Good question…does Jesus' submission to the Father disprove His
deity?
Date: Jan 15, 2002 Summary Trinity Index
I received this well-argued and
thoughtful argument:
Glenn.
Here's a dilemma which the belief in the Trinity must acknowledge. Virtually all references in which Jesus
portrays himself in relation to the Father is always in a submissive role.
Firstly,
Jesus himself is quoted as saying that he does nothing of his own initiative,
that he did not come to do his own will, that he was sent (never implying that
he was the sender as well), and that what he taught was not his. [see John
6:38, John 7:16, John 8:42]
Secondly, the family relationship he used to describe his relationship
with God was that of Father and Son, Jesus being the son. This automatically implies a submissive
position, especially from the standpoint of the Jews who had a fundamental
emphasis on the authority of the Patriarchal head, the father. In like manner, the father would be implied
as having authority over the son, which is contrary to the Trinitarian belief
that Jehovah and Jesus are equal in power and authority. If Jesus wanted to emphasize his equality to
God, it would have been better to use the family relationship of brothers,
preferably twins, to describe that relationship.
Finally,
1 Corinthians 15:24 says: "Next, the end, when he(Jesus) hands over the
kingdom to HIS GOD AND FATHER, when he has brought to nothing all government
and all authority and power. For he
must rule as king UNTIL GOD has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to
nothing. For God 'SUBJECTED ALL THINGS
UNDER HIS FEET.' But when he says that
'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the EXCEPTION
OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM (namely God the Father!). But when all things will have been subjected
to him (Jesus), then THE SON HIMSELF WILL SUBJECT HIMSELF TO THE ONE WHO
SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM (namely God the Father!), that God (the Father) may
be ALL THINGS TO EVERYONE (including his son JESUS)." [emphasis mine].
This scripture makes it plainly clear that
1. Paul refers to Jesus relationship to YHWH or
Jehovah as both his Father AND HIS GOD, therefore making Jesus inferior.
2. All things Jesus rules over was GIVEN
temporarily to him by the father, meaning Jesus did not initially have this
authority while his father did, something that makes no sense from a
Trinitarian perspective.
3. Jesus is described as subjecting HIMSELF to the
father, making son inferior to the father, something impossible in a triune
godhead where father and son are equals.
Quite
frankly, Glenn, I don't see how any circumstantial evidence you show can refute
this basic concept.
Let's go through this piece by piece and 'test' it…
……………………………………………………………………………
Glenn. Here's a dilemma which the belief in the
Trinity must acknowledge. Virtually all
references in which Jesus portrays himself in relation to the Father is always
in a submissive role.
Just a
quick terminological note--a 'dilemma' has to have two opposite statements,
which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, for it to be a 'show-stopper'
problem. It is not immediately obvious on the surface that "Jesus was
consistently submissive to the Father" and "Jesus was as much deity
as was the Father" are such a pair of statements. The former looks like a
statement of personal orientation, choice, and representation; the latter looks
like a statement of nature, characteristics, and being. We will come back to
this later, but we need to be clear that the 'contradiction' is not explicit, nor is it as obvious
as one might assume, at the surface of this problem.
But on to
the data about Jesus' representations of His relationship to the Father.
[At the
end of the discussion, we will have to also ask the question of significance--what might these
representations imply about
Jesus' nature or essence. The questioner here is assuming that a representation
of submission implies inferiority of nature, and we will have to
test as to whether this would have been the case, (1) given all the strains of
messianic prophecy that portrayed the Messiah as prophet, priest, and king; and
(2) considering the rather obvious truth that human messengers, sent by human
rulers, are not 'less human' or 'having a different nature/essence' than their
bosses (except perhaps in the opinion/perspective of certain bosses, of course…sly
senior management smile here…).
If we restrict ourselves to the words of Jesus in the gospels (and chapter one of Acts) in which there is an explicit representation of His relationship with the Father, we can see that the 'virtually all' quantification of our question is quite misleading. Some of the passages, of course, are ambiguous concerning this issue, but I will assume for the purpose of analysis here that any verse that portrays Jesus as an agent of the Father (whether using 'submission language' or not) to be in the 'submission category'.
We will also have to note/isolate those 'mixed' passages, in which BOTH parity and submissive elements seem to be present.
