eusebius’ reading of the text it is still possible to read Nicaea as implying a certain subordinationism” (Ayres, p. 91) (Read More)
| The Sabellians at the Council understood the term to mean equality but they were a minority. |
Before Nicaea, ‘homoousios’ was a Sabellian term (Read more). At the Council, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side. (Read More) Since, in Sabellian theology, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, they would have understood the term to mean ‘one substance’.
However, the Sabelians were in the minority and, after Nicaea, the church eradicated the term homoousios from its vocabulary by exiling all leading Sabelians. (Read more) Therefore, the majority accepted ‘homoousios’ as consistent with subordination.
God
| The Creed refers to the Son as “very God of very God,” but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. |
In English translations of the Nicene Creed, it seems to profess equality when it describes the Son as ‘true God from true God’. However, in the original language, the term does not require equality.
| For example, the Arians regarded the Son as subordinate but described Him also as ‘God’. |
Later in the century, the Arians formulated several creeds that also proclaimed Jesus as ‘God’:
The Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”
Two years later the same people – the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) at Serdica – condemned those who say, “Christ is not God.” (Hanson, p. 298)
The ‘Arian’ creed of 357, which has been described as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)
| As another example, all pre-Nicene fathers regarded the Son as subordinate but also described Him as theos. |
The Nicene Creed was not the first to use the phrase “theos from theos” or to describe the Son as “theos.” For example, Irenaeus wrote:
“That which is begotten of God is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47).
The following statement by Irenaeus nicely brings out the flexible meaning of the word theos:
“There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.” (Adv. Her. 4. Pref.4 – 4.1.1)
Here, Irenaeus referred to the Father, the Son, and human beings as theos, creating an interesting challenge for translators. Since Irenaeus regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (see here), when he described Jesus as theos, he did not mean that Jesus is equal to the Father.
| The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning. |
In modern English, while we use the word “god” for a range of beings, we use the term “God” as a name for one specific Being – the One who exists without a cause – the omnipotent originator of the universe (Merriam-Webster). (Read more)
Like the Bible, the Nicene decree was written in Greek, which did not have a word exactly equivalent to “God.” In the Creed, the word “God” is translated from the Greek word theos which had a wide range of meanings. This is the same word the Greeks used for their gods; the Greek Pantheon, believed to be immortal beings with supernatural powers. When the Jews began speaking Greek, they used this word for the God of the Bible but they used it also for other beings. For example, Jesus even referred to humans, “to whom the word of God came,” as “gods” (the same word – John 10:34-35). (Read more)
“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)
When theos refers to the Almighty, it is translated as “God.” In other instances, it is translated as “god.” To translate theos, when it refers to Jesus, as “God” is based on the assumption that He is the Almighty. It is an application of the Trinity doctrine and should not be used as proof of that doctrine. Since the Creed already identified the Father alone as the “one God” and the Almighty, and the Son as “Lord.” It uses the term theos for the Son in a different sense and should not be translated as “God.” (Read More)
THEOLOGY EVOLVED
| The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. |
The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 13)
“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)
| Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document. |
As stated, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, the term ‘Persons” is misleading. (Read More)
The Nicene Creed does not contain the Trinity doctrine for it still identifies the ‘one God’ in whom we believe as the Father and because it does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios.
Theodosius’ Edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:
“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Read more)
The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:
“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)
KINDS OF SUBORDINATION
Some Christians distinguish between ontological and functional subordination. They claim that the Son is ontologically (in terms of His being or substance) equal to the Father but functionally, in terms of role, subordinate to the Father. I would respond as follows:
Firstly, the Bible says nothing about God’s substance and it is not something that human beings are even able to understand.
Secondly, I am not aware of any of the fourth-century fathers who distinguished between kinds of subordination.
Thirdly, if the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father, and if He is eternally so, it implies He is also subordinate in person or being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in terms of roles, what difference does it make to say that they are ontologically equal?
THE CREED
The Nicene Creed reads as follows:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate
and became man,
and suffered,
and rose again on the third day,
and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,|
and that He came into existence out of nothing,|
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change
– these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.
OTHER ARTICLES
-
-
- Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
- All articles on this website
- Is Jesus the Most High God?
- Trinity Doctrine – General
- The Book of Daniel
- The Book of Revelation
- The Origin of Evil
- Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
-
FOOTNOTES
- 1Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1971, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.
- 2Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.
- 3RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.