I only intend to post once on this thread.
It is unfortunate (imo) that often folks want to be creative with the language and in doing so make devisions in the unity of the faith, and bring confusion to the common persons.
Packer is possibly one of the most outstanding theological thinkers of this modern time.
He stated on this matter:
""Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three persons stand in a fixed relation to each other....It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son's part, and find all His joy in doing His Father's will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven." Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55.
Any student of Scriptures who has not read Packer's "
Knowing God" should spend a good deal of time digesting that short book.
I enjoyed it many years ago. But I have a slight disagreement. It is minor, but as you read you may discern a time line difference between Packer and me.
In the above quote, the reader should notice that it is the Son who presents Himself to be the Son and submissive to the instructions of the Father. In the custom of the day, the folks understood the role of the son/father. They also understood the role of the authority of the son and that submission of the son to the ultimate authority of the Father.
There was no "new relationship" between Father and Son, but that same which was from eternity, as Paul said, ".
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but
emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,
and being made in the likeness of men.
8Being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
This prayer offered by The Lord Jesus Christ to the Father expresses this thinking, also:
1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
2even as
You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
4“I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
5“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Two points:
1) the prayer makes specific the authority in which salvation is granted to humans. It is by the authority of the Father through the Son. Not the appeal of humankind.
2) The Son's glory before or at the moment the world was established (NOT incarnation) was to be restored. This is were Packer and I differ.
Imo, this is an important point. From BEFORE the world formed, Christ was eternally glorified with the Father.
At the point of foundations being laid, Christ was already "begotten and slain". Revelations 8:
8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(now I know there is dispute concerning the rendering by those of the ESV and NASB (and others), but I find no confusion in the NKJ concerning this verse - they can leave out the time line, I do not).
When did Christ become submissive?
At the creation.
When did the Christ become glorified?
At the resurrection.
It is my opinion, that some folks look to the incarnation as the point, but I look at it from the start of human time.
I think that is enough for my weak brain to remark at this time.