Tag: god

Posted on

Worship sounds and songs in God’s throne room (Revelation 4 & 5)

This is an article in the series on the vision of the book with the seven seals (Rev 4:1-8:1). The first part of the article is a summary.

Summary

Purpose

The previous articles in this series discussed (1) Revelation 4:1-8 and (2) The 24 elders in God’s throne room (Rev 4:4). While the first part of Revelation 4 describes God’s throne room VISUALLY, the purpose of this article is to discuss the last part of Revelation 4, which describes the SOUNDS in God’s presence.

Holy

The four living creatures say “day and night,” without ceasing:

“Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God,
the Almighty” (Rev 4:8).

God is holy because He is the Uncreated Source of all things. All else exists BECAUSE He exists. He created all things, and they exist BECAUSE OF His will (Rev 4:11).

Note that Jesus does not appear in Revelation 4: It describes only the Father.

Day and Night

Both the four living creatures and Satan talk “day and night” without ceasing ABOUT GOD. However, while the four living creatures praise God (Rev 4:8), Satan, by accusing the people whom God has chosen for eternal life (Rev 12:10), effectively accuses God of unfair judgment. (See – Overview of Revelation 12.) The four living creatures, therefore, seem to be opposing Satan.

Almighty

The four living creatures describe “One sitting on the throne” as “the Almighty” (Rev 4:2, 8). Of the 10 instances of this phrase in the New Testament, 9 are in Revelation. The Bible never refers to Jesus as “the Almighty.” On the contrary, Jesus is explicitly distinct from “the Almighty“ (Rev 21:22; Rev 19:15). For further discussion, see – Is Jesus the Almighty?

Who Was
And Who Is
And Is To Come

The four living creatures describe the Almighty also as the One “Who was and Who is and Who is to come” (Rev 4:8). This may be related to the “I AM“-title in Exodus 3:14 and may also be another way of saying that God is always the same (cf. Heb 13:8).

In Revelation, the Son is eternal (Rev 1:17; 22:12-13) but only the Father:

    • Is called God (cf. Rev 1:2);
    • Is described as Almighty (e.g., Rev 21:22),
    • Sits on the throne (e.g., Rev 12:5; 3:21; 4:2),
    • Lives forever (e.g., Rev 4:9),
    • Willed and created all things (Rev 4:11) and
    • Was and is and is to come (e.g., Rev 1:4-5).

Lives Forever and Ever

Jesus is “alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18) and “will reign forever” (Rev 11:15), but only the Father “lives forever” (Rev 4:9, 10; 15:7). The Father “alone possesses immortality” (1 Tim 6:16). As the only begotten Son of God, Jesus derived His eternal nature from the Father but the Father is the Unbegotten Source of all things. He, alone, has inherent (essential) immortality.

This is not one specific event.

WHENEVER the four living creatures offer their triple praise to God (Rev 4:9), the twenty-elders fall down and worship God (Rev 4:10). The word “when” or “whenever” implies repetitive action. This confirms that this fourth chapter does not describe one specific event, but the general condition in God’s presence.

Explosion of Worship

Worship explodes outward. The four living creatures, in the inner circle around the throne (Rev 4:6), with their astounding perceptive abilities (Rev 4:6), become full of the wonder of God’s holiness (Rev 4:8), and burst into praise. That worship overflows to the next circle around the throne – the 24 elders (Rev 4:9-10), then to the billions of angels around the 24 elders (Rev 5:11-12), and, finally, to “every created thing” (Rev 5:13).

Cast their crowns before the throne

The crowns of the 24 elders (Rev 4:10) are crowns of victory (Greek: stephanos); not royal crowns (Greek: diadêma).

They cast their crowns before the throne (Rev 4:10), meaning that they acknowledge that they owe their victory completely to Him. In a sense, they feel unworthy to wear their crowns in the presence of the One who gave them their victory.

The Creator

In Revelation 5, Jesus Christ will be declared “worthy” because He was slain and purchased people for God with His blood (Rev 5:9). But, in Revelation 4, the One sitting on the throne is declared “worthy” BECAUSE He created all things (Rev 4:11).

All things were created because of the will of the Father (Rev 4:11). But for the will of God, the universe would not exist. Elsewhere in the New Testament, we read that God created all things THROUGH His Son (John 1:3; Col 1:15; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2), but here, at the end of Revelation 4, the Father alone is identified as the Creator. For a further discussion, see – God created all things, but He created through His Son.

Our Lord

The one seated on the throne is addressed as “our Lord” (Rev 4:11).

The Greek word translated as “Lord” is kurios. The L is capitalized, not because of the word itself, but because of the context, namely, because it refers to God, the Father. The same word, for example, is also translated as “master” or “owner” or “lord” (e.g., Matt 10:24; 20:8; Mark 13:35; Acts 25:26).

The New Testament uses the title kurios very often for Jesus, but Jesus is not present in the throne room in Revelation 4. The current verse describes His Father as “Lord.”

The Old Testament often uses God’s name (Yahweh). This name never appears in the New Testament. It is possible that, in some instances, the title kurios in the New Testament serves as a name for God. However, in the current verse, the word “our” in the phrase “OUR kurios” implies that kurios does not serve as a name. Rather, it is a statement that the Father is OUR MASTER or OUR OWNER.

Our God

The one seated on the throne is also addressed as “our God” (Rev 4:11). The word “God” translates from the Greek word theos. This word, actually, means “god.” In ancient Greek culture, theos was used for the many gods (pantheon) of the ancients. It is translated here as “God,” not because of the word itself, but because it refers to the Father.

However, the title “God” means something VERY DIFFERENT from theos. The title “God” functions like a name of one specific being; whom dictionaries describe as the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. Therefore, in the Christian context, the title “God” has come to mean more or less the same as the name Yahweh in the Old Testament. For a further discussion, see the article theos.

