The Meaning of Homoousios in the Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed was first formulated at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) in Greek. It is accepted as official doctrine by most Christian churches. It states that:
The Son was “begotten … of the substance (ousia) of the Father” and
that He is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) literally means “same substance” from homós (same) and ousía (substance). E.g., - The Free Dictionary or GotQuestions.
Via the Latin, homoousios is often translated as “consubstantial.”
Two Possible Meanings
The word “same” has two possible meanings. For example, when I say that John and I drive the same car, it can mean that we drive ‘one and the same’ car, or it may mean that we drive two different cars that are the same in all or almost all respects.
Similarly, “same substance” (homoousios) also has two possible meanings:
One Substance - The traditional Trinity doctrine interprets homoousios as ‘one and the same substance’. In this view, Father and Son are one single undivided substance (Being). This is called numerically the same because there is only one substance. On the assumption that this is the meaning, the phrase is often translated as “of one substance.” With that interpretation, the Nicene Creed supports the Trinity doctrine.
Two Substances with equal diety - Alternatively, “same substance” may mean that Father and Son are two distinct substances (Beings) but with the same type of substance, just like human beings have the "same substance." This is called qualitative or generic sameness. With this interpretation, the Nicene Creed does not support the Trinity doctrine.
As an example of the two meanings, Person wrote:
“As it stands, the homoousios can be read either as an affirmation of
the divine unity or as an affirmation of the equal deity.’” (RH,
170-1)
Weak Qualitative Sameness
Qualitative sameness can vary from strong to weak, depending on how similar the two things are. If we read homoousios as saying that the Son's substance is more or less the same as the Father's, the differences between them imply that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
For a further discussion of the different meanings of “same,” see Right Reason or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Summary
The three possible meanings of homoousios are that Father and Son are:
- One single substance (Being),
- Two distinct Beings with identical substances, and
- Two distinct Beings with similar substances.
One objection to the second option is that it presents two Gods; two First Principles (two Beings who exist without cause and caused the existence of all else).
Arius’ View
Arius did not accept any of these three views:
“No doubt he (Arius) believed that the Father and the Son were of
unlike substance, but he did not say so directly.” (RH, 187)
Arius is what became later in the fourth century became known as a Heter-ousian (different substance).
Purpose
Trinity Doctrine
The Trinity doctrine states that God is one Being (ousia) but three Persons (hypostases). For example, the following defines the Trinity doctrine as the outcome of the Arian Controversy:
“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a
Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases,
three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the
misleading word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as
God.” (Hanson Lecture)
For a further discussion, see - Trinity Doctrine.
Does not mean One Substance.
In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine has existed right from the beginning. It claims, therefore, that the word homoousios in the Creed means that Father and Son are one single substance (Being). It would follow that the Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and co-immutable with the Father.
However, recent scholarship seems to agree that that is not what homoousios meant. For example:
“We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to
express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son.” “It was
intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past
history of scholarship been attached to it.” (RH, 202)
Studer “also notes that the term homoousios is not used with precision
at Nicaea and that later arguments for homoousios always involve
constructing accounts of its meaning.” (LA, 238)
Purpose
This article, however, shows that a minority was able to dominate the Nicene Council because they had the support of the emperor. Consequently, they were able to put the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the objections of the majority. So, we must distinguish between the meaning the minority intended with the term and the meaning the majority assigned to it that enabled them to accept the Creed.
This article analyses what homoousios meant (1) before, (2) during, and (3) after Nicaea.
Authors
This article relies mainly on the following authors:
RH = Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God -
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Beatrice = An article by Pier Franco Beatrice; Professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy: The word "homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity.)
Homoousios Before Nicaea
Greek Philosophy
Aristotle was known for using the term οὐσία (ousia) to describe his philosophical concept of Primary Substances. (Beatrice)
Paganism
“In the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” (Beatrice)
Bible
The root of homoousion is the word ousia, but the Bible never talks about God’s ousia and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father.
Gnostics
Scholars agree that the first theologians to use the word homoousios were the second-century Gnostics. (Beatrice)
“Gnosticism is a very general term applied to a wide variety of groups
that would have called themselves Christian but who held to beliefs
very different than anything we know as Christian today.” [Pavao,
Paul. Decoding Nicea (p. 18). Kindle Edition.]
