A Biblical Understanding of the Trinity

Through an Evaluation of the Eternal Generation and the Eternal Functional Subordination of the

Son

Nathaniel B Parker

PhD Application Entrance Paper

January 10, 2018

 A Biblical Understanding of the Trinity

Through an Evaluation of the Eternal Generation and the Eternal Functional Subordination of the

Son

Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. It is

one of the essential doctrines that, for Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians alike,

separates Christians from heretics. From the early church onward, clarifying and defending the

doctrine of the Trinity has been of vital importance in the life and health of the church,

specifically with the formation of the creed at Nicaea in AD 325.1

Understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is as of utmost importance for the church of the

present age as it was for the early church. Clarifying a biblical understanding of the doctrine of

the Trinity is of no less difficulty for the church of the present age than it was for the early

church. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most complicated of the doctrines in which to

form a solid biblical understanding. It stretches at the finitude of human understanding, causing

mere humanity to pause in awe and wonder at such an infinite and majestic being as God. God is

one being in essence as boldly proclaimed in the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is

one LORD” (Deut 6:4).2 God also simultaneously exists as three persons sharing equally in the

one essence, as beautifully illustrated by the Lord Jesus Christ in the Great Commission: “Go ye

therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of

the Holy Ghost:” (Matt 28:19).

While the creed produced by the Council of Nicaea paved the way in settling the debate

on the equality of essence among the persons of the Trinity (specifically with regard to the

equality of essence between the Father and the Son), another debate has arisen among
———————————
1.
Donald K McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 2nd ed.
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 246.
2.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the KJV.

1
 2

theologians in the twenty-first century concerning the eternal relationship existing between the

Father and the Son in the Trinity. The question asked (and debated) among theologians is as

follows: is the Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally subordinate to the Father in an

economic sense, even if He is equal to the Father in essence?

This aim of this paper is to: more closely examine an overview of the eternal generation

of the Son in comparison to the eternal functional subordination of the Son, present an evaluation

of both concepts after gaining a biblical understanding of the terms “Father” and “Son” with

regard to the Trinity and the biblical worldview in which the apostles and early church

understood the terms, and summarize with a biblical description of the Trinity. Additionally, this

paper includes a brief examination of the practical application of the sub-debate that has arisen

concerning the eternal functional subordination of the Son with regard to gender roles. It will be

determined whether the distinction of the persons of the Trinity serves as a valid and biblical

analogy concerning gender roles.

It is important to maintain throughout this paper that a biblical understanding concerning

the doctrine of the Trinity must emphasize both the eternal equality of essence and the eternal

distinction of persons within the Trinity.3 A failure to emphasize either pillar of the Trinity (a

term used by Bruce Ware) undermines and collapses the doctrine of the Trinity into an unbiblical

description of the Trinity.4 In order for the church to properly understand and worship the triune

God of the Bible, the eternal equality of essence and the eternal distinction of persons within the

Trinity must remain at the forefront of any doctrinal discussion or debate.

———————————
3.
Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal
Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Company, 1887), 20.
4.
Bruce A. Ware, “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father?”
Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 28.
 3

There are differing and distinct positions surrounding the relationship between the Father

and the Son in the Trinity. However, behind each position shares several presuppositions in

addition to the biblical understanding mentioned above. First, each position of the debate refutes

“classical” subordinationism (the belief that the Son has an inferior essence to the Father in the

Trinity).5 Second, each position of the debate also refutes Arianism (the belief that the Son is of a

different essence of the Father in the Trinity).6 Each position affirms the persons of the Trinity as

being of the same essence (also known as substance, the Greek term οµοου' σιος). Finally, each

position of the debate affirms that the functional subordination of the Son did occur at least

during His earthly incarnation. At the heart of the debate is whether this functional subordination

occurred in eternity prior to the Son’s earthly incarnation. Scholars continue to debate whether

the Son was eternally subordinate to the Father and what practical applications result from such a

concept.

An Overview of the Eternal Generation and Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son

Sanders and Giles affirm the view of the eternal generation of the Son as the

distinguishing factor between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Both authors reject the

eternal functional subordination of the Son within the Trinity. Sanders distinguishes the

relationships within the Trinity by what he refers to as their “relationships of origin.”7 He goes on

to explain that the Son is eternally generated from the Father (another term to describe eternally

generated is “eternally begotten”). Using the metaphor of “fromness”, Sanders describes that the

term “Son” is used to describe the second person of the Trinity is of the same essence of the

Father because the Son is eternally from the Father.8

———————————
5.
McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 307.
6.
McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 20.
7.
Fred Sanders, et al., TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and
Subordination in Tension, Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017),
Fred Sanders-Summary Statement.
 4

Giles turns to the Nicene Creed of AD 381 as a pillar for his affirmation concerning the

eternal generation of the Son. He examines key statements in the creed, beginning with “We

believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ”, affirming the Shema of Deut 6:4 and explaining that the creed

extends the one Lord of the Old Testament Shema to Jesus Christ as equal in essence and

authority with the Father. He goes on to examine the phrase “the only Son of God”, affirming

that the Greek term µονογενη' ς refers to Jesus as the “unique” Son of God (in contrast with the

King James Version “only begotten”). Culminating in his defense of the eternal generation of the

Son is the phrase in the Nicene Creed “eternally begotten of the Father”. This eternal generation

(or “eternally begotten”) from the Father is what distinguishes the Father and the Son as two of

the persons who share in the same divine essence of the Trinity (what Giles refers to as “divine

self-differentiation”).9

Contrary to Sanders and Giles, Ware and Grudem affirm the eternal functional

subordination of the Son as the distinction between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Ware,

like Sanders, affirms the “eternal relations of origin” as the distinction between the Father and the

Son in the Trinity.10 In contrast to Sanders, Ware holds to the view that the Father and Son

eternally function in a way that aligns with their respective titles. Because of this, the Father

exercises ultimate authority within the Trinity and the Son eternally submits to the Father. While

Ware understands the Father and the Son are equal in the divine essence, the distinction between

the persons is through a genuine Father/Son relationship in which the Son is the agent who

eternally carries out the ultimate plans of the Father.11

———————————
8.
Sanders, et al., TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and
Subordination in Tension.
9.
Kevin Giles, “Response to Michael Bird and Robert Shillaker: The Son is not Eternally
Subordinated to the Father,” Trinity Journal 30, no. 2 (2009): 237–56.
10.
Bruce A. Ware, “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity,” Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 16, no. 1 (2012): 29.
11.
Bruce Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and
 5
While Grudem has now begun to affirm the eternal generation of the Son as biblically

valid yet mysterious (while hesitant to embrace this view in the past due to the debate

surrounding the term µονογενη' ς), he defends the eternal functional subordination of the Son by

stating, like Ware, that the terms “Father” and “Son” denote an eternal relationship between the

two persons with the Father eternally possessing ultimate authority and the Son eternally

submitting to the Father. Contrary to Sanders (and Erickson, as discussed below), Grudem rejects

that the terms “Father” and “Son” are ever used in Scripture to affirm equality of authority or the

Son is merely of the same nature as the Father (Grudem does regard the Father and Son as both

equally sharing within the divine essence and the Son possessing the same attributes as the

Father). Like Ware, Grudem affirms that the ultimate plans of the Father are carried out through

the Son.12

Erickson refutes the eternal functional subordination of the Son by affirming that the

functional subordination of the Son was only temporal during His earthly incarnation. Prior to

His temporal incarnation, the Son was not only equal in essence with the Father, but He was also

equal in authority with the Father. The Son allowed Himself to take on certain functional

limitations as well as submit to the Father during His humiliation (incarnation). After His

resurrection, the Son was glorified and returned to being equal in authority with the Father.13

A Biblical Understanding of the terms “Father” and “Son”

Scholars of all the positions listed appeal to ancient Hebrew culture in order to draw an

analogy concerning the distinction between the Father and the Son. Scholars who affirm the
———————————

Submission Among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead,” Journal for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood 13, no. 2 (2008): 45–50.
12.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: InterVarsity Press; Zondervan Publishing House,
2004), 248–52.
13.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2013), 309–10.
 6
eternal functional subordination of the Son (such as Grudem) draw an analogy between the

ancient Hebrew father as the leader who possesses ultimate authority for life in the familial

relationship.14 In contrast, scholars who deny the eternal functional subordination of the Son and

affirm the eternal generation of the Son (such as Sanders) parallel ancient Hebrew culture’s use

of the term “son” to emphasize similarity (or sameness) between a father and his son.15

In order to determine a biblical understanding of the terms “Father” and “Son”, some

important questions arise when paralleling ancient Hebrew culture’s background concerning

fatherhood and sonship. The first question is: did fathers in ancient Hebrew culture actually

possess ultimate authority for life in their respected familial relationships? Stated another way,

was a father in ancient Hebrew culture considered to be the leader of his respected family? After

a thorough investigation of the question, the answer is in the affirmative, albeit with some legal

limitations which would fall to authority figures beyond the patriarchal household.16 Throughout

the Old Testament, the father was the authority figure and leader of his respected family.17 This

patriarchal authority even extended to adult children.18 Children would be raised to respect and

honor their parents, especially their fathers, with the children carrying out the will of their father.

Another important question to ask concerning ancient Hebrew culture and sonship is:

does the term “son” in ancient Hebrew culture emphasize similarity (or sameness) between a
———————————
14.
Sanders, et al., TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and
Subordination in Tension.
15.
Sanders, et al., TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and
Subordination in Tension.
16.
David Noel Freedman, et al., The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York, NY:
Doubleday, 1992), 767.
17.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–88), 285.
18.
Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and
the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic,
2013), 263.
 7

father and his son? After a thorough investigation concerning the family and ancient Hebrew

culture, it is difficult to find substantial evidence to affirm this. Rather, the terms “father” and

“son”, both in ancient Hebrew culture, as well as the Old and New Testament’s use of the terms,

denote more of a relational term between both persons.19 The closest parallel evidence found that

can indicate a type of similarity between a father and his son and lead to an affirmation of the

eternal generation of the Son with regard to the Trinity is that a son proceeds from his Father

(whether biologically in terms of human fathers and sons or spiritually in terms of an eternal

generation of the Son from the Father with regard to the Trinity). The son who proceeds from his

father becomes a partaker in the essence of his father.20 Such an analogy does indicate a type of

similarity (or sameness) between a father and his son, although this emphasis is difficult to

determine directly from an examination of ancient Hebrew culture alone.

