Did Arius teach there was time when the Son of God did not exist?

Summary

Created all things

Arius, the fourth-century presbyter after which Arianism is named, taught that God created all things through His Son. For example, Athanasius, in his paraphrase of Arius’ writings, wrote:

“When He (God) wanted to make us,
He then made a certain Person and
called him Word and Spirit and Son
so that he could make us” (RH, 13).

Existed before all things

If God made all things through His Son, then the Son must have existed before all things. Consistent with this concept, Arius wrote that the Son was

“begotten timelessly by the Father …
before aeons …
begotten timelessly before everything”
(Letter to Alexander, RH, 8).

There was when He was not.

However, Arius also frequently said that the Son did not always exist. For example:

The Son “did not exist before he was begotten”
(Arius’ letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia – RH, 6) or

“God is … prior to the Son”
(Letter to Alexander, RH, 8).

This gives us Arius’ famous phrase that was anathematized by the Nicene Creed: “There was when He was not.”

Time

In the very little of Arius’ own writings that survived until today, Arius never said there was “time” before the Son was begotten. But, according to Athanasius and Alexander, Arius did say that. For example:

“There was a time when the Son of God did not exist” (Alexander, RH, 17).

What does this mean?

So, did Arius contradict himself? How could Arius say that there was “time” before the Son existed if he was “begotten timelessly before everything” and created all things?

“Gwatkin characterizes Arianism as … a crude and contradictory system” (RW, 10). However, the Trinitarian Bishop Rowan Williams, after a detailed study of Arius’ theology, concluded that “he is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116). We need to, therefore, assume that Arius did not contradict himself.

Alexander – No Gap

Alexander taught that there was no gap between Father and Son (RW, 189). In other words, the Son is co-eternal with the Father. The Arians did not accept this view because:

1) It would mean that there are two “unoriginated ultimate principles” (two Beings who exist without cause and which gave existence to all else), which all agree cannot be.

2) The titles “Father” and “Son” mean that the Father gave existence to the Son.

3) And, more generally, the Bible teaches that the Father is “prior to and greater than” the Son and that the Son is “less and subordinate” to the Father.

Arius – No literal Time

Arius, in contrast to Alexander, taught that a gap exists between the Father and Son but it is not a gap of normal time. Arius said that the gap is “logical,” and if that gap involves some literal time, then it may be “an infinitesimal reality.” Therefore, from our point of view, existing in the literal time of this universe, Father and Son are co-eternal. But from the Father’s point of view, so to speak, they are not.

Perhaps we can rephrase Arius’ view as follows:

This universe, including time, was created through the Son. But, beyond our universe of time, space, and matter, exists an incomprehensible and timeless infinity. In that ineffable infinity, the Son was begotten. Therefore, there was no literal “time” before the Son was begotten. From the perspective of our existence within time, the Son has always existed.

– END OF SUMMARY –

---

Sources

This article is largely based on two books:

The Search for the Christian doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
by Bishop RPC Hanson
(Referred to as “RH” in this article)

Arius: Heresy and Tradition –
by Archbishop Rowan Williams, 2002
(Referred to as “RW” in this article)

This article uses the following codes:

• • • EoN – Arius’ letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia
    • AoA – Arius’ letter to Alexander of Alexandria
    • De Synodis – Athnasius’ quote of Arius
    • A1 – Alexander’s first letter in which he explains why he excommunicated Arius
    • A2 – Alexander’s second letter

Existed before Everything

If God made all things through the Son, the Son must have existed before all things. Consistent with this thought, Arius wrote:

The Son “exists … before times and before ages” (EoN, RH, 6),

Was “begotten timelessly by the Father … before aeons … begotten timelessly before everything” (AoA, RH, 8), (An aeon is “an indefinite and very long period of time.”)

“Created and established before aeons” (RH, 8), and

Was “begotten before aeonian times” and “before times and before aeons” (AoA, RH, 7).

Eusebius of Caesarea, who supported Arius all his life, similarly taught that the Son was “begotten before all ages” (RH, 56).

If we assume that “the beginning” in John 1:1 was when all things were created, as is implied by John 1:3, then Arius would have agreed that the Logos was with God “in the beginning.”

There was when He was not.

However, although Arius said that the Son was before everything, he also said that “there was when He was not” (Creed of Nicaea 325), meaning that God existed before the Son:

He “did not exist before he was begotten … for he is not eternal nor co-eternal, nor co-unoriginated with the Father” (AoA, RH, 8).

“Before he was begotten or created or determined or established, he did not exist” (EoN, RH, 6).

“The Son having not existed attained existence by the Father’s will” (De Synodis, RH, 14).

Conversely, Arius wrote that the Father is prior to the Son:

“Nor does he possess being parallel with the Father … thereby introducing two unoriginated ultimate principles, but as the … origin of everything, so God is prior to everything. Therefore he is also prior to the Son” (AoA, RH, 8).

Eusebius of Caesarea also referred to God as “prior to the Logos” and as “beyond the Logos” (RH, 48).

