“Coexistent, coequal, coeternal.” These are the three adjectives typically used to describe the persons of the trinity. The Athanasian creed has given Christianity a fear complex when describing the trinity: it is the creed that deals most explicitly with the idea of the trinity, but also the only ecumenical creed with explicit anathemas. Thus, the trinity, like few other concepts in Christianity, is considered “untouchable” – a sacred cow of the Church.
I’ve written before on the danger of letting the sanctity of the doctrine turn into tritheism. I believe this is a more dangerous heresy than Modalism, and also one that has been more accepted by orthodox churches – simply because the lack of discussion around it leaves people unable to distinguish between true trinitarianism and heretical tritheism.
Let’s look at these three adjectives then: Coeternal is an entirely proper description of the trinity. God has always had a spirit (Genesis 1:2), and the Word of God is preexistent as God Himself is (John 1:1). All three “persons” of the trinity were present and active in creation, though it is better to see it as God performing multiple actions in creation than to see it as a joint effort of some sort, as the latter is a tritheistic supposition.
Coexistent is also proper. Sequential Modalism, the idea that God transforms from one form to another throughout history, as I’ve said before, is irresponsible exegesis. Jesus acted concurrently with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16) and with the Father (Matthew 26:39), and the Spirit acts concurrently with the Father (Isaiah 61:1). It is not the case that the procession of the Spirit or the begetting of the Son diminishes the essence of the Father in any respect.
There is, however, nothing to be said for Coequal. Phillipians 2:6 (“Who [Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”) on the surface appears to speak to this. However, this in reality speaks against such a conception:
In what sense are the persons of the trinity coequal? Not in function. The Son is begotten of the Father (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). That precludes coequality of function. There would be no purpose to a trinity then; it would necessitate a divine triumvirate. So are they equal in authority? That doesn’t even make sense. There is but one authority, and the authority of the Son is not separate from the Spirit’s, nor is that of either separate from the Father’s. Equality of authority presupposes separate authority, which again leads to the supposition of a divine triumvirate.
This is what Phillipians 2:6 is speaking of. Jesus Christ is in very nature God: He shares the same essence of authority. Their authority is not identical yet separate; it is the same in essence and identity. One cannot infer the coequality of the persons of the trinity from this passage: what one can and should infer is the doctrine of the full humanity and full divinity of Christ. Though Christ was in nature God, He put on human flesh and came in humility – for the part of His humanity, essentially disavowing for a short time equality with God. That is what the passage speaks to. Though Jesus was in nature God, insofar as He was human, equality with God was not something to be grasped for, and we are to follow that example.
The assertion of coequality “And yet they are not three gods but one” makes grammatical sense, but not logical sense, as if I asserted to mix yellow and blue paint “And yet it is not green paint but purple” that comes out. Though the idea of coequality may have been a step in the right direction for pagans accustomed to a hierarchy of gods, it is nevertheless a wrong idea of itself, especially in a cultural context already familiar with monotheism, away from which it is most certainly a step in the wrong direction.
UPDATE: Based on discussion in the comments, the problem it seems is simply the English translation. The original Greek word was Homoousia – “of the same substance”. In light of that, “consubstantial” is a fine replacement for “coequal”.
10 Comments
1
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 01, 2009 at 0:37What do you make of St. Augustine’s commentary on John 12:44-50? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701054.htm
“…And, accordingly, after saying, “He that believes in me, believes not on me, but on Him that sent me,” that it might not be thought that He would have the Father so understood, as if He were the Father only of many sons regenerated by grace, and not of the only-begotten Word, His own co-equal, He immediately added, “And he that sees me, sees Him that sent me.” Does He say here, He that sees me, sees not me, but Him that sent me, as He had said, “He that believes me, believes not on me, but on Him that sent me”? For He uttered the former of these words, that He might not be believed on merely as He then appeared, that is, as the Son of man; and the latter, that He might be believed on as the equal of the Father. He that believes in me, believes not merely on what He sees of me, but believes in Him that sent me. Or, when he believes in the Father, who begot me, His own co-equal, let him believe in me, not as he sees me, but as [he believes] on Him that sent me; for so far does the truth, that there is no distance between Him and me, reach, that He who sees me, sees Him that sent me.
Certainly, Christ the Lord Himself sent His apostles, as their name implies: for as those who in Greek are called angeli are in Latin called nuntii [messengers], so the Greek apostoli [apostles] becomes the Latin missi [persons sent]. But never would any of the apostles have dared to say, “He that believes in me, believes not on me, but on Him that sent me;” for in no sense whatever would he say, “He that believes in me.” We believe an apostle, but we do not believe in him; for it is not an apostle that justifies the ungodly. But to him that believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5 An apostle might say, He that receives me, receives Him that sent me; or, He that hears me, hears Him that sent me; for the Lord tells them so Himself: “He that receives you, receives me; and he that receives me, receives Him that sent me.”
