The Everlasting Subservience of Jesus Christ

     There are basically four views on the Son’s subjection to the Father: (1) Eternal Sonship – Jesus has always been and always will be subservient to the Father; (2) Everlasting Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and forever remains in this role; (3) Epochal Sonship – Jesus temporarily became subservient to the Father at the incarnation but resumed full equality when he returned to heaven; (4) Extended Epochal Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and remains in this position until the scheme of redemption is complete at the final judgment, then he returns to full equality.

Eternal Sonship?

     The Nicene Creed (AD 325) affirms that Jesus Christ is “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father …” This concept rests on scriptural affirmations of the Father having sent the Son (John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10, 14; cf. John 3:16), the Son having been manifested (1 John 3:8), and the Son’s involvement in creation (Col. 1:13-16;¹ Heb. 1:2). These passages, it is argued, seem to imply that the Father-Son relationship existed long before the incarnation.

     An initial response is one of consistency. The Bible also speaks of “Jesus Christ” having been sent (John 17:3; cf. 6:29; 7:28, 33; 8:42; Luke 9:47-48) and manifested (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Heb. 9:24-28; 1 Pet. 1:19-20; 1 John 1:2-3). Yet, predictive prophecy notwithstanding, he was not known as either “Jesus” or “the Christ” prior to his incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:16, 17, 18, 21, 25). These are simply instances of prolepsis – representing something as existing before it actually does. For example, if a history teacher were to say, “President Lincoln was born in Kentucky,” no one would infer from this statement that baby Abraham was already president of the United States at the time of his birth. Because he is currently remembered as President Lincoln, it is natural to speak of him this way, even when describing events before his presidency. If the designation “Jesus Christ” were substituted for “the Son” in the scriptures cited above, the meaning would be the same.

Incarnational Sonship

     The Father-Son relationship has not always been. It began when Jesus became human, and the Son has been subject to the Father since the incarnation. In Luke’s account of the birth narrative, the angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary: “he will be great and will be called Son of [the] Highest …. the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:31-35).² The future tense indicates that the Lord was recognized as “Son” in conjunction with his human conception and birth, not before. There are only three references to Jesus as “Son” in the Old Testament (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), and all of these are prophetic. Though existing in the form of God, Jesus humbled himself by taking on human flesh (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus as “the Son of God” implies both equality (of nature) and subordination (of role) <see Son of God>.

Everlasting Sonship

     In the context of discussing Christ’s return and the general resurrection, the apostle Paul writes: “But when all things shall have been put into subjection to him [God], then also the Son himself will be put into subjection to the [one] having put all things in subjection to him, that God might be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). This seems to indicate that Jesus’ subordinate status, which began at his conception and birth, continues through eternity.

     Using Philippians 2:5-11 as an outline, let’s recap what has been covered in previous studies in this series and carry through to a reasonable conclusion. Note the following about Jesus: (a) “existing in the form of God” (vv. 5-6); (b) “emptied [kenóō] himself” (vv. 7-8); (c) “God has highly exalted him” (vv. 9-11).

     First, Christ “existing in the form of God” (Phil. 2:5-6) affirms his divine essence (John 1:1-3; 20:26-29; Col. 1:15-19; 2:9; Rev. 1:7-8, 17-18; 22:12-13), and thus his equality with God (John 5:17-18; 8:23-24, 58; 10:30-33; 17:5). His inherent nature cannot change (cf. Heb. 13:8).

     Second, he “emptied [kenóō] himself” (Phil. 2:7-8), which is an allusion to becoming a flesh-and-blood human being (John 1:14; Heb. 5:7; 10:5, 20), subject to every emotion, discomfort, temptation, trial, etc., as we are. In Heb. 2:9-18, which highlights his oneness with mankind, we are told in v. 17 that he became like us katá pánta, “in all things” or “in every respect.” In other words, he had no undue advantage over the rest of humanity. Jesus did not cease being God; he could not discontinue being who he inherently was (John 10:30-33; 20:28). But in becoming a man he did “empty” [kenóō] himself of something. As a human, Jesus gave up the rights, privileges, advantages, prerogatives, and powers of deity <see Son of Man>. His miraculous ability was not inherently his own; it was given to him by the Father through the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38; cf. Matt. 9:8; 12:28; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14-19; John 3:2; 5:36; Acts 2:22). Whatever Jesus needed to confirm his identity and message was supplied to him by the Father, but in his everyday life as a human being Jesus had no unfair advantage over the rest of us. His sinless perfection as a human was not attributable to his divine nature but to his complete submission to the will of the Father (John 5:30; 6:38; 8:29).

