Of God the Son — A. Christ's Divine Sonship

ARTICLE 2: OF GOD THE SON

In the sublime text John I, 14: “Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο — And the Word was made flesh,” the dogma of the Blessed Trinity and the dogmatic teaching of the Church in regard to Jesus Christ run together into one. For this reason nearly all Scriptural passages that can be cited in proof of Christ’s being the Only-begotten Son of God likewise offer solid arguments for the dogma that He is both the true Son of God and the Divine Logos, and consequently the Second Person of the Godhead. It will be sufficient to show, therefore, in this division of our treatise, (1) that Christ is the true Son of God, (2) that He is very God, and (3) that He is the Divine Logos. There is no need of a special demonstration to prove that Christ is a real person and not a mere personification.

A. Christ’s Divine Sonship

1. The Term “Son of God” as Used in a Metaphorical Sense

If, as we have shown, God can assume towards His rational creatures the relation of a father, these creatures must be capable of becoming, in a certain sense, sons or children of God.

a) Taking the term in a higher sense, man can become a son of God only in the supernatural order, as we shall show in the treatise on Grace, where we speak of Justification. Cfr. Matth. V, 9: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” But, as Holy Scripture clearly intimates, this supernatural sonship of the creature is not a sonship in the strict sense of the term; it is based on adoption.¹ Though this filiatio adoptiva is sharply contrasted with natural sonship,² inasmuch as the Bible traces it to the fact of the creature’s “regeneration of God,”³ nay, even calls it a participation in the Divine Nature,⁴ it is to be remarked that the last-mentioned two notions never lose their accidental and analogous character, because they are conditioned by sanctifying grace, of which the filiatio adoptiva is the chief formal effect.

b) The important question we have here to solve is whether “Son of God” is applied to Christ merely as an analogous term. In that case, though He would still outrank God’s other adopted children, Jesus would be no more than a primus inter pares. That He outranks all other men appears clearly enough from the fact that He alone is called in Holy Scripture, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, the Son of God. There are texts in which mere creatures are referred to as “sons of God,” but in all these texts the subject is either in the plural,⁵ or it is a collective term,⁶ or an indefinite singular really amounting to a plural.⁷ The only passage which seems to offer an exception is 2 Kings VII, 15: “Ego ero ei [scil. Salomoni] in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium — I will be to him [Solomon] a father, and he shall be to me a son,” but St. Paul expressly interprets this passage as referring typically to Christ: “Cui dixit aliquando angelorum: Ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium? — For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: … I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?”⁸ In the light of these texts no one can deny that Christ is the Son of God in a higher sense than any angel or man. But there still remains a doubt as to whether Filius Dei is applied to Him as a proper name, or merely as an appellative; that is to say, whether He is the Son of God in the strict or merely in a figurative sense, i. e., by adoption.

2. Christ the Son of God in the Strict Sense of the Term

The Socinians and the Rationalists, Hugo Grotius among others, allege that Filius Dei is merely an official title of the Messias, bearing no intrinsic relation to any divine filiation; in other words, that Christ, in virtue of His supernatural birth from the Blessed Virgin Mary,⁹ is called “Son of God” in a higher, though not in an essentially different sense than other rational creatures. The French Abbé Alfred Loisy adopts this Rationalist error when he writes: “The title ‘Son of God’ was accepted by the Jews, by the Disciples, and by the Saviour Himself as a synonym for ‘Messias.’”¹⁰ True, “Son of God” was the official title of the Messias; but it was a title based upon a reality, i. e., Christ’s Divine Sonship in the strict sense of the term. It is a mistake on the part of some Catholic theologians to concede the assertion of Rationalist exegetes that, while the true Divine Sonship of Jesus appears clearly enough from the Apostolic Letters and the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be proved from the Synoptics. The conduct of the Jews and our Saviour’s own reiterated declarations, as recorded in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, clearly prove the contrary.

a) Though the Jews knew, and could not help knowing from their own sacred writings, that the future Messias would be God Himself, they were not accustomed to refer to Him of their own accord as “God,” or “Son of God.” They called Him either “son of David,”¹¹ or “King of Israel,”¹² or “the Prophet,”¹³ or “the Messias,” that is Christ (Χριστός = χρίειν). Nevertheless they logically concluded from Christ’s repeated references to Himself as Son of God, that He claimed consubstantiality with the Godhead, in other words, true Divinity.¹⁴ Similarly the Synoptics, by weaving into their story sayings that can apply to none other than the Son of God in the strictest sense of the term, or by accompanying their profession of faith in the “true Son of God” with a latreutic act of adoration, plainly demonstrate that they mean to apply the name to Jesus in its proper, not in a figurative, sense. When He was baptized in the Jordan,¹⁵ “there came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Greek text has: Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, repeating the definite article to emphasize the unique role of the Son. Before the institution, or, more correctly, before the promise of the primacy, Peter had first to profess his faith in the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Matth. XVI, 15 sqq.: “Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος).” Like the other Apostles, Peter had long before believed in the Messianic mission and dignity of his Master; hence his profession of faith as recorded in Matth. XVI, 16, can only mean: “Thou art not only the Christ, i. e., the Messias, but likewise the true Son of God.” This view is confirmed by our Saviour’s reply: “Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in coelis est — Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood [i. e., human reason] hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” That is to say, Peter’s knowledge and his profession of faith in Christ’s Divine Sonship was owing to a direct revelation and the grace of faith.¹⁶ When the Disciples “in the midst of the sea” saw Jesus stretching out His hand and saving Peter, who at His Master’s bidding had ventured upon the angry waves, they were overpowered by the glorious miracle and “adored Him, saying: Indeed thou art the son of God.”¹⁷

