²⁸ “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”

Relationship between the three persons of the triune God—that’s an issue which taxes the best intellects. Contrary to Muslim thinking (as well as all cults that deny the deity of Christ), the trinity is not a contradiction of terms, as we have pointed out before in this study of the Upper Room. But what does it mean, the Son came from the Father?

If the Son comes from the Father, then this implies the Father sent the Son, and thus there is a subservient element in the relationship. How then can the Son be fully God? The answer is, in its simplest form, that submission does not negate equality, if we understand the submission to be voluntary and not coerced. The Son fully submits to the Father’s desires, “Not my will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). As the incarnate God-man, “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). Notice, the obedience is not inherent in Sonship (the God-aspect of incarnation), according to this verse, but inherent in being human (the man-aspect of incarnation). In taking on human form (Phil 2:7-8), He “became obedient to death, even the death on the cross.”

This accords with 1 Cor 11:3 where we read, “God is the head of Christ.” The word “head” (Greek: kephale) speaks of authority, as in a general being the head of an army. In recent times, contrary to all lexical definitions and etymological studies, there has been an effort to assert that the word “kephale” does not imply authority, but can take on the meaning of “source.” The main argument against that view point is the lack of clear use in ancient Greek of the word ever meaning “source” but an abundance of situations where it is used with the sense “head.” Plus, no reputable lexicon of the Greek language identifies “source” as a possible meaning. One wonders whether the drive for egalitarianism of the sexes clouds some interpreters view of 1 Cor 11:3, as well as other passages that indicate the husband is the head of the wife (e.g. Eph 5:23). In trying to strip the authority relationship in the marriage, they must also strip the authority arrangements in the Godhead. But this flies against Scripture.

Authority in relationship, when entered voluntarily, does not negate equality within the relationship (nor dignity in the relationship) but speaks to functional differences. Just as we functionally pray to the Father in Jesus’ name, the Son was sent from the Father. The two teachings are intertwined.

Lord, thank You for the perfect picture of equality in relationship and differentiation in roles.