CHAPTER 6: SUBORDINATIONISM – THE HIERARCHY ERROR

Opening: The Gender Debate’s Trinity Controversy

Pastor David sat across from the couple in his office, their faces etched with confusion and concern. “We’ve been attending this marriage seminar,” the wife began hesitantly, “and the speaker kept saying that wives should submit to husbands because Jesus eternally submits to the Father. He said it’s built into the very nature of God—that the Son has always been under the Father’s authority, even before creation.” Her husband nodded, adding, “But our previous church taught us that all three persons of the Trinity are completely equal. Now we’re confused. If there’s hierarchy in the Trinity itself, doesn’t that mean some persons are more important than others?”

This scene plays out in churches across the world today, as what scholars call the “ESS/EFS/ERAS controversy” has moved from seminary classrooms into Sunday schools and marriage conferences. ESS stands for “Eternal Subordination of the Son,” EFS for “Eternal Functional Subordination,” and ERAS for “Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission.” These technical terms all describe the same basic idea: that within the Trinity itself, before time began and continuing forever, the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father’s authority.

What started as a debate about marriage roles has become one of the most significant theological controversies in modern evangelicalism. Some prominent teachers argue that just as the Son eternally submits to the Father, wives should submit to husbands—that this authority-submission structure is woven into the very fabric of reality because it exists in God Himself. Others respond that this teaching fundamentally misunderstands the Trinity and actually resurrects an ancient heresy the church rejected centuries ago.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. This isn’t just about marriage or gender roles—it’s about the very nature of God. If we get the Trinity wrong, everything else in our theology begins to unravel. If the Son is eternally lesser than the Father in any way, can He truly be fully God? If there’s an eternal hierarchy of authority in the Godhead, what does that mean for the biblical teaching that God is one? And perhaps most practically, if we’re using the Trinity to justify human relationships, are we reshaping God in our own image rather than being conformed to His?

The controversy has divided evangelical churches, seminaries, and even denominations. Books have been written, conferences held, and friendships strained over this issue. Yet many ordinary Christians remain unaware that this debate is even happening, while others have absorbed these teachings without realizing their implications. Some have been taught subordinationist views as if they were traditional Christian doctrine, not knowing that the church has historically rejected such ideas.

This chapter will carefully examine what the Bible actually teaches about relationships within the Trinity. We’ll see why the church has always insisted on the complete equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We’ll understand the crucial difference between the Son’s voluntary submission in His earthly mission and any supposed eternal subordination in His divine nature. And we’ll learn why this matters tremendously for our worship, our understanding of salvation, and yes, even our human relationships.

What Is Subordinationism?

To understand the current controversy, we need to first understand what subordinationism actually is. The term comes from the word “subordinate,” meaning to place in a lower rank or position. In theological terms, subordinationism is any teaching that makes one or more persons of the Trinity eternally lesser than another in their divine nature, attributes, or glory.

Subordinationism isn’t new—it’s actually one of the oldest errors about the Trinity. In the early centuries of Christianity, various forms of subordinationism arose as believers struggled to understand how God could be both one and three. Some of these attempts seemed logical on the surface but ultimately failed to preserve what Scripture teaches about God.

Historical Forms of Subordinationism

The most famous early subordinationist was Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, around AD 320. Arius taught that the Son was the first and greatest of God’s creatures—divine in some sense, but not truly God in the same way the Father is God. His slogan was “there was when He was not,” meaning there was a time before the Son existed. This made the Son subordinate to the Father not just in role but in His very being.

But Arianism wasn’t the only form of subordinationism in the early church. There were also the Semi-Arians, who said the Son was “like” the Father but not the same in essence. There were the Pneumatomachi (“Spirit-fighters”), who accepted the full deity of the Son but made the Holy Spirit a created being subordinate to both Father and Son. Each group tried to preserve monotheism by making one or more persons of the Trinity somehow lesser.

The church recognized that all these forms of subordinationism ultimately destroyed the gospel. If the Son isn’t fully God, then God Himself didn’t die for our sins. If the Spirit isn’t fully God, then God Himself doesn’t dwell within us. The early church councils, especially Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381), firmly rejected all forms of subordinationism. The Nicene Creed declares the Son to be “true God from true God… of one essence with the Father.” The Athanasian Creed is even more explicit: “In this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another.”

Modern Variations of Subordinationism

Today’s subordinationism often appears in subtler forms than ancient Arianism. Most modern subordinationists would affirm that the Son is fully God, has all divine attributes, and is worthy of worship. They claim they’re not making the Son lesser in His being or nature. Instead, they argue for what they call “functional” or “relational” subordination—the idea that the Son is equal in essence but eternally subordinate in role or authority.

This modern subordinationism often uses careful language to avoid obvious heresy. Proponents will say things like: “The Son is fully equal to the Father in His divine nature, but He eternally submits to the Father’s authority.” Or: “There’s no difference in deity, only in role relationships.” Or: “The Son has the same divine essence as the Father but a different function that involves submission.”

The problem is that this distinction between “being” and “function” or “essence” and “role” becomes very difficult to maintain when we’re talking about eternal realities within God’s own nature. If the Son must always submit to the Father’s authority—not just during His earthly mission but for all eternity past and future—then isn’t submission part of what defines Him as the Son? And if the Father has an authority the Son doesn’t have, don’t they possess different attributes?

The Eternal vs. Economic Distinction

To properly understand this issue, we need to grasp a crucial theological distinction: the difference between the “immanent” (or “ontological”) Trinity and the “economic” Trinity. Don’t let these technical terms scare you—the concept is actually quite simple.

The immanent Trinity refers to who God is in Himself, apart from creation—the eternal relationships within the Godhead. The economic Trinity refers to how the three persons relate to creation and especially how they work out our salvation. “Economic” here doesn’t mean financial; it comes from the Greek word “oikonomia,” meaning administration or arrangement.

Orthodox Christianity has always taught that in the economy of salvation—God’s plan to save humanity—the three persons take on different roles. The Father sends, the Son is sent and becomes incarnate, the Spirit is sent by both Father and Son. The Son submits to the Father’s will in His earthly mission. This economic subordination is voluntary, temporary (related to the incarnation), and functional (about roles in salvation history).

But this economic arrangement doesn’t tell us about eternal hierarchy within God’s own being. The Son’s submission to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane (“not my will, but yours be done”) was the God-man submitting in His human nature as part of His redemptive mission. It doesn’t mean the Son has been submitting to the Father’s authority for all eternity past.

The Current Evangelical Debate

The current debate in evangelical circles began in earnest in the 1970s and has intensified in recent decades. Some influential evangelical theologians began teaching that the Son’s submission to the Father isn’t limited to the incarnation but extends back into eternity past and forward into eternity future. They argued this was the historic position of the church, though most historical theologians strongly dispute this claim.

This teaching gained popularity partly because it seemed to provide biblical support for complementarian views of gender roles. If there’s authority and submission within the Trinity itself, some argued, then authority and submission in human relationships (particularly marriage) must be good and godly, not results of the fall. This seemed to give complementarianism a stronger theological foundation than simply appealing to passages about marriage.

However, many other evangelical theologians—including many who hold complementarian views on gender—have strongly opposed this teaching. They argue that it fundamentally misunderstands the Trinity, resurrects ancient heresies, and actually undermines the very gospel it claims to protect. The debate has sometimes been fierce, with charges of heresy on one side and accusations of feminism on the other.

The Biblical Case for Equality

What does Scripture actually teach about relationships within the Trinity? When we carefully examine the biblical evidence, we find overwhelming testimony to the complete equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They share the same divine attributes, receive the same divine honors, bear the same divine names, and exist in eternal, mutual love and glorification.

