The Adventist Review has recently published an article entitled “Eternal Submission of the Son?” by Angel Rodriguez (Adventist Review, Sept 9, 2025). The blurb claims that the doctrine of the eternal submission of the Son is a “false teaching” that is “foreign to the bible” and “lacks logical consistency.”

This is quite the claim from Mr. Rodriguez!

Now Mr. Rodriguez is the same individual who previously claimed that the Sonship of Christ is a metaphor [1] so it should come as no real surprise that he negates the pre-incarnate submission of the Son from all eternity as well. The idea would logically follow, like a glove in the hand, and it is actually his view of the Sonship of Christ that is the root of his theological problem.

The inspired truth here is that in heaven above, before this world was, there were rebellious angels that sought to change the established order of God’s government. They tried to hide the fact that Christ was the only begotten Son of God. Lucifer, the archangel [2], started the controversy.

“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God….This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels….” {EGW 25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3}

There is no new thing under the sun and this same demonic argument is being carried on within Adventism, by means of a lot of theological jargon and fancy terminology, but the effect is still the same. It results in nothing but rebellion and division.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rodriguez’s article is full of misinformation and falsehood so let’s try to correct it now.

The article begins with a claim that it is Biblically incorrect to claim that the Son of God was voluntarily submissive to the Father from all eternity. He claims that this idea came from Evangelicals.

Rodriguez: “This idea was taken by some Adventists from a group of Evangelical theologians in North America who argued that headship is the divine form of government, the ultimate head of the universe being the Father.” [End Quote]

This is a very popular claim among SDA pro-trinitarians but it is falsehood and a quintessential part of their revisionist historical narrative regarding the trinity doctrine within Adventism. If you study the actual Adventist history, you will see that the view of God the Father, as the Head of the Godhead, and the view of Christ, as a submissive Son because He of His personality as the only begotten, has existed within Adventism from its very inception. It is only in recent times that it has been denied.

Ellen White, an excellent representative author of the viewpoint of SDAs of yesteryear, makes plain that Jehovah God, the supreme Ruler, was God the Father, the Being who sent Jesus to us.

“As Jehovah, the supreme Ruler, God could not personally communicate with sinful men, but He so loved the world that He sent Jesus to our world as a revelation of Himself….” {EGW 18LtMs, Ms 124, 1903, par. 2}

The supremacy of God the Father is the true light! We read:

“Christ volunteered to come to our world and give to men the true light. God gave His only begotten Son to the world to reveal the Father as supreme in heaven and in earth.” {EGW 25LtMs, Lt 132, 1910, par. 6}

These quotes from the pen of inspiration are sufficient to reveal to us the Headship of God the Father and there are others like it. Please note that Ellen White was referring to God the Father as “Jehovah, the supreme Ruler” in 1903! She gave the quote about the Father’s supremacy in 1910! Thus, there was no negation of the Headship of the Father. There is a popular Adventist revisionist history which claims that, in 1898, Ellen White started teaching Father, Son, and Spirit unified as a triune god in which there was no Headship and that headship/submission only came about because of the incarnation. This is a lie from satan.

The pre-incarnate Headship of God the Father was clear and certain doctrine to the Advent people of yesteryear. The Adventist pioneers, virtually to a man, all believed in a pre-incarnate Christ who was begotten of God. Thus, they viewed Christ’s submission to the Father as the natural expression of who He was, in His personality, as the only begotten Son of the Father.

