0:00
I'm Bishop Nicholas of Myra. Ho, ho,
0:06
my friends. The Son is subordinate to
0:18
Nicholas of Myra, aka Saint Nick, aka
0:21
Santa Claus, did not actually slap Arius
0:24
in the face at the Council of Nicaea
0:27
because Arius never attended the
0:30
Council. But, it is a a good story, and
0:32
it's a story that comes down upon the
0:36
meaning of one word, and that word is
0:41
This was a word that found its way into
0:44
the Creed of Nicaea, and it would be
0:47
used to define orthodoxy for centuries.
0:51
Now, the word itself, homoousios, it
0:53
means of the same substance, of the same
0:56
essence, or of the same being. Applied
1:00
to God the Son, it meant that the Son
1:03
was of the same essence, substance,
1:06
being as God the Father. Uh this Greek
1:10
word, though it sounds very
1:12
philosophical and technical, is not
1:15
itself found in scripture, yet it became
1:17
the linguistic fortress protecting the
1:20
full divinity of the Son over and
1:23
against Arians and semi-Arians
1:27
who had a subordinationist Christology
1:30
that demanded that the Son was of a
1:32
lesser divinity to the Father.
1:35
However, the acceptance of this word to
1:37
describe the Son's relationship to the
1:39
Father was not straightforward, nor was
1:44
An understanding why homoousios faced
1:47
initial resistance, and why it
1:49
ultimately prevailed and proved
1:53
is a big part to understanding the
1:55
Christological debates in the 4th
1:57
century. So, that's what we're going to
2:03
The term homoousios was not a new word
2:06
coined at the Council. It is a word that
2:09
had been used before. In fact, it had
2:11
some heretical baggage. When the Nicene
2:14
Fathers decided to deploy it in the
2:19
uh they employed a word that had been
2:21
used by Paul of Samosata, the 3rd
2:23
century Bishop of Antioch, whose
2:25
theology was condemned as heretical at
2:28
the Synod of Antioch in 268.
2:31
Paul had used the word homoousios to
2:33
describe the relationship between the
2:35
Father and the Son that effectively
2:37
collapsed their distinct identities into
2:39
a single divine person merely
2:42
manifesting itself in different modes,
2:44
and this is known as the era of modalism
2:47
or Sabellianism. So, it is fiercely
2:50
ironic that although Paul of Samosata's
2:52
use of the term homoousios
2:55
was regarded as a heretical innovation,
2:58
eventually the word homoousios would
3:00
become the rallying cry for the
3:03
pro-Nicene camp, and they would see it
3:06
as the main way of articulating the
3:09
unity and the same type of divinity
3:11
that's shared by God the Son and God the
3:14
Father. But, many people noted this
3:17
origin story for the word, and they were
3:19
a bit uncomfortable using it to describe
3:23
the Father and the Son. So, Eusebius of
3:26
Caesarea, he was a a church historian
3:28
and a bishop present at Nicaea, he
3:30
expressed reservations about the word
3:34
precisely because of this association
3:36
with Paul of Samosata. And in Eusebius's
3:39
letter to his diocese explaining the
3:41
Creed of Nicaea, Eusebius acknowledged
3:44
that the term initially troubled him due
3:47
to its use by those who had deployed
3:49
homoousios to refer to a substance that
3:53
was divided between two persons. I think
3:56
you could say the concern is quite
3:58
legitimate. If homoousios meant that the
4:00
Father and the Son shared an identical
4:03
substance that was somehow divided
4:05
between them, then this threatened the
4:07
distinction of persons in the Godhead.
