Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BS Mason
[]the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the churchs
doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was
begotten of the Father before all ages and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son. Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role
among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the churchs doctrine of the Trinity
(in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions), a least since Nicea (A.D 325). (Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology, Ch. 14)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Upon myself being surprised by Wayne Grudems surprise that Carl Truman and Liam Goligher would
publically accuse his work of not being consistent with Nicene Orthodoxy (see Whose Position on the
Trinity is Really New), I thought it potentially fruitful, for the interested student, to compile in one place
a hearty helping of Pro-Nicene sentiment. As my eloquence does not compare with that of the
Cappadocian Fathers or Augustine (or Grudem himself for that matter), I intend to get right to the meat
and potatoes and not rehash the controversy or assess it Biblically; many others have ably done this
already.
Rather, I have selected 13 points used by Grudem to defend his claim that the Son is and was in a
relation of eternal submission to the authority of the Father, and have put them in apposition to many
passages from the corpus of the Pro-Necene Fathers (and, of course, Calvin). All of these points are
present in his article, Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father, though my
numbering does not correspond directly with Grudems.
I would, though, like to quickly restate Grudems overarching claim before listing the 13 points. I will
then give some general notes of introduction to the Patristic quotes themselves.
In his own words, from Biblical Evidence:
God the Father has eternally had a role of leadership, initiation, and primary authority among the
members of the Trinity, and [] the Son has eternally been subject to the Fathers authority.
So zealous is he in this position that he is even careful not to endorse language of fellow travelers that
might allow for the loss of any idea of greater authority belonging to the Father, or such language that
can too easily be understood in a way that avoids any idea of the Son joyously submitting to the
authority of the Father. (Biblical Evidence)
His specific target in the article are those who would claim that Christs submission was only in the
economy of His flesh, or what he calls the temporary submission view. He believes this temporary
submission view to be inconsistent with the Bible, and more to our purposes, inconsistent with nearly
the entire history of orthodoxy, post-Nicea. He writes in, Whose Position on the Trinity is Really New,
Do Goligher and Trueman think that the Nicene fathers themselves were advocating belief in a
different God than that taught in Scripture, and had moved into unorthodoxy, and were denying the
very Nicene Creed that they authored? This seems highly unlikely, but then they also claim that we
deny the very things that we affirm, so it is difficult to know what they would say about the Nicene
fathers.
I could go on, but there is no need at this point to multiply quotations from theologians throughout
the history of the church and many others more recently. If Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, CBMW, and
the Gospel Coalition are outside the bounds of Trinitarian orthodoxy, then so are John Frame, Louis
Berkhof, A. H. Strong, Charles Hodge, John Calvin, and even the Nicene fathers themselves! At this
point, their accusation simply collapses into nonsense.
That Truman and Gholiger would so plainly contradict the testimony of the Nicene Fathers themselves is
truly surprising to Grudem. As I hope to show how utterly surprising his surprise is, given the actual
words of the Nicene Fathers, let us move on to the 13 points he uses as evidence for his principle claim.
1. The names Father and Son indicate a relation of authority and submission.
2. Prior to Creation and Incarnation, in eternity past, the Son was in obedience to the Fathers
authority in the eternal councils of the Trinity.
3. The Father Created through the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the
authority of the Father.
4. The Father sent the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the authority of the
Father.
5. That the incarnate Son was in submission to the will of the Father on earth is part of a larger
pattern of the Sons eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
6. The priestly intercessory work of the Son shows that He is eternally subject to the authority of
the Father.
7. The Son had to receive authority delegated from the Father in order to send the Spirit,
indicating His eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
8. The Son received revelation by authority from the Father and relayed it in submission.
9. Upon the Sons ascension, He is seated at the Fathers right hand, a place of secondary authority
delegated by the Father.
10. The Son receives authority over the Nations only as delegated by the Father, demonstrating His
eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
11. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul teaches that the Son will be eternally subjected to the Father,
submitting to His authority.
12. The works and operations of God are not always indivisible.
13. The order of working and operations within the Trinity demonstrates an eternal relation of
submission to authority between the Father and the Son.
I have organized the Patristic quotes below around these 13 points, using them as section headers, and
have added just below each some quotes from Grudem (in italics) to keep in mind as we read through
the Fathers. The Patristic quotes themselves are then sub-ordered such that a critic can easily say, e.g.,
hey, quote 5.d. has nothing to do with the subject! And I can then easily respond.
The reader will note that there is tremendous conceptual and thematic overlap among the quotations
from point to point, but this is of course to be expected as the Fathers were not responding to Grudem,
but rather their words culled from various and sundry disputations and orations given to their
contemporary opponents. To be sure, each block of quotations do speak plainly to the Grudem point at
the sections head, but the reader should see that almost every quote also has relevance to the other
points as well and should freely be associated wherever applicable to build the overall picture.
