THE SON'S ETERNAL SUBMISSION TO THE FATHER AND COMPLEMENTARISM

Eternal Submission of the Son

I am usually not very interested in the field of theology. However, one area of systematic theology has come to my attention twice in the last few weeks, so I decided it might be a sign to look into the matter further. There is a doctrine taught by some respected Bible scholars such as Wayne Grudem that is called the Son's eternal submission to the Father. This could be called a newly discovered insight or a blatant heresy, depending on your point of view. Remember in what follows that any insights we are allowed to get from Scripture relating to the mystery of the Godhead are only dim shadows of the reality.

I tend to be very suspicious of new trends in theology and remember the comment of the late Thomas Oden who said that he would like to be remembered as a theologian who made no new breakthroughs in the field of theology. So whenever I encounter a doctrine that I am not quite sure about, I first look to see what scriptural backing its proponents cite for their view. In the case of “eternal submission of the Son” that is easy to do since Grudem, on his website, has conveniently outlined them in the essay entitled “Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father.” He groups the pertinent passages into several different categories, but there is some overlap between them. Here is what he says, along with my rather uneducated attempts to reply to his arguments.

Father and Son are eternal designations since they also applied to Christ before the Incarnation. (John 3:16; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:2; Psalm 2:6-7)

The first thing to point out is that the mere designations “father and son” do not in themselves necessarily indicate any degree of hierarchy between the two, just different functions. Secondly, the NT references above refer to Jesus role during the Incarnation and therefore “son” is an appropriate title to give him during that time on earth.

Then we come to the much quoted verses in Psalms. In them God sets his king on Zion (v. 6) and “said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'” Making the logical assumption that the son in v. 7 is the same as the king in v. 6, then it probably refers to King David and by extension the Davidic line culminating in Jesus Christ. But to say that it definitely refers to the pre-incarnate Christ is also to say that this “son” only became God's son at some point in history (“today I have begotten you”), and that would be an admission that there was a time before then when Christ was not the Son. In which case, the designation “Son” is not an eternal one at all.

Lastly we have the witness of the Book of Revelation where we are given the best insight into conditions in heaven itself now and in the future.

The Father's authority and the Son's submission existed prior to creation. (Ephesians 1:3-5,9-11; II Timothy 1:9)

But the contention that these verses demonstrate submission is quite tenuous. Concerning Ephesians 1:3-5, one of the premier commentator on this letter, Harold Hoehner, states that in v. 4 the prepositional phrase “in him” “refers back to 'in Christ' in v. 3 and means that God chose 'us' in connection with Christ.” If that same nuance holds for the references to “in him” or “in Christ” in vv. 9,10, and 11, then it suggests joint actions of Father and Son rather than a hierarchical situation.

Finally, even if it were to be proved that Christ submitted to the Father before his incarnation, that only demonstrates one facet of eternity – the beginning. It remains to be determined whether that is the present and future status of Christ. There are certainly no verses one can point to that state unambiguously that Christ can have no greater status in relation to God the Father now or in the future than he did in his pre-incarnation. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite case.

The famous hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 has been called a U-shaped comedy, a literary term applying to stories in which a person who possesses some sort of treasured position loses it, but then manages to gain it back in the end. There are several other stories in the Bible which could be described as comedies in the literary sense of the word, but almost all of them are really J-shaped comedies instead. Thus, the highly respected patriarch Job is reduced to a position of utter misery and despair; However, at the end of the story he actually has more than he started with in terms of both material and spiritual blessings. Joseph is another prime example: he was successively: the favored son of his father, a jailbird, and second in charge over the world power Egypt. I would argue that the hymn in Philippians is another J-shaped comedy with Christ having a much higher position than even the one he possessed to start with (see vv. 8-11).

Respective authority and submission are shown in the process of creation. (John 1:2; Hebrews 1:2; I Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16)

Grudem says that the citations above refer to the creation as being through (dia) Christ, not by him. In rebuttal, one can simply point to Hebrews 2:10 where the same preposition dia is used to say that all things exist for and through God the Father. And interestingly, Romans 11:36 states that it was from and through (dia) Christ that all things exist. So Grudem's argument turns on itself and actually demonstrates the complete equality of Father and Son.

Respective authority and submission are shown prior to Christ's earthly ministry. (John 3:16; Galatians 4:4; I John 4:9-10; etc.)

