The following is the first in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here. First up, Peter Barnes presents a view of the question of women as elders.
For over 1900 years most of the Church – in whatever form – was quite consistent in upholding that its leadership here on earth was to be male. There could be discussions around the edges but not too many dissented from the conclusion that Christ never intended female leadership of His body. Nowadays, such an outlook is often despised as archaic and even heretical – if there is still such a thing as heresy. It is therefore worth raising the question again: What does the Scripture say on this issue?
The Bible says that men and women are both created in the image of God (Gen.1:27). In some way all human beings are like God, and resemble God. Furthermore, in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal.3:28). One of the sayings of Mohammed is: ‘I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women.’ We do not read anything like that in the Christian Scriptures.
Women have the most precious task of teaching children (Prov.1:8; 2 Tim.1:5; 3:15) – as do men, of course. Women can teach other women (Tit.2:3-4), and are to manage their own households (1 Tim.5:14). They can become deacons, and help to look after people and so reflect something of Christ’s ministry in becoming a servant (Rom.16:1-2). There is nothing wrong with a woman teaching a man in an informal situation (Acts 18:24-26). Do not be afraid of correcting a sermon at the church door!
Oneness, however, is not a synonym for sameness. Both Testaments tell of women prophets (Ex.15:20; 2 Kings 22:14-15; Isa. 8:3; Acts 2:36; 21:9). Yet in the Old Testament, elders and priests had to be male (Ex.18:21, 25; 29:1-37; Num.11:16-30). In the home, too, the Bible grants the headship to the husband and father, not to the wife and mother (Eph.5:22-24; Col.3:18; Tit.2:5; 1 Pet.3:1). A pattern emerges that the exceptional office of prophet is open to women, but the ordinary offices of the Church are not.
The apostle Paul declares that in the church, women cannot have authority over men nor teach them in an official capacity (1 Tim.2:11-12). These are the very functions that a church elder (or presbyter) has to undertake. Paul does not close the eldership to women on the grounds of culture (e.g. the ancient world was sexist) or education (e.g. women in the ancient world were uneducated). Nor does he forbid women to domineer over men or to teach heresy to men. He simply forbids them to rule over men and to teach men. This prohibition is grounded in the twin facts that God created Adam before Eve, and that Eve fell into sin first. These have consequences for us today (1 Tim.2:13-14).
In general terms, ‘the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man’ (1 Cor.11:3). This does not imply inferiority at all. Christ was subject to Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51), yet He was their Lord and God! The fact that Christ and the Father are one in essence does not mean that they are one in function. The Father sends the Son into the world, not vice versa. Similarly, male and female are one in essence, but that does not mean one in function. Men do not give birth to children, and women ought not to serve in the front lines of battle in the armed forces. When society is thinking more clearly, men are more protective yet women are more caring. A policy of affirmative action in politics and industry flies in the face of reality.
So overwhelming and so clear is the biblical teaching on this subject that Wayne Grudem asserts that so-called evangelical feminism is in fact ‘a new path into liberalism’. This viewpoint has been attacked as a declaration of civil war, as irrelevant and dishonest, as upholding a Catholic view of authority, and as a distraction of the Church from its true mission. But maybe it just seeks to reflect the mind of God Himself.
Peter Barnes is the minister at Revesby Presbyterian Church. Read more about our contributors here.
>> Next post on September 4th – “What is Submission?”, Dave Woolcott.
Related posts:
- Women and Men: Equal but sometimes Different – Blog Conference Post #5
- Final Thoughts for the Continuing Discussion – Blog Conference Post #7
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Universal sin or an Ephesian situation? – Blog Conference Post #4
- Female Teaching – Blog Conference Post #6
- What is Submission? – Ephesians 5:21-33 – Blog Conference Post #2
Under point #5 Peter says:
How is it “gracious” to women to accuse them of sin when Scripture does not say that teaching the bible to men is a sin?
You said:
Would you please show me how my view of the authority of scripture and the complete inspiration of the Scripture is undermined by my view?