Same Divine Attributes

The Bible attributes to each person of the Trinity the very same divine perfections. This is crucial because God’s attributes are not additions to His being—they are His being. God doesn’t “have” omnipotence; He is omnipotent. He doesn’t “possess” omniscience; He is omniscient. If Father, Son, and Spirit all have the same divine attributes, they must be equally God.

Consider omnipotence (all-power). The Father is called “Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:18). But the Son is also “the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8) who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). The Spirit too is the power of God, who raised Christ from the dead (Romans 8:11) and who was active in creation when He “hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2).

Or consider omniscience (all-knowledge). The Father “knows all things” (1 John 3:20). The Son likewise knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17), and “in him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). The Spirit “searches everything, even the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10), and He knows the thoughts of God comprehensively (1 Corinthians 2:11).

What about omnipresence (present everywhere)? The Father fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24). The Son promises, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:20) and “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). The Spirit is everywhere present, as David declares: “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?” (Psalm 139:7).

Eternality belongs equally to all three. The Father is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). The Son is “the Alpha and the Omega… who is and who was and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8). The Spirit is called “the eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14).

Holiness characterizes each person identically. The Father is “Holy Father” (John 17:11). The Son is “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). The Spirit is, by His very name, the Holy Spirit, mentioned over 90 times in Scripture.

If the Son lacked any attribute the Father possesses, He wouldn’t be fully God. If He had less authority, less glory, or less of any divine perfection, He would be a lesser deity—which is precisely what subordinationism teaches and what orthodox Christianity denies.

Same Divine Honors

Scripture commands us to give the same honor to each person of the Trinity. This is particularly significant because God declares, “My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8). If the Son and Spirit receive the same glory as the Father, they must be equally God.

Jesus explicitly stated, “All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (John 5:23). Notice the word “just as” (Greek: kathōs). The Son doesn’t receive somewhat less honor or a different kind of honor—He receives the exact same honor as the Father.

Worship belongs to all three persons equally. The Father seeks worshipers (John 4:23). The Son receives worship throughout the New Testament—from the wise men (Matthew 2:11), the disciples (Matthew 14:33; 28:17), the blind man (John 9:38), and all creation (Revelation 5:11-14). The Spirit too is worshiped, as when we sing the traditional doxology: “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Prayer may be addressed to any person of the Trinity. We normally pray to the Father through the Son by the Spirit, but Scripture also records prayers to the Son (Acts 7:59; 2 Corinthians 12:8; Revelation 22:20) and communion with the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14). If the Son were eternally subordinate to the Father, why would Scripture encourage us to pray directly to Him?

Baptism invokes all three persons equally: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Notice it’s “name” (singular), not “names” (plural), indicating one God. Yet all three persons are named equally, with no hint of hierarchy or subordination.

The apostolic benediction likewise invokes all three without subordination: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Interestingly, Paul mentions Christ first in this blessing, which would be strange if there were a fixed hierarchy with the Father always supreme.

Same Divine Names

Each person of the Trinity bears the divine name. In the Old Testament, God reveals Himself as Yahweh (the LORD), declaring this to be His name forever (Exodus 3:14-15). The New Testament applies this divine name to all three persons.

The Father is called Lord (Matthew 11:25). The Son is “the Lord” (Romans 10:9) whom Thomas addresses as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Paul calls the Spirit “the Lord” who gives freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17) and identifies Him as “the Spirit of the Lord” where “Lord” translates the divine name Yahweh from the Old Testament.

Each person is called “God” (theos) in Scripture. The Father is God (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Son is “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13) and “the true God” (1 John 5:20). When Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter said he had “lied to God” (Acts 5:3-4), identifying the Spirit as God.

The divine title “Alpha and Omega” belongs to both Father and Son. God the Father declares, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 21:6). Christ likewise proclaims, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). This shared title indicates shared deity and equal eternality.

Co-eternal and Co-equal Texts

Numerous biblical passages explicitly teach the equality and eternal relationship of the Trinity’s persons. These texts make subordinationism impossible to maintain while taking Scripture seriously.

John 1:1 declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word (the Son) was already existing “in the beginning,” indicating His eternality. He was “with” God (Greek: pros ton theon), indicating distinct personhood in intimate relationship. And He “was God” (Greek: theos ēn ho logos), indicating full deity. There’s no hint of subordination here—the Word is presented as fully God from eternity past.

Philippians 2:6 says Christ Jesus “was in the form of God” and “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The word “form” (morphē) refers to the essential nature and attributes that make something what it is. Christ possessed the very nature of God. His “equality with God” wasn’t something He needed to grasp after because He already possessed it by nature.

Colossians 1:15-19 presents Christ as “the image of the invisible God” in whom “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” He is before all things, creator of all things, and sustainer of all things. This is not the description of a subordinate being but of one who is fully God in every way.

Hebrews 1:3 declares the Son to be “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” The Greek word translated “exact imprint” (charaktēr) means an exact representation, like a stamp that perfectly reproduces every detail of the seal. The Son doesn’t have a similar nature to the Father or a subordinate nature—He has the exact same divine nature.

John 10:30 records Jesus saying, “I and the Father are one.” While this refers primarily to unity of purpose and action, the Jews understood it as a claim to deity, attempting to stone Jesus for “making yourself God” (John 10:33). Jesus doesn’t correct their understanding; He defends it.

The Mutual Indwelling

Scripture teaches that the three persons of the Trinity mutually indwell one another in perfect unity and love. Theologians call this “perichoresis” or “circumincession”—the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three persons. This makes any eternal subordination impossible because the persons exist in perfect unity and mutual glorification.

Jesus repeatedly speaks of this mutual indwelling: “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10-11). “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15). “All mine are yours, and yours are mine” (John 17:10). This is the language of complete mutuality and shared possession, not hierarchy and subordination.

The Spirit likewise shares in this divine communion. He is called both “the Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9) and “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9), indicating His intimate union with both Father and Son. He searches the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:10) and knows the mind of God perfectly (1 Corinthians 2:11).

This mutual indwelling means the persons of the Trinity cannot be separated into higher and lower ranks. They exist in perfect unity, perfect love, and perfect equality. Any eternal subordination would rupture this unity and create levels or grades within the Godhead—exactly what the church has always rejected as heretical.

Understanding Economic Subordination

While Scripture clearly teaches the ontological equality of the three persons (equality in being and nature), it also presents what theologians call “economic subordination”—a voluntary submission of roles in the work of redemption. Understanding this distinction is crucial for avoiding both subordinationism and a denial of biblical teaching about the incarnation.

The Incarnation and Submission

The clearest example of economic subordination is the incarnation of the Son. When the second person of the Trinity became human, He voluntarily submitted to the Father’s will for the purpose of our salvation. This submission was real, but it was also voluntary, temporary, and related to His human nature and messianic mission.

Philippians 2:5-11 provides the classic text on this voluntary humiliation. Christ Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Notice several crucial points here. First, Christ’s submission follows from His incarnation—He “emptied himself” and took “the form of a servant.” This wasn’t an eternal subordination but a voluntary humbling for our salvation. Second, He already possessed “equality with God”—He didn’t need to grasp for it because it was already His. Third, His obedience was “to the point of death,” indicating it had a specific endpoint, not an eternal duration.

The submission we see in Christ’s earthly ministry—praying to the Father, doing the Father’s will, receiving authority from the Father—all relates to His role as the incarnate Mediator. As the God-man, Jesus had two natures: fully divine and fully human. In His human nature, He naturally submitted to God, as all humans should. In His divine nature, He remained fully equal to the Father.

