A remarkable claim has been made by some egalitarian scholars, which has been parroted on this site in discussions of gender roles in the Bible. It has been said that the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) is a modern innovation, one which has been concocted by complementarians to give a theological foundation for our views. The accusation is that Eternal Subordination is a perversion of the historical doctrine of the Trinity and must be rejected on that ground.
It is a claim as amazing as it is spurious. A simple examination of Systematic Theologies and Historical records will show that Eternal Subordination has been the orthodox view of the Trinity since the doctrine was first formulated in the Nicene Creed and other ancient creeds. It has been the standard formulation of the Trinitarian dogma throughout the church’s history, though it has been attacked on both sides. Some in history have attacked the doctrine of the deity of Christ, his essential equality with the Father (such as the doctrine of Subordinationism which careless scholars have confused with the orthodox view – Eternal Subordination). Others have questioned how the Son can “proceed from” the Father and be eternally begotten of God and yet still be equal. But the orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity have always included both the equality of essence of the persons of the Trinity and differentiation of roles within their existence.
Why Is This Accusation Made?
There can only be three reasons why this accusation would be made.
First, there are those who are ignorant of historical theology. Some people will listen to a pastor, teacher or scholar who makes a claim and not do the basic (and pretty simple) research to demonstrate that the teaching is not true. I think this is the case with a lot of people who deny eternal subordination. They have simply heard someone say that and have failed to check to see if it is so.
Second, there are those who are confused. Confusion (whether willful or not) reigns among those who deny ESS. For instance, there was a heresy in the early church called Subordinationism, which was rightly dismissed as a heresy. Subordinationists taught that the Son was lesser in essence than the Father – essentially an Arian denial of the full deity of Christ. Some, in confusion, assume that Subordinationism and ESS are the same – they both use the term subordination after all. That would be like saying that there is no difference between infant baptism and believer’s baptism because they both use the word baptism.
Others are confused by the paradox of the orthodox Trinitarian formulation – that God is equal in essence (Person) but distinct in order (role/function). In discussions on the subject, I have had people throw historical quotes and scriptural references which demonstrate the equality of Christ – thinking somehow that this is devastating to ESS. The ESS proponents say a loud amen to any affirmation of the full equality of essence and divinity of Christ. But this demonstrates confusion on the part of opponents of the doctrine – evidently they simply do not understand it. ESS affirms the full divinity and supremacy of the person of the Eternal Son – Jesus Christ our Lord. We also affirm the biblical and historical truth that the Son and the Spirit, while equal in essence, had subordinate roles to the Father (and to the Son in the Spirit’s case).
There is a third possibility to explain the fact that some would make this claim. They are advocating a position and are simply marshaling facts to support their egalitarian position without proper regard for the factual basis of the evidence. Often, this comes from an emotional source. People “feel” that for one person to submit to another lessens that person; demeans them in some way. So, they cannot conceive of a doctrine which teaches both equality of essence and differentiation of roles and they deny the doctrine in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The Format for This Study
The purpose of this study is to challenge one thought – the idea, often asserted as fact, that ESS is a recent innovation in theology. That assertion has been made not only by scholars such as Ben Witherington, but by egalitarian bloggers and myriad commenters. Some have said that ESS was developed in the 70’s as a theological underpinning for complementarianism (or for patriarchy in the more extreme iterations of the accusation). It is a recent development and a perversion of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
I will first define ESS briefly, then I will demonstrate the following:
- 1) ESS is the historical Trinitarian doctrine, in line with the Nicene Creed and other ancient formulas.
- 2) ESS was formulated not as an answer to egalitarianism, but as an explanation for the biblical evidence.
- 3) Those who have said that ESS is a recent innovation are wrong and need to stop saying that which is false. They can argue for their view, and against ESS. They cannot do so with integrity on the basis that ESS is recent.
I have written on this topic before, at sbcIMPACT, an article entitled “Jesus Is Eternally Subordinate to the Father.” It is a little more of a comprehensive treatment of the subject.
Defining the Doctrine
What is ESS? Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology has perhaps the best definition I have found.
This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say “equal in being but subordinate in role.” Both parts of this phrase are necessary to the true doctrine of the Trinity. If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed. (pg 251).
Eternal Subordination is encapsulated by this phrase, “ontological equality but economic subordination,” or “equal in being but subordinate in role.”
We believe in the full equality of essence of the members of the Trinity – Father, Son and Spirit. The Father is not greater in essence than the Son, or the Son than the Spirit. Each of them is fully God in essence and glory.
We also believe that the Bible defines these equal members of the Trinity as having distinct roles in the way they relate to one another and to creation. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. The Father is eternally the Father and the Son is eternally the Son and the Spirit is eternally the Spirit. These are real differences. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.”
AH Strong said it this way.
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority…We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office and operation, not a subordination of essence.
Note for the record that his Systematic Theology was published in 1907, long before the supposed genesis of the doctrine of Eternal Subordination and it has nothing to do with the gender role debate.
We deny, as did the great theologians of church history, that this subordinate role of the Son in any way lessens his divinity. This paradoxical assertion is a stumbling block for many people. But everything about the Trinity is paradoxical. Three. One. Equal. Different. The Trinity is beyond the reaches of human understanding and intellect. We must accept the biblical revelation and not try to make it subject to human understanding or preference.
This is the essence of the debate in the modern egalitarian era. If the Son can be subordinate to the Father without sacrificing his equality of essence, then wives can submit to their husbands without demeaning themselves. But if the act of submission is necessarily demeaning, then Christ could not possibly be in eternal subordination to the Father. The issue of ESS has only become controversial in the modern day because it is inimical to the egalitarian position.
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. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
It is this verse that is the root of this controversy. If Christ is subordinate in role to the Father, yet equal in essence, then women can submit to their husbands’ authority without demeaning their essence or personhood.
To sum up, the ESS position makes the following assertions:
- 1) The members of the Trinity are equal in essence. Each is fully God and equal in glory and divinity.
- 2) The members of the Trinity have an economic order (ranking in the way they relate to one another and to this world.) The Father, Son, and Spirit are different persons with different roles and different ranks within the Godhead.
- 3) Those roles are essential to the persons of the Trinity. They are not just revelational or temporal, they are eternal and are essential parts of the nature and character of the persons. The Father is not just some kind of explanatory construct – it is the essence of the First Person of the Trinity. “Son” is not just some kind of understandable illustration – it is the essence of the Second Person of the Godhead; it is who he is eternally.
- 4) The subordinate role of the Son in no way demeans his essential equality with the Father.
The Question: Is ESS a Recent Innovation or the Nicene Doctrine of the Trinity?
I know I will not be able to keep the discussion here from focusing on all aspects of ESS, gender roles, egalitarianism and complementarianism. But the purpose of this post is more limited. I want to answer one question:
Is ESS recent?
The simple answer is NO! It has been around since the Church Fathers began to wrestle with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Of course, Grudem believes this, but since his systematic theology was published in 1994, what he says does not answer the question. I would encourage readers to study Grudem, who is unsurpassed in clarity in the statement of the doctrine in pages 248-252 of his Theology.
Berkhof, 1941
Louis Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology” is a standard among Reformed theologies. It was copyrighted in 1939 and revised in 1941. He affirms every one of the four points I made above about the doctrine of ESS.
On pages 89-90 of the section on the Trinity, he says this:
d. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. There is a certain order in the ontological Trinity. In personal subsistence, the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. It need hard be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation…Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned.
Please note that the essential ESS formulation is used here, though stated in slightly different terms. There is subordination in “manner” but not in “essence.”
So, we have established that one of the preeminent Reformed Theologians, well before the gender wars of the latter half of the 20th Century, established on biblical grounds the doctrine we call ESS as the orthodox formulation of the Trinity.
You do not have to agree with Berkhof, but integrity demands that we admit that ESS was affirmed by at least 1941!
AH Strong, 1907
If you are Logos user, both AH Strong’s and Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theologies are part of their library (at least at the Platinum level). You can check out these quotes and read their more lengthy and technical discussions. Grudem compiled the following quotes from Strong.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office and operation…
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority…We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office and operation, not a subordination of essence.
You do not have to agree with Strong, but integrity demands that we admit that ESS was affirmed by at least 1907!
Charles Hodge, 1871-1873
In Volume 1, pages 460-465 of Hodge’s Systematic Theology, a lengthy discussion of this doctrine ensues. I will include some quotes.
On this subject the Nicene doctrine includes, 1. The principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority. For as the same divine essence with all its infinite perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no inferiority of one person to the other in the Trinity. Neither does it imply posteriority; for the divine essence common to the several persons is self-existent and eternal. The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation, implied in the Scriptural facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, and that, the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit.
He claims that the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity includes the subordination of the Song to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. He affirms the paradox that the persons are of equal essence but that subordinate roles exist.
On pages 462 and 463 he discusses the Nicene Fathers and their perspectives on this doctrine. Then, in pages 463-465 he discusses historical perspectives. The discussion devastates the argument that ESS is a recent innovation. Look at this quote from page 462.
They (the Nicene Fathers) assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit; their 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. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.
He was dealing with the orthodox and historical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity and affirmed again the unity of essence and perfect equality as well as the subordination of the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Father and Son. Note that he claims that these are not only “Scriptural facts” but also that “they have been accepted by the Church universal.”
