I recently saw some discussion on Facebook about a quote from H Bavinck. The quote is as follows:
Nevertheless, this doctrine of the pact of salvation, despite its defective form, is rooted in a scriptural idea. For as Mediator, the Son is subordinate to the Father calls him his God (Ps. 22:2; John 20: 17), is his servant (Isa. 49f.) who has been assigned a task (Isa. 53:10; John 6:38—40; 10:18; 12:49; 14:31; 17:4) and who receives a reward (Ps. 2:8; Isa. 53: 10; John 17:4, 11, 17, 24; Eph. 1:20f.; Phil. 2:9f.) for the obedience accomplished (Matt. 26:42; John 4:34; 15: 10; 17:45; 19:30). Still, this relation between Father and Son, though most clearly manifest during Christ’s sojourn on earth, was not first initiated at the time of the incarnation, for the incarnation itself is already included in the execution of the work assigned to the Son, but occurs in eternity and therefore also existed already during the time of the Old Testament. Scripture also clearly attests this fact when it attributes the leadership of Israel to the Angel ofYahweh (Exod. 3:2f.; 13:21; 14: 19; 23:20-23; 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20: 16; Isa. 63:8—9), and sees Christ also functioning officially already in the days of the Old Testament (John 8:56; 1 Cor. 10:4, 9; I Pet. 1:11; 3:19). For there is but one mediator between God and humankind (John 14:6; Acts 4: 12; 1 Tim. 2:5), who is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb 13:8), who was chosen as Mediator from eternity (Isa. 42: 1; 43: 10; Matt. 12:18; Luke 24:26; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8), and as Logos existed from eternity as well (John 1: 1, 3; 8:58; Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Phil, 2:6; etc.)’ (Vol 3 at 214)
The relevance of this is
- Bavinck is seen within Reformed circles as a key figure in setting out orthodoxy and would be considered a classical theist in his approach to the Doctrine of God.
- As reader will know well, there has been significant debate between two camps in evangelicalism over the past few years on The Trinity. Those who hold to what has become known as Eternal Functional Subordination (belief that the Son is ontologically, or by nature equal to the Father but submits or is subordinate to him in term of his function/role as The Son and classical theists who believe it an error to refer to any form of eternal submission/subordination.
I don’t intend to rehearse the whole debate again as you can read my previous thoughts here. However, the question has been raised as to whether or not Bavinck takes an EFS type position here. He certainly refers to the Son as submitting to the Father. However, several people noted that he begins his comments by talking about Christ as “mediator.” Surely that limits the scope of his submission and places it within the context of his incarnation and atonement.
However, I think that is to miss the point. It is incontrovertible that Christ in terms of his incarnation did submit to the Father. The big question is what implication this has for the eternal nature of the Trinity. The position of those arguing for EFS has always been that you cannot describe the Son as submitting during his incarnation without this affecting his eternal relation to the Father unless you want to make at least one of the three following errors.
- To suggest that the God in some way changed at the incarnation.
- To over separate the economic Trinity (God as revealed in his work) from the imminent Trinity (the inner life of God), so that God appears in the three persons to us but we cannot see beyond this appearance to what God is really like.
- To over separate Christ’s human nature (if this is what submits) from his divine nature.
The second concern has been of greatest concern because it risks making God’s nature unknowable and if pushed at too hard would potentially lead to modalism. Mike Ovey would famously illustrate this view of God with puppets, the unknowable God hiding behind the Punch and Judy show. I don’t think that those arguing against EFS were modalists just as I’m sure that those advocating for EFS were Subordinationists at risk of Arianism but I do think both sides gave the impression of pushing the boundaries through clumsy language often brought on through not hearing each other well.
But I think that there is something important about the EFS concern. Bavinck gets to the heart of this. Christ’s incarnation happened at a point in time but reflects an eternal purpose. In that sense, Christ’s submission was in eternity, However the point that this focuses specifically on his work as mediator is crucial too. I get the impression that this is something that both camps should be able to agree on. Indeed, I suspect that at least some, from the more nuanced end of EFS already will have been aware of Bavinck’s comments on this and that the above statement would reflect their view. For the record, it aligns with my understanding of the matter.
If there is a willingness to engage, listen well, reflect and show humility, it may even be possible that this quote could provide the basis for reconciliation and for the two camps to find common ground.
Faithroots 