Does the Father Submit to the Son? A Critique of Royce Gruenler

Today, in the theological realm, there is a renewed interest in the study of the Trinity. In fact, it has been called one of the "most important developments in the field of theology."¹ In the last nine years alone, Catherine Lacugna, Thomas F. Torrance, Colin Gunton, Millard Erickson, Christoph Schwobel, Donald Bloesch, and Alvin Kimmel have authored or edited significant works dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Thompson, "Feminists, liberationists, process thinkers, and more traditionalist Catholic and Protestant theologians as well as Eastern Orthodox," are concerned to present an understanding of the Trinity that will increase its affect on the practical aspects of the Christian life.²

In recent years, those involved with the gender role debate have been appealing to the Trinity in various ways in order to assist in articulating their view, thus intertwining two of the major movements in theology today.³ One evangelical feminist in particular, Royce Gruenler, has appealed to the Trinity in order to teach that there is some sort of mutual submission between males and females in the home and in the church. The novelty of his view is in the claim that within the Godhead, not only does the Son submit to the Father, but the Father also submits to and is dependent upon the Son, hence, for Gruenler, there is mutual submission/dependence among the eternal triune relations of the divine persons..

Gruenler's Presuppositions and Theological Assertions

Royce Gruenler, in his Trinity in the Gospel of John: A Thematic Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, has attempted to evaluate the Gospel of John as it explicates the interrelationality of the persons of the Godhead.⁴ Gruenler is upfront from the outset of this work that he sees the Trinitarian teaching of John as supporting an egalitarian viewpoint. Understanding the issue of authority and submission within the Trinity and its meaning with regard to human relationships is of crucial importance. He states, "if one wishes to say, using the language of Jesus in the fourth Gospel, that within the inner relationship of the eternal Trinity the Father always commands and the Son and the Spirit always obey, that only the Father authoritatively speaks and the Son and Spirit always passively listen, but never the other way around, and yet at the same time neither is principally inferior or superior to the other, then language has failed me at some point ..."⁵ He argues that if this were true, then the Son and Spirit would be eternally cast as passive listeners and this would be "absurd," not to mention the fact that it fails to take into consideration those passages in John where the Father does the "bidding" of the Son⁶.

Gruenler is reticent to embrace the Cappadocian "two-category solution."⁷ That is, he is uncomfortable with the concept of unity of substance in the Trinity coupled with "inequality on the level of subsistence as intercommuning persons."⁸ He goes on to say,

"If the language of Jesus is to be exegeted properly as the expression of his relationship to the Father then it must be recognized that his statements of subordination (he is sent, he listens, he obeys) are the language of the incarnate son who has voluntarily assumed a subordinate role in time and space for the work of salvation. The subordination of Son and Spirit to the Father is for the time of redemption only ... On the testimony of the fourth Gospel it is clear to me that unity and coequality are integral to the personal interaction of Father and Son (and by implication, of the Spirit), and that even the apparent subordinationist language of Jesus can be seen ironically to attest a characteristic attitude of mutual disposability and deference that flows from unity with the Father."⁹

The heart of Gruenler's assertions regarding the mutual subordination of the members of the Trinity can be seen in the following statement:

Our study describes one of the characteristic modes by which the members of the Triune family disclose their interaction in the redemptive process. The incarnate Son subordinates himself to the will of the Father for the work of salvation, and the Holy Spirit subordinates himself to the will of the Father and the Son in carrying out the work ... But it is also clear from Jesus' complementary claims to equality with the Father (10:30; 17:11) and his intimation that the Holy Spirit shares equally in the carrying out the work of salvation (14:16-17; 16:13-15) that such subordination is voluntarily assumed and flows out of dynamic and mutual hospitality of the divine Family as a unity.¹⁰

He goes on to say:

The interpreter must be alert at this point to analyze all the data carefully and observe that there are sufficient clues in the Gospel of John that allow us to speak of a subordination within the Trinity that is mutual, voluntary, and loving, but not of a subordination in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are second- and third-class members of the Family. Jesus' claims to equality with the Father should make it clear that his subordination as incarnate Son is voluntarily assumed for the work of redemption, and that this voluntary sense may be extrapolated to the equally subordinate role of the Holy Spirit in the redemptive process.¹¹