Another important question to ask concerning a parallel of ancient Hebrew culture with

the distinction between the Father and the Son with regard to the Trinity is: should these concepts

be applied directly to the persons of the Trinity? Both concepts shed some insight concerning

what the ancient Israelites and the early church had in mind when describing the persons of the

Trinity in Father/Son terminology, and Jesus Himself utilized such Father/Son terminology to

describe His relationship with God the Father. Therefore, these ancient Hebrew culture parallels

are valid in describing the distinctions concerning the persons of the Trinity. With that said, with

the use of any analogy concerning the Trinity, scholars should also exercise some caution when

applying ancient Hebrew culture in paralleling a description of the Trinity so as not to import all

of the aspects of an ancient Hebrew family unit into the persons of the Trinity. There are key

differences between the eternal relationship of the persons within the Trinity and human familial

relationships. One key difference is that the Son eternally existed as the second person of the
———————————
19.
See the extensive discussions of the terms πατη' ρ and υιο' ς in BDAG, TDNT, and
NIDNTTE and ‫ ֵּבן‬in HALOT, TDOT, and NIDOTTE.
20.
Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, 285.
 8

Trinity and was not created in a point in time (a clear refutation of Arianism), unlike human sons

who are birthed at a point in history.

One major question that must be answered concerning the relationship between the Father

and the Son is: are the titles of the persons of the Trinity (such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of

eternal importance? Stated another way with an emphasis between the Father and the Son, is the

Father/Son terminology only a relationship within time, or is the Father/Son relationship an

eternally-existing relationship? Grudem affirms that the titles “Father” and “Son” are of eternal

importance by stating: “Second, before the Son came to earth, and even before the world was

created, for all eternity the Father has been the Father, the Son has been the Son, and the Holy

Spirit has been the Holy Spirit. These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only

in time.”21 Ware likewise affirms the eternal importance of the terms “Father” and Son” as

follows: “This is easiest to see with the Father and Son. These divine names of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’

are not ad hoc, nor are they true merely of the economic Trinity. Rather the Father is the eternal

Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father.”22

A series of passages of Scripture in which scholars have used to attempt to answer the

above question are Heb 1:5 and its quotation of Ps 2:7, as well as the other New Testament

passages which quote the psalm (Ac 13:33 and Heb 5:5). Heb 1:5 reads as follows: “For unto

which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And

again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”. Ps 2:7 reads as follows: “I will

declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

Heb 1:5 takes the Ps 2:7 quotation, extends the royal figure of Ps 2:7, and applies it directly to

Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the second person of the Trinity.23

———————————
21.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 250.
22.
Bruce A. Ware, “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity,” 289.
23.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 250.
 9

An area of discussion and debate concerning how this passage answers the question

whether the relationship between the Father and the Son with regard to the Trinity is only a

relationship in time or an eternally-existing relationship stems from a proper exegesis of the term

ση' µερον (translated as “this day” in the KJV; most modern English translations translate the term

as “today”) concerning the begottenness of the Son from the Father. One position takes the term

ση' µερον to refer to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. MacArthur once affirmed this position, even

going to an extreme of stating that Jesus Christ did not take on the title of “Son” until the

incarnation, pre-existing eternally as God the second person of the Trinity. MacArthur writes:

“Christ technically did not become the Son of God until He was incarnated. Christ was not the

Son of God in eternity past—He was God as the second Person in the Godhead. He became

identified as the Son, and as the Son was exalted above the angels.”24 Lane also affirms that the

term best represents the incarnation of Jesus Christ, while avoiding MacArthur’s extreme by also

affirming the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Son. He states: “It was apparently the

writer’s conviction that although Jesus was the pre-existent Son of God (cf. 5:8, και' περ ω

ν υιο' ς,
“although he was the Son”), he entered into a new dimension in the experience of sonship by

virtue of his incarnation, his sacrificial death, and his subsequent exaltation.”25 Lane’s view is

also affirmed by Chrysostom.26 Two other early church fathers who affirm this view are Cyril of

Alexandria and Bede.27

———————————
24.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., Hebrews, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago,
IL: Moody Press, 1983), 26.
25.
William L Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word,
Incorporated, 1998), 24–26.
26.
John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople,
on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and
Epistle to the Hebrews, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, First Series (New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 373.
27.
Martin Francis and Evan Smith, eds., Acts, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 167.
 10
Another position takes the term ση' µερον to refer to either the resurrection or a pre-

incarnate or post-resurrection exaltation of Jesus Christ, the post-resurrection exaltation occurring

when Jesus Christ ascended to the Father and was seated on His right hand. Allen affirms the pre-

incarnate exaltation view while admitting that several of the various positions make exegetical

sense. His reasoning for affirming the pre-incarnate exaltation view is that it encompasses each of

the other views as a whole. Allen states: “the context of v. 4 points to Jesus’ exaltation and

enthronement as the best interpretation of ‘today.’ According to the prologue, and in light of the

overall theology of Hebrews, Christ’s exaltation presupposes his deity, incarnation and

resurrection.”28 Ellingworth also affirms that the exaltation is also the most likely view, while not

emphasizing a hard distinction between either a pre-incarnate or post-resurrection exaltation.29 In

another commentary, however, he clarifies his position by emphasizing the post-resurrection

exaltation view.30 Stedman offers one of the clearest views concerning the exaltation of the Son

when he says: “Jesus is God’s Son from all eternity—the uncreated Son. Furthermore, the

quotation from Psalm 2 highlights Jesus’ status as the exalted Son of Man, as Paul declared in his

sermon at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:33) referring to his resurrection from the dead. Thus he was

both the eternal Son and the glorified human Son (Son of God and Son of Man).”31

Additionally, some scholars have taken the term ση' µερον to defend the eternal generation

of the Son. Allen denies that this passage can be used to defend the eternal generation of the Son

by stating that the concept was formulated after this passage was written. He states:
———————————
28.
David L Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H
Publishing Group, 2010), 170–75.
29.
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, UK: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993), 113–14.
30.
Paul Ellingworth and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews,
UBS Handbook Series (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1994), 14–15.
31.
Ray C. Stedman, Hebrews, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), Hebrews 1:4.
 11
The “eternal generation” of the Son is not in view in these verses, and it was post-
apostolic theological development during the second century that was regularly discussed
in the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. To read such a concept
into the New Testament would be anachronistic.”32

Attridge and Koseter state that the term could be applied to defend the eternal generation of the

Son or the exaltation view, although clearly distinguishing between the post-exaltation and pre-

incarnate exaltation views can be difficult, since the passage can read either way.33 Lünemann

affirms the eternal generation of the Son with regard to the term by saying:

Exclusively correct, because alone in harmony with the context, is the referring of the
ση' µερον to eternity; since, according to ver. 2, God created the world by Christ as the
Son, thus Christ must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world.
With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of ση' µερον, as signifying eternity.34

Which interpretation of ση' µερον is most likely in terms of explaining the relationship

between the Father and the Son? Stedman and Lünemann each make the most compelling case

concerning the interpretation. Lünemann emphasizes the eternal generation of the Son and

focuses on the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son with Jesus Christ being the

eternal Son of God. Stedman also affirms the eternal Son of God while aligning the passage with

Jesus Christ’s glorification as the Son of Man after His resurrection. Such a view affirms that the

titles of the persons of the Trinity indeed carry eternal importance while also offering the proper

balance between the full deity and full humanity of the Son present at His incarnation.

MacArthur’s original view concerning the incarnation view of the passage dips into an

extreme that warrants some caution. By proposing that Jesus Christ was not the eternal Son of

God but became the Son of God during His incarnation, and that Jesus Christ was only the
———————————
32.
Allen, Hebrews, 170–75.
33.
Harold W. Attridge and Helmut Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1989), 254–55.
34.
Gottlieb Lünemann, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
trans. Maurice J. Evans, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh,
UK: T&T Clark, 1882), 86.
 12

second person of the Trinity prior to His incarnation could lead one into a confounding of the

persons of the Trinity. While MacArthur does not in any fashion affirm modalism, by stating the

persons of the Trinity without any eternal relations between them can almost lead one to

confound the persons into either modalistic terminology or attempt to weaken the personhood of

each of the persons of the Trinity. Additionally, such thinking has led to recent developments by

churches wishing to embrace feminist theologians to explain the Trinity in gender-neutral

terminology (a move MacArthur would likely heavily reject as MacArthur is certainly not a

feminist theologian). There has been a recent move by the Church of Sweden to no longer refer to

the persons of the Trinity as “Father” and “Son” in order to use more gender-neutral terminology,

as an appeal to feminist theologians.35 While spirit beings do not possess physical organs of

gender and are not involved in physical relationships, each of the persons of the Trinity possess

the aspects of personhood and have always been defined using masculine personhood.36 God is

the “Father”, Christ is the “Son” and the Holy Spirit is a “He”. Scholars should exercise caution

before venturing into an extreme of a denial of God being eternal Father and Christ being eternal

Son, as the implications of such thinking can lead to some erroneous modern-day applications. In

fact, MacArthur now affirms that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God after more in-depth

exegesis. MacArthur now states:

To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of “incarnational
sonship.” Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does
indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal
Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His
incarnation.37
———————————
35.
CBN News, “Church of Sweden Opts for Gender Neutral Terms, Drops ‘He’ When
Referring to God.”http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/november/church-of-sweden-opts-
for-gender-neutral-terms-drops-lsquo-he-rsquo-when-referring-to-god Accessed December 29,
2017.
36.
Bruce A. Ware, “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father?” 5.
37.
John MacArthur, “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ,” Journal for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 21 Another view takes the term ση' µερον to refer to
the baptism of Jesus. See Allen, Hebrews, 171. Additionally, Guthrie in Hebrews: An
Introduction and Commentary, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, states that the term could
 13

An Evaluation of the Eternal Generation of the Son

In forming a biblical description concerning the Trinity, the distinction between the

persons, and the relationship between the Father and the Son, it is critical that one evaluates the

various theological positions and concepts of the debate, beginning with the eternal generation of

the Son. Is the eternal generation of the Son a biblically valid description of distinguishing

between the Father and the Son with regard to the Trinity?

