Is subordination within the Trinity really heresy? A study of John 5:18 in context

Trinity Journal, Spring 1999 by Keener, Craig S

(Bell and Howell Information and Learning systems foreign text omitted (...))

In recent years some evangelicals on different sides of the gender roles controversy have questioned the Christological orthodoxy of their opponents, charging them with "tampering with the Trinity" or even with "heresy." While I have great respect for some of these figures on both sides of the controversy who are issuing such charges, "tampering with the Trinity" and "heresy" is strong language, stronger, I think, than the evidence warrants.1

Nor, in fact, do Christological views coincide as closely with views on gender roles as some of the advocates of either position claim. Thus, for example, I frequently talk with Christians who espouse a complementarian view of gender roles while expressing surprise that anyone would deny the full equality in all respects of the Father and the Son. By contrast, I and some other scholars I know who support a very broad range of women's ministry affirm the Son's subordination to the Father. To be sure, that subordination may be voluntary, and we do not draw from it the same conclusions many of our complementarian colleagues do; but the fact remains that one's view on gender roles does not enable one to predict one's view of relations within the Trinity, or vice-versa. I do see evidence for the Son's subordination to the Father in rank; I also believe that evangelicals who differ on the matter should do so charitably.2

In a very meager contribution to this discussion, I submit a brief examination of a passage from John's gospel that I believe is relevant to the debate, followed by some brief comments on 1 Cor 15:28.

I. SUBORDINATION IN JOHN 5:18

John 5:18 reports, "This was why the 'Jews' were seeking even more to kill him, because he was not merely annulling the Sabbath, but was even claiming that God was his own Father, thereby making himself equal with God." From John's standpoint, Jesus is fully deity (1:1, 18; 20:28), but he also submits to the Father, whose rank is greater than his own (10:29; 14:28). In view of his prologue, John undoubtedly would have agreed with the later explicit language of the Father and Son sharing the same "substance," had the question been put to him, but in this context he applies the term "equality" to the matter of rank, not to an ontological question of nature.

When Jehovah's Witnesses begin sharing with me their reasons for distinguishing the Father and the Son, including Jesus' claim that "The Father is greater than I," I have normally politely interrupted, proceeding to explain that they are making an argument against the Sabellian, "Jesus Only" position, not against Trinitarianism. Trinitarians affirm that Jesus is a person distinct from the Father, but also recognize that the NT applies to him texts and titles the OT applied to Yahweh. (Unfortunately, soon after I start into those texts and titles, my new acquaintances usually wish to leave.)

Of various NT writers, John is one of the most explicit in affirming Jesus` deity and eternal preexistence. As Trinitarians have always recognized, however, he also distinguishes the identity of the Father and the Son. John frames his prologue by affirming that Jesus is God (1:lc, 18), a thesis which also frames the main body of his gospel (1:18; 20:28). Yet Jesus is also the Father's "Word," who was "with God" (1:lb), indicating a distinction between the Father and the Son. This distinction need not require differences in rank, but does allow for it.

On various occasions in the gospel, Jesus notes that the Father is "greater" than he (14:28). In such instances he does not mean the Father is greater in being as Jesus is greater in being than Jacob or Abraham (4:12; 8:53); rather, the Father is greater in rank, and the Son submits to his will (5:19-20; 8:29). This suggests that Jesus' interlocutors in 5:18 (who admittedly would have been offended whether Jesus claimed equality in being or equality in rank) misunderstood his point.

A. Does Jesus Claim "Equality"? (5:18)

Jesus is God the Son, but he is also the agent of God the Father. The image of agency in his culture implied some sort of subordination, even if only for the task at hand. When Jesus claims the authority to continue the Father's work, probably alluding to the Father completing his creative work on the seventh day (Gen 2:2-3), he plainly enough implies his deity. But affirming his deity is distinct from affirming either his identity of being with the Father (Sabellianism) or identity of rank in the redemptive order. The problem today is that we have sometimes followed the line of thought from Jesus' opponents rather than that from Jesus' following response.

The "Jews," representing in this context especially the Jerusalem authorities, understand Jesus to be annulling the Sabbath, hence claiming rank equal with that of the Father (5:18); yet throughout this gospel, this group called the "Jews" are unreliable characters.3 In this context they also prove wrong in thinking that Jesus claims "equality" of rank with the Father (see Jesus' clarification in 5:19-47).4 In fact, Jesus himself shares their view that Scripture cannot be "annulled" (10:35).5 Thus it is unlikely that John or Jesus view themselves as "annulling" the Sabbath per se; rather, in John's view Jesus is acting as God's agent to do what no one denied God could do on the Sabbath.