     Finally, Paul says, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9-11); i.e., Christ has been exalted to a position higher than his earthly role but not to his former state of full equality with God. Note that God has exalted him and given him the lofty name; everyone will confess that “Jesus Christ [is] Lord” (his human name); and all of this is “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father-Son relationship continues and Christ’s submission to the Father remains.

     Note Matthew 28:18 affirms that all authority has been given to Christ; it is derived, not inherent. His oneness with humanity and the consequent subservience to God the Father has not changed. After his death and resurrection, Jesus did not stop being a “flesh and bones” human (Luke 24:39-40). After his ascension into heaven and in view of the coming judgment, Jesus is still referred to as a “man” (Acts 7:55-56; 13:38; 17:30-31; 1 Tim. 2:5). Whatever Jesus is now, we will be like him some day, after the judgment (1 John 3:2); his brotherhood with humanity has not ceased nor will it ever cease.

     At the end of time Jesus will continue to be subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The sacrifice Jesus made for us began at his incarnation but did not end at the cross – it is everlasting. Jesus forever gave up complete equality with God (including the rights, privileges, and powers of deity), never to take it up again. [Note: his divine essence remains intact, but so does his subservience]. The penalty for sin is forever (Matt. 25:46), so the price that Jesus paid for our sins has no end.³

But What About Christ’s Exaltation and Glorification?

     Those who take the Epochal View of Christ’s Sonship (his having returned to full equality) argue their case based primarily on John 17:5 and Phil. 2:9. In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “and now glorify me, Father, with yourself, with the glory [dóxa] that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). Then Paul affirms, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9).

     As to Jesus’ request to regain his former “glory,” the fundamental question is: what does “glory” [dóxa] actually mean, and does it cancel out subservience to the Father? Gordon Fee has likened the attempt to define dóxa to trying to pick up mercury between one’s fingers. In the same context, Jesus says that the “glory” [dóxa] the Father gave him was also given to the apostles (John 17:22). In fact, all faithful disciples will share in this glory (Rom. 2:7, 10; 8:18, 21; 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Eph. 1:18; 3:13; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 5:1, 4, 10).⁴ There are numerous other passages wherein dóxa does not and cannot mean equality with God (Matt. 6:29; Luke 2:32; 4:6; 12:27; 14:10; 7:18; Rom. 9:4; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15; 15:40-43; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Phil. 3:19; 1 Thess. 2:20; Heb. 2:7; 1 Pet. 1:24). Whatever Jesus meant in his John 17 prayer, and however the request was answered, do not change the ongoing Father-Son relationship and the subordinate status it entails.

     As to being “highly exalted” (Phil. 2:9), I would suggest this refers to his exalted position higher than his earthly role but doesn’t necessarily mean a return to his pre-incarnate status. The Father-Son relationship remains. The subordination of Christ is not ontological (as per essence or being) but functional (as per the scheme of redemption).

That God May Be All in All

     What, then, is meant by the concluding statement of 1 Cor. 15:28, “that God may be all in all”? Similar terminology is used by Paul in other passages, although he is addressing different audiences in different circumstances grappling with different issues, pertaining to God (Rom. 11:33-36), Christ (Col. 3:11), and the church (Eph. 1:22-23) respectively. If the reference to “God” in 1 Cor. 15:28 is synonymous with “the Father” (cf. v. 24), this would indicate that Christ’s subservience continues through eternity for the Father’s glory. If, however, this is a broader reference to the entire Godhead, perhaps the meaning is that Christ’s subservience ends, and then complete equality within the triune Godhead resumes (the Extended Epochal View of Sonship). While it is unlikely that anyone on earth today has the final answer, here are my thoughts.