Even in the 1890s, when SDA leaders first started using the word “trinity” in a positive sense, this conception was maintained. We know this, as a certain fact, because M.C. Wilcox, one of the first men to publish the word “trinity” in a positive sense in Adventism published a pamphlet entitled “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity” in 1892. This pamphlet actually copied, almost verbatim, the words from an 1891 article by Samuel Spear entitled “The Subordination of Christ.” The very title is clear here. Wilcox’s article was a word for word copy except that Spear’s sentence “or triune God, which has so long been the faith of the Christian Church” was edited out. In other words, Wilcox’s “trinity” was maintaining the doctrine of a pre-incarnate Christ who was subordinate to the Father and he refused to turn the Father and Son into 1 Divine Being like how the larger Christian world did. In quoting this article we read:

“There is, however, a sense in which the Christ of the Bible, while essentially divine, is, nevertheless, in some respects distinct from and subordinate to God the Father. He is spoken of, and frequently speaks of Himself, as the Son of God, as the only-begotten of the Father, as being sent by God the Father into this world, and as doing the will of the Father. He is never confounded with the Father, and never takes His place.” (M.C. Wilcox “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”)

Again:

“5. The subordination of Christ, as revealed in the Bible, is not adequately explained by referring it simply to His human nature. It is true that, in that nature, He was a created and dependent being, and in this respect like the race whose nature He assumed; and yet the Bible statement of His subordination extends to His divine as well as his human nature. Paul tells us that God ‘‘created all things by Jesus Christ,’’ and that He is the person, or agent,” by whom also He [God] made the worlds.” Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2. Neither of these statements can have any relation to the humanity of Christ, and yet in both God is represented as acting in and through Christ, and the latter represented as the medium of such action. So, also, God is described as sending forth His Son into this world, as giving “His only begotten Son” for human salvation, and as not sparing “His own Son” but delivering “him up for us all.” Gal 4: 4; John 3:16; Rom 8:32.  These statements imply that this Son who is none other than Christ Himself, existed prior to his incarnation, and that, as thus existing, He was sent forth, given, not spared, but delivered up, by God the Father. The act assigned to God the Father in thus devoting “His own Son” to the work of human redemption, relates to Him as he was before He assumed our nature in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and supposes in the Father some kind of primacy in making this devotement.

“We learn also from Paul that when this Son, having been incarnated on earth, and having been subsequently exalted in heaven, shall have had all things put under him, “then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. 15:28. This implies subordination on the part of the Son to God the Father; and this sub­ordination, whatever may be its exact nature, obviously relates to the higher nature of Christ, and not simply to His humanity…

“These scriptures, taken together, show that the subordination of Christ to God the Father, as stated in the Bible, is not limited simply to his human nature, but extends also in some sense to His higher nature. This is the view expressed by Dr. Meyer, in his comment on the words, “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” 1 Cor. 3:23. He says that it is “precisely on the divine, side of His being that Christ is, according to Paul, the Son of God, and, therefore, not subordinate simply in re­spect to His manhood.”

“The conclusion from all the Scriptures put together is that there is in the Godhead some essential and immi­nent distinction as to the mode of subsistence and operation, in virtue of which Christ is properly spoken of as subordinate to God the Father, and also spoken of as divine and equal to the Father in power and glory, and that this distinction, whatever it is, does not conflict with the doctrine of the divine unity as taught in the Bible.” (Ibid)

So where did the Adventist idea of a pre-incarnate subordinate Son come from? The answer is the holy Scriptures! The SDA pioneers believed that God the Father was the Head of Christ because the Bible says as much directly:

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3)

And based on their careful, holistic Bible study they concluded that this Headship of the Father was not limited to Christ’s humanity but that it was actually also related to Him in His Divinity.

Again, as they studied the Bible carefully, they saw indications that the submission of the only begotten Son of God to His Father was inherent in who He was, personality wise.

They understood that there was a rational, ontological basis for the Headship of God the Father due to the fact that the pre-incarnate Christ was His only begotten Son. Thus, the established order of heaven, with the Son functioning as next in authority to God, was based upon this Divine relationship between God and Christ as Father and Son with each operating out of His respective personality.

