33. The Trinity and the Senses of Before

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem: Is the Father Before the Son? #

Thomas Aquinas takes up the classical objection to Trinitarian doctrine: if the Son is generated, does this not imply that the Father is temporally or naturally prior to the Son? This would seemingly contradict the Church’s teaching that the Father and Son are coequal and coeternal.

The Four Senses of ‘Before’ #

Thomas identifies four distinct meanings of ‘before’ that must each be examined:

1. Duration (temporal priority): one thing exists before another in time
2. Nature (natural priority): one thing is naturally prior to another by composition or dependence
3. Understanding (epistemic priority): one thing is understood prior to another
4. Dignity (axiological priority): one thing surpasses another in perfection or worth

Aristotle’s Post-Predicaments and Their Use #

Berquist emphasizes that Thomas relies on Aristotle’s analysis of opposites in the post-predicaments to solve this problem. The first three post-predicaments are especially crucial:

• Opposites (first post-predicament): Show how the Father and Son are distinguished
• Before and After (second post-predicament): Show they are not ordered temporally or naturally
• Together/Simul (third post-predicament): Show they are simultaneous in all relevant senses

Generation as Eternal, Not Temporal #

Thomas resolves the problem by distinguishing between generation as change (which implies a beginning in time) and generation as eternal operation. In God, the Son is eternally generated from the Father—the generation has no beginning and involves no change.

Relations of Reason vs. Relations of Nature #

Thomas distinguishes relations that place something in real nature (in veritate naturae) from relations that exist only in reason (in ratione tantum). Relations of reason arise in four ways, including when being is compared to non-being, which is the case with God’s relation to creatures.

Key Arguments #

The Objections (What Must Be Answered) #

1. Corruption corresponds to ceasing to be; generation corresponds to beginning to be

   • Therefore, the Son is generated implies the Son begins to be
   • Therefore, the Father is before the Son in duration

2. Everything generated receives being from the generator

   • What is received is not had before reception
   • Therefore, the Son did not have being before receiving it from the Father
   • Therefore, the Father is before the Son in duration

3. A beginning is naturally before that which it begins

   • The Father is the beginning of the Son
   • Therefore, the Father is naturally before the Son

4. Giving being is an act of dignity

   • The Father gives being to the Son
   • Therefore, the Father is before the Son in dignity

Thomas’s Resolution #

Thomas responds to each objection by denying that the respective sense of ‘before’ applies:

To the first objection (duration): Generation in God is not a change. Change requires composition—something that was there before and remains to change. But the Son is altogether simple. Therefore, there is no change in God, and the Son does not begin to be. Rather, the Son is eternally generated: “He is always generated from the Father.”

To the second objection (reception without having): It is possible for something to always receive what it does not have from itself, yet always possess it. The Father’s giving of the divine nature to the Son is not measured by time but by eternity. Therefore, the Son always receives the divine nature and always has it.

To the third objection (beginning naturally prior): A beginning can be considered in two ways: either as that which is naturally before what it begins, or according to the relation of the beginning itself. In the latter sense, the beginning and the begun are together (simul) by nature. Since the Father and Son have both their being and their relations in eternity, they are simul by nature.

To the fourth objection (dignity): The property by which the Father gives being is his dignity. But dignity belongs to the absolute (ad aliquid), not to relations. The Father and Son possess the same absolute dignity, which in the Father is fatherhood and in the Son is sonship. These are the same divine essence and goodness numerically.

Why the First Three Post-Predicaments Matter #

Berquist points out that Thomas’s solution relies on the first three post-predicaments:

• Opposites determine how the persons are distinguished: by relation, which admits of no non-being
• Before and After shows that in eternity, there is no before and after
• Simul shows that correlatives (father and son) exist simultaneously in time, by nature, and in knowledge

Important Definitions #

Before (Prior) #

Temporal sense: Existing at an earlier moment in time Natural sense: One thing depends on another for existence or composition; the independent thing is naturally before the dependent thing Epistemic sense: One thing is understood as prior to another Dignity: One thing surpasses another in perfection or goodness

Generation (Generatio) #

In created things: a change by which something begins to be In God: an eternal operation of the divine nature insofar as it is in the Father, producing the Son without change or beginning

