Is the Son
eternally Subordinate to the Father?
Firstly, I would suggest that ontological
equality in role and authority with functional subordination (during the
incarnation) is biblical and orthodox. However, the eternal subordination
in function & authority of the Son, is problematic. It is when the
Son takes on a human nature that he assumes a subordinate relationship to God
the Father (Jn 5:18-19). Phil. 2.5-11 makes clear, the pre-existent Son
of God had the condition and status of being equal to God, but he chose not to
take advantage of it, but rather humbled himself (involving a choice, not an
inherent condition or state of the divine Son) and took on a human
nature. And then we have Matt 28:19 which notes that “all authority
in heaven and earth has been given to the Son in his resurrected state.
This suggests that the Father has handed over authority to the Son, which
the Son will then return to the Father at the end of history (1 Cor
15:28). Are we thus to suggest that the Father is functionally
subordinated to the Son at this point?
What is more, Paul the author of 1 Cor
15:28 elsewhere envisages the Son extending his rule and authority at the
eschaton, not of it ending. When the end comes all will bow before Jesus Christ
as Lord (Phil 2:10), all will stand before him as the judge (2 Cor 5:10),
believers "will be glorified with him" (Rom 8:17), and "be with
him forever" (1 Thess 4:17), and they will "reign with him" (Rom
5:17). Thus, there is no subordination after the ascension, since at least
seven texts explicitly speak of the Son's rule and authority as continuing “forever”
(2 Sam 7:2-4; Isa 9:7; Luke 1:33; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 7:10-12; 11:15; cf. Eph
1:20-21). These texts are
eschatologically christocentric, not theocentric. On the basis of this dominant
teaching in Scripture on the eternal rule and authority of the Son, the Council
of Constantinople in 381 added to what we call today the Nicene Creed the
words, "and his [the Son's] kingdom will have no end," thereby
rejecting the teaching of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (d. 374), who appealed to
1 Cor 15:28 to deny the eternal rule and authority of the Son.
Finally, I question whether
intra-Trinitarian relationships can be or should be applied to male-female
relationships. It is never done so in the New Testament writings, and
doing so creates more problems than it solves. As Michael Bird and Robert
Shillaker have noted:
we should not
assume that every aspect of intra-trinitarian relationships carries over into
human existence and into male-female relationships. For a start, the Trinity
has three persons in an eternal relationship whereas marriage has only two
persons in a temporal relationship. The Trinity also has two male persons and
human marriage has one male and one female. That means that unless you are
immortal and involved in some bizarre love-triangle (with at least two males)
that the application of Trinitarian relations to male-female relations is going
to break down at some point. Thus we should be very careful about suggestions
that what is true of Trinitarian relationships is also true of male-female relationships.
Scripture gives us a better analogy to apply directly to male-female relations
and that is the image of Christ and the church in Eph 5:21-33.[1]
I object to Bird’s use of masculinity in
relationship to God here, as God is Spirit and transcends male/female gender
distinctions. But I think his main point still stands.
Functional subordination cannot mean
submission of the Son's will to the Father's will within the Godhead, as they
have the same will.
Thoughts? Comments? Critiques? All welcome...
[1] Michael F. Bird and Robert Shillaker, “Subordination in the Trinity
and Gender Roles: A Response to Recent Discussion,” Trinity Journal 29/2
(2008): 267-83.
No comments:
Post a Comment