Role vs. Nature/Essence

The distinction between role and nature is crucial but often misunderstood. In human relationships, we understand that people can have different roles while remaining equal in nature and dignity. A soldier may submit to his commanding officer, but both are equally human. A child obeys her parents, but she’s not less human than they are.

Similarly, in the economy of salvation, the three persons of the Trinity take different roles. The Father plans and sends, the Son accomplishes redemption through incarnation and death, the Spirit applies salvation to believers. These different roles don’t imply different levels of deity or eternal hierarchy.

However, we must be careful not to push this analogy too far. Human roles are usually temporary and changeable—the soldier may become a commander, the child grows up and becomes a parent. But more importantly, humans are all creatures who exist within structures of authority established by God. The persons of the Trinity, being God, don’t exist under any external authority structure. Any differentiation among them must be voluntary and mutual, not imposed or necessary.

This is why economic roles in salvation history don’t necessarily tell us about eternal relationships within the Trinity. The Son’s submission to the Father in Gethsemane was real and important, but it doesn’t mean He has been submitting for all eternity past. It was a voluntary submission for the specific purpose of accomplishing redemption.

Temporary vs. Eternal

One of the key issues in the current debate is whether the Son’s submission to the Father is temporary (related to the incarnation and redemptive mission) or eternal (extending back before creation and forward into eternity future). This distinction makes all the difference between orthodoxy and subordinationism.

Scripture presents the Son’s submission as having a beginning and an end. It began with the incarnation when He “emptied himself” and “took the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). It will end when His mediatorial work is complete. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 describes this endpoint: “Then comes the end, when he 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 also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

This passage is often misunderstood. Paul isn’t saying the Son will be eternally subordinated to the Father in the age to come. Rather, he’s describing the completion of the Son’s mediatorial role. As the God-man Mediator, Christ will hand over the completed kingdom to the Father. The focus isn’t on eternal subordination but on the Trinity’s unified rule over the new creation.

Throughout Scripture, the Son’s submission is consistently linked to His incarnation and saving work, not to His eternal divine nature. Before the incarnation, we never see the Son submitting to the Father’s authority. Instead, we see Him creating all things (John 1:3), sustaining all things (Hebrews 1:3), and receiving worship from angels (Hebrews 1:6).

Philippians 2 Properly Explained

Since Philippians 2:5-11 is such a crucial passage for understanding economic subordination, we need to examine it carefully. This beautiful hymn about Christ’s humiliation and exaltation has sometimes been misused to support eternal subordinationism, but when properly understood, it actually refutes that error.

The passage begins by calling us to have the same mindset as Christ Jesus, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (v. 6). The phrase “form of God” uses the Greek word morphē, which refers to the essential attributes that make something what it is. Christ possessed all the attributes that make God to be God.

When it says Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” this doesn’t mean He lacked equality with God. The Greek construction indicates He already possessed this equality but didn’t consider it something to be held onto for His own advantage. Instead of exploiting His divine privileges, He chose the path of humble service.

“But emptied himself” (v. 7)—this doesn’t mean Christ gave up His divine nature or attributes. That would be impossible since God cannot cease to be God. The emptying consisted in taking “the form of a servant” and “being born in the likeness of men.” He added human nature to His divine nature without subtracting anything from His deity.

The key phrase for our discussion is “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death” (v. 8). This obedience had a starting point (the incarnation) and an endpoint (“death on a cross”). It’s not described as eternal obedience but as obedience within the context of His earthly mission.

The passage concludes with the Father highly exalting Christ and giving Him “the name that is above every name” (v. 9). This doesn’t mean Christ lacked this exalted status before—rather, His human nature is now exalted to share in the glory His divine nature always possessed. Every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess that He is Lord, “to the glory of God the Father” (v. 11). This mutual glorification shows equality, not subordination.

The Sending and Sent Relationship

Another aspect of economic subordination involves the “sending” language in Scripture. The Father sends the Son (John 3:16), and the Father and Son send the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Does this sending imply authority and subordination?

In human relationships, sending usually implies authority—an employer sends an employee, a commander sends a soldier. But we must be careful about reading human authority structures back into the Trinity. The divine sending is better understood as the persons acting out their agreed-upon roles in the plan of salvation.

Consider how Jesus speaks about this sending. He says, “I came not of my own accord, but he sent me” (John 8:42). Yet He also says, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). The sending involved the Father’s initiative, but it was also the Son’s voluntary choice. This is cooperative action, not authoritarian command.

Furthermore, the sending relationships aren’t always unidirectional. While the Father sends the Son, the Son also “sends” the Father’s message (John 7:16) and jointly sends the Spirit with the Father (John 15:26). The Spirit, in turn, testifies about the Son (John 15:26) and glorifies Him (John 16:14). These reciprocal relationships suggest mutual cooperation rather than a hierarchy of command.

The church fathers understood the sending language in terms of the Son’s eternal generation from the Father and the Spirit’s eternal procession—relationships of origin that don’t imply subordination in nature or authority. The Son is “from” the Father eternally, but this doesn’t make Him less than the Father, just as a sunbeam is from the sun but shares the same light and heat.

The ESS/EFS Controversy Examined

The contemporary evangelical debate over the eternal subordination of the Son has become one of the most significant theological controversies of our time. We need to examine the specific arguments being made, the key figures involved, and why many theologians see this teaching as a serious departure from orthodox Christianity.

Wayne Grudem’s Position

Wayne Grudem, author of a widely-used systematic theology textbook and a respected evangelical theologian, has been one of the most influential proponents of eternal functional subordination. His position has evolved over the years, but his basic argument remains that the Son eternally submits to the Father’s authority while remaining fully equal in divine nature and attributes.

Grudem argues that authority and submission are compatible with equality. He points to human relationships where people of equal worth have different authority roles—employers and employees, parents and children, government officials and citizens. If humans can be equal while having authority structures, he reasons, why not the persons of the Trinity?

In his systematic theology, Grudem writes, “The Father has eternally had a role of leading, directing, and sending, and the Son has eternally had a role of going, obeying, and responding to the leadership of the Father.” He insists this doesn’t diminish the Son’s deity because the submission is voluntary and the Son remains equal in attributes and nature.

Grudem particularly emphasizes that this eternal authority-submission relationship provides the foundation for understanding gender roles in marriage. Just as the Son eternally submits to the Father while being fully equal in deity, wives submit to husbands while being fully equal in personhood and dignity. He sees the Trinity as the model for complementarian marriage relationships.

To support his position, Grudem points to several biblical texts. He notes that the Father sends the Son, not vice versa. The Son does the Father’s will, not His own. The Father gives authority to the Son. The Son will be subjected to the Father when all things are complete (1 Corinthians 15:28). He argues these texts indicate not just economic subordination but eternal relationship patterns.

However, Grudem’s position has faced serious criticism. Critics point out that he’s reading temporal, incarnational texts back into eternity. When Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), He’s speaking as the incarnate Mediator, not making statements about eternal relations within the Trinity. The sending, the doing of the Father’s will, the receiving of authority—all these relate to Christ’s mission as Redeemer, not to eternal past relationships.

Bruce Ware’s Arguments

Bruce Ware, another prominent evangelical theologian, has provided perhaps the most detailed defense of eternal functional subordination. His arguments are sophisticated and deserve careful consideration, even as we’ll see why they ultimately fail to convince.

Ware argues that the names “Father” and “Son” themselves indicate an eternal authority-submission relationship. In human experience, fathers have authority over sons. If God chose these terms to reveal Himself, Ware reasons, they must communicate something about authority relationships within the Trinity.

