|
Introduction
One of the most important Triadological issues that seriously preoccupied
not only Athanasius the Great but also certain other Fathers of
the 4th century such as the Cappadocians, Didymus the
Blind and Epiphanios of Cyprus, was the matter of associating
the begetting of the Son with the freedom of the Father - that
is: if and to what extent the begetting of the Son affects the
freedom of the Father or not, or, in other words, if the Father
begat the Son of His own volition or involuntarily.
This problem – in the form of a pressing dilemma – had been posed by the
Arians for discussion, in their endeavour to prove that the Son
does not originate from the essence, but from the
volition of the Father and as such, the Son must be a creation.
In fact, it was for this reason that they had even adopted a m
On the basis therefore of these presuppositions, the Arians presented the
Orthodox the following, pressing dilemma, in the form of a
question: « Did the Father want to beget the Son, or not want
to? » [ Θέλων
εγέννησεν ο Πατήρ τον Υιόν, ή μη θέλων; ]
4.
The objective of this extortive dilemma was obvious: If the
Orthodox were to reply that the Father begat the Son voluntarily
(θέλων),
then they must necessarily be conceding that the Son does not
differ ontologically to any of the other creations. If again
they were to reply that the Father begat the Son involuntarily (μη
θέλων), then they would be forced to concede that the
Son was begotten of the Father out of necessity – something
entirely inadmissible, because it would have placed doubt, even
on the very godhood of the Father
5.
The reply given by the aforementioned Fathers to the Triadological
problem that was posed by means of the crafty Arian dilemma was
a most significant one for the development of the Dogma on the
Trinity during the 4th century, and is exceptionally
opportune in our day, on account of the related,
theological-philosophical concerns that have been observed
recently in the inter-Orthodox sphere, and especially in our own
country.
a) The Arian dilemma and God’s transcendence
The first one to confront this Triadological problem was Athanasius the
Great, who, with the extensive and well-documented reply that he
presented, essentially carved out the outline and placed the
foundations for the elucidation of this problem, followed by the
remaining Fathers that we mentioned above. They too contemplated
and presented their arguments on the matter, exactly like
Athanasius the Great. The chief concern for all of them was to
prove that the aforementioned dilemma that the Arians had
presented to the Orthodox was essentially a pseudo-dilemma and
as such, could not in any way be applied to God.
To begin with, the presuppositions on which the dilemma was based were,
according to all those Fathers, both unstable and void. To be
sure, the Arians’ m
However, apart from this, divine nature is also above and ontologically
precedent to divine thought and volition; therefore whatever
exists or occurs ‘by nature’ in God does not signify that it
exists or occurs perforce. Anyway, the ontological precedence of
nature versus thought and volition is not something that
characterizes the uncreated God only, but also created beings.
For example – observes Athanasius the Great - one builds his
house, after first having contemplated and decided how it will
be done; however, one cannot ontologically predetermine one’s
son upon contemplation and volition, but will simply beget a
son, “by nature”. And this is absolutely reasonable, because a
son is not like a house (which is outside the father), but is
the offspring of that very paternal essence. If a father were to
contemplate and decide on the ontological determination of his
son, it would mean that he contemplates and decides on the
ontological determination of his own self – something entirely
absurd of course. And Athanasius the Great concludes: « As
much, therefore, as a son predominates over a creation, thus
much also is volition predominated by nature.»
7
[
Όσω ουν
του κτίσματος
ο υιός
υπέρκειται,
τοσούτω
και της
βούλησης το
κατά φύσιν
] If this m
In order for the Fathers to prove the correctness of these positions, as
well as the sophist character of the said Arian dilemma, they in
turn posed similar dilemmas to the Arians, from which it becomes
clearly obvious that it is completely foolish to link God’s
nature to necessity, and His freedom exclusively to His
volition:
“When God is seen as ‘benevolent’ or
‘merciful’”– asks Athanasius the Great – “does God have this attribute of His own volition, or without His volition?”
If we were to accept that He has this attribute with His
volition, it would signify that He at some point began to
be benevolent, and that He could, if He so willed, also be mean.
But this would have been feasible, only if He were to
actually contemplate and decide on His benevolence – an
entirely absurd and inadmissible thing for God. If we were to
likewise accept that He is benevolent and merciful without
His volition, then according to Arian logic, He would have
possessed His benevolence out of necessity, and not of His own
volition. But then there is the question of, who would
impose such a necessity on God? Therefore, just as God has
eternally been benevolent “by nature”, without His
benevolence being a given fact, out of necessity, thus is the
Father (even more importantly) “eternally generative, by
nature”; in other words, He is “by nature” the Father of the
Son, and not “by volition”
10.
This truth is made evident even more indisputably, by another, more
provocative dilemma that Athanasius had posed to the Arians,
following closely in the steps of Gregory the Theologian and
Didymus the Blind on this point:
“Does the Father exist as God of His own
volition, or involuntarily?” If He exists thus
without His volition, then His existence and His nature are
both a given, arising out of necessity. If His existence did
indeed depend on and was determined by His volition, then He
must not have existed, prior to His actual will to exist.