You do not have to agree with Hodge, but integrity demands that you admit that in 1871, a noted theologian believed that ESS was not only the biblical, but the accepted and universal doctrine of the church.
The Early Creeds
Hodge has demonstrated that the early creeds, including the Nicene Creed, affirmed this paradoxical nature of the Trinity – equality of essence and order within the roles of the Trinity, based on the meanings of the terms Father, Son and Spirit and on the terminology of the Son proceeding from the Father (begotten) and the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son (though the Son part was more controversial).
Kovach and Schemm
Of course, Wayne Grudem has written extensively on this subject. But one of the most helpful articles I found was written by Stephen Kovach and Peter Schemm in the September 1999 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. They have a very helpful section distinguishing the heresy of subordinationism from the biblical doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son. Then, they do an extensive history of the doctrine which demonstrates most clearly the premise of this article – that those who claim ESS is a recent theological innovation cannot make that argument with integrity.
They quote Hilary of Poitiers (291-371), who has been called the Athanasius of the Western Tradition.
Who indeed would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness: The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognize, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son.
After a lengthy discussion of Augustine’s theology, which demonstrates at least a modicum of support for ESS, they quote Gregory of Nanzianzus (330-390) as saying:
I should like to call the Father the greater, because from [H]im ?flows both the Equality and the being of the Equals (this will be granted on all hands), but I am afraid to use the word Origin, lest I should make Him the Origin of Inferiors, and thus insult Him by precedencies of honour. For the lowering of those Who are from Him is no glory to the Source. Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word Greater, and divide the Nature, using the word greater in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination. For in the Consubstantial Persons there is nothing greater or less in point of Substance.
Of course, the wording is different that our modern theological vernacular, but the message is the same. “Ontological equality with economic subordination.”
They continue with a review of Calvin’s teachings and the biblical evidence for ESS.
Conclusion
It is scripture that should decide whether ESS is a biblical doctrine or not. I believe that the doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible. But the purpose of this now lengthy post was singular – to show the paucity of argument available to those who would claim that ESS is a recent innovation in historical theology.
One does not have to buy into ESS, but I would hope that those who deny it would show why the historical construct of Trinitarian formulation, “Ontological equality with economic subordination” needs to be rejected.
It is my suspicion that Egalitarians may be guilty of that which they try to lay at the feet of complementarians. They come to scripture wishing to impose an egalitarian hermeneutic on a Bible that does not support that doctrine. When they find in the very nature of God the idea that one can be essentially equal while still being in a subordinate role, they recoil. If ESS is true, it is devastating to egalitarian hermeneutics. So, they are compelled to fly in the face of both scripture and historical theology to excise the presence of ESS throughout church history.
Such an argument cannot be made with historical integrity. ESS is not a new doctrine. Is it true? That is for another post. But it is clearly found in the early creeds, in nascent form. It was developed through the years and was the dominant position in the church so that Charles Hodge could say 140 years ago,
These are Scriptural facts … and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.
Something tells me that this could be a lively discussion.
I’m not foolish enough to believe anyone is going to pay attention to this plea, but I’d love it if we focused on the historical question here.
Dave,
Thanks brother. Here is how B.B. Warfield saw it from his work “Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity”:
But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in “modes of subsistence,” as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence. Question is raised in each ease of apparent intimation of subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity – a “Covenant” as it is technically called – by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative. Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms “Father” and “Son” occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment, and we may be sure that “Father” and “Son” are applied to their eternal and necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work’s sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament…In the form which he gave it, and which is embodied in that “battle-hymn of the early church,” the so-called Athanasian Creed, it has retained its place as the fit expression of the faith of the church as to the nature of its God until today. The language in which it is couched, even in this final declaration, still retains elements of speech which owe their origin to the modes of thought characteristic of the Logos Christology of the second century, fixed in the nomenclature of the church by the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., though carefully guarded there against the subordinationism inherent in the Logos-Christology, and made the vehicle rather of the Nicene doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit, with the consequent subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as of operation. In the Athanasian Creed, however, the principle of the equalization of the three Persons, which was already the dominant motive of the Nicene Creed – the homoousia – is so strongly emphasized as practically to push out of sight, if not quite out of existence, these remanent suggestions of derivation and subordination. It has been found necessary, nevertheless, from time to time, vigorously to reassert the principle of equalization, over against a tendency unduly to emphasize the elements of subordinationism which still hold a place thus in the traditional language in which the church states its doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests of the true Deity of Christ – the constant motive of the whole body of Trinitarian thought – to reassert and make good the attribute of self-existence (autotheotos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place, alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, as one of the chief contributors to the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.
If I understand him correctly, I think he implies an important point. It is unusual for theology to be done in a vacuum. In a time when Arianism reigns, the tendency would be to focus on the essential equality. At other times, theological focus comes more naturally toward the economic subordination.
But consistently throughout history both sides of that paradox have been held.
The particular emphases in someone’s theology, or in the era in which a theology is constructed is often informed by the heresies faced and the theological challenges engaged in that era.
For instance, the NT writers often focus their arguments on the nature of Christ to buttress the genuine humanity of Christ, that he has truly “come in the flesh” because of the gnostic heresies that were rampant. In other eras, when it was the deity of Christ being challenged, the focus shifts to the other side of the equation.
That dude was smart, by the way.
Here is Augustine in his book “The Trinity” and translated by Edmund Hill, O.P.:
According to the form of God, “As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself;” according to the form of a servant, His “soul is sorrowful even unto death;” and, “O my Father,” He says, “if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” According to the form of God, “He is the True God, and eternal life;” according to the form of a servant, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” — 23. According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and “All mine,” He says, “are Yours, and Yours are mine;” according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him. (bold mine)
I’m not sure how to take him here.
Actually, in the Hodges article I referenced above, there is a lengthy discussion of Augustine’s views. He is very focused on the unity of the Trinity, but also allows for at least some level of economic differentiation.
Hi DAVID,
May I please, without comment on it, and without giving you a migraine, share something additional from St. Gregory of Nanzianzus:
“St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:
‘Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures:
I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one Divinity and power, existing One in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . .
the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . .
I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . “
What is your point? As the quotes from Gregory in my article showed, he articulated the quintessential ESS formulation.
Did you actually read the article, Christiane?
You cannot refute ESS by affirming the unity of the Trinity or the essential equality of the persons the Trinity. WE BELIEVE THAT!
We believe both sides of the paradoxical biblical and historical portrayal of that doctrine.
Frankly, I’d just as soon you state your view plainly and clearly. simply putting quotes or links usually leaves us in a fog as to what you are trying to communicate.
Just tell me what you are trying to say, okay?
Correction. The quote I gave above from Augustine was not translated by Edmund Hill, O.P., but was translated by Arthur West Haddan.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm
Great post and additional quotes from Benji. This doctrine is pretty clear to anyone who doesn’t come to the question with an agenda, as the wide variety of quotes demonstrate from long before the complementarian/egalatarian debate ever started.
Brent: Believe it or not I do not reject this doctrine because of egalatarian views. I reject it because I do not see it in scripture. I think it takes away completely from who Christ is as God although I do know he is also 100% human and 100% God. You say it is clear, I say it is not clear. John MacArthur has changed his view on the Eternal Sonship of Christ and it took him until the last couple of years, so it is not clear and even he does not do this lightly, warning that we must not probe to deep into it. Good warning. I am not there yet as to change my views.
One question I have are do you think Christ now knows the time and hour of his coming again? I know Christ did not know while he was here on earth, he gave up his omnipresence, he was not everywhere at once, he gave up his omniscience etc. but that is not the case now. I believe he does know, but what is your thought on this.
I meant to add on my first comment/question, that Trinity is fully divine and this causes many questions when it comes to Eternal Subordination of the Son. At least for me. So clarity in scripture is something I would have to disagree with.
I believe that Jesus probably knows now the day and hour of his coming. But I am not sure.
Another problem I have is that subordination, hierarchy, was after the fall and not before. I believe that the first part of Genesis shows this to be true. At least from my reading. After Christ came, the Cross, this ended. Christ had victory over Satan and it was then back to God’s original plan before the fall. Things were made right that were made wrong at the Fall. This is pointed to all through the Old Testament.
Another problem I have is that subordination, hierarchy, was after the fall and not before. I believe that the first part of Genesis shows this to be true. At least from my reading. After Christ came, the Cross, this ended. Christ had victory over Satan and it was then back to God’s original plan before the fall.
If I understand this statement right, you’re saying that before sin, no hierarchy and subordination existed, yet after the fall it came into being. Then after the cross, God reverts back to the original plan of no hierarchy and subordination.
If that’s right, then you have to deny some very clear teachings of the New Testament.
First, that God never tells us after the cross to give up our hierarchies, but he’s telling us to submit all the time: to governing authorities, to church leaders, children to parents, wives to husbands, slaves to masters, etc. If the cross did away with hierarchy and subordination then none of these commands make sense.
Then second, in realation to God himself, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 clearly states that once all things are in subject/submission to Christ, then Christ will be subject/in sumbission to the Father. The implication, with no clear direction otherwise, is that this is true for eternity to come.
If subordination and hierarchy were defeated at the cross, then chunks of our New Testaments must be wrong.