I also presume that the fact that these words are culled from other disputes, not ESS/EFS/ERAS in
particular, will be the first bone of contention with this omnibus of quotes; the Fathers, after all, are
responding to the likes of the heretic Eunomious, who Grudem clearly is not. But we need only employ
the same hermeneutic we use when putting any ancient text in service of our own controversies: we
abstract and distill the principle used by the ancient author to combat his ancient opponents. For
example, Paul pulls the principle, the just shall live by faith, from the prophet Habakkuk who is, in his
context, waiting on the word of the Lord and trusting in the coming salvation of God in His
righteousness, in opposition to a ruthless king who trusts only in his own strength and might. Paul then
uses this principle against the Judaizers (and others) of his day. The Reformers than quote Paul against
Rome in their day and we in turn quote Habbakuk, Paul, and the Reformers to combat Gospel
opponents today. Habakkuks opponent was not Pauls opponent was not the Reformers opponent was
not our opponent, but the distilled principle can be applied to many contexts of controversy.
Another example, Augustine in On the Trinity, Bk 2, opposes those who would say that the Son and the
Spirit are created entities. They used as argument that the Sons glory is derived from the Father and
that the Spirits glory is derived from the Son; therefore the Fathers glory is greater than either the Son
or the Spirit; therefore they are lesser beings than the Father. Augustine counters them by arguing
(successfully) that derived glory does not equate to lesser glory when the subjects are one in essence.
This is a principle that can plainly be mustered in service of confronting errors other than just that of
Augustines specific contemporary opponents. I would go even further and argue that after being
steeped in the words and concepts of these Fathers, one can even formulate arguments quite in the
spirit and style of their own in order to confront concepts of much later origin. I have heard many times
that the pactum solutis is ground for assuming that the Father in eternity had the role of initiation,
planning, and authority and that the Son submitted in eternity to perform His arranged task within the
economy of salvation. In response I can easily imagine the Pro-Nicene Fathers responding with
something like, If the Father proposed the plan, by what wisdom did He propose? By the Wisdom, His
Son. By what word did He propose? By the Word, His Son. In short, by what will did He propose? By the
will of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The reader will further notice that the largest section of Patristic quotes falls under point #5, even
though Grudem spends the least amount of time on this in his writings. The reason is that the most
fundamental principle shot through all of the Pro-Nicene writings is that we must never confuse
Scriptural passages which speak of the Son in His flesh as speaking of the Son in His eternal Godhead, or
vice versa. This error of confounding, they believed, was the source of the vast majority of Trinitarian
3
errors. In fact, if we come away from these Patristic quotes with nothing more than the clarity of this
interpretive distinction impressed upon our minds, we will be in a great position to ameliorate Grudems
shock and surprise at being questioned on Nicene Orthodoxy. Every mention of submission to authority,
obedience to command, subordination, etc., is explicitly connected to the Son in His flesh and rigorously
barred from application to the Son in eternity, even after the ascension.
And last, I encourage every reader to please assess these Patristic quotes in their wider context. I have
given as much context, I believe, as needed to make sense of the statements; but the full arguments of
these great men, from the Scripture and good and necessary consequences, are truly quite convincing in
their own right.
All Patristic quotes can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/
All quotes from Chrysostoms Homilies and Calvins Commentaries can be found here:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/
All quotes from Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion can be found here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/
All Grudem quotes, above and below, can be found in the following:
Systematic Theology: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/trinity-wayne-grudem
Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father:
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Biblical-evidence-for-theeternal-submission-of-the-Son-to-the-Father.pdf
Whose Position on the Trinity is Really New: http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-positionon-the-trinity-is-really-new/
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. The names Father and Son indicate a relation of authority and submission.
Therefore, what is everywhere true of a father-son relationship in the biblical world, and is not
contradicted by any other passages of Scripture, surely should be applied to the relationship between the
Father and Son in the Trinity. The names Father and Son represent an eternal difference in the roles of
the Father and the Son.
The Father has a leadership and authority role that the Son does not have, and the Son submits to the
Fathers leadership in a way that the Father does not submit to the Son.
The eternal names Father and Son therefore give a significant indication of eternal authority and
submission among the members of the Trinity. (Biblical Evidence)
He quotes approvingly, Eternal generation . is the phrase used to denote the inter-Trinitarian
relationship between the Father and the Son as is taught by the Bible. Generation makes it plain that
there is a divine sonship prior to the incarnation (cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4:9), that there is thus a distinction
of persons within the one Godhead (John 5:26), and that between these persons there is a superiority
4
and subordination of order (cf. John 5:19; 8:28). Eternal reinforces the fact that the generation is not
merely economic (i.e. for the purpose of human salvation as in the incarnation, cf. Luke 1:35), but
essential, and that as such it cannot be construed in the categories of natural or human generation.[]
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Eternal Generation, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 368).(Whose Position)
[]if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally Father
and the Son is not eternally Son. This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.
