Table of Contents
- Monarchia in Trinitarian Theology
- Filioque and the Monarchia
- Church Fathers on the Monarchia
- The Trinity is Monarchia
- How is “ο θεος” & “εις θεος” Used?
- What About Genesis 19:24 and Zechariah 2:8-9?
Monarchia in Trinitarian Theology
The concept of Monarchia—from Latin monarchia (“monarchy”), which itself is derived from the Ancient Greek μοναρχίᾱ meaning “only source”—is foundational in Christian theology, particularly when discussing the inner life of the Trinity. The Greek word is composed of two parts: μόνος (monos) meaning “one/alone/only,” and ἀρχός (archos) meaning “source/originator/cause.” Thus, monarchia fundamentally means a single, unique origin or source.
In the context of the Immanent Trinity (that is, the internal or ad intra relationships within the Godhead), monarchia affirms that the Father alone is the ultimate source. This is traditionally expressed in theological terms such as source without source, arche anarchos, or principium sine principio. These terms all signify that the Father is the uncaused source, the first principle (principium sine principio) of the divine Persons. He is not derived from another, but is the originator of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Filioque and the Monarchia
When considering the doctrine of the Filioque, which holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, this teaching must be understood in harmony with the doctrine of Monarchia. The Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, not as from two separate causes. The unity of divine action in the Spirit’s procession does not compromise the Father’s role as Monarchia. This is because the Son receives everything He has from the Father, including the ability to participate in the Spirit’s procession. The Father remains the singular origin, as the Son’s causal role is itself derived from the Father.
Catholic Answers says:
When the Greeks spoke of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, they had in mind the Greek word ekporeusis, the term, in fact, used in John 15:26 cited above, when Jesus said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” This term refers to the essential and “first” origin of the Holy Spirit, which, the Greeks had right, is from the Father alone. It is the teaching of all Christians, East and West, that the Father is the soul monarch, or source (arche) of the entire Godhead.
Greek has another term, proienai, which is used among the Greek fathers for the Son’s role involving not the “first” origin of the Holy Spirit; rather, the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son that in no way denies the Father as first principle of life on the Godhead.
The Latins used procedit (“proceeds”) from the Vulgate translation of John 15:26 that has a more general meaning that can incorporate either ekporeusis or proienai in Greek. The Latins emphasized a meaning akin to proienai. Thus, the Latins never intended to deny the sole monarchy of the Father, while some in the East seemed not to be able to understand the Western concept of procedit.
Add to this the problem of the Greek word arche (“beginning” or “source”) translated as the Latin principio (“beginning” or “principle”), and we have more trouble. For the Greeks, there cannot be two “sources” or “causes” (arche) of the divine life of God. And the Latin fathers agree.
But, following St. Augustine, the Latin fathers and theologians would speak of the Father as Principium Impricipatum (an “unbegun beginning”) and the Son as Principium Principiatum (a “begun beginning”), allowing them to harmonize the truth that both the Father and the Son are the single principle (principio) of the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit, while never denying the uniqueness of the Father as “principle without principle.”
Importantly, the divine essence is one and indivisible. It is communicated from the Father to the Son and the Spirit in their eternal relations. While the Father is the font of divinity, this essence is not possessed by Him alone—it is fully shared by all three divine Persons. The Son and the Spirit possess everything they are and everything they can do from the Father.
Therefore, what makes the Father the Monarchia is not only His personal relation as Father, but also two unique aspects of His Person: His uncaused hypostatic property and His causal role in the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. This maintains the theological truth that while all three Persons are co-eternal and consubstantial, the Father uniquely holds the place of source without source, grounding the unity and order of the Trinity.
Here are Church Father’s on the Monarchia of the Father:
Basil of Caesarea
There is one God because there is one Father. But the Son is also God, and there are not two gods because the Son has identity with the Father. For I do not behold one divinity in the Father and another in the Son. Nor is one nature this and the other that. So then, in order to make clear for you the distinctness of the person, count the Father by himself and the Son by himself, but in order to avoid secession into polytheism, confess one substance in both. In this way both Sabellius falls and the Anomoian [ezeik – who asserted that because the Son is from God He must be of a different essence] will be shattered.
Basil, Homily 24 (Against Sabellians, Arians and Anomoians).
St. Novatian, in refuting Modalists and Unitarians (ch,30) he says:
Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born — compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both — He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods. If He had not been begotten — compared with Him who was not begotten, and as being found equal — they not being begotten, would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods…But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods, since He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. In which kind, being both as well only-begotten as first-begotten of Him who has no beginning, He is the only one, of all things both Source and Head. And therefore He declared that God is one, in that He proved Him to be from no source nor beginning, but rather the beginning and source of all things…And thus He could not make two Gods, because He did not make two beginnings, seeing that from Him who has no beginning He received the source of His nativity BEFORE ALL TIME.
