1

Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In

the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying, “I and the Father are one” (10:30). This

Trinitarian relationship has challenged and confused believers for generations. Churches,

councils, and creeds have developed a theology of the Trinity that is widely accepted

today. The relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit is uncomplicated enough for a

child to grasp, yet so profound that studied theologians continue debate the details.

A current debate related to the Trinity is the nature of Christ’s subordination to the

Father. While few disagree that the Son submitted to the Father while on earth, the

divergence comes when discussing the eternality of this submission. What must be

understood is that the two sides of the debate agree on more than they disagree upon. In

his article, Bilezikian quotes The Evangelical Theological Society’s creed as saying,

“God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence,

equal in power and glory.” 1 No one who believes in the eternal subordination of the Son

disagrees with this statement (as Bilezikian implies). It is because both parties affirm this

belief that the conversation can be so complicated.

What is at the core of this debate is the issue of gender relations. As Ware points

out, “We are created to reflect what God is like, and this includes a reflection of the

personal relationships within the Trinity.”2 If egalitarians can prove Christ does not

eternally submit to the Father, they can show there is no pattern for a complementarian

relationship in the Trinity. Therefore, complementarian marriages do not follow the

model of the Trinity.

1
Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermenutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 40.1 (March 1997) 57.
2

Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2005) 133.
 2

Both sides of the debate believe they have history and Scripture on their side.3 As

seen in most of egalitarians’ claims, to believe that the Bible teaches a temporary

subordination in the Trinity takes hermeneutical misuse at best, and manipulation at

worst. This paper will show from Scripture that the Son was subordinate to the Father

before His incarnation, lived a life of submission while on earth, and will for eternity be

subordinate to God the Father. The applications of this conclusion will also be given in

relation to the issues of submission and headship within marriage.

Before His Incarnation:

The best place to start the search for subordination from eternity past is in the

beginning. John tells us in his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was

with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were

made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (1:1-3).

Dahms writes, “[T]he very term ‘Word’ suggests self-expression and self-revelation and,

therefore, subordination.”4 The Trinity was active creating the world, which was made

through Christ, or the Word.

In Ephesians 1:3-5, Paul writes that God was also thinking about believers at this

time. “[E]ven as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should

be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus

Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” Grudem writes in reference to this passage,

“The Father was the one who chose, who initiated and planned, and, before creation, it

3
See Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem and “A Defense of the Doctrine of the
Eternal Subordination of the Son” by Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Shemm, Jr., for historical support for
subordination. Trinity and Subrodinationism by Kevin Giles for a survey against subordination.
4

John V. Dahms, “The Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theoligical Society 37.3 (Sept
1994) 358.
 3

was already decided that the Son would be the one to come to earth in obedience to the

Father and die for our sins.”5

But Bilezikian disagrees, “Christ did not take upon himself the task of world

redemption because he was number two in the Trinity and his boss told him to do so or

because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no

one else wanted to touch. He volunteered his life out of sacrificial love.”6 Because the

Father and Son are in perfect harmony, it is difficult to know where the will of one stops

and the other begins, But clearly from this passage we can agree with Grudem, that the

Father ultimately made the decision to send the Son for our salvation. It is important to

point out this was done before the foundation of the world. Christ submitted to the

Father’s will even before His incarnation.

John 3:16 also supports this claim, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his

only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Again

from Grudem, “The idea of giving His Son implies a headship, a unique authority for the

Father before the Son came to earth. So even on the basis of John 3:16, the egalitarian

claim that Jesus’ submission to His Father was only during His time on earth is

incorrect.”7 But Kevin Giles sees the passages differently. Based on semantics he writes,

“The human language of sending distinguishes the persons—The Father is the one who

sends, the Son the one who is sent—but the emphasis falls on the authority of the Son as

expressing the authority of the Father.”8 However, human language is not incapable to

5
Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. (Sister OR: Multnomah, 2004) 407.
6

Bilezikian, 59.
7

Grudem, 406
8
Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2006) 120.
 4

showing the unity of the Trinity. As in Genesis 1:26, (“And God said, ‘Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness’”) the plurality of God is clear. He chooses to inspire the

writer of Genesis to make sure readers understand that God was not acting independently

of the Trinity at the creation of man. If necessary, human language could have reflected

this dynamic in the passages about God sending Christ. Obviously, God intended there to

be a difference, assumedly to show His leadership in the decision.9

During His Incarnation:

There is little, if any, disagreement that Christ lived a life of submission while on

earth. Kevin Giles writes, “[T]he Gospels depicts the Son as sent by the Father, obedient

to the Father and dependent on the Father. This temporal revelation, they (evangelical

subordinationists) conclude, discloses what is eternally true.”10 As seen in Giles, what is

debatable is whether this subordination is limited to the incarnation period. Although

most agree to His subordination, there are disagreements on the interpretations of specific

texts.

The gospel of John perhaps gives the best picture of Christ’s relationship with the

Father while on earth. Jesus clearly speaks of His dependence on God. Beginning with

John 5:22, “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.”