The Gnostics used the term homoousios “probably to indicate” that the “lower deities” are of the “‘same ontological status’ or ‘of a similar kind’” as “the highest deity” from whom they were “derived” or emanated." (RH, 191) It meant, “belonging to the same order of being.” (RH, 191)
They did not use the word to mean “identity, nor even equality” (RH, 191). In other words, they did not use the term homoousios to say that two beings are really one being or even that two beings have the same type of substance.
However, the Gnostics did not use the term to describe the Son's relationship to the Father.
Tertullian (155-220)
Contrary to what is often claimed, Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to homoousios.” (RH, 190)
“Tertullian ... had already used the Latin word substantia (substance)
of God … For him God … had a body and indeed was located at the outer
boundaries of space. … It was possible for Tertullian to think of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance.” (RH, 184)
He used “the expression unius substantiae.” “This has led some
scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before
Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory.” (RH, 184) “The word
in Greek translation of Tertullian's una substantia would not be the
word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis).” (RH, 193)
Sabellius (fl. ca. 215)
Sabellianism is named after Sabellius; a theologian from the early 3rd century. According to Basil of Caesarea, “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (RH, 192); “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Prof Ninan).
Another article discusses Sabellius’ theology. For Sabellius, God is the whole and the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are parts of the whole:
“He considered the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, as being three
portions of the divine nature.” (Von Mosheim J.L. p220)
However, for both Sabellius, there is only one hypostasis (Person). This article uses the term ‘Sabellian’ for any theology that says that Father and Son are one single Person.
By the time the Nicene Creed was formulated, Sabellianism was already formally rejected by the church.
Origen (c. 185 – c. 253)
In the past, it was often claimed that Origen described the Son as homoousios. However:
“Origen may have rejected the term.” (LA, 92)
“Origen certainly did not apply the word homoousios to the Son and did
not teach that the Son is 'from the ousia' of the Father.” (RH, 185)
The word “consubstantial … would have suggested to him that the Father
and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to
avoid.” (RH, 68)
“There is one celebrated fragment … where Origen appears to sanction the use of homoousios. … But in its present form, this seems too closely bound to the specific interests of the post-Nicene period … to come directly from Pamphilus, let alone Origen.” (RW, 132-3) Rowan Williams believes that the translator altered the text to make it appear consistent with Nicene theology.
Dionysius
Around the year 260, there was a dispute between the bishops of Rome and Alexandria; both named Dionysius, in which the word homoousios was prominent.
THE LIBYAN SABELLIANS
The dispute began between Dionysius of Alexandria and “some local Sabellians.” (LA, 94)
Both Stead and Simonetti believe that it was those Sabellians “who had introduced the term (into the dispute).” (RH, 193) In other words, they described the Son as homoousios with the Father. As discussed, for Sabellians, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Person), meaning that they deny the existence of the Son as a separate reality.
DIONYSIUS OF ROME
The ‘Sabellians’ in Libya complained about Dionysius of Alexandria “to the bishop of Rome.” (RH, 191) “Dionysius of Rome … (also) claimed that Father and Son were homoousios.” (LA, 94) He, effectively, was a Sabellian:
“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not
tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases.” (RH, 192,
quoting Loofs)
“His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of
Sabellius!” (RH, 193)
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
“It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against
some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (LA, 94)
According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes
rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the
distinction of hypostases.” (RH, 192)
However, Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (LA, 94) but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (RH, 193) and only “in a general sense, meaning 'of similar nature, ‘of similar kind',” (RH, 192), or “belonging to the same class” (LA, 94), “meaning that both had the same kind of nature.” (RH, 193) This “did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways.” (LA, 94-95)
In other words, for him, the term did not mean that Father and Son are one and the same or even that they are equal.
Paul of Samosata
Only a few years later, “the council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (LA, 94; cf. RH, 193-194) “The condemnation of homoousios by this well-known council” caused “considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an official doctrinal statement in the next century.” (LA, 94; RH, 195)
“In using the expression ‘of one substance', Paul declared that Father
and Son were a solitary unit;" “a primitive undifferentiated unity.”
(RW, 159-160)
According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) … repudiated
homoousion” because “the word to them spelt Sabellianism.” (RH, 194)
Conclusions
Before Nicaea, the term homoousios was used mainly by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. They used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person.
