Subordinationism in the Godhead: A Divine Order
Introduction
{The following is a paper presented by Mrs. Tracy J. Liichow to Dr. Wayne House at Michigan Theological Seminary in 1996. It was scanned in and some of the footnotes may be hard to follow, that is this editors fault. Best sent to file and printed off for reading}
In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology R. C. Kroeger and C. C. Kroeger define subordinationism as a "doctrine that assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or Holy Spirit within the Trinity."' In agreement with the Kroegers is Gilbert Bilezikian, who has stated in a paper on the issue of the eternal subordination of the Son: some proponents of a hierarchical order between male and female attempt to use as a divine model for their proposal at the human level an alleged relationship of authority subordination between Father and Son. Then a parallel is drawn between a hierarchical order that makes women subordinate to men thus claiming theological legitimacy for the latter.2
Dr. Bilezikian and other evangelical feminists declare their positions in articles, books, and reference materials. However, there is another view that is alive and well in evangelicalism today. The view that stands with the early Church Councils and the Church Fathers. They adopted the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son and this does not infer inequality of essence in the deity of Christ.
This paper takes that view and comes to this conclusion based on historical and biblical data. The entire church throughout history affirms the doctrine of eternal subordination in role or function. According to twentieth 20th century theologian, Harold 0. J. Brown:
The key, of course, is to understand the subordination in what we may call an economic sense, not an ontological one. The Son submits to the will of the Father and executes his plan (oikonomia), but he is not therefore inferior in nature to the Father . The inner life of the Trinity remains inaccessible to the human mind. The concept of ontological equality combined with economic subordination would be explained by theologians ... by analogy with the relationship between husband and wife in marriage: they are equal by nature and in honor, but the wife is subordinate to her husband.3
It is true that women have been pushed to the side, ignored, and asked to be silent in all aspects of life based solely on gender. Nevertheless, the quest for the equality of women in society and in the church is not benefitted by reinterpretating the Bible and history.
Evangelical or Biblical feminists reinterpret the Bible to align with a definition of equality that has gained widespread acceptance in the secular world. Feminist theologians formulate changes for the Church that they feel would enlarge the concept of God and would equalize the role and status of women. Mary Kassian spells out what Biblical feminists attempt to do in our current church and seminary communities:
They then modified some hermeneutic presuppositions and methods, and culturalized Biblical directives, in order to harmonize their crux and their predetermined definition of equality Biblical feminists seek to retain an evangelical base while at the same time modifying Biblical interpretation to be sympathetic to the concerns of the women's movement.4
They participate in the modification of how we relate to God and certain doctrines, such as the eternal subordination of the Son. Religious feminists desire to redefine the name of God in order for the name to be less offensive. "They [maintain] that the language of the Church cast women as inferior and 'other'." ~ The use of the terms Father and Son are avoided and using Mother/Father and the "Human One" is preferred. The renaming of God should not be encouraged.
God's name should not be tampered with in order to solve issues that we face in our society today. In his book, Battle for the Trinity, Donald Bloesch states:
The names of God are God's self-designation of his person and being. Such names do not tell who God is exhaustively, but they are informative symbols having a basis in revelation itself and therefore having binding authority on all who confess themselves as Christian.6
God is not a man, yet primarily He has chosen to relate Himself to us as masculine. By changing the Biblical images and symbols religious feminist alter and rename God. When feminists change the way God has chosen himself to be revealed then the result is a change in what the Bible says.