(Systematic, Ch. 14)
be not Father, He must be subject? If it had been demonstrated that Father and despot were terms identical in
meaning, it would no doubt have followed that, as absolute sovereignty was part of the conception of the Father,
we should affirm that the Spirit is subject to Him Who surpassed Him in respect of authority. But if by Father is
implied merely His relation to the Son, and no conception of absolute sovereignty or authority is involved by the
use of the word, how does it follow, from the fact that the Spirit is not the Father of the Son, that the Spirit is
subject to the Father?
of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation "Spirit of God" or
"Spirit of Jehovah," which meets us frequently in the Old Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there
either of derivation or of subordination, but is just the executive name of God --- the designation of God from the
point of view of His activity - and imports accordingly identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in
passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially different meaning. It
happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal
definitions of the two terms "Son" and "Spirit," and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion of equality or
sameness. In Jn. v.18 we read: 'On this account, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only
did he break the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.' The point lies, of
course, in the adjective "own." Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God "his own Father," that is, to use the terms
"Father" and "Son" not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God's son, but in the real sense. And
this was understood to be claiming to be all that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in
that sense; to be God's own Son was to be exactly like God, to be "equal with God." Similarly, we read in I Cor. ii.
10,11:' For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a
man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.' Here
the Spirit appears as the substrate of the Divine self-consciousness, the principle of God's knowledge of Himself:
He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human
life, the very life of man itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be supposed, then, to be
subordinate to God, or to derive His Being from God? If, however, the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the
Father in modes of subsistence and their derivation from the Father are not implicates of tbeir designation as Son
and Spirit, it will be hard to find in the New Testament compelling evidence of their subordination and derivation.]
2. Prior to Creation and Incarnation, in eternity past, the Son was in obedience to the Fathers
authority in the eternal councils of the Trinity.
Therefore at least seven passages of Scripture indicate that prior to creation the Son was eternally
subject to the planning and authority of the Father with regard to our salvation [].
But both of these [Ps. 2:7 and Phil. 2:8] have also been commonly understood to refer to a new kind of
obedience that Jesus entered into as the God-man, an Incarnational obedience that was consistent
with the eternal pattern of obedience that he had shown to his Father for all eternity. Neither of these
texts explicitly says that the Son for the first time became obedient. Neither text says that the Son had
not previously been obedient to the Father. (Biblical Evidence)
things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. Romans 8:37 But in a phrase of this kind there is
no suggestion of any lowly and subordinate ministry, but rather of the succour rendered in the power of his
might. Ephesians 6:10 For He Himself has bound the strong man and spoiled his goods, that is, us men, whom our
enemy had abused in every evil activity, and made vessels meet for the Master's use 2 Timothy 2:21 us who have
been perfected for every work through the making ready of that part of us which is in our own control. Thus we
have had our approach to the Father through Him, being translated from the power of darkness to be partakers of
the inheritance of the saints in light. Colossians 1:12-13 We must not, however, regard the conomy through the
Son as a compulsory and subordinate ministration resulting from the low estate of a slave, but rather the
voluntary solicitude working effectually for His own creation in goodness and in pity, according to the will of God
the Father.
It will follow that we should next in order point out the character of the provision of blessings bestowed on us by
the Father through him. Inasmuch as all created nature, both this visible world and all that is conceived of in
the mind, cannot hold together without the care and providence of God, the Creator Word, the Only begotten
God, apportioning His succour according to the measure of the needs of each, distributes mercies various and
manifold on account of the many kinds and characters of the recipients of His bounty, but appropriate to the
necessities of individual requirements. Those that are confined in the darkness of ignorance He enlightens: for this
reason He is true Light. []We are not to suppose that He used assistance in His action, or yet was entrusted with
the ministry of each individual work by detailed commission, a condition distinctly menial and quite inadequate to
the divine dignity. Rather was the Word full of His Father's excellences; He shines forth from the Father, and does
all things according to the likeness of Him that begot Him. For if in essence He is without variation, so also is He
without variation in power. And of those whose power is equal, the operation also is in all ways equal. And Christ is
the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24[.]
20. When then He says, I have not spoken of myself, John 12:49 and again, As the Father said unto me, so I
speak, John 12:50 and The word which you hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me, John 14:24 and in
another place, As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do, John 14:31 it is not because He lacks deliberate
purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs
language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the
Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a commandment a peremptory mandate delivered by
organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather,
in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing
without note of time from Father to Son. []And are we to suppose that the wisdom ofGod, the Maker of
all creation, He who is eternally perfect, who is wise, without a teacher, the Power of God, in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, needs piecemeal instruction to mark out the manner and measure of His
operations?