The only non-Sabellian Christian who used the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (RH, 193) and only “in a general sense, meaning 'of similar nature'.” (RH, 192)
“The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the
third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a
Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
Homoousios at Nicaea
This section discusses how the term was understood at Nicaea.
A Surprising Innovation
For the following reasons, the inclusion of the term homoousios (same substance) in the Nicene Creed must be regarded as most surprising:
Not Biblical - The Bible never says anything about God’s substance.
Not Standard Language - The term was not part of the standard Christian language at the time. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5) and refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). The term did not appear in any precious creed; not even in the draft creed prepared only a few months before Nicaea. Consequently, anti-Nicenes objected that these words are “untraditional.” (RW, 234-5)
Pagan Origin - R.P.C. Hanson describes them as “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (RH, 846)
Sabellian History - The Sabellian history of the term rendered it particularly suspect:
“The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was
probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of
being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul
of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic
Churches.” (Philip Schaff)
For these reasons, some very powerful forces must have been at work to ensure its inclusion.
The Emperor’s Influence
That powerful force was the emperor. This meeting was not called by the church; it was called by the emperor. It was his meeting. Constantine’s goal was not to find the truth but to prevent this dispute from causing division in his empire:
“The history of the period shows time and time again that ... the
general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor.
General councils ... were the children of imperial policy and the
Emperor was expected to dominate and control them.” (RH, 855)
Furthermore, as astounding as it might sound to people who grew up in a culture of separation between church and state, in the fourth century, the emperor had the final say in church doctrine:
"If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the
ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these
pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the
final authority” (RH, 849).
Ossius chaired the council, but not in his capacity as the bishop of the small city of Cordova, but as the emperor’s representative.
Constantine Insisted
Furthermore, the emperor not only proposed but also insisted on the term.
“The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the
other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor
exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was
approved.” (Erickson) [mfn]Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons,
p82-85[/mfn]
“Constantine "pressed for its inclusion." (RH, 211)
Constantine Explained
Constantine even dared to explain the term to that assembly of the top leaders of the church. One of the major objections was that God is immaterial and that Nicene language sounds as if God has a body and as if the Son was begotten like humans through a material, corporeal process. For example:
The phrase ‘from the ousia of the Father’ was criticized by Origen,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Arius as “something
like a human birth,” as implying a “diminution of the Father's being
in the generation of the Son,” and as “materialistic.” (LA, 97)
However, at the Council, Emperor Constantine did his best “to placate Eusebians” (LA, 91) so that they (the eastern majority) would accept the term:
“It seems … that Constantine interceded on behalf of those unhappy
with homoousios, insisting on the importance of understanding the term
without material connotation.” (LA, 96)
The emperor gave a non-literal meaning to the term homoousios:
“This phrase served only to indicate that the Son was truly from the
Father.” (LA, 96)
Following Eusebius’ lead, the Eusebians accepted Constantine’s explanation. See the discussion of Eusebius of Caesarea's letter.
Alexander's Party Dominated.
This explains why these unfamiliar phrases were included in the Creed. It was due to the emperor’s domination of the council. But, Constantine did not come up with the term homoousios by himself. There were some in the meeting who favored it, namely, Alexander's party, which which was successful because the emperor took their side:
“Constantine had taken Alexander's part.” (LA, 89)
“This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in
broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful
force.” (LA, 89)
Ossius, the chairperson of the meeting, was one of Constantine's advisors. Apparently, Alexander and/or Ossius chose the term homoousios:
“Athanasius, who was certainly present at Nicaea … says that Ossius
composed the Creed of Nicaea.” (RH, 154-155)
“It is unlikely that Alexander or Ossius would have chosen the term
intending a simple co-ordinate sense.” (LA, 95)
Erickson explains that the Nicene Creed was put forward by
Eusebius, but was "revised" by "the party of Alexander," which was
"favored by the emperor," who "favored the inclusion of the word
homoousios."
Eustathius and Marcellus also favored the term:
“Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians … were in
favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (RH, 211)
“Marcellus and Eustathius also seem likely to have endorsed homoousios
because of the notion of shared being.” (LA, 95) [“shared being” = one
Person]
Hence, Eustathius and Marcellus may be counted as members of Alexander's party:
“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause
against the Eusebians.” (LA, 69)
“Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea. and no doubt were
there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.”
