09.06. Meaning of the Terms "Father", "Son",

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY (1947AD edition) by LORAINE BOETTNER. TH.M., D.D.

CHAPTER III THE TRINITY 6. Meaning of the Terms "Father", "Son", and "Spirit" To our occidental type of mind the terms "Father" and "Son" carry with them, on the one hand, the ideas of source of being and superiority, and on the other, subordination and dependence. In theological language, however, they are used in the Semitic or Oriental sense of sameness of nature. It is, of course, the Semitic consciousness which underlies the phraseology of Scripture, and wherever the Scriptures call Christ the "Son" of God they assert His true and proper Deity. The term "Son" is applied to Christ, not merely as an official title in connection with the work of redemption, nor because of His incarnation or supernatural birth, nor because of His resurrection - although in these regards He is preeminently the Son of God, - but: primarily to designate an inherent trinitarian relationship. In the economy of redemption, and for the accomplishment of a specific purpose, He temporarily accepted a position subordinate to that of the Father. In its deepest sense it is a unique sonship which cannot be predicated of, nor shared with, any creature. Father and Son are co-eternal and co-equal in power and glory, partaking of the same nature and substance, and have always existed as distinct Persons. The Father is, and always has been, as much dependent on the Son as the Son is on the Father, for, as we need to keep in mind, self-existence and independence are properties not of the Persons within the Godhead, but of the Triune God. In Hebrews 1:5-8, for instance, the writer sets forth the superiority of Christ as a Divine Person. Being Divine, or Deity, the express image of the invisible God, He is called the "Son" of God, which means precisely the same thing. He came into the world as the Son. and had existed from eternity as such. Being the Son, the One through whom the worlds were created and the heir of all things, He is declared by the writer to be God and to reign upon an everlasting throne. During the public ministry the Jews, in accordance with the Hebrew usage of the term, correctly understood Jesus’ claim to be the "Son" of God as equivalent to asserting that He was "equal with God," or, simply "God" (John 5:18; John 10:33); and it was for claiming to be "the Christ, the Son of God," that He was accused of blasphemy by the high priest and sentenced by the Sanhedrin to be crucified (Matthew 26:63-66). This idea has perhaps been more clearly expressed by Dr. Warfield than by any other. Says he:

"What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech is just ’likeness’; whatever the father is that the Son is also. The emphatic application of the term ’Son’ to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective ’only begotten’ (John 1:14; John 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (Psalms 22:20; Psalms 25:16; Psalms 35:17); and even such a phrase as ’God only begotten’ (John 1:18) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as ’the first-begotten of all creation’ (Colossians 1:15) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation ’Spirit of God’ or ’Spirit of Jehovah,’ which meets us frequently in the Old Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there either of derivation or of subordination, but is just the executive name of God - the designation of God from the point of view of His activity - and imports accordingly identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially different meaning. It happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal definitions of the two terms ’Son’ and ’Spirit,’ and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion of equality or sameness. In John 5:18 we read: ’On this account, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only did he break the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.’ The point lies, of course, in the adjective ’own.’ Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God ’his own Father,’ that is, to use the terms ’Father’ and ’Son’ not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God’s son, but in the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in that sense; and to be God’s own Son was to be exactly like God, to be ’equal with God.’ Similarly, we read in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 : ’For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.’ Here the Spirit appears as the substrate of the Divine self-consciousness, the principle of God’s knowledge of Himself: He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human life, the very life of man itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be supposed, then, to be subordinate to God, or to derive His being from God?" (Biblical Doctrines, p. 163).

Thus we find that the divine and original idea of fatherhood and sonship in sameness of nature. In the Godhead this is, of course, a purely spiritual relationship, and is in accordance with the transcendence of Deity. In the finite human sphere, where man is but a faint and imperfect pattern of God, the ideas of fatherhood and sonship, besides implying sameness of nature, imply also the ideas of origination and subordination, as well as a material nature which is mediated by sex. In the divine sphere sonship is absolute, while in the human it is relative, very much as the attributes of wisdom, power, holiness, justice and love are absolute in God but relative in man. Hence while the limitations of human language are such that we are not able to express these ideas fully, the relationship which subsists between the first and second Persons of the Trinity finds its closest analogy in the relationship which an earthly father bears to his son. And in like manner the third Person of the Trinity, partaking of the same life substance and equal with the Father and the Son in power and glory, is called the Spirit. As the everywhere-present executive of the Trinity, immaterial and invisible, He is Spirit in the truest sense of the word. He is called the "Holy" Spirit because He is absolutely holy in His own nature, and is the source and cause of holiness in the creatures.