But if He did exist, then what was He, prior to His will
to exist, and furthermore, what more does He have, after
the realization of this will of His?
Thus, just as God exists “by nature”, and His existence is not dependent
on - or determined by - His will, thus also does His Logos exist
“by nature” and is not dependent on or determined by the
contemplation and the will of the Father
11.
One could reach the same conclusion –according to Didymus the Blind- by
posing the dilemma whether God is immortal and benevolent of His
own volition, or without his volition. The best answer that one
could give to such dilemmas is – as emphatically underlined by
Didymus – that none of these ponderings can apply to the
uncreated and all-perfect God. In other words, that it is
neither with His volition nor without it, that God is existent
or benevolent or immortal, but it is on account of His perfect,
uncreated nature. Consequently, just as the existence of the
Father, His immortality and His goodness are not dependent on or
determined by His volition, thus the begetting of the Son is
also not dependent on or determined by the will of the Father as
the Arians assert, when linking nature to necessity and volition
to freedom, in the case of God
12.
Apart from the above, however, the notion of the Son’s begetting by the
Father in the context of natural necessity and volition
essentially immures the uncreated and transcendental God within
the confines of created reality, and it equates Him
ontologically to created beings. That is why the 4th
century Fathers unanimously stress with particular emphasis that
the manner of the divine begetting is both transcendental and
unintelligible.
«How, then, was the Son begotten?»,
asks Gregory the Theologian provocatively - shunning the sophist
Arian dilemma – then proceeding to provide the answer himself:
«This begetting» - he observes - «would not have been
such an immense thing, if you had been capable of comprehending
it. But you hardly know anything about your own begetting, or
have comprehended something of it that you are too ashamed to
even mention. Furthermore, do you think that you know
everything? You must have previously labored at length, to be in
a position to also explain how conception takes place, how the
embryo forms, or how birth takes place, or the union of body and
soul, the mind and the soul, speech and the mind, or movement,
or growth, or the assimilation of food, or how the senses
function, or memory, or recollection, and all your other organs;
what actions are common between body and soul, which of them are
inherent and which are acquired… But even if you did comprehend
all these things, even then it is impermissible for you to
philosophize about the begetting by God, because this kind of
endeavor is a dangerous one. When you are incapable of knowing
anything about your own begetting, how can you be capable of
knowing about the begetting by God? The more unapproachable that
God is to Man, the more unintelligible the divine begetting is,
when compared to your own. It is for this reason» -
concludes Gregory the Theologian - «that the begetting by God
must be honored with silence. It is an immense enough thing, for
you to know that the Son was begotten; to know HOW He was
begotten is impossible to be comprehended, even by the angels
themselves, let alone by you! Do you want me to explain HOW He
was begotten? It is how the Father who begat Him knows, and how
the Son who was begotten knows. Anything beyond that is shrouded
by the mist of ignorance and it eludes your weak vision!»
13.
We can indicate similar arguments that express a clearly negative stance
towards the manner of the divine begetting, in almost all of the
Fathers of the 4th century; but we need to underline
that this negativity by the Fathers is not the product of
any intellectual pondering, as was neo-Platonic negativity for
example; it is in fact the immediate and natural gnosiological
consequence of the distinction between created and uncreated. In
other words, it is because man is created that he is incapable
–by nature- to be familiar with the uncreated mystery of
the divine begetting. And this, according to the Fathers, is
furthermore the reason that this inability is not only a
characteristic of mankind, but also of angels.
14
Consequently, the said extortive Arian dilemma is – according to the 4th
century Fathers – both a sophist and an unsubstantial one, not
only because God with His uncreated nature is above the
necessity of nature and free will, as is the case in created
beings (because His nature is above and ontologically precedent
to His thought and His volition), but also because the begetting
of the Son constitutes on its own a supernatural mystery which
is impossible for created beings to comprehend by means of m
« Neither, therefore, did He beget voluntarily, nor involuntarily, but
only on account of the preponderance of nature. For divine
nature predominates over volition and is not subjugated to Time,
nor drawn by any need »
[ Ούτε
θέλων τοίνυν
εγέννησεν,
ούτε
μη θέλων,
αλλ’ υπερβολή
φύσεως.
υπερβαίνει
γαρ η
θεία
φύσις βουλήν,
και ουχ
υποπίπτει χρόνω,
ούτε ανάγκη
άγεται ].
b) The involuntariness behind the divine
begetting
But let us see more analytically the teaching of the 4th
century Fathers regarding voluntariness or involuntariness
behind the divine begetting, the way they had expounded it, in
the context of their response to the above sophist dilemma by
the Arians.
And first of all, let us see how involuntariness behind the divine
begetting is perceived. It is commonly agreed by all the Fathers
without exception that the begetting of the Son – contrary to
Arius’ assertion – is something natural; it is “of the essence
of the Father”, and as such, it is not dependent on the volition
of the Father. If the opposite were the case, there would have
been absolutely no ontological distinction between the Son and
creations, and the Creator would have related ontologically to
the creations. But if this were the case – as accurately
observed by Gregory the Theologian – the Son would have become
entirely alienated from the Father, because the direct cause of
His existence would not have been the Father Himself, but only
the Father’s volition. In other words, as the same Father
caustically comments, the Arians with this teaching of theirs,
have “re-created volition, as a kind of new mother, in place
of the Father”
15.