Furthermore, Ware points to what he calls the “eternal covenant of redemption” made between the Father and Son before creation. The Father chose those who would be saved and gave them to the Son; the Son agreed to become incarnate and die for them. This covenant, Ware argues, demonstrates eternal authority structures—the Father planned and commanded, the Son agreed and obeyed.

Ware also emphasizes biblical texts that seem to show the Son’s subordination extending beyond the incarnation. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states, “The head of Christ is God.” Ware argues this headship is parallel to the husband’s headship over his wife—an authority relationship that he believes is eternal, not temporary.

Additionally, Ware points to passages describing the Son’s eternal dependence on the Father. The Son is “begotten” of the Father, receives life from the Father (John 5:26), and receives His very identity as Son from the Father. Ware sees this as indicating not just derivation of existence but also subordination of authority.

However, these arguments have significant problems. The names “Father” and “Son” primarily communicate relationship and love, not authority structures. Many fathers don’t have authority over their adult sons, yet the relationship remains. More importantly, we can’t simply project human family structures onto God—that’s anthropomorphism, making God in our image.

The eternal covenant of redemption, even if we accept this theological construct, doesn’t necessarily imply authority and subordination. It could equally represent the three persons’ mutual agreement about their different roles in salvation, with no implication of eternal hierarchy.

The Opposition’s Response

The response to ESS/EFS teaching has been swift and strong from many quarters of evangelicalism. Theologians like D.A. Carson, Kevin Giles, Michael Bird, Liam Goligher, and Carl Trueman have written extensively against this teaching, arguing it represents a serious departure from orthodox Trinitarianism.

The critics make several powerful arguments. First, they point out that eternal functional subordination is historically novel. While Grudem and Ware claim to represent the historic position, extensive research into patristic and medieval sources shows the church fathers explicitly rejected eternal subordination. When they spoke of the Son’s submission, they consistently linked it to the incarnation, not to eternal relations.

Second, critics argue that you cannot separate function from being when discussing eternal realities. In time and space, creatures can have different roles while sharing the same nature. But in eternity, within God’s own being, function and nature cannot be separated. If the Son must eternally submit to the Father, then submission is part of His personal identity—He is the eternally submissive one, which makes Him different from and less than the Father.

Third, the biblical texts used to support ESS/EFS consistently refer to the incarnate Son, not to eternal pre-incarnate relations. Every passage about the Son doing the Father’s will, being sent by the Father, or receiving from the Father occurs in the context of the incarnation and redemptive mission. To read these texts back into eternity is to misunderstand their purpose and context.

Fourth, eternal subordination threatens the doctrine of divine simplicity—the teaching that God is not composed of parts but is purely and simply God. If the Father has an attribute (unoriginated authority) that the Son lacks, then they don’t share all the same attributes, which means they’re not the same God.

Why Many See This as Heretical

The charge of heresy is serious and shouldn’t be made lightly. Yet many orthodox theologians believe ESS/EFS teaching, even if unintentionally, resurrects ancient heresies the church definitively rejected. They see it as a form of subordinationism that, despite protests to the contrary, makes the Son eternally lesser than the Father.

The concern isn’t merely academic. If the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, several crucial doctrines are undermined. First, the unity of God is threatened. If there’s an eternal authority structure within God, with one person commanding and another obeying, how is God truly one? This seems to create multiple centers of consciousness and will within the Godhead.

Second, the full deity of the Son is compromised. Even if proponents claim the Son has all divine attributes, if He lacks the Father’s authority and must eternally submit, He lacks something the Father has. This makes Him subordinate not just in function but in His very being.

Third, our salvation is endangered. If the Son who died for us is eternally subordinate to the Father, is He truly able to fully reveal God to us? Can He truly mediate between God and humanity if He Himself is subordinate to God? The gospel requires a Savior who is fully God, not eternally less than the Father.

Fourth, this teaching risks idolatry. If we worship the Son as fully God when He’s actually eternally subordinate to the Father, are we giving divine worship to one who doesn’t fully possess divine authority? This is why the early church fought so fiercely against subordinationism—it undermines true worship.

The Authority-Submission Model

Central to the ESS/EFS position is the claim that authority and submission can exist between equals. Proponents argue this is proven by human relationships—a wife can submit to her husband while being fully equal in personhood, an employee to an employer while being equal in human dignity.

But this analogy breaks down when applied to the Trinity. Human authority structures exist because we are finite creatures living in a fallen world that needs order and organization. We submit to authorities because God has established these structures for our good. But God doesn’t exist under any external authority structures—He is the source of all authority.

Furthermore, human authority is always limited and temporary. A husband’s authority over his wife (however that’s understood) doesn’t extend to all areas and ends at death. An employer’s authority exists only in the workplace and during employment. But the proposed eternal subordination of the Son would be unlimited in scope and eternal in duration—a fundamentally different kind of relationship.

Most problematically, making authority and submission essential to the inner life of the Trinity suggests that hierarchy is ultimate reality. If God Himself exists in an authority-submission structure, then such structures aren’t merely useful for organizing fallen human society—they’re woven into the very nature of reality. This has profound implications for how we understand God, salvation, and human relationships.

Historical Orthodox Position

To properly evaluate modern claims about eternal subordination, we need to understand what the church has historically taught. The overwhelming testimony of church history stands against eternal subordinationism in any form. The church fathers, medieval theologians, and Reformers consistently affirmed the complete equality of the three persons while acknowledging economic distinctions in the work of salvation.

Church Fathers on Equality

The early church fathers were unanimous in affirming the complete equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They fought vigorously against any suggestion that the Son or Spirit were lesser than the Father in any eternal sense.

Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, wrote extensively against Arian subordinationism. He insisted that the Son is “like the Father in all things” and that “the Son is not another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father’s.” For Athanasius, any eternal subordination would make the Son a different and lesser God.

Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, explicitly rejected any inequality in the Trinity: “For us there is one God, for the Godhead is one, and all that proceeds from Him is referred to one, though we believe in three Persons… When then we look at the Godhead, or the first cause, or the monarchia, that which we conceive is one; but when we look at the Persons in whom the Godhead dwells… there are three whom we worship.”

Augustine, perhaps the most influential theologian in Western Christianity, strongly affirmed the equality of the persons. In his masterwork “On the Trinity,” he writes, “In their own proper substance by which they are, the three are one, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, no one of them being greater or less than another, nor any two of them being greater than any one.”

John Chrysostom, commenting on Philippians 2, clarifies that when Scripture speaks of the Son’s obedience, it refers to the incarnation: “Where has the Son been subjected to the Father? In the Incarnation, you say. But this is not subjection… This is the economy, not subjection.”

The fathers understood that while the Son is eternally generated from the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds, these relationships of origin don’t imply subordination in nature, authority, or glory. Generation and procession describe eternal relationships of love and communion, not hierarchy or submission.

Nicene Theology

The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) was convened specifically to address the Arian controversy over the Son’s relationship to the Father. The resulting Nicene Creed became the definitive statement of orthodox Trinitarianism, and it explicitly rejects any form of subordinationism.

The Creed declares the Son to be “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” Every phrase was carefully chosen to exclude subordinationist interpretations. “True God from true God” means the Son is as truly God as the Father is. “Of one substance” (homoousios) means they share the identical divine essence—not similar, but the same.

The Creed further states that through the Son “all things were made.” This places the Son on the Creator side of the Creator-creature distinction. He’s not the first or greatest creature but the eternal Creator along with the Father. A subordinate being couldn’t be the Creator of all things.

When the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) expanded the Creed to include fuller teaching on the Holy Spirit, it declared Him to be “the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” Notice the emphasis on the Spirit being worshiped and glorified “together with” (not “after” or “below”) the Father and Son.

