On Christ’s Nature
'...Letham argues that the human nature of Christ demands His eternal submission. He reasons that if Christ was subordinated in taking flesh to become man, as all agree, He must be subordinated eternally because He continues in a hypostatic union to be God and man. In this argument Letham fails to make the theologically important distinction between the subordinate, suffering, and humiliated incarnate Son on earth and the exalted, glorified, and triumphant Son now reigning as Lord. This contrast between the two epochs in the ministry of the one Christ is a fundamental of orthodox Christology, possibly most helpfully developed in the Reformed distinction between Christ’s “state of humiliation” in the incarnation on earth and “His state of exaltation” in heaven as the reigning Lord of the universe.
What this distinction makes clear is that in returning to heaven as God and man, the Son’s divine nature was not subordinated in any way because of His human nature; rather His human nature was exalted so that as God and man the Son could rule as omnipotent God. The united voice of the New Testament states that after His resurrection and exaltation, the Son is no longer the “submissive Son,” the second Adam, who obeys the Father to win our salvation, but the Lord and head of the universe. Letham seems to miss this idea completely in this unfortunate digression in his book.'
It will be interesting to look at the trinity at college, which is a module I get to study soon. As an open evangelical college, we seek to be open to lots of different theological thoughts on matters but are then encouraged to wrestle with scholarly opinions and make up our own minds - no mean feat.
I know that there are lots of opinions about the trinity and the relations between the persons of the Godhead and it is the reason why many people have been brought to faith by the way in which God has spoken to them through 'The Shack', which has also received a mixed press, largely negative, in conservative evangelical churches because of how Young presents the perichoresis within the trinity. We are still attempting to fathom the mystery of the trinity, despite the Council of Nicea.
I understand Giles better than I understand Grudem. I have tried hard to comprehend the argument put forward by Bruce and Ware but it just makes my brain ache.
I am aware that PaulaFether did some work on this debate, which i hope to return to, if ever I get to write about the relations in the trinity.
Apart from Grudem and Ware and George Knight III, are there any theologians who argue that because Jesus is somehow eternally subordinate (is he?), women should be subordinate to men? Are there any other theologians whom I might find more convincing and less difficult to follow than Grudem, Ware and Knight?
For more on this debate look here