Modern Theology 34:3 July 2018 DOI: 10.

1111/moth
ISSN 0266-7177 (Print)
ISSN 1468-0025 (Online)

“ONE GOD FATHER ALMIGHTY”

 JOHN
 JOHN BEH
BEHR
R

 Abstract
“One God Father Alm
“One Almight
ighty”
y” is amo
among
ng the momost
st basi
basicc Chri
Christia
stian
n con
confess
fession
ions.
s. In this article,
article, John
argues that the precise order of these four words is not random. In his works, Origen reflects on the
tural titles for God and Christ, and concludes that “Almighty” does not precede the title “Father,”
the Father is Almighty through the Son, in whom all things were made. Building on Origen’s scrip
exegesis, Gregory of Nyssa interprets the word “God” as designating specifically the Father, where
Son and the Spirit receive their (eternal) identity only in relation to “God the Father.” For Origen, Je
Son  of God,
the Son of God, rather than God the Son. The one “God over all” is the Father, made known throug
Son and the Spirit.

Introduction
Perhaps the most fundamental Christian confession naming God, going back to
apostle Paul himself (1 Cor. 8:6) and the first article of every creed is: “One
Father Almighty.” It is so familiar to us that we tend not to think about it too m
Or if we do, we tend not to take it in its simplicity. For example, my eldest
reported to me an intriguing, and arresting, conversation he had with his reli
instructor at a Jesuit High School. The instructor came in one day and told the c
“Today we are going to explore why we say that the one God is a Trinity.” My
immediately put his hand up and said, “I don’t, sir.” Perplexed, the instructor as
“What do you mean?” To which he replied (so he says), “Well, I don’t know a
you, sir, but I follow the Nicene Creed, which says: I believe in one God the Fath
I never found out how the discussion went after that (one can only guess). We
 become so used to using the word “God” in all sorts of ways – God the Father,
the Son, God the Spirit, the one God who is three; the triune God, and so on –
thee si
th simp
mplele ob
obsser
erva
vati
tion
on th
that
at th
thee Cr
Creeed do
does
es no
nott sp
spea
eak
k li
like
ke th
that
at,, le
lett al
alon
on
Scriptures, pulls us up short. They speak, much more simply, of one God the Fa
one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (not God the Son), and so on. What i
 “One God Father Almighty

The Sc
The Scri
ript
ptur
ural
al gr
gram
amma
marr fo
forr th
thee wo
word
rd “G
“God
od”” is we
well
ll kn
know
ownn an
and d ha
hass
quently commented on: without an article, the word uEό1  can be applied wid
say,
say, Yo
Youu ar
aree go
gods
ds,, ch
chil
ildr
dren
en of th
thee Mo
Most
st Hi
High
gh,”
,” sa
says
ys th
thee Ps
Psal
almi
mist
st (8
(82:
2:6)
6),,
Christ to affirm that all those to whom the Word of God came are “gods”
10:34–5); “there indeed are many gods and lords” out there, says the apostle,
for us there is only one God and one Lord (1 Cor. 8:5–6). In the texts of th
Testament, the word “god” with the article (“the God”) applies nearly exclusi
the Father of Christ, but also occasionally to Christ himself, most clearly in T
confession: “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). From Ignatius of Antioch
decades later, and onwards, Christ is repeatedly and unhesitatingly called “my
Yet even centuries later, the word “God,” with an article, continues to refer pri
to the Father. As Gregory the Theologian puts it towards the end of fourth cent

Define our piety by teaching the knowledge of:

One God, unbegotten, the Father; and
One begotten Lord, his Son,
referred to as “God” ( uEό1) when he is mentioned separately, but “Lord” w
he is named together with the Father – the first on account of the [divine] na
the second on account of the monarchy; and
One Holy Spirit, who proceeds ( pqoEkuόm ) or goes forth ( pqo ϊ όm ) from the Fat
“God” (uEόm ) to those who understand properly things proposed to them –
 bated by the impious but understood by those who are above them, and
professed by those who are more spiritual. 1

There is, according to Gregory, a particular “grammar” regulating the use

word “God,” a grammar, moreover, which preserves the balance of maintain
“monarchy” of the Father as the one God, and yet also the true divinity of t
and the Spirit, who by virtue of the fact that they are of the same nature as G
also be called “God.”