The Corinthian Context

     Within the immediate context, both before and after the statement in question, there is a clear distinction between “God” and “Christ” (1 Cor. 15:15, 57); the same occurs throughout the epistle (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 24, 30; etc.). Within this particular discourse, “the kingdom of God the Father” (15:24) is synonymous with “the kingdom of God” (15:50). Earlier in the epistle Paul has reminded his readers of the functional hierarchy within the Godhead: “you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… and God is head of Christ” (11:3). In stark contrast to the polytheistic environment of first-century Corinth, Paul has reminded his readers that there is “no other God but one …. one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things …” (8:4-6). Paul has also stated, “but all things are from God” (11:12).

     There doesn’t appear to have been a problem among the Corinthians concerning their allegiance to Christ (cf. 1:6, 9, 12; 3:10-11, 23; 4:15). Yet for some reason Paul places great emphasis on “God” throughout 1 Corinthians (84x): the will of God (1:1), the church[es] of God (1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9), the grace of God (1:4; 3:10; 15:10), the power of God (1:18, 24; 2:5), the wisdom of God (1:21, 24, 30; 2:7), the Spirit of God (2:10-14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 7:40; 12:3), the deep things of God (2:10, 11; 4:1), the gifts of God (2:12; 3:6, 7; 7:7, 17), the field of God (3:9), the building of God (3:9), the temple of God (3:16, 17; 6:19, 20), the kingdom of God (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50), the commandments of God (7:19), the faithfulness of God (10:13), the glory of God (10:31; 11:7), the word of God (14:36), the knowledge of God (15:34).

     It is possible that the Corinthians were losing sight of God's preeminence, with a lopsided devotion to Christ. The top of the hierarchical arrangement is God, with access granted to him through Christ. Perhaps the Corinthian slogan “I am of Christ” (1:12) was a henotheistic way of exalting Christ as the only God,⁵ and Paul has to remind them, “… Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… God is head of Christ” (11:3). This would explain the heavy emphasis on God throughout the epistle, the unique discussion in 15:23-28, and the ensuing reprimand, “for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak to your shame” (15:34). This in no way diminishes the preeminence of Christ (which is the issue that needed to be addressed in Colossians), but simply redirects some of the misguided notions of the Corinthians at the time.

Conclusion

     While God is the First and the Last (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:8), this does not exclude Jesus the Son (Rev. 1:17-18; 2:8; 22:12-13, 16). From a metaphysical perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense of one God united in three divine Persons. From a soteriological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that each member of the triune Godhead has a role to play in the redemptive plan, including the subordination and sacrifice of the Son. From an eschatological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that God ultimately wins in the end. This latter emphasis seems to be the best fit in the immediate argument of 1 Cor. 15.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ In Colossians 1:13 Paul speaks of “the kingdom of his beloved Son” following multiple allusions to the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1, 3, 4, 10). As the apostle goes on to speak of creation, his emphasis is not on “the Son” per se but on the one now regarded as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, with emphasis added.

     ³ For an opposing view, see Earl D. Edwards, “End-Times Teaching in First Corinthians 15” (manuscript for 2017 FHU Lectureship, pp. 5-11). Bro. Edwards concedes the permanence of the incarnation but argues that Jesus is now fully restored in glory and equality with the Father.

     ⁴ Note also the angels (Luke 9:26) and departed saints (Luke 9:31).
     ⁵ See J. Moffatt, First Corinthians 249-52. Henotheism, common in the first-century Greco-Roman world, is a form of polytheism that acknowledges multiple deities, while regarding one of them (e.g. Zeus/Jupiter) as the supreme god.