Had a Beginning

Since the Son did not exist before He was begotten, He had a beginning in contrast to the Father who had no beginning of existence. For example:

The Father “is supremely sole without beginning” (AoA, RH, 8).

“We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning” (De Synodis, RH, 14, 31)

Since the Son has a beginning while God is “without beginning,” God existed before the Son came into existence.

The word Time

In the very little of Arius’ own writings that have survived until today, Arius never used the word “time” to say that there was “time” before the Son was begotten. But, according to Athanasius and Alexander, Arius did use that word and concept. For example, Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ teaching, stated that Arius taught:

“God was not always Father, but there was a time when he was solitary. The Son did not always exist” (RH, 13).

In De Synodis, which does seem to be a direct quote, Athanasius wrote:

“We worship him as eternal in contrast to him who came into existence in times” (De Synodis, RH, 14).

Similarly, Alexander described Arius as teaching:

“There was a time when God was not Father” (A1, RH, 16).

“There was a time when he did not exist” (A1, RH, 16).

“There was a time when the Son of God did not exist” (A2, RH, 17).

Explanation

So, how could there be time before the Son existed if he was “begotten timelessly before everything” and created all things? , did Arius contradict himself? “Gwatkin characterizes Arianism as … a crude and contradictory system” (RW, 10).

However, the Trinitarian Bishop Rowan Williams, after a detailed study of Arius’ theology, concluded that Arius “is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116). This section summarizes the explanations provided by Rowan Williams and RPC Hanson:

At the beginning of the fourth century, Christian thinkers believed that the world (today, we would say “the cosmos”) began to exist at a specific point in time and that there was something like a time gap between God and creation (RW, 188-9). On this, Arius and Alexander agreed. What they disagreed about was whether there was a time gap between Father and Son:

Alexander’s View

Alexander taught that there was no such gap (RW, 189) and that the Son is, consequently, co-eternal with the Father. The Arians did not accept this view because (they said) it would mean that both the Father and Son are “unoriginated ultimate principles” (Beings who exist without cause and which gave existence to all else), which is not logical:

Williams states that Arius did not accept this because that would mean that the Father does not ‘have precedence’ over the Son in any respect and it would mean that the Son also exists without cause and is a rival first principle (RW, 189).

Hanson states that Eusebius of Caesarea “also defends … (the statement) ‘he who is begot him who was not’ on the grounds that … if it is not allowed, ‘then there would be two Beings‘, i.e. two grounds of being” (RH, 57).

Eusebius of Caesarea furthermore argued as follows:

“The Father and the Son … cannot have co-existed eternally, but rather the Father precedes the Son in eternal existence. If this were not so, then the Father would not be Father nor the Son Son, and both would be either unoriginated or originated. But in fact, ‘one is regarded as prior to and greater than the second in rank and honours, so that he is the cause of the existence [of the other] and of the kind of existence which he has’. The Son himself knows that he is different from the Father and less and subordinate.” (RH, 57)

The Arian View

Arius taught that a gap exists between the Father and Son. The quotes above show how Alexander attempted to force the Arians to admit that the phrase “He was not” means that there was a gap of normal time when the Son “was not.” Alexander would then be able to argue that this is not possible because God created time through the Son. (RW, 189)

But Arius denied that there is a gap of normal time between Father and Son. Arius said that the gap between Father and Son “may be temporal or logical,” and if it is time, it may be “an instant of time or an infinitesimal reality” (RW, 189). Arius does not want to use “the same sort of language for the ‘interval’ between Father and Son as for that between creator and creature more generally” (RW, 189).

Eusebius of Caesarea, similarly, “dislikes using any language introducing the concept of time, but insists that the Father has existed before the Son and that the Son is not unoriginated, and has derived from the will and power of the Father” (RH, 52).

Williams also explained the Arian view as follows:

“Faced with the notion that there was no ‘interval’ between Father and Son, Eusebius (of Caesarea) is not necessarily being inconsistent in stressing the Father’s pre-existence. From our point of view, in the world’s time, Father and Son co-exist; from the Father’s point of view, so to speak, they do not and cannot.” (RW, 172)

Hanson explains it slightly differently:

“He (Arius) and his followers insist again and again that the Son was produced before times and ages yet they hold onto the conviction that there was a time when the Son did not exist. … Perhaps they took the Platonic view that time only existed when the heavenly bodies, by which time is measured, were created, so that the Son, who was at some point brought into existence, but before the heavenly bodies, could be said in a sense to be ‘before times’” (RH, 22).

The point in both Williams and Hanson is that, in Arian teaching, there was a gap between the Father and Son but it was not a gap of literal time because the Son was begotten ‘before’ literal time itself existed.

This universe, including time, was created through the Son. But beyond our universe of time, space, and matter exists an incomprehensible and timeless infinity. The Son was begotten in that ineffable infinity. Therefore, there was no literal “time” before the Son was begotten. From the perspective of our existence within time, the Son has always existed.

---

Other Articles

• • • Other Articles on Arius
      • Why did Arius’ writings not survive?
      • Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy?
      • Did Arius describe Jesus Christ as a Created Being?
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God? – List of articles
    • Arian Controversy – List of articles