Can you please show me where the husband is said to be the only authority in the home? Can you please show me from the Scriptures where the husband is told to take authority over his wife? Can you please show me where the imaginary authority over the wife is “dislocated”? Seems to me that it wasn’t located in the first place
Cheryl seems to have taken my reference to the avalanche in Scripture to heart, and concluded that only an avalanche of blogs will do in reply. Thankfully we cannot measure decibels on blogs. If we all take a deep breath and wade through the Scriptures point by point, I think they are quite clear. Don’t muddy the waters, duckie. The church was not mistaken for 1950 years. It may have been heavy-handed and overdone it at times, but at least it could read.
Peter goes on with his list:
The ones whom God has called are proven that they are called by their gifting and their character. Scripture does not tell us to judge them by their gender. If you think that it does, please show me where.
This is an insult to bible believing egalitarians. Why don’t complementarians quit fighting a problem that doesn’t exist and fight the problem where it does show up?
We could also make the same kind of comment that only Jews are allowed to be elders because only Jews were called by God to be of the twelve. If we allow Gentiles to serve as pastors and elders then surely gender inter-changeability will become more likely and pastors will become adulterers and thieves. This is the same type of argument that is used against women pastors.
Yours is a very poor argument with no weight. Those who hold strongly to the inspiration of scripture will hold to the prohibitions against sin (women teaching the bible to men isn’t one in the lists of sins).
This has already happened in the complementarian world where most have already gone down the pathway toward liberalism by denying that Jesus has full authority in the Trinity even though Jesus stated that even in the incarnation after the resurrection He had all authority.
It is time to make a stand and to challenge complementarians to put their money where their mouths are. If they claim to have the truth and are the ones who are set up as the protectors of that truth and teachers of the women, then they are responsible for giving an answer to everyone who asks of them. They need to stand up for what they believe or let the Bible correct them. If they fail to answer the challenge, what will God think? Will he consider them unfaithful watchmen who stand by silently as deceived Eve eats the fruit? This is not a time to be silent and not a time to hold onto a distortion of the truth. Let the Bible speak for itself instead of the world’s tradition speaking.
In the end it is God who will get the glory when we stand for the truth for we are all members of His body and if we care for one another we will be willing to give our gift of truth to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Ah, my friend Peter, you showed up!! I love you for that.
I had it all in me before just didn’t have time to post. I wanted to honor my Father and my Mother by spending time with them. Now they have left and I am free to let ‘er all out.
I also have some busy days ahead as we head out on a ministry trip so you got the full meal deal at once. It was not meant to give you indigestion, but I am SO glad that you showed up again!
No problem. I am very soft spoken as everyone says who has listened to me speak. I never yell and I would not yell at you my friend.
How so? If you don’t answer the questions, then how can they be clear the way you interpret them?
Don’t worry, my legs aren’t that long. The only thing I do in the water is what all duckies do. Oh and a little duckie poo won’t hurt you at all. Just think of it as giving you a lesson in patience
That’s funny. I heard the Southern Baptist Church say that the church was wrong on the issue of slavery. If they can be wrong on one thing, what makes you think they cannot be wrong on something else where honest, godly Christians can disagree on?
Heavy-handed, yes. Overdone, you bet. But reading ability? Why if they can read so well do they miss out on some of the most important inspired words? Is it possible that there is the little matter of man-made tradition that has invalidated the Word of God?
Now Peter, I would like to ask you if you might be wanting to muddy the water with arguments that are not related to the Scriptures? This duckie thinks that God’s Word has way more weight than all the mallards in the pond. Grouchy ones or otherwise
Peter
Cheryl
If women are to be saved by staying in their role of having children (can I assume by marriage?) then men MUST get married thereby staying in the same role in regards to getting married and if men do not stay in thier role, well, then women won’t be saved?? So women’s salvation depends upon men staying in thier role to get married?? WHAT?
Kathy,
Ya, its a kind of round about, dependent salvation, isn’t it?
If it does mean that then it also means that only married men with children will be saved. Or maybe it means that only married men with children will have wives who aren’t deceived…?
No. The church could NOT read if it could make simple grammar errors. That’s sad. Do you Peter, really think that as a whole, the church has been anything much greater than that?? The church is so great. That’s why Jesus came!!
The first man couldn’t even read the lips of God.
