Subordination of The Son: A Rethinking of The Eternal State of The Godhead

Running Head: Subordination of the Son: A Rethinking of the Eternal State of the Godhead
Subordination of the Son: A Rethinking of the Eternal State of the Godhead Robert John Edwards Philadelphia Biblical University
For centuries, the debate over the subordination of the Godhead has raged on in one for or another. Both a philosophical and theological debate, proponents and opponents of subordinationism point no further than the Holy Scriptures to reinforce their theories. While the Church has come a long way from the Arian controversy regarding subordination within the Godhead, many views remain with respect to the workings of the ontological trinity and the economical trinity. The general accepted view is that the Godhead eternally shares the same essence, yet economically hold different functions, thus creating an eternal economic subordination. However, this view is not without its flaws. And left unattended, these flaws can cause great harm to the Church and its understanding of the unity of the Trinity as one distinct God.
For centuries, the debate over the subordination of the Godhead has raged on in one for or another. Both a philosophical and theological debate, proponents and opponents of subordinationism point no further than the Holy Scriptures to reinforce their theories. While the Church has come a long way from the Arian controversy regarding subordination within the Godhead, many views remain with respect to the workings of the ontological trinity and the economical trinity. The general accepted view is that the Godhead eternally shares the same essence, yet economically hold different functions, thus creating an eternal economic subordination. However, this view is not without its flaws. And left unattended, these flaws can cause great harm to the Church and its understanding of the unity of the Trinity as one distinct God. The early Church struggled to understand how the three members of the Godhead related to one another not just in form and function, but in essence. As previously mentioned, Arius is the most notable, but he was not the first to suggest subordination within the Godhead. Edmund Fortman (1982) states, If Arianism derived from Subordinationism rather than from Monarchianism, and it probably did, then it drew great support from Origen and the Apologists. (p. 62) The difference between Origen, the Apologists, and Arius is that Arius maintained that the Son was a creature, albeit a perfect creature. Out of the ashes of this controversy came the Nicene Creed, which served to eliminate the teaching that the Son was a created being. Yet the Nicene Creed was plagued by the various misunderstandings regarding the use of consubstantiality within the creed with regards to the Father and the Son. According to the Council of Nicea, Economic subordination...meant 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. (Slick, n.d.) In addition, little attention was given to the Holy Spirit as it pertained to the Godhead in substance. While Arianism continued on, Athanasius and the Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus) made great contributions in defense of the Nicene Creed. Fortman states, The Cappadocians chose hypostasis as the word best fitted to express person, and their formula for expressing Gods triunity was one ousia in three hypostases....They not only affirmed the Holy Spirits full divinity but explicitly called Him God. They so thoroughly established the identity of substance for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that they effectively put an end to subordinationism. (p. 97) While it is true that subordination in this early sense was largely put to rest, with some exceptions, the Church continued to place a hierarchal view in regards to the three members of the Godhead. The hierarchal view has the Father as the source of all the Son has received, and the Holy Spirit as being sent from the Father and the Son, thus placing Him in a subordinate position as well. This view of an economical subordination was the largely accepted standard by which the Church understood the Godhead. However, there is early evidence that some Church fathers sought to harmonize the oneness of the Trinity with the three hypostases. Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), in his great work entitled De Trinitate (416. C.E.), appears to eloquently harmonize the three members of the Godhead. Augustine writes,