But the Son is not the Son of a volition; He is the Son of a
willing Father. In order to comprehend this point, Gregory the
Theologian proposed a distinction that was to be a determinant
for the Orthodox handling of the overall issue. “The person
who wills something is one thing, while the will per se is
another, in exactly the same way that the person who begets is
one thing, while the begotten is another; the speaker is one
thing, while his utterance is another. The one denotes the
personal subject who engages in an action, whereas the other
denotes the subject’s per se action. In this context, what is
willed is not necessarily pursuant to the one who wills; in
fact, it can be precedent to the will; but it still most
certainly originates from the person who wills it. And if this
can apply to created things, it can apply infinitely more to the
uncreated God. Consequently, it is entirely inadmissible to
regard the will of the Father as the cause of the Son’s
existence, because it cannot be reconciled to the notion of the
divine begetting”.
16
“Besides”, observes Athanasius the Great, “it would be entirely illogical
for the begetting of the Son and Logos of God to be dependent on
the volition of the Father, because this would have signified
that God wills, thinks, is predisposed and exhorts Himself into
willing something, in order that He might acquire a Logos
(reason) and Wisdom, and not be reason-less and wisdom-less.”
17
To Athanasius, who is clearly expounding the endo-Trinitarian aspect and
functionality of the Logos of God, God is log-ical and
wise, precisely because He has eternally had the Logos
and the Wisdom, and there has never been a time during which He
was without His Logos and His Wisdom, but had (supposedly)
acquired this hypostatic characteristic afterwards, at will.
God’s will is a determining cause, only in reference to
His creations. The Son – as the Logos and Wisdom of God – is not
to be confused ontologically with them (creations); He is “by
nature….the offspring” of the very essence of the Father.
18
But there is one more basic reason why it is not possible for the Son to
originate from the volition of the Father, according to
Athanasius the Great: it is because the Son Himself is the
living volition of the Father, by Whom all creations were
created. And the fact that the Logos is the living volition and
will -per se- of God, does not allow for any possibility of
there being another volition in God, precedent to Him (the
Logos-Christ), to which He (the Logos-Christ) would owe His
existence. ‘Will’ and ‘volition’ in God is the Logos
Himself
19.
In other words, the Father wills, and He wills with His Logos;
He contemplates and “wills, through the Son”, as Basil the Great
would say shortly after, when continuing the theological thought
of Athanasius the Great on the matter
20.
But here, one could justifiably pose the following question: How is
Athanasius the Great led to relating the Logos to the will and
the volition of God?
First of all, we need to stress that this linkage is already clearly
witnessed in the Holy Bible, according to Athanasius. To prove
this, he resorts to all those passages in the Old and the New
Testament that refer to the dependence of created beings on
the creative Logos or the wisdom and the prudence of God, as
well as to His will or His volition, for example: «On the logos
(‘word’) of the Lord were the skies secured»
21,
«He uttered, and they were born; He commanded, and they were
created»
22,
«God laid the foundations of the earth in wisdom, and He
prepared the heavens in prudence»
23,
«Everything came to be through Him (the Logos), and without Him
(the Logos) not one thing came to be, of those things that are»
24,
«Everything that our God willed, in heaven and on earth, He (the
Logos) made»
25,
«Having willed it, He begat us, through the logos of truth»
26,
«For this is the will of God unto us, in Jesus Christ»
27,
e.a. «Given, therefore» – he concludes – «that
everything according to the Holy Bible came to be through the
Logos or the Wisdom or the Prudence and the Will or the Volition
of God, it stands to reason that this volition of God can be
none other that the very Logos Himself»
28.
However, apart from the biblical grounds indicated by Athanasius the
Great that the Logos is linked to the will or the volition of
God, it appears that he is also founding this linkage on the
Hellenic philosophical significance given to the meaning of the
word “logos”. To Hellenic philosophy – and more especially to the Stoic school – the word “logos” does not have a theoretical inference only, but a practical one also. In other words, it is not merely the internal mental function of innate reasoning (logic); it also comprises the voli-tional (voulé, from the Greek root «βουλή», =will), determining cause of things when manifested outwardly, as an action, or as a practical or creative logos 29. In other words, to Hellenic philosophy, the word “logos” is always perceived as something volitional, and volition is always perceived as “logic”. In fact, this existential unity between the logos and volition can also be detected in the Hellenic language, which is profoundly influenced by Hellenic philosophy. It is not at all by chance that both the Greek verb «βουλεύεσθαι» (pron.: voolé-ves-thae) - which denotes the innermost, theoretical function of the logos, contemplation – as well as the verb «βούλεσθαι» (pron.: voól-es-thae) - which denotes the outward, practical function of the logos – both have the same etymological root. The semantic unity between the two verbs becomes apparent chiefly in the derivative noun, «βουλή» (pron.: voo-lee), which signifies both logical thought as well as a volitional decision. Even today, this word continues to have exactly the same inferences. When we refer to Parliament (Greek = Βουλή), we are referring to a body of representatives of the Hellenic nation, who not only confer (think together), but also decide together. We are therefore of the opinion that Athanasius the Great in his confrontation of the Arians is utilizing this existential and semantic unity between logos and volition that characterizes Hellenic philosophy and language so vividly. This is precisely what he allows to be surmised, when, by presupposing a synonymy between the terms “logos” and “thought”, he is expressing a personal opinion which he in fact founds logically, by stating the following: « I am of the opinion that belief and volition are the same thing. That which someone contemplates is in any event that which he also believes, and that which he believes is also what he contemplates » [ ταυτόν γαρ ηγούμαι φρόνησιν και βούλησιν είναι. Ο γαρ βουλεύεται τις τούτο πάντως και φρονεί και ο φρονεί τούτο και βουλεύεται ] 30.