Gruenler equally rejects this kind of argument with regard to human relationships, especially in the home. He begins by asserting the problems with a hermeneutic derived from the New Testament texts on headship.¹² In his view, these texts teach one thing on the personal level, i.e., the husband lovingly commands and the wife respectfully obeys, while, on a spiritual level, something else is taught, i.e., "all differences are transcended" (Gal. 3:28).¹³ For Gruenler, it is logically difficult to believe that one person should command and the other should obey without also believing that one is superior and the other is inferior.¹⁴ He goes on to say, "that may be well and true and necessary in view of the presence of sin in the present age. But when applied to the Trinity, that principle lands one flatly in subordinationism in respect to the interpersonal relationship of Son and Spirit to Father who must perforce be seen as the superior member of the Triune Family."¹⁵

Thus he affirms a mutual and voluntary subordination among the members of the Trinity. However he cautions against mistaking voluntary submission for necessary submission. The latter would inevitably regress into the one-way subordination that he wishes to avoid.¹⁶ He asserts that Jesus, in the fourth Gospel, lifts all relationships to a higher family level where mutual service takes precedence over any hierarchical model of simple command/obedience.¹⁷ So for Gruenler, the Trinity is the perfect example of mutual deference and mutual subordination.

Gruenler's Understanding of John 5:18-30

The following section will address John 5:18-30 as a representative passage of Gruenler's effort to teach that the Father submits to the Son.¹⁸ Gruenler's whole intention in dealing with the Gospel of John is to demonstrate that there is "mutual loving, generosity, glorification, equality, availability, disposability, and deference," within the relationship of the members of the Trinity.¹⁹ This is what he has in mind as he expounds on John 5:18-30.²⁰

He begins by explaining that in 5:18, Jesus disturbs the authorities by not only asserting that God does not observe the Sabbath when it comes to healing but also that his work is equivalent to the work of the Father. Gruenler claims that on the heals of this expression of equality with God, Jesus now, in verse 19, teaches that there is "coordinate unity" in the actions between he and the Father. The Son acts just like the Father and "would never think about doing anything without being in one accord with Him." Similarly, in verse 20, (For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel) Gruenler says that love binds the Father and the Son together in mutual love "so that Jesus discloses the continuous working of the divine Community as his ministry unfolds." He then goes on to verses 22-27:

(22) The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

(23) that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

(24) Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

(25) Truly, truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

(26) For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

(27) and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.

Verses 22-23, for Gruenler, provide the key information necessary in order to make his claim that the Father submits to the Son. He notes, "The Father also defers to the Son in giving him all authority to judge. The Father submits to the good judgment of the Son and trusts his judgment completely."²¹ Therefore, Jesus makes statements of equality (v. 18), the Father is shown to defer and submit, and finally, in verse 23, Jesus acknowledges that he is sent by the Father, thereby showing his own deference to Him. This is what Gruenler means by mutuality within the Godhead.

Gruenler's comments on verses 26-27 are equally explicit with regard to his contention that there is mutual interdependence between the Father and the Son. This is further shown as Jesus describes the generosity of the Father as he is willing to share life equally with the Son. Jesus is clear about his sharing of authority with the Father in the act of judging. Gruenler says, "[Jesus] implies that because he has been willing to represent the divine Family as the Son of man, he is worthy of executing divine judgment, hence the Father willingly subordinates himself to the Son." In other words, because the Father has delegated the authority to judge, He has put Himself in a position of submitting to the decisions of the Son; hence the subordination of the Father to the Son. Finally, in verse 30, Gruenler acknowledges that Jesus expresses his submission to the Father but this is just a demonstration of "one of the most remarkable characteristics of the divine Community," namely, to assert authority and at the same time to become completely subordinate to one another.