1. Ori
Origen
gen
It is with Origen that we start to find close examination of the terms “Fathe
“Almighty” as names of God. As is always the case with Origen, his analysis
ried
ried ou
outt th
thro
roug
ugh
h sc
scri
ript
ptur
ural
al ex
exeg
eges
esis
is,, in th
thee in
inte
terp
rpla
lay
y be
betw
twee
een
n Sc
Scri
ript
ptur
uree
Gospel and by coordinating various verses from Scripture. By “Gospel” Orige
not primarily mean “the narrative of the deeds, suffering and words of Jesu
all the writings
writings whi
which
ch “pre
“presen
sentt the soj
sojour
ourn
n of Chr
Christ
ist and pre
prepar
paree for his
(paqotrί a) and produce it in the souls of those who are willing to receive the
of God who stands at the door and knocks and wishes to enter their souls
322 John Behr

( ComJn.. 1.18), presenting the Word of God to

Gospel is an “exhortatory address” (ComJn
hearers in such a way that they receive the Word, who then dwells in them. W
this definition of “Gospel,” the writings of the Law and the Prophets can als
called this, though only retrospectively:

Before the sojourn of Christ, the Law and the Prophets did not contain the pro
lamation which belongs to the definition of the Gospel, since he who explain
the mysteries in them had not yet come. But since the Savior has come and h
caused the Gospel to be embodied, he has by the Gospel made all things
Gospel.3

So strong is Origen’s emphasis upon the distinctiveness of the revelation bro

 by Christ that it leads him to suggest that heretics such as Marcion may have
point: “It is indeed possible to agree with the heterodox view, that Moses and
prophets did not know the Father” (ComJn(ComJn.. 19.
19.27)
27).. As Or
Orig
igen
en poi
point
ntss ou
out,
t,
there are countless prayers in the Psalms and the Prophets, none of them add
God as Father, but only as Lord and God.4 He is not, however, prepared to con
an ontological disjunction between the God of the Old Testament and the God o
New Tes
Testam
tament
ent.. Rat
Rather
her,, hav
having
ing app
appare
arentl
ntly
y con
conced
ceded
ed gro
ground
und to Mar
Marcio
cion,
n,
makes a qualification that invests the designation of God as “Father” with new
nificance. When Christ explained the mysteries hidden in the writings of the
and the Prophets, he revealed the spiritual sense of Scripture, and as the true m
ing of their words this is, according to Origen, the meaning truly intended by t
who wrote the Scriptures. So, Origen claims, they already

spoke or wrote about God as Father in secret and not in a manner intelligible
all, so that they might not anticipate the grace that is poured out to all the wor
through Jesus, who calls all people to adoption so that he may declare the nam
of God to his brothers and praise the Father in the midst of the assembly
accordance with what has been written. 5

That is, if Moses and the Prophets already knew God as Father, this knowled
neve
ne vert
rthe
hele
less
ss de
depe
pendnden
entt upupon
on th
thee gr
grac
acee gr
gran
ante
tedd ononly
ly th
thro
roug
ugh
h Je
Jesu
sus.
s. Mor
althou
althoughgh Ori
Origen
gen occ
occasi
asiona
onally
lly cla
classi
ssifie
fiess the des
designa
ignatio
tion
n “Fat
“Father
her”” alo
along
ng wit
such as “Lord,” “Creator,” and “Judge” as “aspects” ( ἐpί m  mo
  iai) of God, here he
gests that the term “Father” should actually be considered as the very  name  of
 name of
6
revealed for the first time by the Son. Thus, for Origen, not only is it the rela
ship to the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that defines God as Father, rather
thee mo
th morre gegen
nera
rall rel
elaati
tio
ons
nshhip of Go God d to cr
creeat
atiion de
desscri
ribe
bed
d by th thee Pl
 “One God Father Almighty

