I’d agree that eternal subordination is not explicit in 1 Cor 11:3. It’s at least open to such an interpretation and most likely points in that direction.

1 Cor 15:28, on the other hand, is a bit more explicit, and the conclusion seems, to me anyway, inescapable.

Thanks for sharing your journey on the role-of-women issue. Your attitude of openness to change based on your commitment to the Scripture is commendable.

I’ll work on a post on the 1 Cor 15:28 passage. Look for it in the next several days.

Regarding 1 Cor 11.3, I don’t see eternal suborndination as explicit from the passage. I’ve not been impressed by Grudem’s multiple articles on kephale (beyond the fact that it does not mean “source” in the NT). I’ve been more influenced by Anthony Thiselton’s excursus on the word in his 1 Cor commentary and Gordon Fee’s writings.

Regarding 1 Cor 15.28, I don’t know. In all honesty, I have not studied it. My focus exgetically for the past nearly two years has been Ephesians 5. But presently, I’m reading through Fee on 1 Corinthians.

I’ve been both an egalitarian and a commplementarian, going back in forth since I was in college. Peter O’Brien had me convinced for several months (on Eph 5.21), but now I don’t see his argumentation as adequate. Above all though, I try to be open to change, if that is where scripture leads me.

Do you know of any commentaries on 1 Corinthians that argue for eternal subordination for these two passages? I’d be interested in reading what they have to say.

Much of my thought on has to do with the paper I wrote for the Logos/SBL contest (which I wrote on Ephesians 5.18-24).

Donn, Erickson’s work is worth having and consulting, but I prefer Grudem’s for at least a couple of reasons: (1) I like the practical and devotional aspect of Grudem’s ST, and (2) I find Grudem to be closer to the truth on soteriological matters.

Brian, thanks for the note about Letham’s book. I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, but look forward to checking it out at some point.

Mike, eternal economic subordination raised some bothersome questions for me when I first considered it, but those questions stemmed from theological rather than exegetical considerations. I’m strongly inclined toward functional or economic subordination of the Son to the Father on the basis of 1 Cor 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:28. I don’t know how else to interpret these texts. How do you understand them?

Theologien, I can’t speak authoritatively for Grudem, but it seems to me that his view of the Trinity comes first. While the two issues (trinitarian relationships and marital relationships) are related, I’m not sure that a certain position on one absolutely necessitates a certain position on the other.

Concerning your second comment: (1) Theologizing is fine and good, but I want to see that it is firmly rooted in solid exegesis of texts—1 Cor 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:28 included. (2) I agree that a clear distinction must be made between ontology and economy. What I’ve read from Grudem seems to make that distinction with precision.

I would tend to agree with Mike Aubrey.

If I remember correctly, Millard Erickson responds to such a view of the Trinity in his Christian Theology, which I definitely prefer to Grudem.

As I’ve read Grudem’s Systematic Theology, he seems overly obsessive about the marriage relationship and overly reactionary to the problems in American culture.

Just a quick question: Which do you prefer, Grudem’s or Erickson’s Systematic Theology? and why?

Thanks