Logos-Christology Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

2023-02-042023-02-04

Did Philo influence the Bible’s description of the Son of God?

Purpose

The Old Testament (OT) presents only one God. But then Jesus Christ appeared and claimed to be the “only-begotten Son” of God (John 3:16; 10:36), to have received all authority in heaven and on earth (John 17:2; Matt 28:18), and even implied to be the “I am” of the OT (John 8:58). This “I am” may be understood as “the angel of the LORD” who appeared to Moses “in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush,” who is also called “God” and who said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exo 3:2, 4, 14).

So, the writers of the New Testament (NT) had to figure out who Jesus is relative to God. They wrote things of Jesus that Jesus never said of Himself, such as that:

- He is the “Logos” (John 1:1), the image of God (Col 1:15), and the “mediator … between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5).
- He was “in the beginning with God” (John 1:1).
- God created and still maintains all things through Him (e.g., John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3; 1 Cor 8:6).
- God gave Him all authority in heaven and on earth (John 17:2; Matt 28:18).

As Christians, we like to think that this message of the only begotten Son of God is unique to the New Testament. It is then a little disquieting to discover that, before the NT was written, Greek philosophy, as interpreted by Philo, also spoke about a Logos who always existed, through whom God created all things, who is the image of God and the mediator between the Uncreated and created.

Given these similarities, the Internet Encyclopaedia article on Philo (IE) claims that the NT descriptions of Jesus are derived from Greek philosophy via Philo and therefore that Christianity is based on Greek philosophy. The purpose of this article is to evaluate this claim. For this purpose, this article discusses the similarities and differences between Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ and attempts to explain why such concepts existed even before the New Testament was written.

Summary

Philo

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who wrote a few decades before the NT was written. “Philo was thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy. … He had a deep reverence for Plato and referred to him as ‘the most holy Plato’.” But Philo was also committed to the Jewish faith. By using “an allegorical technique for interpretation of the Hebrew (Bible),” he produced a synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy.

Foundations of Christianity

Philo is not important for Judaism. “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity.”

IE claims that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (the Apologists) used Philo’s synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy to formulate the Logos theology. To explain:

The church began as a Jewish-dominated movement. After the church became Gentile-dominated in the second century, Logos Theology became the standard explanation of who Jesus Christ is and of His relationship with God. We cannot deny that that theology was substantially influenced by Greek philosophy.

But IE goes much further and even claims that Philo may have influenced the New Testament itself, particularly the writings of Paul, the gospel of John, and the epistle to the Hebrews.

By reading the Greek philosophy of his day into the Old Testament, Philo gave Greek philosophy a Biblical appearance. Therefore, what IE effectively claims is that Christianity grew out of Greek philosophy via Philo.

God

First, consider some of Philo’s views concerning God, namely:

- - No other being, not even the Logos, is able to fully understand the One who exists without cause: Only God is able to fully understand God.
  - God also created time and, therefore, for Him, “nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only.”
  - “There never was a time when he did not create.”

The Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

When Philo lived, “the notion of the Logos was deeply ingrained in Greek philosophy” and Philo included the Logos in his interpretation of the Old Testament. Philo’s entire philosophical system hinges on his doctrine of the Logos. The Logos was his means of synthesizing the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. Furthermore, IE claims that it was also Philo’s doctrine of the Logos that created “the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century.”

The Logos in the Old Testament

Philo found the Logos in the Old Testament in:

- - “The Word of the LORD” that is often said to come to the prophets and by which “the heavens were made,”
  - The personified “Wisdom” (Proverbs), and in
  - The Angel of the Lord.

A Personal Being

“Logos” is the common Greek word for “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” But, in Greek philosophy, the word Logos had a very specialized meaning, namely, “a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe.”

IE claims that Philo, by introducing the concept of the Logos into Judaism, has transformed the Logos from a metaphysical theoretical entity into a humanlike being and mediator between God and men.

Other prominent scholars (Ronald Nash, RPC Hanson, Rowan Williams) disagree. They say that “Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.” The descriptions in Philo of “an individually subsistent Logos, distinct from the Father” are not literal but metaphorical.

My understanding is that Philo illogically describes the Logos as both a “metaphysical abstraction,” as in Greek philosophy, and as a Personal Being, as he interprets the Logos in the Old Testament to be. Rowan Williams adds, “To look for a clear definition or identification of the Logos in his writings would be … fruitless” (RW, 124)¹.

Has always existed.

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ have always existed:

Philo holds that “the Logos … constitutes the manifestation of God’s thinking, acting.” Consequently, the Logos has been brought into existence by God but always existed (because God has always existed and never began to think or do).

Similarly, in the NT, the Son was “begotten,” meaning that He has been brought into existence by God. At the same time, the Son “was” in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17), implying that He has always existed.

Literally first in time

Since, in both Philo and the NT, the Logos has always existed, the Logos has existed first in time. For that reason, Philo described the Logos as “the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father.” Jesus Christ, similarly, is “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), although this might also be interpreted symbolically

Uniquely Generated

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has been uniquely generated:

Philo used “begotten” and “created” as synonyms but he says that the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men. In other words, He was generated differently from created beings.

The NT, by saying that the Son is “the only begotten” and not only “the first begotten” as in Philo, makes a distinction between “begotten” and “created” and indicates that the Son was uniquely generated.

Direct Agent of Creation

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the direct Agent of creation:

In Philo, “the direct agent of creation is not God himself … but the Logos. … the Logos … was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation.”

In the NT also, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos maintains the universe:

In Philo, “the Logos is the bond holding together all the parts of the world” and “produces a harmony … between various parts of the universe.”

Similarly, in the NT, God maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17).

Subordinate

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ are subordinate to God:

In Philo, the Logos is “inferior to God” (Davis). “The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God” (IE).

In the NT, the Father sent the Son and Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). See – The subordination of the Son.

However, the orthodox teaching of the church accepts that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father. The real question is whether the Son is also ontologically subordinate to the Father:

In Philo, “the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Davis). Therefore, He is also ontologically subordinate to the High God.

The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches anything about the substance of God or ontological equality.

Mediator

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man:

Philo described the Logos as the “mediator between God and the world,” “continually a suppliant (pleading) to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race,” “to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings.”

Similarly, in the NT, “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15).

The Light of the World

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul. In Philo, “the Logos … in the mind of a wise man … allows preservation of virtues” (IE). Similarly, John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

The Logos in our God.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is our God:

In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos.” Due to “the utter transcendence of the First Principle [the One who exists without cause],” “man’s highest union with God is limited to God’s manifestation as the Logos.” For Philo, the Logos is the only experience of God that man will have. Effectively, therefore, the Logos is our God.

Similarly, in the NT, God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). As the direct Agent of our creation and our continued existence, and since we will never be able to “see” or directly experience God, the Son is effectively the God of all created things.

Cannot become Flesh

Philo would never have accepted that the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14) because “Philo disdained the material world and physical body. The body was for Philo … ‘an evil and a dead thing’.”

Philo also taught that “a wise man … should be free of … pleasure, desire, sorrow, and fear.” But Jesus suffered sorrow and fear. Philo would never have tolerated such thinking.

Man’s Mind

For Philo, “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is” an indivisible part of the Logos. For this reason, the “Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts.” For that reason also, the human mind is imperishable and has the power of free will.