What is characteristic in this statement is not only the relating of the
terms “thought” and “will”, but also the use of the verb «βουλεύεσθαι» (=to contemplate) instead of «βούλεσθαι» (= to will). In fact, in another part of his 3rd
essay against Arians, he alternates the terms «βούλησις» (=will) and «βουλεύεσθαι»
(to think), precisely because he regards them as absolutely
identical. Specifically, when referring to the Arians’ assertion
that if the Son came to be “by volition” then God must have
acquired a Son out of necessity and without His will, he
responded as follows:
«They regarded the object (the Son) as being of volition, but they did not give any regard to that which is superior and above it. For, just as that which is opposed to opinion is also opposed to will, thus whatever is by nature supersedes and precedes thought. Thus, one constructs a house by contemplating about it, but he begets a son by nature, and whereas construction begins to be realized upon one’s will and is outside the one who constructs, the son however is begotten of the very essence of the father, and is not outside him. This is why He does not contemplate about Him either, so that it not be thought that He contemplates on everything that concerns Himself also. For, as much as the son supersedes a creation, thus much does nature supersede volition, and it pleased them, on hearing that that which is by nature is not to be perceived as being by volition » [ Το μεν αντικείμενον τη βουλήσει εωράκασιν το δε μείζον και υπερκείμενον ουκ εθεώρησαν. Ώσπερ γαρ αντίκειται τη βουλήσει το παρά γνώμην, ούτως υπέρκειται και προηγείται του βουλεύεσθαι το κατά φύσιν. Οικίαν μεν ουν τις βουλευόμενος κατασκευάζει, υιόν δε γεννά κατά φύσιν και το μεν βουλήσει κατασκευαζόμενον ήρξατο γίνεσθαι, και έξωθεν εστί του ποιούντος, ο δε υιός ίδιον εστί της ουσίας του πατρός γέννημα, και ουκ εστίν έξωθεν αυτού". Διό ουδέ βουλεύεται περί αυτού, ίνα μη και περί εαυτού δοκή βουλεύεσθαι. Όσω ουν του κτίσματος ο υιός υπέρκειται, τοσούτω και της βούλησης το κατά φύσιν και έδει αυτούς, ακούοντας ου βουλήσει λογίζεσθαι το κατά φύσιν 31. ]
The alternation between the terms «βούλησις»
(will-volition) and «βουλεύεσθαι»
(to contemplate) in the above text is abundant proof that
Athanasius the Great relates the term «βουλεύεσθαι» (to contemplate) to the term «βούλεσθαι» (to will), precisely because he unreservedly
accepts the existential and semantic unity between the term
“logos” and “will”, as does Hellenic philosophy and the Greek
language. This unity constitutes - for Athanasius the Great -
the most suitable prerequisite when confronting the Arian
perception (according to which the Son is regarded as a product
of the will of God the Father), and he thus poses the following,
rhetorical question:
«How, therefore, is it possible for the Logos
– Who is Himself the Volition and the Will of the Father
– to have come to being through a volition and will? …..
And if He is the (Father’s) Will, how can this Will be within a
volition? »
[
Πώς ουν δύναται βουλή και θέλημα του Πατρός υπάρχων ο Λόγος
γίνεσθαι και αυτός θελήματι και βουλήσει;
32
…Και ει η
βούλησις αυτός, πώς εν βουλήσει η βουλή; ]
33
c) The voluntariness behind the divine
begetting
But now let us take a look at how the voluntariness behind the
divine begetting is understood by the Fathers, which they
counterpose as a reply to the familiar, sophist dilemma of the
Arians.
The fact that the existence of the Son is not dependent on the
will of the Father does not –according to the 4th
century Fathers- imply that the Son must therefore be “unwilled…by
the Father” and that consequently the Son exists out of
necessity and contrary to His will. « Not so; for the Son is
also willed by the Father », [
Ουμενούν αλλά
και θελόμενός
εστίν ο
Υιός παρά
του Πατρός
] characteristically states Athanasius the Great
34.
