Loading...In the previous post we saw how two important church fathers attacked the “modalist” view of the relationship between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, which claimed they were *one* person who relates to creation and humans in three different ways, with three modes of existence. God is both the Father of the Son and the Son of the Father.
Depending on how old you are, you may remember the song, “I’m My Own Grandpa.” (If not, look it up; it’s a scream.) As in the song, it gets confusing.
This modalist view came to be rejected by the likes of Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian of Carthage. But what did they put in its place? How did *they* understand the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit, if they wanted to insist that all three were God but there was only one God?
Enter the doctrine of the Trinity. These relatively early thinkers did not have the fully developed view of the Trinity that came later, as we will see. But they got the ball rolling and had the view in a nutshell. Later thinkers would consider these earlier attempts to express the “truth” hopelessly simple (though they weren’t), naïve, and even heretical. But they were the first known attempts to express a solution that allowed there to be three distinct persons but ultimately only one God. Here is how I explain the situation it in my book How Jesus Became God.
******************************
Even though Hippolytus and Tertullian vigorously attacked the modalist position, they did want to hold on to the theological affirmations that created it in the first place. They, like their modalist opponents, agreed that Christ was God, and that God the Father was God, but that there was only one God. In order to retain this view while rejecting the modalist option, Hippolytus and Tertullian developed the idea of the divine “economy.” Economy in this usage does not refer to a monetary system, but to…
These early theologians understood the Trinity pretty much like most Christians today do, even if they used more complicated language. But ironically, their view was later deemed a heresy. Hey, are you too a heretic? Joing the blog to read the post and see! Click here for membership options
Prof, is there evidence of significant/systematic tampering by later scribes to make ante-Nicene Fathers’ reflect later Christological views? If so, maybe time for a book ‘Orthodox Corruption of …’, although there probably wouldn’t be general public interest in this one.
On a different topic, while Hippolytus and Tertullian thought that God the Father, his Son and the Spirit are united in power, will and purpose, and the latter two derive their divinity from the Father, I don’t see anything paradoxical or mind-boggling about this belief. (That’s not to say this belief is ‘biblical’ or true.) Do these authors believe in a ‘stronger’ kind of divine tri-unity (like that of the Cerberus) than what I just described?
From Against Neotus Ch. 14, there is one God because there is one Father, from whom the Son and Spirit are derived, the three are of one mind and operate by the Father’s authority. Against Praxeas, Ch. 3 talks about divine monarchy as just the Father, who exercises his authority through the other two beings. Here, their unity consists of a common origin (the Father), and a delegation of powers by the Father to the two others.
I thought about if for the Apostolic FAthers, but couldn’t find the evidence!
I think I recall Fulton J. Sheen arguing that the very paradoxical quality of the Trinity proves that it is in fact a divine revelation– no mere human could have invented such a thing. Which just goes to show how little HE knew. The trinity is clearly and definitely a human invention, forced by a particular understanding (misunderstanding) of who and what Jesus really was– or so it seems to me.
I’m loving this series on how Jesus became God! This is a wonderfully organized series of relatively brief readings, useful for one day at a time reflection. I find it humorous, humble, intellectually rich, and spiritually deep.
My brain hurts. So, an unrelated question that came to my mind after reading something I’ve read many times before: in Matthew and Luke Jesus says he will have a kingdom and the Twelve will have thrones from which they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Most people think of the kingdom of God as an ideal place with no sin or problems of any kind. So, why need a king to rule the kingdom? Why thrones from which to judge people? Did Jesus think people would still be, well, human and therefore imperfect and need to be ruled, but ruled in a just and compassionate way, unlike the kingdoms of this world? Jesus talked a lot about how one gets into the kingdom, but does Jesus say enough for us to understand how he envisioned life in the coming Kingdom of God?
The priests of ancient Israel did not serve perpetually in the Temple. When their rotation duty was fulfilled, they served among the people, they lived on the land.
Mat 19:28 “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
The ancient pattern in Israel was to be the pattern held as well in God’s Kingdom. The twelve would judge those on the land, the vast number of people on earth resurrected and needing education, help and instruction.
Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
We might infer that, but I wish Jesus had spoken more directly about how he envisioned life in the kingdom of God. I don’t think it would match what most people think.
Hi Dr Phish. (I enjoy your queries.) Perhaps “12 thrones” should not be taken so literally? When Jesus said “the kingdom is within you” (Luke 17:20,21) maybe we should imagine only one throne – one for each of us? (I can’t sit on more than one.) And “judging” leads me to Matt 7:1, which tells us not to judge. That’s a hard, but worthy, goal. (I hope this helps to quell the headache!)
I think Dr. Ehrman might have something to say about the translation of that verse about the kingdom being among you, but the basic question remains: what did Jesus think the kingdom of God was going to be like? Perfection, or imperfection but ruled justly?
Church people were telling me that I should have a separate relationship with each person of the Trinity. That wasn’t how I related to God, so I purchased a book called De Trinitate by St Augustine of Hippo to figure out what I was missing. For the most part, the book gave me a headache, but these paragraphs were helpful:
Book II
Augustine pursues his defense of the equality of the Trinity; and in treating of the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the various appearances of God, demonstrates that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends, because the one has sent, the other has been sent; but that the Trinity, being in all things equal, and alike in its own nature unchangeable and invisible and omnipresent, works indivisibly in each sending or appearance.
Book IX
That a kind of trinity exists in man, who is the image of God, viz. the mind, and the knowledge wherewith the mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves both itself and its own knowledge; and these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence.
“Church people were telling me that I should have a separate relationship with each person of the Trinity. ” for some of us that was a flexibility to find the most easily-relatable person. Mine was (and is) the Holy Spirit. However in the last 50 years more people talk about God the Mother, so you have one Person of each gender and one undetermined gender, which perhaps fits more with 21st century culture.
David Wenkel seems to have done much thinking on the subject
Here : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107912452243?journalCode=btba
Or here if you don’t have access to a university library:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/533ad320e4b0061876d9dd15/t/53f2a9ede4b0a13f9746383c/1408412141185/Twelve-Apostles-Wenkel-BTB-2012.pdf .
Brain hurting could be a product of anything which gets overanalyzed compared to its relative practical importance.. IMHO much theological disputation.
Trying to make Jesus into God sounds like a competition with other religions. It reminds me of the arguments kids have: “My father is stronger than yours – he can lift 100 pounds”. “No, MY father is stronger than yours – he can lift 200 pounds.”
Dr. Ehrman…
I have recently joined your blog, which I find amazing in many ways.
Amazing in the simple fact you are sharing your knowledge in such a wonderful way.
I wondered to myself if more experts on various subjects could follow your example how it would help old grandpa’s like me or youngsters find our way through this wilderness of misinformation I was raised on concerning Christianity and other cultural content.
As I read your recent post on the earliest views of the Trinity in my own simple way I see a similar pattern by these historical figures just like people or groups after them trying to fit what they believe into the jigsaw puzzle of their faith. When it doesn’t fit they trim a little off of one side or sand a rough corner off the other side to make something fit that wouldn’t at first. As one-side label the other, as believing a heresy and the result becomes what we see today in this long list of different denominations.
Of course I know it isn’t that simple but a perspective of one just learning.
Thanks again for your style and method to reach out to persons such as me.
Interesting that in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandate 5.1.2) ‘Holy Spirit’ is not a single transcendent being (as, eg, in Acts 19) but something like the force of good in each individual (το πνευμα το αγιον το κατοικουν εν σοι)
Actually I’m wrong. In Similitude 5.6-7 Hermas talks of the Holy Spirit as indeed a single being, pre-existing and “having created all creation” – and at the same time dwelling in individuals (κατοικουν again).
Why is God and “Trinity” reserved exclusively to the “masculine gender”?
When in by whom in Christianity was the feminine suppressed, eradicated, incriminated as heresy?
Comments on the following are welcomed:
Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen, and the Fourth (Feminine) Side of Divinity – By Matthew Fox
“In ascribing the divine feminine and motherhood and motherly actions to the entire Trinity, as she does on many occasions, Julian, in many ways, rewrites Christian theology. She insists on including what Carl Jung called the “fourth side” of the Trinity, the feminine side that has been missing. Thus she introduces a Quarternity as a way to look at divinity.”
https://dailymeditationswithmatthewfox.org/2021/02/07/julian-hildegard-and-the-fourth-feminine-side-of-divinity/
Sometimes the Spirit is thought of as the feminine element as well.