Mike: I don’t want to turn this into a man-woman submissive thread as this is ESS, but I will respond quickly before heading off to work. The New Testament is not wrong. I do disagree with your interpretation of it. I agree that we are to be subject to the government. Both men and women. I am heading off to work so as not to be late. I am submissive to my boss at work, so are you. And I agree with your interpretation in the NT on this.
What Christ did, besides give us a way directly to God, salvation, was equality among men and women. Ephesians 21 is just one passage that shows how this is put into play. When God created Eve in Genesis it was to be a helpmeet, which is the same word used for God to us. Genesis states specifically that Adam and Eve were to rule over the earth together. Sin caused men to want to rule over women, women to want to rule over men or for them to completely lead them. This was the curse given to them by God.
This however does not apply to Christ. He is God, He is the Son of God yes, but all are equal and their wills are the same. Christ wanted to do the will of the Father because Christ’s will was also the will of the Father. They agreed as does the Holy Spirit.
Not according to Luke 22:42 …not MY will, but THINE(caps mine for emphasis)
Seems that at this point, Jesus had a different desire but instead of pursuing His desire, He submitted to the Father’s desire.
Oh, SNAP!!!!!
Luke: His human side didn’t have a different will, but it was tough. Would you want to go through crucifixion? His being God however, and his human will both were in perfect sync with God’s will.
I find it incredibly amazing that you CANNOT accept the simple Scripture as given to us by God. DEAL with the passage Debbie.
If his HUMAN side did not have a DIFFERENT will at this moment, then his statement is literally bereft of any tangible meaning. Are you saying it should actually read,
“Not my will(which is actually the same as yours), but thine(which is actually the same as mine) be done.”
Hi Luke and Debbie,
Jesus had two wills. The way the fathers described it is this: will is a property of nature, not of person. Since Jesus has two natures (in one person) there are two wills. In the Garden of Gethsemane, we see the two wills clearly.
There is a Christian minority of monothelites (those who believe Jesus has only one will), but it is a small minority, today recognized as heterodox. They were largely defeated in the 6th-7th centuries. Maximus the Confessor was the champion of “two wills.”
Jim G.
I agree with you Jim G. I’m thinking that Debbie does not, at least according to her original statement and follow up to mine.
“Not my will(which is actually the same as yours), but thine(which is actually the same as mine) be done.”
That would make NO sense, huh Luke?
Oh, wait, I forgot who we were talking to here.
Ephesians 21?
Sorry Dave, Ephesians 5:21.
I am quite sure that the first chapter of Genesis does NOT show this to be true. It is the abuse of authority, not authority itself that was a part of the fall.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:26, 27.
Debbie, simply quoting a verse does not make a point. I think the very verse you reference, in addition to the other references in Genesis, make it clear that God created man and woman equal in value but different in roles.
Dave: I think quoting the Bible does make a point. And I think you get the point I am making.
Dave,
That’s the thing, you can’t get her to actually explain her stance. She does not really want to engage or be engaged about her use of Scripture or unsubstantiated statements.
Debbie,
I’m still waiting for you to address the actual Scripture I used and the interpretation I provided and not some smoke screen of an answer that does not address the actual text.
Luke: If you will look I answered you. Jim G also had a good answer. In fact it was probably a better explanation than mine. My point is that Jesus as God did have the same will as the Father. He willingly went to the cross. He willingly came to earth as a baby, he willingly ministered on this earth. But Christ also knew what was coming. None of us would want to be crucified, but more so, to be temporarily separated from the Father was a far worse thought than the crucifixion. The Trinity’s will however were in complete agreement. Now I answered again.
Who was the them Dave? Adam was the only human at that point. God didn’t just think of making Eve in chapter 2. It was his plan all along. The them is Adam and Eve. Ruling Co-equally. That was the plan until the Fall and the curse. Christ’s death accomplished a lot. He defeated Satan. He defeated death.
Debbie,
Your answer flies directly AGAINST Jim and My interpretations. You say that his HUMAN will and His God will were exactly the same. The Scripture I provided shows as does Jim’s explanation that Jesus’s HUMAN will was different than the God will but He submitted His HUMAN will to the Father’s will.
Luke: I can agree with Jim G’s explanation. In fact it is probably a better explanation than mine. That Christ had two wills, the human will and the God will is something I can accept. Clear?
Debbie, I would encourage you to actually read that which I write as a basis for interaction. I sometimes think that people read the title and jump in with commenting. You are asserting things as if they are contrary to my view which are actually in line with complementarian hermeneutics.
Short answer: Complementarians DO NOT think women are less than men. We think that women and men are equal in value and co-equals in the image of God. We believe that Go designed us DIFFERENT and that those differences are God’s intent and do not demean.
It is frustrating that you consistently exhibit a lack of understanding or a willingness to falsely present the positions you argue against.
So you would agree that his HUMAN will was different than His GOD will and that he submitted his HUMAN will to his Father’s will?
Wouldn’t “will” be a part of being a “person?” The Trinity is not one person but three, who comprise the Godhead, and the Three persons are one.
I think that egalitarians tend to deny or misunderstand the threeness of the Godhead.
If Jesus and the Spirit did not have separate wills, how could they be “persons?” The fact that their wills are in complete unity with the Father’s will does not mean that they do not have wills of their own.
Dave,
That’s exactly what I’m driving at though I did not state it because if Jesus did not have a different will in the garden, then his prayer to the Father is bereft of any intelligible meaning. I think this issue is very germane to your article. Jesus submitted his will to the Father’s will and of course, submission is the buzz word here. It did not make Jesus any LESS of who he was/is.
And now I will push the submit button.
Hi Dave,
I understand what you are saying. In my previous post (it’s somewhere in the threads here) I was just explaining it as it was explained during the controversy many moons ago.
There are some things that give me pause in accepting will as a property of person. One is the biblical phrase “will of God.” Now we know that God is triune and has only one will. He is not, nor can he be “divided against himself,” so to speak. Jesus (most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane) had two wills. We all agree that he ultimately followed the will of the Father, but he did so by surrendering his will not to die to the Father’s will that he die. Thus he had two wills.
The theological problem if will is a property of person, then, comes in Jesus’ incarnation and in the Garden itself. If Jesus has only one will, then it is the will he has as God the Son, as he is the Word become flesh. Then he has no human will. That leads us to the edge of Apollinarianism. Additionally, if he has only one will, then the Garden is an instance of God the Son and God the Father in volitional disharmony, even if only for a short while.
Apollinarianism is dangerous because, as Gregory of Nazianzus famously said, “The unassumed is unhealed.” If Jesus’ will is only the will of God the Son, then he never assumed a real human will, and therefore real human will remains forever unredeemed. It is for those reasons I think it is better to say will is a property of nature rather than of person. That way, the singular will of God is preserved, the real conflict in the Garden is preserved, and the full humanity of Jesus (right down to the will) is preserved. It also allows for the redemption of the human will in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I hope that clarifies.
Jim G.
Dave: I read all that you wrote, but in fact it is not true that all complementarians think women are equal. You say you do and I have no reason not to believe you, but the fact is not all do and it certainly has not been the case through all of church history. To say that all complementarians think women are not second class flies in the face of comments from leaders such as “I think every man should own one” or “Do I believe in women behind the pulpit? You bet I do, how else do you expect them to vacuum back here if they can’t get behind it?”
As for ESS, it seems by reading some of the statements by the church Fathers, even they tread lightly on this subject of the Trinity not delving too far into it.
WSC Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these
three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
Just a question, why should we argue/debate when the above from an existing and sufficient theological statement is enough to know.
On what basis do you say that is “enough to know”? Everything revealed in the Scriptures is important to know. ESS (and this whole discussion) is an attempt to define that which the Bible says about the existence of God.
for me, the Bible, not the catechism, is decisive and authoritative.
Because there are people who want to reject scripture’s teaching about the different roles of men and women.
Like You Joe.
I think I agree with Dave and others on ESS. Need to dig some more that’s for sure.
Ok, this is going into the mix of stuff to read while doing my History and Hermeneutics readings today. I’ll be back with something….
Dave,
Thanks for raising this issue. As a committed complementarian and patristics scholar, I would suggest that the modern idea of ESS, used to defend what Scripture ALREADY teaches about roles within marriage and the church is not the same thing as the earlier scholars you cite mean when talking about order or “subordination.” Those patristic writers are explaining the single divine essence of our Triune God as being that of the Father as the source of the Godhead. Why would this be important? Because the Grand Narrative of Scripture is one single economy of God in which the Father accomplishes his work through the Son and in the Spirit. This five-fold work (creation, revelation, incarnation, resurrection, and redemption) is always Triune.
While the matter is certainly debatable, it would be best not to imply that those who do not accept ESS as described by Kovack or Grudem, are somehow egalitarian. I assure you that I, for one, am not. I simply wish it wasn’t framed as a complemetarian/egalitarian controversy when it most clearly is not. I’m not sure if you are wanting a debate about ESS or complementarianism. Since they are in no way related to one another, what the post is asking us to debate is confusing.
Thanks for raising the issue of ESS, though.
I think, somewhere in this lengthy discourse, I mentioned that the doctrine of the Fathers was in nascent form and was developed through time. My point was not that these early Christians would have defined things exactly the same way that we do now.
Really, I had one point in this entire post. I’m tired of hearing the “ESS is a recent innovation” chant.
Thank you, though, for what you added here. I know who to consult now next time I’m study patristics!