The Heresy of Subordinationism
The issue of the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ was a major problem in the early church around the fourth century.7 Three views were put forth at the council of Nicaea in 325 A. D.8 The first view we will look at is that of Anus, a Bishop of Alexandria and a popular preacher, and the term Arianism is derived from his name. His position was that Christ was of a different (heteros) essence of substance from the Father. Arius believed that Christ was a being created Out of nothing, subordinate to the Father, and of a different essence from the Father. " On the other hand, Athanasius, a young theologian and later Bishop of Alexandria in 328, insisted that Christ existed from all eternity with Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, however the Son exists with a distinct personality. 10
The third view was that of Eusebius of Caesarea, who taught that Christ was of a similar (homoi) essence to the Father. In the end, the creed was finalized with asserting the eternity of Christ and the identity of His substance with that of the Father." The historian, Earle Cairns notes that "Arianism, to which modernism and Unitarianism are both related, was rejected as unorthodox doctrine, and the true deity of Christ was made an article of Christian faith."12 This nontrinitarian heresy was not accepted and vehemently fought against.
Furthermore, according to Paul A. Rainbow, one of the outstanding instances of subordinationism in the history of dogma was Arianism.'3 Also, as Wayne Grudem so aptly describes:
In affirming that the Son was of the same nature as the Father, the early church also excluded a related false doctrine, subordinationism. While Arianism held that the Son was created and not divine, subordinationism held that the Son was eternal (riot created) and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes --- the Son was inferior or "subordinate" in being to God the Father. 14 emphasis mine]
Heretics proposed that the Son is subordinate in being or essence to the Father. Whereas the early church fathers saw subordination differently, they viewed in it in terms of function. In an article in the Westminister Theological Journal, Michael Bauman discusses subordinationism and the early church. He states that the early church fathers conceived of subordination primarily in the sense of administration within the Trinity and he also states that early church councils described all three divine persons as identical in essence (ousia) while the three are economically different, voluntarily.15 Bauman writes:
The Son has voluntarily submitted himself to the will of the Father, and the Spirit has made himself obedient to the will of both. The Son and the Spirit are in no sense "less" than the Father; they voluntarily function as if they were. 16
It should be noted as Stephen Kovach states that "the idea of subordination does not always denote an inferiority" and "Voluntary subordination is always necessary to the establishment of genuine community."17
According to Stephen Clark, "The English word 'subordination' means literally 'ordered under."' The word subordination does not necessarily carry with it a notion of inferior value. Clark continues to state that "Subordination simply refers to the order of a relationship in which one person, the subordinate, depends upon another person for direction."18 There is a certain dependence of the Son on the Father and of the Spirit on the Father and Son. The Bible expresses that the Father alone is unbegotten, whereas the Son is begotten (John 1:14). "Even though, each member of the Trinity participate in the activities of the others, there is a difference in role and/or function and therefore a voluntary subordination is the result.20 As Bloesch describes, "The Son subordinates himself to the Father, and the Spirit carries out the directive of the Father and the Son."21
In conclusion, the heresy of subordinationism must be clearly distinguished from the orthodox doctrine that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role or function As Grudem states:
without this truth, we would lose the doctrine of the Trinity, for we would not have any eternal personal distinctions between the Father and the Son, and they would not eternally be Father and Son.22 As we shall see this truth has always been apart of church history.
The early church father Origen (ca. 185-254) advocated a form of subordinationism, however, the rest of the church did not agree with him and clearly rejected his teaching at the Council of Nicea.23 The Greek fathers (St. Athanasius (ca. 295-373), St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-79), and St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 331-395) arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity by exegesis of scripture. "Among verses of the Bible they commented on in their polemics with the Arians were I Cor. 8:6; John 5:26; 14:28; and I Cor. 15:28. 24
The eternal subordination of the Son has been the orthodox teaching throughout church history. According to St. Augustine:
All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity... although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.25
Augustine emphasized the unity of the Trinity, yet he also recognized the differences of the divine in function or economy. Augustine said:
Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image ofimage, since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according to that which is said, "I and my Father are one." For "we are one" means, what He is, that am I also; according to essence, not according to relation. 26
Augustine affirmed the Nicene Creed and the eternal begottenness of the Son. Charles Hodge states that the Nicene Creed (and its amplified version in that of Constantinople) asserts:
[The Trinity's] mutual relation as expressed by those terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. 27
Also Carl F. H. Henry states concerning the Athanasian Creed and the other ecumenical creeds the following:
The creeds speak of the subordination, distinction, and union of the three persons without implying an inferiority of any; since all three persons have a common divine essence, they affirm the Son's subordination to the Father, and the Spirit's subordination to the Father and the Son. This subordination pertains to mode of subsistence and to mode of operation. 28
The Church Councils and the Church Fathers agree with the Scriptures. Even though we may not understand how the Trinity functions in the end we must not depart from what the Bible says.
