The best place to check for a synchronic definition of
this term is Lampe's patristic Greek lexicon. For now,
I offer diachronic information from
Liddell-Scott-Jones. This lexicon points out that
hUPODEESTEROS (ὑποδεέστερος) is the comparative form
of hUPODEHS (ὑποδεής). The adnominal hUPODEHS itself can
mean "somewhat deficient, inferior" and may be used
of persons with the sense "lower in degree" or "younger."
Based on the context in which Origen is contrasting
the Father's might with the Son's lesser might or greatness,
it seems that the meaning "inferior" or lower in degree is
preferable to the denotation "younger."
Under the entry hUPODEHS, BDAG also notes that the
Greek morpheme can denote "pertaining to being in a
lower position, inferior." It references Diognetus 10.5
regarding "those who are inferior" (hOI
hUPODEESTEROI). The word also pertains "to being
responsive to authority, subservient." Used
substantively, hUPODEHS potentially means "someone's
subordination" (TO hUPODEES TINOS). See 1 Clement
19.1.
In Origen, however, I don't believe that the
Alexandrian is simply arguing the Son is positionally
lower in relation to his Father. The context itself
suggests another understanding of hUPODEESTEROS.
Henri Crouzel (Origen: The Life and Thought of
the First Great Theologian, page 203) argues that
Origen believes the Father is greater than the Son and
Holy Spirit vis-a-vis DOXA and not DUNAMIS. But
Origen's focus in Contra Celsum 8.15 is different. He
seems to be concerned with the power or might of the
Father over against the relative inferiority of the Son.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Dr.Foster
ReplyDelete[you said]Origen believes the Father is greater than the Son and
Holy Spirit
[reply} This is an outstanding observation. I submit this quote.
"Thus far, Origen presents us with so varied and nuanced a picture that it is easy to see why his relation to Arianism has been the subject of so much dispute. A few points, however, should be clear. First of all, Arius stands in the tradition of Origen in so far as he holds to the transcendence of the Father, the impossibility of believing in two co-ordinate agen(n)ata, self-sufficient first principles"...Arius: Heresy and Tradition[Rowan Williams] pg. 143
Origen believes that the Father is transcendental and the only one who is AGEN(N)ETOS.
@Unknown
DeleteOrigen indeed distinguishes between the Father as "agen(n)etos" (unbegotten) and the Son as begotten, but this distinction does not imply an ontological inferiority of the Son. In Origen's framework, the Father's transcendence and the Son’s begotten status reflect their relational roles within the Trinity, not a difference in divine essence. Origen consistently affirms that the Son shares fully in the divine nature of the Father, and his concept of eternal generation ensures that the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
While it is true that Arius drew on some elements of Origen’s subordinationist language, Origen's theology remains distinct from Arianism. Origen does not reduce the Son to a created being or a lesser deity, as Arius did. Instead, Origen's emphasis on the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, and his participation in the same divine essence, underscores a foundational unity that is incompatible with Arian views.
In sum, Origen's views are more nuanced than the simple assertion that the Father is "greater" or that the Son and Holy Spirit are ontologically lesser. His theology reflects a complex understanding of the relational hierarchy within the Trinity, while maintaining the full divinity and co-eternality of the Son and Spirit with the Father.
Brother Keefa,
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent study about Arius and the quote is appreciated. Since you like studying Arian history and in view of the fact that you mentioned Origen, please allow me to recommend two other works dealing with the man from Alexandria:
See Henri Crouzel, Origen, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999 printing, ©1989.
J. Nigel Rowe, Origen's Doctrine of Subordination, Berne: P. Lang, copyr. 1987.
I found Rowe's thesis online: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/390/
ReplyDeleteThe passage in question, from Origen's Contra Celsum 8.15, does use the term ὑποδεέστερος (hupodeesteros) to describe the Son in relation to the Father. It's important to understand this term in its theological and contextual meaning. Origen’s use of ὑποδεέστερος does not imply a subordination of essence or being. Instead, it reflects the relational hierarchy within the Godhead, where the Father is the source (principium) of the Son. The Son's inferiority in this context is relational, not ontological, meaning it pertains to the roles within the Trinity, not to the nature or substance of the Son being lesser than the Father.
ReplyDeleteIn Trinitarian theology, particularly in the writings of Origen, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and consubstantial, meaning they share the same divine essence. The Father is the "greater" only in the sense of being the source within the Godhead, but this does not diminish the full divinity of the Son. Origen maintains that the Son is eternally begotten and fully divine (see De Principiis 1.2.9).
The term "hupodeesteros" might be understood as "inferior," but this does not equate to a lesser divinity or created status. Instead, it refers to the relational aspect where the Father, as the source, has a role that places Him as "greater" in terms of order, but not in terms of nature or essence. Origen’s theology consistently affirms the Son’s participation in the divine nature fully.
Origen was deeply influenced by Platonic thought, which saw the hierarchical ordering as reflective of roles, not essence. His subordinationist language does not mean ontological subordination. In his Commentary on John, Origen affirms that the Son shares in the same divine nature, yet he is "after" the Father in a relational sense.
In conclusion, Origen’s use of the term "hupodeesteros" in Contra Celsum 8.15 should be understood within the framework of relational hierarchy within the Trinity, not as an indication of an ontological subordination. This distinction is crucial for accurately interpreting his theological stance.