The Orthodox Trinity and the Monarchia of the Father 

The way that you tie in examples like “The father is greater than I” and “the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ” really displays the monarchy of the father. One of the best explanation of the trinity I have heard in a while!

I’m an inquirer into Orthodoxy from Protestantism. You explain this very well. Thank you for providing reading material as well.

I became Orthodox 20 years ago. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

Loving your videos brother, Lord bless you

For me when Muslims or Unitarians ask me:“ how can Jesus be God and have a God?“ I explain that Jesus has two natures. The human and the divine. In Jeremiah 32,27 we read: I am the God of all flesh. So if the Son of God became flesh, he must have God as his God, too. God bless you brother 🙏🏻✝️❤️

Thank you Jeem, I have be unpacking the trinity over the past couple years as I have to Orthodoxy and this video has been a valuable piece in my understanding.

Love your in depth content, rather than just the standard message!

Everything theologically is pointing towards Orthodoxy.

Some Protestants, me for example, also believe in the Monarchical Trinity. Protestantism has me wanting to go back as much as possible to the Earliest Church, so I very quickly adopted it after learning about the original version of the Creed and the Monarchy of the Father from Dr. Beau Branson

You are so right brother. I have seen so much confusion and ignorance in the western view of the Trinity from the Catholics. Monarchial view makes the most sense and is true to scripture.

"Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological “principle” or “cause” of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God, but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the “cause” both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the ontological “principle” of God is traced back, once again, to the person." John D. Zizioulas Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Contemporary Greek Theologians Series, No 4) "If God exists, He exists because the Father exists, that is, He who out of love freely begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person-as the hypostasis of the Father-makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St Basil in particular, is directly connected. … The being of God is identifed with the person" John D. Zizioulas (Being as Communion [BC], pp. 40-41) "On the other hand, there is another terrible error, and the other terrible error, usually called Modalism in technical theological terminology, is where people say there is one God Who is the Holy Trinity, There is "He Who Is the Trinity." And we Orthodox Christians, following scripture, and the creedal statements, and the liturgical prayers, can never say there is one God who is the Trinity. There is one God who is the Father. And this one God who is the Father has with Him eternally, Whom He begets timelessly before all ages, His only-begotten Son who is also His Logos, his Word, and also his Chokhmah, His Sophia, His Wisdom, also His Eikona, His Ikon, His Image-but this Wisdom and Word and Image and Ikon, is" FR. THOMAS HOPKO (FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) "So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with trinitarian faith?... The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world "God" (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures... This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: "I believe in one God, the Father..." Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of/existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God... The Living Pulpit (April-June, 1999), pp. 22-23 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) The one God is the Father. Substance is something common to all three persons of the Trinity, but it is not ontologically primary until Augustine makes it so. ('On Being Persons: Towards an Ontology of Personhood', in Persons Divine and Human, ed. Christoph Schwöbel and Colin Gunton, p. 40. By John D. Zizioulas) "St Gregory Nazianzen contributed the solution by making a distinction between “will” and the “willing one” [Or 29.6-7]: the “will” is common to all three persons of the Trinity; the Son shares this one divine will common to all three persons, which, as St Cyril of Alexandria put it, is “concurrent with the divine ousia.” Yet, there is no will without the willing one, as there is no ousia without the hypostasis. The “willing one” is a person, and as such is primarily none else but the Father. The one divine will shared equally by all three persons and lying behind the creation of the world, in accordance with Athanasius and Nicaea, does not emerge automatically and spontaneously as it were out of itself, but is