All prots believe that the Roman and Eastern church got at least some things wrong in their understanding of the Bible. The REASON the RCC claims that its priest must be men is because they stand in the place of Jesus, who was male. Is there ANY prot who accepts this argument? Pointing out that the Catholics have only male priests is meaningless to the discussion among prots since they do not accept this reasoning. And all prots I know believe in the priesthood of ALL believers, perhaps Peter does not believe in that, I am not sure.
When this occured to me a couple of years ago, I was like, HUH?? It is amazing.
For example in 1 Tim 2 it is assumed that men may dominate women because it is only expressly forbidden to women to dominate men. Then take 1 Tim 3, it doesn’t expressly say that women can be elders therefore it’s what they are not permitted to do. Funny thing that women are not expressly forbidden from being elders in 1 Tim 3 and men are not expressly permitted to have authority over women in 1 Tim 2. This kind of reasoning is unbalanced.
Kathy, single men are expressly permitted to be elders, either. Hmmmmmmmm.
)
Wow! I can hardly state my disappointment over Peter Barnes running out on the discussion. As with other debates I’ve encountered on this issue, the complementarians always seem to excuse themselves from answering any of the very “meaty” questions at this point. If it was not such a serious topic, it would be laughable – they follow the same pattern over and over when the discussion gets to this point -quote some things other Christians have always taught that 1 Timothy 2 says and then run. Every time. I was so hoping Peter wouldn’t duck and run like all the rest. Instead of simply ignoring the questions, can’t they at least be polite and say, “I don’t know the answer.” Why do they have to behave this way?
Kay,
That is a good question. It isn’t a bad thing to admit that one doesn’t know. There were times when I had to admit that I didn’t know something when I was teaching ex-JW’s how to unravel the false teaching of the Watchtower. Once in a while someone threw something at me that I hadn’t thought of before or had not heard the evidence for a particular false doctrine. They respected me when I told them that I didn’t know but I would do some research on it.
With all of us as mere humans there will come a time when we simply do not know. It isn’t duckie to admit that.
I think it is a mature thing. The strength comes when we admit we don’t know and then we research and study the Scriptures so that we do know.
That is my two cents worth anyway.
Hello, from beautiful Colorado, USA. My name is Frank Geis, an associate of Cheryl Schatz, who sometimes comments on her blog, “Women In Ministry.” And I am pleased that both Peter Barnes and Cheryl Schatz have chosen to dialogue on this important issue. Now, before I make some comments on certain points made in this dialogue, I wish to briefly note something of my background, so that people will know where I am coming from biblically and theologically. I am Bible college graduate, with my major in pastoral theology; I was ordained and served as both a deacon and as an adult Bible teacher in a small Calvinistic Baptist church for two years; and while involved with a godly couple in an international student ministry, who challenged me on my views regarding this issue, I converted from complementarianism to egalitarianism. But enough about me. Now for my observations and comments on the present dialogue between Cheryl and Peter:
1. I noted that in his discussion on Irenaeus and the problems of Montanism, Peter failed to mention that while Irenaeus was against the excesses of Montanism, he did not deny men and women could pray and prophesy together during worship. Nor did he deny that the Holy Spirit still gave this gift and ministry to both men and women. And his dispute with fellow bishops who a) spoke against both John and Paul’s teaching on the Holy Spirit and his gifts as the cause of the Montanist movement, and b) who forbade those writings of John and Paul that promoted this “heresy” from being read in their churches, either in the whole or in the part, he charged these bishops with sinful overreaction. The answer to this problem he argued, was not the suppression of the prophetic ministry by men and women in the orthodox churches. Rather, it was to be found in the strict enforcement of the Pauline guidelines laid down in 1 Corinthians 11-14. For them to do otherwise was to sin against the Holy Spirit himself. After exposing and refuting the errors of the Montanists, here is what Irenaeus says about these anti-charismatic bishops:
Others, again, that they might set at naught the gift of the Holy Spirit, which in the latter times has been by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not accept the Gospel of John in which the Lord promised he would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed, who in order not to allow false prophets set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church…These men cannot admit the Apostle Paul, either, for in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognizes [both] men and women prophesying in the church. Sinning, therefore, in all particulars, against the Spirit of God, they [i.e., the anti-charismatic bishops] fall into irremissible sin (Against Heresies, III, 11.9).