Is Jesus equal with the Father?

There are five songs of praise in Revelation 4 and 5:

      • The first two (Rev 4:8, 11) are sung in honor of the One on the throne, “for You created all things” (Rev 4:11).
      • The next two songs (Rev 5:9-10, 12) praise the Lamb (Jesus), “for You … purchased for God with Your blood men” (Rev 5:9-10).
      • The final hymn, as the climax of the series, is sung to both “Him who sits on the throne” and “the Lamb” (Rev 5:13).

Since, in this last hymn, all creation bows down to praise BOTH the Father and the Son, some claim that this attributes to Jesus Christ EQUAL STATUS with His Father. However:

Firstly, the Father is the One on the throne (Rev 5:13) and, therefore, the ultimate Ruler.

Secondly, as discussed above, only the Father is Almighty (e.g., Rev 21:22), has essential immortality (Rev 4:9-10), and is called God (cf. Rev 1:2).

Thirdly, Philippians 2:6-11 describes the same event as in Revelation 5, namely, what happens in heaven when Jesus arrives after His ascension. It explains that Jesus is worshiped
(1) because “God highly exalted Him” (Phil 2:9) and
(2) that He is worshiped “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).
For a discussion, see the article on Philippians 2.

Head of ChristGod is the Creator, but He created all things THROUGH His Son (e.g. John 1:3; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6). God is the ultimate Ruler, but He GAVE all authority to His Son (Matt 28:18). Similarly, God alone is to be worshiped, but “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:23), because that is God’s will (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:6). For a further discussion, see, “God is the Head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3).

But when God’s end-time people are called to “Fear God, and … worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters” (Rev 14:7), it is a call to worship the Father.

The Christology of this Website

This website defends the view of God and Christ that was maintained by the church during the first three centuries. They believed that the Son ALWAYS existed and that He was the MEANS through whom God created all things, but that He always was and always will be SUBORDINATE to the Father. (See – The Apologists.)

– End of Summary – 

This is the end of the summary. If you would like to skip the detailed discussion below, the next article in this series is – Revelation 5 is Christ’s enthronement after His ascension to heaven. Alternatively, see the list of the articles in the series on the sealed book.

Purpose

Previous articles in this series discussed:

The current article continues the discussion of chapter 4, namely, the SOUNDS and the songs of worship in God’s presence, as we find in Revelation 4:8-11 as well as in the last part of Revelation 5; after Jesus appears in the throne room (Rev 5:5-6).

Revelation 4:8

and day and night they do not cease to say,
“HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY,
WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.

Holy

To be holy means to be separate:

      • Things are holy when consecrated to God.
      • People are holy when God assigns specific tasks to them.
      • God is essentially holy (meaning, it is an inherent part of His being) because He is distinct from all creation. He is the Uncreated Source of all things. He is that which exists. All else exists BECAUSE He exists. He created all things, and because of His will, they exist (Rev 4:11).

Day and Night

“Day and night” means continual or ongoing.

To continually say “holy, holy, holy” may seem boring, but the four living creatures have been created with the ability to understand something about God’s immeasurable holiness. Therefore, their intense emotions explode into these words of exaltation. It is not their duty; it is their joy!

Both the four living creatures and Satan keep talking “day and night” about God. However, while the four living creatures praise God, Satan, by accusing the people whom God has chosen for eternal life “day and night” (Rev 12:10), effectively accuses God of unfair judgment. (See – Overview of Revelation 12.) The four living creatures, therefore, seem to be opposing Satan.

As discussed, the main word in Revelation 4 is “throne.” The reason for the great focus on the throne of God is possibly because the throne symbolizes God’s authority, and because Satan challenged God’s authority; specifically; His judgments.

The Almighty

This verse describes God as “the Almighty” (Rev 4:8). Of the 10 instances of this phrase in the New Testament, 9 are in Revelation. The Bible never refers to Jesus as “the Almighty.” On the contrary, Jesus is explicitly distinct from “the Almighty,“ for example:

“The Lord God the Almighty
and the Lamb are its temple”
(Rev 21:22; cf. Rev 19:15).

For a further discussion, see:

Who Was
And Who Is
And Is To Come

The four living creatures also describe the Almighty as the One “Who was and Who is and Who is to come” (Rev 4:8). This three-fold description of God occurs four times in Revelation (Rev 1:4; 1:8; 4:8; 11:17). However, Revelation 11:17 omits the “is to come”-part because He has already come (Rev 11:15).

“Who is and who was and who is to come” may be another way of saying God is always the same (cf. Heb 13:8). It may also be related to God’s “I AM“-title in Exodus 3:14.

In Revelation, all four uses of this phrase apply exclusively to the Father (e.g., Rev 1:4-5). Titles such as “the first and the last,” “the beginning and the end,” and “the Alpha and the Omega” seem to be applied to Christ in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 22:12-13 and do mean that the Son has always existed. Nevertheless, in the book of Revelation, only the Father:

      • Is God (cf. Rev 1:2);
      • Is Almighty (e.g., Rev 21:22),
      • Sits on the throne (e.g., Rev 12:5; 3:21; 4:2),
      • Lives forever (e.g., Rev 4:9),
      • Is the One who willed and created all things (Rev 4:11) and
      • Was and is and is to come (e.g., Rev 1:4-5).

See the articles referenced above for further discussion.

Revelation 4:9

And when the living creatures give
glory and honor and thanks
to Him who sits on the throne,
to Him who lives forever and ever

When the living creatures give

The word “when” implies repetitive action and can also be translated as “whenever.” This confirms that, as discussed previously, that Revelation 4 does not describe one specific event.

Glory and honor and thanks

Glory, literally, is the brightness or radiance that surrounds a divine figure. Here, it is used in an extended sense of HOW WONDERFUL GOD IS.