2.b. St. Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk. 5, Ch. XIV.164
But if they think of this as the subjection of the Son, namely, that the Father makes all things in union with His will,
let them learn that this is really a proof of inseparable power. For the unity of Their will is one that began not in
time, but ever existed. But where there is a constant unity of will, there can be no weakness of temporal
subjection. For if He were made subject through His nature, He would always remain in subjection; but since He is
said to be made subject in time, that subjection must be part of an assumed office and not of an everlasting
weakness: especially as the eternal Power of God cannot change His state for a time, neither can the right of ruling
fall to the Father in time. For if the Son ever will be changed in such wise as to be made subject in His Godhead,
then also must God the Father, if ever He shall gain more power, and have the Son in subjection to Himself in His
Godhead, be considered now in the meantime inferior according to your explanation.
3. The Father Created through the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the authority
of the Father.
The Son has always been subject to the authority of the Father: -- In creation, as the Father created
through the Son. The Father planned and directed and the Son carried out the will of the Father.
This is an activity completely distinct from coming to earth to earn our salvation. Yet in this activity the
Father is also the one who initiates and leads, and the Son is the one who carries out the will of the
Father[]. (Biblical Evidence)
10
are contemplated in one goodness three Good beings, nor speak of them in the plural by any of their other
attributes); so neither can we call those who exercise this Divine and superintending power and operation towards
ourselves and all creation, conjointly and inseparably, by their mutual action, three Gods.
[]Since, then, the character of the superintending and beholding power is one, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as
has been said in our previous argument, issuing from the Father as from a spring, brought into operation by the
Son, and perfecting its grace by the power of the Spirit; and since no operation is separated in respect of the
Persons, being fulfilled by each individually apart from that which is joined with Him in our contemplation, but all
providence, care, and superintendence of all, alike of things in the sensible creation and of those of
supramundane nature, and that power which preserves the things which are, and corrects those which are amiss,
and instructs those which are ordered aright, is one, and not three, being, indeed, directed by the Holy Trinity, yet
not severed by a threefold division according to the number of the Persons contemplated in the Faith, so that each
of the acts, contemplated by itself, should be the work of the Father alone, or of the Son peculiarly, or of the Holy
Spirit separately
11
Wisdom, very Word, and very own Power of the Father, very Light, very Truth, very Righteousness, very Virtue, and
in truth His express Image, and Brightness, and Resemblance.
4. The Father sent the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the authority of the
Father.
The Father sending the Son into the world implies an authority that the Father had prior to the Sons
humbling himself and becoming a man. This is because to have the authority to send someone means to
have a greater authority than the one who is sent. He was first sent as Son, and then he obeyed and
humbled himself and came. By that action he showed that he was subject to the authority of the Father
before he came to earth.
But if one sends and the other is sent, then one commands and the other obeys. Yes, the Son represents
the Father, but to be sent by the Father is also to be subject to the Fathers authority. (Biblical
Evidence)
12
13
Philippians 2:7 and Obedient Philippians 2:8 and Gave John 1:12 and Learnt, Hebrews 5:8 and was
commanded, was sent, can do nothing of Himself, either say, or judge, or give, or will. And further these
His ignorance, Mark 13:32subjection, 1 Corinthians 15:28 prayer, Luke 6:12 asking, John 14:16 increase, Luke 2:52
being made perfect. And if you like even more humble than these; such as speak of His sleeping, hungering, being
in an agony, Luke 22:44 and fearing; Hebrews 5:7 or perhaps you would make even His Cross and Death
a matter of reproach to Him. His Resurrection and Ascension I fancy you will leave to me, for in these is found
something to support our position. A good many other things too you might pick up, if you desire to put together
that equivocal and intruded god of yours, Who to us is True God, and equal to the Father. For every one of these
points, taken separately, may very easily, if we go through them one by one, be explained to you in the most
reverent sense, and the stumbling-block of the letter be cleaned away that is, if your stumbling at it be honest,
and not wilfully malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence. What is lofty you are to apply to
the Godhead, and to that Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly to the
composite condition of Him who for your sakes made Himself of no reputation and was Incarnate yes, for it is no
worse thing to say, was made Man, and afterwards was also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these
carnal and groveling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with His Godhead, and you will not
remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come
to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.
5. That the incarnate Son was in submission to the will of the Father on earth is part of a larger
pattern of the Sons eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
I have put the verses here for the sake of completeness, and because I see them as part of a larger
pattern, but I realize that those on the other side of this debate would agree that these verses teach that
Jesus was subject to the Fathers authority while on earth. (Biblical Evidence)
14
Wherefore, although we hold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be called the canonical rule,
as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures, and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of
the same Scriptures, namely, that the Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to
the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in
which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but
less even than Himselfnot than Himself who was, but than Himself who is; because, by taking the form of a
servant, He did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures taught us, to which we have referred
in the former book.
15
being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the
Cross .
