Here, briefly, is another thought on the temporality of the subordination of Jesus Christ as God's Son.
As I understand eternal subordinationism (ES) the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Father and the Son (with debate, naturally, between Western and Eastern versions of ES, as to whether the Spirit is subordinate to the Father alone, or to Father and Son).
How then to explain Luke 4:1 and parallels:
'And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness'?
Incidentally, in the same gospel story Jesus submits himself to the devil, allowing the latter to take him to Jerusalem (4:9).
The point, of course, is not that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Spirit, or subordinate in any significant way to the devil. Rather that Scripture speaking about the earthly dimensions of the life and mission of the incarnate Son speaks in a manner consistent with the human life of the Son as a human agent of God's purposes (e.g. 'full of the Spirit' and 'led by the Spirit'). But this language is not intended to say anything about the eternal life of the Son in the being of God.
8 comments:
Have a look at this article at CBMW about the 'role' of women in heaven.
Given that gender identity will remain, is there evidence that functional distinctions will likewise remain in the new creation? Will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? How will we relate to one another? Will male headship apply?
And the answer is:
There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God's "very good" creation will remain. There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain.
Given that eternal subordinationists will not accept that Gen 3:16b, "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," (RSV) is descriptive rather than prescriptive and is a result of the Fall rather than God's original design for male/female relationships, you are never going to convince any of them that Jesus Christ's subordination to God was only temporal. They are beyond reason. They think they are rich and need nothing, but they are, "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." (Rev 3:17)
One of the things that bothered me most after years of trying to be a good submissive wife is that eventually I ceased to be a person. It was as though I was an appendage of my husband; like his left big toe or something similar. No mind of my own. Waggling whenever he felt like waggling. If the eternal subordinationists are right (and I don't think they are) I would prefer never to have been born.
You men can treat this as an interesting subject for discussion among yourselves but women have to live it, up close and personal, having the joy of life bled out of us, some of us becoming depressed and thinking how nice it might be to step in front of a fast-moving car and make a quick end of the misery of having to prove every idea beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not necessarily succeeding even then if the idea doesn't suit His Lordship's timing, preferences or whatever other approval process for changing his own ways he might decide on. But if the CBMW crowd are right then, no matter how much I've loved and served the Lord during my life, dying won't end my servile, second-class status.
Homosexuals of either sex can decide not to indulge in homosexual activity. Women can't decide not to be women.
It's really odd, given that women have traditionally had such a major role in raising children in our society, and forming their minds, that so-called Christian men should be working so hard to make Christian women's lives, in this world and the next, appear so deathly unattractive to non-Christian women. I can only assume that the responsible men are control freaks who are in love with the idea of being in control.
Hi Janice
Thanks for drawing attention to this sad misunderstanding of heaven. Please do not shape your life according to CBMW!
I have been intrigued that on a discussion thread I have joined in a little re calling God 'He' or 'She' (at the Ugley Vicar, see a post below this), its 95% men having the discussion.
Men should not be controlling women in the Christian community.
Hi Peter,
re calling God 'He' or 'She'
I've read the arguments and don't know what the big deal is. Before ultrasound and other, more invasive procedures, we had no way of knowing what the sex of our unborn child was. I don't recall any problem with describing the baby as 'it' and knitting yellow booties rather than pink or blue ones. But then, I'm a woman and more interested in the baby than in its sex.
The discrepancy of your comment, Janice, is not lost on homosexuals. Your heart-felt plea contending that “men can treat this as an interesting subject for discussion among yourselves but women have to live it, up close and personal, having the joy of life bled out of us, some of us becoming depressed and thinking how nice it might be to step in front of a fast-moving car and make a quick end of the misery of having to prove every idea beyond a shadow of a doubt…” translates directly by replacing “men” with “heterosexuals” and “women” with “homosexuals”. It appears that you yourself realise this intuitively as you immediately add a paragraph that underscores the point in your inability to follow your own logic.
There you talk about being a woman but acting homosexually. It is not being a woman that is discussed, it is the behaviour, the action of women that is the issue. Yet when you, clearly a heterosexual, realise the implications of your logic for homosexuals – you back off of the logic of your own approach. The energetic compassion you appear to learn from your own situation, forming the hermeneutical lenses through which you read the Bible, sadly does not translate to those who differ from you.