Simul (Together) #

Things are simul when they are simultaneous in all of these respects:

• In time: occurring at the same moment
• By nature: neither depends on the other for existence
• In knowledge/understanding: one is known through the other and cannot be understood apart from the other

Relations of Nature vs. Relations of Reason #

Relations of nature (in veritate naturae): Relations that place something real in the nature of things (e.g., the relation of a thing to itself or of a knower to the known) Relations of reason (in ratione tantum): Relations that exist only in the mind’s consideration and place nothing in real nature (e.g., God’s priority to creatures, since God does not depend on creatures)

Examples & Illustrations #

The Example of Father and Son in Time #

Berquist uses the example of a human father and son: the father was generated before the son temporally and naturally. However, insofar as they are father and son (as correlatives), they are simul—you cannot be a father without having a son, and you cannot be a son without having a father. “Paul Burkus is my first son. Was I a father before he was my son? Simul, right? It’s the third [post-predicament].”

The Frozen Kingdom (Fairy Tale) #

Berquist uses the image from fairy tales of a curse that freezes everyone in place. In the frozen state, there is no movement, no change—analogous to eternity. Time involves constant motion and change; eternity is a state of perfect stillness and simultaneity.

The Eternal Now vs. the Flowing Now #

Berquist contrasts two meanings of ’now’ (nunc):

• The now that flows (nunc quod fluit): The constantly moving present moment of time. Nothing can be possessed in the strict now because the past is no longer and the future does not yet exist.
• The now that stands still (nunc quod stat): The eternal now of God, in which all of life is possessed at once in perfect stillness. God possesses the perfection of life in the eternal now.

Mozart and Time #

Berquist reflects on attending the 200th anniversary of Mozart’s birth and notes how short Mozart’s life was—he died in his 36th year without seeing his 36th birthday. Yet he produced an enormous quantity of great works. This illustrates how all events are subject to the limitation of time and the succession of before and after.

Notable Quotes #

“The Father is in no way before the Son, neither in duration, nor by nature, nor by understanding, nor in dignity.” — Thomas Aquinas

This opening statement of Thomas’s response immediately denies all four senses of ‘before’ and shows that his solution is comprehensive and addresses the problem directly.

“God is the first beginning, as even the philosopher says.” — Thomas Aquinas, citing Aristotle

Showing that even pagan philosophy recognizes God as first; this makes the Arian position (which would make the Son not fully God) especially problematic.

“I am.” — Jesus, John 8:58

Berquist uses this statement to illustrate how Christ’s eternal present differs from temporal succession. He does not say “I was” but “I am,” indicating timelessness.

Questions Addressed #

Is the Father Before the Son? #

Answer: No. Thomas denies that the Father is before the Son in any of the four senses: not in duration, not by nature, not in understanding, and not in dignity. The Father and Son are coequal and coeternal.

How Can Generation Imply No Beginning? #

Answer: God’s generation is not a change. Change requires composition (something that was there and remains). The Son is simple and unchangeable. Therefore, the Son is eternally generated—always receiving and always possessing the divine nature.

How Can the Son Receive Being Yet Always Have It? #

Answer: Reception and possession are measured by eternity, not time. The Father eternally gives the Son the divine nature, and the Son eternally receives and possesses it. There is no moment at which the Son lacks being.

What is the Role of the Post-Predicaments in Trinitarian Theology? #

Answer: The post-predicaments provide the logical categories necessary to understand formal distinction in God. The Trinity is distinguished by relations (which are the least opposed of the opposites), and the persons are shown to be simul (simultaneous in time, nature, and knowledge) through the second and third post-predicaments.

Why Is the Relation of God to Creatures Merely a Relation of Reason? #

Answer: Because God does not depend on creatures, while creatures depend on God. A relation of nature requires reciprocal dependence. Since only one side is genuinely dependent, the relation places nothing in God’s nature and is a relation of reason only.

How Do We Know God Negatively? #

Answer: We know more what God is not than what he is. Therefore, in examining whether the Father is before the Son, Thomas goes through all the senses of ‘before’ and negates each one, arriving at knowledge of what is not in God rather than what is.