Such, then, is their position. We will now demonstrate what we proposed: the Father has not taken “from whom” for himself and assigned “through whom” to the Son; nor, according to their rule, is the Holy Spirit excluded from sharing either “from whom” or “through whom.” That distinction is an inheritance of their own recent invention.
“There is one God and Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” These are not the words of someone legislating fixed verbal formulas, but of someone carefully distinguishing the hypostases. The Apostle spoke this way not to introduce an alienation of nature, but to present the concepts of Father and Son without confusion.
That the expressions do not oppose one another, as though they were battle lines set against each other and carrying the natures to which they are attached into mutual conflict, is evident from the fact that the blessed Paul gathers them together and applies them to one and the same subject: “from him and through him and to him are all things.” Anyone who pays even modest attention to the sense of the passage can see that this refers to the Lord. The Apostle has just placed before it Isaiah’s prophecy: “Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has become his counselor?” and then adds, “For from him and through him and to him are all things.”
That the prophet is speaking about God the Word, the Maker of all creation, can be learned from the preceding words: “Who measured the water in his hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth in his grasp? Who weighed the mountains? Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has become his counselor?” Here “who?” does not signify absolute impossibility, but rarity, as in “Who will rise up for me against evildoers?” “Who is the man who desires life?” and “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord?” Thus here too the sense is: Who knows the mind of the Lord and shares in his counsel? For “the Father loves the Son and shows him all things.”
He is the one who holds the earth and grasps it, giving it its proper order; who contains the whole heaven within a small portion of his power, which prophetic language figuratively calls a “span.” Therefore the Apostle appropriately adds, “from him and through him and to him are all things.” From him comes to all existing things the cause of their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through him all things receive continuance and constitution, since he created them all and apportions to each created thing what is necessary for its preservation. And to him all things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and inexpressible affection toward the source and giver of life, as it is written: “The eyes of all hope in you”; again, “All things look expectantly to you”; and, “You open your hand and fill every living thing with good pleasure.”
But if our opponents reject this interpretation, what argument can keep them from being caught in their own trap?
If they refuse to admit that the three expressions “from him,” “through him,” and “to him” are spoken of the Lord, they must apply them to God the Father. Their rule then collapses immediately, because not only “from whom” but also “through whom” will have been used of the Father. And if “through whom” contains nothing degrading when said of the Father, why should it be restricted to the Son as though it implied inferiority? If it always and everywhere denotes subordinate service, let them tell us to what superior the God of glory and Father of Christ is subordinate.
Thus their argument defeats itself, while our position is secure whichever interpretation is taken. If the passage is shown to refer to the Son, “from whom” is found to be applicable to the Son. If they insist instead that the prophetic words refer to God the Father, then “through whom” must be acknowledged as properly said of God. In either case the two expressions have equal force, since both are used of the same divine subject. Let us now return to the matter before us.
In the Epistle to the Ephesians the Apostle says: “Speaking the truth in love, let us grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, fitted and joined together through every supporting joint, according to the working measured out to each part, produces the growth of the body.”
Likewise in the Epistle to the Colossians, concerning those who do not know the Only-begotten, he speaks of one who does not hold fast to “the head,” that is, Christ, “from whom the whole body, supplied and knit together through joints and ligaments, grows with the growth that comes from God.” Elsewhere we have learned that Christ is the head of the Church, where the Apostle says that God “gave him as head over all things to the Church”; and, “From his fullness we have all received.” The Lord himself also says, “He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”
In short, anyone who reads carefully will see that “from whom” is used in several ways. The Lord says, for example, “I know that power has gone out from me.” We also repeatedly find “from whom” used of the Spirit: “The one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” John writes, “By this we know that he abides in us, from the Spirit whom he has given us.” The angel says, “What has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit,” and the Lord says, “What is born from the Spirit is spirit.” So much, then, for this expression.
We must now show that Scripture allows the expression “through whom” to be used alike of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It would be unnecessary to accumulate evidence concerning the Son, both because the usage is well known and because our opponents themselves make that very point.
But “through whom” is also said of the Father: “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with his Son”; “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God”; again, “You are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God”; and, “Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of God the Father.” Isaiah likewise says, “Woe to those who make deep counsel, but not through the Lord.”
Many examples could also be produced concerning the Spirit: “God has revealed them to us through the Spirit”; elsewhere, “Guard the good deposit entrusted to you through the Holy Spirit”; and again, “To one is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom.”
The same can be said of the word “in”: Scripture also uses it of God the Father. In the Old Testament we read, “In God we shall do mighty deeds,” “My praise will always be in you,” and, “In your name I will rejoice.” Paul writes of “God, who created all things”; “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father”; “if now at last, in the will of God, I may have a prosperous journey to come to you”; and, “You boast in God.”
The examples are too numerous to count. Our aim is not to overwhelm the reader with evidence but to prove that our opponents’ conclusions are unsound. I will therefore omit the proofs of this usage concerning our Lord and the Holy Spirit, since they are well known.
Still, I cannot pass over this point: the “wise hearer” can find sufficient proof by applying our opponents’ own principle in reverse. If difference of expression necessarily indicates a change of nature, as they claim, then identity of expression must force them, however unwillingly, to confess identity of essence.
Nor does this variation of terms occur only in theological language. Whenever one expression takes on the force of another, Scripture frequently transfers them from one subject to another. Adam, for example, says, “I have acquired a man through God,” where the sense is plainly “from God.” Elsewhere we read that “Moses commanded Israel through the word of the Lord,” and Joseph, speaking to the prisoners about dreams, says, “Is not interpretation through God?” instead of “from God.”
Conversely, Paul uses “from whom” where the sense is “through whom” when he says that the Son was “born from a woman.” In another passage he clearly distinguishes the normal expressions, saying that woman is from man and man comes through woman: “For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman.” Yet in the earlier passage the Apostle, while demonstrating the flexibility of usage, also incidentally corrects those who supposed that the Lord’s body was merely spiritual. To show that the God-bearing flesh was formed from the common substance of human nature, he chose the stronger preposition.
“Through a woman” might suggest that the woman was merely a channel through which the birth passed; “from a woman,” however, adequately indicates that mother and offspring share the same human nature. The Apostle therefore does not contradict himself. He shows that these expressions can be exchanged without difficulty where the sense allows it.
Since, then, “from whom” is transferred to the very subjects for whom they insist that “through whom” is the proper expression, how can they consistently separate the phrases absolutely from one another merely to manufacture an accusation against the true faith?