Wisdom’s Fire, Radiant and Unfading. Part II.

Part I

Great is the mystery of the flame imperishable,
An unending love that consumes as it is consumed,
Heals as it burns: it is Wisdom infallible,
Sophia, in her, through her, all is subsumed.

Uncreated, she is divinity, the essence of the One,
Of the Father, begetter unoriginate,
Of the Son, by whom salvation is won,
And of the Holy Spirit, love consummate.

At the end of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, those participating in it sing:  “We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us.” While the Christian faith is indeed the faith of the saving-work of the Trinity, the Trinity is one of the most difficult doctrines for Christians to discuss. This is as it should be, not because the Trinity is false, but because the Trinitarian mystery is the greatest of all mysteries, the mystery of the transcendent, ineffable, incomprehensible nature of God. And yet, because the Trinity has been revealed to us, we can know something about the Trinity, something which we know is of the truth, even if what we know pales in comparison to what transcends our knowledge. We can, therefore, communicate about the Trinity, and to do so is important. We are to discern not only how the Trinity relates to us as the foundation of our being, but also how the Trinity is the goal of our existence. That is, we have been made to share in the divine life, the inner Trinitarian experience; Trinitarian theology is therefore important for us because it points us forward, showing us where we are heading in the winding corridors of existence. Such theology will help us recognize and enter the stream of theosis, so that we can attain the end we were meant to achieve.

Sadly, Trinitarian theology has often been treated as an appendix to theological discussions. It is known that the Trinity is a central dogma of our faith. How that dogma relates to the rest of the Christian faith has often been ignored, so much so that Karl Rahner famously said that, “We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged.”[1] He also pointed out that, “It is as though this mystery has been revealed to us for its own sake, and that even after it has been made known to it, it remains, as a reality, locked up within itself.”[2] Rahner, of course, knew that in classical theology this was not the case. For the ancients, vestiges of the Trinity could be discerned throughout creation; the world pointed to, hinted at, the Trinity. Even if the full revelation of the Trinity was outside the limits of natural theology, the pagans intuited it with their interest in, and pursuit of, triads; they discerned a triadic pattern underlying creation. Most Christians believed that the cosmos hinted at the Trinity, and this meant that the act of creation was a Trinitarian act. The doctrine of creation could not, therefore, be cut asunder from the doctrine of the Trinity. To discuss creation required some sort of discussion on how it pointed to, and hinted at, the Trinity.

However, for the last few centuries, such discussions waned. It has only been very recent that theologians have recognized the need to reconnect Trinitarian theology to the rest of the faith. In part, it has been the difficulty (and, perhaps, embarrassment) the Trinity has brought to Christian theologians that they left such discussions to others. However, it is also true that theologians often found their concern elsewhere, either in dealing with the implications of the Enlightenment and modernity or in dealing with intra-Christian debates on soteriology and ecclesiology. Sadly, these debates ignored the Trinity and Trinitarian theology other than engaging non-Christians with apologetics. Even the East, with its liturgical acknowledgement of the Trinity in history, found its Trinitarian theology sidelined (with the sole exception being when they debated Western theologians over the filioque). In the East, the divine unity has remained a theological difficulty. While the personal relations of the Trinity could be discerned, the essential unity was often lost (causing some people to be practical tritheists, even if they knew tritheism was in error).The East, as with the West, therefore ignored a major theological concern, as Sergius Bulgakov points out:

The first part of the dogma, that is, the doctrine of the relationship between the three hypostases with their hypostatic qualities and distinctive features, has been to a certain extent elucidated in the process of the Church’s dogmatic creativity. But on the other side, the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, as well as the actual conception of substance or nature, has been far less developed and, apparently, almost overlooked.[3]

The Trinity is a difficult mystery, and one who seeks to gain a greater understanding of it must do so in humility. One must understand that whatever one discovers is little compared to what there is left to discover. Indeed, one must always keep in mind that what is learned, the small kernels of truth which we gain, is always to be countered by the greatness of God, by the infinite more which we have not grasped. What is said about the Trinity will forever be outstripped by what is not said, and even what cannot be said, about the Trinity. Thus, Dionysius reminds us:

There is no speaking of it, nor name, nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth – it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never for it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.[4]

