Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.5) and Conclusion

ARGUMENTS OPPOSED TO THIS RELATIONSHIP

As can be expected, the egalitarian supporters do not agree with this biblical theology. Gilbert Bilezikian agrees with the history of the church’s view of the Trinity but claims Christ was not “number two in the Trinity” and acted salvifically not because “his boss told him to do so or because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no one else wanted to touch.”[1] Rather, Christ “volunteered his life out of sacrificial love.”[2] While the latter statement is correct, that Christ did humble himself in love for mankind, He did not get demoted and take orders from his boss. Such language is one of subordination, which, as already noted has been condemned as heresy, and speaks of Jesus being inferior to God. Once again, the egalitarian view of a being inferior in self worth because one has a specific role that is different permeates his thoughts. Also, it is interesting to note that Bilezikian does not interpret the headship passages, such as Ephesians 6, in the biblical and traditional way.

Regarding Bilezikian’s article, Peter R. Schemm states that Bilezikian has first “clearly oversimplified and misrepresented church history of the understanding of the Trinity. He has taken the heretical concept of subordinationism and wrongly identified it with any type of eternal order, ranking, or hierarchy in the Godhead.”[3] Also, Schemm points out that Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine all affirm some sort of eternal order or ranking in the Godhead.[4] Augustine stated that the Father is different from the Son relationally, and yet the same ontologically.[5]

Stanley J. Grenz, in an attempt to talk about the mutuality of the Trinity, makes the claim from Athanasius that the Son is not the Son without the Father, and the Father is not the Father without the Son.[6] While that is correct, all that statement implies is that without the Son’s existence, the Father would be different. Indeed, the entire Trinity would be different; in fact it would no longer constitute a Trinity. Regarding Grenz’s article, Schemm notes that Grenz has an overemphasis on relationality in the doctrine of God and has interpreted the entire doctrine through this concept.[7] Schemm asserts “an overemphasis on relationality – that which removes the distinction between God’s essence and His person – may lead to a weakened view of God’s triunity.”[8]

The last problem with Grenz’s article is that he “seems to presuppose that for a mutually reciprocating love relationship to be meaningful there must not be an order or ranking in that relationship.”[9] Schemm remarks that this statement is the “touchstone of evangelical feminism” that states that any type of an ordered relationship automatically implies inferiority.[10]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that the complementarian view of the relationship between a husband, his wife, and God has a biblical pattern in the inner-workings of the Trinity. There is evidence that there is an “eternal order in the Godhead, an order in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share and reciprocate love, and yet still maintain their eternally distinct roles.”[11] There is also evidence based on Scripture that there are also separate roles for men and women in marriage, as well as in the church. While this study is by no means complete or exhaustive, there is a biblical framework with which to work from that will aid in further developments with this relationship. Those who hold to an egalitarian viewpoint, but still claim a view of inerrancy of Scripture, will continue to struggle in adequately explaining a biblical concept of the Trinity based on their hermeneutical methods. Furthermore, these methods will continue to skew the relationship between a husband and a wife that God has, in His infinite wisdom, so created and designed.

---

[1] Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 40/1, (March 2001): 59.

[2] Ibid.

[3]Peter R. Schemm, “Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles,” The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 6/1, (Spring 2001): 14.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Stanley Grenz, “Theological Foundations for Female-Male Relationships,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41/4 (December 1998): 618.

[7] Schemm, “Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles,” 15.

[8] Ibid., 16.

[9] Ibid., 18.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 19.