As of late, there has been some dialog and debate regarding the subordination of the Trinitarian persons of the one God. Is the subordination eternal, was it limited to earth, did Christ have two wills and does he even now possess this in light of his continued prayers for us to God the Father in Heaven?
To be honest, many of us are guilty of over-generalizing our ideas about God and his Trinitarian expression. And while I might wish to write on the subject, I believe there are far superior works being offered than I could muster which comprehensively cover the nuances of the doctrines.
Don't be anxious to take a position, by the way. There are people with agendas who have a fixed position with short-sighted and poor theological arguments for support. Don't do that. Take your time, a lifetime if needed, to come to a conclusion. Yes, cut out the clear error but concede where the details require delicate and magnified examination. Do your homework, do not avoid due diligence on the matter which brings me to my blog post.
Question
Paul writes about our Lord, Jesus the Christ, when he was resurrected and entered into heaven with the Father (Philippians 2:9):
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Which clearly begs the question, If Jesus is already God and equal with God the Father, how can anything be added to his person and be given a name above all names, doesn't he already possess this?
Answer
The most immediate answer comes from the soulishly staggering fact that when Christ returned, he did not return in the manner in which he left, before his incarnation. Our Lord returned as both God and man, eternal in being.
The second person of the Trinity, God the Son, was not only God in returning but also man, eternally. He took within his person a human nature.
Thus, after his advent on earth and upon his return, where he completed the mission of salvation for man and defeat of Satan, via the plan of co-council of the Godhead, in obedience to God the Father, having humbled, obeyed and suffered, even unto the death of the cross, he did not return just as God but the God-man which required the adjudication and inauguration of his God-man person, as God.
So when we think of Christ as God, understand, he really is one of us. He is human, while God, both eternal. And he pleads for us to God the Father and Paul writes in Romans 8:34:
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather
who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for
us.
Final Thoughts
My goal, here, was not an attempt to tackle the issue of Trinitarian subordination rather, it was to stop at this single sidebar and demonstrate that this lone point, itself, in light of the entire matter could take a year or two of a person's life to fully grasp in a theologically consanguineous manner.
So when you imagine you have a fixed position on this issue, stop for a bit. Understand that there are theological subtitles and complexities which simply may not be by-passed and unfortunately are, by some.
It does not mean one cannot come to firm ends on the controversy and teach with confidence, a certain position. But what it should reveal is that as a sophisticated doctrine, you need time and a humbled ego in your spirit-filled pursuit along with an appreciation for the work of others.
If you believe you know the correct position without a careful and prolonged study, you're wrong. You might think you know or you might have been given, by the work of another, what you believe is as good as it gets but if you haven't taken the time to think, study, think some more, identify weaknesses in your views and so forth, you don't know.
As far as its relevance to marriage, it does exist as an example of personal egalitarianism while functioning in an administratively subordinate role, even if it is limited to earth.
But removing it as an example, the Bible is quite clear that in marriage there are two officers, the husband and the wife, male and female, in that order. One is the Commanding Officer, the other, respectively, the Executive Officer. The problem is not the administrative design, it is with the thinking and behaving of its occupants.
*The picture is of a book by the late R.B. Thieme Jr. who is a greatly respected but much maligned, by a vocal minority, Bible teacher and Pastor of 50 years whose work many men use but not enough give him credit for his tremendous contribution to modern dispensational theology.
While I cannot say, or at least prefer not to say, that I am a "dispensationalist" (mostly due to its implications in the minds of those who are ignorant of its intended general designation and not a specific kind of dispensationalist they often have in mind), I am dispensational. And one of the reasons that even the most modest student of Theology can and should accept the dispensational concept is reflected in this schematic by the late R.B. Thieme. It can be found at the R.B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries website.
I significantly appreciate the three major distinctions or eras which Thieme presents in his divine outline of human history. It is consistent, not only in regard to dispensational theology but with other schools of theology (with the exception of amillenialists who would combine the christocentric and eschatological periods). Interestingly, this is a point where you may find common ground (at least in its most basic form with these three eras) with many other believers who do not share your overall dispensational approach. Those distinctive periods you can see at the top of the chart:
- Theocentric
- Christocentric
- Eschatological
Some people bristle at organizational schematics charted this way when it pertains to Biblical doctrines or Biblical themes. Most of those I have encountered prefer more esoterically stated views which do not present such demonstrative boundaries. Others do not like it because dispensational charts began with art forms and schematics which used methods of illustration that have become dated work. That is, the method of charting and illustrating takes one back to another time in history. Hence, some transfer this dated art association onto the theology being reflected, often a prejudice unbeknown to themselves.
While it is true that some of the theology of such charts is imperfect and some wrong, neither the concept of charting and grafting nor the substance of the charting and grafting illustration should be treated as presumptive errors. Sadly, it is treated as methodological error and subsequently or by consequence theological error by many who appeal to being beyond charted enlightenment and prefer, instead, to communicate only in a volume of words. But conversely, should we stop using words because in the past the Bible Teaching with words of some men was imperfect or wrong? How silly on both ends.
Thieme identifies six unique dispensations in the three eras in his divine outline of human history:
- The Age of the Gentiles (pre-Israel and the beginning of the Theocentric era)
- The Age of Israel
- The Age of the Hypostatic Union (which also appears to usher in the greater, Christocentric era)
- The Church Age
- The Tribulation (bringing in the Eschalogical era)
- The Millenium
The chart is not an exhaustively detailed one on purpose (I believe) which is why some charts from the past have not aged well. Such mechanical illustrations have real limits and are best suited for frame-work or theological bones. The details themselves are more effectively filled in through regular doctrinal instruction. That is to say, in order to narrow our focus to a particular dispensation, the details of that dispensation and how it relates to all other events along with any changes in the protocol for believers can only effectively be understood through the rigors of regular and repetitive teaching. Charts could, at best, crudely contain bits of all the necessary subordinate detailed information and in only having bits of other vital information, misunderstanding can arise the more detail is attempted with the limited medium of charts and/or graphs.
With regard to covenants, Thieme observes a critical distinction in recognizing that the Land Covenant to Israel is unconditional and never rescinded while the Mosaic Covenant of an earthly Kingdom is rescinded and supercede with a New Covenant which is expressed as the Church, the body of Chirst, which has distinct and certain protocols, far unlike that of the Mosaic Covenant. This New Covenant is to the entire world, without genetic or geographic distinction.
In other words, Israel or the Jews are not "God's people" today, the church is but the Land Covenant, itself, is still in tact though Israel/the Jews are not God's people. This geographic unconditional covenant, of course, is much of what Middle East tension is about today and has been for centuries and why many in the United States believe that support for Israel's right to the geographic boundaries set forth in the Land Covenant is rightfully or justly asserted, protect and preserved.
I am also appreciative of Thieme's presentation of the Hypostatic Union of Christ-our Lord's earthly ministry-as a special dispensation. This is something I believe has been overlooked by many Theologians as a true categorical difference which mediates the Age of Israel and the Church Age. The special properties of our Lord and his ministry convince me that the special elevation as a dispensation by Thieme is valid.
So as these things go, enjoy it one way or the other.