Honor, literally, is an expression of reverence or respect toward another.

Thanks – To give thanks is the foundation of true worship. Those who are mindful of all that God has done for them will express themselves with gratitude and this gratitude will keep them FOCUSED ON GOD.

In Revelation, worship is all about God and His mighty acts on our behalf. For example:

God is worthy to “receive glory and honor and power” “because” (NIV) He created all things (Rev 4:11).

Both “Him who sits on the throne, and … the Lamb” receive honor “because” (NIV) the Lamb was slain (Rev 5:13, cf. Rev 5:9).

God is given thanks “because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign” (Rev 11:17).

The same principle applies throughout the Bible: Worship is talking about, singing about, and repeating what God has done (Deut 26:1-11; Psa 66:3-6; 78:5-15; 111:4).

Worship is NOT about us, our feelings, or our duties. Worship is NOT a recital of what WE need to do; it is a recital of what GOD HAS DONE.

Understanding and practicing this truth will unleash God’s power in a local church. If worship often seems powerless, it is because it is rarely centered on God. In Bible times, when people rehearsed what God had done for them in the past, the power of God’s original act was unleashed in the worshiper’s present (2 Chron 20:5-22; Dan 9:15). Worship focuses attention away from us and toward God. Our weakness takes hold of His strength.

Him who lives forever and ever

Jesus is “alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18) and “will reign forever” (Rev 11:15), but only the Father is “Him who lives forever” (Rev 4:9-10; 15:7). The Father “alone possesses immortality” (1 Tim 6:13-16). As the only begotten Son of God, Jesus derived His eternal nature from the Father but the Father is the Unbegotten Source of all things. He, alone, has inherent (essential) immortality.

Revelation 4:10

the twenty-four elders will fall down
before Him who sits on the throne,
and will worship Him who lives forever and ever,
and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

Explosion of Worship

This verse repeats much of the previous verse. In that verse, it was the 4 living creatures (Rev 4:8). Here, the 24 elders worship God.

WHENEVER (Rev 4:9) the four living creatures offer their triple praise to God, the twenty-elders fall down and worship God. Worship explodes outward. The four living creatures, in the inner circle around the throne (Rev 4:6), with their astounding perceptive abilities (Rev 4:6), become full of the wonder of God’s holiness (Rev 4:8), and burst into praise. That worship overflows to the next circle around the throne – the 24 elders – and then to the billions of angels around the 24 elders (Rev 5:11-12) and, finally, to “every created thing” (Rev 5:13).

Fall Down … Worship

This verse translates the two key words for worship in Revelation as “fall down” (Greek: pesountai) and “worship” (proskunêsousin). Both these words mean to prostrate oneself in obeisance toward a god or an exalted person such as a king.

To translate the second word as “worship” goes beyond the meaning of the Greek word, for, as defined by dictionaries, the English word “worship” implies that the one receiving obeisance is a god or godlike. However, given the context, the word “worship” is appropriate. For a discussion, see – Jesus is worshiped.

Cast their crowns before the throne

The crowns of the 24 elders (Rev 4:10) are crowns of victory (Greek: stephanos); not royal crowns (Greek: diadêma).

They cast their crown before the throne (Rev 4:10), meaning that they acknowledge that they owe their victory completely to Him. In a sense, they feel unworthy to wear their crowns in the presence of the One who gave them their victory.

Revelation 4:11

“Worthy are You,
our Lord and our God,
to receive glory and honor and power;
for You created all things,
and because of Your will they existed,
and were created.”

Worthy are You

In Revelation 5, Jesus Christ will be declared “worthy” because He was slain and purchased people for God with His blood (Rev 5:9). But, in Revelation 4, the One sitting on the throne is declared “worthy” because He created all things.

Our Lord

The one seated on the throne is addressed as “our Lord and our God.” 

The Greek word translated as “Lord” is kurios. The L is capitalized, not because of the word itself, but because of the context, namely, because it refers to God, the Father. The same word, for example, is also translated as “master” or “owner” or “lord.” For example:

    • “The owner of the vineyard” (Matt 20:8);
    • “The master of the house” (Mark 13:35);
    • “A slave (is not) above his master” (Matt 10:24); and
    • “I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord (the Roman emperor” (Acts 25:26).

The New Testament uses the title kurios very often for Jesus, but Jesus is not present in the throne room in Revelation 4. The current verse describes His Father as “Lord.”

The Old Testament often uses God’s name (Yahweh). This name never appears in the New Testament. Since, in the Greek Old Testament, the name of God (Yahweh) is nearly always translated with kurios, the title kurios in the New Testament may, in some instances, serve AS A NAME for God. However, in the current verse, the word “our” in the phrase “OUR kurios” implies that kurios does not serve as such. Rather, it is a statement that the Father is OUR MASTER or OUR OWNER.

And our God

The word “God” translates from the Greek word theos which, in the Greek culture, was used for the many gods (pantheon) of the ancients. Similar to the word kurios, the G is here capitalized, not because of the word itself, but because it refers to the Father. The same word theos, for example, is translated as “god” in the following instances:

    • Satan is described as “ho theos of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) and
    • The gods of the nations (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5), or
    • People “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35).

In First-Century Asia Minor, the emperor Domitian was known as “lord and god.” The word theos, therefore, was used for any being whose power is far beyond that of ordinary people.

Ancient languages did not distinguish between lower- and upper-case characters. The Bible, similarly, was written only in CAPITAL letters. The word “God,” with a capital G, is a modern invention that, over the centuries, has attained a VERY DIFFERENT meaning from the Greek word theos:

If you asked an ancient person who theos is, he would not know because, at that time, there were “many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:5). That person would have asked which theos you are referring to.

Today, if you ask who God is, the average educated person would be able to answer. Dictionaries define “God” as the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Therefore, in the Christian context, the title “God” has come to mean more or less the same as the name Yahweh. It functions like the name of one specific being; the Ultimate Reality.