designation “Father of all,”7  but as the very name “Father” depends upon
tionship to the Son, the existence of the Son is now, as it were, constitutive of
is to be God.8 The Gospel which proclaims this fatherhood of God and opens
alll th
al thee po
poss
ssibi
ibili
lity
ty of adoadopt
ptio
ionn to sosons
nship
hip isis,, fo
forr Or
Orig
igen
en,, th
thee uni
unive
vers
rsal
al co
Scripture, the deeper, spiritual sense of Scripture, revealed in the exegesis tau
the Savior in the Gospel he caused to be embodied. The theological affirmatio
there is only one God, the Father of his Son Jesus Christ and those adopted
in him, is thus inextricably related for Origen to the exegetical setting in wh
scope of the Gospel extends throughout Scripture.
work  On First Principles,
In his work On Principles , written about the same time as the first hal
Commentary on John, John, Origen explores the name of “Father” further. He does
so in the chapter devoted to “God” that opens the work – there he is mo
cerned to clarify what is meant by the fact that God is incorporeal and a cons
fire
fire – bu butt in ththee seseccon
ond
d chchap
apte
terr of bobookok onone,e, wh
whereree he ex exam
aminines
es th
thee
“aspects” or “titles” ( ἐpί m  m oiai) of Christ: Wisdom, Word, Truth, etc. One of
scriptural verses is from Proverbs, where Wisdom says of herself that God “c
me at the beginning of his work [ . . .] before the beginning of the earth” (Prov
5), a verse which brings together both creation and begetting, relating to the n
God as Father and the title “Almighty.” It is the phrase “before the hills he
me” (not by any understanding we might read into the term “Father” or th
“only-begotten”) that leads Origen to emphasize that the begetting of the So
eternal begetting (it is in the present tense), and an eternal begetting that
might share.9
Origen’s teaching on creation is notoriously complex and has been the sub
cont
co ntro
rove
vers
rsy
y alm
almos ostt fr
from
om ththee be
begi
ginn
nnin
ing.
g. At th thee be
begi
ginn
nnining
g of ththee ch
chap
apte
te
explains how Wisdom can speak of herself as created in terms that recall b
Platonic “ideas” and the Stoic “reasons,” suggesting that as “within this ve
sistence of Wisdom there was every capacity and form of the creation that
come to be, [. . .] Wisdom herself says through Solomon that she was  created th
ning of the ways  of God, that is, containing within herself the beginning and t
sons
so ns an
andd th
thee sp
speeci
cies
es of ththee en
entitire
re cr
creeat
ation” ( Princ
ion” Princ.. 1.
1.22.2
.2)). At th
thaat st
stag
ag
argument, then, if creation can be said to be eternal, it is only in a prefigu
sense.
Later on in the chapter, however, when Origen turns, in  Princ  Princ.. 1.2.10, to co
the verse in which Wisdom is said to be “the purest emanation of the glory
Almighty” (Wis. 7:25), he seems to imply a more concrete content to the etern
tence of creation. He begins by examining what might be meant by “the glory
Almighty” to then be able to understand what its “emanation” is, and doe
way of an analogy to the correlation, used earlier, between the existence of a
and that of a son, to demonstrate that the Son is eternal (Princ (Princ.. 1.2.2). As it is
sible to be a father without having a son, so also it is impossible for God
324 John Behr

was not almighty, by necessity those things must also subsist by which he is ca
almighty, and he must always have had those over whom he exercised power
which were governed by him as king or prince” (Princ(Princ.. 1.2.10); and of these th
he adds, he will speak more fully in the proper place, when discussing the subje
his creatures.
Pared down to the bare bones of the logical structure of the analogy, as was d
 by Methodius of Olympus,10 and those who follow in his wake, this opening pas
does indeed seem to suggest that creation must in some sense be eternally actual
for God to be eternally the Almighty. Stated in such a manner, as Rowan Willi
suggests, it rests upon the premise that true statements about God must hold
nally, and the mistaken inference from this that anything standing in relation to
must also exist eternally.11
However, as Origen himself reminds us in the last lines of the opening parag
of this section, he is not here concerned with created being themselves, but with
variou
var iouss tit
titles
les of Chr
Christ
ist and how the
they
y cor
correl
relate
ate amongst
amongst thethemse
mselve
lvess and wit
Father. So much is the analogy open to misunderstanding that he continues w
warning:

