Continuing my comments on ”I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship” by Steven Tracy from part I, Tracy writes,
Delegated AuthorityIn John 5:21-24 we find startling statements about the manner in which the Father delegates authority to the Son. Jesus echoes the ancient Jewish belief that the Father has authority over life and death (cf. 2 Kings 5:7; Job 1:21; Ps 104:27-30) by asserting "the Father raises the dead and gives them life." But Jesus then issues a completely unexpected declaration-"even so the Son gives life to whom He wishes" (v. 21). The assertion that the Messiah would have the authority to raise the dead was unknown in ancient Judaism.25 In v. 22 Jesus further demolishes the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's authority, by declaring "not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." In the Old Testament the Lord God is said to be the eschatological judge (Gen 18:25; Joel 3:2; Ps 82:8), but since Christ is ontologically one with the Father, he is given the full authority to judge. Christ explains the basis for the Father giving Him authority to judge in John 5:27-"because He is the Son of Man." The title "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self designation, and probably comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which describes a Messiah figure from heaven who is given everlasting "dominion" or authority, and is served by all the nations and peoples.
John 5:27 – “He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” Was this authority delegated, or given, and is there a difference? I say that there is, and that the authority was not delegated, but given. Delegation, as I understand it, implies that the delegate answers to the one who delegates.
Does Jesus answer to the Father? If God gives Jesus authority to execute judgment, does this mean that God the Father still has the final say? Does He have oversight? Can He examine a judgment that Christ has made and say, “No, Son, I think you’re wrong on that one; do it different next time.” Or does Christ have authority – perfect authority, wholly given, because He is Son of both the Father and man, and therefore in the perfect place to judge?
And, if we parallel man-and-woman or husband-and-wife to God the Father and Christ, does this then mean that women have been given all judgment? No, of course not. The parallels are limited.
We clearly see here that the Father's headship over the Son does not preclude the Son having great power and authority. In fact, since the Father and the Son are equals and in intimate relationship, we should not be surprised to find the Father sharing his authority with the Son (cf. Luke 10:22). Sometimes complementarians seem to believe that unless husbands and male elders wield absolutely all authority in the home and in the church, male headship is compromised. This is not what the headship of the Father over the Son teaches us. In fact, the delegation of authority within the Trinity should challenge us to exercise biblical headship by making sure that women are truly being treated as equals by being given authority in various spheres of life and ministry. Feminists have long argued that male headship necessarily denotes inequality. Christian men who insist on maintaining a monopoly on absolutely all domestic and ecclesiastical authority validate this misconception, and distort the example of headship within the Trinity.
Does the Father share His authority with the Son, because they are equal and love each other and He’s a really nice Dad? I don't think so.
Is a woman being treated as an equal by being given authority in various spheres of life and ministry? By whom? Who has authority to give her this authority? Not man. If a man has such authority, and is in the position of being able to treat a woman as an equal and give her authority (or withhold it), then she’s not really an equal! This must be understood.
In this regard, we can't say that the Father and the Son are equal, either. But neither can we say that the Father's relationship to the Son parallels the husband's relationship to his wife.
(I do not say, as Tracy says that feminists say, that male headship as presented in the Bible denotes inequality; I say that the prevalent so-called complementarian definition of it does.)
Does this Trinitarian model mitigate against males having final decision-making authority and females responding to male leadership? It does not at all, but rather offers a clarification of male headship. Male headship does not mean that females are not invested with any authority; Christ and the Father demonstrate this. Christ was responsive to the Father's leadership during His incarnation. Repeatedly we read in John's gospel that Christ did the will of the Father and was responsive to the Father's authority (4:34; 6:38; 8:28). Even after Christ's earthly incarnation He is still submissive to the Father's headship, for at the end of the age "the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" (1 Cor 15:28).
Again, Tracy compares man and woman to Father and Son incorrectly. He assumes that male headship denotes final decision-making authority, which we do not see either in the Trinity or the biblical presentation of male headship. If a man has final decision-making authority and a woman does not, then they are not equal in standing.
Was Christ responsive to the Father’s leadership and authority and submissive to the Father’s headship? We are told that He did the will of His Father Who sent Him, and was obedient even to the point of death on a cross. He copied the Father; He said that He could only do what He saw the Father doing. Can we (or should we) say the same for wives, in relation to their husbands? No!
In John 4:34, Jesus says, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.” The will of God is His food, His nourishment, His very livelihood, His very essence. Can we take from this that a woman’s food is to do the will of her husband, if her husband is her head? No! We cannot analogize this way. A wife's food is Christ. A husband's food is Christ. A wife does not get to God or Christ through her husband; neither can she only receive God through him. She receives from God directly, through Christ. This is what equality in salvation and standing is.
I Cor. 15 is about Christ’s resurrection, which will occur in proper order (v. 23). Vv. 24-26 speak of abolishing all rule and authority and power (Eph. 1) and finally death. V. 28 is the final subjection – “the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him,” but so that “God may be all in all.” This part cannot be left off. God is the source, the origin, of everything (the first cause), and its sustainer. He is (and will be) all in all.