Dave,
If I am hearing my former prof Steve correctly [and please correct me if I am wrong Steve], then what he is saying is that the earlier scholars did not mean ESS in what they said in either developed “or” seed form.
Steve said “I would suggest that the modern idea of ESS…is not the same thing as the earlier scholars you cite mean when talking about order or ‘subordination.’” (bold mine)
I think Steve means–not the same thing in any form [nascent or developed]. Again, if I am wrong, then I hope Steve comes back and corrects me. However, if I am right, then what Steve is talking about connects with the concern I raised back over on this other SBC Voices comment stream:
https://sbcvoices.com/genesis-3-temptation-the-fall-and-gender-roles/
I believe the N.T. limits leadership to men in the home and church. However, if I am hearing Steve correctly, then I think this should possibly give folks a reason to pause concerning the [supposed?] connection between the Trinity and the comp/egal debate that has been made.
And praise God Southeastern has Steven A. McKinion!
Look, I’m not a patristics scholar, so I would not even attempt to argue with one who is.
For every scholar who reads the Fathers and makes one point, there is another who says the opposite.
I tried to focus this post on one question and I think my point still stands even if a) your interp is correct and b) Dr. McKinion is 100% correct.
I was responding to the continuing assertions that complementarians created the doctrine of ESS for the purpose of giving a theological underpinning for our doctrine.
Perhaps the title of the article is confusing – I meant it to be an advertisement. I have never tried to assert that the Fathers would understand ESS in the same way modern scholars do.
I am trying to make the following assertions:
1) That the doctrine of ESS was not developed as a complementarian underpinning, but was developed over the years as a means of expressing the relationships within the Trinity long before the current Gender wars.
I do not know if you and Dr. McKinion are right about the disconnect between modern and ancient ESS. I also concede that the term ESS is more modern and might not accurately describe the earlier views. That is not the point I am making.
2) That the idea that in the Godhead there is both essential equality and “economic subordination” is not a new theological development. Those two aspects – essential unity but differentiation of roles do seem to be a pretty consistent framework, even if you do not buy into every aspect of Grudem’s treatment of it.
I’m not trying to say that everything Grudem says is what Hilary of Poitiers was saying.
I’m not sure if I didn’t make my point clear enough or what the problem is, but I was not really trying to assert the things that you and Dr. McKinion seem to think I am trying to assert.
Benji, I’m not sure if the title is the problem. I write titles as an attempt to summarize what I am saying and frankly, to attract readers.
I realize that this one might be fundamentally inaccurate. I am not maintaining that the current formulation of the doctrine (Grudem’s perhaps) is exactly what the earlier church doctrine was.
I can see that perhaps my title gave that impression. I wrote the article then put a title on it.
I guess I would hope that people would actually wade through the post and not just make an assumption from the title. Perhaps I could edit the title.
Hi Benji,
Good to see another SEBTS grad! I had Prof. McKinion as well.
I see both your point and Dave’s. I think it is a bad idea to try to appeal to the inner-trinitarian relations in the comp/egal debate from either side. I don’t think Dave was trying to do that. But (as a complementarian) I think Scripture is clear on the issue without ever neeing to appeal to the Trinity.
Jim G.
Jim: “I see both your point and Dave’s.”
C’mon, Jim, be honest. Mine was better than Benji’s, right? You can say it. Just between us!!
Hi Dave,
Just between you and me, I thought your point was exactly fifty percent as good as double the other half of Benji’s statement. And Benji can’t read this, because I’ve put the super human x-ray impossible reading potion on it. He can see the words, but will be unable to react to them in any way that is meaningful beyond meaning.
Jim G.
Brilliant!
(Your comment, not Benji)
Dave is correct, patristics is a field in great need of work, including a re-reading. As Benji pointed out, my primary contention is that the substance of ESS as expressed by Kovack, et al, is fundamentally something different that the notion of “subordination” in the texts cited. ESS may or may not be something fashioned solely for the defense of complementarianism (that, again, I think is clearly presented in Scripture). I’m not certain of the motivation. But, the patristic notion of subordination (as I understand it) is fundamentally different than ESS (again, as I understand it).
But what I do know for certain, is that one need not accept Kovack and Grudem’s ESS to be a complementarian.
Thanks for offering something substantial for readers to discuss. You always do.
Dr. McKinion, I would like to ask you a question. I hear you saying two things:
1) The current ESS doctrine is not identical to (I’m not sure how strongly you would word that) the subordination teachings of the early fathers. In my limited and non-scholarly research, I believe that is very plain.
2) The effort to tie ESS to the gender debate is not appropriate.
I have a little trouble with that, because of 1 Corinthians 11:3, which seems to tie the headship of the Father over the Son and the headship of Christ over man is used as the basis of the headship of the man with the woman.
On that basis, I see a tie-in.
So, here is my question: Do you believe that the current iteration of ESS (Grudem, etc) is in some way theologically incorrect, or are you just challenging the way they apply it to the gender debate?
Hello STEVEN A. McKINION,
Do you make your case for ‘they are in no way related to one another’,
based on any of the arguments found in St. Ambrose’s defense of the Holy Trinity, some of which are mentioned here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iv.iv.x.html
Schaff has some comments that strongly assert that the ESS-type doctrine has been historically orthodox.
Dave,
It is helpful to define our terms- so I can understand what you are saying can you define these words for me:
Eternal:
Subordination:
Son:
Historic:
Doctrine:
Church:
oh, nevermind- this is about as clear as it gets! You are right- someone can disagree with ESS, but at least do it with a little bit of intellectual integrity and not pretend it is a recent belief. Great post.
One wonders if the hidden reason is to keep women in subordinate and therefore submissive roles, and the remark in the opening salvo points in that direction. There is no question of inferior and superior in the relationships of the God head. the word was with God on a footing of face to face quality. The thing the Jews most hated about Jesus was that He made Himself equal with God. Everything in the trinity and unity of the One true and living God is a balance of the highest order. Eqalitarian with authoritative, acceptance as an equal with the equal’s willing embrace of the desire of the other person or persons in the Trinity. The subordination idea is that of a glad response of the desire to please the other….as the desire of any member of a family would be to please another member’s wholesome desire. Application of all that is in eternity in the affairs of man runs into the problem of fallen nature, where madness of the individual (Eccles.9:3) is liable to come to the fore and make demands that cannot be subsumed under the privilege of true righteousness and holiness and love and justice that exists in the Eternal. A historical study of the issues of authority, especially in the light of the evil excesses of Nazism and Communism might be helpful. I am nearing the end of Metaxas’ biography of Bonhoeffer, and it is a helpful insight into the issues of authority gone haywire. I also can never forget getting to view some photographs a church member took of one of the smaller concentration camps and the nightmares those pictures gave me. German was a nation noted for the complementarian roles in the home, the father being he unquestioned head, etc. That submissiveness to authority played right into the hands of Nazis and led to the disaster of World War II. Interestingly enough, the more balanced approach to the issue of the Americans and the Brits (to a lesser degree) led to the defeat of a dictatorship that would have destroyed the world. My grandfather’s brother who served on MacArthus’s staff in Intelligence (that didn’t mean he was hobnobbing with the brass), and who had served in the military from the Spanish American War until World War II with a few breaks, knew soldiers. He use to say the Turks were the best individual fighters, the Germans the best unit fighters, and the Americans were the best all around fighters, because they could take orders and, if their officers were killed off, they could move up and take charge (he had done this in World War I, receiving a battlefield commissionsigned by Woodrow Wilson (which being a history lover at a very young age my eyes fastened on, when he showed me his commission)). The Americans and, to a lesser degree, the Brits, had a more complementarian-egalitarian approach; their authority involved checks and balances, and it is precisely this idea of checks and balances for authority among humans that is found in biblical teachings. Obedience to God is unconditional, but obedience to man, even as God’s representative, has built in checks and balances. Dealing with the pathologies in a family, where some of the aberrant evils of our day have occurred, is an eye-opener to the need for checks and balances. Our own government as a nation is a case in point. And since by double digits (34%) our government documents come from Scripture (According to the professors from Houston who did the research), we might well assert the John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims was amply justified in his statement to this effect: “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word.” As one who has studied American History, I think it is likely that such approach grew out of a biblically informed political leadership. Even if some were not true believers, they were often, in many instances, better informed as to what the Bible actually says than their modern counterparts of today.
Jim, in your extensive studies, did you ever take a class in which they explained the value of paragraphs? It would be much easier to read your lengthy comments if you divided them up into thought units separated by paragraph divisions.
Just a suggestion!
When you say that Jesus is ontologically equal but economically subordinate, aren’t you separating the natures of Christ and embracing Nestorianism? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that there is order in the Trinity both ontologically and economically?
Rick
I think that heresies like Nestorianism tend to develop when we try to logically and rationally explain the revelation of God in Scripture. God is one. God is three. Both truths are affirmed in the Bible. But when we try to put that conundrum in rational terms, we usually end up somewhere we don’t want to go.
The “ontological equality with economic subordination” statement is an attempt to explain what Scripture reveals. No, I don’t think it is Nestorian.
Thank you for your reply.
