Help! What does it mean that the Son will be made subject to the Father?

[JFDU]

Christology question that I’m posting on behalf of a friend who wanted to know how Jesus can be equal to the Father and reign forever, when 1 Cor 15:28 declares that he will be subjected to the Father in the end and hand everything over?

I haven’t given this too much thought but from what I’ve read to date I’m leaning more towards Frame’s view: 

“As the servant of God, who remains eternally man as well as God, Jesus demonstrates his obedience by subjecting himself to the headship of God the Father”

From what I gather he seems to take a strong cue from 1 Cor 11:3 (“the head of Christ is God”)

It makes sense to me because it goes back to the irreversibility of the hypostatic union (I get my hint from 1 Tim 2:5 “the man Christ Jesus”). If Jesus will remain eternally human, it stands to reason that his subordination to the Father will also remain. 

Also I’m not sure if we need to drill down further to the nuances of “nature”, “person” and “essence” but I trust you’ll set me straight here if I’m off on a tangent. 

How…eva…I didn’t want to limit my response to my own thoughts, so I thought why not bring it to the theolab and put it to the test? 

So, whadyathink?

[Scott]

I am willing to admit that we don't deal, haven't dealt with them for quite some time, all too well. It's like the texts on ALL things being reconciled in Christ. They get trumped by the texts that seem to clearly teach that God will not reconcile [save?] all people to himself. One who holds to limited atonement will necessarily have to push to the side, or [re-]explain, the passages that teach an unlimited, universal atonement. It happens in gender role discussions. It happens in all theological discussions.

 

The more "trinitarian" proof-texts, or divinity of Christ proof-texts, will very much "trump" these passages that you have pointed out in the OP. I am not at all denying a tri-unity of Father, Son and Spirit, 3 unique divine persons as one unified God. But I think "normative" tri-unity systematic teaching might go beyond what the actual text allows for. Again, I am not saying such is wrong. Our eccelsiology is not "100% biblical", again, being very much ok. But some formulations and developments of trinitarian theology is asking for some kind of systematic approach that could be slightly foreign to a simple engaging with the text's teaching as is. And I think we have done this in casting aside, or unhelpfully re-explaining, these challenging passages. We speak of the 3 persons of the trinity as having the exact same ontological position, being of the same essence in being, but having a difference of function. And that might be the best and most appropriate way to approach this, though again, I'd argue this comes outside the realm of actual biblical theology. Some speak of the functional submission of the Son in his incarnate state, though the passages you point to seem to point to this carrying on in his resurrection, glorified state.

 

Again, we do this with passages on other topics. We ALL approach scripture with a theo-philosophical system, and it means that certain texts will take some priority over others. I think this is possibly what happens with 1 Cor 15:28 and others when it comes to trying to speak of the try-unified nature of God.

 

Just some musings.

[Bit Brush]

What hit me in this passage is the obedience factor. There has to be a chain of command in order for there to be a measure of obedience. Ultimately the godhead is measured against the Word of God. Christ walked in complete obedience to the Father. Those who are responsible for others should be obedient to their superiors. This has, IMHO, little to do with the son's equality in the godhead.

[Jason]

I don't think that it's necessary that we hold to an eternal submission on the part of God the Son. I think that we need to see that Christ is also exalted man as well as God.

Is there any reason for us to refuse to say that it is the exalted humanity of Christ that is subjected to the Triune God that God may be glorified? That was, after all, the aim of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ (Php 2:5-11). It is to the glory of God that Jesus came. It is to the glory of God that sins are forgiven (1Jn 2:12). Why not say that the exalted human King submits to the glory of the Triune God, for whose glory He works?

Just thinking.

[Scott]

Jason -

 

It is an interesting thought to ponder, if I understood your premise correctly - that the Son submit himself eternally to the fullness of the triune God. But what seems to be presented in the 1 Cor 15 and 1 Cor 11 passages is the relationship specifically between the Son and Father, not the Son to Trinity.

[JFDU]

I’m mulling over the comments and there is not much room to move here, really. There is some tension seemingly with 1 Cor 15:28 but it still remains in harmony with the Father-Son relationship since the incarnation. Jesus is not taking the back seat or being demoted in the Godhead but as Jason put it “the exalted humanity of Christ that is subjected to the Triune God that God may be glorified”.

