Father and Son distinct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikeledes

Guest
Jehovah’s Witnesses make a big deal that in many passages in the Bible, Jesus is always listed as being distinct from the Father. I try to explain that they are distinct persons within the Godhead and yet are one God. I thought of an analogy. Think of a bottle of Poland Spring that has been put in the freezer overnight. The next day, it is taken out and the ice is allowed to melt. At some point, you will have both ice and water in the bottle. The ice and the water are distinct, and yet they are fundamentally the same (H20). However, you would never use the words “ice” and “water” interchangeably. For example, you would never say I want water in my soda when you mean you want ice, even though both are equally H20. Similarly, while both the Father and the Son are equally God, you would never use them interchangeably because they are distinct. In what way? In their relationship to one another. The Son is eternally generated from the Father, not Father from the Son, just as the ice in the bottle generates the water in the analogy. And yet what is generated is equal to its source, both Father and Son are equally God and both ice and water are equally H20. Can anyone give me more analogies or Bible verses that will help explain the distinction the Bible makes between Father and Son? Any comments?

Thanks and God Bless
 

One very old comparison is to compare the Father with the sun, & the Son with its brightness. The two are identical in nature, but distinct even so.​

I think this analogy may be traceable (by way of St. Athanasius of Alexandria ?) to Hebrews 1:

[Hbr 1:1 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=1&verse=1&version=rsv) In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
[Hbr 1:2 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=1&verse=2&version=rsv) but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
[Hbr 1:3 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=1&verse=3&version=rsv) He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
[Hbr 1:4 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=1&verse=4&version=rsv) having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

Read the entire chapter - if people only knew their Bibles, a lot of problems would vanish at a stroke. There is no replacement for a thorough knowledge of Scripture - especially nowadays, when they are so readily available.

The chapter sets out the dignity of Jesus Christ, showing why He is far superior to all angels. Things are said of Him, which cannot be true of any creature - He does not have to be called God; it is enough that He has characteristics which none but God has. No angel is LORD, but Christ is. He Who is not less than they, nor included among them, & is:
  • God’s Son
  • the heir of all things
  • through whom also [God] created the world
  • (and) reflects the Glory of God
  • and bears the very stamp of [God’s] nature
  • (and) uphold the universe by his word of power
    [*](and) has made purification for sins
    [*](and) sat down at the Right Hand of the Majesty on high

  • is not an angel. He can’t be, because He does things no angel can do. No angel nor all of them together could or did create the world - to do so requires Omnipotence. It implies that the Creator is Eternal, not created - for how could a creature be the creator of its own self ?
So any identification of Jesus Christ with the angel Michael, or any other creature, is totally impossible.

Taken individually, some of these titles & descriptions might not count for much - taken all together, and interpreted by one another, they leave no room for any idea that Jesus Christ is less than God Almighty. And the fact that He is “at the Right Hand” of God, shows that He is distinct from the One at Whose Right Hand He is seated. He is therefore co-equal in Glory, Omnipotence, & Divinity with Him, wholly like Him, yet not He. IOW - He is a distinct Divine Person from Him.

Glory is not just brightness - the Glory was the visible sign of the invisible Presence of God, and it was made known by the cloud which made it visible: God was made manifest to men, even in being hidden from them. To reflect the Glory, is therefore a sign of Divinity. God Himself is invisible and too glorious for mere men to see - Moses himself was not able to see Him (Exodus 33.20); but Jesus Christ not only is God made visible in the form of a mere man - He bears the very stamp of His Nature: to see Jesus, is to see His Father (John 14). BTW - “to see”, often means “to experience”. To experience the Son, is to experience the Father - reactions to the Son, are reactions to the Father. Which is why rejection of the Son is so serious.

Christian faith in the Divinity of Christ can accommodate the references to His humanity, and to His dependence on the Father - those who deny His Divinity, His co-equality with His Father, or His distinctness in Person from His Father, can’t accommodate the Biblical passages which point to these things, but has to ignore them or explain the away. A really Christian belief does not ignore or explain away any of the passages - a tell-tale sign of a less than Christian belief is its failure to cope with the text.

Hope that helps 🙂​

 
Thanks so much. That was really good. Any more contributions?

God Bless
 
Another approach is in 1 Cor 1:24 “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Athanasius used this to argue that God could never be without His power or His wisdom, even though “God (the Father)” and “Christ” are spoken of distinctly here. It kind of parallels the “glory” concept in John 1:14, unique attributes of God without which God would not be God.
 
They also make a big deal about how the Bible refers to the Father as God but not to the son as God. For example, it mights say "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’, rather than “God the Father and God the Son.” How do I respond to that?

Thanks and God Bless
 
I’m assuming that they dance around “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:1 by noting the “knowledge of God and of Jesus the Lord” in 2 Pet. 1:2. The clearest passage on point otherwise is John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”). If they say that all Christians are one in the same way, then you might point out 1 Tim. 2:5, so that the oneness of Christians is mediated through the unique oneness of Christ with the Father.
 
mikeledes said:
They also make a big deal about how the Bible refers to the Father as God but not to the son as God. For example, it mights say "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’, rather than “God the Father and God the Son.” How do I respond to that?