(RH, 234)
Since the emperor had taken Alexander's side, and since Eustathius and Marcellus were able to join forces with Alexander, they were influential at the council:
“Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus after Nicaea ... Both were
influential at the council.” (LA, 99)
“Marcellus of Ancyra … had been an important figure at the council and
may have significantly influenced its wording.” (LA, 431)
Athanasius' party, therefore, included Alexander himself, Ossius, as the emperor's representative, Eustathius and Marcellus, and their supporters:
“Ossius of Cordoba probably chaired the meeting; Eustathius of
Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Alexander must all have been key
players in the discussions.” (LA, 89)
Alexander's party was Sabellian.
Alexander
Another article shows that Alexander was a Sabellian. For example, he described the Son as “idios to (a property or quality of) the Father (which) is a Sabellian statement.” (RH, 92) In other words, he regarded the Father and Son to be one single Person (hypostasis), which is Sabellianism.
Ossius
Ossius – the chairperson – was also a Sabellian. For example:
Eighteen years later, in 343, Ossius helped to compose another creed
(Serdica) (RH, 201) which had “the most alarmingly Sabellian
complexion” (RH, xix)
“Ossius evidently believed that God is a single hypostasis." (RH, 870)
Marcellus
“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite
properly be called Sabellian.” (RH, ix) Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be
acquitted of Sabellianism” (Hanson’s Lecture).
Eustathius
Eustathius attended the Nicene Council (RH, 208) but was deposed soon
after Nicaea (“in 330 or 331”) (RH, 210) “primarily for the heresy of
Sabellianism” (RH, 211).
The Anathema
Another indication of the Sabellian domination at the council is the anathema in the creed against all "who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance." This seems to say that Father and Son are one single Person (hypostasis), which is Sabellianism. For example:
“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of
Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea.
That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one
hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.”
(RH, 235)
“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion
because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as
to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a
view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson's Lecture)
The Work of a Minority
Therefore, the emperor's authority allowed the Sabellian minority to include the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the Sabellian history of the term, and despite the objections of the majority in the council.
"The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.”
[mfn]Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p
41[/mfn]
The reformed website Bible.ca states: "We will grant … that a majority
opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were
not aligned with Arius!"
The Meaning of Homoousios
How, then, was the term homoousios understood by the delegates to the Council?
Sabellian Understanding
The Sabellians intended to term to mean that the Father and Son are one single Person (one hypostasis or reality). For example:
“It is unlikely that Alexander or Ossius would have chosen the term
intending a simple co-ordinate sense.” (LA, 95) (“Co-ordinate” here
means two distinct but more or less equal entities.)
“Marcellus and Eustathius also seem likely to have endorsed homoousios
because of the notion of shared being that was an accepted part of its
semantic range, but not because they thought it implied two distinct
eternally co-ordinate realities.” (LA, 95-96)
Consequently, after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed the Creed as supporting their doctrine:
“In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and
Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to
Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were
influential at the council, and Nicaea's lapidary formulations were
never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99)
The Majority View
The majority, on the other hand, was able to agree to the Creed because they had accepted the emperor’s explanation that it simply means that the Son is truly from the Father:
“Eusebius tells us that once he had been assured that this phrase
served only to indicate that the Son was truly from the Father he
could agree even to homoousios.” (LA, 96)
With that understanding, it does not mean that Father and Son are one Person or even that they are equal.
However, after Nicaea, that same church mainstream opposed the Creed because they thought it taught Sabellianism. For example:
“We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the
opposition was over the use of specific words … they felt the creed
could lend support to Sabellianism.” (Bible.ca)
After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus
of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no
prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly
came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97)
“To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency
among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431)
- (The term “unitarian” refers to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of controversy was caused in the years after the council by some supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431))
So, the majority also really understood the term as Sabellian. They had only agreed to the Creed because they submitted to the pressure from the emperor.
Conclusion
It is not "an openly Sabellian creed." “It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92).
Homoousios after Nicaea
Post-Nicaea Correction
I have reached the maximum length of a StackExchange answer. For the rest of the answer, see - The Meaning of Homoousios