Nonetheless, Dionysius points out that there is room for discussions of the Godhead, because the Trinity has revealed itself to us. What is revealed, what is experienced, can be discussed, and we can explore this revelation so as to understand it better. Trinitarian theology is more than the mere statement that there are three persons who also happen to be one God.  Trinitarian theology, as with all theology, is meant to draw us in to the divine mystery, to lift us up and encounter the Trinity for ourselves. There are many ways this can be done, and each must be seen as complementary. One of the most profound theological traditions, capable of helping us greatly improving our understanding of Trinitarian theology, is Sophiology.[5] While elements of Sophiology can be found in historical theology, nonetheless, Divine Sophia (Divine Wisdom) has, for the most part, been neglected. Yet, because Sophiology is at its heart a discussion of the essence of God and how it relates to the essence of creation, a discussion of Sophia will lead to a greater insight into the Trinity and in the world of creation. Indeed, one can say with Franz von Baader:

But on this account even the expositions of the Trinity have been for a long time so inadequate, not to say flat, because the concept of Sophia of these theologians has been wholly absent, and because any theology or religious science that lacks this concept is like the relationship of common geometry to the higher or analytical.[6]

That is, because we have neglected the divine essence in itself, an essence which is simple (meaning that all things which can be said about God’s essence are actually one, that the good, the truth, the beautiful, love, wisdom, et. al. must all be seen as the One undivided Essence of God), we have neglected that which makes the Trinity the Trinity. The beautiful is needed to draw us in, to experience the divine love. In a sense, a rebirth of Sophia has come to us from Russia, initiated by the work of Solovyov. The fruit of this theology can be seen in recent theological dialogues on the Trinity.[7] Philip K Dick, who experienced the glory of Sophia, could not comprehend his experience, and tried, in many different fashions, to come to understand Sophia. While his ponderings were often wrong (and often got his own self-rebuke), there was a kernel of a great mystery he was trying to discern, a mystery which he knew was true. His experience led him to rightly state, “The Head Apollo is about to return. St. Sophia is going to be born again; she was not acceptable before. The Buddha is in the park. Siddhartha sleeps (but is going to awaken). The time you have waited for has come.”[8] He was wrong in his understanding of what this was to mean; he thought it implied some sort of new incarnation of Sophia, a concept which often led him along erroneous roads of exegesis.[9]

The Divine Nature is called Sophia, Wisdom. There are many reasons why this term is used, among the most important are Scriptural and Patristic allusions to the Son and the Spirit as both being Sophia.  Sophia, Wisdom, is given a place of importance in Scripture, though what is said about Sophia is paradoxical.[10] Sophia is said to be the means by which God created the world, and yet, in other instances, Sophia is itself said to be created. This is because there is Divine Sophia, the uncreated essence of God, from which God makes the world and Creaturely Sophia, the image of the divine essence, which is made at the foundation of the world and used as its animating principle.[11]

Debates between St Athanasius and the Arians revolved around the designation of the Logos as Sophia. Since Scripture talked about both Divine and Creaturely Sophia, when Scripture discussed Creaturely Sophia, it was easy to confuse this as meaning the Logos was the same thing as Creaturely Sophia and therefore created.[12] This is what Arius did, and why he said the Logos was created as the first born of creation. He agreed, with Athanasius, that the Logos was Sophia, and so could not understand how Sophia, said to be created, could therefore be God. St. Athanasius, led in part with Arius’ interpretation, nonetheless explored Scripture further, hinting at some of the insights Sophiology would make with its distinction between Created and Uncreated Sophia, though limiting it to the Logos in his incarnation and his eternal existence.[13]

Because of the vital role St Athanasius played in the development of Christology and the Christian tradition, it is not too surprising that his Sophiological emphasis, that is, his interest in the relationship between Sophia and Logos, would become the exemplar by which Sophia would be discussed in Christian theology, thereby making historical Sophiology mostly a discussion of Logos-Sophia.[14] Nonetheless, this has not always been the case. St Irenaeus, long before the Arian crisis, discussed the Spirit as Sophia in his Trinitarian reflections. The Father, Irenaeus pointed out, was revealed through the Son and the Spirit, with the Spirit being the one St Irenaeus declared as Wisdom:

For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;” He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.[15]

For St Irenaeus, we can see that the Trinity is intricately united together in the act of creation. At this time, the role of the Spirit had yet to be fully realized in Trinitarian theology. It was known to be God, and therefore, Wisdom. By calling the Spirit, the Wisdom of God, Irenaeus was capable of pointing out that the Spirit must have a role in creation, and therefore, of showing the divinity of the Spirit:

