Being surprised by Wayne Grudem’s “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.
[…]the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s 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 church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions), a least since Nicea (A.D 325). (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Ch. 14)
Being surprised by Wayne Grudem’s “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‐Nicene 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 Grudem’s.
I would, though, like to quickly restate Grudem’s 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 Father’s 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 Christ’s 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.
The names “Father” and “Son” indicate a relation of authority and submission.
Prior to Creation and Incarnation, in eternity past, the Son was in obedience to the Father’s authority in the “eternal councils of the Trinity”.
The Father Created through the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the authority of the Father.
The Father sent the Son, therefore the Son was eternally in submission to the authority of the Father.
That the incarnate Son was in submission to the will of the Father on earth is “part of a larger pattern” of the Son’s eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
The priestly intercessory work of the Son shows that He is eternally subject to the authority of the Father.
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.
The Son received revelation by authority from the Father and relayed it in submission.
Upon the Son’s ascension, He is seated at the Father’s right hand, a place of secondary authority delegated by the Father.
The Son receives authority over the Nations only as delegated by the Father, demonstrating His eternal submission to the authority of the Father.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul teaches that the Son will be eternally subjected to the Father, submitting to His authority.
The works and operations of God are not always indivisible.
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 section’s 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. Habakkuk’s opponent was not Paul’s 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 Son’s glory is derived from the Father and that the Spirit’s glory is derived from the Son; therefore the Father’s 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 Augustine’s 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 salutis 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 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 Grudem’s 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.
All quotes from Chrysostom’s Homilies and Calvin’s Commentaries can be found here.
All quotes from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion can be found here.
All Grudem quotes, above and below, can be found in the following:
Systematic Theology
“Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father”
“Whose Position on 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 Father’s 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 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)
1.a. Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Tradition, 5.24
Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word’s proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words ‘Offspring’ and ‘Son’ bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God[…].
1.b. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2.11
“For it was as the result of being Son, and being begotten, that He has thus shown Himself obedient in words and obedient in acts” [says Eunomius]. Alas, for the brutish stupidity of this doctrine! You make the Word obedient to words, and supposest other words prior to Him Who is truly the Word, and another Word of the Beginning is mediator between the Beginning and the Word that was in the Beginning, conveying to Him the decision. And this is not one only: there are several words, which Eunomius makes so many links of the chain between the Beginning and the Word, and which abuse His obedience as they think good. But what need is there to linger over this idle talk? Any one can see that even at that time with reference to which S. Paul says that He became obedient (and he tells us that He became obedient in this wise, namely, by becoming for our sakes flesh, and a servant, and a curse, and sin)—even then, I say, the Lord of glory, Who despised the shame and embraced suffering in the flesh, did not abandon His free will, saying as He does, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; and again, No man takes My life from Me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; and when those who were armed with swords and staves drew near to Him on the night before His Passion, He caused them all to go backward by saying I am He, and again, when the dying thief besought Him to remember him, He showed His universal sovereignty by saying, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise . If then not even in the time of His Passion He is separated from His authority, where can heresy possibly discern the subordination to authority of the King of glory?
1.c. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2.15
He goes on to add, “Neither on the same level with the Father, nor connumerated with the Father (for God over all is one and only Father), nor on an equality with the Son, for the Son is only‐begotten, having none begotten with Him”. Well, for my own part, if he had only added to his previous statement the remark that the Holy Ghost is not the Father of the Son, I should even then have thought it idle for him to linger over what no one ever doubted, and forbid people to form notions of Him which not even the most witless would entertain. But since he endeavours to establish his impiety by irrelevant and unconnected statements, imagining that by denying the Holy Spirit to be the Father of the Only‐begotten he makes out that He is subject and subordinate, I therefore made mention of these words, as a proof of the folly of the man who imagines that he is demonstrating the Spirit to be subject to the Father on the ground that the Spirit is not Father of the Only‐begotten. For what compels the conclusion, that if He 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?