In fact, to found this position biblically, he directs us to the
verse by John: « The Father loves the Son and discloses
everything to Him »
35
[
Ο Πατήρ
φιλεί τον
Υιόν και
πάντα δείκνυσιν
Αυτώ
], even though he suppresses similar verses by John on
this point, such as « The Father loves the Son and He has
given everything in His hand »
36
[Ο Πατήρ
αγαπά τον
Υιόν, και
πάντα δέδωκεν
εν τη
χειρί
αυτού], or: « Father, You have loved Me even before the
making of the world »
37
[Πάτερ ηγάπησάς
με προ
καταβολής κόσμου
], as well as the biblical verse: « This is my Son, the
beloved one » [Ούτος εστίν
ο Υιός
μου ο
αγαπητός],
38
(which the
saint does however use, in other areas), in order to stress the
“per essence” relationship between Father and Son
39.
Since, therefore, according to the Holy Bible the Father
loves the Son, this to Athanasius the Great entails that
even though the Son does not originate “from a
volition” but “by nature” from the Father, He nevertheless
does not have to necessarily exist contrary to the volition
of the Father. And this is precisely why: given that the Father
loves Him, He would also naturally want/will Him
40.
Having founded his position biblically, Athanasius the Great proceeds to
found it logically, by faithfully following Didymus the Blind in
his syllogistic method. He observes: Just as the benevolence and
the existence of the Father are not dependent on
His will, but are equally not opposed to His will -
simply because the Father wants to be what He is - the
same applies to the begetting of the Son: albeit not
dependent on the will of the Father, the Son is nevertheless
neither un-willed, nor derived out of necessity, but is both
wanted (willed) and loved by the Father. As stated by Athanasius
the Great, verbatim: « Just as His being benevolent did not
depend on volition, thus also is He benevolent not unwillingly
and involuntarily; whatever is, is also willed by Him. Thus also
does the Son exist : albeit not dependent on volition, He is
nevertheless not un-willed, nor does He exist contrary to
desire. Just as He (the Father) wills His own hypostasis, thus
the Son– being also of the same essence – was not un-willed by
Him. The Son,
therefore, was both willed and loved by the Father
» [Ως γαρ το είναι αγαθός ουκ εκ βούλησης μεν ήρξατο, ου μη
αβουλήτως και αθελήτως εστίν αγαθός• ο γαρ εστί, τούτο και
θελητόν εστίν αυτώ* ούτω και το είναι τον Υιόν, ει και μη εκ
βούλησης ήρξατο, αλλ’ ουκ αθέλητον, ουδέ παρά γνώμην εστίν αυτώ.
Ώσπερ γαρ της ιδίας υπόστασης εστί θελητής, Ούτω και ο Υιός,
ίδιος ων αυτού της ουσίας, ουκ αθέλητος εστίν αυτώ. Θελέσθω και
φιλεέσθω τοίνυν
ο Υιός
παρά Πατρός
]
41.
The begetting of the Son –as stressed by Gregory the Theologian also–
cannot be involuntary and out of a necessity, as though it were
a glass that overflows (according to the Platonic image
explaining the origin of the second cause from within the
first), or as though it were a natural and irrepressible
excrement
42.
And the reason for this is that to God the Father, the begetting
of the Son is willed. In God, he notes characteristically: “begetting
is perhaps the will (per se) to beget”
43.
It is with this precise inference that Cyril of Alexandria later
characterized the Son as the genuine and freely born fruit of
the paternal essence
44.
But one must be careful here. This free and willed element of the Son’s
begetting by the Father must be perceived “reverently”, as
underlined by Athanasius the Great
45
(i.e.,
Orthodoxically, and not in the Arian manner, by hinging the
begetting of the Son on the will of the Father). In other words,
the fact that the Father wills and loves the Son does not mean
that the volition of the Father constitutes the determining
cause of the Son’s begetting, or that the Father begets the Son
out of love - as certain Orthodox theologians maintain nowadays
- thus giving the impression that in this way, the love
of the Father is presented as the determining cause of
the beginning-less existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit
46.
It quite simply means that the Father, being uncreated and
transcendental, is not restricted ontologically and as such, He
transcends the natural necessity and the free will attributed to
created beings, for the begetting of His Son. This is precisely
what Athanasius underlines, when he states: « Just as He (the
Father) wills His own hypostasis, thus the Son– being also of
the same essence – was not un-willed by Him. The Son, therefore,
was both willed and loved by the Father » [
Ώσπερ
γαρ της
ιδίας υπόστασης
εστί θελητής,
ούτω και
ο Υιός,
ίδιος ων
αυτού της
ουσίας,
ουκ
αθέλητος εστίν
αυτώ. Θελέσθω
και φιλεέσθω
τοίνυν ο
Υιός παρά
του Πατρός
]
47.
Didymus the Blind’s observation at this point is also very
enlightening: « Thus does He (the Father) exist as immortal
and benevolent: by wanting to be thus and because He wanted it
thus, and the determining cause of this manner of existence –so
to speak- is neither attributed to a volition or the absence of
volition – in the same way that the determining cause of the
Son’s begetting is not the will (per se) of the Father » [
Όν
τρόπον υπάρχων
ο Πατήρ
αθάνατος τε
και αγαθός,
βούλεται είναι
ταύτα και
βουλόμενος εστίν
ταύτα, ουκ
αιτίαν,
ίν’
ούτω φράσω,
την βούλησιν
έχων, ούτε
μην ανεθελήτως
ων ούτως
ουδέ του
γεννήσαι η
βούλησις αιτία
]
48.