Now here’s the kicker. Did Ellen White affirm or deny this? Well let’s read for ourselves:

“In heavenly council the angels pleaded with Lucifer. The Son of God presented before him the greatness, the goodness, and the justice of the Creator, and the sacred, unchanging nature of His law. God Himself had established the order of heaven; and in departing from it, Lucifer would dishonor his Maker and bring ruin upon himself. But the warning, given in infinite love and mercy, only aroused a spirit of resistance. Lucifer allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail, and became the more determined.” {EGW PP 35.3}

“The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that his life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more value than man as his noble, spotless character, and exalted office as commander of all the heavenly host, were above the work of man. He was in the express image of his Father, not in features alone, but in perfection of character.” {EGW 2SP 9.1}

“The creation of our world was brought into the councils of heaven. There the covering cherub prepared his request that he should be made prince to govern the world then in prospect. This was not accorded him. Jesus Christ was to rule the earthly kingdom; Under God He engaged to take the world with all its probabilities. The law of heaven should be the standard law for this new world, for human intelligences….” {EGW Ms43b-1891 (July 4, 1891) par. 3}

Thus when Angel Rodriguez speaks of the “courageous” Evangelicals who declared “the eternal submission of the Son to the Father” was “heresy” he is endorsing a false doctrine. He is speaking against the holy Scriptures and against his own SDA prophet who clearly taught us of Christ:

“Ever He manifested entire submission to the Father’s will” {13LtMs, Ms 14, 1898, par. 9}

This manifest submission of the Son to the Father is not the result of the incarnation. We read of the pre-incarnate Christ.

“The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love.” {PP 36.2}

The personality of Christ is very clearly revealed. He is the One who does the Father’s will. He was assimilated to do this.

“Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in the heavenly courts next to Jesus Christ, but Christ was one with God, assimilated to the image of God to do the will of God. Satan, knowing that Christ had the first place next to God, began to insinuate to the angels that he should be next to God. His great beauty and exalted position made him feel that he was not receiving due honor in being second to Christ. Therefore he would suggest this to the angels, and this suggestion [began] to be communicated to the heavenly angels, and finally [it was] brought before God that Lucifer was the one who should be next to God. Thus the seed was sown and the result was that angels sympathized with Lucifer; next, there was war in heaven. Lucifer’s beautiful appearance was constantly exalted and the Lord God of heaven [saw] that Lucifer and his party were very strong against Christ.” {EGW 25LtMs, Ms 90, 1910, par. 4}

The Lord God of heaven had a Son who was assimilated to His image, to do His will. This is the same truth as His begotten nature. And satan’s jealousy was over the fact that Christ was God’s only begotten

“Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got up a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth.” {EGW 25LtMs, Ms 86, 1910, par. 29}

“Lucifer was the most lovely being in all our world, but he fell from his high estate because the loveliness and glory he possessed (given of God), did not make himself [as God’s] only-begotten Son.” {EGW 18LtMs, Ms 200, 1903, par. 4}

Lucifer’s lack of the begotten nature meant that he could not do the will of God. He did not have inherent Divine power, like the only begotten of the Father did. Hence, he could not have the spot next to God for he could not work out God’s plans.

“But Lucifer, the most glorious angel next to Christ, thought himself equal with God and made the effort, because of his beauty and glory, that he should be next to God, and then he could work out God’s plans. Thus Lucifer claimed the position next to the Creator. But Christ was the only begotten Son of God.Lucifer made war in heaven and would not take the position God assigned him, therefore he fell from his high estate and has been in the world, a warring element against God’s plans, and has had great power to allure and deceive souls to ruin them. There have been two parties in the world, the true and the false.” {EGW 24LtMs, Lt 189, 1909, par. 29}

Yet I digress. There is plenty of more inspired data here but I share these few things so that all readers can have the true conception of the Great Controversy as it arose in heaven. These things are being obscured by articles like Angel Rodriguez’s. The salient point is that the pre-incarnate Christ, in His full glory, was submissive to God the Father.

