Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In
the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). This
Trinitarian relationship has challenged and confused believers for generations. Churches,
councils, and creeds have developed a theology of the Trinity that is widely accepted
today. The relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit is uncomplicated enough for a
child to grasp, yet so profound that studied theologians continue debate the details.
A current debate related to the Trinity is the nature of Christ’s subordination to the
Father. While few disagree that the Son submitted to the Father while on earth, the
divergence comes when discussing the eternality of this submission. What must be
understood is that the two sides of the debate agree on more than they disagree upon. In
his article, Bilezikian quotes The Evangelical Theological Society’s creed as saying,
“God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence,
equal in power and glory.” 1 No one who believes in the eternal subordination of the Son
disagrees with this statement (as Bilezikian implies). It is because both parties affirm this
What is at the core of this debate is the issue of gender relations. As Ware points
out, “We are created to reflect what God is like, and this includes a reflection of the
personal relationships within the Trinity.”2 If egalitarians can prove Christ does not
eternally submit to the Father, they can show there is no pattern for a complementarian
Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2005) 133.
2
Both sides of the debate believe they have history and Scripture on their side.3 As
seen in most of egalitarians’ claims, to believe that the Bible teaches a temporary
worst. This paper will show from Scripture that the Son was subordinate to the Father
before His incarnation, lived a life of submission while on earth, and will for eternity be
subordinate to God the Father. The applications of this conclusion will also be given in
The best place to start the search for subordination from eternity past is in the
beginning. John tells us in his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were
made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (1:1-3).
Dahms writes, “[T]he very term ‘Word’ suggests self-expression and self-revelation and,
therefore, subordination.”4 The Trinity was active creating the world, which was made
In Ephesians 1:3-5, Paul writes that God was also thinking about believers at this
time. “[E]ven as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus
Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” Grudem writes in reference to this passage,
“The Father was the one who chose, who initiated and planned, and, before creation, it
3
See Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem and “A Defense of the Doctrine of the
Eternal Subordination of the Son” by Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Shemm, Jr., for historical support for
subordination. Trinity and Subrodinationism by Kevin Giles for a survey against subordination.
4
John V. Dahms, “The Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theoligical Society 37.3 (Sept
1994) 358.
3
was already decided that the Son would be the one to come to earth in obedience to the
But Bilezikian disagrees, “Christ did not take upon himself the task of world
redemption because he was number two in the Trinity and his boss told him to do so or
because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no
one else wanted to touch. He volunteered his life out of sacrificial love.”6 Because the
Father and Son are in perfect harmony, it is difficult to know where the will of one stops
and the other begins, But clearly from this passage we can agree with Grudem, that the
Father ultimately made the decision to send the Son for our salvation. It is important to
point out this was done before the foundation of the world. Christ submitted to the
John 3:16 also supports this claim, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Again
from Grudem, “The idea of giving His Son implies a headship, a unique authority for the
Father before the Son came to earth. So even on the basis of John 3:16, the egalitarian
claim that Jesus’ submission to His Father was only during His time on earth is
incorrect.”7 But Kevin Giles sees the passages differently. Based on semantics he writes,
“The human language of sending distinguishes the persons—The Father is the one who
sends, the Son the one who is sent—but the emphasis falls on the authority of the Son as
expressing the authority of the Father.”8 However, human language is not incapable to
5
Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. (Sister OR: Multnomah, 2004) 407.
6
Bilezikian, 59.
7
Grudem, 406
8
Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2006) 120.
4
showing the unity of the Trinity. As in Genesis 1:26, (“And God said, ‘Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness’”) the plurality of God is clear. He chooses to inspire the
writer of Genesis to make sure readers understand that God was not acting independently
of the Trinity at the creation of man. If necessary, human language could have reflected
this dynamic in the passages about God sending Christ. Obviously, God intended there to
There is little, if any, disagreement that Christ lived a life of submission while on
earth. Kevin Giles writes, “[T]he Gospels depicts the Son as sent by the Father, obedient
to the Father and dependent on the Father. This temporal revelation, they (evangelical
most agree to His subordination, there are disagreements on the interpretations of specific
texts.
The gospel of John perhaps gives the best picture of Christ’s relationship with the
Father while on earth. Jesus clearly speaks of His dependence on God. Beginning with
John 5:22, “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.”
Egalitarians may use this verse to show the mutual submission of the Father and Son.
