Q&A Home > C > Christology

St. John Chrysostom says, “there is no interval therefore between the Son and the Father and if there be none, then he is not after, but co-eternal with him. For 'before' and 'after' are notions implying time, since, without age or time, no man could possibly imagine these words; but God is above times and Ages”, (Hom.4 in John 1/2)
Then he writes like Augustine, "Tell me, then does the radiance of the sun proceed from the substance itself of the sun, or from some other source. Any one not deprived of his very senses needs must confess that it proceeds from the substance itself. Yet, although the radiance proceeds from the sun itself, we cannot say that it is later in point of time than the substance of that body, since the sun has never appeared without its rays. Now if in the something which proceeds from something else and yet is not after the invisible and ineffable nature/ this same thing there takes place in a manner suitable to that Substance. For it is for this reason that Paul too calls Him Brightness (Heb 1:3)
So does his theory support the Western thought of the Creed or that of Athanasius'?

Christology is the topic of this passage. St. John Chrysostom is answering the question "How can it be that He is a Son, and yet not younger than the Father?

In the first passage, St. John Chrysostom is describing the relation between the Father and the Son. He explains how the Son was from the beginning and is eternal like the Father, for there in no notions of time with God. The second passage is an analogy describing how the Son is begotten from the Father as radiance proceeds from the sun. The rays proceed from the substance of the sun itself and we cannot have one without the other. Both the Eastern and Western Churches adopt this belief, that the Son is begotten from the Father.

It is the issue of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father only or the Father and the Son that is controversial and is the cause of disagreement between all the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. In 589 A.D., in the synod of Toledo, Spain, the filioque, the doctrine that claims that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, was added to the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Unfortunately, Rome adopted this error. The Orthodox Churches (non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonians) believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. The Bible is clear on this topic "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me" (John 15:26).

We need to note here that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only, but is sent by the Son. "But if I depart, I will send Him to you" (John 16:7). Note: The Son will send the Spirit.

It was not out of humility that Christ did not say that the Holy Spirit was proceeding from Him. He did not because it is not the case. Why does He not refer to the Holy Spirit as processing from Him but from the Father? H. H. Pope Shenouda III says that this dogma makes two Fathers in the Holy Trinity, for there would be two origins.