In terms of modern theologians, Chafer offers a clear affirmation of the eternal generation

of the Son when he writes: “the Father being the source of the one essence which is partaken of

by the other two. This participation of essence, in reference to the Son, is called generation”.38

Erickson states that the concept of the eternal generation of the Son was held by many early

church fathers, specifically those who also rejected an eternal subordination of the Son to the

Father.39 However, Erickson also argues against eternal generation by stating that the term “Son”

is more of a term denoting “likeness” instead of one who has been eternally generated from the

Father.40 Enns affirms the eternal generation of the Son while making a careful note that the

relationship among the persons of the Trinity does not denote any form of inferiority among the

persons.41 Giles is one of the major proponents of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the
———————————

refer to no definite point in time, allowing the interpretation of the verse to fit any of the major
viewpoints (see page 77).
38.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1993), 277.
39.
Erickson, Christian Theology, 307–8.
40.
William Grover, “A Review and Evaluation of Diverse Christological Opinions
Among American Evangelicals: Part 1: The Eternal Generation of the Son,” Conspectus 5, no. 1
(2008): 73.
41.
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, ed. Jim Vincent and Allan Sholes,
Revised and Expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 207.
 14

Son. He also rejects any form of subordination or hierarchical order of the persons of the Trinity.

He appeals to eternal generation as the means of “divine differentiation and divine unity.”42

Hodge affirms the eternal generation of the Son and states that the essence of the Father is

“communicated” in the Son. At the same time, Hodge is careful to note the eternal distinction of

persons with regard to the Trinity (specifically with regard to expounding on the term οµοου' σιος)

to ensure one does not read tritheism into the Nicene Creed.43 MacArthur also affirms the eternal

generation of the Son as the distinction of the persons between the Father and the Son.44 Like

Hodge, MacArthur describes the eternal generation of the Son as the communication of the

divine essence of the Father to the Son.45

While a large group of scholars affirms the eternal generation of the Son, there is not a

consensus. Grover denies the eternal generation of the Son on the grounds that even among those

who affirm the eternal generation of the Son, there is not a consensus as to what is actually

generated. According to Grover, some scholars believe the divine essence is communicated to the

Son, whereas others such as Clark believe is it only the person of the Son that is generated. He

also argues that R.A. Torrey rejects eternal generation and applies the “begotten” of the Son to

the incarnation.46
———————————
42.
Kevin Giles, “CBE and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Priscilla Papers 25, no. 4
(2011): 21.
43.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
(1997), 459–60.
44.
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary
of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 191–92.
45.
MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth, 206–8.
46.
Grover, “A Review and Evaluation of Diverse Christological Opinions Among
American Evangelicals: Part 1: The Eternal Generation of the Son,” 71–73.
 15

Ryrie holds to somewhat of a mediating position. He believes that the term “eternal

generation” cannot easily be verified through exegesis, yet the concept of an eternal sonship

relation with the Father is biblically valid.47 Horrell also affirms the eternal generation of the Son,

yet applies the concept as a proof for some form of eternal order (taxis) in the Trinity when he

writes: “That virtually all Christianity from at least the fifth century has confessed the eternal

generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit indicates (but does not oblige) an

order in the immanent Godhead.”48

One of the major pillars of evidence concerning the eternal generation of the Son is the

continued use of the term µονογενη' ς used across various early church creeds to describe the Son

as the “only begotten” of the Father.49 This is likely one of the reasons theologians such as Giles

make such a strong appeal to the early church creeds in defense of the concept of the eternal

generation of the Son. However, the term is also used in a handful of biblical passages describing

Jesus Christ as the µονογενη' ς υιο' ς, a few of the strongest being Jn 1:14, 1:18, and 3:16. Chafer

expounds on both the biblical passages and early church creeds and affirms the eternal generation

of the Son when he writes:

the theological distinction is set forth to the effect that the Son is eternally
generated...Christ is wholly unrelated to created beings, being, as He is, begotten before
all created beings…Christ is by generation and not by creation. He is the Creator of all
things. Generation is not predicated of the Father or the Spirit. This feature is peculiar to
the Son. It is not the result of any divine act, but has ever been from all eternity.50

———————————
47.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to
Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 62.
48.
Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, ed., Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory
Christology (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 60–63.
49.
Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 302–3.
50.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, 316.
 16
The KJV and a handful of early modern translations (ASV, RV, Darby, D-R, and

Young’s) translate µονογενη' ς, as “only begotten”, whereas most modern translations use either

“only” or “one and only” to translate µονογενη' ς (modern English translations which still translate

the term as “only begotten” are: NJKV, NASB, and MEV; ISV translates the term as “unique”,

Weust “uniquely begotten”, and AMP “only begotten [unique]”). The majority of New

Testament Greek scholars, as well as the majority of the standard Greek lexicons and theological

dictionaries, indicate that µονογενη' ς is best translated as “one and only”, “only”, or “unique”, as

the only of its kind or the only one of its class.51 The exception among standard Greek

theological dictionaries is Büchsel in TDNT, which tends to use both “only begotten” as the main

sense of the term and “only” or “unique” as a secondary sense.52

While the majority of New Testament Greek scholars still adhere to µονογενη' ς as best

translated “only” or “unique”, a re-evaluation concerning translating the term as “only begotten”

has surfaced. Scholars who adhere to either a KJV-only or KJV-superiority view concerning

English translations still believe µονογενη' ς is best translated as “only begotten”. Bridgen is one

such adherent, who argues that the etymology of the term should still stem from a combination of

µο' νο and γεννα' ω (“only begotten” in contrast to µο' νο and γε' νος (“only one of its kind”)

Brigden goes on to survey the use of µονογενη' ς in the New Testament and argues that the term

“only begotten” is a stronger communication of the concept of µονογενη' ς over “only” or

“unique”.53 Irons has also recently put forth a linguistic analysis of the term µονογενη' ς through

his search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and argues that while “unique” can at times fit the

context, the standard translation of the term and the best translation of the term in New Testament

passages is “only begotten”, which better strengthens the concept of the eternal generation of the
———————————
51.
BDAG, EDNT, NIDNTTE, LSJ, Louw-Nida, s.v. µονογενη' ς.
52.
TDNT, s.v. µονογενη' ς.
53.
L. Brigden, “Monogenes: ‘Only Begotten’ or ‘One of a Kind’,” Trinitarian Bible
Society-Quarterly Record, no. 613 (2005): 11–18.
 17

Son.54 His research has had an impact on theologians who earlier rejected the concept of the

eternal generation of the Son, only to now begin to accept the possibility of it as biblically valid.

One such example is Wayne Grudem. While Grudem originally believed that the term µονογενη' ς

should be best translated “one of a kind” or “unique”, he has now begun to shift toward

translating µονογενη' ς as “only begotten” due to the research put forth by Irons.55 Such a shift has

also caused Grudem to begin to accept the possibility of the eternal generation of the Son as

biblically valid, with some nuances.56

In addition to passages such as Heb 1:5 and Ps 2:7, another passage of Scripture that uses

µονογενη' ς as a possible affirmation of the eternal generation of the Son is Jn 1:18, which reads:

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,

he hath declared him.” The “bosom of the Father” indicates a relationship between the Father and

the Son which extends to the Son’s eternal pre-existence with the Father.57 Ambrose appeals to Jn

1:18 as describing “the blessing refers rather to the spiritual mystery of generation from the

Father”.58
———————————
54.
Charles Lee Irons, “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only
Begotten’.”https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/ Accessed
January 3, 2018.
55.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 1233–
34.
56.
Sanders, et al., TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and
Subordination in Tension.
57.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John: Revised Edtion, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 15–16.
58.
Joel C. Elowsky, ed., New Testament IVa: John 1–10, Ancient Christian Commentary
on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 55–56 There is a textual variant
concerning John 1:18 on whether the verse should read µονογενη' ς υιο' ς or µονογενη' ς θεο' ς.
Manuscript evidence seems to favor µονογενη' ς θεο' ς which emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ,
although µονογενη' ς υιο' ς better distinguishes between the person of the Son with regard to the
Father; see Metzger on John 1:18, page 169-170.
 18
Other early church fathers have appealed to µονογενη' ς as evidence for affirming the

eternal generation of the Son. Augustine makes a strong case for this by appealing to µονογενη' ς.

He affirms that such a generation or begetting from the Father is indeed eternal and that the Son

is of the equal essence of the Father.59 Origen also played a role in applying µονογενη' ς in

affirming the eternal generation of the Son. However, Origen also introduced a form of eternal

functional subordination from the Son to the Father in his description of the eternal generation of

the Son.60

In terms of evaluating µονογενη' ς, affirming the doctrine of the eternal generation of the

Son is certainly stronger when translating µονογενη' ς with reference to the New Testament and

early church creeds as “only begotten” instead of “unique”. “Only begotten” better communicates

the sense of “eternal generation” or “eternally begotten” over “one and only”, “one of a kind”,

“only”, or “unique”. However, even if linguistically it can still be validated that µονογενη' ς is best

translated as “one and only”, “only”, or “unique”, such a translation does not rule out the concept

of the eternal generation of the Son. It will be interesting to evaluate if New Testament Greek

scholars examine the research as put forth by Irons and determine whether µονογενη' ς is still best

translated in the sense of “one and only” or “unique” or in the sense of “only begotten”, as well

as how proponents of affirming the eternal generation of the Son utilize the research.

From examining both modern scholars, as well as ancient church fathers and the New

Testament, the concept of the eternal generation of the Son has biblical validity, with some

observations. First, the concept of the eternal generation of the Son is somewhat difficult to

exegetically validate from the biblical text, although a case can still be made from the biblical

text concerning the eternal generation of the Son. Second, while the eternal generation of the Son
———————————
59.
Keith Johnson, “What Would Augustine Say to Evangelicals Who Reject the Eternal
Generation of the Son?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16, no. 2 (2012): 28–29.
60.
Stanley M. Horton, Systematic Theology: Revised (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing
House, 2007), 158.
 19

does not solely rest biblically upon µονογενη' ς being best translated as “only begotten” versus

“only”, “one of a kind”, or “unique”, a stronger case can be made for eternal generation with

regard to the translation as “only begotten”. Lastly, one of the strongest pillars in the affirmation

of the eternal generation of the Son is still an appeal to early church creeds, councils, and the

writings of early church Fathers, so theologians such as Giles will likely continue to utilize these

sources as some of their main arguments for the concept. While evangelical theologians must

affirm the primacy of Scripture over church creeds and councils, the church creeds, councils, and

writings of the church fathers are still beneficial in determining the early church’s position on

critical theological subjects.

