You asked:

I am interested to better understand the pre-incarnate Jesus in the OT. How did you come to the conclusion that He is refered to as ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Thanks

Thanks for asking! I could fill this blog with proofs that the preincarnate Jesus is the LORD of hosts from the OT. However here is just a few:

Isa 6:5 Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

The LORD of hosts is also called the “arm of the LORD” (Isaiah 53:1). In John 12, John tells us that the one whom Isaiah saw was Jesus:

Joh 12:37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
Joh 12:38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?”
Joh 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”
Joh 12:41 These things Isaiah said ,B>because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

Whose glory did Isaiah see? The glory that Isaiah saw was the glory of the preincarnate Jesus as the LORD of hosts!

Israel reveals that there are two who are called the first and the last and the one is called the LORD of hosts:

Isa 44:6 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Just one last one for this post:

Isa 8:13 “It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.
Isa 8:14 “Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Who does the NT say is a rock to stumble over? I won’t give you the references here, but I will say that a study of the OT on the LORD of hosts and the NT references that are linked to some of the passages, reveals a great deal about the nature of the prehuman Jesus.

I have documented much more in my DVD “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future” and I also deal with all the hard passages of scripture that appear to make Jesus subordinate into Eternity. It is a very well-researched DVD and it will really make you think about things you never saw in the passages before.

I love this paragraph in the article…

“Correspondingly, the word “subordination” has taken on the universal connotation of oppression in feminist circles.9 As has been demonstrated above, however, this negative stereotype fails to recognize that there are different types of subordination, including the kind of subordination where head and subordinate are of equal worth and dignity while one person voluntarily submits to the head for a greater cause. If a particular goal is to be attained in a given community, there will often be a need for certain individuals to subordinate themselves voluntarily to others for the accomplishment of a greater goal. But this does not mean that the person who submits is inferior in value or worth.”

It is a great example of interchanging “submission” and “subordination”. There is the manipulation of the word “subordination” to suggest there is a type of subordination that is actually submission! Of course there is no evidence given to support this loose use of words!

You said, “From what i am hearing from both sides, i really don’t think there is a great gap between the two camps in realtion to the trinity except for word usage.”

I think the word usage is not only important, I think CBMW are very purposeful with the words they use (as egals are) and that this reflects a fundamental difference between both groups with the way we view the Trinity and therefore marriage relationships.

Underneath the quote I gave earlier of the doctrine of ESS as supplied on the CBMW website it says,

“To quote Ware in summary, “There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son.”"

As has been mentioned earlier, the words being used mean that there is a hierarchy, a fundamental inequality within the Trinity. I do not have an issue with the use of the word “submission”, but “authority-submission” is NOT, I believe, a reflection of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

I know Grudem understands the importance of words and how they are used. This can be seen by his writings on “one another”, “headship” etc. The way that he twists and manipulates data regarding the use of these words suggests that he knows very well the importance of words and terms in any debate.

Perhaps the reason for thinking we sound similar is because the egal perspective actually makes Biblical sense, but you still want to hold onto the comp perspective?

I am interested to better understand the pre-incarnate Jesus in the OT. How did you come to the conclusion that He is refered to as ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ Thanks

From what i have heard from Piper when he preaches, it doesn’t seem to fit with how you all explain alot of the CBMW doctrine. Admittedly i dont know alot of CBMW stuff specifically, but perhaps people haven’t understood what they say properly or they don’t explain it properly-perhaps both. But i have never heard Piper claim that Jesus is any less God or anything close to that. From what i am hearing from both sides, i really don’t think there is a great gap between the two camps in realtion to the trinity except for word usage. But perhaps i am a fool!

I hope that you take the time to rethink your position on the Trinity. The teaching that a Divine Person’s will can be subordinated and never exercised for all of eternity and His authority subordinated and never exercised for all of eternity and still be said to be “equal” is about as far away from reality as you can get. It is not the truth. This false teaching has so pervaded the complementarian movement that it has turned a secondary issue into a primary one because the drive to keep women subordinated to men has brought the comp movement to the brink of heresy. Those who are responsible for oversight need to pay attention and do their work to stop the heresy in its tracks.

Now for a little Canadian soccer analogies:

I trust that you are not “over” the edge on this heretical teaching and not “out” of touch with the real teaching of the eternal equality of the LORD of hosts in the Triune Godhead.