Did Philo influence the NT?

The following support the view that Philo influenced the NT:

1) The NT says things about Christ that Christ never said of Himself but which Philo did say about the Logos, for example, that God created and maintains all things through Him.

2) Since the word Logos had a very specialized meaning in Greek philosophy, and given the pervasive influence of Greek philosophy at the time, John’s description of Jesus Christ as “the Logos,” must mean that John identified the Son of God as the Logos of Greek Philosophy.

3) There are many other similarities between Philo’s Logos and the Biblical Son of God. For example, both have an origin, have always existed, are the direct Agent of creation, are subordinate to God, have been uniquely generated, and are the mediator between God and man.

The differences between them do not take away the astounding similarities or our duty to explain these similarities.

Possible Explanations

So, how do we explain the similarities?

The Bible is not inspired.

In the view of Critical Scholars (theologians who do not believe in the supernatural), the NT is simply the result of the evolution of human thought and the reliance on Philo is proof thereof.

A Different Logos

An alternative is to argue that the differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God are great and that Philo, consequently, did not influence the NT writers. However, the similarities between them are too substantial and too specific to deny the influence of Greek philosophy.

Teaching Mechanism

A fourth possibility is that the writers of the NT used concepts from Philo to explain Jesus Christ to Greek readers in their own language. However, the similarities are too extraordinary (out of the ordinary, e.g., eternal, creator) to be simply explaining truths in Greek thought forms.

To oppose pagan theology

Nash proposes that the significant number of similarities between Philo and the letter to the Hebrews can be explained as that the writer of Hebrews uses the language of philosophy to describe the Christian message as better than philosophy; not bring philosophy into Christianity.

This may be part of the answer but it is very far from explaining all the similarities. For example, the description of the Logos in both as the direct Agent of creation cannot simply be an argument that Christ is a better mediator than the mediators of pagan philosophy.

Therefore, I propose that:

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Observations:

1) The large number of significant conceptual similarities between Philo and the NT means that Philo was right in some respects about the Logos. Since Philo’s writings were based on Greek philosophy, it means that Greek philosophy was right in some respects.

3) In contrast to the multiplicity of gods in the Greek pantheon, Greek philosophy is monotheistic. Where did the Greek philosophers get this?

I propose as follows:

Firstly, to prepare the non-Jewish world to receive “the kingdom of God” from the Jews, God, through His Holy Spirit, inspired Greek philosophers, either through contact with Judaism or directly through the Holy Spirit, to move away from Greek polytheism to monotheism and with many truths concerning the nature of God.

Secondly, to make it easier for the writers of the NT to understand who Jesus is, God inspired Philo to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Old Testament.

Thirdly, through His Holy Spirit, God inspired the writers of the NT to selectively accept Philo’s teachings and to explain Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy, as harmonized with the Old Testament by Philo.

I would like to support this proposal as follows:

Firstly, nothing prevents the Holy Spirit from using Pagan philosophers for revealing truths to the people of the world.

Secondly, the Logos Theology that the second-century church fathers developed explicitly explains Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. See – The Apologists. That implies that they assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired.

Thirdly, the Nicene Creed is influenced by Greek philosophy. RPC Hanson described words substance (ousia), same substance (homoousios), and hypostasis as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH², 846). These concepts do not appear in the Bible.

Fourthly, since the Arian Controversy was caused by objection to these pagan concepts in the Nicene Creed, the “discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy” (RH, xxi)³.

Fifthly, even today many philosophical concepts from ancient Greek philosophy, such as that God is immanent, transcendent, simple, immutable, impassable, and timeless, are generally accepted by church theologians even though NOT stated in the Bible. This is called Classical Theism.

– END OF SUMMARY –

Who is Philo?

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC to 40 AD), also called Judaeus Philo, was a Jew who lived and wrote in Alexandria, Egypt at the same time as when Jesus lived in Judea. Philo, therefore, wrote a few decades before the New Testament was written. At the time, Alexandria had the largest Jewish community outside of Palestine.

Compared to Greek philosophy, Roman philosophy was relatively poorly developed. Consequently, the intellectual world in the Roman Empire generally, and the Jewish community in Alexandria specifically, held Greek philosophy in high regard. “Philo was thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy as can be seen from his superb knowledge of classical Greek literature. … He had a deep reverence for Plato and referred to him as ‘the most holy Plato’” (The Internet Encyclopaedia article on Philo). [The remainder of this article refers to this article as IE.]

But Philo was also a committed Jew. Consequently, through his writings, he attempted to justify Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. To do this, he interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Greek philosophy. “Philo uses an allegorical technique for interpretation of the Hebrew (Bible). … Using this allegorical method, Philo seeks out the hidden message beneath the surface of any particular text and tries to read back a new doctrine into the work of the past” (IE).

In this way, he produced “a synthesis of” the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. He “fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought” (IE).

He thought that this would be appropriate because he regarded Moses as a philosopher. In fact, in his view, “Moses … ‘had reached the very summit of philosophy’” (IE). He, therefore, presents Moses as “the teacher of … all Greek philosophers.” “For Philo, Greek philosophy [with its monotheistic view of God] was a natural development of the revelatory teachings of Moses” (IE). He describes “the philosophical Platonic or Stoic ideas (as) nothing but the deductions made from the biblical verses of Moses” (IE).

[In this article, I use square brackets when I insert an explanation in a quote.]

Foundations of Christianity

Philo is not important for Judaism. “Jewish tradition was uninterested in philosophical speculation and did not preserve Philo’s thought” (IE). “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity” (IE).

Logos Theology

IE claims that, by producing a synthesis of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy, Philo developed concepts that were used by Christian theologians (the Apologists) in the second century to formulate Logos Theology. The church began as a Jewish-dominated movement but after the church became Gentile-dominated in the second century, Logos Theology became the standard explanation of Jesus Christ relative to God. IE mentions “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts. In support of this, IE notes that “the church preserved the Philonic writings … Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church father.”

Adam Davis (The Logos of Philo and John – A Comparative Sketch) confirms that “one cannot deny that the Philonic Logos … influenced the early church. … Important figures such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr all incorporate threads of Philo into their work.”

RPC Hanson wrote: “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism” (RH, 22-23).

The Bible

But IE goes much further and claims that Philo may have also influenced the New Testament itself:

“He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews” (IE).

“By developing this doctrine (of the Logos), (Philo) … provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century” (IE).

Trinity Doctrine

Since IE claims that Philo “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today,” we can assume that IE implies that Philo also laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine that was developed in the fourth and fifth centuries. Regarding that period, RPC Hanson stated:

“All Greek-speaking writers in the fourth century were to a greater or lesser degree indebted to Greek philosophy. … If any writer had had a higher education … he … would have sucked in certain fundamental assumptions in the process.” (RH, 858-9)

“It would of course be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy” (RH, xxi).

“Until we reach the Cappadocians, acceptance of philosophy by the theologians is eclectic and opportunist” (RH, 860). “The Cappadocians, however, present us with a rather different picture. They had all probably had an intenser education in philosophy than other theologians of the fourth century. They were all in a sense Christian Platonists.” (RH, 863)

Based on Greek philosophy

By reading the Greek philosophy of his day into the Old Testament, Philo gave Greek philosophy a Biblical cloak. What IE effectively claims is that Christianity grew out of Greek philosophy. Many scholars hold the same view still today. For example:

“In his history of philosophy textbook that is still widely used, even in some evangelical colleges, W. T. Jones claims that the “mysticism of the Fourth Gospel was grounded in the Platonism of Hellenistic Alexandria.” (Ronald Nash – Professor of Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando)

Philo’s view of God

First, consider some of Philo’s views concerning God:

Only God knows Himself.