(Trin. Ch.31)
St. Athanasius
1. We believe in one Unbegotten God, Father Almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible, that has His being from Himself. And in one Only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father without beginning and eternally; word not pronounced nor mental, nor an effluence of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the impassible Essence, nor an issue ; but absolutely perfect Son, living and powerful (Hebrews 4:12), the true Image of the Father, equal in honour and glory. For this, he says, ‘is the will of the Father, that as they honour the Father, so they may honour the Son also’ (John 5:23): very God of very God, as John says in his general Epistles, ‘And we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and everlasting life’ (1 John 5:20): Almighty of Almighty. For all things which the Father rules and sways, the Son rules and sways likewise: wholly from the Whole, being like the Father as the Lord says, ‘he that has seen Me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9). But He was begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly, for ‘who shall declare his generation?’ (Isaiah 53:8), in other words, no one can. Who, when at the consummation of the ages (Hebrews 9:26), He had descended from the bosom of the Father, took from the undefiled Virgin Mary our humanity (ἄνθρωπον), Christ Jesus, whom He delivered of His own will to suffer for us, as the Lord saith: ‘No man takes My life from Me. I have power to lay it down, and have power to take it again’ (John 10:18). In which humanity He was crucified and died for us, and rose from the dead, and was taken up into the heavens, having been created as the beginning of ways for us (Proverbs 8:22), when on earth He showed us light from out of darkness, salvation from error, life from the dead, an entrance to paradise, from which Adam was cast out, and into which he again entered by means of the thief, as the Lord said, ‘This day shall you be with Me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43), into which Paul also once entered. [He showed us] also a way up to the heavens, whither the humanity of the Lord , in which He will judge the quick and the dead, entered as precursor for us. We believe, likewise, also in the Holy Spirit that searches all things, even the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:10), and we anathematise doctrines contrary to this.
2. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, ‘I came out from the Father and have come’ (John 16:28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, ‘I was by Him as one setting in order’ (Proverbs 8:30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For ‘He that has seen’ the Son ‘has seen the Father (John 14:9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: ‘In Him were all things created, and He is before all’ (Colossians 1:16). Now He says not, ‘was created’ before all things, but ‘is’ before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but ‘is before all’ applies to the Son only.
St. Ambrose
81. Let us proceed with what follows. He who speaks of himself, seeks his own glory. John 7:18 See the unity wherein Father and Son are plainly revealed. He who speaks cannot but be; yet that which He speaks cannot be solely from Him, for in Him all that is, is naturally derived from the Father.
St. John of Damascus
We believe, then, in One God…one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation , united without confusion and divided without separation (which indeed transcends thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit whereinto also we have been baptized. For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Matthew 18:19…In treating, then, of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety to say that time comes into play and that the existence of the Son is of later origin than the Father. For we hold that it is from Him, that is, from the Father’s nature, that the Son is generated. And unless we grant that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father, by Whom He was begotten, we introduce change into the Father’s subsistence, because, not being the Father, He subsequently became the Father. For the creation, even though it originated later, is nevertheless not derived from the essence of God, but is brought into existence out of nothing by His will and power, and change does not touch God’s nature. For generation means that the begetter produces out of his essence offspring similar in essence. But creation and making mean that the creator and maker produces from that which is external, and not out of his own essence, a creation of an absolutely dissimilar nature…
Now there is the same difference between God and man in begetting and generating. For in God, Who is without time and beginning, passionless, not liable to flux, incorporeal, alone and without end , generation is without time and beginning, passionless and not liable to flux, nor dependent on the union of two : nor has His own incomprehensible generation beginning or end. And it is without beginning because He is immutable: without flux because He is passionless and incorporeal: independent of the union of two again because He is incorporeal but also because He is the one and only God, and stands in need of no co-operation: and without end or cessation because He is without beginning, or time, or end, and ever continues the same…
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father…
For it is quite impossible to find in creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in all details the nature of the Holy Trinity. For how could that which is create and compound, subject to flux and change, circumscribed, formed and corruptible, clearly show forth the super-essential divine essence, unaffected as it is in any of these ways? Now it is evident that all creation is liable to most of these affections, and all from its very nature is subject to corruption…
For the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.
All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being : and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father , that is, because of the Father’s existence , the Son and the Spirit exist , and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypo static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.