From your soccer buddy who has just found the goal posts and put them back in place

You said:

There is no doubt that the term ’subordination’ is an awkward term to use. It encourages great misunderstanding between believers, but unfortunately i think it is the best term to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. If anyone has any better terminology that would be great.

The Bible never says that the “relationship” between the Father and the Son is one of “subordination”. Rather it is a relation of love. That is the proper term.

John 3:35 “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.

Notice here that the relationship is “love” and this love is shown by the Father giving “all things” into the Son’s hand.

John 5:20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
John 5:21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
John 5:22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
John 5:23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Notice here again that the relationship is “love” not subordination. There is an equality of works here and the reason that the Father holds back and has given all judgment into the hands of the Son is so that the Son will have equal honor with the Father. This relationship is about love and the unity is shown through equality, equal works and equal honor.

I truly believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish the Father’s will- John 17 for example. Likewise i truly believe that Jesus, Spirit and Father are one in essence. I believe that all three members play different roles/functions in creation/revelation and salvation. I think there is good biblical evidence to come to this conclusion of the Trinity.

gab, the Father’s will is not different than the Word of God (preincarnate Jesus) from Eternity Past. They have the same will. None of them have to give up their will to allow the other will to function since their wills are exactly the same. Their difference does not come through function but through their relationship.

I would welcome you to do a study of the Old Testament into the Biblical term for the Son. He is called the LORD of hosts. This is what I do for the research on my DVD “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future”. When I was done I showed my research to my pastor and he wrote “Wow!” all over my script. He said that he had never seen Jesus like this before. Look at the authority of the LORD of hosts, His Will, His honor and His works. I think you will be like I was and my pastor was when we saw it. It is an amazing research project to see the prehuman Jesus in the OT. I do not believe that anyone can see “subordination” after doing a project like that! It really was that amazing to me.

Now i also believe that the covenant of marriage is to be a reflection of the relationship between Father-Son, Son- Church, and husband to wife.

Ther are several problems with this. First is that the Father in eternity past never takes authority over the LORD of hosts. Secondly where is the analogy of the Holy Spirit in marriage? God is three not two. But I do agree that the Son’s relationship to the Church is like the perfect marriage. The husband should readily give up of himself for the benefit of his wife.

I do not think that a husband is resposible for his wifes sins/salvation but is the ‘leader’ (if i can use that term) of the relationship, and as such will be held accountable for it.

gab, this is tradition. It is not Scripture. Did God hold Adam responsible for his wife’s sin? No. In no marriage relationship did God ever hold a man responsible for his wife or solely responsible for their relationship. This is the comp teaching that has harmed many marriages. Rather a man should be taught that he is responsible to love his wife with a sacrificial, unselfish love. If that is the goal ahead of him instead of having sole responsibility for their relationship, it will be far better for the marriage.

Of course the dynamics of this relationship are not a ‘lord it over’ type but a loving concern for his wifes spiritual walk with the Lord.

The problem with this is that the man alone is the sole of judge of what is right. He has the authority and if he believes his heart is right, he can do anything he wants to. A one-flesh unity and a work toward unity in heart with mutual respect and honor is the way God made us to be as man and wife. When authority is placed within that mix, we are at risk for one person to take over another person and harm is along that path.

I hope this helps. The Trinity is at the core of our beliefs and it is something that we should give a great deal of time to understanding what is Biblical and what is outside of the Biblical teaching.

You said:

Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will not because he was any less God, but precisely because He is God.

Jesus is obedient to the Father’s will because he is the human Son sent to do the Father’s will. Philippians 2 talks about Jesus’ humility in becoming like us. If we mix things up and say that Jesus’ obedience is His being God then obedience must be an attribute of God. Who does God obey? God doesn’t obey us. God also doesn’t obey Himself since there is a united will in the Trinity. There is no obedience necessary when God’s will is one. So Jesus’ obedience is showing us the obedience of the perfect man. Jesus is the last Adam – the first one disobeyed but Jesus, the last Adam and the perfect one, obeyed perfectly.

But His function in the Triune God was to be sent by the Father to redeem fallen man.

gab, may I respectfully say that this is not the “function” of the Word in the Triune God? The function of the prehuman Jesus in the Triune God was honor, glory, power, might, authority just the same as was the Father’s and the Holy Spirit’s. It was in his humanity that he functioned as the kinsman Redeemer.

