A defense of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the son

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 1999 by Kovach, Stephen D, Schemm, Peter R Jr

Gilbert Bilezikian boldly claims that "nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to a chain of command within the Trinity. Such 'subordinationist' theories were propounded during the fourth century and were rejected as heretical."1 In 1997, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society published Bilezikian's article "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead."2 This article was originally a paper he delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on November 18, 1994. Bilezikian claims that the current discussion of the eternal subordination of the Son by certain evangelical writers is based upon a theological innovation for the purpose of advancing an ideological agenda that makes women subordinate to men. The ministry of Christ on earth, according to Bilezikian, was only a temporary self-humiliation that has no bearing on his eternal status of complete equality of function and authority.3 Both Scripture and the Church councils exclude "any form of hierarchy, order or ranking" that would pertain to the eternal state of the Trinity.4 Bilezikian concludes his article with three recommendations for those who teach the eternal subordination of the Son: "1. Do not mess with the Trinity . . . 2. Let us quit talking about subordination . . . (and) 3. Let us not use God to push our ideological agendas . . . "5 As this article will show, Bilezikian's warnings are far more rhetorical than they are biblical or historical.

The purpose of this article, then, is to offer an introductory survey of the historical and biblical data that support the teaching of the eternal subordination of the Son. There are three parts to the survey. First, it is necessary to explain the distinction between the heresy of "subordinationism" and the idea of "functional" or "economic subordination." Bilezikian's misunderstanding is based on an improper and overly negative definition of subordination. Second, a brief account of the early Church councils and the Church fathers shows that they adopted the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, and that this doctrine continues in the Church as orthodoxy to this day. Third, the biblical record also confirms the eternal subordination of the Son. There are at least two main categories that affirm eternal subordination: the Son's relation to the Father and the Son's role on behalf of the Father.

The conclusion will look at a recent trend in Trinitarian thought that denies the eternal subordination of the Son by implication.6 The basis of these writings is that human beings are unable to discuss the interrelationships between the three Persons of the Godhead. These relations are a mystery and, therefore, one can only affirm the unity of God. Our sole basis for understanding the Trinity is the experience of being saved by God through Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, any ideas of subordination are rooted in patriarchy and are prohibited because our personal experience of salvation promotes the full humanity of women. As such, feminists like LaCugna want to read the relations between the Trinity as supportive of a relational view of human beings with the values of mutuality, equality and community.7 A brief analysis and critique will be offered on this revision of orthodox Christianity.

I. THE HERESY OF SUBORDINATIONISM: WHAT IS IT?

Bilezikian assumes that any view that confers an order or hierarchy among the persons of the Trinity is a subordinationist heresy. He is not alone in this weighty mistake. In their article in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, R. C. and C. C. Kroeger claim that the heresy of subordinationism "assigns an inferiority of being, status or role to the Son or Holy Spirit within the Trinity."8 In reality, the definition of subordinationism is not quite as broad as the Kroegers make it out to be. The assumption made by these leading evangelical feminists is that subordination of any type (including role) within the Trinity is automatically heresy. In fact, subordination as seen within the context of the early Church councils and creeds can be potentially orthodox or heretical. It depends on who or what is being subordinated and to what extent.

Several other theological dictionaries define "subordinationism" with more historical and theological precision. Subordinationism is the view that the Son and the Spirit "do not fully possess the divine essence (Homoousion)";9 "the doctrine that in essence and status the Son is inferior to the Father, or the Spirit is inferior to the Father and the Son"; 10 "any christological position which subordinates the Son to the Father in such a way as potentially to endanger his essential divinity;"zz "a view of Christ which maintains that he is not equal in substantial being with God the Father."12 All of these sources clearly betray the nature of the Kroegers' overstatement.

In an article in the Westminster Theological Journal, Michael Bauman discusses the different kinds of subordinationism during the Arian controversy. 13 He draws a distinction between what he calls emphatic and economic subordination. The Arian heresy taught emphatic subordination which entails inequality of nature and being. Arians asserted that "a natural inequality existed between the Persons of the Trinity by virtue of their essential differentiation and the temporal derivative character of the Second and Third."14 This is heretical because it is a subordination of essence or nature. Economic subordination, adopted by the Council of Nicea, means that while all three divine Persons are identical in essence, the Son is economically subordinate to the Father with respect to his eternal mission and function. The Son is no less than the Father, but has voluntarily submitted himself to the will of the Father. 15