Critique

This section will broadly critique Gruenler's arguments in three major areas. First it will show that he has misunderstood the broad context of the Gospel of John by claiming that a primary theme is that of mutual submission between the members of the Trinity. Second it will show that he has mishandled the text by using it as an example of how the father submits to the Son. Finally, this section intends to show that Gruenler has and misrepresented the concept of delegated authority by claiming that one who delegates authority subordinates himself to the one to whom he delegates.²²

Gruenler's misunderstanding of mutual submission as a theme in John. Gruenler wrongly understands the fourth Gospel to be predominately about the mutuality and disposability of all of the members of the Godhead. The broader context of John deals not primarily with the mutuality or disposability between the members of the Godhead, but with the dependence of the Son upon the Father, the same Son who is co-existent and essentially equal to the Father. J. Ernest Davie contends that the relationship of Jesus to the Father pictured in John is one that is characterized by trust, dependence, obedience, and love.²³ The primary characteristic however, is that of dependence. In fact, he claims, "there is no more remarkable element in the Fourth Gospel than the consistent and universal presentation of Christ, in His life and work and words and in all aspects of His activities, as dependent upon the Father at every point."²⁴ For Davie, those who have studied the fourth Gospel with care will see that

Christ depends upon the Father for His power -John 5:19 ... for His knowledge-John 8:16 ... for His mission-John 7:28 ... for all necessary instructions-John 14:31 ... for His message-John 7:16 ... for life-John 5:26 ... for the destinies of life-John 18:11 ... for His authority-John 17:2 ... for love-John 10:17 ... for His glory-John 17:24 ... for His disciples-John 6:37 ... for testimony-John 5:37 ... for the gift of the Spirit-John 3:34 ... for all other gifts-John 17:7 ... for guidance-John 11:9 ... for union and communion with the Father-John 8:29 ... and the same dependence is manifested in Christ's obedience-John 4:34 ... and witnessed to by His prayers-John 17:15.²⁵

In fact, it is Davie's conclusion that the very word, "Son" implies the continual dependence "upon the Father as the source of life and of practically all else that is the Son's."²⁶ He goes on to argue that this concept of dependence of the Son on the Father is an eternal arrangement.²⁷ While the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father is another theological matter,²⁸ what is clear is that there is no hint of subordination of the Father to the Son.

Davie's conclusion is the opposite of Gruenler's belief that mutual and voluntary subordination is a theme of the Gospel of John. Mutual and voluntary submission between the members of the Godhead is not a theme of the Fourth Gospel and is not even a theme of the example passage. In fact, Barrett notes, "the main theme is solemnly, constantly, almost wearisomely, repeated. As v. 17 foreshadowed, there is complete unity of action between the father and the Son, and complete dependence of the Son on the Father."²⁹

The entire theme of sending speaks to the broader context of John. The idea that Jesus is sent by the Father is referenced throughout John, and this unique relationship conveys the idea of the dependence of the Son on the Father. Likewise it communicates the clear authority of the Father as the One who sends. Kostenberger argues that the Gospel of John characterizes Jesus as the "Sent Son."³⁰ This concept centers upon various themes of obedience and dependence. In fact, "the sending language underscores the fact that the Son, the Sent One par excellence (cf. 9:7), carried out his mission in obedience and dependence upon his sender, the Father."³¹

Contrary to Gruenler, when looking at the general theme and intention of the Gospel of John, it can be seen that John is not arguing for a mutual dependence, but for a unidirectional reliance of the Son on the Father. This unidirectional concept does not negate the equality of the Father and Son, which of course is also affirmed within the text of John. It simply helps to round out the assertion that within the Godhead there is equality of essence but subordination of the Son to the Father with regard to role and function. This understanding is more in line with the intention of the Gospel of John.

