The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eternal Subordination of Christ?

Theology Christology
#1

The trinity, as I have seen on this forum, has advocates from both spectrums of the debate. I am more interested here in discussing the subordination of Christ, and whether this is economic or eternal subordination within the Godhead. Subordinationist have often been labeled as Arians, non-consubstantionalist, and sometimes less flattering terms. Recently a scrum of evangelicals have embraced the eternal subordination concept, and have revisited the ECF, and particularly the Cappadocian Fathers, to look for hints of subordination within their framing of the trinity (See Jesus and the Father, by Kevin Giles). I have personally come to accept the subordination idea, and I want to discuss aspect of subordination, and how it affects ones version of the trinity that they hold.

Peace.
S.

#2

Hi Stefcui…

So I have a better idea of where you’re coming from are able to briefly share what ‘Eternal Subordination of Christ’ is to you? Thanks.

#3

Hi Davo,

Basically, the relationship of the Son of God to the Father is described in the NT in ways of subordination (of a son to his father). This subordination was existing prior to the incarnation, and it continues after the ascension, and after the restoration. In other words, the description of subordination is not offered as a temporary arrangement, it is offered as the eternal function of the Son of God within the trinity. Here are some scriptures which speak of subordination.

**John 5:30 **says, “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

**John 8:42 **says, “I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

**John 12:49-50 **says, “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

**John 14:28 **says, “the Father is greater than I.”

**Romans 8:34 **says, “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “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 15:24-28 **says, “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

**Ephesians 1:20-23 **says, “That he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

It is important to understand what these scriptures meant to the orthodox ECF prior to Nicene. In later times, after Nicene, these scriptures took on a radical re-working to identify with the Nicene and Constantinople charters. But there was no agreement, even from within the consubstantiation camp. I am suggesting this information merely as a guide. I would like to learn how others determine how subordination fits within the scriptures, ECF, and the eternal outworking of God’s revelation.

Peace
S.

#4

Thanks Stefcui, I don’t have anything to add per se beyond what seems to me clear from those texts you shared, i.e., that Jesus was subject to his Father.

#5

Hi Davo,

Like most things to do with God and His creation, this is a tricky subject. Not all things in theology have been considered. This particular aspect has been largely overlooked in the march of institutional Christendom. It is much like the subject of universalism. The entire subject has been overlooked by the majority, and then within the subject (of universalism) there are also many layers yet to be explored. What are the different layers of discipline, and how do they actually become meted out? And, what does the word “salvation” mean in the context of universalism? The trinity, also, has many subjects yet to be explored which challenge traditional modes of understanding.

Peace
S.

#6

I definitely believe in the eternal submission of the Son to the Father, but I am a non-Trinitarian (as well as a non-Binitarian, non-Arian, and non-Modalist, while yet believing in the full Deity of Christ, though I think Jason does not yet see how this is possible).

However, I do not understand how a Trinitarian could believe in the eternal “subordination” (or even eternal submission) of the Son to the Father. Don’t Trinitarians believe in equality of all three Members of “The God head”? That They are equal in EVERY respect?

#7

In that case it might just be an issue of deference.

#8

The trinity doctrine has many flavors. The prevailing flavor, consubstantiation, was emphasized mainly from Nicene onwards, and it became law from 381 AD. Prior to that there were many alternative flavors that existed that were not consubstantial. In fact, practically none of the earliest fathers believed the trinity as it is now applied. Following is the Wiki article on Subordinationism:

So, without fear of being labeled Arian or Modalist, these fathers were all clearly non-consubstantial in their theology. Subordinationism is the earliest prevailing doctrine of the church, and it was held well into the 4th century. It was in the 4th century that the Church of Rome flexed its muscle with the dominion over all other churches. Modern Christianity has never been the same, and we are bit by bit trying to reach backwards to the earliest and most pure teachings that were held in the church prior to the Roman papacy taking over as the new lord of the manor.

Peace
S.

#9

Stefcui, I was speaking of Trinitarianism as it was defined in the fourth century. In my opinion, none of the writers you quoted were Trinitarians in any sense except Dionysius. Even Tertullian, the first person to use the word “Trinity” meant something quite different (and perhaps that is your point). It seems the genuine writings of Ignatius either do not exist or are heavily interpolated. One cannot rely on those extant as reflective of his actual views.

#10

Hi Paidion,

As far as I know, all of the orthodox ECF are considered as Trinitarians; only their definitions of the trinity are not according to the Nicene formula. I think their subordination view of the trinity is much closer to the biblical formula, and if it was accepted by later scholars, it would have cause very little division. That my opinion anyway.

Peace
S.

#11

I was a Trinitarian in my teenage years, or at least thought I was, though I could never make sense of it.
But when I read Justin Martyr and other early Christians, I came to the following position:

  1. Before all ages, the Father, the Creator of all, begat a Son as His first act. (In my own thinking, I thought of this begetting as marking the beginning of time).

  2. The Father created all things THROUGH the Son.

  3. The Father is greater than the Son in terms of authority, but the Son is equally divine.

  4. The Father is the only true God, but the Son may be called “God” in the sense of being of the same essence as the Father.

  5. The Father and the Son are of the same mind in all things, and can extend their mind(s) anywhere in the universe, especially into the hearts and minds of Christ’s disciples.