An Evaluation of the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son

Now that the concept of the eternal generation of the Son has been evaluated, it is time to

evaluate the eternal functional subordination of the Son with regard to the Trinity. It is time to

answer the question: is the Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally subordinate to the

Father in an economic sense, even if He is equal to the Father in the sense of essence? Another

question to answer is: is the eternal functional subordination of the Son a theological “fringe

view” held by only a handful of theologians?

In terms of modern theologians, one of the major proponents of the eternal functional

subordination of the Son who helped to fire the theological torpedo of the discussion is Grudem.

Grudem begins his section on the discussion of the eternal functional subordination of the Son by

outlining the different roles of the persons of the Trinity: “When Scripture discusses the way in

which God relates to the world, both in creation and in redemption, the persons of the Trinity are

said to have different functions or primary activities.”61 He outlines the distinction of roles by

illustrating examples during creation and during the redemption (salvation) of believers, one
———————————
61.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 248.
 20
being that it was the Son who came and died for the sins of mankind. Grudem continues to flesh

out the eternal functional subordination of the Son by saying:

So we may say that the role of the Father in creation and redemption has been to plan and
direct and send the Son and Holy Spirit. This is not surprising, for it shows that the Father
and the Son relate to one another as a father and son relate to one another in a human
family: the father directs and has authority over the son, and the son obeys and is
responsive to the directions of the father.62

He argues that there is a clear Father/Son relationship between these two persons of the Trinity,

and that the Father exercises authority over the Son. He goes on to affirm that the titles of the

persons of the Trinity are of eternal, not temporal, importance.63

Ware is another major proponent of the eternal functional subordination of the Son. He

agrees with Grudem that the titles “Father” and “Son” are of eternal importance when he writes:

“From the beginning, the church has understood the names Father and Son for these respective

persons of the Trinity to be appellations of their eternal personhood and relationship,

respectively, not merely conventions suitable for the incarnation.”64 Ware appeals to passages of

Scripture such as Jn 6:38 that Jesus Christ came down from heaven to do the will of His Father,

as well as 1 Cor 15:27-28 that it is the Father who places everything in subjection under the Son

and that the Son is under the authority of the Father. He even sees the Ps 2:7 passage not as an

affirmation of the eternal generation of the Son, but as an affirmation of the Father eternally

placing the Son in the position of a king. To Ware, the Father exercises ultimate authority over

the other persons in the Trinity. He states:

Without question, a central part of the notion of “father” is that of fatherly authority.
Certainly this is not all there is to being a father, but while there is more, there certainly is
not less or other...If the Father is the eternal Father of the Son, and if the Son is the eternal
Son of the Father, this marks their relationship as one in which an inherent and eternal
———————————
62.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 249.
63.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 249–
52.
64.
Sanders and Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, 159.
 21

authority and submission structure exists.65

A blow Ware deals to theologians who reject the eternal functional subordination of the

Son is why the Son became incarnate and not the Father or Holy Spirit. Ware argues that an

egalitarian view of the relationships of the Trinity would lead to any person of the Trinity being

able to become incarnate. Such a view is not backed up by Scripture. He points to Scripture as a

clear indication that through eternity, it was the Father who sent the Son to earth for the Son’s

incarnation, and the Son carried out the commission of the Father. Ware writes:

This sending is not ad hoc. In eternity, the Father commissioned the Son who then
willingly laid aside the glory he had with the Father to come and purchase our pardon and
renewal. Such glory is diminished if there is no eternal Father-Son relation on the basis of
which the Father wills to send, the Son submits and comes, and the Spirit willingly
empowers.66

Hodge also affirms the eternal functional subordination of the Son and notes a functional

order (taxis) of the persons of the Trinity. He writes: “Notwithstanding that the Father, Son, and

Spirit are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, it is no less true, according to the

Scriptures, (a.) That the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third”, summarizing with

“In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and

operation.”67 Continuing on, Hodge fleshes out the relations of the persons of the Trinity by

arguing that the eternal functional subordination of the Son does not undermine the eternal

equality of essence of the persons of the Trinity. He states it this way:

this subordination does not imply inferiority. For as the same divine essence with all its
infinite perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no inferiority of
one person to the other in the Trinity…The subordination intended is only that which
concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.68
———————————
65.
Sanders and Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, 160.
66.
Sanders and Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, 161.
67.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 444–45.
68.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 460–61.
 22

Strong also affirms the eternal functional subordination of the Son while making the

distinction that the Son is not inferior to the Father and is still equal in essence to the Father. He

states it this way: “The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in

other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be

officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority

is not necessarily superiority.”69

In contrast to theologians who affirm the eternal functional subordination of the Son,

Erickson rejects the eternal functional subordination of the Son (what he refers to as the

“gradational view” and adheres to what he refers to as the “equivalent authority” position.70

While Erickson is in agreement with the consensus that a functional subordination of the Son

occurred temporarily during His earthly incarnation, he argues that this functional subordination

does not extend into eternity prior to the Son’s incarnation nor does it extend into eternity future

after the Son’s ascension to the Father. He also argues that the terms “Father” and “Son” refer to

“likeness” instead of subordination. His main argument against the eternal functional

subordination of the Son is that an authoritative function must extend to the essence (or what he

refers to as “being” of the person. Erickson essentially levels a charge against adherents of eternal

functional subordination as either adherents of classical subordinationism or a type of semi-

Arianism when he writes:

If the Father’s authority over the Son and Spirit and the Son’s and Spirit’s subordination
to the Father is a part of the very structure of the Trinity, so that it could not be otherwise,
then this superiority and subordination are not contingent, but necessary, characteristics of
each of the persons. That means that they are not accidental but essential qualities, and the
essence of the Son is different from and inferior to that of the Father. In other words,
invariable and inevitable differences in authority imply ontological, as well as functional,
———————————
69.
Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1907), 342.
70.
Erickson, Christian Theology, 307.
 23
subordination.”71

Another blow Erickson deals toward the eternal functional subordination of the Son is

with regard to if Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity can accept prayer. Erickson

states it this way:

The reality is that there are prayers in the New Testament directed to the Son (Acts 7:59–
60; 2 Cor. 1:18–19; Rev. 22:20). These appear to be genuine prayers, and God did not
disapprove of them in any way. If prayer to the Father alone is indeed implied by the
gradationist view, then, by implication, the legitimacy of these prayers implies the
falsehood of the gradationist view.72

Erickson cannot link an affirmation of the eternal functional subordination of the Son with the

Son accepting prayer, since he argues for a mutual incompatibility between both positions.

Giles also rejects the eternal functional subordination of the Son. Shemm quotes Giles as

follows: “to teach the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in being or role, person or

function, is to teach contrary to the way the best theologians have interpreted the Bible across the

centuries and to reject what the creeds and the Reformation confessions of faith arm”.73

Geisler begins his discussion by affirming that Jesus Christ (the second person of the

Trinity) claimed to be equal with God.74 Like Erickson, Geisler also affirms that Jesus Christ

claimed to have equal authority with God.75 He even makes the case that Jesus Christ claimed to

be God by requesting prayer in His name, again in agreement with Erickson.76 Where Geisler and

Erickson diverge, however, is concerning Geisler’s affirmation of functional order and functional
———————————
71.
Erickson, Christian Theology, 306–9.
72.
Erickson, Christian Theology, 308.
73.
Peter R. Schemm, “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’
(Ch 19) by Kevin Giles,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10, no. 1 (2005): 81.
74.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 280–81.
75.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 282.
76.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 282.
 24

subordination within the Trinity. Geisler states: “it is clear that there is a functional

subordination; that is, not only does each member have a different function or role, but some

functions are also subordinate to others.”77 He goes on to argue that the Father is functionally

superior to the Son and that Son carries out the will of the Father. He illustrates the distinction by

arguing that the Son, not the Father, suffered and died on the cross.78 In his conclusion, in

contrast to Erickson, Geisler affirms that the functional subordination of the Son is eternal, He

also argues for an eternal Father/Son relationship between the persons of the Trinity. He words it

this way:

It is not just temporal and economical; it is essential and eternal. For example, the Son is
an eternal Son (see Prov. 30:4; Heb. 1:3). He did not become God’s Son; He always was
related to God the Father as a Son and always will be. His submission to the Father was
not just for time but will be for all eternity.79

MacArthur affirms that the eternal generation of the Son does establish a relational order

(taxis) within the Trinity. However, MacArthur rejects the eternal functional subordination of the

Son, since such a view, according to MacArthur, undermines divine simplicity. He argues that

since the Trinity is singular in will, one person of the Trinity cannot be under submission to

another person of the Trinity.80 Leithart somewhat counters the notion that the will of the Trinity

is a “oneness” will and rather a singularity that exists among the three persons of the Trinity. He

writes: “When it comes to will, it is oneness, the purest unity, all the way down. This cannot be

correct. In speaking of God’s one will, we must talk, certainly in carefully nuanced fashion, of a

single will that, like everything else in the Trinity, exists only as the will of distinct Persons.”81
———————————
77.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 290.
78.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 291.
79.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 291.
80.
MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth, 207–8.
81.
Peter Leithart, “The Unspoken Question at the Heart of the Trinity
 25
Chafer tends to take somewhat of a mediating position concerning the eternal functional

subordination of the Son. In one aspect, he seems to relate the terms “Father” and “Son” as more

of anthropomorphic labels that do not undermine the equality of the persons of the Trinity. On

another note, Chafer seems to affirm a type of functional subordination of the Son especially with

regard to both creation and redemption, in which the functional subordination of the Son would

extend eternally. Yet in another twist, Chafer seems to ground such an eternal functional

subordination in the eternal generation of the Son when he writes: “The ground of this

subordination is purely in his filiation, not in any distinction of essential divinity”.82 In a final

note, Chafer seems to align somewhat with Erickson in affirming an eternal authority of the Son,

but countering Erickson by stating that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father before

His incarnation.83

In terms of pre-Reformation and Reformation theologians, Aquinas makes the following

statement: “If there were any inequality in the divine persons, they would not have the same

essence; and thus the three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must

therefore admit equality among the divine persons.”84 Calvin also makes the following

assessment concerning the persons of the Trinity: “The essence of God being simple and

undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is

improper, nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image”.85 Both statements, on the surface, would

seem to rule out an eternal functional subordination with regard to the Father and the Son in the

Trinity. However, both statements are arguing for an equality of essence among the persons of
———————————

Debate.”https://blog.logos.com/2017/06/unspoken-question-heart-trinity-debate/
https://blog.logos.com/2017/06/unspoken-question-heart-trinity-debate/. Accessed June 2, 2017.
82.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, 316.
83.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, 389.
84.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 273.
85.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 274.
 26

the Trinity, which adherents of eternal functional subordination also affirm. Their statements

cannot be used to fully rule out whether the eternal functional subordination of the Son has

biblical validity.