In the current verse, the Father is addressed, literally, as “the theos of us” or “our theos.” Given the context of the time, when hundreds of theoi (gods) were professed, this seems to identify the One sitting on the throne as the one specific theos WE worship. In other words, the phrase DOES NOT INCLUDE A NAME. For that reason, and since the title “God” functions like a name, to retain the original meaning, it might have been appropriate to translate the phrase as “our lord and our god,” rather than “our Lord and our God.”

Paul wrote similarly:

“There are many gods and many lords,
yet for us there is but one God, the Father …
and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:5-6).

Would a lower case “god” and “lord” not have been more appropriate also in this verse? Why are the words capitalized?

For a further discussion, see the article – theos.

To receive glory and honor and power;
for You created all things,
and because of Your will, they existed,
and were created

In verse 9, the four living beings ascribed “glory and honor and thanks” to Him. The current verse repeats the same concepts but replaces “thanks” with “power,” for this verse also identifies Him as the Almighty Creator. All power belongs to God but He restrains His power (Rev 11:17) for God never forces anyone to comply with His will. Rather than using His power, He seeks to win the love of His creatures (Rev 15:3-4). See, God’s creatures are free to rebel against Him.

The words “for” and “because” indicate cause and consequence. In other words, God is worthy to receive our “glory and honor and power” BECAUSE He created all things.

“All things” means the entire universe (Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 1:10; 3:9; Heb 1:3; 2:10); the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them.

All things were created “because of Your will.” But for the will of God, the universe would not exist. Jesus prayed similarly: “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). It was the Father’s will that Jesus should suffer the torment of the cross. For a discussion, see – Why Jesus had to die to open the book.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, we read that God created all things THROUGH His Son (John 1:3; Col 1:15; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2), but here, at the end of Revelation 4, the Father alone is identified as the Creator (Rev 4:11). See – God created all things, but He created through His Son.

Worship in Revelation 5

Five Worship Hymns

Five hymns are sung in Revelation 4 and 5:

      • The first two are sung in honor of the One on the throne.
      • The next two songs praise the Lamb.
      • The last hymn offers praise to both.

There is a crescendo in the size of the groups singing these hymns:

Song Sung to: Sung by:
(1) Rev 4:8 “Holy, holy, holy” The One on the throne 4 living creatures.
(2) Rev 4:11 – Praising Him as the Creator 24 elders
(3) Rev 5:9-10 – Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals The Lamb 4 living creatures
AND the 24 elders
(4) Rev 5:12 – Worthy is the Lamb to receive power, riches, wisdom … 4 living creatures
AND the 24 elders
AND millions of angels
(5) Rev 5:13 – blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever Both EVERY CREATURE

So, the whole sequence of Revelation 4-5 moves forward to the great climax in which “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:23).

Jesus receives the same honor as the Father.

In Revelation 5, all creation bows down to praise BOTH the Father and the Son:

“Then I heard every creature … singing:
– ‘To him who sits on the throne
– and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power!” (Rev 5:13)

Because of this, it is often stated that this attributes to Jesus Christ EQUAL STATUS with His Father. However:

Firstly, since, in this verse, the Father is the One on the throne (Rev 5:13; 12:5; 3:21; 4:2), He is the ultimate Ruler.

Secondly, as discussed above under verse 8, in Revelation, only the Father:

          • Is Almighty (e.g., Rev 21:22),
          • Has essential immortality (Rev 4:9-10),
          • Has willed and created all things to exist (Rev 4:11).
          • Is called God (cf. Rev 1:2);
          • Was and is and is to come (e.g., Rev 1:4-5).

Thirdly, Philippians 2:6-11 describes the same event as in Revelation 5. It also explains what happened in heaven after Jesus ascended. In that passage:

        • Jesus is worshiped because “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Phil 2:9) and
        • He is worshiped “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).
          For a discussion, see the article on Philippians 2.

God is the Creator, but He created all things THROUGH His Son (e.g. John 1:3; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6). God is the ultimate Ruler, but He GAVE all authority to His Son (Matt 28:18). Similarly, God alone is to be worshiped, but “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:23), BECAUSE that is God’s will (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:6). For a further discussion, see, “God is the Head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3).

Amid the end-time crisis, God’s people are called to:

“Fear God, and … worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters” (Rev 14:7).

In Revelation’s language, this is a call to worship the Father for, in Revelation, ONLY the Father is called God and ONLY the Father is the Creator. In Revelation, God is also Jesus’ God (Rev 1:6; 3:12). To elevate Jesus to the same level as the Almighty God is to DISTORT the Word of God! For further discussion, see – In the Trinity theory, God is three Persons in one Being, but Jesus is not God.

The Christology of this website

This website defends the view of God and Christ that was maintained by the church fathers during the first three centuries; particularly the doctrine as clarified by Origen (184-253).

Most of the delegates at the Nicene Council of 325 were disciples of Origin (bible.ca). They believed that the Son ALWAYS existed and that He was the MEANS through whom God created all things, but they also believed that He was and always will be subordinate to the Father. (See – The Apologists.)

Origin’s views are also reflected by the Nicene Creed, except for the concept of homoousios (same substance), which Emperor Constantine forced the meeting to add (See – Millard Erickson).

During the first three centuries, the church was persecuted by the Roman authorities. Early in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity. Later in that same century, Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the ONLY LEGAL religion in the empire. However, what he enacted as law was SPECIFICALLY THE TRINITY DOCTRINE. In his Edict of Thessalonica, he decreed as follows:

Let us believe in the one deity
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.

Concerning people with different beliefs, he commanded:

In our judgment they are foolish madmen … heretics …
They will suffer … the punishment … we shall decide to inflict.