Bart, I’m not sure but I’ve heard that the feminine comes from “ruach” and “pneuma”being gendered words.
The Encyclopedia of Judaism entry is interesting: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7833-holy-spirit
Of course, this Jewish Spirit is God’s Spirit, not a separate Person. Manifested via light and fire, not particularly human nor gendered.
It’s interesting that the Holy Spirit in Acts at Pentecost sounds very much like the Jewish HS and not like a Person at all.
Trevor.. the spirit of good within as per Shepherd of Hermas also looks similar to what’s in the Encyclopedia of Judaism entry. I’m a theological lumper not splitter for sure, but without the Person part it sounds like the same ideas to me.
Yes, Hebrew ruach is feminine; it’s hard to know what kind of influence that had. pneuma, in Greek, is neuter, and I should think that would be more important, since very few Christains knew Hebrew.
Did pagan writers speak out against the trinity and point out its inconsistencies? Just become polytheistic like us. It’s simpler!
Not so much (that I recall). I suppose it wasn’t really the way Christians presented themselves to the outside world, until most of the outside world was on the defensive in the fourth century and just fighting to hold on….
I believe that the key here is the word “Person” (Persona in Latin) and how Tertullian used it. I would assume that it should be closer to the meaning of the “role” one plays in society, which would defines his/her rights and duties. Thus, God would be one “substance”, but three distinct roles in the divine economy. The idea of individuality (the self) was only developed much later around the 14 and 15 centuries by medieval lawyers, and then adopted by Theologians, both Catholics and Protestants.
I found this video very helpful and entertaining in explaining this:
https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw
Dr. Ehrman, is there a connection between Jesus becoming the “son of god” (in the eyes of his followers) and the issue that the concept of a “messiah” would be more or less meaningless for a non-jew?
Is there a good overview (English or German) about the influences of other, at the time, established religions and philosophies, including judaism, on early christianity (and maybe vice versa)?
Jesus would have been considered Son of God even among his Jewish followers, but yes, the idea of “messiah” would not have been meaningful to most pagans and Son of God would have carried more connotations of actual divinity than among Jews. There are lots of books on how earliest Christianity was affected by both Jewish and pagan thought. I personally think the best way to approach the question is to read up on what Roman religion and Judaism were like at the time (since so many books are sensationalist and not based on deep knowledge). On Roman religion, you might consider James Rives’s book and Judaism, Shaye Cohen: From Maccabees to the Mishnah. Once you have that kind of info under your belt, what books about Christianity in relation to other religions will make better sense. Hope that helps.
Hey Bart, are you familiar with all the trouble that Michael Servetus found himself in regarding his published thoughts on the “errors of the Trinity.” John Calvin had him immolated just outside of Geneva in 1553.
It’s been over 40 years since I looked at that so … nope.
I’d appreciate your opinion on something I heard ages ago.
The Romans appreciated ancient religions which is why they tolerated Judaism as they considered it ancient wisdom. The christians, in wanting to gain respect and tolerance from the Romans needed to be connected to the OT which was a monotheistic religion. When trying to figure out how Jesus fit into a monotheistic God and were sure He was God, they had to figure out how to make Jesus God yet there’s only one God. If they hadn’t needed to keep the respect for Judaism amongst the Romans, they probably would have kept Jesus as a separate God. But, they needed that hook into ancient Judaism thus it became very necessary for all the theological twisting to keep Jesus as God and yet, only one God.
Would you agree or disagree with this? Obviously, if the heretical Gnostics had won the day, Christianity would be polytheistic, yes?
You may have heard that from me. 🙂 I’ve argued something similar for a long time, though not *quite* the same. I think this is ONE of the reasons for keeping monotheism while calling Jesus God (to retain the ties to Judaism because of the Romans); but I don’t know if without that reason they would have moved to saying there were two Gods. One never knows what would have happened. As to *other* reasons: apart from the Romans, Christians had always held on to the Jewish Scriptures as part of their heritage, and sacrificing the idea of one God would have made that very difficult and would have created an identity crisis that would be difficult to handle — since it could have taken them in so many untenable directions. (How many gods *are* there? Why just two? Who created the world? Was it a *good* God? etc.)
