045. I. Doctrine Of The Sonship.

I. Doctrine Of The Sonship.

1. Fatherhood and Sonship.—The divine Fatherhood is in its deepest sense purely correlative with the filiation of the Son; though in a lower sense it is vastly broader. God is “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9), and in a sense inclusive of all intelligences. This broader relation, however, is simply from creation, and its real meaning is the loving care of God for his rational creatures, such as a father cherishes for his children (Psalms 103:13).There is still the profound distinction between a Fatherhood through generation, as in relation to the Son, and a Fatherhood on the ground of creation, as in relation to men and angels. Christian sonship through regeneration, or being ‘‘born of God” (John 1:12-13), rests on the deeper ground, and signifies the fullness of the Father’s love for his spiritual children. The divine Fatherhood, even in relation to the divine Son, should have a special depth of meaning for us through the fatherly and filial relations in our own life. The Fatherhood of God in relation to the Son is so frequently expressed in the Scriptures, and must so fully appear in the treatment of the Sonship, that it requires no separate statement.

2. Lower Sense of Filiation.—A lower and a higher sense is a very common fact in the use of words. It appears in such cardinal terms of theology as redemption and atonement. In no such case, however, does cither sense exclude the other, unless they be in contradictory opposition. Hence the Nicene doctrine of the Sonship has no dialectic interest in denying a lower sense of filiation. If a proper exegesis gives such a sense of Scripture, it is simply a result to be accepted; and if such an exegesis gives the higher sense, it is none the less true on account of the lower, because the two are in no opposition. The filiation of the Son as expressed in Scripture is not always in the exclusive sense of his divinity.^[249] Sometimes the more direct reference is to a lower ground. Such is the case in the salutation of the angel to Mary (Luke 1:31-35). Here is the announcement of the miraculous conception and birth of a holy child who should be called “the Son of God.” We would not even here deny to this formula the sense of essential divinity. The profound truth of the incarnation forbids it. But in this instance the Son of God is the Son incarnate, and the filiation must include the human nature with the divine; and, while the meaning transcends the human, the more direct reference is still to a filiation through the miraculous conception of Christ. It thus seems clear that the filiation of the Son is not always in the exclusive sense of his divine nature.

^[249]Pearson:On the Creed, art. ii.

Sometimes the Sonship has more direct reference to the Messianic and kingly offices of Christ (Psalms 2:7-12). The sense of a divine filiation may be present even here; but as the Son fulfills these offices through his incarnation and exaltation in our nature, the filiation must include this lower element. This psalm is clearly the seed of other passages of like import. In one it is declared that the promise of God unto the fathers was fulfilled unto their children in the resurrection of Christ (Acts 13:32-33). Reference is made to the second psalm, with a citation of the words, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” The resurrection of Christ may here mean his advent as the Messiah. But if taken in the ordinary sense, the filiation of Christ simply through his resurrection would give a very narrow sense of the text; but oven if the true one, it would have no doctrinal consequence against the higher sense of filiation, which, without any contradiction to the lower, would still securely stand in other texts of Scripture. In a truer view, the resurrection of Christ is not in itself a filiative fact, but a central fact in proof of his Messiahship and kingly power (Romans 1:4), and thus represents a filiation inclusive of these elements. This is the same sense of filiation as given in the second psalm.

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-priest; But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee” (Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5). The sense of Sonship in these texts is much the same as in the second psalm, from which they are informal citations. The mere citation, however, does not determine the sameness of the meaning. The sense of this day or to-day, which relates to the filiation, may not be easily determined. It must be either indefinite or definite in meaning. If the former, it has no time-limit and means an eternal filiation; if the latter, as first uttered it must have been prophetic of some future fact or facts which contain the lower sense of filiation. If the exegesis of these texts should hold us rigidly to the sense of a temporal filiation, fulfilled in the kingly and priestly offices of Christ, it would simply place them in accord with texts previously noticed, and without in the least affecting the truth of an eternal Sonship as given in others. In the coming of the end, or in the consummation, the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and shall himself be subject to the Father, that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). There is a relative subordination of the Son in the doctrine of the Nicene Creed; but there is here a surrender of functions and a subjection of the Son which find their fulfillment only in connection with Messianic or kingly offices. Powers of government were vested in Christ, the incarnate and redeeming Son. All power in heaven and in earth was given to him (Matthew 27:18). To him was committed the office of judgment; and he shall finally judge all men (John 5:2; Acts 17:31; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1). He was exalted in Headship over the Church, and in Lordship over the angels; and it was the Son incarnate, the Christ in our nature, in whom such powers of government were invested (Ephesians 1:20-23; Php 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:22). In the consummation the Son will deliver up the kingdom and be subject to the Father with respect to these powers of his mediatorial office, which will then have been fulfilled. Thus all that appears as temporal in respect to the Son appertains to his mediatorial office, and is without any contrary opposition to his own eternal Sonship.