And it is also a know fact that later in his life, Tertullian, whom Elder Barnes would recognize as a orthodox Christian theologian, also became an active Montanist, who wrote one or two books defending the movement, prior to some members in the movement going extreme.
My point here is, of course, is that one can find material in the early Christian writers that can be used either by a egalitarian or complementarian. The question is if it is quoted out of context or if it truly expresses the writer’s view on a given subject.
Another thing that bothered me about Peter’s use of the “facts” of Christian history in supporting his argument, was his comparison of the Montanists with certain Gnostic groups, thereby not only painting the Montanists as heretics but as sexual deviants as well. Perhaps he did this to imply that any movement that calls for the spiritual renewal and reformation of the Church inevitably leads to heresy and sexual deviance? I certainly hope not.
So let us consider the whole story, eh? The Montanist movement was a prophetic movement that began as a call for the Church to return to the Apostolic faith of the NT, both in strictness of doctrine and in moral purity of life, living and serving in the fullness of the Holy Spirit as had the NT church. Contrary to what was implied by Mr. Barnes, the early Montantists tended to strict views regarding marriage, divorce and celibacy. In fact, it was these very emphases that won Tetullian over to be active an Montanist himself. Concerning this, D. F. Wright has written, “Nothing strictly heretical could be charged against Montanism…Although none of its catholic opponents doubted the continuance of prophecy in the church, Montanism erupted at a time when consolidation of catholic order and conformity preoccupied the bishops. The prophets’ extravagant pretensions, while not intended to displace the emergent NT of Christian Scripture, were felt to threaten both episcopal and scriptural authority. Recognition of the Paraclete in the New Prophecy (i.e., Montanism) was their touchstone of authenticity” (”Montanism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker, 1984, p. 733).
And as Wright also points out, the developing, predominantly male episcopal church was hostile to Montanism not only because women were prominent in this movement, but also because it boldly criticized the church’s accommadations to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, declaring the Church’s need to repent and prepare for the imminent Second Coming. So if Barnes wishes to use Christian history to illustrate his criticism of spiritual reform movements in general, and of egalitarianism in particular, let him do so with thoroughness, honesty and integrity. Indeed, whether we’re egalitarians or complementarians, may we all avoid prejudicial and selective use of historical materials.
2. I noticed, too, in the exhange between between Barnes, Cheryl, and I think Dave, on how the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father is the basis of the permanent subordination of women to men–which, from my own writings and comments on the Trinity I have shared on Cheryl’s blog and on CBE’s The Scroll, I regard as and condemn as a modern form of Arianism–Barnes revealed either a sloppiness or inconsistency in his thinking about the distinctions between Trinitarianism and Christology. Here let me make the following observations and comments:
a. In an their exchange about how this subordination implies a multiplicity of wills among the members of the Trinity, with one having the will of the subordinate Son to the will of the peeminent Father, which implies a difference in Being, leading to the error of tritheism or worse, Barnes countered Cheryl’s criticism with a brief reference to “Monothelitism” to establish his view of unity of substance and difference of will in one person. Strictly speaking, “monothelitism” is an issue of Christology, not of the Trinity. It was a heresy prodominant in the Eastern church during the seventh century, which taught that Christ had but one nature, a divine nature enclosed in flesh, therefore he had one will. The intial response to this heresy was to argue that in the incarnation, the human and divine natures were fused into a third, resulting in the view that Christ worked a combined divine-human energy. However, seeing the inadequacy of this view, and its complete contradiction to teaching affirmed at the previous Council of Chalcedon regarding “One Person, Two Natures,” Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, called for and organized another Council at Constantinople to resolve this issue. After John of Damascus gave a fine exposition and defense of Christ as one in two natures with two wills, the Creed of Chalcedon was amended to read that Christ not only had two natures in one person, but that he also had two wills, with his human will being subject to his divine will. So this heresy, and the orthodox refutation and explanation of what it meant for Jesus Christ, as God Incarnate, to havr two natures and how these natures related to one another, neither bears directly on the relationship of the Father and Son within the Trinity, nor on the relationship between men and women.
b. Maybe because he is so influenced by Wayne Grudem and his heretical view of the Trinity, Peter Barnes has forgotten that while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, in every other way, Each is coeternal and coequal in Divine Being. And to so distinquish the Divine Persons as to make the Father superior to the Son and the Spirit in will, power, authority and majesty is to fall back into the heresies of tritheism and subordinationism that were condemned by the Eastern Church in 381 A.D. and by the Western Church in 382 A.D. And the orthodox position, first set forth by Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian, remains the same, “All the Father is as God the Son is, except he is not the Father; all the Son is as God the Father is, except he is not the Son; and the Spirit is all the Father and Son are as God, except he is neither the Father nor the Son.”