  6. This extension is known as “The Holy Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is personal, but not a third divine person. The Spirit is the persons of the Father and the Son. The apostle Paul wrote that the Son actually IS “The Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

  7. When the Spirit in the Person of the Son is meant, He is called “The spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19)

  8. When the Spirit in the Person of the Father is meant, He is called “The spirit of God” (Matthew 3:16 and eleven other places)

  9. The term “The Holy Spirit” can refer to either the Father or the Son or both. They share the same spirit.

What do you think, Stefcui? Personally, I think this is neither a Trinitarian position, nor a Binitarian position. For “Trinity” implies one God in three divine Persons and “Binity” implies one God in two divine Persons. But Jesus, although divine Himself, addressed the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3)

#12

I think your faith and interpretation of the Godhead is fair. What you have arrived at, and there is nothing wrong with this, is an interpretation of those passages in the scriptures and the ECF that best fit your own logic. As I said, I do not see anything wrong with that. You can be wrong, and still be right… or you can be right, and still be wrong.

Justin Martyr: “The most true God is the Father of righteousness…We worship Him and adore Him, the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things…) and the prophetic Spirit.”

Here is an echo of the primacy of the father, whereas the Son and Spirit are spoken of as secondary. This is also taught within the Orthodox tradition in the form of the Monarchy of the Father. Gregory Nazianzen propelled this Monarchy theology, which as you will notice, it is a form of eternal subordinationism: “The heart of St Gregory’s trinitarian vision is the monarchy of the Father, as revealed in the economy of salvation. God the Father is the uncaused cause of the eternal Trinity and the source of the Son and Holy Spirit.”

The non-deity attribute of the Holy Spirit that you mention is also attributed to the early fathers, but only, I believe, if you read them out of context. Athenagorus stated that:

Athenagorus also stated:

You would find it difficult to find any orthodox father who agreed with your interpretation of the Holy Spirit, but I could be wrong. The term of the Trinity comes from a description of the baptism formula and the great mandate: “Go therefore and baptize…” Your interpretation of this trinity formula is definitely not classical Nicene; but I am not overly concerned at how God is described by the different models. I don’t think your intent is to subvert, so I am not alarmed at your description. The ‘trinity’ is probably the most difficult construct within the scriptures. It is fitting that the description of God would be a true test of our love and consideration of each other.

Peace
S.

#13

Hmmmmm… I don’t understand. I know I don’t believe the Holy Spirit to be non-deity, and so I reread the position I offered to you which I got from the early writers, especially Justin Martyr, and did not find that I affirmed non-deism to the Holy Spirit. Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit to be divine. The Spirit is the very persons of the Father and the Son—and They are divine! What I stated rather was, “The Holy Spirit is personal, but not a third divine person.” (Point #6)

Let’s consider Justin Martyr. He spent several days explaining to a group of Jewish men and their leader Trypho, that God begat a Son, and that this was Jesus the Messiah, and thus being the Son, He can also be regarded as “God” (or Deity). Both Justin and Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho of the Hebrew religion did not believe the Spirit to be a divine Person, distinct from the Father. Justin also spoke of the Spirit and never implied that He was a Person distinct from the Father and the Son. What follows is a quite interesting part of the dialogue which relates closely to this question:

If Justin had believed the Holy Spirit to be a Third Divine Individual, then this point in the dialogue would have been the prime opportunity for Justin to have introduced Him to Trypho as a Third Person to be worthy of worship. Let’s see what Justin actually said in response to Trypho.

Trypho then denied that he was of a different opinion, and Justin went on to quote Isaiah with regard to the Son having been generated, and also that He would be born from a virgin.

#14

Yes, I was generalizing when I spoke of the non-deity of the Holy Spirit. I meant that you do not hold that the Holy Spirit is individually divine.

Arguing from silence is not really an argument. There were plenty of other times where Justin speaks of the Holy Spirit as a different subject to the Father and Son in the prophecies.

And as I had already made mention of Justin in the previous post:

Justin Martyr: “The most true God is the Father of righteousness…We worship Him and adore Him, the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things…) and the prophetic Spirit.”

There is no reason to believe that Justin, who was held in very high esteem as orthodox, had ever believed anything other than the traditional teaching of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person. I do not begrudge you this alternative belief, I am just stating that there is no patristic grounds for holding it - as far as I know. I would not give Justin as an example of teaching the non-person of the Holy Spirit. I am very respectful of your knowledge, though, and I appreciate you for being so diligent with your beliefs.

Peace
S.

#15

I think the fact that Justin did not take the opportunity to present the Holy Spirit as a third entity to be worshipped, when he had already asked Trypho if there could be a Third, is a pretty good indicator that he didn’t believe in a Third.

In my opinion, none of the quotes from Justin Martyr which you have provided indicate that Justin believed in the Holy Spirit as a divine Person distinct from the Father and the Son.

Here is a quote in which he seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is the extension of the personality of the Father or the Son:

Schaff, Philip (2009-06-08). Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 - Enhanced Version (Early Church Fathers) (Kindle Locations 12181-12183). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

Contextually, I think “from His own person” refers to the One of uncomely and dishonoured appearance who nontheless is “The King of Glory”.

#16

Hi Paidion,

Arguing from silence is not advisable. On the “third”, although Justin said nothing to Trypho on the third, he says elsewhere that:

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13:5-6).

A good article on this discussion is found in: The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher, by Bogdan G. Bucur.

marquette.edu/maqom/bogdan3.pdf

Peace
S.