Rick
I had more to say than the above remarks, but I must have hit the wrong key as I lost some comments about egalitarianism within the trinity and unity of the Godhead. The acceptance of a role does not mean that there can be no questioning or explanation of what is involved. Things in Heaven are predicatd on the highest and absolutely perect understanding and ethics. That is not the case on earth. The madness inherent in every situation (due to man’s fallenness) must be considered and addressed to some degree. Complementarianism’s apparent opposite is egalitarianism. They can’t be reconciled, and they are not meant to be – in my opinion. They set up a desirable tension in the believer’s psyche, one which empowers him or her to be subordinate and submissive, when that is the appropriate response, and one which empowers hom or her to function in a position of leadership, when that is the proper course of action. This grows out of a two-sided approach for the scientific method (which today suffers from the paralysis of analysis…probably due to the fact that the human mind is really good once it starts functioning in the analytical mode), for a more perceptive and thorough formulation for the scientific method suggests its need for at least a two-pronged approach to many situations.
Perhaps I’m just daft, but isn’t the notion of an economic subordination related to the Godhead’s interaction with creation/humanity? (i.e. essential versus economic)
So is the subordination eternal (i.e. essential) or economic (i.e. at one level or another, related to the in-time/in-creation Incarnation)? I’m a little confused as to how it can be both….
One of the points that is consistently made in the sources I referenced is that this Father/Son/Spirit relationship is eternal, not just temporal – that it expresses a fundamental aspect of the eternal nature of God.
In fact, some argue that to say that this is simply an in-time thing is a denial of God’s immutability.
St. Ambrose defends the Holy Trinity from those who would rank Christ below the Father for all eternity:
“And how, indeed, hath He any greater than Himself Who is one with the Father in Godhead?20042004 S. John x. 30. Where there is unity, there is no dissimilarity, whereas between greater and less there is a distinction. The teaching, therefore, of the instance from Scripture before us, with regard to the Father and the Son, is that neither is the Father greater, nor hath the Son any that is above Him, inasmuch as in Father and Son there is no difference of Godhead parting them, but one majesty.”
That borders on a (unitarian) denial of the Trinity – the fact that the FAther, Son, and Holy Spirit are not only unity in glory, but are also persons in and of themselves – that the Father is eternally Father, the Son is eternally Son and the Spirit is eternally spirit.
The basis of the Trinity is THREE in ONE.
You seem to emphasize the oneness of the Trinity at the expense of the threeness. Trinitarian heresies throughout history have wandered from the incomprehensible balance of the Three who are One.
I do not think you understand the Trinity very well.
Hi DAVID,
We disagree, but I am Roman Catholic, which is extremely orthodox, so my perspective on things is different. That is a given.
I have never been taught the ESS doctrine. Nor seen it expressed in liturgical worship in any sense that Jesus Christ as the second Person of the Holy Trinity ranks ‘sub’ the the Father eternally. I’m telling you the truth, DAVID.
Christ ‘descended’ at a moment in time, to be born incarnate in order to save us, and we bend our knee, and pause in respect and thanksgiving, as that part is spoken in our Creed.
But we do not consider Him to be a ‘sub’ anything eternally, in His position in the Holy Trinity, no. Jesus Christ is prayed to directly by us as God. The Holy Spirit is prayed to directly by us as God. The Father is prayed to directly by us as God. The Three Persons in One is prayed to as God, directly by us.
You have asked me not to quote, or give references if I did quote, without giving comment. So I have made effort to respect that request.
As far as a disagreement, I think that you come to your opinion honestly, as I have mine. I will not say to you that you lack understanding of the Holy Trinity, so much as your understanding of it and mine are different.
DAVID, you may want to take a look at St. Ambrose, who was arguing a case against the Arians and who, in process, makes it clear that Christ is not a ‘sub’ anything in the Holy Trinity. You may disagree with Ambrose, no problem. But he is considered orthodox, and you might even find something in his writing to support your own thinking on this matter. Who knows? It’s Arian tail Ambrose is kicking, so you can read him without too much hesitation.
Examining different sources is a good thing. I am willing to look at your sources. Ambrose gives his points in a common sense way similar to Louis-the-lawyer who comes here to comment sometimes, so you might enjoy reading his works.
Christiane, I don’t know if you are unwilling or unable to understand the arguments that I am making, but you cannot nullify ESS by proving that the persons of the Godhead are equal.
I do not consider the Catholic Church “orthodox.” It has embraced errors contrary to the scriptures and therefore does not offer a saving faith to those who follow its teachings.
I believe that some Catholics find salvation in spite of the falsehood that is promulgated by Rome.
But Catholicism, as a denomination, is neither orthodox nor truly Christian.
You may see me as harsh, I’m sure. But I believe that you generally promote that which is contrary to the Christian faith and biblical truth in your comments. It is not just “disagreements” between people who share a common faith, but the difference between genuine Christianity and that which is false.
The proclamation of error and false doctrine requires those who hold to the biblical gospel to defend it.
No DAVID, I have no ill-will towards you.
I’m not sure what ‘orthodox’ means to you, but I’m now seeing more into your concept of it, a bit.
BTW, here’s where my understanding of ‘God is Humility’ comes from. You can read it, if you want to, and then delete it as you wish. You do what you feel that you need to do for the integrity of this blog, DAVID, and know that I am peaceful with that, and bear no hard feelings.
Yikes, I forgot the site, DAVID:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/humble.html
Orthodox with a capital “O” obviously refers to the Eastern Orthodox church and all in its family.
With the small “o”, orthodox means that one is faithful to the biblically-revealed faith that saves from sin. It stands in contradiction to heresy, which is doctrine that undermines the biblical and saving faith revealed in scripture.
As with your comment, the “humility of God” link you put up is biblically invalid. It references Jesus’ earthly humility and gives the bad translation of Psalm 113 which you quoted.
God is not humble. He is glorious and sovereign and works to glorify himself in this world. Jesus humbled himself. We must humble ourselves because of the glory of God.
” Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8)
The following is an explanation of how God, possesses as Trinity, a trait that orthodox Christians have come to call ‘the Divine Humility’. ‘Though the Eternal Son is truly God, consubstantial with the Father, He did not pridefully consider the Incarnation “beneath His dignity”. Rather, He concealed His Divine Glory behind mortal flesh and became a bond-servant of God. Though equal to God the Father in His Divinity, Jesus became subordinate to Him in His Humanity (John 14:28). Moreover, as the God-Man Jesus humbled Himself to the point of submitting to a painful, humiliating execution, out of love for the Father and for us. That is a startling manifestation of Divine Humility.’
This humility of God, as Trinity, was celebrated by St. Francis of Assisi in his famous prayers, but has always been a part of the Sacred Scriptures, and is even expressed in the OT: “Who is like the Lord our God, Who is enthroned on high, Who humbles Himself to behold the things in heaven and on earth? – Psalm 113:5-6
The Orthodox have a wonderful teaching about the humility of God that is based on these Scripture:
“Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is My throne and the earth is my footstool…All these things My hand has made, and so all these things are Mine, says the LORD.
But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.’ – Isaiah 66:1-2
and
‘For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite.’ – Isaiah 57:15
The beautiful Orthodox teaching based on these Scriptures is this: that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘as the waters of the Earth that descend from the high places to the lower places’, for the Holy Spirit descends from on-high and into the hearts of the lowly and the humble ones of the Earth.
Where does the Bible ever claim that God is humble?
He is glorious. He is sovereign. He is exalted. But the only time that humility is an attribute of God is in Jesus’ humility expressed in coming to earth and dying.
Your quote of Psalm 113:5-6 twists the meaning of that verse. It is not God who is humble, it is he who is exalted and looks down on the
Psalm 113:5-7 (ESV) Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap…
Honestly, Christiane, you would do well to throw away your book of ancient quotes and just read the Bible for a while.
No teaching is “wonderful” that twists and perverts the character of God or demeans his glory and exaltedness.
We must have a different definition of ‘humble’, David. Mine corresponds with ‘meek and humble of heart’ found in Scripture.
I’m not sure what yours is, so I cannot know that, but I suspect we are operating on two different definitions, without realizing it.
I don’t think our definitions differ of humility. I am required to be humble. Christ humbled himself.
God is never presented as humble in scripture.
The word humble means lowly. God is exalted, not lowly.
Here is a quote from Ambrose:
“65. He, therefore, possessing the fulness of Divinity and glory, is not, in respect of His Divinity, inferior. Greater and less are distinctions proper to corporeal existences; one who is greater is so in respect of rank, or qualities, or at any rate age. These terms lose their meaning when we come to treat of the things of God.” (bold mine)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=%E2%80%9CAnd+how,+indeed,+hath+He+any+greater+than+Himself+Who+is+one+with+the+Father+in+Godhead?+St.+Ambrose&source=bl&ots=x9HUKuMsgH&sig=k1RAHxXWMB2b6PoMwR5pPpEhn1w&hl=en&ei=5B1DTcXFIoeglAfgo5Ak&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CAnd%20how%2C%20indeed%2C%20hath%20He%20any%20greater%20than%20Himself%20Who%20is%20one%20with%20the%20Father%20in%20Godhead%3F%20St.%20Ambrose&f=false
I’m trying to figure out what your point is, Benji.
Dave,
You said “…I’d love it if we focused on the historical question here.”
I think providing quotes from church history is a good way to stay in harmony with what you want this comment stream to focus on. Personally, I think I am “agnostic” on the question of whether or not ESS [in any form] has been a part of the historic doctrine of the Trinity since the days of those called “the church fathers”.