1.d. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, I.33
In our view, the ‘native dignity’ of God consists in godhead itself, wisdom, power, goodness, judgment, justice, strength, mercy, truth, creativeness, domination, invisibility, everlastingness, and every other quality named in the inspired writings to magnify his glory; and we affirm that everyone of them is properly and inalienably found in the Son, recognizing difference only in respect of unoriginateness; and even that we do not exclude the Son from, according to all its meanings
1.e. Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 3.4
And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father :— for instance , that He is God, ‘And the Word was God John 1:1;’ Almighty, ‘Thus says He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty Revelation 1:8;’Lord, ‘One Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 8:6;’ that He is Light, ‘I am the Light John 8:12;’ that He wipes out sins, ‘that you may know,’ He says, ‘that the Son of man has power upon earth to forgive sins Luke 5:24;’ and so with other attributes. For ‘all things,’ says the Son Himself, ‘whatsoever the Father has, are Mine;’ and again, ‘And Mine are Yours.’
1.f. Athanasius, De Synodis, 3.49
This is why He has equality with the Father by titles expressive of unity, and what is said of the Father, is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father…. And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said.
[B. B. Warfield, “Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity” It may be very natural to see in the designation “Son” an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to ascribe a similar connotation to the term “Spirit.” But it is quite certain that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech is just “likeness”; whatever the father is that the son is also. The emphatic application of the term “Son” to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective “only begotten” (Jn. i. 14; iii. 16‐18; I Jn. iv. 9) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (Ps. xxii. 20; xxv. 16; xxxv. 17; Wisd. vii. 22 m.); and even such a phrase as “God only begotten” (Jn. i. 18 m.) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as “the first‐begotten of all creation” (Col. i. 15) may convey no intimation 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 their 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 Father’s 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”)
2.a. Basil, On The Holy Spirit, 8.18‐20
For through Him [the Son] comes every succour to our souls, and it is in accordance with each kind of care that an appropriate title has been devised. So when He presents to Himself the blameless soul, not having spot or wrinkle, Ephesians 5:29 like a pure maiden, He is called Bridegroom, but whenever He receives one in sore plight from the devil’s evil strokes, healing it in the heavy infirmity of its sins, He is named Physician. And shall this His care for us degrade to meanness our thoughts of Him? Or, on the contrary, shall it smite us with amazement at once at the mighty power and love to man of the Saviour, in that He both endured to suffer with us in our infirmities, and was able to come down to our weakness? For not heaven and earth and the great seas, not the creatures that live in the water and on dry land, not plants, and stars, and air, and seasons, not the vast variety in the order of the universe, so well sets forth the excellency of His might as that God, being incomprehensible, should have been able, impassibly, through flesh, to have come into close conflict with death, to the end that by His own suffering He might give us the boon of freedom from suffering. The apostle, it is true, says, In all these 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 œconomy 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 of God, 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.
2.c. St. Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, 5.14.178
As, then, He was made sin and a curse not on His own account but on ours, so He became subject in us not for His own sake but for ours, being not in subjection in His eternal Nature, nor accursed in His eternal Nature. “For cursed 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.
2.d. Chrysostom, Homilies, Phillipians 2
Ver. 9‐11. “Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave Him the Name which is above every name: that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Let us say against the heretics, If this is spoken of one who was not incarnate, if of God the Word, how did He highly exalt Him? Was it as if He gave Him something more than He had before? He would then have been imperfect in this point, and would have been made perfect for our sakes. For if He had not done good deeds to us, He would not have obtained that honor! “And gave Him the Name.” See, He had not even a name, as you say! But how, if He received it as His due, is He found here to have received it by grace, and as a gift? And that “the Name which is above every name”: and of what kind, let us see, is the Name? “That at the Name of Jesus,” saith He, “every knee should bow.” They (the heretics) explain name by glory. This glory then is above all glory, and this glory is in short that all worship Him! But ye hold yourselves far off from the greatness of God, who think that ye know God, as He knoweth Himself, and from this it is plain, how far off ye are from right thoughts of God. And this is plain from hence. Is this, tell me, glory? Therefore before men were created, before the angels or the archangels, He was not in glory. If this be the glory which is above every glory, (for this is the name that is “above every name,”) though He were in glory before, yet was He in glory inferior to this. It was for this then that He made the things that are, that He might be raised to glory, not from His own goodness, but because He required glory from us! See ye not their folly? see ye not their impiety?