3. A Divine Sonship.—A full treatment of the divine Sonship would anticipate much that properly belongs to the more direct question of the divinity of Christ. But as the proof of the latter must confirm the truth of the former, there is the less occasion for its full treatment as a separate question.

“The Son,” as this name is placed in the formula of baptism, must be both a personal and a divine being (Matthew 28:19). His association with the Father m this sacrament can mean nothing less. To deny the personality of the Son is to preclude all rational account of baptism in his name. To deny his divinity is equally preclusive of any rational interpretation. We have previously shown that Arianism allows no ground of filiation in Christ higher than his human nature. Hence if we deny a divine filiation of the Son as the sense of the baptismal formula, there remains no higher ground of Sonship than the human nature of Christ. “We are brought down to the low ground of Socinianism. Can such a doctrine explain the association of the Son with the Father in the sacrament of baptism? Can it give any sufficient reason for the baptism in the name of the Son? Baptism signifies the remission of sins, the regeneration of the moral nature, and the initiation of the soul into the kingdom of grace. Hence when the risen Lord, invested with all power in the kingdom of God, charged his apostles with the great commission, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” his words must mean a personal agency of the Son, as of the Father, in the great works which the baptism signifies, and an agency to which only divinity itself is equal. Hence the filiation of the Son must be in the sense of essential divinity. The true doctrine of the Sonship appears in a conversation of Christ with the Jews, in which he defends himself against the charge of violating the Sabbath by a miracle of mercy wrought upon that sacred day (John 5:16-23). For his vindication he claims for himself a perpetual work of providence in co-operation with the Father: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” There was a definite work of creation from which the Father rested, but his providential agency in the maintenance of the universe ever continues. In this agency the Son ever works with the Father. With these words the Jews were intensely offended. In their minds Christ had not only broken the Sabbath, but had said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. In this crimination they might have emphasized the association of himself with the Father in the work of his providence, which clearly implies an equality with God. The Jews were not authorities in the interpretation of the words of Christ. However, they could express their own sense of his meaning; and this is all that concerns ns here. With this fact the noteworthy point is, that in no sense does Christ question or correct their inference, that the Sonship which he asserted for himself implied an equality with God. The rather do his further words confirm their interpretation. We may specially note the conclusion. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” “Whatever form that honor may take, be it thought, or language, or outward act, or devotion of the affections, or submission of the will, or the union of thought and heart and will into one complex act of self-prostration before infinite Greatness, which we of the present day usually mean by the term adoration, such honor is due to the Son no less than to the Father. How fearful is such a claim if the Son be only human; how natural, how moderate, how just, if he is in very deed divine.”^[250] The filiation of the Son as set forth by himself in this self-vindication must contain the sense of essential divinity.

^[250]Liddon:Our Lord’s Divinity, p. 182. The creative work of the Son is conclusive of a divine filiation. The Word by whom all things were made (John 1:1-3) is not the reason or creative energy of God in a mere attributive sense, and personified in the work of creation, but a divine person. The personality is clearly given in the identification of the Word with the incarnate Son: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). “The only begotten of the Father” ever means the Son of God. The Son is the Word. The Word is personally and essentially divine. This is the truth of a divine Sonship. A revelation of the same truth through the creative work of the Son is given with equal clearness and fullness in other texts of Scripture. The Son through whose blood we have redemption and remission of sins is the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:13-17). Hence the Sonship must antedate the incarnation and the Messiahship of Christ. In the text under notice it is declared to antedate all created existences. Again, it is declared that the Son by whom God has spoken unto men in the times subsequent to the prophets is the Maker of worlds and the Upholder of all things (Hebrews 1:2-3). In the sense of these texts there is a divine Sonship. The filiation of the Son is not in its deepest sense through the supernatural generation of his human nature, nor on the ground of his Messianic offices, nor by the creative act of God, but by an eternal generation in consubstantiality with the Father.