For Philo, “God’s essence is beyond any human … cognition” (IE). We cannot say what God is. We can only say “what God is not” (IE) [e.g., immortal, invisible, immaterial]. “Strictly speaking, we cannot make any positive or negative statements about God: ‘He alone can utter a positive assertion respecting himself, since he alone has an accurate knowledge of his own nature’” (IE). “It is not possible for God to be comprehended by any being but himself” (IE).

This is perhaps comparable to the NT’s description of “the invisible God” (Col 1:15), “who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16; cf. Rom 1:20).

God exists outside time.

Philo also argued that “God is the creator of time also … (for God) nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only” (IE).

Creator Eternally

Philo argued that the world was created but has no beginning: “According to Philo, (God) did not begin to create the world at a certain moment” (IE) but has always been creating: “God is continuously ordering matter by his thought … there never was a time when he did not create” (IE). “Philo contends that … any description of creation in temporal terms, e.g., by Moses, is not to be taken literally, but rather is an accommodation to the biblical language” (IE).

The ancients had no inkling of the universe as we understand it today. For them, this world was the universe. Therefore, whenever we read of “the world” in Philo’s writings, we must think of the universe.

Note that these philosophers could argue that things (such as the ‘world’ in the example above) can have an origin, meaning to be caused by something else, but, at the same time, have always existed. Origen, for example, argued this way about God’s unique Son. In contrast, Arius stated that “there was when He (the Son of God) was not.”

Philo’s view of the Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

When Philo lived, “the notion of the Logos was deeply ingrained in Greek philosophy” (Davis). Philo included the Logos in his interpretation of the Old Testament:

“The pivotal … doctrine in Philo’s writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. … (On this,) all other doctrines of Philo hinge” (IE).

As stated above, Philo’s purpose was to synthesize the Old Testament with Greek philosophy. He did that through his description of the Logos:

“By developing this doctrine (of the Logos), he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought” (IE).

Furthermore, IE claims that it was “by developing this doctrine (of the Logos) (that Philo) … provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of (Paul’s letters) and (the books) of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century.”

The Logos in the Old Testament

Philo obtained the idea of the Logos from Greek philosophy. But where did he find the Logos in the OT?

Firstly, he found it in the often-used phrase, “the Word of the LORD.” For example, the Old Testament often says that “the Word of the LORD” came to a prophet (e.g. Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3; and Jonah 1:1), or that something was done by “the Word of the LORD.” For example: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made” (Psa 33:6; cf. Gen 1:3, 6,9; 3:9, 11; Psa 32:9; Psa 106:20; Psa 147:15; Zech 5:1-4; Jer 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek 1:3; Amos 3:1).

Secondly, “in the so-called Jewish wisdom literature, we find the concept of Wisdom … which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification … (hypostatization)” (IE).

We may agree that these were simply figures of speech and poetic language describing God’s words, actions, or wisdom, but Philo’s allegorical methods allowed him to identify these with the Logos of Greek philosophy.

Thirdly, Philo identified the Logos as the Old Testament Angel of the Lord (Gen 31:13; 16:8; etc.). Philo described “the Logos (as) the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels” and as the Father’s “archangel.”

Philo also saw the Logos as referred to as theos in the Old Testament. He says, “when the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos.” However, “Philo … explains that to call the Logos ‘God’ is not a correct appellation.”

Does the New Testament describe the Son as ‘the word of the Lord’, ‘the Wisdom of God’, or as the ‘Angel of the Lord’? Perhaps

Revelation, which John has also written, says of Jesus Christ, “His name is called The Word of God” (Rev 19:13).

The NT says that “we preach … Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:23-24) but we should not necessarily interpret that literally.

I am not aware of any direct identification in the NT of Jesus Christ as the Old Testament Angel of the Lord.

A Personal Being

“Logos” is the common Greek word for “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” But, in Greek philosophy, the word Logos had a very specialized meaning. “Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature.” (IE)

But IE claims that Philo, by introducing the concept of the Logos into Judaism, has transformed “the Logos … from a metaphysical [theoretical] entity into … (a) anthropomorphic [humanlike] being and mediator between God and men:” For Philo, “the Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated” (IE).

In contrast, Ronald Nash states that “Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.” In this, Nash is supported by RPC Hanson⁴ (RH) and Rowan Williams⁵ (RW):

After a longish and involved discussion, RW states that the descriptions in Philo of “an individually subsistent Logos, distinct from the Father” are not literal but metaphorical (RW, 122).

Similarly, RH states that Philo “does not make the same division between the Logos and God as did the Arians” (RH, 60).

My own understanding is that Philo illogically describes the Logos as both a “metaphysical abstraction,” as in Greek philosophy, and as a Personal Being, as he interprets the Logos in the Old Testament to be. This understanding is supported by the following:

Nash states: “It is impossible … to find any clear or consistent use of the word (Logos) in his many writings. For example, he used the word to refer to:

- - - Plato’s ideal world of the forms, …
    - The mind of God, …
    - A principle that existed somewhere between the realms of God and creation, … (and to)
    - Any of several mediators between God and man, such as the angels, Moses, Abraham, and even the Jewish high priest.”

RPC Hanson confirms, “Philo’s Logos-doctrine is confused and obscure” (RH, 60).

Rowan Williams adds, “To look for a clear definition or identification of the Logos in his writings would be … fruitless” (RW, 124)

Does not exist without a cause.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has an origin:

In Greek philosophy, the Logos is God’s thinking, which is also His acting. Philo seems to say more or less the same thing:

“The Logos … constitutes the manifestation of God’s thinking, acting” (IE).

He similarly describes the Logos as “the Divine Mind.” But then he creates a little distance between God and the Logos by saying that the Logos is “the expression of this act of God (to create), which is at the same time his thinking” (IE).

Since Philo describes the Logos as the “manifestation of God’s thinking-acting,” “the Logos has an origin,” meaning that He does not exist without cause but exists because the Father has brought Him into existence.

Similarly, in the NT, the Son was “begotten,” meaning that He does not exist without a cause.

Has always existed.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has always existed:

In Philo, since God has always existed and has always thought and acted, the Logos has “eternal generation,” meaning that He has always existed.

Similarly, in the NT, the Son “was” in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). And the Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23).

Ontologically Subordinate

Both Philo’s Logos and Jesus Christ are subordinate to God:

In Philo, the Logos is “inferior to God” (Davis). “The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God” (IE).

Here I need to divert a little. Some regard any kind of order or hierarchy among the persons of the Trinity as heresy. But that is not the orthodox teaching. The NT also provides clear indications of the subordination of the Son. For example:

- The Father created all things through the Son.
- The Father sent the Son.
- The miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22).
- Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
- After His ascension, God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21).
- After sin and the consequences of sin have been vanquished, “the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

Therefore, the orthodox teaching of the church accepts functional subordination but prohibits that the Son be described as ontologically inferior to the Father. For that reason, several theological dictionaries define “subordinationism” with respect to ontology only. For example:

Subordinationism is “the doctrine that in essence and status the Son is inferior to the Father” (Millard Erickson, “Subordinationism,” in Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 161.)