We will divide our description of the statements into those that occur inside and outside of John 14-17, since these chapters have the most explicit and abundant amount of discourse by Jesus about His relations with the Father, the Spirit, and believers.
Passages outside of John
14-17:
By this criteria, I find 21 unique passages/statements that can be read as containing a submission motif: Mt 7.21f; Mt 10.32; Mt 12.49 (?); Mt 20.23; Mt 24.36; Mt 26.29(?); Mt 26.39ff; Mt 26.52; Lk 22.29; Lk 23.46 (?); Jn 3.31ff; 5.25; 5:36ff; 5:37; 6.27; 6.43(?); 7.16; 7.28; 8.26; 8.49(?); Jn 12.49. [But note that 5 of these are somewhat questionable as to this assumption.]
And I find 7 passages that have strong parity wording: Mt 16.27; Lk 24.49; Jn 3.17; 5.17ff; 8.17; 10.15; 10:38.
The 'mixed' passages I found are 11:
1. At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. 26 “Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight. 27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt 11.25ff) [notice that the Father reveals and Jesus 'wills to reveal'--parity]
2. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28.18f…the Trinitarian formula is here)
3. Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; (Jn 5.19: the complete co-extensiveness of their works argues more for parity/parallelism)
4. “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (Jn 5.22ff) [Co-extensiveness of honor, but still with 'sent']
5. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. (Jn 6.38) [This is mixed because the opening phrase 'looks like' a voluntary choice on the part of the Son--cf Phil 2.5-11.]
6. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. (Jn 6.57: this is slightly mixed because the parallel clauses imply a single shared 'life force' or 'shared essence'--in the case of the believers, though, it is the Holy Spirit)
7. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. (Jn 8.42) [This is mixed because of the 'proceeds forth from God' clause. This phrase is used here and in John 13.3, 16.28, 16.30, and 17.8, and in some cases is distinguished from "coming to the world" (as in this verse, in the Greek). It is an odd expression and was used in the early controversies as indication of some kind of 'eternal, internal procession' of the Son within the Father's essence. It could be taken to mean this, and certainly in the context of Jewish monotheism, it cannot mean the giving birth to a lesser God. So, there's enough tantalizing meaning in this clause to consider this 'mixed'. The Holy Spirit, btw, is also said to 'proceed' from the Father, and the general meaning of 'Spirit' as the inner being of someone/Someone (cf. Paul's argument in 1 Cor 1:10-12), would indicate a very 'internal' connection between the Spirit/Father and, based on this shared terminology of 'procession', between the Son/Father. ]
8. “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (Jn 10.14) [Here there seems to be no contradiction between Jesus' own initiative and a (presumed) derivative authority.]
9. 'no one shall snatch them out of My hand. 29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 “I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:28) [Whose hand are we actually in, then?…smile]
10. Do you say of Him, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 . (Jn 10.36ff) [The word 'consecrated' or 'sanctified' here seems to be referring, in context, to the consecration of the Temple. Cf. WBC:
"The application of the term hJgivasen (“consecrated”) to Jesus occurs here and in 17:17, 19 only, the latter in the sense of consecration unto death. The concept of Jesus as the one sent by the Father into the world is frequent in the Fourth Gospel; that Jesus is described as “he whom the Father consecrated and sent …” in the context of the festival commemorating the dedication or consecration of the temple is highly significant. It suggests that the meaning of the Festival of the Dedication, like that of the Tabernacles and Passover, finds its ultimate fulfillment in the mission of Jesus."
In other words, like the Temple, and in keeping with Jesus remarks about His body being a temple/greater than the temple (John 2.19ff and Matt 12.6: "I tell you that one greater than the temple is here."), Jesus body is the very unique dwelling place of God the Father on the earth.
11. And so they removed the stone. And Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me. 42 “And I knew that Thou hearest Me always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.” (jn 11.41) [The level of intimacy here suggests more parity than dependence, hence I put this in 'mixed']
Passages inside of John 14-17:
Statements with a submission-motif are 17 :
1. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. (?)
2. The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
3. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (?)
4. the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. (though this is in the context of "We will come and make abode"!)
5. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
6. but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do
7. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love
8. all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
9. But now I am going to Him who sent Me
10. for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father. 28 “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father.”
11. even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life.
12. I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me,
13. Now they have come to know that everything Thou hast given Me is from Thee; 8 for the words which Thou gavest Me I have given to them; and they received them, and truly understood that I came forth from Thee, and they believed that Thou didst send Me
14. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are. (?)