And I hope the quote I gave stimulates folks to go back and read the earlier theologians such as Ambrose and Augustine instead of merely looking at more recent theologians such as Grudem, A. Hodge, C. Hodge, etc.
On another SBC voices comment stream this statement was made by one who affirms ESS:
“we also don’t have to guess much as to what the post-Trinitarian Church Fathers believed in regard to rank in the Trinity. They were pretty straight forward that while rank was inherent in the Trinity, this did not negate the existence of homoousios (same substance).
Now, in the quote I provided by Ambrose, he seems to have a theological problem concerning “rank” in the Trinity. And, personally, I want to take that seriously in the light of who he is in church history in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, folks can go and read more by him to get more context. I think that is a good thing.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on how the earlier theologians saw the Trinity. I am still learning myself.
Neither am I an expert.
My intent in this post was to show that the affirmation of egalitarians that ESS was designed (in 1977 according to Witherington) to undergird complementarianism.
I think I have shown:
1) That ESS existed in essentially its modern form since at least the middle to late 19th Century – well before the modern gender war.
Someone will have to explain to me how Grudem’s view differs from Strong, Hodge or Boyce.
2) That ESS was developed not for the purpose of undergirding complementarianism, but as a means of explaining the unexplainable interrelationships of the Trinity.
3) That ESS is not a break with historic Christian thinking. I will admit (as I already have) that my title may overstate things. I am not saying that the early fathers would have adopted ESS as we do today, perhaps.
But there has been a pretty consistent support for the “ontological equality and economic subordination” formulation. Not perhaps from everyone, but it has been a consistently dominant form.
Prior to the modern gender wars, Hodge and Schaff both described this as the dominant Nicene position.
4) That the subordinate interrelationships of Father, Son and Spirit are part of their divine nature, not just operable during Jesus’ earthly ministry.
St. Ambrose of Milan, in addition to being a Church Father, also is one of twenty-three ‘Doctors of the Church’, due to his contribution to the Church’s understanding of theology and doctrine.
Dave,
I am not saying that the early fathers would have adopted ESS as we do today, perhaps.
I am wondering if the earlier theologians might have communicated that they actually disagreed with the substance of ESS.
Question, Benji,
You seem to be more in tune with what Dr. Mckinion is saying about this. It seems to me that both you and he are questioning the relevance of the ESS question to the gender debate.
Wouldn’t you say that 1 Corinthians 11:3 means that there is some relationship between the two?
The head of Christ is God…
The head of woman is man…
However you interpret that verse, doesn’t it, at least, mean that there is some tie-in between the ESS debate and the gender debate?
Hi Dave,
I’m not speaking for Benji here. He is more than able to speak for himself. I would contend that that 1 Cor 11:3 does not necessarily tie in to ESS. I’ll explain.
(I’m sure you know my terminology. I’m just stating it for clarity’s sake.) There are two ways theologians look at the Trinity. There is the Trinity ad intra (or, if you like, the immanent or ontological Trinity), which is the inner-trinitarian relations that concern only God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. Then there is the Trinity ad extra (or, if you like, the economic Trinity) which is the relationship of the persons of the Trinity with creation.
I would contend that the idea of ESS, by definition, fits into the Trinity ad intra, since we are looking at the eternal subordination of the Son. We are discussing something that is eternally true of the Godhead, whether or not creation is involved.
The context of 1 Cor 11:3, saying that the head of the woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, is definitely a statement describing things in the world of the Trinity ad extra, since it is the description of the ordering of created beings as they relate to Christ and God.
I think most theologians across all theological spectra recognize some subordination (I prefer the term “ordering,” but the terms are similar enough to interchange on this point.) in the Trinity ad extra. The Father sends the Son. The Son sends the Spirit from the Father. I think even in this discussion thread, most agree in the ordering of the ad extra (economic) Trinity. That is pretty well agreed upon. I just think that 1 Cor 11:3 is an economic statement concerning the Godhead, rather than an immanent one.
Now, the late Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner stated that the Trinity ad extra is identical to the Trinity ad intra. This statement, known as Rahner’s Rule, is not fully accepted by most of the SBC theologians I know. Most Southern Baptist thinkers hesitate to say we can know so much about the Trinity ad intra. If one follows Rahner’s Rule, then one can make the leap from 1 Cor 11:3 to ESS, since 1 Cor 11:3 is economic and ESS is immanent. But if the immanent and economic Trinity are not necessarily identical (that is, a rejection of Rahner’s Rule), then I don’t think we can make the leap to ESS from 1 Cor 11:3. The immanent Trinity may be a lot more (I hate to use the word here) egalitarian than we can say for sure.
In summary, I think we can say “Economic subordination” and be fine. When we stretch that to “Eternal,” we may be wading into mystery that may better be left alone. I hope this helps.
Jim Gifford
Hi Dave,
I forgot to add that therefore, I am hesitant to tie ESS (something I’m not sure we can state confidently) to the gender-roles debate, since we may be talking about comparing apples (eternal, immanent trinitarian reality) to oranges (economic trinitarian reality and the created order). Sorry to have left that out.
Jim G.
Schaff certainly did not think that was the case.
I didn’t see any response to Benji’s remark that those who hold to ESS affirm that there is rank in the Trinity. Do those who take this position believe there is hierarchy in the Trinity?
Also in point 4 above you said “… the subordinate interrelationships of Father, Son and Spirit are part of their divine nature, not just operable during Jesus’ earthly ministry.” When you say this, it’s the same as saying there is ontological equality and economic equality as well as ontological subordination and economic subordination. So what is gained by saying there is ontological equality and economic subordination? Does this mean that while Jesus is equal He is simultaneously subordinate? (Jesus is submitted to the will of the Father but that is not subordination.) That doesn’t make any sense!
I would appreciate any correction you could give me in my thinking.
Thank you
Rick
rank/hierarchy? Not sure how to define the difference.
We assert that (as is the nature of the Trinity) two things are both held to be true that it seems logically cannot be true.
God is One. God is Three (both can’t be true logically – except in that divine intelligence which is higher than ours).
The persons of the Godhead are equal. The persons of the Godhead have rank or order. (both can’t be true logically – except in that divine intelligence which is higher than ours).
I think the problem comes when we try to understand in human logic that which is beyond the boundaries of human intelligence. We accept what is revealed.
I am wondering about ‘The Father’ and ‘The Son’ and the question of who might rank above whom;
and I remembered the news story of a father and a son and how it was with them that one loved the other more than he loved his own life:
“Thomas S. Vander Woude, 66, died last week while helping his son Joseph, who has Down syndrome, after he fell into a septic tank while working in the yard, police said.
The tank was eight to 10 feet deep, Steve Vander Woude said.
His father climbed into the 2-by-2-foot opening, managed to get under Joseph and was pushing him upward to keep his head above the sewage. Initially, Vander Woude was able to keep his own head above the muck, telling a workman who was helping from above, “You pull, I’ll push,” Steve Vander Woude said. But he eventually sank and was later pulled out by rescue workers, who were unable to revive him, Prince William County police said.
Joseph, 20, was hospitalized last week with pneumonia but was released Saturday and attended the Mass for his father in a wheelchair, connected to an oxygen tank. His family said doctors expect a full recovery.
A few days after his father’s death, Joseph’s family sat with him in the hospital and explained to him that his father had died. Upon hearing the news, Joseph “sat back . . . he closed his eyes, his chin quivered, and he started crying,” Steve Vander Woude said.
“I think he understands as much as he can right now.”
For me, the mystery surrounding the relationship between The Father and The Son in the Holy Trinity has very little to do with who might ‘outrank’ whom. There are other things so much more important.
Its a nice story, but I guess I’m flummoxed as to how it relates to this discussion.
DAVID, even if I did understand it myself, I’m not sure I could explain it to someone else.
The only thing I know is that there is something more important than prestige, or power, or authority, or rank, even in the Holy Trinity.
Think about it:
What is the strongest force in all of Creation?
I think we get glimpses of it:
A woman missionary gives her food away to starving Chinese because this force is stronger in her than her own hunger. She weights fifty pounds at her death from starvation.
A father is able to save his son because of this force, but loses his own life, drowned in sewage.
This force enables a young Belgian missionary to go to the island of Molokai to minister to a colony of lepers, caring for them when no one else would go near them. At the end of his life, a photograph shows his face ravaged by leprosy, swollen and deformed, and yet his face cannot be ugly to those who know Christ.
Understand? David, I wished I did myself.
Feelings and impressions do not negate scripture.
Hi Christianne:
The issue of rank/hierarchy IS important because if it exists, then there is inequality of status in the Trinity. If there is inequality of status, then the Son and the Spirit are lesser deities. If they are lesser deities, then the doctrine of the Trinity falls apart.
Albeit in the relationship that exists between the Persons of the Trinity, there is order. There is a difference.
Rick
That is absolutely not true, Rick. The Son and the Spirit are not lesser deities. That kind of wild and false accusation not only twists the views of others but is completely unhelpful to the discussion.
The statement I made, which is not reflected in the reply by David, IS true. Read my post carefully and observe the use of the word “if” which is the indicator of a hypothetical. The only way that the Son and the Spirit would be considered lesser deities, is “IF” the condition (rank/hierarchy) in my statement were true. It actually advances the discussion.
