In this lesson we shall examine the historical
framework in which the Dogma on God evolved during the Patristic
era.
I would like to remind you that
the Patristic era inherited the Triadic formula “Faith in the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit” from the biblical era. And because
this formula, or rather, this belief, had to be accepted by every
Christian during baptism – it was not possible for one to become a
Christian without passing through this confession of faith – it is
quite understandable, how it was impossible for one to flatly reject
the Holy Trinity in retrospect.
Differences did arise with regard to the
interpretation of this formula, however, as the formula itself had
been accepted, any discussion on the topic of the Holy Trinity
always maintained this restricting factor. In other words, whenever
anyone placed any doubts on the Holy Trinity with their positions,
the discussion would automatically be terminated. It was something
that nobody could deny.
In my previous lesson, I had outlined how the Church
reached this point and why. The reasons are deep-seated. It was
impossible for it to be any other way, from the moment that this
special relationship between Christ and God and the role of the Holy
Spirit had been accepted in the life of the Church.
Now, because the Patristic era inherited this
Triadic formula, it had to ensure two things: that it be interpreted it in such a way as to exclude interpretations that
would lead to idolatry; that is, interpretations of this Triadic
formula that would distance the meaning of God according to the Old
Testament principles on the God of the Hebrews, as defined in the
previous lesson. Therefore, in their interpretation, this had to be
taken into account.
The second thing that had to be done was to give this
formula a content that would interpret this belief in such a
way that would signify something to the cultural environment of the
Patristic era. Take special note here, as it also applies today,
i.e., that Theology and Dogmatics could not be an internal interest
for only a few people; that is, we say something that we alone
understand, and we are not concerned if these things seem like
nonsense to anyone else beyond us. That was not the spirit of the
Fathers. The spirit of the Fathers was assuredly to address their
times, and to say things that bore a certain meaning to the people
of their times. This required an interpretation, an attempt to
interpret the Dogma, always within the philosophical categories of
contemporary thought that were also familiar beyond Christendom.
This pertained to the educated of those times. But it also contained
a lifestyle such that would make the simpler folks embrace this
faith, this idea of God, with a particular kind of personal
acceptance. We must now examine this interpretation, first of all
historically, then from our point of understanding of this Dogma.
During the 2nd century, an attempt to
interpret this Triadic Dogma was made – chiefly by the Apologetes –
and it was the following: They preoccupied themselves with the
Logos, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Whom they considered
to be a projection of God outside His Person, for the purpose of
creating the cosmos. In this way, there was a certain vagueness as
to whether the Logos belonged to the sphere of the Uncreated God, or
in the sphere of the cosmos. It was unclear, because when we say
that God becomes Triadic, or, that He acquires the Logos in order to
externalize Himself and create the cosmos, then we are associating
the existence of the Logos with the existence of the cosmos. This
was the problem, and it made itself very apparent during the 4th
century, with Arianism. There, the problem had reached its limits,
when Arios followed up this Theology of the Logos, to arrive at the
conclusion that the Logos belonged to the sphere of the created
world and not to the sphere of the uncreated God. Thus, in the 2nd
century, this meaning and this interpretation brought about certain
problems.
One of the Apologetes who gave a better direction,
but not an entirely satisfactory one, was Theophilos of Antioch
during the 2nd century, who made the distinction between
the inner logos and the expressed logos. With this
definition, he tried to say (as Justin said, and as was customary
during the 2nd century with the Apologetes) that while
the Logos may be a projection of God outside Himself for the purpose
of creating the cosmos, nevertheless it pre-existed within God, as
an inner Logos. Just as we have an inner expression inside us before
we speak, and we afterwards make this expression a verbal one, in
the same way, God always had the Logos, but when He decided to
create the cosmos, He made this inner Logos an external expression.
It was His way of safeguarding Himself from the world. But this
interpretation was not sufficient, as it again left the unanswered
question of whether the inner logos can exist without having its
verbal expression, as it would thus cease to be the Logos.
This was one attempted interpretation. Another one
was the kind we called mannerist; that is, to perceive the
three Persons of the Holy Trinity as three roles, three manners in
which God appears. Three roles that God played: the Father in the
Old Testament, the Son in the New Testament, and after the New
Testament – in our time – as the Holy Spirit. This theory was mainly
developed by Savellius at the beginning of the 3rd
century, and it became especially widespread in the West. He was of
North African origin, but his activities were mainly in Rome and his
teachings spread rapidly to the East as well. Savellianism naturally
caused a serious disturbance, nevertheless, his views were rejected,
namely, that God - the Holy Trinity – is equivalent to three roles,
three facades that God put on in order to play a certain role in
history, even if it was only for our sakes.
The Church reacted so intensely to Savellianism, that
any form of crypto-Savellianism gave rise to the most acute
reactions, especially in the East. And it is characteristic, that
the East always looked upon the West with suspicion in regard to
Savellianism, during this period, the 4th century. The
Westerners were always willing to embrace any form of Savellianism,
while the Easterners insisted that we must definitely keep these
three Persons separate. In the 2nd century with the
Apologetes, the issue was set out clearly, as follows: The three
Persons of the Holy Trinity are “Three in Number”, in the sense of
a numeric three; we do not refer to a One, to a unit, which either
broadens – as Savellius claimed – and becomes (or takes on) three
forms, or which takes in any other external element within the One
God; this number of three is located within the very meaning of God.