4:10
This threatened the very nature of the
4:15
of God. Let me add that it did not help
4:19
the pro-Nicene cause after the Council
4:22
of Nicaea that one of the Council's
4:25
strongest advocates, Bishop Marcellus of
4:28
Ancyra, took an extreme anti-Arian
4:31
position that had a kind of modalist
4:34
ring to it, which shows that some people
4:37
were interpreting or taking homoousios
4:40
in a modalist direction, which is
4:42
precisely what some bishops had warned
4:45
about and worried about. So, the
4:48
pro-Nicene camp, their their faction in
4:51
the the subsequent 50 years of debate,
4:53
they always had to fight a rear guard
4:55
action under suspicion that they were
4:59
covertly arguing or introducing the
5:04
Now, this historical context explains
5:07
the hesitation that some bishops felt
5:10
towards introducing a a non-biblical
5:13
word like homoousios. And more than
5:15
that, the ghost of Paul of Samosata
5:17
haunted the Council chambers and would
5:20
be brought up again and again in
5:22
subsequent discussions.
5:24
Yet, the Nicene Fathers carefully
5:27
distinguished their use of homoousios
5:30
from that of Paul of Samosata, insisting
5:32
that the term affirmed a shared divine
5:36
essence without implying a division of
5:39
substance or a confusion of persons.
5:46
So, why did the pro-Nicene faction
5:49
continue to use the word homoousios
5:52
given how problematic it was in terms of
5:56
origins, given the controversy
5:57
surrounding Marcellus of Ancyra, and
6:00
given that it's not a word that's found
6:02
in scripture, and is open to potential
6:06
Well, you've got to remember that at the
6:08
Council of Nicaea, it was agreed that
6:10
the word was from God. Yet, the Arians
6:13
wanted to say as well that all things
6:15
are from God, you know, angels, humans.
6:18
So, the Son was from God like an angel
6:22
In response, the Council wanted to say
6:25
that the Son was from God in a very
6:27
special sense, as part of a unity with
6:31
God. So, they claimed he was from the
6:33
essence or substance of God the Father.
6:37
The word homoousios was fit for that
6:39
purpose. And furthermore, since Arius
6:42
had already explicitly denied this in
6:45
his Thalia, you know, his famous worship
6:47
song, he had denied that the Father and
6:49
the Son possessed the same substance,
6:52
there was no way that the pro-Arian
6:54
faction could wink or bluff their way
6:56
around the term. Pro-Arian bishops
7:01
orthodox-sounding language while
7:03
importing subordinationist content. So,
7:06
they could use the term
7:08
Son of God or other terms like Lord or
7:10
divine that could be accepted by
7:12
everyone, including the Arians, without
7:15
any reservations, but they had their own
7:17
particular spin, their own ideas in mind
7:20
when they were rendering. So, the word
7:24
you couldn't do that. You couldn't spin
7:26
it. You couldn't wink and or cross your
7:28
fingers while you were saying it. It was
7:30
immune to Arian equivocation. They
7:33
either accepted the word and what it
7:34
entailed, or they did not. And while the
7:39
word homoousios itself does not appear
7:41
in scripture, the reality it describes
7:45
pervades the New Testament's account of
7:49
Four texts in particular demonstrate why
7:52
the Nicene Fathers required language
7:55
expressing full divine equality and
7:57
essential unity between God the Father
8:00
and God the Son. I have several texts in
8:02
mind which I think demonstrate how
8:05
homoousios is part of the theological
8:08
judgment that the New Testament renders
8:11
about Jesus. So, in John 5:18, uh this
8:14
records a pivotal moment in Jesus's
8:16
ministry where his interlocutors, his
8:19
critics, uh want to kill him, and they
8:21
say they want to kill him uh not just
8:24
because he's breaking the Sabbath, but
8:26
because they claim he is making himself
8:31
So, the Judean authorities or his
8:33
Pharisaic interlocutors, they understood
8:36
Jesus's claim with crystal clarity. He
8:39
was asserting his equality with God by
8:42
saying that God was his Father, not in a
8:45
bland or general sense, but in a very
8:48
particular and specific relational
8:50
sense. So, his authority and his
8:52
commission came from God the Father. So,
8:54
the Fourth Gospel presents this equality
8:57
as the very reason for the opposition
9:00
against him. So, to retreat from the
9:02
word homoousios would be to dilute what
9:06
Jesus' contemporaries immediately
9:08
recognized. His claim amounted to
9:10
identification with the divine being
9:14
Staying in John's Gospel, we could go to
9:16
another text, you know, John 10:30,
9:18
which Jesus declares, "I and the Father
9:21
are one." Now, you can take that in a
9:24
modalist sense, but the Father and the
9:27
Son are distinguished throughout the
9:28
rest of the Gospel. But, it does show a
9:31
close relationship between the Father
9:34
and the Son, something that exists
9:36
within the orbit of Jewish monotheism,
9:38
you know, read John 17:3, uh there is
9:41
only one God, and yet out of that
9:43
monotheism, we see Jesus's unity with
9:47
the Father. So, there is one God in
9:49
Judaism, but Jesus has a particular
9:52
unity with God the Father. So, what is
9:55
true of God the Father is ultimately
9:57
also true of God the Son.
