dogmadekate

“And that is why they are so adamant that Christ was always Christ and always secondary to the Father, even though the Bible says that The Word’s subjection has to do with the incarnation. ”

This is why I find it so strange that there is even an argument out there about this. It seems to me, that those who believe that Jesus was subject to the Father for eternity and not just as the result of the incarnation have not read Phillipians 2:5-7.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

He made HIMSELF nothing in the form of the incarnation, it was the choice of Jesus to take on the incarnation it was the choice of Jesus to take on a human form. Clearly Jesus had as much say in the matter as the Father (considering how they are ONE that seems pretty understandable). And then it goes on to clearly say that being IN HUMAN FORM He is humbled to the point of obedience to the Father. It’s right there. IN HUMAN FORM. Clearly the obedience came upon the taking of the human form.

Now, as I’ve said before, I’m no theologian or anything and I suppose I could be misinterpreting what seems to be a pretty straightforeward passage but I just don’t see how the argument that Jesus was subject to the Father even before and after the incarnation is even supposed to work considering the Oneness of the Trinity and I certainly don’t see it supported Biblically.

Thank you to Kbonikowsky and PinkLight for shedding light on this for me. I get it now. I had come to believe that Jesus IS God and therefore, except when taking on the role of the Messiah, could be nothing but equal to God. Which is part of why the complementarian view was confusing to me. The Trinity is kind of hard to conceptualize I think so I wanted to make sure I was understanding the complementarian and egalitarian views correctly.

The whole idea that comps believe the husband to be like God to their wives…I just really don’t even know what to say about that except, maybe, wow. I’m really not trying to sound snarky, but that’s just, whoa.

I can honestly say that I really didn’t grasp the fact that this issue ran so deep so thank you both for helping me out here. I’m definately interested to see where the rest of this discussion goes and to learn a bit more about what I once considered to be something of a “side-issue”.

Can I send out a dumb layperson’s SOS? I’m no theologian (nor do I have a PhD in physics) and in fact I’m rather new to Christianity at least as an adult so I will fully admit that I need things dumbed down in this area of study, in other words I am beyond lost.
Here’s where I am (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong):
Jesus was fully human and fully God. To be “the Christ” he had to be fully human. So the term Christ refers to his humanity(?) I think. So I think I get that. My question is how does all of this fit into complementarian vs. egalitarian viewpoints regarding women? I’m not really seeing where these issues are connected.

I’m sorry for being such an absolute dunce by the way, but I really am confused.

Thank you for posting this. It was very informative. I’ve been struggling with the concept of biblical submission myself and trying to determine what it all means lately. Most blogs I’ve come across have been ones claiming that Paul was telling women to submit to their husbands as a sort of eternal God given mandate placing men in authority over their wives “to keep order”. In other words a “you’re equal but your not” contradiction. When I read the passages in Ephesians it seemed to me as though Paul was telling husbands and wives to submit to each other (v.21) and then going on to correct specific considerations for the culture. He seemed to be telling women to submit to their husbands in a different way than how they were already doing. In other words women were already expected to submit to their husbands and that wasn’t going to change anytime soon. But women were frequently submitting to their husbands because of cultural obligation, Paul was telling them to submit to their husbands out of love giving the Church and it’s relationship to Christ as an example for how they should approach their marriage. Paul then went on to tell husbands to love their wives and elevate them beyond just sexual property. He wanted men to love their wives the way that Christ loved the Church. At the time men typically married for financial or social gain and love was rarely a consideration. So when I read it it seems like Paul’s main message has very little to do with trying to keep “order” in society by keeping women in their place for eternity but instead his concern was trying to put love as a priority in relationships, including marriages.
Perhaps I’m wrong but I was just really glad to see that there are other, well thought out, well researched opinions out there besides just the “submit graciously to your husbands authority” position.