But even now, although briefly, I think it necessary to give a warning, since t
question before us concerning Wisdom is how Wisdom is the ἀpόqqoia   (or
emanation) of the purest glory of the Almighty , lest anyone should consider that t
title of  Almighty is
  Almighty  is anterior in God to the birth of Wisdom, through whom he
called Father, since it is said that [Wisdom] is the  emanation of the purest glory
Almighty. Let him who would think like this hear what the Scriptures clea
the Almighty.
proclaim, saying In
saying  In Wisdom have you made all things,
things , and the Gospel teaches, th
 All things were made by him and without him nothing was made made,, and let him und
stand from this that the title of   of   Almighty   cannot be older in God than that
Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is almighty. 12

In other words, Origen’s concern is not so much the status of creation itself, bu
work out the hierarchy of the scriptural titles for God and Christ. If Wisdom is
to be “a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty,” it is nevertheless “in Wisd
that God has made all things and by the Word that “all things were made,” so
as he puts it: “the title of ‘Almighty’ cannot be older in God than that of Father
it is through the Son that the Father is almighty.”
Whatever else Origen may be saying or implying about creation, the point he
established, through correlating various scriptural verses, is a fundamental theo
cal point, that becomes a given thereafter: that is, that the creative activity of
must be understood in terms of his existence already as Father. 13 This is, in fact
opening affirmation of almost every subsequent creed: I believe in One God Fa
 “One God Father Almighty

after the subject of the first article: “Father” is the name of God, and he is Al
as the Father of his Son, who is the Word and Wisdom of God, by whom all
were made. God’s creative act is thus grounded in the eternal relationship be
Father and Son.
Origen goes on to reflect further on the title of “Almighty” and what this o
tence is. He points out that the title “Almighty” is one that is also shared by
(Rev. 1:8), and that this divine omnipotence is demonstrated in a very specifi
ner. For Origen, the truth of their omnipotence is demonstrated by Paul’s w
Philippians, that, as a result of the Passion, every knee bows at the name of
The dominion which the Father holds over all things and by virtue of whic
call
called
ed “t
“the
he Al
Almi
migh
ghty
ty,”
,” is exexer
erci
cise
sed
d th
thro
roug
ugh h hi
hiss SoSon,
n, whwho
o is th
thus
us al
“Almighty,” for “at the name of Jesus every knee bows.” So, Origen conclu
every knee bows to Jesus, then, without doubt, it is Jesus to whom all thing
 been subjected, and he it is who exercised power over all things, and through
all things have been subjected to the Father” (Princ
( Princ.. 1.2.10).
To make his point even clearer, Origen continues by explaining just what th
of this omnipotence is:

And we add this, so that it may be more clearly understood what the   glo
omnipotence is. The God and Father is   Almighty because
Almighty  because he has power ov
things, that is, over heaven and earth, sun and moon, and all things in t
And he exercises power over them through his Word, for   at the name of
every knee bows, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
And, if  every bows  to Jesus, then, without doubt, it is Jesus to whom  all t
  every knee bows to
subjected , and he it is who exercised power over all things, and thr
have been subjected,
whom all
whom  all things have been subjected  to the Father; for it is through Wisdom, th
 by Word and Reason, not by force and necessity, that they have been subje
And therefore his glory is in the very fact that he possesses all things, and t
the purest
the  purest and most clear glory  of omnipotence, that by reason and wisdom, n
force and necessity, all things have been subjected. 14

For Ori
Origen
gen,, the
then,
n, not onl
only
y doe
doess the att
attrib
ribute
ute of omn
omnipot
ipotenc
encee whi
which
ch cal
calls
ls
into
into be
bein
ing
g dederi
rive
ve fr
from
om th
thee re
rela
lati
tion
onsh
ship
ip be
betw
twee
een
n th
thee Fat
Fathe
herr and th
thee So
Son,
n,
“glory of omnipotence” is found nowhere else but on the cross, as the refere
the Philippians hymn makes clear. If we do not strip away from his argum
scriptural verses that he is in fact discussing, to treat it merely as a logical arg
 but instead pay attention to the scriptural verses he uses to develop his argu
very different picture emerges.
The “omnipote
“omnipotenc nce”
e” Ori
Origen
gen is spe
speaki
aking
ng abo
about
ut whe
when n usi
using
ng the analogy
analogy
relationship between Father and Son is the power revealed through the weak
326 John Behr

