Which of the following statements would you assent to? (you can choose more than one).
Jesus the Son of God:
1. is subordinate to the Father only in the economy of salvation
2. is subordinate to the Father both in the economy of salvation and in eternity
3. is partly human, partly divine
4. remains fully human in glory.
In your answer, give some scriptural justification...
(ps, this is not a question of my devising)
10 comments:
2 and 4 I guess...
ah,
but isn't 2 Arianism pure and simple?
Are these trick questions?
2 and 4 get my vote too.
Arianism is 2 but 2 isn't necessarily Arianism - 1 Cor 15.28, Philippians 3.15
I would also have said 2 & 4.
Doesn't the charge of Arianism depend on whether the subordination is relational or ontological?
I like the 1 Cor 15:28 verse, though it is future, isn't it? In what sense will Jesus be subject to the Ftaher in a way in which he isn't now? (was Phil 3:15 the right verse?)
Mark: well, yes, I guess: but this needs some huge explaning. How might the two differ? How could it be relational and not ontological? And, in that case, wouldn't 1 be a better answer?
Phil 3.15 is proof text for anything
Mike, thanks for the quiz.
If by ontlogical you mean only substance then you head off toward Arianism, if however by ontological you include the substance within the context of its surrounds, eg for the Godhead within triune relationship, then your claim for subordination should be understood differently.
If you go for;
-'subordinate substance' then you are tending to Arianism
-'relationally subordinate' - Phil 2 would seem to support this.
So is the relational subordination temporary and functional? Is it just while he is the Incarnate earth-inhabiting Son that He is subordinate, or does it extend post-resurrection?
If it extends post-resurrection how is the fullness of humanity and divinity maintained? Does his post-resurrection body still remain fully human and fully divine?
In my anonimity I'll go for:
1. Yes, but more than this
2. Yes, on relational subordination grounds; in the economy of salvation, and into eternity.
3. No, fully human and fully divine
4. Hmm. Maintains a physicality, but his heavenly body has been transformed, so it is more than human as we understand it. If you want to say that Christ's glorious divine body is the 'perfect human form' then Yes.
Happy for a response !
4. Though I agree that anon in wanting to say 'fully and truly human' in glory.
Is there any difference in saying (a) "the Son is obedient" from (b) "the Son is subordinate"? I'm very happy with affirming (a) eternally. As for (b), it depends what subordinate means.
PS I'm a little unsure about the relationally vs ontologically distinction. Does it make ontology disconnected from relationship? Particularly within the Trinity, that would seem to be an odd thing to do.
Oh - just realised you wanted some Scripture... :-)
How about 1 Tim 2.5? "...there is one mediator between God and humanity, the human Christ Jesus."
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
This is your answer. You said, "Jesus the Son of God" then you must be refering to the "man Christ Jesus", forever God and man. As God equal to the Father in every way, as Man eternally submitted. A great mystery, but very plain by the scripture I listed above.
Post a Comment