When Theodosius rose to power, the church was strongly Arian. But Theodosius implemented his law with a heavy hand, making an end to all non-Trinitarian Christologies in the Roman Empire. Later rulers, including Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, ensured compliance. Consequently, the church entered the Dark Ages professing the Trinity doctrine and the mainstream church still does.

Other Articles

Posted on

What did Fourth Century Arianism believe?

Summary of this article

In the first three centuries after Christ, the Roman Empire persecuted the church. In the fourth century, the church was first legalized (AD 313) and later became the official religion of the Roman Empire (AD 380). During that period, a controversy raged in the church with respect to the nature of Christ. The emperors could not allow disunity in the church because a split in the church could split the entire empire. The emperors, therefore, forced the church to formulate creeds, and, true to the nature of the empire, banish church leaders who were not willing to accept the creeds.

Arianism was named after Arius.

We are not sure what Arius taught, for his books were destroyed after Nicaea, and we cannot trust what his opponents wrote about him. For example, Athanasius claimed that Arius said that “there was a time when the Son was not,” but below we quote Arius saying that the Son existed “before time.” 

‘Arianism’ dominated the church for 50 years.

Many erroneously understand the Nicene Creed of 325 to say that the Son is equal to the Father but, after 325, the consensus in the church was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. What the church believed at the time was different from what Arius believed, but it is practice today to describe anything that is not perfectly consistent with the Trinity doctrine as Arianism. Therefore, since, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son is co-equal to the Father, it is common for people to the refer to the belief in the fourth century, that the Son is subordinate to the Father, as Arianism.

This ‘Arianism’ remained the dominant view in the church for the next 50 years. During those fifty years, this ‘Arianism’ evolved and divided into a number of branches. It is, therefore, important to understand what the church believed after the intense debates of those years.

God and theos

Today, we use the modern word “God” as the proper name of the One who exists without a cause. The ancient Greek word, in the Bible and other ancient documents, such as the Nicene Creed, that is translated as “God” is theos. But theos is the common name for the Greek gods and means “god” in Eglish. When it refers to the One who exists without a cause, it is correctly translated as “God.” In instances where theos refers to Jesus, it can be translated as “God” only if one assumes the Trinity doctrine. In Arianism, in which only the Father is the One who exists without a cause, theos, when it describes Jesus, or to any being other than the Father, must be translated as “god.” See the article – theos – for a further discussion.

What the Arian church believed

In Arianism:

The Father is the “only one God.” In contrast to the Son who is the “begotten,” the Father is “the unbegotten,” which means that He exists without a cause and, therefore, is the ultimate Cause of all else. 

The Son is our god, but the Father is His god. God created all things through the Son. Since the Son was “begotten” by the Father, which is understood to mean that He was born of the Being of the Father, He was not created but, nevertheless, subordinate to the Father.

The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but as a power; subject to the Son.

– END OF SUMMARY – 

Purpose of this article

The Metamorphosis of the Church

The fourth century was a remarkable period in which the church changed from being PERSECUTED to being the OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION of the Roman Empire. For all practical purposes, the church became part of the state and, as will be explained, the emperor became the head of the church. Adopting the character of the empire, the church changed from being persecuted to persecuting church leaders who do not accept the official church decrees.

Arian Controversy

Emperor Constantine standing before the bishops

In that fourth century, a huge controversy raged with respect to the NATURE OF CHRIST. The Nicene Creed—formulated in the year 325 at the city of Nicaea—described the Son as “true theos from true theos” and as of the “same substance” as the Father. Many today interpret these phrases as that the Son is EQUAL to the Father. The article on the Nicene Creed shows that this interpretation is wrong and that that Creed described the Son as subordinate to the Father.

After the creed was formulated in the year 325, for the next 50 years, the church was dominated by teachings in which the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father. This Arian period was brought abruptly to an end when Theodosius became emperor in the year 380. He was an ardent supporter of Nicene Christology and, on ascending the throne, IMMEDIATELY declared Arianism to be illegal and Nicene Christology to be THE ONLY religion of the empire. He then replaced the Arian church leadership with Nicene leaders.

Purpose of this article

The purpose of this article is to analyze what Arianism believed in the fourth century. Some of the historical facts mentioned in this article are described in more detail in other articles.

Conflicting evidence in the Bible

To understand the war between Nicene Christology and Arianism, we must appreciate the seemingly conflicting evidence in the Bible about the nature of Christ. Many Bible statements describe Him as equal with the Father, but many others imply that He is subordinate to God, for example:

EQUAL SUBORDINATE
He “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3) has “life in Himself” (John 5:26) sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples (Luke 24:49), is “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17) and owns everything which the Father has (Matt 11:27). “All things have been created through Him” (Col 1:16) and “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:23). In Him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Col 2:9). “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow” (Phil 2:10). Only He knows the Father. (Matt 11:27) Only the Father knows the “day and hour” of His return (Matt 24:26). Everything which the Son has, He received from the Father, including to have “life in Himself” (John 5:22, 26). The Father sent Him and told Him what to say and do (John 7:16). The NT consistently makes a distinction between Jesus and God (e.g., Philemon 1:3). For example, Jesus is today at the right hand of God. The “one God” and “the only true God” is always the Father (1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Eph 4:4-6; John 17:3). The Father is His God and He prayed to the Father. (Rev 3:12; John 17; Acts 7:56).

What Arius believed about Christ

Arius

The words Arian and Arianism are derived from the name of Arius (c. 250–336); a church leader who had significant influence at the beginning of the fourth century. His teachings initiated the Arian controversy and Emperor Constantine called the council at Nicaea specifically to denounce His teachings. 

We are not sure what Arius taught. After Nicaea in 325, the emperor gave orders that all of Arius’ books be destroyed and that all people who hide Arius’ writings, be killed. Very little of Arius’ writings survived, and much of what did survive are quotations selected for polemical purposes in the writings of his opponents. Reconstructing WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY, is, therefore, a formidable task. There is no certainty about the extent to which his teachings continued those of church fathers in previous centuries.