Also, what is the wild and false accusation?
Rick
Dave: It was you who brought up it’s relation to the complementarian view. Bruce Ware for one also uses this as a road to the complementarian view. If you are frustrated, it should not be at egalitarians who have shown how this cannot relate or as one commenter who is a complementarian , mentioned that it is not related. And actually seemed to have a problem with this view.
My problem with this view is as I related above, that I realize you are seeming to say this is not related to his nature but to his role as Son, this still smacks to me of lowering Christ himself who is definitely God. He has nothing to obey because I believe the Bible says The wills of the Trinity agrees. Before the world began God’s plan was always to save us. Before the world there was just God, the Trinity, no one else. The Trinity’s wills agree on this plan. All are equal in power and deity.
ESS seems to give the illusion that Christ does not have something the Father does. That he must listen to the Father and obey because of something Christ is lacking. It may not be what you believe Dave, but it’s what this view implies. That is simply not true. All the Trinity is God will all the same attributes, power, knowledge, etc.
No, Debbie, its what your misunderstanding (willful or not) of the view implies.
Hebrews 1:10 shows the God the Father is not the only one who has authority over creation. Christ along with God the Father created the earth.
ESS agrees with that, Debbie.
JEsus is fully God, the Divine Lord of all. Amen. Now, I would encourage you to deal with what ESS actually teaches.
Rick, if I say, “If you are a United Methodist pastor, you deny the gospel” when I know very well you are a United Methodist pastor, the “if” becomes a little specious, doesn’t it.
When you say, “if” you believe in ESS, you deny the Trinity, knowing that I believe and have advocated that exact thing, hiding behind the if is a little bit deceptive, isn’t?
Show me ONE ESS proponent who is not also an ardent Trinitarian. Resorting to false accusations is not really a path to reasoned and cordial debate is it?
by the way, my best friend is UMC, so I am not leveling that particular accusation, just using it as an example of the kind of tactic you employed.
David:
I can see that we’re talking past each other. That is not my intent. I’m sorry if my inability to communicate accurately has caused any to think that I am accusing anyone of heresy. Especially you or any other proponent of ESS (your words). Please forgive me if I’ve injected any contentiousness into the substance of a discussion relating to the nature of God.
Rick
I apologize too, my patience has worn thin on this issue. ESS is a Trinitarian doctrine (which I believe reflects the biblical revelation).
It is not a denial of the Trinity, as many have intimated.
It is not rooted in a desire to subjugate women, as others have posited.
It is an attempt to explain biblical evidence which seems to teach both essential equality and some kind of difference in role/rank among the three equal members of the Godhead.
I get tired of what the tactic I called (in conversing with Christiane) “condemnation by comparison to the extreme.” That is a lazy argument which is often employed in biblical debate. It has been used frequently in this series of articles I have written on gender roles in scripture.
“Anti-abortion folks are all like those who bomb abortion clinics.”
“Baptists are all like Westboro (one we’ve heard a lot of at this site).”
“Complementarians and the quiverfull folks are the same.”
“ESS and Arian/subordination are the same.”
I am weary of having my views maliciously defined to be what they are not.
You may have gotten caught in the crossfire of that weariness. Sorry.
How important is this debate? I feel very uncomfortable digging to deep into this for fear of totally going into heresy concerning the Godhead. Why is it important to believe something that does not matter except in the concept of the Egalitarian/complementarian debate. Isn’t this something that is frivolous like the how many angels can fit on a pin debate? I just think it is too easy on either side of this to go into heresy if dissected and thought about too much. I believe in God being one person and three the Trinity. All are equal in power and authority because their wills always agree. This in my opinion preserves the deity of Christ as well as recognizing the human side. I just fear that ESS is going to end up putting Christ as less than He is and I can’t do that in all good conscience.
How important is this debate? I feel very uncomfortable digging to deep into this for fear of totally going into heresy concerning the Godhead
Translation: I’ve already decided how I feel about this–don’t confuse me with the facts.
Hi RICK MANG,
I am not Southern Baptist, although my Grandmother was. I am Roman Catholic. I have never heard of the term
‘ETERNAL subordination of the Son’ before reading Southern Baptist blogs.
I can find no reference to it in our catechism.
I am aware of the debate, but other than St. Ambrose of Milan, I cannot find any back-up concerning the issue. I will quote St. Ambrose here:
““And how, indeed, hath He any greater than Himself Who is one with the Father in Godhead? Where there is unity, there is no dissimilarity, whereas between greater and less there is a distinction. The teaching, therefore, of the instance from Scripture before us, with regard to the Father and the Son, is that neither is the Father greater, nor hath the Son any that is above Him, inasmuch as in Father and Son there is no difference of Godhead parting them, but one majesty.”
The clarity is marked in the section where Ambrose states ‘neither is the Father greater, nor hath the Son any that is above Him’.
The concept of shared majesty in our Creeds supports St. Ambrose’s teachings, as well as the fact that my Church considers him one of their twenty-three ‘Doctors’ of the Faith.
I’m sorry I did not reply sooner.
Please know that not all Southern Baptists buy into the ‘Eternal Subordination of the Son’ concept, but those that do, take it very seriously, and some are also applying it in support of the portion of the BF&M 2K that asks wives to be submissive to the husbands.
I am not a fan of ESS. In that part of it that says ‘Eternal’, it doesn’t reflect what my own faith teaches about the Holy Trinity, no.
Dave,
While I agree with Calvin on the valid place of having a closed mind (Book first; ch. 14, #1–last sentence, Henry Beveridge), I think my mind is still open on the ESS/Trinity issue.
It’s not that I do not have some conclusions on the Trinity. For example, I fully agree with Grudem’s 3 summarizing statements on the Trinity on Pg. 231 in his systematic theology–1st edition.
You said “God is One. God is Three (both can’t be true logically – except in that divine intelligence which is higher than ours).
While I do believe that the Trinity goes beyond what we can fully understand, I don’t think this statement is true concerning the Trinity and logic.
I think it would be illogical to say that God is one Person and three Persons. However, to say that God is one being in three Persons is not illogical.
Does the ESS understanding agree with Eunomianism in the teaching of the Son being eternally obedient and always a servant under the Father?
Eunomius was a bishop in Cappodocia who, among other teachings, also emphatically and repeatedly argued that the Son is eternally obedient, always a servant under the Father.
The basis of his teaching on the eternal subordination of the Son was that, by virtue of Christ being ‘begotten’, He was automatically of lesser rank than the unbegotten Father.
Could this be a key into understanding where the concept of eternal subordination of the Son might have shown up in early Christianity???
Do you ever get tired of the “condemnation by comparison to the extreme” tactic?
That is ridiculous, Christiane. Eunomius was an Arian and if you read what I wrote you would know that ESS rejects Arianism completely.
I have pretty much stayed out of this discussion, but I had to comment here just to thank you for that phrase, “condemnation by comparison to the extreme.” I run into that tactic in occasional discussions with a rather zealous Lutheran guy at another blog and never could come up with a good name for it.
It has been a common tactic in the gender debates. Some complementarians accuse any egalitarian of being liberal. On the other hand, complementarians hate women, want to dominate and control them and deny the Trinity to boot.
I admit I’m frustrated and losing patience with the tactic.
ESS came about as an effort to understand the biblical revelation – which exalts all three members of the Trinity as God, yet describes them as Father, Son, and Holy Spirt, demonstrates the Son as obedient to the Father, sent by the Father, seated at the Father’s right hand.
The NT revelation gives a dual presentation – equality and order.
You do not have to agree to ESS (I have no hope that any amount of biblical evidence would induce you to change your opinions). But stop trying to tie ESS to ancient heresies.
DAVID, I’m researching the origins of the idea of ‘eternal’ subordination, in the history of the Church, and then I am looking to see the reasons why that idea came about among the people that supported it.
The belief that Christ ’emptied Himself’ and accepted Incarnation, is not disputed. That is accepted by all Christian people. It’s that word ‘eternal’ in the subordination of the Son that must have had an origin in Christian thinking, and I am searching for that origin.
I’m not done, yet, but if I find something in pre-Nicene Church writings that mentions ‘eternally subordinate’, I will note it. If you have any leads, let me know.
I could use the help.
In addition to your “condemnation by comparison to the extreme” tactic, do you honestly believe that anyone thinks you are actually just asking sincere questions on a search for truth? Everyone has figured out long ago that you have already reached your conclusions (that conservatives, political and theological, are all the same as Westboro) and your pretense at making honest inquiry is full of what makes the grass grow green in Texas if you’ll pardon the expression.
JOE, can you point to the exact origin of the term ‘eternal’ in the discussion of the ‘subordination of the Son’ to the Father ?
I’m looking for it.
I’m also trying to find out:
what REASON(S) the first teachers of that concept gave for believing in it, and how the rest of the Church either accepted/or rejected their point of view.
I’m also looking into Christology development in theology among the early (pre-Nicene) Christians.
I see this as positive effort. So far, the references given are either modern or ancient. I’m going back to the early writings to see what I can find. Why not try? And see where it leads?
I think it is a very interesting subject, JOE.
Actually, you’ve already decided where it leads.
JOE, I’ll let you know what I discover.
What is going on here? It seems like a number of commenters here have a history with each other, and their own agendas. I was assuming that this was a post discussing the merits of an issue – not a forum for hurling insults. Let the comments stand or fall on their own merits and stop assigning motives where none are obvious.