b) This argument is supported by Christ’s own testimony. The Synoptics tell us as distinctly as do SS. John and Paul, that not only did He always and everywhere assert His Divine Sonship, but He finally sealed it with His blood. When Caiphas adjured Him by the living God, saying: “Tell us if thou be the Christ the son of God,”¹⁸ Jesus solemnly replied: “Thou hast said it.”¹⁹ And when, in confirmation of His oath, the Saviour significantly assured His questioner that he would yet see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven to judge mankind, “the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed.”²⁰ In asserting His Divine Sonship, therefore, Christ asserted His Divinity, and the Sanhedrin, regarding this assertion as blasphemous, acted with perfect consistency when they condemned Him to an ignominious death. According to the Gospel of St. Luke, they “brought him into their council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us — Si tu es Christus, dic nobis,”²¹ and when Jesus had assured them that He would sit “on the right hand of the power of God,” they asked Him: “Art thou then the Son of God? (Σὺ οὖν εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ)?” and He firmly and definitely answered: “You say that I am (Ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι).” Whereupon He was led to Pilate, and they accused Him of claiming that He was “Christ the king,”²² and that “He made Himself the Son of God.”²³ It is not too much to say, therefore, that Christ laid down His life for the truth of His solemn affirmation that He was really and truly “the Son of God.” The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul verify, continue, and complete the story of the Synoptics.²⁴

3. The Teaching of St. John and St. Paul on Christ’s Divine Sonship

The Saviour’s favorite disciple, the meek and gentle John, both in character and temperament differed radically from the fiery Paul; yet their teaching in regard to Christ agrees in every essential detail, and it may be truly said that the Johannine Christology is characterized by a Pauline depth of thought, while the teaching of St. Paul has a distinctly Johannean tinge. Both Apostles are at one in affirming that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a true sonship in the strict sense of the term, and therefore essentially different from the sonship predicated of angels and men.

a) The epithets applied to Jesus by both SS. John and Paul are with quite evident intent so chosen as to exclude absolutely the “sensus improprius.”

Both call Christ His Heavenly Father’s “own Son” (Filius proprius, ἴδιος υἱός). Rom. VIII, 32: “Qui proprio Filio suo (τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ) non pepercit — He spared not even his own Son.” John V, 18: “Patrem suum (πατέρα ἴδιον) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo — Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” He is the Father’s “beloved Son,” into whose kingdom we are translated.²⁵ He is “the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father — Unigenitus Filius (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός), qui est in sinu Patris,”²⁶ the Son begotten by the eternal Father.²⁷ This note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St. John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son but Christ.²⁸ Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God in precisely the same sense in which God is “true God.” Cfr. 1 John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus verum Deum (τὸν ἀληθινὸν Θεόν) et simus in vero Filio eius — And we know that the Son of God is come and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son.”

b) These texts appear still more significant if collated with certain other Scriptural passages, which expressly declare that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a sonship in the strict and proper sense of the term.

If there existed any higher beings who, as “sons of God,” might claim precedence of Christ, they would certainly be the angels of Heaven. Now we have the distinct teaching of St. Paul that the angels are bound to adore Christ as “the Son of God” and “the firstborn of the Father.” Hebr. I, 5 sq.: “Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te … Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum (πρωτότοκον) in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum [sc. Christum] omnes angeli Dei — For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee… . And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.” Among the many favored children of grace, especially the prophets and the Lord’s anointed, whom Sacred Scripture sometimes calls “sons of God,” or even “gods,” because of their exalted dignity, in the opinion of the Jews and of St. Paul none was greater than Jehovah’s favorite servant, Moses.²⁹ And yet St. Paul, comparing him with Christ, says that Moses is merely a “faithful servant in the house of God” (ὡς θεράπων), while Jesus is “as the Son in his own house” (ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ).³⁰ It is only in the light of these facts that we are able fully to appreciate the further teaching of SS. John and Paul, that, as the heavenly Fatherhood of God is the prototype of all created paternity, so the Divine Sonship of Christ is the exemplar of all derived or adoptive sonship. Cfr. John I, 12: “Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius [scil. unigeniti a Patre] — He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (i. e., in the name of the Only-begotten of the Father. John I, 14). Gal. IV, 4 sq.: “Misit Deus Filium suum (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) … ut adoptionem filiorum (τὴν υἱοθεσίαν) reciperemus — God sent his son … that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