When it comes to evaluating the eternal functional subordination of the Son, it is

important to ask if “authority” is a property of nature or a property of relationship. Answering

that question will determine whether the Father exercises ultimate authority among the persons of

the Trinity. The Greek term for “authority” (sometimes translated as “power” in the KJV) is

εξουσι' α. εξουσι' α denotes a “right to control”, a “power to command”, an “authority”, a “ruling

power by virtue of their office”, or a “bearer of ruling authority”.86 Such an authority, when

applied to human beings, is a property of relationship, as a human being can be given an

authority over other individuals as an installation of one’s position or office. For example, the

President of the United States is an elected official and given the authority to become the

President of the United States by an election of the citizens of the United States. The President is

not merely born with the essential nature of US Presidential authority. Even those born to a

monarchial royal family do not possess an essential quality of monarchial authority over their

citizens. The authority is given to them by means of a relationship with their parents. In this

sense, authority is a property of relationship.

However, in order for authority to be given to an individual, such authority requires a

source from which the authority is given. The ultimate source of authority is God. The authority

of God is part of the essential nature of God being one of God’s key attributes, omnipotence (His

being all-powerful). Bromiley stated it this way: “God has authority both in the sense that He has

absolute possibility or freedom of action, being under neither necessity nor restraint, and also in

the sense that He is the only ultimate source of all other authorization and power.”87 In the sense
———————————
86.
BDAG, s.v. εξουσι' α.
87.
Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, 365.
 27

of God being all-powerful, authority is a property of the nature of God since it is a fundamental

attribute of God.

When it comes to Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity, the discussion of

authority becomes complicated. On one hand, because Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, He

is given eternal authority from God the Father, as seen in Mt 28:18. Even the doctrine of the

eternal generation of the Son could be used to denote that the Father gives the Son His eternal

authority through His eternal generation. However, Jesus Christ also being God as the second

person of the Trinity, possesses the attribute of omnipotence as does God the Father, making the

authority of the Son also part of His essential nature. Bromiley states it this way:

To be sure, the power that Christ exercises within His earthly commission, e.g., that of
forgiving sins (Mk. 2:10), or exorcism (3:15), or teaching (Mt. 7:29), or judgment (Jn.
5:27), is a power granted by the Father. The great truth brought to light in the NT,
however, is that Christ is more than a man who is commissioned by God. He is Himself
God. This means that His authority, as divine authority, is also self-grounded.88

Bromiley makes the distinction that the authority of the Son is both a part of His essential nature

as one of His eternal attributes, as well as given to Him by the Father as during His incarnation.

Bromiley does not seem to extend the giving of the authority of the Son from the Father to

eternity past. He sees it as part of His essential attributes.

Ware affirms that the property of the divine essence is possessed by both the Father and

the Son, yet the Son can still possess properties of being the person of the Son that make the Son

distinct from the Father. One property of the Son that distinguishes Him from the Father is the

property of eternal functional subordination, according to Ware. He states it this way:

[W]hile the Son has properties of his personhood that the Father in his personhood does
not and cannot have, yet each and every property of the Son’s divine essence is a property
possessed also fully and eternally by the Father in his divine essence. The Son, then, is
rightly distinguished in his personhood from the Father, but the Son cannot rightly be
distinguished in his essence from the Father, since then the Father would be in essence
different from the essence of the Son.89
———————————
88.
Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, 66.
89.
Bruce Ware, “Alleging Heresy Where There is None,” Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 16, no. 2 (2011): 44.
 28

One note that should be mentioned concerns the works of the persons of the Trinity.

Adherents of the eternal generation of the Son who also reject eternal functional subordination

affirm that the works of the Trinity are inseparable, but not indistinguishable. For example,

MacArthur affirms that while one person of the Trinity may be given an emphasis during a

certain work (such as the Father during creation or the Son during redemption on the cross), each

of the persons of the Trinity is involved in any work performed by the Trinity. He states it this

way: “Though one person or another may be emphasized in a particular work, no one person does

any work exclusive of the other two persons, for, as the classic dictum states, ‘the external works

of the Trinity are undivided’”.90

In contrast, Ryrie emphasizes more of a distinction among the works of the persons of the

Trinity, placing “electing (1 Pet. 1:2), loving the world (John 3:16), and giving good gifts” with

the Father and “suffering (Mark 8:31), redeeming (1 Pet. 1:18), and upholding all things” with

the Son.91 Ware also emphasizes more of a distinction between the works and roles of the persons

of the Trinity while still affirming that the persons of the Trinity work together in a unified

entirety. He writes: “Although all three work together in harmonious unity, each contributes

distinctively to the work of the ‘one God’ that is done. The Father carries out different roles and

activities than does the Son and the Spirit, and the same could be said for each of the other

persons as well.”92 Ware equates the distinction in roles to an order (taxis) within the Trinity by

writing: “This predominant biblical characteristic is the presence of an order, or even a structure,
———————————
90.
MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth, 191–92.
91.
Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical
Truth, 62.
92.
Bruce A. Ware, “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity,” 29–30.
 29
among the Trinitarian persons that explains much about why each person carries out the

particular roles that each one does.”93

Additionally, it is important to examine in light of Scripture if the eternal functional

subordination of the Son is biblically valid. Schemm counters Giles with an important thought:

“There are several weaknesses in Giles’s thesis and theological method. First, he builds his thesis

on the relationship between tradition (as a theological source) and the concept of subordination

rather than on the more important question one must ask regarding the concept of subordination

—that is, what does the Bible teach about the concept of subordination?”94

A handful of passages of Scripture that can be used to possibly affirm the eternal

functional subordination of the Son are Jn 6:38, Jn 5:18-19, and 1 Cor 15:26-28. 1 Cor 15:26-28

will be examined in this section. It reads:

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be
destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject
unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

The phrase “then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under

him” seems to affirm a functional subordination of the Son under the Father. Butler states that the

submission to the Father is for the exaltation and honor of the Father.95 MacArthur, an opponent

of the eternal functional subordination of the Son, interestingly offers a balanced interpretation of

a functional subordination of the Son and the Son who reigns in the glory of the Trinity. He

words it this way: “God the Father is the exception who will not be subject to Christ, for it is the
———————————
93.
Bruce A. Ware, “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity,” 31–32.
94.
Schemm, “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by
Kevin Giles,” 83.
95.
John G. Butler, Analytical Bible Expositor: I and II Corinthians (Clinton, IA: LBC
Publications, 2009), 145.
 30
Father who gave the rule and authority to the Son (Matt. 28:18; John 5:27), and whom the Son

faithfully and perfectly served.”96 MacArthur continues as follows:

From the time of His incarnation until the time when He presents the kingdom to the
Father, Christ is in the role of a Servant, fulfilling His divine task as assigned by His
Father. But when that final work is accomplished, He will assume His former, full,
glorious place in the perfect harmony of the Trinity. And when all things are subjected to
Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to
Him, that God may be all in all. Christ will continue to reign, because His reign is eternal
(Rev. 11:15), but He will reign with the Father in trinitarian glory, subject to the Trinity
in that way eternally designed for Him.97

Taylor also affirms the eternal functional subordination of the Son in this passage while

clarifying that it is a relational functional subordination and not an inferiority in the essence of

the Son with regard to the Father. He states:

Paul clarifies that “everything” put in submission to Christ does not include God himself,
which would contradict the functional subordination within the Godhead (cf. 3:23; 11:3).
This is clear from the psalm itself. If God places everything under Christ, God is the
exception. Instead, the Son himself is subjected to the one who puts all things under his
feet (15:28).98

As stated in the introduction, it is also important to keep in mind that those who adhere to

the eternal functional subordination of the Son reject classical “subordinationism”, the belief that

the Son is of an inferior essence of the Father. Scholars against the eternal functional

subordination of the Son such as Giles and Erickson tend to equate the eternal functional

subordination of the Son with classical subordinationism. According to Schemm, however, such

an equation is not valid. He states:

The terms “subordination” and “subordinationism” are used frequently in the context of
trinitarian discussion, and have a clearly defined usage….Giles ignores the accepted
distinction between these terms. Instead of offering an objective assessment of the
possibility of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, Giles ignores the very
———————————
96.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1984), 420.
97.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., 1 Corinthians, 420–21.
98.
Mark Taylor, 1 Corinthians, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, The New American Commentary
(Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2014), 389–90.
 31
helpful categorical distinction made between subordination and subordinationism.99

The view of the eternal functional subordination of the Son is clearly not a theological

“fringe view” held by a handful of theologians. It is one that warrants discussion and debate

among scholars. In terms of the works of the Trinity, while all of the persons of the Trinity work

together in a unified manner (such as during creation or the redemption of mankind from sin),

each of the persons of the Trinity also works in a manner with distinct roles and tasks befitting

the person. The Father orchestrates the planning, the Son carries out the planning of the Father,

and the Holy Spirit empowers the Trinity. Additionally, a failure to note a distinction among the

works of the persons of the Trinity can lead to heresies such as a confounding of the persons of

the Trinity (modalism) or the belief that the Father Himself suffered and died on the cross for the

sins of mankind (patripassianism).100 Grudem and Ware make biblical sense when they affirm

that the persons of the Trinity are equal in essence yet differ in their roles. They also make

biblical sense when affirming that the Father and the Son eternally act in a manner of their

respected titles.

In terms of whether “authority” is a property of nature or of relationship, authority is

certainly a property of relationship, and one can biblically discern that the Father has given

authority to the Son, whether by means of the eternal generation of the Son or through the eternal

Father/Son relationship. With that said, all of the persons of the Trinity possess an eternal

authority in their essence by possessing the attribute of omnipotence. Therefore, Erickson’s

caution about the authority of the persons of the Trinity warrants a reflection in order to ensure

affirming the eternal functional subordination of the Son does not diminish the belief in the Son’s

eternal inherent omnipotence. From an examination of theologians who affirm the eternal
———————————
99.
Schemm, “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by
Kevin Giles,” 84.
100.
McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, 231.
 32

functional subordination of the Son, this does not appear to be a case where scholars would

diminish such a belief.

