Is the Father particularly called "God" in Scripture?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Pardon my ignorance on this somewhat fundamental theology Q, but is the Father particularly termed "God" or "the Lord" in distinction to the Son and the Spirit in Scripture, and what does this signify?

Is it that the Father is "the font of deity" i.e. that the Son is eternally generated by the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, but the Father is from neither?

E.g.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

The Son is called "the Son of God", and the Spirit is called "the Spirit of God", but the Father is not "of".
 
I read something about this recently but I can't remember where. Ursinus says that even the term 'Father' is only to be taken personally of the Father when it is 'opposed' (I think that he simply means when it is used as distinct from) Christ, but as 'opposed' to creatures, 'it must be understood essentially, and signifies the whole divine essence.' I wonder if 'God' and 'Lord' in various contexts is to be understood the same way?
 
Yes.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (Acts 17:28-29, KJV)

for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.(ESV)

In the above passages the Apostle is using the Greek poets, and referring to the Triune Jehovah as Creator and Father of mankind, though obviously not redemptively.
 
Richard, the short answer is yes. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and good commentaries on it should show that "God" is often used in Scripture precisely for the Father, and that "Lord" is often used precisely for the Son. That of course does not imply that the Father is not Lord, or that the Son is not God, or that often "God" is best understood by taking in all three persons of the Godhead without reference to their personal properties.

I think that usage could certainly be ancillary evidence that the Father is of none, neither begotten nor spirated; but I wouldn't lay the main weight of the argument on the recognition of the Father as fons deitatis upon it.

Most titles and terms we can use of God and his relations to us are somewhat fluid and ambiguous; the realities we use this language to discuss exceed our apprehension, so it is no wonder that they also create difficulties for our expression. Consider the most difficult title for Christ in Isaiah 9:6, "everlasting Father". The very difficulty highlights the wonder of the person of Christ. As Spurgeon says,
How complex is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ! Almost in the same breath the prophet calls him a “child,” and a “counselor,” a “son,” and “the everlasting Father.” This is no contradiction, and to us scarcely a paradox, but it is a mighty marvel that he who was an infant should at the same time be infinite, he who was the Man of Sorrows should also be God over all, blessed for ever; and that he who is in the Divine Trinity always called the Son, should nevertheless be correctly called “the everlasting Father.”
Now this title does not mean that there is any confusion in the Godhead, or that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect. You may sometimes run across a modalist, such as a Oneness Pentecostal, arguing that the Son is the Father on the basis of this text. The idea is that God is one person, who has manifested himself in different ways: whereas the orthodox teaching is that it was the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit, who was incarnate and crucified. This is clearly established simply by thinking of Christ’s prayers: in John 17 he prays to his Father, making this request: glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (John 17:5). Does one manifestation of a person pray to another manifestation of that person? But an even more pointed objection to the modalist doctrine is the nature of Christ’s request: he asks to be glorified with the Father’s own self with the glory he had with the Father before the world was. It is not the glory he had when he was the father, or as the father, as modalist doctrine would require; but the glory he had with the Father, when he was with him as two distinct persons are together. The Son is not the Father, and the Son was not the Father before the world was. Many similar points could be made from the other petitions in John 17 and elsewhere, but this is sufficient to show that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is correct: we confess the unity of God, that there is only one God; and an equally fundamental part of our doctrine of God is that in the unity of godhead there are three distinct persons, who are coequal but not identical.
So what does it mean that Christ is called the everlasting father in this text? The context provides direction: in Isaiah 8:18 we read, Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me – words which we know from their citation in Hebrews 2:13-15 relate to Christ and those he saves. Christ is not ashamed to call those sons whom God is bringing to glory his brethren and his children; and since the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also partook of flesh and blood that by dying he might destroy the devil and free the children from bondage. So Christ is called the everlasting father because he took on him the seed of Abraham, and died for the children whom God had given him. Being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him (Hebrews 5:8). Christ is called the everlasting father, then, because he everlastingly saves the children he has been given. A relationship was established when God gave a people to his Son, and thus the Son dies for them and bestows upon them an everlasting salvation. His assumption of our nature gives us the right to regard him as our brother (Hebrews 2:16,17); His coming as a child born for us gives us the right to regard him as our child (Isaiah 9:6); and the relationship of savior and saved gives us the right to regard him as our everlasting father, while at the same time we know that his Father is our Father through him (John 20:17).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that.

Now when we go to the OT we have another "similar" case to the NT. Of course the doctrine of the Trinity isn't as fully revealed there, anyway:

We have the angel of the LORD (or of Yahweh)
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Of course "the angel of the LORD" doesn't always refer to Christ, the Angel of the LORD (e.g. Matt 28:2), but it is held that it often does.