c) The teaching of St. John culminates in the notion of the Divine Logos; that of St. Paul in the cognate conception of Christ as the image of God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4: “Imago Dei (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ)”; Col. I, 15: “Imago Dei invisibilis.” With an unmistakable allusion to St. John’s teaching on the Divine Logos, the Apostle of the Gentiles defines this “image of the invisible God” as splendor gloriae (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης) and as figura substantiae eius (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) — “the brightness of the glory of God” and “the figure of his substance.”³¹

Of these two terms the former expresses the consubstantiality (homoousia), the latter the personal self-existence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel:³² “The Word was God” and “the Word was with God.” That St. Paul³³ employs the phrases “brightness of his glory” and “figure of his substance” not in any creatural sense, but absolutely, is made manifest by the second part of the sentence in which they occur.³⁴ There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes: “Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis — Upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, [Christ] sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.”³⁵ Therefore Christ is the “image of the Divine Substance” in so far as He is strictly and truly the “Son of God,” which further appears from Heb. I, 2: “Diebus istis [Deus] locutus est nobis in Filio, … per quem fecit et saecula — In these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, … by whom he also made the world.”³⁶ While the term ἀπαύγασμα represents the Father as “light,” and the Son as the reflection of this light (for this reason He is called lumen de lumine as well as Deus de Deo),³⁷ the locution χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ complements the former by emphasizing the independent subsistence of the Son of God (i. e., Christ) in His relative opposition to God the Father — a point which the Fathers of the Church did not fail to insist upon in their early conflicts with Photinus and Sabellius.

d) The Scriptural teaching so far developed furnishes us with a key for interpreting those numerous texts which speak of the primogeniture of Christ.

The “only begotten Son” (unigenitus, μονογενής) alone is and always remains the “firstborn” (primogenitus, πρωτότοκος).³⁸ No creature can claim to be His equal in birth or dignity. St. Paul’s teaching on this head is most clearly developed in his Epistle to the Colossians. There he distinguishes in Christ a twofold “right of the firstborn,” the one divine, the other human; the former based upon the title of creation, redemption, and final end; the latter on Christ’s prerogative as the mystic head and reconciler of His Church, which consists of sinful men. From the first-mentioned viewpoint He is “primogenitus omnis creaturae (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως)”; from the point of view mentioned in the second place, He is “primogenitus ex mortuis (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν).”³⁹ In both respects Christ is no mere creature, but very God. For like unto the Hypostatic Wisdom of the Old Testament,⁴⁰ He possesses, as “the firstborn of every creature,” an eternal, divine existence, and is equipped with creative power, whereby He has created and upholds the universe together with the realm of angels.⁴¹ As the “firstborn from the dead,” on the other hand, He is “the head of the body [of] the church,” absolute “beginning,” the one “who holds in all things the primacy,” the possessor of “the fullness of all perfection,” and lastly “the reconciling mediator through the blood of His cross, of the things that are on the earth and the things that are in heaven” — all of which can be true only on the supposition that Christ as the Firstborn is at the same time the true and genuine Son of God, and therefore Himself God.⁴² According to St. Paul, therefore, Christ’s human primogeniture is based upon His divine primogeniture, which in turn coincides with His unigeniture (primogenitus = unigenitus).⁴³

4. The Consubstantiality of the Son of God with God

In the Scriptural texts we have cited, the Divinity which is communicated to the Son by His divine γέννησις from the Father is not founded upon Ditheism, or the existence of two coequal gods, but on the numerical identity of the Divine Nature.

This conclusion, which flows so manifestly from the monotheistic character of both the Old and the New Testament, is expressly confirmed in the Epistle to the Philippians,⁴⁴ where St. Paul draws a neat distinction between the “form of a servant” (forma servi, μορφὴ δούλου) and the “form of God” (forma Dei, μορφὴ θεοῦ). By the former he means the truly human, and by the latter the truly divine nature of Jesus Christ, in the possession of which the Son of God is consubstantial or coequal with God (aequalis Deo, ἴσα θεῷ). “Qui [scil. Christus] cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens … et habitu inventus ut homo — Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant … and in habit found as a man.” “Forma servi” in this context can mean nothing else than the human nature which the Son of God “assumed,”⁴⁵ and in virtue of which He was “found as a man.” “Forma Dei,” on the other hand, plainly signifies the Divine Nature, which Christ possessed before he “took the form of a servant” and before He “emptied Himself,” and which to claim He did not need to think robbery, i. e., unjust usurpation. It is immaterial whether we take “rapina” in its active sense as “actus rapiendi,” or objectively as “res rapta.”⁴⁶