creative activity come, in the end, to bow their knees in subjection to Christ, so
thr
hro
oug
ugh h his own subjection to the Father, God com omees to be “al alll in
Commenting on Origen’s understanding of Prov. 8:22, Wisdom saying “the Lord
ated
ated me th thee be
begi
ginn
nnin
ing
g of his wa waysys,”
,” Ro
Rowan
wan Wi
Will
llia
iams
ms hehelpf
lpful
ully
ly su
sugg
ggesests
ts tha
Origen “creation,  ktisis
 ktisis,, is strictly only the unimpeded expression of God’s rati
16
will.” This creation is not protological but eschatological, when everything, thro
God’s long economy, is brought, freely, into subjection to him, such that God is
in al
all.
l.”” In ththis
is wa
way,y, ththee in
inco
corp
rpor
orea
eall Go
God,
d, wi
with
th wh
whicichh Or
Oriige
genn be
begi
gins
ns   On
Principles,, comes, at the end, to be embodied, with all matter being transforme
Principles
the consuming fire that is God, which is how Origen ends the work.
Leaving aside for now this eschatological understanding of creation, the poi
clea
clearr th
that
at fo
forr Or
Orig
igen
en ththee st
stat
atem
emenent,
t, ad
adop
opte
ted
d by alalll cr
cree
eeds
ds th
ther
erea
eaft
fter
er,, “On
Father Almighty” is a precise theological statement: “Father” is the name of G
and by virtue of being Father, that is, through the Son, he is Almighty, possessin
omnipotence which is not that of a craftsman over inert matter, but that of one
works through reason and persuasion, bringing all things into rational and free
 jection to himself so that he can be all in all.

2. Gre
Gregor
goryy of Nyssa
The gr
gramm
ammarar th
that
at Or
Orig
igen
en is wowork
rkin
ing
g to
towaward
rdss is mad
madee mor
moree prprec
ecis
isee by th
Cappadocians, especially Gregory of Nyssa in his  Letter to Peter. Peter . Here he works
with labored precision, the distinction between  ousia and  hypostasis,, as relating t
and hypostasis
different names and properties used in speech about God. His argument is fairly sim
and straightforward. A term such as “human” can be applied to many objects,
therefore denotes the common nature that they share. But the common element
abstraction, indicating something general, an “indefinite concept.” This common
ment, the nature or the essence, does not exist by itself, it is not a thing ( pqᾶg
entity that actually exists. Nature or essence only subsists in particular entities den
 by particular Th us the common element (joim όsh1) needs to be deli
p articular names. Thus delimited
mited i
to be “given-standing” as a subsisting being, if, that is, we are to understand not sim
“human in general,” but specifically Peter or Paul. A term such as “human” indic
what kind of being something is, the ousia
the  ousia,, while a particular name denotes a conc
specific object (“thing,”  pq ᾶgla), the ousia
the  ousia subsisting
 subsisting in a particular manner, delim
and denoted by the hypostasis
the  hypostasis.. The term hypostasis
term  hypostasis,, therefore, for Gregory, refers n
much to the particular entity itself (for which, at least in the created realm, he
pqᾶgla), but the particularizing properties by which it is made known. 17

15
1 Cor. 15:27–8; treated most fully in  Princ
 Princ.. 3.6.
16
 Arius,, 141.
Williams, Arius
Williams,
17
 “One God Father Almighty

Having examined how things stand with regard to our language and its e
ment of certain terms, Gregory then argues that we can apply these same pri
to how we speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: “If you transfer to the
dogm
do gmas
as the prprin
inci
cipl
plee of di
diffffer
eren
entitiat
ation
ion,, whi
which
ch you re
reco
cogn
gniz
izee in hum
humanan
 between   ousia and   hypostasis,
hypostasis, you will not go astray” (EpPet
( EpPet.. 3). The transf
Gregory
Greg ory rec
recommend
ommendss is spec
specifica
ifically
lly that of the gramma
grammatica
ticall disti
distincti
nction
on betwe
mon and particular, not any other analogy that might suggest itself to us fr
human examples that he gives for the purpose of illustration. The first con
that Gregory draws is that each member of the Trinity has a common substanc
Whatever your thought suggests about the manner of the Father’s being (it is us
to rest the soul upon any subordinate concept, for we are convinced that it is a
all concept), you will think this also of the Son and likewise of the Holy Spirit.
For the definition of being uncreated and of being incomprehensible is one
the same for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One is not more incomprehen
( EpPet.. 3)
and uncreated, and another less so. (EpPet