initiated by a person, namely the Father, as “the willing one.” (Communion and Otherness [CO], p. 121) John Zizioulas "In a sense, all this remains a puzzle to our common logic, because we tend to associate freedom with individuality: how can one be constituted freely if someone else with his freedom constitutes him? Has the Father “asked” the Son and the Spirit for their free consent before he brought them into being? Such a question presupposes individualism, for how can you “ask” someone’s consent for his being if he does not already exist? Ontological individualism is precisely the establishment of an entity prior to its relationships. Its opposite is the establishment of the entity through the very relations that constitute its existence. This is what we mean when we speak of the relational character of “divine substance,” or of Father, Son and Spirit as relational entities. The Father as a relational entity is inconceivable without the Son and the Spirit. His freedom in bringing them forth into being does not impose itself upon them, since they are not already there, and their freedom does not require that their consent be asked, since they are not established as entities before their relationship with the Father. This is the difference between moral and ontological freedom: the one presupposes individuality, the other causes individuality, or rather personhood."" (CO, p. 122)" John Zizioulas "For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: ""There is one God and Father." For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of "divinity" which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this "monarchy" of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly "true God of true God," as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term "God" (theos) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article, this is only done on the prior confession of him as "Son of God," and so as other than "the one God" of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion." -The Nicene Faith II: pp. 307-308 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) "Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it's very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God, in Whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father. That in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God." -FR. THOMAS HOPKO (FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/theholy_trinity "The Greek Fathers always maintained that the principle of unity in the Trinity is the person of the Father... This is why the East has always opposed the formula of filioque which seems to impair the monarchy of the Father: either one is forced to destroy the unity by acknowledging two principles of Godhead, or one must ground the unity primarily on the common nature..." -VLADIMIR LOSSKY ON THE FILIOQUE The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 58 "What Christian can endure to bring two causes into the holy triad, the Father [being a cause] of the Son and Spirit, and again the Son [being a cause] of the Spirit, and to dissolve the monarchy into ditheism, and to rip the theology of Christians into nothing but the most evil mythology of the Hellenes, and to treat with insolence the dignity of the super essential and monarchic triad?" -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ENCYCLICAL TO THE EASTERN PATRIARCHS “11. Leaving aside the aforementioned, if one admits of two causes in the thearchic and superessential Triad, where then is the much hymned and God befitting majesty of the monarchy? Will not the godlessness of polytheism be riotously introduced? Under the guise of Christianity, will not the superstition of Hellenic error reassert itself among those who dare to say such things?" -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT "12. Again, if two causes are imposed upon the the monarchic Triad, then according to the same reasoning, why should not a third one emerge? For once the principle without principle and above principle, is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is cleaved into a duality, the principle will proceed more vehemently to be severed into a triad, since in the supersubstantial inseparable, and simple nature of the divinity, the triad is more manifest than the dyad, and indeed also harmonizes with the idiomata." -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE H OLY SPIRIT "... Gregory (of Nyssa) does not identify “God” as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong. Rather, Gregory stands clearly within the monarchical approach Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. It is “the God overall” who is known specifically as “Father”..." -The Nicene Faith II: p. 420 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) (of Nyssa) added for clarity.