Now, speaking of the incarnated Christ we read:

“Jesus emptied Himself, and in all that He did self did not appear. He subordinated all things to the will of His Father. When His mission on earth was about to close, He could say, “I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.” And He bids us, “Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart.” “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself”; let self be dethroned, and no longer hold the supremacy of the soul.” {EGW MYP 162.1}

It should be apparent that this subordination by Christ, of all things to His Father’s will, was not a manifestation of a new character and relationship but rather the expression of a Being whose character and relationship to God were unchanged.

“He transferred His home to the world occupied by fallen human beings, but His character and His relationship to God were unchanged…” {EGW Lt128-1910.16}

Now, amazingly enough, Mr. Rodriguez appears to have recognized the submissive role of the pre-incarnate Son of God “as the living image of God, to reveal to all heavenly creatures the character of God” and he even claims that “the Son also related in a special way to humans on earth before the Incarnation” but he then turns right back around and tries to evade the implication of this by shifting the focus away from the Father/Son relationship. He claims that this revelation of a submissive Son is entirely contingent upon creation:

Rodriguez: “We are dealing here with the way the Godhead chose to interact with creation and not about an eternal submission of the Son to the Father” [End Quote]

Now, in an amazing piece of irony, the very next blurb in the article says “absence of evidence.”

Please notice, dear reader, that Mr. Rodriguez himself did not give a single piece of inspired evidence to prove his assertion that we are not dealing with an eternal submission of the Son to the Father. He has given assertion for proof. His next assertion is nothing but his own understanding.

Rodriguez: “The Bible does not support the teaching of the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. It also lacks support from the writings of Ellen White….” [End Quote]

Now one might expect, after this type of claim, to see Biblical proof against eternal submission or Ellen White quotes regarding it. These are strangely absent!

Rodriguez: “…To argue that the Persons of the Trinity have eternally had the same nature but an eternally different function within the mystery of the Godhead (one Person under submission to the other) is a human invention…” [End Quote]

This is quite rich coming from a trinitarian who has claimed that “the main character of the bible is one God whose inner being is a plurality” [3]. That is the actual claim which is an entirely human invention! The doctrine of the trinity, that 3 persons unified is the identity of a single Divine Being, the 1 God of the Bible, is entirely made up. It is completely unknown to the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. Not once will you ever read it! Thus Mr. Rodriguez is guilty of human invention Himself. Furthermore, when we take the Bible data holistically, we can see that God the Father and His only begotten Son, from eternity, clearly have different functions.

“Yahweh begot Me, beginning [or chief] of His way, before His works from then. I was established from eternity, from the first, from before an earth. When there were no depths, I was birthed, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was birthed…and I was beside Him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before Him always.” (Prov 8:22-25, 30 Author’s Translation)

This Bible passage is clearly about the pre-incarnate Christ. Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a hypostatization of Christ (a hypostatization is representing a reality with an abstract concept). EGW confirms that this passage is about Christ (see PP 34.1; ST August 29, 1900, par. 14;  1SM 247.4; ST February 22, 1899, par. 5; par. 14; ST August 29, 1900, par. 15; Ms37-1898 (March 10, 1898) par. 13)

And when we look at the birth language it is apparent that it speaks of Christ’s Divine origin before any created works, even from all eternity. It reveals that He was God’s appointed Heir, the One He set up to serve as His creative Agent and Mediator to go between Himself and finite created sons. Thus, the Son’s functional differentiation is clear and certain and it is inherent in His person.