Following passages from Origen, Gregory begins his investigation of the partic
ing characteristi
characteristics
cs of the Father, Son, and Holy Spiri
Spiritt with the apost
apostle’s
le’s statem
the Spirit works all grace in us (1 Cor. 12:11). If we ask further regarding the o
these blessings, Scripture guides us to the belief that the only-begotten God is the
and cause of the blessings worked in us by the Spirit. But having arrived at thi
we are led further in our contemplation to recognize that there is a Power tha
ingenerately and without beginning, the cause of all things, “for the Son, by w
things are, and with whom the Holy Spirit must always be inseparably conceive
the Father” (EpPet
(EpPet.. 4). Note that the coordinating particularities of the Father, S
Holy Spirit are derived from the scriptural account of their activity.
From here, Gregory continues with a full description of what he consider
the distinguishing marks of the hypostases
the  hypostases of
 of the Spirit, the Son and the Father

Therefore, since the Holy Spirit, from whom all the abundance of good th
gushes up to creation, depends ( ἤqshsai) on the Son, with whom he is indiv
apprehended, and has his being attached to the Father as a cause, from who
also proceeds, he has the identifying sign of the particularity with respect t
hypostasis (so ῦso gmxqirsij ὸm sῆ1 jasὰ sὴm  ὑpόrsarim  ἰ diόshso1 rhlE ῖ om  ἔ
 be made known after the Son and with him, and to subsist from the Fath
lEsὰ  s ὸm  Y
 Y ἱὸm jaὶ  r
 r ὺm  a
 a ὐsῷ  g mxqί fEruai jaὶ  s
 s ὸ ἐj so ῦ  P asqὸ1  ὑ uErsa
 m ai).

The Son, who through himself and with himself makes known the Spirit
proceeds from the Father, alone shining forth in an only-begotten mode (
lom ogEm ῶ1) from the unbegotten light, has no communion (o ὐdElί am  [
328 John Behr

Thus, whilst developing the whole analogy of how we speak of Father, Son
Spirit in terms of what is common and particular, Gregory does not identify “G
as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong
does he speak of the one God as three. Rather, “the God overall” is known spe
cally as “Father,” and the characteristic marks of the Son and the Spirit relate dir
to him: the Son alone shines forth in an “only-begotten mode,” while the Spirit,
ceeding from the Father, subsists, has his   hypostasis,
hypostasis, from the Father alone, b
known with and through the Son.
Having outlined the distinguishing marks of each  hypostasis
 hypostasis,, Gregory returns a
to the grammatical distinction between common and particular:

Therefore we say that, in the commonality of substance ( ἐm sῇ  s ῆ1  o ὐrί a1 joim όs

the distinguishing marks beheld in the Trinity are incommensurable and incommu
cable (ἀr ύlbasa   [. . .]  j aὶ ἀ joim ώm hsa); through them the particularity of the perso
(pqorώpxm ), ), ha
hand
ndeded do downwn in ouourr fa
fait
ith,
h, is ma
madede kn
know
own n to us
us,, ea
each
ch be
bein
ing
g ap
appr
preh
ehen
en
distinctively by means of its own particular marks, so that by means of the marks ju
the  hypostases is
mentioned the distinction of the hypostases  is ascertained; but, regarding the [prope
of being] infinite,
infinite, incomp
incomprehe rehensibl
nsible,e, uncre
uncreated,
ated, uncircumscri
uncircumscribed bed by space
space,, and
others of like nature, there is no variation in the life-giving nature – I mean regardi
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – but a certain continuous and uninterrupt
communion (sim a rtm Evῆ jaὶ ἀdia  rparsom j oimxm ί  (EpPet.. 4)
  m ) appears in them. (EpPet
ίa