Augustus Strong stated that “the subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father is perfectly consistent with equality” (See Glenn Peoples).

So, this section will only concern itself with the question of whether the Son is ontologically equal to the Father:

In Philo, “the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Davis), and “an extension of a divine being” (IE). Therefore, He is also ontologically subordinate to the High God.

The Bible nowhere teaches anything about the substance of God or ontological equality, except if we interpret “only-begotten” literally. That is what the Nicene Creed does. It interprets “begotten” as that He came from the substance of the Father and, therefore, that creed concludes, He is of the same substance as God. This idea, however, originates from “pagan philosophy” (RH, 846); not from the Bible. The anti-Nicenes of the fourth century warned that humans must not assume to understand what “begotten of God” means, that we should not interpret this literally as if God begat a Son like human beings begat children and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts.

So, in Philo, the Logos is ontologically inferior compared to the Trinity doctrine, in which He is ontologically equal. But that is a difference between Philo and the Trinity doctrine; not between Philo and the NT.

Literally first in time

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos literally existed first in time:

It was already shown above that Philo described the Logos as eternal. Therefore, He “exists … before everything else.” For that reason, Philo described the Logos as the ‘first-born’ and as “the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father.”

Jesus Christ, similarly, is “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), although this might also be interpreted symbolically. Revelation 3:14 refers to Jesus as “the Beginning of the creation of God,” which also implies that He was the first being that God brought forth.

Uniquely Generated

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has been uniquely generated:

Philo describes the Logos as both “eternally begat” and “eternally created.” In other words, Philo used “begotten” and “created” as synonyms. In another place, similarly, he describes the Logos as “neither unbegotten nor begotten as are sensible things.” In other words, all created things are “begotten.” Therefore, he described the Logos as “the first-begotten” and not as “the only begotten,” as we find in the New Testament.

However, Philo does describe the Son’s origin as unique but uses different words to do that. He says, namely, that the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men.

The NT, by saying that the Son is “the only begotten,” makes a distinction between “begotten” and “created” and indicates that the Son was uniquely generated.

Direct Agent of Creation

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the direct Agent of creation:

In Philo, “the direct agent of creation is not God himself … but the Logos. … the Logos … was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation.” “God … orders and shapes the formless matter through the agency of his Logos into the objects of the sensible world.” (The idea that the Logos is a “pattern of all creation” is a remnant from the Greek philosophy. At another place, Philo similarly states that “the sensible universe … is the image of the Logos.”)

The NT also describes Jesus Christ as God’s direct Agent of creation, namely, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos maintains the universe:

In Philo, “the Logos is the bond holding together all the parts of the world” and “produces a harmony … between various parts of the universe.” (This still relates to the idea that the Logos (the Word) is the thoughts of God through which all things are created and maintained.)

Similarly, in the NT, God maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17).

The Light of the World

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul:

In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia). “The Logos … in the mind of a wise man … allows preservation of virtues” (IE).

Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9).

Mediator

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man:

Philo described the Logos as “neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities.” His role is appropriate for that position, for “the Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Davis); “mediator between God and the world” (IE). As mediator:

When interacting with God, He is “a paraclete;” “continually a suppliant (pleading) to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race,” “to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings” (IE).

When interacting with the human race, He is “the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race” (IE), “a messenger” (IE), and the source of hope and wisdom for mankind. [For Philo, that the Logos was sent to the human race does not mean that He literally became a human being as in the New Testament, but that God sends a ‘stream of his own wisdom’ to men. “Through the Logos of God, men learn … everlasting wisdom.”]

Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. But this does not mean that the Son has to plead with the Father for us:

“I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you” (John 16:26-27).

The Logos in our God.

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is our God:

In Philo, “though God is hidden, his reality is made manifest by the Logos that is God’s image and by the sensible universe” (IE). “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Davis).

“Philo believed that man’s final goal and ultimate bliss is in the ‘knowledge of the true and living God’” (IE). However, due to “the utter transcendence of the First Principle [the One who exists without cause],” “man’s highest union with God is limited to God’s manifestation as the Logos” (IE).

For the same reason – “the utter transcendence of the First Principle” – when the Bible says that man was made “in the image of God” (Gen 9:6), Philo argues that it is not possible that man is made after “the preeminent and transcendent Divinity.” Therefore, man was made after the image of “the second deity, the Divine Logos of the Supreme being”.

One could say that, for Philo, the Logos is the only experience of God that man will have. The Logos, therefore, is effectively our God.

Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). As the direct Agent of our creation and ur continued existence, and since we will never be able to “see” or directly experience God, the Son is effectively our God.

Cannot become Flesh

Philo does not have a concept of the incarnation as we find in the New Testament. On the contrary, “Philo disdained the material world and physical body. The body was for Philo as for Plato, ‘an evil and a dead thing’, wicked by nature and a plotter against the soul.” “He belittled the body as a tomb of the soul” (Nash). Philo, therefore, would never have accepted that the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14).

This is confirmed in that “Philo adopts the Stoic wise man as a model for human behavior. Such a wise man … should be free of irrational emotions (passions), pleasure, desire, sorrow, and fear, and should replace them by rational … emotions; joy, will, compunction, and caution.” But Jesus suffered both sorrow and fear. Jesus “not only becomes man but participates in a full range of all that is human, including that He suffered, was tempted to sin, and died. Philo would never have tolerated such thinking.” (Nash)

In support of this point, C.H. Dodd noted⁶ that Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), one of the most prominent theologians of the early church, wrote⁷ that he read John 1:1-5, 10 and 13 in “some books of the Platonists,” “not in so many words, but in substance” but that he found nothing in these books about the incarnation of the Logos (John 1:10-12, 14).

Man’s Mind

For Philo, “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the all-pervading Divine Logos.” It is “indivisible from the Divine Logos.” For this reason, “this Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts in humans.” Consequently, the human mind “has divine essence … (and) is imperishable. By receiving this, humans received … the power of spontaneous will free from necessity.”

I would say that this is an aspect where the NT deviates from Philo.

Did Philo influence the New Testament?

The question is: Does the New Testament say things about Christ that Christ never said of Himself but which Philo did say about his Logos? Considering the discussion of Philo’s theology above, the answer must be “Yes!”

For example, Jesus never said that He created all things or that He maintains all things, but Philo made these claims about the Logos and these claims eventually found a prominent place in the New Testament.

Since the word Logos had a very specialized meaning in Greek philosophy, and given the pervasive influence of Greek philosophy at the time, John’s description of Jesus Christ as “the Logos,” coupled with His description of the Logos as existing with God “in the beginning” and as the direct Agent of creation (John 1:1-3), all of which are consistent with Philo’s logos as discussed above, must mean that John identified the Son of God as the Logos of Greek Philosophy. Furthermore, since Philo has “numerous expressions implying that the Logos is a being in its own right” (RW, 117), John, in all likelihood, specifically had Philo’s Logos in mind. This conclusion is made undeniable by the many similarities between Philo’s Logos and the Biblical Son of God:

In both Philo and the NT, the Logos has an origin, has always existed, is subordinate to God, has existed first in time, has been uniquely generated, is the direct Agent of creation, maintains the universe, illuminates the soul, and is the mediator between God and man.

