Since there is one divine essence (Deut 6:4; Js 2:19), there is no division or submission in the divine Persons. The Father, Son, and Spirit exist and act with one undivided and inseparable substance. The entire Trinity shares the same honor, authority, power, eternity, and mind. The Father, Son, and Spirit have no distinction in nature, attitude, or will. The Son is whatever the Father is (Jn 1:1).

Since there is one divine substance, it is important to note that there is no subjection between the divine persons. Since they share the same substance and will, no one person could be elevated in rank above another or act without the other two persons.[i] If there were any subjection of will or rank in the divine persons then:

1. that would divide the divine substance resulting in more than one God (Js 2:19),
2. that would elevate the Father to a higher position than the Son violating the equality affirmed in John 1:1,
3. that would demote the Son to inferior rank or nature, and
4. that would break the unity of the singular divine substance.

Since God is one, it is unacceptable to attribute any division within the singular divine substance shared by the three persons.

Historically, the subjection of the Son—in his divinity—to the Father has been seen as a mark of Arianism. Thomas Aquinas rightly argued that since “the nature of the Father and the Son were one, there would also be one greatness and one majesty; for the Son would not be less than, nor subject to, the Father.” Therefore, Aquinas said that in claiming the Son is inferior to the Father, “In their opinion then it follows from the Scriptures that the Son is not of the same nature with the Father.”[ii]

In the incarnation, Christ received a human nature to his divine person (Phil 2:5-11). This reception of a human nature, including a human mind, does not necessitate a metamorphosis of the divine nature.  The divine Son is eternally whatever the Father is (Jn 1:1)—this applies before and after the incarnation. The Son’s reception of the human nature does not change the divine nature. Instead, this reception bestows personhood (enhypostasis) to the human nature (which includes the human mind of Christ). So, there are two natures in one person just as Sunday school teachers have been teaching small children for 2000 years.

The Son, in his divine nature, is not submissive by being in a inferior state. In the 19^th century, some began to teach the Son either set aside or restrained his divine attributes at the incarnation. This novel concept is referred to as kenotic Christology. Functional kenoticism refers to the idea of restraint of the Son’s divine powers. Ontological kenoticism refers to the “setting aside” of the Son’s divine powers. Either way, this would result in a fundamental change in God the Son (Js 1:17). Since, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one divine essence (Deut 6:4; Js 2:19), kenotic Christology implies a change in the entire Trinitarian existence. This novel position, while popular among many, I believe should be rejected.[iii]

It is certainly appropriate to speak of Christ’s submission to the Father in his human nature by his human mind (1 Cor 15:28; Jn 14:28; Ps 8:5 cf. Heb 2:5-9).[iv] However, Christ’s humanity (and his human mind) must not be confused with Christ’s deity (and the divine mind). After the incarnation, Jesus has two natures but remained one person. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, for example, must refer to the Son’s human nature rather than his divine. This is seen in Paul’s continued reference to the Son’s work accomplished in his human nature. In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Christ’s human nature—not the divine nature—died and rose from the dead. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Paul addressed Christ as man, not as God. In this way, he was the second Adam. Then Paul demonstrates that Christ reigns and submits through his human nature.[v] This must be a reference to the Son’s human nature. Through what is called partitive exegesis, we must carefully note if the Scriptures are referencing Christ’s divine “part” or his human “part.”

The Son’s divine mind is whatever the Father’s divine mind is (Jn 1:1). The Son receives his life from the Father (Jn 5:26). The Son “knows all things” and “all things have been handed over” to the Son “from the Father.” So, in this way the Son is second in “ordering,” but not in essence or rank. The Son is the Son, and the Father is the Father. The Son is “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature” (Heb 1:3). The Father, however, is not the radiance of the Son and neither is he the exact expression of the Son’s nature. The Son, since he is the radiance of the Father, is fully divine. In the same way, the Father has “life in himself” and gives the Son “life in himself” (Jn 5:26). The Son does not give life to the Father. The Father is the eternal “Origin,” and the Son is the eternal “Word”—that which is communicated. The Father is not the Word.

So, there is an equality between Father and Son because the Father shares the divine nature to the Son. This divine mystery can be misinterpreted as the Father’s superiority over the Son, the Son’s inferiority to the Father, or the Son’s eternal submission to the Father by rank. It seems best to agree with the historic position and recognize the Father and Son share the same essence, but the Son receives this essence while the Father shares the essence to the Son. This sharing is the result of the Father’s eternal nature rather than the Father’s decision at some point in time. Thus, “there was never a time when the Son was not.”  This relationship results in equality rather than inequality.

With the deity of Christ in view, Christians can rejoice in the glory of Christ. His sacrifice was a divine sacrifice (Acts 20:28). His words and promises are the words of God (Matt 24:35). Christ has the divine authority to forgive sins (Matt 9:6). Christ, as God, will speak and empty every grave in preparation for judgment (Jn 5:28–29).

---

[i] The doctrine of inseparable operations describes the reality that since there is only one divine essence, the three divine persons are never truly or fully alone in their actions in creation. Notice, for example, that the resurrection is said to be accomplished by the Father, at other times by the Son, and at other times by the Spirit. For more information on the doctrine of inseparable operations see Adonis Vidu’s book The Same God Who Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021). 

[ii] Thomas Aquinas, Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Summa Contra Gentiles (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1924), 19–20.

[iii] See Glenn Butner The Son Who Learned Obedience and Trinitarian Dogmatics. Stephen Wellum’s book God the Son Incarnate as well as his recent Systematic Theology Volume 1 are also incredibly helpful.  

[iv] As Glen Butner said concerning 1 Corinthians 15:28, “many interpret this passage as evidence of an eternal hierarchy within the Godhead, contextual clues suggest that Paul has Christ’s role as the second Adam in view in this passage, in which case it cannot tell us anything of the eternal relationship between the Father and Christ as God” (Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021) 89).

[v] Interestingly, while Christ’s human nature is pictured as reigning until the end of time in 1 Corinthians 15:28, Psalm 110:1 pictures the Father bringing about the defeat of God’s enemies and Psalm 110:2 pictures the Son ruling and receiving worship in Psalm 110:3. Both Father and Son are pictured as equals in both reign and rank. This demonstrates the inescapable equality of the persons who share the same essence as well.