Now let us turn our attention to the church history during the sixteenth century and discover how John Calvin dealt with this issue.
The Reformation Period - John Calvin
Christian scholars have noted that John Calvin's exposition of the Trinity is the best and most circumspect of all the writings of the Reformers. Calvin reaffirms Augustine's position on the Trinity. Calvin states the relationship of the Father as Father and the Son as Son is crucial to the doctrine of the Trinity. Calvin declares that the Father is the beginning of the Son and this fact is important to our understanding the Father and Son's relationship.
It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there can be no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. 29
Charles Hodge states that in Calvin's works he affirmed as scriptural the three essential facts of the Trinity.
We have here the three essential facts involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, unity of essence, distinction of persons, and subordination without any attempt at explanation.30
B.B. Warfield remarks that Calvin stressed the necessity of conceiving God only as He reveals Himself 31 We may not understand the Trinity, nevertheless we must hold firm to it because it is the way that God has revealed himself. In summary as Carl F. H. Henry declares:
The biblical data put beyond doubt the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, and the eternal generation of the Son. That our Lord is eternally the Son of God, and that the term Son designates not merely his office but his nature as well, and moreover designates sameness of nature and hence equality with God, was affirmed already by the Nicene Council.32 The biblical data show that the Son is eternally the Son in relation to the Father, and that the work of Christ in his office as the Son of God demonstrates that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father.33 It is an economic subordination.
The theologian, Thomas C. Oden, makes a very logical point when he states, "If the Savior is God, then that One must be eternal God, hence must have existed prior to incarnation in time, just as he continues in exaltation afier his incarnate life."Jesus is a Son eternally distinct in relationship to the Father. The Father is before the Son. God sent his one and only Son (John 3:16) in the world and as the only begotten Son of God, He was sent (John 3: 7). He is God, but also a Son.35 In Christ's role as agent of creation, redemption and restoration within the Godhead, the Scripture reveals Jesus Christ as eternally the Son. 36 Bernard Lonergan has so aptly stated in his book, The Way to Nicea: The Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology:
Again, in the scriptures the Father is the one from whom all things come, whereas the Son is the one through whom all things come (I Cor. 8, 6; Col 1, 17; Heb 1, 3; Jn [Emphasis mine.]
Jesus Christ is clearly defined in the scriptures as the person of the Godhead who created everything (John 1:3; Heb. 2:2).
Furthermore, Jesus Christ is an agent of the restoration of creation to the Father at the end of time. In I Cor. 15:28, the Apostle Paul writes concerning resurrection and Christ's return a second time to judge the world and put everything under the Father's feet. Christ will voluntarily subordinate himself to God the Father.38 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
The Son voluntarily surrenders his authority and power to God the Father.39 C. K. Barrett in his commentary on I Corinthians writes that in I Cor. 15:28 '~There is an element of subordinationism here." The last words of the verse are conclusive, "that God may be all in all." Barrett continues, "It is not the absorption of Christ and mankind, with consequent loss of distinct being, into God; but rather the unchallenged reign of God alone, in his pure goodness."41 Likewise, Rainbow expresses it rather succinctly as he states, "Overall the verse outlines an economic subordination of the Son to the Father reaching into eternity.'~2 The Apostle Paul shows us in 1 Cor. 15:28 that the Triune Godhead working together with distinctions present. A divine unity in the midst of diversity of roles.