It is also possible to argue, in both Philo and the NT, that the Logos is a personal Being, and is “our God.”

There are also many important differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God, such as that Philo’s theology does not allow for the incarnation of the Logos, that “the reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the … Logos,” and many others not discussed above, but these differences do not take away the astounding similarities or our duty to explain these similarities.

Possible Explanations

So, how do we explain the similarities? Why did such concepts exist before the New Testament was written?

The Bible is not inspired.

Critical Scholars (theologians who do not believe in the supernatural or miracles but who, unfortunately, dominate the academic world) believe that the NT is simply the result of the evolution of human thought. Consequently, they claim that the writers of the NT were not really inspired in this regard but simply found Philo’s speculations a good explanation of who Christ is. Nash states:

“Various writers have attempted to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day.”

A Different Logos

An alternative is to argue that the differences between Philo’s Logos and the NT’s Son of God are great and that Philo, consequently, did not influence the NT writers.

Ronald Nash adopts this approach. He proposes, for the following reasons, that “Philo’s Logos could not possibly function as a direct influence on the biblical concept of Logos:”

(1) “The Logos of the New Testament is a specific, individual, historical person. Philo’s Logos is not a person or messiah or savior but a cosmic principle … a metaphysical abstraction.”

(2) “It is impossible … to find any clear or consistent use of the word (Logos) in his many writings.”

(3) Philo could never have believed in anything like the Incarnation of the Logos.

(4) “Philo’s Logos could never be described as the Book of Hebrews pictures Jesus: suffering, being tempted to sin, and dying.”

(5) “The repeated stress in Hebrews of Jesus’ compassionate concern for His brethren (i.e., Christians) is incompatible with Philo’s view of the emotions.

Based on these differences, Nash sees “no need to postulate a conscious relationship between Philo (or Alexandrian Judaism) and the New Testament use of logos.”

I cannot support this argument: Yes, the Logos in the NT is very different from that described by Greek philosophy or by Philo, but, as discussed, the description of the Son as the Logos, who was with God in the beginning, through whom God created all things (John 1:1-3) is too specific and too similar to that of Philo to deny the influence of Greek philosophy.

Both are based on the Old Testament.

A third possible explanation is that Philo and the New Testament came to the same conclusions because they used the same source, namely, the Old Testament.

However, it is very unlikely that the NT could have derived these truths simply by interpreting the Old Testament. The NT is a quantum leap from the Old Testament. It cannot simply be an interpretation of it. And it was a quantum leap and a leap in the direction of the Logos of Greek philosophy.

And Philo did not derive these truths merely by interpreting the Old Testament. He derived his thoughts on the Logos explicitly from Greek philosophy.

Teaching Mechanism

A fourth possibility is that the writers of the NT used concepts from Philo to explain Jesus Christ to Greek readers in their own language. GotQuestions, following this approach, states that “John’s Gospel begins by using the Greek idea of a ‘divine reason’ or ‘the mind of God’ as a way to connect with the readers of his day.” However, the similarities between Philo and the NT, as discussed above, are too specific and of too extraordinary a nature to be simply explaining truths in Greek thought forms. These are major conceptual similarities.

To oppose pagan theology

Nash notes “a number of fascinating connections between the author of the Book of Hebrews (whom he takes to be Apollos) and Alexandrian Judaism.” He proposes that both the author and his audience were trained in Philo’s philosophy before their Christian conversion and that “the writer argues that … Christ is a better Logos (or mediator) than any of the mediators available to them in their former beliefs.” In other words, “the writer of Hebrews does not use this philosophical background to introduce Alexandrian philosophy into Christian thinking; rather he uses Christian thinking to reject his former views.”

Nash concludes that the Christian community’s “application of the concept of logos to Jesus Christ did not amount to an introduction of pagan thinking into Christianity. On the contrary, their Christian use of Logos was developed in conscious opposition to every relevant aspect of Philo’s philosophy.”

Nash implies that John refers to Jesus Christ as the logos for the same reason.

Therefore, I propose that:

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Observations:

1) The large number of significant conceptual similarities between Philo and the NT means that Philo was right in some respects about the Logos. Philo did not develop new ideas. He largely read the ideas of Greek philosophy into the Old Testament. So, when we say that Philo was right in some respects, then we are really saying that Greek philosophy was right in some respects.

2) God elected Israel to take His message to the nations of the world. So, God worked particularly and extraordinarily with the Jewish nation. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit was not working with and inspiring people from other nations as well. God is always working with all peoples and all nations. He has prophets in other nations as well. For example, at the time of Christ, the wise men came from the east.

3) In contrast to the multiplicity of gods in the Greek pantheon, Greek philosophy is monotheistic. That was a quantum leap. Where did the Greek philosophers get this? It is not impossible that he learned this from contact with Judaism.

Proposal:

I propose as follows:

Firstly, to prepare the non-Jewish world to receive ‘the kingdom of God’ from the Jews, God, through His Holy Spirit, inspired Greek philosophers, either through contact with Judaism or directly through the Holy Spirit, to move away from Greek polytheism to monotheism and with many truths concerning the nature of God. Greek philosophy, therefore, was a combination of revealed truth and human wisdom.

Secondly, to make it easier for the writers of the NT to understand who Jesus is, God inspired Philo to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Old Testament.

Justifications:

I would like to support this proposal as follows:

Firstly, many of the teachings of the NT, for example, that God created all things through His Son, did not come from the Old Testament or from anything that Jesus said. We would assume, therefore, that, after Christ’s ascension, God’s Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers to understand these things (John 16:12). The pagan philosophers were earnestly trying to understand the nature of reality. Nothing prevents the Holy Spirit from using them to reveal truths to the people of the world.

Secondly, the Logos Theology which the second-century church fathers developed went beyond what the Bible teaches and explicitly explains Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy:

For example, they taught that the Logos is the ‘mind’ or ‘wisdom’ of God that always was part of God. However, God is unable to interact directly with physical matter. Therefore, when God decided to create the physical universe, His Logos became a separate reality (hypostasis) through whom God could create and maintain all things. See – The Apologists.

RPC Hanson states: “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism” (RH, 22-23).

Their development of Logos Theology implies that these church fathers assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired. If these Gentile church fathers, who lived in the same Greek culture as the Jewish writers of the NT, assumed that Greek philosophy was inspired, then it is possible that the writers of the NT did the same.

Thirdly, the Nicene Creed is influenced by Greek philosophy. RPC Hanson described the words substance (ousia), same substance (homoousios), and hypostasis as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH, 846). These words and concepts do not appear in the Bible.

Abbreviations

RH = RPC Hanson, RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381

RW = Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001

What was the Real Main Issue of the Arian Controversy?

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for the inconvenience.

To an extent, this article is an overview of several other articles.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to identify the real main issue of the Arian Controversy.

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. The Controversy came to an end when the church adopted the Trinity doctrine.

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue. It is often said that the main issue was whether Jesus is God. This article shows that all fourth-century theologians described the Son as theos (God), as on the God side of the God/creation divide, but as subordinate to the Father. These issues did not divide the parties.

This article identifies the real issue by identifying the golden thread that runs through all the different phases of the Controversy. It shows that the real main issue was whether the second Person of the Godhead exists distinctly:

In the first three centuries, in opposition to Jewish monotheism, most Christians believed in two divine minds; the Father and His only begotten Son.