Im just scratching the surface on this topic, lifelong protestant. But the detail of the Son receiving the Spirit in baptism is a really great point that I never really thought about before.

BLESSED BE THE KINGDOM OF THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT...AMEN.

Excellent explanation, I am really happy to have found your Chanel 🙏🌺🥰

I use to Think that Monarchy of the Father Trinity view was Incoherent Nonsense but after watching this I now KNOW it's Incoherent Nonsense! Thanks.

Thank you for this comment! However, I must admit that I’m still struggling with two main questions: 1) Where exactly in the Jewish Torah or the TaNaKh is the trinity explicitly mentioned? According to the (orthodox) rabbis, there is not a single passage in their holy writings where it can be found. 2) What precisely is the meaning of the notion “a person (of the trinity)”? How is this concept defined in orthodox christianity? Please note that this is NOT SOME KIND OF CRITICISM, BUT RATHER A SINCERE QUESTION. I would honestly appreciate your answer and your explanation! Kind regards, Anna

As a protestant, I don't really have a problem with seeking what God says. I found the "ho theos" and "theos" discussion from the Greek to be very interesting to explain some patterns in Scripture.

Thank you so much for this video!

Hello! I really enjoy the videos you put out. Do you think at some point, you would consider making a video regarding Christians observing OT Holy Days? God Bless, my friend. May the lord bless you abundantly! ☦️☦️

Nice video! I'm a protestant and I have an honest question (sorry for my ignorance). Saying that God the Father has more authority than the Son seems (at least to me) to make the Father "more God" than the Son and the Holy Spirit doesn't it? I'm trying to understand more about the eastern churches. Please, be patient with me 😅

thank you brother

Glad I found your channel. What if someone argues we are just making up our own rules and logic with the unified plurality or whatever the term you used was? Thanks ☦️

Great explanation

Súper banger of a video

Forgive me if this illustration is offensive. I’m just trying to understand your thought here. Like a single celled organism can replicate asexually, Does the Logos(Son) and Holy Spirit come from the Father? Same “material”proceeding from the Father.

Interestingly, John 14:12 uses the same word for greater where it talks about the Apostles doing greater works than Jesus. Nobody would interpret that to mean those works are better than Jesus' works. The same word 'megas' is used in verse 28 and unitarians will now use the same word in the same chapter to mean better or higher in quality. John 5:36 uses the same word as well.

Awesome vid ty ty

Great video Sr. Jeem... Perfecto.. Who seperated from the OG Church. Orthodox from Chatholic or Catholic fr Orthodox.... Thank you in advanced my kind Sr.... 👍🏼🙏🏼🕊️😇

The definition of God in philosophy is usually the greatest possible being you can think of. Using this definition would only God the Father be the only God? I ask this because this definition would include both essence and authority in terms of God’s greatness. Since Father and Son are equal in essence but unequal in authority then the philosophical God as defined above would only be the Father under this definition. But if you define God as any person with the divine essence then that would include the trinity.

Great video. Thanks. Totally agree. See also Michael Heiser's work on the 2 powers in heaven. Jews did have the theology of 2 powers (before clear theology of holy spirit in NT for trinity) in heaven due to angel of the lord theology before incarnation of Christ

The Father being the primary source of the Trinity (monarchia of the Father) and the filioque are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic doctrine of the filioque presupposes that the Son receives the spiration of the Spirit from the Father. As St Augustine said: "The Son was begotten in such a way that the Spirit proceeds also from him."

What is your opinion on Daniel 9, where the prophet was given a time-prophecy on when Messiah would appear?

Does the Monarchial Trinity imply the Eternal Functional Subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father? Thanks in advance.

Man is also the head in origin like God is the head in origin.

If you ever want to dialogue or do a collab let me know thanks

I have an honest question that comes from a spirit of being charitable to your position, I'm really struggling to understand what the Orthodox trinitarian model is. You state that the Father is the authority among the three persons, but I can't help but see that as a some sort of subordinationism. Sure, they may be of the same eternal uncreated divine essence or homoousioi (Arianism rejects that the Son shares an essence with the Father), but you're suggesting that the Son is subordinate to the Father despite being of one essence. You said that the Catholic model is somehow Macedonist by saying that the Spirit is subordinate to the other persons, but I don't get how that is different from what the Orthodox believe. Could you please clarify? I would appreciate it a lot. As I minor note, from what I understand, the Son is not essence unto himself, since he is begotten from the Father, but that does not necessarily contradict filioque because while the Holy spirit proceeds from one source and not two, since the Son receives his from the Father, the essence of the Father and the Son is common, therefore follows that it is not unreasonable to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son (the essence is common and from one source, not two sources). My understanding on the topic is limited, I may have made a mistake somewhere, I'm only trying my best to understand what the Church fathers meant in the councils.

Why is the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Jesus?

So we’re all heretics to someone

In what way the Father is the origin of the Son?

I thought the father was greater because Jesus lowered himself and became as a servant? That as a human servant Jesus had to be below the father because of the human nature he took on?

1:50 "God doesn't have to make sense." A hindu can say the same thing regarding their doctrine, doesn't make it any more true

Unfortunately not a great treatment in the Filioque.

