Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

[Betho_br]

Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.

Matthew 26:53 King James Version

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.

Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

 

[Soapy]

Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version


The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.

Matthew 26:53 King James Version


This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.

Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

You have it all the wrong way round.

 

[Betho_br]

Then explain the error.

 

[Ajax]

The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well as by certain other Western Churches, met in 680–681 and defined between others Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human), but his human will and energy are not opposed, but rather they are always submitting to his divine ones.

Therefore if Jesus is God, consubstantial and inseparable having one essence/substance/nature with the Father, it means that a) he had "planned" before the creation of the world the salvation of mankind through his crucifixion, b) he knew that he would descend into Hades and defeat Satan, c) he knew that he would take back the sins of the world and d) he knew that he would be resurrected in three days.

In this case and according to Church's definitions, he would never be able to tell the Father that it was not his will to be crucified, as opposed to the Father's will (not my will, but yours be done - except not as I will, but as you), because they have one common divine will. And certainly he would not sweat at the thought of his temporary (3 day) death, nor would he need angelic reinforcement from heaven to deal with his own plan. (Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42), when it is supposed that many martyrs gave their only life smiling for Jesus.
Either the gospels contain falsehoods, or Jesus is not God.
Ekklesiastike histoiria, ... metenechtheisa ek tes hellenikes eis ten ... haploelleniken phrasin ... kai plutistheisa ... para Georgiu Bendote etc

 

[Muffled]

Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version


The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.

Matthew 26:53 King James Version


This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.

Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

I believe God's will is the same in the Father and Son. The will that is different is the physical mind of the body.

 

[Muffled]

The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well as by certain other Western Churches, met in 680–681 and defined between others Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human), but his human will and energy are not opposed, but rather they are always submitting to his divine ones.

Therefore if Jesus is God, consubstantial and inseparable having one essence/substance/nature with the Father, it means that a) he had "planned" before the creation of the world the salvation of mankind through his crucifixion, b) he knew that he would descend into Hades and defeat Satan, c) he knew that he would take back the sins of the world and d) he knew that he would be resurrected in three days.

In this case and according to Church's definitions, he would never be able to tell the Father that it was not his will to be crucified, as opposed to the Father's will (not my will, but yours be done - except not as I will, but as you), because they have one common divine will. And certainly he would not sweat at the thought of his temporary (3 day) death, nor would he need angelic reinforcement from heaven to deal with his own plan. (Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42), when it is supposed that many martyrs gave their only life smiling for Jesus.
Either the gospels contain falsehoods, or Jesus is not God.
Ekklesiastike histoiria, ... metenechtheisa ek tes hellenikes eis ten ... haploelleniken phrasin ... kai plutistheisa ... para Georgiu Bendote etc

I believe you conclusion is false. The your will not mine fits in with the contrary human will.

 

[Ajax]

I believe you conclusion is false. The your will not mine fits in with the contrary human will.

Can you explain why?

I'm quoting the oldest Church's beliefs the one's who declared Jesus God together with Father and the Holy Spiit, and the results of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and specifically about the two wills of Jesus, divine and human. His human will is/was always submissive to his divine. if Jesus is God, consubstantial and inseparable having one essence/substance/nature with the Father, then he could never say to Father "except not as I will, but as you". (Matthew 26:39 - Luke 22:42)

 

[Betho_br]

This content was posted elsewhere, but due to the intellectual limitations of the participants in that space, the topic was deleted. Here in this forum, the level is incomparably higher, as evidenced by the quick recognition of the controversy surrounding the doctrine of "subordination" and the recent councils in Christianity.

 

[Soapy]

I believe God's will is the same in the Father and Son. The will that is different is the physical mind of the body.

“GOD’s Will is the same as the Father’s….”???