However, as Grudem points out, “[I]f the Father gave the Son this authority to judge, then
it had to be the Father’s to give.”11 A similar passage is John 6:37, “All that the Father
gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” And also in
9
Similar sent language can be found in 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal 4:4; and 1 John 4:9
10
Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism. (Downer Grove Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002) 17.
11
Grudem, 408.
5
His high priestly prayer in John 17:24, “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have
given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory you have given me because you
loved me before the foundation of the world.” These verses show Jesus’ reliance on the
Father.
egalitarians to show Christ was not eternally submissive. The text says, “Although he
was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” Bilezikian writes, “The fact
that he learned obedience ‘although’ he was a Son indicates that the nature of his Sonship
excluded the necessity of obedience. He learned obedience despite the fact that he was a
Son.”12 In their article, Kovach and Schemm disagree, stating, “In this new experience,
not in a changed eternal position, the Son learned obedience.”13 It was not that Jesus had
never been obedient to the Father, rather He learned how to be obedient through His
human nature.
This section has looked closely at passages in John and Hebrews that cause
discussion in this debate. What is clearly shown is that Jesus submitted to Christ while
on earth. Since He was fully God while Jesus incarnate, one should not doubt that prior
to or after His incarnation this pattern of “equal value with different roles” could not also
exist. He did not lay aside His godliness during His time on earth, but continued in His
role as Son, a role distinct to Him before the foundation of the world.
Passages dealing with Christ’s subordination after His resurrection are varied.
Beginning with one of the great Christological passages, Philippians 2:5-11, the pattern
12
Bilezikian, 65.
13
Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of
the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (Sept. 1999) 472.
6
already shown of the Son’s submission continues to be clear. Based on verse eight,
Christ’s choice to humble Himself while on earth, but this does not negate His
subordination. His goal was to bring glory to the Father. It is also His goal in eternity.
This is made clear in verse 11, “…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father.” Christ lived a life of submission that did not end (or begin)
at His incarnation. As the New Millennium begins, Christ will continue to bring glory to
the Father.
Him on a throne. Mark 14:62 gives the account of Jesus before the Council where He
says, “[Y]ou will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with
the clouds of heaven.” There are many other verses that echo this thought.15 Grudem
writes, “To sit at the king’s right hand in the ancient world indicated that one was second
only to the king in authority, but it did not indicate authority equal to the king.”16 Letham
admits this is a minor point to support subordination. He writes, “But even if slight it is
there, just as it is in all the texts in which Jesus is spoken of as sitting at God’s right
hand.”17
14
Bilezikian, 59.
15
Dahms lists Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col
3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22
16
Grudem, 410.
17
Letham, 357.
7
Those with a different view point focus on Revelation 3:21, “The one who
conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down
with my Father on his throne.” Bilezikian claims, “According to Scripture, both God the
Father and God the Son occupy the same throne for eternity. They are ‘equal in power
and glory.’”18 But Grudem expands upon the entire text in its context, “Just as we will sit
with Christ on His throne, but He will still have the supreme authority, so Christ sits with
the Father on His throne, but the Father still has supreme authority.”19 Bilezikian again
confuses the issue. He assumes subordinationalists discount the equality in the Trinity
because he does not understand how people can be equal yet different. While in fact this
adds to the relationship in the Trinity to see this pattern of submission and headship.
The clearest and most direct teaching describing the end times in relation to Christ
is found in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28. Dahms calls it the “locus classicus” and Giles
quotes de Margerie as writing this is “the favorite text” for “subordinationists of all
times.”20 The text reads, “Then comes the end, when he (Christ) delivers the kingdom to
God the Father after destroying every ruler and every authority and power. When all
things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all
things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” Grudem believes that in these
verses, “Scripture shows us the beginning of the eternal state with the Son subject to the
Father.”21 Dahms writes, “[T]his will be the condition forever thereafter. And surely his
final relationship to the Father will not be inferior to the relationship he had with the
18
Bilzikian, 63.
19
Grudem, 413.
20
Father in his preexistent state.”22 Such a seemingly clear passage is obviously a target for
debate.
Dahms in his article and Giles in his book give explanations from the many
throughout the years who do not see subordination in this passage. Giles gives Joseph
Plevnik credit for what he sees as the best exegetical treatment of the passage.