Now, if I misunderstood what Mr. Barnes meant to say, I hope he, or one of his associates, will correct me.
However, I am compelled to make this additional comment on Trinitarian doctrine that we all need to remember as well: Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian not only taught what orthodox Christians were to think about the unity of the Triune God, but also addressed how we were to think about the true nature of the distinctiveness and inter-relationships of the Three Persons as well. Thomas F. Torrance best sums up this teaching as follows:
What then does it mean to think of the three divine Persons specifically as‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’? This is a question that had been cropping up in the Church since the Arian controversy, when attempts were made to speak of divine Fatherhood and Sonship on the analogy of human fatherhood and sonship. While there is certainly a figurative or metaphorical ingredient in the human terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ as they are used in divine revelation, they are to be understood in ways that point utterly beyond all sexist connotations and implications. Both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are incomprehensible mysteries which are not explicable through recourse to human modes of thought. Hence, as Athanasius and Gregory Nanianzen insisted, we must set aside all analogies drawn from the visible world in speaking of God, helpful as they may be up to a point, for they are theologically unsatisfactory and even objectionable, and so must of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ when used of God as imageless relations. ‘Father,’ Gregory pointed out, ‘is the name of the relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father, but such that it is an ineffable relation which exceeds and transcends human powers of imagination and conception,’ so that we may not read the creaturely of our human expressions of ‘father’ and ‘son’ analogically into what God discloses of his own inner divine relations. Hence, Gregory Nanianzen, like Athanasius, insisted that they must be treated as referring imagelessly, that is, in a diaphanous or ‘see through’ way, to the Father and Son without the intrusion of creaturely or sensual images into God. Thus we may not think of God as having gender, nor think of the Father as begetting the Son or of the Son as begotten after the analogy of generation or giving birth, with which we are familiar with among creaturely beings (Cf. “Three Persons, One Being,” The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons, T& T Clark, 1995, pp.157-158).
Consequently, the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father, as it is being taught and applied today, needs to be both recognized and repudiated by all orthodox, evangelical Christians for the deadly heresy that it truly is. And this constitutes my current observations and comments upon what I consider a very important issue being discussed on this blog. Thank-you for letting me make a contribution to this on-going discussion.
My take is that ESS proponents like Ware and co. have “hierarchy-colored glasses” and see hierarchy in places where it does not exist. My prayer is that they remove those glasses.
I think this will be my last shot.
1. To portray the early Church as egalitarian is absurd. Napoleon said that history was a myth agreed to believe. Too often it is. Montanism had huge problems – it believed that the Second Coming was about to descend on Phrygia; their prophets often identified themselves with the Holy Spirit, etc. D. F. Wright leaves out too much. As a complementarian, my first blog acknowledged that women could be prophets. That was never in contention. They can also pray. It is preaching to mixed congregations and leading them that is the problem.
2. The eternal subordination of the Son is clearly taught in Scripture even in John 3:16. It is functional, not ontological. I assume some of you have read Kevin Giles’ effort to prove this is heresy.
3. Monotheletism is not Monophysitism. The latter refers to one nature, the former to one will. Christ has two natures and two wills. I am afraid that Torrance gets this wrong, and Wayne Grudem is simply orthodox. The eternal subordinationism of the Son is hardly a deadly heresy. It is simply Scripture (John 3:17; 5:19-30; 1 Cor.15:24-28; Heb.10:5-7).
4. The parent and the child are equal in ontology, but not in function. In a different, but not totally dissimilar way, men and women are equal in ontology but not in function.
Over and out,
Grace and peace and truth too.
1. I see Jesus, Peter and Paul as egals in their culture. However, spreading the gospel was and is more of a priority than egalism, as all else hangs on that. Over time the egal nature of the earliest leaders was lost.
