Christ as Mediator a Servant and Not a Son

[TylerRay]

John Gill on John 20:17:

I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God;
God was his Father, not by creation, as he is to angels, and the souls of men, and therefore is called the Father of spirits; nor by adoption, as he is to the saints; nor with respect to the incarnation of Christ, for, as man, he had no father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, for as such he was a servant, and not a Son; but he was his Father by nature, or with regard to his divine person, being begotten of him, and so his own proper Son, and he his own proper Father

Can someone please explain the emboldened portion above? How is it that servanthood is proper to Christs's mediatorial role, and not sonship?

 

[Clark-Tillian]

That is an abstruse quote that demands a preliminary analysis before directly addressing your question. I can attempt an interpretation, not claiming full comprehension of his point.

First, Gill makes 4 negative assertions, although the final one (which pertains to your question) is founded upon or, rather than nor. Then he makes his positive proposition. He's employing a common, and effective, rhetorical device: he uses multiple negative assertions to set the stage for his positive proposition. Therefore, I think a preliminary discussion is best centered on the content of the positive proposition, rather than trying to untangle the meaning of the final negative assertion.

The positive proposition contends that the term Father is referencing an ontological relationship within the Godhead, rather than an economical relationship. As a cautionary aside, I think that when we mortals attempt to grasp the ontological realities of the Trinity we tread upon ground that often proves unsteady to our feet of clay.

Gill is highlighting Christ’s mediatorial role as a function of the economic Trinity. This makes sense because before the creation-fall sequence of events there was no concrete, physical reality, and, therefore, no sinners, and if no sinners exist then there is no need for a mediator.

This is where it gets tricky. God exists apart from space/time; you and I are not granted access to so lofty a realm. We’re built for space-time. It’s exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for us to rationally think outside the space-time paradigm because our language is limited to that sphere. Think of my statement-- God exists apart from space/time. I’ll stand by the assertion because God created space-time. But the term apart works within the space-time paradigm and has zero value if space doesn’t exist! Our language is limited; we have no linguistic categories to accurately describe eternity.

Herein, The Westminster Divines truly unveil their genius. Review the Standards’ treatment Of God, and The Holy Trinity. The Confession uses a bit more than 300 words to treat this topic; the LC Q/A 7-11 utilizes less than 200; the SC Q/A 4-6 employs less than 100. Why? Because they didn’t delve into pointless speculation—they limited their statements to what The Word reveals to us, and regarding the ontological relationships and essence of the Godhead we’re not given much. It’s a revealed truth and, therefore, an article of faith.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Tyler, now to your direct question. Without the full context, I'll not hang my hat on this, but it's possible that Gill might have Isaiah's "Servant Songs" in mind here. These passages are definitely dealing with Christ's earthly ministry and, therefore, from the Godhead analysis must be economical in reference. Those passages reveal in a powerful way the nature of Christ's mediation. It wasn't pretty and it wasn't fun. As our High Priest the Christ offered himself as the Passover Lamb. In these passages the term Servant,is in view. When you compare Psalm 2 where the term Son is used, we see his kingly office.

Whether or not I'm right in my interpretation of what Gill is asserting, I'm not at all certain I can agree with him.

Hebrews 5:8-9--though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. This text uses the term Son which has no semantic meaning apart from the implied Father. And this text clearly has his Priestly Office and mediatorial role in view. Although, his Kingly Office is highlighted by the term obey.

Interested in what others might say--especially those who might spend more time in Gill than I do.

 

[timfost]

His Body of Divinity may be of help under Of Christ the Mediator (linked below).

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1769_gill_divinity.html#Of_Christ,_The_Mediator

He does reference Heb. 5:8 in this discourse (2b3). I'm still not sure exactly what the thrust of his point is in the commentary you referenced, but the link above should give a good idea of what he's not saying.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

His Body of Divinity may be of help under Of Christ the Mediator (linked below).

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1769_gill_divinity.html#Of_Christ,_The_Mediator

He does reference Heb. 5:8 in this discourse (2b3). I'm still not sure exactly what the thrust of his point is in the commentary you referenced, but the link above should give a good idea of what he's not saying.

Thanks for the head up, Tim. I just recalled I've got that in my library (the "other" one), but I do think I've loaned it out.

 

[MW]

How is it that servanthood is proper to Christs's mediatorial role, and not sonship?

Some care should be taken to ensure an antithesis is not made between the Sonship and the Servanthood, but there are some issues which make it necessary to distinguish the two and emphasise the Servanthood as essential to the Mediator's work.

First, there is only one Son as there is only one Person. Those who maintain an economical and official Sonship either deny Christ is the Son of God by nature or effectively create two Sons.

Secondly, mediation required subordination to the will of God. Not simply as a Son to the Father, but as man to God; hence there is an emphasis on the Mediator being "the man Christ Jesus." In that capacity it must be emphasised that He was a servant.

Thirdly, the offices of prophet, priest, and king, were all offices of service to be performed by men.

Fourthly, the Scripture teaches that there were undertakings of the mediatorial work which were in a sense below the "glory" of divine Sonship, though not inappropriate for the Son to voluntarily undertake, i.e., suffering, dying, and the like.

Nevertheless, there are some qualifications which need to be made. There is no denial that the Servant is to be considered as the eternal Son. He who assumed human nature and voluntarily undertook to be a Servant was the Son of God. It must be maintained, though, that it is not in the divine nature, "essentially considered," that Christ is Mediator and executes the offices given to Him. It is as the God-man, having united human nature in His Person, that the mediatorial work is initiated and finished. A second qualification is, that it was requisite for the Mediator to be God for strength, worth, efficacy, and exaltation; and therefore His divine Sonship is intricately involved in His mediatorial work. None but the divine Son could have executed and finished this work, and this constitutes an exclusive claim in the plan of salvation. There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[TylerRay]

Thank you all. This has been very helpful. Here are a couple of choice quotes from Gill's BoD on the subject:

... for from the instant he became a Surety for his people, he became a Servant to his Father, and he called and reckoned him as such; "Thou art my servant, O Israel; behold my servant whom I uphold", "Isa 49:3 42:1" and laid his commands upon him, both to obey his law, and lay down his life for his people, both which he undertook to do, and did perform ...

That upon the faithful discharge of his office, as a Servant, particularly in bearing the sins of his people, they should be openly justified and acquitted