16
abideth faithful," for "He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:12, 13.) And in truth this expression, "impossible," is
not declaratory of weakness, but power, power unspeakable. For what He saith is of this kind, that "that Essence
admitteth not such things as these." For just as when we also say, "it is impossible for God to do wrong," we do not
impute to Him any weakness, but confess in Him an unutterable power; so when He also saith, "I can of Mine own
Self do nothing" (v. 30), His meaning is, that "it is impossible, nature admits not, [1022] that I should do anything
contrary to the Father." And that you may learn that this is really what is said, let us, going over what follows, see
whether Christ agreeth with what is said by us, or among you. Thou sayest, that the expression does away with His
Power and His proper Authority, and shows His might to be but weak; but I say, that this proves His Equality, His
unvarying Likeness, [1023] (to the Father,) and the fact that all is done as it were by one Will [1024] and Power and
Might. Let us then enquire of Christ Himself, and see by what He next saith whether He interpreteth these words
according to thy supposition or according to ours. What then saith He?
"For what things soever the Father [1025] doeth these also doeth the Son likewise."
Seest thou how He hath taken away your assertion by the root, and confirmed what is said by us? since, if Christ
doeth nothing of Himself, neither will the Father do anything of Himself, if so be that Christ doeth all things in like
manner to Him. [1026] If this be not the case, another strange conclusion will follow. For He said not, that
"whatsoever things He saw the Father do, He did," but, "except He see the Father doing anything, He doeth it not";
extending His words to all time; now He will, according to you, be continually learning the same things. Seest thou
how exalted is the idea, and that the very humility of the expression compelleth even the most shameless and
unwilling to avoid groveling thoughts, and such as are unsuited to His dignity? For who so wretched and miserable
as to assert, that the Son learneth day by day what He must do? and how can that be true, "Thou art the same, and
Thy years shall not fail"? (Psalm 102:27), or that other, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not
anything made" (c. i. 3); if the Father doeth certain things, and the Son seeth and imitateth Him? Seest thou that
from what was asserted above, and from what was said afterwards, proof is given of His independent Power?
[]Ver. 21. "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He
will."
Yet "can do nothing of Himself" is opposed to "whom He will": since if He quickeneth "whom He will," He can do
something "of Himself," (for to "will" implies power,) but if He "can do nothing of Himself," then He can not
"quicken whom He will." For the expression, "as the Father raiseth up," showeth unvarying resemblance in Power,
and "whom He will," Equality of Authority. Seest thou therefore that "cannot do anything of Himself" is the
expression of One not taking away His (own) authority, but declaring the unvarying resemblance of His Power and
Will (to those of the Father)?
5.g. Leo The Great, Sermon XXIII, On the Feast of Nativity, III.2
The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man. This union, dearly beloved, whereby the Creator is
joined to the creature, Arian blindness could not see with the eyes of intelligence, but, not believing that the Onlybegotten of God was of the same glory and substance with the Father, spoke of the Sons Godhead as inferior,
drawing its arguments from those words which are to be referred to the form of a slave, in respect of which, in
order to show that it belongs to no other or different person in Himself, the same Son of God with the same form,
says, The Father is greater than I , just as He says with the same form, I and my Father are one . For in the
form of a slave, which He took at the end of the ages for our restoration, He is inferior to the Father: but in the
form of God, in which He was before the ages, He is equal to the Father. In His human humiliation He was made
of a woman, made under the Law : in His Divine majesty He abides the Word of God, through whom all things
were made . Accordingly, He Who in the form of God made man, in the form of a slave was made man. For both
natures retain their own proper character without loss: and as the form of God did not do away with the form of a
slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God . And so the mystery of power united to weakness, in
17
respect of the same human nature, allows the Son to be called inferior to the Father: but the Godhead, which is
One in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, excludes all notion of inequality. For the eternity of the
Trinity has nothing temporal, nothing dissimilar in nature: Its will is one, Its substance identical, Its power equal,
and yet there are not three Gods, but one God ; because it is a true and inseparable unity, where there can be no
diversity. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own,
complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what
He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the
Saviour; nor because He partook of mans weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a
slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself,
whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.
18
Jesus therefore answered. We see what I have said, that Christ is so far from vindicating himself from what the
Jews asserted, though they intended it as a calumny, that he maintains more openly that it is true. And first he
insists on this point, that the work which the Jews cavilled at was a divine work, to make them understand that
they must fight with God himself, if they persist in condemning what must necessarily be ascribed to him. This
passage was anciently debated in various ways between the orthodox Fathers and the Arians. Arius inferred from
it that the Son is inferior to the Father, because he can do nothing of himself The Fathers replied that these words
denote nothing more than the distinction of the person, so that it might be known that Christ is from the Father,
and yet that he is not deprived of intrinsic power to act. But both parties were in the wrong. For the discourse does
not relate to the simple Divinity of Christ, and those statements which we shall immediately see do not simply and
of themselves relate to the eternal Word of God, but apply only to the Son of God, so far as he is manifested in the
flesh.