Gruenler's mishandling of the text. Gruenler has also mishandled the text of the Gospel of John as presented in John 5:18-30. The designation of Son is not just a temporary name but reflects an eternal relationship between the Son and the Father. D. A. Carson reflects this sentiment.³² Carson is concerned to present a proper understanding of the love of the Father for the Son and the love of the Son for the Father. In his summary statements concerning the passage in question (John 5:18-30) he first asserts that this relationship is eternal.³³ He argues that in spite of the fact that there are some who would claim, from this passage, that the title "Son" is to be considered for the incarnation only, he is convinced that the passage teaches the eternal nature of the relationship. The passage teaches that the Son does whatever the Father does, and Carson contends that the "whatever" is comprehensive, which would also include the act of creation (John 1:2-3).³⁴ This makes way for the assertion that the title of the Son is an eternal designation. Further, he notes that passages such as John 3:17 ("For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him") teach that the person who was sent was the Son at the time of the sending.³⁵ In his understanding, "the ‘Son' is an alternative appellation for that Word, not that this is a tag only for his incarnational existence."³⁶

He goes on to claim that John 5:26 should be viewed as an eternal "grant" from the Father to the Son which "inherently transcends time and stretches Jesus' sonship into eternity

past."³⁷ It is significant that God, who has "life in Himself" has "granted to the Son to have life in himself."³⁸ Gruenler claims that this part of the passage teaches that the Father is "generous" in sharing life with the Son. He further argues that this text implies that since Jesus was willing to represent the divine Family as the "Son of Man," it makes him worthy of carrying out divine judgment. This in turn paves the way for the Father willingly to subordinate Himself to the Son. Contrary to Gruenler, this passage does not teach the generosity of the Father but actually helps to establish the fact of an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Sonship of Jesus is not limited to the days of his incarnation. According to Carson, then, "It follows that the love of the Father for the Son, and the love of the Son for the Father, which we have been considering, cannot be restricted to the peculiar relationship that pertained from the incarnation on, but is intrinsically intra-Trinitarian.³⁹ This leads Carson into his argument that there is a clear distinction between the love that the Son has for the Father and the love that the Father has for the Son.⁴⁰ He states, "The Father commands, sends, tells, commissions-and demonstrates His love for the Son by ‘showing' him everything such that the Son does whatever the Father does. The Son obeys, says only what the Father gives him to say, does only what the Father gives him to do, comes into the world as the Sent One-and demonstrates his love for the Father by such obedience. Not once is there any hint that the Son commissions the Father, who obeys. Not once is there any hint that the Father submits to the Son or is dependent upon him for his own words and deeds."⁴¹

This passage cannot be used to argue for the subordination of the Father to the Son. At each turn it is the Son who continually states that whatever he has comes from the Father. This idea is inconsistent with Gruenler's attempt to draw out the notion of the Father's submission to the Son.

Gruenler's misrepresentation of delegated authority. Not only has Gruenler misunderstood and mishandled John 5:18-30, he has also misrepresented the concept of delegated authority. Gruenler claims that when the father gives all judgment to the Son, He is somehow submitting himself to the authority of the Son. He has eliminated the sense of agency and delegation. Craig Keener contends that in John 5:18-30, the Father is greater in rank and the Son submits to His will.⁴² The Son is God but "he is also the agent of God the Father."⁴³ This image, in the culture to which this was written, would have carried with it an understanding of the subordination of the agent, even if it only applied to the particular task at hand.⁴⁴ According to Keener, Jesus actually begins his argument in verse seventeen by claiming that God regularly works on the Sabbath. From this, Keener argues that "by implying his minor premise that he is God's agent (he uses ‘my Father' in a special sense that allowed him to act on the Father's authority), he concludes that he is therefore permitted to do God's work on the Sabbath."⁴⁵ This is the point at which Jesus' opponents express their objection. They agree that God regularly superseded the Sabbath, but they are not prepared to acknowledge the equality of Jesus with the Father. Keener asserts that while Jesus did make claims of deity (John 8:58, 20:28-29) he regularly denies equality of rank with the Father.⁴⁶ The manner in which Jesus does this is by calling attention to his role as a sent agent. Therefore Jesus is not claiming equal rank with the Father but is acting in obedience and on delegated authority.⁴⁷ He continues:

Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which provides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency ... Agents bore representative authority, because they acted on the authority of the one who sent them ... the servant of a king held a high position relative to those the servant addressed but was always subordinate to the king. Although commissioned agents in the first century were not always of lower social status, they relinquished their own status for the commission given them, in which they were authorized by the status of their senders. Even when one sent one's son (Mark 12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender.⁴⁸

In other words, the very concept of agency requires some sort of subordination by the agent to the one who does the sending. In this case it would be inconceivable that the Father would submit to the Son merely because he has delegated authority to judge. This implies that the Son still has to be accountable and answer to the Father.⁴⁹ Keener rounds out the discussion by calling the reader back to the reality of the deity of the Son by stating, "Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity's required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (John 5:23)."⁵⁰

This concept would be true for another key biblical relationship as well. God delegates the naming of the animals to Adam in Genesis 2:19 which says, "He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Here one can see that even though God has given Adam authority over the naming of the animals, it would not be plausible to also assert that God somehow had submitted Himself to Adam. And even more, how wrong it would be to cite this passage in support of the mutual dependence and mutual submission of Adam and God. Along with the idea of delegated authority comes the concept that it actually emphasizes the subordinate role of the one to whom the authority is delegated.⁵¹

Regarding delegated authority, the sending language used by John is instructive once again. Throughout the Gospel of John, the idea that Jesus is sent by the Father underscores not only the submission of the Son, but also the clearly delegated authority of the Father. The Son is the agent of the Father.⁵² The fact that Jesus was sent implies the authorization of the Father and the "sphere of his authorized activity on behalf of his Father is clearly defined (that is, those activities, such as creation and judgment, which are peculiarly God's sphere) ..."⁵³ The passages in John that reflect this idea are many:

Generally, the sent one is: to bring glory and honor to the sender (5:23; 7:18); to do the sender's will (4:34; 5:30, 38; 6:38-39) and works (5:36; 9:4), to speak the sender's word's (3:34; 7:16; 12:49; 14:10b, 24), and to be accountable to the sender (especially chapter 17). He is to bear witness to the sender (5:36; 7:28-8:26), to represent the sender accurately (12:44-45; 13:20; 15:18-25), to exercise delegated authority (5:21-22, 27; 13; 3; 17:2; 20:23); and finally the sent one is to know the sender intimately (7:29; cf. 15:21; 17:18, 25), live in a close relationship with the sender (18:16, 18, 29; 16:32), and follow the sender's example (13:16).⁵⁴

Part of Gruenler's argument that the Father submits to the Son, stems from his reading of 5:22-23. He claims that since the Father gives the responsibility of judging to the Son, He is somehow submitting to the authority of the Son. This interpretation of the text betrays the proper understanding of delegated authority. The one who delegates does not make himself subordinate to the one to whom he delegates.

Conclusion

This article attempts to broadly critique the argument of Royce Gruenler that not only does the Son submit to the Father, but the Father also submits to the Son. An attempt has been made to demonstrate that Gruenler is mistaken in his assertions and that he fails in his effort to argue biblically that the Father submits to the Son. He has misunderstood the broader context of the Gospel of John, mishandled the text, and has misrepresented the concept of delegated authority. The broader intention of John in his Gospel is to demonstrate the coequality of the Son with the Father while at the same time demonstrating the dependence of the Son on the Father. Further, John 5:18-30 does not in any way teach the subordination of the Father to the Son. Finally, Gruenler has betrayed common sense and biblical interpretation by claiming that delegated authority somehow forces the source of authority to submit to the one to whom he has delegated.

What John 5:18-30 illustrates so beautifully is the full equality of the Son to the Father along side his uniform desire to submit to the will, word, and ways of his Father. All that the Son has can be traced back to the Father. The Son can do nothing unless He sees the Father doing so. The Son cannot judge unless the Father gives Him all judgment. The Son does nothing on his own initiative but everything in accordance to the will of the Father. There is a clear order of relations that does not diminish or negate the mutual, essential equality between the Father and the Son. Further, this coexistence of equality and order is not temporal (for the purposes of redemption only) but is an eternal arrangement.