Obviously the humanity of Christ is integral to everything said in the passage since the whole chapter is dealing with the resurrection. Because of the resurrection theme there is also a strong sense of triumphalism in the passage and I can’t help reading it as an eschatological statement pointing to the culmination of the restorative process and redemption (“when all is said and done, then...” so to speak).

Verse 25 prior “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” would suggest that Christ’s reign is time bound. It will simply no longer be required past that point. The passage however seems to be in tension with Revelation 11:15 b “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”  I would welcome an attempt from someone here to exegete this and specifically the sentence construction to determine whether “he” is referring to “our Lord” or “his Christ”. Personally, I gravitate toward the former.

So even though I tagged the post under Christology, as I process all this it is also about eschatology and ontology (Christ’s humanity in light of an immutable hypostatic union or...immutable dyophysitism???)

Let’s see if we get any more contributions.

[Alex Guggenheim]

The administrative construct of the Godhead is just that, an administrative one and not a personal one. Which is precisely why many have difficulty with this, not to mention authority in their own lives. They intuitively approach authority, itself, on a personal basis and not an administrative one. They see it as a reflection of something personal. This is an example of the administrative construct of the Godhead. One God expressed in 3 persons with an administrative design and designation to accomplish God's objectives. It is not personal, that is as it relates to their person and whether or not one is more or less divine.

[Scott]

JFDU -

 

I think what you and Alex have posited are some helpful thinkings, though somewhat extra-biblical and theo-philosophical. I don't think this is wrong, I'm just gonna push us more to deal with the text as is with these verses, before moving on into systematic theological formulations.

 

You said: I’m mulling over the comments and there is not much room to move here, really. There is some tension seemingly with 1 Cor 15:28 but it still remains in harmony with the Father-Son relationship since the incarnation. Jesus is not taking the back seat or being demoted in the Godhead but as Jason put it “the exalted humanity of Christ that is subjected to the Triune God that God may be glorified”.

Thanks for recognising the tensions that Scripture presents. Whereas I used to want to explain them "away" through systematics, I appreciate embracing them more. I think your caveat of 1 Cor 15:28 remaining in harmony with the Father-Son relationship "since the incarnation" might be problematic, at least from a textual basis. I understand what you are getting at, but proving some kind of change between the two eternal persons of Father and Son "since the incarnation" might be difficult to fully work out. But this is, again, where we don't touch on the ontological, but on the functional. And, though I am not claiming any heresy here, I would challenge that Jason's statement, which you quoted, seems to split the two natures a bit too much, if they are as closely intertwined as normally stated within trinitarian formulations. It's not the "divinity of Christ" that is subjected, only his [exalted] humanity. Hmmm..... Not come across that formation previously.

 

You said: Obviously the humanity of Christ is integral to everything said in the passage since the whole chapter is dealing with the resurrection.

 

Ok, the humanity of Christ is integral, at the forefront to the passage. I agree, since he is also being compared to the first Adam, and then Christ's resurrection as a prototype for humanity itself later on in the chapter. So I think this passage causes a lot of Trinitarian tensions. The divinity of Christ is not mentioned, actually very much downplayed. It is the man, or human, Christ who is being portrayed. I mean, check out 1 Cor 15:27-28. There is quite a distinction between "God" and "Christ", the two easily portrayed separately here. I am well aware that we can default back to John's Gospel, Col 1, Heb 1, etc. But I would argue we just need to let this passage be as is as we study this passage directly. Don't talk about Trinity, since it really isn't there. Don't talk about ontological essence and equality. Talk about what Paul is telling the Corinthians. Then, later on, see how we construct a wider and robust christology (and eschatology).

 

You said: Verse 25 prior “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” would suggest that Christ’s reign is time bound. It will simply no longer be required past that point.

 

Doesn't God reign always? Won't he be the one who will be all in all? So how does Christ's reign end if he is the reigning God-Creator?

 

Again, maybe the answer is to let this passage stand as is, though we then need it to form a helpful full biblical theology of Christ. But maybe, as I mentioned, it should be "trumped" by other passages.

[Scott]

Alex - 

 

You said: The administrative construct of the Godhead is just that, an administrative one and not a personal one.