Rick
Rick, its a little disingenuous of you to come on as if you are a “seeker of truth” and then start dropping bombs and accusing people of denying the Trinity.
That kind of wild accusation does not lead to reasoned debate. Every ESS proponent is also a committed Trinitarian – your accusations notwithstanding.
DAVID, when WAS the actual term ‘Eternal Subordination of the Son’ first used? It’s not in the Bible. I am looking for the origin of the term itself, and ALSO for the reason(s) given for believing in it.
Christiane, I’ve written extensively on this here and at sbcIMPACT. Grudem is probably the scholar who has written the most and the best. Other scholars (I do not consider myself in that category) have done a lot of work on the subject, which is available to someone who honestly seeks to learn and understand. If you want to learn, you can. I have questions about the sincerity of your search for information, as I have seen your anti-ESS agenda at work.
You can read what I have written or what others have written. If you are sincere, the information is out there.
I have questions about the sincerity of your search for information, as I have seen your anti-ESS agenda at work.
Now come on, Dave. What possible reason could you have to doubt her sincerity or think she has a bias? She’s a truth seeker and just wants the truth, whatever it may be. (snicker)(/sarcasm)
Okay, let me try working backwards. Who is known in modern times to be the first person to use the term ESS? I will take a look at his reasons and his references and trace backwards.
I can’t find the terminology ESS in ancient writings.
I will look at Grudem and re-read your writings. Yes. But I am right now looking for the person who originated the term ESS.
Back to square one. Again. (sigh)
I’m sure you will be able to find as much information as you truly desire to get.
The name of the person who originated the term ESS is my first goal.
From there, I will work backwards.
Here is how James P. Boyce saw it in his ST (Founders Press 2006):
On Pg. 152 Under a section entitled “IV. SUBORDINATION BETWEEN THE PERSONS” he says:
“The absolute equality of each of these persons, as God, has already been pointed out; and the possibility of inferiority, in other respects, was then intimated. There are some scriptural statements which seem to indicate this.”
On Pg. 154:
“An examination of these, and all similar statements in the Scriptures, shows they are in no respect inconsistent with the perfect equality of the persons as to the divine nature.
1. Almost all of them have reference to Christ, as man; or as the Son in his relations to His human nature; or as Messiah…
2. This explanation may be thought by some insufficient to account fully for the subjection of the Son referred to in 1 Cor. 15:28, or for the superior greatness ascribed to the Father in John 14:28. But, if so, we are only taught an inferiority of one person in the Trinity to another, as a person. Nothing indicates that it is of one of them as God, to another as God, or of the Godhead of one to the Godhead of another. It is only of the Son to the Father, and not of God the Son to God the Father…
3. The personal inferiority which is thus made possible, so far as it is natural, is due doubtless to the difference in the modes of subsistence in the divine essence. The Father subsists independently of the will, or the action of any other person. He is thus simply God’ not originated, not begotten, not proceeding from. The Son is originated, His filiation is willed, though necessarily, by the Father…” (bold mine)
Jim G,
If you would not mind, I would like to know your take on what Boyce says above in bold. What do you think about it?
Hi Benji,
I’ve read and re-read that quote by Dr. J.P. I think he is trying to say that any distinction of order only exists in the persons as among themselves. But I don’t know how sound that really is. I don’t know if it is possible to consider the divine persons apart from their being as God. I just don’t know if that distinction can be made.
I think there is a possible way around this debate. I, for one, don’t like the term “subordination” because of the baggage attached to it in our world. It is as if there is some sort of imposed hierarchy from within the Godhead. I think what might be a wiser choice for us is to see that the three divine persons are eternally self-giving. The doctrine of perichoresis holds that within the Godhead, the three persons make relational space for one another in self-giving love.
I could fully see that the Son yields to the Father in eternity, not because he is subordinate or lesser in rank (neither of those are true), but because he loves the Father so much he yields to him in love. As Phil 2 says, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. I think if we used language like “yielding in self-giving love” rather than “eternal subordination,” we would all breathe a little easier. It is just the baggage that a word like “subordination” holds that gives me and others pause.
As for JP Boyce, he gave it a good try, but I don’t see how we can view the persons apart from their status as divine persons. It is hard to fully apply the writings of theologians from different eras, because theology is such a contextual enterprise. That is why the best theologians seem so timeless.
Jim G.
Jim G,
I don’t know if it is possible to consider the divine persons apart from their being as God. I just don’t know if that distinction can be made.
I think I am with you on that and thank you for replying.
I do notice that Boyce is being tentative in that section instead of dogmatic. However, I don’t think Augustine allows for the possibility of that kind of distinction when one compares what they both said in these statements:
Boyce: But, if so, we are only taught an inferiority of one person in the Trinity to another, as a person…It is only of the Son to the Father, and not of God the Son to God the Father… (bold mine)
Augustine: …the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man.” The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in “fashion.” (bold mine) (14.; Translated by Arthur West Haddan)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm
I agree that the Son was submissive during his ministry here on earth. Where I disagree is that it is eternal. That he is still submissive, and was from the very beginning.
Problem with that is that scripture describes that submission as preceding the incarnation and following the resurrection.
I’m curious as I read James Boyce that Benji gave, what do you think Dr. Boyce is saying? I am sincerely asking to be sure I read it correctly.
As for scripture saying Christ is eternally subordinate, would you agree that what is said of the Father also holds true with the Son and what is said of the Son holds true to the Father? Christ said when you see me you see the Father. Christ also said: “Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves Me. He who loves me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and show Myself to him” (John 14:19-21
Calvin says this in referring to Father’s headship relative to the Son: ‘Then he returns the lordship to his Father so that – far from diminishing his own majesty – it may shine all the more brightly. Then, also, God shall cease to be the Head of Christ, for Christ’s own deity will shine of itself, although as yet it is covered by a veil.’ [Institutes 2.14.3]
DEBBIE, I agree with you.
An ancient hymn is ‘Let all mortal flesh keep silence’, and celebrates the Incarnation. The words and tone of this hymn would agree with your concept also.
I’m still researching ESS, so I’m not sure how ESS got started, but one thing I am sure of: I know MY Church didn’t do it.
And I’m David won’t mind me saying that at all.
Correction: And I am sure that David won’t mind me saying that.
Hi DEBBIE,
I think I share some of your concerns, also. But I am not afraid to find out how all of this controversy fits together. The Holy Trinity is beyond our understanding, but it does contain one feature that has not been discussed here, and I have been waiting for someone to mention it. It is a concern of mine that perhaps it is not a doctrine of Southern Baptists, so I have hesistated to mention it, but, in order to find out, I will, in hopes that someone can comment on how it applies to both sides of the debate on ESS.
That doctrine is called the teaching of the Divine Simplicity of God.
You really want to find some way to classify ESS as outside the boundaries of orthodox Trinitarianism, don’t you? ESS does not deny that God is of one substance and not made up of parts.
Really, Christiane – its getting old.
I am interested in this discussion simly because there is a bearing of Jn.1:1 where it says, “the word was with God.” That preposition translated with in English is supposedly (in the Greek) implying that the word is on a footing of equality with God (the Father). Christiane has pointed out that there things in the trinity which are of more imprtance than rank. Love and equality will allow for the function of leadership and the honor of it without the implications of our earthly existence with all of its violations of true Christian norms. A lot of this discussion is revolving around a hidden point, namely, radical feminism. I have been called a male chauvinist pig by one of the dear ladies representing that rather extreme position. Even so that does not stop me from coming to grips with those aspects of egalitarianism in the Bible. The egalitarian and the complementarian as I see it strike a balance of tension that enables us to follow the complementarian role when it is relevant and the egalitarian role when it is proper response. My study of agape love suggests that the resolution of the argument over ESS lies in the agape attribute of the Godhead. Love does not act as a superior; it is focused on the enhancement of the beloved. Indeed, I suspect that the superior/inferior perspective does not even enter into the equation of unconditional spontaneous agape love.
Here is some historical perspective before I give the quotes.
The Original Nicene Creed was 325 A.D. John of Damascus was born in 676 A.D. and died in 749 A.D. He is venerated in both the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church as well as others.
These are quotes from his work “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”:
We believe, then, in One God…one essence, one divinity, one power, one will…one authority…
Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will…and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.
the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind(2), and then being identical in authority and power and goodness–I do not say similar but identical–and then movement by one impulse(3). For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will…one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession.
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I
BENJI,
I thought somewhere in your comments that you referenced St. John Damascene on the subject of the Holy Trinity. I can’t find it on re-reading.
But he also is a well-respected Doctor of the Church (we only had twenty-three of them), and yes, he is also revered by the Eastern Orthodox.
Hello,
I understand that prior to the incarnation, Christ existed as the Word/Logos which is of “equal” essence to the Father. The fact that there was a point in time when Christ entered this world of time and space and became the Son subordinate to the Father. Would someone please share with me the evidence that the Son is eternally subordinate. I believe in the eternality of the Logos, but that is not the same as saying the Son is eternal. Where am I wrong.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? This implies to me that there was a time when the Son was not the Son but the Word/Logos was.
I’m sorry to tag this so late in the postings, but I really would like to know where from the Bible, not the Creeds. there is evidence of the Eternal Sonship
Thanks for any Light anyone can shed
.