In Christology we see intrinsic equality and voluntary subordination working together. As Bloesch asserts:
To deny or erase the distinctions between the members of the Trinity or between God and man or between man and woman is to end in a pantheistic monism in which creature hood is swallowed up in deity.43
John Calvin affirmed there an order within the Trinity that cannot be denied when one observes the biblical data. The facts are clear; the eternal subordination of the Son in function or role only is proclaimed by biblical and historical data.
The writer of this paper is in agreement with Paul Rainbow as he concludes with the following statement:
Not a single Dr. Bilezikian's charges can stand. The trinitarian doctrine he impugns as heretical, is in fact that of historic orthodoxy. .. His own rationalistic premise that unity of essence necessarily implies parity of station and function runs contrary to scripture as understood in all the major theological traditions.
Evangelical or Biblical feminists must compromise the Bible to stand by their beliefs. Mary Kassian states:
Biblical feminism therefore has become a theological crossing point between traditional conservative evangelical theology and liberalism.45
The best position to take is always on the side of the Bible, the word of God revealed to mankind. In scripture God reassures women that they are equal with men in being, yet He has set up an order of voluntary submission in the husband wife relationship. God has given us an example in the internal workings of the Trinity.
Augustine. On the Trinity. trans. Arthur West
Haddan. The Nicene andPostNicene Fathers, First Series, Vol.3.
ed. Philip Schaff~ Albany, OR: SAGE Software, 1996.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians. Harper New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper
and Row, 1968.
Bauman Michael E. ~'Milton, Subordinationism and the Two Stage
Logos," Westminster Theological Journal. Vol.48 (1996).
Berkhof, L. Systematic Tlieology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.
Bilezikian, Gilbert, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About
a Woman '5 Place in Churd' and Family Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1985.
'Hermeneutical Bungee Jumping: Subordination in the
Godhead," ETS Meeting, November 18, 1994.
Bloesch, Donald G., The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over
Inclusive God-Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications,
1985.
Cairns, Earle E. Chrislianity Through the Centuries. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Calvin, John. Institutes ofthe Christian Religion (Four Volumes
in One Digital Library Volume). Albany, OR: SAGE Sottware, 1996.
Clark, Stephen. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Ml: Servant
Books, 1980.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theok)gy. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan,
1994.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation and Authority VoA 5. Waco, TX:
Word, 1982.
McNeill, John T. and Ford Lewis Battles, ed. and trans. Calvin:
institutes of the Christian Religion. LCC 20; 2 vols.
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theolog~). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1973.
Kassian, Mary A. The I'~minist Gospel. Wheaton, W: Crossway
Books, 1992.
Kroeger, C. C. and R. C. Kroeger. '~Subordinationism,"
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Ewell. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1984.
LaCugna, Catharine Mowry. God for U~: The Trinity and the
ChTistian Lift. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991.
Oddie,William. What Will Happen to God? San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 1988.
Oden,Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, Vol. IL San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1989.
Rainbow, Paul. "Orthodox Trinitarianism and Evangelical
Feminism: A Response to Gilbert Bilezikian." Paper, North
American Baptist Seminary, 1996.
Warfield, B. B. Calvin andAugustine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1971
An Outline of the
Presentation on
"Subordinationism in the Godhead: A Divine
Order."
I. Evangelical Feminism
II. The Heresy of Subordinationism
A. What is the Heresy of Subordinationism?
B. What is Orthodox Subordinationism?
III. Early Church History
A. The Church Fathers
B. The Reformation Period - John Calvin
IV. The Eternality of the Son
"We believe in one God, the Father
almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible;
and in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten,
begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father,
God of God, Light of Light, very God of Very God, begotten and
not made,
consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made
whether in heaven or on earth;
who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was
incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third
day; ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and
the dead.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost. Dut those who say, that there
was a time when He (the Son) was not,
that He was not before He was made, or was made out of nothing,
or of another or different essence or substance, that He was a
creature, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the Holy Catholic
Church anathematizes."