Ware’s refutation of the egalitarian position of the Trinity concerning the sending of the

Son during the incarnation versus any member of the Trinity also makes biblical sense. Rev 13:8

offers a strong affirmation that it was the Son who was chosen in eternity past to be sent to the

earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. It reads: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall

worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the

foundation of the world.” The Lamb refers to Jesus Christ, the Son. It was pre-determined that

the Son would be slain to atone for the sins of mankind, not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

MacArthur offers a caution worth reflecting upon concerning eternal functional

subordination, divine simplicity, and the will of God. If one divides the will of God into three

separate wills, one can begin to shift into a tritheistic belief versus a Trinitarian belief in one God

in three persons. With that said, Leithart offers a solid, biblically sound counterpoint when he

affirms that the one will of God can only exist as the will of each of the persons. Leithart gets at

the core of balancing the equality of essence and the distinction of persons with regard to the

Trinity.

Finally, there does seem to be some form of biblically-valid order of relationships (taxis)

with regard to the persons of the Trinity. While the term “functional subordination” (or

submission) makes biblical sense to describe such an order and is distinct from classical

subordinationism that the Son is of inferior essence to the Father, is there a better alternative to

biblically describe the concept?

A Biblical Description of the Trinity

As stated in the introduction, a biblical view concerning the doctrine of the Trinity must

emphasize both the eternal equality of essence and the eternal distinction of persons within the

Trinity. This, in conjunction with the affirmation that the true God of the Bible as worshipped by

Christians eternally exists as one God in three persons, is the doctrine of the Trinity in a
 33
nutshell.101 Warfield summed it up beautifully when he said: “There is one only and true God,

but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in

substance but distinct in subsistence.”102

In terms of the discussion and debate surrounding the eternal generation of the Son and

the eternal functional subordination of the Son, the two concepts need not be mutually exclusive.

The concept of the eternal generation of the Son is biblically-valid, although depending on the

interpretation of passages of Scripture containing the term µονογενη' ς contributes to the strength

of the defense concerning the eternal generation of the Son. The belief of the eternal generation

of the Son has been held throughout church history, and while evangelical Christian theologians

must appeal first and foremost to Scripture, the affirmation of the concept as held throughout

church history contributes to its biblical validity.

In terms of the eternal functional subordination of the Son, the concept makes biblical

sense and certainly not an out-of-the-ordinary heretical position.The relationship between the

Father and the Son has existed throughout eternity, and the Father and the Son act in a way

befitting their respected titles. While all of the persons of the Trinity are involved as a unified

whole in their works, each person of the Trinity exercises His respected role in carrying out the

will of the Trinity. Additionally, eternal functional subordination is distinct from the classical

view of subordinationism, as those who affirm eternal functional subordination affirm the

equality of essence between the Father and the Son. A question left hanging in the preceding

section, however, is: is there a better term than “subordination” or “submission” to describe the

eternal relationship between the Father and the Son?

Bird offers a sound argument against the “subordination” language to describe the

relationship between the Father and the Son. While the term is distinct from classical
———————————
101.
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation, 279.
102.
Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical
Truth, 61.
 34
“subordinationism”, the term is also theologically loaded, especially if not properly distinguished

from classical “subordinationism”. Bird prefers the phrase “eternal and obedient self-distinction

of the Son from the Father” instead, which is biblically-valid without the theological baggage of

“subordination”.103

Johnson appeals to Augustine in his evaluation of the eternal functional subordination of

the Son concerning the Trinity. He affirms an order (taxis) between the Father and the Son

grounded in the Son’s eternal generation (being eternally “from the father”).104 His argument also

avoids using the term “subordination” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son

while still affirming the eternal equality of essence and the eternal distinction of persons in the

Trinity, language explicitly clear in Augustine’s writings.

Horrell offers a clear description in terms of the equality of essence and the distinction of

persons within the Trinity, appealing to an “eternally ordered social model” of the Trinity. He

summarizes it this way:

the one divine Being eternally exists as three distinct centers of consciousness, wholly
equal in nature, genuinely personal in relationships, and each mutually indwelling the
other. I define an eternally ordered social model as the social model that, while insisting
on equality of the divine nature, affirms “perpetual distinction of roles within the
immanent Godhead.105

Horrell offers a balanced argument against venturing into either extreme of an egalitarian Trinity

or subordinationism Trinity. To Horrell, an egalitarian Trinity would eliminate the distinction of

persons within the Trinity, resulting in modalism. In contrast, venturing far into a

subordinationism Trinity removes the fellowship among the persons of the Trinity and their

perichoretic relationship of mutual indwelling. Horrell offers a clear understanding of the

———————————
103.
Michael F. Bird, “The Son Really, Really is the Son: A Response to Kevin Giles,”
Trinity Journal 30, no. 2 (2009): 259.
104.
Keith E Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An
Augustinian Perspective,” Themelios 36, no. 1 (2011): 21.
105.
Sanders and Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, 47–
48.
 35
relationships among the persons of the Trinity. He affirms both the eternal equality of essence

and the eternal distinction of persons within the Trinity. He also affirms an order (taxis) in the

relationships in the Trinity while avoiding the terms “subordination” or “submission” to describe

the Trinity, both of which while valid and distinct terms from “subordinationism”, are

theologically loaded enough to warrant a re-examination of their usage. While Horrell’s view

makes biblical sense, it would be beneficial to examine and contrast it in light of the classical

model of the Trinity and other relational models of the Trinity (although such a discussion is for

another time).106

Burk also summarizes a biblical description of the Trinity well, offering one of the

clearest overviews concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. Burk affirms the

eternal generation of the Son and appeals to both Scripture and early church history. He also

offers a balanced and thoughtful discussion concerning the eternal functional subordination of the

Son (aligning with Carson’s view on the concept, which has not been described in this paper).

Burk also reflectively discusses the theological terminology with regard to the eternal functional

subordination of the Son, as well as a logical and reasonable argument for dispensing with the

“subordination” terminology. Attempting to come up with a replacement for the term

“subordination” is indeed difficult, as Burk quotes Sanders who summarizes the relationship

between the Father and the Son by stating:

There is, in the relations of origin of the triune God, an irreversible taxis to which the
obedience of the incarnate Christ corresponds in human form. It’s an eternal procession
that reaches its strangely logical final conclusion in the sending of the Son. As for his
submission to the Father, I don’t know what they call it in the happy land of the Trinity,
but when it lives among us it is rightly named obedience.107

While scholars who wish to thoroughly describe the relationship between the Father and the Son
———————————
106.
Sanders and Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, 67–
78.
107.
Denny Burk, “My Take-Away’s from the Trinity
Debate.”http://www.dennyburk.com/my-take-aways-from-the-trinity-debate/ Accessed January 3,
2018
 36
Trinity may find the description by Sanders wanting, it is a valid description of the relationship

between the Father and the Son in the Trinity, since such a definition is difficult to fully define.

This leads finally to a question that should be asked is: can theologians and scholars fully

understand the doctrine of the Trinity? While theologians and scholars do their best to present

biblically-valid descriptions of the Trinity, and while the doctrine of the Trinity is both a

biblically-sound doctrine and a doctrine of vital importance to the church, it is also a mysterious

doctrine which theologians will never fully comprehend this side of eternity. Grudem stated it

well when he said in reference to errors made by scholars of the church in the past: “They have

all come about through attempts to simplify the doctrine of the Trinity and make it completely

understandable, removing all mystery from it. This we can never do. However, it is not correct to

say that we cannot understand the doctrine of the Trinity at all.”108 He goes on to affirm that

Christians do not believe in a contradiction when affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and a

belief in one God eternally existing in three persons. Grudem summarizes the discussion this way

But to say that “God is three persons and there is one God” is not a contradiction. It is
something we do not understand, and it is therefore a mystery or a paradox, but that
should not trouble us as long as the different aspects of the mystery are clearly taught by
Scripture, for as long as we are finite creatures and not omniscient deity, there will always
(for all eternity) be things that we do not fully understand.109

Therefore, theologians, scholars, and Christians can understand to some extent the

doctrine of the Trinity as revealed through God’s special revelation in the Word of God. With

that said, the doctrine of the Trinity will always remain somewhat of a mystery, and theologians,

scholars, and Christians must pause in the awe and wonder of such a majestic, infinite being as

God. Scott Oliphant summarized the mystery of the Trinity beautifully:

Nothing should motivate true Christian worship more than the majestic mystery of God.
Things that we understand, that we can wrap our minds around, are rarely objects of our
———————————
108.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 255–
56.
109.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 256.
 37
worship. We may seek to control them. We may try to manipulate them. We may want to
change them. But we will not worship them, not really. If what we are seeking is true
worship, it is the riches of the mystery of God and His ways in the world that will
produce and motivate worship in us and to Him.110

An Evaluation of the Trinity and Gender Roles

Now that an evaluation has been made with regard to the eternal functional subordination

of the Son, an evaluation will be made with regard to the sub-debate that exists among

theologians concerning the Trinity as an analogy for gender roles. The question that will be

answered is: can one form a biblically-valid analogy of gender roles based on the eternal

functional subordination of the Son in the Trinity? The reason this discussion takes place near the

conclusion of this paper is the fundamentally important question with regard to the discussion

hinges on forming a biblical description of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the

Trinity. Theologians can easily rabbit-trail on to discussions and debates surrounding the Trinity

and gender roles and miss the larger, more important picture of ensuring a biblical discussion of

the Trinity itself. Theologians should focus primarily on the Trinity itself on its own terms and

keep a biblical description of the Trinity at the forefront. With that said, enough debate has taken

place among scholars concerning the Trinity and gender roles that warrants an evaluation here.