4. Generation of the Son.—There are repeated utterances of Scripture which express or imply the generation of the Son. He is “the only begotten of the Father;” “the only begotten Son;” “the only begotten Son of God” (John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:16; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9). On the ground of these words of Scripture, generation is in proper theological use for the expression of a fact distinctive of the Son in the doctrine of the Trinity. It requires no forced interpretation to read out of the words of St. Paul, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature” (Colossians 1:15), the same distinctive fact of generation respecting the Son. “As the είκών, Christ is the πρωτότοκς παςης κτισεως: that is to say, not the first in rank among created beings, hut begotten before any created beings. That this is a true sense of the expression is etymologically certain; but it is also the only sense which is in real harmony with the relation in which, according to the context, Christ is said to stand to the created universe” (Liddon: Our Lord’s Divinity, p. 318). The distinction of the Son from the created universe is profound. His existence is, not by creation, but by generation, and before all created existences. Not only is he distinguished from all creatures in the mode of his own existence, but is himself the Author of all creation (Colossians 1:16-17). With these determining facts of distinction, “the firstborn of every creature”— πρωτότοκς παςης κτισεως —cannot be classed with created existences either as first in the order of time or as highest in the order of rank. The Son is born or begotten of God before creation and time. The fact of generation is peculiar to the Son in the personal distinctions of the Trinity. There is no sense of generation respecting either the Father or the Holy Spirit. The ground of the fact as distinctive of the Son is given in the Scriptures, but without any explanation. But as the Scriptures give the distinctive fact they warrant the use of generation as a theological term. The use of the term, however, is rather for doctrinal expression than for any explication of the doctrine. The creeds state the fact of generation very much as the Scriptures do, and without any advance toward an explanation. The words of the Nicene Creed are: “The only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;” of the Athanasian: “The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created: but begotten . . . of the substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds.”

If the generation of the Son is for us an insoluble mystery, still it may be guarded against erroneous interpretation. This is necessary to preserve its consistency with other elements in the doctrine of the Trinity. Two or three points may be specially, though briefly, noted. The generation of the Son must exclusively respect his personality, and in no sense his nature. The communication of the divine nature, and of the whole divine nature, to the Son, as also to the Holy Spirit, is a form of expression very current in the Trinitarian discussion subsequent to the Nicene Council, and still continues in substance, if not so much in more exact form. The aim was at once to guard the unity of the divine nature and yet to assert in the fullest sense the divinity of the Son. The aim was according to truth, and therefore good. Still the method of the aim may be questionable. The communication of the divine nature to the Son naturally implies his previous personal existence without this nature, and that his divinity is the result of the communication. Yet this was not the intentional meaning, and it would be entirely false to the doctrine of the Trinity. The seeming error is avoided by holding the generation of the Son simply and exclusively in relation to his personality. In the progress of the Trinitarian discussion this came to be the definite view of the question. As a personal subsistence in the divine nature, and in possession of divine attributes, the Son is divine in the deepest sense of divinity.

Generation must not be interpreted in any close analogical sense. As the Sonship is eternal, it cannot be the result of any definite divine act, such as a creative or providential act. Such an act must be in time, and its product of temporal origin. We should thus determine for the Son an origin in time. Further, such a personal divine act must in the nature of it be optional, and hence might not be at all. Therefore the Son might never have been. These implications are utterly contradictory to the divine predicables of the Son, and therefore a temporal and optional generation cannot be the truth. In this profound mystery we can account the generation of the Son only to an eternal and necessary activity of the divine nature.

5. Consubstantiality with the Father.—The sense of consubstantiality is that the essential being of the Son is neither different in kind nor numerically other than the substance of the Father, but the very same. This doctrine was formally decreed by the Council of Chalcedon: “We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son . . . όμοούσιον τϖ παρί κατα τήν θεότητα—consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead.”^[251] The definition was intended to be most exact. The council used όμοούσιος in sharp discrimination from όμοιοσιος, which means a distinct substance, and may mean a substance lower in kind. Both Arianism and Semi-Arianism were thus excluded, while the true and essential divinity of the Son was affirmed.

^[251]Schaff:Creeds of Christendom, vol. ii, p. 63.

6. Doctrine of Subordination.—In the divine economies of religion, particularly in the work of redemption, there is a subordination of the Son to the Father. There is, indeed, this same idea of subordination in the creative and providential works of the Son. However, the fullness of this idea is in the work of redemption. The Father gives the Son, sends the Son, delivers up the Son, prepares a body for his incarnation, and in filial obedience the Son fulfills the pleasure of the Father, even unto his crucifixion (John 3:16-17; Romans 8:32; Psalms 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-7; Php 2:8). The ground of this subordination is purely in his filiation, not in any distinction of essential divinity.