...so great is the equality in this Trinity, that not only is the Father not greater than the Son in that which pertains to the divinity, but neither are the Father and the Son anything greater than the Holy Spirit, nor is each person singly...anything less than the Trinity itself. (McKenna, 245) At first this may appear that Augustine simply is referring to the ontological aspect of the Godhead, but one must recognize Augustines direct juxtaposition between divinity (substance) and person (hypostasis). Augustines last phrase is indeed most revealing in his understanding of economic subordination. This is not to mean that Augustine abolishes the doctrine of three distinct hypostaseshe sees the virgin birth of the Son as not being the whole Trinity, for examplebut that they are not separate in operation or function. Fortmans translation of De Trinitate reads, the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their operation inseparable. (Trin. 2.9) Augustine was not alone in trying to show how the three persons of the Trinity did not function apart from one another in a subordinate manner. Others, such as Fulgentius of Ruspe (d. c. 533) also stressed, the inseparability of the three and their unity of operation and immensitypresence. (Fortman, p. 157) However, others challenge this view of Augustine. Stephen Kovach and Peter Schemm, Jr (1999) wrote, Augustine, in affirming the Nicene Creed and the eternal begottenness of the Son, is offering the doctrine of eternal subordination which was held as orthodoxy at that time and has been ever since. (p. 470) There are other examples, but they fall well outside the scope of this brief history of subordination presented here. Now we will fast forward the hands of time to modern times, to the ongoing debate between the economic subordination of the Son and those that oppose it. It must be noted that the proponents of the generally accepted view concerning economic subordination far outweigh their
opponent counterparts. These opponents, who believe that economic subordination is dangerous for the churchbelieving it borders on modalismhave sought to rethink the Churchs understanding of the three persons and their relationship within the Godhead. John Dahms, a professor emeritus of the New Testament at Canadian Theological Seminary, wrote an article for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society published in September 1994 entitled The Subordination of the Son. In it, Dahms makes his case that the subordination of the Son is not merely economic, but eternal. Dahms boldlyif not assumedly states, All agree that the NT emphasizes that in the divine activities of creation, revelation, redemption and judgment the Son always functions in subordination to the Father. (p. 351) asserting that this subordination is both essential and eternal. Dahms uses biblical references to make his point, such as 1 Cor. 15:24, 28. Then comes the end, when he (Christ) delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. . . . When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone." Dahms curiously assumes this act of subjection of the Son to the Father and that this will be the condition forever thereafter. (p. 352) However, the text used does not mention this as a final eternal state; it is merely implied. One must be leery when trying to draw conclusions from silence. Dahms is well aware that he has some opponents with regards to this passage. He expresses the views held by Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374); Augustine; John Calvin; and Charles Hodge, who all held similar views of an Incarnational Subordination, which was temporary. With regards to these similar views of incarnational subordination, Dahms responds, All such
interpretations implicitly deny the unity of the incarnate Son. Whether they may be accurately described as Nestorian or not, they introduce essentially the same error. (p. 352) But a view of incarnational subordination need not imply the same error as the Nestorians, thus showing a disunity of the Godhead. If this were so, Dahms argument here can be used against him, suggesting that an eternal subordination also shows an eternal disunity. One needs to look no further than the Garden of Eden to see that all men are subordinate to God. If Christ was to be wholly divineyet wholly manmust he not naturally become subordinate with the Father in order to fulfill the very becoming of man in whole part in His incarnational state? Anything less would make Christ not wholly human. Unfortunately for Dahms, his theory that incarnational subordination is essentially the same error as Nestorianism is unfounded and careless. Dahms repeats this process of finding eternal subordination signs within the New Testament, such as in Ephesians 3:21. "To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever." Of this passage. Dahms states, The glorification of God "in Christ Jesus" implies that Christ is subordinate to the Father in all the ages to come...There is good reason to believe that Eph 3:21 implies that the Son is essentially and eternally subordinate to the Father. (p. 355) However, there is more to this passage than meets the eye. There is a sense of togetherness and unity sans subordination. Here we see how Paul unifies the Father with Christ and His Church, and if Eph. 3:20 is added to the context, the power that works within us can be seen as a reference to the Holy Spirit, seamlessly fusing the whole together in complete