 

As I have mentioned, I am aware of the normative way to approach this trinity, Christ's divinity topic. Normally I hear the difference between ontology and functionality. You've used the words administrative and personal, which I believe bring a somewhat similar focus.

 

It's an approach worth considering, but one well down the line in theological constructs. I'm not sure it helps us deal with 1 Cor 15 on its own basis and what Paul is teaching about Christ, the resurrection, and what that means in the new creation to come.

 

Good stuff. But we are at A. I think you are already at point G or somewhere along the line.

[Alex Guggenheim]

I think what you and Alex have posited are some helpful thinkings, though somewhat extra-biblical and theo-philosophical. I don't think this is wrong, I'm just gonna push us more to deal with the text as is with these verses, before moving on into systematic theological formulations.

Actually what I have said is the direct product of systematic theology regarding Christology, soteriology and trinitarianism. I cannot speak for JFDU.

P.S. There is no tension and there never is in Scripture. The tension does not exist in the Scriptures but in the mind of the person unable to process or interpret biblical revelation and properly reconciling it.

 

You said: The administrative construct of the Godhead is just that, an administrative one and not a personal one.

 

As I have mentioned, I am aware of the normative way to approach this trinity, Christ's divinity topic. Normally I hear the difference between ontology and functionality. You've used the words administrative and personal, which I believe bring a somewhat similar focus.

 

It's an approach worth considering, but one well down the line in theological constructs. I'm not sure it helps us deal with 1 Cor 15 on its own basis and what Paul is teaching about Christ, the resurrection, and what that means in the new creation to come.

 

Good stuff. But we are at A. I think you are already at point G or somewhere along the line.

 

I agree and disagree. Yes, it does not approach the very specific question but no, it should not be considered unhelpful to the specific question. It is a vital element to the entire equation, in the least ancillary but I am being far too forgiving in suggesting even this. I believe it is critical. The nature of the relationship of Christ to the Father in his eternal and resurrected hypostasis cannot be segregated from the relationship on the whole.

[Scott]

Alex -

 

There are no tensions in Scripture? I am not sure I am reading the same Scripture as you.

 

The nature of the relationship of Christ to the Father in his eternal and resurrected hypostasis cannot be segregated from the relationship on the whole.

 

You are very correct here, you decided to focus on the total end product through systematic, theo-philosophical considerations. Both are very worthy disciplines. I had decided to focus simply on the Corinthian text, which I am not sure itself posits any kind of latter systematic approach to Trinitarian thought.

[Jason]

ScottL,

I was specifically addressing 1Cor 15:28. On the other hand, 1Cor 11:3 would be something that I would count among the many verses in John which speak of Jesus being sent by the Father, and the Father being greater than He. There is no ontological difference between the Father and the Son. On the other hand, Jesus' incarnation was an act of obedience and humiliation that was ordained to give glory to the God.

There is also the fact that you seem to be viewing 1Cor 15:28 as the Son being spoken of as deity submitting to deity. It could be that he's simply saying that the Son who is King and second Adam will submit to God, who caused all things to be subjected to the Son, so that God will be all in all. This would be in keeping with the reason for the incarnation.

I'm still just thinking. I've never truly addressed this passage with this matter in mind.

ScottL said:

Jason -

 

It is an interesting thought to ponder, if I understood your premise correctly - that the Son submit himself eternally to the fullness of the triune God. But what seems to be presented in the 1 Cor 15 and 1 Cor 11 passages is the relationship specifically between the Son and Father, not the Son to Trinity.

[Scott]

Jason -

 

There is also the fact that you seem to be viewing 1Cor 15:28 as the Son being spoken of as deity submitting to deity.

 

This is exactly what I am saying 1 Cor 15 is notsaying.

 

But, of course, that is how it is usually seen, is it not? The divine Son submitting to the divineFather.

 

I am more saying about the passage what you said afterthat, but with an extra phrase added in: It could be that he's simply saying that the Son who is King and second Adam will submit to God, who caused all things to be subjected to the Son, [with the Son then turning over those things back to God], so that God will be all in all.

 

I'm still just thinking. I've never truly addressed this passage with this matter in mind.

 

I'm not sure this text is a normative "trinitarian" text looked to, in the way that we normally develop trinitarian thought. But it might be worth considering it within that overall systematic approach once we see what this text is actually communicating in its context.