The Trinity is Monarchia
As we said above, the Immanent Trinity (aka ad-intra – how they relate to one another) only has 1 arche but the Economic Trinity (aka ad-extra – how they relate to creation) , all 3 are arche anarchos (source without source):
For they are not without source—and yet in a sense they are without source, which is a paradox. They are not without source with respect to their cause, for they are from God even if they are not subsequent to him in time, just as light comes from the sun. But they are without source with respect to time, since they are not subject to time.
How is “ο θεος” & “εις θεος” used?
St. Gregory Nazianzus says:
Define our piety by teaching the knowledge of: One God, unbegotten, the Father; and One begotten Lord, his Son, referred to as “God” when he is mentioned separately, but “Lord” when he is named together with the Father —the first on account of the [divine] nature, the second on account of the monarchy;
(ORATION 25:15-16) also (Fathers of the Church Series, vol.107, select orations, pp.170-171) for the Greek text see Patrologiae Cursus Completus – Series Graeca – Volume 35 – Gregory of Nazianzus 1, p.1220 starting from Ὁρίζου δὲ χαὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν εὐσέθειαν…
The Father, the Son, and the Use of “God” in Scripture and Theology
When the Father is mentioned alongside the Son, biblically (without exception) and patristically (with exceptions), the term “the God” (ho Theos) is often reserved primarily for the Father, as is the phrase eis theos (“One God”) found in passages such as John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Malachi 2:10. This is not because Christ is not fully God, but because the Father is the source of the Godhead. When the Father and the Son are named together, “God” is ordinarily identified as the Father and “Lord” (YHWH) as the Son.
In the citation above, Gregory said “The first” refers to the Son being called God when mentioned separately. This is because He shares the divine nature—He is God by essence, just like the Father. So, when we call Jesus “God” in isolation, we are affirming His consubstantiality. This is given to Him nominally because of His nature (called nominal predicate), just like Adam, whose name means “human” and is given to him based on his nature. This understanding refutes the Monarchical abuse of scholars like Beau Branson and Joshua Sijuwade.
“The second” refers to the Son being called Lord when named with the Father, “…on account of the monarchy.” The term “monarchy” (monarchia) in Gregory’s theology refers to the Father as the sole principle (archē) or source within the Trinity. So, to preserve this relational order—that the Son is begotten from the Father—Gregory prefers to call the Father “God” and the Son “Lord” when both are named together. This is not because the Son is less divine, but to honour the order and origin within the Godhead.
In summary, the Father is called “God” by virtue of Monarchia, while the Son is called “God” by virtue of nature. These are two different uses of the word “God” that highlight the unique relational roles within the Trinity.
When the Father and the Son are jointly referenced in Scripture, particularly in the New Testament, the same divine title (for example, “God”) is never applied to both in precisely the same nominal (identity) sense. This careful distinction serves to avoid three heresies:
- To preserve the Monarchy of the Father (and thereby avoid Polytheism),
- To maintain the personal distinction of the Son (avoiding Modalism),
- To uphold their consubstantiality (preventing Arianism).
Here are key scriptural instances where Jesus is named together with the Father:
- John 1:1: “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:6: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
- Ephesians 4:4-6: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all…”
- Philippians 2:11: “Every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
- 2 Corinthians 3:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
In every one of these cases—and many more—the Son is referred to either as “Lord” (often evoking the divine name YHWH) or as “God” in a predicative sense. He is never called “God” in the same identifying or monarchical sense as the Father, who is consistently referenced as “the God” or “God the Father.” This distinction clearly reflects the early Christian pattern of affirming both the unity of the Godhead and the personal distinctions within it.
There are several notable instances in Scripture where Jesus is named separately from the Father with divine titles:
- Titus 2:13 — “our great God and Saviour”
- John 20:28 — “My Lord and my God”
- 2 Peter 1:1-2 — “our God and Saviour”
- Hebrews 1:8-9 — “Your throne, O God”
In the subsequent verses — Hebrews 1:9 and 2 Peter 1:2 — after mentioning the Son alone as God in the previous verses, the text reintroduces the Father, distinguishing Him as “God” in a way that upholds and preserves the monarchia. This clear pattern is seen especially in 2 Peter 2:2: “God” is applied to the Father—the unbegotten source—while “Lord” is applied to the Son—the begotten but fully divine Person. This distinction maintains both the unity of essence and the personal distinctions within the Godhead, carefully avoiding the errors of modalism (which denies personal distinctions) and tritheism (which divides the Godhead into three separate gods).