2 & 3. I have read both of Kevin Giles books, I thought they were useful but could have discussed more Scripture rather than creeds.
My understanding is the Bible teaches the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit using many metaphors; one is they are a plural unity, another is they relate using perfect mutual submission. By selectively reading only the verses that show the Son’s submission to the Father, it is possible to misunderstand that the Father also submits to the Son.
Messianic Jews are monotheists and know to reject ESS as a step that leads to tri-theism.
4. But a child can grow up and become a fully functioning adult. A woman cannot grow up to become a man and so is effectively ALWAYS kept down when viewing Scripture thru male hierarchy lenses.
Peter,
Yes, Jesus was sent by God to do the will of God. He was not sent by the Father to do the will of the Father. As it happens, if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father, as they are both God. So, yes the Son will and does do what he sees the Father doing. So how does this prove ESS? It doesn’t!
The other thing I find hard to accept with the ESS argument is the way “submission” and “subordination” are interchanged. They mean different things. Jesus is not subordinate to anyone, but he does submit to the Father.
I accept that the Father and the Son have seperate “wills” and yet God has one “will”. The will of the Father, as it happens, will never be seperate from the will of the Son. So Jesus submits to the will of the Father, and yet it was never within his will to do anything else. Seperate yet identical wills!?!?! Perhaps identical is too strong?
It seems we are having the same debate as the early church in relation to the ‘terminology’ we use to decribe the Triune God.
I think it is important to remember what Petet said “It is functional, not ontological”. The subordination of the Son does not make Jesus any less ‘God’ than the Father. Just because some see ‘subordination’ as a degrading concept, that should not be applied to an understanding of the Trinity. Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will not because he was any less God, but precisely because He is God. But His function in the Triune God was to be sent by the Father to redeem fallen man. 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.
I do not see the subordination of the Son as a heresy. I see the heresy where the claim is made that each part is the same but is merely a different ‘face’ of God. It is biblically clear how all three persons of the Trinity have different functions or roles while still all equally being God.
Frank, i am concerned about this quote
“we must set aside all analogies drawn from the visible world in speaking of God, helpful as they may be up to a point, for they are theologically unsatisfactory and even objectionable”
This is completely an unbiblical statement. I draw you to Ezekial 16 which is a classic example of God using human analogies to show His relationship to us(or in that case unfaithful Israel). The whole institution of marriage is there to reflect the glorious relationship we have with God and the grace he has lavished on us. But perhaps i have mis-understoot the point of your quotation.
Dave,
I would have to dis-agree and say that Jesus was sent by the Father to do the will of the Father. John 17:1-3, Jesus is praying to the Father who sent Him. John 17:4 Jesus glorified the Father accomplishing the work that the Father gave Him to do. John 17:18 in the context of praying to Father, Jesus is pretty clear that the Father sent the Son. Then in John 17:21 we get the classic description of how the Father and the Son are ‘one’. Jesus and the Father are equally ‘God’, but we cannot deny the different functions of the Triune God.
by the way, what is the ESS argument- excuse my ignorance… im assuming is stands for the ‘eternal subordination of the Son’
Hi gab,
Can I ask you a couple of questions? Why must one be subordinated to another in order for an understanding of “difference”? I think we can go deeper than that, don’t you?
It is readily seen that one is differientiated from another by subordination itself, but is the matter of differientation amongst human beings made in God’s image, really that simple?
Also how have you come to chose the belief of the subordiantion of women to men and can your belief be biblicaly proven?
Obviously, I changed my mind from asking a couple of questions to more…
gab,
Eternal subordination can only logicaly be based on essence. And either the Son and women have God given FREE will or they do not and if they do have free will then eternal subordination has no ground because their is no “choosing” to be eternaly subordinate since it would be divinely decreed based on one’s gender and for the life of me I cannot figure what the Son’s eternal subordination would be based on – logicaly speaking.
Why is the Son eternaly subordinate? Is the BRIDEGROOM forever to be subordinated to the Father or is he to leave his father and mother and become one with his body, his bride? (Eph 5)
Kathy,
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.
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.
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.I think there is good biblical evidence to show that this covenant of marriage is a reflecetion of the covenant wiht God. If a husband and wife are equal in every way and functions then i no longer think this is a biblical reflection of our relationship with the Lord.