15. “As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. (???)
16. that the world may know that Thou didst send Me,
17. Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world (?)
Statements with a parity motif number 20 :
1. Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
2. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also
3. Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
4. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?
5. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;
6. "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;" WITH "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name" AND WITH "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
7. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (14.20)
8. If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.
9. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you
10. He who hates Me hates My Father also.
11. but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
12. When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father [The Spirit of God/Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit sent from the Father and Christ is called "Spirit of Christ" and "Spirit of His Son" in later NT passages, cf: Gal 4.4-6; Rom 8.14-16)]
13. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak [notice--the Holy Spirit doesn't act 'independently' either, even though He 'proceeds from' or is actually "part of" the Father!… "The sending of the Spirit in many respects corresponds to the sending of the Son (cf. 8:42; 13:3; 17:8" (WBC)]
14. All things that the Father has are Mine (!)
15. “Father, the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee,
16. And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
17. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.
18. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are. (?--the name of 'Almighty YHWH', cf. Philp 2)
19.
that they may all be one; even as
Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in
Thee, that they also may be in Us
20. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one
These passages are intertwined in the tightest ways, too. Compare John 14:9ff:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves.
In this passage, the statement of 'not speaking on my own initiative' is sandwiched in between strong assertions of co-essential unity. In fact--and this is an important clue for our study here--the claim that Jesus' words and works come from the Father (and not from Himself) are used as evidence of their shared life. If Jesus spoke on His own initiative, in other words, there would be reason to doubt His shared life with the Father. Only by asserting complete identity of message between that of Jesus and that of the Father can the inseparable link between the two be believed.
If this understanding is correct, and we will look at this below, this means that every "He sent me" and "I only do as told" and "I speak not from myself" cannot be construed as evidence against the Trinity but actually ends up supporting it somewhat. (But more on this later).
Okay, so what did we come up with in terms of 'counts':
Passages containing submission motifs were 21 plus 17, or 38. Passages containing parity motifs were 7 plus 20, or 27. [Mixed passages were 11]. I submit that 38 (over
against 27) could not fairly be called "virtually all"…
Okay, on to the next chunk…
………………………………………………..
Firstly, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that he does nothing of his own initiative, that he did not come to do his own will, that he was sent (never implying that he was the sender as well), and that what he taught was not his. [see John 6:38, John 7:16, John 8:42]
This actually is irrelevant to our issue, for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is because the import of these types of statements to Jesus' audiences would have been quite different than what is being implied here.
As I pointed out above, these expressions were statements of continuity with the Father, not indications of their discontinuity. These statements assured His audiences that Jesus had NO 'personal agenda', but that His mission and ministry was SOLELY the one they longed for from the Father. He assured them that His words and works were completely trustworthy, because they were uniquely and completely those of the Father. [No human, btw, would ever be able to claim such a relationship with the will of God.]
This can be seen by considering the impact which the opposite statements would have had:
· "I have come to do MY will, NOT the Father's"
· "I have come without being sent by the Father--on my own initiative"
· "My teaching IS my own, and NOT that of the Father"
· "I have come in my OWN name, not in the name of the Father"
[This last element was sarcastically mention by Jesus in John 5:43: "I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him."]
The first-century audiences would have only interpreted these statements as statements of a reliable messenger, who preserved the message intact and unadulterated; and/or of a reliable agent, who accomplished fully, precisely, and solely the tasks assigned to him.
"This means that he is intimately connected with the Father, that in some way he expresses what the Father stands for. It is an affirmation of community of purpose, and it roots his mission squarely in the will of God." [Bruce, NICNTT, John, in. loc. 5.43]
"Though he [Jesus] is the unique Son of God (1.49), and may truly be called God (1:1,18;20:28) and take to himself divine titles (e.g. 8:58) and, as in this context, divine rights (5:17), yet is he always submissive to the Father…The Greek text of verses 19-23 (of John 5) is structured around four gar ('for' or 'because') statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and co-extensive with all that the Father does. 'Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father' (Westcott). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus' sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father." [Carson, John, in. loc. John 5.19]
There were only two choices in that time--from God (good) or from men (bad)--as can be seen in the interchange about the message of John the Baptist:
One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and
preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together
with the elders, came up to him. 2
“Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave
you this authority?” 3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell
me, 4 John’s
baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?” 5 They discussed it among
themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From
heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us,
because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” 7 So they
answered, “We don’t know where it was from.” 8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell
you by what authority I am doing these things.”
