but if some affirm even further, that the man Christ
Jesus has already been changed into the substance of
God, at least they cannot deny that the human nature
still remained, when He said before His passion, "For
my Father is greater than I;" whence there is no
question that it was said in this sense, that the
Father is greater than the form of a servant, to whom
in the form of God the Son is equal. Nor let any one,
hearing what the apostle says, "But when He saith all
things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is
excepted which did put all things under Him," think
the words, that He hath put all things under the Son,
to be so understood of the Father, as that He should
not think that the Son Himself put all things under
Himself. For this the apostle plainly declares, when
he says to the Philippians, "For our conversation is
in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour,
the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body,
according to the working whereby He is able even to
subdue all things unto Himself." For the working of
the Father and of the Son is indivisible. Otherwise,
neither hath the Father Himself put all things under
Himself, but the Son hath put all things under Him,
who delivers the kingdom to Him, and puts down all
rule and all authority and power. For these words are
spoken of the Son: "When He shall have delivered up,"
says the apostle, "the kingdom to God, even the
Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all
authority, and all power." For the same that puts
down, also makes subject (De Trinitate 1.8.15).
neither may we think that Christ shall so give up
the kingdom to God, even the Father, as that He shall
take it away from Himself. For some vain talkers have
thought even this. For when it is said, "He shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father," He
Himself is not excluded; cause He is one God together
with the Father (Ibid. 1.8.16).
Wherefore, having mastered this rule for
interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God,
that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the
form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and
what to the form of a servant which He took, in which
He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted
by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings
of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy
Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the
Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we
have already shown: but according to the form of a
servant He is less than the Father, because He Himself
has said, "My Father is greater than I;" and He is
less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He
emptied Himself;" and He is less than the Holy Spirit,
because He Himself says, "Whosoever speaketh a word
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven Him (Ibid. 1.11.22).
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Saturday, October 24, 2015
De Trinitate 1.8.15-16 and 1.11.22 (Augustine on 1 Corinthians 15:28)
Concerning 1 Cor. 15:28, here are some quotes from Augustine's De Trinitate:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to justify his thinking, but he is possibly reasoning the other way around--the doctrine of the Trinity necessitates that the three persons act/work indivisibly. This notion also stems from the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust looking at Augustine reasoning on Phil. 3:21 "according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." This seems plausible for a moment, until one remembers that: "( all ) power" was "given" to him by guess who? And when one remembers the words: "I can do nothing of myself" etc. So, it was not inherent power stemming from his, (i.e. any), pre, or non human nature, but adequate, (i.e. "all" the "power" necessary), for him to carry out the purpose, will, counsel, and good pleasure of: "his God and Father" Rev. 1:6.
ReplyDeleteHo he can deny the obvious, (that it was the Father who makes subject "all things"), in 1st Cor. 15:24-28, just simply astounds me.
Sean: I'm not trying to defend Augustine or Trinitarians, and it's true that acts like creation, sanctification, or redemption don't necessitate three persons, but do Trinitarians believe in a triune being? Is there not one divine being constituted by three persons? One writer penned a book on the tripersonal God, although the Trinity says the persons are distinct from one another; however, Tertullian and others deny that they're separate.
ReplyDeleteMatthew13weedhacker: Augustine might say that the Son qua man was given authority, but not the Son qua God. But I agree that his "exegesis" of 1 Cor 15:28ff is way off.
ReplyDeleteJust an interesting point or two I thought I'd like to share.
ReplyDeleteJames Leonard Papendrea, in his: "Novatian of Rome - The Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy," made some thought provoking comments about the second century Apologists "Logos Christology,” or doctrine.
He brought up, the common concept they< (the Apologists, seem to share about the Logos. They taught that the Logos resided in the Father, as an undifferentiated, (i.e. in a person-al sense), part of the Father, (as a thought or idea etc residing within His mind). And taught that the Logos did not "become" the Son, until his "procession" from out of the Father, and/or his temporal "generation," (actually "creation" = my opinion).
And also, because the likes of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus etc, sometimes blurred the identity of “the spirit” with the "Logos," (= again undifferentiated in a person-al sense), well, actually did appear to identify them as one and the same person in a few cases, (also Ignatius and Shepherd of Hermas did the same).