Let us therefore keep Christ before our eyes, as he was sent into the world by the Father to be a Redeemer. The
Jews beheld in him nothing higher than human nature, and, therefore, he argues that, when he cured the diseased
man, he did it not by human power, but by a Divine power which was concealed under his visible flesh. The state
of the case is this. As they, confining their attention to the appearance of the flesh, despised Christ, he bids them
rise higher and look at God. The whole discourse must be referred to this contrast, that they err egregiously who
think that they have to do with a mortal man, when they accuse Christ of works which are truly divine. This is his
reason for affirming so strongly that in this work, there is no difference between him and his Father.
19
he was not appointed to be our guide, merely to raise us to the sphere of the moon or of the sun, but to make us
one with God the Father.
6. The priestly intercessory work of the Son shows that He is eternally subject to the authority of the
Father.
To intercede (entygchan) for someone means to bring requests and appeals on behalf of that person
to a higher authority, such as a governor, king, or emperor (cf. Acts 25:24 which uses the same verb to
say that the Jews petitioned the Roman ruler Festus). Thus Jesus continually, even today, is our great
high priest who brings requests to the Father who is greater in authority[]. (Biblical Evidence)
20
"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest; who is set down on the
right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens: a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle
which the Lord pitched, and not man."
[1.] Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the
lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these
[lowly ones] were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that "He offered up
Himself," and showing Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we have spoken this
is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet
this is not [the office] of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve.
[]"Now" (he says) "of the things which we have spoken this is the sum." By "the sum" is always meant what is
most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly.
[2.] In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the word "minister" of the manhood, observe how
he again indicates it: "For" (ver. 3) (he says) "every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices,
wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."
Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For
the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His
tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest
the other [truth] should overthrow it. Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were
enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also
should have a sacrifice.
21
the Son to submit to it; nor is it just to think it of God. But by what He suffered as Man, He as the Word and the
Counsellor persuades Him to be patient. I think this is the meaning of His Advocacy.
7. The Son had to receive authority delegated from the Father in order to send the Spirit, indicating
His eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
After his ascension to heaven, after his earthly ministry was over, after God highly exalted him, he still
did not have the authority on his own to pour forth the Holy Spirit in new power on the church. He waited
until he received that authority from the Father, and then he sent forth the Holy Spirit in his new, more
powerful work. (Biblical Evidence)
8. The Son received revelation by authority from the Father and relayed it in submission.
The Fathers authority and the Sons submission in Christs receiving revelation from the Father and
giving it to the church[]. (Biblical Evidence)
9. Upon the Sons ascension, He is seated at the Fathers right hand, a place of secondary authority
delegated by the Father.
To sit at the LORDs right hand is not a position of equal authority, for the LORD (Yahweh) is still the
one commanding, still the one subduing enemies. But it is a position of authority second only to the
LORD, the king and ruler of the entire universe. (Biblical Evidence)
22
23
But to say that the Son has no part in His Father's royal throne argues an extraordinary amount of research into
the oracles of God on the part of Eunomius, who, after his extreme devotion to the inspired Scriptures, has not yet
heard, Seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God Colossians 3:1, and many
similar passages, of which it would not be easy to reckon up the number, but which Eunomius has never learned,
and so denies that the Son is enthroned together with the Father. []if, I say, it has been demonstrated that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alike are in a position of power to do what They will, it is impossible to see
what sense there can be in the phrase having lot in His power. For the heir of all things, the maker of the ages , He
Who shines with the Father's glory and expresses in Himself the Father's person, has all things that the Father
Himself has, and is possessor of all His power, not that the right is transferred from the Father to the Son, but that
it at once remains in the Father and resides in the Son.
Mark, I pray you, the absurdity and childishness of this grovelling exposition of his articles of faith. What! He Who
upholds all things by the word of His power Hebrews 1:3, Who says what He wills to be done, and does what He
wills by the very power of that command, He Whose power lags not behind His will and Whose will is the measure
of His power (for He spoke the word and they were made, He commanded and they were created ), He Who made
all things by Himself, and made them consist in Himself , without Whom no existing thing either came into being or
remains in beingHe it is Who waits to obtain His power by some process of allotment! []For He is the one and
only God, the Almighty, he says. If by the title of Almighty he intends the Father, the language he uses is ours, and
no strange language[]. But all that belongs to the Father certainly belongs also to the Son. And Lord of Lords. The
same account will apply to this. And Most High over all the earth. Yes, for whichever of the Three Persons you are
thinking of, He is Most High over all the earth, inasmuch as the oversight of earthly things from on high is exercised
alike by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So, too, with what follows the words above, Most High in the
heavens, Most High in the highest, Heavenly, true in being what He is, and so continuing, true in words, true in
works. Why, all these things the Christian eye discerns alike in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If Eunomius
does assign them to one only of the Persons acknowledged in the creed, let him dare to call Him not true in
words Who has said, I am the Truth , or to call the Spirit of truth not true in words, or let him refuse to give the
title of true in works to Him Who does righteousness and judgment, or to the Spirit Who works all in all as He will.