They were opposed by Monarchians and Sabellians who, consistent with Jewish monotheism, which implies a single divine Mind, argued that the pre-existent Logos (Word) is part of the Father and does not have a distinct existence or a distinct mind.

These two views result in very different views of the Incarnation.

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)

Show Quotes

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)

Show Quotes

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.

“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)

“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)

Show examples of the Traditional Account

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.

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.

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
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, (1988)

Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Anatolios, Khaled
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

Specific articles:

Lienhard Joseph T – The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

Pier Franco Beatrice – The word “homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity.)

Show details of the books quoted

THE FALSE MAIN ISSUE

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue.

Is Jesus God?

It is often stated that the main issue was whether Jesus is God. That is false.

“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine.” (Ayres, p. 13)

However, “it is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14)

“We should avoid thinking of these controversies as focusing on the status of Christ as ‘divine’ or ‘not divine’.” (Ayres, p. 3)

Show Quotes

The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary.

“A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4)

“Suggestions that the issue was one of placing Christ (and eventually the Spirit) on either side of a well-established dividing line between created and uncreated are particularly unhelpful.” (Ayres, p. 14)

Show Quotes

All parties referred to Jesus as God and placed the Son on the ‘God’-side of the God/creation boundary.

For example, the so-called Arians – the anti-Nicenes, described the Son as ‘God’:

The ‘Arian’ Dedication Creed, describes the Son as “God” and “God from God.”

Two years later the same people – the anti-Nicene Easterners at Serdica – condemned those who say, “Christ is not God.” (Hanson, p. 298)

The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)

Show Examples

The word translated as ‘God’ (Greek theos, Latin deus) has a wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’.

The modern word “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality. The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the word theos, used for beings with different levels of divinity. Originally, it was the word for the Greek gods; immortal beings with supernatural powers. In that sense, all agreed that Jesus is theos (God). Read more

Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) issued a statement condemning “those who say … that Christ is not God,” Ayres says: “This “reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124)

“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)

“In the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

“Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being ‘God’ and being ‘true God’ that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms.” (Ayres, p. 4, 14)

The same principle applies to the Bible.

For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God,” he used the same flexible Greek word ‘theos’. For more details, see:

- - - Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “God?” or
    - Did Thomas address Jesus as “God”?

Show Quotes

It was the late fourth-century theologians who eventually made a clear God/creation boundary.

“The achievement of a clear distinction between God and creation (such that ‘true God’ is synonymous with God) was the increasing subtlety and clarity with which late fourth-century theologians (the Cappadocian) shaped their basic rules or grammar … (which) admits of no degrees.” (Ayres, p. 4)

Show Quote

Is the Son subordinate?

Whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue.

One might counter and say, yes, the ‘Arians’ did describe the Son as God but, while the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine, the ‘Arians’ described Him as less divine and as subordinate to the Father. For the following reasons, that statement is not true.

Firstly, before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate.

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” (Henry 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).

Show Quotes

During the Controversy, even the pro-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.” ¹

Even Athanasius described the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Athanasius said that the Son is homoousios with the Father but was unwilling to say that the Father is homoousios with the Son.

He always described the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father’s own wisdom,” meaning that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206) (Read more)

Show Quotes

The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea.

“In all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied.” (Ayres, p. 206)

“In Basil, the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” (Ayres, p. 207)

Show Quotes

Until Basil of Caesarea, all sides in the debate, including the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, agreed that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

An Arian Controversy

Arius did not cause the Controversy. His dispute with his bishop re-ignited the third-century controversy.

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue it is critical to understand that the fourth-century controversy continued the third-century controversy:

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)

“This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)

Show Quotes

The title ‘Arian’ also implies that the Controversy was about Arius’ teachings but that is also untrue.

Arius left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving.

“The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii)

“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (Ayres, p. 2)

Show Quotes

Consequently, the term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer.

“The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, p. xvii)

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy.” (Williams, p. 82)

Show Quotes

It is called ‘Arian’ only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents of being followers of Arius.

As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, Athanasius coined the term to insult his opponents as followers of a discredited theology, but they did not follow Arius:

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system … is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82)

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) (Read More)

Show Quotes

THE REAL MAIN ISSUE

The Son is a distinct Person.

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the golden thread that ran through the controversy from the second to fourth centuries was whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It shows that this view was opposed by the view that the Father and Son are a single Person. In the technical language of the fourth-century Greek, the opposing view was that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. A hypostasis is something that has distinct existence.

The ‘one hypostasis’ view was primarily held by the Sabellians but Alexander, Athanasius and the Western church had the same view.

A Person has a mind.

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a being with a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Persons, in the official Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, scholars confirm that the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (Read more) In contrast, this article uses the term ‘Person’ in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. For that reason, it often adds the phrase ‘with a distinct mind’.

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95)

In the language of the fourth-century debate, the real main issue was whether the Son is a hypostasis.

Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century used the terms ousia and hypostasis (plural hypostases) as synonyms to indicate that something has a distinct existence. Later, they used primarily the term hypostasis.

“Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis …. Hyparxis never achieved the status of a technical term.” (Lienhard)

“Despite the complex, later development of a distinction between ousia and hypostasis, the two words were, in the early fourth century, first and foremost synonyms.” (Lienhard)

“As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy.” (Lienhard)

Hanson defines a hypostasis as an “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193)

Show Quotes

You and I are hypostases. So, the question was whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are one or three hypostases.

“One hypostasis’ theology believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person with a single mind.

There were variations of the ‘one hypostasis’ view in all such views, there is only one hypostasis (Person), meaning that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one single mind or consciousness. Consequently, the Son does not have a real distinct existence.

Second-century Monarchians (also called Modalists) taught simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entiry. (Read more)

Sabellius, in the third century, taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of the one hypostasis (Person). The most prominent fourth-century Sabellian was Marcellus.

Possibly following Tertullian, who said that the Father is the whole, and the Son is part of the whole, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom and, therefore, part of the Father. For example:

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)

Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431), meaning two minds. (Read more)

Show examples of 'one hypostasis' Views

In the ‘three hypostases’ view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with three distinct minds.

The anti-Nicenes (the Arians, or more correctly, the Eusebians), held this view. For example, the Dedication Creed of 431 says, “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Hanson, p. 286) “Agreement” implies distinct minds. (Read more) Arius was one of the Eusebians. (Read more)

There were also variations of the ‘three hypostases’ view. In the 350s, after Athanasius had re-introduced the Nicene term homoousios (same substance) in the Controversy (Read more), the Eusebians divided into various views:

Unlike substance – Some said the Father’s and Son’s substances are unlike (heterousios).

Similar substance – Others said their substances are similar (homoiousios).

No substance – Still others – the dominant view in the 350s to 370s – refused to talk about God’s substance (the Homoians).

Show types of 'three hypostases' views

The Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to teach three hypostases – three minds.

The Cappadocians were Eastern pro-Nicenes. They believed in three hypostases. In their view, Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases or substances (three beings), meaning three distinct minds. (Read more) For example:

Basil of Caesarea said that the Son’s statements that he does the will of the Father “is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation” but because “His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father.” ²

In the same treatise (De Spiritu Sancto), he indicates the existence of two wills: “The Father, who creates by His sole will … the Son too wills.” In other words, the Father has a “sole will” that He does not share with the others.

