My aim with this website is to cover, or comment on, many topics related to current discussions on women and men in Christian marriage and in the church. One thing I have not commented about previously is the association some make between the relationships within the Trinity and the relationship between husband and wife. There are a few reasons for my reluctance to comment on this topic.
Some complementarians argue that, while Jesus and God the Father are essentially equal in being, Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. This view has been termed “Subordinationism.” These complementarians go on to say that men and women are also essentially equal in being, but that women are, and will be, eternally subordinate to men. I am not at all persuaded by their arguments.
Despite disagreeing with the conclusions complementarians draw from the supposed subordination of Christ, I have purposefully stayed out of any debates about it. The following are the reasons I distance myself from gender debates that reference the Trinity and Subordinationism.
(1) The debate is biased.
The presentation of scriptures and of creeds and Christologies of early and classic Christian theologians, and the ensuing debate about whether or not Jesus Christ is eternally subordinate, when it is given by people who have a strong interest in either the subordination or liberation of women, is not entirely free from bias. This bias will hinder a true understanding and appreciation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2) The Trinity is a profound mystery that we do not fully understand.
While some of us may think we have some idea about the nature of the Triune Godhead—Father, Son/ Messiah, and Holy Spirit—I believe we are all in for a stunning surprise when we are finally able to see God as he really is. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone can possibly know what the (supposed) subordination of Jesus means in the eternal scheme of things. (I don’t think we have a true comprehension of what 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, given in the footnotes, really entails.)
The mystery of the Trinity shouldn’t stop us from trying to seek a greater understanding of the nature of the Godhead, but when this pursuit is done with an agenda concerning the status and relationships of men and women, we are heading away from genuine theology.
(3) There is a danger of arrogance in arguing emphatically about Jesus’s status.
Jesus graciously humbled himself by coming to earth in order to live as a human being and in order to die as a redemptive sacrifice. However, we are in danger of arrogance if we insist that Jesus continues to humble and lower himself and continues to function as a subordinate member of the Godhead.
Furthermore, the church has continually failed to understand Jesus’s perspective and teaching on hierarchies in human relations, so how can we possibly understand hierarchies and subordination in the Divine, assuming it even exists?
(4) The Trinity is not a model for marriage.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that nowhere in scripture does it suggest, or even hint, that the relationships between the members of the Godhead are an illustration of the marriage relationship. While both men and women are made in the image of God, I simply cannot see that a case can be made to use any of the relationships within the Trinity as a model for marriage. It is a concern when people believe husbands are somehow analogous to God the Father, and wives are somehow analogous to Jesus Christ or, occasionally, the Holy Spirit.
The scriptures do give us an illustration of marriage. In Ephesians 5:21–33, Paul tells us that the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church (and not God the Father and Jesus) reveals an aspect of marriage. The loving, supportive, sacrificial, and close association of Christ and his Church is a model for the loving, supportive, sacrificial, and close relationship between husband and wife. [I have more on Paul’s words on marriage in Ephesians 5 here.]
The complementarian argument—that Jesus is equal with God the Father but subordinate to him, so women should be content with being equal but subordinate to men—is bogus. By combining the notion of the eternal subordination of Jesus with the notion of the subordination of women we are doing neither Christology nor Christian marriages any favours. So, for these four reasons, I am staying out of any debates about so-called “Subordinationism.”
 Complementarians hold to the view that men and women are “equal in being but unequal in role,” a view I fail to see as logical. While complementarians believe men and women are “equal but different,” I maintain that men and women are “different and equal—no buts.”
 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 NASB:
… then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “ All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
My friend Kristin Rosser makes this comment about 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 in light of “eternal subordination” arguments.
If anything, this speaks against the idea of eternal, divine subordination of the Son, for if there is going to come a time when the Son becomes subject to the Father, the fact is that He is not subject now, or there would be no point of speaking of a future time. (Source: WordGazer’s Words)
1 Corinthians 15:28 tells us that the purpose of this subjection is so that, at a future (end) time, God “may be all in all.” And that’s a difficult concept to fathom at any level. (I’ve written about why the Son’s submission to God the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 should not inform our understanding of submission in Christian marriage, here.)
 I cannot in good conscience align myself with some Christian egalitarians who state that the relationships within the Trinity are of mutual, reciprocal submission. The scriptures don’t give us enough information or insight into this. What if, for instance, the members of the Godhead are not equal as we understand equality? I imagine the divine relationships within the Trinity defy labels such as hierarchy, subordination, or equality.
I do believe, however, that the will of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are identical. Since each member of the Godhead shares the same plan and purpose, then God’s will is ‘one will’ and not three different wills either competing or submitting. This degree of unity would certainly be ideal in marriage. Still, the Bible simply never states that the Trinity is a model for marriage.
Excerpt of Andrei Rublev’s famous icon which depicts the three “men” who visited Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 18:1–33). (Wikimedia Commons)
Here is a long article entitled The Trinity in Gender Debates by Dr Fred Sanders which is on a blog from the Torrey’s Honors Institute. It is well worth the read.
Or you can watch this excellent video. If you can’t watch the whole thing (it’s long), just watch the first half-hour and you’ll catch Kevin Giles’ main message. Fred Sanders also presents a message in this video.
Separate Spheres and Distinct Roles in the Trinity and in Marriage?
Submission in 1 Corinthians 15:28 and in Marriage
Monogenēs: Only Begotten?
The Holy Spirit and Eve as Helpers
Ephesians 5:22–33 in a Nutshell
Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22–33
(1) Submission and Respect from Wives in (1 Peter 3:1–6)
(2) Submission and Respect from Husbands (1 Peter 3:7–8)
Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters
Gender Obsessions: Emphasizing our Differences or our Similarities?