Sorry, anonymous, but you're the one with the faulty logic.
There is nothing inherently wrong with preaching a sermon or leading or teaching men. These acts only become wrong, in the eyes of some, if they are performed by women. The action is not the issue. The sex of the person performing the action is the issue.
Regarding homosexual activity the issue is whether or not the activity is inherently wrong. The sex of those who participate in it is irrelevant.
Finally, unless you are a mind-reader you have no way of knowing for whom I have compassion.
Merely asserting that my logic is wrong without explanation does not make it so.
What is this “homosexual activity” that you suggest might (or might not) be “inherently wrong” whilst “the sex of those who participate in it is irrelevant”? You must be using language in a way that is novel for most – so please explain as you may, hence, be uniquely positioned to provide the breakthrough that this blog so dearly seeks.
To follow your own logic: “There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual activity with a woman. These acts only become wrong, in the eyes of some, if they are performed by women. The action is not the issue. The sex of the person performing the action is the issue.”
Anonymous, you wrote:
What is this “homosexual activity” that you suggest might (or might not) be “inherently wrong” whilst “the sex of those who participate in it is irrelevant”?
I will try to clarify for you. Both men and women perform homosexual acts; men with men and women with women. What is at issue is not whether it is right for men to perform homosexual acts with men but wrong for women to perform homosexual acts with women, or vice versa. The issue is whether it is wrong or right for any person of either sex to perform homosexual acts which, by definition, are with a person of the same sex. To that extent the sex of the persons involved is irrelevant. The issue is homosexual activity, not the sex of the persons involved.
You also wrote:
To follow your own logic: “There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual activity with a woman. These acts only become wrong, in the eyes of some, if they are performed by women. The action is not the issue. The sex of the person performing the action is the issue.”
Did you not notice the word 'only'? Sexual acts with a woman do not only become wrong, in the eyes of some, if they are performed by women. They also become wrong if they are performed against the woman's will, if they are performed by someone who is under the age of consent, or if they are performed by a man to whom the woman is not married.
I do not hope to convince you of anything. You appear to want to believe that homosexual acts are just a variant of 'normal'. If that's what you want then it's highly unlikely that anything I can say will change your mind. What you, or others with similar interests, have to do is show that homosexual acts truly are just a variant of 'normal'. That means that you, or others with similar interests, have to show that people really are naturally 'born that way', that there really is something like a 'gay gene' that makes it impossible for someone possessing this 'gay gene' to ever be anything but gay, and that homosexuality is not just a poor adaptation to the stresses of failure to achieve normal gender identification. In that way you, or others with similar interests, can show that the Bible is in error not just at Leviticus 18:22 but also at Romans 1: 26-27.
Quoting a couple of bible verses out of context is precisely what you appear to be against when it comes to the place of women – but is fine for you in the case of homosexuals! Leviticus 18:22 in fact states “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” When applied to you, of course, that means your only option is to have sex with a woman – sex for you, according to that verse literally, is forbidden with a male.
As to your Romans quote “26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Clearly for homosexuals to go against their natural desires is here condemned.
As for your suggestion of a “gay gene” – anyone who has spent five minutes on identical twin studies knows that to be another heterosexist myth. Next you will be testing for it and making sure it is eradicated from the human race just like other of God’s “aberrations”!
I presume you are just as strong in your teachings from Leviticus 15:19-24; 18:19; 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6; 22:10 (oops – sorry, I ended up with more verses than your anti-homosexual ones – I should stop in case I embarrass you).
So back to your inability to follow your own logic. You continue to refer to “homosexual acts” as if heterosexuals can do “homosexual acts”. All I know of is “sexual acts” – and following your original logic of “there is nothing inherently wrong with an act (preaching a sermon or leading or teaching men). These acts only become wrong, in the eyes of some, if they are performed by a specific gender (women). The action is not the issue. The sex of the person performing the action is the issue.”
You have yet to explain why you see the Bible to be wrong about one but not about the other. The place of women is a MUCH bigger teaching in the Bible with a consistent 2,000 year old tradition of interpretation, than the relatively new issue of sexual activity between committed homosexuals (a term not found in the Bible – whilst the term “women” actually is).
Post a Comment