While, in the ‘Arian’ ‘three hypostases’-view, the Son is subordinate to the Father, in the Cappadocian view, the three hypostases are equal. However, this view is open to the criticism of Tritheism.

FIRST THREE CENTURIES

Not a new Controversy

This analysis begins in the second century because the fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding centuries. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was the spark that re-ignited an existing fire:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20).

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)

“This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius, and over events following the Council of Nicaea.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)

Show more such quotes

Jewish Church

The first-century, Jewish-dominated church regarded the Son as distinct from and subordinate to the Father.

It professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Read More) The Jewish church did not speculate about the nature of God beyond what the Bible explicitly states. It did not use “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846) by the later Gentile-dominated church. It simply repeated the words of the Scriptures.

Logos Theology

In the second century, after the church became Gentile-dominated, it taught the Logos as a distinct hypostasis.

To some extent, the early Gentile church fathers did not replace their existing philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing beliefs. For example, they explained Christ as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture) In this view, the Son had always existed as part of God but became a distinct and subordinate Being (hypostasis) when God decided to create. (Read More)

Monarchians

The Monarchians claimed that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person.

The second-century Monarchians opposed the Logos-theologians. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unScriptural division of God’s substance. They claimed that the Logos is not a separate hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. For example:

“This ‘monarchian’ view was … suggesting the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. In other words, the Father is himself the Son, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin) (Read More)

Consequently, the dispute between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians was whether the Son has an actual distinct existence. This was a dispute between one- and three-hypostases views.

Tertullian

Tertullian taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and that the Son is part of the Father.

The Latin theologian Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. As discussed here, he was also a Logos-theologian. As such, he believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father and that the Father existed before the Son.

To counter the Monarchian criticism that Logos-theologians teach two Gods, he revised the standard Logos-theology, saying that the Son did not separate from the Father’s substance but remained part of the Father. He said, for example:

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).

In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). But different from the Monarchians, he distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. Furthermore, since the Son is part of the Father, Tertullian described the Son as subordinate to the Father. (Read More).

Today, Tertullian is highly esteemed, not because he taught anything similar to the Trinity doctrine but because he used the right words: He spoke about three ‘persons’ and one ‘substance’: “Tres Personae, Una Substantia.”

Show more on Tertullian

Origen

Origen expanded Logos-theology to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.

Also at the beginning of the third century, the famous African theologian Origen expanded and adapted Logos-theology to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, meaning three distinct Persons with three distinct minds.

“Origen does consider the Son to be a distinct being dependent on the Father for his existence.” (Ayres, p. 23)

“The Son is not the one power of God, but another distinct power dependent on God’s power for its existence.” (Ayres, p. 24)

“Father and Son are distinct beings.” (Ayres, p. 22)

“He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184) (For detail, see – Origen)

He “speaks of Father and Son as two ‘things (πράγματα) in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness, harmony, and identity of will’.” (Ayres, p. 25) “Like-mindedness” speaks of two distinct minds united in agreement.

Show Quotes

Sabellius

Sabellius taught one hypostasis but distinguished between Father and Son within that one hypostasis.

More or less at the same time as Tertullian, in opposition to Origen, Sabellius refined Monarchianism but maintained the view that the Father and Son are a single Person (a single hypostasis). While the Monarchians said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity, Sabellius, like Tertullian, distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. He proposed that the Father and Son are two parts of the same Entity. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person.

Take as an example one of the fourth-century Sabellians:

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis’ … rendered him suspect.” (Hanson, p. 801) (Read More)

Show example

Third-Century Controversy

The controversy between the one- and three-hypostases views continued for the rest of the third century.

For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) disagreed about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term homoousios and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected the term and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view.

Some Libyan Sabellians used the term homoousios. For them, it meant ‘one substance’ (one Being). But the bishop of Alexander, under whose jurisdiction they fell, condemned the term.

The Sabellians appealed to the bishop of Rome, who also had a one-hypostasis theology and who also accepted the term homoousios. He put pressure on the bishop of Alexandria to adopt the term.

Under duress, the bishop of Alexandria accepted the term but only in a general sense as meaning ‘same type of substance’. In other words, he held to a three-hypostases theology. (For more detail, see – the Dionysii)

Show more on this dispute

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, a major city for the Christian movement, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (See – Antioch 268)

“The Council of Antioch of 268 … did repudiate the word homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 694)

FOURTH CENTURY

All of the above happened while Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century.

Arius vs Alexander

In 313, the Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute broke out between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. This was not a new controversy but continued the controversy of the third century:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

It was a dispute over whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. Arius believed that He is. Like Origen, he taught three hypostases. He said that Father and Son have two distinct Persons and minds, united in agreement.

Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, p. 97)

He wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). (Read More)

The Eusebians, since they also believed in ‘three hypostases’, supported Arius against Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology. However, the Eusebians disagreed with Arius’ more extreme views, such as that the Son came into existence from nothing. Arius had only a few real followers. (Read more)

Show Quotes

Alexander, similar to the Sabellians, explained the Father and Son as a single Person with a single Mind.

In contrast to Arius, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father, and the Father and Son only have a single mind. (Read More).

“[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92) (See – Alexander)

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

Show Quotes

Nicene Council

Emperor Constantine (not the church) called the Nicene Council. His purpose was to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in ‘the truth’.

Most delegates believed that the Father and Son are distinct Persons with distinct minds.

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church.

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)

Show Quotes

The Eastern Church followed the two Eusebii.

“Many eastern bishops rallied around the Eusebii even while differing among themselves.” (Ayres, p. 52)

“My second theological trajectory … I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with either of Arius’ most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Ayres, p. 52) Read More

The Eusebians believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons), meaning that the eternal Son pf God is a distinct Person. (Read More)

“Asterius (a leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54)

Asterius also distinguished between God’s wisdom and Christ, implying distinct minds. He wrote: “God’s own power and wisdom is the source of Christ.” (Ayres, p. 53-54)

The Dedication Creed, which was a statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” The phrase “one in agreement” implies three minds.

Show Quotes

The ‘one hypostasis’ view was in the minority but was supported by the emperor.

Since the Eusebians were in the majority, Alexander’s view, which was that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority. At the council, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus.

“Eustathius and Marcellus (the Eusebians) … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234)

“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69)

“Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism.” (Manlio Simonetti. La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)) (Hanson, p. 171)

Show Quotes

Although the ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor because he had taken Alexander’s side.

“Tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.” (Ayres, p. 89)

“This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force.” (Ayres, p. 89)

Show Quotes

One indication of a ‘one hypostasis’ preference is the term homoousios which was associated with Sabellianism.

Before Nicaea, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. They used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person.

“The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)

“The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning.” (Philip Schaff) Read More

Show Quotes

At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it.

“Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (Eustathius was the leader of the Sabellians at Nicaea) … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211)

“Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus … Both were influential at the council.” (Ayres, p. 99)

Show Quotes

Furthermore, the Creed explicitly states that Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence is that one of the anathemas explicitly says that Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)

“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed.” (Hanson, p. 274)

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture)

“By the standard of later orthodoxy … it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition, because the Son must be of a different hypostasis (i.e. ‘Person’) from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 167)

For more details, see:

- - The Council of Nicaea and
  - How Homoousios became accepted at Nicaea.

