Christ as Begotten & Divine Hierarchy
The following is taken David W. Bercot’s A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, published by Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts in 1998. Bercot refutes those who cite early Christian writers to prove that Christ was a created being solely because these authorities often used the Greek terms for create and birthing interchangeably in describing the Son’s begetting from God.
Bercot demonstrates that none of these “orthodox” writers believed that the Son was a creature whom the Father produced out of nothing. Rather, he explains that they all taught that the Son was in/of/from the Father’s own Being, since he is the uncreated Word who was already existing before creation came into existence.
Bercot also does a fine job of showing how these early Christian theologians distinguished between substance/nature, personal attributes and order as they relate to the Trinity. All emphasis will be mine.
E. Begotten, not made
When the student of the Nicene Creed comes to the phrase “Begotten, not made,” it often appears that here there is a divergence between the Creed and the pre-Nicene church.
There is, however, actually no difference in belief. There is only a difference in phraseology.
The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son of God was begotten; he was not made or created out of nothing. The pre-Nicene church firmly believed this.
Orthodoxy in the pre-Nicene church, however, focused on right concepts—not on using this word instead of that word.
As Origen expressed it:
“Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty”
(ANF 4.376).
From the writings of the pre-Nicene Christians, it is quite apparent that many of them used “begotten” [Gr. gennetos] and “created” [Gr. genetos and ktizein] as interchangeable terms.
This was partially based on usage in Scripture. In describing the generation of Wisdom (which the pre-Nicene church universally understood to be referring to the generation of the Son), the eighth chapter of Proverbs in the Septuagint uses the term “create” [Gr. ektisen].
But in using the term ktizein, neither Scripture nor the pre-Nicene writers meant that the Son was made or created out of nothing. Rather, they understood ktizein to have a broad meaning that encompasses both “beget” and “create.” This becomes quite clear when a person reads the totality of what each writer says. (Ibid, p. 232)
III. Relationship of the Son to the Father
When western Christians read what the early church believed about the relationship of the Father and the Son, they are often quite surprised.
Some well-meaning Christians mistakenly accuse the early church of being Arian. In doing so, they obviously have not given deep thought to the matter.
As we have already seen, the Nicene Creed is an encapsulation of what the pre-Nicene church believed about the Father and the Son. In accordance with the Nicene Creed, the early Christians taught that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and that the Son was not created out of nothing.
Of course, many Christians believe that the church grew into a better understanding of the Trinity in the centuries following the council of Nicaea. That position is a subject beyond the scope of this work. Before we can even discuss the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in a meaningful way, however, we must first thoroughly understand what the church originally taught about the Trinity, particularly concerning the relationship of the Father and the Son.
The key to understanding the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is comprehending the difference between “nature,” “personal attributes,” and “order.” These terms refer to three very different things, yet many western Christians do not grasp this distinction. Arius certainly did not grasp it, which is what led to his heresy.
In theology, “nature” or “substance” refers to the essence or class to which a person or creature belongs. All humans are of one nature or one substance, regardless of differing personal characteristics. In a genetic sense, no man or woman is any less human than anybody else.
But humans are not of the same nature or substance as the angels. Now, the Nicene Creed affirms that the Father and the Son are of the same nature or substance. The Son is not something foreign to the Father; rather, He possesses the same nature as the Father. Both the Father and the Son are equally divine.
If the Son were not of equal nature or substance as the Father, He would not be fully divine; He would not possess true Godhood. The quotations above reveal that the pre-Nicene church explicitly taught that the Son is fully divine.
“Personal attributes” are something altogether different. Personal attributes refer to the individual characteristics and differences between members of the same class or nature. To grasp this distinction, let us go back in time to the creation of man.
According to Genesis, at one time there were only two humans on the earth, Adam and Eve. These two humans shared the same nature or substance. Adam was not more human than Eve, nor was Eve more human than Adam. They were equal in nature or substance.
Now, does that mean that the first two humans were equal or identical in personal attributes? No, it does not. Adam was no doubt taller and stronger than Eve. Furthermore, Eve had come out of Adam, being formed from his rib.
On the other hand, Eve had the ability to give birth to children and to breast-feed infants. Adam could do neither of these things. In short, there were personal attributes that made Adam and Eve different from each other—even though they were both equal in nature.
Likewise, the church has taught from the beginning that there are personal attributes that distinguish the Father from the Son. For example, the Father begets the Son, and, therefore, the Son has His origin [arche] in the Father.
Does this make the Son less divine than the Father? Does this reduce the Son to being a demigod? Not at all! Being unbegotten is not an aspect of divinity; it is a personal attribute.
Again, the early church believed that the Father could never become incarnate nor could he ever make himself visible to human eyes. To the early church, this would have been a denial of the Father’s unique personhood. That is because the Father is the ultimate Source not only of the universe, but also of the Trinity.
In saying this, the early church was not demoting the Son to being a demigod. Rather, it understood that such things are not attributes of divinity. Rather, those attributes are simply differing characteristics of the Father and the Son.
So the early church affirmed that the Father is greater than the Son—as to personal attributes, but not as to nature. The Son (and the Holy Spirit) possess the full attributes of divinity, but the Father possesses unique personal attributes that make him greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. As has been said, one of these characteristics is that the Father is the Begetter.
There is another sense, however, in which the early church taught that the Father is greater than the Son: in the sense of order. Here, “order” means chain of authority. Equality of nature does not mean equality of order.
Returning to our illustration of Adam and Eve, we find that not only did the first two humans differ in personal attributes; they also differed in order. Although Adam and Eve were equal in nature, Adam was created first, and he was the head of Eve.
Paul explains that there is the exact same order within the Trinity, saying, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).
So the Father has authority over the Son. The Son is sent by the Father; the Son does the will of the Father; and the Son sits at the Father’s right hand. This hierarchy of order cannot be reversed. Yet this hierarchy of order in no way diminishes the Son’s divinity.
When Christians do not understand the difference between nature, personal attributes, and order, they end up with a confused understanding of the Trinity. They also misconstrue what the early Christians taught about the Father and the Son.
The following passages illustrate how the early church understood the Scriptures regarding the nature, personal attributes, and order of the Father and the Son. (Ibid., pp. 239-240)
Further Reading
Was Jesus a created being after all?