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. 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.
I was a bit confused with your last comments on ‘free-will’ etc. Could you please explain a bit clearer for me. Thanks
Hi Gab,
You said, “The subordination of the Son does not make Jesus any less ‘God’ than the Father. Just because some see ’subordination’ as a degrading concept, that should not be applied to an understanding of the Trinity.”
If you say that the Son is Subordinate to the Father then you are saying that Jesus is less than the Father. Subordination is a degrading concept because it places one below another. This is the meaning of the word. If you do not want to mean this then use another word! Can I suggest “submission” as a good word to use. This is the only way Jesus can do what the Father asks and not be “less” than the Father.
You said, “Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will not because he was any less God, but precisely because He is God. But His function in the Triune God was to be sent by the Father to redeem fallen man.”
I completely agree and this was my very point – I am glad we are on the same page!
You said, “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.”
There you go using the subordination word again! If a woman is subordianate to her husband then she is less in some way…unless you want to speak in terms of “submission”!!
You also said, “Jesus is pretty clear that the Father sent the Son. Then in John 17:21 we get the classic description of how the Father and the Son are ‘one’. Jesus and the Father are equally ‘God’, but we cannot deny the different functions of the Triune God.”
I am not trying to deny different functions, or that the Father sent the Son. I was responding to Peter’s verses which did not say what he claimed. It was not simply the Father who sent Jesus, Biblically it was “also” the Godhead, of who Jesus is a part of – Peter’s verses (eg John 3:16-17) prove this. If we want to be Biblical then we need to look at the whole picture. So yes, there are different functions, but if you want to make too much out of it you end up distorting what happens within the Trinity. That is what makes the Trinity such fun after dinner conversation. As soon as you make a statement about the Trinity you have run the rick of going too far in one direction or another.
Jesus – sent by the Father.
Jesus – sent by God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit)
ESS is the Eternal Subordination (should be submission!) of the Son!!
Gab I have been very consistant with my use of words in these discussions, as I might say have you! I hope to clear up how certain words should be used so we can be on the same page.
Oxford Pocket Dictionary says…
Hierarch = Chief priest
Hierarchy = each of 3 divisions of angels; graded priesthood or other organisation
Other dictionaries refer to it as a ranking in order from highest to lowest. The implication is some are greater than others. If you say there is hierarchy in the Godhead then you are saying one of the Trinity is GREATER than the other. Comps do not like the hierarchy word…neither do egals!
Subordinate = Of inferior importance of rank…persons working under another.
Subordination = ordering in degrees of rank or dependance. Comps love the subordinate word, yet it is fundamentally the same as hierarchy in its meaning. Egals do not like it!
Submit = accept without resistance the orders or treatment or lot met with.
Submissive = unresisting, meek, tractable, docile.
Comps think this word means the same as subordinate, egals do not!
The main difference between hierarchy/subordinate and submission is one has to do with rank – essentially an unequalness, while the other has nothing to do with rank, but rather how we position ourselves in relation to others.
Now if Jesus was subordinate to the Father there would be a hierarchy in the Godhead. There would be an unequalness. I am simply saying what the words mean. The problem with this is when we look at verses such as Phil 2:6-8. Here we see Jesus not grasping equality with God but making himself nothing, humbling himself to death. These actions cannot be defined as subordnination, but only as submission.
This is why it is important to recognise that it was not simply the Father who sent the Son, but the Godhead, indeed Jesus included, who sent Jesus! Jesus was in on it!
In relation to Eph 5 and our other discussion at another post, please note that what Jesus does in Phil is he submits to God and he submits to our needs. Eph 5:21 is encouraging that behaviour (Christlike behaviour) amongst all of us, as does Paul in Phil 2:1-5. Mutual submission!
I would ask that we stick to the true definition of words! I will continue to pull you up when you slip back into old definitions. I am open to you redefining words…but that will cause us to further complicate things I believe.
Dave, i appreciaiate you eagerness to define right terminology and i would have to agree.
I truly believe that we are on the right page with our Trinitarian theology but just don’t like each others word. For example, i dont particularly like the term ‘subordinate’ because i agree with your definitions. In fact, it was this word which Paul of Samosata was condemned for claiming that Jesus was less God than the Father- i want to make clear this is not what i hold to.