In other words, God never existed alone. Thus, the Fathers took that
important step in distinguishing between the meaning of One
and the meaning of Only; this was done, because in ancient
Hellenism and the ancient Greek religion, God was understood as a
Unit. I am referring to the Hellenic philosophical religion. There
was always the secular religion – the secular polytheism – but
polytheism was of a lower standard. The ancient Hellenes’ true
religion was in fact monotheistic ( and very monotheistic at
that ); so much so, that God was the Absolute One. And as you know,
Neo-Platonism likewise identifies God as the One. When the question
of God, of the One God, is posed within a Christian
framework, this question is raised: whether God is an Absolute Unit,
and what being a “Unit” means.
Philon in the 1st century interprets
monotheism (albeit a Hebrew, in this matter he was intensely
influenced by Greek thought); he interprets the One God as “indeed
the only One”. His comment on that certain part of the Old Testament
that speaks of the creation of woman is characteristic: “it is not
good for man to be one only; let us make for him a helper in his
likeness” (Genesis 2,18). Commenting on this verse, Philon says that
man cannot be alone; he cannot be allowed to be on his own, because
only God can be the Only One. That is, God as One is the Only One.
It is obvious to you here, that this conflicts with
– or rather, brings up – the huge problem of the Holy Trinity, to
which the Apologetes responded immediately. They reacted vehemently
to this Philonian perception and said that God is One, but not Only.
From a philosophical and existential perspective, one can see that
this opens up entirely new paths in ontology; later on, we shall see
its significance. For the time being, take note that the Church
decided at an early stage to accept a monotheism that did not
associate the One God with the Only God. God is not loneliness,
or solitude. He was never Alone. The number three was always
representative of actual entities that associated with one another,
and not a unit that took on various appearances or played various
roles. Subsequently, this sensitivity as to the entity of each
Person posed a grave interpretational problem, at least in the
sphere of philosophical interpretation and understanding. Therefore,
whenever Christians spoke of these things, were they actually saying
something, about what they meant, or were they just talking nonsense
and understanding it only between themselves? The Fathers could not
allow the matter to drift about, in this clouded and confused state.
So they made certain attempts. The story behind this whole affair is
very complicated ( These things are well known, from the History of
Dogmatics. ) We shall refer to the main phases of these attempts,
and will persevere on the outcome of these attempts of
interpretation.
First of all, on the matter of terminology: serious
problems arose as to how they should interpret, how they should say,
what words should they use, when stating that God is Triadic; that
He is One and three Persons, three entities at the same time, and
not three different facades. At the end of the 2nd
century, Tertullian uses a Latin expression - within the framework
of terminology – which later proved to be the determining expression
: this expression was “UNA SUBSTANTIA, TRES PERSONS”. With the term
“substantia” he wished to define the One God, and the unity. With
the term “persons”, he wanted to indicate Triplicity. This wording
by Tertullian passed through to the East, to the Hellenic-speaking
Christians, mainly through Hippolytus who was influenced by
Tertullian and who – as you know – was born in Rome but was well
versed in the Greek language and who translated this wording.
Translated how? Here lies the immense problem.
The
word “sub-stantia” in Greek is translated as “hypo-stasis”. The
“persons” have been translated as “individuals” (persons). Now,
they faced other difficulties. To say that God is a hypostasis,
means that we give an ontological content to the term hypostasis
(besides, the word hypostasis always had an ontological content – it
denoted the stable being; or, that which supported a being; every
being is supported on a base – this base is its hypostasis.
This term in Greek passed through many adventures throughout the
centuries, but it basically bore the same meaning. When we say that
a rainbow does not have a hypostasis, we are saying that although it
is a phenomenon, it lacks hypostasis. On the other hand, a table
does have a hypostasis, because it has an ontological basis.)
Therefore, generally speaking,
the term ‘hypostasis’ denotes that God is indeed One, one
hypostasis, but then the persons immediately create a problem.
Because the word person in ancient Hellenism had exactly the same
meaning as the word ‘façade’. The word person in ancient Greece
(đńüóůđďí) was
derived originally from its anatomical aspect, to indicate the
surface of the head which was the face. But very soon it became a
technical term, to be used in theatres in a ritualistic manner,
inasmuch as the actor would wear a mask, as was the custom for
actors at the time. It is easy to understand the imminent danger
when transferring this term in Greek, with reference to the Holy
Trinity : Savellianism. How was it possible for this Tertullian
term to be accepted in the East, without any detailed explanations?
From the time of Origen onwards, the term ‘hypostasis’ had replaced
the term ‘person’ in the East, and therefore it was said that God
had three hypostases.
However, in translating the
term hypostasis into Latin, it immediately created ‘tres substantiae’,
therefore, the Latin-speaking people faced the problem where they
had the expression ‘una substantia’; now, it would not be fitting,
to say ‘UNA SUBSTANTIA, TRES SUBSTANTIAE’; it was not possible.
There was in fact an immense problem caused by this confusing
terminology. And the problem was not simply a linguistic one, it was
a matter of what content these terms had, and how they could become
accepted without basically leading anyone towards Savellianism; and
for the East, this was a very important issue. Well, what was to be
done? An entire story ensued.