One passage of Scripture theologians who affirm the eternal functional subordination of

the Son that can potentially be used to infer an analogy of gender roles with regard to the Trinity

is 1 Cor 11:3, which reads as: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;

and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” The passage seems to

make an allusion between an order (taxis) between the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) and an

order between a man and a woman. MacArthur (who rejects the eternal functional subordination

of the Son but affirms a complementarian view of gender roles) summarizes this passage as

follows: “Paul shows that woman’s subordination to man is but a reflection of that greater

general truth. Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is
———————————
110.
K. Scott Oliphint, The Majesty of Mystery (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 4–
5.
 38
the head of Christ.”111 In contrast, Conzelmann chalks up the passage as a teaching of a

Hellenistic-Jewish tradition, not a biblical doctrine. He states it this way: “What Paul now

propounds from v 3* on is, to be sure, not the doctrinal tradition of the Christian creed…but a

speculative school tradition founded on a Hellenistic-Jewish basis and aimed at providing a

fundamental ground on which to argue the special problem.”112 MacArthur’s view is in

agreement with Chrysostom’s on the passage. Chrysostom wrote as follows: “Christ and God are

equal in substance but different in relationship, and the same applies to man and woman.”113

The discussion concerning this passage centers on how to best translate the Greek term

κεφαλη' (“head” in the KJV). MacArthur defines it as the “ruling and sovereign part of the

body”.114 Taylor agrees that the term in its traditional use indicates authority and leadership. He

also discusses the alternate position that some scholars argue for κεφαλη' being better translated

as “source”. Taylor somewhat counters this translation, as it can lead into a belief that the Father

is somehow the source of the Son in a creation sense that can slip into Arianism. He also

mentions the view in which the term could refer instead to “that which is most prominent,

foremost, uppermost, preeminent.”115 In his conclusion, he summarizes by stating that regardless

of how one translates the term, a functional subordination of wives to their husbands is the

biblical interpretation of this passage.116 Standard New Testament Greek lexica and theological

dictionaries refer to the term used in this passage as a “being of high status”, “the relation of a
———————————
111.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., 1 Corinthians, 253.
112.
Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1975), 182.
113.
Gerald Lewis Bray, ed., 1–2 Corinthians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1999), 105.
114.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., 1 Corinthians, 253.
115.
Taylor, 1 Corinthians, 243.
116.
Taylor, 1 Corinthians, 257–59.
 39
husband to his wife” “one who stands over another in the sense of being”, “the ground of his

being” and the “general notion of a person having priority or preeminence”.117 Grudem has done

extensive research concerning the term, fully rejecting the translation as “source” and affirming

the traditional translation as “head” or one who has a position of authority. He states in one

article: “Wherever one person is said to be the ‘head’ of another person (or persons), the person

who is called the ‘head’ is always the one in authority”.118 Grudem also makes an appeal to the

standard New Testament Greek lexica and their translating of the term κεφαλη' when he writes:

The need for such clear examples is even more important because “source” is not listed as
a possible meaning for κεφαλη' in the standard lexicon for New Testament Greek by
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Nor do the older New Testament lexicons by Thayer
or Cremer list such a sense; nor does the lexicon to the papyri by Moulton and
Milligan…Thus, authors who propose the sense “source” are proposing a new meaning,
one previously unrecognized by New Testament lexicons.119

Like Taylor, Grudem discusses that translating the term as “source” can lead one down a path

toward Arianism as it can indicate that the Father somehow created the Son. He states: “Eve was

physically taken out of Adam but we cannot say that every man was physically taken out of

Christ. On the other hand, Christ was the agent in the creation of every man, but we cannot say

that God the Father created God the Son.”120 By appealing to standard New Testament Greek

lexica, as well as by showing how a translation of the term “source” can lead into Arianism,

Grudem concludes by strongly affirming the authoritative sense of the term. He concludes: “In

short, there is no sense of ‘source’ in which the passage can be interpreted consistently within
———————————
117.
BDAG, TDNT, NIDNTTE, s.v. κεφαλη' .
118.
Wayne Grudem, “An Open Letter to Egalitarians,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood 3, no. 1 (1998).
119.
Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or Authority Over’ in Greek
Literature? a Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6, no. 1 (1985): 40.
120.
Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or Authority Over’ in Greek
Literature? a Survey of 2,336 Examples,” 56–57.
 40
itself and with the rest of Scripture. We conclude that ‘authority over’ is the correct sense for

head in 1 Corinthians 11:3.”121

Two cautions should be presented in light of the passage of 1 Cor 11:3. While the passage

draws an analogy between the Trinity and gender roles, one should exercise caution when

drawing inferences from the analogy. The comparisons in the analogy are not identical. The

caution is applied to the realm of biblical exposition by Rogers who ensures that one does not

read inferiority between the Father and the Son or the man and the woman into either

relationship. He states: “when God says that the head of the woman is the man, that does not

mean that the woman is inferior to the man, because the head of Christ is God. And if you know

your theology, you know that Christ is not inferior. God the Son is not inferior to God the Father.

As a matter of fact, He is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father. “122

Additionally, one must not read an egotistic superiority of men (especially with regard to

husbands) into the passage. The order in man/woman relationships is one of God’s designs to

bring about functional order, not so that men can act in a prideful or domineering manner toward

women or mistreat them as fellow human beings created in the image of God. MacArthur stated

it well when he said: “God established the principle of male authority and female subordination

for the purpose of order and complementation, not on the basis of any innate superiority of

males.”123 In the realm of biblical exposition, Rogers wittingly makes the same case when he

writes:

When God says that the husband is to call the play, does that mean that the husband is
superior to the wife? No. It just simply means that in the home there has to be a head.
You've heard me say before anything with no head is dead and anything with two heads is
a freak. Isn't that true? And so God just simply has put headship in the home. And just as
there's headship...in the Trinity, that does not mean superiority or inferiority. All it means
———————————
121.
Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or Authority Over’ in Greek
Literature? a Survey of 2,336 Examples,” 56–57.
122.
Adrian Rogers, The Adrian Rogers Legacy Collection – Sermons (North Palm Beach,
FL: Adrian Rogers Foundation, 2011), The Ministry of Women.
123.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., 1 Corinthians, 254.
 41
is there is a divine difference and there is a divine order.”124

After examining 1 Cor 11:3, can one form a biblically-valid analogy of gender roles based

on the eternal functional subordination of the Son in the Trinity? According to Grudem (who

affirms the eternal functional subordination of the Son), the answer is in the affirmative. He states

as follows: “Because God in himself has both unity and diversity, it is not surprising that unity

and diversity are also reflected in the human relationships he has established. We see this first in

marriage.”125 He goes on to appeal to 1 Cor 11:3 and applies the Trinity as an analogy for

man/woman relationships when he writes: “In fact, in the relationship between man and woman

in marriage we see also a picture of the relationship between the Father and Son in the

Trinity.”126

Ware (who also affirms the eternal functional subordination of the Son) also appeals to 1

Cor 11:3 and the Trinity as a valid analogy for man/woman relationships. He writes:

The Father has authority over the Son. There is a relationship of authority and submission
in the very Godhead on the basis of which the other authority-submission relationships of
Christ and man, and man and woman, depend. The taxis of God’s headship over his Son
accounts for the presence of taxis in man’s relationship with Christ and the woman’s
relationship with man.127

Giles (who rejects the eternal functional subordination of the Son) hits the emergency

break in terms of an analogy between the Trinity and man/woman relationships. He states: “We

should be immediately suspicious of this argument because there does not seem to be any

obvious or necessary correlation between the doctrine of the Trinity and the man/woman
———————————
124.
Rogers, The Adrian Rogers Legacy Collection – Sermons.
125.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 256.
126.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 257.
127.
Bruce A. Ware, “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity,” 48.
 42

relationship.”128 Giles continues by mentioning that the Trinity is a three-fold relationship of

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; versus a two-fold relationship between a man and a woman. He also

points out that each of the persons of the Trinity is masculine in the relationship, whereas gender

roles discuss man/woman relationships (in which he seems to imply that an over inference of the

Trinity into gender relationships could affirm a three-person homosexual relationship instead of

traditional man/woman relationship!). In his conclusion, he also discusses that the Father/Son

analogy in the Trinity is more of an analogy of a parent/child relationship instead of a

male/female relationship. Schemm counters the arguments of Giles in his article by stating that

Giles misrepresents an equal in essence yet distinct relationship between the persons of the

Trinity and man/woman relationships. He writes as follows:

He seems to assert, as most complementarians do, that the eternal relationships within the
Godhead do have some theological and practical bearing for how the husband-wife and
man-woman relationships should be viewed. For Giles, though, subordination in role
necessarily entails inferiority in being; this leads him to reject the equal-yet-different
paradigm of gender roles.129

Leithart, in agreement with Schemm, Ware, and Grudem, affirms that the Trinity does

offer a biblically valid analogy to man/woman relationships. In fact, he even uses the analogy to

affirm an eternal Father/Son relationship between the two persons in the Trinity. He summarizes

as follows: “The relation of a man and a woman is analogous to the relationship of God to Christ.

To argue that Paul refers to the relation of the Father to the incarnate Son implies that the

incarnate Son’s relation to the Father is something other than the Son’s relation to the Father, and

that implies that the incarnate Son is, in His Person, someone other than the eternal Son.”130
———————————
128.
Giles, “CBE and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” 21.
129.
Schemm, “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by
Kevin Giles,” 81.
130.
Leithart, “The Unspoken Question at the Heart of the Trinity Debate” Accessed June
2, 2017.
 43
Bird offers somewhat of a mediating position yet emphasizes the same objections as Giles

when it comes to the Trinity and man/woman relationships. He states: “we should not assume

that every aspect of intra-trinitarian relationships carries over into human existence and into

male-female relationships.”131 Like Giles, Bird also makes the case that the relationship of the

Trinity is a relationship of three persons versus two persons in a man/woman relationship.