Related Posts: Son of God, Son of Man

Image credit: http://images.christianpost.com/ipost/full/7226/jesus-prayer.jpg?w=350&h=268

The Aramaic Patronymic Bar-

     A patronymic is an identifying designation derived from the name of one's father or other male ancestor (e.g. Johnson = son of John). Corresponding to the Hebrew בֵּן (ben), the Aramaic בַּר (bar) is a patronymic prefix meaning “son of” (cf. Ezra 5:1, 2; 6:14; Dan. 3:25; 5:22; 7:13).¹ With reference to one’s paternity or other distinctive features, this prefix helped to differentiate among those who bore the same name in ancient Aramaic-speaking communities. For example, the name “Jesus” is the English transliteration of the Greek Iēsous, which is equivalent to the Hebrew Yehoshuah and its abbreviated form Yeshua (“Joshua”). Seeing that this was a fairly common name among first-century Palestinian Jews,² our Lord would have been known in his home community as bar Yosef or “son of Joseph” (cf. Luke 4:22; John 6:42).

Bar- as a Family Surname

     Bartholomew is listed among the 12 apostles in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke 6:14 but is unnamed in John. While Bartholomew is paired with Philip in the Synoptic Gospels, John mentions Philip in association with Nathanael (1:43-49). Even though Nathanael is identified in the company of the apostles (John 21:2) and among the eyewitnesses of the risen Lord (John 21:3-14), he is unnamed in the Synoptics. Since the name Bartholomew is actually an Aramaic patronymic (bar Tôlmai = “son of Tolmai”) and would have normally been added to a given name, it stands to reason that the apostle known as Bartholomew was actually Nathanael bar Tolmai.³

     Two of the Lord’s original apostles shared the personal name Simon (Matt. 10:2, 4). To distinguish between them, Jesus not only gave one the nickname “Cephas” (Aramaic) or “Peter” (Greek) (Mark 3:16; John 1:42), he also used the patronymic bar Iōna (bar Jonah) in Matt. 16:17, meaning “son of Jonah.”⁴ The same designation would have also applied to Simon’s brother Andrew.

     Near the end of his earthly ministry the Lord encountered a blind beggar outside of Jericho called Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), an appellation meaning “son of Timaeus.” We don’t know what this man’s given name was, as he was apparently more commonly known among the residents of Jericho (and/or Mark’s readers) in relation to his father’s name.

Bar- as an Ironic Play on Words

     Barabbas was the notorious criminal whose death sentence was repealed as the Lord Jesus took his place at Golgatha (Matt. 27:16-26; Mark 15:7-15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The name Barabbas is the Graecized form of the Aramaic bar abbâ, which is a combination of bar (“son of”) and abbâ (“father”), meaning “son of [the] father.” The irony is that Jesus was the legitimate Son of the heavenly Father (John 8:16-29), treated and executed as a criminal, whereas the infamous Barabbas was set free though he manifested a very different spiritual paternity (cf. John 8:44).⁵


     Bar-Jesus is the patronymic surname of Elymas, a Jewish false prophet and sorcerer mentioned in Acts 13:6-8. He opposed the preaching of Barnabas and Paul in Paphos on the island of Cyprus. As noted above, the Greek Iēsous (“Jesus”) is equivalent to the Hebrew Yeshua (“Joshua”) and was a common name among the Jews at the time, apparently worn by Elymas’ father. For Paul, however, this name had special significance,⁶ and instead of using it in reference to this deceitful antagonist, the apostle seems to make a play on words by addressing the sorcerer as “son of the devil” (v. 10).

Bar- as a Nickname with Special Meaning

     Barnabas is the nickname given by the apostles to Joseph (or Joses), a Levite-Jewish convert from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and cousin of John Mark (Col. 4:10). This moniker is a combination of the Aramaic bar (“son of”) and naba (to “prophesy”). Since prophesying involved communicating “edification and exhortation and comfort to men” (1 Cor. 14:3), the Greek rendering of the name signified “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36).⁷



     The designation Barsabbas is a patronymic description meaning “son of [the] sabbath,” perhaps indicative of the day of birth of the one to whom it was applied. In the Acts narrative two Christians shared this name, viz. Joseph Justus Barsabbas and Judas Barsabbas.