The Father IS GOD… of course THE WILL is the same…

How can there be a need to say:

1. Jesus is God’s Son
2. Jesus is the Father’s Son

But you say that Jesus IS GOD…
Therefore you must also say (incredulously) that:

• Jesus IS the FATHER

and also, ipso facto, …

• Jesus IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD

which, in equality, means:

• The Holy Spirit of the Father IS Jesus CHRIST

which ALSO claims that

• THE Father IS THE Son of God

Trinity gets ‘Curioser and curiouser’, said Alice….

 

[Soapy]

Then explain the error.

I’m presuming this post is to me in response to my post suggesting that you have things the wrong way round…!

Jesus is ALWAYS in subjection to the Father. There is never a time that he is not… Can you show me anything that claims Jesus WAS NOT subject to the Father:

• ‘My Father is greater than I’
• ‘I can only do what I first see the Father doing…’
• ‘I speak the truth I heard from my Father’
• ‘Father, I have finished the work you gave me to do…’
• Father, may your Will be done’

When it came to the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was sorely distressed… he prayed three times for an alternative way to achieve what was about to happen to him - HIS WILL was tested AGAINST that of the Father’s. But, he finally GAVE IN TO THE FATHER’S WILL as he accepted that THE FATHER’S WILL was far superior to his own.

I test you… At what point was Jesus NOT subject to the Father’s Will???
Was Jesus ever carrying out HIS OWN WILL in difference to the Father’s?

 

[Ignatius A]

Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version


The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.

Matthew 26:53 King James Version


This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.

Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

First John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." And John again V14 "And the Word became flesh and dealt among us. And we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only son, full of grace and truth."

One and the same and separate. Jesus only suggests he could appeal to his father to send angels but didn't. He is reaffirming the surrender of his will to the father and revealing his true love for us by not appealing to the father. With all due respect id suggest you're seeing a problem that isnt there.

 

[Ajax]

One and the same and separate. Jesus only suggests he could appeal to his father to send angels but didn't. He is reaffirming the surrender of his will to the father and revealing his true love for us by not appealing to the father. With all due respect id suggest you're seeing a problem that isnt there.

If the Trinity dogma is believed, then Jesus could never have a different will from the Father, especially as he knew that he had to fulfill the scripture, as in the next verse, and allegedly it was his own plan.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

Maybe, but it depends on too many unknowns. Is Abraham the Father in Heaven to which Jesus refers? If not then who is? There is a quote of Jesus saying "Before Abraham was I am" in which case maybe.

Its not far fetched. If Jesus can be the Son, why can't Abraham be the Father?

 

[Ignatius A]

If the Trinity dogma is believed, then Jesus could never have a different will from the Father, especially as he knew that he had to fulfill the scripture, as in the next verse, and allegedly it was his own plan.

The Trinity can and should be believed. I suggest you rethink the statement "...Jesus could never have a different will from the Father...". If Jesus couldn't freely choose to go to the cross then his dying on the cross was not act of love.

 

[Ignatius A]

Maybe, but it depends on too many unknowns. Is Abraham the Father in Heaven to which Jesus refers? If not then who is? There is a quote of Jesus saying "Before Abraham was I am" in which case maybe.

Its not far fetched. If Jesus can be the Son, why can't Abraham be the Father?

How could Abraham be the father in heaven if Jesus said BEFORE Abraham was I am? God identifies himself as "I am" to Moses and tells Moses "You will say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Jacob, sent me to you'"(Exodus 3:15)
Where did you get your Bible training?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Where did you get your Bible training?

Are we discussing traditional teachings? Because we weren't before. We are in 'Biblical debates', so I presume whatever the bible says is what matters rather than what is traditional.

Traditionally none of this can be discussed, because it has all been concluded for us ecumenically by councils.

These other people are trying to argue that the trinity is illogical....as if the scriptures were logical. I'm pointing out that there is no barrier to Abraham being the Heavenly Father mainly because the OP is asking a kind of offbeat question about whether Jesus could pre-exist the Father but also just because I'm tired of constant sniping about the trinity. Scripturally what I have said is as consistent as scripture gets.