harmony. Taken in this light, one finds it difficult to discern any kind of subordination within this context. Dahms would appear at odds with Augustines view of incarnational subordination, which would most likely interpret this passage as unification of the whole of the Godhead and His chosen people, not eternal subordination. Another popular passage that Dahms uses to illustrate the Sons eternal subordination to the Father is found in John 14:28. "The Father is greater than I." This verse appears to close the debate on subordinationism once and for all, but we must take a further look. Dahms comments, Various scholars insist, for no good reason that I can discern, that the statement does not hold with respect to his essential Being. (p. 358) It must be noted that this verse also does not reveal eternal subordination, but could also be seen in light of Christs current circumstance within the context. This fits neatly within the confines of an incarnational subordination model of the Son to the Father. Dahms stumbles here a bit in his rebuttal, but continues to insist that other Scriptures can bring this saying into an eternal subordinational light, There is nothing in the saying itself, nor in the immediate context, to indicate that the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father is in view. But theological considerations derived from the Scriptures, and especially from John's gospel, seem to imply that what is said is not only true of the incarnate Christ but is also true of the eternal Son. (p. 359) But the same usage of Scriptures various references to the coming Messiah as God can be used to persuade against eternal subordinationism, or more dangerously, polytheism. If Jesus as Messiah is understood to be the one spoken of in Isa. 9:6, Everlasting Father, or more incredibly in Jer. 23:6, where the Messiahs name will be The LORD our righteousness, where
it can be no mistake that the Hebrew word for LORD is YHWH, then to suggest the Father is greater in an eternal subordination sense is to suggest more than one God, hence my reference to possible polytheism. The use of Father and YHWH is these texts may signify the LORD and the coming Messiah are one in an eternal state without eternal subordination. In fact, by using Dahms own methodology of using other biblical references to support his eternal view, an incarnational subordination seems more likely with regards to this text. In 2006, in another JETS article by then Ph D student Christopher Cowan of The Southern baptist Theological Seminary, Cowan seeks to demonstrate the insufficiencies of those who object to a subordinationalist viewpoint. Cowan (2006) states, Not only do they depart sharply from the majority of Johannine scholarship, but they do not provide an adequate explanation of John's portrayal of the Son's relationship to his Father based on the data of the Gospel. (p. 135) By examining John 5:19-30, Cowan sees irrefutable evidence that suggests the Son Himself reveals His subordination. How Cowan relates this to an eternal, essential model is unclear. Perhaps it is more of an assumption. Cowan fails to demonstrate how this pericope may still fall well within an incarnational paradigm. One canwith relative easesee how Christs incarnational state requires directives from the Father in all He does in His earthly mission and function. As fully human, Christ has become subordinate as all men are subordinate to the Creator, thus Christ could speak only of the things he has heard (8:26), seen (8:38), and been taught (8:28) by the Father. It is a bit strange that Cowan chooses to begin his choice of verses at verse 5:19, essentially overstepping the verse that comes directly before it. For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but
10
also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. This reason the Jews sought to kill Himmaking Himself equal to Godshould not go untreated. Jesus, as a learned practicing Jew, would never suggest there are more than one God, such as in polytheism which the faithful Israelite abhorred, thus, he is making a direct claim to be God in the flesh; one and the same. There does not seem to be any reference to any type of subordinationism in the statement. Dahms points out that others held that this verse directly shows a lack of eternal subordination. Of B.B. Warfield he writes, . B. Warfield quotes this verse ("The Jews sought... to kill him, because he . . . called God his Father, making himself equal to God") as evidence that there is no essential subordination of the Son. (Dahms, 360) However, it is favorable to note that Cowan does rightly defend against one such view against subordinationism when he refutesquite successfullyRoyce Gruenlers claims that the Father deferred these things to the Son. About Gruenler, Cowan states, Royce Gruenler argues for a mutual deference and subordination between Father and Son in John's Gospel. He repeatedly points to texts that speak of the Father "giving" to the Son and explains them as clear instances of the Father's "deference" to him. (p. 123) Gruenler runs the risk of suggesting a form of interdependence-subordinationalism, where power can be handed over from one essence of the Godhead to another. Gruenler is dangerously close to some alternate form of modalism, it may seem. One such opponent of eternal subordination of the Father and the Son is Kevin Giles (Th.D., Australian College of Theology), the Vicar of St. Michaels Church in North Carlton, Australia. Giles has written three books concerning the subordination of the Son, offering up his thesis that the early church fathers did not intentionally seek to subordinate the Son from the
