Perhaps the most elaborate of advocates in favor of Subordinationism was Origen of Alexandria. Origen taught that Jesus was a “DEUTEROS THEOS” (second God) [1] He also said the Son was “distinct” from the Father.[2] Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance than the Father.[3] It should be noticed that some of these same references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However, Subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than the Father.[3]
Other pre-Nicean references which could be interpreted as Subordinationist views include (but are not limited to):
Code:Clement of Rome (AD 45-101) : "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God."[4] Also, "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant..."[5]
Code:Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-115) : "Jesus Christ . . . is the expressed purpose of the Father, just as the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world exist by the purpose of Jesus Christ." [6] "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual."[7] "All of you are to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery [the elders] as the apostles."[8]
Code:Polycarp (AD 70-155) : "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ... give you a lot and portion with his saints, and to us along with you, and to all men who are under heaven who will believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." [9]
Code:Epistle to Diognetus (AD 75-200) : "As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent he him; as God he sent him; as to men he sent him; as a Savior he sent him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God."[10]
Code:Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 100) : "And furthermore, my brethren, consider this: . . . the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls--he who is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world: Let us make man in accord with our image and likeness."[11] "The Scripture is speaking about us when he [God] says to the Son: Let us make man in accord with our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of heaven and the fish of the sea. . . . These things he said to the Son."[12]
Code:Shepherd of Hermas (AD 100-150) : "The Son of God does not appear in the guise of a slave, but appears with great power and authority ... Because God planted the vineyard ... and he turned it over to his Son. And the Son appointed the angels to protect every one of them [Christ's followers] ..."[13] "...the Son of God ... was counselor to his Father in his creation." [14]
Continued…Code:Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) : "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things" [15] "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has as his elder the person who gives him the name."[16]
Code:Irenaeus (AD 115-200) : "...the Father himself is alone called God...the Scriptures acknowledge him alone as God; and yet again...the Lord confesses him alone as his own Father, and knows no other."[17] " . . this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except him who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who receive the spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else God, or name no other as Lord; and, what is much more important, since it is true that our Lord acted likewise, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except he who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father." [18] Irenaeus also refers to John "...proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made." [19] Also he taught that Jesus was inferior to the Father in divine knowledge[20]
Code:Didache (AD 90-200) : "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Servant."[21] "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever!"[22]
Code:Tertullian (AD 165-225) : "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, in as much as he who begets is one, and he who is begotten is another; he, too, who sends is one, and he who is sent is another; and he, again, who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another."[23] "So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day is not the same as the night; nor is the Father the same as the Son, in such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or the Other should be Both."[23]
What say ye all? Was subordination the “orthodox” position until the Council of Nicea?Code:Pope Dionysius (AD 265) : "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity.... Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'."[24] Yet, Jesus is not treated as synonymous with God.
Thank you. I think I understand the issue better now. So is relational subordination orthodox?Most of those are entirely consistent with the orthodox/Nicene position on the Trinity. That Jesus was subject to the Father “in the flesh” and that the Father sent the Son (and the Son, after the Ascension, sent the Spirit) are Biblical realities that every form of Trinitarianism acknowledges. With the possible exception of Origen’s “deuteros Theos” phrase (depending on exactly what he means), none of those quotations claim that the Son is inferior to the Father in nature.
Even in the orthodox conception of the Trinity, the relations between the Persons are not perfectly reciprocal. The Father is God-as-God, neither created nor begotten nor proceeding. The Son is begotten, but neither created nor proceeding. The Spirit proceeds, but is neither created nor begotten. But in their essential nature, all are equal.
Usagi
Yes Relational Subordinationism is Orthodox: The Son is Subordinate to the Father in their Relationship i.e The Son does the will of the Father, The Son is sent by the Father etc and not the other way around how ever the Son and the Father are equal in Nature and Being i.e the Son shares the Fathers eternal self existence etc.Thank you. I think I understand the issue better now. So is relational subordination orthodox?
Thanks! This does help me understand the issue better. Reading those quotes in this light does make most of them compatible with Nicene orthodoxy.Yes Relational Subordinationism is Orthodox: The Son is Subordinate to the Father in their Relationship i.e The Son does the will of the Father, The Son is sent by the Father etc and not the other way around how ever the Son and the Father are equal in Nature and Being i.e the Son shares the Fathers eternal self existence etc.