Rodriguez: “… In fact, if this were the case, then the distinction between nature and function would collapse! If the submission were eternal, it would mean that submission belongs to the nature of the divine Son of God. It would be part of who the Son is! Therefore the Father and the Son would not be ultimately equal, contrary to what Scripture teaches.” [End Quote]

To paraphrase John Lennox, “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by SDA scholars.” Where Angel Rodriguez has failed is stereotypical of SDA pro-trinitarians. Due to the blindness of the new traditional view or, perhaps, an unwillingness to accept the truth about God and His pre-incarnate only begotten Son, they will not admit that submission belongs to the personality of the Divine Son of God. As the only begotten Son of God, it is the Lord Jesus’ very personality that is the root of His voluntary submission. In nature, He was begotten as One equal with the Father (similar to how Eve was created as equal in nature to Adam is a similitude of His begotten nature) yet in His personality He was and still is submissive to God, recognizing that He came from the Father. It’s a real ontological relationship but Rodriguez denies that by making it metaphorical. Hence, he is blind to the paternal relationship of God and Christ.

“Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be the Son of God. From all eternity He has sustained this relation to Jehovah.” {EGW 20LtMs, Ms 22, 1905, par. 4}

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality.” {EGW 20LtMs, Ms 116, 1905, par. 19}

“He was the Son of the living God. His personality did not begin with His incarnation in the flesh.”{EGW 9LtMs, Lt 77, 1894, par. 9}

“He transferred His home to the world occupied by fallen human beings, but His character and His relationship to God were unchanged…” {EGW Lt128-1910.16}

The truth is apparent. There is a relationship of Sonship that Christ maintained to Jehovah. This relationship did not change when He became a human being, and His character remained the same also. As the only begotten Son, He was truly God in infinity (same Divine nature) but not truly God in personality (a different expression of individuality). He did not think or act as God. And what do we read about this matter in terms of submission?

“Christ’s time to show His divine power had not yet come. He was fully aware of the glory He had with the Father before the world was. But then He willingly submitted to the Divine will, and He was unchanged now.” {EGW BEcho July 23, 1900, par. 6}

This is unmistakably clear. Back then, in His full original glory with God the Father, Christ willingly submitted to the Divine will. Let’s show this in practical action. We are dealing here with the pre-incarnate Christ in His glory, at the time of Adam’s fall.

“Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, “He is in close converse with His Father.” The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.” {EGW EW 126.1}

What did we just read? That Christ had been pleading with His Father and “obtained permission” to give up His own life. Here we can see how Christ gave a voluntary sacrifice but this functioned under the Headship of God the Father. God had to give His consent before Christ could do it. Again, we read:

“Said the angel, “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.” It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them… {EW 127.1}

Again, what did we just read? The Father had to yield up His Son. He had to give Him. Thus, we see the Headship of God the Father. This is why, as the SDA pioneers rightly noted that the subordination of Christ extends to His Divine nature as well as His human.

Anyone reading Mr. Rodriguez’s article should notice a complete lack of Scripture or Spirit of prophecy statements to back up his claims. It is entirely reliant upon his own logic. This is where he fails the Biblical test.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding.” (Prov 3:5)

Now let’s examine his logic.

Rodriguez: “You cannot have an eternal and voluntary submission of one member of the Godhead to the other. This does not make sense, because “voluntary” indicates there must have been a moment when the submission began. Since there was a moment when the Son voluntarily decided to do what He had not done before, the submission cannot be eternal! It has to be one or the other, but not both. The biblical witness shows that the submission of the Son was voluntary and therefore not eternal.” [End Quote]

By his own logic he is judged. Over and over again SDA pro-trinitarians claim that a proof of the triune god is that love cannot exist without 3 individuals who voluntarily love each other reciprocally.  So, let’s now apply the same logic that Mr. Rodriguez just used. We conclude that we cannot have an eternal and a voluntary love of one member of the Godhead to the other. It would not make sense because “voluntary” love indicates there must have been a moment when the love began. Therefore, we have proven, by logic, that God cannot be a unity of 3 persons in a voluntary loving relationship. If it’s good for the gander it’s good for the goose. Consistency thou art a jewel! Ah, but here’s the rub! For some reason Mr. Rodriguez (and others) will only apply this type of logic to the issue of submission. This is a manifestation of the inconsistency of SDA pro-trintiarian scholars in their efforts to get rid of a pre-incarnate only begotten Son.

