Another substance or essence Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

Overview

The fourth anathema in the Nicene Creed condemns the view that the Son is “of another substance or essence.” A brief analysis of the Creed implies that this means that the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance, and not that He is of the same substance as the Father. This further implies that the term ‘homoousios’ was not the core issue in the dispute, which is confirmed by the fact that that term fell out of the Controversy soon after Nicaea. Homoousios was a secondary issue but was related to the primary issue, whether the Son is a distinct Person.

The Question

In the fourth anathema of the Nicene Creed of 325, what is the meaning of the phrase:

“He is of another substance or essence?”

Does it describe the Son’s substance or the substance out of which He was begotten?

The Anathemas

The views that are condemned in the last part of the Nicene Creed may be divided as follows:

1. 1. “There was when He was not” (Earlychurchtexts).
  2. He was not before he was made.
  3. He was made out of nothing.
  4. He is of another substance or essence,
  5. He is created, or changeable, or alterable.

The first two anathemas are about WHEN He began to exist. The affirmations in the body of the Creed do not mention anything specific in this regard but state that all things came into existence through Him. Assuming time is included in “all things,” then that would affirm that there was no “time when he was not.”

The third anathema is about OUT OF WHAT He came to exist. Rather than “out of nothing,” as in the anathema, the affirmations say that He is “begotten of the Father … that is, of the essence (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

The fourth anathema condemns the view that “He is of another substance or essence.” The question is, what is the meaning of the Greek word in this phrase translated as “of?” Is this condemnation also about OUT OF WHAT substance He came to be, or is it about the substance HE CONSISTS OF?

Just reading the English, the following seems to indicate that this condemnation is about OUT OF WHAT substance He came to be:

(a) Since the first two anathemas form a pair, the third and fourth anathemas could also form a pair.

(b) The condemnation that “He is of another substance” seems to repeat in a negative form the affirmation in the body of the Creed that He is “begotten … of the essence of the Father.”

(c) Earlier in the creed, it is said that the Son is “God of God.” In this phrase, “God” describes WHAT the Son is, and “of” describes OUT OF WHAT He came to exist. If the word “of” in the fourth anathema has the same meaning, then that anathema is about OUT OF WHAT He came to exist.

Alternatively, this anathema could relate to the word homoousion in the body of the creed. In other words, it would be a statement about the substance HE CONSISTS OF.

Importance of this Question

The answer to this question should help to explain the core issue of the debate at Nicaea. Given that 80% of the words of the Creed are about Christ, they did not argue about the Father or the Holy Spirit. The dispute was only about Christ. But what exactly was the core of the dispute?

Eternal – Firstly, the anathemas state that He ALWAYS EXISTED, but that is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the Creed. So, presumably, that was not the core issue.

Out of what – Secondly, most of the text about Christ in the affirmations is about HOW HE CAME TO EXIST, namely:

“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.”

This quote does not refer to Christ’s substance but only to the substance OUT OF WHAT He was begotten. The third anathema contains a related statement, namely, that He did not come into existence out of nothing. Given the emphasis on this point, this might have been the core issue.

The Son’s substance – Thirdly, the body of the Creed contains the statement that He is homoousion to the Father. This now refers to His own substance; not to the substance out of which He was begotten. But this statement seems quite isolated. Unless the fourth condemnation relates to the word homoousion, nothing else in the Creed refers directly to His own substance. For that reason, it is important whether the statement, that “He is (not) of another substance or essence,” means that:

- - - He is begotten out of the substance of the Father, or
    - He has the same substance as the Father.

Theology Evolved

Many people would simply read the Creed in terms of how it was later explained. However, Nicene theology evolved significantly after Nicaea and this question relates to how this anathema was understood at Nicaea. [Show More]

For example, the fourth anathema uses the term substance (ousia):

In the Trinity doctrine, hypostasis (Person) and ousia (substance) have different meanings, saying that the Father and Son are one ousia (Being) but two hypostases (Persons). (Read Article)

In contrast, for most of the fourth century, the two terms had the same meaning. Athanasius, for example, used them as synonyms. Therefore, when the fourth anathema says the Son is not of another substance, it can also be read as that He is not of another hypostasis (Person). [Show More]

Conclusion

This is really a question about the word homoousion in the Nicene Creed. It is known that that word was inserted into that creed on the insistence of Emperor Constantine. [Show More]

The brief analysis in this article implies that the word homoousios is not the core issue in the Creed. This is confirmed by the fact that the term disappears from the Controversy soon after Nicaea. [Show More]

Homoousios was a secondary issue but was related to the primary issue, whether the Son is a distinct Person. Read Article

Tag: Another substance or essence

Nicene Creed: He is not of another substance.