The church long ago rejected any form of primacy of the Father within the eternal Trinity, though there were some among the fathers who wanted to assert primacy to justify bishops in the church, just as there are some among evangelicals who want to assert primacy to justify patriarchy in the home and beyond. And the church long ago rejected any form of eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. The language of Psalm 110 makes it quite clear that when the Son speaks to the Father, He speaks as God to God, as Lord to Lord. Jesus quotes that psalm in Mark 12 where He claims to be Lord, and is completely understood by the rabbis as claiming to be the ‘Son of the Most High’ that leads to their charge of blasphemy. In other words, the Pharisees understood Jesus’ claim to be Son as an ontological claim.
I am confused. Does the subordination of the Son to the Father differ from the concept of the economic Trinity?
The problem seems to be that there are defenders of complementarianism who seem dissatisfied with a voluntary economic subordination Buy your Son to the Father and who seem to be confusing the ontological (being) with the economic (order). See part one of Liam’s essay.
Does not the Scripture say that God is the Head of Christ & also sit at my right hand!