(2) Organic relation of the Son to the Father. — {a) The subordination of the Son. — This truth is presented everywhere in the teaching of our Lord. Though He speaks ever as One who enjoys a unique relation of intimacy with the Father, though He claims God as His own Father, yet it is clear that He was filled with reverence towards the Eternal Source of all things from whom His own being is derived.
Certain passages express this very distinctly : Mk 1332 ' of that day and that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.' These words are usually con- sidered in connexion with the doctrine of the kenosis (wh. see). But they are quite as important as a testimony to our Lord's consciousness of His own Divine Sonship. Here we find Him placing Himself above the angels in heaven, next to the Eternal Father, and the fact of His ignorance of the great secret noted as extraordinary. The truth is that the implications of this passage involve a Christology which agrees perfectly with the teaching of St. John. There is, however, the clear assertion of the subordination of the Son ; and even if His ignorance of the great day be regarded as temporary, part of the limitation in- volved in His humiliation while on earth, none the less the assertion remains.
Secondly, especial mention may be made of Jn 1428 ' The Father is greater than I.' As Coleridge observes (see Table Talk, 1st May 1823), these words, which have been used to supply an argu- ment against the orthodox creed, contain, in truth, a very strong implication of our Lord's Divinity. For a mere man to say, ' God is greater than I,' would be monstrous or absurd. Comparison is possible only between things of the same nature. While, there- fore, the assertion implies the Divinity, it is a direct statement of the filial subordination of the Son. It is remarkable that, in this statement, our Lord uses the emphatic ' I,' as in 8^8 {Tph ' Ajipmafj, yiviffdai lyai ilfj-i) and 103" (lyu xtx,) i ff«Tv;(j £v iir/.t,iv). He does not say, 'the Son,' or, 'the Son of Man.' It is inadmissible, as Westcott points out, to suppose that He is speaking here other- wise than ' in the fulness of His indivisible Personality.' We cannot think that the statement refers merely to the human life of Christ on earth. ' The superior greatness of the Father must therefore be interpreted in regard to the absolute relations of the Father and the Son without violation of the one equal Godhead.' (See Westcott, loc. eit, and Additional Note on 1428).
(6) The derivative nature of the Son^s Divinity. — We are left in no doubt as to what is the essential nature of this subordination. The Son derives His being. His knowledge. His power. His active life, at every moment, from the Father. For the de- tailed proof of this we are mainly dependent upon the Fourth Gospel. But here the range of passages which may be adduced is extraordinary.
' The Son can do nothing of himself ' (Jn 519) ; ' As the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself ' (v. 26) ; ' I can of myself do nothing ' (v.30) ; ' J am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me ' (638) ; ' i do nothing of myself ' (828) ; ' i spoke not from myself ; but the Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak' (1249); 'The Father abiding in me doeth his works' (1410); ' Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee ' (1721).
(c) The kenosis. — It is this derivative nature of the Son's Divinity which helps us to realize that tlie limitations to which He submitted during His life on earth involved no breach of His Divine identity. Our ordinary experience teaches us that the limitation of our powers does not destroy our identity. If we shut our eyes, we impose upon ourselves voluntarily a limitation which, while it lasts, diminishes very considerably our hold upon reality ; yet we continue to be the same identical persons that we were before, and that we shall be again when the voluntary limitation has come to an end. But it is hard to imagine anything similar in the case of the Eternal Source of all being. All
TRINITY
TRINITY
763
that is depends on Him, and any reduction or limitation of His jjower is inconceivable. Certainly that would seem to be the case, when we think of tlie Eternal Father. But surely it is different with the Eternal Son. His Divinity is derivative, de- pendent from moment to moment upon the Father : and therefore there is no difficulty in accepting Aviiat seems to be a necessary inference from the facts of the Gospel history, that, during our Lord's life on earth, there took place a limitation of the Divine effluence. Nor is it necessary to sujjpose that this limitation was always the same in extent or degree. Here may be the explanation of the awful cry, ' My God, my God, why hast thou for- saken me ? ' Such a view is not inconsistent with the declaration of St. Paul that ' it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,' the whole TrXripufia of the Deity (Col 1").