Show Quotes

Post-Nicaea Correction

In the decade after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed Nicaea as a victory, namely, that the term homoousios means that the church had formally adopted a Sabellians one-hypostasis theology.

The Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)

This caused an intense struggle in the church. The Sabbellians lost this battle and all leading Sabellians were deposed. (Read More)

“Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled – Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 274)

After that, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate and the Controversy subsided.

“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)

“During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431)

“Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.” (Hanson, p. 58-59)

Show more quotes

For that reason, the creeds of the 340s (Dedication, the Council of Serdica, and Macrostich Councils) do not mention the term. It simply was not an issue. (Read More).

The Divided Empire

While Constantine was still alive, he maintained unity in the church. But when he died in 337, his three sons divided the empire between them, creating the potential for division in the church also. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Athanasius and the leading Sabellian Marcellus were both exiled by the Eastern church during Constantine’s reign. They joined forces.

“They considered themselves allies.” (Ayres, p. 106)

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)

Show quotes

Both of them maintained a ‘one hypostasis’ theology.

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426)

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)

“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113)

“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian; and for many years Athanasius and the Pope refused to disown Marcellus.” (Hanson, p. xix)

“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. xix)

“Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings.” (Hanson, p. 228)

Show more such quotes

After Constantine had died, they appealed to the Western Church (the bishop of Rome – Julius). The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example:

“The Western bishops … their traditional Monarchianism …” (Hanson, p. 272)

Therefore, the Council of Rome in 340/1 accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodox. Since both were previously formally assessed and exiled by the Eastern Church, this decision caused major friction and division between East and West.

In response, the East formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 which explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Ayres, p. 118) The phrase “one in agreement” implies three distinct minds.

Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)

This was followed by the Council of Serdica in 343 where the Western delegation produced a manifesto that explicitly confesses one hypostasis:

“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301)

In response, the East, in the next year (344), formulated the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed, confessing three hypostases. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’.

Constantius

Homoian Dominance

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon (than Neo-Arianism), more widespread and in fact more longlasting.” Than heterousians?

The Meletian Schism

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis‘ … rendered him suspect.” (Hanson, p. 801)

“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic … against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East” (Hanson Lecture) For a further discussion, see – Meletian Schism.

“Basil goes on to defend the application of homoousios to the Son (as we shall see, he never applies this term to the Holy Spirit).” (Hanson, p. 694)

“This expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of Sabellius for … (it keeps) … the Persons (prosopon) intact, for nothing is consubstantial with itself.” (Hanson, p. 694-5) Note that Basil here interprets homoousion generically.

“Basil uses hypostasis to mean ‘Person of the Trinity’ as distinguished from ‘substance’ which is usually expressed as either ousia or ‘nature’ (physis) or ‘substratum’.” (Hanson, p. 690-691)

“In the DSS he discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (Hanson, p. 698)

Theodosius

Majority

“The very wide spectrum of non-Nicene believers thought of themselves as mainstream Christians, and regarded Athanasius and his allies as isolated extremists – though increasingly they also looked on the more aggressive anti-Nicenes (Aetius, Eunomius, and the like) as no less alien to the mainstream of Catholic tradition.” (Williams, p. 82)

Trinity Doctrine

Must be effected by Affected

The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’. Arius was not the real problem. Since the second century, the real problem was Sabellianism, a version of which was defended by Athanasius and, in the year 380, became the official State religion of the Roman Empire, after which all other versions of Christianity within the Roman Empire were ruthlesslessly exterminated. So, the ‘Sabellian’ Controversy should be a more apt description. However, since a version of Sabellianism was the eventual winner and became what is known as the Trinity doctrine, this fact is carefully hidden from believers.

CONCLUSION

The Answer

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the Real Main Issue was whether Jesus is a distinct Person:

The Sabellians, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western pro-Nicenes claimed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.

The Eusebians, misleadingly called ‘Arians’, and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It should be called the Sabellian Controversy:

In the third century, Sabellianism – the teaching that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind – evolved but was declared a heresy.

People do not know this or do not want to know this but it is very clear from their writings that Alexander and Athanasius were Sabellians. Like the Sabellians, they believed in a single hypostasis (one Person). (Read More)

Following Tertullian, the Western Latin church also predominantly believed in a single Person. (Read More)

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sabellianism the state religion of the Roman Empire. (Read More)

The state religion became the Roman Church – the Church of the Roman Empire. That is why nobody says or knows today that it was a Sabellian Controversy. The victorious party had control of recorded history for many centuries. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.

The Trinity doctrine is camouflaged Sabellianism. Formally, it claims three hypostases or three Persons but, if one delves a bit deeper, it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind. The Persons are mere ‘modes of existing as God. (Read More)

was whether the Son is a distinct Being; distinct from the Father

Hypostases in the Trinity doctrine

Formally, the Trinity doctrine teaches three hypostases (three Persons) but that is misleading. They are not real ‘persons’ as the term is used in modern English because Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind.

The Trinity doctrine claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases (three Persons), implying three distinct Entities with three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading. In that doctrine, they are a single Entity with one single mind (see here). We must, therefore, not derive the meaning of the term hypostasis from the Trinity doctrine. In the fourth century, each hypostasis had a unique mind.

The traditional Trinity doctrine, as taught by the Roman Church, retained Basil of Caesarea’s verbal formula of three hypostases but without Basil’s idea of three distinct minds. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology, describing the Father, Son, and Spirit as one single Being (see here).

FOOTNOTES

1
RPC 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.
2
“When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)

Purpose

Summary

Philo

Foundations of Christianity

God

The Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

The Logos in the Old Testament

A Personal Being

Has always existed.

Literally first in time

Uniquely Generated

Direct Agent of Creation

Subordinate

Mediator

The Light of the World

The Logos in our God.

Cannot become Flesh

Man’s Mind

Did Philo influence the NT?

Possible Explanations

The Bible is not inspired.

A Different Logos

Teaching Mechanism

To oppose pagan theology

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Who is Philo?

Foundations of Christianity

Logos Theology

The Bible

Trinity Doctrine

Based on Greek philosophy

Philo’s view of God

Only God knows Himself.

God exists outside time.

Creator Eternally

Philo’s view of the Logos

Philo’s most important doctrine

The Logos in the Old Testament

A Personal Being

Does not exist without a cause.

Has always existed.

Ontologically Subordinate

Literally first in time

Uniquely Generated

Direct Agent of Creation

The Light of the World

Mediator

The Logos in our God.

Cannot become Flesh

Man’s Mind

Did Philo influence the New Testament?

Possible Explanations

The Bible is not inspired.

A Different Logos

Both are based on the Old Testament.

Teaching Mechanism

To oppose pagan theology

Greek Philosophy was inspired.

Observations:

Proposal:

Justifications:

Abbreviations

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

PURPOSE

AUTHORS QUOTED

THE FALSE MAIN ISSUE

Is Jesus God?

Is the Son subordinate?

An Arian Controversy

THE REAL MAIN ISSUE

The Son is a distinct Person.

A Person has a mind.

FIRST THREE CENTURIES

Not a new Controversy

Jewish Church

Logos Theology

Monarchians

Tertullian