There are other such references to God sending the Son to earth. But these can also be construed as saying that God allowed his Son to come to earth (in other words, it was the Son's initiative, not that of the Father) in light of Philippians 2:6-8 in which he, Christ, emptied himself and humbled himself.

Jesus showed submission to the Father during his earthly ministry.

Even Grudem does not dispute the fact that this says nothing whatsoever concerning Christ's present status relative to that of the Father.

Christ demonstrates submission as a Great High Priest. (Hebrews 7:23-26; Romans 8:34)

Grudem implies that the Hebrews passage, especially v. 25, indicates a continuing role for Christ in heaven in which he brings individual cases to God for His decision. However, as Ellingworth explains regarding both passages cited above: “there is no logical or theological reason why the author should not have linked the one sacrifice [of Christ on the cross] and the constant intercession as naturally as Paul does in Rom. 8:34.” Indeed, the whole context of Hebrews 7:15-8:7 centers around the one-time sacrifice Christ made while on earth, not on any additional ways he may be interceding for us while with the Father. Similarly, Buchanan states, “'Those who approach God through him' are the people whom he represented [note the past tense] when he offered sacrifice for atonement of sins.” F. F. Bruce summarizes it as follows: “His once-completed self-offering is utterly acceptable and efficacious...”

In regard to Romans 8:34 specifically as well as the related John 16:26 and I John 2:1, commentators express much the same as above:

Leon Morris: “We should interpret the intercession passages in light of frequent references to sitting at the right hand of God. His presence at God's right hand in the capacity of one who died for sinners and rose again is itself an intercession.” “There is one basic underlying thought [in the above passages], namely, that our approach to the Father rests firmly on Christ's priestly work for us. That work is itself a perpetual intercession. It does not require to be supplemented by further intervention on our behalf.”

B. F. Westcott: “He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His Presence on the Father's throne.”

Martin Luther: “The blood by which He atoned for our sins, the obedience which he rendered, is a continual intercession for us.”

Christ demonstrated submission during the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. (Acts 2:32)

This verse appears to say, at least in Grudem's mind, that Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit only after getting permission from God the Father. But it is just a comment on Acts 2:17 in which in clearly says that it is God the Father who poured out the Holy Spirit. Again, this appears to teach the equality of action between the two.

Christ demonstrated submission when He gave revelation to the church. (Revelation 1:1)

This is an interesting argument and one in which much depends on the literary structure of the verse and the proper referent to the pronoun “him” in the sentence. Here is one possible way to diagram this verse as two parallel clauses:

The revelation of Jesus Christ

    which God

        gave

            to him

                to show his servants

                    things which must happen soon

    He

        sent it

            by his angel

                to his servant John

                    who bore witness of God's word and the testimony of Jesus Christ

                    and of all the things he saw.

According to this scheme, the one God gave the revelation to was not Jesus Christ, but an angel (unless one wishes to take the heretical position that Jesus is an angel). Alternatively, one can diagram the sentence somewhat differently:

The revelation of Jesus Christ

    which God

        gave

            to him

                to show his servants

                    things which must happen soon

    He

        sent it by his angel

            to his servant John

                who bore witness of God's word and

the testimony of Jesus Christ of all the things he saw.

In this case, “him” would refer to John, not Jesus. But by neither reckoning is the revelation given to Jesus by God.

Christ demonstrates submission by sitting at the right hand of God. (Acts 2:32; Ephesians 1:20: Hebrews 1:3)

However, critics remark that in the Book of Revelation only one shared throne for the Father and Son is mentioned (3:21; 12:5; and 22:3). Grudem then makes the case that Revelation 3:21 pictures believers as sitting with Jesus on his throne, and we certainly aren't equal with him. . But Hoekema rightly remarks that those thrones are on earth, not in heaven. It “is a concrete way of expressing the thought that they are reigning with Christ.” One can't push the details of an analogy. And one can also quote Matthew 19:28 in which the twelve apostles have separate thrones, but Christ has another one.

Christ will demonstrate submission in his rule over all the nations. (Revelation 2:26-28)

Even if receiving authority over nations indicates that there is submission involved here (and that is doubtful), it does not say when Christ received it. And in light of the probable allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, it occurred prior to the Incarnation, assuming that reference really is to Christ as the “one like a human being.” That brings up another point of ambiguity since that entity has been variously identified as Michael, Gabriel, Judas Maccabeus, or even Daniel himself. It is obvious that the original context does not identify him with Christ since the OT passage clearly states that the personage in question had to be presented to God.