11
Father. He draws heavily on the work of T.F. Torrance, who, building on the work of Athanasius and the Cappadocians he makes the Trinity itself the monarche of the divine persons and the Son the monarche of divine revelation. Giles (2005) states, If no one is before or after, greater or lesser in the Godhead, this must suggest that all hierarchical ordering in this world is a human construct reflecting fallen existence, not Gods ideal. God would like to see every human being valued in the same way. (p. 2) Thus, the Godhead lacks any form of eternal subordination. The Trinity is co-equal not just in essence, but in form and function as well. In fact, this is essential in understanding the Godhead as One. If we are to accept any notion that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, we run the risk of making God subordinate. Giles adds, If the divine persons are one in being, equal God, they must be one in power and authority. If not, they are not one in being and divinity and the Son is subordinated God. (emphasis mine) There is a sense in which those who support eternal subordination border on Tritheism. Naturally, they defend against this by emphatically insisting that while there is consubstantiality within the three persons of the Godhead, there is a hierarchal structure in place, as previously stated. But this appears to be a case of misunderstanding of the Scriptures and of the Nicene Creed, leading to a solution that is both/and, instead of either/or. In an attempt to solve the theological problem of who God is and how the three hypostases function in relation to one another, they have made the Godhead into non-subordinate, yet subordinate. In laymans terms, they have embarked on trying to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. Those who do not
12
support eternal subordination recognize this fallacy, and seek to properly harmonize the eternal with the incarnational. Giles writes, The Father, Son and Spirit work/operate/function inseparably. In every divine action all three divine persons work in harmony and cooperatively. They are never divided or separated. The doctrine of inseparable operations does not infer identical operations. It is agreed that the Father sends the Son, Christ is incarnate God and dies on the cross, and the Spirit is poured out on the day of Pentecost. These and other things are indelibly associated with one or another of the divine persons. However to divide and separate the work of Father, Son and Spirit is to undermine the unity and simplicity of the one God. (p. 12) But what can be said of the many verses (some already covered thus far) concerning Christs apparent subordination while He was among us? This is where opponents of eternal subordination look to incarnational subordination. The human condition required propitiation to God, in only a way that would fully atone for our sins. This act of redemption was a great gift of mercy, requiring extraordinary measures on Gods behalf. Gilbert Bilezikian (1997), professor emeritus at Wheaton College sees this act for its uniqueness: ...the awesome and tragic travail of divinity from infinity to human brokenness for the purpose of its redemption, as if heaven had been thrown into a state of cosmic emergency, similar to that of a shepherd abandoning his ninety-nine sheep in the desert to go searching for a missing one. In many ways the Scriptures explain that this divine mission of mercy was accomplished at infinite cost for
13
God and that it required an unprecedented and unrepeatable dislocation within the Trinity. (p. 58) Now we will look at a few Scriptural passages that help support an incarnational subordination thesis. in Phil. 2:6-11 we read, Though he (Christ Jesus) was in the form of God, (he) did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This very easily shows that prior to His new state of man, Christ held equality with the Father in eternity. In verse 7, we see He took this equality and emptied Himself of it for the mission before Him, which was death on a cross. (v. 8) He did not do this because he was told to do this, or ordered to do this. He willfully emptied Himself and submitted to the Fathers will. Bilezikian writes, In his incarnation the Son remained equal with the Father. But he temporarily forfeited his functional equality to assume the "form of a servant." This was a new mode of being for the Son in relation to the Father, not an eternal state. (p. 63) A further reading of this pericope shows how the Son will be once again exalted by the Father (v. 9). Paul, understanding that Jesus was God in the flesh (Col. 1:15-16, 2:9), thus he would never have written nor suggested that Christs name would be above the Fathers name, essentially equating the Son with the Father in eternity. The Father exalted Christ back to his rightful co-equal position. Phil.