Letter to Eusebius

We have a brief statement of what Arius believed in a letter to the Arian archbishop of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341). He wrote as follows:

We say and believe …
that the Son is not unbegotten,
nor in any way part of the unbegotten;
and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter;
but that by his own will and counsel
he has subsisted (existed) before time
and before ages as perfect as God,
only begotten and unchangeable,
and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not.
For he was not unbegotten.
We are persecuted because we say
that the Son has a beginning
but that God is without beginning.

(Theodoret: Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters’ Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)

Brief reflections on Arius’ view

The Son is not unbegotten,
nor in any way part of the unbegotten.

“Unbegotten” is how the ancients described the Being who exists without a cause (the Father). Since the Son is begotten, Arius argued that He is not part of that which exists without a cause. For Arius, only the Father is unbegotten.

He does not derive his subsistence from any matter.

ARIUS INTERPRETATION
NOT UNBEGOTTEN
The Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten.		 “Unbegotten” is how the ancients described the Being who exists without a cause. Since the Son is begotten, Arius reasoned that He is not part of that which exists without a cause. For Arius, only the Father is unbegotten. 
ONLY BEGOTTEN
He does not derive his subsistence from any matter.		 The phrase “only begotten” identifies the Son as unique. There is no other like Him. “Begotten” indicates that His being came from the being of the Father. He was not created from other matter.
BEFORE TIME
By his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before age.		 He existed as an independent Person with His own will; distinct from the will of God. He was begotten by God before time began.
PERFECT
as perfect as God … unchangeable		 This shows the extremely high view which Arius had of the Son. Created beings change over time due to influences, but God and the Son are “unchangeable.”
HE WAS NOT.
Before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. The Son has a beginning but God is without beginning.		 Firstly, here, Arius indicates that he does not know what it means that the Son was begotten. Nevertheless, since He was is begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He exists by the will of God (the Father) and “was not” before He was “begotten.”

Arius seems to contradict himself. Above, he wrote that the Son “subsisted before time.” But he also wrote that the Son “was not” before He was begotten and that the Son “has a beginning.” It is a pity that we do not have Arius’ book that he can explain himself. Below, I propose how these statements can be reconciled.

A time when the Son was not

In the fourth century, Athanasius was the arch-enemy of Arianism and the great advocate of the homoousian (Nicene) theology. He quoted Arius as saying:

“If the Father begat the Son,
then he who was begotten
had a beginning in existence,
and from this, it follows
there was a time when the Son was not.”

Today, this quote by Athanasius is quite famous and is still used to characterize Arius’ teaching. But Arius wrote to Eusebius—in the quote above—that the Son existed “before time.” This seems to contradict what Athanasius wrote. We do not know whether Arius really wrote “there was a time when the Son was not” or whether this was a straw man created by Athanasius.

Today, Trinitarians regard Athanasius of Alexandria as a hero who stood for ‘the truth’ when ‘the whole world’ was Arian. Athanasius is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in the Catholic Church.

But in his day, he was a highly controversial character in his day. The church accused him of horrible crimes and exiled no less than five times. We are not able to judge either way today, but Athanasius was a prolific writer, and we can judge his spirit by his writings. For this purpose, listen to the following podcasts:

Assessing Athanasius and his Arguments
Athanasius’s On the Nicene Council

The Son had a beginning.

Eternal generation

In the Trinity doctrine today, the Son had no beginning but always existed with the Father. The Bible is clear that He is begotten by the Father but that is explained with the concept of eternal generation, namely that the Father always was the Father, that there never was a time that the Father was not the Father.

Arius, as quoted above, wrote that “the Son has a beginning but … God is without beginning.” But in the same statement, he wrote that the Son existed “before time and before ages.” Did Arius contradict himself? I wish we had Arius’ book to explain his own words but would like to propose the following explanation:

God created time. God is that which exists without a cause, and time exists because God exists. God, therefore, exists outside time, cannot be defined by time and is not subject to time. We cannot say that God existed ‘before time’, for the word “before” implies the existence of time, and there is no such thing as time before time. Therefore, I prefer to say that God exists ‘outside time’.

Since God created time, time had a beginning and is finite.

God created all things through the Son (e.g. 1 Col 8:6). Therefore, God created time through the Son. It follows that there never was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius, therefore, could validly write that the Son existed “BEFORE TIME.”

But, there exists an infinity beyond the boundaries of time. All the power and wisdom that we see reflected in this physical universe, comes out of that incomprehensible infinity beyond time, space and matter. In that infinity beyond time, Arius wrote, “THE SON HAS A BEGINNING.” But this is not a beginning in time, for there is no such thing as time in infinity.

This explains why Arius could both claim that the Son existed before time and had a beginning. If this was Arius’ thinking, he could not that written that “there was a time when the Son was not,” as Athanasius claimed.

Arianism evolved after Nicaea.

Forced unity

Under the stern supervision of the emperors, who demanded unity in the church to prevent a split in the empire, the fourth-century church fathers would not allow different views about Christ to co-exist within the church. The church’s view of Christ changed from time to time, but, nevertheless, it always formulated a view of Christ and, through persecution, forced all Christians to abide by the formal church doctrine.

Numerous synods

The fifty-year Arian period after Nicaea resulted in numerous synods, including at Serdica in 343, Sirmium in 358 and Rimini and Seleucia in 359. The pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus commented sarcastically: “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.”

Numerous creeds

The best-known creed today is the Nicene Creed, but no fewer than fourteen further creeds were formulated between 340 and 360, depicting the Son as subordinate on the Father, e.g. the Long Lines Creed. Historian RPC Hanson lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith—one of the variants of Arianism—including the creeds of Sirmian (AD 357), Nice (Constantinople – 360), Akakius (359), Ulfilas (383), Eudoxius, Auxentius of Milan (364), Germinius, Palladius’ rule of faith (1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 558–559).