Matthew 10:40 For the master is honored in the servant, and the father in the son: but then the father is as it were in the son, and the master as it were in the servant. But the only-begotten Son could rightly say, “Believe in God, and believe in me;” as also what He says here, “He that believes in me, believes not on me, but on Him that sent me.” He did not turn away the faith of the believer from Himself, but only would not have the believer continue in the form of a servant: because every one who believes in the Father that sent Him, straightway believes in the Son, without whom he knows that the Father has no existence as such, and thus reaches in his faith to the belief of His equality with the Father, in conformity with the words that follow, “And he that sees me, sees Him that sent me…”
2
thrica says: Sep 03, 2009 at 14:41I might need a commentary on the commentary. What should I make of it?
If he means John 12:44-50 as an assertion of coequality, I think that misses the point of John’s gospel. John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus says “whoever sees me sees him who sent me” in the same sense that whoever hears the things I say hears them not as such but as a glimpse into my brain. They stand not on their own but as the manifestation of a thought; a begotten idea. In the same way Jesus is not saying “I’m the same as the Father”, but “I am the manifestation of the thoughts and the word of God”.
3
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 03, 2009 at 15:25I would welcome a commentary on the commentary, if you intend on going at it with St. Augustine. Please be sure to tag me :)
4
thrica says: Sep 03, 2009 at 15:39Hahah, I mean a commentary for my own benefit, by someone who is better acquainted with the point he’s trying to make… I see his words, but I don’t think I’m seeing Augustine. :)
5
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 03, 2009 at 15:41Ha! I’m not authoritative enough to be a good exegete. As the voice of a little girl told the Saint at the time of his conversion, tolle, lege. Take, read. His words are better than my commentary would be.
6
Zach Kagley says: Sep 04, 2009 at 16:40In terms of function, it does seem odd to describe the Son as coequal with the Father when it is he the Son who is sent from the Father. In this case, I think you have a point. As for the term coequal itself, do you find specific objection to the adjective homoousian — of the same substance (as the Father) — or is there something more to your objection? In logical terms, it makes no sense to argue that one thing is the same as another, unless it is so in a qualified sense. That there are no accidents in the Godhead is a principle most Christians would agree to, I think; therefore, there can be no differences between Father and Son in terms of accidents. That there is no distinction between the Son and the Father in substance is a direct claim of Nicene theology, which would lead to the direct claim of coequality in substance.
What differentiates the Son and the Father are their distinctions of hypostases (personhoods), and this, I believe, is a distinct mode of existence from substance and accident. The Son and the Father, therefore, are distinguished by their relations in their persons. The claim that Christ is coequal with the Father is meant, I believe, in terms of substance rather than in their relations. And in the nature of Christ, this is shown even more clearly, as one must distinguish between Christ in his humanity and Christ in his divinity. “My God, my God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46), is a good proof text for demonstrating this dichotomy.
7
thrica says: Sep 04, 2009 at 17:15Is Homoousian the word from which we get Coequal? If that’s the case it seems a very inexpedient translation, because in English at least, there’s an ambiguity in its meaning which tends towards the wrong side. What I said about coequality in authority could very well be said for coequality in substance: in English, “equal” tends to be taken as “identical but separate” rather than “one in substance”. It’s this ambiguity I’m trying to expose, since one of these is clearly correct and the other clearly wrong.
The literal translation of Homoousian “One in substance” would be a much better substitute for “coequal”.
8
Zach Kagley says: Sep 04, 2009 at 18:42Homoousian can indeed be seen to be the Greek equivalent of coequal, consubstantial, of the same substance, in one substance (since the word coequal itself does not appear in scripture, with only ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ being used). This is to be contrasted with the homoiousian, ‘of like substance,’ which the Arians posited for describing Christ. Hence Gibbons quip that the intellectual activity of the fourth century revolved around the question of a single ‘iota.’
There is a sense in which one can predicate one thing of many things, such as justice being predicated of all just actions; and as Peter, Paul, and John are all men, with man being predicated of them all. Is this what you mean by equal but separate? If this is so, then I think you rightly point out a mistake in the interpretation of Trinitarian theology, and I’d be inclined to agree with you.
9
thrica says: Sep 04, 2009 at 19:04That’s exactly what I mean by equal but separate – Peter and Paul are equal in gender, but they do not share the same substance of gender (unless you ask Plato, but that’s a different matter).
Interesting point about the Arians, by the way. I love facts like that.
10
Zach Kagley says: Sep 04, 2009 at 20:53I love facts like that as well. The early church is indeed a fascinating topic.
Leave a Reply