An important analogy helps clarify how the titles and references to the Father and the Son function, but—and this is crucial—the analogy is not ontological, it is rhetorical or linguistic (about how we speak).
- Consider this: if a picture (representing Christ) of a person (the Father) is present, we might call it “the person” in a derivative way. For example, if we show a picture of my wife, we often say, “This is my wife,” even though it is only an image representing her. However, if the actual person is physically present, we typically wouldn’t refer to the picture as the person, because the real presence makes the distinction clearer. This analogy can loosely parallel why Scripture tends to avoid calling Christ “ho Theos” when the Father is also mentioned—not because Christ is not God, but because the Father, as the Monarchia, is the primary reference point when speaking of God in a personal sense. However, there is a vital distinction: Christ is not merely an image of the Father like a picture is of a person. He is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, meaning He possesses the same divine essence, not just a resemblance. Therefore, while the image analogy helps explain how Christ reveals the Father (cf. Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), it does not imply that Christ is “less” God when the term “ho Theos” is applied specifically to the Father.
To give a more ontologically suited analogy, consider the historical context of Daniel 5. Nabonidus was the last official king of Babylon. Belshazzar, identified as king in Daniel 5:1, was his son and acted as co-regent—effectively ruling Babylon while his father was away (Daniel 5:7) in Arabia.
- In many historical monarchies, when a king leaves on a journey or is absent, the prince or heir may be referred to as “king” in a functional sense, ruling in his father’s place. However, when the king returns, the distinction between the actual king and the co-regent or heir is made clear again.
What About Genesis 19:24 and Zechariah 2:8-9?
These passages, along with others, contribute to the broader biblical narrative that unfolds progressively concerning the nature of God and His revelation to humanity.
Progressive Revelation and the Trinity
The concept of progressive revelation means that God gradually disclosed His nature and plan to humanity over time, culminating in the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ and the New Testament. This gradual unfolding of divine truth has significant implications for how we understand the doctrine of the Trinity and the use of divine titles like YHWH and God.
1. Old Testament Context: Hints and Shadows
Plurality within Unity:
The Old Testament often presents God as a singular, sovereign deity, strongly emphasizing monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”). Yet, there are subtle hints of plurality or complexity within the Godhead—such as the plural pronoun in “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), the “Angel of YHWH” appearing as a divine agent, or the Spirit of God moving over the waters (Genesis 1:2). These passages suggest a multi-personal reality within the divine unity, but they do not yet clearly define the relational distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit as later developed.
Titles and Names:
The divine name YHWH functions primarily as the personal, covenantal name of God—the one true God of Israel. It expresses God’s eternal, self-existent nature. However, this name is not always carefully differentiated by personal distinctions within the Godhead. For example, the Angel of YHWH carries this name or authority, but the text does not systematically distinguish between the Father, Son, or Spirit by unique nominal titles.
2. New Testament Fulfillment: Clearer Distinctions
Explicit Personal Distinctions:
In the New Testament, the Trinity is revealed with greater clarity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinctly identified as persons, all fully God, yet one in essence. The apostles articulate this in Scripture, and the early church fathers expound on it with theological precision.
Nominal Usage of Divine Titles:
The New Testament shows a pattern where the Father is often called “God” nominally, especially alongside the Son. The Son is also called “God,” but the pattern and context differentiate the usage to preserve both unity and personal distinctions (e.g., John 1:1; John 20:28). This careful usage helps safeguard against modalism (denying real personal distinction) and tritheism (denying unity).
3. Why the Difference?
Gradual Disclosure:
Before Christ’s incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit, the understanding of God’s triune nature was veiled. The Old Testament revelation laid the groundwork without fully revealing what could later be revealed safely and clearly to believers.
Covenantal and Cultural Context:
The Old Testament’s audience was focused on God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel and His uniqueness in a polytheistic world. The complexity of the Godhead was intentionally veiled to avoid misunderstandings or accusations of polytheism.
Theological Development:
The early church fathers inherited this progressive revelation and developed theological language to preserve monotheism while affirming the full divinity and distinct personhood of Father, Son, and Spirit. Gregory Nazianzus’ distinctions about how “God” is used nominally or predicatively arise out of this mature theological reflection.
In Essence:
The Old Testament uses the divine name YHWH primarily as a unified personal name of God without explicit differentiation between persons in the Godhead. This reflects the stage of revelation appropriate for that time. The New Testament, building on this foundation, reveals the tri-personal God more explicitly, allowing for a more nuanced and precise use of divine titles that reflect both unity of essence and personal distinctions.at maintain both unity and distinction.
Gregory of Nazianzus says:
The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.