Let's address that. The New Testament's language of Jesus being 'sent' or 'obeying' the Father reflects His mission and role rather than implying His inferiority. That's why the same texts also call Him God (John 10:30), actively attributes divine authority to Him (Luke 10:19), and command worship of Him (Hebrews 1:6). The distinction is relational AND function, not a denial of equality in nature. Obedience in Phillipians 2:6-11 isn't Jesus obeying Himself. The passage has already distinguished 'God' from 'Christ Jesus', showing relational distinction between God and Jesus. In the incarnation, the Son takes a real human role and lives in obedience to the Father's will, for God to send Jesus to die for our sins and be raised to life again. So, knowing this we have to realize that obedience is not intra-personal. It instead reflects the Son's mission within the Father-Son relationship, not a contradiction of the Son's divinity.
Next, Philippians 2:6-11 doesn't argue that Jesus stopped being God or was less than God because He gave up divine privillege, instead it argues that the Son voluntarily takes on a humbled human condition. The distinction in the text is between the two people (Father and Son), not between divine and non-divine beings. So, setting aside privilege explains incarnation, not a lack of deity. It's like when the King of a Kingdom temporarily leaves his throne, takes on the role of a servant among his people, and chooses not to exercise his royal privileges while still remaining king by identity and status. That change is in the role and the mode of action instead of in who he is. He's not a servant having left the throne because he takes on the role of a servant and keeps his identity as the king of the kingdom.
To the first part of your statement about a beginning, Jesus didn't have a beginning. John 1:1 says that in the Beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. That alone places the Word in continous existence at "the beginning" rather than entireing into it, also Colossians 1:15 actually calls Jesus the image of the image of the invisible God before it says that He's the firstborn of all creation, so the verse you mentioned actually supports my argument. The next verse even says that He created all things. 1 Corinithians 8:6, instead of setting up a hierarchy between God and a lesser lord, it reworks the Shema by placing the Father and Jesus together within the one God of Israel, while assigning to Jesus the Creator role 'through whom are all things.'
Daniel 7 does show the Son of Man recieving authority from the Ancient of Days, that's right, but it also gives him universal, everlasting dominion and worship. These categories go beyong a merely human representative. Further, the distrinction in roles within the vision doesn't imply a difference in nature; rather it describes how divine rule is shared and revealed within the vision, not that the Son of Man is simply a non-divine human agent.
Bottom line is, The biblical portrait isn't 'God vs. a relatable human', instead it's a divine person who becomes truly human, and both His submission and His divine identity are part of the same inegrated picture.
05:17 PM