Eternal Submission

A Biblical and Theological Examination

Jonathan J. Routley

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9781532673283
  9781532673290
• eBook ISBN:
  9781532673306
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Christians currently agree that Jesus was submissive to God the Father during his incarnation and time on earth leading to the cross. The issue at hand is whether or not Jesus the Son is eternally submissive or subordinate to the Father in terms of their relations. On one side of the debate are those who say that the Son is only subordinate in authority during his earthly ministry but is coequal both ontologically and relationally with the Father eternally. On the other side are those who claim that the Son's obedience and submission during his earthly ministry demonstrate an eternal, voluntary submission to the Father so that the Son is always subordinate relationally while remaining fully equal with the Father ontologically. This book examines the eternal submission of the Son from both biblical and theological perspectives. The author surveys some of the recent trinitarian debate and engages with critics of eternal submission before setting out to provide biblical and theological support for the doctrine. The implications of this debate for theology proper and gender relationships in the church and home are also addressed. Whether you are new to the topic or a seasoned reader of the theological debate, this book will be a helpful resource.

Chapter 1

The Question of Eternal Submission

Presentation of the Problem

A major battle is raging in evangelicalism today over one sharply debated aspect of Trinitarian theology.1 All agree that Jesus was submissive to God the Father during his incarnation and time on earth leading to the cross. The issue at hand is whether or not Jesus the Son is eternally submissive or subordinate to the Father in terms of their relations. On one side of the debate are those who say that the Son is only subordinate in authority during his earthly ministry, but is coequal, both ontologically and relationally, with the Father eternally. On the other side are those who claim that the Son’s obedience and submission during his earthly ministry demonstrates an eternal, voluntary submission to the Father so that the Son is always subordinate relationally while remaining equal with the Father ontologically.

In the modern era, until recently, the former position has been advanced largely by egalitarians.2 Kevin Giles, a leading voice for this side, has passionately argued that asserting that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role or authority is neither biblically warranted nor sustained by the theology of Trinitarians throughout church history. In fact, he argues, the claim follows and supports Arianism.3 In the early fourth century AD, Arius and his followers advanced the idea that Jesus as the Son of God was a lesser divine being, not to be fully equated with God the Father. For Giles, the idea that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father in their intra-Trinitarian relationship is contradictory with the statement of the Nicene Creed that the Son is “Light from Light, true God from true God.”4

In recent years, debate has erupted within the complementarian camp as well, evidenced by the work of Rachel Miller, Amiee Byrd, Liam Goligher, Carl Trueman, and others.5 These individuals have questioned the biblical and theological validity of asserting that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in either authority or role. Their major contention is that in the history of Trinitarian development within the early church, the church fathers do not speak about the Son as submissive to the Father eternally, but only as it relates to redemptive history.6 Furthermore, they claim that using the eternal subordination of the Son as a way to support gender distinctions within the church and marital relationships is irresponsible and even heretical.7 Some of these individuals have recently accused scholars Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, among others, of heresy, calling for their resignation from academia.8

Thesis, Scope, and Limitations of the Study

Is Jesus the Son eternally submissive to God the Father, in terms of their relations, and why does it matter? This study will argue that Jesus the Son, while ontologically fully God in himself, is eternally relationally submissive to God the Father as evidenced by the witness of Scripture and theological reasoning. The Son’s submission is not merely in the economic workings of the triune God, but within their immanent and eternal Trinitarian relationship. The term “Son” used for Jesus throughout the Scriptures not only denotes his eternal generation from the Father, but also his eternal relationship or role corresponding to the Father. This eternal submission has implications for human relationships in that human beings have been created in God’s image, and part of that image is relationality.

While many have defended the eternal submission of Jesus to the Father, up until recently, this defense has been mainly expressed against attacks from egalitarian opponents. In light of recent criticisms from within the complementarian camp, what is needed now is first, an assessment of the similarities and differences between the positions of both egalitarian and complementarian opponents of eternal submission, and second, a reexamination of eternal submission that takes into account arguments from both opposing positions.

In order to accomplish the purpose listed above, I will begin by clearly defining terminology that is used in discussion of the eternal submission of the Son. Different scholars employ differing terminologies that sometimes overlap and other times contain slight distinctions. Terms and phrases such as the eternal subordination (or submission) of the Son (ES or ESS), eternal functional subordination (EFS), and eternal roles of authority and submission (ERAS) each bring their own perspective on the discussion to the table. It will be helpful to begin by defining these terms and providing some of the context from which each arose.9 I will argue below that the “eternal submission of the Son” (ESS) is currently the best terminology to use.

From that initial discussion I will move into an analysis of modern criticisms of ESS. Rather than attempting a comprehensive study of every person who has critiqued ESS, both among egalitarians and complementarians (and there are many), I will focus on a select few who are representative of each. The writings of Kevin Giles will serve as a characteristic cross-section of the egalitarian fountain of opposition to ESS. Giles has led the way in opposing the eternal submission of the Son...

Table of contents

• Title Pageion
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: The Question of Eternal Submission
• Chapter 2: The Opposition to Eternal Submission
• Chapter 3: A Biblical Examination of Eternal Submission
• Chapter 4: The Witness of the Church and Eternal Submission
• Chapter 5: A Theological Examination of Eternal Submission
• Chapter 6: The Implications of Eternal Submission
• Bibliography