The terms that Gregory applies in common to each of the three are all negativ
apopha
apo phati
ticc on
ones
es,, fo
forr th
thee di
divi
vine
ne nat
natur
uree is abo
above
ve co
conc
ncep
eptu
tuali
alizat
zation
ion or de defi
fi
Moreover, as the divine nature, as any nature, does not exist in the abstract, Gre
specifies that he is speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, known through
partic
particula
ulariz
rizing
ing pro
proper
pertie
ties,
s, whi
which
ch are uni
unique
que and inc
incomm
ommens
ensura
urable
ble,, suc
such
h tha
cannot even say “three” – as Basil puts it:

There is one God and Father, one Only-Begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. We p
 singly (lom avῶ1); and if we must use numbers, we w
the  hypostases singly
claim each of the hypostases
not let an ignorant arithmetic lead us astray to the idea of polytheism. For we
not count by way of addition, increasing from unity to multitude; saying, “o
two, three,” or “first, second, third.” For “I,” God, “am the first and I am the la
[Is. 44:6]. We have never to this present day heard of a second God. 18

When Gregory speaks of “certain continuous and uninterrupted communion”

appear
appearss in the
them,
m, he is rerefer
ferring
ring dir
direc
ectly
tly to the inv
invari
ariabil
ability
ity of nat
nature
ure con
contem
tem
equally in each, the continuity of the being of the Father in the Son and the Spirit –
“communion”
“commun ion” or “commun
“community”ity”   between   the persons, as the analogy of three dis
 “One God Father Almighty

human agents might suggest and as is the case for the perichoretic unity of the thr
ken about in much modern Trinitarian theology.19 When Gregory, in the final para
of the letter, addresses the words of Christ about the Father being in him and he
Father (e.g. John 10:38), he explains them, again, in terms of the Son being all t
Father is, with the exception of being the Father, the unique note demarcating “t
over all”: “we see all the [attributes] of the Father in the Son, and all the [attributes
Son belong to the Father, since the Son remains wholly in the Father and conta
Father wholly in Himself” (EpPet
(EpPet 8).
 8). The preposition “in” is used in Scripture for t
tionship
tionship between the Father and the Son, but this is not extended
extended to the Spiri
Spirit:
t: the
and the Son are not “in” the Spirit nor the Spirit “in” the Father or Son; the Spirit is
“in” us, or we are “in” the Spirit, enabled in this way to call Jesus Lord and call G
Father (cf. Rom. 8:9–17; Gal. 4:6, etc).
And as such, Gregory concludes: “the Son’s hypostasis becomes the shap
and  prosopon (oἱ om Eὶ  loquὴ jaὶ  pqόrxpom ) of the knowledge of the Fath
were, and prosopon
the hypostasis of the Father is made known in the form ( loquῇ) of the Son
their particular [properties] abides in each to serve as a clear differentiation
(EpPet 8).
hypostases” (EpPet one  prosopon,, one face, upon which we ca
 8). There is only one prosopon
 but doing so with the Spirit dwelling in us we look upon Christ, the image
invisible God, and see the Father. Gregory can even assert elsewhere, that in t
of the Trinity, unlike human individuals, there is only “one  prosopon
 prosopon,”
,” for we
see the Father as a separate  prosopon  apart from, or in distinction to, the  pros
the Son or the Spirit.20 There is only one “form” or “figure,” one prosopon
one  prosopon
God is contemplated, that of Jesus Christ, known by the Spirit to be the Son