Now if they had said this of Him that was incarnate, there had been reason, for God the Word allows that this be said of His flesh. It touches not His divine nature, but has to do altogether with the dispensation.
2.e. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 30.6
The same consideration applies to another passage, “He learnt obedience by the things which He suffered, “and to His “strong crying and tears,” and His “Entreaties,” and His “being heard,” and His” Reverence,” all of which He wonderfully wrought out, like a drama whose plot was devised on our behalf. For in His character of the Word He was neither obedient nor disobedient. For such expressions belong to servants, and inferiors, and the one applies to the better sort of them, while the other belongs to those who deserve punishment. But, in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending.
[Herman Witsius, On the Economy of the Covenants, II.iii.6‐7
The Son, as precisely God, neither was, nor could be subject to any law, to any superior; that being contrary to the nature of God‐head, which we now suppose the Son to have common with the Father. ‘He thought it no robbery to be equal with God’. No subjection, nothing but the high super‐eminence can be conceived of the Deity. In this respect he is King of kings and Lord of lords. […] Nor is it any objection against this, that the Son, from eternity, undertook for men, and thereby came under a certain peculiar relation to those that were to be saved. For, as that engagement was nothing but the most glorious act of the divine will of the Son, doing what none but God could do, it implies therefore no manner of subjection: it only imports, that there should be a time, when that divine person, on assuming flesh, would appear in the form of a servant. And by undertaking to perform this obedience, in the human nature, in the proper time, the Son, as God, did no more subject himself to the Father, than the Father with respect to the Son, to the owing that reward of debt, which he promised him a right to claim. All these things are to be conceived of in a manner becoming of God.]
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”)
3.a. Gregory of Nyssa, On Not Three Gods
Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation. But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly 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; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. We may understand the meaning of this from one single instance. From Him, I say, Who is the chief source of gifts, all things which have shared in this grace have obtained their life. When we inquire, then, whence this good gift came to us, we find by the guidance of the Scriptures that it was from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet although we set forth Three Persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each Person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit. Since then the Holy Trinity fulfils every operation in a manner similar to that of which I have spoken, not by separate action according to the number of the Persons, but so that there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit (for as we do not call those whose operation gives one life three Givers of life, neither do we call those who 11 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
3.b. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 2.4
By the term “of whom” they wish to indicate the Creator; by the term “through whom”, the subordinate agent or instrument; by the term “in whom”, or “in which”, they mean to show the time or place. The object of all this is that the Creator of the universe may be regarded as of no higher dignity than an instrument, and that the Holy Spirit may appear to be adding to existing things nothing more than the contribution derived from place or time.