Egalitarians may use this verse to show the mutual submission of the Father and Son.

However, as Grudem points out, “[I]f the Father gave the Son this authority to judge, then

it had to be the Father’s to give.”11 A similar passage is John 6:37, “All that the Father

gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” And also in

9
Similar sent language can be found in 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal 4:4; and 1 John 4:9
10

Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism. (Downer Grove Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002) 17.
11
Grudem, 408.
 5

His high priestly prayer in John 17:24, “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have

given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory you have given me because you

loved me before the foundation of the world.” These verses show Jesus’ reliance on the

Father.

Moving on in the New Testament, Hebrews 5:8 is a verse often quoted by

egalitarians to show Christ was not eternally submissive. The text says, “Although he

was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” Bilezikian writes, “The fact

that he learned obedience ‘although’ he was a Son indicates that the nature of his Sonship

excluded the necessity of obedience. He learned obedience despite the fact that he was a

Son.”12 In their article, Kovach and Schemm disagree, stating, “In this new experience,

not in a changed eternal position, the Son learned obedience.”13 It was not that Jesus had

never been obedient to the Father, rather He learned how to be obedient through His

human nature.

This section has looked closely at passages in John and Hebrews that cause

discussion in this debate. What is clearly shown is that Jesus submitted to Christ while

on earth. Since He was fully God while Jesus incarnate, one should not doubt that prior

to or after His incarnation this pattern of “equal value with different roles” could not also

exist. He did not lay aside His godliness during His time on earth, but continued in His

role as Son, a role distinct to Him before the foundation of the world.

After His Resurrection:

Passages dealing with Christ’s subordination after His resurrection are varied.

Beginning with one of the great Christological passages, Philippians 2:5-11, the pattern
12
Bilezikian, 65.
13

Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of
the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (Sept. 1999) 472.
 6

already shown of the Son’s submission continues to be clear. Based on verse eight,

Bilezikian writes, “Therefore, it is much more appropriate, and theologically accurate, to

speak of Christ’s self-humiliation rather than of his subordination. Nobody subordinated

him, and he was originally subordinated to no one. He humbled himself.”14 It was

Christ’s choice to humble Himself while on earth, but this does not negate His

subordination. His goal was to bring glory to the Father. It is also His goal in eternity.

This is made clear in verse 11, “…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to

the glory of God the Father.” Christ lived a life of submission that did not end (or begin)

at His incarnation. As the New Millennium begins, Christ will continue to bring glory to

the Father.

Another debatable issue related to Christ’s eternal subordination is the picture of

Him on a throne. Mark 14:62 gives the account of Jesus before the Council where He

says, “[Y]ou will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with

the clouds of heaven.” There are many other verses that echo this thought.15 Grudem

writes, “To sit at the king’s right hand in the ancient world indicated that one was second

only to the king in authority, but it did not indicate authority equal to the king.”16 Letham

admits this is a minor point to support subordination. He writes, “But even if slight it is

there, just as it is in all the texts in which Jesus is spoken of as sitting at God’s right

hand.”17

14
Bilezikian, 59.
15

Dahms lists Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col
3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22
16
Grudem, 410.
17

Letham, 357.
 7

Those with a different view point focus on Revelation 3:21, “The one who

conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down

with my Father on his throne.” Bilezikian claims, “According to Scripture, both God the

Father and God the Son occupy the same throne for eternity. They are ‘equal in power

and glory.’”18 But Grudem expands upon the entire text in its context, “Just as we will sit

with Christ on His throne, but He will still have the supreme authority, so Christ sits with

the Father on His throne, but the Father still has supreme authority.”19 Bilezikian again

confuses the issue. He assumes subordinationalists discount the equality in the Trinity

because he does not understand how people can be equal yet different. While in fact this

adds to the relationship in the Trinity to see this pattern of submission and headship.

The clearest and most direct teaching describing the end times in relation to Christ

is found in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28. Dahms calls it the “locus classicus” and Giles

quotes de Margerie as writing this is “the favorite text” for “subordinationists of all

times.”20 The text reads, “Then comes the end, when he (Christ) delivers the kingdom to

God the Father after destroying every ruler and every authority and power. 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.” Grudem believes that in these

verses, “Scripture shows us the beginning of the eternal state with the Son subject to the

Father.”21 Dahms writes, “[T]his will be the condition forever thereafter. And surely his

final relationship to the Father will not be inferior to the relationship he had with the

18
Bilzikian, 63.
19

Grudem, 413.
20

Dahms, 351; Giles, 113.

21
Grudem, 414.
 8

Father in his preexistent state.”22 Such a seemingly clear passage is obviously a target for

debate.

Dahms in his article and Giles in his book give explanations from the many

throughout the years who do not see subordination in this passage. Giles gives Joseph

Plevnik credit for what he sees as the best exegetical treatment of the passage.