As another point, Mr. Rodriguez is clearly operating with a philosophical assumption about God and time but that’s a whole other subject that I won’t get into now. Let’s deal with his last argument.

Rodriguez: “If, as it is argued, the submission of the Son is indispensable to reveal His love and humility, how does the Father reveal His love if He is not submitted to anyone else? Consequently, He would lack humility and love. He could not then be our model! This is indeed a heresy. Let us stay firmly grounded in biblical truth.” [End Quote]

This is a massive strawman! Again, let’s turn to the Scriptures and the Spirit of prophecy:

“In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.”  (1 John 4:9)

There is a principle inherent in this Scripture. The love of God is manifested through His only begotten Son.

“At the cross of Calvary, love and selfishness stood face to face. Here was their crowning manifestation. Christ had lived only to comfort and bless, and in putting Him to death, Satan manifested the malignity of his hatred against God. He made it evident that the real purpose of his rebellion was to dethrone God, and to destroy Him through whom the love of God was shown.”  {EGW DA 57.2}

Notice that sister White shows what the cross revealed about satan’s original warfare in heaven. It was for the purpose of dethroning God and destroying Him [Christ] through whom the love of God was shown.

So when Rodriguez asks how does the Father reveal His love if He is not submitted to anyone else, he reveals a serious lack of comprehension about the Father/Son relationship. He would do well to read Desire of Ages pg 21.

“But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. “I do nothing of Myself,” said Christ; “the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father.” “I seek not Mine own glory,” but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.”  {EGW DA 21.2}

Did you catch it? How did God the Father make His character known? The answer is by giving all things to His Son and then, through that Son, having His life flow out to all. Thus, through Christ,  He represented His character as the great Giver. This is called the law of life! And this is not limited to the incarnation or after Christ’s ascension (as one popular Adventist evangelist I know has claimed). We read the very next paragraph.

“In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself…”  {DA 21.3}

Thus the submission of the Son, in serving as the conduit of the Father’s life, is how God the Father Himself made His character of love known. This makes perfect sense with Him as the pre-incarnate only begotten of the Father. He received the life of God to have in Himself, as His own possession, but He gives it to others! This was all according to God’s plan. He begot a Son, set Him up as His Heir, giving all to Him with the intent and purpose that Christ would then create according to His plan and give life to all created beings. God has proven Himself unselfish in this way. And the extent of God’s unselfishness was revealed to a whole new level when He gave that very Son to save lost mankind. Again, we read:

“God’s character is expressed in his law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He has expressed this love in giving his only begotten Son to a life of humiliation, of poverty, of shame, of denial, of rejection, mockery, and anguish…God proved that he loved his neighbor as himself by giving his only begotten Son to die for the world.”  {RH October 15, 1895, par. 6}

God’s expression of His love has always been in and through His only begotten Son and He proved that He loved His neighbour as Himself, that His character was in harmony with His own law of love, when He yielded up His Son for us. This was a struggle for Him, but as the Head of the Godhead, He acted in a consistent way even though He would have preferred for His Son not to suffer. God showed that He loves us as much as He loves Himself and as much as He loves the Son of His own bosom. These things our brother appears not to know and, quite sadly, he is opposing them. May God lead him to repentance and help him to realize the truth about God the Father and His only begotten Son.

So let us end with holy Scripture and the Testimony of Jesus:

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”  (1 Cor 11:3)

The Headship of God the Father is a clear and certain Bible truth. Yet even though He is the God of the universe, He has a Son, One equal to Himself.

“Our heavenly Father is the God of the universe, and Christ is the divine Son, the One equal with the Father” {EGW 21LtMs, Ms 49, 1906, par. 26}

The basis of this Son’s equality is plainly revealed to us. He was begotten of God as One equal to Him in authority, dignity, and divine perfection.