9:59
A third text we have to go to is
10:02
Philippians 2:6. So, we have here Paul's
10:04
profound meditation on the nature of the
10:06
incarnation. Now, is this pre-Pauline?
10:09
Is it a hymn or is it prose? Who knows?
10:13
But, this is a passage that very clearly
10:17
an equality between the being of the
10:20
Father and the being of the Son. We read
10:22
in the text that Jesus is in the form of
10:25
God, and he did not consider equality
10:28
with God something to be exploited or
10:30
used to his own advantage. Now, myself
10:32
and others think that form of God and
10:35
equality with God stand in parallel, so
10:37
they're kind of referring to the same
10:39
reality, which is kind of a a unity of
10:42
being. It means Jesus didn't merely have
10:46
divine attributes or qualities that
10:48
approximated to a heavenly standard, but
10:52
he had a genuine participation in God's
10:55
being. Uh this equality is not something
10:58
that he acquired, something he achieved,
11:01
but it was something he already
11:03
possessed, intrinsic to his being. He
11:06
possessed it rather than pursuing it by
11:09
avarice or his own self-aggrandizement.
11:13
In to the contrary, he was in fact
11:15
self-humbling, and that's the striking
11:18
fact. Although Jesus is in the form of
11:20
God and equal to God, he chose to humble
11:23
himself to empty himself by taking on
11:26
human form and even becoming a servant,
11:29
a slave who died on the cross.
11:32
A final text we might want to consider
11:34
here is Hebrews 1:3. And this is where
11:38
the language does get a little bit more
11:40
philosophically sophisticated, because
11:43
we read in the the opening prom of of
11:46
Hebrews that the Son is the radiance of
11:48
God's glory, and listen to this, the
11:51
exact representation of his being. Now,
11:57
the term uh character uh refers to the
11:59
impression made by a seal, uh an exact,
12:02
precise representation that shared the
12:05
very form of its source. But, more
12:09
the author specifies that the Son does
12:11
not merely represent God's activities or
12:14
attributes, but is his hypostasis, his
12:18
substantial reality, have the same
12:21
being. Uh this is ontological language,
12:24
asserting that the Son's relationship to
12:26
the Father involved a shared essential
12:29
being, not merely shared qualities or
12:33
functions. Now, if you take all these
12:35
texts together, from John, from
12:38
Philippians, from Hebrews, what we see
12:42
is that Jesus belongs to the one God
12:45
without abandoning monotheism, and there
12:48
is a close unity between the being of
12:53
Jesus, God the Son, is intimately
12:56
related to the deity, to the divine
13:00
nature of God the Father.
13:02
The theological challenges facing the
13:05
4th-century church was how to articulate
13:08
this somewhat biblical paradox in a way
13:11
that preserved the oneness of God, that
13:15
there is only one God, not three gods,
13:17
that preserved the distinction of the
13:19
persons, but showed that God the Son
13:23
came out of God's own being, without
13:26
there being two gods, without him being
13:29
merely a mode of God's being, and yet
13:32
also rejected a subordinationist account
13:36
whereby Jesus was sort of, you know,
13:38
mini divine, lesser divine, or bronze
13:41
divine, or something along those lines.