Thanks and God Bless
Click to expand...

OK… 🙂​

In the books we have as the NT -

“God” without qualification = the Father
Jesus is called “Lord”, or some similar title

This is because, as monotheists, the NT writers could not write as though they believed in two Gods - for they didn’t; so what they did do, was use language & concepts which, in a Christian context, preserved the uniqueness of the Father as God, while indicating that Jesus, though a man, was also, and as truly, God. They had to indicate the Uniqueness of the Father, without prejudicing the Divinity of Christ or the reality of His humanity (to use our language - they did not think in abstractions, as we tend to).

And at this period, the language of substance, hypostasis, nature, person, & so on that we are used to using was not used for discussing these matters. After all, a Latin word like persona, person, can’t be used in discussions about Our Lord until there is a Latin-speaking Church which needs to use the word. The word existed during the NT period - as a word for the mask of an actor; which had unfortunate implications, because it could easily suggest that the persona of Christ was taken by Him only to act a part.

So, the NT writers call the Father of Jesus “God” - & to make clear that Jesus is God they call him “Lord”, which translates Greek Kurios, which is a recognised equivalent in Greek of the OT Name JHWH, Which is the Name God revealed to Moses (Exodus 3.14).

Jesus is also described in OT words which would make His identity clear to those with faith - for instance, there is this:

Compare:

Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Jhn 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
Jhn 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

with

Pro 30:3 I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
Pro 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!
Pro 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

The passage in John reveals the answer to the unanswered questions in Proverbs - the name of this son, is Jesus, & it is a Name above every name - it is the Name of One Who is God; as can be seen by the description of the universal rule of Christ in Philippians 2, which is based on OT passages describing the rule of God.

…cont’d…]
 
…cont’d & ended]

Proverbs 30.5 is also relevant to John’s Gospel, because Jesus is the Word in John 1. The three verses together mutually reinforce the suggestion that in John 3 Jesus is presented as the Wisdom of God - which is what St.Paul calls Him in 1Cr 1:30 -

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption…

Which is just ten verses after this:

1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

God has turned the wisdom of the world into foolish by the “foolishness” of the Cross; which implies that if we want wisdom, we must have it in the form of Christ Crucified - it is through the “foolishness” of the Cross, and the “foolishness” of the preaching of the Crucified, that God’s Wisdom is shown.

When St. Paul preached, this would have been extremely offensive - but it is this Crucified Jesus Who is exalted as King & LORD in Philippians 2 & John 3.

Hope that helps 🙂 Obviously, one is doing no more than scratch at the surface. ##
 
How about the passage in scripture that says only the Father knows when the end is coming, not even the Son. How do I explain this passage.

God Bless
 
mikeledes said:
How about the passage in scripture that says only the Father knows when the end is coming, not even the Son. How do I explain this passage.

God Bless
Click to expand...

When He took our nature upon Him and became man as Jesus of Nazareth, the Word Incarnate became man genuinely: He was not God “playing at” being a man - He was a man, fully. The one respect in which He & we have nothing in common, is that He was totally sinless in every respect. As sin is not a part of human nature as made by God, but a bit of vandalism inflicted by man, this does not prejudice the reality of His human nature.​

So, He had a will, intellect, emotions, soul, senses, body, blood, human psychology - just as we do, but unspoilt by sin. His metaphysical person is not human - He is a Divine Person, the Person of the Word Who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity; and there is no human person in addition to the Divine Person. So we have One Christ, in Two Natures - One of man, One of God - subsisting as a personal subject; that personal subject being the Person of the Word. So the “I” of Christ is the “I” of the Word.

But, because He is truly a man, He has a finite, human, nature, as well as the Nature which is common to Him & the other Two Divine Persons. (BTW - limitation is not evil; in creatures, limitation is part of what it means to be created). So His knowing is that of a human being - and just like any other man, he could increase in knowledge. Which in Luke 2 is what we see Him doing. When He asks questions, they are not always rhetorical - sometimes, they are requests for information not already possessed. That is because He is genuinely human, therefore limited - not because He is not God.

And this is where, or one point at which, we come up against the mystery of the Incarnation: it’s possible to see how different “parts” of the Incarnate Word function - the puzzle is to fit the whole of the picture together in a manner that gives a complete & consistent picture. It can’t be done - because we are human beings (& ones wth damaged natures at that) trying to fit God Himself into our tiny minds 🙂

So I can’t give you an answer to solve that difficulty - one can only point to some of the things that we do know or can at least make an educated guess at. I think the answer lies in the fact that His being fully God was not allowed to get in the way of His being fully man. After all, seeing that He is both, it is not surprising the NT gives us evidence of His being both.

Hope that is some help 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top