Besides, the will behind the divine begetting is not –according to
Athanasius the Great– something that characterizes only the
Father, but also the Son.
The Father wants to beget the Son with the very same will that the Son
wants to be begotten of the Father. And it is precisely for this
reason that the will between Father and Son is one, with regard
to the mystery of the divine begetting. The will of the Father
to beget is not separate from the will of the Son to be
begotten. As Athanasius the Great characteristically stresses: «For
even the will by which the Son is willed by the Father, is the
same will that He loves and wants and honors the Father. And the
will of the Father in the Son is one, so that one may regard the
Son as being in the Father and the Father in the Son » [Και
γαρ ο
Υιός
τη θελήσει
η θέλεται
παρά του
Πατρός,
ταύτη
και αυτός
αγαπά και
θέλει και
τιμά τον
Πατέρα.
Και έν
εστί θέλημα το εκ Πατρός εν Υιό, ως και εκ τούτου θεωρείσθαι τον
Υιόν εν τω Πατρί και τον Πατέρα εν τω Υιό]
49.
Besides, since –according to Athanasius the Great- the living
will and volition of the Father is the Logos Himself,
there exists no other will or volition in the Father, other than
the Logos. The Father thinks and wills, through His Logos, which
is why He is « eternally generative, by nature » [αεί γεννητικός
τη φύσει]
according to the expression of Athanasius the Great
50.
Thus, the begetting of the Son essentially comprises a
self-affirmation of the Father’s existence and an ontological
expression of His freedom. In other words, the Father freely
wills to exist “pre-eternally” as the Father, and this will of
His is expressed with the “pre-eternal” begetting of His Son and
Logos. In this way, the Logos –as the will and the volition of
the Father- does not only constitute the creative and connective
cause of created beings, but also the sole expression of the
Father’s will to exist as “eternally generative by nature”.
Consequently, the Father does not have one will for His endo-Triadic
relationships and another will for His exo-Triadic relations
with the world, as a certain young theologian had mistakenly and
hastily asserted, based on his own evaluation
51.
If we were to accept something like that, then according to the
theological presuppositions of Athanasius the Great that we
expounded earlier, we must accept two ‘Logos’ for the Father:
one for His endo-Triadic and one for His exo-Triadic
relationships. But Athanasius the Great is absolutely clear on
this point: The will of the Father – both for His endo-Triadic
and His exo-Triadic relationships - is one and the same, because
His pre-eternal Logos is only one, and it is He who comprises
His only will and volition.
Moreover, the one and only volition - with which the Father wills to
beget the Son and the Son wills to be begotten of the Father –
does not mean that this volition determines the relationship
between Father and Son, but that it comprises the main
expression and the supreme proof of the “omoousion” (=of the
same essence) between the two divine persons. Thus, the
voluntariness behind the divine begetting is not irreconcilable
or dialectically opposite to the “par essence” relationship
between Father and Son. The irreconcilable element and the
dialectic antithesis of the voluntariness behind the derivation
of one being from another with their ‘par essence’ association
and their ‘omoousion’ (same essence), is an exclusive
characteristic of the cumbersome nature of created beings, and
not the omnipotent and uncreated nature of God. That is why
Gregory of Nyssa so characteristically points out that neither
the ‘omoousion’ (same essence) between Father and Son should
lead us to a dismissal of voluntariness behind the divine
begetting - because it supposedly entails an unintentional and
imposed begetting of the Son - nor again should a voluntariness
behind the divine begetting lead us to a denial of the ‘omoousion’
between Father and Son, supposedly because volition is
interpolated between them
52.
The element of ‘omoousion’ of these two divine persons and the
voluntariness behind the divine begetting are both in a
balanced, unbroken and functional association between them. To
make this point clear and understandable, so that it will not be
prone to any misinterpr
Conclusion
With everything that we have said, we have attempted to render somewhat
palpable one of the most important triadological issues that had
preoccupied the major Fathers of the 4th century,
from the solution of which issue depended in large not only the
safeguarding of the Nicene dogma from the assaults of the
Arians, but also the pursuant development of the entire dogma on
the Trinity.
As we saw from the aforementioned, with their reply to the cunning
dilemma of the Arians of « Did the Father beget the Son
voluntarily, or involuntarily? » [Θέλων
εγέννησεν ο
Πατήρ τον
Υιόν ή
μη
θέλων; ], the Fathers safeguarded both the element of
‘omoousion’ (same essence) between Father and Son, by stressing
that the begetting of the Son was not dependent on the volition
of the Father, as well as by stressing the voluntariness behind
the divine begetting . In this way, they radically overthrew the
m
With this answer by the 4th century Fathers, they essentially
safeguarded the beginning-less, existential relations of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, independently of the volition of the
Father, without affecting either the freedom of the Father (Who,
as the source and the cause of divinity, begets the Son and
sends forth the Holy Spirit), or the freedom of the Son (Who is
begotten of the Father), or the freedom of the Spirit (Who
proceeds from the Father). And this is because the Persons of
the Holy Trinity – being uncreated and transcendental – not only
possess moral but also ontological freedom, and as such, they
supersede the dialectic of the necessity and the freedom that
characterizes respectively the nature and the volition of
created beings.