The question one may ask, is why was Jesus sent by the Father if Jesus is equal to the Father in every way? The answer is that the sending of the Son by the Father was to show his connection with the Father as His source of origin as to His humanity. It doesn’t show His inequality at all. Jesus explained the sending this way:

John 5:23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Do you see that the sending of the human Son is to bring equal honor? If you do a research project to look up every verse where it is mentioned that the Father has sent Jesus, you will see that there is always a connection of equality with the Father. It is never used to subordinate the Son in the Trinity.

Just because a woman is subordinate to her husband does not make her any less of a human or important in the eyes of God. It is merely that men and women have different functions in God’s created world.

God is not a respecter of persons so we are all equal in the eyes of God. However in the eyes of mankind a subordinate is not equal at all. The teaching of the subordination of women has harmed many. While some women may not have experienced harm because they actually live in their marriages an egalitarian-styled marriage where the husband does not live out his authority over his wife, where the true comp marriage is lived out, the woman can receive great harm. I know because I used to be a comp. My husband and I did not live an egalitarian marriage. We lived true to form to the only model that we knew. I was his subordinate and he took his authority over me. He believed that God held him accountable for what I did and so he took his authority to make me the kind of woman he thought I should be. He did it because he loved me. In the end he was frustrated because he couldn’t make me perfect and I no longer knew who I was. I was no longer an individual person but a semi-fixed clone who didn’t quite ever measure up. When we gave that up and he understood that he was no longer responsible for me, he was able to lighten up and let me be a person. I then was able to mature and grow in the way God intended. You see God is the one who is responsible to work with us for maturity. A husband cannot take his authority to mature his wife. God has not granted him that authority and submission that is demanded is never sweet.

Now that we live as egalitarians, we are very, very happy. We work together and when we disagree we work on that. It is my gift that I give him when I submit to serve him. It is his gift to me when he sets aside his own priorities and desires and gives me what I need or ask for. We meet each other’s needs and neither one of us requires the other to sacrifice of submit. This way our sacrifice or submission is a true gift that is not coerced or demanded or required. It is a wonderful that each of us has given to the other with true joy. Neither one of us would ever go back to the authority model. For those who live it out as true authority of one person over another, it doesn’t work. It wasn’t meant to work that way because God created male and female to work and bond together. The other model was created on the day sin entered the world and it has harmed both men and women since that time.

I do not see the subordination of the Son as a heresy.

It isn’t a heresy if you see the subordination as meaning submission that is not required but given as a gift and if it is about the humanity of Jesus. But the teaching is not just about subordination, but about eternity. The ESS teaching is that in the Trinity the Son has a will that is different than the Father’s and so the Son’s will has not been exercised from eternity. Only the Father’s will is exercised in ESS and the Son’s will is always subordinate and unexercised. This is heresy as it makes the Son as a subordinate Being. You cannot have an eternally subordinated will that is never exercised and say that they are equal in nature. It just doesn’t work that way.

I see the heresy where the claim is made that each part is the same but is merely a different ‘face’ of God.

If one means by this that there is only one person in the Godhead who appears as the Father in the past, as the Son during the incarnation and as the Spirit now, then yes, this is heresy. However if one means that the three persons are the same in nature, in power, in authority and work together in unity doing the one act, then no, it is not a heresy.

It is biblically clear how all three persons of the Trinity have different functions or roles while still all equally being God.

No, this is not true. The Scriptures show us that the three act in unity in the same role. For example, whose “role” was it to be the Creator? Whose “role” was it to raise Jesus from the dead? Whose “role” is it to be the Savior?

You see, the Scriptures clearly point to all three in the “role” as the one Creator. All three are said to have raised Jesus from the dead. All three are said to be the Savior. The teaching that there are “role” differences in the Trinity is a new addition to the doctrine of the Trinity and came into the church in the early 1970′s. From this entrance into the church has now come the fruit of the ESS. There are those now teaching that it is only the Father’s “role” to be prayed to and to answer prayer. No longer is Jesus equal in authority to answer prayer. This is heresy. And it has come into full bloom through the false teaching that Jesus is not equal in authority with the Father and that the Father deserves the highest praise and honor and Jesus a lesser praise and honor.

It is so wonderful to have a place to express our thoughts and to passionately contend for the truth. This is a very important subject and one that deserves our attention.

More later, friends.

We have already seen how well “equal but different” worked out with racial policies, it was simply a cover for racism.

When I see some one or some group NOT being plainspeaking, I wonder why. This clearly begins with the very name they invented to call themselves when there already were existing words to describe what they believe.