By Angus Harley

The other day I made the argument that Wayne Grudem’s reading of 1 Corinthians 11:3 was dominated by theological presuppositionalism and theological extrapolations. There was no serious exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3 to demonstrate the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS). Grudem relied heavily on other theologians, too. Just before that I wrote a different article responding to an elder uphold the ESS reading of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. It was likewise demonstrated that his approach was dominated by theological extrapolations and a lack of exegesis.[1] I was aware in writing about Grudem that others might think I was taking the easy route by not tackling head-on Schreiner, for he was Complementarianism’s ‘man’ who did write about ESS in 1 Corinthians 11:3.[2] So, here I am now doing that very thing. Let’s see what he says.

Same ‘exegetical’ method

What stands out is Schreiner is arguing for Complementarianism’s position that God has made man and woman in such a way that man is in authority over woman. The meaning of kephale is discussed and debated by Schreiner, and he predictably defends Grudem’s conclusion that it means ‘head’, as in one in authority. The entire article is about that subject, to be fair, and his comments on ESS are merely a section of his bigger, Complementarian, concern. Nonetheless, with anticipation, yet again, I expected from the peerless Schreiner a model of exegetical brilliance. And, once again, I was severely disappointed, for there was none…at all!

Schreiner’s exegesis was, in regard to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and ESS, mere theological assertions, with the same proof-texting method as Grudem, and Grudem’s penchant for quoting other theologians. In fact, there is nothing of any substantial difference between both men in terms of their view of, and approach to, 1 Corinthians 11:3. Schreiner offers up the same concept of eternal subordination: that it is not the subordination of the essence of the persons of the Trinity, but subordination in their function. The Son has eternally been under the Father’s authority. Predictably, there is the reliance on the Nicene fathers and other theologians. Berkhof and Calvin are cited. As is Charles Hodge. We have already shown that ESS’ reading of Hodge is only partially correct.[3] In an article that severely critiques Evangelical feminism for not reading the early fathers properly, and for misunderstanding the assembly’s doctrine of eternal subordination, Schreiner commits that very mistake. Hodge did not believe that eternal subordination included submitting eternally to the Father’s authority.

Misinterpreting Historical Theology

The doctrine of autotheos, God-in-himself, was firmly laid down by Augustine: the Father was God-in-himself; the Son was God-in-himself; and the Spirit was God-in-himself. Why did Augustine feel compelled to make this argument? Probably because of the Nicene belief in the Father as the source of divinity in the Son. They believed that the Son did not have divinity, or Godness, in himself, but was God-of-God, Light-of-Light, deriving deity from the Father in the act of eternal generation. It is for that very reason that they also believed that the Father was, literally, ‘first’ in the Trinity.

Calvin, and much later Charles Hodge, came along and reaffirmed the Augustinian autotheos doctrine, rejecting the Nicene speculation of derived Godness. Both men thereby reputed any notion of the Son as eternally submissive to the Father, or eternally under his authority, or the Father eternally in authority over the Son.

Yet, Calvin himself still clung to much of the Nicene theology: eternal generation; the subordination of the Son in his personal relation to the Father (the Son derived Sonship, not divinity, from the Father); and, the Father was ‘first’.

B. B. Warfield pointed out those weaknesses in Calvin.[4] I strongly recommend reading R. L. Reymond’s account of the eternal generation in historical theology.[5]

Superior-inferior distinction

A key argument that Schreiner feels strongly compelled to deal with is Evangelical feminism’s claim that any form of subordination in the Trinity logically implies an inferiority of persons, and superiority of persons. Schreiner is adamant that inferiority and superiority are absent in the Trinity, and that the Evangelical feminists are badly misinterpreting the assembly history on that score. Schreiner implies that there would be a superior-inferior divine if there were, indeed, a passing on of the eternal essence between members of Trinity. But as that did not happen, there was no superior-inferior divide.

Schreiner is ‘hoisted by his own petard’, for it is evident that the Nicene fathers did, very much so, believe that the eternal essence was passed on from Father to the Son; and, secondly, they marked this by making the Father ‘first’ or primus.

Moreover, Evangelical feminists were not pointing merely to the Nicene fathers, but to the very language of ESS itself, in which it referred to the eternal submissiveness of the Son to the Father’s authority. Any form of submission and subordination necessarily implies someone ‘above’ and someone ‘under’, or ‘below’, that authority. This argument is true whether or not divinity was passed on or not to the Son from the Father.

In other words, Schreiner works on the basis of a false dichotomy or dilemma. The choice he gives is:

subordination in the essence of the persons of the Trinity entails the superior-inferior divide;

no subordination in divine essence implies no superiority and inferiority.

Yet, the debate cannot be delimited to those choices, for to be under authority implies a subordination in authority, not in person or being as such. This, in itself, requires a hierarchy, for one to be above the other- but only in authority. Thus, the old-school definition of one’s superior and its accompany and derived status of inferiority, that is one under that authority. These more traditional definitions have nothing to do with one’s person or essence. Thus, in the modern military, to this day, there is still the ‘superior’ and the ‘chain of command’.

I am, in actual fact, a huge fan of Complementarianism as a model of marriage. But it has its issues. It seems obvious to me that, in their zeal to promote Complementarianism, the Complementarians are attaching themselves to arguments that are designed to radically oppose Evangelical feminists, rather than allowing Scripture and logic to do the talking. Indeed, by denying the obvious logic of a hierarchy in marriage, what Complementarianism is doing is flying in the face of facts, and are, ironically, actually giving Evangelical feminism an appearance, on the face of it, of being a ‘just cause’. It would be far wiser of Complementarianism to concede a hierarchy, but then explain exactly what that entails.

Needless to say, Schreiner and Complementarianism are struggling to bring the exegetical receipts for their view of ESS.

[1] Angus Harley, “1 Corinthians 15:24-28: the eternal subordination of the Son?”, All Things New Covenant, June 21, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/06/21/1-corinthians-1524-28-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/.

[2] Thomas Scheiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity”, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 117-132.

[3] Angus Harley, “1 Corinthians 11:3: a look at Grudem’s ESS reading of it”, All Things New Covenant, June 24, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/06/24/1-corinthians-113-a-look-at-grudems-ess-reading-of-it/

[4] B. B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”, Monergism, accessed June 25, 2025,  https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_calvintrinity.html.

[5] R. L. Reymond, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 324-331.Nelson Publishers, 1998), 324-331.