These are the precise, basic folds of Orthodox Triadology that are found
concisely formulated in the laconic reply given by Saint
Epiphanios to the said, cunning dilemma of the Arians:
«Neither, therefore, did He beget voluntarily,
nor involuntarily, but only on account of the preponderance of
nature. For divine nature predominates over volition and is not
subjugated to Time, nor drawn by any need »
[Ούτε θέλων
τοίνυν εγέννησεν,
ούτε μη
θέλων,
αλλ’ υπερβολή
φύσεως.
υπερβαίνει
γαρ η
θεία
φύσις βουλήν,
και ουχ
υποπίπτει χρόνω,
ούτε ανάγκη
άγεται]. Notes
1.
Compare with Aristotle, “
2.
See Athanasius the Great,
“Against Arians” 3, 62, PG 26, 453ΑΒ.
See also Cyril of Alexandria, thesaurus regarding the Holy and
Homoousios Trinity 7, PG 75,
3.
See G. Florovsky, «The
Concept of Creation in Saint Athanasius», in Studia Patristica 6
(1962), page 52. J. Romanides, «Highlights in the debate over
Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology and some suggestions for a
fresh approach», in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 5, 2
(1959-60), page 174 expl. By G.. Martzelos, The Essence and the
Energies of God according to Basil the Great. A contribution to
the Orthodox Church teaching on the historical-dogmatic
examination of the ‘circum-essence’ and the energies of God,
4.
See Epiphanios of
5.
Epiphanios of
6.
PG 26, 453Β.
7.
As above
8.
PG 43,108Β.
9.
PG 39, 281 C-284A. See
also Cyril of Alexandria, PG 75, 780ΑΒ.
10.
PG 26, 453C-456A.
11.
See Athanasius the Great
63, PG 26, 456ΑΒ.
Gregory the Theologian 7, PG 36, 81CD. Didymus the Blind, PG 39,
285Α.
See also Cyril of Alexandria, PG 75, 776BC.
12.
PG 39, 285Β. Also compare Gregory of Nyssa, To Eunomius,
opposing essay (Ευνόμιον
αντιρρητικός
λόγος)
8, PG 45, 776ΑΒ.
13.
PG 36,84C.
14.
See also G. D. Martzelos,
“Der Verstand und seine Grenzen nach dem hl. Basilius dem
Groben”, in the celebratory Volume of the 1600th anniversary of
Basil the Great (379-1979), Thessaloniki 1981, p. 239, also
G.D.Martzelos, as abovee, p. 68 etc.
15.
As above, 6, PG 36,
80C-81A.
16.
As above, PG 36, 81ABC.
17.
As above, PG 26,
18.
As above, “…τα
μεν
γενητά ευδοκία
και
βουλήσει
γέγονεν,
ο
δε
Υιός ου
θελήματος
εστί
δημιούργημα
επιγεγονώς,
καθάπερ
η
κτίσις,
αλλά
φύσει
της ουσίας
ίδιον.”
γέννημα
[….as for created things, they came to be through condescendence
and volition; the Son however was not a creation that came to be
through a volition –as Creation was – but (He) was –by nature-
the offspring of the Essence…]
19.
As above, PG 26,
456C-457A. See also Cyril of Alexandria, “On veneration and
worship in the Spirit and the Truth” 11, PG 68, 728BC: «βουλή
και
σοφία
και
θέλησις
του
Πατρός
ο
Υιός» [ By the will and the wisdom of the
Father was the Son ]. Dialogue on the Holy and Homoousion
Trinity 2, PG 75,776BC: «Ει
γαρ
ην
εν
σοφία
και
λόγω
το
θέλειν
του
Πατρός•
ου
γαρ
άσοφόν
γε
και
άλογον
την
θείαν
ερούσι
θέλησιν.
Σοφία δε
και Λόγος εστί του Θεού και Πατρός ο Υιός, αυτός άρα εστίν ο εν
ω πάσα θέλησις του Πατρός… Βουλήν
δε
και
θέλησιν
του
Θεού
και
Πατρός
τον
Υιόν
ο
θείος
ημίν ονομάζει
λόγος»
[ For if the will of the Father is in wisdom, so is His reason;
for they shall not say that the divine will was wisdom-less and
reason-less; for the Wisdom and the reason (Logos) of God the
Father is the Son; therefore, it is He (the Son), Who is the One
in Whom every volition of the Father resides…. “will” and
“volition” of God and Father are referred to as the Son, per our
divine definition. ]
20.
See Basil the Great,
Περί
Αγίου
Πνεύματος
(On the Holy Spirit) 19, PG 32,
21.
Psalm 32, 6.
22.
Psalm. 32,9.
23.
Proverbs. 3,19.
24.
John. 1,3.
25.
Psalm. 113,11.
26.
James. 1,18.
27.
Thess.I, 5:18. See also
Athanasius the Great, as above, 65, PG 26,460C-461A.
28.
As above, 64, PG 26,457Β.
29.
See Aristotle “M
30.