There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things; but this is the Creator (Demiurge) who has granted this world to the human race, and who, as regards His greatness, is indeed unknown to all who have been made by Him (for no man has searched out His height, either among the ancients who have gone to their rest, or any of those who are now alive); but as regards His love, He is always known through Him by whose means He ordained all things.[16]

Since both the Son and the Spirit can be said to be Sophia, this points to Sophia as being more designated to one of the Trinitarian persons, that is, Sophia is essential to the Trinity, and therefore, also shared by, and given out by, the Father. The Son and the Spirit are the primary revelations of the Father, the two revealing hands of the Father (so to speak), though each, just like a right and left hand, differ from each other based upon how they hypostasize Sophia. But to understand how the Father, Son and Spirit hypostasize Sophia, we need to next turn to Sophia, and see what Sophia is for the persons of the Trinity.

[2] Ibid., 14.

[3] Sergius Bulgakov, Sophia: The Wisdom of God. trans. Rev Patrick Thompson, Rev O. Fielding Clarke and Xenia Braikevitc (New York: The Paisley Press, 1937; rev. ed. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1993), 24.

[4] Pseudo-Dionysius, “The Mystical Theology” in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 141.

[5] It is true that there are many forms of Sophiology, and some forms (such as found in many of the writings of the so-called Gnostics) have greatly erred. This does not mean Sophiology itself is erroneous. The mistakes of the past help keep us honest and humble. The judgment of the Church helps guide us, to make sure we do not turn astray. If we follow the guideposts along the way, we shall be able to keep away from the chasms which lie in wait.

[6] Franz von Baader, Letter to Marie Robel (1839) in Wisdom’s Book: The Sophia Anthology. ed. and intr. Arthur Versluis (St Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2000), 240.

[7] Russian philosophy and theology influenced many of the great theological thinkers in France, whose thought then became the inspiration for many a treatise on the Trinity.

[8] Philip K. Dick, VALIS (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 229. Sophia was not acceptable in the past because of the way Sophia became misunderstood. On the one hand, the so-called Gnostics, took Sophiology in a wrong direction with their dualism and their egotistical attempt to take on the heights of God into themselves outside of the guidance of the Church; Arians, on the other hand, diverted the attention of the faithful so that they ended up predicating Sophia exclusively with the Son, the Logos, and so the Spirit and the Father’s ways of being Sophia were lost. Yet, the presence of Sophia was always felt in the whole of theology, even in discussions of the Father and the Spirit, as we shall soon relate.

[9] However, this does not mean we can neglect his experience; indeed, he does discern great insights through his exploration of his mystical experiences, and so they will be something which we will explore a bit more later.

[10] See Proverbs 8:1-15, Proverbs 9:1-6;  Wisdom 1:1-8, Wisdom 6:1-7:2, Wisdom 10:1-9; Sirach 1:1-10, Luke 7:35, Luke 11:49, et. al..

[11] We will explore Creaturely Sophia in much more depth later.

[12] “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old” (Prov 8:22 RSV).

[13] The way St Athanasius discusses Proverbs 8 in his “Second Discourse Against the Arians,” shows us the way he lets Arius guide him in the reading of the text, and reading Sophia only for the Logos. Yet, even then, he demonstrates a deep understanding of Sophia, and sees how Sophia can be implanted in creation, so that Proverbs 8 refers to this created image of Sophia in creation:

Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for ‘in Wisdom have You made them all ,’ he says, and ‘the earth is full of Your creation.’ But that what came into being might not only be, but be good , it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God. For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and through It we are able to know Its Father. ‘For he who has the Son,’ says He, ‘has the Father also;’ and ‘he that receives Me, receives Him that sent Me. ‘ Such an impress then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works, with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself what belongs to its own impress, and say, ‘The Lord created me for His works;’ for what the wisdom in us says, that the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the works , He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that receives you, receives Me,’ because His impress is in us, so, though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.’ And therefore has this impress of Wisdom in the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the world might recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said, ‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.’ But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence ; but the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

St Athanasius, Discourse II.78 in NPNF2(4):390.

[14] Of course, as Bulgakov points out, this tradition traces itself to the work of Origen, whose theological reflections influenced the development of theology. See Sergius Bulgakov The Bride of the Lamb. trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2002), 15-16.

[15] St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV-20.1 in ANF(1):487-8.

[16] ibid. IV-20.4, 488.