For if he does not acknowledge that these attributes belong to the Persons delivered to us in the creed, he is
absolutely cancelling the creed of Christians
10. The Son receives authority over the Nations only as delegated by the Father, demonstrating His
eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
The Fathers authority over the Son is seen in how he delegates to the Son authority over the
nations[]. (Biblical Evidence)
24
you were to ascribe it to the Godhead, it would be no absurdity. For you would not so ascribe it as if it were newly
acquired, but as belonging to Him from the beginning by reason of nature, and not as an act of favour.
11. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul teaches that the Son will be eternally subjected to the Father, submitting
to His authority.
Here is an indication of what will happen after the final judgment, when all enemies are destroyed and
we enter into the eternal state. Just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, Paul specifies that it
was always the Father who always had ultimate authority, for it was the Father who put all things in
subjection to the Son all things, that is, but of course not the Father! Paul explicitly says, He is
excepted who put all things in subjection under him. The Father has never been subject to the Son. He
is excepted. And then Paul specifies that once every enemy has been conquered and even death has
been destroyed, the submission of the Son to the Father will not cease even at that time, for even then,
the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may
be all in all (v. 28). The Son has been subject to the authority of the Father since before the foundation
of the world, and here Paul specifies that the Son will continue to be subject to the authority of the
Father forever. (Biblical Evidence)
25
is every one that hangeth on a tree. Cursed He was, for He bore our curses; in subjection, also, for He took upon
Him our subjection, but in the assumption of the form of a servant, not in the glory of God; so that whilst he makes
Himself a partaker of our weakness in the flesh, He makes us partakers of the divine Nature in His power. But
neither in one nor the other have we any natural fellowship with the heavenly Generation of Christ, nor is there
any subjection of the Godhead in Christ. But as the Apostle has said that on Him through that flesh which is the
pledge of our salvation, we sit in heavenly places, though certainly not sitting ourselves, so also He is said to be
subject in us through the assumption of our nature.
26
end of the subjection is then simply that God may be all in all, that no trace of the nature of His earthly body may
remain in Him. Although before this time the two were combined within Him, He must now become God only; not,
however, by casting off the body, but by translating it through subjection; not by losing it through dissolutions, but
by transfiguring it in glory: adding humanity to His divinity, not divesting Himself of divinity by His humanity.
27
were less and much inferior, this fear would never have been entertained by him. Neither is he content with this,
but also adds another thing, as follows. I say, lest any should doubtingly ask, "And what if the Father hath not been
put under Him?' this doth not at all hinder the Son from being the more mighty;" fearing this impious supposition,
because that expression was not sufficient to point out this also, he added, going very much beyond it, "But when
all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected;" showing His great concord
with the Father, and that He is the principle of all other good things and the first Cause, who hath begotten One so
great in power and in achievements.
[]And that thou mayest learn that this is the reason of the things spoken, I would ask thee this question: Doth an
additional "subjection" at that time befal the Son? And how can this be other than impious and unworthy of God?
For the greatest subjection and obedience is this, that He who is God took the form of a servant. How then will He
be "subjected?" Seest thou, that to take away the impious notion, he used this expression? and this too in a
suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one
acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, "as the Father raiseth up, even so
He, whom He will?" (John 5:21.) How are "all things that the Father hath His," and all that He hath, the Father's?
(John 16:15.) For these phrases indicate to us an authority exactly measured by [282] that of Him that begat Him.
28
27 For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says, all things are put in subjection, it is
plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.28 When all things are subjected to him, then
the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
All things put under him, except him who put all things under him. He insists upon two things -- first, that all things
must be brought under subjection to Christ before he restores to the Father the dominion of the world, and
secondly, that the Father has given all things into the hands of his Son in such a way as to retain the principal right
in his own hands. From the former of these it follows, that the hour of the last judgment is not yet come -- from
the second, that Christ is now the medium between us and the Father in such a way as to bring us at length to him.
Hence he immediately infers as follows: After he shall have subjected all things to him, then shall the Son subject
himself to the Father. "Let us wait patiently until Christ shall vanquish all his enemies, and shall bring us, along with
himself, under the dominion of God, that the kingdom of God may in every respect be accomplished in us."