Arianism evolved.

During the fifty years between Constantine and Theodosius, Arianism was refined and nuanced, relative to what Arius believed. Consequently, although Arius’ views are important, it is far more important to understand what version of Arianism the church adopted after Arius’ views and the Nicene Creed were intensely debated in the decades following Nicaea.

The word “GOD” is ambiguous.

Before we discuss what Ulfilas wrote, we need to explain the difference between the word “God” and the words used in the New Testament:

Modern English

In modern languages, we differentiate between the words “god” and “God:”

When we use a word as a proper name, we capitalize the first letter. The word “God,” therefore, has a very specific usage: It is the PROPER NAME of one specific being; the One who exists without cause.

The word “god,” on the other hand, is a general category name used for all supernatural beings. It is even for human beings with super-human qualities.

Ancient Greek

The capital “G,” therefore, makes a huge difference. But, when the Bible was written, and also in the fourth century, there were no capital letters. Or, more precisely, the ancients wrote only in capital letters. The distinction between upper and lower case letters did not yet exist. According to the article on the timeline of writing in Western Europe, the ancients used Greek majuscule (capital letters only) from the 9th to the 3rd century BC. In the following centuries, up until the 12th century AD, they used the uncial script, which still was only capital letters. Greek minuscule was only used in later centuries.

Te Greek word theos

Since the word “God” is a name for one specific Being, the original New Testament does not contain any one word with the same meaning as “God.” The New Testament writers used the word theos, which is the same word that was used for the pantheon of Greek gods. The word theos, therefore, is equivalent in meaning to our modern word “god.”  The word theos was also used for beings other than the one true God, even for “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) and for human judges (John 10:35). Therefore, by describing the Father and the Son as “god,” the Bible and the fourth-century writers only indicated that the Father and the Son are immortal beings; similar to the immortal Greek gods. Consequently, the word “god” does not elevate the Father or the Son above the pagan gods.

The word “God,” in the translations of the New Testament and other ancient Greek writings, therefore, is an INTERPRETATION. When the translator believes that theos refers to the One who exists without a cause, theos is rendered as “God.”  But when Paul wrote spoke about the theos of the pagan nations, the New Testament translates that as “god.” And when it translates theos, when it refers to Jesus, as “God,” it does that on the assumption of the Trinity doctrine.

True god

To indicate that the Unique Being is intended, the Bible writers added words such as “only,” or “true” or “one” to theos. But most often they simply added the definite article “the” to theos to indicate that the God of the Bible is intended. 

In the Nicene Creed, both the Father and the Son are described as “true god.” The Bible never identifies the Son as “true god.” In the Bible, the “true god” is always the Father.  For example:

“You, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3)

“You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,
and to wait for His Son from heaven” (I Thess 1:9-10).

“So that we may know Him who is true;
and we are in Him who is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

But then translators translate the Greek equivalent of “true god” as “true God.” Not only is this faulty translation, the word “true” in the phrase “true God” is SUPERFLUOUS, for there is only one “true God.”  Since “God” already indicates the only true god, “true theos” should be translated either as “true god” or as “God.” 

Ulfilas’ Christology

Germanic missionary – The Goth Ulfilas (c. 311–383) was ordained as bishop by the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his Gothic people to work as a missionary. He translated the New Testament into the Gothic language and is credited with the conversion of the Gothic peoples, which resulted in the wide-scale conversion of the Germanic peoples. 

Ulfilas’ Arianism – What he believed is perhaps a good reflection of the Arianism that was generally accepted in the church between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). He wrote:

I, Ulfila … believe in
only one God the Father,
the unbegotten and invisible,

and in his only-begotten Son,
our lord/master and God,
the designer and maker of all creation,
having none other like him.

Therefore, there is one God of all,
who is also God of our God;

and in one Holy Spirit,
the illuminating and sanctifying power …
Neither God nor lord/master,
but the faithful minister of Christ;
not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son.

And I believe
the Son to be subject and obedient in all things
to God the Father
(Heather and Matthews. Goths in the Fourth Century. p. 143 –  Auxentius on Wulfila).

Discussion of Ulfilas’ Christology

The Father – Ultimate Cause of all else

Only one God

Ulfilas believed in “only one God,” who he identified as the Father.  Actually, this was the standard opening phrase of all ancient creeds. The Nicene Creed also starts as follows:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

But then it continues to perhaps contradict this opening phrase by adding that the Son is “true god from true god“.

The unbegotten

Ulfilas identified the Father as “the unbegotten.” Arius also mentioned “the unbegotten,” which is that which exists without a cause. That means that the Father is the ultimate Cause of all else.  

Invisible

Ulfilas added that the Father is invisible. This is also stated a number of times in the New Testament (e.g. Col 1:15). Certainly, in the past, God appeared to people (theophanies), but an appearance is vastly different from God Himself. An appearance does not contain God in His fullness. It is not possible for God in His fullness to be seen, for He exists outside this visible realm.

Only-begotten Son

Ulfilas also believed in:

“His only-begotten Son,
our lord/master and God,
the designer and maker of all creation,
having none other like him.”

Our God

In this translation of Ulfilas’ statement, the Son is “our … God,” but this is faulty translation. It should be rendered “our god,” with a small “g.”  As explained above, the Greek of the New Testament does not have a name for the God of the Bible. It uses theos; the common word for the pagan gods but added words such as “the” or “only” or “true” to identify “the only true god” (John 17:3). To say that the Son is “god” simply means that He is a immortal being, like the pagan gods. Consequently, Ulfilas followed up His description of the Son with the following explanation:

Therefore, there is one God of all,
who is also God of our God;

In this phrase, “our God” again refers to Jesus. This is similar to Hebrews 1:8-9, which also refers to Jesus as theos, but then says that the Father is His theos.