Additionally, he makes the case that each of the persons of the Trinity is masculine versus the

man/woman relationship, also mentioning that inferring gender roles deeply from the Trinity can

lead to bizarre affirmations of affection in human relationships. Bird sees Christ and the church

as the better analogy when it comes to man/woman relationships when he writes: “Scripture gives

us a better analogy to apply directly to male-female relations and that is the image of Christ and

the church in Eph 5:21-33.”132

Maxwell (a complementarian) also offers somewhat of a mediating position with some

caveats. In his summary, he writes:

Is there an authority analogy between the Trinity and marriage? Of course there is…But is
there an authority analogy among the Trinitarian relations that is archetypally prescriptive
for the marriage relationship? No. Any analogy is limited, generic, and imagined. There
are not sufficient reasons or resources to appeal to the Trinity to support a particular view
on gender relations in marriage.133

He goes on to make the case that “the egalitarian and complementarian appeals to the Trinity

overreach the structural continuities between the Father-Son and husband-wife relationship.”134
———————————
131.
Michael F. Bird and Robert Shillaker, “Subordination in the Trinity and Gender Roles:
A Response to Recent Discussion,” Trinity Journal 29 (2008): 281.
132.
Bird and Shillaker, “Subordination in the Trinity and Gender Roles: A Response to
Recent Discussion,” 281.
133.
Paul C. Maxwell, “Is There an Authority Analogy Between the Trinity and Marriage?
Untangling Arguments of Subordination and Ontology in Egalitarian-Complementarian
Discourse,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 3 (2016): 565.
134.
Maxwell, “Is There an Authority Analogy Between the Trinity and Marriage?
Untangling Arguments of Subordination and Ontology in Egalitarian-Complementarian
Discourse,” 543.
 44

In terms of 1 Cor 11:3, he does not see it as a biblically valid analogy between the Trinity and

man/woman relationships. He states:

11:3 provides is not categorically homogenous with the complementarian position’s

desired conclusion. 1Co 11:3 provides evidence for an economic authority relationship
between the Father and Son (as Schreiner and Claunch admit), and the extrapolation of
that authority relationship back into the immanent Trinity is merely speculative (a
methodological assumption that does not receive satisfactory interrogation).135

Yarnell offers one of the clearest discussions concerning the analogy of the Trinity and

man/woman relationships. He writes:

This tendency, which is common in evangelical circles, strikes me as potentially (even

while trying not to do so) allowing a contemporary anthropological concern to drive
classical Trinitarian theology. Whatever the particular position one takes in the debate
over gender relations, perhaps a renewed commitment to move from careful biblical
exegesis to theological formation and only thence to communal practice would be
helpful.136

Yarnell rightly affirms that the focus of studying the Trinity is to allow theologians to biblically

describe the Trinity on its terms. Once both solid exegesis and theological discussion have taken

place concerning the Trinity itself, then and only then can practical applications be made without

losing focus of the larger picture.

In terms of evaluating the Trinity as an analogy for gender roles, 1 Cor 11:3 does offer

somewhat of an analogy between the relationship of the Father and the Son and the relationship

between men and women. Such an analogy cannot simply be tossed aside. God has designed an

order (taxis) both eternally in the Trinity, as well as an order that is reflected in man/woman

relationships. Additionally, the Greek term κεφαλη' is likely best translated in its traditional sense

of “authority over” or “head” versus the modern usage of “source”. The passage does strongly
———————————
135.
Maxwell, “Is There an Authority Analogy Between the Trinity and Marriage?
Untangling Arguments of Subordination and Ontology in Egalitarian-Complementarian
Discourse,” 559.
136.
Malcolm B. Yarnell, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Nashville, TN: B&H
Academic, 2016), 300.
 45

infer a functional subordination of the woman to the man in gender roles and of the Son to the

Father in the Trinity. With that said, exercising a few cautions are in order. Exercising the caution

of not inferring inferiority in gender roles or the Trinity, as well as not inferring the egotistic

superiority of men in a sense that would cause them to mistreat women as fellow beings created

in the image of God are two important cautions. Furthermore, the cautions of not overly-inferring

gender roles from the Trinity to keep in mind the three-fold relationships and masculine persons

of the Trinity are cautions worth reflecting on so as not to slip into bizarre affirmations of human

relationships of affection. Yarnell offers the clearest insight of the theologians by ensuring that

theologians remain focused on the larger picture, which is biblically describing the Trinity and

not allowing the discussion of gender roles to rabbit-trail the focus on the Trinity on its terms.

Therefore, the Trinity can be a valid analogy when it comes to man/woman relationships, with

certain caveats, limitations, cautions, and nuances, all the while keeping the larger picture of the

Trinity in focus. A wise approach is to spend more time focusing on the Trinity on its terms and

ensuring theologians biblically describe the Trinity to the extent and limitations of humankind’s

finite minds, and only practically draw an analogy between the Trinity and man/woman

relationships when the biblical evidence supports it. Those involved in gender role debates

should also utilize other, stronger evidence for their views on gender roles instead of putting all

of their eggs in the basket of appealing to the Trinity as foundational proof of gender roles, as it

is a basket that can easily tip and shatter one’s theological eggs. When it comes to gender roles,

the complementarian view of gender roles seems the most biblically-valid of the views. In the

realm of biblical exposition, Rogers makes a solid appeal to Genesis 2 and complementarianism

in his sermon “Celebrate the Difference”. Maxwell also summarizes a biblical approach to

complementarianism when he writes:

Yet, likewise, if there were a perfectly egalitarian relationship between the Father and the
Son, there still remains large biblical precedent for a complementarian theology of
marriage. In fact, once the Trinity is removed as a direct ground for appeal in egalitarian-
complementarian discourse, the Bible seems more likely to favor complementarianism.137
———————————
137.
Maxwell, “Is There an Authority Analogy Between the Trinity and Marriage?
 46

Conclusion

It has been a deep theological journey with the intensity of a hike through a jungle, but

this paper has examined a biblical description of the Trinity which emphasizes both the eternal

equality of essence and the eternal distinction of persons with regard to the relationships of the

Trinity. A biblical understanding of the terms “Father” and Son” have also been examined. The

eternal generation of the Son and the eternal functional subordination of the Son have also been

evaluated and shown they are not mutually exclusive and there is biblical validity for affirming

both concepts. The paper concluded with an evaluation of the Trinity as a valid analogy for

gender roles, with some necessary cautions. Ensuring a continued, biblically-sound description of

the Trinity is vital for the church, from the time of the early church to the present age. It is also a

doctrine of mystery that causes theologians to pause in awe and wonder of such a majestic being

as God, who eternally exists as one God in three persons and is worthy of our unceasing worship

and honor.

———————————

Untangling Arguments of Subordination and Ontology in Egalitarian-Complementarian

Discourse,” 565.
 WORKS CITED

Allen, David L. Hebrews. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing
Group, 2010.

Attridge, Harold W., and Helmut Koester. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1989.

Augustine of Hippo. “On the Trinity.” In St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises,
Moral Treatises, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by Arthur West Haddan. A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Buffalo, NY:
Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John: Revised Edtion. Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Bird, Michael F. “The Son Really, Really is the Son: A Response to Kevin Giles.” Trinity
Journal 30, no. 2 (2009).

Bird, Michael F., and Robert Shillaker. “Subordination in the Trinity and Gender Roles: A
Response to Recent Discussion.” Trinity Journal 29 (2008).

Bray, Gerald Lewis, ed. 1–2 Corinthians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Brigden, L. “Monogenes: ‘Only Begotten’ or ‘One of a Kind’.” Trinitarian Bible Society-

Quarterly Record, no. 613 (2005): 11–18.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–88.

Burk, Denny. “My Take-Away’s from the Trinity Debate.”http://www.dennyburk.com/my-take-

aways-from-the-trinity-debate/.

Butler, John G. Analytical Bible Expositor: I and II Corinthians. Clinton, IA: LBC Publications,
2009.

CBN News. “Church of Sweden Opts for Gender Neutral Terms, Drops ‘He’ When Referring to
God.”http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/november/church-of-sweden-opts-for-
gender-neutral-terms-drops-lsquo-he-rsquo-when-referring-to-god.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993.

Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the

Epistle to the Hebrews.” In Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and

47
 48

Epistle to the Hebrews. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, First Series. New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1889.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1975.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids,
MI; Carlisle, UK: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993.

Ellingworth, Paul, and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews. UBS
Handbook Series. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Elowsky, Joel C., ed. New Testament IVa: John 1–10. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Edited by Jim Vincent and Allan Sholes. Revised
and Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Francis, Martin, and Evan Smith, eds. Acts. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Freedman, David Noel, et al. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York, NY: Doubleday,
1992.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation. Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany House Publishers, 2003.

Giles, Kevin. “CBE and the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Priscilla Papers 25, no. 4 (2011).

———. “Response to Michael Bird and Robert Shillaker: The Son is not Eternally Subordinated
to the Father.” Trinity Journal 30, no. 2 (2009).

Green, Joel B., Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels, Second Edition. Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic,
2013.

Grover, William. “A Review and Evaluation of Diverse Christological Opinions Among

American Evangelicals: Part 1: The Eternal Generation of the Son.” Conspectus 5, no. 1
(2008).

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,

England; Grand Rapids, MI: InterVarsity Press; Zondervan Publishing House, 2004.

Grudem, Wayne. “Does Kephale (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or Authority Over’ in Greek
Literature? a Survey of 2,336 Examples.” Trinity Journal 6, no. 1 (1985).

———. “An Open Letter to Egalitarians.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 3,
no. 1 (1998).

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
 49

Horton, Stanley M. Systematic Theology: Revised. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House,
2007.

Irons, Charles Lee. “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only

Begotten’.”https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/.

Johnson, Keith E. “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian
Perspective.” Themelios 36, no. 1 (2011).

Johnson, Keith. “What Would Augustine Say to Evangelicals Who Reject the Eternal Generation
of the Son?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16, no. 2 (2012).

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated,
1998.

Leithart, Peter. “The Unspoken Question at the Heart of the Trinity

Debate.”https://blog.logos.com/2017/06/unspoken-question-heart-trinity-debate/.

Lünemann, Gottlieb. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated
by Maurice J. Evans. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 1882.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Hebrews. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody
Press, 1983.

———. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press,
1984.

MacArthur, John. “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ.” Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001).

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Maxwell, Paul C. “Is There an Authority Analogy Between the Trinity and Marriage? Untangling
Arguments of Subordination and Ontology in Egalitarian-Complementarian Discourse.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 3 (2016).

McKim, Donald K. The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.

Oliphint, K. Scott. The Majesty of Mystery. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Rogers, Adrian. The Adrian Rogers Legacy Collection – Sermons. North Palm Beach, FL: Adrian
Rogers Foundation, 2011.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical
Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Sanders, Fred, and Klaus Issler, ed. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory
Christology. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2007.
 50

Sanders, Fred, et al. TH361 Perspectives on the Trinity: Eternal Generation and Subordination in
Tension. Logos Mobile Education. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017.

Schemm, Peter R. “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by
Kevin Giles.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10, no. 1 (2005).

Stedman, Ray C. Hebrews. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1907.

Taylor, Mark. 1 Corinthians. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. The New American Commentary.
Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2014.

Ware, Bruce A. “Christian Worship and ‘Taxis’ Within the Trinity.” Southern Baptist Journal of
Theology 16, no. 1 (2012).

———. “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father?” Journal for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001).

Ware, Bruce. “Alleging Heresy Where There is None.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood 16, no. 2 (2011).

———. “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission
Among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead.” Journal for Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood 13, no. 2 (2008).

Yarnell, Malcolm B. God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.