The theological discussions surrounding these councils make clear that the fathers understood any eternal subordination as incompatible with true deity. If the Son is eternally subordinate, He is not truly God in the same sense as the Father, which is precisely what Arius taught and what the councils condemned.

Athanasian Creed’s Clarity

The Athanasian Creed (probably from the 5th or 6th century, despite its name) provides the clearest and most detailed statement on Trinity equality in any of the historic creeds. It was specifically formulated to exclude all forms of subordinationism and modalism, and its language is remarkably precise.

The Creed states: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.”

Most relevantly for our discussion, it declares: “In this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.”

Notice the comprehensive nature of this equality: “none is before or after” (no temporal priority), “none is greater or less” (no hierarchical priority), all are “coeternal” (equal in eternity) and “coequal” (equal in every way). The Creed leaves no room for any form of eternal subordination, functional or otherwise.

The Creed also clarifies how to understand biblical passages about the Son’s submission: “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” The submission and inferiority relate only to Christ’s human nature taken in the incarnation, not to His eternal divine nature.

Calvin and the Reformers

The Protestant Reformers strongly upheld Trinitarian orthodoxy, including the complete equality of the three persons. While they disagreed with Rome on many issues, they stood firmly with the catholic tradition on the Trinity.

John Calvin explicitly rejected any eternal subordination of the Son. In his Institutes, he writes, “We say that deity in an absolute sense exists of itself; and hence also we confess that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is unoriginate, but his person has its origin in the Father.”

Calvin faced opposition for teaching the Son’s “self-existence” (autotheos), with some accusing him of denying the eternal generation. But Calvin was actually preserving the Son’s full equality—He derives His person from the Father through eternal generation, but He doesn’t derive His deity from the Father because He is God of Himself.

Martin Luther likewise affirmed complete Trinitarian equality. In his commentary on Galatians, he writes, “The Father is true God, the Son is true God, the Holy Spirit is true God; yet not three Gods, but one God. And in this divine essence there is no inequality or superiority, but perfect equality.”

The Reformed confessions consistently maintain this equality. The Westminster Confession states: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Notice: “one substance, power, and eternity”—complete equality in every divine attribute.

The Belgic Confession is even more explicit: “All three are co-eternal and co-essential. There is neither first nor last; for all three are one, in truth, in power, in goodness, and in mercy.”

Modern Systematic Theologians

Before the recent ESS/EFS controversy, modern systematic theologians were virtually unanimous in rejecting eternal subordination. From various theological traditions, they consistently affirmed the complete equality of the Trinity’s persons.

Louis Berkhof, whose Systematic Theology was the standard Reformed text for generations, writes: “The three persons in the Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal… There can be no subordination as to essential being of the one person to the other, and therefore no difference in personal dignity… The only subordination of which we can speak, is a subordination in respect to order and relationship.”

Millard Erickson, author of one of the most widely used evangelical systematic theologies, initially seemed open to some form of eternal functional subordination but later explicitly rejected it after further study. He writes: “A temporal, functional subordination without inferiority of essence seems possible, but not an eternal subordination.”

Thomas F. Torrance, one of the 20th century’s greatest Trinitarian theologians, insisted: “There is no ‘above’ or ‘below’ in the Holy Trinity, no ‘first,’ ‘second,’ and ‘third,’ no ‘before’ and ‘after’… The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always are, always were, and always will be the one true and living God.”

Karl Barth, despite his unique theological method, strongly affirmed Trinitarian equality: “We are forbidden to take the distinction of the three modes of being to mean that there is in God a first, a second, and a third… inequality.”

Even among theologians who hold complementarian views on gender, many strongly reject using eternal subordination in the Trinity to support their position. They recognize that eternal subordination compromises essential Christian doctrine and actually weakens rather than strengthens their arguments about human relationships.

The Gender Application Debate

One of the most controversial aspects of the ESS/EFS debate is its connection to discussions about gender roles in marriage and the church. Some complementarian theologians have argued that eternal functional subordination in the Trinity provides the theological foundation for wives submitting to husbands. This application has been strongly contested, even by many who hold complementarian views.

Using Trinity for Gender Roles

The argument goes like this: If the Son can be fully equal to the Father in nature while eternally submitting to His authority, then wives can be fully equal to husbands in personhood while submitting to their authority. The Trinity supposedly provides the perfect model for “equality in being, difference in role.”

Proponents of this view argue it solves a key challenge for complementarianism—how to maintain that wives should submit to husbands without implying they’re inferior. If submission doesn’t mean inferiority in the Trinity, they reason, then submission doesn’t mean inferiority in marriage.

Some go further, arguing that complementarian gender roles are actually grounded in the very nature of God. If authority and submission exist eternally in the Trinity, then such structures aren’t merely cultural or temporary but reflect ultimate reality. Marriage relationships that include authority and submission supposedly mirror the inner life of God Himself.

This theological move seems to provide strong support for traditional gender roles. It appears to elevate marriage by connecting it directly to the Trinity. It seems to protect women’s dignity by grounding their equality in Trinitarian theology. And it appears to give complementarianism an unshakeable foundation in the doctrine of God.

Why Many Find This Problematic

However, this use of Trinitarian theology for gender roles has been criticized from multiple angles, including by many complementarians who reject the connection entirely. The problems are both theological and practical.

Theologically, using the Trinity to model human authority structures is highly questionable. The Trinity is unique—there’s nothing in creation exactly like the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They share one divine essence, they mutually indwell one another, they have perfect unity of will and action. Human relationships, even the best marriages, don’t and can’t replicate these realities.

Furthermore, if we’re going to model human relationships on the Trinity, why stop at authority and submission? The persons of the Trinity mutually glorify one another—the Father glorifies the Son, the Son glorifies the Father, the Spirit glorifies both. They mutually indwell one another. They share all things in common. Should marriages replicate all these aspects? If not, who decides which aspects of Trinitarian relations should be copied and which shouldn’t?

The direction of revelation is also important. Scripture doesn’t say, “Husbands and wives, relate to each other as the Father and Son relate.” Instead, God reveals Himself using human analogies that we can understand—Father and Son. These terms help us grasp something about God, but they don’t mean God is exactly like human fathers and sons. To then use the Trinity to prescribe human relationships is to reverse the direction of revelation.

Practically, grounding gender roles in the Trinity can lead to serious problems. If a wife’s submission to her husband is patterned after the Son’s alleged eternal submission to the Father, what are the limits? The Son’s supposed submission to the Father is absolute, eternal, and encompasses everything. Should a wife’s submission to her husband be similarly comprehensive?

This can also lead to the spiritualization of abuse. If a husband’s authority over his wife reflects the Father’s authority over the Son, questioning or resisting that authority might seem like questioning God Himself. This gives abusive husbands a powerful theological weapon and makes it harder for abused wives to seek help.

Alternative Biblical Arguments

Many complementarians recognize these problems and ground their views in other biblical teachings rather than disputed claims about the Trinity. They argue their position stands or falls on the interpretation of specific biblical texts about marriage and church order, not on speculative theology about eternal relations in the Godhead.

These complementarians point to creation order in Genesis 2, where Adam is created first and Eve as his helper. They cite Paul’s teachings in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and 1 Peter 3 about wives submitting to husbands. They reference 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 regarding women’s roles in the church. Whether one agrees with their interpretation or not, these are arguments from specific biblical texts about human relationships, not from the doctrine of the Trinity.