Maybe I’m just too unsophisticated, unread, ill-read, or unintelligent, but, I have yet to come across any explanation or defense of the Trinity that wasn’t essentially word-salad, same goes for The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and also, anything justifying or explaining the whole ‘dying for our sins’ thing, the last kinda necessarily follows after considering the first. I’ll ask an unsophisticated, rather blunt question: can you disagree, is that not a fairly accurate representation of what must be millions and millions of words written about these subjects over the centuries?
One minor suggestion or request: when a whole paragraph is a quotation, could you indent it and maybe use a contrasting font? Little things like that help in making sure us unsophisticated readers don’t get confused.
There aren’t enough superlatives for the excerpt from your book. Well done. However, I think you made one mistake where you said, “Tertullian was the first Christian on record to call it the Trinity.” Doesn’t Theophilus to Autolycus:bk.2,ch.15 use the term “Trinity”(170ad)?
I see the core of the Trinity doctrine existing late first century and continuing through ALL patristic literature when commenting on Genesis 1:26,27, “Let Us.”
Barnabas:Epistle,6:11,12
Justin:Trypho,62
Theophilus:Autolycus,18
Irenaeus:Heresies,bk.IV,20:1
Clement:Instructor,bk.1,ch.12
Tertullian:Praxeas,12
Origen:Celcus,bk.V,ch.37
Basil:Hexaemeron,bk.IX,ch.6
Gregory Nyssa:MakingMan,6:3,16:5
Ambrose:ChristianFaith,bk.1,7:51
Chrysostom:Genesis,Homily8,9
Augustine:Trinity,ch.XII,6:6,7
They unanimously claimed that it was the Father speaking to the Son when He said, “Let US make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness.”(refuting modalism). This is corroborated by Hebrews 1:4-10. Vs.10 has the Father claiming that the Son (with the Father) created the heavens and the earth(SeeColossians1:15,16,John1:1-3). The Hebrews passage also refutes the idea that the US in Genesis 1:26 is referring to the angels (divine council, heavenly host)….to the angels He says….but to the Son He says. Also, the suggestion that the US and OUR of Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 is a ‘Plural of Majesty” expression doesn’t fly because the expression/concept didn’t exist till the 3rd century CE.
I wonder how much we agree on?
The classically misunderstood text by Modalists:I and my Father are one(John10:30).
“He[Jesus] did not say, I and the Father am one, but are one. For the word ‘are’ is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples,‘The glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.’(John17:22).” *WE* ARE ONE.(Hippolytus against Noetus#7)
One person? No, two united. Were the disciples He spoke of one person? No, they were united;just like the Father and the son.
“‘I am and my Father are one’. Here, then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings — I and my Father; then that there is a plural predicate, are, inapplicable to one person only; and lastly, that (the predicate terminates in an abstract, not a personal noun)— we are one thing Unum, not one person Unus.”(Tertullian against Praxeas22).
Doctor, were there other modalists in the 2nd 3rd or 4th century besides Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius?
Yes, Tertullian claims it was a dominant view, held as well by even bishops of Rome (i.e., early popes). (“Praxeas” may have been a made up name)
Tertullian against Praxeas
This was Trinitarians’ best argument from scripture against the Modalists.
The Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered them, “Even if I am testifying about Myself, My testimony is true, for I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am one who testifies about Myself, and the Father[two] who sent Me testifies about Me.”(John 8:12-18)
When, however, He declares that He is not alone….He was teaching them, that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of two men’s testimony, He adds at once: I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father[is another]who has sent me, and bears witness of me. Now, if He were one — being at once both the Son and the Father — He certainly would not have quoted the sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two(Tertullian-Praxeas22).
Did Modalists’ teaching disappear from history after Sabellius(Dionysius against the Sabellians) until 1917 and the teaching of G.T. Haywood(UnitedPentecostalChurch)?
Ι suppose there were always Christians who held some such view. Many do today without knowing it.