Essentially, Plevnik believes this passage shows mutual submission. Giles writes, “Paul
makes it plain that it is God the Father subjecting everything to Christ.”23 This does not
disagree with the point that Christ will also be subject to God the Father, and therefore
fails in its goal. After examining many challenges to the subordination of Christ in this
passage, Dahms writes, “The attempts put forward to avoid the view that 1 Cor 15:28
implies the essential and eternal subordination of the Son do not survive scrutiny.”24
When a passage is so clear, the opposition finds it hard to discredit the obvious teaching.
prior to His incarnation, during His incarnation, and after His resurrection. Giles writes
that those who reject subordinationism do so because, “[T]he economy of God’s self-
revelation begins at creation and is consummated only at the end of time.”25 But as
clearly seen, subordination is the pattern from creation through the end of time. While
the debate continues, complementarians can be confident in the biblical witness that
Application:
22
Dahms, 352.
23
Giles, Jesus and the Father, 113-114.
24
Dahms, 353.
25
Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationsim, 18.
9
The core passage that ties together the debate of subordination and gender issues
is 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul writes, “But I want you to understand that the head of every
man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” It is not
within the scope of this paper to debate the meaning of kephale or “head.” It is enough to
quote Kovach and Schemm, “While there have been many disagreements about the
meaning of the word ‘head,’ its meaning of authority is not only based on the natural
meaning of the word kephale but also on the scriptural claim that God is the eternal origin
of all things and Christ is the eternal agent.”26 Giles’s explanation is to say that,
“Virtually all linguists are of another opinion.”27 This is a vast overstatement, as seen in
Following the best translation of kephale, which is head, we see the clear
correspondence between a marriage relationship and the Trinity. Paul is giving direction
to the Corinthian church about proper worship in this passage and he does so by pointing
out the order in the relationship between Christ and God. Thomas Schreiner writes, “Paul
added the headship of God over Christ right after asserting the headship of man over
woman in order to teach that the authority of man over woman does not imply the
this relationship. Ware writes, “Equality exists alongside authority and submission in
26
Kovach and Schemm, 472.
27
Giles, Jesus and the Father, 111.
28
See Appendices 4 and 5 in Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.
29
Thomas R. Schriner “Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-26.” Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999)
130.
10
human life, as God has designed it to be. We will find joy and fulfillment only when we
embrace, not repel, this very design.”30 It is a privilege to strive to imitate this
relationship in our marriages. As Genesis teaches, a married couple becomes one flesh as
they leave their families and cleave to one another. This oneness should reflect the
The unity yet diversity perfectly represented in the Trinity, “shows that someone
can be subordinate in authority to someone else but still be equal in being, equal in
importance, equal in personhood.”31 That is the mystery and beauty of the Trinitarian
relationship. Grudem makes this application, “And if the Father and Son can be both
equal and different in this way, then husband and wife in the image of God can be equal
11). Because of its temporary character, Christ’s subjection does not lend
hierarchy.”33
30
Ware, 158.
31
Grudem, 411.
32
Ibid.
33
Bilezikian, 61.
11
It is not a generically defined role relationship we are promoting. It was designed by God
from the beginning. It was designed to reflect the relationship within the Trinity. No
where is Scripture is it taught that God the Father subjected Himself to the Son, as
mutual-submission teaches.34 It is not the pattern of the Godhead and should not be the
pattern in marriage.
“Here in the Trinity, rather, we see hierarchy without hubris, authority with
no oppression, submission that is not servile, and love that pervades every
aspect of the divine life. Unity and diversity, identity and distinction,
mark the rich texture of the life of the one God who is three.”35
Couples should strive to imitate this relationship. It is the true and perfect picture of
headship and submission. Any less is an insult to the Trinity who so beautifully
represents this ideal. Egalitarians, in their quest to free women from oppressive
patriarchy, have confused and manipulated hundreds of years of study on the Trinity and
the clear biblical teachings we have on the subject. Christ’s eternal submission to the
Father was clearly seen prior to creation, during His incarnation, and after His
resurrection.
34
See previous discussion on Phil 2:5-11.
35
Ware, 157.
12
Bibliography
Dahms, John V. “The Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37 S 1994, p 351-364.
Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Truth. Sisters, OR.: Multnomah, 2004.
Kovach, Stephen D., Schemm, Peter R, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal
Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 S
1999, p 461-476.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.
Ware, Bruce. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.