Similarly, egalitarians make their case from Scripture without needing to deny economic subordination in the work of salvation. They point to Genesis 1, where both male and female are created in God’s image. They emphasize Galatians 3:28, that in Christ there is neither male nor female. They highlight the women who served as prophets, judges, and apostles in Scripture. Again, these arguments stand on their own biblical merits.

The key point is that the gender debate can and should be conducted on the basis of what Scripture specifically teaches about men and women, marriage and church, without dragging the Trinity into human controversies. The doctrine of the Trinity is too precious and too mysterious to be used as ammunition in debates about human social arrangements.

Keeping Trinity and Gender Separate

There are compelling reasons to keep Trinitarian theology and gender debates separate. First and foremost, the doctrine of the Trinity should unite all Christians, not divide them along gender lines. Orthodox believers can disagree about gender roles while fully agreeing on the Trinity. Why compromise this unity by unnecessarily linking the two issues?

Second, using the Trinity to support specific views on gender actually weakens those positions. If complementarianism requires eternal subordination in the Trinity, and if eternal subordination is heretical (as many argue), then complementarianism would be built on heresy. But complementarianism doesn’t require this theological foundation—it can stand on its own biblical arguments.

Third, both sides of the gender debate should be concerned about protecting the doctrine of God. Progressive Christians shouldn’t remake God in the image of egalitarian ideals, and conservative Christians shouldn’t remake God in the image of traditional authority structures. God transcends our human categories and controversies.

Fourth, linking Trinity and gender can distract from the real issues in the gender debate. Instead of carefully exegeting relevant biblical passages, studying historical context, and considering practical applications, the debate gets sidetracked into complex discussions about eternal processions and modal distinctions in the Godhead.

Finally, using the inner life of the Trinity to justify human authority structures risks trivializing the profound mystery of God’s triune nature. The Trinity isn’t a tool for winning arguments about social issues—it’s the foundational reality of the God we worship. We should approach it with reverence and humility, not as a weapon in culture wars.

Why Equality Matters

The complete equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit isn’t just a technical point of theology—it’s essential to the Christian faith. When we compromise on Trinitarian equality, we undermine the very foundations of what we believe about God, salvation, and worship.

True Unity Requires Equality

Jesus prayed that His followers would be one “just as” He and the Father are one (John 17:11, 21). This unity between Father and Son becomes the model for Christian unity. But what kind of unity is this? Is it a unity where one dominates and another submits? Or is it a unity of complete equality and mutual love?

Scripture presents the unity of the Trinity as perfect and complete. Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Not “I am under the Father” or “I am united to the Father despite our inequality,” but simply “we are one.” This unity is so complete that to see the Son is to see the Father (John 14:9), to honor the Son is to honor the Father (John 5:23).

True unity can only exist between equals. When there’s permanent hierarchy, with one person eternally possessing authority the other lacks, you don’t have unity—you have a power structure. The superior and inferior might cooperate, might even love each other, but they cannot be truly one because they’re fundamentally different kinds of beings.

Consider human relationships. A master and slave cannot have true unity because their relationship is defined by inequality. An employer and employee, while working together, don’t achieve unity in their professional relationship because one has authority over the other. Even in good marriages with traditional gender roles, the unity is found in the mutual love and equal dignity of the spouses, not in any authority structure.

The Trinity shows us something beyond all human relationships—perfect unity without any inequality. The three persons share everything completely: the same divine nature, the same attributes, the same glory, the same worship. They mutually indwell one another, mutually glorify one another, mutually love one another. This is only possible because they are absolutely equal.

If the Son were eternally subordinate to the Father, this perfect unity would be impossible. There would always be something the Father has that the Son lacks (unoriginated authority), something the Father can do that the Son cannot (command within the Godhead), some glory the Father possesses that the Son doesn’t share (the glory of being supreme). This would rupture the divine unity.

The Problem of Degrees in Deity

One of the most serious problems with eternal subordination is that it introduces degrees or gradations within deity itself. If the Father has greater authority than the Son for all eternity, then the Father is greater than the Son in some essential way. This creates levels of divinity—a greater God and a lesser God.

But Scripture consistently teaches that God is God without degrees or limitations. When Moses asked God’s name, God replied, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14)—absolute being without qualification. God doesn’t have deity; He is deity. He doesn’t possess divine attributes; He is those attributes.

This is why the church has always insisted on the simplicity of God—the teaching that God is not composed of parts but is purely and simply God. The Father doesn’t have more “God-ness” than the Son, nor does the Son have a different kind of divinity than the Spirit. They are all fully, completely, absolutely God.

Introducing eternal subordination creates exactly what the early church fought against—degrees of divinity. Arius taught that the Son was divine but less divine than the Father. The Semi-Arians said the Son was “like” the Father but not identical in essence. Both groups created hierarchies of divinity, with the Father at the top and the Son below.

Modern proponents of eternal subordination claim they’re not doing this—they say the Son is fully God with all divine attributes. But if the Son must eternally submit to the Father’s authority, and if authority is good and godly (as they claim), then the Son lacks something good that the Father has. This creates degrees in deity, even if unintentionally.

The problem becomes even clearer when we consider the Holy Spirit. In ESS/EFS theology, does the Spirit submit to both Father and Son? To the Father only? These questions reveal how quickly eternal subordination leads to a hierarchical pantheon rather than the one true God revealed in Scripture.

Worship Implications

Perhaps the most practical consequence of Trinitarian equality concerns worship. Christians worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the one true God. But if there’s eternal subordination within the Trinity, our worship becomes problematic.

God declares, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8). If the Father possesses a unique authority that makes Him eternally supreme over the Son, then the Father possesses a unique glory. Should He then receive greater worship than the Son? Should our prayers and praise acknowledge this hierarchy?

But Jesus receives the exact same worship as the Father throughout Scripture. The angels worship Him (Hebrews 1:6). The disciples worshiped Him (Matthew 28:17). Every knee will bow to Him (Philippians 2:10). The heavenly beings cry out, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12). This is not lesser worship or subordinate honor—it’s the full worship that belongs to God alone.

The early church recognized that worship was a crucial test of orthodoxy. If Christ is worshiped as God but is actually eternally subordinate to God, then Christians are idolaters. This is why Arians, who believed the Son was subordinate, developed different forms of worship for the Father and the Son. They couldn’t give the same worship to both if one was greater than the other.

Orthodox Christianity has always insisted on the same worship for all three persons. The Gloria Patri declares, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.” Not greater glory to the Father, not sequential glory from Father through Son to Spirit, but the same glory to all three. This is only possible if all three are equally God.

Our hymns and prayers reflect this equality. “Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!… God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!” We don’t sing “blessed Hierarchy” or “blessed Authority Structure.” We worship the Trinity as three co-equal persons in perfect unity.

Love Among Equals

Finally, the equality of the Trinity reveals that perfect love exists among equals, not in hierarchy. The mutual love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the foundation of all reality, and this love is possible because they are equal in every way.

Love can exist in unequal relationships—parents love children, teachers love students, even masters can love servants. But the deepest, most complete love requires equality. This is why friendship, where people meet as equals, is often deeper than relationships defined by authority structures. This is why the best marriages are partnerships of equals, even when spouses have different roles.

The Trinity shows us love in its perfection. The Father loves the Son completely, holding nothing back, sharing everything He has. The Son loves the Father completely, glorifying Him and delighting in Him. The Spirit loves both, proceeding from them in love and binding them in love. This perfect, complete, mutual love is only possible because none is greater or lesser than another.

If there were eternal subordination in the Trinity, the love would be marred by inequality. The Father’s love would be the condescending love of a superior for an inferior. The Son’s love would be the obligatory love of a subordinate for a master. This might still be love, but it wouldn’t be the perfect, mutual, equal love that Scripture reveals.