14
2:5-11 can be seen as a story of the Sons passage from eternal equality to incarnational, willful subordination, then back to eternal equality again, by the hand of the Father Himself. Another issue raised by eternal subordinationists is the verses which describe the Son as being seated at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews 8:1 describes, ...has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens..., and Hebrews 12:2 which states, ...has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. They attempt to show that this undoubtably demonstrates eternal subordination, yet this may not necessarily be the slam dunk they believe it to be. In Revelation 3:21 we read, "I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Bilezikian reminds us, Only Christ may join the Father on His throne. (p. 63) In Rev. 22:3, we see the throne (singular) is called, the throne of God and of the Lamb. This seems to suggest that Christ is not seated in an adjacent seat or throne next to the throne of God in the form of subordination, but rather, He is seated with God on the same throne, suggesting eternal coequality. With this understanding, Heb. 8:1 and Heb. 12:2 appear in a different light. They show the Son as perched in equality next to God on His throne. It is a gross misreading of the Scriptures to suggest the Son takes a subordinate lesser position near or next to Gods throne. The throne of God the Father and God the Son are one and the same. As the Westminster Short Catechism (as well as the ETS statement of faith), the Godhead is equal in power and glory." (Q.6) In conclusion, while these examples used hereon both sides of the debateare by no means exhaustive, they do shed some light on a possible misunderstanding with regards to eternal subordination of the Son and the Father. It is true that there are several passages that suggest a form of subordination, but not one of these specifically speaks of an eternal state of
15
subordination directly. In fact, all of the examples used can fit quite nicely within the confines of an incarnational approach to subordination, without relegating the Son to an unnecessary role as eternally subordinate. The incarnational model asks the serious question over whether or not there needs to be an eternal aspect to subordination. Instead, the incarnational model fulfills the need for a subordinate Son who took on the likeness of man to perform the act of propitiation for mankind, while preserving the eternal co-equality of the Godhead. Anything less borders dangerously on Tritheism. The concept of eternal co-equality is not a new phenomenon, as we can see our ancient church fathers struggled with explaining how the Trinity functions together as one, yet remains distinct in its personal properties. Merely pointing to tradition and suggesting this is the reason for no further discussion on the matter is careless, for this is not just any theological discussion. This is the theological discussion of God Himself.
16
References Awad, Najeeb G., (2007) Between Subordination and Koinonia: Toward a New Reading of the Cappadocian Theology. Journal of Modern Theology 23:2 pp.181-204 Bilezikian, Gilbert., (March 1997) Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 40/1 pp.57-68 Cowan, Christopher., (March 2006) The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine Subordination Revisited. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 49/1 pp.115-135 Dahms, John V., (September 1994) The Subordination of the Son. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 37/3 pp.351-364 Fortman, Edmund J., (1982) The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co. Kovach, Stephen D., Schemm, Jr., Peter R., (September 1999) A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 42/3 pp. 461-476 Letham, Robert, (2004) The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co. McKenna, Stephen, translator. (1963) The Fathers of the Church: Saint Augustine, The Trinity. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, Inc. Slick, Matt. (No Date Given) The Ontological and Economic Trinity. Web Article. Retrieved on March 12, 2009 from: http://www.carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity Trigg, Joseph, W., (1987) A Review of Origens Doctrine of Subordination: A Study in Origens Christology. Journal of Church History. p. 76

Subordination of The Son: A Rethinking of The Eternal State of The Godhead

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Subordination of The Son: A Rethinking of The Eternal State of The Godhead

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running Head: Subordination of the Son: A Rethinking of the Eternal State of the Godhead

Anda mungkin juga menyukai