However i don’t like the term ‘submission’ either because i don’t see it being used by egalitarians properly when defining the trinity. The way people describe ‘mutual submission’ and God’s unity around the word submission reeks of Modalism in my opinion-that God is one but just exposed in three modes. However you have made clear that this is not your position.
Therefore i don’t know which word to use
. What i do believe though is the Trinitarian theology of CBMW, although using ‘subordination’ is far more biblical than what i see in alot of egalitarians. Like i said earlier, we are having exactly the same Trinitarian debate about terminology as the early church did.
Gab, I love it when we agree! I wish you knew what term you wanted to use, because that might help us move further forward
CBMW supply the following on their website for the doctrine of ESS…
“The eternal subordination of the Son means that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, equal in essence and in eternal divine nature with the Father, that the Father exercises eternal authority over the Son in function, and the Son eternally submits to the authority of the father.”
Now, because I love defining words I think it is important to define “authority”!
Authority = “Power, right, to enforce obedience…delegated power”
Authoritative = “possessing, entitled to, claiming.”
The thing I do not like about what CBMW are saying is that there is eternal “authority” of the Father over the Son. I do not know if you noticed similarity between athority and hierarchy/subordination!?
It seems to me that CBMW want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to affirm the Father and Jesus being equal in essence and nature, but not function. They claim that this can happen, but I do not understand how. I also do not understand how a husband and wife can be equal but different, when the difference is defined in terms of hierarchy/authority/subordination. These terms represent inequality.
The only way I can understand what happens in the Trinity is to accept that I cannot place my limited human understanding on God. Authority is irrelevant in the Godhead, as they are three persons who are one (and so one person does not have the right to enforce obedience over another). So, (in a more perfect and divine way!)they are like the fellowship of the believers in Acts who were one in heart and soul, and yet individuals, or like Adam and Eve, two who came from one flesh and becomes one flesh again, and yet are individuals. Although the will of the Father might be that the Son “do” something, this will will never differ from the will of God, which includes the will of the Son!
I think the doctrine would be more accurately stated if it said, “that the Father exercises eternal love for the Son, and the Son eternally submits (willingly yields) to the love of the father.”
Any thoughts? I am being stretched…but I am enjoying it!
Modalism is the idea that there is really only 1 thing behind different manifestations or modes, so it is like God is one being wearing different masks as Father, Son and Spirit. MANY supposed explanations of the Godhead outside the Bible are actually modalist, like water being in 3 states, steam, ice and liquid but it all being water, so one needs to be careful.
I am not a modalist on God, as I do not see the Bible teaching that.
As far as ESS, I simply do not see how it does not result in tri-theism, despite its adherents claims to the contrary. Equal and subordinate cannot both be true at the same time for the same relation. For example, for real numbers A and B, A cannot be both equal to B and less than B, the concept simply makes no sense.
I agree Don.
Grudem and Piper refer to the “equal but different” concept as a paradox. I just think it is wrong! I think they have worked hard to make hierarchy sound like it is complementary. When you consider “interchangeable” is a synonym for “complementary” (Rogets Thessaurus) I do not think they are using the right word! Hierarchy is not “interchangeable”. I could say something about the slippery slope at this point but will refrain!
I think the paradox that exists with the Trinity and in marriage is how there is a “oneness while there is also a uniqueness”. Not an “equality while there is a hierarchy”!
I believe that CBMW are playing with words so as to strengthen their cause.
My take on a marriage is that there is a you, a me and an us and all 3 need to be nourished and taking care of.
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.
I would love to jump in here, but I have not read all the comments that I have missed while I was gone. I will be back as I have time.
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.
gab,
You said:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
gab,
You said:
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.
Notice here that the relationship is “love” and this love is shown by the Father giving “all things” into the Son’s hand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dear “last shot” Peter,
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
Cheryl,
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!
Hi Gab,
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?
This article clearly outlines the difference between egals and comps regarding the Trinity, from a comp position. http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-1/Egalitarians-Revamp-Doctrine-of-the-Trinity
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!
The term subordination implies a superior and a subordinate. The term submission does not, rather in the NT it implies love and serving. This is a crucial distinction.
gab,
You asked:
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:
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:
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:
Just one last one for this post:
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.