1 John 4:8 tells us “God is love.” Not just that God has love or shows love, but that love is His very nature. This divine love that constitutes God’s being is the mutual love of three co-equal persons. Eternal subordination would mean that inequality and hierarchy, not just love, are part of God’s essential nature. It would mean that God is not just love but also eternal authority and submission.

Responding to Subordinationist Texts

Those who teach eternal subordination often point to specific biblical texts that seem to support their position. We need to examine these passages carefully, understanding them in context and in harmony with the whole of Scripture’s teaching about the Trinity.

“The Father is Greater”

Perhaps the most frequently cited text for eternal subordination is John 14:28, where Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” Doesn’t this clearly teach that the Son is eternally lesser than the Father?

The context is crucial. Jesus is speaking to His disciples on the night before His crucifixion. He’s been telling them about His upcoming departure and return to the Father. He says, “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Jesus is speaking as the incarnate Mediator who is about to suffer and die. In His state of humiliation, having taken on human nature and accepted the limitations of human existence, the Father is indeed greater. The disciples should rejoice that Jesus is returning to the Father because He’ll be freed from the constraints of His earthly ministry and restored to His full glory.

This interpretation is confirmed by John’s Gospel as a whole. The same Gospel that records “the Father is greater than I” also records “I and the Father are one” (10:30), “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9), and Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and my God” (20:28). John’s prologue declares the Word was God (1:1) and that “all things were made through him” (1:3).

The church fathers consistently interpreted John 14:28 as referring to Christ’s human nature or His economic role, not to eternal subordination. Athanasius wrote, “When He says, ‘The Father is greater than I,’ He means, ‘because I am become man for you, and am still in the form of a servant.'” Gregory of Nazianzus likewise explained it refers to Christ “as He is the Captain of our salvation, who leads us to Himself and to the Father.”

If John 14:28 taught eternal subordination, it would contradict not only other passages in John but the fundamental teaching that Christ is truly God. A lesser God is not the God revealed in Scripture.

“The Head of Christ is God”

1 Corinthians 11:3 states, “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.” Doesn’t this establish a permanent hierarchy with God over Christ?

First, note that Paul says “Christ” not “the Son.” Throughout 1 Corinthians, “Christ” refers to the incarnate Mediator, not to the second person of the Trinity in His eternal divine nature. Paul is discussing the God-man who died for our sins (15:3), who was raised from the dead (15:20), and who will deliver the kingdom to the Father (15:24).

Second, the meaning of “head” (kephalē) is debated. While it can mean “authority over,” it can also mean “source” or “origin.” In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, which discusses creation order and the relationship between men and women, “source” fits well. Man is the source of woman (Eve from Adam’s rib), Christ is the source of every man (as Creator and Redeemer), and God is the source of Christ (in the incarnation).

Third, even if “head” means authority here, this would refer to the economic relationship in the work of salvation. As the God-man Mediator, Christ operates under the Father’s commission. He came to do the Father’s will, to reveal the Father, to bring us to the Father. This doesn’t imply eternal subordination any more than a ambassador being under his king’s authority means he’s eternally inferior as a person.

Fourth, the context is about appropriate behavior in worship, not about the eternal nature of God. Paul is addressing practical issues about head coverings and proper decorum in the Corinthian church. It would be strange for him to insert a statement about eternal relations within the Trinity in the middle of such practical instructions.

“Subject to Him Who Subjected All”

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 describes the end times when Christ “delivers the kingdom to God the Father” and “the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him.” Doesn’t this teach eternal future subordination?

This passage is about the completion of Christ’s mediatorial work. Paul is describing what happens after the resurrection, after all enemies are defeated, after death itself is destroyed. Christ, as the Last Adam and Mediator, will have completed His saving mission.

The subjection here is specifically as the incarnate Mediator. Christ doesn’t cease to be God, but His role as Mediator between God and humanity reaches its goal. As Calvin explains, “Christ will then restore the Kingdom which He has received, that we may cleave wholly to God… Christ’s Kingdom will be eternal in another sense, for His reign as God will never end.”

Notice that everything is “subjected” to Christ except the Father who subjected everything to Him (v. 27). This shows we’re dealing with the economic arrangement of salvation, not eternal ontological relations. The Son, as God, isn’t subject to anyone—He is the one to whom all creation is subjected.

The goal is “that God may be all in all” (v. 28). This doesn’t mean the Son ceases to be God or becomes eternally subordinate. Rather, it means the entire Godhead—Father, Son, and Spirit—will be fully manifested and glorified in the completed new creation. The mediation will be complete, and God in His fullness will dwell with His people forever.

Properly Reading Submission Texts

When reading texts about the Son’s submission to the Father, several principles help us interpret correctly:

First, distinguish between the immanent Trinity (God in Himself) and the economic Trinity (God in relation to creation). Submission texts are consistently in economic contexts—they’re about the work of salvation, not eternal relations.

Second, recognize the incarnational context. When Jesus submits to the Father, He does so as the incarnate Mediator. He has taken on human nature, and in that nature He naturally submits to God as all humans should.

Third, note the voluntary nature of the Son’s mission. Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that He chose to come, chose to die, chose to obey. “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). This is voluntary cooperation, not eternal subordination.

Fourth, maintain the unity of Scripture. We cannot interpret submission passages in ways that contradict clear teaching about Christ’s full deity and equality with the Father. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

Fifth, consider the purpose of the passages. Texts about Christ’s submission are usually making practical points about salvation, discipleship, or Christian living. They’re not philosophical discussions about eternal relations within the Godhead.

Finally, learn from church history. The church has dealt with these passages for two thousand years. The consistent orthodox interpretation has been that they refer to the economy of salvation, not to eternal subordination. We should be very cautious about novel interpretations that overturn centuries of careful theological reflection.

Common Questions

“Doesn’t someone have to be in charge?”

This question reveals how deeply we’re shaped by human experience of authority structures. In our fallen world, organizations need leadership, families need structure, societies need government. We assume that order requires hierarchy, that unity demands someone in charge.

But God transcends our fallen human arrangements. The Trinity shows us perfect order without hierarchy, complete unity without subordination. The three persons act in perfect harmony not because one commands and others obey, but because they share the same divine will, wisdom, and purpose.

When the Father sends the Son, it’s not like a boss sending an employee. It’s the execution of an eternal plan that all three persons fully share. The Son says “I and the Father are one”—one in purpose, will, and action. They don’t need a chain of command because they have perfect unity.

“What about Jesus always obeying?”

Jesus did always obey the Father during His earthly ministry—”I always do what pleases Him” (John 8:29). But this obedience must be understood in the context of the incarnation. As the God-man, Jesus had a human will that needed to submit to the divine will, seen most clearly in Gethsemane.

Moreover, the obedience was mutual. The Father also “listens” to the Son—”Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me” (John 11:41-42). The Spirit glorifies the Son just as the Son glorifies the Father. This is mutual love and honor, not one-way subordination.

“How can there be order without hierarchy?”

Order doesn’t require hierarchy—it requires harmony. A symphony orchestra creates beautiful order through musicians playing different parts in harmony, not through the first violin commanding the others. The Trinity has perfect order through perfect unity and love, not through authority structures.

The different roles in salvation (Father sending, Son going, Spirit applying) represent ordered action without implying hierarchy. Just as a married couple might divide responsibilities without one having authority over the other, the Trinity acts in ordered ways that reflect their mutual plan and purpose.

Practical Application: Implications for Church and Family

Understanding the equality of the Trinity has profound implications for how we live as Christians, how we structure our churches, and how we relate in our families. While we must be careful not to simplistically read Trinitarian doctrine into human relationships, the Trinity does reveal important truths about God’s character and purposes that shape our lives.