And we also have the Spirit of the LORD (or of Yahweh)
And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim. (Judges 3:10)

Now, a simple soul, might wonder, while not denying that the Son and the Spirit are "LORD"/"Yahweh", if the Father is particularly being referred to as "LORD"/"Yahweh", but that would be erroneous, would it? :2cents:
 
Heidi, do you have a reference for that quote from Ursinus? Someone asked me the same question as the OP just the other day.
 
Ruben
Richard, the short answer is yes. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and good commentaries on it should show that "God" is often used in Scripture precisely for the Father, and that "Lord" is often used precisely for the Son. That of course does not imply that the Father is not Lord, or that the Son is not God, or that often "God" is best understood by taking in all three persons of the Godhead without reference to their personal properties.

I think that usage could certainly be ancillary evidence that the Father is of none, neither begotten nor spirated; but I wouldn't lay the main weight of the argument on the recognition of the Father as fons deitatis upon it.

Most titles and terms we can use of God and his relations to us are somewhat fluid and ambiguous; the realities we use this language to discuss exceed our apprehension, so it is no wonder that they also create difficulties for our expression.

Thanks for that.

Is there maybe a particular reference to the Father as "God" , because in the economy of redemption, the Father represents the offended Deity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Now this title does not mean that there is any confusion in the Godhead, or that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect.

Don't worry, of course. I'm just "exploring" this aspect of the Scriptural data on the Holy Trinity :gpl:
 
Charlie, It is in the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, the ninth Lord's Day 'Of God the Father', Question 26, in the exposition after the term 'Father'. He holds that the Son is called 'Father' in Isaiah 9:6 as opposed to the creature. He doesn't mention Ruben's point above with reference to Isaiah 8:18, and I must stand by my man in finding that point rather compelling :).
 
Last edited:
Yes, in the New Testament, references to "God" almost always refer to the first Person of the Trinity - God the Father.
 
I'm now wondering if it's partly to do with the nature of progressive revelation (?)

God is first revealed as God, then distinctions within God are progressively revealed through Scripture.

E.g.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

To our theologically sophisticated New Testament minds, we know and believe that the Spirit of God proceeds from the Father and the Son, or if we're from the Greek Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox), we believe that the Spirit of God proceeds only from the Father.

But to the Israelite mind would the term "Spirit of God" even suggest distinctions within God, let alone that the Spirit was of another or of others within the Godhead? Would "Spirit of God" suggest to the Israelite mind "the Spirit that pertains to God" or "the Spirit that is God"?

To our theologically sophisticated New Testament minds, we know and believe that the Spirit of God proceeds from the Father and the Son, or if we're from the Greek Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox), we believe that the Spirit of God proceeds only from the Father.

From this, of course, we could possibly say - on the Western Catholic view - that where the expression "Spirit of God" is used, both the Father and Son are being particularly referred to as God, because the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son.
 
Last edited:
But to the Israelite mind would the term "Spirit of God" even suggest distinctions within God, let alone that the Spirit was of another or of others within the Godhead? Would "Spirit of God" suggest to the Israelite mind "the Spirit that pertains to God" or "the Spirit that is God"?

I found it interesting in a passing reference that Alfred Edersheim makes in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, in the chapter (IV) on Philo, the Rabbis, and the Gospels (and there may be much more of relevance in this chapter than I remembered and was able to quickly relocate -- I don't understand so much I'm afraid, that much must slip by me) that the Spirit of God is at least distinguished in some way in Jewish thought from the 'Word':

. . . we can perceive how the Apocrypha - especially the Book of Wisdom - following up the Old Testament typical truth concerning 'Wisdom' (as specially set forth in the Book of Proverbs) almost arrived so far as to present 'Wisdom' as a special 'Subsistence' (hypostatising it). More than this, in Talmudical writings, we find mention not only of the Shem or 'Name', but also of the 'Shekhinah', God as manifest and present, which is sometimes also presented as the Ruach ha Qodesh of Holy Spirit. But in the Targumim we get yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the Talmud. It is that of the Memra, Logos, or 'Word.' Not that the term is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos. But it stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this literature that God - not as in His permanent manifestation, or manifest Presence - but as revealing Himself, is designated Memra. Altogether that term as applied to God occurs in the Targum Onkelos 179 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum 99 times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A critical analysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jerusalem Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, but evidently refers to God as revealing Himself. But what does this imply? The distinction between God and the Memra of Jehovah is marked in many passages. Similarly, the Memra of Jehovah is distinguished from the Shekhinah. Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word Jehovah; nor for the well-known Old Testament expression the 'Angel of the Lord;' nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and of the Talmud. Does it then represent an older tradition underlying all these? Beyond this Rabbinic theology has not preserved to us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if words have any meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis, though the distinction of permanent, personal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet, to complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah. In the Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him, while in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages are rendered with explicit reference to Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top