The Father of God

Posted by David Barron November - 14 - 2009 - Saturday

The Son of God is a common expression in the New Testament for Jesus, rooted in, among other things, his position as the Davidic king (cf. 2Sam. 7:14).  He is also God’s Son in reference to his preexistence, and Trinitarians would argue as second person of the Trinity.  If this is the case, however, why is the Father never identified as “the Father of God”?

4 Responses to “The Father of God”

  1. Mike Felker says:

    I’m not so sure I understand the implications of the question. Even if Jesus is not an ontological equivalent of the Father, he would still be “god” or “a god” in your view. Thus, the Father could be regarded as “The Father of [what Jesus is].” In other words, in your view Jesus is Messiah, the Son, Redeemer, Savior, a god, etc. And though Scripture explicitly articulates that the Father is “The Father of…” at least on or two of these titles, it would not necessarily be improper to identify The Father as, let’s say, “The Father of [The Savior of the World].” The point being, as long as Jesus is identified with a particular title, whether it be theos or son, The Father can be regarded as “The Father of…” that particular title for Jesus.

    Personally, I don’t care to identify Jesus by things other than the explicit statements in Scripture. I think when you do otherwise, you leave open the possibility of slippery slopes such as identifying Mary as, let’s say, “The Mother of a god.”

  2. David Barron says:

    In the case of “God,” we use that as almost a proper name, because we’re referring to Jehovah. We can say, “God said….,” and the reference to a Christian or Jew is unmistakable. However, in the case of Jesus, theos is never used even within the disputed text with such a sense, perhaps outside of Acts 20:28. That he is not referenced this way I find significant. From this I hope you can see why I find “the Father of a god” or anything similar very different than “the Father of God.”


  3. Jaco says:

    Mike, you’re equivocating here. I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness, but the argument given in the featured post is significant. Thinking of God having a Father is immediately repulsive, since the anthropomorphic association we give to this relationship makes God somehow inferior to a greater Person. Adherents of the Post-Biblical trinity heresy have achieved some resolution to the cognitive dissonance resulting from believing the Son of God is God…amazing what confusing riffraff can achieve in the human mind. Their discomfort with “Father of God” betrays their inability to defend their heresy consistently. As much as they hate it, If the Son of God is God, for whatever weird and wonderful nonsensical reasons, then, for the same reasons The Father must be called the Father of God, whether they like it or not.

    David, I don’t know who the administrator(s) of this site are; I’ll assume you’re one of them. As an outsider I reckon you’d achieve much more if you don’t function as JW apologists. The Watchtower has way too much dirty laundry, and their spiritually abusive setup is a threat to millions. However you want to look at it, if you are a JW apologist, you will have to defend the Watchtower in order to be approved by them, but you’ll be defending atrocity then. This site will be a “WT defended” site with a “Bible defended” facade. That’s dishonest. Will you defend institutionalised heresy at the expense of Scriptural Truths? Well, the apostles didn’t (Ac 5:29).

  4. Lacy Parzych says:

    Just what exactly really does everybody listed here say when these people call at the door?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.