“A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” {EGW ST May 30, 1895, par. 3}

So of all the beings who exist, the only One who would have the right to claim no one as His authoritative Head is Christ. He was a Son begotten as One equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. Yet despite this absolute equality, even back in His full pre-incarnate glory, He willingly submitted to God and even now, in His restored glory, He still claims God the Father as His Head for, as it is written, the Head of Christ is God! Paul would not have written that if the glorified Christ no longer had God as His Head. And even in the age to come, He will do the same. For it is written:

^“Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵ For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. ²⁶ The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. ²⁷ For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. ²⁸ Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:24-28)

Having restored this planet to its rightful dominion, the Son of God Himself will return to the original subjection which God the Father had originally established so that God might be all in all. May we all be a part of this!

The fact that Christ, the only begotten of the Father, submits to God the Father as His Head is a lesson to us all. He is the only Son who has equality of nature with God. He can actually sustain His own life and existence yet His personality, as the one true Son of God, is such that He always does His Father’s will. So what does that teach us as dependent, finite, created beings? Surely then we should submit to Christ as our Head even as He submits to His Father. This has always been the lesson that Christ teaches as the Head of principalities, powers, and mankind.

Christ is the Head of the angelic host:

“And you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Col 2:10)

Yet His Headship was under God for He imparted the commands of His Father, and the command devolved [flowed down] upon Him, for God Himself had appointed Him as the chief Ruler.

“…Christ was above all. He was the commander of all Heaven. He imparted to the angelic family the high commands of his Father.” {EGW 3SG 36.1}

“God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.” {EGW 1SP 17.1}

“Before the fall of Lucifer, he aspired for the supremacy that had been given to Christ, who was one with the Father in the government of heaven. There was war in heaven, and Satan and all the rebellious angels he had deceived were overcome. Those who had opposed the will of God in appointing Christ as the chief ruler were cast out of the heavenly courts, and since that time they have been warring against the Most High.” {EGW 25LtMs, Lt 24, 1910, par. 4}

Hence Christ ruled the universe from a position “under God” and this was the law of heaven. And when Lucifer tried to change this, Christ maintained His loyalty to God the Father and proved that as He stood true to principle so also every angel might have stood. He set the example for the created sons of God, as the only begotten Son of God.

“The creation of our world was brought into the councils of heaven. There the covering cherub prepared his request that he should be made prince to govern the world then in prospect. This was not accorded him. Jesus Christ was to rule the earthly kingdom; under God He engaged to take the world with all its probabilities. The law of heaven should be the standard law for this new world, for human intelligences. Lucifer was jealous of Christ and this jealousy worked into rebellion and he carried with him a large number of the holy angels. Jesus, the Son of God, was not deceived by Lucifer’s sophistry. He stood true to principle and resisted every line of reasoning of Lucifer and all the angels who had taken sides with him, thus evidencing that as He stood, every angel might have stood. {EGW 7LtMs, Ms 43b, 1891, par. 3}

^“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,…(1 Cor 11:3) for God hath “put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, ²³ which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:22b, 23)

Christ has come to restore the proper headship to the human family. Adam, our original head, fell and became corrupted. Christ has come as the new Head of mankind to restore what was lost. He now sets the example to all of mankind that we might stand as He stands. The very submission that He has toward His Father, which He has always had, even from before time and creation, is to be reflected in us.

“God has sent his Son to communicate his own life to humanity. Christ declares, “I live by the Father,” my life and his being one. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man.” The head of every man is Christ, as the head of Christ is God. “And ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” {EGW HM June 1, 1897, Art A, par.11}

Maranatha beloved! The Lord’s coming is at hand. I remain yours in Christ in earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. To the honor and glory of God the Father and Christ, His only begotten Son.

Footnote References:

[1] “The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship.” (Angel Rodriguez, “A Question of Sonship” BRI article)

[2] “The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. {EGW ST September 14, 1882, par. 9}

[3] Angel Rodriguez, ‘The Lord our God is One, Biblical Research Institute”