The second reason is related to this--the roles of the expected Messiah of God were agency and functional roles.
The messianic promises in the OT/Tanaak were focused on God visiting/blessing his people in the form(s) of various "ministerial" agents: prophet, priest, and king. For example, Moses mentioned a "prophet like unto me", the prophets and psalms spoke of an eschatological High priest (e.g., Melchizedek), and the Son of David would carry the title "God's son" (as divine representative on earth).
The prophet spoke for God, delivering the message "intact and unadulterated". The priest purified the people with unblemished offerings and sacrifices (and taught the people about the heart/will of God), in complete conformity with the revealed will/torah of God (supposedly adding no 'traditions of men'). The Davidic king was to implement God's perfect social will within his people--"fully, precisely, and solely" the will of YHWH. No personal agendas were allowed in these jobs--it was expressly forbidden in several places of the law.
For Jesus to have fulfilled these responsibilities--as redemptive agent of YHWH--would require that His actions as a human Israelite would be no more and no less than the will of God. By far and away the emphasis in the gospels is on Jesus' roles in solidarity with Israel and with humanity. There is very little emphasis in the gospels on His deity (although the facts are clear, the evangelist's do not make a big deal over it), for that was not what He was "all about". He was "about" being God's appointed, commissioned, and supported agent among us.
With this emphasis in mind, to argue from his statements of dependence or submission to His alleged inferiority to the Father would be to take these statements out of their context in the prophetic redemptive history and place them into an alien, foreign ontological discussion. They just would not have been understood in this latter sense, by the first-century audiences.
A third reason is a major one--all of these 'subordinate statements' were consequences of His initial free choice to do so. He was NOT 'coerced' by the Father in any way, to take this step into submission. This is the awesomeness of His love for us--to choose a path of servanthood for our welfare; and the awesomeness of the love of the Father for us--to allow His beloved to make that choice…
The scripture represents this aspect of Christ's choice in a couple of passages, the most famous of which is Philippians 2.5-11. I quote here from a couple of translations:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. [NRSV]
6In God’s own form existed he,
And shared with God equality,
Deemed nothing needed grasping.
7Instead, poured out in emptiness,
A servant’s form did he possess,
A mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
8And lived in all
humility,
Death on a cross obeying. [ISV, which tries to preserve the poetic/hymnic character]
This way of thinking must be adopted by you, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Christ Jesus. 6. Precisely because he was in the form of God he did not consider being equal with God grounds for grasping. 7. On the contrary, he rather poured himself out by taking the form of a slave, by being born in the likeness of human beings, and by being recognized as a man. 8. He humbled himself, by becoming obedient even to the point of accepting death. and that of all things, death on a cross. [WBC]
"Adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus. Precisely because he was in the form of God, he did not regard this divine equality as something to be used for his own advantage. Instead, he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave and being born like other human beings. And being recognized as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." [O'Brien, New Intl. Greek Test. Commentary]
[Fee, in NICNT, points out the contrast this represented in the context of the gods of Philippi:
"This, then, is what it means for Christ to be "in the 'form' of God"; it means 'to be equal with God,' not in the sense that the two phrases are identical, but that both point to the same reality. Together, therefore, they are among the strongest expressions of Christ's deity in the NT. This means further that 'equality with God' is not that which he desired which was not his, but precisely that which was always his…Second, Paul is thereby trying to set up the starkest possible contrast between Christ's "being in the 'form' of God" and the main clause, "he emptied himself." Equality with God, Paul begins, is something that was inherent to Christ in his pre-existence. Nonetheless, God-likeness, contrary to common understanding, did not mean for Christ to be a 'grasping, seizing' being, as it would for the 'gods' and 'lords' whom the Philippians had previously known; it was not 'something to be seized upon to his own advantage,' which would be the normal expectation of lordly power--and the nadir of selfishness. Rather, his 'equality with God' found its truest expression when 'he emptied himself'."