So, in brief summary:
[1.] The Son was not differentiated from the Father as a separate person before his generation
[2.] The Son was not differentiated from the spirit as a separate person post his generation.
He remarked, that this idea, found in their, (generally considered as “Orthodox”), works and teaching, may have in fact, and in part, directly contributed to the rise of 2nd-3rd century “Modalism.”
I found that an interesting thought.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xl.html
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with whether the Son is truly God or not. The textual context is about the end of the world after the universal resurrection, which is separated from God by sin; because with the final act of Christ's redemptive work, the resurrection, everything is completed, so that Christ can return humanity to God, over which sin and death, the power of the flesh, the world, and the devil, ceases. Paul says, to God and the Father; because then humanity is generally subjected to God, to the three divine persons, but especially to the Father, inasmuch as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God, and thus, in this humanity united with the Son, the entire redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father. Nevertheless, Paul means to say, since all authority is with the Son, it does not mean that the Father has renounced everything or subjected Himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they pass on authority and possessions to their sons. The apostle might have felt it necessary to make this remark for the Christians converted from paganism, who could think of the pagan myth at the mention of Christ's reign, according to which Jupiter deprived his father Saturn of his kingdom and authority.
After all enemies are defeated, and all people, as well as angels, are subjected to the Son, then He Himself will also be subjected to God, so that God may be the sole ruler, and everything depends directly on Him. Since Christ, with the reborn, redeemed people, forms the new humanity, the new generation, and He, as the head, is inseparable from the body: it is natural that He too will be subjected to God, as will every individual member of this new generation; however, this subjection really only applies to His human nature. The expression "that God may be all in all" signifies God's perfect sovereignty over creation.
After the resurrection will come the Last Judgment and the end of the world. According to His human nature, the Lord Jesus is the lord and king of the whole created world, primarily of humanity, but also the mediator for the redeemed humanity before the heavenly Father. After the judgment, Christ's mediating role ceases, and eternal happiness will be directly under God's kingdom. Therefore, after the Last Judgment, the rule of Jesus Christ transitions into the direct, eternal rule of God. The Son subjects Himself to the Father: according to His human nature. Scripture also teaches that in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15, 23). Jesus subjected Himself (hypotasso) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all", but this does not at all imply inferiority, since He also subjected Himself (hypotasso) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 states, "Christ is all, and in all".
This place (like Jn 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 11:3, and similar declarations in the New Testament) can only be correctly understood concerning the order of salvation ("status oeconomiae" - the state of salvation orders) and within the Trinity (the mutual relations of the divine persons). God, the Father, has placed His Son above all creation, "putting everything under his feet" (v. 27). However, this is only valid for the time until the final fulfillment of things. In the end, the Son will hand over everything to the Father, who subjected everything to Him, and He Himself will also eternally exercise His filial position ("subordination"), which He already occupied in relation to the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. Otherwise, He would not be the Son - even if begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning -, and thereby divine in essence. (That is, Jesus differs only in His Sonship - this is expressed by "begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning" -, otherwise, He possesses the same divine essence, power, "from eternity, without beginning") The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so the self-subjection does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if by doing so He would renounce some of His dignity.
ReplyDeleteDoes 1 Corinthians 15:28 deny that the Son is one in essence with the Father and prove that He has no Divine nature? Does the subjection mentioned in the verse prove that He is merely a creature, infinitely inferior in being, from eternity past to eternity future, to the Father—as is true of necessity for all of creation when contrasted to the Creator? Apart from the fact that such an affirmation would contradict vast numbers of passages of Scripture, it would be hard to see the contextual significance of such an affirmation in 1 Corinthians 15, with its emphasis upon the resurrection from the dead. Furthermore, if the verse speaks of a subordination of being, why is it that only when “all things shall be subdued unto him [Christ]” that “then shall the Son also himself be subject”? Why the “then” in the verse? If the apostle Paul wished to teach Unitarianism in this verse, how could he declare that only at this future period of time, only “then” in the eternal state, will the Son be subject? Is the Son equal to the Father now, but “then” He will no longer be equal? Would it not be the strangest of affirmations to declare that, at this present time, a part of creation, Christ, is equal in nature to his Creator, God, but in the future this created being will be inferior in his essence?