3.c. Athanasius, Against the Gentiles, 46.4
Wherefore He also persuades us and says , He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created; as the illustrious Moses also at the beginning of his account of Creation confirms what we say by his narrative Genesis 1:20, saying: and God said, let us make man in our image and after our likeness: for also when He was carrying out the creation of the heaven and earth and all things, the Father said to Him Genesis 1:6‐11, Let the heaven be made, and let the waters be gathered together and let the dry land appear, and let the earth bring forth herb and every green thing: so that one must convict Jews also of not genuinely attending to the Scriptures. 5. For one might ask them to whom was God speaking, to use the imperative mood? If He were commanding and addressing the things He was creating, the utterance would be redundant, for they were not yet in being, but were about to be made; but no one speaks to what does not exist, nor addresses to what is not yet made a command to be made. For if God were giving a command to the things that were to be, He must have said, Be made, heaven, and be made, earth, and come forth, green herb, and be created, O man. But in fact He did not do so; but He gives the command thus: Let us make man, and let the green herb come forth. By which God is proved to be speaking about them to some one at hand: it follows then that some one was with Him to Whom He spoke when He made all things. 6. Who then could it be, save His Word? For to whom could God be said to speak, except His Word? Or who was with Him when He made all created Existence, except His Wisdom, which says Proverbs 8:27: When He was making the heaven and the earth I was present with Him? But in the mention of heaven and earth, all created things in heaven and earth are included as well. 7. But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organised it and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all things strength to be, as the Saviour says : What things soever I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner. And His holy disciples teach that all things were made through Him and unto Him; 8. and, being the good Offspring of Him that is good, and true Son, He is the Father’s Power and Wisdom and Word, not being so by participation , nor as if these qualifies were imparted to Him from without, as they are to those who partake of Him and are made wise by Him, and receive power and reason in Him; but He is the very 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.
3.d. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2.18.31
But the sentiment of Truth in this matter must not be hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and ‘in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.’ Nor for that we were weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! It is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things originate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him—and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His essence, and is from Him, and in Him, as He said Himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand, in the Word wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Moses relates, ‘Let there be light,’ and ‘Let the waters be gathered together,’ and ‘let the dry land appear,’ and ‘Let Us make man ;’ as also Holy David in the Psalm, ‘He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created. ‘ And He spoke , not that, as in the case of men, some under‐worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father’s Will. Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He wished made; but God only said, ‘Let it become,’ and he adds, ‘And it became;’ for what He thought good and counselled, that immediately the Word began to do and to finish. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, ‘Whereby shall I know Genesis 15:8?’ and the other, ‘Send someone else Exodus 4:13;’ and again, ‘If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them ?’ and the Angel said to Zacharias, ‘Thus says the Lord ;’ and he asked the Lord, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem.’ and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word ‘He said’ is a token of the will for our sake, and ‘It was so,’ denotes the work which is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And ‘God said’ is explained in ‘the Word,’ for, he says, ‘You have made all things in Wisdom;’ and ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast.’ and ‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.’
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 Son’s 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 Father’s authority.” (“Biblical Evidence”)
4.a. Augustine, On the Trinity, 2.5.7
But being proved wrong so far, men betake themselves to saying, that he who sends is greater than he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by the Father; and the Father is also greater than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus has said of the Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends Him
4.b. Augustine, On the Trinity, 2.5.9
He will reply, I suppose, if he has a right sense in these things, Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said, She was found with child by the Holy Ghost. For perhaps our meaning will be more plainly unfolded, if we ask in what manner God sent His Son. He commanded that He should come, and He, complying with the commandment, came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it was, certainly it was done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Father and His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who would embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to have uttered a word in time, in order that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and might appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? But assuredly it was in that Word of God itself which was in the beginning with God and was God, namely, in the wisdom itself of God, apart from time, at what time that wisdom must needs appear in the flesh. Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it was in the Word itself without any time, at what time the Word was to be made flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, that is, made in time, that the Incarnate Word might appear to men; while it was in that Word Himself, apart from time, at what time this was to be done; for the order of times is in the eternal wisdom of God without time. Since, then, that the Son should appear in the flesh was wrought by both the Father and the Son, it is fitly said that He who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sent Him; because those things which are transacted outwardly before the bodily eyes have their existence from the inward structure (apparatu) of the spiritual nature, and on that account are fitly said to be sent. Further, that form of man which He took is the person of the Son, not also of the Father; on which account the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with the Father is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Him visible. But if He became visible in such way as to cease to be invisible with the Father, that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were turned by a change and transition into a visible creature, then the Son would be so understood to be sent by the Father, that He would be found to be only sent; not also, with the Father, sending. But since He so took the form of a servant, as that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that that which became apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son not being apparent; that is, that by the invisible Father, with the invisible Son, the same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say, Neither came I of myself? This, we may now say, is said according to the form of a servant, in the same way as it is said, I judge no man.
