Thursday, November 5, 2009

Is the Creation a gift or an obligation for the Son?

Thinking about subordinationism.

Is the creation essentially an obligation put on the Son by the Father, or a gift to the Son from the Father.

Those who support the eternal subordination of the Son seem to jump to command/obedience as the fundamental distinction in this 'ordering under'. Yet if you give me a gift, there is a specific and ordered relationship between us. You give and I obediently receive.

If the Fathers giving of the kingdom to his Son is seen as the primary category that we read off the economy, this changes pretty radically the way eternal subordination is used in say, debates about the subordination of women.(or slaves for that matter).
How might this 'gift' of the Father be thought of in the eternal God, aside from Creation? Probably as the eternal generation of the Son. Yet we have to distinguish between the gift of 'being' to the Son, and the gift of creation to the Son. Nevertheless, this quality of 'reception' seems to be a better candidate than 'obedience'. (or perhaps 'obedience' itself should be reframed as receptivity? Jesus obedience then, is committing his life into the hands of the Father, his Sonship is receiveing the resurrection)


I think this may be why one of my Doctrine lectures has shifted his language to an eternal 'taxis' in the Trinity. The fear is that when we say 'subordination' we aren't reading it off the economy at all, but off the practices of the Gentile rulers, who Lord it over their subjects.

(off course the cheeky end to this is that Jesus hands the kingdom back to his Father!)

2 comments:

byron smith said...

This is a really interesting thought.

Another word for receptivity is thankfulness. So thankfulness is (part of?) the eternal constitution of the Son's being.

Mike W said...

Sure, why not?