Christ will demonstrate submission after the Final Judgment and for all eternity. (I Corinthians 15:24-28)

Grudem saves his most powerful argument for the last. But even here, the exact implication of this one verse is somewhat disputed. Look at the following comments:

Paul Marsh: “Their essential equality and unity remain.”

Orr and Walther: “Paul meticulously maintains his Jewish monotheistic tradition: therefore the son himself is finally subjected, a statement that must be read, not from the perspective of a subordinationist christology, but from Paul's position, which is determined to set forth God as the all in all.”

F. W. Grosheide: “The apostle does not imply that the Son will be subjected to the Father. He keeps referring to Christ's work as Mediator (subjected to him that did subject), but He designates Mediator by his highest name. The Bible contains little about the subjection of the Mediator to the Father after the former's work is done. We might put it this way, that the Mediator will lay down his office at the feet of the Father, when he has finished his work as such.”

Gordon D. Fee: “As in 3:22-23 and 11:3, the language of the subordination of the Son to the Father is functional, referring to his 'work' of redemption, not ontological, referring to his being as such. The unity of God lies behind all such language.”

There is one expected final argument that we expect Grudem to make: Father and Son are eternal designations since they will exist forever in the future. The reason for his silence on this point is that the Bible is strangely silent itself in the very place where we obtain the fullest picture in the Bible of the future status of the Son in relation to the Father: the Book of Revelation. Instead, what do we find there? Outside of the first three chapters in the book dealing with the present church on earth, God is only called Father in relation to Christ once: Rev. 14:1. And that verse merely talks about names written on believers at some time in the past.

And correspondingly, outside of chapters 1-3, Christ is only called Son once. In Rev. 14:14, he has the designation “the Son of man,” not the Son of God. So what title is Christ known by in heaven? He is called “The Lamb” no less that 28 times, referring to His one-time sacrifice on the cross on our behalf.

Complementarism

So what does the above have to do with eternal submission? Not much in my mind, but let me first briefly explain that term. There are two basic models for marriage followed by Christians today: complementarism and egalitarianism. Although both ascribe equal value before God to both male and female in this family relationship, complementarians treat Paul's teachings on the submissive role of the wife as still binding today while egalitarians generally feel that they made sense in Paul's day but do not in today's changed situation.

I do not intend to get bogged down in that controversy at all. However, it is of great interest that the above arguments by Grudem concerning the Heavenly Family first appeared in his article entitled “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.” By the way, “evangelical feminism” is Grudem's derogatory way of designating egalitarianism. It appears that to justify his existing position on complementarism in marriage, Grudem has basically departed from the historical views of christology. In doing so, Grudem has employed the rabbinical argument from the greater to the lesser. Thus, since the Heavenly Family obviously maintains a definite hierarchy (which he believes he has proved), then earthly families should do the same.

One major problem with Grudem's approach is that in the whole Bible I have yet to find one example of either Jesus or a biblical author utilizing this form of argument. If there is one, it is not very easy to discern. On the other hand, the argument from lesser to greater is found numerous times throughout those writings. The general comparison argument usually takes the form “If..., then how much more...” It appears no less than thirteen times in the NT, always beginning with the lesser or earthly item and using it as the basis for comparison with the more important and harder to grasp, spiritual truth. The same type of argument appears in Jesus' parables and all the OT types of greater things transpiring in Jesus' ministry and life. The Book of Hebrews is filled with additional examples.

Most tellingly, in one of the prime proof texts used by complementarians themselves, Ephesians 5:22-32 we do have a comparison between marriage and a spiritual truth involving Christ. But it is nothing at all like Grudem would hope it to be. In the first place, it is another argument starting with an earthly situation and moving upward to a divine truth, not the reverse. Even more importantly, Paul compares husband and wife, respectively, to Christ and the Church rather than comparing husband and wife to God and Christ. If there was any place in the Bible for Paul to have stated what Grudem wants him to say, this would have been the place.

I hate to conclude on a somewhat sarcastic and sacrilegious note, but Grudem's intended analogy between earthly and divine families only truly works if the Father and Son represent, respectively, the husband and wife instead. But since Jesus Christ quite obviously appeared in male form on earth and God the Father is almost always represented by a male designation, then that would make them a gay couple. So the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the two of them is now their (adopted?) child, and the Son (who is also the wife) is now his mother, or perhaps his father.