I see this old post is circulating anew today. I don’t delete posts generally but I am no longer certain of my position on this topic. Dishonest, brethren-attacking Baptists use some of my older posts against me and others. The simple thing would be to delete this, but I see these posts and comment streams as a record of modern denominational history.
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.