How could Abraham be the father in heaven if Jesus said BEFORE Abraham was I am? God identifies himself as "I am" to Moses and tells Moses "You will say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Jacob, sent me to you'"(Exodus 3:15)
Where did you get your Bible training?

First, we are not talking about a logical semantic relationship. There is not logical sense to Jesus pre-existing Abraham who is the ancestor of Jesus own mother, yet he says "Before Abraham was I am." To suggest there is some logic to this is simply to imply a circuit board in one's cheerios.

and the "God of your fathers" lists Abraham first. Abraham also holds all the fatherly titles: "Father of many nations," "Father Abraham," and in Jesus own parable the dead enter Abraham's Bosom. That makes him a home for the dead and is a very strong suggestion that there is something heavenly about Abraham.

In the parable Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom when he dies, and he is comforted there. Lazarus doesn't go to the God of Abraham's bosom, but Abraham's bosom. This easily associates Father Abraham with a place where the dead go. So if Jesus can be a man, the son of Mary but also pre-exist Mary (his own mother) and also be descended from Abraham then I don't see why Father Abraham would not be the Heavenly Father to whom Jesus refers.

I'm not saying he definitely is, but it certainly is a possibility and seems like what the writers are suggesting in these gospels. I've made a pretty strong argument above.

 

[Ajax]

The Trinity can and should be believed. I suggest you rethink the statement "...Jesus could never have a different will from the Father...".

The doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons sharing one essence, substance and nature (homoousion). This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. As such, it is impossible for the Son to have a different will from the Father.

If Jesus couldn't freely choose to go to the cross then his dying on the cross was not act of love.

What do you mean? The gospels clearly state that Jesus did not want to go to the cross; it was not his will, despite being God, having made his own plan for salvation, knew he would save the world and would be resurrected in three days (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42). Also needed angel from heaven to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). There is absolutely no logic in this, or is a huge contradiction with the doctrine of Trinity.

 

[Ignatius A]

The doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons sharing one essence, substance and nature (homoousion). This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. As such, it is impossible for the Son to have a different will from the Father.

What do you mean? The gospels clearly state that Jesus did not want to go to the cross; it was not his will, despite being God, having made his own plan for salvation, knew he would save the world and would be resurrected in three days (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42). Also needed angel from heaven to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). There is absolutely no logic in this, or is a huge contradiction with the doctrine of Trinity.

Good luck with that

 

[Anne1]

The doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons sharing one essence, substance and nature (homoousion). This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. As such, it is impossible for the Son to have a different will from the Father.

What do you mean? The gospels clearly state that Jesus did not want to go to the cross; it was not his will, despite being God, having made his own plan for salvation, knew he would save the world and would be resurrected in three days (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42). Also needed angel from heaven to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). There is absolutely no logic in this, or is a huge contradiction with the doctrine of Trinity.

I assume you must belong to a denomination of Protestant because picking apart scripture like this is utterly at odds with Catholic or Orthodox belief.

Catholic believe in tradition, (just as did the Jews before them), and it is only using traditional interpretations that you can fully understand scripture.

Tradition teaches Jesus was illustrating for humanity how to suffer and give all to God.

 

[Ajax]

I assume you must belong to a denomination of Protestant because picking apart scripture like this is utterly at odds with Catholic or Orthodox belief.

Catholic believe in tradition, (just as did the Jews before them), and it is only using traditional interpretations that you can fully understand scripture.

Tradition teaches Jesus was illustrating for humanity how to suffer and give all to God.

The sixth Ecumenical Synod 680–681 AD (when Catholic and Orthodox had not split up yet) decided that Jesus had two wills, human and divine, but his human will could never be different from the Father's will and always submits to his (Jesus) own divine will.
In the gospels, Jesus appeared to have different will from the Father, and tried to avoid his own salvation plan!
I have been an agnostic for some years now.