19
L. Turcescu takes this passage otherwise, arguing that Gregory “intends to speak of a ‘com
 between persons here and not a ‘communit‘community’y’ of substance.” “The Concept of Divine Persons
Nyssa’s  To His Brother Peter, on the Difference between  Ousia and
of Nyssa’s To and Hypostasis,”  Greek Orthodox T
 Hypostasis,” Greek
Review   42, nos. 1–2 (1997): 78. Turc Turcescu
escu would diffe
different
rentiate
iate between the inva
invariab
riable
le “nat
“nature”
ure”
“certain
“cer tain continuous
continuous and uninuninterr
terrupted
upted communion,
communion,”” appl
applying
ying the latte
latterr phra
phrase
se to the three
rather than the nature. Yet Gregory’s position is that divine nature does not exist in the abstract,
in the three persons, and that in them we behold no variation in nature, but “a certain continu
uninterrupted communion,” a continuity which is qualified (“a certain”) because it pertains only
natural properties rather than their particular hypostatic expression of that nature. Thus Gregory
use the expression “communion according to nature ( joimxm ί ίa   jasὰ sὴm u ύrim )”
)” to express the
ship between wine and the vine from which it is produced, as an analogy for the begetting of
for “there is no difference between the moisture that exists in the vine and the wine that is p
( Against Eunomius
from it” ( Against Eunomius   3.1; GNO 1.2, 36); there is clearly no “personal” dimension involve
“communion” spoken of by this analogy. This point is also noted by George C. Stead (George C
“Why Not Three Gods? The Logic of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Doctrine,” in Hubertus R.
and Christoph Klock eds. eds.,,   Studien
Studien zu Gre
Grego
gorr vo
von
n Nys
Nyssasa und der chr
christ
istlichen Sp€atantike,
lichen atantike, Sup
Vigiliae Christianae   12 [Leiden: Brill, 1990], 158), who comments that the term joimxm ί ίa     “stand
‘common ownership’ of these attributes, rather than a more distinctly social ‘fellowship’ which m
paralleled by human society at its best.” Stead, however, assumes that Gregory does subscribe to
trinitarian theology, and consequently regards him as being incoherent: “Underlying Gregory’s c
is the thought that ideal humanity, the human race at its best, would provide an analogy for
330 John Behr

Father. The one “God over all” is thus the Father, made known through the Son
the Sp Spiirit, with who homm he eternally exists and wi witthout whom he is
contemplated.
If this is the scriptural and theological grammar that lies behind and reflects u
the first article of the Nicene Creed, then it seems my son was right, at lea
under
und erst
stan
andiding
ng th
thee NiNice
cene
ne CrCreeeed:
d: th
ther
eree is not OnOnee God th thee Tr
Trin
init
ity,
y, bu
butt On
Father Almighty, the one God, whose name is Father, Father of his Son, the So
God (not God the Son), and the one from whom the Spirit originates, procee
“from the Father” (John 15:26) and so always in relation to the Son. There is
divinity, which is beheld invariably in each. And there is the oneness in which
exist, such that there is only one  prosopon  prosopon,, one image or form of the invisible G
These are three distinct categories (one God, one divinity, oneness), the confusio
which only serves to confuse!
So,, to re
So retu
turn
rn to th thee ar
arti
ticcle th
that
at is th
thee su
subj
bjec
ectt of ththis
is es
esssay
ay:: “O
“One ne Go
Godd
Almighty.” There is an order and sequence here: the name “Father” is older (th
logically prior) to the title “Almighty,” for the God who is identified as the Fath
Christ, the Son of God, is almighty through his creative work through his Son
Word by whom, and the Wisdom in whom, all things are made, sharing the
“Almighty” with the Son and exercising his omnipotence through the weakne
the cross such that all things are, in the end, brought into subjection to Christ a
crea
creati
tion
on,, in whi
which
ch Go God d wil
willl in
inde
deed
ed be “al“alll in all
all.”
.” Th
Thee imimplplic
icit
it lo
logi
gicc in th
too-familiar phrase – One God Father Almighty – maintains a very precise wa
naming
nam ing God
God,, as Fat
Father
her,, and for undeunderst
rstand
anding
ing the omn omnipo
ipoten
tence
ce of the Alm
and crecreati
ation
on its
itself
elf,, tha
thatt is esc
eschat
hatolo
ologic
gicall
ally
y ori
orien
ented
ted rat
rather
her tha
thann pro
protol
tologi
ogical
cal
ways in which words are used, of course, morph over time, and indeed even in
next century with Augustine. 21 How we think words work also changes in diffe
philosophical climates. And as Gregory the Theologian put it, our struggle is n
much about words, but about realities. Yet, as long as we confess that Jesus i
Son  of God   (not God the Son), we are committed to saying that the God over a
Father, that the very name of God is “Father.”