     Joseph Justus Barsabbas was a devoted follower of Jesus throughout the Lord’s entire earthly ministry and was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:15-23). He was assembled with around 120 fellow-believers in Jerusalem a few days before Pentecost, and he was one of two disciples considered to replace Judas Iscariot as an apostle but not the one chosen.

    Another follower of Jesus who wore this name was Judas Barsabbas. He was a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), a skilled writer (vv. 22-23),⁸ a prophet (v. 32), a teacher (vv. 27, 32), and an encourager (v. 32b). When the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision controversy, reaching a consensus through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the decision was put into writing, and it was Judas Barsabbas and Silas who penned the document and subsequently delivered it to Gentile Christians in Syria (Acts 15:22-32).

Conclusion

     The name a person wears is important, functioning to describe, distinguish and identify. And there is no greater honor than to be called the children of God (1 John 3:1) by wearing the name that is above all names (Phil. 2:9).⁹ May we live in a manner that is worthy of the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This Aramaic prefix is not part of the Hebrew names Barachel (Job 32:2), Barachiah (Zech. 1:1), Barak (Judg. 4:6), Bariah (1 Chron. 3:22), Barkos (Ezra 2:53), Baruch (Neh. 3:20; 11:5; Jer. 32:12), Barzillai (2 Sam. 17:27; 21:8; Ezra 2:61), Barachias/Berechiah (Matt. 23:35), or Barhumite (2 Sam. 23:31; cf. 1 Chron. 11:33).

     ² Cf. Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Josephus, War 6.5.3. This name has been found by Israeli archaeologists no less than 71 times in ancient burial caves (see Ed Pilkington and Rory McCarthy, “Is this really the last resting place of Jesus…?” The Guardian [27-02-2007], <Link>).

     ³ See “Bartholomew,” <Link>.

     ⁴ An alternative reading in John 1:42 and 21:15-17 is [huios] Iōannou (“son of John”) (cf. B. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 172, 220). But remember that in Matt. 16:17 Jesus was originally speaking in Aramaic to fellow-Aramaic speakers, and Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking Jew writing to fellow-Aramaic-speaking Jews (see Matthew's Audience). In contrast, John was writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles (see John's Audience). Seeing that Aramaic expressions have been translated (or transliterated) into Greek by these different authors in different settings for different audiences, which in turn have been copied by hand plethoric times and then translated again into English, the difference in spelling of a couple of letters is hardly significant. See “Simon Peter,” <Link>. Further, there is only a two-letter difference in the Greek spelling of these two names. Matt. 16:17 is a Greek transliteration of a single Aramaic word. John 1:42 is a translation involving the three-word phrase ho huios Iōna OR ho huios Iōannou, while John 21:15-17 translates the repeated genitival Iōna OR Iōannou. Seeing that these expressions would have been passed down orally long before they were put into written form, slight variations of pronunciation would have led to natural variations in phonetic spelling. At the end of the day, the exact pronunciation or precise spelling of the name is not vital to understanding what the respective passages convey.    

     ⁵ See “Barabbas,” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Acts 9:20, 22; 13:23, 33; 15:26; 16:18, 31; 17:3, 7, 18; 18:5; 19:4, 5, 13; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 25:19; 28:23, 31; Rom. 1:1, 3, 6, 8; et al.

     ⁷ See also Acts 9:27; 11:22-30; 12:25; 13:1-2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12-20; 15:2, 12, 22, 25, 35-39; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; 4:10.

     ⁸ The term graphō in Acts 15:23 literally means to “write.” See “Biblical Authorship 4,” <Link>.

     ⁹ Acts 2:38; 4:2, 10-12, 17-18; 5:28, 40, 41, 42; 8:5, 12, 35; 9:15, 27, 29; 10:43; 11:26; 26:28; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 3:11; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 1:20-21; Phil. 1:18; Col. 3:4; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 3:11, 17; 1 Pet. 4:16; James 2:7.

Related Posts: Aramaic, The Son of Mary

Image credit: Photo of a 1st-century ossuary inscribed in Aramaic “James, son of Joseph [bar Yosef], brother of Jesus,” <http://hhenry47.home.insightbb.com/JamesOssuary.JPG>.