We have seen that the terms "Father" and "Son" are not at all adequate to express the full relationship which exists between the first and second Persons of the Godhead. They are, however, the best that we have. They are the terms used in Scripture, and besides expressing the idea of sameness of nature, they are found to be reciprocal, expressing the ideas of love, affection, trust, honour, unity and harmony, - ideas of endearment and preciousness. When we are told that God "gave" His Son for the redemption of the world we are led to understand that the situation was in some ways analogous to that of a human father who gives his son for missionary service or for the defense of his country. It is something which involves sacrifice on the part of the father as well as privation and suffering on the part of the son. And, similarly, when the term "Spirit" is applied to the third Person of the Trinity it is not implied that His nature is in any way different from theirs, for they each partake of the numerically same substance, and are all equally spirit. He is so called, however, because He is the very life element of Deity, and because so far as our relation to God is concerned God comes to us in a spiritual way pre-eminently through this Person, His Spirit communes with our spirits, speaks to our consciences, cleanses our hearts, and leads us in right paths. That the terms "Father" and "Son" are used in a peculiar sense as applied to the first and second Persons of the Trinity might easily be inferred from their varied usage in other parts of Scripture and in everyday speech. We read, for instance, that Jubal was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle, and that Jubal was the father of all such as handle the harp and the pipe (Genesis 4:20-21). Abraham was given the promise that he should be the father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 11:4); and today every Jew regards himself as a son of Abraham. Jehovah said of the nation, "Israel is my son, my first-born" (Exodus 4:22). Of a king whose position before God is one of special honour and authority, as was that of Solomon, the Lord could say, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Samuel 7:14). Judas was a "son of perdition" (John 17:12). We are familiar with the early Church "fathers," and we speak of one who has shown us the way of righteousness as our father in the faith. George Washington is said to have been the father of his country. The Germans speak of the fatherland, and the English of the mother country. We say that Mr. So-and-so is a loyal son of Calvin, or Luther or Wesley, and we have groups of people who call themselves Daughters of the American Revolution, or Sons of the American Legion. Hence it is quite clear that in religious as well as in secular affairs the terms father and son are used in a variety of senses. And beyond this, although in perfect harmony with it, we find that much Scripture teaching is given in figurative language. Christ is called the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Revelation 7:14); the good shepherd (John 10:11); the door (John 10:7). He is the true vine, and His disciples are the branches (John 15:1-5); He is the true light (John 1:9); His disciples are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). Similarly, God is declared to be love (1 John 4:8); light (1 John 1:5); a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). The psalmist declares that Jehovah is his rock, his fortress, his shield and high tower (Psalms 18:2), and that the righteous take refuge under His wings (Psalms 91:4). When we are told that God is angry, or that He repents, or forgets, or laughs, the writer is, of course, using figurative language. Such expressions are known as anthropomorphisms, instances in which the divine action as seen from the human viewpoint is likened to that of a man who is actuated by these states of mind. ’These are instances in which God adjusts Himself to human language, "talking down" to us, in much the same way that human parents find it necessary to talk down to their children. We know that as a matter of fact God is altogether free from the passions and failings of human nature.

Hence in accordance with this general method of procedure it was only most fitting that the terms "Father," "Son" and "Spirit" should have been chosen to express the relationship which the first and second Persons of the Trinity bear to each other, which the third bears to the first and second, and which the first hears to us. Our language contains no terms better fitted to convey the desired meaning.

Similarly, the term "person," as we have indicated before, is but an imperfect and inadequate expression of a truth that transcends our experience and comprehension. When applied to the different members of the Godhead it only approximates the truth. It is, if you please, a make-shift, and is employed in Scripture in this sense. Yet it expresses more clearly than any other word we know the conception which the Scriptures give of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is used to express an idea of personality within the Godhead which lies, we may say, approximately half-way between that of a mere form of manifestation, or personification, which would lead to Unitarianism, and the idea of fully separate, independent personalities such as is found in human beings, which would lead to Tritheism. It expresses a distinction not identical with, but in some respects analogous to, that subsisting between three different men. If there were three Gods, they would, of course, limit each other and deprive each other of Deity, since it would be impossible for each to be infinite. There is room for many finite beings, but room far only one infinite Being. The merit of the statement of this doctrine in the Athanasian Creed was that it preserved the distinct personalities and also the unity of the Godhead: "The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord; yet there are not three Lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each person by Himself, to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the same truth to say that there are three Gods or three Lords." Hence in view of the defects of human language, the very limited revelation which God has seen fit to give us concerning this subject, and the fact that the nature of this distinction must be incomprehensible to us, we are ready not only to admit, but to point out precisely, the imperfection of the language which we are obliged to employ in setting forth this doctrine.