4.c. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 29.18
But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as My God and your God, or greater, or created, or made, or sanctified; Add, if you like, Servant 14 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 Son’s 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 Father’s authority while on earth.” (“Biblical Evidence”)
5.a. Chrysostom, Homilies, on 1 Corinthians 11:3
“But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when anything lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression…
5.b. Augustine, Tractates on John, XCIX, Ch. XVI.13
And it is on account of this one personality as consisting of two substances, the divine and the human, that He sometimes speaks in accordance with that wherein He is God, as when He says, “I and my Father are one;” and sometimes in accordance with His manhood, as in the words, “For the Father is greater than I;” in accordance with which also we have understood those words of His that are at present under discussion, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge.”
5.c. Augustine, On the Trinity, 2.1.2
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 Himself—not 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.
5.d. Augustine, On the Trinity, 1.11.22
Wherefore, having mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God, that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father, because He Himself has said, My Father is greater than I; and He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He emptied Himself; and He is less than the Holy Spirit, because He Himself says, Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him. And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you. And in Isaiah He says—in the lesson which He Himself read in the synagogue, and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself—The Spirit of the Lord God, He says, is upon me: because He has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be sent, because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him; according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman, made under the law. According to the form of God, He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself; according to the form of a servant, His soul is sorrowful even unto death; and, O my Father, He says, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. According to the form of God, He is the True God, and eternal life; according to the form of a servant, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. — 23. According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and All mine, He says, are Yours, and Yours are mine; according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him.
5.e. Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, 9.10
And again, “The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” But again, if God is only all three together, how can God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head of Christ, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be the Trinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son, the head of that which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but the Son alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already made flesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, the Father is greater than He, as He says, “for my Father is greater than I;” so that the very being of God, which is one to Him with the Father, is itself the head of the man who is mediator, which He is alone.
5.f. Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 3.26.29
Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,— it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom ; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God , and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me .’ But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing ;’ next, And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only‐begotten from the Father ;’ and next Paul writing, Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross .’
5.g. Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, Book 4.31‐33
Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty. But the saying, that in respect of the Incarnation God is the Head of Christ, leads on to the principle that Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head of man, as the Apostle has clearly expressed in another passage, where he says: “Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church;” whilst in the words following he has added: “Who gave Himself for her.” After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for His self‐surrender issued from His Incarnation. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered. But it is nothing against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him.
5.h. Chrysostom, Homilies, John 5:18‐21
Ver. 18. “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” But they who will not receive these words in a right mind assert, that “Christ made not Himself equal to God, but that the Jews suspected this.” Come then let us go over what has been said from the beginning. Tell me, did the Jews persecute Him, or did they not? It is clear to every one that they did. Did they persecute Him for this or for something else? It is again allowed that it was for this. Did He then break the Sabbath, or did He not? Against the fact that He did, no one can have anything to say. Did He call God His Father, or did He not call Him so? This too is true. Then the rest also follows by the same consequence; for as to call God His Father, to break the Sabbath, and to be persecuted by the Jews for the former and more especially for the latter reason, belonged not to a false imagination, but to actual fact, so to make Himself equal to God was a declaration of the same meaning. And this one may see more clearly from what He had before said, for “My Father worketh, and I work,” is the expression of One declaring Himself equal to God. For in these words He has marked no difference. He said not, “He worketh, and I minister,” but, “As He worketh, so work I”; and hath declared absolute Equality.
[…]”But,” saith some one, “to remove this very thought Christ has added,
Ver. 19. “The Son can do nothing of Himself.’”
Man! He doth the contrary. He saith this not to take away, but to confirm, His Equality. But attend carefully, for this is no common question. The expression “of Himself” is found in many places of Scripture, with reference both to Christ and to the Holy Ghost, and we must learn the force of the expression, that we may not fall into the greatest errors; for if one take it separately b