This passage makes it clear that all of the servant-status of Jesus was a consequence of a freely-chosen act on His part, somewhere "in" eternity past. His choice was made while in full equality and 'form' of God. All subsequent obedience to the Father in no way diminishes this reality--it only highlights the distance His love would go for us…
This idea can be seen in other verses, of course, but 2 Corinthians 8.8-9 specifically contrasts Christ's deliberate self-humiliation with being 'commanded to':
I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. [NIV]
I do not say this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love against the earnestness of others. 9 For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. [NRSV]
BKC points out why Christ's example is a great exemplar for Paul to use:
"Paul, ever sensitive to the charge that he dominated the churches he founded (cf. 1:24), preferred that their motivation not stem from external commands (e.g., 8:7b). He wanted them to be motivated by their internal devotion (the sincerity of your love) to him and more importantly to the Lord. Could the Corinthians face being compared with the Macedonians in this regard? Or could they face being compared with their Lord, who is supremely worthy of emulation?…Few statements surpass verse 9 as a pithy summary of the gospel (cf. 5:21). From the splendor of heaven Christ came to the squalor of earth. The Incarnation was an incomprehensible renunciation of spiritual and material glory. The One who was rich, who had everything, became poor, making Himself nothing (Phil. 2:7). He assumed mankind’s debt of sin and paid for it with His life (Phil. 2:8). The Corinthians had directly benefited from His generosity (your and you are emphatic). He became what they were (poor) so that they could become what He was and is (rich).
And the apostle's understanding of this free-choice can also be seen in the Galatians passage: "the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me…" (2.20)
A final reason is one of the more moving and transforming truths of the gospel. Jesus lived a life of submission to the Father and of service to people as the ultimate exemplar for us as to how we should live.
This should already be obvious from the Philp 2 passage--"let this attitude be in you which was in Christ Jesus", but it is pervasive in the New Testament. From the 'it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher' to the foot-washing 'I have left you an example to follow', His life was the model for all of us. "Walk as He did", "love one another as I have loved you", "ask your heavenly Father", and on and on--He modeled what authentic, life-bearing humanity was to be…
And it might also be suggested that this outward-looking goodness-heart is intrinsic to the essence of God, for the illustration Jesus gives of His final exaltation at the end of history has an unheard-of image in it:
“Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. [Luke 12.35f]
"Although a few philosophers argued that slaves were the moral equals of their masters, and one well-to-do Roman is known to have eaten on the same level as his freed slaves, masters’ serving slaves was unheard-of. Such an image would offend the well-to-do but would be a powerful symbol of how Jesus would treat those who remained faithful to the end. [BBC, in loc.]
And practically speaking, if He had come down and only lived 'like an authority God'--in terrifying magnificence and perhaps distancing power--we might not have learned much about how to live and how to love. We would not have learned that meekness and gentleness were the true values, nor that it was more 'blessed to give than to receive'. We might not have learned the freedom and celebration of a life lived daily with a living Father. We would not have known the possibilities of bearing up under intense sufferings and abject betrayals--without our hearts dying in the process. We might never have learned that forgiveness is sometimes the loving way to make peace, and that loving one's enemies was the best hope to change them…
And if He had ever uttered once something like "This is my Father's will, but I am doing it because I personally agree with it, too"--I shudder to think at all the rationalizations for sub-Christian behavior which would have likely eventuated from such an 'my approval is required too, God' ethic…we Christians already live that way too much, and with a scriptural proof-text like that--???!!!…
Theologically and theoretically speaking, the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus could have happened up in heaven, or at His birth, or completely in private (if some of the OT/Tanaak prophesies had not been made to set it up in this public way), but the drama of redemption was played out in detail and in blood and in tears and in anguish and in marginalization and in humiliation and in rejection and in submission before our very eyes. In the very means of saving us, He showed us how to live…"take up your cross and follow me"…"greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for his friend"…'he bore our sorrows'…'for the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many'…'nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done'
When He kept saying "He who has seen me has seen the Father", it was supposed to reveal to us the heart of God…a heart that pursues in love, that seeks the best, that respects choices, that honors wishes, that desires joy and peace on earth and in hearts…
Also, we should remember that 'sending' doesn't itself imply anything about 'nature' (only something about a functional relationship). Let me make two points about this:
One. I can hire myself to you as a messenger for a day (voluntarily granting you authority), but on the very next day you could hire yourself to me as a handyman (voluntarily granting me some authority). But this doesn’t mean much in terms of 'inferiority of nature'.