“Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father” 1 Wayne Grudem [published in The New Evangelical Subordinationism? edited by Dennis W. Jowers and H. Wayne House (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 223-261. ] There is no question that, during the time of Jesus’ life on earth, he was subject to the authority of God the Father. He said, “'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). He also said, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34). And he said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28). But some evangelicals today claim this was only a temporary submission to the authority of the Father, limited to the time of his earthly life or at least to actions connected to the purpose of earning our salvation.2 They argue that prior to his coming to earth, and after he returned to heaven, God the Son was equal in authority to God the Father. Gilbert Bilezikian writes, The frame of reference for every term that is found in Scripture to describe Christ’s humiliation pertains to his ministry and not to his eternal state.... Because there was no order of subordination within the Trinity prior to the Second Person’s incarnation, there will remain no such thing after its completion. If we must talk of subordination it is only a functional or economic subordination that pertains exclusively to Christ’s role in relation to human history. 3 In this chapter, I will attempt to show that this “temporary submission” view is incorrect. In contrast to that view, I will examine the meaning of the names “Father” and “Son” as well as 31 passages of Scripture that give evidence that God the Father has eternally had a role of leadership, initiation, and primary authority among the members of the Trinity, and that the Son has eternally been subject to the Father’s authority. (There are also good reasons to hold that the Holy Spirit has eternally been subject to the authority of the Father and of the Son, but it is not the focus of this essay.) ** A note on terminology I will refer to the position I hold as one that advocates the “eternal submission of the Son to the Father” or the “eternal authority of the Father with respect to the Son.” I also understand the phrase the “eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” to represent the same idea. All of these expressions represent the essential point which is in dispute, namely, that Scripture shows that there has been eternally a unique role that belonged to the Father, a role that included activities of 1 Significant sections of this chapter have been adapted from my earlier publication, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2005), pp. 405-415. However, I have modified nearly every section with additional evidence from Scripture and interaction with the recent criticisms of my earlier position found in Millard Erickson, Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009). 2 See Gilbert Bilezikian, Community 101 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 190–91; Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 57; Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002); Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Millard Erickson, Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009). 3Bilezikian, Community 101, 190–91. 1 initiating, planning, originating, directing, and having primary authority, and that the Son and the Spirit always fully agreed with these directives and, when the appropriate time came, willingly and joyfully carried them out. Some recent contributors to this topic, in particular J. Scott Horrell and Robert Letham, have argued for a position similar to the one I advocate in this essay, but have decided not to use the word “subordination” to describe the Son’s relationship to the Father. Horrell prefers to summarize his position as “the generous preeminence of the Father, the joyous collaboration of the Son, and the ever-serving activity of the Spirit.” 4 As to the term “subordinationism,” Horrell states (and I agree) that “Subordinationism of essence constitutes a historical heresy outside of our discussion.”5 But he also notes that there is another view that is clearly not a historical heresy, namely the view that there is “a role of eternal obedience of God the Son to God the Father,” and also that the Son is eternally equal to the Father in his being (or essence) and in all attributes of deity. Horrell notes that that view has sometimes used the term “subordination” (not subordination ism ) to speak of the relation of the Son to the Father. 6 But Horrell says, “Nevertheless, in a fallen world, the term subordination immediately implies hierarchy, top-down authority, power over another, subjugation, repression, and inequality.” Therefore, he says, “With Robert Letham, I think it is a term better abandoned when speaking of the divine immanent relations, particularly if understood as excluding the mutual volition of the Son and the Spirit in any activity of the Godhead.” 7 Robert Letham writes, “I consistently use the word “order” . I never use subordination or hierarchy or their functional equivalents – indeed, I sedulously avoid them.” 8 It does not seem to me that very much is at stake here. This is a minor difference of opinion over the wisdom of using a particular word. It is a difference among authors who agree about the main issue that is in dispute, namely, that there is an eternal difference in the ways that the members of the Trinity relate to one another. In those relationships, Scripture speaks of the Father having a unique role of initiating, planning, directing, sending, and commanding; it speaks of the Son as having a role of joyfully agreeing with, supporting, carrying out, and obeying the Father; and it speaks of the Spirit as acting in joyful obedience to the leadership of both the Father and the Son. It seems to me that the term “subordination” need not have oppressive connotations, and can be used to mean merely an “ordering under” in terms of authority in the relationship. For example, in the organizational structure of Phoenix Seminary where I teach, I am subordinate to the authority of the seminary board, the president, and the academic dean. But I am no less a human being than they are, and I am no less valuable in God’s sight. Therefore I respectfully disagree with Horrell when he says that the term “subordination” immediately implies “subjugation, repression, and inequality.” 9 In addition, several respected historians of theology have used the term to refer to the orthodox view of the Trinity. 10 However, I recognize the potential for confusing the term with the ancient heresy of subordination ism , and therefore I recognize the importance of specifying that the 4 J. Scott Horrell, “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,” in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective , edited by Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler (Nashville: B&H, 2007), p. 44. 5 Horrell, “Social Trinity,” p. 72. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., pp. 72-73. However, he names no evangelical authors who use “subordination” to refer to the inter-Trinitarian relationships and also exclude the “mutual volition” of the Son and the Spirit, nor am I aware of any who have done so. 8 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), p. 480. 9 Ibid., p. 73. 10 See Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth , pp. 417-422 for quotations. 2 term should be understood in this discussion as referring to “relational subordination” that accompanies “equality in being or essence.” I am more concerned about the loss of any idea of greater authority belonging to the Father. Horrell’s essay is outstanding in so many ways, but it seems to me that his summary definition, which affirms “the generous preeminence of the Father,” and “the joyous collaboration of the Son” 11 is too weak for the biblical evidence. It can too easily be understood in a way that avoids any idea of the Son joyously submitting to the authority of the Father. “Preeminence” can easily be understood to mean “more noticed” or “more frequently mentioned,” with no nuance of greater authority. “Collaboration” can be understood to mean “cooperation among those of equal rank or authority,” with no connotation of submission to authority. And so with this summary, the idea of greater authority for the Father is gone. But in a secular culture in which all authority (even the authority of God himself) is deeply unpopular, I am unwilling to give up the ideas of authority and submission altogether. What we have in the biblical text (and what Horrell so persuasively demonstrates) is a Father who plans, initiates, sends, commands, and delegates authority to the Son. We have a Son who joyously agrees with, responds to, receives, carries out, and obeys these directives of the Father. Quite simply, we have authority and submission to authority in the relationship of sinless, divine persons. If the Father-Son relationship as revealed in Scripture looks like authority and submission, and acts like authority and submission, then it is authority and submission. We should not hesitate to call it what it is. It seems to me that, rather than giving in to cultural pressures that seek to portray all authority as oppressive and evil, we should push back and insist that the Bible portrays a Father- Son relationship of authority and submission that is not oppressive but is pure and holy.