If Arians wish to use 1 Corinthians 15:28 is to prove an ontological subordination of the Son to the Father, they would need to believe that the essence of the Son changes, so that He currently has an equal and unsubordinated Divine nature, but He will somehow surrender that nature in the future for one that is unequal and subject. Furthermore, if the Son is no longer to be Ruler of all, why do many passages of Scripture affirm that He “shall reign . . . for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end . . . of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end . . . upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. . . . All people, nations, and languages, [will] serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. . . . the everlasting kingdom [belongs to] our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. . . . Christ . . . shall reign for ever and ever . . . Unto the Son [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (Luke 1:33; Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:14; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 11:15; Hebrews 1:8)? It is true that the saints will also reign for ever (Daniel 7:18; Revelation 22:5), but this sort of patently subordinate authority cannot be compared with the manner of the Son’s kingship as Jehovah from eternity past to eternity future; it is utterly contrary to Scripture to compare the subordinate reign of the saints within the kingdom of God to the sovereign rule over the kingdom of “the Son” of whom it is said, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Hebrews 1:8).
ReplyDeleteOntology simply does not fit the sense of 1 Corinthians 15:28 at all; the subordination is of necessity one of role or office, an economic subordination pertaining to the Son as the Mediator. The Arian view of 1 Corinthians 15:28 contradicts the rest of the Bible and does not make sense of the verse itself in context. This should be expected, because it differs radically from the intention of the apostle who penned it, and of the Holy Spirit who gave the verse by inspiration.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 110 deals with the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, a rulership that concerns the Son as the God-man or Theanthropos, which He fully assumed at His ascension, and which will have its manner of administration altered markedly at the consumation of time spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
ReplyDelete“The mediatorial kingdom may be defined . . . as the rule of God through a divinely chosen representative who not only speaks and acts for God but also represents the people before God; a rule which has especial reference to the human race (although it finally embraces the universe); and its mediatorial ruler is always a member of the human race” (“The Greatness of the Kingdom,” Part I, Alva J. McClain, Bibliotheca Sacra 112:445 (Jan 1955) p. 18). In the eternal state, “When the last enemy is put down by our Lord as the mediatorial king, when even death itself is abolished and complete harmony is established, then the purpose of his mediatorial kingdom will have been fulfilled. Then the Son will deliver up his kingdom to God the Father, to be merged into the eternal kingdom, thus being perpetuated forever, but no longer as a separate entity (1 Cor 15:24–28). This does not mean the end of the rule of our Lord Jesus Christ. He only ceases to reign as the mediatorial King in history. But as the only begotten Son, very God of very God, He shares with the other Persons of the Triune God the throne of the eternal kingdom. In that final and eternal city of God, center of a redeemed new heaven and earth, there is but one throne. It is called. ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb’ (Rev 22:3–5)” (“The Greatness of the Kingdom, Part IV: The Mediatorial Kingdom from the Acts Period to the Eternal State,” McClain, Bibliotheca Sacra 112:448 (Oct 55) p. 310]. The four parts of McClain’s series on the Kingdom in Bibliotheca Sacra (12:445 (Jan 55) p. 11-27; 112:446 (Apr 55) p. 107-124; 112:447 (Jul 55) p. 209-224; 112:448 (Oct 55) p. 304-311) are very helpful in understanding the concept of the mediatorial kingdom and its distinction from the eternal kingdom of God.
The “messianic or mediatorial kingdom . . . belongs to Christ, not as the Logos, but as the Son of Man, the Theanthropos; God manifest in the flesh. . . . Viewed as extending over all creatures, it is a kingdom of power, which, according to 1 Corinthians 15:24, he shall deliver up to God even the Father, when his mediatorial work is accomplished” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 4:4:4:5, 7 (sec. “The Kingdom of Heaven” in “The Concomitants of the Second Advent” elec. acc. in Christian Library Series, vol. 17: Systematic Theologies, AGES Library, Rio, WI: 2006).