The Council of Constantinople (381) added to "We believe in the Holy Ghost" this "Who is the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."
Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority Vol. V. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p.204
*Essential Elements of the Trinity:
1. God is One.
2. Each of the persons within the Godhead is Deity.
3. The oneness of God and the threeness of God are not contradictory.
4. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is eternal.
5.Each of the persons of God, is of the same essence and is not inferior or superior to the others in essence.
6.The Trinity is a mystery which we will never be able to understand fully.
*House, H. Wayne, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, page 48.
Important Facts Concerning Subordination and the Trinity
1. The creeds of the church speak of the subordination, distinction, and union of the three persons without implying an inferiority of any; since all three persons have a common divine essence.
2. Subordination pertains to mode of subsistence and to mode of operation.
3. Consistent with the biblical data concerning mode of subsistence, the Son is of the Father and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son.
4. Consistent with the biblical data concerning mode of operation, the Father works through the Son, and the Father and the Son work through the Spirit.
5. Each of the three persons of the Trinity is distinguished by its unique characteristic as expressed by the personal names. These personal names are based on divine revelation and not personal metaphors having their origin in cultural experience
6. God is not a man, but, for the most part, he chooses to relate himself to us as masculine.
Quotation taken directly from Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority Vol. V. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p.206.; and partly from Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Wheaton, II: Crossway Books, 1992), p.145. and Donald G. Bloesch, The Battle for the Trinity (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1985), p.33.
R.C. Kroeger and C. C. Kroeger, "Subordinationism," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Ewell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p.1058.
2 Notes taken from oral presentation. Gilbert Bilezikian, "Hermeneutical Bungee Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, Nov.18, 1994.
3 Harold 0. J. Brown, Heresies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1984), p.91.
Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 1992), p.207 and 217. Ibid., p.138.
6. Bloesch, Donald The Battle for tile Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God-Language (Ann Arbor, Ml: Servant Publications, 1985), p.25
Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p.133. Ibid.
Ibid., p.134
12 Ibid., p.135.
13 Paul A. Rainbow, "Ordiodox Trinitarianism and Evangelical Feminism: A Response to Gilbert Bilezikian," p.3.
14 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p.245.
Michael E. Bauman, "Milton, Subordinationism and the Two Stage Logos," Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986), p. 177-178.
16 Bawnan, p.177-178.
17 Stephen D. Kovach, "The Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Apologetic Against Evangelical Feminism." ETS Paper, (1995), p.5.
Stephen Clark, Man and Woman In Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980) p.23-24.
19 Bloesch, p.32.
20 ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Grudem, p.245.
23 Grudem, p.245.
24 Rainbow, p.3.
25 St. Augustine, The Trinity, I, 4 (7), trans. Arthur West Haddan, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers First Series, Vol.3, ed. Philip Schaff (Albany, OR: SAGE Software, 1996), 32-33.
26Augustine, VI, 2, (3), p.185.
27 Charles Hodge, Systemauc Theology, Vol.1 (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1982), p.462.
28 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, Vol. V, Part I (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p.205.
29 John Calvin, p.171.
30 Hodge, p.467.
31 B. B. Warfield, Calvin andAr*gustine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1971), p.192.
32 Henry, p.207.
33 Kovach, p.10.
Thomas C. Oden, ihe Word ofLift: Sy~tematic Theology, VoL IL (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1989), p.66.
Kovach, p.11.
36 Ibid., p.12.
Bernard Lonergan, The Way to Nicea: The Dialectical Development of Trinitarian Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), pg. 40
38 Kovach, p.13-14.
Ibid., p.14.
C.K. Barrett, A Commentaiy on the First Epistle ofPaul to the Connth1.ans, Harper New Testament Commentaries, ed., C. K. Barrett (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p.360.
Ibid., p.361.
42 Rainbow, p.7.
Bloesch, p.41.
44 Rainbow, p.11.
Kassian, p.217.
©Copyright Tracy J. Liichow 1997