As above, 65, PG 26,460B.
Compare: Cyril of Alexandria,”Thesaurus on the Holy and
Homoousion Trinity” 7, PG 75, 92D-93A.
31.
As above, 62, PG
26,453BC.
32.
As above, 64, PG 26, 457Β.
33.
As above, 67, PG 26,
464C-465A.
34.
As above, 66,
ΡG26,461C.
35.
John 5, 20. See also
Athanasius the Great, as above.
36.
John 3, 35.
37.
John 17, 24.
38.
Matth. 3, 17.
39.
See “Against Arians” 2,
62, PG 26, 280Α.
3,59, PG 26, 448Β•
65, PG 26, 461Β.
40.
As above, 3, 62. PG 26,
456Α.
66, PG 26, 464ABC. See also Cyril of Alexandria, as above, PG
75,
41.
As above, PG 26,
42.
As above, 2, PG 36,76BC
See also : Plato, “Timaeus”, 4ld. Plautin, “Enneads” V, 1, 6.
43.
As above, 6, PG 36,81Β.
44.
See “Interpr
45.
As above PG 26, 464A.
46.
See John D. Zizioulas
«From the guise to the person. The contribution of Patristic
theology to the meaning of person», in the “Charisteria” in
honour of the Metropolitan of Chalcedon, Geron Meliton,
Thessaloniki, 1976, p, 299. J. D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion,
Studies in Personhood and the Church, New York 1985, p. 41. Chr.
Yannaras, “Anthropological presuppositions” in the periodical
“Synaxis”, Edition No.2 (1982), p. 40. By the same author, “The
Alphabet of faith”, Athens 1984, p. 60. 93. Critical
observations on the above view by John Zizioulas, which Yannaras
follows faithfully, see also N.A.Matsouka, “Dogmatic and
Symbolic Theology”
Β΄
(Essay on the Orthodox Faith), Thessaloniki 1985, p.96, footnote
56.
47.
As above, PG 26,
48.
As above, PG 39,
285C-288A Compare also:Cyril of Alexandria, “Thesaurus on the
Holy and Homoousion Trinity” 2, PG 75,780Β:
«Εστι
γαρ
(ένν.
ο
Πατήρ)
ουκ
ανεθελήτως
ά
εστί φυσικώς,
σύνδρομον
έχων
τη
φύσει
την
θέλησιν
του
είναι
ο
εστιν.
49.
As above,
ΡG26,464Α.
50.
As above, PG 26,464Β.
Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, “Thesaurus on the Holy and
Homoousion Trinity” as above, PG 75,775Β.
51.
See St. Yagazoglou,
«Foreword to the study of Saint Gregory Palamas’ Theology on
uncreated energies”, in “Gregory Palamas” (1991), p.760,
footnote
52.
See also PG 45,773D-776A:
«Ούτε γαρ η άμεσος αυτή συνάφεια (ενν. μεταξύ Πατρός και Υιού)
εκβάλλει την βούλησιν του Πατρός, ως κατά τίνα φύσεως ανάγκην
απροαιρέτως τον Υιόν εσχηκότος• ούτε η βούλησις δύστισι του
Πατρός τον Υιόν, ως τι διάστημα μεταξύ παρεμπίπτουσα. Ως μήτε
εκβάλλειν του δόγματος την επί τω Υιώ βούλησιν του γεννήσαντος,
οίον στενοχωρουμένην εν τη συνάφεια της του Υιού προς τον Πατέρα
ενότητος, μήτε μην την αδιάστατον διαλύειν συνάφειαν, όταν
ενθεωρείται τη γεννήσει βούλησις. Τούτο γαρ της βαρείας ημών και
δυσκίνητου φύσης εστίν ίδιον, το μη εν ταυτώ πολλούς παρείναι
ημίν, και το έχειν τι, και το βούλεσθαι• αλλά νυν μεν βουλόμεθά
τι έχειν ων ουκ έχομεν, μετά ταύτα δε τυγχάνομεν ων τυχείν ουκ
ηβουλήθημεν. Επί δε της απλής και παντοδυνάμου φύσεως, ομού τα
πάντα και κατά ταυτόν νοείται, και το θέλειν το αγαθόν, και το
έχειν όπερ ηθέλησε».
[ Neither does this immediate relationship (he means between
Father and Son) cast out the will of the Father, as though He
acquired the Son unwillingly through some kind of natural
necessity; nor does the will set apart the Son from the Father,
like a kind of interposed distance between them. Thus, one may
not cast out of the dogma the will of the Begetter as regards
the Son (inasmuch as it might be restricted by the unity between
Father and Son), nor dissolve their distance-less relationship
when the begetting is regarded as a volition. For this is
(characteristic of) our own, heavy and cumbersome nature: that
what we have does not coincide with what we wanted. But now, we
want something of those that we do not have, and afterwards, we
might have something that we did not want. Whereas, in a simple
and omnipotent nature, everything is perceived together in the
same way; in other words, to want something good and to have it
because we wanted it. ]
53.
As above, PG 26,464BG See
also Gregory of Nyssa, as above, PG 45, 776BC.
54.
As above, PG 43,108C.
|