“As eternal Son, the 2nd person doubtless shares forever, the natural and infinite dominion of the Godhead. But this Mediatorial kingdom is conferred and economical, exercised not merely in His divine nature, but by Him as Theanthropos. . . . the passage from 1 Corinthians 15:24 . . . [indicates] a striking change will then take place in the method of the mediatorial kingdom . . . it will consist largely in this, that Christ’s power over the universe . . . will be returned to the [Triune] Godhead. But the restoration of the [saints] to the Father, as an accomplished enterprise, is to be received, not as implying a severance of Christ’s headship, but as a surrendering of Himself along with it, body and head, as an aggregate. Let 1 Corinthians 3:23 be compared. . . . [T]he dominion of the God-man over wicked men and angels and inanimate nature is resorted to the Godhead, so that it may again be “all in all.” (Dabney, Systematic and Polemic Theology, Lecture 45, “Christ’s Humiliation and Exaltation,” elec. acc. Christian Library Series, vol. 17, AGES Software).
The passage refers of necessity to the mediatorial kingdom, not the universal kingdom of God, because v. 24 indicates that the reign in question is not in the hands of the Father— God never ceases to reign in His universal kingdom. The context of the passage strongly emphasizes the humanity of Christ; He died and rose again in His human nature, (v. 20); He is the second Adam, and the salvation of the elect requires that the Lord Jesus is as equally “man” as he who sinned in the Garden of Eden (v. 21-22); He is the head and representative of redeemed mankind (v. 23); He is the human Messiah (v. 24-26), who, as “man . . . and the son of man,” has been given dominion over the creation (v. 27; Psalm 8:6, 4), and who mediates the rule of God over all the universe and puts “all things under his feet” (v. 25; Psalm 8:6-8) until the time when all evil is finally and utterly destroyed and the eternal state commences (v. 28). “When He has put all His enemies under His feet, and has given back the kingdom to His Father (for it is never taken from Him, nor given to another, as happens with human kingdoms), then the Son Himself is subject to Him who has put all things under Him, in order that God may be all in all. The reader should observe, that it is the counsels of God with regard to the government of all things which is here spoken of, and not His nature; and moreover it is the Son, as man, of whom these things are said. This is not an arbitrary explanation: the passage is from Psalm 8, the subject of which is the exaltation of man to the position of head of all things, God putting all things under His feet. Nothing, says the apostle, is excepted (Hebrews 2:8) save, as he adds here, that He is necessarily excepted who put all things under Him. When the man Christ, the Son of God, has in fact accomplished this subjugation, He gives back to God the universal power which had been committed to Him, and the mediatorial kingdom, which He held as man, ceases. He is again subject, as He was on earth. He does not cease to be one with the Father, even as He was so while living in humiliation on the earth, although saying at the same time “Before Abraham was, I am.” But the mediatorial government of man has disappeared — is absorbed in the supremacy of God, to which there is no longer any opposition. Christ will take His eternal place, a Man, the Head of the whole redeemed family, being at the same time God blessed for ever, one with the Father. In Psalm 2 we see the Son of God, as born on earth, King in Zion, rejected when He presented Himself on earth; in Psalm 8 the result of His rejection, exalted as Son of man at the head of all that the hand of God has made. Then we find Him here laying down this conferred authority, and resuming the normal position of humanity, namely, that of subjection to Him who has put all things under Him; but through it all, never changing His divine nature, nor — save so far as exchanging humiliation for glory — His human nature either. But God is now all in all, and the special government of man in the Person of Jesus — a government with which the assembly is associated (see Ephesians 1:20-23, which is a quotation from the same Psalm) is merged in the immutable supremacy of God, the final and normal relationship of God with His creature. We shall find the Lamb omitted in that which is said in Revelation 21:1-8, speaking of this same period. Thus we find in this passage [1 Corinthians 15] resurrection by man — death having entered by man; the relationship of the saints with Jesus, the source and the power of life, the consequence being His resurrection, and theirs at His coming; power over all things committed to Christ, the risen Man; afterwards the kingdom given back to God the Father, the tabernacle of God with men, and the man Christ, the second Adam, eternally a man subject to the Supreme — this last a truth of infinite value to us (the resurrection of the wicked, though supposed in the resurrection brought in by Christ, not being the direct subject of the chapter).
ReplyDelete