1
Power in Unity, Diversity in Rank:
Subordination and the Trinity in the Fathers of the Early Church
Michael J. Svigel, ThM, PhD Student
Dallas Theological Seminary
A Paper Presented to the 56
th
Annual Meeting of
the Evangelical Theological Society,
November 18, 2004, San Antonio, Texas
INTRODUCTION: SUBORDINATION AND THE TRINITY
In a 1989 article, John Dahms argued that the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son provides an
ontological basis for the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father: "The view that this subordination
is only an economic subordination and originates solely in a mutual agreement among the members of
the Godhead implies that the divine persons can choose and do what is contrary to their nature."
1
Yet
Dahms explicitly retained an essential equality of divinity in the Godhead: "Of course orthodoxy . . .
requires us to maintain the essential equality of the Son with the Father but, as we have seen, there are
serious consequences if we do not also hold to the existential inequality of the Son with the Father."
2
His
view of the "existential inequality" of the Son based on eternal generation then formed a basis for
maintaining a particular Trinitarian social order, for "the Scriptures teach that Christians are to recognize
the authority of those who are over them in the state, the Church, the home. . . . Because the Son is
begotten (and the Spirit spirated) this recognition of human authorities has a theological basis."
3
This matter of social order--especially gender roles--proved to be a trigger for heated debate over
the question of eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.
4
Gilbert Bilezikian wrote, "Some
proponents of a hierarchical order between male and female attempt to use, as a divine model for their
proposal at the human level, an alleged relationship of authority/subordination between Father and
Son."
5
Bilezikian then urged that such a concept of the relationship between Father and Son (and Spirit)
is in error. His understanding of orthodox Trinitarianism excluded any form of "ontological hierarchy,
order or ranking among them that would pertain to their eternal state."
6
Supporters of an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father have amassed much
Scripture in support of their views,
7
as have those who challenged the notion of eternal functional
subordination.
8
Due to the alleged stalemate over the teaching of Scripture on this matter, Kevin Giles
recently suggested that this debate "cannot be resolved simply by quoting texts," so, to bring resolution
to the matter, "we need to determine who is in fact accurately reflecting historical orthodoxy."
9
However, Giles quickly dismissed the early fathers between the age of the apostles to Athanasius as
subordinationist and inappropriate for a serious consideration of the development of "orthodoxy."
It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the
writings of the second-century "Apologists." . . . The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the
one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them
insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God
1
John V. Dahms, "The Generation of the Son," JETS 32, (1989): 497.
2
Ibid., 498.
3
Ibid.
4
Cf. Stanley J. Grenz, "Theological Foundations for Male-Female Relationships," JETS 41 (1998): 615-30.
5
Gilbert Bilezikian, "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," JETS 40 (1997): 58.
6
Ibid.
7
John V. Dahms, "The Subordination of the Son," JETS 37 (1994): 351-64; Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., "A
Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," JETS 42 (1999): 461-76; J. Scott Horrell, "Toward a Biblical
Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order," JETS 47 (2004): 399421.
8
Gilbert Bilezikian, "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping," 57-68.
9
Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 5-6.