Does John 3 v 16 imply subordination of the Son to the Father?

For God So Loved

(Genesis 22:1-10; Romans 5:6-11)

John 3 v 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Calling Christians claims that this is the case. Many Muslims agree with him. Does this verse prove this? I am obviously biased but I do not think that this is self-evident from the text itself. This seems to be what many Muslims argue. If the Son is sent he must be subordinate because he has no choice in the matter. If the Father says go he has to go, end of story. He is simply an object, or a slave as personal object, over which the Father has lordship and can dispose of as he will.  On the surface this could be an option but must the text be interpreted in this way? No, certainly not. This is just arguing from silence and begging the question because of the inherent bias of Muslim thinkers who have to follow the Quran.

Why are two different words used for the “movement” of the Son from the heavenly to the earthly sphere? The word give and the word sent are both used in this verse. My understanding would be that the giving of the Son takes place before the incarnation. This is a voluntary agreement on the part of the Father and the Son between themselves. Only the giving on the part of the Father is mentioned in this verse but this does not preclude the existence of a complementary act on the part of the Son who gives himself to the Father to dedicate himself to the purpose which the Father has conceived in his heart.

The sending takes place after the incarnation and applies to the human Jesus who is made under the law; the same Jesus who acknowledges that he has received a commandment from the Father:

John 10 v 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Does John 3 v 16 imply subordination of the Son to the Father?

  1. Anonymous says:

    From what is made known by the Bible on what Jesus is according to the reason of his ascension back unto the exaltation where he was, Jesus is forever a Subordinate of God. Ascension doesn’t change his human nature. It is itself enough to dismiss his status as a god.
    First, it is impossible for any man to worship a Chalcedonian Jesus of Dual-nature without at the same time falling to the sin of idolatry of worshiping his human nature as well. That’s a Monotheistic reason why “Jesus” can’t be a god forever for humans, lest idolatry occurs.

    Indeed, Jesus claims in John 17 that he once “had” the glory with God before the world began, so he returned back up there, to regain it again. Now, rationally, if (a big if) Jesus were a god, we expect him to have returned being God and we expect all epistles of the New Testament would have officially announced that Jesus is “God”. In fact, none calls Jesus “God” after ascension. None bids Latreauo to him after ascension. Hence, the question is: If he really returned to the exaltation where exactly he was, why has he not shared the God’s seat equally? Conclusion, since he is a Subordinate of God after ascension, he was once the same Subordinate of God before becoming the flesh.

    Second, None is made known of the Tanach that the invisible God has also the personal invisible Son in heaven. Moreover, the New Testament is totally silent on existence of Jesus before becoming the flesh.
    Why do the prophets, priests, and rabbis not know of the existence of Son before?
    The Biblical data (New Testament) refers to the “glory” (Shekinah) that is seen by Isaiah (Isa 6) which absolutely is not a person. There are some cherubim and God at the moment, along with the throne, the train (skirts of robes that filled the temple) and the glory that covered all land, just like the light of the sun or moon.

    Third. None is made known of the Tanach that the invisible God has also the divine spirit. The Old Testament is totally silent on the divinity of Spirit even though it has been with God before the world began.

  2. Anonymous says:

    From what is made known by the Bible on what Jesus is according to the reason of his ascension back unto the exaltation where he was, Jesus is forever a Subordinate of God. Ascension doesn’t change his human nature. It is itself enough to dismiss his status as a god.
    First, it is impossible for any man to worship a Chalcedonian Jesus of Dual-nature without at the same time falling to the sin of idolatry of worshiping his human nature as well. That’s a Monotheistic reason why “Jesus” can’t be a god forever for humans, lest idolatry occurs.

    Indeed, Jesus claims in John 17 that he once “had” the glory with God before the world began, so he returned back up there, to regain it again. Now, rationally, if (a big if) Jesus were a god, we expect him to have returned being God and we expect all epistles of the New Testament would have officially announced that Jesus is “God”. In fact, none calls Jesus “God” after ascension. None bids Latreauo to him after ascension. Hence, the question is: If he really returned to the exaltation where exactly he was, why has he not shared the God’s seat equally? Conclusion, since he is a Subordinate of God after ascension, he was once the same Subordinate of God before becoming the flesh.

    Before the world began Jesus was Michael the chief or principal of all heavenly hosts above the angels, whose earthy role then is a guardian of Israel. Hence, Jesus was once a Subordinate and regains again his Subordination at the same place.

    Second, None is made known of the Tanach that the invisible God has also the personal invisible Son in heaven. Moreover, the New Testament is totally silent on existence of Jesus before becoming the flesh.
    Why do the prophets, priests, and rabbis not know of the existence of Son before?
    The Biblical data (New Testament) refers to the “glory” (Shekinah) that is seen by Isaiah (Isa 6) which absolutely is not a person. There are some cherubim and God at the moment, along with the throne, the train (skirts of robes that filled the temple) and the glory that covered all land, just like the light of the sun or moon.

    Third. None is made known of the Tanach that the invisible God has also the divine spirit. The Old Testament is totally silent on the divinity of Spirit even though it has been with God before the world began. Conclusion, the Pre-existence does not mean divinity, Jesus along with the Spirit have preexisted, but nobody exalts them as Gods.

  3. Anonymous says:

    On the perspective of simple ontology, there’s no necessity to have a “co-equality” for participating in one nature. A person can join an ontological participation with ratio 99:1.

    The Son needed to die spiritually when bearing the sins. Similarly the spiritual death is considered to happen upon the wandering Azazel goat, even though it is alive, the Priests placed the sins upon it on the Day of Atonement.
    Heb 7:27
    Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

    Heb 7:27 summed it that the sacrifice offering must be one packet: first for his own sins and then for the people’s. Hence, if Jesus had not offered it for his own, he would not have offered it next for the people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s