Worshiping the Triune God Rightly

First and foremost, understanding Trinitarian equality transforms our worship. We don’t approach the Father through a lesser mediator but through One who is fully God. We don’t receive a subordinate spirit but the very Spirit of God. Our prayers, songs, and praise should reflect the full equality of all three persons.

Practically, this means we should be careful about worship songs or prayers that suggest hierarchy in the Trinity. Lyrics that present the Son as eternally subordinate or the Spirit as merely a force need correction. Our worship should celebrate the full deity and equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We should also teach the Trinity carefully in our churches. Sunday school materials, catechism classes, and sermons should avoid analogies that imply subordination. Instead of problematic analogies like “chain of command” or “divine hierarchy,” we should emphasize unity, mutual love, and shared glory.

Church Leadership and Authority

The equality of the Trinity reminds us that authority in the church is functional and temporary, not essential or eternal. Church leaders have authority for specific purposes—teaching, shepherding, organizing—but they’re not essentially superior to other believers. All Christians are equally made in God’s image, equally saved by grace, equally indwelt by the Spirit.

This should shape how leaders exercise authority. It’s not domination but service, not commanding but guiding, not lording over but laying down lives for the sheep. Jesus explicitly contrasted worldly authority structures with Kingdom leadership: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-26).

Churches should also be careful about creating permanent hierarchies that go beyond biblical teaching. While Scripture prescribes certain offices and roles, these are functional arrangements for the church’s mission, not eternal subordinations that reflect the Trinity’s nature.

Marriage and Family Relationships

While the Trinity shouldn’t be used to justify specific authority structures in marriage, the mutual love and equality of the three persons does provide insight into God’s design for human relationships. The Trinity shows us that difference doesn’t require hierarchy, that unity doesn’t demand subordination, and that love is perfected among equals.

Whatever one’s views on gender roles, all Christians should agree that husbands and wives are equally made in God’s image, equally precious to God, and equally heirs of grace. Any authority structures in marriage are at most temporary arrangements for this age, not eternal realities that reflect God’s own nature.

The Trinity’s mutual glorification should inspire spouses to honor and celebrate each other. Just as the Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father, husbands and wives should seek each other’s good and rejoice in each other’s flourishing. This mutual honoring goes far beyond any debate about who makes final decisions.

Unity in the Body of Christ

Jesus prayed that His followers would be one as He and the Father are one. The unity of the Trinity becomes the model for church unity—not uniformity, not hierarchy, but unity in diversity with mutual love and respect.

This means churches should resist the tendency to create divisions based on non-essential matters. The current controversy over ESS/EFS has divided Christians who agree on the gospel, the authority of Scripture, and even complementarian convictions. This is tragic. The doctrine of the Trinity should unite us around our common worship of the one true God, not divide us over speculative theology.

Churches should also celebrate the diversity of gifts and callings within the body while maintaining equality of worth and dignity. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”—not because the hand is subordinate to the eye, but because both are equally necessary members of one body.

Resisting Worldly Power Structures

Understanding that God Himself exists without eternal hierarchy should make Christians suspicious of claims that human hierarchies are ultimate or divinely mandated. While authority structures may be necessary in a fallen world, they’re not the ideal. The Kingdom of God operates on different principles than earthly kingdoms.

This doesn’t mean Christians should be anarchists or reject all authority. Romans 13 and other passages clearly teach submission to legitimate authorities. But it does mean we shouldn’t baptize worldly power structures as divine or eternal. We should always be working toward greater justice, equality, and mutual flourishing.

Churches should be particularly careful about importing business models, military structures, or political systems wholesale. These may have their place in organizing human societies, but they don’t necessarily reflect God’s nature or ultimate purposes. The church is called to be a counter-cultural community that demonstrates God’s Kingdom values.

Practical Steps Forward

Given the importance of maintaining biblical teaching about the Trinity while avoiding unnecessary division, here are practical steps churches and Christians can take:

1. Study Historic Orthodoxy: Read the creeds, study the church fathers, understand what Christians have always believed about the Trinity. This provides a stable foundation and helps identify novel teachings.

2. Teach the Trinity Carefully: Ensure Sunday school curriculum, youth materials, and adult education accurately present Trinitarian doctrine. Avoid simplistic analogies that lead to heresy.

3. Separate Primary from Secondary Issues: The equality of the Trinity is primary doctrine. Views on gender roles are secondary. Don’t let secondary issues determine primary doctrine.

4. Practice Humility: The Trinity is mysterious. We see through a glass darkly. We should hold our interpretations with appropriate humility and be willing to learn and correct our errors.

5. Promote Unity: Work for unity among all who worship the triune God, even when you disagree on other matters. The Trinity unites us in common worship.

6. Focus on Doxology: The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t primarily for theological debate but for worship. Let your study lead to greater praise of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

7. Apply Carefully: Be very cautious about using the Trinity to support specific social arrangements. God is not like us, and we must not remake Him in our image.

8. Love One Another: The Trinity is perfect love. Our discussions about the Trinity should be marked by love, even when we disagree. Truth without love is not the truth of the triune God.

Prayer and Reflection

Almighty and eternal God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—we stand in awe before the mystery of Your triune being. You are three persons, yet one God, co-equal and co-eternal, dwelling in perfect unity and love.

Father, we praise You as the fountain of deity, the source of all good gifts, the One who sent Your Son for our salvation. Yet we worship You not as greater than the Son or Spirit, but as one with them in glory and majesty.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, we thank You for humbling Yourself and taking the form of a servant for our redemption. Your voluntary submission unto death reveals not eternal subordination but infinite love. You are true God from true God, worthy of all worship and honor.

Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life, we celebrate Your full deity and personal presence. You are not a force or inferior being, but God Himself dwelling within us, conforming us to Christ’s image, enabling us to cry “Abba, Father.”

Forgive us, triune God, for the times we have misrepresented You. Forgive us for remaking You in the image of human authority structures. Forgive us for using Your holy nature to justify our agendas. Forgive us for dividing over speculations while neglecting the clear truths You have revealed.

Help us to worship You rightly—not a hierarchy of deities but one God in three co-equal persons. Help us to reflect Your unity in our churches, Your mutual love in our marriages, Your shared glory in our communities. May we resist the temptation to project our fallen structures onto Your perfect being.

Teach us to hold the mystery of the Trinity with appropriate humility. We confess that Your ways are higher than our ways, Your thoughts than our thoughts. The secret things belong to You, but what You have revealed—that You are one God in three equal persons—we embrace with faith and joy.

As we continue to study and meditate on Your triune nature, transform our minds and hearts. May the perfect equality and mutual love of Father, Son, and Spirit shape how we relate to one another. May Your unity inspire our unity. May Your love generate our love.

We pray all this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Against the Arians. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1892.

Augustine. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1887.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1895.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Bird, Michael F. and Scott Harrower, editors. Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2019.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Carson, D.A. Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Philippians. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1889.

Erickson, Millard J. Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009.

Giles, Kevin. The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002.

Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Gregory of Nazianzus. The Five Theological Orations. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1894.

Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1893.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012.

Jowers, Dennis W. and H. Wayne House, editors. The New Evangelical Subordinationism? Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Revised and Expanded Edition. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2019.

Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians. In Luther’s Works, Vol. 26. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Second Edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Trueman, Carl R. “Farenheit 381,” Mortification of Spin (blog), Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, June 7, 2016.

Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.

Ware, Bruce A. and John Starke, editors. One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.

Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical Doctrines. New York: Oxford University Press, 1929.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.