13:44
The word homoousios did exactly that. It
13:48
said Jesus is divine in the same way as
13:50
God the Father, but he's not the same
13:52
person as God the Father.
13:56
Between the Council of Nicaea in 325 and
14:00
the Council of Constantinople in 381,
14:04
huge and continued debates took place
14:07
over this word homoousios, and whether
14:09
it should be abandoned, whether you
14:11
should say, you know, Jesus is
14:13
homoiousios, he's like the Father in all
14:17
But, amongst the church fathers,
14:18
Athanasius continued to defend
14:21
homoousios on the grounds that it alone
14:25
preserved the genuine worship of God the
14:28
The Arian position, by making the Son a
14:31
creature, necessarily made Christian
14:34
worship idolatrous, because they were
14:36
venerating a created being. Whether
14:39
Jesus was merely a man or an angel, if
14:41
he's not divine as God the Father, then
14:44
it is idolatry. And if that is the case,
14:48
then the Christians who were worshipping
14:50
Jesus were engaged in a heretical or
14:53
idolatrous activity, because only the
14:56
one true God can be worshipped. And yet,
15:00
everyone agreed that Jesus should be
15:02
worshipped, and he's being worshipped
15:04
alongside or in the context of God the
15:06
Father. So, homoousios secured the
15:09
theological foundation for the worship
15:12
practice already embedded in the
15:15
church's liturgy and devotional
15:17
traditions. The controversy over the
15:20
word homoousios might appear to modern
15:22
observers as archaic theological
15:24
hairsplitting, uh you know, disputes
15:26
over the minutiae of technical terms
15:28
that could have been avoided through
15:29
some charitable flexibility. But, such a
15:32
dismissive attitude fails to grasp what
15:34
was really at stake.
15:36
The Nicene fathers recognized that
15:38
language shapes thought, that
15:41
theological precision protects the
15:43
gospel, and that clarity serves both
15:45
intellectual integrity and pastoral
15:49
The term homoousios, despite its initial
15:51
associations with modalism and its
15:53
rejection by Arians, proved
15:56
indispensable, because it was expressed
15:58
with philosophical precision what was
16:01
otherwise implied by scripture,
16:03
that Jesus Christ is fully God, sharing
16:06
the very essence of God the Father, yet
16:08
is distinct in person.
16:10
The biblical texts pointing towards this
16:13
reality, you know, Jesus' equality with
16:15
the Father, his possession of a divine
16:17
nature, his character as the exact
16:19
representation of God's being, it
16:21
required conceptual categories to
16:24
adequately explain that claim.
16:27
The 4th-century church's willingness to
16:29
embrace extra-biblical terminology in
16:31
the service of biblical truth offers a
16:34
model for theological method even today.
16:37
Scripture, of course, remains the
16:39
norming norm, the highest authority, but
16:42
conceptual precision sometimes requires
16:45
a meta-biblical language to describe
16:49
biblical language itself. Sometimes
16:51
you've got to go beyond scripture to
16:55
When the Nicene fathers adopted the word
16:57
homoousios and put it in the creeds,
16:59
they did not import alien philosophy
17:01
into Christian theology. Rather, they
17:04
forged linguistic tools sufficient to
17:06
expound scripture's staggering claims
17:08
about Jesus Christ. The word homoousios,
17:12
which was, you know, initially rejected,
17:14
became the cornerstone of orthodox
17:16
Christology. Hey, thanks for watching
17:19
this episode of Early Christian History.
17:21
Hope you've enjoyed it. If you have a
17:24
look around the channel, you'll find
17:27
videos about theology, church history,
17:30
biblical studies, book reviews covering
17:33
a wide variety of topics. And if you
17:35
like that kind of content, please
17:37
subscribe, share, leave a comment, and I
17:40
look forward to seeing you on the next
17:42
episode of Early Christian History.
