How can there be subordination in the Trinity?

So if the Son takes a place of apparent subordination to the Father and the Spirit takes a place of apparent subordination to the Son, yet it is apparent only, for in fact, each is willingly doing His own part in conjunction and concert with the other two in carrying out one common purpose and will. All three are coequal in deity, essential in being and nature, but distinct in personality and in eternal unchanging relationship to the other and each having His own part and activity which He willingly does in carrying out one divine plan and purpose. Understand it we cannot, speculate on it we dare not, believe it we must, or else we make the divinely inspired Word of God a lie.

Absolutely not. The persons of the Godhead act in unison of counsel (they are of the same mind and they work together) but undertake different tasks and activities in fulfilling a common objective. The Spirit voluntarily takes the subject place of being sent (as does the Son — see John 3:16; 6:38, Phil 2,7 etc.). Yet there is no question of inferiority and both are absolutely on the same level (‘coequal’) with the Father (see Q.3)

The Holy Spirit also now takes a place in the present dispensation that appears to be subordinated, He "proceedeth from the Father" and is "sent" by the Father and the Son. And having come, He does not speak of Himself but whatsoever He hears He speaks. His mission is to "glorify Christ" in receiving the things that are His and showing them unto us. (See John 15: 26; John 16: 13, 14). All such expressions as these appear to give a place of subordination to the Spirit as others appear to do to the Son but it is in appearance only and in respect to the place they have taken and the part they play in carrying out the divine purposes and not in anywise as to the dignity of their Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal in deity and all are one in thought, will and purpose though each has His respective part and sphere of action in the carrying out of the divine purposes.

Then the Lord adds, "and I work". This brings into display the glory of His Person. Very rightly the Jews interpret this word of the Lord as meaning He was "equal with God". It was the assertion of His deity, and thus the revelation of the glory of His Person. It shows the equality of the Son with the Father, inasmuch as all that the Father does the Son does likewise. Moreover the Son does not work independently of the Father. All is done in perfect agreement as moved by the same thought and affection, for "the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that himself does".

Nevertheless, having become Man, the Lord is careful to maintain all that is right and perfect in this condition. Thus, while asserting His glory as equal with the Father, He can say, "The Son can do nothing of Himself". Though equal with the Father, He receives all from the Father. Equality of divine Persons does not mean independence between divine Persons, as if there were two Gods. Two supreme and omnipotent beings would be an impossibility. Thus the Lord can say, "What things soever He (the Father) does, these also does the Son likewise".

What then is the idea intended to be conveyed by "has given?" Would not our Lord impress upon us by the use of these words a truth of tremendous and most far reaching import which concerns the very nature and being of Divine Persons? namely, that the Son possesses nothing apart from the Father. It touches the core of the matter we are discussing, and furnishes the key to any right understanding of the Trinity and of the Godhead itself. The Son has no life independently of the Father, but equality of the Son with the Father is established by the fact that He equally has life in Himself. “As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself." As one, well qualified to speak, referring to these worth, remarks:—"Language clearly spoken of the eternal Son, not merely of the Man Christ Jesus." And who further remarks concerning the whole passage we are considering:—"The whole of this passage is one which our Lord clearly spoke of Himself in His Divine Nature and of His relation to the Father in that nature which He had in common with Him, yet no language can more expressly mark a distinction of personal action and personal attribute."

Nor does human birth make a child equal with its father, yet the Lord claimed this: "My Father works hitherto and I work." The Jews understood it so, "because He said that God was His (Gk. idios: His own) Father, making Himself equal with God." Our Lord did not deny the inference, though he explained that this equality was of a kind not incompatible with subordination (v. 19). Nor does human birth confer on a child equal honours with its father; yet these the Lord claims for Himself, as Son, a relation which must therefore have existed apart from Incarnation. The same may be said of such divine attributes as the omnipotence of v. 19, and "the possession of life in Himself" of v. 26, which belong to Him, not in virtue of the Incarnation, but as the Divine Son.

But we have only, so far, considered part of verse 19. It proceeds, "For whatsoever things He does, these also does the Son likewise." Here then we have two statements which may be considered separately. One, that "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do;" the other, He can do whatever the Father does, and so these statements contain a double truth. First, we see the place the Son has ever taken in relation to the Father, and this gives us an insight into the blessed relationships existing between the Persons of the Trinity—the Son has never acted apart from the Father. Secondly, that, at the same time, there is equality; He can do whatever the Father does.

The context (John 5:17-21) of the Lord's utterance, "The Father loves the Son," contains most weighty testimony to the personal glory of the Son. The Lord does not deny, but confesses the charge of the Jews that He "said that God was His own Father," for "the Son can do nothing of Himself save whatever He sees the Father doing: for whatever things He does, these things also the Son does in like manner." The Son does the same things as the Father and in the same manner. There was, therefore, absolute equality without independence.

We rejoice to know that the Blessed Son of the Father was obedient in a glory of perfection throughout His pathway of service. We remember that He said Himself, “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do." His whole life was a complete conformation to the Father's own activities. And this glory we beheld, writes the apostle (John 1:14).

But, as if to guard against any carnal conclusion that this obedience of the Son implies His subordination in the Godhead, the Son added, "What things soever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19). There is, therefore, in essential Being and essential Doing, perfect equality between the Father and the Son. Moreover, this “doing” by the Son of the Father's love includes the creation of all things, as we are taught in the Epistle to the Colossians.

Can "life in Himself" in relation to the Son mean less than it means with regard to the Father? "As"—"so," will the reader ponder carefully this conjunction—then let him ponder some such questions as these. Why should our Lord preface this profound statement as to Himself in the way He does? Why was it necessary to emphasise the fact of the Father having life in Himself? Why not say simply "The Father has given Me life?" Whatever answer the reader may make he will at least admit that the words, "has life in Himself," with reference to the Father, have a most important bearing upon what follows. And the "as"—"so" must at least mean that the Son has life in Himself even as the Father has life in Himself. The complete statement involves two most important truths, and these truths must never be separated; both must be acknowledged. One is, the equality of the Son with the Father; the other, the Father is regarded in Scripture as the Source. The question "when?" does not arise, for indeed, in such a connection, it can have no place.