Essentially, Plevnik believes this passage shows mutual submission. Giles writes, “Paul

makes it plain that it is God the Father subjecting everything to Christ.”23 This does not

disagree with the point that Christ will also be subject to God the Father, and therefore

fails in its goal. After examining many challenges to the subordination of Christ in this

passage, Dahms writes, “The attempts put forward to avoid the view that 1 Cor 15:28

implies the essential and eternal subordination of the Son do not survive scrutiny.”24

When a passage is so clear, the opposition finds it hard to discredit the obvious teaching.

In conclusion, it is clear Scripture teaches that Christ is subordinate to the Father

prior to His incarnation, during His incarnation, and after His resurrection. Giles writes

that those who reject subordinationism do so because, “[T]he economy of God’s self-

revelation begins at creation and is consummated only at the end of time.”25 But as

clearly seen, subordination is the pattern from creation through the end of time. While

the debate continues, complementarians can be confident in the biblical witness that

shows Christ’s subordination throughout time.

Application:

22
Dahms, 352.
23
Giles, Jesus and the Father, 113-114.
24
Dahms, 353.
25
Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationsim, 18.
 9

The core passage that ties together the debate of subordination and gender issues

is 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul writes, “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.” It is not

within the scope of this paper to debate the meaning of kephale or “head.” It is enough to

quote Kovach and Schemm, “While there have been many disagreements about the

meaning of the word ‘head,’ its meaning of authority is not only based on the natural

meaning of the word kephale but also on the scriptural claim that God is the eternal origin

of all things and Christ is the eternal agent.”26 Giles’s explanation is to say that,

“Virtually all linguists are of another opinion.”27 This is a vast overstatement, as seen in

extensive work done by Grudem.28

Following the best translation of kephale, which is head, we see the clear

correspondence between a marriage relationship and the Trinity. Paul is giving direction

to the Corinthian church about proper worship in this passage and he does so by pointing

out the order in the relationship between Christ and God. Thomas Schreiner writes, “Paul

added the headship of God over Christ right after asserting the headship of man over

woman in order to teach that the authority of man over woman does not imply the

inferiority of women or the superiority of men.”29

The relationship in the Trinity is important to believers because we are to imitate

this relationship. Ware writes, “Equality exists alongside authority and submission in

26
Kovach and Schemm, 472.
27
Giles, Jesus and the Father, 111.
28
See Appendices 4 and 5 in Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.
29
Thomas R. Schriner “Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-26.” Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999)
130.
 10

human life, as God has designed it to be. We will find joy and fulfillment only when we

embrace, not repel, this very design.”30 It is a privilege to strive to imitate this

relationship in our marriages. As Genesis teaches, a married couple becomes one flesh as

they leave their families and cleave to one another. This oneness should reflect the

oneness of the Trinity.

The unity yet diversity perfectly represented in the Trinity, “shows that someone

can be subordinate in authority to someone else but still be equal in being, equal in

importance, equal in personhood.”31 That is the mystery and beauty of the Trinitarian

relationship. Grudem makes this application, “And if the Father and Son can be both

equal and different in this way, then husband and wife in the image of God can be equal

and different too.”32

Because Bilezikian disagrees with the teaching of subordination, he also disagrees

with the application,

“Christ’s functional subjection is not an eternal condition but a task-

driven, temporary phase of ministry, and it is presented in Scripture as a

model of servanthood and mutual-submission for all believers (Phil 2:5-

11). Because of its temporary character, Christ’s subjection does not lend

itself as a model for a permanent, generically defined male/female

hierarchy.”33

30
Ware, 158.
31
Grudem, 411.
32
Ibid.
33
Bilezikian, 61.
 11

It is not a generically defined role relationship we are promoting. It was designed by God

from the beginning. It was designed to reflect the relationship within the Trinity. No

where is Scripture is it taught that God the Father subjected Himself to the Son, as

mutual-submission teaches.34 It is not the pattern of the Godhead and should not be the

pattern in marriage.

Bruce Ware sums it up nicely:

“Here in the Trinity, rather, we see hierarchy without hubris, authority with

no oppression, submission that is not servile, and love that pervades every

aspect of the divine life. Unity and diversity, identity and distinction,

sameness and differences, melody and harmony—these are qualities that

mark the rich texture of the life of the one God who is three.”35

Couples should strive to imitate this relationship. It is the true and perfect picture of

headship and submission. Any less is an insult to the Trinity who so beautifully

represents this ideal. Egalitarians, in their quest to free women from oppressive

patriarchy, have confused and manipulated hundreds of years of study on the Trinity and

the clear biblical teachings we have on the subject. Christ’s eternal submission to the

Father was clearly seen prior to creation, during His incarnation, and after His

resurrection.

34
See previous discussion on Phil 2:5-11.
35
Ware, 157.
 12

Bibliography

Bilezikian, Gilbert “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping : Subordination in the Godhead.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 Mr 1997, p 57-68.

Dahms, John V. “The Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37 S 1994, p 351-364.

Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

_____. The Trinity and Subordinationalism. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2002.

Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Truth. Sisters, OR.: Multnomah, 2004.

Kovach, Stephen D., Schemm, Peter R, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal
Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 S
1999, p 461-476.

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Ware, Bruce. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.