I am just not sure why monarchial trinity is not tritheism. How is it not one God (the Father) who "begot" (i.e. created) another god, the Son, and from whom proceeds (due to some other form of creation) the Spirit, a third god. What actually is the reason that the Son and Spirit are not eternally existant creations? What exactly is a creation? I understand that philsophically, one says that God is a necessary being and as part of him being a Father the Son is also a necessary and so exists in every possible world. However, I don't know that I buy the modal logic definition of God. Certainy Scripture and the early Fathers did not think in these terms. I also think I understand eternal causation (a bowling ball eternally causing a pillow that it sits on eternally to be deformed), but I don't understand eternal causation where the existence of one is due to te existance of the other. Causation is like for us is always connected to time, a "there was a rime where X did not exist, then it was caused and so X began to exist." I have heard Beau Branson say that "the strong monarchial trinity" is that "the one God is the Father" which is defended by some Orthodox. Why is this not just unitarianism? I just am not sure. I am not sure I understand how the Father and Son can be not "distict centers of consiousness" (i.e. a definition of person) because Branson says this would mean that tey do not share al the same energies. The benefit of saying that "the trinity is the one God" and "God is a being that has 3 persons" is that it is philosophically understandable from my perspective after listening to many people explain it. It is weird, but it can be imagined. This is what I believe I have heard Jai Apologetics defend, so I guess that he is not Orthodox. However, when people (e.g. Anthony Rogers) talk of "worshiping the Trinity" it does not feel that it fits Scripture very well. The Monarchial view seems to match Scripture in several ways, some of which you mention in the video. I would be really interested in a debate on this between Christians but I coudn't find one. I am not sure I understand yet the Monarcial view yet. I watched about half of the many, long videos that Orthodox Shahada has in his playlist on the trinity but I am still not sure I understand.

Jesus taught us to pray TO the Father in the "Our Father.' Nevertheless, Christ did not mean not to pray to Him.

Aren't origin and eternal oxymorons? How can something have an eternal origin please I am only trying to understand. Please recommend books to me that can help me understand this as well.

lol! That's pretty funny; so according to you nobody was a Christian prior to the 5th century since it took that long to finalize the definition of what the Trinity is and you couldn't be a Christian *UNLESS* you believed in the final definition!!!!!!

There’s not a Monarchy of the Father. Why? Because that would make the Father the essence of the Trinity. Now, don’t get this mistaken, the Father is the sole source, however the Spirit and the Son are coeternal with the Father, this means that the Father always existed with the Spirit and the Son. The Father put all things under the foot of the Son. The Son is also the Alpha and Omega. Here’s another thing, the Father is also humble, and shares this attribute with the Son. Christ is King!

if you don't need to know how the trinity works why do u have to believe it

"the Orthodox Trinity" ! Is there an .... "Unorthodox Trinity" and dont run to Revelation for explanations. The "3 dwell in heaven", why not 5 or 7 ? We see "7 spirits of God" and "7 eyes of God" So why the "Trinity" is literal and and the "7 spirits"...figurative ? Never mind. Again, the Gospel mainline teaches salvation and behaviors towards each other on the side and not "theology".

You just admitted that the trinity makes no sense WITHOUT believing in it when you say “the answer is quite easy if you believe in the monarchical trinity, if not it’s hard to answer” …so I have to be Christian IN ORDER FOR THE TRINITY TO MAKE SENSE? No thank you. Islam is the only true religion.

For a 20 minutes you are actually defending Arianism.. and you didn't even noticed that. Who is the angel of Yhwh in the Old T ??

This video is nothing but a denial of the Divinity of the Son of God.

Why lie and say you're not a Christian if you're not a trinitarian.

The "Father" is God, the "Son" is God and the "Holy Spirit" is God. However, they are THREE different MANIFESTATIONS of the same ONE God, not THREE PERSONS! As reiterated over and over again by Jesus, the concerned PERSONS are just TWO: the FATHER and the SON, "I am in the Father and the Father in me". Jesus NEVER states to be with other TWO Persons! No "Lord who gives life" exists. The "Comforter" is not a third divine person either, he has nothing to do with Jesus' life: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". I.e. no Comforter is there. For example, if you live in New York and you are able to appear as a spirit and talk to people in L.A. (actually you are not there) there exist TWO manifestations of you. However, the concerned person is only ONE: you.

This is so backwards man. Mormons are not Christians because they go beyond the Christian scriptures to get their beliefs. And you’re saying that if someone doesn’t want to go beyond the Christian scriptures to get to the word “Trinity” and it’s non biblical definition, that they aren’t Christian??? How do you not see this glaring contradiction…