This statement, however, is at first view at variance with what we read in various passages of Scripture respecting
the eternity of Christ's kingdom. For how will these things correspond -- Of his kingdom there will be no end,
(Daniel 7:14, 27; Luke 1:33; 2 Peter 1:11,) and He himself shall be subjected? The solution of this question will open
up Paul's meaning more clearly. In the first place, it must be observed, that all power was delivered over to Christ,
inasmuch as he was manifested in the flesh. It is true that such distinguished majesty would not correspond with a
mere man, but, notwithstanding, the Father has exalted him in the same nature in which he was abased, and has
given, him a name, before which every knee must bow, etc. (Philippians 2:9, 10.)
Farther, it must be observed, that he has been appointed Lord and highest King, so as to be as it were the Father's
Vicegerent in the government of the world -- not that he is employed and the Father unemployed (for how could
that be, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and counsel of the Father, is of one essence with him, and is therefore
himself God?) But the reason why the Scripture testifies, that Christ now holds dominion over the heaven and the
earth in the room of the Father is -- that we may not think that there is any other governor, lord, protector, or
judge of the dead and living, but may fix our contemplation on him alone. We acknowledge, it is true, God as the
ruler, but it is in the face of the man Christ. But Christ will then restore the kingdom which he has received, that we
may cleave wholly to God. [59] Nor will he in this way resign the kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his
humanity to his glorious divinity, because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our infirmity now
keeps us back. Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father, because the vail being then removed, we shall
openly behold God reigning in his majesty, and Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back
from a closer view of God.
12. The works and operations of God are not always indivisible.
Of course it is true that both the Father and the Son are involved in sending the Spirit into the world and
in judging the world. But this simply proves that some activities are done by more than one person. It
does not prove that all activities are done by all the persons at the same time. For example, the Father
sends the Son into the world. But this is not an activity where we could say that all three persons do
these actions. (Biblical Evidence)
29
variation in the nature. If it were indeed possible for the divine nature to be contemplated in itself; could what is
proper to it and what is foreign to it be discovered by means of visible things; we should then certainly stand in no
need of words or other tokens to lead us to the apprehension of the object of the enquiry. But the divine nature is
too exalted to be perceived as objects of enquiry are perceived, and about things which are beyond our knowledge
we reason on probable evidence. We are therefore of necessity guided in the investigation of the divine nature by
its operations. Suppose we observe the operations of the Father, of the Son, of the Holy Ghost, to be different
from one another, we shall then conjecture, from the diversity of the operations that the operating natures are
also different. For it is impossible that things which are distinct, as regards their nature, should be associated as
regards the form of their operations; fire does not freeze; ice does not warm; difference of natures implies
difference of the operations proceeding from them. Grant, then, that we perceive the operation of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost to be one and the same, in no respect showing difference or variation; from this identity of operation
we necessarily infer the unity of the nature.
30
be observed whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply intimated that He is of the Father, in which words not His
inequality but His birth is declared.
12.d.
Gregory of Nyssa, On Not Three Gods
But in the case of the divine nature we do not learn that the Father does anything by himself in which the Son does
not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit.
13. The order of working and operations within the Trinity demonstrates an eternal relation of
submission to authority between the Father and the Son.
He quotes Bruce Ware approvingly: We agree that the actions of any one divine person involve the
other Trinitarian persons in corresponding ways. But whenever Scripture specifies actions that occur
between two or more members of the Trinity, the position of greater authority is always held by the
Father, while the position of submission to that authority is always held by the Son and the Spirit. This
principle is simply inviolable in Scripture. (Whose Position)
Here is the same pattern: All things (that is, the entire universe) come from the Father (who directs
and initiates) and through the Son (who carries out the will of the Father). This was the pattern in
planning salvation prior to creation, and this is also the pattern in the process of creating the world.
(Biblical Evidence)
Each member of the Trinity has distinct roles or functions. Differences in roles and authority between
the members of the Trinity are thus completely consistent with equal importance, personhood, and
deity. (Systematic, Ch. 14)
31
The Son, according to them, is not together with the Father, but after the Father. Hence it follows that glory should
be ascribed to the Father through him, but not with him; inasmuch as with him expresses equality of dignity,
while through him denotes subordination. They further assert that the Spirit is not to be ranked along with the
Father and the Son, but under the Son and the Father; not coordinated, but subordinated; not connumerated,
but subnumerated.
32
weigh; those which are by nature continuous we apprehend by measure; to those which are divided we apply
number (with the exception of those which on account of their fineness are measured); while heavy objects are
distinguished by the inclination of the balance. It does not however follow that, because we have invented for our
convenience symbols to help us to arrive at the knowledge of quantity, we have therefore changed the nature of
the things signified. We do not speak of weighing under one another things which are weighed, even though one
be gold and the other tin; nor yet do we measure under things that are measured; and so in the same way we will
not number under things which are numbered. And if none of the rest of things admits of sub-numeration how can
they allege that the Spirit ought to be subnumerated? Labouring as they do under heathen unsoundness,
they imagine that things which are inferior, either by grade of rank or subjection of substance, ought to
be subnumerated.
33
34