The phrases “only-begotten” and “none other like him” identify the Son as utterly unique. 

Maker of all creation

Ulfilas described Son as the “designer and maker of all creation.” If He made all things, presumably, He was not made Himself.  

Arius wrote that the Son was “begotten, or created, or purposed, or established.” In other words, Arius did not make a clear distinction between begotten and created. But after Nicaea, Arianism emphasized that the phrase “only begotten” means that the Son was not created. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed.

Only-Begotten

Ulfilas described the Son as the “only-begotten Son” of the “only one God the Father, the unbegotten.” The word “begotten,” which means that the Father gave birth to the Son, implies that the Son came from the being or substance of the Father. “Only-begotten” means that He is the only being that ever was born of God. 

Because He was “begotten” of the being or substance of God, the Nicene Creed described the Son as homoousios with the Father. This word comes from homós (same) and ousía (being or essence) and means “same substance.” In Latin, it is consubstantial. In other words, the Nicene claimed that the Son is of the “same substance” as the Father.

In Arianism, this means that the Father and the Son have the “same substance,” just like we as people have the “same substance,” but remain different persons with different skills and capacities.

Trinitarian theology replaces the word “same” with “one” and understands homoousian as that the Father and Son have “one substance;” like three Persons with one body.

In his description of the Father and the Son, Ulfilas does not mention substance at all, which is a good thing, for that concept is not revealed in the Bible (Deut 29:29). It was an unfortunate addition to the Nicene Creed, probably due to the insistence of the emperor, who presided over the proceedings. (Listen to Kegan Chandler on the term “homoousios.”)

Subordinate

In Trinitarian theology, the Son is in all respects equal with the Father. In contrast, in Arianism, “begotten” means that the Son’s existence was caused by the Father, and that He is dependent on the Father, who alone is the uncaused Cause of all things. Arianism claims that the Bible reveals Him as subordinate to the Father; both before and after His existence as a human being. See the article – Subordinate.

The Father is God of our God.

What really sets Him apart from the pagan gods is not the title “god,” but that He is “the designer and maker of all creation.”

God, the Father – All instances of the word “God” in the quote from Ulfilas should be translated “god;” even when referring to the Father.  Ulfilas made a distinction between the Father and the Son and the pagan gods in HOW he described Him, namely as the “only one god” who is “god of all” and also “god of our god.” 

God of our God – As Ulfilas wrote, “there is one God of all, who is also GOD OF OUR GOD.”  In other words, the Father is the Son’s god.  The Bible similarly describes Jesus as “only-begotten god” (John 1:18) and “mighty god” (Isaiah 9:6); the Lord of the universe (1 Cor. 8:6), but the Father as Jesus’ “God” (e.g. Rev. 3:2, 12; Heb. 1:8-9; John 20:17).  Paul described the Father is the Head of Christ. 

Subordinate – Ulfilas closed by saying, “I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.” 

The Holy Spirit is not a person.

Subject and obedient – Ulfilas furthermore believed “in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power … Neither God nor lord/master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son.” That the Holy Spirit is “neither God nor lord” implies that Ulfilas did not think of the Holy Spirit as a Person, but as a power, and a power that is subject and obedient in all things to the Son.

Therefore, the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father and the Holy Spirit is SUBORDINATE to the Son. 

No Trinity in the first four centuries

Ulfilas did not believe is the Trinity.  For him:

The Father alone was God. 
The Holy Spirit is not a Person.
There is no mention of three Persons in one Being.

It is often said that Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which is true.  However, the concept of the Trinity, as we know it today, did not yet exist in Arius’ day. 

First 300 years – In the first three centuries, the church fathers did not think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Persons in one Being.  Tertullian did use the word “trinity,” but he used it to refer to a group of three distinct beings; not use in the sense of a single being. 

Nicene Creed – Neither does the Nicene Creed contain the Trinity concept, as a careful reading of that creed will show.  The purpose of that creed was to say that the Son is equal to the Father; not say that they are one Being; the same God.  It does say that they are homoousios (of the same substance), but that does not mean that they are one being.  We may argue that human beings are of the same substance, and that does not make us all one being. 

The Trinity doctrine was formulated later in the fourth century, perhaps by the Cappadocian Fathers, probably in response to the Arian criticism that the Nicene Creed creates the impression of two gods and can be accused of polytheism.

Three Forms of Arianism

In fact, as debates raged during the five decades after Nicaea, in an attempt to come up with a new formula, different forms of Arianism evolved. Three camps are identified by scholars among the opponents of the Nicene Creed:

Different Substance

One group, similar to Arius, maintained that the Son is of a different substance than the Father. They described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father.

Similar Substance

The Homoiousios Christians (only an “i” added to “homoousios”) accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity, as per the Nicene Creed, but rejected the Nicene term homoousios. They preferred the term homoiousios (similar substance). This is very close to the different substance view of the Arians. Therefore, they were called “semi-Arians” by their opponents. (See homoousia.)

No speculation about Substance

Homoian Arianism maintained that the Bible does not reveal whether the Son is of the same substance as the Father, and we, therefore, should not speculate about such things. They avoided the word ousia (substance) altogether and described the Son as homoios = like the Father. Although they avoided invoking the name of Arius, in large part they followed Arius’ teachings. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 557–559) lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith in the years 357 to 383.

None of these groups, therefore, adopted the Trinitarian approach of “one substance.”

In the fourth century, these differences were taken quite seriously and divided the church; similar to the denominations in Christianity we know today. Depending on the interpretation supported by Emperor Constantius, for example, wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.

Historians, unfortunately, categorize all three positions as Arianism, but there are important differences between these views.